Read this first (2 Viewers)

[Lazarus]

BOS Legal Forum

This forum exists because officers of the Board of Studies routinely patrol the public forums.

It's not feasible to discuss legal strategy or brainstorm ideas out there where they can see.

You can bet they'll be keeping an eye on it.

The forum is only accessible to members of the usergroup "Legal Team" - which currently consists of:

Lazarus
lyounamu
dp624
James Cos​

Goals and objectives

• Transparency of procedures used to adjust marks and calculate UAIs
• Accountability for those procedures
• Disclosure of sufficient information for third parties to verify that procedures have been correctly applied

Strategies

• Applications pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW) - for government agencies (e.g. BOS, DET, TCS)
• Applications pursuant to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) - for private companies (e.g. UAC)
• Public campaigns, media releases? Petitions?
• Contact local MPs?

Timeline

2003

JK applies for raw marks. Referred to tribunal.

2004

BOS caves on day of tribunal hearing and discloses marks. JK posts on forums.

JK publishes standard FOI application to allow all students to apply (here).

David Huang applies for raw marks. BOS discloses marks. David posts on forums.

JK estimates raw band cut-offs for his and David's courses and posts on forums.

Vincenzo Papalia and Stephanie Paton apply for raw marks.

2005

BOS discloses marks to Vince and Steph. Vince posts on forums, as does Steph.

Two or three other students apply for raw marks. BOS discloses marks. Not posted anywhere.

At least two students who applied for a breakdown of their raw marks by sections had their applications refused:

Reasons for Decision
...
I have also determined that your request for raw HSC examination marks other than Total Weighted Marks for all HSC courses to be refused. This refusal is pursuant to the provisions of Schedule 1 of the FOI Act at clause 16 (Documents concerning operations of agencies) paragraphs (a)(i) and (ii) relating to access being prejudicial to the effectiveness or the attainment of the objects of tests and examinations. The specific information sought by you is a confidential aspect of the annual HSC marking program for the reason that its wider availability would compromise the integrity of the marking program in future years. Accordingly, I have determined that the disclosure of this information is contrary to the public interest.
...

Billy Kanafani applies for his itemised raw marks. BOS refuses application with the following reasons (which show that BOS has caught on to students using raw marks to estimate band cut-offs):

This refusal is persuant to provisions of Schedule 1 of the FOI Act at clause 16 (Documents concerning operations of agencies) paragraphs (a)(i) and (ii) relating to access being prejudicial to the effectivness or the attainment of the objects of test and examinations. The decision-maker has formed the view that granting you access to this information will assist in the determination and then public disclosure of the HSC cut scores seperating the bands on the performance scale for the 2004 HSC. The specific information sought by you is a confidential aspect of the annual HSC marking program for the reason that its wider availability would compromise the integrity of the marking program in future years. Accordingly, the decision-maker has determined that the disclosure of this infomration is contrary to the public interest.

See also SMH article on Billy's application.

Andrew Ngai and Laurie Field apply for their raw marks (not itemised) and are refused with reasons identical to those given to Billy. Andrew had 99.95 and Laurie had 100.00.

Henceforth a stock set of reasons is given to all students who apply for raw marks.

Hugh Parsonage collects 50 HSC students and applies for all of their raw marks per question per exam paper (SMH).

2006

Hugh takes his case to the tribunal.

2007

Hugh loses in tribunal on technical point because proper FOI procedure not followed (see decision). All is quiet for some time...

2008

April - NSW Ombudsman announces full-scale review of all FOI applications received by BOS since 2001. (SMH)

2009

1 January - JK applies to BOS for all raw band cut-offs and raw means and standard deviations from 2001-2008 inclusive.

 

[lyounamu]

Wholeheartedly support various strategies suggested there.

Considering the current size of the Bored of Studies website and the influence that it has on great numbers of HSC students in general, public campaigns can definitely attract some media attention.

Many teachers around the state are aware of the website's presence and this public act can gain their supports who may feel that current marking/disclosure of HSC system adopted by Board of Studies is doing the injustice for the students.

In my opinion, petition strategy can potentially prove effective only if some members on the website are confident about revealing some of their own private information such as school, name, age and etc. Uernames alone won't prove useful at all.

Therefore, the full support from ex-HSC students, current HSC students (2009 HSC students), teachers or other stakeholders is required. Successful accomplishment of those objectives won't just benefit the current students, it will also help the future students.

Thanks to Lazarus for his hard work in regards to this issue. And as I mentioned before, this will only work if we act against the Board of Studies or other government education agencies together as a whole.

 

[dp624]

Yes, I agree that such an idea is an excellent one.

However I must note that I have close to zero legal expertise and will not be able to brainstorm many ideas relevant to that. However as you're a practicing lawyer I'm sure you can handle the technical aspects very well yourself.

I think a public campaign or a media release would work well in educating the public. Currently the public is quite unaware of the processes, as the documents which UAC releases are very vague.

I'm pretty sure you'd gain quite a lot of support from, for example, HSC Coordinators and Principals of Schools. For example, my school, James Ruse, goes through a very formal process in order to estimate our UAIs every semester. The head teachers simulate the alignment process. Then our Secondary Coordinator/Vice Principle approximates the scaling from this, adds up, and gives an approximate UAI. I believe that it's a very important service and yet it's fundamentally flawed in many ways.
Many schools would benefit from the knowledge of aligning and scaling, being able to better support students in their HSC years.

On that note, has anyone tried to contact UAC regarding, for example, their scaled marks or overall aggregate with the FoI Act?

I think, in the end, having 3 members in a usergroup doesn't promote a large amount of discussion. Perhaps you could think about revealing it to a larger range of, ah, trusted members? Not that I think anyone would reveal us to the Board.

 

[lyounamu]

Yes, I agree that such an idea is an excellent one.

However I must note that I have close to zero legal expertise and will not be able to brainstorm many ideas relevant to that. However as you're a practicing lawyer I'm sure you can handle the technical aspects very well yourself.

I think a public campaign or a media release would work well in educating the public. Currently the public is quite unaware of the processes, as the documents which UAC releases is very vague.

I'm pretty sure you'd gain quite a lot of support from, for example, HSC Coordinators and Principals of Schools. For example, my school, James Ruse, goes through a very formal process in order to estimate our UAIs every semester. The head teachers simulate the alignment process. Then our Secondary Coordinator/Vice Principle approximates the scaling from this, adds up, and gives an approximate UAI. I believe that it's a very important service and yet it's fundamentally flawed in many ways.
Many schools would benefit from the knowledge of aligning and scaling, being able to better support students in their HSC years.

On that note, has anyone tried to contact UAC regarding, for example, their scaled marks or overall aggregate with the FoI Act?

I think, in the end, having 3 members in a usergroup doesn't promote a large amount of discussion. Perhaps you could think about revealing it to a larger range of, ah, trusted members? Not that I think anyone would reveal us to the Board.

I am sure we will work that part out.

I think the major challenge for us is to get this message to everyone. I can confidently say that we are not the only people who are interested in this particular system of marking/disclosure of HSC results. And as you already mentioned before, some media works will be able to help achieve our objectives.

I would briefly like to bring up the issue of a petition again. I was thinking of adding student numbers (e.g. mine is 19555917) to the list of some private information that people can possibly reveal. Yes, I am completely aware of the fact that it is highly irrelevant for most of 2009 HSC students and future HSC students as they are not well informed of their student numbers.

NOTE: Your HSC number is your School Certificate number (as far as I am aware but I have heard some posts indicating that it may change if you change your school).

I don't think this is much that I am asking. This "private information" hardly tells you who you are anyway. But this is essential information (in my opinion) in order to validate some people on the petition.

Alternatively, we can omit a student number if the member does not have any desire to reveal it. And for some cases like that, omission of such information won't deteriorate the validity of the petition anyway.

However, my initial suggestion of petition just doesn't extend to petition itself. Some information that we acquire from members around the website can be used for the benefit of other "project" or strategy that we might adopt in the near future.

edit: fixed

 

[dp624]

In that case, I'll add my student number (17519050) to the list as well. Along with the (not trying to brag here etc) results of my knowledge.
I can say for certain that the fact that I know about the processes in which the government entities align and scale marks (etc) really contributed to my study routine and the effort I spent.
For example, this may seem funny. I spent about as much time on 3u as I did in 4u. This was because both were initially about equal in terms of aligned marks (ie school gives me the same mark for both). So instead of trying hard in 4u, I split the time evenly because 4u scales up HIGH. So though someone may be ahead of me by one aligned mark in 4u, my lead of 1 aligned mark in 3u puts me on top.

That's just one example of how the knowledge of scaling, and my school's knowledge of aligning, helped me.

 

[Lazarus]

Thanks for your support guys.

Many teachers around the state are aware of the website's presence and this public act can gain their supports who may feel that current marking/disclosure of HSC system adopted by Board of Studies is doing the injustice for the students.

There are also some teachers who have very strong views and are against the release of raw marks. I was quite surprised to discover this. Need to be careful who you talk to and make sure they're on the right side!

I wrote to the NSW Teachers Federation asking for their support when I applied for my marks and they came back saying that they didn't support the disclosure of raw marks at all. Very unhelpful. I know there are a lot of teachers out there who would support it though.

In my opinion, petition strategy can potentially prove effective only if some members on the website are confident about revealing some of their own private information such as school, name, age and etc. Uernames alone won't prove useful at all.

I agree. If there is to be a petition, it must be done properly, with . The petitioners will need to be willing to provide certain details.

I think we need student number, name, school, HSC year and DOB. If we don't ask for DOB then anyone could just enter someone else's details from the distinguished achievers' list. But the DOB could be verified by the Board by use of the student number.

The more pressing question is - what is to be the precise goal of the petition, and to whom would it be addressed?

BOS - to disclose raw marks and cut-offs?

UAC/TCS - to disclose scaled marks, aggregates and more scaling statistics?

The Minister - to remove the FOI exemption for universities and the DET?

If we are to maximise signatures, it needs to be as simple and to the point as possible.

And as I mentioned before, this will only work if we act against the Board of Studies or other government education agencies together as a whole.

I also agree with this.

We need to put pressure on everyone.

However I must note that I have close to zero legal expertise and will not be able to brainstorm many ideas relevant to that.

That's not a problem at all - ideally I see you fulfilling one or more of the following roles:

- brainstorming ideas

- coordinating campaigns

- volunteering for guinea pig applications (I already have my raw marks and I think it's been too long since the HSC for me to request personal data anyway)

- tracking down helpful materials to support our case

etc.

I think a public campaign or a media release would work well in educating the public. Currently the public is quite unaware of the processes, as the documents which UAC releases is very vague.

I've made quite a few media contacts since I started the site, and they are usually more than happy to do a story for us if there is news to be told. The most difficult part for me is trying to find the time to coordinate it - keeping track of what's been published, what events are coming up, notifying the reporters about them and explaining what's going on etc. It's all been very haphazard to date.

You know, dp, you have several niggling grammar issues inside some of your posts... "the documents which UAC releases is". =P

For example, my school, James Ruse, goes through a very formal process in order to estimate our UAIs every semester. The head teachers simulate the alignment process. Then our Secondary Coordinator/Vice Principle approximates the scaling from this, adds up, and gives an approximate UAI. I believe that it's a very important service and yet it's fundamentally flawed in many ways.

I'm very interested in learning about how schools do this.

By "simulate the alignment process", do you mean they compare samples of students' work to the standards packages and try to come up with their own raw band cut-offs for your school's raw marks? Do they look at your school's past performance or anything else?

Does your SC/VP use their own methods for approximating scaling and calculating UAIs, or is a program used, or is it outsourced to a third party?

Each semester, do they provide any other information in addition to the estimated UAI?

On that note, has anyone tried to contact UAC regarding, for example, their scaled marks or overall aggregate with the FoI Act?

No.

I don't think UAC has our scaled marks or the data necessary to produce them.

However, I do think it has scaled aggregates. I think the Technical Committee on Scaling produces the aggregates and hands them to UAC for conversion to UAIs. Not 100% certain though.

Would you like to volunteer for this application?

I think, in the end, having 3 members in a usergroup doesn't promote a large amount of discussion. Perhaps you could think about revealing it to a larger range of, ah, trusted members? Not that I think anyone would reveal us to the Board.

Yes, I agree, and I wasn't planning on limiting the group to three members.

But it's fundamentally important that this forum isn't leaked to the Board.

I've only received two other PMs about it so far - which is to be expected given that the only people who know about this forum are those who read that other thread - and I think I will admit them.

There might have to be a little bit of a vetting process generally though. Only established members, etc.

NOTE: Your HSC number is your School Certificate number (as far as I am aware but I have heard some posts indicating that it may change if you change your school).

Yes, that's correct - I doubt it would change if you changed schools - it's a BOS number not a school number.

Student numbers also appear on the distinguished achievers' list.

However, my initial suggestion of petition just doesn't extend to petition itself. Some information that we acquire from members around the website can be used for the benefit of other "project" or strategy that we might adopt in the near future.

What sort of information do you have in mind?

 

[dp624]

There are also some teachers who have very strong views and are against the release of raw marks. I was quite surprised to discover this. Need to be careful who you talk to and make sure they're on the right side!

I wrote to the NSW Teachers Federation asking for their support when I applied for my marks and they came back saying that they didn't support the disclosure of raw marks at all. Very unhelpful. I know there are a lot of teachers out there who would support it though.

Wow, how annoying. I know for one that the teachers at my school would quite welcome the release of the processes.

The more pressing question is - what is to be the precise goal of the petition, and to whom would it be addressed?

BOS - to disclose raw marks and cut-offs?

UAC/TCS - to disclose scaled marks, aggregates and more scaling statistics?

The Minister - to remove the FOI exemption for universities and the DET?

Ah, yea. I think some primary goals would be the raw marks and cutoffs for sure. As well was scaled marks and aggregates for UAC>
However I'm not too sure on the removal of FoI exemptions. What is this issue? Do unis have the right to reject FOI requests?

That's not a problem at all - ideally I see you fulfilling one or more of the following roles:

- brainstorming ideas

- coordinating campaigns

- volunteering for guinea pig applications (I already have my raw marks and I think it's been too long since the HSC for me to request personal data anyway)

- tracking down helpful materials to support our case

etc.

Seems ok. I'd like to know quite a bit about my marks etc too. Guinea pig-ing is fine as long as I have somewhat clear instructions on what to do. Otherwise I'd probably bungle it up and have the secret service at my door. =P

I'm very interested in learning about how schools do this.

By "simulate the alignment process", do you mean they compare samples of students' work to the standards packages and try to come up with their own raw band cut-offs for your school's raw marks? Do they look at your school's past performance or anything else?

Does your SC/VP use their own methods for approximating scaling and calculating UAIs, or is a program used, or is it outsourced to a third party?

Each semester, do they provide any other information in addition to the estimated UAI?

Ah, let's see how much I remember =P
I'm pretty sure that teachers each year have access to the previous marks of past cohorts. They also have the mark for each School Cert cohort. As an example, let's say that
SC'05 got a science mean of 90
SC'06 got a science mean of 93

Then, HSC'07 got a physics mean of 94
This means that the predictions for the HSC'08 cohort would take into the account the previous years' moderated cohort means and mark distribution. The means of School Cert are then used to change the marks accordingly.

Obviously the method has some flaws but the school thinks it's good enough. I actually don't ever recall a time where a teacher has referred to the standard packages in any way (except to tell us not to copy stuff from there =P).

So from that convoluted process up there, the school then determine which raw mark would scale to a certain moderated mark. I know that the English teachers use a form of "linear scaling" to ensure that the marks create a bell curve. It's these "linearly scaled" marks which turn into the "moderated marks" which appear on our reports.

There are a large range of raw marks which lead to a certain moderated mark. For example, in our English Advanced Trial, anywhere from 100/105 raw to 97/105 raw turned into a 95 moderated.

These "moderated marks" (report marks) are then scaled by the relevant person. They refer to the previous years' A3 table and create whole-number estimates for each mark. They're also often conservative. For example, they "scaled" a 99 "report mark" to a 98 "aggregate." This meant that ALL 99s got "scaled" to 98.
For a subject like Extension II Maths the "scaling" would look something like this:
(format is report -> scaled)
100 (not given - they're conservative)
99 = 99
98 = 99
97 = 98
96 = 97
95 = 97
...
90 = 93
and so on.
Each coordinator spends about one night working out the scaling for the subjects. They then enter all the marks into what I assume is an Excel table, which calculates the total aggregate. They only give .5 or whole aggregates. The .5 comes into play when a 1-unit subject counts.

This aggregate is then compared to the A8 table. The coordinator also sits down and tries to estimate which total aggregate leads to a certain UAI. Often these are quite conservative. And the further you progress the more 'strict' the cutoffs.
For example, in Year 12 Semester 1 the cutoff for 100 was 485 and for 99.95 was 480.
For the trials it was 489 and 483 respectively.
Of course those cutoffs are ridiculous. I also recall stuff like 458 is 99.40 and 466 is 99.65 from their estimates.

So, the students book an appointment and there they get told their estimated UAI, weakest subjects. They can ask for advice.
At a year-wide median the coordinator discusses trends. Where we should be aiming at. The impact English is having on our UAIs. The median.
Certificates are presented to those with estimate of 99.35+ and those with gains of 20 aggregates or so in the same semester.

I think that's all I remember for now lol.

However, I do think it has scaled aggregates. I think the Technical Committee on Scaling produces the aggregates and hands them to UAC for conversion to UAIs. Not 100% certain though.

Would you like to volunteer for this application?

Sure, I'd like to know mine too =P. As long as I'm told what to do, as I mentioned above.

 

[lyounamu]

There are also some teachers who have very strong views and are against the release of raw marks. I was quite surprised to discover this. Need to be careful who you talk to and make sure they're on the right side!

That's highly unfortunate. I am assuming that some of the teachers who are against this are quite misinformed about the benefits that the disclosure of this information can potentially bring.

I wrote to the NSW Teachers Federation asking for their support when I applied for my marks and they came back saying that they didn't support the disclosure of raw marks at all. Very unhelpful. I know there are a lot of teachers out there who would support it though.

That's truly a big turn-off. I wonder what their reason was. They should be urged to consider from students' perspective.

I think we need student number, name, school, HSC year and DOB. If we don't ask for DOB then anyone could just enter someone else's details from the distinguished achievers' list. But the DOB could be verified by the Board by use of the student number.

I am not quite sure what DOB is.

The more pressing question is - what is to be the precise goal of the petition, and to whom would it be addressed?

I am sure the use of petition is quite universal. It can be attached to the letter to the local MP for example or it can be added to some public acts that we may be involved in future. Petition brings some sense of unity. It also shows that many people are holding the similar stance against the BOS's current system in regards to marking/disclosure of HSC marks.

BOS - to disclose raw marks and cut-offs?

UAC/TCS - to disclose scaled marks, aggregates and more scaling statistics?

The Minister - to remove the FOI exemption for universities and the DET?

Yes, these are some of the places where petition can be forwarded to.

If we are to maximise signatures, it needs to be as simple and to the point as possible.

Also agreed as many people won't be bothered to fill out the long piece of paper asking for their private information.

I've made quite a few media contacts since I started the site, and they are usually more than happy to do a story for us if there is news to be told. The most difficult part for me is trying to find the time to coordinate it - keeping track of what's been published, what events are coming up, notifying the reporters about them and explaining what's going on etc. It's all been very haphazard to date.

Yeah, considering your current situation, you won't have much spare time unlike us.

Yes, I agree, and I wasn't planning on limiting the group to three members.

But it's fundamentally important that this forum isn't leaked to the Board.

I am not sure what the Board's reaction would be if it was actually leaked. I don't think they will go to extremity of shutting down the website. However, I conform to your view that this forum must not be leaked to the Board as it will complicate the matter.

What sort of information do you have in mind?

I am not completely sure at the moment. Maybe some of the opinions that members around here hold in regards to this issue? If they are willing to disclose some of their own private information, they can be just recommended to provide few words as to what they think about this. However, we need to make sure that there is no contradiction whatsoever when they provide their own opinions.

 

[dp624]

I am not quite sure what DOB is.

Date of Birth, lol

Yeah, considering your current situation, you won't have much spare time unlike us.

Lol, soon both of us (Feb for you, March for me) won't have that much spare time. That's why I think we need more members =P

 

[lyounamu]

Lol, soon both of us (Feb for you, March for me) won't have that much spare time. That's why I think we need more members =P

That's actually quite true. However, my attendance on this website wouldn't decrease dramatically anyway.

In my opinion, some moderators around the website would be interested in helping out but they are another busy people. I am sure James will figure that part out as he would be able to get the suitable list of candidates for the involvement in this work.

 

[James Cos]

Greeting to all.

Let me introduce myself. I'm James Sin. I graduated from JRAHS in '08 alongside my dear friend dp (who was, incidentally, my first friend at Ruse).

This campaign is important - not only for the sake of my own curiosity, but in the interests of transparency and fairness. And I'm willing to do anything I can to help.

Just building on JK's strategy of contacting local MPs, I might suggest the possibility of getting the NSW Liberal Party involved. Remember what happened in 04 when they got their hands on the HSC results "hacking" incident? Especially in the current political climate, the Libs might be inclined to advance our cause.

For myself, this is the list of items I intend to request:
* itemised and total raw marks for all 2008 exams sat (Economics, English (Advanced), English Extension 1, French Continuers, French Extension, Mathematics, Mathematics Extension 1, Philosophy Distinction course (even though I received the total exam raw mark from the UNE)), and for Agriculture (sat in 2007)

* exam scripts for all those courses (but Agriculture may have been destroyed already)

* tape recording of speaking exams for French Continuers and French Extension

* any notes markers may have made for either of the two speaking exams

* initial (not moderated) school assessment marks for each course sat in both 2008 and 2007

* my Illness and Misadventure Appeal form (with comments written by the school and by presiding officer), and details of any enquiries made to determine my appeal
(I appealed Economics, Eng Ext1 and Maths Ext1 - it was successful only for Economics as my exam marks for the other two courses were equal to or higher than my moderated assessment mark)

*my real Economics moderated examination mark (not the assessment mark, which was deemed as my exam mark since i got a lower mark in the exam)

*my real Economics raw exam mark, itemised and total

Should I wait for the big mass FoI request? Or should I request part of it first, such as the exam scripts, which have a high chance of succeeding?

 

[lyounamu]

Greeting to all.

Let me introduce myself. I'm James Sin. I graduated from JRAHS in '08 alongside my dear friend dp (who was, incidentally, my first friend at Ruse).

Firstly, welcome aboard. I am glad that there are more people showing interest and initiative in this matter.

Just building on JK's strategy of contacting local MPs, I might suggest the possibility of getting the NSW Liberal Party involved. Remember what happened in 04 when they got their hands on the HSC results "hacking" incident? Especially in the current political climate, the Libs might be inclined to advance our cause.

I agree with this. Looking at the current situation (and the predicted political course) of the NSW Labor Party, it would be the best in our interest to affiliate with the Liberal Party.

For myself, this is the list of items I intend to request:
* itemised and total raw marks for all 2008 exams sat (Economics, English (Advanced), English Extension 1, French Continuers, French Extension, Mathematics, Mathematics Extension 1, Philosophy Distinction course (even though I received the total exam raw mark from the UNE)), and for Agriculture (sat in 2007)

* exam scripts for all those courses (but Agriculture may have been destroyed already)

* tape recording of speaking exams for French Continuers and French Extension

* any notes markers may have made for either of the two speaking exams

* initial (not moderated) school assessment marks for each course sat in both 2008 and 2007

* my Illness and Misadventure Appeal form (with comments written by the school and by presiding officer), and details of any enquiries made to determine my appeal
(I appealed Economics, Eng Ext1 and Maths Ext1 - it was successful only for Economics as my exam marks for the other two courses were equal to or higher than my moderated assessment mark)

*my real Economics moderated examination mark (not the assessment mark, which was deemed as my exam mark since i got a lower mark in the exam)

*my real Economics raw exam mark, itemised and total

It would be interesting to see the future outcome of this, considering that many of recent requests have been denied. I haven't seen any requests for speaking exams tapes/resulsts/etc. It will be good to see how the Board reacts.

And yes, Illness/Misadvanture forms would be good ones to see as many of us are not aware of the system that is behind this (how they alter marks and etc.)

Should I wait for the big mass FoI request? Or should I request part of it first, such as the exam scripts, which have a high chance of succeeding?

Mass FoI requets can potentially be more effective as it can put more pressure. However, I am not entirely sure...Hopefully JK can answer this.

 

[Lazarus]

James - great to have you on board. If you and dp know of any others who would be interested, motivated and trustworthy, feel free to invite them.

While I personally have no faith in either of the main political parties in NSW, I agree that it is something we should pursue, if only to augment the overall campaign and place pressure on the government. They were indeed very excited when Brett Sham leaked details about the so-called results "hack".

I think we would need to brainstorm and plan out exactly what to say to them. In particular I imagine it would help quite a lot if we had examples of real students who might have been disadvantaged or prejudiced - say, students whose assessment marks had been moderated incorrectly, or students with UAIs which seem way too low and with marks that are missing from Table A3 so the scaling can't be checked, etc.

We also have to be careful that we don't undermine our own efforts in other areas. If the NSW Libs start kicking up a stink about raw band cut-offs, and how X% has really failed or some such, and they succeed in creating controversy out of nothing, that could be seen as a reason justifying non-disclosure in the context of any FOI applications.

Proposed FOI application

This is quite a hefty request! And it is far from clear which of those documents could or should be released.

Markers' notes, for example, are quite controversial. There have been a number of cases considering the circumstances in which they should or should not be released.

Exam scripts and tape recordings of speaking exams should be OK.

You need to define exactly what you mean by 'itemised' and 'total raw marks'. I assume 'itemised' means 'per question', but you need to make it explicit or you might not get what you want - e.g. 'every raw mark that was recorded in respect of part or all of any of my written HSC examination scripts, including marks for individual questions'.

The words 'total raw mark' might refer to the sum of the raw marks allocated to each question, or they might refer to your 'total weighted mark', which is your total raw mark for a paper after any adjustments have been made to optional questions (for example, in physics, where the marks of particular options may need to be adjusted up or down before being combined with the rest of the paper).

By 'initial (not moderated) school assessment marks', do you mean the school assessment marks submitted by your school to the Board? If so, say that. Alternatively, you could obtain this information from your school.

I suggest you ask for your initial moderated assessment marks as well - these are on the same scale as raw examination marks and can be used to estimate raw band cut-offs in the same way.

I think your illness and misadventure appeal form could be released, but the details of enquiries made in respect of your appeal might be justifiably exempt - knowledge of enquiries made might make it easier for students in future to falsify claims. Just bear that in mind.

In relation your 'real' economics marks - I do not follow what you mean by 'real economics moderated examination mark' - unless you mean the examination mark that would have been reported to you had your misadventure appeal been unsuccessful. Is that the case?

Your other economics raw marks should fall into the categories above.

One other thing to remember

This is quite important in the context of FOI applications - despite the name "freedom of information", the FOI legislation does not apply to "information". It applies only to "documents". There is a distinction.

You cannot request things which are not in documentary form or which cannot easily be put into documentary form.

However, the term "document" is extremely broad, and includes (s 6 of the Act):

(a) any paper or other material on which there is writing or in or on which there are marks, symbols or perforations having a meaning, whether or not that meaning is ascertainable only by persons qualified to interpret them, and

(b) any disc, tape or other article from which sounds, images or messages are capable of being reproduced.

If the agency can use the equipment that is usually available to it to create a document which falls within the scope of your request, it is deemed to hold the document and must produce it, even though the document may not exist as such at the time of your request.

I hope that makes sense.

Anyway, the important point is that you can't just request information at large, you can only request documents which contain the information you want, being documents that either currently exist or which could be created from information in a computer or database.

In most cases the Board has your marks in a database and needs to print them off (create a document) to satisfy your request.

Should I wait for the big mass FoI request? Or should I request part of it first, such as the exam scripts, which have a high chance of succeeding?

I am still thinking about the pros and cons of a mass FOI request.

If there is such a request, I think it needs to be as simple as possible.

I suggest that you lodge your own application first in respect of anything that you want to obtain quickly (i.e. within a few months rather than seven or eight months down the track after a tribunal fight). A useful technique is to divide your requests into 'controversial' and 'non-controversial' applications, so that the latter can be processed quickly and easily and you fight the former.

Don't forget that if you are requesting a large number of documents (as you are) the Board can charge an extra fee which is proportionate to the expenses incurred in dealing with your application.

 

[lyounamu]

feel free to invite them.

I am also hoping to find some reliable members around this website (especially the active 2009 HSC members. What are the "criterias" to select or invite people in? I think having people from varied age group will further help our cause to some extent.

This is the basic outline of what I have been thinking:

1. Passionate about finding what is truly involved in the "system"
2. Have a sound knowledge of the alinging/scaling procedure
3. Have the guts to stick to this matter
4. Help out when necessary
5. Do some own research
6. Motivate others to do the same
7. More?

I think we would need to brainstorm and plan out exactly what to say to them. In particular I imagine it would help quite a lot if we had examples of real students who might have been disadvantaged or prejudiced - say, students whose assessment marks had been moderated incorrectly, or students with UAIs which seem way too low and with marks that are missing from Table A3 so the scaling can't be checked, etc.

It's just hard to find some specific examples considering the limited scope that 4 people have around the website. It's certainly required of us to find specific examples to this but it is quite hard. I think it will be best to take advantage of this website and try to ask around...as in the threads or start some of our own threads saying "Were your HSC results lower than you thought?" or something like that. Yes, there are some issues involved in this as there are some trolls around the website. But I am sure we can make some private messages to those people and ask them especially. That way, it won't look really suspicious at all. It would also reduce suspicision if someone like dp can make a thread asking this as he seems to have got lower Physics results than he originally expected to get.

EDIT: Excuse my thread example. That's the best that I could come up with...If we are to create a thread about this or something like that, better title would be great.

 

[dp624]

I think that personally, the fact the people "got results lower than they thought" isn't an enormously huge factor. It's pretty normal that people overestimate themselves in exams, and personal estimates of what people receive are often way off the mark. People try to convince themselves that they did really well etcetera.

For my own situation, comprehensive discussion of my answers with my friends and others on this forum revealed that I hadn't lost any marks at all. But of course it's a very inaccurate method. One reason is that you can't really predict what people are going to mark like. A clerical recheck may not have helped because the marking flaw (if present) would not be accounted for in such a case. In the end I passed over the chance to do a clerical recheck as I suppose the only thing I'd get out of it is a possible state ranking. And I'd think it be pretty unlikely and slack if the Board kicks the 10th person out, lulz. But yea, I can hopefully recheck with scripts.

Also similar to this is the state-wide 'failings' this year, especially in Modern History and Physics where the marks were overall rather depressed.

Such a thread (@Namu), would, IMO, be a place for people who are slightly bitter to vent their anger at the system. There are threads which say 'is this UAI correct' and most of the time they are. In general, I suppose the Board of Studies is quite accurate. Perhaps another direction of thinking?

*goes off to brainstorm*

One thing pertaining to the offers of '09ers is that the large majority of them don't have a vested interest in the current system, as I think. The year ahead is going to be a time consuming and stressful time. However I'm sure a select few people can be found.
I think the bulk of motivation would come from perhaps 08ers and those older.

And lol @ JSIN's attempt to bring the Liberal Party into this. I think this would only work well if we have gathered a lot of momentum but face a significant block, such that their intervention would help.

 

[James Cos]

They were indeed very excited when Brett Sham leaked details about the so-called results "hack".

Ah, Brett Sham, bless his heart!

By 'initial (not moderated) school assessment marks', do you mean the school assessment marks submitted by your school to the Board? If so, say that. Alternatively, you could obtain this information from your school.

I think the ACE Manual says that schools are not permitted to disclose the assessment marks they submitted to the Board. In any case, I wouldn't want to trouble my dear school!

I suggest you ask for your initial moderated assessment marks as well - these are on the same scale as raw examination marks and can be used to estimate raw band cut-offs in the same way.

Good point!

I think your illness and misadventure appeal form could be released, but the details of enquiries made in respect of your appeal might be justifiably exempt - knowledge of enquiries made might make it easier for students in future to falsify claims. Just bear that in mind.

I think i'll request this, just for the heck of it. I'll still be paying the same application fee!

In relation your 'real' economics marks - I do not follow what you mean by 'real economics moderated examination mark' - unless you mean the examination mark that would have been reported to you had your misadventure appeal been unsuccessful. Is that the case?

Yup, that's what I mean. I should have said 'real economics aligned examination mark'.

I suggest that you lodge your own application first in respect of anything that you want to obtain quickly (i.e. within a few months rather than seven or eight months down the track after a tribunal fight). A useful technique is to divide your requests into 'controversial' and 'non-controversial' applications, so that the latter can be processed quickly and easily and you fight the former.

Would it be correct to say that anything other than raw marks (itemised and weighted total) is non-controversial? Since scripts had been produced in the past without any fuss.

Don't forget that if you are requesting a large number of documents (as you are) the Board can charge an extra fee which is proportionate to the expenses incurred in dealing with your application.

As I understand it, for requests for my own personal information, I'm entitled to 20 free hours of time, with each additional hour charged at $30. Would there be merit in divvying up the request so that we won't be charged for additional hours?

Also, would we be informed as to the cost (if it exceeds $30) before they go ahead and do it?

 

[lyounamu]

I think that personally, the fact the people "got results lower than they thought" isn't an enormously huge factor. It's pretty normal that people overestimate themselves in exams, and personal estimates of what people receive are often way off the mark. People try to convince themselves that they did really well etcetera.

Yes. I agree. But it's just hard though. Then what about people who actually ended up with higher aligned mark after the clerical check? Is there any benefit that could be found from contacting them?

Such a thread (@Namu), would, IMO, be a place for people who are slightly bitter to vent their anger at the system. There are threads which say 'is this UAI correct' and most of the time they are. In general, I suppose the Board of Studies is quite accurate. Perhaps another direction of thinking?

True. I don't know. It would just be really hard to find examples of people who actually got disadvantaged by the system...

One thing pertaining to the offers of '09ers is that the large majority of them don't have a vested interest in the current system, as I think. The year ahead is going to be a time consuming and stressful time. However I'm sure a select few people can be found.
I think the bulk of motivation would come from perhaps 08ers and those older.

Agreed. Many 2009 HSC students don't have much interest in this matter. But I am sure they will grow to show some interest and THEY are the target market in the future who will help out this cause. That's why it's important to slowly get the message across to them.


EDIT: I have got another one to investigate about too. About the state-ranking that we saw the other day for Mathematics Extension 1. We have seen 5 1sts for Mathematics Extension 1. But clearly, that shouldn't have been the case as they suggested that:
"In the case of extension courses, if two or more students receive equal marks then the marks awarded for other courses in the subject area are also taken into consideration"

I am not too sure about Mathematics too as we have seen 6 1sts.

 

[dp624]

EDIT: I have got another one to investigate about too. About the state-ranking that we saw the other day for Mathematics Extension 1. We have seen 5 1sts for Mathematics Extension 1. But clearly, that shouldn't have been the case as they suggested that:
"In the case of extension courses, if two or more students receive equal marks then the marks awarded for other courses in the subject area are also taken into consideration"

I am not too sure about Mathematics too as we have seen 6 1sts.

Yeah, Sen Lin was initially told that he topped it outright on the Friday at about 6pm. However he was out of house so they informed him of this on Saturday morning.
The next day, however, Irene Lo got called saying that she came equal first in Extension I and Sen got a call saying that he was incorrectly informed.
I'm not sure what bearing this might have on the Board of Studies. It'd also mean my Extension I State Rank would be bumped down to 9th or 10th (as Victor beat me in Ext2, and I'm not sure about Jaemin's mark).

Actually, this might mean Sen would top both Maths outright, if the compare relevant Extension courses? Weird

 

[lyounamu]

Yeah, Sen Lin was initially told that he topped it outright on the Friday at about 6pm. However he was out of house so they informed him of this on Saturday morning.
The next day, however, Irene Lo got called saying that she came equal first in Extension I and Sen got a call saying that he was incorrectly informed.
I'm not sure what bearing this might have on the Board of Studies. It'd also mean my Extension I State Rank would be bumped down to 9th or 10th (as Victor beat me in Ext2, and I'm not sure about Jaemin's mark).

I see. I think we just found some discrepencies in their reporting procedure.

Actually, this might mean Sen would top both Maths outright, if the compare relevant Extension courses? Weird

Yes, it does.

 

[Lazarus]

I think the ACE Manual says that schools are not permitted to disclose the assessment marks they submitted to the Board. In any case, I wouldn't want to trouble my dear school!

Schools are discouraged from disclosing them, yes, but nothing prevents them from doing so.

Would it be correct to say that anything other than raw marks (itemised and weighted total) is non-controversial? Since scripts had been produced in the past without any fuss.

It's hard to say these days.

Everything other than raw marks is certainly less controversial. I think markers' notes (in relation to your oral exams) will be contested, and possibly inquiries relating to your misadventure application, but the rest should go through.

As I understand it, for requests for my own personal information, I'm entitled to 20 free hours of time, with each additional hour charged at $30. Would there be merit in divvying up the request so that we won't be charged for additional hours?

Also, would we be informed as to the cost (if it exceeds $30) before they go ahead and do it?

Yes, if aspects of your request might consume a large amount of time - for example, searching for notes and records of inquiries etc - but I would be surprised if even with everything you have requested you reached 20 hours.

They will not go ahead and do it until they've given you an estimate of the cost and you've paid them.