Prior to the release of the SAMs last week I received a message saying that Pearsons new “new” SAMs had been bounced back again. I’m not and never have been privy to the details but didn’t follow this up publicly (I do have some scruples!) for fear of scaremongering people and as it turned out they had been bounced back, but earlier than when I was told about it. Subsequent to the SAM’s being published I have received several emails pointing me in the direction of the post research project findings document that was published by Ofqual (POST RESEARCH REVIEW ) and they do make interesting reading but like all these things I find that I (a) take them with a pinch of salt but then (b) find myself questioning the validity of the process.

Of this latest element of the “project” there were 3 additional phases:

  1. Phase 1. This was the original “research project” that the SAM’s went through originally (Eduqas was not included in this part of the original research so measure of difficulty for their papers are excluded)
  2. Phase 2. This was the first resubmission from all 4 boards.
    1. Foundation Tier.
      1. AQA’s expected difficulty increase
      2. Pearson’s reduced their expected difficulty
      3. OCR also reduced their expected difficulty.
    2. Higher Tier
      1. AQA increased their expected difficulty
      2. OCR and Pearson reduced their expected difficulty
  3. Phase 3. This only included resubmissions from Eduqas and Pearson.
    1. Foundation tier.
      1. Pearson’s become more difficult
      2. Eduqas’ are made easier.
    2. Higher tier.
      1. Eduqas reduced their expected difficulty.
  4. Phase 4. This included only Pearson’s Foundation tier and the submission was now broadly in line with two of the other boards.

A  summary table of the findings is included in the report, but could be Swahili for all I know … I’m a very simple girl!!

table

I have taken the “mean” expected difficulty from the above table and plotted their movement through the different phases – yes I know it’s only one “measure” but it tells a tale. What is interesting is when you look at the “journey” each of the papers have made between the start of the project and the outcomes last week of the final submissions … the one that stands out for me is Pearson’s Foundation tier. All that “yo-yoing” to end up having made the smallest journey of the lot .. it just makes a farce of the whole process that they could have been deemed to have been so far out and yet have ended up close to where they started.

FOUNDATION SAMs

higher SAMs

Despite all of the above I’m working on the papers and they are, in my humble opinion, comparable in terms of difficulty. They will suit different approaches (more to come on that but if you want a sneak preview of what I’m thinking check out: THIS MORNING’S POST ) and that factor will allow the teaching community to choose a board that provides them with the level of support that suits their needs.

Next up … what each board wants us all to know about their papers ….