After poor evaluations by teachers and parents the CCEA Pupil Profile has failed its intended purpose. However the DENI and CCEA do not admit defeat – no matter how wrong they are .
To stave off criticisms of Gavin Boyd’s appalling track record , an attempt will be made to include Incas into the Pupil Profile. A silk purse will be constructed out of another invalid and unreliable instrument pretending to possess properties it does not contain.
During workshops and focus groups organised by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) to evaluate the profiles, a large number of principals, teachers and parents did not rate the content of the profiles highly.
Parents’ main criticism was that the profiles did not contain grades/marks or a comparison with their child’s peers and that they deemed this to be an essential component of any school report. Many also stated that they found them “bland” and “impersonal”.
Incas (from the CEM at the University of Durham) will be claimed to address the problem in an attempt to avoid attacks on the establishment of ESA (which includes CCEA)
Information from the CEM web site on Incas Q & A states:
* Once governors and parents see this kind of information we will have a very hard time.
How people use the InCAS information is crucial. It is intended for professional use within schools and not for external consumption. If it were ever linked to promotion, or pay, or parental choice of schools or anything of importance which was not under the control of schools the project would be in trouble. As W. Edwards Deming said “Where there is fear you get the wrong figures”.
The DENI are quite familiar with misusing figures. Parents have every right to distrust utterances of reassuarance.
The attempt to combine the failed Pupil Profile with Incas can have only one outcome: failure.