"Reformed" and new school curricula: why doesn't the NCCA reveal the available marks?

gaiscioch

Most, if not all, of the so-called "reformed" curricula for subjects do not give the breakdown for subsections of questions. This is so in JC History ("reformed"), LC Politics and Society (new), and other subjects.

So, for instance, in the data-based question for LC P&S the SEC refuses to give the breakdown of Section B, worth 150 marks (out of 400 marks for the entire paper.) When you check the marking scheme for a random year, you realise for that specific year there were are 10 marks for one question, 20 marks for another, 50 marks for another, etc - but this is never made clear on the actual exam paper so that students know how much time to allocate to each question.

I think this is unfair. What, though, is the NCCA's justification for not being transparent to students about the distribution of marks?

amacca

Just guessing but I'd imagine it's easier to redistribute marks within a question/section so the cohort fits a bell curve thus maintaining consistency from year to year

Treppen

Yes it's common to withhold marking scheme for specific questions (I think overall sections are set though).

The students themselves set the standard, so if the bell curve is skewed that means it needs to be adjusted to make the bell curve fair. That's the theory anyway! In practice some subjects are skewed purposefully , haven't looked in the last few years but the stem subjects were notoriously skewed favouring A1s / H1s

I reckon after a few years it'll become a bit more stable..... predictable 🤣.