Nom Chompsky
High Tory
Well this meagre bit of transparency must be applauded, they still left how the crucial element - by how much were the marks adjusted?
Source: Mail and Guardian
Nice Zimbabwean style statement
*Note: Which marks were adjusted either upwards or downwards are not in the original M&G report. In my local paper, however, they showed which subjects had been adjusted upwards or downwards
Source: Mail and Guardian
The English home language question papers for last year's controversial matric exams had the highest failure rates of all the home language subjects because most non-English speakers who attend former Model C schools do not have the option of choosing their mother tongue as their first language.
There were also wild inconsistencies in the levels of difficulty across exam papers in the nine African languages offered as home-language subjects.
These startling findings emerged on Wednesday this week when the state's quality watchdog body, Umalusi, finally revealed details about its controversial so-called "standardisation" of the 2010 matric exams.
Applied every year, the standardisation process this time ignited greater public scepticism than usual because of the unexpectedly huge 7,1% increase in the 2010 pass rate of 67,8% -- up from 2009's 60,7%.
Umalusi’s press conference in Pretoria on Wednesday followed a month of increasing pressure for it to reveal more details about its standardisation -- in particular the subjects in which marks were changed, by how much they had changed and what the raw marks (that is, pre-adjustment) were.
The watchdog body was also facing a court challenge mounted by City Press and Rapport in January to divulge these details.
English had the highest home language failure rates
When the 2010 results were announced on January 6, Umalusi revealed merely that it had adjusted marks in some subjects. It did not specify which subjects or the extent of mark changes.
On Wednesday, Umalusi named 19 subjects whose marks it had changed. But it stopped short of saying what the raw marks were before its standardisation processes were applied to these subjects.
The subjects in which Umalusi changed marks were:
Accounting (Upwards)
Agricultural sciences (Downwards)
Civil technology (Downwards)
Consumer studies (Upwards)
Electrical technology (Downwards)
English home language (Upwards)
English first additional language (Upwards)
Geography (Upwards)
isiXhosa first additional language (Downwards)
isiNdebele home language (Downwards)
isiZulu home language (Downwards)
Life sciences (Downwards)
Mathematics (Upwards)
Religious studies (Downwards)
seSetho home language (Upwards)
Setswana home language (Upwards)
Tshevenda home language (Upwards)
Xitsonga home language (Downwards)
Siswati home language. (Downwards)
"We have found that English home language has the highest failure rates of all home language subjects as most non-English speakers who attend former Model C schools are forced to take the subject as the schools don’t offer their mother tongue as home language subject," said Umalusi council chairperson Sizwe Mabizela at the conference. "So immediately these learners are at a disadvantage."
"Moves are also under way to ensure that all home language exams are brought up to the same level of difficulty. Currently there is just too much variability in these papers, particularly the African languages," he said.
Mabizela told the gathering that Umalusi was taking the unprecedented step of revealing its quality assurance and standardisation decisions to protect the integrity of the South African education system.
"In the absence of credible information from us, some so-called experts took the gap to peddle reckless and irresponsible commentary. Our failure to share this vital information with the public has the potential to damage the credibility of Umalusi and the qualifications which we assure," he said.
"It is in the interest of protecting our education system that we are taking this step."
Nice Zimbabwean style statement
*Note: Which marks were adjusted either upwards or downwards are not in the original M&G report. In my local paper, however, they showed which subjects had been adjusted upwards or downwards