It has to go in a custom footer (not html module) to work*. The source, which also has some interesting thoughts on the desirability of disabling right click, is below: http://javascript.about.com/library/blnoright.htm *Using in a custom footer:replace all code in xslt box with this: ]]>

« Home | This nursing school beats UE-RMMC, UP and UST in n... » | Pinakamalaking nursing review center isasara ng CH... » | 100 Item Exam On Fundamentals Of Nursing : Nursing... » | Nursing board exec arrested for swindling » | Nursing board examiner nabbed for illegal recruitm... » | Budek's Recommendation: Seasonal examiners, longer... » | CHED eyes two options on review centers » | Nursing exam questions leaked prior to printing -P... » | PRC officials testify, avoid Sabio’s fate » | English and NCLEX »


QUICKLINKS : CHAT RULES / PINOYBSN FORUM

Passers and flunkers petition CA to order an exam retake

Passers and flunkers petition
CA to order an exam retake

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/sept/24/yehey/top_stories/20060924top3.html


IN a dramatic sign that integrity still rules in the nursing profession, 44 passers and flunkers in the leakage-marred June 2006 licensure examinations filed a petition with the Court of Appeals last week to annul the recomputed results announced by the Board of Nursing and approved by the Professional Regulation Commission.

They were joined in their petition by established professional nurses, some of whom are also professors in nursing colleges.

The petition also asks the court “to prohibit the commission from issuing licenses to examinees on the list of passers” and to order the commission and the board “to readminister Test 3 and Test 5” which were the tests that the board admitted had been leaked.

The petitioners assailed the actions, decisions and resolutions of the commission and the board to address the leakage problem.

The petition recounts that although “concerned sectors including petitioners Erfe [an examinee) and Daoyen and Tingda [both professional nurses who are also nursing educators]” had called the respondents’ attention to the leakage and submitted evidence of it, they “consistently disclaimed its existence.”

“The media reported several times that fraud plagued the conduct of the board examination” and despite “[the respondents’] findings affirming the leakage, “the commission, acting without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,” still disclaimed the existence of the leakage.

The petitioners called this “a direct abdication of its [the commission’s] ministerial duty to investigate motu proprio.”

The petitioners narrate that “because they were concerned that the leakage, if simply swept under the rug, would adversely affect the credibility of the licensure examination, and knowing that respondents had no intention to look into the alleged leakage unless a complaint was formally filed, petitioner Erfe and 91 other examinees filed on June 21, 2006, a complaint with the commission seeking the invalidation of the leaked questions. On June 29, 2006, petitioners Lacanaria, Tingda, Palaganas and Daoayen and 421 other registered nurses intervened in the complaint.”

But that very day when the complaint was filed, “respondent commission, acting without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, issued a public announcement categorically denying the existence of leakage. It anchored its announcement on an alleged investigation conducted by the board.”

Since the original complainants and their complaint-in-intervention allies were skep-tical about the board’s investigation, they petitioned the commission “for the immediate creation of an independent fact-finding body.”

However, “the commission dragged its feet on the case, compelling the complainants to personally follow up its progress and to seek the intervention of other offices to speed up action.”

The pressure appears to have worked because “subsequently, the commission created under Office Order 2006-161 what it called a ‘competent, responsible and independent’ fact-finding committee with members who were all part of its organic structure.”

Then on July 14, 2006, “the commission publicly announced that it terminated its inquiry, which confirmed that the June 2006 licensure examination for nurses was indeed marred by fraud. ”


http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/sept/24/yehey/top_stories/20060924top3.html

This seemed to be good news to satisfy the hunger for the truth and the effort to see justice done.

But at the same time the commission “issued an announcement that it was checking the papers and that the results would be released soon. Instead of explaining to the public or advising it on its treatment of the leaked questions as demanded by its duty under Republic Act 8981 to at all times ensure and safeguard the integrity of all licensure examinations, it [the commission] was silent on this matter. Its silence only served to heighten public anxiety, including that of petitioners.”

Worried that the commission’s silence on its “treatment of the leaked questions would not put the leakage issue to rest and generate more questions than answers, petitioners Palaganas, Tingda and Daoayen wrote the commission chairman, Leonor Tripon Rosero, a letter thanking her for “confirming what we had been firmly asserting: that there was leakage in the most recent nursing board examination and that members of the Board of Nursing are responsible for it. Having waited for a long time for a reversal of your initial resolution that there was no leakage, and having worked relentlessly at disproving it, we feel very relieved.”

Palaganas, Tingda and Daoyen wished, however, that the government would exert “positive and resolute efforts to unearth the truth. It is our ardent desire that the cleansing process will take its course so that our seriously damaged profession will bounce back to its position of integrity and nobility.”

They expressed their disappointment at Rosero’s resolution as announced because “it leaves more questions than answers.”

They pointed out that Rosero’s announcement that the examination results would be released within a week “has further raised the anxiety level of examinees. As it is, their collective emotion is fragile and has been so since the two board members and their cohorts polluted an exercise they worked hard at passing to be part of a noble and respected profession. They are persistently asking us how you will deal with the leaked questions. They deserve a clear statement coming from your office. They are already disillusioned. Please do not shatter their remaining faith in the system.”

And the three professional nurses reiterated “the mounting call for the immediate creation of an independent fact-finding body to push the truth in its entirety to the surface.”

The board’s chairman ignored the letter and did not even respond with a rejection of the letter writers’ requests—an act of omission that the petitioners again call “grave abuse of discretion.”

Then the commission, on July 19, 2006, as the petition narrates it, “released the result of the examination.” And as the petitioners and other stakeholders in the nursing profession had warned, “the premature release was met with more questions.”

Then the petition to the appellate court continues: “On July 20, 2006, petitioners Erfe, Tingda, Palaganas, Lacanaria and Daoayen had an audience with the board to seek clarifications. They explained to the board that they were being badgered with questions on how the commission considered the leaked questions. The board’s chairman, Dr. Eufemia Octaviano, explained, in the presence of other members of the board, that 20 questions of Test 3 and 90 questions of Test 5 were disregarded.”

The board admitted that since the release of the result of the examination, it had been receiving several inquiries on how they computed scores. This admission prompted the petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Cheryl Daytec-Yañgot, to advise the board to issue an official statement or a resolution explaining in detail how the leaked questions were appreciated in order to assure the public that the fraud was not treated as though it never happened and that the instrument adopted to measure the competencies of the examinees was reliable and therefore valid.

(Continued tomorrow)

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/sept/24/yehey/top_stories/20060924top3.html

ang BOBO nyo talaga!

Kayo na lang ang mag retake kung di nyo type o hindi nyo kaya ang naging exam! Huwag na kayo mang damay ng ibang ayaw mag retake!

Psychological Warfare at technique ito na kunwari marami ang gusto ng retake para makaipon ng symphaty in favor of Dante Ang's ardent desire na magkaroon ng retake.

Para kay Ang, sarado na ang usapan at walang katuwiran ang nakapasa basta retake kasi sayang rin ang business at maaaring kitain kung dito magkakaroon ng NCLEX kasi maaaaring maraming foreign Nurses atbp. ang dito pumunta at iba-ibang business at pagkakataon para sa kanya ito

Post a Comment


PBSN Forum


Photobucket 

- Video and Image Hosting

Archives

Links