deiseindublin wrote: » It didn't apply to individuals a_z , it was schools that were ranked as such , or so we were told.
As part of the “standardisation” process – in which grades are adjusted up or down for consistency – it also took into account the likely performance of your class based on how students fared in the Junior Cert, along with the historic pattern of Leaving Cert results nationally.
"With the recent decision to remove the school historical data from consideration and to have a greatly diminished role for the national standards, the information sources remaining available for use are the school estimates and rank orders, and the prior attainment and related variables of the 2020 Leaving Certificate students from when they sat their Junior Cycle."
". To address this, prior performance could be combined into a single composite score. However, the advice of the psychometricians is that the greatest gain would be achieved by using a subset of the JC subjects in the model. These would be Irish, English and mathematics (taken by the very great majority of candidates) and the best two of each candidate’s other subjects. The advice is that a single composite will be less valuable than a relatively small number of predictors, such as the set suggested. Taking more subjects would only add very slightly to the predictive power of candidates’ prior performance and would begin to reintroduce the problem of missing data as more (less often taken) subjects were added."
Treppen wrote: » No, junior cert results were taken into account. I put up a link last year (in October I think) from a report to the minister on what options/models were available and the advised one was where the JC results would be used. Take 3 Core + 2 of the best others. I can't find the report but here's a mention from the Irish Timeshttps://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/leaving-cert-results-all-you-need-to-know-about-calculated-grades-1.4345625
am_zarathustra wrote: » This exactly, even from that 205 page report theire is a lot of over explained statistics saying very little but again, no code and no clear indication of weighting. Same as you rainbowtrout, we had kids leap frogged. The way an algorithm works should be logically. They didn't even test it properly to ensure outliers gave the correct results, otherwise they would have picked up the CSPE issue. It's programming 101. I don't honestly believe anyone in the Dept knows what was done Maybe it's nothing, maybe there are reasonable reasons I can't see but if they published it no one would need to wonder
Wombatman wrote: » I think the point is it wasn't done on a pupil by pupil level. It took the class as a whole and adjusted on the basis of their past performance.
rainbowtrout wrote: » Yes, wasn't there an issue where it took their worst JC results into account instead of their best ones or something along those lines? Or it counted CSPE when it shouldn't have? I can't remember the exact detail.
rainbowtrout wrote: » But if it did that, then a student who was the highest score in a range of H2 grades shouldn't be the one that's downgraded to a H3, it should be the lowest scoring H2 as all grades are shifted downwards. It also wouldn't explain the St. Killian's debacle as I'd assume their JC German grades are pretty much in line with their LC German grades.
Wombatman wrote: » The likes of St. Kilian's are an unfortunate outlier. Grind schools usually do well across a range of subjects whereas St. Killian's excelled at a single subject, German. Their results would mimic a teacher awarding ridiculously high grades and the component of the model designed to deal with these spikes unfortunately flattened a legitimate spike in the case of St. Kilian's.
Smacruairi wrote: » Kilians would do extremely well most years. Their whole student population should have had an above average spike across the board. The fact that the algorithm couldn't account for that means it really isn't up to scratch, sure was it 5errors in the code they spotted?
Student’s individual Junior Cycle results were not used to determine their Calculated Grades Your Junior Cycle exam results, or whether you sat the Junior Cycle examinations at all, were not used to determine your own specific Calculated Grades. Instead, the overall, or aggregate, Junior Cycle results for class groupings were used, as this aggregate data provides a good means of determining the performance of a class group in the Leaving Certificate.
On 30 September, the Department of Education and Skills announced that two errors had been identified in the Leaving Certificate 2020 Calculated Grades process. The Department then contracted Educational Testing Services (ETS), to conduct a review of the code for the system of Calculated Grades. In their review, ETS raised two issued, including a third error which they had identified regarding the code. All three errors concerned how the coding for the system of Calculated Grades drew in and handled Junior Cycle data. The first error was in a single line of code programmed by the Department’s external consultant, Polymetrika International Inc. That error affected the way in which students’ Junior Cycle results were included in the national standardisation process. It was intended that students’ Junior Cycle results in Irish, English and Maths would be included in the data used by the national standardisation process, together with their best two other subjects. These data were to be considered at an aggregated class level. The error meant that students’ results in Irish, English and Maths were put together with their weakest two other subjects for determining the overall performance of their class. The second error related to the inclusion of candidates’ Junior Cycle results in the subject Civic, Social and Political Education (CSPE) as part of the data used in the national standardisation process. This was incorrect, as in line with the design of the Calculated Grades process, this subject should not have been included in the data used by the model. The third error, identified by ETS, relates to where students did not sit all three core subjects (Irish, English and Maths) at Junior Cycle level. In those cases, the system was meant to use the average national Junior Cycle score of the group of students who took their Leaving Certificate in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020. Instead, it chose the student’s next best subject for inclusion in the group computation. These three errors have now been corrected and the full set of student data has been re-run in the corrected model.
History Queen wrote: » TUI hoping for LC and special class return week of Feb22nd (subject to public health advice)https://www.tui.ie/news/tui-members-to-facilitate-re-opening-of-special-classes-in-post-primary-schools-%e2%80%93-union-also-indicates-willingness-to-facilitate-return-of-leaving-cert-students.14037.html
km79 wrote: » As part of their plan the s and s scheme is suspended ?
History Queen wrote: » I assume to prevent extra staff having to travel to school? Not sure how it'll work if someone who is meant to have LC is sick?
km79 wrote: » Exactly
Bobtheman wrote: » So how do people see this working out?
PoolDude wrote: » TUI may know public health advice will be to stay off longer so now can say they were prepared to go back - bargaining chip for something else or am I too cynical? It’s just that all indicators were they wouldn’t advise schools reopening that soon and in the LC instance you have the age group with the highest transmission rates (LC) going in to meet the age group with the highest infection rate (people in the 35 - 45 age group - last Saturday’s stats was 59% from that age group). I’d be happy if they do go back if it’s safe to do so. Edit - I see ASTI saying plans are inadequate beyond special classes and they will first monitor that in the “weeks ahead” but will negotiate with the department
Bobtheman wrote: » It has to be flexible. Childcare is still an issue. If you have primary kids and they are not open (primary schools) when sixth years are back...
km79 wrote: » How have other essential workers managed ? This will hold no water with many tbh We have oft argued ourselves against the use of schools as childcare ......
