SBA’s for CSEC English and Mathematics Part I

While TTUTA is not opposed to the introduction of such formative assessment there are major concerns that must be addressed if the assessment is to be valid and reliable. This two-part series seeks to reflect the concerns of teachers regarding this fundamental change being proposed for the secondary education sector.

Like to introduction of new CAPE subjects to the secondary school curriculum, it is unfortunate that CXC is once again being allowed by regional governments to make such a fundamental change to the education system without proper prior consultation with stakeholders. It is hoped that given the recent meeting held between CXC and the Caribbean Union of Teachers, there will be a rethinking on the part of CXC regarding this development.

Heads of Department and teachers have complained of inadequate training in the conduct of SBAs or how to mark them. The quantity of SBAs that are to be completed during the fourth and fifth years would impact on the teaching time that is available to deliver the curriculum.

Many teachers are already carrying class-loads in excess of their job descriptions.

These subjects are done by all students and as such these classes are usually large. English and Mathematics teachers teach all classes/forms levels and as a result, their workload has become arduous, frustrating and stressful without additional help. The new syllabus requires more periods allocated to Mathematics and English and schools were forced to make this timetable adjustment without the allocation of additional posts. This is exacerbated for example, if the school uses a 2-week cycle when timetabling subjects.

Teachers generally teach at least two CSEC examination classes at a time among their other classes and duties. This could mean 50 or 60 individual student SBA projects at any one time. It must be remembered that since these are compulsory subjects the workload of teachers in managing and marking these projects for the requirements of CXC will be vastly increased. The issue of teachers being required to mark assessments for CXC without compensation remains an unresolved one. With specific reference to English, the ELA portfolios at the lower levels are also viewed as impinging on workload. Teachers are concerned about the removal of the Comprehension component of the English A paper. The use of one mark for both English A and English B, especially in the context of these marks being allocated from group activities, is seen as problematic.

The multiple components of the SBA required to complete the students’ portfolios will negatively impact on contact time and teachers’ ability to adequately complete tasks in the time allocated. In some instances teachers have expressed the view that there should not be SBA for English A. There is also a high level of disparity between what is verbally reported in the CXC webinar and the actual written instructions in the syllabus.

The weighting of marks is confusing, as one mark for responses seems inadequate to the weight of the required response. The marking of the Plan of Investigation is left to the interpretation of the teacher - “some” are subjective and the teacher decides if to award one or two marks. The concern here is that when this is being moderated, what will determine the mark that “some” gets? The length of the Plan of Investigation does not seem to equate with all the information required.

In Part II we will explore the concerns that are specific to the introduction of the SBA in Mathematics.