Discussion about this post

User's avatar
AnonymousEd's avatar

The thing that strikes me personally about this, is how much student self-perception plays into the subject selection and thus the data.

Students don't like the idea of being in studies. If the option among their friend group is standard and advanced and they feel they are on the "top half" of their friends intellectually or whatever, they really don't like doing standard.

So kids feel a need to prove themselves in an education world that has definitely moved away from streaming earlier years by ability. It's their first chance to put themselves in a "class category". And their own data set is absolutely tiny and rarely very objective as English teachers are not rewarded for marking honestly in earlier years. Really the ABCD range is a very relative mix compared to Science or Maths with wrong and right answers. If the whole cohort in a maths exam gets less than 60/100 the teacher's hands are tied. In English it's more tied the other way of "why be cruel?"

And I think all of this flows through into the HSC and HSC exam marking.

We've just gotten back marks and we have a very small cohort so we know them well and we don't have many numbers to compare. And we've seen one of our weakest students who was sick the day she did paper 2 and absent for paper 1. But she got exactly the same mark as our best student who wins awards on other external academic competitions.

I can't shake the sense that the weaker student got marked after the marker read some truly terrible papers, while the stronger student got a different marker with the reverse. Because the weaker student didn't do the short answer component she's been able to use prepared responses for all.

If we take Ext 2 and its volatility, it may be far more typical of how English is marked, but the rest gets "sanitised" by the norming presence of large numbers.

Expand full comment

No posts