3 ms·

It wasn't just about the exams; students missed out on months of teaching, which would have put them at a huge disadvantage if they were then expected to sit th

by jfk13 6y ago

It wasn't just about the exams; students missed out on months of teaching, which would have put them at a huge disadvantage if they were then expected to sit the originally-planned exams. So we'd need exams tailored to just the part of the curriculum that the students have actually covered -- which would be different for each school, making any kind of standardisation impossible. Another thing people don't seem to be considering is the knock-on effect on universities, which -- if students who didn't complete the A-level course are given a hypothetical grade, whether based on teachers' predictions or modified exams or "mocks" or whatever -- will get an intake of students who are less well prepared than normal, and will need some kind of remedial support if they're not going to flounder in their degree courses. Just giving students generous grades now, to calm the current storm, means storing up trouble for the future when university teaching staff are faced with a cohort that includes students who shouldn't be there and can't cope -- but their teachers gave over-generous estimates -- or who in principle should be OK but arrived woefully under-prepared because they missed a bunch of key A-level content.

PeterisP 6y ago
I agree with most of the points you're making, but I do not think that the exams would need to be tailored to just the part of the curriculum that the students have actually covered. If one student does not know key parts of the curriculum and the other does, then this should be reflected in the grade no matter what caused that difference, whether one of them got more schooling or studied on their own or took some out-of-school tutoring. And if a diligent student who got all A's before missed out on key parts of the curriculum that's required for further study, then the final grade should reflect that they do not (yet) know the subject as expected and are going to need remedial support, i.e. their final grade should not be an A, the exam should ask for the expected content (no matter if it was not covered in school due to Covid) and the exam results and grade should illustrate whether the students have learned it otherwise or if there's a gap.
- jfk13 6y ago
  I'm inclined to agree, in principle, but this would mean that many students would end up with a lower grade than they could expect to have achieved normally. This would particularly apply to less-advantaged students whose schools and/or families have been less able to fill in the gap. While that'd result in grades that would be far more meaningful than any of what's currently being done -- and universities, employers, etc would just have to take account of the special circumstances surrounding 2020 results when making admission/employment decisions -- I don't think it's politically tenable.

by jfk13 6y ago

PeterisP 6y ago

I agree with most of the points you're making, but I do not think that the exams would need to be tailored to just the part of the curriculum that the students have actually covered. If one student does not know key parts of the curriculum and the other does, then this should be reflected in the grade no matter what caused that difference, whether one of them got more schooling or studied on their own or took some out-of-school tutoring. And if a diligent student who got all A's before missed out on key parts of the curriculum that's required for further study, then the final grade should reflect that they do not (yet) know the subject as expected and are going to need remedial support, i.e. their final grade should not be an A, the exam should ask for the expected content (no matter if it was not covered in school due to Covid) and the exam results and grade should illustrate whether the students have learned it otherwise or if there's a gap.

jfk13 6y ago
I'm inclined to agree, in principle, but this would mean that many students would end up with a lower grade than they could expect to have achieved normally. This would particularly apply to less-advantaged students whose schools and/or families have been less able to fill in the gap. While that'd result in grades that would be far more meaningful than any of what's currently being done -- and universities, employers, etc would just have to take account of the special circumstances surrounding 2020 results when making admission/employment decisions -- I don't think it's politically tenable.