SEA fiasco and arising issues

DR ERROL N BENJAMIN

THE RECENT reports on SEA marks and awards raise many critical questions of fair play and justice, competence and even political convenience, inter alia. A newspaper report of April 17 captioned “Queried 2021 results” is as comprehensive as those in the other dailies, but I summarise for those unfamiliar with the issue:

In the first instance Ameerah Beekhoo was initially awarded first place and the President’s Gold Medal for the 2020 examination, which was later rescinded by a ministry official, relegating her to second place and replacing her in the first place position with Aaron Subero, whose reviewed marks gave him the higher position. After queries and threats of judicial action the matter was amicably settled with both parents agreeing to the idea of gold medals for both students.

With this precedent, in the second instance, the parents of Chaya Mc Intosh queried her second place in the 2021 exam, asking for a review of her maths scores which, when completed, gave her second place, for which they are claiming the appropriate award, silver, with a threat of similar action taken by the parents of Beekhoo.

There are many issues involved here but limited space only allows me so much:

1. What psychological trauma do children suffer when, through no fault of their own, they are manipulated in this manner? And more specifically, what of the same for the child who was awarded first place from the first marking, only to be relegated to a lower position?

For children, as all others, a merit list of first, second and third is the be-all-and-end-all benchmark of all achievement and to deny the accolade accorded to them by the system we have, which is as universal as you can get, can we ever fathom the sense of disappointment they must feel?

As the deserving student smiles for being justly rewarded, in this instance first place in the premium national exam, isn’t that reward compromised by having to share that supreme achievement with another, especially out of an adjustment that does not fit the exam rules of first and second marking?

2. Which brings me to the second question. How about the feelings of the unfortunate child, in this instance Subero, upgraded to the status of first with the student who qualified initially for that position? Presumably, he must feel good about his new-found status but isn’t his sense of achievement diminished knowing that he had to be upgraded by a review or second marking? Was the first marker not competent enough? He may not be able to ask such a question but I can.

In a fairly objective test as is the case with the language arts paper as opposed to the creative writing paper, which is more subjective, how could the first marker err in not giving Subero the extra marks he had to award only after the request for a review?

A similar observation can be made about Chaya Mac Intosh’s case, the student involved in SEA of 2021. Why the huge discrepancy, 86.67 as against 100, which is the mark that this student should have received when from the review, according to the report, she got all her maths correct? And should she now not be awarded the second place with silver after the review since Subero was upgraded to first after his review?

3. There are other issues here such as the amicable settlement for Beekhoo and Subero by parents which does not necessarily take into account the true feelings of the two children or official arrangements of convenience to appease, but specific to the issues above, something is just not right with the SEA marking and the choice of awardees.

There is evidence of inconsistency and incompetence and the suggestion of manipulation and even dishonesty, and one is obliged to ask questions about how many children may have suffered as a result one way or another in these SEA exams and others before. And inevitably, to what extent has the credibility of the exam has been damaged, perhaps irreparably.

Will anything be done to repair the damage? There is some suggestion that they may have to change the system of awardees or some such, but the “belly of the beast” as outlined above would likely remain untouched.

So why do I write, one may ask? Just to let them know that at least someone is aware in this sea of indifference, although that awareness is the water on the duck’s back, soon to evaporate and “blow in the wind,” as all else.