how exactly will moderation work in this scenario? (1 Viewer)

[uniqueusername1]

Would he still get the lowest in the grade for his internals?

I think so.

 

[jimmysmith560]

At the end of the day, the aim of achieving a favourable Assessment Mark is to be done by ranking as high as possible relative to your cohort in a particular subject. This requires sustained effort and determination throughout year 12, all the way until the completion of your very last school-based assessment task/exam. It is a normal outcome to receive an unfavourable Assessment Mark should you not have put in sufficient effort, manifested in thorough studies, preparations and revisions. Suppose you have an exam that you did not bother preparing/underprepared for, if you end up performing at a low standard in this exam, then this can be considered a fair outcome as it is an accurate reflection of the extent to which you have prepared (if you have prepared). Similarly, in case of your school-based assessment tasks/exams, this will be reflected in an unfavourable rank, and is therefore a fair representation of your internal performance. A student cannot normally expect a favourable Assessment Mark if their rank is not sufficiently high.

Regarding the Examination Mark, one must keep in mind that performing well in the HSC exams does not necessarily mean that one's Assessment Mark must be favourable. What is guaranteed through optimal performance in an HSC exam is a favourable Examination Mark. Suppose you are a student who failed to perform at a high standard in your school-based assessment tasks/exams, but end up revamping your study strategy as the HSC exams approach, allowing you to perform well in the HSC exams. You will receive Examination Marks that reflect this performance. However, your Assessment Marks are not likely to be favourable, which is an expected outcome. Keep in mind that the Examination mark contributes 50% of your HSC mark, the other 50% coming from the Assessment Mark. Achieving a favourable Examination Mark will not necessarily guarantee you a favourable Assessment Mark, particularly if your internal performance (i.e. ranks) was unfavourable.

 

[quickoats]

That’s an interesting scenario. What if you are bottom last for your school and then smash it in the HSC. What would happen to that persons internal mark? Would he still get the lowest in the grade for his internals?

Probably. However, they do account for outliers. If one is last in school but by a small margin, but then in the HSC, some student gets a really low outlier, there will probably be adjustment.

e.g. you're last on 60% in school, but the second last is on 63% (in school marks). There's a bunch of students above you (lets say 65, 68...) (plenty of higher marks). But then in the HSC, the lowest marks are: 20%, 54%, 56%, 57%.... (only the bottom end concerns you since you're dead last really). Your in school performance is better reflected by something a bit below 54%, rather than 20%. So it is likely you'll get something like 51.

 

[newbeat]

so, hypothetically speaking, what if someone in my grade gets a 70% in the hsc exam and is equivalent to my internal rank, but i end up getting 90% in the exam.
does this mean my internal mark will be around 70 whilst my exam mark will remain 90?
how will this discrepancy be sorted and how is this fair (given i did better in my internals than the person who got an exam mark of 70% equivalent to my rank)

Exactly, this is my only concern as well. I have seen few examples available online including one on Matrix site, it is apparent that due to the moderation process, except the 1st ranked student everyone else is affected differently. It shows in those examples that some kids are affected by even few marks up and down. How can this be fair then? For example, 3rd ranked student got 3 marks less than his internal school marks where else 4th ranked student got 2 marks more than his internal school marks.
NESA claims they need to do in order to find a way to moderate the school assessment marks because every school had their own exam and style, for examples JR or Sydney Grammar might have difficult exam papers. I understand all these but yet it is difficult to accept that some one will be losing their own internal marks. Even 0.25 makes difference and when 2 or 3 or even 1 mark is reduced, it is not acceptable. I know they use other techniques such as difference of the marks between students in internal ranking etc etc, still this is not fair. Why can't they do something else where at least no kids need to lose their internal mark if not getting extra mark by moderation process. I am also not sure why do they need to consider 50% from school assessment marks, why can't they totally rely on external marks. Isn't that be the most fair process? Why a kid goes to JR will be benefited by their cohort good performance, every kid is JR are benefited because their internal marks will be most likely boosted because JR cohort will most likely perform much better in HSC external exam. So to maintain the same mean score of internal and external, JR school assessment marks will be boosted.

 

[downonthewestcoast24]

That’s an interesting scenario. What if you are bottom last for your school and then smash it in the HSC. What would happen to that persons internal mark? Would he still get the lowest in the grade for his internals?

yes, what would happen if the person who came last internally came first externally?

 

[jimmysmith560]

yes, what would happen if the person who came last internally came first externally?

They would receive the lowest HSC exam mark as their Assessment Mark, and they would keep their own HSC exam mark. For example, if the lowest HSC exam mark achieved by any student in the cohort was 70, the student ranked last internally will also receive 70 as their Assessment Mark. Assuming that this student achieved 90 as their HSC exam mark, their overall HSC mark in the subject would be:

 

[newbeat]

They would receive the lowest HSC exam mark as their Assessment Mark, and they would keep their own HSC exam mark. For example, if the lowest HSC exam mark achieved by any student in the cohort was 70, the student ranked last internally will also receive 70 as their Assessment Mark. Assuming that this student achieved 90 as their HSC exam mark, their overall HSC mark in the subject would be:

What if that student's lowest internal mark was not 70 but 75 or more. Why that student needs to sacrifice his/ her marks? How can this be called fairness? Why would even school marks that even 50% need to be considered in a high stake exam like HSC? If DoE/ NESA is so keen to take into consideration of school internal assessment marks, why they don't reduce the weight of it say only 20%. Otherwise I don't see personally a point specially even top 20 Selective School takes their own assessment and also there could be a lot going into that. Teachers are also not 100% non biased? Was there ever any discussion about this, did anyone raise any concern? Will there a possibility ATAR or scores will change in future?

 

[jimmysmith560]

What if that student's lowest internal mark was not 70 but 75 or more. Why that student needs to sacrifice his/ her marks? How can this be called fairness? Why would even school marks that even 50% need to be considered in a high stake exam like HSC? If DoE/ NESA is so keen to take into consideration of school internal assessment marks, why they don't reduce the weight of it say only 20%. Otherwise I don't see personally a point specially even top 20 Selective School takes their own assessment and also there could be a lot going into that. Teachers are also not 100% non biased? Was there ever any discussion about this, did anyone raise any concern? Will there a possibility ATAR or scores will change in future?

I suppose that the HSC system is intended to be more forgiving in making the HSC exam worth 50% as opposed to 100% (as is the case of other educational systems), which creates an opportunity for students to make a comeback at different stages of their HSC journey, as opposed to having 100% of their performance being determined by one exam which, if they do not perform well in, would result in a significant impact on their overall performance, with no opportunity for improvement.

 

[newbeat]

I suppose that the HSC system is intended to be more forgiving in making the HSC exam worth 50% as opposed to 100% (as is the case of other educational systems), which creates an opportunity for students to make a comeback at different stages of their HSC journey, as opposed to having 100% of their performance being determined by one exam which, if they do not perform well in, would result in a significant impact on their overall performance, with no opportunity for improvement.

Agree that they have the good intention, but why moderating kids internal assessment such a way which will be in favour to some and not so favourable to others. How about NESA to also ensure all internal school assessment are conducted under same papers and all High Schools whether comprehensive or selective follow the same Syllabus, in this case at least NESA will not complain that they have to moderate the internal score because some schools may take harder exam and some too easy. I don't know but I can't get my head into this that some kids scores will be boosted because they go to JR and some kids scores will be reduced because number 1 they are ranked average and second they don't go to top selective.

 

[jimmysmith560]

Agree that they have the good intention, but why moderating kids internal assessment such a way which will be in favour to some and not so favourable to others. How about NESA to also ensure all internal school assessment are conducted under same papers and all High Schools whether comprehensive or selective follow the same Syllabus, in this case at least NESA will not complain that they have to moderate the internal score because some schools may take harder exam and some too easy. I don't know but I can't get my head into this that some kids scores will be boosted because they go to JR and some kids scores will be reduced because number 1 they are ranked average and second they don't go to top selective.

I think that there seems to be a slight nuance in your understanding of the moderation process. Perhaps some clarification would be helpful.

Essentially, students' marks are not increased because they attend a high-ranked school. Instead, the cohort of a high-ranked school is inherently academically capable, and more so compared to the cohort of a low-ranked school. This means that a high-performing student will achieve favourable results, regardless of whether they attend a high-ranked school or low-ranked school. The only difference is that a student attending a low-ranked school will naturally have to place at the top of their cohort (due to the rest of the cohort not being academically capable), although they may not need to place as high internally at a high-ranked school to perform at the same standard.

I personally prefer the standardised approach that you have described. Having students sit standardised internal assessment tasks/exams would likely lead to a smoother process overall. However, even with such a system, it would be reasonable to expect that a student attending a high-ranked school will still perform well, simply because they are academically capable, not because of the school itself.

 

[scaryshark09]

Moderation makes it fair for everyone
Going to a top selective doesn’t mean you automatically get a higher mark at all

Going to top selective school may make you learn more and perform better, due to better resources and teachers, but other than that, there is no unfair advantage between schools

Agree that they have the good intention, but why moderating kids internal assessment such a way which will be in favour to some and not so favourable to others. How about NESA to also ensure all internal school assessment are conducted under same papers and all High Schools whether comprehensive or selective follow the same Syllabus, in this case at least NESA will not complain that they have to moderate the internal score because some schools may take harder exam and some too easy. I don't know but I can't get my head into this that some kids scores will be boosted because they go to JR and some kids scores will be reduced because number 1 they are ranked average and second they don't go to top selective.

 

[newbeat]

I think that there seems to be a slight nuance in your understanding of the moderation process. Perhaps some clarification would be helpful.

Essentially, students' marks are not increased because they attend a high-ranked school. Instead, the cohort of a high-ranked school is inherently academically capable, and more so compared to the cohort of a low-ranked school. This means that a high-performing student will achieve favourable results, regardless of whether they attend a high-ranked school or low-ranked school. The only difference is that a student attending a low-ranked school will naturally have to place at the top of their cohort (due to the rest of the cohort not being academically capable), although they may not need to place as high internally at a high-ranked school to perform at the same standard.

I personally prefer the standardised approach that you have described. Having students sit standardised internal assessment tasks/exams would likely lead to a smoother process overall. However, even with such a system, it would be reasonable to expect that a student attending a high-ranked school will still perform well, simply because they are academically capable, not because of the school itself.

Thank you for being so kind in responding to my frustrations. I am very new to these and trying to learn for my child. I do understand kids in top selective will outperform others specially JR kids. I have no problem to that as long as the test is standardised. I do have problem in one aspect though, when they compare only against that school cohort. I want to eliminate that discrimination. Essentially kids in top 5/ 6 selectives outperform as a cohort in HSC exam. But there are also significant number of kids who can also do very well in HSC exam, kids from other selectives or from comprehensive High Schools. But it appears that kids ranked middle range are affected by the cohort performance but why. Why should I take the punishment of others. Everyone out their best efforts by whatever means they are give. It is not my responsibility to influence cohort of 180 or 200 kids to study hard so we as a cohort perform well. The overall internal assessment marks of James Ruse kids and Baulko or NSB get pulled up after the HSC exam. I have no doubt these kids do even better in HSC. But kids in other schools don't have much scope of it because overall cohort don't show that extra good performance in HSC exam so their internal marks don't pulled up but dragged down in many cases. I don't know whom to speak or will it make any difference if I speak even. I am utterly disgust
ed by this 50% internal marks into HSC marks system.

 

[jimmysmith560]

Thank you for being so kind in responding to my frustrations. I am very new to these and trying to learn for my child. I do understand kids in top selective will outperform others specially JR kids. I have no problem to that as long as the test is standardised. I do have problem in one aspect though, when they compare only against that school cohort. I want to eliminate that discrimination. Essentially kids in top 5/ 6 selectives outperform as a cohort in HSC exam. But there are also significant number of kids who can also do very well in HSC exam, kids from other selectives or from comprehensive High Schools. But it appears that kids ranked middle range are affected by the cohort performance but why. Why should I take the punishment of others. Everyone out their best efforts by whatever means they are give. It is not my responsibility to influence cohort of 180 or 200 kids to study hard so we as a cohort perform well. The overall internal assessment marks of James Ruse kids and Baulko or NSB get pulled up after the HSC exam. I have no doubt these kids do even better in HSC. But kids in other schools don't have much scope of it because overall cohort don't show that extra good performance in HSC exam so their internal marks don't pulled up but dragged down in many cases. I don't know whom to speak or will it make any difference if I speak even. I am utterly disgusted by this 50% internal marks into HSC marks system.

No worries, I am happy to help. Being ranked in the middle of a cohort can be interpreted differently depending on whether the school is ranked high or low (the ranking itself does not have much significance beyond indicating the academic capability of the school cohort). Being ranked in the middle of a cohort of a high-ranked school such as JRAHS is not the same as being ranked in the middle of a cohort of a low-ranked school. A student ranked in the middle of a subject cohort at JRAHS would typically be on track to achieving a 90+ ATAR. On the other hand, a student ranked in the middle of a subject cohort at a low-ranked school may be on track to achieving a 70-80 ATAR (or possibly lower). In such a case, a student who is ranked as such in a low-ranked school is simply less academically capable, and it is therefore fair for a student with poorer performance to receive a lower Assessment Mark, and vice versa.

This is where I hope to provide some reassurance by saying that the most important element of favourable performance is for the student to demonstrate commitment to their studies. Should this be met, the student will succeed, regardless of the school that they attend or their cohort. In the case of your child, this means that they are technically able to achieve as high as a 99.95 ATAR, regardless of the school that they attend, as long as they perform at the necessary standard, both internally (leading to sufficiently high ranks) as well as in their HSC exams.

 

[newbeat]

No worries, I am happy to help. Being ranked in the middle of a cohort can be interpreted differently depending on whether the school is ranked high or low (the ranking itself does not have much significance beyond indicating the academic capability of the school cohort). Being ranked in the middle of a cohort of a high-ranked school such as JRAHS is not the same as being ranked in the middle of a cohort of a low-ranked school. A student ranked in the middle of a subject cohort at JRAHS would typically be on track to achieving a 90+ ATAR. On the other hand, a student ranked in the middle of a subject cohort at a low-ranked school may be on track to achieving a 70-80 ATAR (or possibly lower). In such a case, a student who is ranked as such in a low-ranked school is simply less academically capable, and it is therefore fair for a student with poorer performance to receive a lower Assessment Mark, and vice versa.

This is where I hope to provide some reassurance by saying that the most important element of favourable performance is for the student to demonstrate commitment to their studies. Should this be met, the student will succeed, regardless of the school that they attend or their cohort. In the case of your child, this means that they are technically able to achieve as high as a 99.95 ATAR, regardless of the school that they attend, as long as they perform at the necessary standard, both internally (leading to sufficiently high ranks) as well as in their HSC exams.

Thanks So much!

 

[Trebla]

The whole idea of being "boosted" up by the moderation process simply because you go to better performing school is actually a myth.

If you are ranked in the middle of an average school on the basis of your internal marks, then one should naturally expect that you will be equivalently ranked near the bottom of a top performing school - all else being equal. Therefore, the "lower" moderated assessment mark should be very similar no matter which school you go to. Now, how do we measure which is better performing school in the state? The external HSC exams. The intent of the moderation process is to align the cohort's internal mark distribution to the external mark distribution.

Further to this, when people talk about the "middle" of the cohort being influenced by school performance - this is actually a circular argument. The "middle" of the cohort is actually what drives the school's average performance. If the school's average is poor/average/good then that is because those in that middle range had a poor/average/good performance respectively, so naturally their own marks will correlate to that.

On the point about standardising all assessments as external, this is neither fair nor practical in reality. Assessments required by the syllabus take a variety of formats, not just a written exam. If you take a subject such as Chemistry, students need to be assessed on their research and practical lab skills to be deemed competent in that subject. It is not fair to simply weight everything on written exams as it disadvantages those with strong research/lab skills which are valuable for a subject like Chemistry. If we accept that, then we should also recognise that something like a practical lab assessment cannot be standardised because every school has different lab setups and it requires a tremendous amount of resourcing and people power to carry out with proper supervisors and markers multiple times a year - something our underfunded education system simply cannot do.

PS - being in the middle of JRAHS usually means 99+ ATAR lol

 

[newbeat]

The whole idea of being "boosted" up by the moderation process simply because you go to better performing school is actually a myth.

If you are ranked in the middle of an average school on the basis of your internal marks, then one should naturally expect that you will be equivalently ranked near the bottom of a top performing school - all else being equal. Therefore, the "lower" moderated assessment mark should be very similar no matter which school you go to. Now, how do we measure which is better performing school in the state? The external HSC exams. The intent of the moderation process is to align the cohort's internal mark distribution to the external mark distribution.

Further to this, when people talk about the "middle" of the cohort being influenced by school performance - this is actually a circular argument. The "middle" of the cohort is actually what drives the school's average performance. If the school's average is poor/average/good then that is because those in that middle range had a poor/average/good performance respectively, so naturally their own marks will correlate to that.

On the point about standardising all assessments as external, this is neither fair nor practical in reality. Assessments required by the syllabus take a variety of formats, not just a written exam. If you take a subject such as Chemistry, students need to be assessed on their research and practical lab skills to be deemed competent in that subject. It is not fair to simply weight everything on written exams as it disadvantages those with strong research/lab skills which are valuable for a subject like Chemistry. If we accept that, then we should also recognise that something like a practical lab assessment cannot be standardised because every school has different lab setups and it requires a tremendous amount of resourcing and people power to carry out with proper supervisors and markers multiple times a year - something our underfunded education system simply cannot do.

Hi, can I ask if a student is already in one of the top 4 selective school, how important is it to try for James Ruse for ATAR? Thanks

 

[Trebla]

Hi, can I ask if a student is already in one of the top 4 selective school, how important is it to try for James Ruse for ATAR? Thanks

If the goal is to go to James Ruse purely for ATAR reasons then my question back to you is are there enough exogenous factors to make the student inherently smarter or more hard working, because there is no real “boost” from moderation. For example, will a more competitive environment or having to make new friends (or having a lack of) be a good thing or a bad thing? That depends on the individual student.

 

[newbeat]

If the goal is to go to James Ruse purely for ATAR reasons then my question back to you is are there enough exogenous factors to make the student inherently smarter or more hard working, because there is no real “boost” from moderation. For example, will a more competitive environment or having to make new friends (or having a lack of) be a good thing or a bad thing? That depends on the individual student.

Could you please check your message, thanks.