It is nearly seven months since the publication of the School Certificate examinations results and suddenly, we are informed that there has been a technical error in the transmission of scores from MES to Cambridge. To find out the source of this technical problem, the Ministry of Education has been asked to set up a fact-finding committee. Technical error or not, this is a major crisis.

The Director of the MES is to use his own terms being transparent. Is he really? Or is this apparent transparency an eyewash to fool the public into trust? After all, Lucien Finette is a seasoned politician and what better means to win the media over? This ploy seems to be working if we go by the editorial of Le Mauricien, 28 August and that of l? express, 29 August. Are we convinced by the reasons given for not informing the public earlier? Shouldn?t those unfortunate candidates have been informed right from the beginning that there is a mistake in their results, which is after all their major concern, not the source of the mistake? Mr Lucien Finette claimed he could have kept quiet about the whole matter but chose to be transparent. The strange fact is that he is coming out in the open in August when Cambridge is issuing new certificates to those victimised candidates! Real transparency, in my humble opinion, would have been to come out in the public right away in February and set up an urgent committee with a reasonable deadline so as students don?t waste one whole year.

At a time when we are talking of breaking away from Cambridge and taking full responsibility for the conduct and management of our examinations, should we think twice before embarking on it? Are we ready to manage our examination systems? Most importantly, can we trust MES and its personnel? Are these mistakes new or have they gone undetected for years? What guarantee is being given that they did not happen in the past and that many of those who failed an examination had in fact passed? The implication is just too vast to imagine. Seventy colleges and two hundred and thirty four students are far too many for a small island which has a handful of colleges.

In most examination institutions, there are double entries of scores. Was this practice followed at MES for SC scores? If no, why not and if yes, how come the errors were not spotted? The programming should have been such that scores of a candidate, if entered twice and are different, an alert should have indicated that the scores are not the same.

I am very intrigued by this technical problem which caused all this. From my experience, this is the term pilots and the MBC often use to reassure passengers and the public in general. By referring to the problem as technical, we are given the impression that it is too complicated to understand and would, therefore refrain from asking further questions or clarifications. But surely our students, their parents and teachers will not be satisfied with this blanket term and would request the Director of MES to be more specific about the problem.

According to the Director of MES, the results of seventy colleges (two hundred and thirty four students) were affected with the following results: (i) five students who had failed their SC have now been certified as having passed, (ii) forty one candidates who had been certified as ?failed? have now passed, (iii) thirty five candidates have been upgraded to grade ?A? from ?B? and (iv) eight students who had obtained three credits are now holders of four credits but most importantly, can register to be admitted to Lower VI.

The above is grim reading for any student and parents whose children are working hard to pass their examinations. The Director is quite right to admit that the mistake is ?très grave? and ?inadmissible?. But what is he going to do to gain the confidence of the public and the international community? Host workshops and conferences?

There are a number of questions-issues which MES has to address to gain the confidence of the public at large and the educational institutions:

Is there a liaison officer who coordinates the various parts of the marking exercise and dispatches the checked scores to Cambridge? If not why not?

Were the scores from the original sheets checked with the final sheets which contained all the scores? A quick comparison in Spreadsheet would have easily shown that there were discrepancies.

Who sent the disc to Cambridge? Is it not ultimately up to the head of the section to make sure that the right and appropriate data are dispatched to Cambridge. What measures does he/she have in place to ascertain the right data are entered and sent?

In most examination institutions, there are double entries of scores. Was this practice followed at MES for SC scores? If no, why not and if yes, how come the errors were not spotted? The programming should have been such that scores of a candidate if entered twice and are different, an alert should have indicated that the scores are not the same. Who designed the computer program which led to the failure of the alert?

Why were the scores in the disc not checked against the original sheet?

Does MES have a second ?pair of eyes? to check the content of the disc? If not, why not?

What will MES do once the FFC have come up with the answers? Who will bear the brunt of this catastrophic blunder? Will someone be made a scapegoat? I hope not some junior staff who were merely following instructions.

Does it really take seven months for MES to investigate and establish that there has been a technical problem? Who were the people doing this investigation?

Why were the findings released at this late stage? Was it to coincide with the national assembly being in recess?

It is not for the Ministry to set up a fact-finding committee to enquire who is responsible for this problem. The responsibility falls on the MES Board to act quickly not to find who the culprit is but to find out how this happened and most importantly, how it could be avoided in the future.

Examinations papers for French at School Certificate level have been marked by MES since 2003. What guarantee is there that this kind of mistakes did not happen in the past?

Is there a Marking Section at MES?

There is a resident adviser who is based at MES on a fulltime basis. What exactly is his role and function at the MES?

Could it be that MES is aware that there are deficiencies in its systems? Is it why one research officer was recently refused without any explanation, the A+ and A grades CPE scripts for a research project although these were readily available in the past? Is MES hiding something else from the public?

The impact on the two hundred and thirty four students is enormous. Some have been denied entry to Lower VI whilst others may have changed their courses after getting lower grades. Awarding revised diplomas is good but is it enough?

I am sure there will be more searching questions and issues raised by the public and the education family as this MES saga unfolds. One can?t help wondering what would have happened if that student did not request to have his French question paper remarked.

There is no question that the credibility of the institution has been badly tarnished nationally and internationally and Cambridge had every right to be very furious. But who will face the music? Will it be the head of the Data processing section which is responsible for the transfer of data from the marking sheets to a diskette to be forwarded to Cambridge? Will it be the Research Officer who is responsible for the marking of French in Mauritius? Will it be the resident Adviser who is being handsomely paid to advise on examinations matters and who should have made sure that such technical problem did not arise? Or does it have to be the Director himself who is prepared to resign if asked but refers to the responsibility of different sections and confidentiality. Is this not utter rubbish? Is a Director not ultimately responsible for everything at the institution? A few years ago when there was a suspicion of leak at CPE, the pressure was for Surendra Bissoondoyal to resign.

As this saga unfolds, we can only wait and see what the fact-finding committee will find.

<B>Dr Seeookumar CHUMUN</B> [email protected]