Inquiry into potential LC exam security breach

rainbowtrout

Bananaleaf wrote: »

I don't really want to give examples, I feel uncomfortable even bringing this up. But I will. I'm keeping it very vague though.

1. Attendants at the doors are useless. Most of the time (in all cases in my experience) they are 5th yr students in the school. Peers of the candidates and quite possibly friends (could they even be siblings? I don't know how stringently the appointment of attendants is monitored.) I was under the impression they were supposed to accompany the candidates who leave the centre to the toilets. That isn't happening in all centres.

Attendants are always 5th year students. If you are a supervisor and you know this is the case, is it not beyond you to say it to the attendants or to the person who is in charge of running the exams in the school, who is in charge of the attendants. This is simple stuff, and could be rectified in two minutes.

Bananaleaf wrote: »

2. Attendants at the doors are useless. I once had to open the door to shush candidates who had left an exam early and were discussing their answers right outside my door. You could hear what they were discussing plain as day. What was the attendant at? Watching stuff on their iphone/ipod.

I don't think it's really the fifth year attendant's job to shoo students from the school. Students naturally do a post mortem and do not think about what is going on inside the room once they have left, or how loud they are. Again, most schools are pretty good about this and the exam co-ordinator in the school or principal/DP are usually about to keep them quiet and keep them moving. A quick word to any of the three could sort that out easily.

Bananaleaf wrote: »

3. One year two students from two different centres met eachother en route to toilet....

There's a small chance of that happening anywhere, but they could also meet someone who is not a student. How do you know this anyway?

Bananaleaf wrote: »

4. Some students having up to 7 different 'readers' for their 7 exams in their separate centre. DO NOT tell me that this doesn't happen, although I accept that it is probably an extremely rare occurrence.

I don't see what your problem is with this. The pay is crap and there are no expenses for mileage. We have 12 special centres in my school this year and had a hard time to cover all of them. Some centres had two teachers splitting the days between them as they couldn't commit to all the days. If the people who are doing special centres are doing their job as reader/scribe/supervisor correctly it shouldn't matter how many there are.

Bananaleaf wrote: »

5. This one I have no proof of, but you'll never convince me that there isn't a load of cheating going on every year. Toilet breaks not supervised, with some kids going up to 4 times in the one exam. It's an absolute joke.

Not saying this happens in all centres or schools. I know it doesn't. But it is happening in some places.

Did you let a student out four times in one exam? If so, then surely you are responsible for that happening? If it was in another centre in the school, the surely the supervisor can get the attendant to follow the student. If there are suspicions of cheating, perhaps ask in the school that the toilets be checked for textbooks. It's one thing to come on here and bitch about the system, but for several of your points there are very easy solutions, which you don't seem to have tried.

Bananaleaf

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Attendants are always 5th year students. If you are a supervisor and you know this is the case, is it not beyond you to say it to the attendants or to the person who is in charge of running the exams in the school, who is in charge of the attendants. This is simple stuff, and could be rectified in two minutes.




I don't think it's really the fifth year attendant's job to shoo students from the school. Students naturally do a post mortem and do not think about what is going on inside the room once they have left, or how loud they are. Again, most schools are pretty good about this and the exam co-ordinator in the school or principal/DP are usually about to keep them quiet and keep them moving. A quick word to any of the three could sort that out easily.




There's a small chance of that happening anywhere, but they could also meet someone who is not a student. How do you know this anyway?



I don't see what your problem is with this. The pay is crap and there are no expenses for mileage. We have 12 special centres in my school this year and had a hard time to cover all of them. Some centres had two teachers splitting the days between them as they couldn't commit to all the days. If the people who are doing special centres are doing their job as reader/scribe/supervisor correctly it shouldn't matter how many there are.





Did you let a student out four times in one exam? If so, then surely you are responsible for that happening? If it was in another centre in the school, the surely the supervisor can get the attendant to follow the student. If there are suspicions of cheating, perhaps ask in the school that the toilets be checked for textbooks. It's one thing to come on here and bitch about the system, but for several of your points there are very easy solutions, which you don't seem to have tried.

Okay, Im keeping the thing vague so as not to potentially identify either myself or the school. I could be more specific and address some of the points you have made but I'm just not going to do that because I can see this getting very specific very quickly. But just a few things:

1. My original point remains the same as it always has - that there is huge potential to breach security. I'm not going to get into the "How do you know I didn't report it to the exam aide" kind of response that everyone seems to churn out, because I know that you don't know whether I did or didn't. And whether I did or didn't is irrelevant. My point is that this kind of laid-back response to the exams seems to be common (4 out of 4 schools for me, maybe just a coincidence?) so can we really be THAT surprised when a paper or part of a paper gets leaked?

2. Regarding the two students meeting one another on the corridor - I was not acting as a superintendent when this happened (I said in previous post that these issues were ones I had experienced in the capacity of three different roles over various years)

3. I thought that the two jobs that the attendant did have were to a. accompany candidates to the bathroom and b. keep noise levels low. That's what it said in the handbook?

4. Having been a separate centre superintendent I understand how it works and the sharing of contracts etc. But, 7 different superintendents for 7 different exams? Oh come on now.

5. Last thing - and this is a question not a retort - but what am I supposed to do if a student requests to go to the bathroom 4 times? You ask if I allowed this to happen - am I supposed to say no? Again, I was under the impression via the handbook that we let it happen, record it all and note anything suspicious in the final report.

Can I also point out that I posted those examples because someone asked me to give some. I was kind of reluctant to do it for the same reason that I would be reluctant to raise any of it with the SEC - because you are only met with claims of incompetence on your part.

r93kaey5p2izun

I've never come across students having multiple readers/scribes/attendants. That doesn't seem fair at all. We have between 30 and 40 special centres every year and have no problem getting people to do it.

rainbowtrout

Erica Tangy Respirator wrote: »

I've never come across students having multiple readers/scribes/attendants. That doesn't seem fair at all. We have between 30 and 40 special centres every year and have no problem getting people to do it.

I work in a rural area, so many of the teachers are travelling to school. When the whole 'mileage to destination is from your school or home, whichever is shortest' it meant zero mileage. No one in my school is going to drive 40 miles to school for ?56 to supervise one exam (on days when a student only has a morning or afternoon session), which is taxed. They make nothing on it if they have to travel, and if they have childcare (obviously their own business), it's costing them money to do a special centre.

Again, if the reader/scribe is doing the job they are supposed to be doing, I don't see why it would be unfair. I presume what Bananaleaf is implying is that the student with 7 readers had one for each subject, and that the readers were subject specific, i.e. there to help the student. To be honest, if that is the implication, I'd find it hard to believe, as it would require collusion on a fairly large scale within a school.

r93kaey5p2izun

I think it's unfair on the student. There's supposed to be a practice session and everything to get used to how it works and sort out any issues. How could a student practice with multiple readers/scribes? I could understand the need for a couple of people sharing the odd time but not multiple people as a matter of course. Teachers aren't the only ones who can do it - maybe it would be better if locals who won't be liable for all the taxes and levies did it for example.

Bananaleaf

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I work in a rural area, so many of the teachers are travelling to school. When the whole 'mileage to destination is from your school or home, whichever is shortest' it meant zero mileage. No one in my school is going to drive 40 miles to school for ?56 to supervise one exam (on days when a student only has a morning or afternoon session), which is taxed. They make nothing on it if they have to travel, and if they have childcare (obviously their own business), it's costing them money to do a special centre.

Again, if the reader/scribe is doing the job they are supposed to be doing, I don't see why it would be unfair.

Fair point re: rural schools and it is bad how they cut the mileage, especially for part time teachers who wouldn't be paid for June to begin with.

Anyway, I won't dwell on any of it. I take my role as superintendent very seriously and obviously will continue to do so. I would prefer if the SEC could be choosers and not beggars when it comes to appointing, but I'm sure they would prefer that too.

TheDriver

Bananaleaf, as mod, thank you for giving examples, keeping it suitably vague and generating discussion on the matter.