ONDERWYSSTANDPUNT – 13
EDUCATIONAL POINT OF VIEW - 13
THE MATRIC CLASS OF 2003 – NEED WE BE CONCERNED?
While there seems to be relatively widespread satisfaction with the fact that the matriculation pass rate has risen by 24,4 per cent since 1999 (from approximately 49 per cent in 1999 to more than 73 per cent in 2003), there have also been expressions of concern about a suspected lowering of the standards and quality of the examinations and of the passes. According to Die Burger (2 January 2004), the Association of Vice-Chancellors (SAUVCA) expressed concern about ‘the quality of students delivered by the South African school system’. While welcoming the increasing pass rate since 1994, SAUVCA insisted that ‘the improved pass rate should be backed by quality education’. In a study done by the University of Cape Town it was found, for instance, that while there was an increase in students with A and B averages, there was also an increase in the number of students scraping through their first year at university. Only about 15% of all students succeed annually in attaining their degrees.
A parent in the Eastern Cape congratulated a previously advantaged school (The Herald, 6 Jan. 2004) with its ‘absolutely awesome results in the 2003 exams’. More than a third of the matric candidates in that school attained A averages. A large percentage of such previously advantaged schools achieved hundred percent pass rates and an above average number of A aggregates. At the same time, principals of previously disadvantaged schools merely expressed their satisfaction ‘with the notable improvements over last year’ (The Herald, 31 Dec. 2003).
One should not detract from the efforts made by all concerned, especially the national and the nine provincial departments, to improve the quality and standard of education during 2003. Much was done in this regard; nevertheless, there are still a few questions to be answered by the education authorities before South Africans will be satisfied about the standard and quality of the education in the matric year and of the examination processes. Some of the more important questions are:
- Has the pressure on schools (principals and teachers) not forced them to hold back in grade 11 those learners who could not reasonably be expected to pass the matric examinations? Have other learners not been forced to write standard grade examinations so as not to foul up the matric results of schools?
- Are the quality and standards of the first 11 grades of schooling of such a level that learners can become adequately prepared for the final matric examination?
- Do examiners, moderators and others with privileged information about the matric examination refrain from divulging some of the questions in exam papers to teachers during workshops and training sessions?
- Are the continuous assessments done during the school year by the educators of an acceptable and nationally homogeneous standard? Are these assessments reliable and valid? As much as 25 per cent of the matric marks are gleaned in this assessment process before the commencement of the final exam. Do the authorities have mechanisms in place to ensure the standardisation of these continuous assessments?
- Are the markers trained to evaluate appropriately, and not to concentrate on the ‘facts’? Do educators succeed in teaching learners not to merely memorise but also to be able to apply their knowledge and skills to diverse problem areas? In other words, does the outcomes based education programme work as envisaged?
- What is the size of the sample of papers drawn by Umalusi for moderation purposes? Is the sample of 2 245 papers that were moderated in 2003 representative of the total number of papers?
- How independent is Umalusi? Do we not have a situation where the same entity is in essence responsible for teaching the subject matter, setting the papers and moderating them as well as certifying them as of acceptable standard? What is the norm or benchmark for ‘acceptable’?
- Are the matric results valid, a true reflection of the intellectual abilities of the candidates, or have they been adjusted? On what scientific basis was the adjustment done? Can the rationale for the adjustment be statistically justified? At a news conference on 6 January 2004, Umalusi revealed that 69 external moderators, all experts in their fields, had moderated 2 245 exam papers, and that all of these were found to be of appropriate quality and standard. The results in several subjects were indeed adjusted. The marks in 240 subjects were left unchanged, those in 30 subjects were adjusted upwards, and 30 downwards. The chairperson of Umalusi, Dr Cassius Lubisi, referred to these adjustments as ‘normative’ (Die Burger, 5 January 2004). The adjustments had been made to bring the marks in line with the performance assessment marks during the year (The Sunday Times, 4 January 2004) as well as with the levels of achievement in previous years. On the basis of the information supplied by Umalusi, the Director-General of Education declared the matric exam to be a credible reflection of each individual’s efforts. Despite these endorsements of the examination, one cannot help feeling that the whole process of moderation and adjustment of marks was not sufficiently transparent. The methodology of adjustment remains vague. Is it not incumbent upon Umalusi and the Department of Education to give a detailed exposition of how marks were adjusted?
- In some circles, the improved pass rates have been described as an electioneering ploy (The Herald, 5 Jan. 2004). Suspicions that this was the case will persist unless and until the authorities have answered the questions in this list satisfactorily. Unless this is done, tax payers will perceive the matric exam, and especially the allegedly inflated results, as results of education being subjected to political pressures. Although the national director of examinations, Nkosi Sishi, rejected allegations about electioneering as ‘shocking and completely untrue’ and challenged those who charged him and his department with this ploy to come forward, nothing substantial has been offered by his department or other education authorities to refute the allegations. The Minister of Education has reacted in similar fashion to these allegations. He also declared that ‘his department would focus on increasing the number of pupils receiving exemption. In this way we (will be) seeking to improve the quality of the actual passes’ (The Sunday Times, 4 January 2004). In itself, this is in order – on condition that all traces of electioneering be removed, and this can only be done by making all the relevant processes more transparent.
- How will the students who passed the 2003 matric exam with university exemption (endorsement) fare at tertiary education level? This will be the acid test for the quality and standards of the 2003 matric exam. According to the Dean of the Faculty of Education of the University of Pretoria, students coming through the school system tend to struggle increasingly to make a success of their studies at universities (Die Burger, 31 December 2003). According to him, one university claimed that 60 per cent of its first year class now has students with an A aggregate in the matric exam (The Sunday Times, 4 January 2004). In a study by the University of Cape Town (reported in The Sunday Times, 4 January 2004), it was found that, despite the fact that more learners achieved A and B aggregates in 2001 than in 1997, more and more first-year students at universities were struggling academically. The Minister of Education, in an effort to circumvent this dilemma, stated that he was not aware of a relationship between matric results and achievement at tertiary level. He based this remark on his experience of some 35 years in education. If, however, there were no relationship between matric achievement and the prospect of success at tertiary education level, why should matric endorsement still be used as a requirement for university entrance? Should universities then not set their own entrance examinations, regardless of how prospective students fared in the matric examinations?
- How sure can we be that candidates without an adequate command of the language of instruction and of examination indeed fared as well as the results show? Especially non-English speaking previously disadvantaged learners tend to study through the medium of English, and to write their exams in that language. Reports by markers of exam papers revealed that some of the learners performed dismally. To what degree can this be ascribed to the language problem? To what degree did markers compensate for this shortcoming, for instance by giving candidates the benefit of the doubt when an answer is presented in a convoluted way?
- How do we explain the fact that some learners succeeded in garnering as many as 20 A’s in their grade 11 and 12 years – 10 or so per year? A decade and more ago, a learner was regarded to have performed a miracle when 7 distinctions were attained. Is this not a sign that standards have deteriorated?
- Is it not reasonable to expect officials, including the Minister of Education, to respond responsibly, technically and academically to critical questions about the standard and quality of the examinations? Is it reasonable for persons asking critical questions to be berated for allegedly not supporting the governing party? We live in a democracy, and we need matters surrounding this very important event in the lives of thousands of learners to be clarified objectively.
A possible solution
There seems to be only one way of allaying the fears and suspicions about the 2003 matric examinations expressed by the person in the street (taxpayers) as well as by experts in the field of education and training, and that is to make a clean breast of what actually occurred behind the screens. All the processes leading to the announcement of the final exam marks should be made transparent. As long as the Minister and officials of Umalusi and the department of education are perceived to defend the processes without divulging the actual rationale behind every move, suspicions will persist that the whole process, especially the marks, has been manipulated. The fact that we are at the beginning of an election year exacerbates the problem: the furore surrounding the 2003 matric exams is an indication of how sensitive South Africans have become about possible political manipulation, including electioneering.
We should not detract from the hard work done by education officials, educators and parents during 2003 in order to ensure greater success in the matric examinations. However, we should also not deceive learners and other concerned parties, including tertiary institutions, leading them to think that the examinations were of the required standard and quality when they were not. We need substantial proof from the department of education that the exams were indeed of the required standard and education.
Several steps can be taken to avoid a recurrence of the problem in the future:
- Measures should be taken to standardise the continuous assessments in schools during the academic year.
- Examiners and moderators should not be allowed to present workshops. Other experienced educators should be employed for this task.
- All papers should be moderated by subject experts. A fully representative sample of answers should be moderated.
- Markers should be trained not to only allocate marks for so-called facts. Regurgitation of facts by candidates should be discouraged.
- Umalusi should be seen to be a totally independent body. The department of education should not be seen as the educator of the learners, the examiner, the marker of the papers, the moderator, and the certifier. Moderation and certification should be totally separate and independent processes.
- Internationally accepted norms and standards should be used as benchmarks.
- All the processes should be fully transparent. The current ‘secrecy’ or ‘confidentiality’ surrounding some of the processes should be removed.
- A body like SAUVCA should be involved in the whole process in order to ensure that students that have a realistic chance of success will be able to seamlessly continue their studies at tertiary level.