Centre Assessment Grades - The Process

Along with other schools and colleges, Woodhouse had to formulate and upload to exam boards a set of centre assessment grades for our students who were taking A levels this summer.

Departments were asked to draw on everything they know about the student and to try to give an honest, accurate, realistic prediction of what they would have got had the exams proceeded, but to be consistent with the last three years grade profile. Teachers were asked to do this with professional integrity. Staff were advised the judgment should not be based on work since the shutdown but on the whole 18 months from September 2018-March 2020; teachers can use all their assessment information they have, the sequence of monitoring grades in reports, end-of-year exams, January mocks, any coursework or other assessments, and teachers can use ‘professional experience’ based on their knowledge of the student and how they were progressing. Departments were free to vary the weight they gave to different assessments. In some subjects, for example, there was a significant coursework mark to draw upon.

For students with extra time, special needs, access arrangements, etc, teachers should judge the grade that these students would most likely have achieved if they had been able to sit their examinations with the intended reasonable adjustment or access arrangement in place. About 27 additional students have been awarded extra time since the January mocks, so teachers were advised to take this into account in their centre assessment grades, because the progress of those students would be likely to have been better because of it.

A student whose progress and likely exam grade have suffered because of family circumstance or illness, for example, should be predicted the grade they were actually heading for. We would not seek to compensate for their ill fortune by giving them a higher grade.

Departments also had to rank the students at each grade. Some did this statistically by averaging different weighted assessments; others did this through discussion, or a mixture of both.

Heads of department were asked to ensure that the overall grade distribution was in line with grades over the last three years, in keeping with Ofqual's requirement. Heads of department submitted their grades and ranking to the head of faculty, and a discussion took place to test their robustness, to compare the grades with recent results and consider any justification for significantly better results than previously.

The grades and ranking were then sent to the vice principal for further examination, including uploading to ALPS Connect to assess value added scores. The VP referred several sets of data back to departments for modification or further discussion.