Good post, Nancy. A good idea to let the dust settle and then put us all
back on track.

As far as ZBB is concerned, I was happy to help out here since it isn't a
huge problem to do so; and it only cost me an hour or so to reshuffle some
of my files to present the materials that have now appeared on my web site.

I picked up two threads from your arguments:

1 don't wash bones in public when a private word to the wise would be
better. I agree with those sentiments and as I have posted here, I have
written to two of the three authors/examiners who were cited as having erred
in terms of definitions and descriptions. Let's see what they say in
response.

2 We're all fallible after all. Again, can't fault that: I have read
examination questions that are faulty, sometimes just plain invalid. I have
read text books that contain mistakes, my own included, and can empathise
with the Hospital Cleaner level of rewards scenario!

I would, however, like to state the case for the examination candidate and
"... teachers who are often not too well qualified ...". I have written in
this and similar fora that I cannot find any reason to support invalid
examination questions and questions that contain errors since public
examinations NEED to be organised in such a way that quality control is in
place and is effective. More than this, assuming that in the case that the
best laid plans of mice and men gang aft algae, I do hear rumblings that as
soon as a problem in an examination is discovered, the Board(s) close ranks
and only the wailing and gnashing of teeth seem to follow.

I remember that there was a real hue and cry about a year ago (?) when OCR
examined a topic out of the blue that MIGHT have been examinable but had
candidates and teachers alike fighting for breath. I don't know the outcome
of that issue; but it DID unsettle a lot of people. Such an issue is
unnecessary, don't you agree?

If there is a problem at school, with a text book or with an examination,
all parties have a right of redress: lawyers call it natural justice, I
think. Otherwise, how are we ever to feel safe? We shouldn't be hearing
stories about Exam Boards closing ranks to protect themselves, we shouldn't
be hearing stories that chief examiners, when clearly at fault, refuse to
discuss an issue, and we shouldn't be washing our bones in public if we have
made honest attempts to sort it all out in a more appropriate way.

Finally, as I have said before, I don't teach A level Accounting and
Business Studies and since I do not know any of the authors/examiners
discussed here, my place in this discussion is as an interested bystander.
Consequently, I have no axe to grind. I for one simply hope that Chief, and
other, Examiners do at least keep a watching brief over such discussion
lists as this and take heed of what to me appear to be good quality
discussions and concerns.

Best wishes



Duncan Williamson


web site  http://business.fortunecity.com/discount/29/home.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: For teachers and lecturers interested in curriculum issues
affecting the te [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: 17 December 2000 14:21
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ZBB


Hello all
This thread has gone quiet now, but here are a few thoughts about the
matters
of principle which it raised when it waas current.
It is a good idea to highlight inaccuracies in publications and to air
problems amongst a newsgroup. I welcome the light shed, however there have
been times when we seem to have created more heat than light.
I am not qualified to comment on the ZBB questions. But as far as books are
concerned, it is best to write to the author/editor concerned as most
authors
are glad to sort out errors and ommissions. It should not be assumed that
authors belong to newsgroups, or that they prefer this sort of arms length
discussion to a direct contact.
It would be comforting to think that we had authors of god-like authority.
The reality is quite different. There are no authors who make no mistakes
and
if you are waiting for one to appear you will have to do without books.
Something similar might be said of chief examiners. The number of people who
are prepared to put themselves out all summer for the money on offer is
pitiful. We are very lucky to have as chief examiners people who are capable
in their subject and understanding of the realities of students in the
relevant age group. Some academics have better subject knowledge, but fail
to
accept the limitations of the 18-year old brain. They have little knowledge
of what can be expected of the D/E student. They would not be of great
advantage to us even if they were available, which at the present time they
are not. Peter Maunder is a notable exception, being well aware of the
realities.
I do know from working with him that Ian Marcouse has a definite policy of
avoiding overly complex explanations and simplifying terminology wherever
possible. I suspect this is at the root of at least a part of this
discussion.
QCA scrutinies are designed to ensure that QCA guidelines are followed at
all
times. They require that students are given credit for good answers and that
mark schemes are discussed at standardisation. I personally have from time
to
time found mistakes in the questions or the mark schemes AQA, Edexcel and
OCR. Some of these i know to have been put right in the correct way at
standardisation or later.
It is vitally important that all teachers who have an objection to something
write direct to the relevant party, author/exam board or whoever it may be.
But keep in mind that examiners have a duty to provide teachers who are
often
not too well qualified with rules of thumb which will see them through
without confusion and to avoid overly complex explanations which students
will not understand.
There is a desperate shortage of good examiners in general at the present
time. If you care about this issue and have the relevant experience, sign
up.
You will be paid at hospital cleaning rates but you will get valuable
experience which may help you to become influential in the long run.
Nancy Wall