The way forward for LC2021

Dickie10

Hi everyine, history teacher here, slightly confused. The LC RSR, students that are not intending to sit the exam, are still required to do the RSR , I am right in this?

km79

Dickie10 wrote: »

Hi everyine, history teacher here, slightly confused. The LC RSR, students that are not intending to sit the exam, are still required to do the RSR , I am right in this?

If they are not sitting exam they do not have to complete coursework

rainbowtrout

Treppen wrote: »

Thanks for correcting.

Given the recent simplification then predicted grades have to rise in tandem.

Treppen

I'm out of maths teaching for a while and a relative was asking what's the best thing for daughter to study for paper O level. She said she only has to do 4 section A and Two section B.

They're very week and failed a good few recent tests!
I think it could be damage reduction at this stage. I'll be giving her a hand next week on Paper 2 over zoom so gotta make it easy... Maybe just basic intro to each topic like coordinate geometry of circle .I'll Probably avoid stuff like proofs and probability/confidence intervals as she's week on English (dyslexic).

Any suggestions?

Dickie10

km79 wrote: »

If they are not sitting exam they do not have to complete coursework

I have been told the dept guidelines is that all project work is submitted by due date either way.

am_zarathustra

Treppen wrote: »

I'm out of maths teaching for a while and a relative was asking what's the best thing for daughter to study for paper O level. She said she only has to do 4 section A and Two section B.

They're very week and failed a good few recent tests!
I think it could be damage reduction at this stage. I'll be giving her a hand next week on Paper 2 over zoom so gotta make it easy... Maybe just basic intro to each topic like coordinate geometry of circle .I'll Probably avoid stuff like proofs and probability/confidence intervals as she's week on English (dyslexic).

Any suggestions?

For paper 2 the big hitters are Trig and Stats, you'd assume a long Qs on both and maybe one or two short for your trouble. Then circle and line fill the rest in.

Stats is repetitive, make sure she knows how to use the calculator for mean and SD, basics of null hypothesis, central tendencies and graphing.

Circle is more predictable than the line (don't forget area of triangle here with transformation) but you could train to pick the right formula by looking for particular words and then subbing in, you'll comfortably pass most questions with that.


Paper one, algebra and calculas, at OL you can nearly predict the questions so again you can make quick progress and it's essentially guaranteed as a long and short and probably more

Make sure she can graph, you'd be surprised

Wombatman

The easier exams means marks are going to coalesce towards the higher end. It's going to be very difficult to identify a students true ability. Applying the curve could see a big shift where there might only be a couple of marks between students. You could see a cases where higher, middle and lower H1s become H1s, H2s and H3s.

Detailed precise marking schemes will be very important to help separate the wheat from the chaff.

Grind schools must be $hitting themselves because their higher performing students will have no real way of differentiating themselves because of the limited test base. They won't be able to rely on historic school performance either.

No way will exam performance impact on the standardisation of accredited grades or vice versa.

Wombatman

Treppen wrote: »

Thanks for correcting.

Given the recent simplification then predicted grades have to rise in tandem.

Not true. Remember you are predicting based on the 2021 exam and a national standardisation process.
If the standardisation process is carried out correctly, the distribution of grades should be the same as other years.

Whether it can justly categorizes individual students based on their ability is another question altogether.

Wombatman

Strangely enough I would argue that this year, accredited grades will probably be a more accurate measure, than the exam itself.

rainbowtrout

Dickie10 wrote: »

I have been told the dept guidelines is that all project work is submitted by due date either way.

A principal's opinion on what they'd like to do does not supersede the guidelines. If a student has opted out of doing the exam and is taking the predicted grade only they do not have to submit project work.


https://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Press-Releases/2021-press-releases/PR21-02-17.html

The Minister’s strongly held view is that students must be afforded the choice as to whether to sit the examinations, including the oral and coursework components, as it would be entirely unfair to students to require them to participate in these elements, given the disruption in learning which has occurred. The oral and coursework components of the examinations will not form part of the Accredited Grade process.

You can advise them to complete the coursework for you, but you can't force them to do it.

jimmytwotimes 2013

rainbowtrout wrote: »

You can advise them to complete the coursework for you, but you can't force them to do it.

Students not being given an option on this by some schools.

Dickie10

My problem is I need to stick to the school script and just repeat the mantra. Do i just let them hand me anything at all in on April 23rd or nothing , if not doing the exam.

History Queen

Dickie10 wrote: »

My problem is I need to stick to the school script and just repeat the mantra. Do i just let them hand me anything at all in on April 23rd or nothing , if not doing the exam.

You need to have that discussion with your principal. The guidelines are clear.

Edit: that being said, if they don't hand it in by the deadline, just move on.

Leftwaffe

Im hearing this morning that even if students opted for a predicated grade in the portal (thus no oral required) they can now sit the oral next week incase they change their mind about sitting the exam when the portal reopens at a later date.

Can anyone confirm this?

This would change scheduling & lists, etc. (A list which I haven't got yet from the Dept. mind you!)

km79

Leftwaffe wrote: »

Im hearing this morning that even if students opted for a predicated grade in the portal (thus no oral required) they can now sit the oral next week incase they change their mind about sitting the exam when the portal reopens at a later date.

Can anyone confirm this?

This would change scheduling & lists, etc. (A list which I haven't got yet from the Dept. mind you!)

Oh
My
God

km79

Leftwaffe wrote: »

Bit of panic here this morning over this. I haven't seen anything official but a member of management has this info.

If this doesn’t end up being a total shambles then once again like everything else it will be purely down to school staff going over and above .

Wombatman

Leftwaffe wrote: »

Bit of panic here this morning over this. I haven't seen anything official but a member of management has this info.

Don't know where it is coming from. Instructions very clear.

However, as some important examination events will be completed by then (the Orals in Irish and the Modern Foreign Language subjects and many of the completion dates for coursework) it is really important that you understand the consequences of your decision making. For example, if you opt for an Accredited Grade in a language subject now but you do not opt for the examination, you will not be taking the Oral test when they take place between 26 March and 15 April. If you then change your mind and decide you want to sit the examination you will have lost the opportunity to take the Oral test. While you might go on to take the written examination in the subject, you will not be able to achieve full marks as you will forfeit the marks for the Oral test.

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/306f8-leaving-certificate-candidate-self-service-portal-2021-before-you-start-guide/

Treppen

Wombatman wrote: »

Not true. Remember you are predicting based on the 2021 exam and a national standardisation process.
If the standardisation process is carried out correctly, the distribution of grades should be the same as other years.

Whether it can justly categorizes individual students based on their ability is another question altogether.

True that, it should be interesting to see how they bump down all the teachers marks though.

There's a bit of an incongruity there too:

"If the standardisation process is carried out correctly, the distribution of grades should be the same as other years. "

...Because written exams this year can't be the same as results in other years (because of simplification and extra time to do questions) they'll have to shoot up. And you simply can't push >10% of students getting H1s in subjects down to H2s if there's no wrong answers on their exam!!

So are accredited grades truly standardised to what students would get if they had sat this year OR other years? Documentation says that it's how they would perform this year.

True/False : The 2 bell curves this year should be the same as each other?

rainbowtrout

jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: »

Students not being given an option on this by some schools.

It’s not up to schools to decide and make up their own rules

Leftwaffe

Wombatman wrote: »

Don't know where it is coming from. Instructions very clear.



https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/306f8-leaving-certificate-candidate-self-service-portal-2021-before-you-start-guide/

So it’s not the case? Surely our member of management has got word about this from somewhere?

History Queen

Leftwaffe wrote: »

So it’s not the case? Surely our member of management has got word about this from somewhere?

Ask them directly. Its the only way of knowing.

Wombatman

Treppen wrote: »

True that, it should be interesting to see how they bump down all the teachers marks though.

There's a bit of an incongruity there too:


...Because written exams this year can't be the same as results in other years (because of simplification and extra time to do questions) they'll have to shoot up. And you simply can't push >10% of students getting H1s in subjects down to H2s if there's no wrong answers on their exam!!

So are accredited grades truly standardised to what students would get if they had sat this year OR other years? Documentation says that it's how they would perform this year.

True/False : The 2 bell curves this year should be the same as each other?

True. The distribution of marks should follow the same pattern of previous years. This could involve big shifts based on only a couple of marks because of the narrow test base this year.

Simple example:
If 20% of sitting students of are given got a H3 in years gone by, give or take 1-2%, then for AG marks and exam marks, 20% of students should get a H3 give or take a couple of %.

This could still result in an individual student a getting an exam grade of H4 and an AG grade of H2 but that's a different story.

Leftwaffe

History Queen wrote: »

Ask them directly. Its the only way of knowing.

I have. They seem confident but I’m still to see a document for this.

Wombatman

Leftwaffe wrote: »

So it’s not the case? Surely our member of management has got word about this from somewhere?

...........or they could be smoking crack.

Leftwaffe

There is a line in the 'SEC Oral guidance to school management' which states the following:

"If candidates want to present for interview and who are not listed on the roll, the examination aide must write their name, examination number and date of birth on the blank page of the roll"

Would this suggest they can still show up and do the oral despite opting for an accredited grade?

History Queen

Leftwaffe wrote: »

I have. They seem confident but I’m still to see a document for this.

Did they say what they were basing it on?

deiseindublin

I don't see how stats from previous years can be used this year.

When you give more choice, and less question, results have to improve. It's ridiculous to expect same bell curve, unless SEC intend on forcing a bell curve.

Purefrank128

Treppen wrote: »

True/False : The 2 bell curves this year should be the same as each other?

FALSE!


There is no reason to think that the cohort taking the exams will have the same ability as the cohort taking accredited grades.


Everyone - or almost - everyone is going to get an accredited grade. I think it's safe to assume that most students who sit the exams are at the top end - they think their exam result could improve their grade and they don't mind doing the work to show that.


The grade distribution of the group sitting exams should be better than that of the group getting an accredited grade (i.e. everyone), which should be better than that of the group getting an accredited grade only.


But none of these grade distributions should be like those produced by exams in 2019 and previously.

Wombatman

deiseindublin wrote: »

I don't see how stats from previous years can be used this year.

When you give more choice, and less question, results have to improve. It's ridiculous to expect same bell curve, unless SEC intend on forcing a bell curve.

They force it every year. That's the whole point of standardisation.

Take the Leaving Cert exam in Higher level English as an example.

The proportion of students who achieved a H1 (90 to 100 per cent) in 2019 was 2.9 per cent; the equivalent figure for 2018 was 2.9 per cent; in 2017 it was 2.9 per cent.

The pattern is repeated further down the grades.

The proportion of students who achieved a H2 (80 to 90 per cent) in 2019 was 10 per cent; in 2018 it was 10 per cent; and in 2017 it was 10.7 per cent.

Similarly, the proportion of students who achieved a H3 (70 to 80 per cent) in 2019 was 20.4 per cent; in 2018 it was 20.6 per cent.

Normally they standardise using adjusted making schemes relative to emerging trends that year. How they do it this year is anybody's guess.

deiseindublin

I understand the bell curve, but the reason other year stats are the same is because the exam is supposed to be of equal difficulty. It's not equal this year, so grades SHOULD go up if similar standard of answers is required.

Bobtheman

The departments gross incompetence is actually reassuring to me. Looking on them as your enemy which they have become since being captured by non teaching academics and managerialism - it means they find would find it difficult to really **** up teaching by forcing through mandatory paper work. The underfunding plays a part to.
We are a long way away from paid subject department heads.
Their heads up their arses is shown by the document we just got today. More stuff on accredited grades.
There are paragraphs where they encourage you to ask higher order questions with wait time blah blah
There is not one line of useful information in the section on English. I'd say its the same elsewhere.

Wombatman

You are making some horrible assumptions here.

Purefrank128 wrote: »

FALSE!


There is no reason to think that the cohort taking the exams will have the same ability as the cohort taking accredited grades.

There is no reason the think otherwise either. Students who sit exams should not \ will not be given preferential treatment.


Everyone - or almost - everyone is going to get an accredited grade. I think it's safe to assume that most students who sit the exams are at the top end - they think their exam result could improve their grade and they don't mind doing the work to show that.

This may be borne out in exam results. It wasn't really last year. Either way it doesn't matter to the process.


The grade distribution of the group sitting exams should be better than that of the group getting an accredited grade (i.e. everyone), which should be better than that of the group getting an accredited grade only.

It may but both should be standardised accordingly and on their own.

But none of these grade distributions should be like those produced by exams in 2019 and previously.

Interesting one here. You have three grades.
Accredited grade, exam grade and final grade (the best of both).

Should the final grades be further standardised to fit the curve? I guess it would have to be.

Bobtheman

All grades will be standardised to fit the curve particularly at honours level.
Predicted grades were put through algorithms and Bell curves last year. It will happen this year.
Even those who sit a physical exam in June will be filtered through a bell curve. I'm sure some schools have better years etc but overall the bell curve is the bell curve
Whatever is the best grade = final grade. Filters used by that stage.
There was a lot of bull**** in the press that Deis schools were not adjusted downwards at all last year.
It did happen. But it seems middle class schools were harder hit.

Random sample

https://assets.gov.ie/128197/f98845d8-4ced-4b51-bea7-ac544f41de88.pdf

Is anyone else sick of reading long documents?

am_zarathustra

Wombatman wrote: »

They force it every year. That's the whole point of standardisation.

Take the Leaving Cert exam in Higher level English as an example.

The proportion of students who achieved a H1 (90 to 100 per cent) in 2019 was 2.9 per cent; the equivalent figure for 2018 was 2.9 per cent; in 2017 it was 2.9 per cent.

The pattern is repeated further down the grades.

The proportion of students who achieved a H2 (80 to 90 per cent) in 2019 was 10 per cent; in 2018 it was 10 per cent; and in 2017 it was 10.7 per cent.

Similarly, the proportion of students who achieved a H3 (70 to 80 per cent) in 2019 was 20.4 per cent; in 2018 it was 20.6 per cent.

Normally they standardise using adjusted making schemes relative to emerging trends that year. How they do it this year is anybody's guess.

This is doable in english, there's a subjective element. The number of H1s vary year on year in sciences, one particulatly doable year with a very direct questions led to almost 12% getting H1s, following year it was less than 8%. If the answer is lumen, it's lumen.....I can weight all I want but good students will ace the biology exam bar the questions are much harder than normal. It wouldn't be uncommen for kids to get 60/60 on a couple of questions normally.

Even maths is more workable as there are always really hard bit that aren't exactly preparable for, these will be used to sort the H1s-H3s

Treppen

Leftwaffe wrote: »

There is a line in the 'SEC Oral guidance to school management' which states the following:

"If candidates want to present for interview and who are not listed on the roll, the examination aide must write their name, examination number and date of birth on the blank page of the roll"

Would this suggest they can still show up and do the oral despite opting for an accredited grade?

I always thought that was for externs who couldn't find a centre. I had that issue before for extern music students when a school pulled day before. They found another school last minute and the exams aid was instructed to just add in their name.

Treppen

Purefrank128 wrote: »

FALSE!


There is no reason to think that the cohort taking the exams will have the same ability as the cohort taking accredited grades.


Everyone - or almost - everyone is going to get an accredited grade. I think it's safe to assume that most students who sit the exams are at the top end - they think their exam result could improve their grade and they don't mind doing the work to show that.


The grade distribution of the group sitting exams should be better than that of the group getting an accredited grade (i.e. everyone), which should be better than that of the group getting an accredited grade only.


But none of these grade distributions should be like those produced by exams in 2019 and previously.

Ok I'll have to call in the maths and stats gang but from my understanding once you've about 20,000 thousand students in two different camps then ability is very similar. I doubt it'll be all the brainboxes Sitting exams.

Treppen

Bobtheman wrote: »

All grades will be standardised to fit the curve particularly at honours level.
Predicted grades were put through algorithms and Bell curves last year. It will happen this year.
Even those who sit a physical exam in June will be filtered through a bell curve. I'm sure some schools have better years etc but overall the bell curve is the bell curve
Whatever is the best grade = final grade. Filters used by that stage.
There was a lot of bull**** in the press that Deis schools were not adjusted downwards at all last year.
It did happen. But it seems middle class schools were harder hit.

your forgetting about extenuating circumstances.
As I said before you can't get the percentage of H1s down to fit a standard bell curve if it involves making questions incorrect when the student got them correct.

am_zarathustra

Treppen wrote: »

Ok I'll have to call in the maths and stats gang but from my understanding once you've about 20,000 thousand students in two different camps then ability is very similar. I doubt it'll be all the brainboxes Sitting exams.

There will be an ascertainment bias on the exam cohort, you train the set sitting the exams (their AG) on the overall AG, so you bell curve the exams to the AG roughly but only the cohort of both, the intersection. You'd have three data sets, one of all the candidates AGs (group A), one of the candidates sitting the exams (group and then the exam results from the exams (group C).

Initially you get the national standardized curve for group A, then the curve for group B. You compare, are they actually different (literally like the HL stats Ho testing but obviously with better, more nuanced stats but honestly a standard z test would nearly tell you anyway). If there is a significant difference (again, we can't assume this but experience would tell me it'll skew towards the top) then this is the curve you aim for with exams, or something similar. So group A and B compared, group C then normalized off B not A provided their is a significant difference. So the national curve has H4 as the mean (say 55% or something), group B has a mean of 67% from AG, a reasonable assumption is that group B has more high achieving students and should therefore have a skewed curve when corrected. Now spread will be another thing to deal with but you'd hope that would take care of itself.

This is how I would see it running I think, but I haven't thought it out fully obviously, it's be nice to know though.

rainbowtrout

Purefrank128 wrote: »

FALSE!


There is no reason to think that the cohort taking the exams will have the same ability as the cohort taking accredited grades.


Everyone - or almost - everyone is going to get an accredited grade. I think it's safe to assume that most students who sit the exams are at the top end - they think their exam result could improve their grade and they don't mind doing the work to show that.


The grade distribution of the group sitting exams should be better than that of the group getting an accredited grade (i.e. everyone), which should be better than that of the group getting an accredited grade only.


But none of these grade distributions should be like those produced by exams in 2019 and previously.

That would be reflected in the numbers that sat the winter exams. All the four sciences were in the most popular subjects in terms of numbers that sat the exam. More students sat Chemistry than English. I'd imagine a lot of those were the Medicine/Dentistry/Veterinary crew looking for H1s.


page 8 shows the numbers that sat the winter LC for each subject.

https://www.examinations.ie/misc-doc/BI-PR-78526925.pdf

rainbowtrout

Wombatman wrote: »

True. The distribution of marks should follow the same pattern of previous years. This could involve big shifts based on only a couple of marks because of the narrow test base this year.

Simple example:
If 20% of sitting students of are given got a H3 in years gone by, give or take 1-2%, then for AG marks and exam marks, 20% of students should get a H3 give or take a couple of %.

This could still result in an individual student a getting an exam grade of H4 and an AG grade of H2 but that's a different story.

It won't happen like that. Currently I have two Leaving Cert groups for different subjects. In one class 80% of them are opting out of the exam, in the other 80% are opting in to the exam. The 20% that are opting in to the exam in the first class are the best academically and are keen to secure the top grade in case the grades come down through standardisation. The 80% opting out are largely not performing above a mark of 80% in class tests, so know they are relatively safe one way or the other. And quite a few of them if offered a H6 in the morning would take it and be out the school gate in a flash.

In my physics class yesterday I gave them one of their monthly assessments, most are high achievers and competitive with each other and after the test they immediately started a post mortem on the questions on the test. All of them will sit the exam because they know grading will be tight and even with me grading them fairly, they know I can't guarantee that grades won't be adjusted so will sit the exam to prove their ability.

Wombatman

rainbowtrout wrote: »

All of them will sit the exam because they know grading will be tight and even with me grading them fairly, they know I can't guarantee that grades won't be adjusted so will sit the exam to prove their ability.

Exam results will have to be standardised too though. They have to be.

Take a fictional scenario where the range of marks in the Physics HL exam is between 100% and 70%. No student is scoring outside of this range. This is using default marking scheme A.

If traditionally 3% of all students get a H1, for example, and in our high performing group, 3% got between 100% and 98%, then the marking scheme A will be refined to marking scheme Z, to ensure that 100% to 98% becomes 100% to 91%.

If traditionally 10% get a H2 and the next 10% are between 97 and 92 under marking scheme A, then marking scheme Z will shift this group to between 90% and 81% and so on.

I'm not sure how it will be achieved systematically but it will have to follow these lines or college points will see chronic adjustments which will mitigate against the 2020 students, who deferred for a year.

Their will be major standardisation casualties because of it's bluntness.

I expect the final "best of both" result will also have to be standardised too as it will skew to the top.

Say these are the final normalised results for a subject coming out of both independent processes. (Process have to be independent because some students wont do the exam and some won't get AGs (home schoolers).)

Student - AGs - Exam Grade
S1 - H1 - H2
S2 - H2 - H3
S3 - H3 - H1
S4 - H4 - H5
S5 - H5 - H4

Final Grade
S1 - H1
S2 - H2
S3 - H1
S4 - H4
S5 - H4

So here, AGs are nicely spread and exam grades are nicely spread, but the final mark is skewed to higher grades.

am_zarathustra

Wombatman wrote: »

Exam results will have to be standardised too though. They have to be.

Take a fictional scenario where the range of marks in the Physics HL exam is between 100% and 70%. No student is scoring outside of this range. This is using default marking scheme A.

If traditionally 3% of all students get a H1, for example, and in our high performing group, 3% got between 100% and 98%, then the marking scheme A will be refined to marking scheme Z, to ensure that 100% to 98% becomes 100% to 91%.

If traditionally 10% get a H2 and the next 10% are between 97 and 92 under marking scheme A, then marking scheme Z will shift this group to between 90% and 81% and so on.

I'm not sure how it will be achieved systematically but it will have to follow these lines or college points will see chronic adjustments which will mitigate against the 2020 students, who deferred for a year.

Their will be major standardisation casualties because of it's bluntness.

I expect the final "best of both" result will also have to be standardised too as it will skew to the top.

Say these are the final normalised results for a subject coming out of both independent processes. (Process have to be independent because some students wont do the exam and some won't get AGs (home schoolers).)

Student - AGs - Exam Grade
S1 - H1 - H2
S2 - H2 - H3
S3 - H3 - H1
S4 - H4 - H5
S5 - H5 - H4

Final Grade
S1 - H1
S2 - H2
S3 - H1
S4 - H4
S5 - H4

So here, AGs are nicely spread and exam grades are nicely spread, but the final mark is skewed to higher grades.

It would still make sense to train your set on the AGs to get your curve for each exam. It would lead to fewer discrepancies if it's weighted up and reduce the bluntness quite a bit. It's would only require the mean and SD to work off, the SEC chief and advising examiners would be well used to it, you have the normal curve. They are less interested in H1s in most subjects too, the changes to schemes generally focus very much in the middle, sort the center and the rest sorts itself. You standardize from the center

deiseindublin

I can't see how the AG and Exam results can be married, with a much smaller and different cohort sitting the paper. As a previous poster said, it will probably be the high achievers that choose to sit the exams, the H1s and H2. I just can't see a lot of H5 and H6 candidates bothering, unless they're so borderline H7 that they feel they have to.

How do you use a bell curve without a complete set of data/cohort of students, and some grades missing in their entirety?

am_zarathustra

deiseindublin wrote: »

I can't see how the AG and Exam results can be married, with a much smaller and different cohort sitting the paper. As a previous poster said, it will probably be the high achievers that choose to sit the exams, the H1s and H2. I just can't see a lot of H5 and H6 candidates bothering, unless they're so borderline H7 that they feel they have to.

How do you use a bell curve without a complete set of data/cohort of students, and some grades missing in their entirety?

It's would be a standardized curve with a specific mean and a specific SD, that's actually straightforward. You take the cohort that are sitting their exams, take their accredited grades as a whole and get the mean and SD, use that as your normal curve. Then try and get close enough with the marking schemes alterations.

The real issue will come if the AG are insanely overinflated, they will need to be standardized before you remove the exam sitting cohort to get their "predicted curve". You'll still end up with more higher grades, but if you give two options I just can't see how that will be avoided without throwing the dataset toget there at the end and standardizing again, which you cant do coz the exams will have a grade on the front that can't be changed (digitally or literally)

Without knowing it's safer to do both anyway

rainbowtrout

Wombatman wrote: »

Exam results will have to be standardised too though. They have to be.

You can't standardise in a normal way whether you follow the traditional bell curve (pre 2020) or the inflated one from last year. The data set is too small.

The H1s and to a lesser extent the H2s are where the inflation in the predicted grades. Having said that. If a student is a genuine H1, then the teacher will have given that student that grade. If they sit the exam and achieve it they have proved their ability.

am_zarathustra

Bar less than 100 students are sitting an exam you can standardize, why couldn't you?

There's the normalize versus stadardize argument for sure but you'd need to see the first AG dataset to really make that choice. I would assume they know what the normal distribution of grades in any subject generally is anyway. Very few subjects will have small enough numbers to stop standard stastics working just fine, maybe the odd niche OL paper but they won't impact inflation all that much anyway. Grade inflation will really only matter in 15/16 subjects based on the numbers taking them.

DubLad69

Somewhat off topic here, but does anyone know how many days large schools can usually hire an examinations aide for?

Just the normal exams aide, not the new one for the orals or the calculated grades aide.

rainbowtrout

DubLad69 wrote: »

Somewhat off topic here, but does anyone know how many days large schools can usually hire an examinations aide for?

Just the normal exams aide, not the new one for the orals or the calculated grades aide.

Not 100% sure but I think it’s about 15. They have to be about for every day of the exams and the day before they start for set up I think

Leftwaffe

The SEC have told me that students can do the oral who have opted for the predicted grade. So anyone can do the oral essentially. They're just added to the end of the examinations aide roll.