In his contribution to the MATSEC Review, Professor Roger Murphy of the University of Nottingham makes reference, among other things, to the practice of setting differentiated papers in the SEC examinations (The Sunday Times, December 18).

He considers the problems connected with setting appropriate examinations for students whose attainment levels vary widely and he quotes local writers about the problems which the system has brought with it.

Nevertheless, on balance, he recommends that MATSEC continue to offer differentiated papers at SEC level, provided it makes improvements in both paper and standard setting to ensure that papers IIA and IIB represent appropriate levels of difficulty and that they are graded fairly and equivalently.

When MATSEC examinations were introduced to take the place of the General Certificate of Education offered by British examining boards which our students used to sit for, both at Ordinary and Advanced levels, the Secondary Education Certificate (SEC) was offered in two tiers. All students have to take two written papers, besides oral or practical tests depending on the subject. Paper I is common to all students; Paper II is offered in two tiers: IIA, the more difficult paper, for the average and above-average students, and IIB for the average and below-average ones.

In this way, it was explained, teachers would be able to pitch their teaching at the right level of students in their class. It must be said that when the new structure was explained to teachers before the introduction of the examination, the majority were not enthusiastic about it.

Either intentionally or by accident, the new system was immediately recognised as being directly associated with our two-tier system of secondary education, by which selection at 11+ takes students into junior lyceums and Church schools on the one hand, and area secondary schools on the other. So, in people's minds, Paper IIA was for the former schools while Paper IIB was for the latter.

The MATSEC Unit has always defended the retention of the two-tier system on the grounds that if only one paper is offered, students in area secondary schools would not sit for the examination at all. Incidentally, this system ran counter to what had happened in the UK, where the General Certificate of Education (GCE) and the Certificate for Secondary Education (CSE) were amalgamated into the current General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE).

The fears expressed by teachers on the introduction of the two-tier system are confirmed in research work by Deborah Chetcuti (2001), quoted at some length by Professor Murphy: "The data suggest that rather than encouraging positive achievement and bringing out the best potential in students, the differentiated papers are limiting the opportunities of students. Students appear to be channelled into choosing the difficult or easier papers depending on the type of school which they attend. Students with low potential who attend private schools are, in some cases, motivated by the issues that have to do with prestige, encouraged to choose the difficult paper even though their performance does not warrant such a choice. They consequently fail the examination and miss out on future opportunities.

"At the same time, students with high potential are again strongly influenced by the school to choose the easier paper. While these students are successful in the examination, they miss out on the opportunity of obtaining a higher grade..."

The question we now need to ask is whether, in the light of these difficulties, we are still justified in retaining differentiated papers in the SEC examination. I do not know of any research about the correlation between Paper I and Papers IIA and IIB, and it is not likely that there is, as MATSEC does not publish the marks for the separate papers. There is a general feeling among teachers that students' performance in the common Paper I is indicative of the students' overall performance in the examination.

If this is indeed so, then Papers IIA and IIB are not affecting the outcome of the performance in the common paper but are reinforcing it. If this can be proved, it will make it easier to dispense with Papers IIA and IIB and create one paper in which the core would be what is already found in the present Paper I and with additions at either end to cater for the top and bottom levels of ability.

This would also eliminate the difficulty of ensuring that the grades obtained in one paper are properly related to grades obtained in the other. Those currently taking Paper IIA can obtain pass grades 1 to 5 or are unclassified, while those taking Paper IIB can obtain pass grades 4 to 7 or are unclassified (Grades 6 and 7 are not considered good enough for entry into Sixth Form). But do the overlapping grades 4 and 5 reflect the same level of attainment in the two different papers? Is the Unclassified of Paper IIA as weak as the Unclassified of Paper IIB?

When I wrote about this subject (The Sunday Times, February 9, 1997), following an undertaking by the Education Minister of the time to "review the MATSEC examination, particularly in regard to Papers IIA and IIB of the present system" I had offered two practical solutions to this problem: amalgamate Papers IIA and IIB so that the new paper will cover the whole range of ability and enable students to obtain Grades 1 to 7 on the same paper; or have Paper IIB as a compulsory paper for all students enabling them to obtain Grades 3 to 7 on it, and offer an optional Paper IIA for the possibility of obtaining Grades 1 and 2, provided Grade 3 was obtained in paper IIB.

I now offer a third: do away with Paper I and Papers IIA and IIB and in their place produce one paper which caters for all the different levels of ability found in our secondary schools. This might be more difficult to draw up but the results will be more realistic, and fairer on the students.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.