Educashun ain't wot it used to be...

morstar · May 2021

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:
Everybody’s debating around the exam boards and schools but the outcome is an inevitable result of measuring schools on exam grades.
That’s the root cause.
Children are doing better in examined subjects as they are being a taught a narrow curriculum and coached towards achieving grades very successfully.
They are not brighter, they are more successful in specific subjects but they are less broadly educated.
Don’t make out the kids are stupid for the system they’ve been put through.
Luckily the Tories moved away from coursework and towards exam only.
Gove applied a one dimensional ideology to education which is hardly surprising.

I just get fed up with people making out kids are stupid and the exams are easy simply because they feel their own grades are devalued.

Grow a pair and accept that the system has changed for the kids that are in it.

By all means argue for or against the system but don’t make out the kids are stupid and their grades aren’t deserved.
This is the problem with grade inflation in the first place though isn't it? And in any case the argument is that the kids are the same and the exams are easier

I was second or third through the GCSE system. If you think devalued grades are bad now...
Your argument precludes the idea of improvement.
Imagine every school but 1 remains static but one school under a new regime improves considerably. Their better grades should not reduce those of others.
The static schools need to improve and not be static.

So everybody should improve but it not be recognised?

First.Aspect · May 2021

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:
Everybody’s debating around the exam boards and schools but the outcome is an inevitable result of measuring schools on exam grades.
That’s the root cause.
Children are doing better in examined subjects as they are being a taught a narrow curriculum and coached towards achieving grades very successfully.
They are not brighter, they are more successful in specific subjects but they are less broadly educated.
Don’t make out the kids are stupid for the system they’ve been put through.
Luckily the Tories moved away from coursework and towards exam only.
Gove applied a one dimensional ideology to education which is hardly surprising.

I just get fed up with people making out kids are stupid and the exams are easy simply because they feel their own grades are devalued.

Grow a pair and accept that the system has changed for the kids that are in it.

By all means argue for or against the system but don’t make out the kids are stupid and their grades aren’t deserved.
This is the problem with grade inflation in the first place though isn't it? And in any case the argument is that the kids are the same and the exams are easier

I was second or third through the GCSE system. If you think devalued grades are bad now...
Your argument precludes the idea of improvement.
Imagine every school but 1 remains static but one school under a new regime improves considerably. Their better grades should not reduce those of others.
The static schools need to improve and not be static.
So everybody should improve but it not be recognised?

This really isn't complicated. Grades = assessment of children. %'s = assessments of schools, if you really must.

There is no issue with a school going down in overall ranking despite having improved, if other schools have improved more.

Or should it be like school sports day where everyone wins a medal?

rjsterry · May 2021

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:
Everybody’s debating around the exam boards and schools but the outcome is an inevitable result of measuring schools on exam grades.
That’s the root cause.
Children are doing better in examined subjects as they are being a taught a narrow curriculum and coached towards achieving grades very successfully.
They are not brighter, they are more successful in specific subjects but they are less broadly educated.
Don’t make out the kids are stupid for the system they’ve been put through.
Luckily the Tories moved away from coursework and towards exam only.
Gove applied a one dimensional ideology to education which is hardly surprising.

I just get fed up with people making out kids are stupid and the exams are easy simply because they feel their own grades are devalued.

Grow a pair and accept that the system has changed for the kids that are in it.

By all means argue for or against the system but don’t make out the kids are stupid and their grades aren’t deserved.
This is the problem with grade inflation in the first place though isn't it? And in any case the argument is that the kids are the same and the exams are easier

I was second or third through the GCSE system. If you think devalued grades are bad now...
Your argument precludes the idea of improvement.
Imagine every school but 1 remains static but one school under a new regime improves considerably. Their better grades should not reduce those of others.
The static schools need to improve and not be static.
So everybody should improve but it not be recognised?
This really isn't complicated. Grades = assessment of children. %'s = assessments of schools, if you really must.

There is no issue with a school going down in overall ranking despite having improved, if other schools have improved more.

Or should it be like school sports day where everyone wins a medal?

This is just utterly unrealistic. People choose schools to a large degree on the basis of their position in the league tables relative to other local schools. Those tables are based on value added as well as raw results - i.e. how much better than their predicted grade at entry an average child will do. But results are still critical to where the school sits in the table.

Also not sure where you get the idea that everyone gets a medal at sports day. They are highly competitive.

First.Aspect · May 2021

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:
Everybody’s debating around the exam boards and schools but the outcome is an inevitable result of measuring schools on exam grades.
That’s the root cause.
Children are doing better in examined subjects as they are being a taught a narrow curriculum and coached towards achieving grades very successfully.
They are not brighter, they are more successful in specific subjects but they are less broadly educated.
Don’t make out the kids are stupid for the system they’ve been put through.
Luckily the Tories moved away from coursework and towards exam only.
Gove applied a one dimensional ideology to education which is hardly surprising.

I just get fed up with people making out kids are stupid and the exams are easy simply because they feel their own grades are devalued.

Grow a pair and accept that the system has changed for the kids that are in it.

By all means argue for or against the system but don’t make out the kids are stupid and their grades aren’t deserved.
This is the problem with grade inflation in the first place though isn't it? And in any case the argument is that the kids are the same and the exams are easier

I was second or third through the GCSE system. If you think devalued grades are bad now...
Your argument precludes the idea of improvement.
Imagine every school but 1 remains static but one school under a new regime improves considerably. Their better grades should not reduce those of others.
The static schools need to improve and not be static.
So everybody should improve but it not be recognised?
This really isn't complicated. Grades = assessment of children. %'s = assessments of schools, if you really must.

There is no issue with a school going down in overall ranking despite having improved, if other schools have improved more.

Or should it be like school sports day where everyone wins a medal?
This is just utterly unrealistic. People choose schools to a large degree on the basis of their position in the league tables relative to other local schools. Those tables are based on value added as well as raw results - i.e. how much better than their predicted grade at entry an average child will do. But results are still critical to where the school sits in the table.

Also not sure where you get the idea that everyone gets a medal at sports day. They are highly competitive.

What is so complicated here? You have just said that school league tables matter (there's another example of Godwin's law) yet you can't see that's entirely consistent with what I just said.

If you improve but not as much as someone else, you fall behind them.

The only issue here is trying to use the same metric for two largely incompatible things.

DeVlaeminck · May 2021

Put this on the wrong thread but why not give school students a percentile ranking where they stand in that year's cohort AND a grade which is supposed to reflect their absolute level of attainment?

Personally I don't think you can account for the degree of grade inflation we've seen by putting it down to better teaching especially given what friends in higher ed. say about students now vs 30 years ago but it's an argument that - in some subjects at least the likes of maths it may be different - it's almost impossible to resolve.

rick_chasey · May 2021

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:
Everybody’s debating around the exam boards and schools but the outcome is an inevitable result of measuring schools on exam grades.
That’s the root cause.
Children are doing better in examined subjects as they are being a taught a narrow curriculum and coached towards achieving grades very successfully.
They are not brighter, they are more successful in specific subjects but they are less broadly educated.
Don’t make out the kids are stupid for the system they’ve been put through.
Luckily the Tories moved away from coursework and towards exam only.
Gove applied a one dimensional ideology to education which is hardly surprising.

I just get fed up with people making out kids are stupid and the exams are easy simply because they feel their own grades are devalued.

Grow a pair and accept that the system has changed for the kids that are in it.

By all means argue for or against the system but don’t make out the kids are stupid and their grades aren’t deserved.
This is the problem with grade inflation in the first place though isn't it? And in any case the argument is that the kids are the same and the exams are easier

I was second or third through the GCSE system. If you think devalued grades are bad now...
Your argument precludes the idea of improvement.
Imagine every school but 1 remains static but one school under a new regime improves considerably. Their better grades should not reduce those of others.
The static schools need to improve and not be static.
So everybody should improve but it not be recognised?
This really isn't complicated. Grades = assessment of children. %'s = assessments of schools, if you really must.

There is no issue with a school going down in overall ranking despite having improved, if other schools have improved more.

Or should it be like school sports day where everyone wins a medal?
This is just utterly unrealistic. People choose schools to a large degree on the basis of their position in the league tables relative to other local schools. Those tables are based on value added as well as raw results - i.e. how much better than their predicted grade at entry an average child will do. But results are still critical to where the school sits in the table.

Also not sure where you get the idea that everyone gets a medal at sports day. They are highly competitive.
What is so complicated here? You have just said that school league tables matter (there's another example of Godwin's law) yet you can't see that's entirely consistent with what I just said.

If you improve but not as much as someone else, you fall behind them.

The only issue here is trying to use the same metric for two largely incompatible things.

Do you work for McKinsey or something?

morstar · May 2021

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:
Everybody’s debating around the exam boards and schools but the outcome is an inevitable result of measuring schools on exam grades.
That’s the root cause.
Children are doing better in examined subjects as they are being a taught a narrow curriculum and coached towards achieving grades very successfully.
They are not brighter, they are more successful in specific subjects but they are less broadly educated.
Don’t make out the kids are stupid for the system they’ve been put through.
Luckily the Tories moved away from coursework and towards exam only.
Gove applied a one dimensional ideology to education which is hardly surprising.

I just get fed up with people making out kids are stupid and the exams are easy simply because they feel their own grades are devalued.

Grow a pair and accept that the system has changed for the kids that are in it.

By all means argue for or against the system but don’t make out the kids are stupid and their grades aren’t deserved.
This is the problem with grade inflation in the first place though isn't it? And in any case the argument is that the kids are the same and the exams are easier

I was second or third through the GCSE system. If you think devalued grades are bad now...
Your argument precludes the idea of improvement.
Imagine every school but 1 remains static but one school under a new regime improves considerably. Their better grades should not reduce those of others.
The static schools need to improve and not be static.
So everybody should improve but it not be recognised?
This really isn't complicated. Grades = assessment of children. %'s = assessments of schools, if you really must.

There is no issue with a school going down in overall ranking despite having improved, if other schools have improved more.

Or should it be like school sports day where everyone wins a medal?

I agree it’s not complicated and both yourself and TBB are making contradictory arguments.

You can either have a totally flat grading system that simply recognises proportional brightness within your cohort but does not recognise that nationally, one cohort can achieve better results than another cohort.

Or you can mark on an absolute scale that can recognise differences from year to year. The latter is more meaningful in almost every way but comes with the downside of being harder to standardise. Hence all the moaning/discussion about grade inflation.

If you actually have teenage kids, you will recognise that they are being pushed far harder than they used to be* which to me explains the majority of improving grades when paired with a focussed and narrow curriculum.

*Sweeping generalisation.

But going back to my original point. It’s a tangential issue to the real argument that this is policy driven and a logical outcome of making education solely about grades. And bear in mind that Gove classified any below average school as failing.
I.e. 49.9999% of schools assuming mean average.

elbowloh · May 2021

Pross said:
This all looks set to become the most tedious thread in Cake Stop history

Competition is fierce though.

TheBigBean · May 2021

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:
Everybody’s debating around the exam boards and schools but the outcome is an inevitable result of measuring schools on exam grades.
That’s the root cause.
Children are doing better in examined subjects as they are being a taught a narrow curriculum and coached towards achieving grades very successfully.
They are not brighter, they are more successful in specific subjects but they are less broadly educated.
Don’t make out the kids are stupid for the system they’ve been put through.
Luckily the Tories moved away from coursework and towards exam only.
Gove applied a one dimensional ideology to education which is hardly surprising.

I just get fed up with people making out kids are stupid and the exams are easy simply because they feel their own grades are devalued.

Grow a pair and accept that the system has changed for the kids that are in it.

By all means argue for or against the system but don’t make out the kids are stupid and their grades aren’t deserved.
This is the problem with grade inflation in the first place though isn't it? And in any case the argument is that the kids are the same and the exams are easier

I was second or third through the GCSE system. If you think devalued grades are bad now...
Your argument precludes the idea of improvement.
Imagine every school but 1 remains static but one school under a new regime improves considerably. Their better grades should not reduce those of others.
The static schools need to improve and not be static.
So everybody should improve but it not be recognised?

Broadly speaking, yes. Once in a while they can smugly look back on how much better they are than their parents.

morstar · May 2021

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:
Everybody’s debating around the exam boards and schools but the outcome is an inevitable result of measuring schools on exam grades.
That’s the root cause.
Children are doing better in examined subjects as they are being a taught a narrow curriculum and coached towards achieving grades very successfully.
They are not brighter, they are more successful in specific subjects but they are less broadly educated.
Don’t make out the kids are stupid for the system they’ve been put through.
Luckily the Tories moved away from coursework and towards exam only.
Gove applied a one dimensional ideology to education which is hardly surprising.

I just get fed up with people making out kids are stupid and the exams are easy simply because they feel their own grades are devalued.

Grow a pair and accept that the system has changed for the kids that are in it.

By all means argue for or against the system but don’t make out the kids are stupid and their grades aren’t deserved.
This is the problem with grade inflation in the first place though isn't it? And in any case the argument is that the kids are the same and the exams are easier

I was second or third through the GCSE system. If you think devalued grades are bad now...
Your argument precludes the idea of improvement.
Imagine every school but 1 remains static but one school under a new regime improves considerably. Their better grades should not reduce those of others.
The static schools need to improve and not be static.
So everybody should improve but it not be recognised?
Broadly speaking, yes. Once in a while they can smugly look back on how much better they are than their parents.

But they won’t know because the grades wouldn’t tell them 😀

I could argue that grade inflation is beneficial to public schools who wouldn’t want to see their own grades diluted. Improving comprehensives would erode the proportion of top grades in the public school sector.

TheBigBean · May 2021

morstar said:

You can either have a totally flat grading system that simply recognises proportional brightness within your cohort but does not recognise that nationally, one cohort can achieve better results than another cohort.

This is what I would use.

morstar said:

Or you can mark on an absolute scale that can recognise differences from year to year. The latter is more meaningful in almost every way but comes with the downside of being harder to standardise. Hence all the moaning/discussion about grade inflation.

This is extremely difficult to do and should only be done where there isn't a statistically significant number of people taking the exam. For something like GCSE maths, it would be very foolish to try.

One of my professional exams follows this approach, because they have a standard that must be met. The problem is their ability to assess the standard of the exam is terrible, so the pass rate jumped from 35% to 70% in consecutive years. Did the students become twice as clever or twice as good at studying in the space of one year? Or it is possible that one of the exams was actually easier than the super clever assessor thought?

rjsterry · May 2021

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:
Everybody’s debating around the exam boards and schools but the outcome is an inevitable result of measuring schools on exam grades.
That’s the root cause.
Children are doing better in examined subjects as they are being a taught a narrow curriculum and coached towards achieving grades very successfully.
They are not brighter, they are more successful in specific subjects but they are less broadly educated.
Don’t make out the kids are stupid for the system they’ve been put through.
Luckily the Tories moved away from coursework and towards exam only.
Gove applied a one dimensional ideology to education which is hardly surprising.

I just get fed up with people making out kids are stupid and the exams are easy simply because they feel their own grades are devalued.

Grow a pair and accept that the system has changed for the kids that are in it.

By all means argue for or against the system but don’t make out the kids are stupid and their grades aren’t deserved.
This is the problem with grade inflation in the first place though isn't it? And in any case the argument is that the kids are the same and the exams are easier

I was second or third through the GCSE system. If you think devalued grades are bad now...
Your argument precludes the idea of improvement.
Imagine every school but 1 remains static but one school under a new regime improves considerably. Their better grades should not reduce those of others.
The static schools need to improve and not be static.
So everybody should improve but it not be recognised?
This really isn't complicated. Grades = assessment of children. %'s = assessments of schools, if you really must.

There is no issue with a school going down in overall ranking despite having improved, if other schools have improved more.

Or should it be like school sports day where everyone wins a medal?
This is just utterly unrealistic. People choose schools to a large degree on the basis of their position in the league tables relative to other local schools. Those tables are based on value added as well as raw results - i.e. how much better than their predicted grade at entry an average child will do. But results are still critical to where the school sits in the table.

Also not sure where you get the idea that everyone gets a medal at sports day. They are highly competitive.
What is so complicated here? You have just said that school league tables matter (there's another example of Godwin's law) yet you can't see that's entirely consistent with what I just said.

If you improve but not as much as someone else, you fall behind them.

The only issue here is trying to use the same metric for two largely incompatible things.

They use a few different metrics for the tables, but parents still want to know what results the school gets. Every school also has their latest Ofsted report available although these can be a few years out of date and often lag behind significant changes (+ve or - ve) What other metric should parents use to judge a school?

morstar · May 2021

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

You can either have a totally flat grading system that simply recognises proportional brightness within your cohort but does not recognise that nationally, one cohort can achieve better results than another cohort.

This is what I would use.
morstar said:

Or you can mark on an absolute scale that can recognise differences from year to year. The latter is more meaningful in almost every way but comes with the downside of being harder to standardise. Hence all the moaning/discussion about grade inflation.
This is extremely difficult to do and should only be done where there isn't a statistically significant number of people taking the exam. For something like GCSE maths, it would be very foolish to try.

One of my professional exams follows this approach, because they have a standard that must be met. The problem is their ability to assess the standard of the exam is terrible, so the pass rate jumped from 35% to 70% in consecutive years. Did the students become twice as clever or twice as good at studying in the space of one year? Or it is possible that one of the exams was actually easier than the super clever assessor thought?

I think your position is a perfectly reasonable one.
Where I have an issue (not with you specifically) is that this isn’t the system we currently have (rightly or wrongly) and it is argued that grade inflation is purely a result of ease of exams and not reflective of teaching changes.

I think schools are enormously different to when I went. More professional, more structured on the positive side but too narrowly focussed on the negative side.

First.Aspect · May 2021

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:
Everybody’s debating around the exam boards and schools but the outcome is an inevitable result of measuring schools on exam grades.
That’s the root cause.
Children are doing better in examined subjects as they are being a taught a narrow curriculum and coached towards achieving grades very successfully.
They are not brighter, they are more successful in specific subjects but they are less broadly educated.
Don’t make out the kids are stupid for the system they’ve been put through.
Luckily the Tories moved away from coursework and towards exam only.
Gove applied a one dimensional ideology to education which is hardly surprising.

I just get fed up with people making out kids are stupid and the exams are easy simply because they feel their own grades are devalued.

Grow a pair and accept that the system has changed for the kids that are in it.

By all means argue for or against the system but don’t make out the kids are stupid and their grades aren’t deserved.
This is the problem with grade inflation in the first place though isn't it? And in any case the argument is that the kids are the same and the exams are easier

I was second or third through the GCSE system. If you think devalued grades are bad now...
Your argument precludes the idea of improvement.
Imagine every school but 1 remains static but one school under a new regime improves considerably. Their better grades should not reduce those of others.
The static schools need to improve and not be static.
So everybody should improve but it not be recognised?
This really isn't complicated. Grades = assessment of children. %'s = assessments of schools, if you really must.

There is no issue with a school going down in overall ranking despite having improved, if other schools have improved more.

Or should it be like school sports day where everyone wins a medal?
This is just utterly unrealistic. People choose schools to a large degree on the basis of their position in the league tables relative to other local schools. Those tables are based on value added as well as raw results - i.e. how much better than their predicted grade at entry an average child will do. But results are still critical to where the school sits in the table.

Also not sure where you get the idea that everyone gets a medal at sports day. They are highly competitive.
What is so complicated here? You have just said that school league tables matter (there's another example of Godwin's law) yet you can't see that's entirely consistent with what I just said.

If you improve but not as much as someone else, you fall behind them.

The only issue here is trying to use the same metric for two largely incompatible things.
They use a few different metrics for the tables, but parents still want to know what results the school gets. Every school also has their latest Ofsted report available although these can be a few years out of date and often lag behind significant changes (+ve or - ve) What other metric should parents use to judge a school?

What would stop them from looking at the grades? Or any other metric for that matter? None of this excludes the possibility that overall grade inflation is stopped.

There's an earlier post suggesting that different cohorts can vary in ability. I disagree. The numbers are so huge I think it is safe to assume that other than improvement by natural selection, the innate ability of a given year group is constant.

There are also those bleeting about more recent grades being devalued. What about older grades? Two people 5 years apart go to a job interview at which the employer cannot discriminate on the basis of age, so does not ask.

The younger person and older person are in every way equal, but the younger person has better grades.

Fair? Or unfair?

rick_chasey · May 2021

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:
Everybody’s debating around the exam boards and schools but the outcome is an inevitable result of measuring schools on exam grades.
That’s the root cause.
Children are doing better in examined subjects as they are being a taught a narrow curriculum and coached towards achieving grades very successfully.
They are not brighter, they are more successful in specific subjects but they are less broadly educated.
Don’t make out the kids are stupid for the system they’ve been put through.
Luckily the Tories moved away from coursework and towards exam only.
Gove applied a one dimensional ideology to education which is hardly surprising.

I just get fed up with people making out kids are stupid and the exams are easy simply because they feel their own grades are devalued.

Grow a pair and accept that the system has changed for the kids that are in it.

By all means argue for or against the system but don’t make out the kids are stupid and their grades aren’t deserved.
This is the problem with grade inflation in the first place though isn't it? And in any case the argument is that the kids are the same and the exams are easier

I was second or third through the GCSE system. If you think devalued grades are bad now...
Your argument precludes the idea of improvement.
Imagine every school but 1 remains static but one school under a new regime improves considerably. Their better grades should not reduce those of others.
The static schools need to improve and not be static.
So everybody should improve but it not be recognised?
This really isn't complicated. Grades = assessment of children. %'s = assessments of schools, if you really must.

There is no issue with a school going down in overall ranking despite having improved, if other schools have improved more.

Or should it be like school sports day where everyone wins a medal?
This is just utterly unrealistic. People choose schools to a large degree on the basis of their position in the league tables relative to other local schools. Those tables are based on value added as well as raw results - i.e. how much better than their predicted grade at entry an average child will do. But results are still critical to where the school sits in the table.

Also not sure where you get the idea that everyone gets a medal at sports day. They are highly competitive.
What is so complicated here? You have just said that school league tables matter (there's another example of Godwin's law) yet you can't see that's entirely consistent with what I just said.

If you improve but not as much as someone else, you fall behind them.

The only issue here is trying to use the same metric for two largely incompatible things.
They use a few different metrics for the tables, but parents still want to know what results the school gets. Every school also has their latest Ofsted report available although these can be a few years out of date and often lag behind significant changes (+ve or - ve) What other metric should parents use to judge a school?
What would stop them from looking at the grades? Or any other metric for that matter? None of this excludes the possibility that overall grade inflation is stopped.

There's an earlier post suggesting that different cohorts can vary in ability. I disagree. The numbers are so huge I think it is safe to assume that other than improvement by natural selection, the innate ability of a given year group is constant.

There are also those bleeting about more recent grades being devalued. What about older grades? Two people 5 years apart go to a job interview at which the employer cannot discriminate on the basis of age, so does not ask.

The younger person and older person are in every way equal, but the younger person has better grades.

Fair? Or unfair?

lol FA, grades aren't an IQ test. I tend to think exams are roughly as difficult as they were before (as I have grown up with an exam setter who spent most of her time making sure that was the case).

So if the kids have better grades than they're better educated*. Get over it.

(*at whatever metric they're using.)

First.Aspect · May 2021

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:
Everybody’s debating around the exam boards and schools but the outcome is an inevitable result of measuring schools on exam grades.
That’s the root cause.
Children are doing better in examined subjects as they are being a taught a narrow curriculum and coached towards achieving grades very successfully.
They are not brighter, they are more successful in specific subjects but they are less broadly educated.
Don’t make out the kids are stupid for the system they’ve been put through.
Luckily the Tories moved away from coursework and towards exam only.
Gove applied a one dimensional ideology to education which is hardly surprising.

I just get fed up with people making out kids are stupid and the exams are easy simply because they feel their own grades are devalued.

Grow a pair and accept that the system has changed for the kids that are in it.

By all means argue for or against the system but don’t make out the kids are stupid and their grades aren’t deserved.
This is the problem with grade inflation in the first place though isn't it? And in any case the argument is that the kids are the same and the exams are easier

I was second or third through the GCSE system. If you think devalued grades are bad now...
Your argument precludes the idea of improvement.
Imagine every school but 1 remains static but one school under a new regime improves considerably. Their better grades should not reduce those of others.
The static schools need to improve and not be static.
So everybody should improve but it not be recognised?
This really isn't complicated. Grades = assessment of children. %'s = assessments of schools, if you really must.

There is no issue with a school going down in overall ranking despite having improved, if other schools have improved more.

Or should it be like school sports day where everyone wins a medal?
This is just utterly unrealistic. People choose schools to a large degree on the basis of their position in the league tables relative to other local schools. Those tables are based on value added as well as raw results - i.e. how much better than their predicted grade at entry an average child will do. But results are still critical to where the school sits in the table.

Also not sure where you get the idea that everyone gets a medal at sports day. They are highly competitive.
What is so complicated here? You have just said that school league tables matter (there's another example of Godwin's law) yet you can't see that's entirely consistent with what I just said.

If you improve but not as much as someone else, you fall behind them.

The only issue here is trying to use the same metric for two largely incompatible things.
They use a few different metrics for the tables, but parents still want to know what results the school gets. Every school also has their latest Ofsted report available although these can be a few years out of date and often lag behind significant changes (+ve or - ve) What other metric should parents use to judge a school?
What would stop them from looking at the grades? Or any other metric for that matter? None of this excludes the possibility that overall grade inflation is stopped.

There's an earlier post suggesting that different cohorts can vary in ability. I disagree. The numbers are so huge I think it is safe to assume that other than improvement by natural selection, the innate ability of a given year group is constant.

There are also those bleeting about more recent grades being devalued. What about older grades? Two people 5 years apart go to a job interview at which the employer cannot discriminate on the basis of age, so does not ask.

The younger person and older person are in every way equal, but the younger person has better grades.

Fair? Or unfair?
lol FA, grades aren't an IQ test. I tend to think exams are roughly as difficult as they were before (as I have grown up with an exam setter who spent most of her time making sure that was the case).

So if the kids have better grades than they're better educated*. Get over it.

(*at whatever metric they're using.)

We will just end up with all the grades squished into a tiny band at the top,.like they do in North American universities.

Everyone is a winner.

morstar · May 2021

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:
Everybody’s debating around the exam boards and schools but the outcome is an inevitable result of measuring schools on exam grades.
That’s the root cause.
Children are doing better in examined subjects as they are being a taught a narrow curriculum and coached towards achieving grades very successfully.
They are not brighter, they are more successful in specific subjects but they are less broadly educated.
Don’t make out the kids are stupid for the system they’ve been put through.
Luckily the Tories moved away from coursework and towards exam only.
Gove applied a one dimensional ideology to education which is hardly surprising.

I just get fed up with people making out kids are stupid and the exams are easy simply because they feel their own grades are devalued.

Grow a pair and accept that the system has changed for the kids that are in it.

By all means argue for or against the system but don’t make out the kids are stupid and their grades aren’t deserved.
This is the problem with grade inflation in the first place though isn't it? And in any case the argument is that the kids are the same and the exams are easier

I was second or third through the GCSE system. If you think devalued grades are bad now...
Your argument precludes the idea of improvement.
Imagine every school but 1 remains static but one school under a new regime improves considerably. Their better grades should not reduce those of others.
The static schools need to improve and not be static.
So everybody should improve but it not be recognised?
This really isn't complicated. Grades = assessment of children. %'s = assessments of schools, if you really must.

There is no issue with a school going down in overall ranking despite having improved, if other schools have improved more.

Or should it be like school sports day where everyone wins a medal?
This is just utterly unrealistic. People choose schools to a large degree on the basis of their position in the league tables relative to other local schools. Those tables are based on value added as well as raw results - i.e. how much better than their predicted grade at entry an average child will do. But results are still critical to where the school sits in the table.

Also not sure where you get the idea that everyone gets a medal at sports day. They are highly competitive.
What is so complicated here? You have just said that school league tables matter (there's another example of Godwin's law) yet you can't see that's entirely consistent with what I just said.

If you improve but not as much as someone else, you fall behind them.

The only issue here is trying to use the same metric for two largely incompatible things.
They use a few different metrics for the tables, but parents still want to know what results the school gets. Every school also has their latest Ofsted report available although these can be a few years out of date and often lag behind significant changes (+ve or - ve) What other metric should parents use to judge a school?
What would stop them from looking at the grades? Or any other metric for that matter? None of this excludes the possibility that overall grade inflation is stopped.

There's an earlier post suggesting that different cohorts can vary in ability. I disagree. The numbers are so huge I think it is safe to assume that other than improvement by natural selection, the innate ability of a given year group is constant.

There are also those bleeting about more recent grades being devalued. What about older grades? Two people 5 years apart go to a job interview at which the employer cannot discriminate on the basis of age, so does not ask.

The younger person and older person are in every way equal, but the younger person has better grades.

Fair? Or unfair?

Not vary in ability, vary in outcome.
Many schools have or are improving. On an absolute scale one cohort of the same ability mix can achieve more than another.
I believe it is beneficial to recognise this in a perfect world.
I accept standardisation is the challenge to this outcome. A flat system overcomes this challenge but does not recognise that one cohort may be more advanced in educational outcomes than another.

rick_chasey · May 2021

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:
Everybody’s debating around the exam boards and schools but the outcome is an inevitable result of measuring schools on exam grades.
That’s the root cause.
Children are doing better in examined subjects as they are being a taught a narrow curriculum and coached towards achieving grades very successfully.
They are not brighter, they are more successful in specific subjects but they are less broadly educated.
Don’t make out the kids are stupid for the system they’ve been put through.
Luckily the Tories moved away from coursework and towards exam only.
Gove applied a one dimensional ideology to education which is hardly surprising.

I just get fed up with people making out kids are stupid and the exams are easy simply because they feel their own grades are devalued.

Grow a pair and accept that the system has changed for the kids that are in it.

By all means argue for or against the system but don’t make out the kids are stupid and their grades aren’t deserved.
This is the problem with grade inflation in the first place though isn't it? And in any case the argument is that the kids are the same and the exams are easier

I was second or third through the GCSE system. If you think devalued grades are bad now...
Your argument precludes the idea of improvement.
Imagine every school but 1 remains static but one school under a new regime improves considerably. Their better grades should not reduce those of others.
The static schools need to improve and not be static.
So everybody should improve but it not be recognised?
This really isn't complicated. Grades = assessment of children. %'s = assessments of schools, if you really must.

There is no issue with a school going down in overall ranking despite having improved, if other schools have improved more.

Or should it be like school sports day where everyone wins a medal?
This is just utterly unrealistic. People choose schools to a large degree on the basis of their position in the league tables relative to other local schools. Those tables are based on value added as well as raw results - i.e. how much better than their predicted grade at entry an average child will do. But results are still critical to where the school sits in the table.

Also not sure where you get the idea that everyone gets a medal at sports day. They are highly competitive.
What is so complicated here? You have just said that school league tables matter (there's another example of Godwin's law) yet you can't see that's entirely consistent with what I just said.

If you improve but not as much as someone else, you fall behind them.

The only issue here is trying to use the same metric for two largely incompatible things.
They use a few different metrics for the tables, but parents still want to know what results the school gets. Every school also has their latest Ofsted report available although these can be a few years out of date and often lag behind significant changes (+ve or - ve) What other metric should parents use to judge a school?
What would stop them from looking at the grades? Or any other metric for that matter? None of this excludes the possibility that overall grade inflation is stopped.

There's an earlier post suggesting that different cohorts can vary in ability. I disagree. The numbers are so huge I think it is safe to assume that other than improvement by natural selection, the innate ability of a given year group is constant.

There are also those bleeting about more recent grades being devalued. What about older grades? Two people 5 years apart go to a job interview at which the employer cannot discriminate on the basis of age, so does not ask.

The younger person and older person are in every way equal, but the younger person has better grades.

Fair? Or unfair?
lol FA, grades aren't an IQ test. I tend to think exams are roughly as difficult as they were before (as I have grown up with an exam setter who spent most of her time making sure that was the case).

So if the kids have better grades than they're better educated*. Get over it.

(*at whatever metric they're using.)
We will just end up with all the grades squished into a tiny band at the top,.like they do in North American universities.

Everyone is a winner.

If too many people are squished at the top they will eventually make the exams more difficult.

To take an extreme example, would you expect a student from the late 19th Century to perform as well as you did in your exams if doing the same paper? I would assume not.

First.Aspect · May 2021

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:
Everybody’s debating around the exam boards and schools but the outcome is an inevitable result of measuring schools on exam grades.
That’s the root cause.
Children are doing better in examined subjects as they are being a taught a narrow curriculum and coached towards achieving grades very successfully.
They are not brighter, they are more successful in specific subjects but they are less broadly educated.
Don’t make out the kids are stupid for the system they’ve been put through.
Luckily the Tories moved away from coursework and towards exam only.
Gove applied a one dimensional ideology to education which is hardly surprising.

I just get fed up with people making out kids are stupid and the exams are easy simply because they feel their own grades are devalued.

Grow a pair and accept that the system has changed for the kids that are in it.

By all means argue for or against the system but don’t make out the kids are stupid and their grades aren’t deserved.
This is the problem with grade inflation in the first place though isn't it? And in any case the argument is that the kids are the same and the exams are easier

I was second or third through the GCSE system. If you think devalued grades are bad now...
Your argument precludes the idea of improvement.
Imagine every school but 1 remains static but one school under a new regime improves considerably. Their better grades should not reduce those of others.
The static schools need to improve and not be static.
So everybody should improve but it not be recognised?
This really isn't complicated. Grades = assessment of children. %'s = assessments of schools, if you really must.

There is no issue with a school going down in overall ranking despite having improved, if other schools have improved more.

Or should it be like school sports day where everyone wins a medal?
This is just utterly unrealistic. People choose schools to a large degree on the basis of their position in the league tables relative to other local schools. Those tables are based on value added as well as raw results - i.e. how much better than their predicted grade at entry an average child will do. But results are still critical to where the school sits in the table.

Also not sure where you get the idea that everyone gets a medal at sports day. They are highly competitive.
What is so complicated here? You have just said that school league tables matter (there's another example of Godwin's law) yet you can't see that's entirely consistent with what I just said.

If you improve but not as much as someone else, you fall behind them.

The only issue here is trying to use the same metric for two largely incompatible things.
They use a few different metrics for the tables, but parents still want to know what results the school gets. Every school also has their latest Ofsted report available although these can be a few years out of date and often lag behind significant changes (+ve or - ve) What other metric should parents use to judge a school?
What would stop them from looking at the grades? Or any other metric for that matter? None of this excludes the possibility that overall grade inflation is stopped.

There's an earlier post suggesting that different cohorts can vary in ability. I disagree. The numbers are so huge I think it is safe to assume that other than improvement by natural selection, the innate ability of a given year group is constant.

There are also those bleeting about more recent grades being devalued. What about older grades? Two people 5 years apart go to a job interview at which the employer cannot discriminate on the basis of age, so does not ask.

The younger person and older person are in every way equal, but the younger person has better grades.

Fair? Or unfair?
lol FA, grades aren't an IQ test. I tend to think exams are roughly as difficult as they were before (as I have grown up with an exam setter who spent most of her time making sure that was the case).

So if the kids have better grades than they're better educated*. Get over it.

(*at whatever metric they're using.)
We will just end up with all the grades squished into a tiny band at the top,.like they do in North American universities.

Everyone is a winner.
If too many people are squished at the top they will eventually make the exams more difficult.

To take an extreme example, would you expect a student from the late 19th Century to perform as well as you did in your exams if doing the same paper? I would assume not.

That's a joke right?

How about vice versa?

TheBigBean · May 2021

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

You can either have a totally flat grading system that simply recognises proportional brightness within your cohort but does not recognise that nationally, one cohort can achieve better results than another cohort.

This is what I would use.
morstar said:

Or you can mark on an absolute scale that can recognise differences from year to year. The latter is more meaningful in almost every way but comes with the downside of being harder to standardise. Hence all the moaning/discussion about grade inflation.
This is extremely difficult to do and should only be done where there isn't a statistically significant number of people taking the exam. For something like GCSE maths, it would be very foolish to try.

One of my professional exams follows this approach, because they have a standard that must be met. The problem is their ability to assess the standard of the exam is terrible, so the pass rate jumped from 35% to 70% in consecutive years. Did the students become twice as clever or twice as good at studying in the space of one year? Or it is possible that one of the exams was actually easier than the super clever assessor thought?
I think your position is a perfectly reasonable one.
Where I have an issue (not with you specifically) is that this isn’t the system we currently have (rightly or wrongly) and it is argued that grade inflation is purely a result of ease of exams and not reflective of teaching changes.

I think schools are enormously different to when I went. More professional, more structured on the positive side but too narrowly focussed on the negative side.

Teacher, schools, exam boards etc. argue it is a result of better teaching. The old and grumpy just say standards aren't what they used to be. I argue it is due to the privatisation of exam boards and the need for them to compete. How does anyone expect them to compete other than with grades offered? Universities are now playing the same game.

DeVlaeminck · May 2021

Between 2011 and 2019 the percentage of first class degrees rose from 16% to 30% - huge credit to universities for such a huge improvement in teaching quality ?? I mean who are they kidding.

First.Aspect · May 2021

Exactly. With universities you also get pushy students/parents questioning grades because, well, we paid a lot for this course. With schools, because house prices can be used as a form of GPS around schools, you get exactly the same thing.

First.Aspect · May 2021

DeVlaeminck said:
Between 2011 and 2019 the percentage of first class degrees rose from 16% to 30% - huge credit to universities for such a huge improvement in teaching quality ?? I mean who are they kidding.

Mostly driven by the newer ones I think. Was always about 25% where I did mine, but some friends did courses where only one or two were offered.

The end result of that inflation is We are right back where we all started - employers look at the reputation of the university and the grade together as a whole.

Mind you we hired some people with firsts from Russell Group unis and my god. They don't graduate with a degree certificate, they given them a spoon instead, so you can more easily spoon feed them solutions to any problem they encounter.

DeVlaeminck · May 2021

Nobody in my subject got a first in my subject year - out of about 60 - I came close but my year 1 subjects dragged my average down - unsurprising as my eldest bro was killed in a car crash that Oct and I couldn't really concentrate on the course. Managed to get a distinction in a masters in same subject so I'm not bitter...much.!!!

Pross · May 2021

elbowloh said:

Pross said:
This all looks set to become the most tedious thread in Cake Stop history
Competition is fierce though.

It's holding its own at the moment.

First.Aspect · May 2021

Pross said:

elbowloh said:

Pross said:
This all looks set to become the most tedious thread in Cake Stop history
Competition is fierce though.
It's holding its own at the moment.

Go to another thread then? There are a few thousand to chose from.

focuszing723 · May 2021

Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater.

Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.

I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.

A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new.

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Intellectual growth should commence at birth and cease only at death.

It is the supreme art of the teacher to awaken joy in creative expression and knowledge.

Knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be.

Most people say that is it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.

The only source of knowledge is experience.

The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.

rjsterry · May 2021

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:
Everybody’s debating around the exam boards and schools but the outcome is an inevitable result of measuring schools on exam grades.
That’s the root cause.
Children are doing better in examined subjects as they are being a taught a narrow curriculum and coached towards achieving grades very successfully.
They are not brighter, they are more successful in specific subjects but they are less broadly educated.
Don’t make out the kids are stupid for the system they’ve been put through.
Luckily the Tories moved away from coursework and towards exam only.
Gove applied a one dimensional ideology to education which is hardly surprising.

I just get fed up with people making out kids are stupid and the exams are easy simply because they feel their own grades are devalued.

Grow a pair and accept that the system has changed for the kids that are in it.

By all means argue for or against the system but don’t make out the kids are stupid and their grades aren’t deserved.
This is the problem with grade inflation in the first place though isn't it? And in any case the argument is that the kids are the same and the exams are easier

I was second or third through the GCSE system. If you think devalued grades are bad now...
Your argument precludes the idea of improvement.
Imagine every school but 1 remains static but one school under a new regime improves considerably. Their better grades should not reduce those of others.
The static schools need to improve and not be static.
So everybody should improve but it not be recognised?
This really isn't complicated. Grades = assessment of children. %'s = assessments of schools, if you really must.

There is no issue with a school going down in overall ranking despite having improved, if other schools have improved more.

Or should it be like school sports day where everyone wins a medal?
This is just utterly unrealistic. People choose schools to a large degree on the basis of their position in the league tables relative to other local schools. Those tables are based on value added as well as raw results - i.e. how much better than their predicted grade at entry an average child will do. But results are still critical to where the school sits in the table.

Also not sure where you get the idea that everyone gets a medal at sports day. They are highly competitive.
What is so complicated here? You have just said that school league tables matter (there's another example of Godwin's law) yet you can't see that's entirely consistent with what I just said.

If you improve but not as much as someone else, you fall behind them.

The only issue here is trying to use the same metric for two largely incompatible things.
They use a few different metrics for the tables, but parents still want to know what results the school gets. Every school also has their latest Ofsted report available although these can be a few years out of date and often lag behind significant changes (+ve or - ve) What other metric should parents use to judge a school?
What would stop them from looking at the grades? Or any other metric for that matter? None of this excludes the possibility that overall grade inflation is stopped.

There's an earlier post suggesting that different cohorts can vary in ability. I disagree. The numbers are so huge I think it is safe to assume that other than improvement by natural selection, the innate ability of a given year group is constant.

There are also those bleeting about more recent grades being devalued. What about older grades? Two people 5 years apart go to a job interview at which the employer cannot discriminate on the basis of age, so does not ask.

The younger person and older person are in every way equal, but the younger person has better grades.

Fair? Or unfair?

Exams aren't testing innate ability. They are measuring taught ability: how well a student has memorised a set of information and how well they can apply that. There is a correlation between results and ability, but it is not as direct.

As for whether it is fair that A* or A** grades weren't available when I did my A levels, who cares? We are only really interested in comparisons over, say, the last 5 years. GCSEs are now graded 1-9 which doesn't easily translate to the old A-E and the syllabus is different anyway so there's no need to worry about it.

rjsterry · May 2021

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:
Between 2011 and 2019 the percentage of first class degrees rose from 16% to 30% - huge credit to universities for such a huge improvement in teaching quality ?? I mean who are they kidding.
Mostly driven by the newer ones I think. Was always about 25% where I did mine, but some friends did courses where only one or two were offered.

The end result of that inflation is We are right back where we all started - employers look at the reputation of the university and the grade together as a whole.

Mind you we hired some people with firsts from Russell Group unis and my god. They don't graduate with a degree certificate, they given them a spoon instead, so you can more easily spoon feed them solutions to any problem they encounter.

I realise a lot of people don't have a portfolio to get them on to the interview list, but maybe employers need to be a bit more creative. "Send us a CV and one side of A4 on X".

First.Aspect · May 2021

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:
Between 2011 and 2019 the percentage of first class degrees rose from 16% to 30% - huge credit to universities for such a huge improvement in teaching quality ?? I mean who are they kidding.
Mostly driven by the newer ones I think. Was always about 25% where I did mine, but some friends did courses where only one or two were offered.

The end result of that inflation is We are right back where we all started - employers look at the reputation of the university and the grade together as a whole.

Mind you we hired some people with firsts from Russell Group unis and my god. They don't graduate with a degree certificate, they given them a spoon instead, so you can more easily spoon feed them solutions to any problem they encounter.
I realise a lot of people don't have a portfolio to get them on to the interview list, but maybe employers need to be a bit more creative. "Send us a CV and one side of A4 on X".

A CV is just a first cut. Who would want to read 200 pages of inspirational bilge from each of 200 applicants?

There's a lot of limited thinking going on here. Exams, just as in life, test a mix of intelligence and application. They also filter for socioeconomic status and luck, but that's another story. So do all other assessment methods.

Fair point that a moving 5 year window is all anyone cares about. Frankly in job interviews GCSEs are pretty much irrelevant entirely.

Educashun ain't wot it used to be...

Comments

Categories