TESthink, educate, share

SQA Jargon

Avatar

TES Scotland opinion - Forum

This is where Scottish teachers go to let off some steam. Join the debate in the Scotland Opinion Group and chat about the key issues affecting education in Scotland.

Members 1060 Total Posts 17389

SQA Jargon

  • post reply

    I was at an SQA presentation last week, where one of the questions asked of the SQA co-ordinator for mathematics was' why do the marks for each question not appear beside the question, but only on the mark scheme?.' 

    The answer was... wait for it, you won't believe this one...' these are not marks, these are opportunities'!

    The other two SQA representatives nodded their heads in agreement at what they clearly thought was the perfect party line.  Two of the three look set to retire in Aug 2014, when I hope they will  be allowed to go back to using plain English again.

    Posted
    Please join this group to replyReply
  • post reply

    absolutezero

    I was at an SQA presentation last week, where one of the questions asked of the SQA co-ordinator for mathematics was' why do the marks for each question not appear beside the question, but only on the mark scheme?.' 

    The answer was... wait for it, you won't believe this one...' these are not marks, these are opportunities'!

    The other two SQA representatives nodded their heads in agreement at what they clearly thought was the perfect party line.  Two of the three look set to retire in Aug 2014, when I hope they will  be allowed to go back to using plain English again.

     

    Total tosh.

    But should the candidate not still be informed on how many "opportunities" each question is worth?



    [edited by: socrates82 at 19:23 (GMT 0) on 24-2-2013]
    Posted
    Please join this group to replyReply
  • post reply
    Outrageous nonsense. I can't believe they were allowed to get away with this. Did nobody laugh?
    Posted
    Please join this group to replyReply
  • post reply

    socrates82

    But should the candidate not still be informed on how many "opportunities" each question is worth?

    Big Smile

    Posted
    Please join this group to replyReply
  • post reply
    I bet the papers will have marks on when the final versions come out.

    Either that or anyone who writes anything relevant will be awarded a "pass" and get their free Panini Sticker album and their first shiny Nat 4 sticker to put in.
    Posted
    Please join this group to replyReply
  • post reply

    airy
    Either that or anyone who writes anything relevant will be awarded a "pass" and get their free Panini Sticker album and their first shiny Nat 4 sticker to put in.

    Smile and Crying

    Posted
    Please join this group to replyReply
  • post reply
    "added value"?
    Posted
    Please join this group to replyReply
  • post reply

    aclockworkorange
    "added value"?

     

    Is anyone bothering to look at "alternative" ways of assessing this sh*te? 

    I've been at the awful SQA presentations who says methods of assessing AV and units include podcasts, movies, blogs, posters and of course the dreaded PowerPoint or its illegitimate offspring, Prezi.

    Call me old fashioned but methinks the weans will be getting a test out of 20 or 30 wherever it is appropriate.

    Posted
    Please join this group to replyReply
  • post reply
    I did think about alternative assessments, trialled a few, in general put in quite a lot of work. The result...?

    The SQA are producing their own assessments for the first couple of years because they don't trust us to get the right standard.

    I've stopped bothering developing CfE stuff now.
    Posted
    Please join this group to replyReply
  • post reply

    absolutezero
    The answer was... wait for it, you won't believe this one...' these are not marks, these are opportunities'!

    These people are not fit to be allowed near education.

    Posted
    Please join this group to replyReply
  • post reply
    In fact this reminds me of the numbskulls in England a few years ago who said that there was no such thing as failure, only deferred success.  It is utter nonsense.


    [edited by: Siegen81to82 at 18:21 (GMT 0) on 3-3-2013]
    Posted
    Please join this group to replyReply