4 is meant to be the "magic number" - equivalent to a C in the old system. If employers start wanting a 5 - a particularly good C under the old system - that will make the situation worse. I do however think that GCSE English and Maths are badly misunderstood - they do not cover basic literacy and numeracy - you can have quite poor literacy skills and pass English language with a 4, but also have good basic literacy and fail to if you're not good at analysing literary devices and styles. A GCSE English language pass would not actually tell me if a person can compose a business letter or talk to customers. The Function Skills qualifications offered to college students who keep on getting 2s or lower in their retakes actually do that better - I believe those should actually be offered far more widely and before having to fail to get the required grade in the far more academic GCSEs.
NVQs are not academic. I agree, however, that the fetishisation of GCSE results has failed to account for the fact that, by the very fact that results are norm referenced, some people are required to get the lower grades. I think that the Scottish system, with separate content for each qualification at each level has some merit, though norm referencing remains an issue for examined courses and there are question marks about the integrity of internally examined qualifications and the difficulty of progressing to externally examined courses.
This doesn't appear to be true; while it shows up in push polling on the narrow issues of taxes, longitudinal surveys that cover a range of issues as well as their salience consistently show that most people are in favour of more spending, even if that meant taxes would rise. Here's the BSA for instance:
This doesn't appear to be true; while it shows up in push polling on the narrow issues of taxes, longitudinal surveys that cover a range of issues as well as their salience consistently show that most people are in favour of more spending, even if that meant taxes would rise. Here's the BSA for instance:
Yes, but as the second of your links makes clear those people seem to largely be of the opinion that other people's taxes should go up, not their own.
The UK has experienced a period of stagnant wages coupled with rising income inequality and an even greater rise in wealth inequality. Those on middle incomes have seen their earnings flatline or fall, given an even vaguely representative cohort what would you expect the results to look like ?
NVQs are not academic. I agree, however, that the fetishisation of GCSE results has failed to account for the fact that, by the very fact that results are norm referenced, some people are required to get the lower grades. I think that the Scottish system, with separate content for each qualification at each level has some merit, though norm referencing remains an issue for examined courses and there are question marks about the integrity of internally examined qualifications and the difficulty of progressing to externally examined courses.
Half of the people are below average. A not insignificant number of problems are caused by people who seem not to understand what that means.
There are plenty of cases where norm-referenced results are useful. @KarlLB's comment about functional skills is I think particularly relevant: if what you want to know are "who are the best people out of this group", then norm-referenced grades are sensible. If what you want to know is "can this person write a business letter in decent English", or "can this person read and follow functional instructions", then what you care about is a standards assessment.
Oh, definitely, there is a place for norm-referenced grades, but it makes an absolute nonsense of any attempt to use results as a measure of "driving up standards". The problem, I suspect, is that politicians and the press either don't understand or wilfully misrepresent how the exam system works. I lean towards the latter.
Oh, definitely, there is a place for norm-referenced grades, but it makes an absolute nonsense of any attempt to use results as a measure of "driving up standards". The problem, I suspect, is that politicians and the press either don't understand or wilfully misrepresent how the exam system works. I lean towards the latter.
I'm not sure where you're going with this but national examinations (GCSEs and A-Levels) are not norm-referenced.
It’s also worth saying that GCSEs and A levels are not norm-referenced either. If they were, we’d see fixed proportions of each grade in each specification, regardless of the ability of the cohort or the ability profile of any one exam board.
My beef with GCSE Maths and English is not their norm referencing or otherwise (and I thought they no longer were sp thanks for conformation @alienfromzog - it's that they don't examine what many people including employers think they do which may be blocking people from employment if certain grades are being insisted on.
Most employers need people who can email a client without a sea of spelling mistakes and awkward phrasing, not necessarily people who can make an argument for blue curtains implying a particular state of mind of a fictional character.
Oh, definitely, there is a place for norm-referenced grades, but it makes an absolute nonsense of any attempt to use results as a measure of "driving up standards". The problem, I suspect, is that politicians and the press either don't understand or wilfully misrepresent how the exam system works. I lean towards the latter.
I'm not sure where you're going with this but national examinations (GCSEs and A-Levels) are not norm-referenced.
It’s also worth saying that GCSEs and A levels are not norm-referenced either. If they were, we’d see fixed proportions of each grade in each specification, regardless of the ability of the cohort or the ability profile of any one exam board.
They are norm referenced, but weighted to the prior performance of the same cohort e.g. in key stage tests. There is some fudging around the edges, as the link makes clear, but it's still norm referencing at heart. Their description of criterion referencing is flawed too - grade descriptors can and usually are used on a "best fit" basis rather than as absolute requirements (though the latter do sometimes slip into qualifications, particularly in coursework).
Oh, definitely, there is a place for norm-referenced grades, but it makes an absolute nonsense of any attempt to use results as a measure of "driving up standards". The problem, I suspect, is that politicians and the press either don't understand or wilfully misrepresent how the exam system works. I lean towards the latter.
I'm not sure where you're going with this but national examinations (GCSEs and A-Levels) are not norm-referenced.
It’s also worth saying that GCSEs and A levels are not norm-referenced either. If they were, we’d see fixed proportions of each grade in each specification, regardless of the ability of the cohort or the ability profile of any one exam board.
They are norm referenced, but weighted to the prior performance of the same cohort e.g. in key stage tests. There is some fudging around the edges, as the link makes clear, but it's still norm referencing at heart. Their description of criterion referencing is flawed too - grade descriptors can and usually are used on a "best fit" basis rather than as absolute requirements (though the latter do sometimes slip into qualifications, particularly in coursework).
I am not an expert* nor do I have direct knowledge of GCSE marking systems but what the link is describing is not norm-referenced. Grades are awarded by criteria and one of the checks of standards is a comparison with previous results. The exam boards have a degree of autonomy to award more of a certain grade than previous proportions. If they think the results are outside of that range, the boards can apply for permission to go further. It is simply not the case that x% must get an A, y% a B z% a C etc.** I mean literally OfQual state "They are not norm referenced." Are they wrong or lying?
AFZ
*I do some educational work with the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and know the examinations team so I am familiar with the processes and some of the statistics work that goes on to verify and validate the surgical exams. The principles apply to any form of qualification
**Yes, I know GCSEs don't use letter grades anymore but I'm old and can't remember which numbers mean what....
Ofqual are technically correct but wrong for practical purposes (it's a description designed to divert objections to norm referencing rather than anything else). It's not strict norm referencing but it is in its implementation - the grade boundaries of a paper will be adjusted once the results are in because too many people getting a passing grade is taken as indicating the standard of the paper was not high enough, and the grade boundaries are raised accordingly.
Most employers need people who can email a client without a sea of spelling mistakes and awkward phrasing, not necessarily people who can make an argument for blue curtains implying a particular state of mind of a fictional character.
Fortunately, the traditional application letter is a good proxy for whether a potential employee has a functional command of decent written English. If you can write me a letter in coherent English explaining why your experience makes you a good fit for my job, you pass that part of the test
Most employers need people who can email a client without a sea of spelling mistakes and awkward phrasing, not necessarily people who can make an argument for blue curtains implying a particular state of mind of a fictional character.
Fortunately, the traditional application letter is a good proxy for whether a potential employee has a functional command of decent written English. If you can write me a letter in coherent English explaining why your experience makes you a good fit for my job, you pass that part of the test
Most employers need people who can email a client without a sea of spelling mistakes and awkward phrasing, not necessarily people who can make an argument for blue curtains implying a particular state of mind of a fictional character.
Fortunately, the traditional application letter is a good proxy for whether a potential employee has a functional command of decent written English. If you can write me a letter in coherent English explaining why your experience makes you a good fit for my job, you pass that part of the test
Would there be anything actually wrong with someone using ChatGPT, or other tools, to help write emails for work? All email clients and word processing packages these days already have built in spell checkers and grammar guides, even typing this I have red underlining of "ChatGPT" because the dictionary doesn't recognise it. If those aids to write decent English are acceptable, and given that I don't think any employers pay an IT person to disable these features I'm going to assume that they are, why would the use of AI as a further aid not be acceptable? What an employer needs would be well written output, emails and reports etc, does it really make that much difference if that's because staff have a good grasp of the English language or because they know how to use the tools available to produce good written output?
Ofqual are technically correct but wrong for practical purposes (it's a description designed to divert objections to norm referencing rather than anything else). It's not strict norm referencing but it is in its implementation - the grade boundaries of a paper will be adjusted once the results are in because too many people getting a passing grade is taken as indicating the standard of the paper was not high enough, and the grade boundaries are raised accordingly.
It would be nigh on impossible to set exams from one year to the next of precisely equal difficulty. So grades are adjusted in the light of actual marks achieved to ensure that the value of the grades remains fairly consistent.
The more pressing story at the moment is probably the changes in the Spring Statement, which the Joseph Rowntree Foundation now estimate will push a further 400K people into poverty:
and with the government's own figures for how much better off the average household will be at the end of this parliament leaning heavily on imputed rent.
Ofqual are technically correct but wrong for practical purposes (it's a description designed to divert objections to norm referencing rather than anything else). It's not strict norm referencing but it is in its implementation - the grade boundaries of a paper will be adjusted once the results are in because too many people getting a passing grade is taken as indicating the standard of the paper was not high enough, and the grade boundaries are raised accordingly.
It would be nigh on impossible to set exams from one year to the next of precisely equal difficulty. So grades are adjusted in the light of actual marks achieved to ensure that the value of the grades remains fairly consistent.
That's true, and why it's ultimately norm referenced, albeit with extra steps. "Value" is preserved by restricting the number of passes.
Ofqual are technically correct but wrong for practical purposes (it's a description designed to divert objections to norm referencing rather than anything else). It's not strict norm referencing but it is in its implementation - the grade boundaries of a paper will be adjusted once the results are in because too many people getting a passing grade is taken as indicating the standard of the paper was not high enough, and the grade boundaries are raised accordingly.
It would be nigh on impossible to set exams from one year to the next of precisely equal difficulty. So grades are adjusted in the light of actual marks achieved to ensure that the value of the grades remains fairly consistent.
That's true, and why it's ultimately norm referenced, albeit with extra steps. "Value" is preserved by restricting the number of passes.
It's not norm-referencing. The grades proportions do change. It is a statistical check that if the proportions change by a large amount then that has to be justified. It is exam moderation.
My beef with GCSE Maths and English is not their norm referencing or otherwise (and I thought they no longer were sp thanks for conformation @alienfromzog - it's that they don't examine what many people including employers think they do which may be blocking people from employment if certain grades are being insisted on.
Most employers need people who can email a client without a sea of spelling mistakes and awkward phrasing, not necessarily people who can make an argument for blue curtains implying a particular state of mind of a fictional character.
I think there is a gap that could be filled by having one single paper to test basic literacy and arithmetic. No grades, just a pass or fail - so similar to a musical audition where the base line is getting the dots right,
Would there be anything actually wrong with someone using ChatGPT, or other tools, to help write emails for work?
Yes. Doing so routinely leaks corporate IP and other secrets. If you could resolve the security questions (for example, have an in-house LLM that didn't export all your confidential data to some black box), then there would be nothing wrong with it in principle, although I'd still have questions - consider, for example, a lawyer's office with multiple high-profile clients. If you use an in-house LLM to help compose a message to these clients, you don't leak privileged information to some generic AI company, but do you risk leaking information between clients because your LLM incorporates things it's learned from one client in a message to the other and you don't spot that?
but do you risk leaking information between clients because your LLM incorporates things it's learned from one client in a message to the other and you don't spot that?
We are getting off topic, but that's not how they generally work. The training stage is separate from the generation stage. And enterprise contracts for CoPilot etc. will generally specify that your input won't be used as training data (for obvious reasons).
but do you risk leaking information between clients because your LLM incorporates things it's learned from one client in a message to the other and you don't spot that?
We are getting off topic, but that's not how they generally work. The training stage is separate from the generation stage. And enterprise contracts for CoPilot etc. will generally specify that your input won't be used as training data (for obvious reasons).
View in the last place I’ve worked was yes to using co-pilot, no to ChatGPT for that reason.
but do you risk leaking information between clients because your LLM incorporates things it's learned from one client in a message to the other and you don't spot that?
We are getting off topic, but that's not how they generally work. The training stage is separate from the generation stage. And enterprise contracts for CoPilot etc. will generally specify that your input won't be used as training data (for obvious reasons).
View in the last place I’ve worked was yes to using co-pilot, no to ChatGPT for that reason.
Right, CoPilot is purchased via the same route as Office365, so the nuances of storing documents on Microsoft's computers to which MS themselves don't have access to have been worked out.
And while few enterprises are contracting with OpenAI directly, customers of Microsoft's Cloud Service - Azure - can spin up private instances of any of OpenAI's models (including GPT4, DALL-E, Whisper etc - due to Microsoft's part ownership of OpenAI) where again they retain control over their own data.
Back to Labour government.
They are going to have break one of their red lines soon. We cannot go on like this. This is basically what I expected from this bunch of Torys in red ties. They have gone harder than I expected but in principle it is what it is thought they would be like. I reckon the red line on tax will be the first to go.
Back to Labour government.
They are going to have break one of their red lines soon. We cannot go on like this. This is basically what I expected from this bunch of Torys in red ties. They have gone harder than I expected but in principle it is what it is thought they would be like. I reckon the red line on tax will be the first to go.
Times Radio and BBC this morning both suggesting that the time between now and the Actual Budget is going to be a succession of speculation, running commentary and pressure on the government to spell out what they’re going to do.
Which feels a bit self inflicted. Almost as though the govt plan is to re-run the speculation, uncertainty and fear of last summer.
I see very little reason to listen to one of the thinner skinned men on the planet (who started his career in the Jeremy Kyle bracket) over disability groups - who contrary to government messaging seem to have been entirely left out of the consultation.
I see very little reason to listen to one of the thinner skinned men on the planet (who started his career in the Jeremy Kyle bracket) over disability groups - who contrary to government messaging seem to have been entirely left out of the consultation.
Ok, so you don't like James. I get that. However it's a post that just shuts down anything useful by way of discussion on the basis of not understanding what the content was.
I was dipping in and out because of work but in the hour of radio, you can hear disabled people explain what changes mean to them and why they feel demonised. You also heard reference to the £1Bn set aside for programs that might actually help people who want to get back working. There was a very interesting caller whose work involves providing help to people who haven't been able to work since Covid. And there was reference to the plan that will allow disabled people to keep their benefits when they start work. And helpful reflection on the political and media landscape.
None of this detracts or diminished the real problems that there are but it was a fuller picture.
I fiercely disagree with much of this policy but there are other bits to it.
Shutting down discussion of that doesn’t take us any further forward. I'm not saying a rant is not justified just that there's more here too.
Now the problem here is attitudinal and systematic. No government that continues and makes significantly worse an inhuman system which is killing people and going on to kill again under them, can expect people to go 'Oh goody' as they tinker round the edges of it and still uphold and further the toxic narratives around that system that underpin it and justify it and help it to kill people.
Labour are not doing the bare minimum to stop this system killing people and are furthering rather than dismantling the anti-disabled narratives that enable it.
I see very little reason to listen to one of the thinner skinned men on the planet (who started his career in the Jeremy Kyle bracket) over disability groups - who contrary to government messaging seem to have been entirely left out of the consultation.
Ok, so you don't like James. I get that. However it's a post that just shuts down anything useful by way of discussion on the basis of not understanding what the content was.
Okay, but what kind of discussion do you propose to have? You're initial teaser was
"James O'Brien is covering this on his phone-in this morning in a balanced way."
What do you think 'balance' means in this context? Surely it means going beyond merely judging which policies are narrowly bad or good to actually looking at how many people will be affected by each set of changes. And on that measure the policies aren't looking to good, as Louise's links demonstrate. Note that in the 3rd link from the disability news service the DWP's estimate is - if anything - a fairly drastic undercount, here's a thread from Iain Porter of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:
None of this detracts or diminished the real problems that there are but it was a fuller picture.
I fiercely disagree with much of this policy but there are other bits to it.
Okay, but in a previous post you seemingly denied the cuts on the basis that some of them would only apply to new claimants. And ignoring the exceptions noted by others in this thread that is a real reduction in benefits isn't it ? Unless the cost of being disabled has suddenly gone down.
Shutting down discussion of that doesn’t take us any further forward.
Take us further than what? At this point unless there is severe pressure on the government the lot of a large number of disabled people will be worse than it is currently, which won't be mitigated by the much smaller number who may be helped back into work.
Those of us who pointed to previous statements by the people now in charge were told that these either weren't representative, or that Labour could be pushed left once they were voted in. I fail to see what this is, except an attempt to avoid buyers remorse.
I see very little reason to listen to one of the thinner skinned men on the planet (who started his career in the Jeremy Kyle bracket) over disability groups - who contrary to government messaging seem to have been entirely left out of the consultation.
Ok, so you don't like James. I get that. However it's a post that just shuts down anything useful by way of discussion on the basis of not understanding what the content was.
Okay, but what kind of discussion do you propose to have? You're initial teaser was
"James O'Brien is covering this on his phone-in this morning in a balanced way."
What do you think 'balance' means in this context? Surely it means going beyond merely judging which policies are narrowly bad or good to actually looking at how many people will be affected by each set of changes. And on that measure the policies aren't looking to good, as Louise's links demonstrate. Note that in the 3rd link from the disability news service the DWP's estimate is - if anything - a fairly drastic undercount, here's a thread from Iain Porter of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:
None of this detracts or diminished the real problems that there are but it was a fuller picture.
I fiercely disagree with much of this policy but there are other bits to it.
Okay, but in a previous post you seemingly denied the cuts on the basis that some of them would only apply to new claimants. And ignoring the exceptions noted by others in this thread that is a real reduction in benefits isn't it ? Unless the cost of being disabled has suddenly gone down.
Shutting down discussion of that doesn’t take us any further forward.
Take us further than what? At this point unless there is severe pressure on the government the lot of a large number of disabled people will be worse than it is currently, which won't be mitigated by the much smaller number who may be helped back into work.
Those of us who pointed to previous statements by the people now in charge were told that these either weren't representative, or that Labour could be pushed left once they were voted in. I fail to see what this is, except an attempt to avoid buyers remorse.
No buyers' remorse. Disappointment yes. Always democracy is a choice between those who are standing and not those we wish were. And I do believe we have a vital role to play in our democracy between elections. The government should be put under pressure on this (and every other issue). I do not support much of this. But there are bits I do support. The usual they're all the same rhetoric makes people feel better but achieves nothing.
The usual they're all the same rhetoric makes people feel better but achieves nothing.
I think it is actively quite dangerous, Keir Starmer does not equal Farage or Johnson. See what is really in front of us, look at the rise of the far right in the US and Europe.
The usual they're all the same rhetoric makes people feel better but achieves nothing.
Can you point to where I said that ?
I cannot. I think we risk talking at cross purposes a little here. In part because I do not entirely know what I think. In part because I don't think we are fully understanding each other.
You did not say that but it felt to me like the logical end point of what you were saying in response to me. Especially as you specifically referenced previous comments about senior Labour people. I assume you meant the kind of thing that's of the flavour of "Tory-lite" etc. Moreover you were dismissive of me suggesting that whilst there are bad things here, there are also good things. Which is very close to saying they're all as bad as each other by implication.
I was not trying to mischaracterise what you are saying. I was explaining that whilst I agree with most of what you've said, I think there is more here and it matters. Feel free to disagree. I am definitely persuadable. I am debating resigning my party membership over this. But I do want to explore this properly. For example, the Cameron government was just as responsible for the anti-disabled people rhetoric as the media. That is not true of the current government. But the question of what they are doing to fight this is a fair question and probably a fair charge that they are silent for political reasons. I wish to explore all of this.
The usual they're all the same rhetoric makes people feel better but achieves nothing.
Can you point to where I said that ?
You did not say that but it felt to me like the logical end point of what you were saying in response to me. Especially as you specifically referenced previous comments about senior Labour people. I assume you meant the kind of thing that's of the flavour of "Tory-lite" etc.
It's useful to be aware of what people have said in the past because it indicates the existing politics they bring to the situation and how they feel the resources of the state should be distributed, whether you want to consider what they said to be "Tory-lite" is entirely up to you. I think Reeves, Kendall et al are on the right of the party, and statements like "The Labour Party is the party of work" are intended to signal where they are politically.
Moreover you were dismissive of me suggesting that whilst there are bad things here, there are also good things. Which is very close to saying they're all as bad as each other by implication.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't being completely sincere here. But put very simplistically; a situation where bad things happen to a large number of people while good things happen to a smaller number of people is probably bad on balance. Remember that the governments own impact assessment makes the assumption that the where people are better off it'll be by virtue of being helped back into work. Yet at the same time the effect of tightening the criteria on PIP will be to take away the support people require to make the accommodations they need to live. In essence the government want more people to work, but will also cut the funds to make adjustments that help them work. You can see from the preliminary analysis from the government's own figures that quite a large number of people (including those in receipt of carers allowance) are going to lose more than they gain:
For example, the Cameron government was just as responsible for the anti-disabled people rhetoric as the media. That is not true of the current government.
See comments about 'the party of work' above - this has been quite consistent messaging over a number of years. See Streeting's recent remarks about there being an over-diagnosis of mental conditions. The net result of this kind of messaging is to shift the overton window to the right, and as we are discussing the dangers of Reform/Farage above I'll point to this piece of research:
"Believe me, I get it. You are RIGHT to be angry about illegal migration"
This is the kind of thing the research @chrisstiles has cited is relevant to - where attempts to accommodate the far right can encourage defection to them.
Whilst I remain of the view that the current cabinet is a massive improvement on their recent predecessors. Both in competence and direction of travel. But it's ever harder to feel enthusiastic and to defend them. As my wife put it: "I wish Labour would sound more like Labour."
Alex Andreou on Quiet Riot summed it up well for me. Calling this Austerity 2.0 is just ignorant when we're talking £5Bn retrenchment when they announced £70Bn expansion in the autumn. There is definitely a messaging problem. But that doesn't change the fact that there are some cuts here that are just wrong and real people will suffer.*
AFZ
*The exact details are still unclear and the headlines of the 'government's own figures show...' are misleading as that's not what the report they link to shows. It's more complex than that.
He is holding a big conference on illegal migrants and is particularly wanting to talk about the gangs that organise it.
He announced again his plans to 'treat people smugglers like terrorists' and I again beg liberals to consider what happens when the state of exceptions they've created fall under the control of their opponents.
Calling this Austerity 2.0 is just ignorant when we're talking £5Bn retrenchment when they announced £70Bn expansion in the autumn.
The descriptor wasn't restricted to the £5bn retrenchment, but the other thing this misses is that nobody lives an average. In an increasingly unequal society benefits can accrue to the top while the lived experience of the majority stays static or worse, for instance:
Whilst I remain of the view that the current cabinet is a massive improvement on their recent predecessors. Both in competence and direction of travel. But it's ever harder to feel enthusiastic and to defend them. As my wife put it: "I wish Labour would sound more like Labour."
Yes; clearly this kind of thing is just about tone:
[Robert Punton] has been involved in the disabled people’s movement for nearly 40 years, including through the Disabled People’s Direct Action Network (DAN), DPAC, Not Dead Yet UK and Act 4 Inclusion.
In an open letter, he said he had “never known any government with such little regard and respect for the rights and welfare of the disabled community of this country”, and he described it as “callous and uncaring”.
He said: “I have advised Conservative governments with more empathy than this government.
“Whilst I would never vote for nor want a Conservative government, I am extremely scared for the safety of disabled people under a Starmer-led government
Comments
Yes, but as the second of your links makes clear those people seem to largely be of the opinion that other people's taxes should go up, not their own.
The UK has experienced a period of stagnant wages coupled with rising income inequality and an even greater rise in wealth inequality. Those on middle incomes have seen their earnings flatline or fall, given an even vaguely representative cohort what would you expect the results to look like ?
Half of the people are below average. A not insignificant number of problems are caused by people who seem not to understand what that means.
There are plenty of cases where norm-referenced results are useful. @KarlLB's comment about functional skills is I think particularly relevant: if what you want to know are "who are the best people out of this group", then norm-referenced grades are sensible. If what you want to know is "can this person write a business letter in decent English", or "can this person read and follow functional instructions", then what you care about is a standards assessment.
I'm not sure where you're going with this but national examinations (GCSEs and A-Levels) are not norm-referenced.
https://ofqual.blog.gov.uk/2017/03/17/mythbusting-3-common-misconceptions/
Most employers need people who can email a client without a sea of spelling mistakes and awkward phrasing, not necessarily people who can make an argument for blue curtains implying a particular state of mind of a fictional character.
They are norm referenced, but weighted to the prior performance of the same cohort e.g. in key stage tests. There is some fudging around the edges, as the link makes clear, but it's still norm referencing at heart. Their description of criterion referencing is flawed too - grade descriptors can and usually are used on a "best fit" basis rather than as absolute requirements (though the latter do sometimes slip into qualifications, particularly in coursework).
I am not an expert* nor do I have direct knowledge of GCSE marking systems but what the link is describing is not norm-referenced. Grades are awarded by criteria and one of the checks of standards is a comparison with previous results. The exam boards have a degree of autonomy to award more of a certain grade than previous proportions. If they think the results are outside of that range, the boards can apply for permission to go further. It is simply not the case that x% must get an A, y% a B z% a C etc.** I mean literally OfQual state "They are not norm referenced." Are they wrong or lying?
AFZ
*I do some educational work with the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and know the examinations team so I am familiar with the processes and some of the statistics work that goes on to verify and validate the surgical exams. The principles apply to any form of qualification
**Yes, I know GCSEs don't use letter grades anymore but I'm old and can't remember which numbers mean what....
Fortunately, the traditional application letter is a good proxy for whether a potential employee has a functional command of decent written English. If you can write me a letter in coherent English explaining why your experience makes you a good fit for my job, you pass that part of the test
"ChatGPT please write me an application letter"
Yeah, that was my first thought too.
It would be nigh on impossible to set exams from one year to the next of precisely equal difficulty. So grades are adjusted in the light of actual marks achieved to ensure that the value of the grades remains fairly consistent.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1904937822697500695.html
and with the government's own figures for how much better off the average household will be at the end of this parliament leaning heavily on imputed rent.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/mar/27/spring-statement-rachel-reeves-labour-benefit-cuts-growth-keir-starmer-uk-politics-latest-news?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with:block-67e513d98f08f13b630d74d9#block-67e513d98f08f13b630d74d9
That's true, and why it's ultimately norm referenced, albeit with extra steps. "Value" is preserved by restricting the number of passes.
It's not norm-referencing. The grades proportions do change. It is a statistical check that if the proportions change by a large amount then that has to be justified. It is exam moderation.
AFZ
I think there is a gap that could be filled by having one single paper to test basic literacy and arithmetic. No grades, just a pass or fail - so similar to a musical audition where the base line is getting the dots right,
Yes. Doing so routinely leaks corporate IP and other secrets. If you could resolve the security questions (for example, have an in-house LLM that didn't export all your confidential data to some black box), then there would be nothing wrong with it in principle, although I'd still have questions - consider, for example, a lawyer's office with multiple high-profile clients. If you use an in-house LLM to help compose a message to these clients, you don't leak privileged information to some generic AI company, but do you risk leaking information between clients because your LLM incorporates things it's learned from one client in a message to the other and you don't spot that?
We are getting off topic, but that's not how they generally work. The training stage is separate from the generation stage. And enterprise contracts for CoPilot etc. will generally specify that your input won't be used as training data (for obvious reasons).
View in the last place I’ve worked was yes to using co-pilot, no to ChatGPT for that reason.
Right, CoPilot is purchased via the same route as Office365, so the nuances of storing documents on Microsoft's computers to which MS themselves don't have access to have been worked out.
And while few enterprises are contracting with OpenAI directly, customers of Microsoft's Cloud Service - Azure - can spin up private instances of any of OpenAI's models (including GPT4, DALL-E, Whisper etc - due to Microsoft's part ownership of OpenAI) where again they retain control over their own data.
They are going to have break one of their red lines soon. We cannot go on like this. This is basically what I expected from this bunch of Torys in red ties. They have gone harder than I expected but in principle it is what it is thought they would be like. I reckon the red line on tax will be the first to go.
Times Radio and BBC this morning both suggesting that the time between now and the Actual Budget is going to be a succession of speculation, running commentary and pressure on the government to spell out what they’re going to do.
Which feels a bit self inflicted. Almost as though the govt plan is to re-run the speculation, uncertainty and fear of last summer.
Because that worked.
There are aspects to this that are wrong.
However, the government is also doing some good things here and none of the good bits are not being reported.
It puts me in a very mixed and uncomfortable position. I will not defend the indefensible but some of what they are doing is spot-on.
And Cameron legalised equal marriage. A handful of good things does not outweigh the absolute shit show that is everything else.
Like all the dumb arses who joined thinking it was a party and are discovering it's a container for Farage's ego?
Ok, so you don't like James. I get that. However it's a post that just shuts down anything useful by way of discussion on the basis of not understanding what the content was.
I was dipping in and out because of work but in the hour of radio, you can hear disabled people explain what changes mean to them and why they feel demonised. You also heard reference to the £1Bn set aside for programs that might actually help people who want to get back working. There was a very interesting caller whose work involves providing help to people who haven't been able to work since Covid. And there was reference to the plan that will allow disabled people to keep their benefits when they start work. And helpful reflection on the political and media landscape.
None of this detracts or diminished the real problems that there are but it was a fuller picture.
I fiercely disagree with much of this policy but there are other bits to it.
Shutting down discussion of that doesn’t take us any further forward. I'm not saying a rant is not justified just that there's more here too.
https://www.gmlaw.org.uk/2025/01/10/review-of-john-prings-new-book-on-the-dwp/
And following Disability News Service gives ready access to how bad things are.
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/all-news-stories/
Here are a few to help
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/disabled-man-dies-in-poverty-and-squalor-after-dwp-removes-his-benefits-just-as-labour-cuts-pip-by-4-5bn/
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/labours-cuts-to-pip-will-drag-a-quarter-of-a-million-people-into-absolute-poverty-dwp-figures-show/
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/dpac-says-this-is-just-the-start-after-protest-over-vile-and-cruel-benefit-cuts-outside-downing-street/
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/dwp-cannot-say-how-many-disabled-people-it-is-sanctioning-despite-plans-for-conditions-on-many-more-claimants/
Now the problem here is attitudinal and systematic. No government that continues and makes significantly worse an inhuman system which is killing people and going on to kill again under them, can expect people to go 'Oh goody' as they tinker round the edges of it and still uphold and further the toxic narratives around that system that underpin it and justify it and help it to kill people.
Labour are not doing the bare minimum to stop this system killing people and are furthering rather than dismantling the anti-disabled narratives that enable it.
Okay, but what kind of discussion do you propose to have? You're initial teaser was
"James O'Brien is covering this on his phone-in this morning in a balanced way."
What do you think 'balance' means in this context? Surely it means going beyond merely judging which policies are narrowly bad or good to actually looking at how many people will be affected by each set of changes. And on that measure the policies aren't looking to good, as Louise's links demonstrate. Note that in the 3rd link from the disability news service the DWP's estimate is - if anything - a fairly drastic undercount, here's a thread from Iain Porter of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1904937822697500695.html
Okay, but in a previous post you seemingly denied the cuts on the basis that some of them would only apply to new claimants. And ignoring the exceptions noted by others in this thread that is a real reduction in benefits isn't it ? Unless the cost of being disabled has suddenly gone down.
Take us further than what? At this point unless there is severe pressure on the government the lot of a large number of disabled people will be worse than it is currently, which won't be mitigated by the much smaller number who may be helped back into work.
Those of us who pointed to previous statements by the people now in charge were told that these either weren't representative, or that Labour could be pushed left once they were voted in. I fail to see what this is, except an attempt to avoid buyers remorse.
No buyers' remorse. Disappointment yes. Always democracy is a choice between those who are standing and not those we wish were. And I do believe we have a vital role to play in our democracy between elections. The government should be put under pressure on this (and every other issue). I do not support much of this. But there are bits I do support. The usual they're all the same rhetoric makes people feel better but achieves nothing.
I think it is actively quite dangerous, Keir Starmer does not equal Farage or Johnson. See what is really in front of us, look at the rise of the far right in the US and Europe.
Can you point to where I said that ?
I cannot. I think we risk talking at cross purposes a little here. In part because I do not entirely know what I think. In part because I don't think we are fully understanding each other.
You did not say that but it felt to me like the logical end point of what you were saying in response to me. Especially as you specifically referenced previous comments about senior Labour people. I assume you meant the kind of thing that's of the flavour of "Tory-lite" etc. Moreover you were dismissive of me suggesting that whilst there are bad things here, there are also good things. Which is very close to saying they're all as bad as each other by implication.
I was not trying to mischaracterise what you are saying. I was explaining that whilst I agree with most of what you've said, I think there is more here and it matters. Feel free to disagree. I am definitely persuadable. I am debating resigning my party membership over this. But I do want to explore this properly. For example, the Cameron government was just as responsible for the anti-disabled people rhetoric as the media. That is not true of the current government. But the question of what they are doing to fight this is a fair question and probably a fair charge that they are silent for political reasons. I wish to explore all of this.
AFZ
It's useful to be aware of what people have said in the past because it indicates the existing politics they bring to the situation and how they feel the resources of the state should be distributed, whether you want to consider what they said to be "Tory-lite" is entirely up to you. I think Reeves, Kendall et al are on the right of the party, and statements like "The Labour Party is the party of work" are intended to signal where they are politically.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't being completely sincere here. But put very simplistically; a situation where bad things happen to a large number of people while good things happen to a smaller number of people is probably bad on balance. Remember that the governments own impact assessment makes the assumption that the where people are better off it'll be by virtue of being helped back into work. Yet at the same time the effect of tightening the criteria on PIP will be to take away the support people require to make the accommodations they need to live. In essence the government want more people to work, but will also cut the funds to make adjustments that help them work. You can see from the preliminary analysis from the government's own figures that quite a large number of people (including those in receipt of carers allowance) are going to lose more than they gain:
https://www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/poverty-labour-dwp-benefit-cuts-spring-statement/
See comments about 'the party of work' above - this has been quite consistent messaging over a number of years. See Streeting's recent remarks about there being an over-diagnosis of mental conditions. The net result of this kind of messaging is to shift the overton window to the right, and as we are discussing the dangers of Reform/Farage above I'll point to this piece of research:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-science-research-and-methods/article/does-accommodation-work-mainstream-party-strategies-and-the-success-of-radical-right-parties/5C3476FCD26B188C7399ADD920D71770
https://youtu.be/pUKaB4P5Qns
If such things matter to you he's been interviewed by James O'Brien previously.
"Believe me, I get it. You are RIGHT to be angry about illegal migration"
This is the kind of thing the research @chrisstiles has cited is relevant to - where attempts to accommodate the far right can encourage defection to them.
He's also sent out similar messages on social media, the replies to which are largely right wingers angry with him and convinced he is lying.
Were his lips moving?
Alex Andreou on Quiet Riot summed it up well for me. Calling this Austerity 2.0 is just ignorant when we're talking £5Bn retrenchment when they announced £70Bn expansion in the autumn. There is definitely a messaging problem. But that doesn't change the fact that there are some cuts here that are just wrong and real people will suffer.*
AFZ
*The exact details are still unclear and the headlines of the 'government's own figures show...' are misleading as that's not what the report they link to shows. It's more complex than that.
He announced again his plans to 'treat people smugglers like terrorists' and I again beg liberals to consider what happens when the state of exceptions they've created fall under the control of their opponents.
The descriptor wasn't restricted to the £5bn retrenchment, but the other thing this misses is that nobody lives an average. In an increasingly unequal society benefits can accrue to the top while the lived experience of the majority stays static or worse, for instance:
https://www.jrf.org.uk/news/new-jrf-modelling-shows-scale-of-living-standards-assault-on-poorest
Yes; clearly this kind of thing is just about tone:
https://x.com/MikeTappTweets/status/1906414149812301996
https://x.com/10DowningStreet/status/1906693875638403333
https://bsky.app/profile/tanjabueltmann.net/post/3lloycl7gmc2h
Disabled people’s organisations consider halting engagement with disability minister over ‘brutal cuts'
To give one example -