"Board of Studies lashed over HSC" and other stories (2 Viewers)

[ninetypercent]

Re: "Board of Studies lashed over HSC", "HSC marks out of the dark"

They don't want people to know just how much the align subjects upwards.

Particularly at the Band 2 level where raw marks could be in the high teens (certainly in the low 20s) and yet get reported as 50%.

Now to most people 50% means that you got half the paper right but a raw mark of 20% says that you got 80% of the paper wrong. However the BOS could, and in some subjects even lower, raise that 20 to 50 and so tell the world that 80% wrong on a paper = 50% right.

Even a Band 6 of exactly 90 could be raised from 2 - 8/9 marks.

In addition they don't want anyone to think that they are manipulating the figures to say that kids are getting brighter because more kids are getting Band 6's and fewer are getting Band 1.s when in fact they are lowering the cut-offs to allow that to happen (in Britain where they have had a similar system in place it was getting so bad that in 2002 they predicted that if the current rate of increase continued then by 2007 over 100% of students would get a pass at the highest level - they changed the system slightly to stop that happening).

Thanks cem. That was helpful

 

[4theHSC]

Re: "Board of Studies lashed over HSC", "HSC marks out of the dark"

What puzzles me is why people want to know their raw marks? I mean your actual mark is probably lower, but every subject is different and so a comparison has to be made. Why are students complaining? Have trust in the system people... It worked for almost 10 years now.

 

[cem]

Re: "Board of Studies lashed over HSC", "HSC marks out of the dark"

What puzzles me is why people want to know their raw marks? I mean your actual mark is probably lower, but every subject is different and so a comparison has to be made. Why are students complaining? Have trust in the system people... It worked for almost 10 years now.

Some people don't like being lied to (and that is what the BOS is doing with aligning) or don't like the system that manipulates marks to make it look like students are getting brighter when they aren't (or that the teachers are getting better).

It is the same with the NAPLAN results. It always amazes me that kids who are barely literate in class get NAPLAN (and previouly ELLA) results of Bands 5 and 6.

 

[we0426]

its true but y would any body wanna get their raw mark of lets say 65 in chem when the have scaled that up too 82..

i would be happy to see that 82 on my paper than seeing 62..coz it well make any one feel proude even though u got raw mark of 62 but that mark has beaten 82 % of the state thats y u get the mark of 82..lol

its all about comparison as u said before..

 

[boxhunter91]

I actually wouldnt want to see 82. It will disappoint me. I wouldnt mind at least 85 for all three sciences

 

[jet]

But wouldn't you want to know your performance just so you know how you 'actually' went for the future?

Lets say you got 65 in chem and it got moderated to an 82. Obviously you have some work to do, but getting an 82 prevents you from truly knowing that. If you were going to do science at uni, and chem was compulsory, I'd like to know how hard I actually have to work.

 

[mystiques4]

Since i havent sit my paper yet, i want to know what time of mark i should be aiming around to get Band 5/6 etc

 

[ninetypercent]

Also because students want to know how close they were to achieving a certain band. For students that haven't done their HSC yet, they would like to know what raw mark would equate to a certain band.

 

[sam5]

Since i havent sit my paper yet, i want to know what time of mark i should be aiming around to get Band 5/6 etc

me too...for bio, chem, legal, pe, adv eng and 2 u maths.

 

[Cloesd]

Guys... We should start a revoloution to overthrow this tyrannical system... Wel'l set a day, and clog the main entrance to BOS with protest signs and other lulz.

.... Hide raw marks against THAT motherf...

 

[cem]

its true but y would any body wanna get their raw mark of lets say 65 in chem when the have scaled that up too 82..

i would be happy to see that 82 on my paper than seeing 62..coz it well make any one feel proude even though u got raw mark of 62 but that mark has beaten 82 % of the state thats y u get the mark of 82..lol

its all about comparison as u said before..

A mark of 82% doesn't mean that you beat 82% of the state (an ATAR of 82 means top 82% of the state).

A mark of 82 means that the judges believe that the responses of say 60 raw match the Performance Descriptor Bands for 80 so marks between that 60 and say 84 (the imaginery cut-off for Band 6) have to be squeezed into the range 80 and 89.


Also getting 82% would say to you and your family that you know 80% of the work rather than knowing only 60%.

I do hope that many of you will demand your raw marks so that the BOS starts to realise that this whole aligning thing is simply a manipulation of results to make them feel that they are doing well.

 

[we0426]

YES I AGREE..THAT THEY SHOULD GIVE UR RAW MARK..

BY THE WAY "y" WOULD ANY BODY BE DOING CHEM IF THEY ARE GETHING MARKS LIKE 60..UNLESS THE EXAM WAS REALY HARD..

PpLL LIKE I GOT 73% TRIAL MARK FOR CHEM..AVERAGE MARK..78 WHOLE YEAR.. I CAME 4 OVERALLL IN MY SCHOOL...BUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME AND FIRST PLACE IS BY 8 MARKS :angry:..

so if ur doing shit in a subject droping would have been a great choice but ..now u just have to sit for it....=(

any ways...i think this is a waste of time talkin about it..coz if we stop talkin about this shit...we would be studian and therefore from marks of 65.. we would be gething marks like 80..so stop wasting time here....lol

 

[we0426]

A mark of 82% doesn't mean that you beat 82% of the state (an ATAR of 82 means top 82% of the state).

A mark of 82 means that the judges believe that the responses of say 60 raw match the Performance Descriptor Bands for 80 so marks between that 60 and say 84 (the imaginery cut-off for Band 6) have to be squeezed into the range 80 and 89.


Also getting 82% would say to you and your family that you know 80% of the work rather than knowing only 60%.

I do hope that many of you will demand your raw marks so that the BOS starts to realise that this whole aligning thing is simply a manipulation of results to make them feel that they are doing well.

sorrY CEM UR RIGHT........my bad people.......lol..

 

[tommykins]

i sometimes wonder the thought process of the posters like the one above me.

 

[we0426]

i sometimes wonder the thought process of the posters like the one above me.

huh??lol

 

[helper]

A mark of 82% doesn't mean that you beat 82% of the state (an ATAR of 82 means top 82% of the state).

A mark of 82 means that the judges believe that the responses of say 60 raw match the Performance Descriptor Bands for 80 so marks between that 60 and say 84 (the imaginery cut-off for Band 6) have to be squeezed into the range 80 and 89.


Also getting 82% would say to you and your family that you know 80% of the work rather than knowing only 60%.

I do hope that many of you will demand your raw marks so that the BOS starts to realise that this whole aligning thing is simply a manipulation of results to make them feel that they are doing well.

Except as you know a raw mark of 60% doesn't mean you know 60% of the work in the course because of only a fraction of the course being examined. It also means that there is no comparison from one year to the next.

A standards based approach is a better way of allowing employers to compare between years, if BOS ever educated the public properly.

At the same time to make BAND 2 start at 50 is misleading. By keeping a 100 scale, people straight away think it means its a percentage. They would have been better off using an even scale to 60, with each 10 representing a band.

 

[cem]

Except as you know a raw mark of 60% doesn't mean you know 60% of the work in the course because of only a fraction of the course being examined. It also means that there is no comparison from one year to the next.

A standards based approach is a better way of allowing employers to compare between years, if BOS ever educated the public properly.

At the same time to make BAND 2 start at 50 is misleading. By keeping a 100 scale, people straight away think it means its a percentage. They would have been better off using an even scale to 60, with each 10 representing a band.

The BOS hasn't the money to attempt to educate the public so it is easier to use a system that the public can relate to - namely 50% = a -pass but the BOS wants Band 2 = minimum acceptable standard and hence Band 2 = 50% or above.

That is where the problem comes.

At the very least the course mean should be given to students when getting their aligned mark so that an aligned mark of 78 with a course mean of 75 would tell the student and everyone else that they are just above the average for that course whereas a mark of 93 with a mean of 78 would let people know that they are a far way above the average.

I don't like standards reference, any more than I like bell curve, which preceded it as neither are truthful.

 

[helper]

The BOS hasn't the money to attempt to educate the public so it is easier to use a system that the public can relate to - namely 50% = a -pass but the BOS wants Band 2 = minimum acceptable standard and hence Band 2 = 50% or above.

What you mean is 50, because the board never refers to these marks as %. That is why I don't like the scale out of 100, because people immediately think it is a %.

Board doesn't have a minimum acceptable standard. The 50 in each subject has a different meaning and it is described by the performance descriptor. It is up to the reader of the standards, to decide what is a minimum acceptable standard, either for the position they are looking at or for the individual.

The way I see it is 50-60, means you know something about the course but not much. For a lot of students, I wouldn't say that is an acceptable standard.

That is where the problem comes.

At the very least the course mean should be given to students when getting their aligned mark so that an aligned mark of 78 with a course mean of 75 would tell the student and everyone else that they are just above the average for that course whereas a mark of 93 with a mean of 78 would let people know that they are a far way above the average.

But a mean has no meaning by itself. That is why they provide the performance band descriptors each year, showing spread of marks. Which is much more meaningful, than just a mean
Performance Band Descriptors - 2008 HSC - Board of Studies NSW

I don't like standards reference, any more than I like bell curve, which preceded it as neither are truthful.

So what system would you like?

 

[cem]

What you mean is 50, because the board never refers to these marks as %. That is why I don't like the scale out of 100, because people immediately think it is a %.

Board doesn't have a minimum acceptable standard. The 50 in each subject has a different meaning and it is described by the performance descriptor. It is up to the reader of the standards, to decide what is a minimum acceptable standard, either for the position they are looking at or for the individual.

The way I see it is 50-60, means you know something about the course but not much. For a lot of students, I wouldn't say that is an acceptable standard.



But a mean has no meaning by itself. That is why they provide the performance band descriptors each year, showing spread of marks. Which is much more meaningful, than just a mean
Performance Band Descriptors - 2008 HSC - Board of Studies NSW



So what system would you like?

The BOS when describing the changes to the system to teachers describe Band 2 as the 'minimum acceptable standard'. That is where that phrase comes from.

It is also used to the judges when determining the cut-offs between Band 1 and 2 - at least it has been used when I have been doing the judging.

Certainly each course has a different minimum acceptable standard but the board means 50% as that is what the general public associate with a 'pass' and where the whole idea came from. Initially the BOS weren't going to go with marks at all but just use Bands but then employers wanted marks so that they could compare students within different bands so it was felt necessary to report marks and so 50% which people associate with a pass became the cut-off for Bands1/2 and thus we get the aligning up of the marks so that an marking range of 0 - 100 as it is in most courses effectively becomes a range from 50 - 100 but the majority of people don't know that (even some teachers I have worked with and many students who get all excited when they get a series of marks in the 70s and then get a UAI (ATAR now of course) in the 60s or even lower.

It is most frustrating and disheartening for a really hardworking student who isn't very bright who gets a series of marks in the 60s but a UAI in the 40s because they simply don't have a true indication of where they fit and they think they have done so much better than they have ever done before.

The Performance Descriptor Bands are fairly meaningless to many people but a simple mean for each coures would immediately tell a person where they in relation to the rest of the cohort - better than, worse than or about the middle. The problem with the Performance Descriptor Bands is that they describe in a general way what a student might be able to do but there is no guarantee that a student in that band can do some of the things there - they might be very good in one area and really a Band 6 in some category but a Band 4 in another and get a Band 5.

I would like to see kids get their raw marks and the mean and median reported rather than the manipulation and lying that is going on at the moment. Maybe then people will realise just how much standards have slipped.

 

[helper]

The BOS when describing the changes to the system to teachers describe Band 2 as the 'minimum acceptable standard'. That is where that phrase comes from.

It is also used to the judges when determining the cut-offs between Band 1 and 2 - at least it has been used when I have been doing the judging.

I would disagree and when pilot through the judging process, it wasn't used. They stated it is the minimum standard they will acknowledge as a student having completed the course. When asked was it the minimal acceptable standard, the answer was no.

This may be due to different people from BOS giving the training.

Certainly each course has a different minimum acceptable standard but the board means 50% as that is what the general public associate with a 'pass' and where the whole idea came from. Initially the BOS weren't going to go with marks at all but just use Bands but then employers wanted marks so that they could compare students within different bands so it was felt necessary to report marks and so 50% which people associate with a pass became the cut-off for Bands1/2 and thus we get the aligning up of the marks so that an marking range of 0 - 100 as it is in most courses effectively becomes a range from 50 - 100 but the majority of people don't know that (even some teachers I have worked with and many students who get all excited when they get a series of marks in the 70s and then get a UAI (ATAR now of course) in the 60s or even lower.

I will restate BOS doesn't work in %. It is as bad as saying ATAR or UAI are %.

It is most frustrating and disheartening for a really hardworking student who isn't very bright who gets a series of marks in the 60s but a UAI in the 40s because they simply don't have a true indication of where they fit and they think they have done so much better than they have ever done before.

Which is where it is your schools responsibility to explain beforehand what the bands mean and state they aren't going to mean a good UAI.

Education is the answer, not the system in this case.

The Performance Descriptor Bands are fairly meaningless to many people but a simple mean for each coures would immediately tell a person where they in relation to the rest of the cohort - better than, worse than or about the middle. The problem with the Performance Descriptor Bands is that they describe in a general way what a student might be able to do but there is no guarantee that a student in that band can do some of the things there - they might be very good in one area and really a Band 6 in some category but a Band 4 in another and get a Band 5.

I would like to see kids get their raw marks and the mean and median reported rather than the manipulation and lying that is going on at the moment. Maybe then people will realise just how much standards have slipped.

I will repeat again a MEAN or a MEDIAN by themselves or together are meaningless. It is something I have been stating about a lot of school reports for years. You need a S.D. with a mean to make it have any meaning.