O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

Mista: its not just secondary schools. I was governor at primary school that was "in measures" - before I was involved - following the head's involuntary retirement on health grounds following investigations of cheating in SATS for 11 year olds and more. I know its one bad apple in a barrel of good apples (I hope!) but when you make it a competition, that's what you get. But if you dont have standards, inspections and public accountability, isnt that even worse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mistaram

Ram afraid that's what happens when you have school league tables Headmasters and teachers under pressure to get those results ,human nature will tell you the results are all that matters

---

Excellent point...well made. Completely agree.

Standards and league tables are not synonymous, GP and while there is obviously a case for inspection and public accountability the current system is ludicrously expensive and inefficient, imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

Thanks.

It’s difficult to disagree that some teachers may have marked over generously. Beyond that I just don’t know but, as I’ve said, the priority has to be what happens from Sept’ onwards...and that IS the government’s responsibility.

Andy...I think people understand the need for people to self isolate/quarantine on their return. It’s the abruptness and timing which is a puzzle. The necessity for return from both Spain, some weeks ago, and now France were both announced at 10.00 pm and there seems to have been a curiously short and unrealistic window of opportunity for return in both cases.

---

So would you suggest giving people a 14 day "free pass" to get infected and bring covid back? As noted above, its not being abroad that exposes you if you take normal precautions, its what you are doing when overseas that makes you higher risk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

So would you suggest giving people a 14 day "free pass" to get infected and bring covid back? As noted above, its not being abroad that exposes you if you take normal precautions, its what you are doing when overseas that makes you higher risk

---

Of course not, and I agree with your comments about going abroad...but why do we suddenly announce these things at 10.00 pm in the evening and seemingly give people thirty hours (I think) to get home which just - judging from the TV pictures - leads to horribly overcrowded
ferries etc.
One ‘expert’ (non-government) yesterday was actually telling people that they could manage the drive from Southern Europe in that time but weren’t allowed to stop for fuel/toilets/refreshments. Helpful that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ram59

I believe that everyone should quarantine when returning from abroad, the numbers of cases in the EU and worldwide are higher now, than in March, when it is widely accepted that the government should have imposed a quarantine.

On the subject of A level results, RA will explode, I believe that the teachers have let down their students. Let's look at the stats, 40% of the teachers' predicted grades have been downgraded, but the downgraded grades are still 2% higher than last year. If the teachers' grades are to be believed, then we must have a one off year full of 'Einsteins'. If we do as Mrs Crankie or the shadow education secretary says, giving grades as per teacher's assessments, it would mean an unprecedented increase in grades. These grades would show a 14% increase on last year's results.

Of course, there are individual cases where student's have been treated unfairly, but hopefully, the appeals procedure will work, as it does in any year. It seems to be that a lot of struggling schools were on course for great results this year, if you listen to their heads.

---

Not sure thats true, what I've seen is heads pointing out that the results awarded are significantly less than historic results which is borne out by examples I've looked at.

Not sure how you can blame teachers either, they didn't over predict pupils grades by 40% (its actually impossible under the system they have to work to to do that!) and that is also blown out of the water by the guy who having looked at the system to be used predicted that OFQUAL would downgrade the results by 39% and told the government this over a month ago! He had no idea what the teachers would predict, but had done a mathematical calculation as to how the moderation process would work and that was his conclusion, which was spot on!

Firstly teachers don't just give an assessment for a predicted grade, they have to work within OFQUALs guidelines - their predictions involve ranking all pupils they are assessing in each subject, from 1- 20 or however many pupils there are, oh and they cant rank a pupil equal 3rd, one has to be 3rd and the other 4th these rankings are then evidenced by using grades obtained by pupils in As levels and actual work they have done in school, plus reference to their GCSE score.

As for the system used then to determine the actual grades - this highlights the issue.

"Dave Thomson, chief statistician at education think tank FFT, illustrated the problem starkly with figures from a real, anonymous, school. At that school, he writes: “12.5% of entrants achieved A* between 2017 and 2019. And none achieved a grade U”. So, what of the school’s 2020 exam-less results?

That historic data is combined with information about individual students in a process called the “prior attainment adjustment”. This is the part of the process which has been waved away over the past week as “the model” or “the algorithm” by ministers, and it involves trying to use data about A-level pupils, including their GCSE grades, to judge how accurate their predicted grades are.

For the school Thomson analysed, that adjustment process took a school which had not had a U grade for three years, and predicted a 2.3% chance of a U grade in 2020; and the historic 12.5% A* achievement was downgraded to a 5.71% chance of that grade this year.

From there, the rounding process wrecks things further. That school, with its class of 27, was given one A* and one U – 3.7% for each. “This seems rather harsh,” Thomson writes, “given that the model prediction is for fewer than one pupil (2.30%, when each pupil counts as 3.70%) to achieve this grade.

Beyond the rounding, though, it is the adjustment process that “is absolutely fundamental to understanding how this year’s grades have been calculated”.

“Unfortunately, it raises more questions than it answers,” he says.

And that U, which was only ever predicted for just half a pupil, must be given to one pupil – whoever is ranked bottom of class by teachers – no matter how well that individual performed."

The system used is clearly flawed and the government knew this to be the case.

Couple that with the fact that Private Schools results are less affected because their averages over the years are higher (because they avoid entering less able pupils into subjects and have fewer pupils put forward for an exam) compared with say a state comprehensive who will have more pupils with a wider range of ability.

End result, some very bright pupils who have historically scored highly in GCSE's and As levels are having grade reductions.

These grade reductions are meaningful if one is looking to do certain careers, like medicine for instance. But also at the lower end will severely damage a pupils career prospects.

So we have a system applied which reinforces the inequality between those who are well off and those who come from lower income backgrounds, we have a generation of children already badly affected by a lack of education for 4 months and its summarily dismissed as being the fault of teachers?

Whether the Scottish answer is correct or not, the government have had 5 months to tackle this matter, did nothing despite knowing what would happen and then suddenly decided an appeal based on mock exam results was OK, when its ludicrous because there is no standard on how mock exams are done.

In the circumstances and accepting this is an exceptional year, allowing the predicted grades arrived at by teachers under a regime set out by OFQUAL would be the fairest. So some may get inflated results? So what? Their start in life would not be disadvantaged and after that whatever they do will be up to them and their own efforts, but at least they wouldn't have been unfairly penalised from the start!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

Careful \Andy, praise of the government is not allowed!
If anything, holidays should be banned, as opposed to countries visited. Its the bar life, hotels, eating out, beaches etc that expose the Brit abroad - life style not location. If you went to Belgium and spent your time touring nice isolated beauty spots, camping in the woods etc, you'd be no more covid exposed than being at home. But wherever you go if you end up in high density crowdsed bars, clubs, beaches you're going to be more exposed.

Think not where you are going, but what you are doing. If you get covid on return from the Balearics, its more likely you got it from that drunken typist from Dudley that you caroused with in the nightclub, than the spanish bloke you bought some watermelon from on an isolated northern beach

---

Exactly. I’ve aimed my criticism at ethnic minorities and youngsters in U.K., very happy to to condemn those who think they can switch off once abroad, far too many (gotta say French and German too) are treating a holiday from home as a holiday from the rules as well. We’ve made a point (helped by my chronic unsociable tendencies, Mrs F has found it a struggle) to talk to no-one not wearing a mask or the other side of a screen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

So would you suggest giving people a 14 day "free pass" to get infected and bring covid back? As noted above, its not being abroad that exposes you if you take normal precautions, its what you are doing when overseas that makes you higher risk

---

Well they gave us 11days notice that face coverings would be mandatory in shops How stupid was that If it's that important it should have been immediately . Crazy you have to wear one in a shop but the person serving you does not ,how does that one work

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mistaram

Well they gave us 11days notice that face coverings would be mandatory in shops How stupid was that If it's that important it should have been immediately . Crazy you have to wear one in a shop but the person serving you does not ,how does that one work

---

Yes it’s bonkers but the whole mask wearing thing is so difficult to police, whatever the rules.

It isn't easy to police, but I dont get why staff walking around the store don't need to but customers do. Still I'm a passive sheep so will wear one. It's not difficult. Those that don't /won't... simple don't serve them. Close the self service tills first, though! If they then try to shoplift, security can handle it. It's only bloody mindedness in most cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mistaram

Well they gave us 11days notice that face coverings would be mandatory in shops How stupid was that If it's that important it should have been immediately . Crazy you have to wear one in a shop but the person serving you does not ,how does that one work

---

It was a law Mista, you have to give people a chance to comply, but I agree that its crazy that shop workers are exempt, unless they're working behind a screen.

The argument, not yours, that its impossible to police really annoys me. Who polices serving booze, fags, knives and glue to underage shoppers? Have you ever tried buying more than 2 small packs of paracetamol?