52 replies to this topic

[sparky]

Is it against the law for schools to photocopy the original past papers? I wouldn't have thought so! Certainly photocopying them from the leckie and leckie book would be!

I think the SQA do a fairly good job. The past papers have always been a money spinner. Even Gibson used to sell the papers and then want you to buy another book for the answers.
Leckie and Leckie do provide answers with all past papers, although they went up by a £1 this year, with the only addition being the jazzed up front cover (who cares about this?)

I agree that not all people can afford past papers - but your school should provide past papers anyway, the only reason I usually buy the past papers is :-
1. I get the condensed "official answers"
2. I always have the papers to hand (some dept's take them back in etc)

The reason why the SQA charge so much to provide single papers is because they have to store the papers, then their are postage and admin costs on top.
(Buying the maths past papers book direct from L & L cost my friend £9)!!!!

I don't agree with the idea of confidential marking schemes, I think that is nonsense!

However, there are generally little mistakes in the papers, and most of these get corrected.
BTW steve what was the mistake in last years Higher Physics?

[Martin]

It is illegal for schools to copy the original paper.

The answers in the past paper are not official. They are produced by leckie and leckie. They do not reflest the marking scheme. - This is what Alistair Wylie from the SQA has told me.

The SQA could quite easily set up an online store - pupils could pay for the past papers and download them in PDF format.

The fact that they need to be corrected - the paper is apparently checked before it goes to print. Mistakes get through every year and they are frequent. Even if they are noticed - why weren't they noticed before the paper went to print?

[little_minx]

[sparky]

The answers are the same, except condensed!

Contrast the Computing ones from L&L and the "finalised marking instructions" from the SQA they are the same! They are the "official" answers.

[Discogirl17]

Going back to the topic of those poorer than ourselves. My school consists of loads of people who are quite poor (but not on benefits) and still a lot of people who do only survive on benefits. The school is big and doesnt have the budget to provide past papers for all these people. They make us pay £5 for one subject papers from them which, although less than leckie and leckie, is still unfortunately out of some peoples reach. For instance I know twins whose mum and dad have split up and barely have money to keep living in the seperate houses they live in at the moment and they get benefits to keep their house not to spend £50 or £60 in past papers in one year!

Also SQA good or bad. Both. They have major bad issues and minor bad issues, as previously detailed. However, could we guarentee that another company would do any better?

[thebizwiz]

We can't.

[Paul]

We cant guarantee a better company, but considering the SQAs poor performance, isnt another company one of the solutions.

Finding another company would be worth a try as theres nothing much good to say about the SQA, in my mind anyway.

Shandogg

[thebizwiz]

I've got an idea of a new company - SHIT - Scottish Highers and Intermediate Tests - it's got a good ring to it

Note to Moderators - please do not edit.

[Ally]

lol

[Dave]

here is the situation at my school. People how are in a family with an income less than £30,000 or so get a burseriey(wrong spelling but can't think) and everyone i can think of wastes it away in booze and other rubbish so you can't say that they don't have enough money. Surprisingly most still buy past papers

The problem with the real marking scheme is that it shows what dodgey answers can be accepted to rise numbers passing and also what reasonable answers won't be allowed if the papers might have been easy. Also it will show what will be accepted in question that had mistakes

[Discogirl17]

Ok Dave so some people waste their money but some people dont as its all they have. Also yes the point I was trying to make is that we cant guarentee anyon else would do any better and as there isnt another company to try then we must put up with the SQA but try to change them.

[Martin]

Dave,

That's very arrogant. You assume people are not rational.
£30,000 per household is actually a high figure. £15,000 per household is not.

Every little helps. A well known slogan. But yes, every little does help. Lots of small things equal something big.

Watching the pennies.

[thebizwiz]

Look at it this way - the L+L marking scheme doesn't list every possible answer - so in effect people could be thinking they're getting it wrong cos their response isnt 'right' in the marking scheme.

[gaveaway]

i cant remember where the post is but didnt someone from the forum write to Watchdog about the SQA to see what the reply was. I was just wondering what was the reply??? Maybe the CBBC programme "Short Change" would have a bigger chance of investigating the problem because Watchdog normally investigate washing machines and builders.... hmmm

[thebizwiz]

I can see it now -

[Martin]

It was me who suggested writing to watchdog - but, i never did. that was up for discussion.

i think we should. maybe short change would be an even better idea - perhaps even both.

[Discogirl17]

No no no. Short change would suggest we (and not the schools) are paying so not that. Watchdog is what it says, a watchdog- thats the one to right to if you really must right to someone. Person I think going to the TV programs is a bad bad idea, especially if you havent given the SQA time to fix themselves

[little_minx]

Who says that in time the SQA will fix themselves? It might happen, but I would put money on it that it won't.

Laura xxx

[Discogirl17]

Ok Ok but at least send them the letter before sending Watchdog one.

[little_minx]

Ok Ok but at least send them the letter before sending Watchdog one.

Ok, that sounds like a plan!