Only someone sat in an ivory tower would dare to say “let’s not cry over spilt milk” “what’s done is done” “let’s move on” …. I know that we have to “play with the cards we are dealt” but that doesn’t mean public bodies should not be held accountable. I know questioning the “Big Boys” makes some people uncomfortable in the sense that they may feel I’m getting “above my station” but I really have no issues with expressing an opinion in public and if others do the same I’d respect their right to do so. Get over it … so here goes … Part II
OK I’ll give Ofqual credit. The level of detail in their report is stunning – I have this evening sat (I won’t pretend I digested it all completely) and read both the full report and the summary report BOTH AVAILABLE HERE. It really is data rich … So whilst I’m actually quite impressed with the research itself (and it probably should have been done as part of the accreditation process 12 months ago) I do think that the interpretation from Ofqual is a tad ummm … disappointing? Mmm not quite the word I’m looking for … basically I am not convinced that the language used is completely objective … ummm no that’s the wrong phrase … what I mean is that it appears at times there isn’t any consistency when talking about each of the different exam boards.
** deep breath **
Before I deal with the matter of interpretation lets deal with my first query: With regards Study 1, the image shows the rationale but looking at the items used for Pearson it seems (and I may be wrong!) that they have used papers from June 2011 (note the DATE!) So why is this an issue? If I’m right these papers don’t reflect the current situation and level of difficulty as they are from a Modular Spec – so by the time I’d gotten to page 10 I was already having my doubts. Surely it would have made sense to have used the most recent papers. I haven’t checked the other exam boards but I’m sure that they will be doing this themselves first thing tomorrow (would love to know if they find anything!). I am almost sure that I am correct … check out the online marking site where you can check out the results and even view the questions CHECK THIS OUT – ITS FAB
It would appear that the rationale for comparing “recent questions” from the “current GCSE” has just not happened – they have used questions from one specification type. They’ve basically used some papers that are not THE only specification – It is just wrong to claim a direct comparison and even worse it is a poor choice considering that there are standard LINEAR AND MORE CURRENT questions available. To me, it suggests a flawed methodology as they could have chosen a consistent spec across all boards but chose not to do so. Let me say this LOUD: “SOME OF THE QUESTIONS USED DO NOT REFLECT THE CURRENT PAPERS” = Flawed. This is just a school boy error!
Anyway, I’ll come back to some of the other failings in part III – I have pages of notes!! This may take some time (and I’ll do more tomorrow and the day after that .. ad infinitum!) … in the meantime read the summary (or the full thing) and form your own opinion. Basically my first (second and third!) thoughts are about how the results have been interpreted. The pages of research have basically been boiled down to essentially one or two graphs showing, in my opinion, the crudest measure of the qualifications comparability, and even these have been interpreted poorly!
In addition to these reports a consultation was launched HAVE YOUR SAY HERE , that ends on June 18th, after which responses will be analysed and the final technical guidance will be published. Then the exam boards can adapt their papers, submit them to Ofqual, get them reviewed, altered after any further feedback and published. Now ask yourself is that feasible in 12 days before the end of June when Ofqual say SAMs will be published by. They are probably hoping that no one will respond to the consultation – below I have shown both the current and proposed AO3 strand. To most of us this is just more bullshit and bluster BUT I ask you to consider again can all that to-ing and fro-ing really be done in 12 days unless it was already “set in stone”. If it’s going to be a whitewash, at least have the decency to make an effort to hide it!
I know there is a time issue … check out my earlier post HERE but I’d rather we got this right … I have so much more to add … I’ll be back!
