GCSE Grades in UK Return to Pre-Pandemic Levels: Lessons on Exams and Algorithms in Public Policy
The proportion of GCSE students in the UK achieving top grades has almost returned to pre-pandemic levels, as the country’s four governments work to reverse the grade inflation that occurred during the lockdown. This presents an opportunity to reflect on the use of exams and algorithms in public policy and the lessons learned.
In England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, the percentage of students achieving grade seven or above (equivalent to A to A* in the previous grading system) has decreased to 22% this year from 26.3% last year. A similar decrease has been observed in Scottish Highers, with 77.1% of pupils achieving A to C passes this year, compared to 78.9% last year.
The significant increase in grades in recent years stemmed from the governments’ attempts to issue grades in the absence of traditional summer exams, which were cancelled in 2020 and 2021 across the UK. An algorithm was initially used to determine grades, but due to a lack of sufficient student information, the grades were ultimately arbitrary at an individual level. This approach did not provide a fair and accurate assessment like traditional exams.
The experience highlighted the limitations of algorithms in public policy. Algorithms should not be seen as a panacea; they cannot solve the challenge of awarding grades in the absence of exams. Consequently, teacher-assessed grades were introduced in all four parts of the UK, often resulting in more generous grades compared to exam-based assessments.
While some argue for a complete shift towards teacher-assessed grades, there are inherent disadvantages to this approach. Grades issued without a standardized examination process can create their own set of problems. In higher education, for example, the reputation of the university often carries more weight than the actual quality of the degree. A degree from a prestigious university may open more doors, but it does not necessarily guarantee a better education.
Furthermore, Ofqual’s impact assessment highlighted the potential biases and prejudices of teachers. Studies have found disparities in teachers’ predictions for ethnic minority students, with overperformance in English and underperformance in maths. Centrally-marked and blindly-marked assessments offer a more impartial way of assigning grades, free from individual biases.
The irony is that the flawed approach taken by England’s Ofqual and its counterparts in the other UK nations has inadvertently fueled the argument to replace exams with teacher assessment on a permanent basis. However, the return to pre-pandemic grades may not sit well with students, potentially leading to a wider backlash against public exams and the use of algorithms in public policy.
In conclusion, the recent adjustment to GCSE grades in the UK highlights the challenges of implementing exams and algorithms in public policy. While exams provide a standardized and impartial assessment, algorithm-based systems can be arbitrary and unfair. Moving forward, it is crucial to strike a balance between the benefits and limitations of both approaches to ensure a fair and accurate grading system that serves the best interests of students.
