The Two-Mark Request
In a mid-sized undergraduate college, a final-year student has 38 out of 50 internal marks and needs 40 to be eligible for the university examination. The student is a state-level athlete who missed four of twelve tutorials for sanctioned tournaments. The published internal scheme allocates 20 marks for two assignments, 20 for a class test, and 10 for attendance. The student scored 6/10 and 7/10 on the assignments, 17/30 on the test (scaled to 20), and 6/10 for attendance. The guardian meets the principal, who informally asks the teacher to 'adjust two marks.' The college prospectus says internal marks must be based on published components, but a clause allows the principal to 'consider special cases.' The teacher is also a member of the examination committee that signed the moderation policy, and colleagues say such adjustments are routine. The student has no application for condonation on record.
1. Should the teacher adjust the two marks? Analyse the fairness, policy and precedent issues.
Read the worked answer
No. Internal assessment is a criterion-referenced decision based on published components. Adding two marks without a published rubric or recorded reason is not moderation; it is an arbitrary favour. The athlete's absence is a genuine equity issue, but equity should operate through a transparent mechanism - condonation, a make-up assignment, or an attendance waiver under the sanctioned-tournament clause - not through an undocumented mark. The principal's 'special cases' clause cannot silently override the examination committee's signed policy; any special-case decision needs recorded reasons and a consistent rule. The fact that colleagues call it routine is a warning about systemic drift, not a justification. If the teacher adjusts for this student, other students with comparable shortfalls have a legitimate grievance, and the committee's credibility is damaged. The teacher should ask for the request in writing and route it to the committee.
2. What legitimate alternatives exist to address the athlete's case without breaching the assessment scheme?
Read the worked answer
Legitimate options include: (a) checking whether the tournaments fall under the college's sanctioned-activity clause and whether an attendance waiver is available; (b) offering a make-up class test or an equivalent assignment for the missed assessment, marked with the same rubric and weighting; (c) applying condonation for attendance if the shortfall is within the permitted limit; and (d) if policy allows grace marks, granting them only through a documented committee decision that applies to all eligible students. Each option should be recorded and communicated to the student and guardian. The aim is to assess the same learning outcomes under equivalent conditions, not to lower the standard for one student. A make-up test is defensible because it measures the same construct; an unexplained two-mark gift is not.
3. If the principal insists on the adjustment, what should the teacher do?
Read the worked answer
The teacher should (i) request the direction in writing, (ii) preserve the original marks and the reasons for them, (iii) place the matter before the examination committee rather than acting alone, and (iv) if overruled, record dissent in the minutes. The teacher should not simply comply because the request comes from a senior or because the practice is said to be routine. At the same time, the teacher should avoid turning the student into the problem: the student's eligibility can be addressed through the legitimate alternatives. If the committee endorses an unlawful or unfair adjustment, the teacher may escalate through the grievance procedure. The professional obligation is to the published criteria and to equal treatment, and a written record protects both the teacher and the institution.