1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice
  3. The Teacher Q&A will be closing soon.

    If you have any information that you would like to keep or refer to in the future please can you copy and paste the information to a format suitable for you to save or take screen shots of the questions and responses you are interested in.

    Don’t forget you can still use the rest of the forums on theTes Community to post questions and get the advice, help and support you require from your peers for all your teaching needs.

    Dismiss Notice

Drama GCSE results(edexcel)- confused and shocked!

Discussion in 'Drama and performing arts' started by dramaqueensrock, Sep 9, 2011.

  1. Like a lot of you on here I was totally shocked at our GCSE results this year. Most of my students recieved a grade lower than I predicted and I did my predictions using the marks my students had already gained for unit 1 and 2. For example one of my students got full marks for unit 1 and 2 teacher observation- and he fully deserved them I can assure you. He missed a few marks on his coursework which was marked by me then double checked by my hod. he perfomed fantastically in unit 3 secuting 109-A* so how exactly did he end up with a B? (1 mark of an A) Clearly my marks have been altered and the report I have been sent does not explain why.
    In the report it does state my marks for unit 2 (teacher observation) were higher than the national standard so have been reduced- I feel this is ridiculous! I am fortunate to teach in a School where the children are motivated and come from a privilaged area so it is likely there results are higher than the average.

    Like many of you I feel upset for my students and frustrated. We are currently rethinking our GCSE board! Can anyone offer any advice on where to go from here regarding this set of results?

  2. We were told that our marks were more generous than the national average and were brought down too - it wasn't even consistent! For unit 1 we were brought down from between 11 and 14 marks per student and for unit 2 it was even worse and even more inconsistent being brought down between 7 and 17 marks per student!
    I could understand it if they were bringing the marks down uniformly, we marked consistently and moderated within my department but the marks have been brought down completely inconsistently, even with students that they DIDN'T EVEN SEE WORK FROM!
    We are livid and devistated, we have NEVER had work moderated down before and have never had a set of results so low... completely devistated and confused about where to go from here...
  3. Firstly, I hope you were told that you were more generous than the 'national standard' - not the national average. If the 'average' word was used, please interpret it as 'standard' which is what was meant- because your moderator will know the standard - they were at the standardising meeting - but no one will know what the average was until after the marks are publish. Secondly, did your students,by and large, achieve the grades you predicted for them? If they did, you know that you are too generous and to adjust your marking for next year. If not.....So, your marks were brought down and students didn't get the grades you predicted? Look at how they were adjusted. Do you appear to have been generous in certain ares more than others? i.e. generous at the top but more accurate at the bottom. I'd be surprised if your marks were reduced by so much uniformly (but it is possible) - if you have been generous, you are more likely to be more generous at the top and less generous elsewhere. (Possibly doesn't make sense - I'm tired again.) Yes, they will have adjusted the marks of students they didn't even see. You have submitted work to be moderated If your marks are deemed to be too generous in the sample, you will have been equally generous across all students at the centre and all marks will be adjusted. The board assumes you have the rank order right for the centre and doesn't usually adjust that. Being livid and devistated isn't going to get you very far. So, a bit of advice from a mod: 1 Seek to do an EAR on both of the units if you feel the marks are plain wrong (and the school with stand for the expense) or 2 Put in an EAR for one of the units if you want a much more detailed report to assist you to see what went wrong. 3 Learn the lessons from your E9- you might be lucky to have sufficient detail to help you see where you have gone wrong. And yes, if your marks have been adjusted that heavily, you have clearly done something wrong that has had an impact on marks - either too generous marking at best nor not teaching the spec properly at worst and students' marks can suffer. 1699 and the new spec are sufficiently similar to lead to problems if you have not read the new spec carefully and critically enough. Sorry if that sounds a bit critical, but you will have to be analytical of the work you taught and how you marked it if you are going to clear about where you go in future.
  4. Clearly, your marking is considered to be generous. It would appear you have a 1699 mindset for the mark scheme - where you needed practically full marks for the top grades. If you look at the grade boundaries for the new spec, they are in a different place. The new 'Outstanding' band is just that. It's better than 'Excellent' which was at the top of the old spec mark scheme. So, your A grade students are excellent but unlikely to be outstanding. This comes as a shock to lots of drama teachers who have got used to 1699. Performance in Unit 3 and U1&2 do not have to be identical. Students can do better in some aspects of the course than others. Your report clearly tells you that your marking is generous as it is not in line with the national standard. The national standard is the standard at which work gains certain marks. It matters not a jot if you are teaching motivated students from a privileged area where results are higher than average: a 15/20 (t pluck numbers at random) is the same regardless of any other factors. A student who meets the criteria for 15/20 will get 15/20. It will appear (and this might sound harsh) that you have been seduced into marking generously by assuming that just because your students are able and usually get higher marks, that they somehow just deserve them. So, as a mod, some advice: Go for an EAR on either Unit 1 or 2 - you might need to persuade your school as an EAR on a 'coursework' unit is more costly. As this is a unit where all marks are affected, an EAR can NOT adjust marks down whereas an EAR on exam unit (Unit 3 for this spec) can result in marks going up or down. An EAR will give you a detailed report about the work you submitted to the mod - more detailed than the E9 you got - which is part of the EAR service, not a deficiency on the part of your mod's original E9 report. I'd also suggest you book yourself onto an Edexcel run course to get more advice as well and refer exemplar materials on the website. I guess that there will be more appearing now the exam has been a complete cycle and materials are more readily available than they were. I hope that helps a bit. I know it's upsetting when results are adjusted and don't know why. Please, use the opportunity to get more detailed feedback.
  5. dande

    dande New commenter

    Well said, AD.
    I fear that (as experienced this year as a mod) that there are a lot of teachers out there who are clearly not aware of the procedures and what can and should be done in the submission of work for moderation or what moderation actually is!
    I am not saying that the other posters on here did anything wrong with their administration but many centres clearly did.
    I am concerned this year about applying the standard correctly at AS/A2 and am already seeking appropriate support to assist me in this.


Share This Page