The Analysis That Should Not Exist (Part II)
This should probably be called 'The Analysis That Will Not Exist'. It is interesting to compare the information released by the best schools in the world about their performance in the International Baccalaureate Diploma examinations. It is even more interesting to see what information is no longer being released.
On one hand, the best IB school in the UK has released its usual simple statistical bulletin. There is no interpretation; only the facts of the case are presented, and it is clear that they have done well. The source PDF can be found here and was linked in my previous post. It is easy to see where the school has improved, and that over the years, the school has done well indeed. The Times Educational Supplement listed this school as the best independent school in the country, and it is clear why.
On the other hand, the best IB school in Singapore has released its usual report. There is some interpretation of the facts, it is clear that they have done superlatively well... but hey, the subject statistics are missing. I wonder if this has anything to do with my previous post(s). You can compare the 2008 results (PDF here) with the 2007 results (PDF here) and see how the data presentation has changed since the last time. In aggregate, it is clear that this school has improved; it is not so clear how this change has come about (although my last post has a theory which I don't think they want me to test).
One thing is for sure. I stand by my contention that the first school probably has far better results in English HL—it is hard to beat a 90% distinction rate. They have a history of it, and statistically, I believe at a 99% confidence level that I am right. It is to be expected. Maybe, they did better in History and Economics as well.
Similarly, by analysing last year's results, I expect that the second school did far better in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics HL, and that a far larger proportion of the student body 'majored' in these disciplines (i.e., took them at Higher Level rather than Standard Level). They probably did better in Business & Management too.
These are not contentions which slight either school or are designed to insult or deride the efforts of the hard-working teachers and students. Rather, they are efforts to evaluate school strengths as they vary across the world. If my theory is correct, the Singapore Science/Math effect shown by TIMSS is a product of the local educational culture and affects the results even in other kinds of testing.
I am sure that both schools will do even better over time (unlikely though it might seem, since they have already done so well). I congratulate both schools (although I don't think I have the standing for either to take notice) on a job well done, and I do indeed believe that the best is yet to be!
On one hand, the best IB school in the UK has released its usual simple statistical bulletin. There is no interpretation; only the facts of the case are presented, and it is clear that they have done well. The source PDF can be found here and was linked in my previous post. It is easy to see where the school has improved, and that over the years, the school has done well indeed. The Times Educational Supplement listed this school as the best independent school in the country, and it is clear why.
On the other hand, the best IB school in Singapore has released its usual report. There is some interpretation of the facts, it is clear that they have done superlatively well... but hey, the subject statistics are missing. I wonder if this has anything to do with my previous post(s). You can compare the 2008 results (PDF here) with the 2007 results (PDF here) and see how the data presentation has changed since the last time. In aggregate, it is clear that this school has improved; it is not so clear how this change has come about (although my last post has a theory which I don't think they want me to test).
One thing is for sure. I stand by my contention that the first school probably has far better results in English HL—it is hard to beat a 90% distinction rate. They have a history of it, and statistically, I believe at a 99% confidence level that I am right. It is to be expected. Maybe, they did better in History and Economics as well.
Similarly, by analysing last year's results, I expect that the second school did far better in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics HL, and that a far larger proportion of the student body 'majored' in these disciplines (i.e., took them at Higher Level rather than Standard Level). They probably did better in Business & Management too.
These are not contentions which slight either school or are designed to insult or deride the efforts of the hard-working teachers and students. Rather, they are efforts to evaluate school strengths as they vary across the world. If my theory is correct, the Singapore Science/Math effect shown by TIMSS is a product of the local educational culture and affects the results even in other kinds of testing.
I am sure that both schools will do even better over time (unlikely though it might seem, since they have already done so well). I congratulate both schools (although I don't think I have the standing for either to take notice) on a job well done, and I do indeed believe that the best is yet to be!
Labels: Analysis, Education, Singapore, Statistics
etched with acid at 12:21:00 am
1 Comments:
Disappearing stats are all too common when it comes to IB. In my small district in NY, I had to go so far as to file a FOIL just to obtain information on how many students actually earned the IB Diploma in 2008!
For more information on the educational abomination that is called IB, please visit: www.truthaboutib.com
Post a Comment
<< Home