Page 94 - SEC_2017WorkingDocument_Neat
P. 94

b.   The inclusion of Team Assistants to correct marker variance early and to
                                   provide a measure of coaching;

                              c.   More extensive and in-depth marker standardization.

                              d.   Marker categorization by areas of proven skill combined with targeted
                                   training especially in the areas of proven challenge (Summaries, Short
                                   Stories and Essays); and

                              e.   Expansion of the level of recruitment to compensate for the higher levels
                                   of suspension noted in January 2017 and June-July 2016. In the case of
                                   the January exams, this rose to 45 percent for English A.


               68.     FAC heard that the main incidences of errors in the seeds created was as a result of
               incorrect tabulation.  In these cases, the Assistant Examiners who failed as a result of these
               errors, were reinstated to mark.

               69.     In response to a question raised by a member, FAC heard that in the emarking system,
               “Examiner” is not a position and therefore persons previously recruited as Examiners were
               placed  in  the position of  Assistant  Examiner.    It  was  noted  that  this  was  not  in  any  way
               demotion.

               70.     FAC  agreed that there  was  need for  greater  communication  to  enable  persons to
               understand the new initiatives.

               ITEM 6(ii) – REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN CASES OF IRREGULARITY

               71.     FAC received FAC (5b) 2017 - Reports and Recommendations in Cases of Irregularity
               in the January 2017 examinations and was asked to take action on the recommendations
               made.

               MISCONDUCT
               Mathematics Paper 2
               Candidate 0600070190
               Unauthorised equipment in Examination Room (Cell Phone)

               72.     The Supervisor reported that the Invigilator asked the candidate if he had a cell phone
               on him.  The candidate replied that he had and was asked to hand it over.  The Invigilator
               further reported the exam had already started.

               The candidate’s report stated:

                       “When the exam was starting the invigilator ask if I had a phone and I told her yes and
                       I gave it to her before I started my exam paper.”

               73.     The Supervisor in his report stated “…I directed these students to the various rooms
               and repeatedly announced that cell phones and other electronic devices should be turned off
               and placed in their school bags.”  He further indicated the examination started at 9:06 a.m.

                                                           24
   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99