Research and analysis
Table 10
Updated 18 December 2020
Download CSV 2.77 KB
| Case | z-score | CAG | Calc grade | Unique on CAG | Rank | Entries from centre in subject | CAG = A* at centre in subject | CAG = A at centre in subject | CAG = B at centre in subject | CAG = C at centre in subject | CAG = D at centre in subject | CAG = E at centre in subject | CAG = U at centre in subject | Calculated grade = A* at centre in subject | Calculated grade = A at centre in subject | Calculated grade = B at centre in subject | Calculated grade = C at centre in subject | Calculated grade = D at centre in subject | Calculated grade = E at centre in subject | Calculated grade = U at centre in subject | Mean generosity at centre in subject | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1† | 2.81 | A* | B | Y | 1 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0.25 | There is a larger than typical difference between the CAG and calculated grade (2 grades), however, the level of generosity that appears to be present in the CAGs is modest. On this basis, the difference appears anomalous and the student appears to have potentially been disadvantaged. |
| 2 | 2.21 | A* | B | N | 2 | 33 | 2 | 6 | 11 | 13 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 11 | 14 | 5 | 1 | 1.61 | The level of generosity in the CAGs compared to the calculated grades appears to be significant (1.61 grades per student). On this basis, the adjustment applied appears necessary, however, it is unclear whether the level of adjustment is appropriate. |
| 3 | 2.59 | A* | A | N | 1 | 86 | 2 | 9 | 19 | 40 | 12 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 12 | 22 | 29 | 15 | 6 | 0.98 | The difference between the CAGs and the calculated grades is higher than average. This feature, combined with the nature of the CAG distribution in comparison with that of the calculated grades, suggests that the award of grades was appropriate. |
| 4† | 3.11 | A* | A | Y | 1 | 23 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 9 | 1 | 0 | -0.17 | The overall accuracy of the CAG distribution compared with the calculated grades would suggest the distribution is broadly legitimate. In addition, a student receiving a calculated grade A having received a CAG of B suggests that the same grade being awarded to the student with a CAG of A* is inappropriate. |
| 5† | 2.58 | A* | A | Y | 1 | 45 | 1 | 4 | 15 | 16 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 12 | 16 | 11 | 3 | 1 | 0.44 | The level of generosity in the CAGs is average. The award of a calculated grade A rather than the CAG of A* appears plausible and not anomalous, but there is some uncertainty as to its appropriateness. |
| 6 | 2.55 | A* | A | N | 1 | 108 | 2 | 14 | 34 | 40 | 17 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 38 | 46 | 15 | 2 | 1 | 0.19 | Both students ranked 1 and 2 (cases 6 and 7) from this centre in the subject had the same z-score as they shared a CAG. It is unclear whether just the lower ranked student, both students or neither students should receive the CAG or calculated grade. |
| 7 | 2.55 | A* | A | N | 2 | 108 | 2 | 14 | 34 | 40 | 17 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 38 | 46 | 15 | 2 | 1 | 0.19 | Both students ranked 1 and 2 (cases 6 and 7) from this centre in the subject had the same z-score as they shared a CAG. It is unclear whether just the lower ranked student, both students or neither students should receive the CAG or calculated grade. |