Exam Results - Page 3 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, thplinth said:

https://twitter.com/gatwickdrone/with_replies

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.

I'm happy to assume on the basis it's a side show to the real issue which was the disparity based on privilige, rather than get bogged down on largely unprovable side issues.

I've got limited time, arguing about whether someone is a troll when the issue is something else only serves in obfuscating the shambles. In the same way arguing it would have been 85% compared to 65% obfuscates the large disparity i mentioned earlier. It's unprovable whether it is a troll or not gone are the days when i would happily spend hours debating it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aaid said:

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?

Ask the SQA. Qhy would you ask me what the SQA are trying to achieve? There is a huge disparity and no one is explaining it, which is my original point.

3 hours ago, phart said:

15.2% reduction in most deprived area 6.9% reduction in least deprived area.

Is there an explanation for this?

That's the post you responded to that started the discussion. We've went all round the houses with no answer.

Edited by phart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, slasher said:

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. 

Similarly, I got an A in my geography 'O' grade - which shows you how long ago that was - can't recall what I did in the prelim but I didn't get on with the teacher and she told me in no uncertain terms that should couldn't understand how I could get an A.  

I actually quite enjoyed the subject but dropped it for my Highers purely because of the teacher and the expectation that was set that I wouldn't be accepted for the Higher class.  I took Economics instead, which I hadn't taken an O-grade in as it had just been introduced in my school, had a good experience with the teacher and passed that.

I take with a pinch of salt the idea that teachers will be entirely objective in their assessments, that's not a criticism, they're humans after all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, phart said:

Ask the SQA. Qhy would you ask me what the SQA are trying to achieve? There is a huge disparity and no one is explaining it, which is my original point.

That's the post you responded to that started the discussion. We've went all round the houses with no answer.

I think my response was that it's reflective of the existing attainment gap which sees those from better off backgrounds doing well in exams than those from poorer backgrounds,

In developing a model that tries to replace the current exam system, do you attempt to reflect reality in that model or do you reflect how you'd like it to be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, phart said:

I'm happy to assume on the basis it's a side show to the real issue which was the disparity based on privilige, rather than get bogged down on largely unprovable side issues.

I've got limited time, arguing about whether someone is a troll when the issue is something else only serves in obfuscating the shambles. In the same way arguing it would have been 85% compared to 65% obfuscates the large disparity i mentioned earlier. It's unprovable whether it is a troll or not gone are the days when i would happily spend hours debating it.

Following one person, eight followers, anonymous name, nasty posting style, tends to reply to tweets rather than to post their own stuff.

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

Probably is from Glasgow, or at least is familiar with the area, so I got that wrong.  However, posting about problems in first class from Central to Euston on a Thursday lunchtime doesn't really strike me as being credible for a schoolboy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason is cause the historic schools results is weighted for or against the individual, which is ludicrous and doesn't reflect reality. Unless we're arguing that the historic results of a school should dictate present individuals results is a good metric?

The fact this is then being defended by the leaders as a good metric is the problem. This won't be fixed cause if it isn't being flagged as a problem. Therein lies the problem in my opinion.

Edited by phart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aaid said:

Following one person, eight followers, anonymous name, nasty posting style, tends to reply to tweets rather than to post their own stuff.

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

Probably is from Glasgow, or at least is familiar with the area, so I got that wrong.  However, posting about problems in first class from Central to Euston on a Thursday lunchtime doesn't really strike me as being credible for a schoolboy. 

As i said i don't have the time for a rhetorical side-show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, phart said:

The reason is cause the historic schools results is weighted for or against the individual, which is ludicrous and doesn't reflect reality. Unless we're arguing that the historic results of a school should dictate present individuals results is a good metric?

The fact this is then being defended by the leaders as a good metric is the problem. This won't be fixed cause if it isn't being flagged as a problem. Therein lies the problem in my opinion.

So would you have left the teacher assessments unmoderated or if you would've moderated them, what model would you have used for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, aaid said:

So would you have left the teacher assessments unmoderated or if you would've moderated them, what model would you have used for that?

Allow me access to the same information that the government has and then i'll be in a position to make the same decision.

Of course your aim is to exculpate the SNP and not actually address the problem which is the huge disparity on how this decision affected people based on "affluence".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, aaid said:

So would you have left the teacher assessments unmoderated or if you would've moderated them, what model would you have used for that?

So you're saying it was done fairly? No problem whatsoever with the method used?

See arguing in bad faith is easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, phart said:

possible solutions

 

Actually an English teacher at my old school, however, he joined the year after I left so our paths never crossed.  However I know he's very highly regarded and a number of friends of mine have described him as being inspirational. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, phart said:

So you're saying it was done fairly? No problem whatsoever with the method used?

See arguing in bad faith is easy.

How about you address the question of how you'd have dealt with it differently and don't try and deflect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, aaid said:

How about you address the question of how you'd have dealt with it differently and don't try and deflect. 

I need the same information as the decision makers, i've already told you that up the thread. If you're asking honestly then surely you'd want the decision to be made from the same starting point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice how i'm getting grilled more by aaid than the actual government who made the decision, partisanship at it's finest lol. What would you have done? A sophists question.

Like when the NASA scientists crashed their module into a meteor cause they used the wrong metrics, well if you couldn't do the relatvistic calculations yourself then that means you can't criticise them.

Nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, phart said:

I need the same information as the decision makers, i've already told you that up the thread. If you're asking honestly then surely you'd want the decision to be made from the same starting point.

Which is fair enough. But based on the same lack of information you're quick to jump to the assumption that there was some problem with the approach taken by the SQA.  If you're not party to all the information then who can you say that the SQA hasn't done the best it could in very difficult circumstances?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, phart said:

Notice how i'm getting grilled more by aaid than the actual government who made the decision, partisanship at it's finest lol. What would you have done? A sophists question.

Like when the NASA scientists crashed their module into a meteor cause they used the wrong metrics, well if you couldn't do the relatvistic calculations yourself then that means you can't criticise them.

Nonsense.

Playing the man and not the ball is a pretty common tactic when someone is losing the argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aaid said:

Playing the man and not the ball is a pretty common tactic when someone is losing the argument. 

What argument? I'm saying it's wrong that there is a 2.5 times disparity between the least and most deprved areas. You think i'm losing that argument and it's actually not wrong? That's the only reasonable asumption from this post.

Just straight up dumbfuckery from you.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aaid said:

So would you have left the teacher assessments unmoderated or if you would've moderated them, what model would you have used for that?

They were moderated. It wasn’t just the teachers. The teachers, together with the head of department who had all the class work data, and with input from other departmental colleagues (where appropriate). It wasn’t just one teacher.

whatever way you look at it, it’s terrible to downgrade these decisions due to the school attended. I’m an SNP supporter, former member, but it would be wrong to blindly follow and support this. It’s discrimination against less affluent schools. It’s awful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, phart said:

What argument? I'm saying it's wrong that there is a 2.5 times disparity between the least and most deprved areas. You think i'm losing that argument and it's actually not wrong? That's the only reasonable asumption from this post.

Just straight up dumbfuckery from you.

 

 

Yes - so you don't like the outcome and yet won't address what could've been done differently to deliver a different outcome that was fairer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, duncan II said:

They were moderated. It wasn’t just the teachers. The teachers, together with the head of department who had all the class work data, and with input from other departmental colleagues (where appropriate). It wasn’t just one teacher.

whatever way you look at it, it’s terrible to downgrade these decisions due to the school attended. I’m an SNP supporter, former member, but it would be wrong to blindly follow and support this. It’s discrimination against less affluent schools. It’s awful.

I'm aware that it wasn't just one teacher's assessment and that they were QA'ed for want of a better description, before they were submitted.   I'm also aware that they maintain the rankings within a particular centre, which is understandable on the basis that within that centre a proper process was used to give those relative rankings.    Which means that if you are going to somehow moderate the national picture, then the only possible alternative is that you base it on the schools in some respect - or not to moderate at all and to deal with a set of results that don't stack up when compared to other years.

All I'm seeing on this thread is largely what is reflected elsewhere in the press and on social media which is lots of people saying they are unhappy with the outcome - either how it affects them personally or at a national basis - but no-one actually being prepared to say what they would differently and how they would address the fall out from that alternative approach.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, aaid said:

I'm aware that it wasn't just one teacher's assessment and that they were QA'ed for want of a better description, before they were submitted.   I'm also aware that they maintain the rankings within a particular centre, which is understandable on the basis that within that centre a proper process was used to give those relative rankings.    Which means that if you are going to somehow moderate the national picture, then the only possible alternative is that you base it on the schools in some respect - or not to moderate at all and to deal with a set of results that don't stack up when compared to other years.

All I'm seeing on this thread is largely what is reflected elsewhere in the press and on social media which is lots of people saying they are unhappy with the outcome - either how it affects them personally or at a national basis - but no-one actually being prepared to say what they would differently and how they would address the fall out from that alternative approach.
 

It doesn’t affect me at all in the slightest. But I recognise this is wrong. They have asked the teachers to make decisions. How about they respect these decisions? If not, how about they just do away with exams for this year? It is an unprecedented time. We’re in a position to have exams now. I understand this is no use for those seeking to enter university this year, but could these universities not hold entrance exams for those on the cusp of having correct grades, or who would be expected to attain the grade should there have been proper school exams? Thinking as I type and not explaining it well (!) but there are ways around this. Universities etc have to show leeway. Just bin the whole thing. Face it that due to unprecedented times, there are no school results. But gtf with results based on affluence. Especially ones arrived at by patronisingly telling teachers of less-affluent kids that their assessments of these commoners is wrong. It’s patently wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My daughter is a teacher, she teaches in a school with a decent reputation though not of Jordanhill standard. 
I asked how her pupils results went. She said that overall they were good as all her pupils passed however she was extremely disappointed that just about every one of her Nat5 and Higher estimations were changed.
She  worked her butt off doing these and had prepared evidence as to why she graded a pupil out with the level they had previously been graded at. 
For the past few years  she has been marking the Higher and Nat5 official exams so knows what the standard is and the type of things that the SQA are looking for. 

She said a lot of the changes they made to the grades were within the same band, ie high B to low B, but  that some of her N5 pupils have been moved to a B when they thoroughly deserved an A .
More concerning they changed some Higher pupils from a C to a D, and that that although the SQA argued that a D is still a pass, colleges etc dont see it that way. 

Her words were: 

‘ It feels like such a slap in the face to us teachers who spent hours making sure our estimations were robust. I feel like they don’t trust our professional judgement and it’s really overshadowed my overall happiness with the results. I think they’ve looked at those Higher pupils’ N5 result last year, and said “well they can’t have gone from a N5 D to a Higher C”, but it’s because the poor souls have worked their socks off this year. Plus I’ve put in more work with them to help them get there.’ 
 

I dont know what the answer is and sympathise with anyone having to make such a decision in a relatively short period of time, but surely you need to put trust in the teachers judgement. We are putting trust in every other ‘expert’ at this time.
I realise the SQA have a job to do in overseeing things but children can change and you cant just base  the results on past experience of the school. What was the point of all the work by the teachers ? Under normal conditions, the teachers who are marking exams get ‘spot checked’ to make sure there is consistency ,  why did they not just do the same with this years gradings systems? 

 My other daughter got a D in her English Higher prelim a number of years ago and ended up with an A in the actual exam because of the extra work she put in . She would never have received an A if she was doing her higher this year.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...