News | Thursday, 6th August 2020
GCSE and A Level assessment approach unfair and unconsciously bias, expert says
Prof Nicola Ingram says that the approach could significantly affect disadvantaged pupils due to inherent biases in the school system
By Professor Nicola Ingram, Professor of Sociology of Education, Education and Social Research Institute, Manchester Metropolitan University
With exam results day looming, young people up and down the country will be nervous, just as they are every August, as they gear up to receive their GCSE and A Level grades. But unlike other years, this year’s cohort are receiving grades for exams they did not sit, bringing additional uncertainty and trepidation to the whole affair. As the UK went into lockdown in March, schools were closed and GCSE and A Level exams were cancelled, necessitating The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (OFQUAL) to devise a new system of grade allocation. The resulting solution will see grades delivered in England on August 13 and August 20 based on teachers’ predictions, benchmarked against a school’s performance in previous year’s exams.
The new Coronavirus assessment regime does not involve a well-regulated process and the potential for bias is unprecedented, with teacher judgments playing a significant role in outcomes. Furthermore, the new system unfairly favours schools with a sustained level of high performance (such as private schools and grammar schools) over schools that are improving (and these are more likely to be comprehensives), as grades will be adjusted in line with historical school performance.
The fallout from this could be significant as inherent biases in the schooling system could lead to already disadvantaged pupils receiving lower grades than they deserve. Working-class young people, young people from certain Black and minority ethnic backgrounds, and young people with disabilities may be particularly impacted by unconscious bias and misrecognition of ability. Previous research shows that these groups are more likely to have their performance underpredicted and are less likely to be able to successfully access appeals processes.
Predicted grades
Teachers in schools have been asked to make judgments on their students’ anticipated exam performance if schooling had continued as usual. There are no hard and fast rules about what accounts for evidence in making these potentially life-changing decisions. Judgments may entail a pupil’s previous performance in class and in formative assessments within the last couple of years; they may even consider the pupil’s whole history of performance whilst at the school, including consideration of minimum expected bands assigned to pupils from the beginning of secondary school on the basis of SAT performance in year 6. Whatever approach is taken it is going to involve fine grained judgments and subjective expectations. When teachers have decided upon individual grades, they are then required to rank order their students within each grade boundary, based on their perceptions of the likelihood of each student to achieve that grade. Finally, the determinations are sent to OFQUAL who look at the overall profile of grades from each school and make adjustments in line with each schools’ historical performance in order to reproduce outcomes that align with previous years.
Individual biases and system biases
While there is no doubt that teachers want to see their pupils receive the highest possible exam results, there will be winners and losers in the makeshift assessment response, and the likely casualties will be the groups that are not traditionally favoured by the current structures of the education system. The new assessment approach brings with it the risk that inequalities will be further exacerbated and entrenched as young people from working-class and some minority ethnic backgrounds are more likely to experience the consequences of teachers’ unconscious bias and grade under-prediction (Sutton Trust 2020).
It can be difficult for teachers to separate pupils’ behaviour from expected performance, and their knowledge and understanding of a young person’s potential is often limited to a pupils’ willingness to perform and engage in the classroom. This leaves a lot of room to misread, misjudge and underestimate pupils who are challenged by the dominant culture of the formal classroom, which favours the white middle-classes. The pupils who often surprise teachers the most with unexpectedly high exam performance tend to be those from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is difficult to conceive of the new system being able to take account of and attempt to mitigate these inequalities.
Beyond the issue of individual unconscious bias is the issue of system bias. The Coronavirus assessment response is designed to maintain the hierarchies of the system. The approach has been designed to allow schools to maintain their position (whether low or high) in the overall pecking order of school performance. This is great news for private and grammar schools but unfairly penalises improving comprehensives through holding them in their place. It is well recognised that the English education system generates stark inequalities, and there is no evidence to suggest that these have been considered in devising the response to 2020 exam assessments.
Appeals
When the results do come out, families will be in different positions to challenge grades if they are not what they expected the young person to achieve. Again, the issues here relate to class, race, ethnicity. If you are from a white middle-class background you are more likely to have the resources and knowledge to navigate the appeals system. Privileged parents are much more likely to distrust professional judgments, are more likely to feel entitled to the highest possible grades for their offspring, and are better equipped to push back against an unfavourable outcome.
The potential for further entrenchment of educational inequalities needs to be given consideration. OFQUAL has stated that if young people are not happy with the results that they receive, they can repeat the exams in the autumn term. This is not a viable solution given that many young people will have moved on to further study. It glosses over the legitimacy of the appeals against misjudgement by offering an unwanted and painful alternative in response to challenge.
Revised approach to assessment
The country is working hard to mitigate against the impact of the Coronavirus and it is important that the wellbeing of young people is considered as a vital concern. We do not know what the next year will bring for schools and if exams will be further impacted by outbreaks and lockdown. It is therefore critical that approaches to assessment are repurposed to withstand the shock of the unknown.
The current all-or-nothing approach to assessment that sees a raft of exams taken just at the end of year 11 or year 13 will not offer the fair approach that young people deserve. It is incumbent on the government to have new systems of assessment in place going into the next academic year so that young people are assessed on their ongoing achievements with full knowledge and awareness of the process. Mistakes have been made and lessons need to be learned.
