PaulLau.com

A word from the man himself

IB Results


One of my favorite Bushisms of all time is :
“Fool me once, shame on – shame on you. Fool me – you can’t get fooled again”

Of course it SHOULD have been :
“Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me”

It was an age old saying that came back to my mind after Mr. Wray’s insistence that our first year of IB results had been exceptional.

Fool Me Once

When I first received the school newsletter, I hastened to see the break down for our IB results following what we’d heard from the school. I immediately noticed the rather obvious omission of three data points of comparison.

SIS Newsletter

IB Results featured in SIS Newsletter

I initially gave the school the benefit of the doubt on potential motives for this omission. It could easily have been a simple mistake of not having compiled that data initially.

Fool Me Twice

When the highly graphical but low on content school Annual Report came out, I was flicking through the glossy pages when the same omission popped out at me. It was the second time these results had been omitted.

Annual Report

IB Results featured in SIS Annual Report 09

It seemed a rather obvious omission given the large area it covers. Even if it had been a mistake initially, surely the school would double check it’s ‘Annual Report’ before printing such an important document.

Fool Me Again

The same glaring omission was again present on a notice board in the hall at the bark left. This was something that I noticed when entering and leaving the hall for my various exams.

Shame On You

These rather questionable occurrences beg one simple question.

Why were these result left out?

At best, it could be assumed that the school simply forgot to add them in. However, this seems rather unlikely given the numerous times this has occurred and the vital importance of the documents involved where there simply isn’t room for one mistake, let alone multiple times.

If this is true, there appears sadly to be only one alternative : That the results were left out intentionally. That is a worrying occurrence, particularly if it was intended to make the school look good. Whilst, understandable to want to put the best foot forward, the obvious missing of these results, in particular when the 08 results are provided and shows the 09 results in better light.

It’s little surprise that the school may want to keep such results under wrap to make this years IB results look better, however not only does it set a bad precedence, it will only postpone the inevitable need to examine our IB policy. Hopefully the school will finally come clean on this issue and divulge the missing results.

About these ads

Written by Paul Lau

16 November, 2009 at 7:30 am

13 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Your articles and photos are really shocked me. The pen can be a weapon! You are a talented writer with a pen, and maybe you will be a great politician with the power given from citizens.

    Mendelsohn

    15 January, 2011 at 3:00 am

  2. Bonjour,

    Merci pour votre article interessant j’aime bien votre blog à bientot manga x

    manga x

    26 April, 2010 at 8:44 pm

  3. Granted, this was the first IB cohort that graduated from SIS, and there are many -ahem- adjustments made since. Or so we are told.

    Kreme

    23 April, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    • What do you mean by “adjustments made since”?

      Weuer

      23 April, 2010 at 6:32 pm

  4. The school website also shows the table (http://www.sis.edu.hk/community/students/students-academic-achievements), but they say “the world averages for 2009 are not yet available but do not change significantly year on year.”

    Do you feel foolish? :-/

    weuer

    10 April, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    • I apologize if certain individuals take every word the ever read on an ‘official’ website as the truth. The IB’s ‘official’ website contains a page titled Diploma Programme statistical bulletin with detailed information on exam results since Nov 2005. The school website displays details of SIS’s achievements in the May 2009 exam. The detailed result breakdown of this exam are provided at the statistical bulletin. http://www.ibo.org/facts/statbulletin/dpstats/index.cfm. On this page it says the following:

      The latest Diploma Programme statistical bulletin [1.1MB, PDF] contains summary statistics of the May 2009 examination session.
      Comparisons with previous years’ statistics are also made in the document.

      The pdf displayed on the same page indicates the details. Check Page 36 of the file for “distribution of points total May 2009″. The same statistics that the school is unwilling or has simply chosen not to put on its website.

      Paul Lau

      10 April, 2010 at 7:10 pm

      • Many pages on the school website haven’t been updated in ages.

        I’m also not sure I agree that the results weren’t “left out [...] to make the school look good” because I did the calculation myself just now and, indeed, the world percentages have not changed significantly from 2008; the only point range where the school has performed worse against the world in 2009 is 24-29, and the other spaces were left blank as well regardless.

        weuer

        10 April, 2010 at 7:20 pm

  5. Greetings i am new to this board i hope i can help out & give something back here because i have learned allot myself.

    Thx’s

    epherlohype

    10 April, 2010 at 3:05 pm

  6. [...] strange and quirky results reporting I noted in a previous post was once again, suspiciously repeated at the end of the SDIOP. Once again, the comparative results [...]

  7. [...] 1. IB Results [...]

  8. There is a possibility that the IBO has not yet released the statistical information.

    Calvin Po

    16 November, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    • IBO definitely has released the results.
      Firstly, the school can’t have the statistics for the Mean DP score, Pass rate and 40-45 point range without IBO’s statistics release.
      Secondly, the results are here (http://www.ibo.org/facts/statbulletin/dpstats/index.cfm). In another twist, none of the stats are the same as those presented by SIS, particularly 2008 stats. This may be attributed to calculation methods but the school hasn’t explained in any way.

      Paul Lau

      16 November, 2009 at 4:14 pm

      • Well, considering this is our school, I guess the omission really is intentional…

        Calvin Po

        16 November, 2009 at 4:17 pm


Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,753 other followers

%d bloggers like this: