Page 1512 - SUBSEC October 2017_Neat

Table 9:
CSEC® Comparison of SBA Records and Samples for 2013-2017

SUBMISSION OF RECORDS SUBMISSION OF
SAMPLES
YEAR
% % Records Number of %

SBA % SBA Candidates not Ungraded Ungraded
records records not submitted Reports Reports
expected submitted submitting (No (No
SBA to Samples) Samples)
Teachers
2017 317,117 94.51 5.49 0.10 1239 0.39

2016 317,868 94.76 6.33 0.23 2644 0.83
2015 311,781 93.97 6.02 0.01 265 0.08

2014 321,852 94.06 6.02 0.12 227 0.07
2013 322,537 93.71 6.20 0.09 81 0.03

81. FAC agreed, in accordance with Procedure 13:4:3 of the Council’s Regulations for the
Conduct of the Council’s Examinations – Definitions, Regulations and Procedures, to report:
“ungraded: no SBA received”, candidates whose records or samples have not been received.

ITEM 4 (v) – REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE AND THE SUBJECT AWARDS COMMITTEE

82. FAC advised that the Technical Advisory Committee and Subject Awards Committees
whose subjects were completed, should commence their presentations.

83. FAC received the Report from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that has
responsibility for quality assurance of the grade awarding procedures used by the Subject
Awards Committees (SACs). Professor Griffith, Chairman of TAC, acknowledged the
contribution of the other members of TAC – Dr Gordon Harewood, Professor June George,
Professor Neville Ying, Dr Doreen Faulkner, Dr Henry Hinds and Dr James Halliday as well as
Dr Yolande Wright, Senior Assistant Registrar - Examinations Development and Production
Division.

84. FAC heard that in keeping with this responsibility, TAC met with each SAC and held
discussions in order to:

(i) promote consistency, accuracy and fairness in the scores awarded for all
examinations;
(ii) assure the maintenance of standards in all stages of the examining process,
including item and question construction, paper setting, examinations
administration, and marking of candidates’ scripts and responses; and

23