1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

2008 SATS Marking

Discussion in 'English' started by sophie_123, Feb 17, 2008.

  1. I wonder who else got the thoroughly reassuring letter of thanks from NAA today? So, they are planning to establish my performance grading by conferring with ETS - presumably using the completely flawed benchmarking system for at least part of the judgement - I find it very hard to understand how that can possibly be justified.
     
  2. I got the letter too and thought the very same thing. The benchmarking system as a means of establishing marker performance surely cannot be justified? Working with the previous supplier to establish gradings...? Hmmm....


    <font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font>
     
  3. Thx for that Clea and Rose. I got the letter too. It worries me that people who want to mark KS2 in 2009 will be unjustly handicapped in their application by this invalid marker grade. Quite a few people posted that they had clear evidence of being unjustly assessed by the faulty benchmarking system, including at least two A-grade markers and/or team leaders who were failed twice in succession by the BM and thrown out of the system. So if they were to apply to mark KS2 in 2009 they would have no chance.


    We know that in KS3 Reading, at least one question was definitely input by the progrmmers at the wrong ideal grade, as they had used a question from the markscheme, but had set it at two marks lower than on the markscheme - my team leader spotted that. We know that numerous team leaders, when mentoring their team after benchmarking, remarked that the ideal marks on some questions were not correct.


    We also know that the BM system was not consistently recording the same marks as those we input. So if you think you sailed through all the BMs because the system passed you, and allowed you to continue marking, you certainly cannot be confident of getting the A-grade - or even the B-grade - that you got last year. It could give you any old grade: it's pot luck.


    There have also been whispers about some colleagues in schools who marked the same paper, who helped each other with benchmarking - which leaves one wondering if the BM system is fair to all.


    I could go on: there is plenty more of this. But if markers don't email NAA at marking@naa.org.uk and let them know their worries, this problem will be with all of us at the end of December. We also need to bring it to the attention of Warwick Mansell, as we need a public voice on the matter, to prevent NAA from just sweeping this under the carpet. All IMO.
     
  4. Well said Redbiro, I'm concerned that many markers will just accept the situation or not understand the implications. I emailed NAA straight away to voice my concerns and ask for an explanation and reassurance - didn't hear back yet so maybe they have lots to answer? Will let you know if I do hear anything of course.

    Good idea re making sure Warwick is aware and on the case. I alsowonder if the outcome of the Sutherland Inquiry might make any mention of knock on effects re assessing us on the basis if this year's system.
     
  5. 'Ello, 'ello 'ello. What 'ave we 'ere then. There is news coming in of unpaid markers receiving payslips today which promise the inclusion of a cheque. And there is no cheque.


    Is there anyone else out there who has experienced this? I have a new email address for the remaining representative of ETS Europe in the UK, if you want to PM me for it.
     
  6. Correct that: cheque now paid. Current tally for 7th Nov paydate is: 2 x paids; 0 x unpaids. A tiny sample, but looking good..
     
  7. Latest tally for 7th Nov paydate is 3 x paids, 1 x unpaid. The unpaid marker had been assured of payment by Payroll beforehand but has received nothing..
     
  8. On 3rd November, NAA sent a letter to all of us which included the following:


    "The NAA is continuing to work with the previous supplier to establish performance gradings and these will be available following the completion of the reviews process." [I understand that the "completion of the reviews process" probably means the end of this term.]


    Here are some of the reasons why marker-grades based on benchmarking and ETS admin are a matter of concern:


    * The benchmarking program was apparently faulty both in the presentation of the tests and in the recording of input marks. We know this from our own experience and from anecdotal evidence posted here.


    * The benchmarking program was difficult to use, especially at first when e.g. Shakespeare scripts could not be focused or viewed properly.


    * Anecdotal evidence has been posted here of A-grade markers and team leaders being suddenly failed twice in a row by the BM system, and those valuable markers summarily removed from the marking process without appeal or explanation...


    * ETS Europe apparently never had complete or accurate records of us or of our work; this being currently attested in ETS's efforts during the past few paydates, when markers have had to claim for work which should have been automatically paid for, but for which there were apparently no records. At least one marker is still waiting to be paid for work done - after the last official paydate. So there are no reliable records by which to judge our admin performance.


    * Because of the lack of accurate records, we don't know what ETS has listed against our names, if anything. It had listed my previous marker grades wrongly on my OMC record, for example. Please note that even if you are Lil and you sailed through BM with no problems, got to sit next to 6ndy at the standardisation and got paid on time, you still don't know that the grade assigned to you will match your hard work and achievement. Grades can go down as well as up, when assigned on the basis of unreliable BM and poor record-keeping.


    If you would like to let NAA know your point of view on this matter, especially if you have applied to mark NCT in 2009, please email marking@naa.org.uk


    All IMO.
     
  9. DM

    DM New commenter

  10. gruoch

    gruoch Established commenter

    Blimey - I hought this thread had gone down to page 94.

     
  11. DM

    DM New commenter

    Nah, I have revived it just in time for the publication of the Sutherland report.
     
  12. NAA - Gone!!!!!!



    What are the implications for KS2 next year?
     
  13. taj

    taj

    Edexcel are supposed to be taking over but no contract has been signed yet.

    So much for applying to NAA to be marker next year!
     
  14. gruoch

    gruoch Established commenter

    I was told that this was the 'real' reason for scrapping KS3 tests. I have a horrible feeling that, if no agreement can be reached with Edexcel for KS2 administration, it'll be backwards to teachers doing it.

     
  15. I've just received my very own copy of the Sutherland Report by e-mail - all 181 pages of it! - with my submission acknowledged in the credits and my name listed. It's damning in all respects. In the marker section there is very little mention of the failure of the standardisation and benchmarking systems, and the OMC issues. Most of it concerns the failure of the 'business' aspects, to be expected, I suppose.

    However, I also received today a letter from NAA thanking me for my marking performance and declaring me eligible for KS2 marking. Unfortunately it was addressed to a different marker who seems to have 'moved' to my address. Still can't get it right!
     
  16. ShowerGel

    ShowerGel Lead commenter

    I read in the Mail today that there may not be KS2 either - that they are not 'set in stone.'
     
  17. Reply to Mannering:

    It is no surprise that there is very little reference to the shortcomings of the marking system.

    There appear to be only eighteen (presumably marking) individuals listed at the end of the report and you and I are two of them.

    Considering how many months of markers' lives were taken up with the inadequacies of the system, you might have thought a few more of the frustrated hundreds might have communicated with the Sutherland Inquiry.



    This was the opportunity for markers to state it as it was; if they didn't take advantage of that opportunity ........
     
  18. ...I was a third on that list. I wonder if some people submitted but asked to remain anonymous? It does seem a shockingly low number when we know so many of us were badly affected.
     
  19. gruoch

    gruoch Established commenter

    According to the bbc web site, Sutherland didn't address marking (sorry, no link) but the number of appeals is at least quadruple last year's.

     
  20. Hello again all - only just catching up with the thread/comments.



    For information - my name wasn't listed at the end of the report as a contributor, although I had submitted three pages of comments. Thus perhaps it only lists the names of anyone whose comments were actually used? I admit that I haven't had time to give it a thorough read, but it does sound as if a shake-up/wake-up is being recommended and demanded.

    Heaven forbid that anything like this happens again, but it would be good to think that if it did, markers would be listened to well in advance of the ship sinking. Remember all of those denials by NAA back in May? "Only affecting a few markers"? Seems e were right all along. [​IMG]



    Anyway, onwards and upwards. Wishing you all a lovely Christmas/Holiday. We shall see what 2009 brings! Take care all.
     

Share This Page