Originally posted by Jawge
View Post
I know what you wish me to conclude - 1. Girls are doing better than boys in the exams; 2. Girls do not attempt 'sports' in %age levels boys do?
The problems the report presents is, it wishes that conclusions be drawn on the above without providing necessary detailed facts.
A few:
- Total numbers of student intake.
- Relative quality of preparedness for secondary high schools entering each school -- girls schools v boys schools.
- %age students that progress class through to succeeding class...total numbers on entry in schools through to sitting exam.
- breakdown in student population.
- Learning/teaching environment: weight on variables e.g. better teachers or administrators at the girls schools or no? ...access of students and teachers to course material?
- Time management away from school
Jawge: Our schools are performing poorly....and those who supply or present the 'facts' on performance results do so from vantage points that are slanted towards the desired outcome.
Just think on it a bit:
- What if more boy schools allow students to progress from class through to succeeding class with less competency in English and Maths than do girl schools? ...in other words how rigorous is "the weeding out process" school v school?
- ...and even if there is the same %age pass number used in all the schools, what of the comparison on standard of test exams?
- How does the school at the top of the list - 100% passes in English and Mathematics select - entry through succeeding class to external examination - those who sit the exam?
- How are the teaching resources nurtured and deployed in girls schools and boys schools? Similar? ...better organized and/or delivered in on or the other or...?
- What do the numbers say of boy student-athlete v girl student-athlete?
...girl student-athletes perform at higher levels (or otherwise) than the boys student-athlete? How would that impact conclusion on participation in sports as impediment to academic achievement?
It is one thing to put out ' raw facts'. Quite another thing when those 'raw facts' have presented context within which gathered or accompanied with necessary supporting explanations on variables. Why is information necessary to allow for reasoned conclusions omitted?
Are we comparing 'like' with 'like'?
NB: Please remember the leading thread...and your reference to sports.
Comment