SQA will not talk to schools before changing grades
Scotland’s exam body has told a Parliamentary committee that the “very tight timescales” it is working to mean that it will not engage with schools if previous attainment results in changes to teacher estimates of pupil performance.
The chief executive of the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA), Fiona Robertson, has said “it will not be possible to include engagement with schools and colleges within the moderation process”.
She said that the appeals process - which will be free this year - will allow for “further, evidence-based consideration of grades if schools and colleges do not think awarded grades fairly reflect learner performance”.
Coronavirus: No more detail on moderation till results day, says SQA
Related: SQA responds to concerns about new system for grading
Background: SQA grilled over fairness of system replacing exams
Unions: Overturning teacher grades ‘would be disastrous’
Also today: 5 key questions on reopening Scottish schools
Scotland’s largest teaching union, the EIS, and secondary heads’ organisation School Leaders Scotland had urged the SQA to engage in a dialogue with a school if statistical modelling threw up a discrepancy between its estimated grades and historical attainment data.
MSPs who sit on the Scottish Parliament’s Education and Skills Committee had also backed that approach in an email to Ms Robertson on 15 June.
This afternoon, EIS general secretary Larry Flanagan said teachers would be “justifiably angry at the suggestion that the SQA could moderate a pupil’s grades without any professional dialogue with presenting centres”.
Responding to the news the @sqanews will not consult with schools or teachers before adjusting pupils’ grades, EIS General Secretary Larry Flanagan said, pic.twitter.com/CK5beqbaUD
- EIS (@EISUnion) June 30, 2020
There are fears that because attainment tends to be lower in schools serving disadvantaged areas, high-performing pupils in these schools could be unfairly penalised this year as a result of the moderation process.
However, Ms Robertson said in her response, published on the committee’s website today: “We understand the committee’s request that SQA enters a dialogue with every school and college where there is a difference between this year’s estimates and historical attainment data.
”When I gave evidence to the committee on Friday 1 May, we were actively looking at whether we could or should do this. We have considered the matter very carefully, including further discussions with our Board of Management and we have concluded that it will not be possible to include engagement with schools and colleges within the moderation process. There are two reasons for this.
“Firstly, the difficulty of operating a dialogue which is fair and consistent in its treatment of all centres and candidates. Secondly, it is not possible to enter into a dialogue in the very tight timescales we are working to - reviewing 22,000 datasets across 142 subjects from almost 500 centres - between the receipt of estimates and finalisation of grades which, for awarding purposes, are required by 10 July.”
Ms Robertson added: “Our appeals (post-certification review) process will provide for further, evidence-based consideration of grades if schools and colleges do not think awarded grades fairly reflect learner performance. As highlighted above, further information was provided to schools and colleges on Friday 19 June.”
Responding to Ms Robertson’s comments, the Scottish Greens education spokesman, Ross Greer, accused the SQA of conducting a “secret moderation process” and of failing to treat teachers, parents and pupils with respect.
The SQA has been asked to publish the details of its moderation processes but has said it will not do so until the results are published on 4 August.
Mr Greer said: “The SQA are undermining not only the professional judgement of teachers but the hard work of pupils with this secret moderation process. They are treating young people as statistics, not as individual learners.
“Applying a system that penalises pupils who go to schools in deprived communities is bad enough, but to do so in secret is utterly unacceptable. Teachers will now be faced with having to understand for themselves why the grade they submitted has been altered, as well as the methodology of the system used to alter it, all just days before schools return for the new term and with a huge volume of additional work expected of them if they and their pupil wish to appeal the SQA’s decision.”
This year, due to the coronavirus pandemic and the cancellation of the exams, teacher estimates were placed at the heart of the new process for grading pupils. However, in a bid to “provide additional reassurance to the system” the SQA will moderate the teacher judgements of pupil performance, which were submitted at the end of May, using schools’ historical attainment data and any existing data on a pupil’s past performance.