I was mystified when the government announced that exams would be replaced this year. I initially thought they might empty the schools and colleges except for Year 11 and Year 13, space them apart and give them preparation in time for the exams.I've dragged this in here rather than the BBC bias thread as it's moved from the manufactured outrage in the media into a discussion on 2020 exam grades.
So if it couldn't be done in time what then? What do you do about the students who, for whatever reason, do not have mock exam / prelim results? How far back are you going with this data?
I honestly do not think your approach could have been done in the time which puts everyone in a worse position and (I suspect) would not have made much difference to the numbers of students appealing their grades.
Why is it harder? If anything that's a bonus as the number of appeals that don't meet the criteria will be dramatically reduced, freeing up the appeals staff to deal with valid cases. Schools should still be open on results days as they are every year to deal with these sorts of issues.
That would be very unfair, given the results aren't being released until the 24th in England. In Scotland the 14th is the cutoff for those wanting a university place, the 21st for others. The appeals are also free rather than the usual 40 quid.
That is the way that I interpreted you saying that disadvantaged students are being told their efforts don't matter much with the school thrown in as an afterthought. That suggests the SQA are downgrading students based on their home lives rather than the actual situation which is based on which school they go to.
An interesting way of phrasing those statistics. Firstly, the 'Higher passes' were not cut, the teachers' estimates were. Secondly comparing slightly more objectively:
Most deprived areas - teachers estimates reduced by 15.2% with an increase in passes compared to 2019 of 4.6% and 1.7% compared to 2018
Middle income areas - teachers estimates reduced by 10.9% with an increase in passes compared to 2019 of 3.9%
Least deprived areas - teachers estimates reduced by 9.8% (unable to find data for 2019 in the article)
So the kids from poorer backgrounds have actually done better than last year and the year before, both within their own income group and compared to those from higher income households. The teacher estimated grades have been reduced more because those teacher estimated grades were more inflated than for other income groups.
Here's a rather telling quote from that article - "Swinney and Ucas said the results showed better results and increased university acceptances for pupils from the most deprived neighbourhoods, with the attainment gap between the most and least deprived narrowing."
Now, I wonder who the Guardian decided to quote for all of this manufactured outrage? John Swinney (SNP), Iain Gray (Scottish Labour) and Amna Saleem (comedian and writes for the Guardian and Huffington Post).
At the risk of repeating myself, this is the best workable system that could have been put in place in time. Suggesting that people who don't know these students could come to any reliable judgement for every individual for every subject being taken is wildly optimistic in the time limit. It was hard enough trying to give an accurate estimate when I'd seen the students twice a week for a minimum of 2 academic years.
In all the debates on assessment and examinations, applying a system like this has never been proposed. It suggests a potentially very misplaced faith in statistical modelling (whose source may be the Cummings man) for predicting more or less anything. It makes certain characteristics - class, school, etc. - determining factors in ways that have never formally been before.
Fan. Sh1t. Sound of about to hit.