The Cambridge crisis

The Covid-19 pandemic has upended the fragile health and education system in Pakistan. The brewing crisis has put tremendous pressure on archaic systems exposing their inherent weakness and glaring incongruities.

On the educational front, it can be termed as the darkest year with millions of children unable to attend schools and being confined to their homes. Apart from this general antipathy, another blow came in the form of the Cambridge Assessment system.

This year the Cambridge Assessment International Education (CAIE) did not conduct O levels or A levels exams in May, and instead gave an option to students to either opt for predicted grades or take an exam as and when Covid recedes. In such a time of sheer uncertainty and utter desperation, the majority of students, it is reported, chose the option of predicted grades based on previous year’s class and exams performance.

When the grades were finally declared by Cambridge for O and A levels there was great hue and cry, in Pakistan and the world over due to downgraded scores. This chaotic situation compelled Cambridge to reevaluate the results and bring them at par with the grades predicted by the schools. This is an alarmingly unprecedented situation when a prestigious system of international education has altered its own assessment criteria and rectified awarded grades to pacify the outrage of the public; it also prompts us to look at what went wrong and where.

First, it seems the option given to students by Cambridge to opt for predicted grades instead of exams created a big anomaly. This was an injudicious inclination to abdicate an age old and workable system of examination in favor of a new system of predicting grades. There is no comparison of grades secured from an objective system of assessment like an examination based on real-time knowledge of skills and application of mind. After all every school has their own method of evaluation; hence an element of subjectivity and variation in submitting grades to Cambridge.

No wonder the overall outcome of grade prediction generated three kinds of response by students this year; blatant discontent due to average results; devastating shock due to downgrading of result; and extreme elation for fair/good or more than expected results. The element of fairness and accuracy was lacking in the system of prediction of grades by the schools.

Second, Cambridge awarded the grades by using an algorithm as an input to the predicted grades offered by the schools, which in some cases inflated and in some downgraded these predicted grades. Fuelling much discontent, Cambridge was then compelled to revise the erroneous grades according to the predicted grades sent by the schools.

Many disturbing questions arise; why was the statistical method of Cambridge faulty? Why was adequate groundwork not done before introducing a new system? Why was its genuineness compromised? The act of revising grades is a reflection of the poor method of awarding grades, and admission of the inherent weakness of the assessment. This puts a serious question mark over the entire credibility of the Cambridge international system and makes a rude mockery of the whole exercise of conducting assessment fairly and impartially.

Third, the schools failed miserably in taking stock of the hazy situation simmering as an outcome of an uncertain system of assessment introduced by Cambridge this year. It seems there was an obvious disconnect between the schools and Cambridge in this regard. No counseling was offered to students to guide them on whether they should opt for predicted grades or take the exams, hence leaving students utterly to their whims to decide.

It seems that students availing the option of predicted grades had overall smooth sailing, particularly when the re-evaluation by Cambridge has actually inflated their grades. However, there may still be some students where grades awarded by prediction must not be a true reflection of their real potential and they are bound to be severely impacted. On the other hand, there are a number of disgruntled students sailing on the shores of uncertainty while preparing for Cambridge exams and feeling disadvantaged in comparison to those who secured enviable grades through the magic wand of prediction.

Unfortunately, the Cambridge International Education has given rise to two systems this year, which was not warranted. One stream of students has been awarded grades on the basis of predictions made by the schools and Cambridge on criteria best known to them; they will secure admissions in universities on the basis of these subjective evaluations on their scorecard. The other group will earn grades after passing through the grilling system of examination which is an objective criterion of evaluation. There should have been one system of assessment for all -- and no options.

In this unfair world, we expect schools, teachers and the system of education to be fair and just. Schools should provide counseling to their students and the Cambridge assessment system must be better equipped to handle a crisis-like situation by devising policies that are equitable and based on fairplay.

The writer holds an LLM degree in international economic law from the University of Warwick.

Email: beelam_ramzan@yahoo.com