Row over adjustments of matric marks by Umalusi
A row has broken out on the eve of the release of the matric examination results over whether standard-setting body Umalusi is consistent in applying its methodology for the adjustment of raw marks.
While DA spokesman for education Gavin Davis has expressed doubts over Umalusi’s consistency in adjusting raw marks for 28 subjects upwards and only four downwards, Umalusi is adamant its methodology is sound.
Gauteng education MEC Panyaza Lesufi has also joined the tiff, describing Davis’s questioning of the process as political point-scoring and “sour grapes” as the Western Cape was not the largest beneficiary of the adjustments this year.
While the results will only be released to the public on Wednesday, Lesufi and Davis — who participate in the standardisation processes — are clearly privy to the outcome.
The adjustments are done so that in any particular year, a class is not disadvantaged if an exam was unduly difficult or advantaged if it was too easy. However, the decisions are often contested.
In an open letter to Umalusi chairman John Volmink, Davis questioned why as many as 32 subjects were adjusted in 2016 compared to 29 in 2015.
In a statement on Monday, Lesufi countered that standardisation was not unique to SA and Davis was merely looking for an opportunity to further the DA’s political motives.
He criticised Davis for failing to put forward his questions and concerns during the standardisation proceedings.
Standardisation of results is the final step in the quality assurance process conducted by Umalusi, SA’s quality assurance council for general and further education and training.
Results for each subject are compared and arguments presented by subject experts on whether the examination in question was cognitively difficult or easy.
According to Davis’s letter, maths literacy, mathematics and business studies were adjusted upwards the most from 30.06% to 37.22%; 27.01% to 30.79% and 33.07% to 38.74% respectively.
He said Umalusi found
upward adjustments justified if the examination paper was too hard. However, they did not provide evidence that the exam papers of these 28 subjects were more cognitively demanding than in previous years.
“Curiously, I did not observe the same methodology being employed when the raw mark was better than the historical mean,” Davis said.
Volmink said while the raw results were indeed compared against marks from previous years, they were not always adjusted towards the historical average mark.
A controversy over the past two years has been the effect of so-called “progressed learners”, who are pupils who failed grade 11 but were nonetheless allowed to enter grade 12.
Davis said that in 2016, the number of progressed pupils was 109,400, which was 13.4% of the total enrolment who wrote the National Senior Certificate examinations.
Davis questioned whether the inclusion of weaker pupils in the matric cohort could have led to certain anomalies, creating additional impetus to adjust the marks upwards for reasons not related to the cognitive demand of the papers.
The standardisation process has also been made more difficult this year by the limited amount of data.
The methodology requires that raw marks are compared with data from the previous five years.
The current curriculum — the Curriculum Assessment Policy Statements (CAPS) — was only introduced in 2014, which means there are only three years’ worth of data with which to compare raw results.
Lesufi said Davis had not questioned the 2015 adjustments when the Western Cape had been the main beneficiary of the outcome. “Whether he likes it or not, the majority of children of workers and the poor presented better raw marks than in 2015.”