B1505 – Protection of Public Examinations Bill 2019 Watch

This discussion is closed.
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#61
Report 1 month ago
#61
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
And it unfairly penalises possibly thousands of students a year by removing enormous portions of their school's budget when they're cash strapped in the first place, even more so now they're being expected to pay for significant staff pay rises out of existing budgets. You and your party demonstrate once again that just like the left you're incapable of thinking about knock on effects of your ideas. Penalties should be proportional and target those responsible, not disproportional and harming those they're ultimately supposed to help.
If the penalties are such an issue, they will be revised.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#62
Report 1 month ago
#62
I can confirm that the financial penalties for the centre will be removed for the second reading.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#63
Report 1 month ago
#63
(Original post by ns_2)
I can confirm that the financial penalties for the centre will be removed for the second reading.
Glad that this concern has been recognised. I would still like to see more on prevention.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#64
Report 1 month ago
#64
(Original post by ns_2)
The knock on impact was several thousands; a significant proportion of candidates saw the blacked out images, and further the entire paper.
No it wasn't. What "knock on impact" does a blurry picture on Twitter offer?
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#65
Report 1 month ago
#65
(Original post by 04MR17)
No it wasn't. What "knock on impact" does a blurry picture on Twitter offer?
It’s larger than who sees the paper vs who doesn’t.

Firstly those who see it are advantaged against those who don’t, which impacts the grades (although o accept the exam board tries to counterbalance this).
But it’s not just them. These students are being compared against others for uni places, for example, therefore it’s not unreasonable to say sowmbldy doing AQA at a different school could be impacted by this in the long run.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#66
Report 1 month ago
#66
(Original post by Andrew97)
It’s larger than who sees the paper vs who doesn’t.

Firstly those who see it are advantaged against those who don’t, which impacts the grades (although o accept the exam board tries to counterbalance this).
But it’s not just them. These students are being compared against others for uni places, for example, therefore it’s not unreasonable to say sowmbldy doing AQA at a different school could be impacted by this in the long run.
You still haven't exained how, a range of factors (not least the specific university) is responsible for university, and it would be wrong for parliament to use that as justification for this bill when it doesn't affect everyone studying at school, as plenty of them aren't destined for university.

As happened this year, exam boards notice leaks, analyse the impact and take action according to preserve this ridiculous "level playing field" everyone keeps going on about.

This bill is based on the unproved assumption that adding a prison sentence is going to deter cheaters. I don't believe it will, and I don't think it's a big enough problem for parliament to be legislating on.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#67
Report 1 month ago
#67
(Original post by 04MR17)
No it wasn't. What "knock on impact" does a blurry picture on Twitter offer?
That blurry picture clearly showed the presence of 'oktas' in the LDS response questions; those who were fortunate enough to see it before would have revised, in depth, the limitations of oktas etc.

Just because one centre was at fault does not mean that other centres were not affected through the sharing of the pictures. Please, use some common sense here.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#68
Report 1 month ago
#68
(Original post by 04MR17)
You still haven't exained how, a range of factors (not least the specific university) is responsible for university, and it would be wrong for parliament to use that as justification for this bill when it doesn't affect everyone studying at school, as plenty of them aren't destined for university.

As happened this year, exam boards notice leaks, analyse the impact and take action according to preserve this ridiculous "level playing field" everyone keeps going on about.

This bill is based on the unproved assumption that adding a prison sentence is going to deter cheaters. I don't believe it will, and I don't think it's a big enough problem for parliament to be legislating on.
Don't really understand the first paragraph...

Why, in your opinion, should we not, then, protect exams in this fashion?

These penalties are not aimed at the cheaters (i.e. students), as there are explicit civil systems in place at exam boards to deal with them. This bill focuses on those who wilfully facilitate cheating; the threat of a significant personal penalty ought to vastly discourage malpractice.

If we have the power to do something of benefit, regardless how small, we should.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#69
Report 1 month ago
#69
(Original post by ns_2)
Don't really understand the first paragraph...

Why, in your opinion, should we not, then, protect exams in this fashion?

These penalties are not aimed at the cheaters (i.e. students), as there are explicit civil systems in place at exam boards to deal with them. This bill focuses on those who wilfully facilitate cheating; the threat of a significant personal penalty ought to vastly discourage malpractice.

If we have the power to do something of benefit, regardless how small, we should.
Because exams are a.) already protected and b.) should be scrapped altogether as they don't adequately serve theur purpose.

Wilfully facillitating cheating, is cheating, incase you hadn't noticed. And why are you assuming that this is not being done by students? And since you've not provided any evidence that it will discourage it, I'll assume you have none.

I agree, but I have yet to find a benefit.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#70
Report 1 month ago
#70
(Original post by ns_2)
That blurry picture clearly showed the presence of 'oktas' in the LDS response questions; those who were fortunate enough to see it before would have revised, in depth, the limitations of oktas etc.

Just because one centre was at fault does not mean that other centres were not affected through the sharing of the pictures. Please, use some common sense here.
Could, not would. Don't make assumptions.

Given that I was up that night and followed the conversation on TSR and Twitter, it was clear to me that there was a large uncertainty about whether the leak was or wasn't fake. And given that the exam board didn't confirm it until the following day, any last minute revision done was not in the knowledge that oktas would be on the paper, but in an assumption. Just because an unconfirmed picture was shared on twitter does not impact several thousand people had their exam ruined, please use common sense here.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#71
Report 1 month ago
#71
(Original post by ns_2)
Don't really understand the first paragraph...

Why, in your opinion, should we not, then, protect exams in this fashion?

These penalties are not aimed at the cheaters (i.e. students), as there are explicit civil systems in place at exam boards to deal with them. This bill focuses on those who wilfully facilitate cheating; the threat of a significant personal penalty ought to vastly discourage malpractice.

If we have the power to do something of benefit, regardless how small, we should.
We should make it more difficult for cheating to be facilitated and I have suggested some possible options.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#72
Report 1 month ago
#72
(Original post by 04MR17)
Could, not would. Don't make assumptions.

Given that I was up that night and followed the conversation on TSR and Twitter, it was clear to me that there was a large uncertainty about whether the leak was or wasn't fake. And given that the exam board didn't confirm it until the following day, any last minute revision done was not in the knowledge that oktas would be on the paper, but in an assumption. Just because an unconfirmed picture was shared on twitter does not impact several thousand people had their exam ruined, please use common sense here.
I'm sorry but if you see that image, regardless of whether you believe it to be right or not, you revise the topic that comes up - 'oktas' in the LDS is a small, but in that exam, significant part of the specification.

Believe me, I took that exam; and was not one of the fortunate ones to see either the blacked out images or the entire paper beforehand - we must do all to prevent these 'unfair' advantages from developing, be it through greater security measures as proposed by barnetlad which I am happy to endorse, or greater deterrents and remidatory action.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#73
Report 1 month ago
#73
(Original post by barnetlad)
We should make it more difficult for cheating to be facilitated and I have suggested some possible options.
Happy to take these on board; although in implementation, I assume it would be more appropriate to use secondary legislation in the form of a ministerial report by the SoS for Education.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#74
Report 1 month ago
#74
(Original post by 04MR17)
Because exams are a.) already protected and b.) should be scrapped altogether as they don't adequately serve theur purpose.

Wilfully facillitating cheating, is cheating, incase you hadn't noticed. And why are you assuming that this is not being done by students? And since you've not provided any evidence that it will discourage it, I'll assume you have none.

I agree, but I have yet to find a benefit.
In respect to your first point, protection without 'backup' means nothing; and, your belief in scrapping examinations does not warrant moves forward on a different path.

In respect to your second point, the most recent leak was conducted (or otherwise facilitated) by two men aged 29 and 32 - clearly, not students. Ultimately, students will not have access to the exam room and the 'box inside a box' - the first step on the path to the compromising of an examination tends to have to be a senior ranking member of staff.

This Bill strongly discourages compromising examinations by removing any sort of personal benefit, or financial gain.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#75
Report 1 month ago
#75
(Original post by ns_2)
I'm sorry but if you see that image, regardless of whether you believe it to be right or not, you revise the topic that comes up - 'oktas' in the LDS is a small, but in that exam, significant part of the specification.

Believe me, I took that exam; and was not one of the fortunate ones to see either the blacked out images or the entire paper beforehand - we must do all to prevent these 'unfair' advantages from developing, be it through greater security measures as proposed by barnetlad which I am happy to endorse, or greater deterrents and remidatory action.
You telling me your assumptions about normative behaviour is not going to influence my opinion on this bill. I fear that your own recent experiences may well be influencing your attitude towards this bill, and I'm not sire that's very healthy. As I've explained throughout this debate, the process for dealing with rule breaking is clear and effective. Bankrupting schools as a result of accident is a possible outcome of this bill, one which you have yet to address effectively in your responses. Furthermore I think that the country's prisons need not be filled by people who contravene exam rules and instead ought to be dealt with in other ways. The sharing of confidential exam materials is already an offence via copyright violation and there is no feasible prosecution of centres that I can see which wouldn't cause outrage among school communities for what can only be simple mistakes
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#76
Report 1 month ago
#76
(Original post by ns_2)
In respect to your first point, protection without 'backup' means nothing; and, your belief in scrapping examinations does not warrant moves forward on a different path.

In respect to your second point, the most recent leak was conducted (or otherwise facilitated) by two men aged 29 and 32 - clearly, not students. Ultimately, students will not have access to the exam room and the 'box inside a box' - the first step on the path to the compromising of an examination tends to have to be a senior ranking member of staff.

This Bill strongly discourages compromising examinations by removing any sort of personal benefit, or financial gain.
If by "backup" you mean the threat of imprisonment then a.) that's a farcical punishment for a crime that affects very few people and b.) I can see it wasting court time for insubstantial cases from pushy parents of spoilt children rather than any meaningful prosecutions given that it is already a crime through copyright infringement. If by "backup" you mean spare exam papers for the case of a leak, these exist already and are not uaed infrequently.

So two older men did the most recent one and therefore no student could ever be capable of such an offence? Really? I think that's quite a silly idea if you ask me given that there have been 10 year olds convicted of murder...

These are removed anyway, that is not a benefit.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#77
Report 1 month ago
#77
As I read this if a student gets their hands on an exam and sends it to a class group chat their school gets a fine of £500,000 for not controlling Facebook (note it says adequate and not reasonable) that’s absolutely ridiculous.
1
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#78
Report 1 month ago
#78
I see this bill has finally seen the light of day. I'll say what I said before and state that prison sentences of two and ten years are horrendously excessive. ns_2 I see you plan to remove the financial penalties, but what will you do about the prison sentences?
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#79
Report 1 month ago
#79
(Original post by Aph)
As I read this if a student gets their hands on an exam and sends it to a class group chat their school gets a fine of £500,000 for not controlling Facebook (note it says adequate and not reasonable) that’s absolutely ridiculous.
Under the bill as proposed, only if the centre somehow facilitated it...i.e. left the room unlocked.

Following discussions, the centre will no longer be liable. Only facilitating characters.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#80
Report 1 month ago
#80
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
I see this bill has finally seen the light of day. I'll say what I said before and state that prison sentences of two and ten years are horrendously excessive. ns_2 I see you plan to remove the financial penalties, but what will you do about the prison sentences?
The penalties for the centre will be removed.

Punishments for individuals will remain.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What's your favourite genre?

Rock (197)
24.29%
Pop (196)
24.17%
Jazz (33)
4.07%
Classical (46)
5.67%
Hip-Hop (154)
18.99%
Electronic (54)
6.66%
Indie (131)
16.15%

Watched Threads

View All