The government has accepted the high court judgment setting aside the matric rewrites of maths and science exams, but will challenge aspects of the ruling.
On Friday, Pretoria high court judge Norman Davis ruled that the rewrites would be irregular and unlawful.
The department of basic education ordered the rewrites after the question papers were leaked before the exams.
The department said yesterday it would abide by the ruling that affects maths paper 2 and physical science paper 2, but would challenge “a number of aspects” of the judgment.
Department spokesperson Elijah Mhlanga said the minister and the nine education MECs decided to appeal after consulting lawyers.
He said a major concern was that the court “did not address the crux of the matter”. This was that thecredibility, integrity and fairness of the exams had been compromised by the leaking of the question papers.
He said that some of the court's findings “are discordant with applicable basic education legislative provisions”.
The council of the minister and MECs was “particularly concerned about the tone and language” used by the judge.
Umalusi, the organisation that monitors standards for matric exams, yesterday insisted that its reputation was still intact despite says made about it in the high court judgment.
In his ruling, Davis said: “It is clear that all stakeholders being directly involved, the learners, educators and moderators ... were of the view that it was premature, at this stage unwarranted and prejudicial, to order a rewrite before the actual extent of the leaks had been established.
“Yet at the instance of the 'unwarranted dictates' of Umalusi, the minister and the DBE [department of basic education] succumbed to its determinations.”
Davis said Umalusi must assure the quality of the assessment of the National Senior Certificate (matric).
“It may refuse to issue a certificate of assurance if a 'substantial irregularity' has occurred. On the only available evidence to date, it can hardly be found that the
percentage referred to ... amounts to being 'substantial'.”
The department said 195 maths pupils had access to the question paper ahead of the exam. However, a team found that though the number was small, there was a “viral spread of information on the cyber networks”.
Davis said Umalusi has no authority to prescribe, or to make prescriptions, regarding the rewrite of any papers.
“Therefore any abdication of the decision-making process to Umalusi, or submission to Umalusi's premature views as determinative of a decision, results in that decision falling foul of sections of the Promotion of Administrative Act 2000.”
The department's decision on a national rewrite followed Umalusi's says that the integrity and credibility of the two papers had been “irrevocably compromised”.
Umalusi spokesperson Lucky Ditaunyane told the Sunday Times that the recent court process showed that Umalusi took seriously its role as the vanguard of education standards in SA.
“The role of a quality council is, among others, to proactively protect the credibility of the education system and to take appropriate action in line with its legislative mandate.”
Saying on the judgment, Umalusi said that while it was disappointed, the council respected the judgment.
“In the meantime, Umalusi will continue to support and work in collaboration with the relevant structures in the ongoing investigations into the leakage of the two papers.”
Ditaunyane said that at this moment, “Umalusi cannot pre-empt the outcome of its own processes regarding the approval of the 2020 National Senior Certificate results because the council [of the minister and MECs] needs to implement all its quality assurance processes before a final decision about the credibility and integrity of national examinations can be made.”
It has emerged from Davis's judgment that it was the opinion of the department's internal moderators [of the maths paper 2] that a rewrite of the paper by all candidates “will just add to the burden that the majority of candidates had carried during the course of the year”.
“The psychological affect that a rewrite will have on the vast majority of the candidates cannot be overlooked. The possibility that a candidate may take his or her life increases under the circumstances,” he said.
Mhlanga told the Sunday Times that the maths paper 2 and physical science paper 2, which had already been printed in anticipation of next week's rewrites, would not be destroyed.
“The cost [of printing the papers] will be known when exams are concluded and a report is done. The papers will be used for revision purposes [by pupils] as it has been the case with all past exam papers.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.