+ Post New Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6
General Chat Thread, Poor Journalism (and maths!) in General; From BBC Website There were twice as many outstanding schools - and half as many inadequate - compared with four ...
  1. #1

    SimpleSi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    5,812
    Thank Post
    1,476
    Thanked 592 Times in 444 Posts
    Rep Power
    168

    Poor Journalism (and maths!)

    From BBC Website
    There were twice as many outstanding schools - and half as many inadequate - compared with four years ago, said Ms Gilbert.

    This means that about 30% of schools are in the satisfactory or inadequate category.
    I believe the above statements/reporting would tax a mathematical genius to equate them.

    In my world if statements say

    Outsanding Today = 2 x (Outstanding 4 Years ago)
    Inadequate today = 0.5 x (Inadequate 4 years ago)

    Its pretty tricky to get to - therefore 30% are Satisfactory or Inadequate !

    But my main gripe is to lump Satisfactory and Inadequate in same sentence implying that they are much the same as each other

    Satisfactory means OK. It means a pass. It means not Inadequate.
    For some schools to get satisfactory, given the parameters they are judged by, is absolutely fine.
    Not everyone can be a 1st violinist.
    It makes my blood boil

    regards
    Simon

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    388
    Thank Post
    23
    Thanked 95 Times in 61 Posts
    Rep Power
    45
    Yeah, agree that the three statements could well be true on their own, but on the face of it there's no causality there. I'm feeling generous and suggesting it could be bad editing . . . .

    However, coming back to your gripe, surely we should be aiming for an education system where the majority of schools are above average?


  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ellesmere Port
    Posts
    96
    Thank Post
    8
    Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
    Rep Power
    16

    Question

    By definition the majority cannot be above average. At least it was when I went to school. It would surely raise the average?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    388
    Thank Post
    23
    Thanked 95 Times in 61 Posts
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by seacider View Post
    By definition the majority cannot be above average. At least it was when I went to school. It would surely raise the average?
    Nooooooo, I take it back! I think what started as a stupid joke actually is right (joke's on me, eh?)

    seacider, I think you're right - for a normal distribution.

    However, we don't want a bell curve, we want a distribution weighted heavily at the 'good' end.

    I can illustrate this with a sum.

    Let's imagine that we can give scores to schools for how good they are. I dunno, perhaps some arbitrary scale from 1 to 4, where 1 is inadequate and 4 is outstanding. I know it seems implausible, but bear with me.

    You've got four schools, and three of them are outstanding (score = 4) and one of them is inadequate (score = 1). Average score is 3.25, and so three of the schools are above average, one is below.
    Last edited by theriver; 24th November 2009 at 10:09 PM. Reason: I am a math dunce

  5. #5

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,683
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,452 Times in 1,898 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    832
    Why not just use mode instead of mean? The government wants the median not to be central, it wants it to be Good or Outstanding.

    I simply don't think it is possible. There will always be 'problem schools' due to a few simple reasons.

    1. Some areas contain above average (heh) concentrations of below average ability kids - therefore the schools results will always be low.
    2. Some kids just have a set ability - they'll not improve. This could be due to home-life reasons, economic reasons or simply that they aren't smart...
    3. The metrics for measuring progress may be incorrect. For example, I know of some schools in 3 tier areas where the first schools have exaggerated the ability of the pupils when they leave, so then when the kids make poor progress in the first year of the middle school it looks like the middle school is failing.
    4. Progress during transfer years is *always* lower than non-transfer years. This is simply psychology. The kids are in a new building, with new people etc... so it takes time for them to settle in.

    I think the government should stop pratting about with statistics and speak to the schools themselves. Teachers and heads *know* what they are failing at.

  6. Thanks to localzuk from:

    bossman (25th November 2009)

  7. #6

    AngryTechnician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,730
    Thank Post
    698
    Thanked 1,212 Times in 761 Posts
    Rep Power
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by theriver View Post
    I'm feeling generous and suggesting it could be bad editing
    I'm not sure BBC News even have editors. If they do, then they certainly don't check all the articles; some of them are so badly written that I have to wonder if they are written by interns.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Poor Latency
    By jimothy in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 24th November 2009, 10:02 AM
  2. poor massa :(
    By Little-Miss in forum General Chat
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 27th July 2009, 12:22 PM
  3. Poor printouts
    By Little-Miss in forum Hardware
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 16th September 2008, 02:23 PM
  4. Poor Daniel...
    By Gatt in forum General Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 30th December 2007, 08:52 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •