Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Wee Nippy telt ye !

HE117

LE
JG is not Media she is a comedienne. However, your comments re the meedya are spot on.

Having said that. JG is a Nat.
As I said in the BBC thread, I think the blurring of the edges between comedy and politics as a consequence of "satire" is behind much of the issues we are having at the moment..

JG is being highly political, therefore she has to be considered to be part of the "Media". What is less obvious is when the news and political shows start to behave like comedians..! The whole thing is dog whistling and propaganda and should not be happening on a public forum!
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
As I said in the BBC thread, I think the blurring of the edges between comedy and politics as a consequence of "satire" is behind much of the issues we are having at the moment..

JG is being highly political, therefore she has to be considered to be part of the "Media". What is less obvious is when the news and political shows start to behave like comedians..! The whole thing is dog whistling and propaganda and should not be happening on a public forum!
I think you are over thinking this! :)
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer

Attachments

  • 1596817598883.png
    1596817598883.png
    101.3 KB · Views: 23

offog

LE
Just seen this and I think she should burst all their balls not just the leather ones.

 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
1596836298878.png
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
 
You mean the Scottish students from poorer backgrounds that have done better than they did in 2018 and 2019? Those 120,000 students did NOT have their grades dropped, the unrealistic predictions of their teachers were. https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/poor-uk-education-standards.161079/page-132#post-10187951

Right, carry on.

The Higher pass rate for pupils from the poorest areas dropped by 15.2% between teacher estimates and the final results, but only by 6.9% for pupils in the most affluent areas.
 
The Higher pass rate for pupils from the poorest areas dropped by 15.2% between teacher estimates and the final results, but only by 6.9% for pupils in the most affluent areas.
Yes, because the predictions for the poorest areas were more optimistic than those for the most affluent areas.


Unless an increase of 19.8% in the pass rate in one year for the least affluent is credible? Still, it will be settled next year. If they can manage nearly a 20% rise in one year then surely they can maintain that incredible rate of progress? Even allowing for lockdown the results next year should be at least as good, if not better.
 
Yes, because the predictions for the poorest areas were more optimistic than those for the most affluent areas.


Unless an increase of 19.8% in the pass rate in one year for the least affluent is credible? Still, it will be settled next year. If they can manage nearly a 20% rise in one year then surely they can maintain that incredible rate of progress? Even allowing for lockdown the results next year should be at least as good, if not better.

I look forward for the uproar that will follow the publication of GCSE and A-level results for England very soon, I am sure you will have no complaints after that.
 
I look forward for the uproar that will follow the publication of GCSE and A-level results for England very soon, I am sure you will have no complaints after that.
If there is the same nonsense about 'working class kids being shafted by the evil government' then I will have exactly the same complaints.

Edit - if you're interested in what's actually happened rather than headlines the SQA Impact Assessment is here - https://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/files_cc...fication-model-equality-impact-assessment.pdf

The data for Highers in 2019 starts on page 52 and this graph was quite interesting:
Higher graph 2019.jpg

Effectively, the more deprived the household a child comes from the more likely a teacher is to overestimate their grade at Higher compared to other children from less deprived households. The same pattern is seen at National 5 and Advanced Higher as well.
 
Last edited:
Last post on this one, I promise. I'm interested in the Scottish system because the English version is likely to be very similar.
1596975400028.png


That's my attempt at visualising what's going on. The columns are the year on year changes to the Higher A-C grades, broken down by deprivation. You should be able to see that for the first 3 years based on actual exams there is a general trend for exam results to stay very similar with a slight decrease on average across all levels of home income and the most disadvantaged generally decreasing slightly faster than the most advantaged.

The 4th column is the change from 2019 compared to the predictions submitted by teachers. Suddenly there is rapid improvement across the entire cohort but the most diasdvantaged are predicted to improve by roughly double what the most advantaged will.

The 5th column is the change from 2019 compared to the grades given out by SQA. If that was a normal examination year there would be press articles about dumbing down, lowering standards, being too easy to pass etc.

The 6th column is what happens if grades are reduced 'fairly' across all students. The SQA document I took this from helpfully includes the number of pupils in each advantage grouping. Interestingly there are more than twice as many in the most advantaged group compared to the most disadvantaged (29.5% compared to 13.5%) and taking the reductions per group in a weighted average gives an overall reduction of 10.1% in the A-C rate.

Reducing the teacher predictions by that value and then comparing to the 2019 pass rate gives that where the most disadvantaged are given ridiculously inflated grades and the most advantaged actually perform worse than every year before 2016. That would have got articles about 'class war', 'social engineering' and punishing the most advantaged just because they could go to a school in a richer area.

No matter which metric is used the most disadvantaged students have done better under this system than they have done in years.
 
Last post on this one, I promise. I'm interested in the Scottish system because the English version is likely to be very similar.
View attachment 495725

That's my attempt at visualising what's going on. The columns are the year on year changes to the Higher A-C grades, broken down by deprivation. You should be able to see that for the first 3 years based on actual exams there is a general trend for exam results to stay very similar with a slight decrease on average across all levels of home income and the most disadvantaged generally decreasing slightly faster than the most advantaged.

The 4th column is the change from 2019 compared to the predictions submitted by teachers. Suddenly there is rapid improvement across the entire cohort but the most diasdvantaged are predicted to improve by roughly double what the most advantaged will.

The 5th column is the change from 2019 compared to the grades given out by SQA. If that was a normal examination year there would be press articles about dumbing down, lowering standards, being too easy to pass etc.

The 6th column is what happens if grades are reduced 'fairly' across all students. The SQA document I took this from helpfully includes the number of pupils in each advantage grouping. Interestingly there are more than twice as many in the most advantaged group compared to the most disadvantaged (29.5% compared to 13.5%) and taking the reductions per group in a weighted average gives an overall reduction of 10.1% in the A-C rate.

Reducing the teacher predictions by that value and then comparing to the 2019 pass rate gives that where the most disadvantaged are given ridiculously inflated grades and the most advantaged actually perform worse than every year before 2016. That would have got articles about 'class war', 'social engineering' and punishing the most advantaged just because they could go to a school in a richer area.

No matter which metric is used the most disadvantaged students have done better under this system than they have done in years.

So much so that she has now apologised for them getting it wrong

 

Dr Death

War Hero
Jocks exams are screwed with wee jocks being down marked the poor wee lambs.
Mrs Fish Name very sorry, not her fault, its all the fault of Boris and Westminster, allegedly?
 

Latest Threads

Top