Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
appeals/..........
-
11-10-2010 9:08am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
rainbowtrout wrote: »Not a clue. Check the SEC website.
I did, but they say nothing about what time they will be available to view online at
0 -
-
One of the problems there is that the colleges are starting earlier in recent years ... for often quite good reasons of their own, but it has put more pressure on the LC results system.lallychops wrote: »It is ridiculous due to the fact that once the appeal result has been released one may be entitled to a different university course. Which in most cases is already half a semester through.
Not unless the system has changed since I last corrected. Supervising examiners would check a selection of papers, usually concentrating on those around the cut-offs (and feed back on that basis) but not every borderline paper ... you would need several times as many supervising examiners to do that.lallychops wrote: »For example my English script was borderline. .25% to be exact. Correct me if I'm wrong but borderline grades of that magnitude should be sent to a supervising examiner should they not?
Tbh, you could have paid me three times as much and I couldn't have done them quicker ... or at least I couldn't have done them quicker AND done them well. You have no idea how head-wrecking it is spending 3 weeks wading through hundreds of English HL papers (though I suspect subjects such as Maths / Science would be easier in that respect).lallychops wrote: »Pay teachers more to correct the scripts quicker or whatever.
Increasing the number of examiners might be more useful in terms of "quicker", BUT then you end up with a greater number of examiners to try to hold to a consistent standard, and a lot of inexperienced examiners to boot, which leads to ...lallychops wrote: »... however the inconsistency of correcting in my class especially was remarkable.lallychops wrote: »The results are disclosed in august. Scripts aren't available for viewing until late September.
I would agree that schools returning appeal scripts late should be fined, I doubt if it happens that often though.lallychops wrote: »IMO impose the deadlines and incur fees on students/schools or whatever.0 -
-
Perhaps you mis-understand me. I am not having a go at the people marking the appeals. I am annoyed that such a process takes so long. THE PROCESS, not the people performing such an arduous task. However, the point you make here:rainbowtrout wrote: »You haven't a clue how the system works really. You could pay me a thousand euros a paper and I still wouldn't get it done any quicker and if I was to get it done 'quicker' they would be corrected sloppily and you would still be complaining. Generally correctors are asked to look at borderline grades to see if they can be brought up. The examiner may have looked at yours and decided that it didn't merit the next grade up. On the other hand the Dept may have decided that they had enough grades of each bracket and weren't bringing up grades unnecessarily and so you lose out.
If correct, further enforces my view that the system of corrections is utterly flawed as, to take your logic further and (God forbid, for we know it never happens) an error was made on marking a paper and a decision was made that enough of grades were achieved already, I would lose out, even though my paper was marked in error ? Do you see no fallibility or culpability in such a process ?On the other hand the Dept may have decided that they had enough grades of each bracket and weren't bringing up grades unnecessarily and so you lose out.
I'm not whining for the sake of it, I merely see a system that takes until MID OCTOBER to review / notify corrections, especially in such cases where there is a +- percentage off a grade of, say, arbitrarily, err. 0.25% as wholly inefficient. I have put some suggestions as to ways such improvements could be made below but in this case, surely there is a process that shows all marginal results and sets up an automatic review RIGHT AFTER marking as a first pass ? Is there such a system ? Or do you wait until the student appeals ? You make the point that "the examiner may have looked at yours and decided that it didn't merit the next grade up. ", which examiner ? The original one ? Or someone else ? If there is such a system and mine was in fact discounted by another examiner, are there such volumes of appeals that it takes a whole month for any response or progress (using the same volume of resources as was at the disposal of the SEC at time of marking, even 50% allowing for teachers working) ?rainbowtrout wrote: »Now you are just exaggerating. The results come out the Wednesday in the middle week of August, this year that was on the 18th. The viewing of the scropts always takes place on the first weekend in September/last weekend in August. Acutally it usually clashes with Electric Picnic, as there were a few on here whinging that the SEC had put it on the same weekend as the festival. :rolleyes: This year that was the weekend of the 4th September.rainbowtrout wrote: »To explain the system. The scripts were viewed on the weekend of the 4th. The schools/students then have a fortnight to return them to the SEC. The SEC then has to sort them into bundles so the corrector who gets the appeals doesn't get papers from their own school OR get papers they have already corrected. A conference has to be held to go back through the marking scheme and clarify any issues. The teachers that correct are also teaching full time, so time for correcting is limited to their weekends and evenings. We are given 10-14 days to correct and return the papers - you do want your papers corrected properly don't you, or would you prefer that it was skimmed through but returned faster - those papers go to an advising examiner who checks them, then i assume they go back to the SEC for processing, and as I outlined earlier it wouldn't be fair to release the appeal results for any subject before the results in another as it might have an effect on CAO offers. That might explain your 5 week turnaround time.
Wow, such a laborious, time and resource intensive process! Looking at it logically from your description I can see your frustration with people who ask why it takes so long. On the other hand, surely you have to ask where it could actually be improved? :-
Inefficiencies of the PROCESS:
1. The teachers that correct are also teaching full time, so time for correcting is limited to their weekends and evenings.
Why ? Is there no board of examination full time correction team? :eek:
2. SEC then has to sort them into bundles so the corrector who gets the appeals doesn't get papers from their own school.
What ? Wow. Suppose they're posted out then too ?
3. A conference has to be held to go back through the marking scheme and clarify any issues. This is done AT APPEALS time ? Not an ongoing process improvement process in place for this / individual consultation ?
4. The schools/students then have a fortnight to return them to the SEC.
Why is this not electronic / facsimile driven? Why could the examination department, (instead of shipping papers all around the place) not create verifiable copies and a decent system where appeals could be submitted electronically (this could then be at the discretion of the school, reducing the 2 weeks on a case by case basis in a lot of cases) ???
5. prefer that it was skimmed through but returned faster ...
Err, not really, In my view (and that of two other teachers) in my case, my original paper was skimmed through once already, thus leading to the appeal...rainbowtrout wrote: »I'd love to see you try. You have no idea what it is like to correct the same paper 400 times, especially when the student has illegible handwriting and chooses to write in luminous gel pens, and the marking scheme has been changed a couple of times and you have to recorrect all the same work again.
I understand your points and where, given the explanation, the last 5 weeks has probably gone. Yet, surely you must also see from the perspective of an appeals student that as you explain it, the process is far from efficient. We PAY to sit these exams, we PAY for corrections to take place. On a pure Service provider > Customer contract, 5 weeks, to review 1 paper, in my view, regardless of staffing, process, bundling, whatever, is not efficient and could be done quicker. Some overall suggestions:
1. Create (and staff) an examinations board with people whose sole job it is to review appealed papers.
2. Implement (if not already there) a system that automatically sends papers for review if +- 0.25%
in the same timeline as the LC results.
3. Implement an electronically based system that enables students to track appeals that would form the sole basis of appeal management. This could then cover such issues as bundling, allocation etc of papers to examiners (see point 1)
4. Implement a continual process improvement process whereby input from markers is both encouraged and acted upon.
5. Put the Customer (student) first. Ensure they are fully aware at all times of where their appeal is within the process, who they are able to talk to and when they can expect an outcome (would save a lot of angst and issues and maybe boards conversations such as this???).
In conclusion, in hindsight, given the fact that the marking and appeals systems appear to be fully manual reactive systems, staffed part-time by teachers (who I'm sure do their best, my issue is not with the people who staff the flawed process but the process itself). I am probably wishing for the moon, stars, and oh, maybe throw in the milky way while you're at it huh ??0 -
Advertisement
-
-
lallychops wrote: »For example my English script was borderline. .25% to be exact. Correct me if I'm wrong but borderline grades of that magnitude should be sent to a supervising examiner should they not? This was not the case. Maybe if the supervision was increased we could have avoided sending the script back causing further angst and annoyance to all concerned. I do agree that human error occurs however the inconsistency of correcting in my class especially was remarkable.
0.25%:eek: That's insane. As a corrector I'm flabbergasted that such a paper slipped through. That's 1.5 marks!!! The vast majority of English examiners would never leave a script within 8 marks of a grade, it's simply not fair on the student. As well as this, you're almost guaranteed a bollocking from your Advising Examiner and an instruction to look at it again. I'm stunned. You've been dreadfully unlucky in your corrector and Advising Examiner if I'm honest.lallychops wrote: »Inefficiencies of the PROCESS:
1. The teachers that correct are also teaching full time, so time for correcting is limited to their weekends and evenings.
Why ? Is there no board of examination full time correction team? :eek:
2. SEC then has to sort them into bundles so the corrector who gets the appeals doesn't get papers from their own school.
What ? Wow. Suppose they're posted out then too ?
3. A conference has to be held to go back through the marking scheme and clarify any issues. This is done AT APPEALS time ? Not an ongoing process improvement process in place for this / individual consultation ?
4. The schools/students then have a fortnight to return them to the SEC.
Why is this not electronic / facsimile driven? Why could the examination department, (instead of shipping papers all around the place) not create verifiable copies and a decent system where appeals could be submitted electronically
Having a full-time examining board is unfeasible. For one, it wouldn't be a full-time job. Who would do this work? Personally, I would prefer to have my exam paper marked by someone who actually teaches and is in the school system.
For the system to be transparent and fair, the original script has to be used. It's unwieldy, yes, but difficult to tamper with. You are forgetting that examiners are regular people, who may not have access to scanners, photocopiers or even the internet.
At the conference, it is more than just the marking that is covered: possible problem areas are identified, the remarking system is explained, administration, forms and the scripts are physically handed over to the examiners. There has to be some centralised way of dealing with the scripts - the conference is it.0 -
@ Deemark don't talk to me about it
my English teacher was absoultely stunned and not impressed to say the least....was banking on English to secure a course I really wanted....needless to say it didn't happen this making one very unlucky and unhappy lallychops 0 -
-
-
-
-
No, RB was suggesting that not everyone just under a cut-off will automatically be marked up simply BECAUSE they are close to the cut-off, especially if the proportion of top grades is already very high relative to other years. An error is a different matter ... if it's not caught at the time, there is an appeals process.lallychops wrote: »If correct, further enforces my view that the system of corrections is utterly flawed as, to take your logic further and (God forbid, for we know it never happens) an error was made on marking a paper and a decision was made that enough of grades were achieved already, I would lose out, even though my paper was marked in error ? Do you see no fallibility or culpability in such a process ?
Bear in mind that we as users of this forum don't *know* that there was an error in marking your paper, we only know that you believe there was.
No, there isn't.lallychops wrote: »I have put some suggestions as to ways such improvements could be made below but in this case, surely there is a process that shows all marginal results and sets up an automatic review RIGHT AFTER marking as a first pass?
Though I do agree with Deemark that leaving someone sitting 0.25% under a cut-off is not good practice, esp. in English which has (and has to have) an inherent subjectivity no matter how examiners try to be as consistent as possible. It's been a while since I marked LC English, but if I ended up with a total like that I would certainly have been taking a second look.
Personally I'm suspecting an inexperienced examiner ... hard to avoid, everyone has to start some time.
Theoretically both, though I doubt it in this case given the closeness of the mark.lallychops wrote: »You make the point that "the examiner may have looked at yours and decided that it didn't merit the next grade up. ", which examiner ? The original one ? Or someone else ?
There aren't the same volume of resources at the disposal of the SEC. Examiners are brought in to do X hundred scripts in ~ 3 weeks, and paid for that. A smaller number of the most experienced examiners do Y scripts each for the appeals process in (I'm guessing) slightly over a week. According to the SEC and the Department, the costs for the process as it is are already way too high ... which, believe me, has more to do with the volume of students / subjects / scripts in the main exam process than what they actually pay examiners per script.lallychops wrote: »(using the same volume of resources as was at the disposal of the SEC at time of marking, even 50% allowing for teachers working)?
It is actually, with a number of safeguards written in which make it more so ... they may not *always* work, but they do catch most things.lallychops wrote: »Wow, such a laborious, time and resource intensive process!
No.lallychops wrote: »Why ? Is there no board of examination full time correction team? :eek:
There shouldn't be either; that would by definition mean those examiners weren't practising teachers, soooo ... your core / main examiners wouldn't actually be in contact with schools and students / teaching the curriculum? That could lead to some very strange decisions imho.
There are conferences before the main exam period. There will be one for each subject for the appeals examiners to (a) refresh the schema for them and (b) address any additional generic issues which only came to light as a result of the appeals sent in.lallychops wrote: »3. A conference has to be held to go back through the marking scheme and clarify any issues. This is done AT APPEALS time ? Not an ongoing process improvement process in place for this / individual consultation ?
Personally, I agree that this could be tightened up time-wise.lallychops wrote: »4. The schools/students then have a fortnight to return them to the SEC. Why is this not electronic / facsimile driven? Why could the examination department, (instead of shipping papers all around the place) not create verifiable copies and a decent system where appeals could be submitted electronically (this could then be at the discretion of the school, reducing the 2 weeks on a case by case basis in a lot of cases) ???
I don't agree with photocopies / scans though. It's difficult enough to read the original papers sometimes, esp. in something like English where people are writing at a rate of knots, let alone try to properly correct an appeal based on a scan!
Plus transmitting these by email etc. opens up all sorts of issues re: security / confidentiality, though these holes could probably be plugged ... the first is I think the real issue.
And that's the point, you need to be able to rely on the appeal process working, therefore it can't be rushed to a crazy extent.lallychops wrote: »5. prefer that it was skimmed through but returned faster ...
Err, not really, In my view (and that of two other teachers) in my case, my original paper was skimmed through once already, thus leading to the appeal...
Of course, the original process should work properly too ... and the reality is that it does in 99 out of a hundred cases, the number of appeals is relatively small (and some are just "chancing my arm" appeals), the number of appeals *upheld* is very small indeed.
And when it doesn't work, there IS a right to appeal.
Yes, of course we can. Ideally, the whole thing should happen more quickly. It's easier said than done though. As pointed out earlier, the problem has been compounded by colleges opening earlier ... not so long ago, people would have missed the first two, at most three weeks of term. Not that difficult to catch up on most courses, esp. as colleges tend to ease students in gently the first couple of weeks.lallychops wrote: »Yet, surely you must also see from the perspective of an appeals student that as you explain it, the process is far from efficient.
To be entirely accurate, you contribute a small proportion of the cost of the exams / corrections ... not saying that means that things shouldn't be done right, just correcting a common error.lallychops wrote: »We PAY to sit these exams, we PAY for corrections to take place.
But it's not 5 weeks to review one paper, it's 5 weeks to conduct a whole appeals process for 30+ subjects and X number of papers.lallychops wrote: »On a pure Service provider > Customer contract, 5 weeks, to review 1 paper, in my view, regardless of staffing, process, bundling, whatever, is not efficient and could be done quicker.
I'm sure the Latin appeals could be handled in half that time, for example, but what would be the use if all the other subjects were not completed?
Should those who got an upgrade in Latin get their results 2 weeks before everyone else?
So they actually work for 2 weeks a year? Nice job ... I volunteer!!lallychops wrote: »Some overall suggestions:
1. Create (and staff) an examinations board with people whose sole job it is to review appealed papers.
Apart from prohibitive and wasteful cost to the taxpayer, I would disagree anyway with a system where the core examiners would not be practising teachers, as I said above.
You include those with + 0.25? Interesting!lallychops wrote: »2. Implement (if not already there) a system that automatically sends papers for review if +- 0.25% in the same timeline as the LC results.
I do actually agree that papers that close to the cut-off should not go through unchecked ... but while it's not "automatic" at the moment I suspect it doesn't normally happen in practice. Certainly, I corrected HL English, and I never put someone through on that kind of margin.
And this would speed up the process how?lallychops wrote: »3. Implement an electronically based system that enables students to track appeals that would form the sole basis of appeal management. This could then cover such issues as bundling, allocation etc of papers to examiners (see point 1)
(Note my objection above to scanning papers and e-transmission.)
Input from markers is encouraged; whether it's always acted upon I can't say.lallychops wrote: »4. Implement a continual process improvement process whereby input from markers is both encouraged and acted upon.
That sounds like a line from a business management book, by the way. Usually what happens with those kind of models is that lots of paperwork gets added to the process to be filled in and returned to say that you did what you would have done anyway, thus delaying the process further while the paperwork is filled and checked and filed!
"Who they are able to talk to"? The marker? ... not an option, as I'm sure you can see. Some poor eejit in the SEC to volunteer to be ranted at by hundreds of students, even though that won't speed the process up one iota?!lallychops wrote: »5. Put the Customer (student) first. Ensure they are fully aware at all times of where their appeal is within the process, who they are able to talk to and when they can expect an outcome (would save a lot of angst and issues and maybe boards conversations such as this???).
By the way, I'm not gone on the "customer" approach. I've seen a huge emphasis on so-called "customer service" systems in all sorts of businesses over the last decade. The net result is that companies have put in elaborate CS systems which they point to with pride ... and actual customer service has deteriorated drastically!! But ... but ... they have thousands of stats and logs to show how good their customer services system is ... so it has to be good, right?!! Unfortunately, all the work and time and money goes into filling the forms and creating the logs and stats, not into actually helping their customers!
To an extent. Especially as in my honest opinion some of your ideas would make the system worse / slower, some would be unworkable and some would cost the earth in a scenario where educational spending is under severe pressure as it is.lallychops wrote: »I am probably wishing for the moon, stars, and oh, maybe throw in the milky way while you're at it huh ??
I would love to see the system improved, but I think it will take someone who knows the system intimately from the inside to identify any possibilities in that respect. I have corrected in it, and I don't see myself as having enough knowledge to make useful suggestions ... apart from agreeing with you that the time for schools to lodge appeals could be tightened.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Aisling1992 wrote: »Results aren't out yet
Yes they are.AxlRose1992 wrote: »Did you get a letter in the post?
Rang the school and got my pin, then checked examinations.ie0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement