– CXC independent review finds

AN independent review of this year’s CXC examinations has concluded that limitations in the grading model which affected grade distribution and disparities between grades awarded by the teacher and the moderator for School Based Assessments (SBAs), may have contributed to lower than expected final grades.

CXC was forced to appoint an independent review team following multiple rejections of the final grades awarded to students who wrote the Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) Examination and the Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examination (CAPE).

The team led by UWI Open Campus Pro Vice-Chancellor and Principal Professor, Hazel Simmons-McDonald, conducted a “Review of the Administration of the 2020 CSEC and CAPE Examinations”. The review was done over a two-week period.

In its report, which was submitted to CXC, on Friday, the team noted that a simulation exercise analysing cases “with and without a Paper Two”, using data from previous years, picked up limitations in the model which caused “shifting in the distribution of grades”. The result was a reduction in Grades I to IV.
“At the technical level, the limitations of the grading model and the extensive moderation used in the SBAs could have resulted in less than expected performance in some subjects at both CAPE and CSEC levels,” the team reported.

Nonetheless, the report concluded that “the use of Papers 1 and 3 was adequate to assess the profiles/modules in the various subjects”. The report explains that the removal of the Paper Two component effected the need for a shift in the boundaries for the various grades awarded.
“The weights assigned to the Papers would not change from past years. By deleting Paper 2 the overall mark would change, hence new ‘cut [off] points’ for the grades would be needed,” the Executive Summary of the report said.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council delayed its customary May/June examinations for 2020 to July/August and modified the CSEC and CAPE examinations to exclude the regular Paper Two component.

Customarily, students are scored in the examinations based on their performance in a multiple-choice Paper One, the Paper Two, and pre-exam SBAs or Internal Assessments (IAs). In the report, the SBA was referred to as Paper 3.

Additionally, the Council opted to moderate 100 per cent of the SBAs/IAs done by students, whereas routinely the SBAs are marked by the teachers in each respective country and the complete list of scores, and only selected samples are moderated.

The expanded moderation of the SBA/IA unearthed “weak correlation” between the grades awarded by teachers and the scores awarded by the moderators, with 66 percent of the grades not correlating. This was compared with 63 percent of Grades not correlating in 2019, and 42 percent in 2018 and 49 percent in 2017.
“The Committee is of the view that the requirement to moderate all Paper 3s from all schools and for all subjects served to increase the thoroughness and improve the reliability of the process in 2020 compared to previous years,” the report said.

However, the report underscores that “the processes which CXC proposed to use for grading and moderation could have been better explained to its stakeholders”, noting that the increased moderation enabled the identification of “several school-related issues and some internal CXC issues”.

NO COMMUNICATION
The change of the SBA/IA grades was never communicated to students, who had estimated their overall grades based on the teacher awarded SBA/IA grades.
Following the September 22, 2020 release of the results, the Council saw unprecedented backlash as several students, schools and countries challenged the grades issued. Complainants blamed the modified approach that was used.
As pressure mounted, CXC Chairman, Professor Sir Hilary Beckles, convened the independent team, which set out to determine if the adoption of the “modified approach” and the administration of the examination affected student performance; if the full moderation of SBAs in 2020 affected the results of candidates on the Paper 3; if the adjusted grading model used for determining the profile and subject grades affected the overall subject grades of candidates; and if there were any other factors that might have affected the performance of candidates in the examinations.

SUFFICIENT
The team concluded that the modified approach was sufficient.
“For the 2020 examinations, CXC assumed that Papers 1 and 3 contained sufficient dimensions of the profiles for approximately 80 percent of the subjects at the CSEC and CAPE levels and that the weights for the Papers in the determination of the final grades would remain the same as in previous years, while the “cut [off] points” (marks) for the grades would be adjusted,” the report said.

Explaining the grading system, the report noted that CXC system issues an overall subject grade, which is further based on the profile grades in keeping with the knowledge, skills and competencies required for each subject.

The subject grades assigned are numerical, ranging from Grades 1 – 7 for highest to lowest, while the profile grades are alphabetical ranging from A – G, from highest to lowest.
Each component in which a student is assessed, that is Paper 1, 2 and 3, contains components that contribute to each of the varying grade profiles.
CXC emphasized that subject grades are “not awarded for a particular score but for the demonstration of the levels of competencies, abilities and skills required for a particular grade”, with the “cut [off] points” for each grade determined by pre-set standards.

In the awarding of a final grade to a student for his/her performance in a subject, three committees are involved in the process. They are the Subject Awards Committee (SAC), the Technical Advisory Committee and the Final Awards Committee (FAC).