 |
 |
Whilst knowledge of the core can be assumed, the assessment is by case study and the link from the case study to the question was tenuous to say the least. Whilst it contradicts the 'spirit' of case study assessment there is now the implication that all areas of the core module must be revisited & reviewed prior to any optional module exam. Whilst the question may seem reasonable to experienced business studies teachers, you have to place yourself in the position of a 17 year old student who had received 1 hours instruction on a statistical process 18 months previously and on which 1/4 of a paper was later based. Good students were not tested, it was unfair. I would be generous in saying the paper was 'naughty', colleagues have been far more scathing. I do believe students and centres deserve better - examinations are meant to be fair. A Lloyd Wed, 10 May 2000, david haynes wrote: > > without wishing to stir things up.....don't all the > modules assume a knowledge of the core and as such > time series is fair to include? > > > > --- jonathan blane <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > Of course this letter is a gripe, but more > > importantly I believe we have a > > moral and ethical responsibility to continue to > > challenge incompetence in > > exam boards and so protect our students. > > > > I am appalled by the scores my students have been > > awarded for the rogue 4374 > > paper sat in March. They have achieved an average of > > 22.5% less than their > > average on the previous 3 modules, and the score was > > 23% less than our mean > > average as > > a centre over the last 3 years. The team of teachers > > have been in place for > > over 3 years, and have over 26 years BS experience. > > > > This suggests that OCR failed to fulfil their > > promise that (quote) 'no > > student should be disadvantaged' by the erroneous > > inclusion of a time series > > question on the paper despite it not appearing in > > the syllabus; they have > > simply closed ranks. > > > > My advice to other centres would be: > > > > 1) If you are an OCR centre, think carefully about > > which syllabus to follow > > from 2000 onwards > > 2) If you have been adversely affected, as we have, > > as a direct result of > > OCR's incompetence (and subsequent intransigence), > > then appeal to the Chief > > Executive of OCR asap, and seriously consider legal > > action (with maximum > > publicity) - we are. > > 3) If you are not currently an OCR centre, then > > steer clear until they > > sort out their examination procedures and offer > > consistency > > > > I echo a call earlier in the year by a colleague > > that heads should roll at > > OCR, and at the most senior level - we all know what > > vicarious liability > > means! > > > > I will make no further communication on the > > discussion list on this matter > > as the likelihood is that our school will pursue > > other channels with OCR > > shortly, > > > > Jonathan Blane > > Head of Economics and Business Education > > Latymer School, Edmonton, London > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com/ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%