Read on Twitter
Interesting that Ofqual is seen in the CH piece as part of the "quangocracy" doing stuff that should be done by DfE. Worth remembering that Ofqual is independent (and accountable to Parliament, like Ofsted) to keep politics out of grading. https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1295616510346616832
You can ask questions of the ways Ofqual have handled this (and of the extraordinary incuriosity of theSoS and others about the algorithm, anomalies and artefacts until too late). But not sure bringing decisions on grading in house is a good call.
Like with the Bank of England, Ofqual's independence of Government is a POLITICAL decision to keep politicians honest. Ofqual work to a remit set by politicians, to ensure any increase in grades is warranted by a rise in student performance. (thread incoming 3/6)
And while Ofqual's decisions on grading have to be wholly independent, its can (or used to) share its workings with the Department. The Department has a seat on its board. So there would have been every opportunity for Ministers to say either "are you sure", or... (4/6)
to prepare for the anomalies and artefacts (if your school had a U three years ago, then someone has to get one this time etc..). They couldn't ultimately have told Ofqual what to do, but they could have prepared for the predicable consequences. So... (5/6)
...this isn't quite the simple they "tried to take politics out of something political and failed so lets bring it back" CH argument. Bring it in house and the exams system becomes even less credible. And the political failure (not questioning and planning) remains. (6/6)
