New Grading System

ShoulderChip

Anonymagician wrote: »

I love the idea of subjects carrying more weight if they're relevant to your college course but 1% losing 15 points is sort of insane.

Why can they not just do a point per percent?
You get your result in the form
92% A1, 92 points.

CAO courses based on total points and certain criteria exampel a B2 in maths or whatever.

rainbowtrout

ShoulderChip wrote: »

Why can they not just do a point per percent?
You get your result in the form
92% A1, 92 points.

CAO courses based on total points and certain criteria exampel a B2 in maths or whatever.

Because everyone in the country would appeal every single one of their exams.

Anonymagician

ShoulderChip wrote: »

Why can they not just do a point per percent?
You get your result in the form
92% A1, 92 points.

CAO courses based on total points and certain criteria exampel a B2 in maths or whatever.

The bands are superior imo. As others have said it places far more competition/stress etc on the student. Imagine not getting your course by 1 point - in a lot of subjects that's just two marks.

No system will ever be perfect unfortunately, but I can see what they're trying to do.

EoghanIRL

I don't really think a new grading system is needed. One of the main points for it is that it will give points to people in the 30-40 % band.

What would be a better use of resources would be developing new subjects such as computer science , physiology , behavioral science
etc..
Remodel the existing curriculums to be more relevant to the times we live in.

Midkemia

Just going to leave this here.

I and about 100 other secondary school students (I was in 5th year at the time) were invited to the department of education to discuss new grading proposals. There was three different new grading bands proposed including this one, and also we could pick the existing grading bands .

This new grading band was by far the most popular choice, and it's nice to see that they listened to us. Don't presume they didn't get student feedback when you don't know all the facts.

EoghanIRL

Midkemia wrote: »

Just going to leave this here.

I and about 100 other secondary school students (I was in 5th year at the time) were invited to the department of education to discuss new grading proposals. There was three different new grading bands proposed including this one, and also we could pick the existing grading bands .

This new grading band was by far the most popular choice, and it's nice to see that they listened to us. Don't presume they didn't get student feedback when you don't know all the facts.

What were the other grading options?

qweerty

Magnate wrote: »

Do we?

As I said, I regret if that claim is contentious, and further explained in a previous post what I meant. However, I don't think the stats you present are evidence either way. More people got an A1 in Higher Maths, last year, than in either of those, despite the fact that a high grade in Higher Maths, if only by dint of being a two-paper exam, is generally considered more impressive than a similar grade in many of the option subjects. Even more compelling, Higher Maths is unquestionably more difficult than Ordinary Maths yet more people got A1's in the former.

EoghanIRL wrote: »

I don't really think a new grading system is needed. One of the main points for it is that it will give points to people in the 30-40 % band.

What would be a better use of resources would be developing new subjects such as computer science , physiology , behavioral science
etc..
Remodel the existing curriculums to be more relevant to the times we live in.

Giving points to people below 40% (technically 39%!) could be easily done under the current system by redefining an E-grade as 30%-40%. So I don't think that was part of the rationale. Introducing and changing curriculums is far more complex than adjusting the grading system, so while I agree that new subjects would be very welcome, I don't think it's a case of prioritising one over the other.

EoghanIRL wrote: »

What were the other grading options?

Here's the report: Link.

MathsManiac

qweerty wrote: »

Here's the report: Link.

Actually, that's the report on a different consultation - one about asking teachers what grading and feedback practices they currently use.

The report on the consultation that EoghanIRL referred to is here:
http://ncca.ie/en/file/post_primary/T_1.pdf

evolving_doors

Midkemia wrote: »

Just going to leave this here.

I and about 100 other secondary school students (I was in 5th year at the time) were invited to the department of education to discuss new grading proposals. There was three different new grading bands proposed including this one, and also we could pick the existing grading bands .

This new grading band was by far the most popular choice, and it's nice to see that they listened to us. Don't presume they didn't get student feedback when you don't know all the facts.

Interesting,

Did they offer the option of discussing the merits of the current system compared to the three new options?

spurious

It looks from the report that there were no Leaving Cert. Applied people involved? All the stuff about not being prepared for life (work, tax, mortgages etc.) would indicate that they were not there, or kept very quiet, as all that is a major part of the LCA.

qweerty

There was an opinion piece in the Irish Times on Thursday about this: Link.

Edit: it's quite a poor article. I doubt it'll assuage many fears.

MathsManiac wrote: »

Actually, that's the report on a different consultation - one about asking teachers what grading and feedback practices they currently use.

The report on the consultation that EoghanIRL referred to is here:
http://ncca.ie/en/file/post_primary/T_1.pdf

Sh1t, sorry, I had both of them saved as bookmarks and just linked the first one I saw that had grading in the title!

Midkemia

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Interesting,

Did they offer the option of discussing the merits of the current system compared to the three new options?

While I'm nearly sure they did, it doesn't appear to be in the report. The day definitely began with discussing the positives and negatives of the current system.

spurious wrote: »

It looks from the report that there were no Leaving Cert. Applied people involved? All the stuff about not being prepared for life (work, tax, mortgages etc.) would indicate that they were not there, or kept very quiet, as all that is a major part of the LCA.

There was no Leaving Cert Applied students at the student consultation.

randylonghorn

ShoulderChip wrote: »

Why can they not just do a point per percent?
You get your result in the form
92% A1, 92 points..

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Because everyone in the country would appeal every single one of their exams.

+1000

Plus people would be having nervous breakdowns after every exam over every single tiny possible error, as it might cost them a percentage point and therefore a CAO point and therefore a place.

It's bad enough under the current band system, and that's part of the rationale for widening the bands. Whether people agree or disagree with broadening the bands, in my opinion narrowing them still further would be hugely counter-productive. I accept that there's an argument in maths / logic for it, but the emotional fallout on students in terms of pressure / stress would be horrendous imo.

EoghanIRL

Is there actually anything wrong with the current system?
It doesn't suit everyone fine, but no system will suit everyone.
Is it as simple as giving points for an E grade? I can't see any reason to change the grading.
Most people who have problems with the leaving cert don't seem to be giving out about the grading bands but instead the fact that everything depends on one exam at the end of the year etc.

Midkemia

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Is there actually anything wrong with the current system?
It doesn't suit everyone fine, but no system will suit everyone.
Is it as simple as giving points for an E grade? I can't see any reason to change the grading.
Most people who have problems with the leaving cert don't seem to be giving out about the grading bands but instead the fact that everything depends on one exam at the end of the year etc.

Everything doesn't depend on one exam though. I did music for the leaving which was 50% done before I did the leaving, German and Irish orals, geography project and a history project. I also did LCVP the only subjects I had that depended entirely on the leaving cert exams were maths and English.

Obviously I was slightly different compared to those who did other subjects like chemistry and physics but I do feel there is a lot of subjects already that have additional work before the exam. Broadening the grading bands will reduce the pressure because if you make a mistake and lose out on a few marks you won't lose 5 points and drop from an A2 to a B1.

robman60

Midkemia wrote: »

Broadening the grading bands will reduce the pressure because if you make a mistake and lose out on a few marks you won't lose 5 points and drop from an A2 to a B1.

But you'll lose 14 points if you make a mistake bringing you from 90% to 89%! That argument is a complete non-runner.

The whole overhaul seems quite needless to me. The only thing I'd be in favour of mentioned is colleges giving more weight to subjects relevant to the course, but again I wouldn't like it to be too weighted because I don't think most people have any great idea what they'll do in college at the time they're picking their subjects (bear in mind most people are 15/16 when picking subjects). I know I was happy to be able to keep my options open when choosing subjects.

Magnate

robman60 wrote: »

But you'll lose 14 points if you make a mistake bringing you from 90% to 89%! That argument is a complete non-runner.

The whole overhaul seems quite needless to me. The only thing I'd be in favour of mentioned is colleges giving more weight to subjects relevant to the course, but again I wouldn't like it to be too weighted because I don't think most people have any great idea what they'll do in college at the time they're picking their subjects (bear in mind most people are 15/16 when picking subjects). I know I was happy to be able to keep my options open when choosing subjects.

Exactly, plus there would be increased competition because people would be within the same points range as a result of having less bands.

The overhaul does nothing to reduce the stress on those going for very high points. If anything it makes it worse because now instead of losing 10 points by going from an A1 to an A2 you'd lose 14. If anything it only serves to reduce the number of appeals the SEC gets because people won't get rechecks unless they're very close to the next band.

The only benefit I see is reducing the honours pass rate to 30 percent, taking the pressure off those who might have dropped to ordinary level on the day instead.

rainbowtrout

Magnate wrote: »

Exactly, plus there would be increased competition because people would be within the same points range as a result of having less bands.

I'd presume the CAO have run a few simulations of how the new points would work for a variety of grade combinations. Given that the gap between points is 14 - 13- 12 - 11 - 10 - 15 at HL level, I'd imagine that this will lead to a variety of points totals rather than everything in multiples of 5.


E.g.
6 H1 = 720
5 H1 + 1 H2 = 706
5 H1 +1 H3 = 693
4 H1 + 1 H2 + 1 H3 = 679
3H1 + 3H2 = 678

Magnate

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I'd presume the CAO have run a few simulations of how the new points would work for a variety of grade combinations. Given that the gap between points is 14 - 13- 12 - 11 - 10 - 15 at HL level, I'd imagine that this will lead to a variety of points totals rather than everything in multiples of 5.


E.g.
6 H1 = 720
5 H1 + 1 H2 = 706
5 H1 +1 H3 = 693
4 H1 + 1 H2 + 1 H3 = 679
3H1 + 3H2 = 678

I see what you're saying, but take 6 H2s for example

That's 636 for everyone with the new system, but with the current system that could be anywhere from 510 (6 B1s) to 540 (6 A2s) going up in multiples of 5.

I'm not sure if it's fair how it's skewed either.

Take 510 points under the current system,

That's the same as 6 B1s or say 2 A1s, an A2, a B2 and 2 C1s. Now convert that to the new system and you get either 6 H2s or 2 H1s, 1 H2, 1 H3 and 2 H4s.

6 H2s = 636
2 H1s, 1 H2, 1 H3 and 2 H4 = 601

It seems to favour the "all-rounder" student as opposed to one with clear strengths and weaknesses. X amount of lower grades should equal x amount of higher grades and that's just not the case. Eg. 6 B2s = 480 which is the same as 4 A1s and a B2. Under the proposed system the A1s are worth significantly more.

qweerty

I'm starting to have reservations.

Here's the relevant extract from the glossy promotional report, recently released:

"A second direction set out by the Minister in the Directions report was a commitment to reduce the number of grading bands used in them Leaving Certificate examination. This was in response to concerns as to whether the 14 grade points (at each of two levels) in the Leaving Certificate examination might, over time, have had unintended consequences for the nature of the examination, and forthe student experience ofsenior cycle education. More specifically, the use of narrow grade bands may put pressure on students to achieve marginal gains in examination performance and as a consequence focus excessive attention on the detail of the assessment process rather than the achievement of broader learning objectives.

Ireland’s use of such a high number of grade bands (28 grade bands over Ordinary and Higher Level) is unique internationally and was introduced in 1992 at the request of higher education institutions amid concerns about the increasing use of random selection for third level places. Scotland operates five grade points, England, Wales and Northern Ireland (A levels) use six, Finland has seven, the International Baccalaureate uses seven and New Zealand has four. The Netherlands has ten grade points but the very high and very low bands are rarely awarded with most of the grading around the middle six points.

Discussions have taken place as part of the broader collaborative reform process by partners on the Transition Reform Group and more focussed discussion has occurred in the National Council forCurriculum andAssessment and the State Examinations Commission. Several models were considered in detail at a themed workshop as part of the second Transitions Conference held in Maynooth University in June 2013 and at a consultation with second level students in October 2013. Following these consultations and discussions, a new eight point grading scale based on 10% grading bands has been agreed."


First, it's so frustrating that there is so little technical information given. Without giving the basis on which they came to their decisions - research, etc - they're just encouraging the speculation that we've engaged in on this thread.

So, the decision to change the grade bands came out of a process aimed at improving the "transition" from second to third level. There are three outcomes from it:

• The prompting of a discussion with regard to improving learning - by reducing predictability, increasing recognition of "higher order" thinking, and others. (This one is very vague: the end of that section says, "The DE has now formally requested the advice of the SEC on how the issues identified in the independent research report should be addressed.)
  
• The new grading system we're discussing, which includes not having even point increments so as to increase the variation of points scores.
  
• A reduction in the number of third level courses.

(It seems to me that it's quite a tame effort. While the transition may be positively affected, it's not directly altered: things like harmonising of curriculums and teaching-methods, etc, aren't being considered.)


Ignoring the first outcome, the rationale behind the grading reform is to decrease the tendency to "focus excessive attention on the detail of the assessment process" which they suggest is caused by the motivation to move up a sub-grade. While there is a logic to that argument, there doesn't seem to be any empirical evidence. And I can think of an argument that says that the scrambling for points to move up a grade will be replaced with a similar scrambling (caused by the big points drop) to avoid dropping to a lower one.

I think the biggest cause of that focus on marginal gains is the Points Race. And if the changes to the number of courses has its intended effect, the changes to the grading system may be unnecessary. And possibly detrimental.

One of the only bits of empirical evidence given is from an earlier report: "On an 11 point scale, 93.9% of students would get a points score within 10 points of what they score on the 14 point scale. On the 8 point scale (A1, A2, B,C,D,E,F,NG), it’s 82.6%." (Based on an examination of the 2012 cohort). 17% getting a different score of more than ten points seems a lot to me. And within that percentage, we don't know the range; might some score as much as, say, thirty points lower or higher?

While I think Magante's examples are somewhat selective for the conclusions s/he draws (another example would be: A1, B1, B1, B3, C1, C2 = B2 x6 but translates to 587 vs 558), it certainly demonstrates the potential for high variations in points scores between sets of grades that are currently equal.

Here's a table showing what the distribution of the new grades looks like based on the average of the past three years in a selection of Higher Level subjects. It's not possible to infer the H7 percentage. The overall average is somewhat crude as is doesn't weight the subjects by uptake.


Subject (Higher)|H1|H2|H3|H4|H5|H6
Irish|6.2|9.5|27.1|24.9|5.9|4.7
English|3.7|11.3|21.4|26.5|24.0|11.5
Maths|4.3|14.4|22.1|24.7|19.5|11.6
History|6.7|15.3|22.6|23.2|17.1|11.5
Geography|3.4|12.8|22.2|25.0|20.7|13.0
French|6.1|12.3|19.7|22.5|20.9|12.9
Chemistry|10.2|19.7|18.9|15.7|14.3|12.6
Biology|6.4|16.2|19.3|18.2|17.5|14.6
Buusiness|3.7|15.3|21.9|19.5|17.7|14.7
Music|3.3|28.3|36.2|21.6|8.2|2.0
Home Ec|2.4|13.6|23.8|26.1|20.0|11.3
Average|5.1|15.6|23.2|22.5|16.9|11.0


So, as much as 40-50% of students in a subject will be separated by two grades, whereas before they would have been separated by four.


They compare the number of grading bands with European equivalents, but don't acknowledge that our terminal-exam combined with points system is highly unusual, too: most third level systems do not rely on only grades (they usually also include one or more of admission exams, aptitude tests, personal statements, etc); ALevels have several papers per subject, are taken in two or three sittings and include the percentage score on results; IB subjects have several exams per subject and a greater amount of internal assessment. Plus, the German equivalent is one example of the leaving certs's number of bands.

There may be favourable outcomes, but the process seems ill considered and may be unnecessary. I can't help but feel that many of the causes of detrimental practices at second level are caused by the points system and that these measures are just a patch for that.

randylonghorn

Magnate wrote: »

The only benefit I see is reducing the honours pass rate to 30 percent, taking the pressure off those who might have dropped to ordinary level on the day instead.

As I understand it, they're not actually changing the pass mark, simply awarding points to the "near miss" grade?

qweerty wrote: »

They compare the number of grading bands with European equivalents, but don't acknowledge that our terminal-exam combined with points system is highly unusual, too: most third level systems do not rely on only grades (they usually also include one or more of admission exams, aptitude tests, personal statements, etc)

Fair point.

qweerty wrote: »

I can't help but feel that many of the causes of detrimental practices at second level are caused by the points system and that these measures are just a patch for that.

Your first point is definitely true IMO; your second probably not far off the mark either. Probably the more important bit though is whether it's a good / useful patch ... some interesting points coming from a number of people on that one, good to see a constructive discussion.

Magnate

randylonghorn wrote: »

As I understand it, they're not actually changing the pass mark, simply awarding points to the "near miss" grade?

Well with E's, F's and NG's out of the picture how do you define a fail? I don't mean to be pedantic but if a H8 awards points and can be used to meet matriculation purposes (eg. a pass in maths) then I think it's fair to call it a pass.

randylonghorn

Magnate wrote: »

Well with E's, F's and NG's out of the picture how do you define a fail? I don't mean to be pedantic but if a H8 awards points and can be used to meet matriculation purposes (eg. a pass in maths) then I think it's fair to call it a pass.

Firstly, a H8 doesn't award points:

Higher level |Sample CAO points (HL) |Ordinary level |Sample CAO points (OL)
H1 (90-100)| 120 |O1 (90-100)| 73
H2 (80-89)| 106 |O2 (80-89) |60
H3 (70-79)| 93 |O3 (70-79) |47
H4 (60-69)| 81 |O4 (60-69) |34
H5 (50-59)| 70 |O5 (50-59) |21
H6 (40-49)| 60 |O6 (40-49) |8
H7 (30-39)| 45 |O7 (30-39) |0
H8 (0-29)| 0 |O8 (0-29)| 0

Secondly, I haven't seen details as yet on changes to matriculation requirements, have you?

However, following the logic they're using, my GUESS is that it might play out like this:

- H7 in HL (for example, Maths) will be acceptable for normal matriculation requirements.

- However, if the specific course requirements specify a Pass in Maths at HL, that will still mean H6 or higher.


Far be it from me to encourage pedanticism, but accuracy is important. So is accepting that as a lot of this is in process as yet, we're speculating on certain points at the moment.

Magnate

randylonghorn wrote: »

Firstly, a H8 doesn't award points.

Secondly, I haven't seen details as yet on changes to matriculation requirements, have you?

However, following the logic they're using, my GUESS is that it might play out like this:

- H7 in HL (for example, Maths) will be acceptable for normal matriculation requirements.

- However, if the specific course requirements specify a Pass in Maths at HL, that will still mean H6 or higher.


Far be it from me to encourage pedanticism, but accuracy is important. So is accepting that as a lot of this is in process as yet, we're speculating on certain points at the moment.

Apologies, I meant H7 not H8.

JK2015

I haven't read this whole thread in its entirety so apologies if this has been discussed already, or if i'm missing something and this is a really stupid question - if extra points are awarded for having subjects relevant to the course you want to study, and you have a couple of totally different course areas on the CAO form, does this mean your points fluctuate depending on which course you get? I'm nearly finished in college and i remember having 3-4 different types of course down, accounting/business, science and law as far as i remember. So biology/chem/physics/maths would all be relevant to a science course, but only maths to business/accounting and nothing really to law. Are my total points then dependent on what course i am eventually offered? How would someone like that answer the question 'how many points did you get'?? Im sure a large proportion of leaving certs are not totally sure of what they want to do and so chose a variety of courses, I know lots of my friends did. Am I missing something major in this plan? I feel like I am.

randylonghorn

JK2015 wrote: »

I haven't read this whole thread in its entirety so apologies if this has been discussed already, or if i'm missing something and this is a really stupid question - if extra points are awarded for having subjects relevant to the course you want to study, and you have a couple of totally different course areas on the CAO form, does this mean your points fluctuate depending on which course you get?

There's a long way to go before all details are available on this, but depending on what exactly they eventually implement, this is theoretically possible, yes. A person could apply for, say, a science course for which their science subjects in LC would attract bonus points, and another course for which no subject attracted bonus points, meaning they would have a different points total for each.

JK2015 wrote: »

How would someone like that answer the question 'how many points did you get'??

With difficulty, which might be a good thing; might stop a lot of this "my di points are bigger than yours!" BS.

I suppose some overly-competitive people might continue to compare basic / core points (i.e. without the course-specific bonus); such people will insist on finding some yardstick, I suppose.

Midkemia

Not sure bonus points would work because it would give bigger schools an advantage over smaller schools e.g.: Economics and accounting wasn't available in my school so students from my school would be at a disadvantage for business courses compared to other schools.

randylonghorn

This would definitely be an issue if they introduced a whole plethora of ones linked to subjects which aren't in every school.

You can guarantee that the universities / colleges will be putting a lot of thought into this over the next while, esp. the Admissions Officers.

Manutd_4life

Im going into 5th year and this new grading system is being implemented the year I do my leaving cert (2017). I was using the Leaving cert calculator online and calculated my grades i'll be aiming for for each subject. When I implemented does grades to the new grading system, it calculated to significantly higher in terms of CAO points.

I'm not too sure what i'm trying to even ask here but I am just unsure about this whole new grading system and how it will affect me in terms of points. Does this new grading system have any effect on the syllabus of subjects or the leaving cert exams. Going into fifth year, what should i be aware of in terms of change to the grades/points system?

rainbowtrout

Manutd_4life wrote: »

Im going into 5th year and this new grading system is being implemented the year I do my leaving cert (2017). I was using the Leaving cert calculator online and calculated my grades i'll be aiming for for each subject. When I implemented does grades to the new grading system, it calculated to significantly higher in terms of CAO points.

I'm not too sure what i'm trying to even ask here but I am just unsure about this whole new grading system and how it will affect me in terms of points. Does this new grading system have any effect on the syllabus of subjects or the leaving cert exams. Going into fifth year, what should i be aware of in terms of change to the grades/points system?

The syllabus and exams won't change. Only the grades awarded to each student. To be honest it's pointless worrying about it or trying to predict anything as all students will be in the same boat.