Page 34 - SEC_2017WorkingDocument_Neat

6. This mode of marking increasingly became a less efficient, costlier and logistically challenging
activity as more and more subjects were added to the council’s suite of offerings. As an example, the
year 2013 shows that the marking of examination scripts had risen to account for 57 percent of the
council’s revenue and this was deemed to be financially unsustainable.

7. However, this unsustainability factor was forecast long before this date and it was determined
that a new method of marking needed to be found that would satisfy the council’s desire for fiscal
prudence and improve the accuracy and efficiency of the process in keeping with its regional mandate
to stakeholders.

8. E-Marking was introduced as a phased activity by the council in 2014 after a three (3) year
pilot program to test the efficacy of the concept and to select a more efficient and accurate way of
conducting the regional marking exercise for its CSEC and CAPE offerings. E-Marking involves the use
of a computer by an examiner to mark scanned items (questions) within a script using an on-line
modality. This specialist item level marking methodology emphasized a specialization to the marking
exercise by focusing examiners on areas of the script where they could build expertise in the marking
of one or more types of items (questions) on that script. The nature of some subjects also provided
for whole scripts to be marked as well.

9. This transition has seen the use of deployed technology in great measure to the examiner with
the core e-marking system eliminating most of all the transport and accommodation logistics of people
and scripts while undertaking most of the heavy lifting once carried out by ancillary personnel. All this
could be accomplished all the while placing the emphasis on accuracy and convenience to the
examiner. This removal of the heavy lifting that obtained in face to face marking was now built into
the electronic system and ranged from the requiring the physical movement of papers around the
region to the tallying of marks on a script.

10. The initial payment system for markers under this new system was the same for that used in
the face to face modality but it was observed that this methodology was not wholly compatible to the
type of marking that was now being emphasised. Differences in the scope and demand for the various
items in this new item level marking process and problems associated with meeting marking quotas
and completing scripts were noted.

11. Changes were made to the payment system partly to incentivize fast and accurate marking
and concomitantly to ensure that all scripts were completed on time. This change was reflected in a
payment arrangement which saw examiners and assistant examiners being paid a per item (question)
payment while chief and assistant chief examiners were paid a flat allowance.
12. This is the present existing arrangement but concerns over this method of payment have also
been noted and it is true to say that it has resulted in some inequity across the board. This inequity
not only involves how we treat to the demand and scope of the marking activity but also the role and
duties of the chief and assistant chief examiners as markers which is an admissible practice.

13. Concerns about payment were also registered by markers. These were exacerbated by the
fact that under this new system of marking, the emphasis on marking accuracy in conjunction with the
mark scheme is paramount and any misalignment in its application by either new or seasoned marker
was quickly reflected in a penalty or suspension which could render the examiner ineligible to mark
either at the standardization level where eligibility to mark is determined or live level of marking
where actual live marking takes place. Anecdotal evidence showed that this has had a psychological
effect on the confidence level of some markers who now preferred not to be a victim of the system’s
clinical method of assessing the accuracy of their marking. It is also reflected in the remuneration

2