Writing paper marked carefully under checks and balances Philip Yeung claims that there are 'great disparities in the marker's scores' in marking the Language Proficiency Assessment for Teachers of English (LPATE) and that the marking is 'an exercise in subjectivity' ('Flawed in Any Language', South China Morning Post, September 13). Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr Yeung refers specifically to part two of the writing paper, in which candidates are required to correct and then explain a number of errors or problems in a pupil's composition. Each paper is marked independently by two markers. The score awarded by each marker is converted to an attainment level (from one to five) and then the average of the two levels is the one that the candidate receives on his/her results notice. As with all marking of writing, there is a human element, however, all the markers are fully trained and are experienced English language professionals. It is for this reason that the papers are double-marked. Further, should there be a discrepancy between the markers of more than one level, the paper is marked again, as is the case for the Hong Kong Certificate of Education exams, as pointed out by Mr Yeung. However, the number of cases in which this occurs is low and disparities in marking are minimal. In fact, in the last administration of the writing paper, the correlation between markers for part two of the writing paper was above 0.9 for the correction of errors/problems and above 0.85 for the explanation of errors/problems. In addition, candidates have the right of appeal. Each candidate's paper is then further marked by two more trained markers and an upgrade is awarded should there be sufficient evidence to warrant it. The Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority carries out the marking of the LPATE using recognised standards and procedures, all of which are detailed in the guidance notes for candidates document which each candidate receives on registration. ALAN URMSTON, Subject officer LPATE Get it right from the start Well said, J.Webber ('Government should closely monitor English standards at private schools', Education Post, September 11), the private language schools you describe are even more destructive than you suggest. The legacy of this kind of learning can be felt right through the entire school system. These schools clearly delude parents and the public into believing that their vocabulary-cramming methodologies are the best practice in early childhood education. The deluded consumers of this pseudo-education then 'graduate' to impose similar demands for vocabulary-mania on their children's primary and secondary schools. When all this rote learning of English vocabulary is pushed and promoted in the absence of teaching any form of alphabetic decoding skills (phonics), it is little wonder that the bulk of Hong Kong students learn English in highly habitual, yet cognitively burdensome and inefficient ways. When will the Education and Manpower Bureau ever acknowledge that the earliest years of formal education are, by far, the most crucial in establishing children's learning styles for the future? Only the most qualified and the most experienced teachers should be allowed anywhere near such young learners. Early childhood education remains both a 'poor relation' and a 'fatal flaw' in the Hong Kong education system. PAULINE BUNCE, Chai Wan
