Exam Results

[exile]

As far as I've seen, the exam results have in general gone up, including up in deprived areas, and I can see why the moderated results overall may be a reasonable general reflection of performance, and more credible than the unmoderated ones, as a whole.

But it's clear that individuals will feel wrongly penalised by a system based on aggregate numbers and historic generalisations, and that sense of unfairness is not going to go away quietly.

I don't know what the best educational solution is but it's a bad look politically.

Edited August 5, 2020 by exile

[aaid]

13 minutes ago, phart said:

The pass mark is already artificial though as i explained in this thread already. It's deliberately picked to be a slight increase each year. It's arbitrary as hell and not an actual metric of competence in the subject.

I'm glad we're in agreement that the artificial nature is a problem and doesn't help.

Hopefully this fiasco is a driver for change in the system. Unfortunately the government in Sturgeon and Swinney so far have just been defending the decision so how much political will there is to change it remains to be seen, it;s inherently flawed though.

I agree with you on that, the pass mark is largely about ranking that year's cohort against itself, it doesn't necessarily follow that this year's cohort is better or worse than previous cohorts.

It's useful as it drives things like who gets to go which university and do which course, who gets which apprenticeship, etc., etc.  

If you are going to change that, it's a fairly fundamental change and is something which would need a lot of consultation and cross-party buy-in and would take years to roll out - that's not to say it isn't something worth doing but it's not the sort of thing that our form of politics - UK as well as Scotland - is really set up to do well, so I don't hold my breath.

I think you're being a bit unfair to Sturgeon in particular.  I watched the briefing yesterday when this came up and the point she made wrt to disadvantaged kids is that this grading isn't responsible for kids being disadvantaged, they are already disadvantaged, which the journalists were trying to imply was somehow the case.   As I said, it's a perfectly valid debate to have on whether or not the current government are doing enough, quickly enough to address that but lets not pretend that they're solely responsible for the inequality existing in the first place.

[Toepoke]

2 hours ago, Orraloon said:

There is an appeals procedure.

One thing's for sure, they are going to be busy...

 

[aaid]

10 minutes ago, exile said:

 

I don't know what the best educational solution is but it's a bad look politically.

Anything would be a bad look politically in this case.

As an example.  I was listening to John Beattie interviewing John Swinney yesterday.   I get that he's playing devil's advocate to an extent so don't have a problem with the line of questioning.

He started off by saying that the fact that kids from deprived areas had been marked down disproportionately, so they were being screwed.  Then he finished by saying. this is all arbitrary so you can't claim that the attainment gap is closing.

These are of course mutually exclusive.

[phart]

25 minutes ago, aaid said:

I agree with you on that, the pass mark is largely about ranking that year's cohort against itself, it doesn't necessarily follow that this year's cohort is better or worse than previous cohorts.

It's useful as it drives things like who gets to go which university and do which course, who gets which apprenticeship, etc., etc.  

If you are going to change that, it's a fairly fundamental change and is something which would need a lot of consultation and cross-party buy-in and would take years to roll out - that's not to say it isn't something worth doing but it's not the sort of thing that our form of politics - UK as well as Scotland - is really set up to do well, so I don't hold my breath.

I think you're being a bit unfair to Sturgeon in particular.  I watched the briefing yesterday when this came up and the point she made wrt to disadvantaged kids is that this grading isn't responsible for kids being disadvantaged, they are already disadvantaged, which the journalists were trying to imply was somehow the case.   As I said, it's a perfectly valid debate to have on whether or not the current government are doing enough, quickly enough to address that but lets not pretend that they're solely responsible for the inequality existing in the first place.

I've been moaning about this for 15 years on here. Sturgeon is just the latest in a long line of leaders who have defended it.

It being hard to do isn't an excuse not to do it. Also a near majority makes it pretty easy to achieve relative to other times when it could have been dealt with.

I've seen it too, she says lets be very clear about 3 times then waffles on about it would have been a massive increase in the most deprived areas (65-85, although was 69 the year before that) while never addressing the actual question which was why is there a 250% difference between the most and least priviliged. I'm not pretending that they are soley responsible, can you point out where that is happening? Or it it just abit of useles straw-man rhetoric?

[aaid]

Just now, phart said:

I've been moaning about this for 15 years on here. Sturgeon is just the latest in a long line of leaders who have defended it.

It being hard to do isn't an excuse not to do it. Also a near majority makes it pretty easy to achieve relative to other times when it could have been dealt with.

I've seen it too, she says lets be very clear about 3 times then waffles on about it would have been a massive increase in the most deprived areas (65-85, although was 69 the year before that) while never addressing the actual question which was why is there a 250% difference between the most and least priviliged. I'm not pretending that they are soley responsible, can you point out where that is happening? Or it it just abit of useles straw-man rhetoric?

Did you watch the entire briefing or have you just seen clips?  Only highlighting that as they're often edited in a way that removes context.

I'm not suggesting that you're implying that, but commentators and political opponents certainly are.

The reason why it's difficult and needs political consensus is because it's something that can't be achieved over the course of a single parliament and regardless of how large your majority is, you need support from others to, scrutinise and push, but to give the programme time to work.

If you look at what the approach from *all* the opposition parties in Holyrood around closing the attainment gap, its been to constantly scream "ITS NOT WORKING" by cherry picking from every set of exam results or rankings that are published.

Until the constitutional question is sorted one way or another, I'm afraid that consensual politics are impossible in Holyrood.

[phart]

2 minutes ago, aaid said:

Did you watch the entire briefing or have you just seen clips?  Only highlighting that as they're often edited in a way that removes context.

I'm not suggesting that you're implying that, but commentators and political opponents certainly are.

The reason why it's difficult and needs political consensus is because it's something that can't be achieved over the course of a single parliament and regardless of how large your majority is, you need support from others to, scrutinise and push, but to give the programme time to work.

If you look at what the approach from *all* the opposition parties in Holyrood around closing the attainment gap, its been to constantly scream "ITS NOT WORKING" by cherry picking from every set of exam results or rankings that are published.

Until the constitutional question is sorted one way or another, I'm afraid that consensual politics are impossible in Holyrood.

The structure of the exams have been changed since i trained as a teacher.

 

We've had cirriculum for excellence and the Scottish attainement challenge so changes have been made and recently. So large scale change has occurred already, so that gives lie to the argument that it's impossible. It's already happened.

[thplinth]

'We're second-class citizens' Exam student tells SNP chief poorest pupils lost out

Drew Skinner from Glasgow's East End wrote to John Swinney after it was revealed that grades across Scotland had been 'modified’ in line with the 'historical results of institutions'.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/student-glasgows-east-end-says-22469943

 

Hmmm. This is a masterclass in how to piss off a lot of people... and their parents.

[phart]

.

Edited August 5, 2020 by phart

[phart]

here

Edited August 5, 2020 by phart

[aaid]

1 minute ago, phart said:

The structure of the exams have been changed since i trained as a teacher.

 

We've had cirriculum for excellence and the Scottish attainement challenge so changes have been made and recently. So large scale change has occurred already, so that gives lie to the argument that it's impossible. It's already happened.

I get the impression you're talking about something a bit more fundamental than changing the structure of exams though rather then whole assessment model or did I pick that up incorrectly?

I'll go back to my point about the Attainment Challenge and political opponents jumping up and down about a lack of immediate improvement when it's clear that any improvements will take years to ripple through the system.

[aaid]

4 minutes ago, phart said:

here

A troll twitter account - deary-me.

[phart]

5 minutes ago, aaid said:

I get the impression you're talking about something a bit more fundamental than changing the structure of exams though rather then whole assessment model or did I pick that up incorrectly?

I'll go back to my point about the Attainment Challenge and political opponents jumping up and down about a lack of immediate improvement when it's clear that any improvements will take years to ripple through the system.

Not using historical results to measure individual attainment is less fundemental than something like the cirriculum for excellence, a lot less. I'm talking about changing how one measures, it's a lot less work. However seeing Swinney and Sturgeon defending the way it's measured means there is no political will to change it as opposed to it being hard or needing consitutional closure etc. They don't see it as a problem and made no attempt to answer why it negatively affected the least deprived 2.5 times less than the most deprived.

Edited August 5, 2020 by phart

[phart]

6 minutes ago, aaid said:

A troll twitter account - deary-me.

Link the account for me please so i can check couldn't find it, just put it up as the board wasn't putting it up from the newspaper article thplinth posted.

Edited August 5, 2020 by phart

[aaid]

3 minutes ago, phart said:

Link the account for me please so i can check couldn't find it, just put it up as the board wasn't putting it up from the newspaper article.

@gatwickdrone

I doubt he (it almost certainly will be a he) even lives in Scotland let alone is a student at Jordanhill.

Scroll down the tweets and replies, nasty piece of work by the looks of things.   Seemed to be very keen on getting NFL tickets for the matches at Spurs last year which doesn't strike me as the sort of thing a schoolboy in Glasgow would be doing.

[phart]

So i went to see if any statistician was opining on this

 

[aaid]

7 minutes ago, phart said:

Not using historical results to measure individual attainment is less fundemental than something like the cirriculum for excellence, a lot less. I'm talking about changing how one measures, it's a lot less work. However seeing Swinney and Sturgeon defending the way it's measured means there is no political will to change it as opposed to it being hard or needing consitutional closure etc. They don't see it as a problem and made no attempt to answer why it negatively affected the least deprived 2.5 times less than the most deprived.

I think that we're probably talking at cross purposes here, I'm talking about addressing what seem to be fundamental inequalities in the system of grading pupils which are based primarily on exams, not on what should happen this year.

WRT to this year though, with no exams and their - albeit imperfect - "level playing field", that everyone sits the same exam on the same day under the same conditions, how would you make assessments.

If its purely on teacher's assessments then how do you square the 15-20% increase that would occur based on previous years exam results?

[phart]

3 minutes ago, aaid said:

@gatwickdrone

I doubt he (it almost certainly will be a he) even lives in Scotland let alone is a student at Jordanhill.

Scroll down the tweets and replies, nasty piece of work by the looks of things.   Seemed to be very keen on getting NFL tickets for the matches at Spurs last year which doesn't strike me as the sort of thing a schoolboy in Glasgow would be doing.

Daily Record citing pish as usual then.

I'm happy to assume it's a troll but he historically talks baout glasgow and travelling from Glasgow if you search his tweets. Not sure i;d classify getting NFL tickets as an unschoolboy behaviour. It's a side issue anyway. As i said i just noticed the picture wasn't displaying in thplinths post so i put it up.

[phart]

2 minutes ago, aaid said:

If its purely on teacher's assessments then how do you square the 15-20% increase that would occur based on previous years exam results?

It's not the increase though, it;s the 250% disparity dependent on how affluent you are that's the issue. You're doing the same thing Sturgeon is and talking around the actual problem.

Edited August 5, 2020 by phart

[Alibi]

It appears that pupils results are in effect being upgraded where their schools have a reputation for attainment, and downgraded where they don't.  In other words, a pupil's results are affected by how well previous years did.  That is clearly unfair.  They are also downgrading results about twice as much in percentage terms in poorer areas than in affluent areas.  That is unfair.  It is also the case that some teachers are over-egging the pudding regarding their own pupils' likely marks; the better teachers aren't, but are being fair and realistic as ALL teachers should be doing.  Some of the results I have heard about have been gained as a result of what amounts to deliberate cheating by staff who know that their high-attainment school's marks won't be downgraded or investigated.  I don't blame the SG here - it's the SQA's system that is flawed.  They are trying to measure something without actually measuring it.  I don't know what the answer is, but not having exams has allowed assigned results to be fiddled in many cases.  No wonder there will be loads of appeals.  It's an impossible situation.  I assume the same thing will happen elsewhere in the rUK.

[aaid]

9 minutes ago, phart said:

It's not the increase though, it;s the 250% disparity dependent on how affluent you are that's the issue. You're doing the same thing Sturgeon is and talking around the actual problem.

I guess giving everyone a haircut across the board is one way to deal with it, I'm not sure that's the answer though.   

I go back to my original point which is what were the SQA trying to achieve, was it to try and replicate the exam system - without exams - with all its attendant shortcomings or were they trying to do something else?

[Squirrelhumper]

18 minutes ago, Alibi said:

It appears that pupils results are in effect being upgraded where their schools have a reputation for attainment, and downgraded where they don't.  In other words, a pupil's results are affected by how well previous years did.  That is clearly unfair.  They are also downgrading results about twice as much in percentage terms in poorer areas than in affluent areas.  That is unfair.  It is also the case that some teachers are over-egging the pudding regarding their own pupils' likely marks; the better teachers aren't, but are being fair and realistic as ALL teachers should be doing.  Some of the results I have heard about have been gained as a result of what amounts to deliberate cheating by staff who know that their high-attainment school's marks won't be downgraded or investigated.  I don't blame the SG here - it's the SQA's system that is flawed.  They are trying to measure something without actually measuring it.  I don't know what the answer is, but not having exams has allowed assigned results to be fiddled in many cases.  No wonder there will be loads of appeals.  It's an impossible situation.  I assume the same thing will happen elsewhere in the rUK.

I agree with all of that, except the SG not being at fault.

Sturgeon wanted to be judged on education, so she can't hide behind the SQA here.

[thplinth]

38 minutes ago, phart said:

Link the account for me please so i can check couldn't find it, just put it up as the board wasn't putting it up from the newspaper article thplinth posted.

https://twitter.com/gatwickdrone/with_replies

25 minutes ago, phart said:

Daily Record citing pish as usual then.

I'm happy to assume it's a troll but he historically talks baout glasgow and travelling from Glasgow if you search his tweets. Not sure i;d classify getting NFL tickets as an unschoolboy behaviour. It's a side issue anyway. As i said i just noticed the picture wasn't displaying in thplinths post so i put it up.

I would not assume he is a troll. Nothing in his posts to say that at all.

But of course it is a way to undermine the girl who wrote to Swinney and replied to the tweet as well.

And based on what? going to an NFL game in London. At one point he even talks about catching the train from Glasgow to Euston Station. And this is the evidence for saying he must be a troll. Deary me indeed.

Edited August 5, 2020 by thplinth

[Alibi]

13 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

I agree with all of that, except the SG not being at fault.

Sturgeon wanted to be judged on education, so she can't hide behind the SQA here.

In the sense that government ministers have responsibility for such bodies.  However neither the FM for the deputy FM are teachers, so they have to rely on the info they are given, or come up with a better alternative.  The problem is that you can't say with any certainty what the exam results would be - for example some pupils study for the exams whereas others are up to speed by the prelims - with this half-arsed prediction system, the late studiers are always going to be disadvantaged as their prelim results will probably be worse - doesn't mean they wouldn't catch up by exam time.

[slasher]

Back in the day I narrowly failed my Chemistry higher prelims. My teacher confidently predicted I would fail the exam and recommended that I drop the subject. Oddly this motivated me to put in some effort and gained a 'B' pass. Said teacher came to me later and congratulated me informing me I had only missed an 'A' by a couple of marks, something I hadn't known. 

The point is there is no perfect system here. Teaching staff were always going to gild the lily a bit and checks and balances needed to be applied. Unfortunately the checks and balances decided upon are the problem here and Scotgov need to step back from defending them. There's no shame in admitting you've got it wrong sometimes.