A-Level results Scotland

E

elacsaplau

Registered User
Messages
889
How is/can the discrimination that apparently has happened in Scotland to be avoided here (for our Leaving Cert) in an equitable way?

That is - what specifically are we going to do that Scotland did not do?
 
Is there discrimination, though? From what I've read, the initial teacher estimated grades were well above the historical average and were "corrected" by an algorithmic process that looked at the schools previous performance. The corrected grades are still marginally above the historical average.

Presumably, the schools with high estimates compared to their historical average were the ones that had the greatest reductions applied.

Where's the unfairness?
 
Hi Babybomer,

There was uproar in Scotland - resulting in the Scots deciding to reverse the "college norm' adjustments. My specific question is

elacsaplau said:
What specifically are we going to do that Scotland did not do?
Click to expand...

The point being that if our adjustment policy is broadly similar, will we not end up with similar uproar?

So, I'm interested on seeing the detailed process to apply here!
 
Last edited:
Schools with achieve a similar results profile to that of their previous three years results. The student ranking should ensure that the better students get better results. If certain school over-estimate student results this will be adjusted. There is no impediment to a strong student in a weak school from getting good results. I don't expect so see the same fuss here as in the UK.
 
michaelm said:
I don't expect so see the same fuss here as in the UK.
Click to expand...
Foley, being interviewed by RTE says they will learn from UK mistakes. There is only one learning point. Thou shalt not mark down a Teacher's assessment. So forget the algorithms and indeed the logarithms as Emma O'Kelly of RTE refers to them.
 
The mistake was by the teachers not giving all their students top grades.
 
Allen said:
The mistake was by the teachers not giving all their students top grades.
Click to expand...
School A's Head is a scrupulous sort and advises his teachers to be very professional and to return results aligned to recent years. The algorithms will achieve that anyway, s/he advises and so it is best to avoid the stigma of downgrades.
Just down the road, School B's Head is a much more canny individual and judges that no-one has a clue how this will all pan out and advises his teachers to go as far as they dare in giving their students the benefit of the doubt. They go about 20% better this year than last year. Their philosophy is that whist a downgrade won't look good, this is still the best strategy for their students.
If, as has happened in the UK, the schools' assessments are not adjusted by algorithms, which Head would you rather be?
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Foley, being interviewed by RTE says they will learn from UK mistakes. There is only one learning point. Thou shalt not mark down a Teacher's assessment. So forget the algorithms and indeed the logarithms as Emma O'Kelly of RTE refers to them.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there will be issues here. But the nature of the systems is different. In the UK, students are formally given "expected grades" and receive conditional offers before the exams based on those expected grades. If they achieve the grades they are guaranteed the place. It is student specific and college specific and unrelated to the performance of the population at large. Therefore adjusting down had specific impacts on specific students. The conditional offers couldn't flex

Here the places are allocated after the grades based on supply and demand. In theory, if there was grade inflation or deflation it shouldn't affect the individual students as long as it was consistent - the points required to be offered a place is what flexes. The places offered are based on comparative performance rather than absolute performance as in the UK.

There is still the underlying problem (which the UK also had) of there being some element of past performance being built into the distribution curve. But the algorithm in the UK seems to have been particularly brutal in that "forced distributed" down to small population levels i.e. if a school should have 0.51 fails in a subject, it rounded up to 1 and therefore adjusted the weakest pupil in that school to a fail (even if they had been assessed as a "C" or "B")
 

This thinking effects every aspect of life. If I pay my mortgage will I better off than they person who failed to pay and cannot be repossessed. If I dont pay rent I cannot be evicted.

When rules are not enforced some people game the system.

When some people game the system sucessfully, more people start to game the system.

Higher than necessary mortgages rates are just one consequence.

A for LC grades I haven't the slightest doubt that bearing in mind the UK situation and remembering the water charges, there shall be prizes for all.
 
Yes, there are obvious differences.
The real frustration is that the rules are still up for grabs - there is no definitive algorithm set out.
The latest spanner in the works is that there will be standardisation for gender and social status.
I can understand how standardisation by school will work.
But I really can't see how standardisation by gender can be imposed at a national level.
 
Now that the minister has fubarred the LC estimated grades system by removing the school previous results profile does that mean that all schools will get grades based on the previous national results profile, meaning all schools will have equal outcomes?
 
Last edited:
Yes, kids from schools in more socially deprived areas will get higher grades and the rich kids will get lower grades but this will be the best year ever for Leaving Cert results, of that you can be sure.
 
I don't think so. They say that for some subjects Grade 1s were more than double previous years, at the national level. So all schools will be asked to reduce their number of submitted Grade 1s in that subject by, say, 50%.
Example:
School A submitted 10 Grade 1s from its class of 50, must reduce that to the top 5
School B submitted 20 Grade 1s from its class of 50, must reduce that to the top 10
That's my read anyway, though I stand to be ejected.

School B will keep the advantage it had given itself over School A and will not be put on the same national average.
I presume they have road tested this algorithm. To me it has potential to be really unfair. If the strategy taken by a school was to be overoptimistic compared to other schools they will keep the advantage of that over optimism.
Also where is the promised adjustment to maintain the gender advantage that girls had in previous years?
 
They had it about right with student grade & ranking adjusted to school results profile. Pity the new minister had to banjo it. That the Shinners are happy with it suggests to me that it's a misstep.
 
RTE News said:
Acrosss subjects H1 grades are up 3% from 5.9% to 8.9%.
Click to expand...
Perhaps a more accurate description is that H1 grades are up more than 50% (8.9/5.9).
Also I note that they are not applying gender standardisation as promised. As it happened girls did better this year than last year without any standardisation. Don't Boys Lives Matter:mad:
And another thing. The 2020 inflation hugely disadvantages the 20,000 2019 deferred CAO applications. The CAO itself should apply correcting adjustments to the 2019 results. The fact is a 2019 H1 is better than a 2020 H1.
 
Last edited:
According to the IT Education correspondent on the radio this morning, the Private schools grade inflation was "off the Richter scale"!
And because those submitted grades got pulled back by the Dept, Solicitors are experiencing a major increase in calls since yesterday from both parents and the private schools.

There's going to be many the holiday home bough in Marbella off the back of the court cases on this mess
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register