‘Swift CXC remedy needed’ – educator

An independent education consultant today called for major redress for thousands of Caribbean students, teachers and parents who have persistently decried the results of the 2020 Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examination (CAPE) and Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) administered by the Caribbean Examination Council (CXC)

Dr Michael Clarke, an overseas-based Barbadian, has endorsed the findings of the Independent Review Team (IRT) commissioned by Chairman of the regional examining Body Professor Sir Hilary Beckles to review the process and outcomes of this year’s tests.

“The Independent Review Team’s Report indicates that the resulting scores based on the changes in assessment structure and grading were neither reliable, valid, nor fair, and as such major redress is required,” Clarke told an online press conference held by the Caribbean Coalition for CXC 2020 Redress today.

The lobby group, which represents students, parents, principals, teachers- established just last month, today expressed frustration that weeks after a promised grade review process by the CXC, distressed students are still empty-handed.

Dr Clarke who declared that he was invited to offer an independent assessment of the situation as an educator with an interest in assessment and grading and as a Caribbean national with a demonstrated interest in advancing education quality, equity, and student achievement in the Caribbean and the wider world blamed the controversial results on three main factors.

These include the revised 2020 exam methodology, the removal of Paper 2 and the revised grading methodology.

The consultant, who has been schooled at leading US universities, Howard and Harvard, recommended that the process of redress should get underway in earnest and should include a CXC offer to students willing to take paper 2 to give them the opportunity to do so.

“If students can demonstrate a deep understanding of the tested construct it would be unconscionable to allow an error in assessment to derail their academic progression. In all this, students should be held harmless. Therefore, those students who are happy with their grades should get to keep those grades,” he contended.

In addition, he proposed a regrading of Paper 3 “in a manner consistent with the historic grading to recapture what reliability of scores there might be.

“This will not address all ills, but it is something that is doable,” he pointed out.

Dr Clarke in his assessment of the CXC saga that has provoked much outcry across the region,  said it was clear that the exclusion of paper 2 had a deleterious effect on those students who would have excelled in that Paper and resulted in what he termed as “grade compression”.

“A possible effect of changing a potential grade of I, the highest possible grade, to a IV, the lowest possible grade is a phenomenon that is well known. it is referred to as grade compression. In Paper 2, the written or long answer paper, students are required to demonstrate their reasoning. Therefore, students who have a deep understanding of the tested construct but are lured by good distractors have a chance to demonstrate their knowledge in this paper and improve their overall scores.”

Dr Clarke further explained that on the other hand, “students without a deep understanding of the tested construct but were lucky in their choices on the multiple-choice assessment will see their scores eroded here.  It is for this reason that the College Board used only the Paper 2 equivalent for their AP Tests this year.

“So, to clarify, without the paper 2 there is the potential for strong distractors to depress the scores of students with a deep understanding of the tested construct and for luck to enhance the scores of students without a deep understanding of the tested construct.”

He further suggested that the CXC exam results were not fair, explaining that this concept is linked to education philosophy. He said in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries opted not to hold students responsible for events and activities over which they have no responsibility but this did not appear to be the case with the CXC.

“It is not clear what philosophy CXC has adopted. However, once the Technical Advisory Committee had reported that the expanded moderation process resulted in lowering students’ grades this should have been addressed. Students should have been held harmless to the consequences of the pandemic, and the consequences of a sudden change in the moderation protocol,” Dr Clarke said.

Back in October, CXC modified some of its protocols. tp accommodate the review process. The deadline for reporting and making queries on the exam results was moved from October 23 to November 6.

CXC  also reduced the review fee from US$30 to US$15. For students who had their results reviewed and a higher grade awarded, CXC will offer a refund.

(sandydeane@barbadostoday.bb)