Request For Raw Marks Denied

[Lazarus]

You can hide this advertisement by registering.

Originally Posted by Captain pi

One of the (conscientious) reasons I can think for the Board not wanting to disclose performance band cut-offs is that it may put pressure on the judges who determine the performance band cut-offs to bow to extraneous influence (if a test's performance band cut-offs were publicly released, and then said to be 'too high', the judges may be more inclined to have the cut-offs lower next year).

This is a valid argument, but I think it's overshadowed by the fact that judges are already required to support their decisions regarding cut-offs with actual evidence of the standard of work that is being produced by students. According to the Board, they aren't making arbitrary decisions that can simply be changed on a whim. According to the Board, there are numerous checks and procedures already in place to ensure that the judges are making the correct decisions, and aren't being unduly influenced by preconceptions of how marks should be distributed. This was particularly relevant in 2001 - when there were no set standards, and judges were determining distributions for the very first time. The Board has provided assurances that it conducts thorough reviews of how marks are awarded by all judges and that they are not biased by 'external' concerns.

But aside from that, there have already been widespread community concerns regarding the cut-offs for particular courses from all avenues, including students, teachers, and the media. For two years, the Board was called upon to 'allow' students to attain Band 6 in Standard English. The perception was that the cut-off was too high - and it hadn't even been published! In 2003, only a single student was awarded a mark of 90 in that course. In 2004, again, only a single student was awarded a mark of 90 (a second student had an effective mark of 90 due to rounding). Was the quality of work produced by these two students truly higher than the quality of work produced by the entire Standard English candidatures of 2001 and 2002? Or did the judges feel "pressured" to award at least one Band 6 mark? Who knows.

And now in 2005 we have the federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson saying that the Band 1/2 cut-off is absurdly low: "I'd like to believe that 99.2 per cent of the students who sat the HSC did pass English but I stopped believing in the tooth fairy when I was about eight." (source) He's probably one of the few people who actually do know what the cut-offs are. If the judges are going to feel pressured by anything, you'd think they'd be pressured by that - even if they're Labor supporters, they're going to have second thoughts.

The Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training has just recently called for tenders from experts interested in commandeering an investigation into the implementation of an Australian Certificate of Education. The abolition of the NSW Higher School Certificate in favour of a national certificate is currently on the table, and the system is only four years old.

Surely now more than ever the public interest would warrant disclosure of these cut-off marks. They released them under the old HSC, and no prejudice occurred. The Board hasn't yet presented any substantive arguments - in writing - as to why they can't be released now.

...

Sorry for that rant.

Originally Posted by Captain pi

I've got a great idea! Just release the raw marks; don't bother about performance band descriptors. BOS: don't pretend you can give a timeless mark which reflects a student's standard regardless of the test. It's hardly accurate as it is. Release a statistical report along with the mark which communicates how the mark was in comparison to the cohort. The scaling would be the same.

That's the sort of norm-referenced reporting that was done under the old HSC.

Of course, if the Board released both raw marks and raw band cut-offs (without ever calculating or referring to 'aligned' marks) then everyone would have the marks that are scaled for their UAI and the Board would still have its standards-referenced system. It would also make explicit the fact that marks and standards aren't comparable between courses - which is an artificial notion introduced by forcing the performance bands in all courses to conform to the same mark ranges.

Somehow I don't think that's going to happen either. (Thought it's not necessarily the best solution - just an interesting example.)

[hasterz]

what i dont get is that there has been so many precendents now for these requests (which should mean they are forced to take all future applications on a similar basis) how can they be allowed to do this; just deny with one of those dodgy excuses.

lets take those bitches to the high court

[Slidey]

Originally Posted by hasterz

what i dont get is that there has been so many precendents now for these requests (which should mean they are forced to take all future applications on a similar basis) how can they be allowed to do this; just deny with one of those dodgy excuses.

It's not a matter of them being allowed to; it's a matter of whether or not we, the students and public, allow them.

[~ ReNcH ~]

Originally Posted by Slide Rule

It's not a matter of them being allowed to; it's a matter of whether or not we, the students and public, allow them.

The only problem is that the reason why BOS may fail to release further marks is because students publicise them. However, if students didn't publicise them, then there'd be no point in making the request in the first place - kind of a Catch 22 really.

[hasterz]

so is this whole cause fucked now?

[laurie_field]

an identical rejection letter for me too, just for the record

[Lazarus]

Originally Posted by hasterz

so is this whole cause fucked now?

Not yet. We have a team working on it.

Patience is a virtue.

[Ragerunner]

Hmm..I can't really see why previous years raw cut-offs will have such a large effect (as exagerrated by the board of studies). Every year, the HSC exam is judged and differs from previous years (well I would hope so), so a new raw cut-off for each subject is established every year.

Unless a student could get access to their raw marks, raw band cut-offs AND HSC paper, I highly doubt it could cause any troubles....Unless the Board Of Studies is scared that the marking procedure of the papers aren't reliable. e.g. by the 2 students in 2003 and 2004 who achieved a band 6. Unless they were given access to their HSC paper to review, it would hardly cause any trouble releasing their raw band cut-off.

I didn't look back, but didn't one of your marks in 2001 fall in the band cut off Lazarus ?

[Will_Sparky]

Were all of our submissions reviewed by the same person? David Murphy? Or is EVERYONE denying now?

[withoutaface]

Originally Posted by Will_Sparky

Were all of our submissions reviewed by the same person? David Murphy? Or is EVERYONE denying now?

Yes, 'twas David Murphy.

[withoutaface]

Originally Posted by Melz

Perhaps they recognise the standard Bored form and just choose to dismiss any of those requests =P

No I filled out a form myself because I had an extra request for itemisation.

[alphatango]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/...417692293.html

Nelson said something I agree with! =D

[Captain pi]

I just saw Lazarus in the paper.

Wow! If the Board isn't intimidated by those dark, handsome looks, we're going to have trouble in court!

Page three article: well done Laz. I noticed a few small errors ("scaled" where 'aligned' would have been more appropriate; I suppose they wanted to skimp on the jargon.); but, overall, I thought it was good. Thanks Matthew!

Are we still going to have to through a Administrative Tribunal hearing to have his overturned, or is the Board going to change it's position once it sees this article?

[Slidey]

Originally Posted by Captain pi

Are we still going to have to through a Administrative Tribunal hearing to have his overturned, or is the Board going to change it's position once it sees this article?

I have a feeling this article will, for now, strengthen their resolve. More of a fuss will need to be made before BoS acquiesces.

[Xayma]

Just a thought could the raw marks be accessed through UAC? This might have a little better luck, although they might have been advised against it.

Originally Posted by UAC

What information does UAC hold?


The type of personal information UAC collects includes:

• Your contact details, including name, address, telephone number, email address
• Your date of birth
• Your gender
• Your citizenship details
• Details of your secondary and other educational achievements
• Details of your professional qualifications
• Your employment experience
• Information related to any disability you may suffer
• Details of your proficiency in English
• Your Universities Admission Index (UAI)
• Your status as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
• Your Higher School Certificate and other examination results

If you are a current NSW Higher School Certificate student, your Year 12 results will be held, along with Year 12 results from other states and territories in Australia, in an archive database at UAC. If you are eligible for a Universities Admission Index (UAI) or a Limited UAI, these will also be held in the database. Your results, including your UAI if you are eligible, will also be held on similar archives at tertiary admissions centres in other states in Australia. Results held on these archives will only be accessed by the relevant tertiary admission centre if you initiate an application for tertiary study through that centre, or if you submit an application for tertiary study directly with an institution participating in that centre.

Provision of your email address is optional. In collecting personal information UAC will only collect information for lawful purposes related to its function.