School statement on ongoing issues associated with A level grades

On Thursday I congratulated those students that had been allocated grades which afforded the opportunity for them to take their next positive steps into employment or further study. I also expressed my disquiet about the process that had led to Durham Johnston being allocated results that do not reflect the school’s long standing track record of excellence. Since writing to you on Thursday 13^th August a number of things have become very apparent at a national level:

• The algorithm used to allocate grades was and remains deeply flawed. It has also had a particularly negative impact upon schools with large 6^th forms and subjects with large cohorts. In simple terms, the algorithm failed to take into account the huge value that Durham Johnston annually adds to students at each of the key grade boundaries at A Level. By applying a national progress model to the school (and a great many other schools) both the exam boards and Ofqual have effectively ignored the school’s track record of adding value at an institutional level across a sustained period of time. I outlined the obvious failure to take into account a 3-year pattern of results via two tables in my most recent update it is also apparent that the positive progress that students make on an annual basis has also been effectively ignored.
• Dr. Thornber, a long serving Maths teacher at Durham Johnston and our data and assessment lead, has reviewed the process used by Ofqual and has identified a number of reasons why the model used by Ofqual has had such a negative impact on our allocated grades, which you can read here.
• There is a complete lack of clarity from the Government and Ofqual about how to address these errors at my time of writing. Four days have passed and we are still unsure about the appeals process. We have students waiting for guidance that we are currently unable to provide, even though the appeal process is a fundamental right of every student and institution. This is an outrageous situation. 
• We are fortunate that many of our students have achieved good results and have places at their first choice or insurance universities. However, we need to support others who are not in that fortunate position and currently, without an appeal process, have limited means to do so. This is also unacceptable.

We have now analysed the results in much greater depth and it is clear that:

• The results are substantially different from our Centre Assessed Grades. This varies from subject to subject, but the professional judgement of our teachers has been rejected and calculated instead  by a flawed standardisation model. The calculated grades fail to take into account the significant value that we add on an annual basis.
• A number of students have received grades that are 2 or 3 grades lower than predicted and represent grades that students have never been awarded at any point in their school careers.

Therefore, I want to reassure parents that we will take all necessary action within our power to rectify this situation. As soon as the appeal process is published we intend to:

• Appeal to Ofqual about the manner in which their system has been applied at an institutional level. In simple terms, our track record of adding value has been ignored and a national progress model has been applied, dragging down the grades of a number of students.
• Appeal individual grades based upon any appropriate criteria established by Ofqual. This will involve, for example, appealing on behalf of students with regard to higher mock examinations and any other areas of appeal identified by Ofqual. We will do this on behalf of all affected students.

The grades that have been calculated for our students are inaccurate based upon the school’s prior attainment, the value that we add annually and the individual ability of a very able cohort of students. We are committed to doing all that we can to address this unacceptable situation and it is clear that some form of decisive national action is needed.

Mr O’Sullivan