Page 358 - SEC_2017WorkingDocument_Neat
P. 358

incidence of changes is significant both in frequency (1.7% of candidates requested reviews,
               46.3% of these had favorable responses) and scope of changes (changes ranged from 1 point
               to  18  points).  It  is  reasonable  to  therefore  have  a  similar  expectation  of  the  errors  being
               significant  for  CSEC  and  CAPE,  more-so  considering  the  issues  raised  concerning  the
               fidelity of e marking.

               This new system needs to be clarified and amended to consider the following:
                o  CXC needs to issue or re-issue to all stakeholders, a comprehensive explanation of its
                    system for addressing queries and the  assignment of fees.  It must be clear as to what
                    activities the fees compensate for.
                o  Implement  a  tiered  payment  system  to  match  the  levels  of  review  offered.  It  seems
                    nonsensical to pay the same fee for a recount as for a review or re-mark.
                o  As a matter of fact, no fee should be imposed for a recount as this can be considered an
                    operational routine of CXC, which should be effected once an application is received. A
                    recount cannot be the signal for further interrogation of students’ scripts given the range
                    of  mistakes  markers  can  make.  Also,  particularly  with  e  marking,  there  are  the
                    challenges of effectively monitoring of markers as well as efficiently intervening when
                    amendments to the mark scheme, post standardization become necessary.
                o  A mechanism needs to be implemented to give access to the MOE to data on applications
                    to query results so it can effectively monitor and intervene as necessary.

               An administrative check, as is currently understood, is not satisfactory considering the rigor
               required of paid applications to query students’ scores and the number of irregularities noted
               with  results  that  were  release  as  well  as  considering  possibilities  that  may  be  overlooked
               when projecting from the data on queries for SEA. It is recommended that the application
               form should have attached an explanation of the scope of services being paid for as each year
               there are new applicants who need to be appraised.
































                                                                                                       13
   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363