The recent brouhaha over the mistake in the Chemistry A-level examination paper has given rise to a spate of letters and online responses, most of which were highly critical of Matsec operations.
Some of these comments came with a recommendation: bring back Oxford and London examinations. The subtext is that then all will be well. They may now wish to reconsider their nostalgic yearnings, not least because their examination scripts might end up in their desired England destination only after being processed in Madras in India where English boards outsource some of their work in a bid to cut costs. No offence directed at Madras of course; on the contrary, this confirms that there are centres outside the UK which English boards have confidence in.
Far better to clamour for better remuneration for examination setters and markers who at times are paid as little as €0.58 (25c) to mark a script. Had the pay been better perhaps a reviser for the Chemistry paper in question may have come forward.
It must surely be far better to pay €14 (Lm6) for a local Sec examination than €41.70 (Lm17.90) for an Edexcel one, especially when Matsec certificates carry the same weight abroad as English certificates. The same English board charges €152 (Lm65.25) for an A-level examination when Matsec charges €21 (Lm9) per subject.
Far better too to address the many issues highlighted in the Matsec review published almost three years ago that pointed to urgent improvements that still need to take place if Matsec is to operate successfully.
It is once again up to the political class to make their minds up: remove Matsec and lose the experience and benefits gained in 15 years, or provide the budget Matsec absolutely needs to run efficiently, using and training the best people available.
Any mistake in a high-stakes examination paper is most regrettable; no one can deny that. Mistakes cause considerable distress to students and their families; and, without doubt, they cause serious worries to examining boards. However, to expect all examination papers to be error-free is most idealistic. No examination board anywhere, nor any human endeavour for that matter, is spared the embarrassment of mistakes.
A brief look at the performance of English examination boards traditionally associated with Malta shows that they too have their fair share of problems. And this despite having one of the world's longest traditions in examinations and in the export of examinations to colonial and ex-colonial countries.
The table shows the English examination boards' performance in terms of their ability to produce error-free examination papers. The three examination boards are awarding bodies providing academic and vocational qualifications at all levels of education. These three bodies represent large organisations underpinned by quality control practices, ongoing research and system monitoring. Yet their aim to achieve perfect performance in terms of having every single examination paper free from error is still to be achieved.
Some examples of unfortunate mistakes that have appeared in examination papers offered by these boards include answers to some questions in a GCSE music examination paper that could be found on the back page of the same examination paper, leaving out two pages from a multiple-choice examination paper, and supplying an incorrect diagram with a question worth one third of the marks in an AS-level mathematics paper, among many others.
This must come as a surprise to most of those rushing to write comments to the newspapers about Matsec's mistakes. They might be even interested to learn that English examination boards also run into problems with marking. Only last month, students in the UK about to sit their GCSEs and A-levels were told by England's examinations regulator Ofqual not to expect their marks to be accurate. Kathleen Tattersall, chair of Ofqual, said that the public had a 'simplistic' expectation that the marking system should be 'perfect'.
Some cases that caused a public outcry include the estimating of A-level grades, rather than actually marking the scripts of 2,000 students because of an insufficient number of markers; reviewing over 300,000 scripts following a public outcry over suspicions of downgrading by the examination boards; and re-marking some 65,000 GCSE examinations following appeals by schools as a result of which 14,305 (22 per cent) were subsequently re-graded.
Apart from mistakes in the setting and marking of examination questions, there were administrative slip-ups that blotted these examination boards' performance, such as sending the wrong A-level grades to students who then lost their place at their preferred university as they waited for a re-mark (in at least one case the change in grade was from a U to an A); sending results too late for students to secure themselves a place at university.
In another case, the wrong results were sent to 10,000 students, more than 3,700 of whom were told they had passed when in fact they had failed (for many it was the first examination they had ever passed) and more than 6,460 pupils were also told they had failed when they had in fact passed.
There was even a case were students were made to sit for five AS-level examinations in one day - an eight-hour marathon sitting!
And then there is a category which can only be labelled as plain misfortune, including examination scripts sent by the awarding body to examiners for marking getting lost in the post or sent to the wrong address and not the examiner designated to mark them, or having to write 46 new examination papers after the postal service van they were in got stolen.
Does this sound like a catalogue of sins? One cannot but sympathise with students who experience the distress of grappling with mistakes in question-setting, marking, or administrative mix-ups. And yet, we have to accept that perfect systems simply do not exist. Indeed, one English examination board, AQA, maintains that it would be unrealistic to guarantee there would never be errors of judgment or process in an examination series.
Even the UK examinations' watchdog, whose role is to keep a watchful, critical eye on the workings of the examination boards, does not expect an entirely smooth, completely error-free operation.
The fundamental issue is that students are compensated in as fair a manner as is possible to offset any mistake which is the responsibility of the examination board.
Dr Spiteri is a senior lecturer at the University of Malta's Faculty of Education.