Page 87 - BACC Report

Draft Report on European Baccalaureate 2020

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 prel.

2015 1 0.999 0.997 0.999 0.97 0.011

2016 1 1 1 1 0.008
2017 1 0.999 0.999 0.04

2018 1 1 0.062

2019 1 0.00000043

2020 prel. 1

In line with the decision of the Board of Governors, this justifies the application of
moderation. It was felt advisable, however, as we will see, to modify the formerly
proposed moderation method to students' advantage.

A considerable difference in both the mean and the distribution of these marks and
those of both the preliminary and the final marks of previous years was detected. It
then became reasonable, in order to provide fairer and more balanced moderation in
the light of the new data available, to compare the results with the results of the past
years calculated in the same way (A1+A2+B1 duplicated; this calculation will be
referred to as “fake preliminary results” below). This would make it possible to produce
a fair comparison of the performance of the different populations. Since the time period
between the arrival of the A2 marks from the schools and the meeting of the Board of
Inspectors was less than 72 hours (including a whole weekend), this could only be
done for the past two years. The findings and their consequences for the proposed
moderation, as well as some further considerations, will follow:

1) The difference between the average of “fake preliminary” and that of the final marks
ranged between 1.25 and 2.73 (the final mark average being lower). If this is also
taken into consideration when determining the range in which the mean of the final
marks should fall, the aforementioned range is extended, and now the final average
should be between 78.01 and 80.01.

2020-07-D-2-en-1 71/79