Page 355 - SEC_2017WorkingDocument_Neat

RELEASE OF RESULTS: Delays as well as Incorrect and Incomplete
results.

A number of irregularities in significant frequency was noted this year with the release of
results:

th
A. Continued late date of release of CVQ results (distribution began only on 15 September
2017).
B. Unexplained Delay in release of results.
C. Incorrect results: many students reported as ungraded despite submission of all
requirements and completing examination papers.
D. Students reported an unusual change of grade, one week later after the release of results.
This was noted in particular for CAPE Spanish and Economics

The release of results was later than the dates initially committed by CXC, several delays are
noted particularly the complication arising from significant lapses in the release to the MOE,
to the schools’ portals and to the students’ themselves via CXC’s website. Yet again, in the
last case, it appears that CXC does not have the capacity to handle the traffic on its online
facilities, as the website crashed, to the dismay and frustration of students.
However, what is more significant is the challenge posed to students who have applied for
entry to CAPE and tertiary institutes as well as for funding and scholarships. There is cost to
the opportunity they have missed!
This problem is further amplified as CVQ results are released so much later than CSEC and
CAPE, that students were unable to access opportunities available at technical and tertiary
institutes. The academic term had already begun.

Despite taking longer to release the results, CXC still made errors in what was eventually
uploaded and have offered no public explanation.
Also, the question arises as to what implications if any, are there, for applications for
"review/re-mark" of students' scripts (that is those who are affected).
Further despite the "out" CXC has in terms of advising that the results are provisional, this
debacle brings into question the integrity of CXC's processes and by extension the
validity of students grades. Both local and international universities, employers, scholarship
and funding agencies may question the quality of assessments being certified by CXC. The
implications for students to access these facilities are obvious and worrying.

Concerns about CXC's readiness for e-marking and e-testing seems even more valid in terms
of whether CXC has can exercise the required diligence in maintaining quality in the
administering and marking of scripts. Further, there are implications for CXC’s recent change
in system for providing redress to students who have by application that incurs a fee, queried
their results. This new approach to addressing queries must be revisited in light of the
significant errors in the posted results. This current turn of events makes it even more

10