Discussion of the UK Government
:sunglasses: 47.4 % :thumbsup: 21.1 % 😯 2.6 % :grinning: 18.4 % 🙏 5.3 % :cry: 5.3 %
More detail on the algorithm:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... -is-unfair
...suppose a class of 27 pupils is predicted to achieve 2.3% A* grades and 2.3% U grades; how many pupils should be given each grade? Show your working.

There are a few ways you could solve the problem. Each of the 27 pupils is 3.7% of the class, so maybe you give no one an A* or a U at all. After all, your class was effectively predicted to get less than one of each of those grades, and the only number of pupils less than one is zero.

Or you go the other way: 2.3% is more than “half” a pupil in that class, after all, and everyone knows you should round up in that case. So perhaps you should give one A* and one U.

Or you could pick the system that the exam regulator applied to calculate results on Thursday – now decried as shockingly unfair – and declare that no one should get the A* but someone should still get the U.
The unfairness was exactly flipped at the other end of the scale: no matter how good a pupil you were, you could only achieve an A* if the Ofqual algorithm had predicted that at least one pupil would get that grade.
A class predicted just less than one A* and just more than zero U grades would be given zero A*s and one U.
From there, the rounding process wrecks things further. That school, with its class of 27, was given one A* and one U – 3.7% for each. “This seems rather harsh,” Thomson writes, “given that the model prediction is for fewer than one pupil (2.30%, when each pupil counts as 3.70%) to achieve this grade.

Beyond the rounding, though, it is the adjustment process that “is absolutely fundamental to understanding how this year’s grades have been calculated”.

“Unfortunately, it raises more questions than it answers,” he says.

And that U, which was only ever predicted for just half a pupil, must be given to one pupil – whoever is ranked bottom of class by teachers – no matter how well that individual performed.
Re. Geoff Norcott, yes, Scotland initially did the same thing, but they then realised it was a clusterfuck, apologised, and ditched it.

As for the incompetence vs malice thing, can it not be both?
It's so totally dreadful and it's going to be the same with GCSE's later this week.

Ofqual withdrew the appeals process in its entirety last night. This was the process that students were relying on as it would look at actual individual performance, rather than previous cohort averages. They promise to have something new up 'soon'. So any kid hoping for a quick decision so they might salvage a university or training place is probably stuck.

But the Tories, and to a great extent the press aren't bothered enough. Because it's a process in which private school children have benefited - from the dreaded grade inflation which Tories claim to hate so much - and working class children have been condemned. They have been awarded grades based on their socio-economic status rather than their ability. Teenagers have literally been marked down for going to a poorly-performing school - it's built into the algorithm.
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:
Sun Aug 16, 2020 11:23 am
Who is Geoff Norcott, and why should I care about what he thinks?
He is a somewhat unsuccessful comedian, whose USP is that unlike all the other successful and funny comedians, his political outlook is of a right-wing persuasion.
You might find some on BBC Sounds.

Here you go.

Loose Ends: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b08j99rw (29:35 in)
The Now Show: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p088lqy0 (10:14 in)

There are examples of his work on YT too, and finally:

What I don't understand with the whole A level fiasco is why they waited until last Thursday to issue the results. Normally results come out in the middle of August because exam papers have to be marked and results standardised, but this year because there were no exams the whole process should have been streamlined. If the government had pulled its fingers out surely provisional results could have been feed back to schools before the end of July and appeals could have been launched sooner or exam boards or Ofqual could have asked schools to provide further evidence to support the predicted grades,
Tubby Isaacs liked this
Boiler wrote:
Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:03 pm
You might find some on BBC Sounds.

Here you go.

Loose Ends: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b08j99rw (29:35 in)
The Now Show: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p088lqy0 (10:14 in)

There are examples of his work on YT too, and finally:

He periodically pops up on The Mash Report, too.
Announcement at 4.

I might be being cynical here, but I reckon they'll be looking at all this as an opportunity. They're pretty open about wanting fewer (other people's) kids at university. So what about they lift the cap on places and do whatever they need with the algorithm, and that's a load of "third rate" universities that don't have enough students. These are lined up for closure because "nobody wants to go there".

I don't reckon they're clever enough to have planned this all- they'd not have had swerved the algorithm if they were- but I think they're clever enough not to let this crisis go to waste.
Was announced this morning in Northern Ireland that GCSEs sat under the local CCEA examination board will now have their grades awarded based on teacher assessment rather than any algorithm to calculate it - but that hasn't stopped the Assembly being recalled to meet tomorrow to discuss the fall out over the A-Level grades which the DUP based Education minister Peter Weir is standing by.

Possible similar move by the Westminster government regarding GCSEs to come, perhaps?
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 14
The Tories, Generally

I do wonder if they're trying to compete for some […]

What did the General Secretary actually rule was[…]

Sir Keir Starmer

Interesting, even taking into account my mistrus[…]

Odin in an Opel! https://twitter.com/rachaelven[…]