USE-2018: face to face with arbitrariness

In the last article [1], it was about the problems with the exam in history in 2018, and it was said that many developer flaws could be corrected using the appeal mechanism. Unfortunately, this does not happen-2018 went down in history as a year of grandiose scandals with the appeals, which indicates the existence of a system failure in this area.

This year, scandals in connection with the appeals on the USE flashed one after another. Irina Lukyanova’s article in the Novaya Gazeta [2] and two articles (Ekaterina Kalinina and Alexander Dragler) in the “Teacher’s newspaper” [3] are most indicative [3]. Also for the first time, a precedent for contesting the results of the examination of the exam in social studies (unfortunately, unsuccessful) was created for the first time.

However, the author of these lines raised the noise about this several years ago [4], but, unfortunately, almost to no avail. Last year, Maria Kucherova [5] not only analyzed the unsuccessful experience of appeal on Mele , but also gave a number of seemingly quite useful tips ... useful in a normal situation, but our situation is abnormal.

What is the problem? For specialists, she, in general, is obvious. Tasks with answers in the open form - when you need to not just choose a ready -made answer option, but enter new information - it is difficult to verify objectively (not without reason in many countries, for example in Ukraine and Belarusia, they prefer to do without them at all). In addition, the quality of control and measuring materials (KIM) in many subjects causes serious doubts (I wrote about the depressing quality of Kim in history in the previous article [1]).

At the same time, the work of experts is often not paid or paid poorly. The quality of the training of experts is also far from always on top (I express myself as softly as possible). It is difficult for experts to disassemble the handwriting of modern children (sometimes you feel like a decoder). The fear of the “third audit” is dominated by the fear of the third checks by more than two points by the work is transferred to the third expert, and this, as is commonly believed, throws the shadow to his colleagues who have not agreed and on the inspectors and the commission as a whole).

Under these conditions, experts prefer stupidly and straightforwardly follow the criteria for evaluating (“keys”), which are provided to them by the Federal Institute of Pedagogical Dimension (FIPI). And at the appeal, experts and the conflict commission also directly defend the “honor of the uniform”, in the vast majority of cases refusing to perceive even the most reasonable arguments of the graduates, and indeed refusing to listen to them.

What to do? There are two options by and large. You can generally abandon the tasks with answers in the open form. This, by the way, would help save very significant budget amounts. In my opinion, a large aggregate of competently compiled and various tasks of a closed type is enough to adequately assess the level of knowledge and skills of students. But our society is not ready for this: at one time, the cancellation of part “a” (the choice of one answer of four) was presented as a great victory over the “guessing”.

Then there remains another option - to decisively share the examination and appeal in order to avoid a conflict of interests (now it is obviously). The structure, in its very essence, designed to adjust the flaws and flaws of another structure, should not be part of it. It should be to a certain extent independent and be guided not only by Fipi’s criteria, but also by many other factors, based on Art. 3 of the UN Convention on the rights of a child who recommends, when considering all issues, to be guided by the interests of the child.

As one of the critics of the appeal procedure noted, even in Soviet times, the correct response on the draft, for some reason (for example, due to a lack of time or excitement) not transferred to the cleanliness, could be taken into account at the appeal, but now this is impossible for some reason (and who will explain to me why?).

As for the keys, they must be published immediately after the exam and widely discussed by the scientific and pedagogical community, so that the graduate who gave an unconventional but correct answer to the appeal to the opinion of authorities and/or textbooks and textbooks.

In general, the author of this article proposes to discuss and in early September to send the following proposals to the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation and Rosobrnadzor (in the form of a collective letter):

1. It is necessary to divide experts checking the work of graduates and appellation experts - this should not be the same people who actually control their own work (as is happening now). Appearance experts should be known in the professional community as people who deserve confidence. They are executed by a separate order, are responsible only for consideration of appeals and do not need special training. Ideally, the appeal should be considered jointly by a university teacher and school teacher.
2. In the instructions of experts on appeals, it should be clearly written that disputed cases (including those going beyond the keys) are decided in favor of students, and psychological pressure on students is not allowed. The purpose of the commission is to figure out a specific situation, and not let yourself break down to increase points.
3. After passing the USE, you should immediately publish all the tasks used with the correct answers and the features of evaluating the data of specific tasks.
4. The openness of the work of the appeal commission is necessary. Parents, teachers and other representatives of the graduate (by simple power of attorney) can take a full part in the meetings. Those present can record on their own. The official video of the meetings of the commission should be available, the possibility of viewing it is regulated in accessible instructions. The organization of online broadcasts is also possible. The negative decision of the commission is drawn up in a special protocol with justification and issued to the student.
5. The commission is obliged to take into account the arguments backed by references to authoritative textbooks and textbooks, as well as official documents, such as the historical and cultural standard.
6. The appeals do not consider the refusal of experts to count the answer as true just because it does not correspond to the literal formulation of the response in the keys, especially if the keys on this task contain the provisions: “Other examples may be given”; “Other, close in meaning to the formulation of the answer” can be given ”; “Other reasonable conclusions can be made and other reasons”; “Other arguments can be given”, ”and others, it is imperative to introduce this item to the expert instructions.

The author is fully aware that the authorities today are not too listening to the opinion of the professional community, and “petitions” often remain without a substantial answer. However, something needs to be done, and there is a little hope that the water someday exudes this stone ...

Alexander Morozov,
cand. East. sciences, associate professor, teacher
preparatory courses Isaa of Moscow State University and the Lyceum HSE

1. TRV-SCIENCE.ru/2018/07/31/ege-po-storii-2018
2. Novayagazeta.ru/articles/2018/07/22/77252-nulevaya-tolerantnost-ege
3. Ug.ru/arkhive/ug/30/30/2018/by/tag/ anotheravetema
4. TRV-SCIENCE.ru/2015/07/14/poslednee-pristanische-proizvola/
5. Mel.fm/blog/mariya-kucherova/79085-neudachny-opyt-pellyatsii-kak-vse-otvoyevat-svoi-bally-za-zaege