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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|