Nicola Sturgeon 'sorry' over Scottish exam results (BBC News)
- Thread starter PhilK66
- Start date
Not sure how you can say it isnt about the teachers scores. The govt wouldn't need to downgrade them if the teachers hadnt given such over inflated predictions. I dont know too much about the situation so feel free to correct me, i won't be offended. But it seems teachers have massively overexagerrated their predictions of how students would do. I imagine they have compared this years predicted scores with previous averages and the scores are no doubt miles different.
This is why the govt are downgrading scores, isnt it?
This is why the govt are downgrading scores, isnt it?
You may well be correct. However, I don't think that the Scottish Government can justify their actions which is why The Guppy is apologising. Whilst some marks may have been inflated by teachers they have, as I understand it (and I might also be wrong here) downgraded all of the marks and not just those that are suspicious.
My son (GCSE) and daughter (A Level) are both going through this, and we will see what happens in next week or so. My son was top of the class, and predicted top marks in his mocks and coursework, so an exam could only have been bad - he is going to secondary school though, so the worry is that he would be marked down if the school "inflates" all the pupils. My daughter was centre of the pack in her Grammar school, so hopefully will be all right.
The argument is that if a school had 10 years of bad or moderate exam performance, and then scored very well on the one year where there was "predicted grades" marking, then that would appear suspicious, and therefore a "correction" adjustment would need to be made. Whilst teachers are grading the kids, they are also in effect grading themselves and their school.
Exactly. It absolutely seems suspicious. It's quite clear really isnt it? It seems absolutely clear that teachers have over-inflated exam predictions to me.
There could be many reasons for this, to improve their own personal career status, or their school's, or even purely for their kids who they have built good relationships with. The teachers are essentially cheating though.
For years teachers have been saying there's too much testing in the school system, and that teacher's assessment's should be considered more. However this first chance they've got to prove their point and do it their way, the teachers have overinflated the marks. It doesn't do well for their argument really does it?
The govt has a duty to do something so ensure this doesn't happen, and a 'correction' is needed.
Discussion then, is best aimed towards: how should the govt ensure that the exam results of 2020 are not inflated? What is the best approach to 'correcting' them? I reckon those involved have probably thought through the available options to them, and the current approach is what they settled on after a through review of the options.
There could be many reasons for this, to improve their own personal career status, or their school's, or even purely for their kids who they have built good relationships with. The teachers are essentially cheating though.
For years teachers have been saying there's too much testing in the school system, and that teacher's assessment's should be considered more. However this first chance they've got to prove their point and do it their way, the teachers have overinflated the marks. It doesn't do well for their argument really does it?
The govt has a duty to do something so ensure this doesn't happen, and a 'correction' is needed.
Discussion then, is best aimed towards: how should the govt ensure that the exam results of 2020 are not inflated? What is the best approach to 'correcting' them? I reckon those involved have probably thought through the available options to them, and the current approach is what they settled on after a through review of the options.
My wife marked exams for a number of years. The process was strictly controlled and moderation was an essential part of that process. The problem is that instead of a relatively small number of regrades prompted by appeals from high achieving schools, this time 40% are expected to be regraded, the majority downwards. There is no massive error of over inflation as nearly all will move only one grade. The tragedy is that children, already disrupted by covid and worrying about the future of courses, will have another disappointment to face. It could have been avoided throughout the UK.
Moderation of marks in the exam papers themselves are one thing. But don’t the grade boundaries change dependant on the results as well? I.e. if too many people get a high mark, they decide that it means the exam was too easy, and essentially raise the mark required to get a pass/A etc.? I don’t know for sure, but I thought this is what happened?
If you’re saying 40% of grades will be changed, then it means that 40% of grades have been overinflated. That’s huge? I didn’t know the figures, but if you’re right that shows a huge, colossal error of over inflation?
Poor mites. They are 16/18. Not 10. They have already been gifted 4 months on their Xboxes at home doing nothing without any stress of exams.
How?
If you’re saying 40% of grades will be changed, then it means that 40% of grades have been overinflated. That’s huge? I didn’t know the figures, but if you’re right that shows a huge, colossal error of over inflation?
Poor mites. They are 16/18. Not 10. They have already been gifted 4 months on their Xboxes at home doing nothing without any stress of exams.
How?
On your first poinjt moderation was normlly conducted throughout the marking process and then again after completion.... and before pupils were awarded grades. I suspected that grade boundaries change in the light of results for each cohort but the department maintains the psoition that moderation is used to apply a consistent standard over years.
I don't think it's huge if a relatively large number of grades were overestimated by one grade, given a new and untried method of judgement. I agree 40% is a large percentage.
I think your attitude to pupils is harsh and ill judged. We harrass, over test and pressurise them into anxiety and ill health in the pursuit of exam results, which no longer promise the rewards of former generations. The amount of homework given from absurdly young ages is a disgrace. I don't like the news shots of whooping and weeping schoolchildren receiving results but it's not their fault. We have acted as if every child should be academically stretched and developed without thought for the majority, who do not benefit from this madness.
A rank amateur could have seen this "crisis" coming, I certainly did. If you have a different system installed at short notice, which does not have the blind exam cover of the normal system, appeals will proliferate. Moderation should have been done before grades were awarded, celebrations enjoyed and plans made. It wasn't difficult.
I don't think it's huge if a relatively large number of grades were overestimated by one grade, given a new and untried method of judgement. I agree 40% is a large percentage.
I think your attitude to pupils is harsh and ill judged. We harrass, over test and pressurise them into anxiety and ill health in the pursuit of exam results, which no longer promise the rewards of former generations. The amount of homework given from absurdly young ages is a disgrace. I don't like the news shots of whooping and weeping schoolchildren receiving results but it's not their fault. We have acted as if every child should be academically stretched and developed without thought for the majority, who do not benefit from this madness.
A rank amateur could have seen this "crisis" coming, I certainly did. If you have a different system installed at short notice, which does not have the blind exam cover of the normal system, appeals will proliferate. Moderation should have been done before grades were awarded, celebrations enjoyed and plans made. It wasn't difficult.
Unless I've got it wrong the grades given out are lower than many were expecting, the downgrading failed to look at individual pupils, but instead looked at a schools exam history and downgraded everyone from that school regardless of their individual work or mock results.
Whilst some of you might think this is acceptable, it hardly sends the message that everyone is equal regardless of your background. Live in the right post code, go to the right school, or you might as well give up, "you're a failure"
Whilst some of you might think this is acceptable, it hardly sends the message that everyone is equal regardless of your background. Live in the right post code, go to the right school, or you might as well give up, "you're a failure"
Pretty much spot on as usual.
I marked A level Law papers for five years until about 5 years ago. Grade boundaries change a little according to how hard the exam was that year. In something like Law, with case study scenarios it is nigh on impossible to have each exam at precisely the same level of challenge every year.
To be honest, teachers will, naturally, err on the generous side when predicting grades and this is probably why the English ones may also be downgraded a little (I can't speak for Scotland).
The situation cannot be solved perfectly (the one area where jogills isn't quite spot on) as it is impossible to guess thousands on scores accurately. Every year I'd have a few surprises for both good and ill with my students. The present situation will go against those that would have worked hard at the last minute, a sizeable number in my experience.
As has been pointed out, the type of school and it's past record will also play a part in adjustments. I can see why they are doing it but as usual it will benefit private schools and those in comfy middle class areas.
As I hinted above, teachers would inflate grades in the present situation but only a tiny bit, not as AK suggests. Our predictions were reviewed each year and if we were innacurate overall then it would be bad for our careers (rightly). If teachers seriously inflate grades compared to previous years it would be obvious (and dumb) and the grades would be hammered.
Ps, I gather the "research" that Williamson is using to justify full opening of schools is seriously flawed and we now hear that teenagers can readily spread Covid. Yet another dreadful Education secretary. Even Labour inflicted some bad ones, Blunkett springs to mind as he seemed to have some kind of grudge.
Poor kids and teachers. So glad and relieved to be out of it now. Don't envy my mates who are soldiering on.
I marked A level Law papers for five years until about 5 years ago. Grade boundaries change a little according to how hard the exam was that year. In something like Law, with case study scenarios it is nigh on impossible to have each exam at precisely the same level of challenge every year.
To be honest, teachers will, naturally, err on the generous side when predicting grades and this is probably why the English ones may also be downgraded a little (I can't speak for Scotland).
The situation cannot be solved perfectly (the one area where jogills isn't quite spot on) as it is impossible to guess thousands on scores accurately. Every year I'd have a few surprises for both good and ill with my students. The present situation will go against those that would have worked hard at the last minute, a sizeable number in my experience.
As has been pointed out, the type of school and it's past record will also play a part in adjustments. I can see why they are doing it but as usual it will benefit private schools and those in comfy middle class areas.
As I hinted above, teachers would inflate grades in the present situation but only a tiny bit, not as AK suggests. Our predictions were reviewed each year and if we were innacurate overall then it would be bad for our careers (rightly). If teachers seriously inflate grades compared to previous years it would be obvious (and dumb) and the grades would be hammered.
Ps, I gather the "research" that Williamson is using to justify full opening of schools is seriously flawed and we now hear that teenagers can readily spread Covid. Yet another dreadful Education secretary. Even Labour inflicted some bad ones, Blunkett springs to mind as he seemed to have some kind of grudge.
Poor kids and teachers. So glad and relieved to be out of it now. Don't envy my mates who are soldiering on.
Apart from marking irregular homework and knowing who puts hands up in class, how can a teacher predict the intelligence and potential of one pupil in classes of often over thirty? That is the purpose of exams and they are marked by someone with no prior knowledge of the pupil so is the perfect "acid test".
Otherwise, this applies:
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news...eacher-guessed-his-grades-were-20200811199319
Otherwise, this applies:
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news...eacher-guessed-his-grades-were-20200811199319
On the subject of homework: My son is in year 7. He hardly had any homework to be done throughout his primary school life. I expected that to change as he went into secondary school, but he still just doesn't get much at all maybe a couple of hours a week. He just does not have anything like the amount of homework I expected him to have in senior school, certainly less than I had at his age.
My other son is just going into year 2. He has only 15 minutes of reading to be done each day.
I really don't think the amount of homework given is anywhere near a 'disgrace'. In fact, it's closer to being a disgrace that they don't do more.
On the subject of exams: I see absolutely no issue with putting pressure on kids to do well in exams. Of course, i wouldn't be putting too much pressure on them, but certainly they should be pushed. I am of the opinion that it will prepare them for life, where you are constantly assessed. I certainly am in my job. I have constant deadlines and 'big meetings' where I need to prepare and perform well in. It's our education system's duty to prepare kids for the outside world of life and work, and that includes the above IMO.
Assessing is also simply one of the only way of ascertaining whether schools are doing a good job or not. Ofsted is part of assessing (another contentious issue), but ultimately the best assessment of a school's performance is to test whether the kids have learnt the sylabus or not. No doubt being a teacher yourself you'll inform me that all teachers (and school leadership teams) are perfect/great and don't need their performance monitored at all.
Your comment about the school system not fitting everyone is another matter. If you believe they are testing the wrong skills (i.e. too academic, or not focusing on a rounded curriculum etc.), that's entirely another matter. It's not related to whether assessments are right or wrong IMO.
My mum was a primary teacher too (recently retired) so I have pretty good knowledge of this subject area after years of seeing the pressure she was under to perform either with KS2 examinations or Ofsted. Oddly enough, I also studied a couple of interesting education modules in university discussing the arguments for/against different methods of assessment and the reasoning behind them. So i like to think my opinions are at least a little bit informed.
If you don't assess the kids you simply lose the ability to make sure your schools are doing a good job. And before you suggest it, schools clearly can't be relied upon to mark their own homework, if you excuse my pun. That has virtually been proven by the number of inflated exam predictions in this instance.
My other son is just going into year 2. He has only 15 minutes of reading to be done each day.
I really don't think the amount of homework given is anywhere near a 'disgrace'. In fact, it's closer to being a disgrace that they don't do more.
On the subject of exams: I see absolutely no issue with putting pressure on kids to do well in exams. Of course, i wouldn't be putting too much pressure on them, but certainly they should be pushed. I am of the opinion that it will prepare them for life, where you are constantly assessed. I certainly am in my job. I have constant deadlines and 'big meetings' where I need to prepare and perform well in. It's our education system's duty to prepare kids for the outside world of life and work, and that includes the above IMO.
Assessing is also simply one of the only way of ascertaining whether schools are doing a good job or not. Ofsted is part of assessing (another contentious issue), but ultimately the best assessment of a school's performance is to test whether the kids have learnt the sylabus or not. No doubt being a teacher yourself you'll inform me that all teachers (and school leadership teams) are perfect/great and don't need their performance monitored at all.
Your comment about the school system not fitting everyone is another matter. If you believe they are testing the wrong skills (i.e. too academic, or not focusing on a rounded curriculum etc.), that's entirely another matter. It's not related to whether assessments are right or wrong IMO.
My mum was a primary teacher too (recently retired) so I have pretty good knowledge of this subject area after years of seeing the pressure she was under to perform either with KS2 examinations or Ofsted. Oddly enough, I also studied a couple of interesting education modules in university discussing the arguments for/against different methods of assessment and the reasoning behind them. So i like to think my opinions are at least a little bit informed.
If you don't assess the kids you simply lose the ability to make sure your schools are doing a good job. And before you suggest it, schools clearly can't be relied upon to mark their own homework, if you excuse my pun. That has virtually been proven by the number of inflated exam predictions in this instance.
