Board of Studies lashed by Ombudsman over HSC
ANNA PATTY EDUCATION EDITOR
September 24, 2009
THE NSW Board of Studies has been forced to release raw HSC results it spent thousands of dollars trying to keep secret, after the Ombudsman criticised its lack of transparency over how exam results are scaled.
The move has vindicated a former HSC student, Hugh Parsonage, who in 2005 applied for his raw exam marks and those of 50 other students, using freedom of information laws.
The Ombudsman, Bruce Barbour, found the Office of the Board of Studies was wrong in rejecting the application, saying its handling of the case ''from beginning to end, is of serious concern''.
He said the board expected the public to accept its marking process on trust, saying ''no student currently has enough information available to them to fully understand how the final results are produced''.
The board should establish a system for students to access cut-off marks for any subject on request and publish marking guidelines, he said.
In a damning report, he said the board had made no attempt to resolve the matter, instead spending $15,000 on legal representation to prevent the unscaled marks being released.
The Ombudsman found the board had misled him during his investigation and told Mr Parsonage ''documents he requested either did not exist or could not be produced, when in fact they did exist and could be produced''.
''For an agency which depends vitally on public confidence, it appears to me … that the [board] also displayed a lack of candour and adopted tactics that had the effect of misleading both the complainant and the Ombudsman.''
The Minister for Education, Verity Firth, and the newly appointed Board of Studies president, Tom Alegounarias, said the board accepted the findings.
Mr Parsonage, a student at the Australian National University, said he was ''pleased to be vindicated''. ''It was more a matter of principle exposing how the board had dealt with my application,'' he said. ''I think students should be able to get their raw marks.''
The board has released data showing Mr Parsonage scored 73 per cent in a maths exam and a final scaled mark of 93 per cent. In chemistry he scored 87 per cent with a final mark of 93 per cent.
A spokeswoman for the board said it welcomed the recommendations. ''The Ombudsman is not questioning the accuracy of the final results sent to HSC students, or the quality of the HSC credential. He has recommended greater transparency when individuals are seeking further information about their results.''
HSC rechecks blasted by report
ANNA PATTY EDUCATION EDITOR
September 25, 2009
THE NSW Ombudsman has exposed the fallibility of the Higher School Certificate marking system in a scathing report on the workings of the NSW Board of Studies.
Bruce Barbour found that an average of 1860 students a year since 2001 have had their results rechecked in a process he criticised for not being transparent.
Between five to 28 changes were made each year as a result of the rechecks.
The Deputy Ombudsman, Chris Wheeler, who signed off on the inquiry, said that while most of the rechecks had not found mistakes, this could be an indication the system was near perfect.
''Alternatively, and more likely, in my view, it could be an indication that the current recheck system is not effective in identifying instances of genuine error,'' he said.
Mr Wheeler also criticised the Board of Studies for spending an estimated $51,000 in legal costs which could have been avoided if the board had properly handled a freedom of information request from a former HSC student.
The board spent the money in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal to prevent the former student, Hugh Parsonage, from obtaining his raw HSC marks and subject cut-off scores.
The Ombudsman found that the board was wrong in rejecting Mr Parsonage's request using freedom of information laws.
It had misled him by telling him documents he sought did not exist when they did exist, and misled the Ombudsman in his inquiry.
In his report, Mr Wheeler said ''all the information associated with the marking process should be made publicly available''.
''This is not the result the [board] would have wanted,'' he said. ''It is not appropriate to treat any member of the public as an enemy engaged in a campaign that somehow threatens the [board] and the system it administers, much less a stakeholder seeking information to explain how decisions are made that significantly affect the interests of numerous individuals.''
HSC marks out of the dark
EDITORIAL
September 25, 2009
THE Ombudsman's finding that the Board of Studies should release raw HSC marks and subject cut-off marks to students is the right one: there is no reason other than bureaucratic convenience to keep HSC candidates in the dark about the raw marks they attained in the examination. They should be told in detail, too, how those marks were scaled into their final scores.
The fact that raw marks are scaled is well known, as is the fact that the formulas and the processes which produce the final mark are complicated. But don't expect a clear explanation. A senior Board of Studies bureaucrat told the Ombudsman in evidence that ''there is an argument that we should explain better how we transform the raw marks … It would be quite a challenge for us to do it in a way that was in plain English.''
Scaling is needed to make final marks comparable from one year to another, and from one subject to another. To eliminate what it sees as needless worry, the board has turned it into what the Ombudsman describes as a black box: raw marks go in at one end, and final marks come out at the other, but as for what goes on in between, no one outside the board is allowed to know. To those who ask, ''But what if a mistake is made?'', the board answers only, ''Trust us.''
The board has said it will not release raw marks because they would only be misleading. Certainly, if people do not understand the process, the experience of having a raw mark scaled down to a lower final mark will seem baffling, possibly unfair and certainly suspicious - despite all the professionalism of markers and board personnel intended to ensure the opposite.
Will, as the board appears to fear, releasing candidates' raw marks give them the opportunity and motivation to contest the final mark - to kick up a stink and waste board resources in pointless challenges? Quite possibly. It comes down to a question, though, of how best to uphold the board's integrity. We believe transparency is more likely to boost public confidence than the present policy of keeping candidates in the dark.
The HSC is a public examination, and all results should be available to candidates. It is worrying that the Ombudsman found the board went to considerable, and highly questionable, lengths to keep the marks secret. The culture of secrecy runs deep in NSW. Constant vigilance is needed to ensure this oppressive instinct is kept in check.
Board sets a poor example
How HSC students won the right to know
People, not laws, block freedom of information
ANNA PATTY EDUCATION EDITOR
September 24, 2009
THE NSW Board of Studies has been forced to release raw HSC results it spent thousands of dollars trying to keep secret, after the Ombudsman criticised its lack of transparency over how exam results are scaled.
The move has vindicated a former HSC student, Hugh Parsonage, who in 2005 applied for his raw exam marks and those of 50 other students, using freedom of information laws.
The Ombudsman, Bruce Barbour, found the Office of the Board of Studies was wrong in rejecting the application, saying its handling of the case ''from beginning to end, is of serious concern''.
He said the board expected the public to accept its marking process on trust, saying ''no student currently has enough information available to them to fully understand how the final results are produced''.
The board should establish a system for students to access cut-off marks for any subject on request and publish marking guidelines, he said.
In a damning report, he said the board had made no attempt to resolve the matter, instead spending $15,000 on legal representation to prevent the unscaled marks being released.
The Ombudsman found the board had misled him during his investigation and told Mr Parsonage ''documents he requested either did not exist or could not be produced, when in fact they did exist and could be produced''.
''For an agency which depends vitally on public confidence, it appears to me … that the [board] also displayed a lack of candour and adopted tactics that had the effect of misleading both the complainant and the Ombudsman.''
The Minister for Education, Verity Firth, and the newly appointed Board of Studies president, Tom Alegounarias, said the board accepted the findings.
Mr Parsonage, a student at the Australian National University, said he was ''pleased to be vindicated''. ''It was more a matter of principle exposing how the board had dealt with my application,'' he said. ''I think students should be able to get their raw marks.''
The board has released data showing Mr Parsonage scored 73 per cent in a maths exam and a final scaled mark of 93 per cent. In chemistry he scored 87 per cent with a final mark of 93 per cent.
A spokeswoman for the board said it welcomed the recommendations. ''The Ombudsman is not questioning the accuracy of the final results sent to HSC students, or the quality of the HSC credential. He has recommended greater transparency when individuals are seeking further information about their results.''
- The Ombudsman's 120 page report is available here.
HSC rechecks blasted by report
ANNA PATTY EDUCATION EDITOR
September 25, 2009
THE NSW Ombudsman has exposed the fallibility of the Higher School Certificate marking system in a scathing report on the workings of the NSW Board of Studies.
Bruce Barbour found that an average of 1860 students a year since 2001 have had their results rechecked in a process he criticised for not being transparent.
Between five to 28 changes were made each year as a result of the rechecks.
The Deputy Ombudsman, Chris Wheeler, who signed off on the inquiry, said that while most of the rechecks had not found mistakes, this could be an indication the system was near perfect.
''Alternatively, and more likely, in my view, it could be an indication that the current recheck system is not effective in identifying instances of genuine error,'' he said.
Mr Wheeler also criticised the Board of Studies for spending an estimated $51,000 in legal costs which could have been avoided if the board had properly handled a freedom of information request from a former HSC student.
The board spent the money in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal to prevent the former student, Hugh Parsonage, from obtaining his raw HSC marks and subject cut-off scores.
The Ombudsman found that the board was wrong in rejecting Mr Parsonage's request using freedom of information laws.
It had misled him by telling him documents he sought did not exist when they did exist, and misled the Ombudsman in his inquiry.
In his report, Mr Wheeler said ''all the information associated with the marking process should be made publicly available''.
''This is not the result the [board] would have wanted,'' he said. ''It is not appropriate to treat any member of the public as an enemy engaged in a campaign that somehow threatens the [board] and the system it administers, much less a stakeholder seeking information to explain how decisions are made that significantly affect the interests of numerous individuals.''
HSC marks out of the dark
EDITORIAL
September 25, 2009
THE Ombudsman's finding that the Board of Studies should release raw HSC marks and subject cut-off marks to students is the right one: there is no reason other than bureaucratic convenience to keep HSC candidates in the dark about the raw marks they attained in the examination. They should be told in detail, too, how those marks were scaled into their final scores.
The fact that raw marks are scaled is well known, as is the fact that the formulas and the processes which produce the final mark are complicated. But don't expect a clear explanation. A senior Board of Studies bureaucrat told the Ombudsman in evidence that ''there is an argument that we should explain better how we transform the raw marks … It would be quite a challenge for us to do it in a way that was in plain English.''
Scaling is needed to make final marks comparable from one year to another, and from one subject to another. To eliminate what it sees as needless worry, the board has turned it into what the Ombudsman describes as a black box: raw marks go in at one end, and final marks come out at the other, but as for what goes on in between, no one outside the board is allowed to know. To those who ask, ''But what if a mistake is made?'', the board answers only, ''Trust us.''
The board has said it will not release raw marks because they would only be misleading. Certainly, if people do not understand the process, the experience of having a raw mark scaled down to a lower final mark will seem baffling, possibly unfair and certainly suspicious - despite all the professionalism of markers and board personnel intended to ensure the opposite.
Will, as the board appears to fear, releasing candidates' raw marks give them the opportunity and motivation to contest the final mark - to kick up a stink and waste board resources in pointless challenges? Quite possibly. It comes down to a question, though, of how best to uphold the board's integrity. We believe transparency is more likely to boost public confidence than the present policy of keeping candidates in the dark.
The HSC is a public examination, and all results should be available to candidates. It is worrying that the Ombudsman found the board went to considerable, and highly questionable, lengths to keep the marks secret. The culture of secrecy runs deep in NSW. Constant vigilance is needed to ensure this oppressive instinct is kept in check.
Board sets a poor example
How HSC students won the right to know
People, not laws, block freedom of information
