April Performance Exam
Hi Wessex,
Sorry for the late reply - my ISP's server has been down...again.
I agree with you wholeheartedly in that the February and April Performance exams were the actual problem here since these were also what I was so deflated by. However, the reason they went awry in the first place must be due to pockets of organisational incompetence and a total indifference towards customer (students’ and training organisations’) satisfaction. My approach was get to the underlying reasons for the CAA’s failure to produce a fair exam in the first place so that the current situation could be rectified and then any future reoccurrence prevented.
Looking at the actual exams, in my experience, dispute resolution always lies in some kind of compromise for each side, i.e. satisfying the overall “price of peace”. So, considering your options, I think:
Option 1 – If the CAA convinced itself that the Performance exam was sub-standard, however they may judge that, the only honourable thing for them to do would be, as you say, cancel the exam and credit the sitting/s for those who would otherwise have failed (no point in wasting the time of those who had already passed). If the February exam were credited, I would look forward to a refund for April’s.
Option 2 – The CAA could not credit only some of the questions; it would be an impossible task to do fairly.
Option 3 – Having considered all the facts, the CAA might choose to do nothing and suffer the consequences, perhaps believing that there wouldn’t be any!
If candidates’ failures this time were down to the irregular type of questions needing more time than the allotted 1-hour limit, then another option would be to extend the Performance exam time period for the following re-sit. Anyway, all of the exam time limits should be reconsidered since they are woefully imbalanced with their content and difficulty.
I shall certainly be pursuing this matter further if the outcome is unsatisfactory. I wait with baited letterbox.