Opinion with Simon Floodgate

All assessment is subjective. Try as we might, personal interpretation, based upon a whole range of factors, influences our judgements. What is ‘exceptional’ to one person is ‘good’ to the next, though both may be working with the same criteria and vocabulary of assessment.

Ofqual's guidance given the cancellation of examinations this summer has led to the employment of predicted grades. Nothing they could really do about that. They have gone to some lengths to try to mitigate the subjectivity of the process, referring to teacher's judgements required on student grades as, ‘fair, reasonable and carefully considered’, ‘realistic’ and ‘holistic’. Perhaps, you can see my point about interpretation of vocabulary?

The judgement in a Centre Assessment Grade for each student, made up of the coalition of a range of available evidence, should not provide too many sleepless nights for Drama departments as the component nature of curricula means that some practical elements will already be completed.

The rank order of students within each band, allowing exam boards a more detailed ‘granular’ approach to defining the final classification bands is more controversial. For me this is where the biggest challenge resides. Our discipline is predicated on collaborative processes, often leading to the same or very similar grades for practical group work. However, with no tied ranks allowed, a false differentiation has to be imposed, leaving those students at the bottom of each ranked order more vulnerable to being disadvantaged when exam boards undertake their standardisation process.

Many Drama departments consist of one member of staff, so as the guidance dictates that two teachers be involved in the final decisions, this would fall to the Head of Centre (a likely non-specialist). A lot may now rest upon the ‘holistic judgement’ of one individual teacher and, no matter their integrity and professionalism, that is a burden in the context of a young person's future.

Tips to help differentiate for rank ordering:

• Anonymise written work where possible, particularly for the more moderating function of a non-specialist colleague
• In addition to any completed components, be discerning about the quantity of other sources of evidence employed. Balance the seeming benefits to ranking in drawing upon a large number of marked sources against the detrimental dilution of marks in using too many, creating a bunching of student grades.
• Look at the pattern of grades across evidence, is a student more frequently within a certain band? (their dominant quality).
• Refer to the chronological trajectory of the improvement in their grades (their exit velocity). This is not to second guess the result of their written examination, but it would provide an indicator when you find it difficult to separate two or three students with extremely similar profiles.