Education: Examiners deal too harshly with teacher assessments

Modular courses are popular with students and teachers, yet some believe that external exam boards are acting tough purely in response to political criticism.

Exam boards are extremely sensitive about the consistency of their standards. They deny the constant criticism that exams are becoming easier and insist that their procedures ensure comparability from year to year. After this year's A-levels, however, some teachers are wondering whether the steady stream of political criticism may have had an effect, and whether marking standards are being covertly tightened.

Many teachers seeing their students' results for the A-level modular biology exam are dismayed at the way the marks they allocated for the teacher-assessed part of the course have been slashed by the external moderators. In some cases the teacher-assessed marks have been halved.

Modular examinations are becoming increasingly popular with students because they allow them to be examined as the course progresses. The students receive regular feedback about performance and how to improve. The teacher- assessed part of science courses is usually confined to laboratory work and field studies, and provides 20 per cent of the total mark.

My son recently completed two such modular courses in biology and chemistry at the excellent Camden School for Girls in North London, and I have watched his progress with more than the usual parental interest.

As an ex-headteacher and head of science, I was particularly interested in the teachers' grades for his coursework. Apart from one piece of work which I thought had received slightly severe treatment, the marks were almost exactly what I would have given. So, it came as a great surprise to me and his teachers to find that his teacher-assessed biology mark had been reduced from an A to a D. Further inquiries showed that all the higher-grade students had received similar treatment and that one girl, who had received A grades in all the other externally examined modules, had lost her overall A grade because of her moderated C in her coursework.

The school's biology team has been together for seven years and possesses some highly experienced teachers, including the deputy headteacher. So accurate has been their marking in the past that no one can remember any adjustments to their marks by external moderators.

The moderator's report over the past two years has praised the standard of the assessing. The 1997 report in fact reads: "The standards agreed by the moderator were in close agreement and no adjustments were made." Indeed, the quality of the science teaching at the school can be guessed at from the moderator's more detailed comments. Graphs and tables in students' work were praised for clarity and the moderator was moved to write: "Thank you for your detailed marking which proved very helpful."

Although the Camden teachers have approached their marking with their usual professional diligence, they must be fearing the worst as they await this year's report from the moderator, which is due this week. But they can take solace from the fact that other biology departments have received similar treatment. Two other popular London schools I contacted had their modular biology coursework marks savaged in the same way, but by a different examining board.

So what has changed? Inquiries to Edexcel, the London Examining Board which conducts the Camden exams, suggests very little. Jeremy Tafler, manager of policy, says: "Our moderation systems are scrupulously applied according to common procedures agreed between the examining boards and the regulator. Through this process, common high standards can be applied throughout the country."

What this statement fails to answer is whether moderating procedures have been tightened this year. Tafler suggests that there may have been change when he explains that this year's tolerance levels between moderator and teacher marks have been tightened. But that cannot explain some of the very large discrepancies involved.

In the schools I have surveyed it is clear that something has gone wrong. Either changes have been made of which teachers are not aware, and for which they have not received training, or there has been a covert tightening of standards. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) is the regulating body that would have agreed any changes. It should set up an immediate inquiry, which should start by checking its own code of practice, and ensure that all moderators are "fully conversant with the overall standard of work associated with particular grades in previous years".

It should also check its own advice that "statistical information must be used to inform the awarding body's final judgements on marks awarded. Where applicable, the data should include overall results and individual centres' results for previous years and for different examination components".

As for the teachers and parents concerned, they should appeal vociferously to the exam boards and to the Independent Appeals Authority. Only then will the examiners recognise the depth of feeling that has been generated.