Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Mr Waldo]

19 minutes ago, madwullie said:

f**k sake. Poorest pupils' grades dropped by 15%, richest kids' 7%

Literally giving grades based on how scummy your area is. 

They estimated most deprived grades would jump up from 65% to 85%.   What did they change last year?

[madwullie]

When it comes down to it, coursework is usually completed to a better standard than raw exam performance. It's not right though that such a rigid drop is predicted solely on where you come from. The exact opposite of narrowing the attainment gap

VT, you need to work on your comprehension, champ. 

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Billy Jean King said:

Make your mind up you have now done a 180 from earlier. Your opening gambit was the rise in passes, it was pointed out that wasn't the story as SQA have downgraded 20% of all submissions leading to a pretty much across the board media outcry so your now changing tack to say the SQA are right to have moved in that direction and it's all the teachers fault for submitting such inflated grades in the first place.

 

Which is it to be ???

 

Fwiw given the % rises AFTER the 20% downgrading it seems the original submissions have been "generous" . Probably the SQA had no option but to act. My son has been awarded exactly what was submitted, at least the paper certificates tell you that I.e. no adjustments.

 

Oh dear. Let me make this quite simple in order that you might just keep up over there.

- The jump in pass rates across the board is a joke that devalues the qualifications given.

- The much larger disparity between historic grade levels and the fantasy island nonsense that teachers and schools tried to con the SQA with devalues their own profession.

- The SQA should in fact have smacked down harder on these ridiculous estimates to get an equivalent pass rate to the past several years, rather than still devaluing their qualifications as outlined above.

There's literally nothing about this argument that is mutually exclusive champ. 

 

[Detournement]

3 minutes ago, Mr Waldo said:

They estimated most deprived grades would jump up from 65% to 85%.   What did they change last year?

They only assessed them up to March. Teachers can't assess their pupils by guessing who will get more family and financial support during study leave and the exam period. 

[madwullie]

6 minutes ago, Mr Waldo said:

They estimated most deprived grades would jump up from 65% to 85%.   What did they change last year?

You can only estimate on what you have in front of you. If the kid has done well with coursework they've earned the grade you estimate. That they would often subsequently f**k the final in exam conditions doesn't come into the estimated grade (or it didn't in my day - how might they do in the exam do you think isn't really evidence based enough for anywhere I've worked)

When it comes down to it here, a poor kid who has worked like a b*****d will get penalised, and a rich kid who has fucked about all year won't. That's not really fair. 

Edited August 4, 2020 by madwullie

[vikingTON]

1 minute ago, madwullie said:

When it comes down to it, coursework is usually completed to a better standard than raw exam performance. It's not right though that such a rigid drop is predicted solely on where you come from. The exact opposite of narrowing the attainment gap

VT, you need to work on your comprehension, champ. 

You literally can't read a simple statistical table and draw a single valid conclusion from it M8. Mebbe sit this one out until you take a remedial class or something.

[Detournement]

Just now, virginton said:

Oh dear. Let me make this quite simple in order that you might just keep up over there.

- The jump in pass rates across the board is a joke that devalues the qualifications given.

- The much larger disparity between historic grade levels and the fantasy island nonsense that teachers and schools tried to con the SQA with devalues their own profession.

- The SQA should in fact have smacked down harder on these ridiculous estimates to get an equivalent pass rate to the past several years, rather than still devaluing their qualifications as outlined above.

There's literally nothing about this argument that is mutually exclusive champ. 

 

Highers don't have any real value. They are a broad indicator for universities and employers who are still capable of selecting their preferred candidates via other assesments.

[madwullie]

Just now, virginton said:

You literally can't read a simple statistical table and draw a single valid conclusion from it M8. Mebbe sit this one out until you take a remedial class or something.

You literally can't understand the difference between past tense and present tense buddy boy. Back of the class for you

[Detournement]

2 minutes ago, virginton said:

You literally can't read a simple statistical table and draw a single valid conclusion from it M8. Mebbe sit this one out until you take a remedial class or something.

The rate of markdowns is perfectly linear. It's hugely biased towards pupils in affluent areas. 

Edited August 4, 2020 by Detournement

[vikingTON]

2 minutes ago, madwullie said:

You can only estimate on what you have in front of you. If the kid has done well with coursework they've earned the grade you estimate. That they would often subsequently f**k the final in exam conditions doesn't come into the estimated grade (or it didn't in my day - how might they do in the exam do you think isn't really evidence based enough for anywhere I've worked)

When it comes down to it here, a poor kid who has worked like a b*****d will get penalised, and a rich kid who has fucked about all year won't. That's not really fair. 

This is utter nonsense: you should account for a general likelihood of flopping in final exams in your evaluation. This is why the historical data is critical. If ~70% of your school's students get a Higher pass in Maths each year, then you should anticipate that 70% of your current students would pass and draw the cut-off margin accordingly, unless there is a clear and compelling reason to do otherwise.

Taking into account a student's hurt feelings or inequality and giving them all a no-lose benefit of the doubt is an unprofessional approach to making statistical projections. Which is why this year's grades will now be treated like a burst bookie's slip.

[stumigoo]

Well, the appeals process is going to be absolute carnage.

[Cyclizine]

5 hours ago, D.V.T. said:

Do we think there will be a localised lockdown for Aberdeen? This cluster does seem worse than the Lanarkshire and Inverclyde ones.

It's happened before...

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Oh dear. Let me make this quite simple in order that you might just keep up over there.
- The jump in pass rates across the board is a joke that devalues the qualifications given.
- The much larger disparity between historic grade levels and the fantasy island nonsense that teachers and schools tried to con the SQA with devalues their own profession.
- The SQA should in fact have smacked down harder on these ridiculous estimates to get an equivalent pass rate to the past several years, rather than still devaluing their qualifications as outlined above.
There's literally nothing about this argument that is mutually exclusive champ. 
 

The real issue is that in some schools and LAs there has been very little quality assurance - what I don't think is right is that that they seem to have downgraded uniformly irrespective of the quality assurance procedures you went through.

I said I was worried that this would happen - that some pupils would be downgraded because their teacher did not game it while others did.

What I don't get is why these estimates were allowed to even be submitted - unless you had hard evidence, schools should not be making huge increases in average grades.

[madwullie]

4 minutes ago, virginton said:

This is utter nonsense: you should account for a general likelihood of flopping in final exams in your evaluation. This is why the historical data is critical. If ~70% of your school's students get a Higher pass in Maths each year, then you should anticipate that 70% of your current students would pass and draw the cut-off margin accordingly, unless there is a clear and compelling reason to do otherwise.

Taking into account a student's hurt feelings or inequality and giving them all a no-lose benefit of the doubt is an unprofessional approach to making statistical projections. Which is why this year's grades will now be treated like a burst bookie's slip.

You're so far out of your depth here you need armbands m8

[DeeTillEhDeh]

This is utter nonsense: you should account for a general likelihood of flopping in final exams in your evaluation. This is why the historical data is critical. If ~70% of your school's students get a Higher pass in Maths each year, then you should anticipate that 70% of your current students would pass and draw the cut-off margin accordingly, unless there is a clear and compelling reason to do otherwise.
Taking into account a student's hurt feelings or inequality and giving them all a no-lose benefit of the doubt is an unprofessional approach to making statistical projections. Which is why this year's grades will now be treated like a burst bookie's slip.

It does not explain some real anomalies though.

I have had 100% pass rates for the past 3 years on the N5 course I was talking about earlier. Yet this year they say the pass rate is only 89%.

In the past 3 years the numbers achieving an A or B has been 52% (2017), 75% (2018) and 76% (2019) - yet this year it is 44% - I had estimated this year it would be around the 75% figure.

From our own historical performance I am at a loss to explain these results other than overestimation by other schools - they have effectively punished schools across the board instead of those who have made wildy optimistic estimates.

[David W]

I've now had a look at my results. 10 pupils who have had grades changed from their predictions, a further 6 who have had bands altered (which I'm not as bothered about). That is out of 55 in total, at N5, H and AH levels.

Five of the grade changes were fairly border-line pupils (which doesn't make it any less upsetting for them) but there are five that I'm absolutely fuming about; pupils with As in all assessments/prelim who have been given a B. I've got one pupil who has somehow been given a worse grade than 7 others, who she was ranked ABOVE, which is quite staggering.  

I'm looking forward to throwing together evidence on their behalf.

One positive to come out of this is that pupils should be knocking their pan in revising for assessments/prelims for the next couple of years.

[vikingTON]

19 minutes ago, Detournement said:

The rate of markdowns is perfectly linear. It's hugely biased towards pupils in affluent areas. 

Life is hugely biased towards pupils in affluent areas and the historical exam results reflect those advantages year after year. That you think the SQA should somehow ignore these statistical facts and instead create a nice, equal set of results based on no reflection of reality whatsoever is mind-boggling.

 

[madwullie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-53653683?__twitter_impression=true

 

Same school I was at. Didn't quite get AAAAA but I wasn't a kick in the arse off it. Life plans - fucked. 

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

2 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

It does not explain some real anomalies though.

I have had 100% pass rates for the past 3 years on the N5 course I was talking about earlier. Yet this year they say the pass rate is only 89%.

In the past 3 years the numbers achieving an A or B has been 52% (2017), 75% (2018) and 76% (2019) - yet this year it is 44% - I had estimated this year it would be around the 75% figure.

From our own historical performance I am at a loss to explain these results other than overestimation by other schools - they have effectively punished schools across the board instead of those who have made wildy optimistic estimates.

Was moderation not done on a per school basis?

[vikingTON]

5 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

It does not explain some real anomalies though.

I have had 100% pass rates for the past 3 years on the N5 course I was talking about earlier. Yet this year they say the pass rate is only 89%.

In the past 3 years the numbers achieving an A or B has been 52% (2017), 75% (2018) and 76% (2019) - yet this year it is 44% - I had estimated this year it would be around the 75% figure.

From our own historical performance I am at a loss to explain these results other than overestimation by other schools - they have effectively punished schools across the board instead of those who have made wildy optimistic estimates.

Well you'll have to take it up with fellow teachers like @madwullie who've got all their pupils' great course work right here and so couldn't possibly mark any of them down as likely to perform badly in the exam and fail/get a crap mark.

Edited August 4, 2020 by vikingTON