One can't argue that the 7.2 percentage point increase in the matric pass rate has raised fears of result manipulation. Chris Barron of Sunday Times asked the head of quality assurance body Umalusi, Professor Sizwe Mabizela...
Do you share the minister's excitement?
I do, but we need to focus on the quality of the pass.
Does Adjusting results improve quality, or the reverse?
One cannot give a yes or no answer. One has to understand what is called standardisation.
Does that mean bringing the results of more privileged schools into line with less privileged schools?
No, you see, these things are so complex. Standardisation is used to make sure that learners are not advantaged or disadvantaged by factors other than their own abilities, their own knowledge of the subject and so on. In some instances it turns out a paper might have been on the easy side. And learners cannot be advantaged because they have written an easy paper.
If they write the same paper, how are they advantaged?
You want to ensure consistency across years.
What subjects were adjusted downwards?
I can tell you that there are four assessment bodies.
Can you tell me which subjects?
I can't.
Don't we have the right to know?
Absolutely.
Then why don't you tell us?
There is no easy and simple and straightforward answer. The statistical moderation of exam scores is buy its very nature, a confidential process.
Why?
It is a confidential process but not a secretive one. when we do the standardisation all the heads of provincial departments are there, the teacher unions are there, observers from higher education bodies are there.
You say the teachers are there, but the teachers say they haven't been told.
Let me just go back again.There are four assessment bodies...
Which subjects are adjusted upwards?
I'm not at liberty to tell you that, for the same reasons.
Don't universities need to know? Aren't you deceiving them?
No.The danger of disclosing the identity of the subjects is the potential of stigmatising that subject and possibly that cohort of learners. And I don't think it is the best interest of cohort learners to do that.
Is it in their best interest to pretend they're better at a subject than they actually are? Aren't you setting them up for failure?
No. As I have indicated, the process of standardisation is to mitigate fluctuations in student performance caused by other factors other than their innate attitude and knowledge.
How does it help the learner if he gets a 30% for maths and you bump that up to 40%and he comes a cropper at university?
Let's say you're writing a science paper and there is a question where vital information to solve a problem is missing and therefore you are not able to solve that question. So the candidate loses 30 marks. That is not fair to him.
Nine subject were adjusted upwards. Are you saying there were mistakes in all those papers?
I'm not saying that. I'm simply saying there are good reasons for adjusting upwards.
What would the pass rate have been if the original results had been allowed to stand?
We don't know that.
Surely you know the raw results before you begin manipulating them?
We know the individual subjects...
what would the pass rate in maths have been?
I wouldn't know that as I sit here. The pass rate is worked out after the standardisation process has been implemented.
What is the margin of upward adjustment?
It varies from subject to subject.
For maths?
I don't know if maths was adjusted or not.
What have you got to hide?
There is a danger that people might misinterpret...
Is upward adjustment about making the government look good?
We do not do things to benefit the government. what we do is ensure that the quality of the qualification is maintained.
Evidence suggests you're not doing a very good job...
As a country we should be concerned about the quality of the passes. We have set the bar low. To get 30% or 40% and have a matric certificate is not in the best interests of the nation.
Poll: Do you believe that results are being manipulated to enhance the governments image.
No comments:
Post a Comment