Dear Editor,
Reference is made to the letter from Mr Aslam Hanief titled, ‘Abolishing SBAs will not re-establish the integrity of CSEC certificates’ (SN, September 27). This was a thoughtful and comprehensive contribution from Mr Hanief which is much appreciated.
I recognize the place and value of individual research projects, and particularly when such exposure and training starts as early as high school, through SBAs, for CSEC. To repeat from before, my concerns are a) credibility; b) acceptability; and c) utility. And after wrapping all of this together, I persist with the same loaded, far reaching question: at bottom, who is the real author and owner of the final product?
Editor, in terms of the preceding question, consider the norm: CSEC recommends ongoing guidance and oversight. I endorse this. But as a practical matter, this guidance and oversight can come to (and do) encompass both of the following: i) heavy parental input; and ii) four to six revisions (drafts) under teacher supervision. This ignores completely, for the moment, the previously mentioned purchased product.
In the two areas of assistance identified above, this could distil, in reality, to enormous adult (parent and/or teacher) work, with the student willing to go along for the ride; a free ride. Left unattended, the final submission can be wholly unimpressive and deficient, if not downright embarrassing. This is neither preparation for higher education demands nor the travails of the real world, the world of work. Also, there are scant returns for students and none more so than the huge numbers that founder, and back away from the genuine effort required. They come to rely on adult contributions. This word guidance can cover a lot of territory.
Editor, given that I think that an area of focus (a project) should be part of the CXC programme, I make this recommendation.
It is that students be presented with a maximum of three topics, of which they must prepare one. These topics must be embedded in the syllabus, and known way in advance by students. During the actual examination (Paper 2), students must write an essay of somewhere between three hundred to four hundred words on some aspect of the topic selected. As examples, it could be on regional integration, or the brain drain, or the operations of the central bank. The essay should be argumentative with students taking a position and advocating accordingly. It would be worth the same number of marks as those reserved for SBAs currently. This would be a separate section and a mandatory topic.
This would be different from the regular answers in Paper 2, which it is noted has a space of approximately four to five lines to fill. I think that this imbues students with the recognition that there has to be genuine and extensive preparation and familiarization over a period of time prior to the examination on the topic of their choice. It would be their own output, and done in full public view and under close invigilation. The taint of help from any of the usual sources, be they teacher or parent or seller would become moot.
I submit that this puts to rest concerns about compromised products, unethical students and a too helpful environment, whether official or underground, and puts this thing under a different footing before one and all. To Mr Hanief, I say thank you.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
