Trauma caused by SEA?

THE EDITOR: Please parents, it is time to stop griping about the just-completed 2019 SEA. All sorts of comments are being made in an effort to force the Education Ministry to grant some kind of post-exam concessions to candidates. We have heard much about the A+ students who were complaining after the exam. My experience has shown me that there are "A plusses" and there are "A pluses." It all depends on the criteria and scoring rubric being applied.

The examination was based on the syllabus of work that teachers have had since the CAC component was withdrawn. It was, therefore, up to teachers to determine the breadth, depth and extent to which each topic and mathematical concept will be explored in his/ her class. It is in doing exactly this that the experienced and knowledgeable teacher stands out and achieves exceptional results. People should realise that the SEA no longer tests a student’s ability to recall facts and to apply a formula. A student who is properly taught is able to apply analytical thinking to evaluate the data presented to him/her and apply the required procedures to solve the problem.

The ability to apply analytical thinking is one of the prime characteristics utilised to sift the more competent from the less competent. Analytical thinking is a skill that has to be taught. So if your child was not adequately exposed to this component of teaching, then don’t blame CXC. They only set and mark the exam based on the syllabus as outlined. Don’t blame the ministry. They administer the examination and use the marks as a tool for placement into secondary school.

One parent commented that “they did not test what they teach.” It should be noted that an examination is not set to test what was taught, but what ought to have been taught. So if your child or your class was traumatised by the examination, maybe a second look needs to be taken at the quality of teaching and the extent of the practice to which the student was exposed. Teachers themselves were made to participate in numerous workshops and seminars in order to sensitise them to the format, the depth and the scope of the reformatted exam. Sample questions were provided and scoring approaches were suggested. There were also a wide variety of practice test booklets available to all to familiarise themselves with the many approaches to questioning and the phrasing of questions on the content to be studied.

With regard to the creative writing component, it must be noted that report writing, descriptive –narrative writing and letter writing have been part of the language arts syllabus from as far back as I can recall. At no time can I recall that any definitive statement was made to prepare pupils exclusively for descriptive /narrative writing. So, were students traumatised, or simply under-prepared?

SIMON NOEL, SIPARIA