An Ofqual adviser has broken ranks to brand the handling of this year’s results as an “absolute shambles”, suggesting the only solution to quell the growing outrage may be to award pupils their teacher grades.

Professor Rob Coe, who sits on the regulator’s standards advisory committee, told the Radio 4 Today programme the awarding of calculated grades has been a “tragedy and travesty” for young people.

While he said Ofqual was in a “completely no-win situation” and pointed out that results days every year lead to disappointment for some pupils, he said: “It’s definitely been amplified this year.”

He admitted there “isn’t a great way out”, but concluded following Scotland and now Northern Ireland by awarding pupils their centre assessment grade may be the only way forward “given the mess we’re in”.

“The big downside of just going with teacher assessed grades is the problem of grade inflation, that’s a problem because too many people would qualify for university, or further destinations at GCSE.

“That seems like a relatively minor problem compared with the amount of outrage that’s out there and the political momentum that this whole thing is taking on, particularly if the cap is lifted on university places.”

However, he said that “much less applies in the case of post-16 destinations… [which] are more elastic and can expand to take more students.”

The Telegraph reported today that the Ofqual’s own board is split on whether to ditch its own algorithm and just award pupils their CAGs.

It comes after the regulator sparked further outrage on Saturday by removing its own appeals guidance just hours after publishing it. The guidance still remains under review, but the regulator has been slammed for secrecy around what’s going on – with downgraded pupils desperate to know whether they can challenge their grades.

Education select committee chairman Robert Halfon told Talk Radio that Ofqual “needs to stop behaving like cardinals at the Vatican, shrouded in secrecy, and actually come out and communicate… What on Earth has gone on in that organisation?”

Cabinet Office minister Penny Mordaunt this morning tweeted that, after students “lost out on so much this year”: “We must ensure that bright, capable students can progress on their next step. Delaying a year won’t be an option, and it shouldn’t be an option. For many it will mean falling out of education.”

Coe also added: “People in schools are just tearing their hair out at their inability to support students who have had their lives wrecked and they don’t know what the process is because we haven’t had that guidance published. The whole thing is an absolute shambles.”

Northern Ireland has this morning announced it will award GCSEs based on teacher grades, with sector leaders calling on the English government to follow suit.

Dr Simon Hyde, the incoming Headmasters’ and Headmistress’ Conference general secretary, said awarding CAGs is the “only way now to stop this intolerable strain on students and teachers”.

He added: “Whilst we accept that the unavoidable outcome is grade inflation, we believe this is the less bad option when tens of thousands of students are facing unfair grades, thousands of schools are facing an as yet undeveloped appeals process and most of us need to concentrate our energy on supporting the Prime Minister’s desire to reopen our schools in a few weeks’ time.”

But Coe, who advises Ofqual on how to maintain standards of qualifications, also warned that awarding CAGs would result in “issues with comparability, and the next year is the one where that really bites… it does have implications, it’s not a cost-free solution”.

Other issues highlighted with awarding CAGs are that it could be unfair to pupils who attended schools that were more cautious in awarding grades– rather than schools that over-egged their predictions.

It would also cause a headache for universities, many of whom have already filled their places for next year. Although Coe has suggested that lifting the cap on university places – and allowing them to take in more pupils – could help solve the issue.

Education secretary Gavin Williamson has reportedly refused to answer questions on exams from reporters outside his home this weekend.

But he told the Times on Saturday that there would be “no U-turn” on the grading system as it would lead to grade inflation.

The government will cover fees for failed appeals against exam grades following a huge backlash over A-level results.

The Department for Education, in a press release published today, said that state-funded schools and colleges will be able to claim back unsuccessful appeals at the same time as claiming back fees for autumn exams.

Successful appeals claims will remain free.

The Times reported yesterday that the government expects the cost of appeal fees for both GCSEs and A-levels to be between £8 million and £15 million. 

Ministers had been warned that the threat of appeal fees, which are charged if appeals are unsuccessful or if they are made because of a school’s error, could put some cash-strapped schools off appealing, even if they had genuine grounds.

It also comes after sister title FE Week revealed earlier this week that all four exam boards had decided to continue to charge fees for unsuccessful appeals this year, despite calls for them to be waived.

The government is bracing for a second major upset over GCSE results, due out next Thursday. According to the Guardian, between 35 and 40 per cent of GCSE grades are expected to be downgraded, a similar figure to the proportion of A-level grades lowered during standardisation.

Education secretary Gavin Williamson, who has faced calls to resign over the A-levels fiasco, told the Times he expected the number of appeals this year to be much higher, and said it was “vital” that schools act if concerned about results.

“I do not want a youngster to feel they are in a situation where there is a strong and legitimate case for grounds for appeal, but an appeal is not made on grounds of cost. That would be a real, shocking injustice.”

Last year, there were 1,254 appeals against GCSE and A-level grades, of which 683 were upheld.

FE Week revealed earlier this week that initial appeals would range in cost from £8.47 to £25, with some exam boards capping charges for groups of pupils. Appeals under “exceptional circumstances” would cost up to £120, and the second stage, an independent review, would cost between £111.75 and £150.

Ofqual confirmed last week that as well as appealing on the grounds of errors made by themselves or by exam boards, schools will be able to appeal if they feel data used to standardise grades was not a “reliable basis”, and if they were expecting results this year to “show a very different pattern of grades to results in previous years”.

And in a last-ditch attempt to placate students ahead of A-level results day, the government announced on Tuesday night that it would it would allow appeals on the basis of higher “valid mock grades”.

But Ofqual is yet to provide full guidance on the new grounds for appeal, and is not expected to do so until the beginning of next week.

Schools minister Nick Gibb will also oversee ‘gold command’ taskforce to oversee the A-level exams appeals process. It will include representatives from Ofqual and exam boards and “meet daily between now and September 7 to ensure appeals are processed quickly and young people can move on to university, college or the world of work”.

In a press released issued today by the DfE, Williamson added: “I know that alongside the success of so many young people, there have been some difficult cases. I have said repeatedly that my absolute priority is fairness for students, and I do not want anything holding them back from achieving the grades they deserve.

“So all result appeals for state funded schools and colleges will be free, helping to make sure every single student has the best possible chance of securing the grades they need in order to take their next step.”

Mock exams must meet eight separate criteria to be classed as ‘valid’ and used as part of an appeal for downgraded pupils – but graded non-examination assessments can also be used, Ofqual has confirmed.

Ofqual has revealed the criteria that mock exam grades must meet for schools to be able to use them as part of an appeal (see full list below).

It includes mocks that were taken under timed conditions, were supervised and marked using a marking scheme provided by an exam board. All the criteria must be met.

However schools will be allowed to use marked non-examination assessments as part of the mock exam appeal route. Ofqual said this appeal route was available to a “wide range of students, including those who had not taken a written mock exam before schools and colleges closed”.

Exam boards will be “ready to process” appeals from Monday. The appeal route is open to any student whose mock grade is higher than their calculated grade.

In circumstances where the centre assessment grade was lower than the mock grade, the student will receive the centre assessment grade.

Because of the grade protection in place for students this summer no grades will go down as a result of an appeal, Ofqual added.

The route applies to GCSE, AS, A level, Extended Project Qualification and Advanced Extension Award in maths.

Centres will need to complete and send to the exam board a “simple form” to confirm each of the criteria has been met, provide the mock exam grade and a signed declaration from the head of centre.

Criteria	Requirement
1. Assessment conditions	Supervised, unseen and undertaken in conditions that were intended to secure that work was the student’s own. These include: – appropriate invigilation – no access to materials or resources that would not be permitted in exams – no possibility of corrections or revisions Non examination assessment, where applicable, must have been undertaken in the conditions required by the exam board. For private candidates only, mocks undertaken with a private tutor may be used where they were validated by the relevant centre as part of the student’s centre assessment grade submission.
2. Form of assessment	Either past assessment(s) produced by the relevant exam board OR assessments developed by teachers to align to exam past assessments e.g. in the curriculum sampled and style of questions. Marked non examination assessment can be used instead or in addition to mock examination results.
3. Specification coverage	Substantial coverage of the content normally assessed, for example assessment equivalent to one paper or one non examination assessment task.
4. Duration of assessment	Taken under timed conditions that align to those in the normal assessment (with suitable adjustments for those students eligible for extra time).
5. Assessment window	Completed within the programme of study, by 20 March 2020 (when schools and colleges were mainly closed). For private candidates only, mocks undertaken later than this date to provide evidence for the centre assessment grade may be used.
6. Marking	Marked using a mark scheme provided by the relevant exam board, or aligned with the exam board’s mark schemes. Marked no later than the date of centre assessment grade submission.
7. Final grade	Was graded in line with the exam board’s examination standard – for example, where a single past paper has been used applying exam board grade boundaries.
8. Evidence	The following evidence is available for the whole subject cohort if required for inspection: – evidence of the mark given and that marking was carried out by the deadline – the paper and the mark scheme Student scripts do not need to have been retained.

The Office for Students has lost a Court of Appeal case over its decision to refuse a provider admission to its register of English higher education providers. 

The decision to refuse Bloomsbury Institute meant it was denied access to HE public grant and student support funding, could not recruit international students, nor apply for degree awarding powers. 

The Office for Students (OfS) justified its original decision to refuse admission as it argued Bloomsbury had not performed well enough in its continuation rates, meaning how many students progress from year one to year two of their course, or the rate of students’ progression into professional employment or post-graduate study. 

Yet last month the Court of Appeal quashed that decision, and today the three judges’ full judgement has been published, saying the OfS staff who set the thresholds for continuation and progression rates did not have the delegated authority to do so. 

Furthermore, that methodology should have been published and consulted upon. 

An OfS spokesperson said: “The judgement raises important public interest issues for the OfS and other regulators and public bodies.  

“We are considering the implications of the judgement and our next steps.” 

John Fairhurst, academic principal and managing director of the Bloomsbury Institute, said the judgment “is a validation of the professionalism and expertise of our staff and allows us to continue our mission to support students from diverse backgrounds who might otherwise not have the opportunity to enter higher education. 

“Over 90 per cent of our students come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Our goal is to make higher education an inclusive and open space, offering all people, from all backgrounds, the opportunity to define and pursue success through education. 

“We are delighted on behalf of our hard-working students and staff and thank them for their support during a difficult period.” 

New rules on funding 19 to 24 year-olds completing traineeships have been released by the Education and Skills Funding Agency, after the government announced a £111 million boost for the ‘proven’ programme. 

Guidance around initiatives announced by the ESFA last month, such as cutting the hours for the programme’s mandatory work placement from 100 to 70 and allowing level 3 learners to take traineeships were included in the latest version of the adult education budget funding and performance management rules for 2020/21 published today. 

According to the new rules, the ESFA will fully fund 16 to 24-year-olds with level 3 qualifications to complete traineeships using the same criteria it did for when the programme capped admission at learners with qualifications up to level 2: if they are unemployed; have little to no work experience and are focused on employment, an apprenticeship or prospects of either; or if they have been assessed as having the potential to be ready for employment or an apprenticeship in 12 months. 

These new rules also introduce a requirement for providers to support trainees aged over 19 to improve their digital skills if they are assessed as being below level 1. 

As well as supporting learners who have not achieved English and maths grade 4 at GCSE or level 2 functional skills qualification, providers should also support learners to develop any digital skills which are part of an occupational standard published by the Institute for Apprenticeships & Technical Education, which is being linked to in the vocational learning element. 

The Association of Employment and Learning Providers chief policy officer Simon Ashworth said: “We firmly believe that the digital skills element adds further value to an already successful programme and along with maths and English should form the golden triangle of essential skills for everyone.  

“As 19-24 traineeships are part of the AEB, there is joined-up synergy with the new digital legal entitlement which started this month.”

After it was announced trainees could split work placements across two employers, the ESFA has now said each placement must last at least two weeks with each employer, “with each placement supporting progression linked to their learning plan”. 

Providers have been given up to 60 days of the traineeship start date to record the employers’ details in individualised learner records and the placement does not need to start within 60 days and can be recorded as a future start date. Previously, providers had to record the employer’s details within four weeks. 

Traineeships, established in 2013, are eligible for 16 to 24-year-olds and providers are funded by the ESFA to deliver both pre-employment training – including writing CVs, preparing for interviews and searching for jobs – and arranging the work placement. 

Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak announced in his summer statement in July the £111 million to triple participation in the ‘proven’ programme, after starts declined from a high of 24,100 in 2015/16 down to just 14,900 last year. 

Sunak also unveiled a new incentive payment of £1,000 per learner, for up to 10 learners, for every employer who gives a trainee a work placement. The ESFA has said guidance on this will be published separate to these rules. 

The Education and Skills Funding Agency announced last month it would launch a tender to “quickly” widen the provider base for adult traineeships.  

Ashworth said: “Traditionally the traineeship programme has been about supporting those learners below level 3 and that core purpose should not change. 

“However, the relaxation to include those with a prior level 3  is also a pragmatic move in the current economic climate with the uncertainty that young people currently face and AELP hopes that it is a rule that remains in place for the longer term.

“At the core of the traineeship is the work placement and the best programmes have been where they are employer-led and high quality work placements have been a key factor behind the success rates being so high. However, with employers facing so much uncertainty, allowing learners several shorter placement adds a helpful flexible dimension – a minimum of two weeks on each placement is therefore entirely appropriate.

“The ESFA have been careful to consult regularly with the traineeship providers with a proven track-record and this gives us confidence that providers won’t have any difficulty in using up the £111m boost to the programme, offered by the chancellor, and placing more young people into an apprenticeship or a job.”

You can see the new adult education budget funding and performance management rules for 2020/21 HERE.

The government may face legal action on behalf of students affected by this year’s A-levels debacle.

At least two legal challenges are in the early stages of being mounted, following upset across England in response to grades issued yesterday.

It comes after the Equalities and Human Rights Commission warned it may intervene following a day of misery which saw 39.1 per cent of grades downgraded via the standardisation process.

Exam centres reported their students have missed out on university offers and other opportunities because results issued by exam boards were much lower than those given by schools.

Yesterday, law firm Foxglove said the A-level algorithm was “unfair and possible unlawful”, and that it was gathering evidence ahead of a potential judicial review.

The firm is supporting student Curtis Parfitt-Ford, whose petition calling for a fairer system has amassed over 135,000 signatures as of this morning.

And Jolyon Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, has announced this morning that his organisation was mounting a legal challenge to “compliment” the one brought by Foxglove.

Maugham said the challenge “will focus on the unfairness, and in particular the limited and flawed appeal rights”.

It comes as pressure mounts on ministers to address unfairness in the system for awarding grades this year.

Following the cancellation of exams, schools and colleges were asked to provide centre-assessment grades for their students, which were then standardised by exam boards.

Ofqual and the government have defended the standardisation process, insisting it was necessary to prevent grade inflation. They also pointed to a 2.4 percentage point rise in the proportion of top grades this year as evidence that the system had worked.

But exam centres have warned that the overall results mask volatility and inconsistency in the grades at a pupil level, and are expected to appeal against large numbers of grades issued through the process.

Although most of the grades downgraded were only lowered by one grade, 3.3 per cent, well over 20,000 grades, were adjusted down by two and 0.2 per cent – hundreds of grades – fell by three.

Maugham said today that his firm was “looking for students downgraded by at least two grades, especially the cases of students whose academic achievements have been downgraded”, adding that he knew of “one case from a C to a U”.

The system has also come under fire after it emerged poorer students were more likely to be downgraded, and that private schools had seen the biggest boost in top grades.

But the government continued to insist today that there was no bias in the system.

“Ofqual have been clear that the standardisation model does not distinguish between different types of schools and colleges, and therefore contains no bias, either in favour or against, types of schools or institutions,” a Department for Education spokesperson said.