Towards the end of this week (currently writing on Sunday 13th Aug), in fact on Thursday, we are going to be getting the first set of ‘A’ level results straight from the examiner since COVID and various Secretary of States for Education took unilateral action to second guess exam results with their (I would maintain) flawed “adjustments”

No doubt, those performing below expectations will spend countless hours writing, rehearsing and expostulating their case (especially with the broadcast media) for mitigation to be treated “like last year” or “ the year before” with wonderfully intellectual reasoning that the transition back to a straight exam and mark process has been too quick and we need time to readjust to previous time honoured ways of testing the comprehension and intellect of our 18 year olds preparing for university.

They should be denied any oxygen of local (or national) radio time to make their excuses in dramatic ways that would have the listeners (or newsprint readers) believe that this transition back to more normal examination and marking methods has been mismanaged and a group of young lives have been permanently scared and denied the opportunity to fulfil their (frankly, untested and somewhat dubious) potential.

That’s like Johnny Bairstow trying to claim that he knew a batsman could be thrown out from the wicket keeping position; but although he tried it himself on others he thought he would be excused being subject to such ruthless demands of alertness and awareness of the game of life going on around him; because he was coming back from serious injury that could have meant him not walking properly again, and you have to give individuals with his need for recuperation ‘special license’ and not subject them to the most harsh and ruthless judgement on the little darlings lack of performance in the examination room.

They knew the game plan, the methods by which they would be judged when they embarked on their courses two years ago. What the expectations would be and the ways by which they would be marked and subsequently scored and ranked against their piers and entrance requirements of the host of higher educational establishments being asked to admit them in the autumn.

In sport as in life, you can’t play by a set of rules and judgement criteria and when the outcome doesn’t allow you to ‘win’ to the extent you had desired demand an adjustment of the criteria by which you could or might win.

It is time to stop giving air time to people demanding “a further look at the judgement criteria”. We know what it is, we were told what was required to attain it. If the target is missed, what are the options the disappointed candidate can pursue to “overcome” the failure (for that is precisely what it is) and get back on the road to fulfilling his / her particular ambitions (if they can be realistically attained in that individual).

In short: “Take your medicine”

And to close this subject out for the moment on this nonsense that Grades have to contiually improve for the teaching staff to be considered “merely competent”

I’m using an example from the results announced in August 2020 (on national radio no less) when “Grade Inflation” was at its most rife.

On The Today Programme on BBC Radio 4) I hear a Head (Mistress) ( from a Nottingham School ) “fret” that her school’s ‘ “predicted ” grades of 58% A* / A might be ‘reduced’ to 40% making top grades.

Lady; were you trying to tell the nation that over HALF your 100+ Second Year Sixth should be entering OXBRIDGE this October ? – Whose kidding whom? *

MIGHT ( just MIGHT ) there be a little Grade Inflation being indulged upon by the school?

( Anyone know the record for a school’s max OXBRIDGE uptake in ONE year? I have it at 12 but I suspect a number around 25 may have been achieved ? I don’t KNOW of a number beyond 12 )

  • I’ve subsequently discovered a state school in the South of England which conservatively expects to send forty (40) to Oxbridge this autumn! Expectations haven’t stopped growing!

13th August 2023

Leave a comment

Trending