THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 1984. School Certificate marking

Press, 13 June 1984, Page 18

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 1984. School Certificate marking

The scaling of School Certificate marks has been the subject of public discussion on two occasions recently. The first was the ruling by the Chief Ombudsman, Mr George Laking, that School Certificate papers should be returned to the 12 pupils who had asked for them and whose cases he considered. The system of scaling clearly contributes to the reluctance of the Education Department to return marked School Certificate papers. Since then, the Director-General of Education, Mr Bill Renwick, has said that some School Certificate candidates may have been adversely affected by the scaling system used in the examination. He would like to see changes that would make the examinations fairer to all candidates. The method of determining passes in School Certificate examinations has been debated many times before. Marks are scaled — or adjusted so that a fixed percentage of candidates will pass — because different markers allot marks differently. The markers have guidelines for their work, but 20 markers who have, say, 300 papers each to mark, will not all keep to identical standards in marking. Some adjustments have to be made for the sake of fairness, to make sure that one candidate does not pass under a more lenient marker, and that another, whose answers were similar to the first, fails because of the marker. Such adjustments seem perfectly proper and necessary.

A form of scaling is also applied between different years. Sometimes an examination in a subject is deemed to be difficult in one year and easier in the next. If comparable students in successive years achieve say, 70 per cent in geography in one year and 50 per cent in the next year, it would be unfair if the student who scored 50 per cent was considered less able than the other. Examiners attempt to set papers of the same degree of difficulty year after year. They do not always succeed. Some adjustment, when the students’ papers are assessed, is obviously called for.

A third type of scaling of marks is less readily acceptable. This is the scaling or adjusting of marks between subjects. The argument is this: some subjects are held to be more difficult than others. Physics and chemistry, for instance, are regarded as among the more difficult subjects. If students obtain good, or even pass marks, in one of these subjects, are they deemed to have achieved the same level of qualification as someone who has obtained a pass or a good mark in one of the more practical subjects? In an effort to compare fairly the abilities of students, a hierarchy of subjects has been devised. Errors may have crept in to this adjustment of marks between subjects. These were the errors referred to this week by Mr Renwick. The admission of faults in the system shows a commendable honesty, even courage, on the

part of Mr Renwick. The Education Department must decide what it should do about the 1300 School Certificate candidates who, because of scaling errors, may have been unfairly failed in subjects last year. Candidates in other years may have been failed when they should have passed; perhaps these, too, should be considered. Even if these uncertainties are put aside for the moment, important questions remain and go to the root of the external examination system. The Education Department, probably with the support of most New Zealanders, has argued that the School Certificate examination should be retained. The examination appears to disregard differences in social and economic backgrounds, differences between schools, and differences among people of varying racial backgrounds. It has appeared to be an equaliser in a society that likes to be thought of as egalitarian; and to compensate for differences a social scaling system would be needed. Now, part of the School Certificate examination system has been admitted to be unfair. The unfairness will come as no surprise to some groups, including those Maoris who have long asserted that they, and their children, are not served adequately by the School Certificate examination. At least part of the case of those who make such assertions may have been established. The answer may lie in the adjustments to the scaling system that Mr Renwick has suggested. Some of the difficulties will remain. The answer might lie in using internal assessment to judge achievement in some of the so-called practical subjects. This has already begun. In some subjects the ability to perform practical tasks, rather than to answer questions on paper, is being measured in schools. In widening the subjects for the certificate less readily examinable subjects have been added to the list. Because the system of scaling has come about (one must accept in good faith) as a way of resolving the inequalities and dilemmas inherent in a large-scale examination, one answer might lie in having the performance of all pupils in all subjects assessed within schools.

Immediately, a new group of uncertainties appears. Checks would have to be devised to detect variations in standards between schools and teachers. The subjectivity of teachers who are asked to judge their own pupils cannot easily be overcome. Those who depend on School Certificates as a guide, such as employers, will have good reason to consider, even more than at present, which school a young person has attended. To remove the inequalities of a system of country-wide external examination is not necessarily to guarantee that other injustices — as bad, or worse — will not beset a new system of appraisal.