Editorials: Conjectures and the ‘retake’
Editorials: Conjectures and the ‘retake’
The decision on whether or not to order the 2006 nursing board examinees to retake the tests is much too sensitive and controversial to be left in the hands of flip-flopping and unenlightened officials
Malacañang's decision to order the June 2006 examinees to retake the nursing board exams stands on two legs: that the leak of some test answers was widespread and employers abroad have lost confidence in the country's nurses.
When Malacañang arrived at that decision earlier, those arguments were mere hunches, meaning, they needed verification to be acceptable.
Now the first leg has been crippled after the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) released the result of its investigation on the board exam fiasco and concluded that the leak involved only a few review centers in Luzon and only to portions of the tests.
Which is but a small percentage of the number of examinees nationwide.
Nurses’ image abroad
Meanwhile, Malacañang has not come up with a decent enough effort to solidify the basis of the claim about the negative effect of the controversy on the image of the country's nurses abroad.
Thus, unlike the insinuation that the spread of the leak was probably massive, which was proven false, Malacañang can't be conclusive in its theory that employers abroad will no longer hire Filipino nurses because they cheat in licensure exams.
NBI’s findings
Worse, even with the NBI proving them wrong about the extent of the cheating, some Malacañang functionaries like Dante Ang and Ricardo Saludo continue to peddle tales of unseen nursing board exam ghosts.
They are insisting on faulty comparisons---from cheating in the classroom to the erroneous printing of peso bills---and even expressed doubts or downplayed the significance of NBI’s findings.
On the other hand, they are cold to information contradicting their theories about the bad effects of the leakage issue on the image of our nurses abroad.
Sensitive, controversial
This actuation should impact negatively on people’s assessment of the decision-making process in Malacañang, what with the officials relying more on conjectures rather than on hard facts.
Indeed, the decision on whether or not to order the 2006 nursing board examinees to retake the tests is much too sensitive and controversial to be left in the hands of flip-flopping and unenlightened officials.
The decision on whether or not to order the 2006 nursing board examinees to retake the tests is much too sensitive and controversial to be left in the hands of flip-flopping and unenlightened officials
Malacañang's decision to order the June 2006 examinees to retake the nursing board exams stands on two legs: that the leak of some test answers was widespread and employers abroad have lost confidence in the country's nurses.
When Malacañang arrived at that decision earlier, those arguments were mere hunches, meaning, they needed verification to be acceptable.
Now the first leg has been crippled after the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) released the result of its investigation on the board exam fiasco and concluded that the leak involved only a few review centers in Luzon and only to portions of the tests.
Which is but a small percentage of the number of examinees nationwide.
Nurses’ image abroad
Meanwhile, Malacañang has not come up with a decent enough effort to solidify the basis of the claim about the negative effect of the controversy on the image of the country's nurses abroad.
Thus, unlike the insinuation that the spread of the leak was probably massive, which was proven false, Malacañang can't be conclusive in its theory that employers abroad will no longer hire Filipino nurses because they cheat in licensure exams.
NBI’s findings
Worse, even with the NBI proving them wrong about the extent of the cheating, some Malacañang functionaries like Dante Ang and Ricardo Saludo continue to peddle tales of unseen nursing board exam ghosts.
They are insisting on faulty comparisons---from cheating in the classroom to the erroneous printing of peso bills---and even expressed doubts or downplayed the significance of NBI’s findings.
On the other hand, they are cold to information contradicting their theories about the bad effects of the leakage issue on the image of our nurses abroad.
Sensitive, controversial
This actuation should impact negatively on people’s assessment of the decision-making process in Malacañang, what with the officials relying more on conjectures rather than on hard facts.
Indeed, the decision on whether or not to order the 2006 nursing board examinees to retake the tests is much too sensitive and controversial to be left in the hands of flip-flopping and unenlightened officials.
Now that the CA has finally favorably ruled the NBI and PRC,it is just for those petitioned to do the following:
1. Dante Ang to give up his post since with his lack of judgment, he is failing miserably to represent the interest of pinoy nurses in NCLEX. Will he now say that the 2006 passers still tainted and stigmatize. Whether he says yes or no he does not deserve his post. Nakakahiya!
2.Will ABS-CBN(Korina,T.Failon,Ces,) who prematurely judge our nurses and talk self-righteously mend their ways to act professionally.
3.Will PDI including C De Quiroz, RJ, David and the editor now practice more their "investigative skills" and dig deeper before making any premature pronouncements?
In a poor Juan De la Cruz vocabulary, i.e.what you call poor judgment. Analysis is the ability to find the choices you need to make a decision. Judgment is the ability to select the best choice. If there are ten choices ok lang pag mali ang napili but in this case between the two choices mali panapili, nagmamadali at nagmamagaling pa.Dapat ito at mga kagaya nila ang magretake.
Posted by
Anonymous |
12:30 PM
Here is another one.
Will those petitioners(D.Bautista, UST/UP Faculty, Alliances kuno et.al now ask their proteges-ally board passers to retake despite CA ruling to regain their tainted and stigmatized honor. This option still stands? Dapat lang di ba? Kung may honor' sila.
Posted by
Anonymous |
12:36 PM
malabo decision ng CA.. pano kaya nila nalaman kung cno cno ang magreretake?? AND... SA KARAMI RAMI NG NAGREVIEW SA MGA NABANGGIT NA REVIEW CENTERS.. 1 THOU PLUS LANG YUNG IRERETAKE??? BULLSHIT YUN... SA PENTA NALANG ALMOST 7K nagreview dun.. pano nalang ung sa iba?? AND PANO UNG PRC?? LIABLE DIN CLA DBA?? DAHIL THEY MISHANDLE THIS CRISIS.. AND MAY COVER UP NA GINAGAWA. GUD LUCK NALANG IF UMABOT SA SUPREME COURT YAN..
Posted by
Anonymous |
12:48 PM
Sa iyo iho or iha in comment no. 3, siguro sa almost 7k ng Pentagon ay masyadong madami ang bagsak talaga... meaning, sa test 1,2,4 ay hindi sila umabot. Yon bang kahit mag hit pa sila ng around 90 sa test 3 at 5 ay bagsak pa rin... hindi na sila kasama. Kasi ang gagamitin na ulit ay yung 500 items sa pagcompute ng grade as decided by CA. So lahat ng bumagsak doon ay OUT na talaga. Yun lang 1,687 na pumasa after gamitin ang 390 items computation ay magreretake kasi nga bagsak naman sila sa unang computation... I hope hindi ka naguluhan sa paliwanag ko...
Posted by
Anonymous |
1:27 PM
Ang peculiarity nitong leakage, hindi nagsama yung leakage ng tests 3 at 5 sa bawat examinee who received leakage. May nakakuha sa test 3 pero wala sa test 5, at may nakakuha sa test 5 pero wala sa test 3.
So, for each examinee who received leakage, he received either for test 3 or for test 5 only. Thus, if he passed, it is because he is really competent--that is, competent enough to pass four test subjects without leakage to him! In other words, there still remained four subjects that tested the competence of examinees--and 25,000 of them did not pass that test.
As for the one subject with leakage, even the Supreme Court simply excluded the leakage-tainted Mercantile Law in the scandal-rocked 2003 bar exams, recomputed the grades, and dispensed with retake because the remaining subjects still tested the competence of the new lawyers.
At yung leakage na natanggap ng examinees, kasalanan ng examiners at reviewers who violated the law, dahil siya as examinee ay tanga noong bago mag-exam at di niya alam kung may leakage nga o wala. Yung taga Baguio na tumanggap ng leakage, di ba't hindi rin sila sigurado na leakage yun BEFORE the exam?
Posted by
Anonymous |
2:56 PM
Gusto ko lang makatulong na maipaliwanag sa Comment 3 and sumunod na 4 and 5. Di ko nabasa ang buong CA decision pero sa pagkakabalita sa PDI, PS, MB and Mstandard pakitingnan kung tama ang pagkakaunawa ko. Ang CA binalewala ang PRC Res 31 na nagsagawa ng statistical change formula. Sa Res 31 sa test 3 tinanggal ang 20 leaked questions at sa test 5 naman, binaba mula 20% sa 10% ang weight o share. Sa CA decision""Such prefatory (whereas) clauses therefore inform us of the lack of need to wholly invalidate 20 questions of test 3 and to tone down the weight of test 5 from 20 percent to 10 percent (in computing the overall score). There was no need for the respondents to ignore the true results of tests 3 and 5 because as admitted by PRC and Board of Nursing in their memorandum: there was no unusual upward pull in tests 3 and 5, no clustering of scores, no remarkable rise in the performance of the regional examination sites, no widespread leakage and no preponderant evidence on who knowingly benefited from the 90 leaked questions based on the test results," the court ruling stated."
Ang mahalaga dsa pagbabalewala ay ang napagalaman(malamang mula sa NBI na ang leakage ay hindi malawakan at hindi naapektuhan ang buong exam. Ang ibig sabihin nito binalewala ng CA ang epekto ng leakage kaya hinayaan kung ano talaga ang resulta ng exam. Ngayon sa tanong mo doon sa kadaming reviewees, pati sila papayagang magoath at makalisensya pero pag may nag kainteres at napatunayan na nakinabang sila, saka pa lang sila kakasuhan. Pero malabo ito dahil mismong NBI nagsasabi na "difficult at impractical"Doon naman sa pagkakabalewala sa Res 31, naibalik yong 1thou plus na kasama sa unang lumabas sa dyaryo at inalis naman yong nadagdag na 1600 plus. Abg magada sa CA ruling ay ang sumusunod."It emphasized that ordering a retake would not only be too costly for the government, but it would be costlier for the examinees who hardly have the financial means for another examination.
"Besides, the challenged nursing licensure examination is not supposed to address problems on credibility," it said.
"Having found, based on unrefuted evidence, that there was no widespread leakage, and absent any preponderant evidence on who specifically benefited therefrom, a ‘retake’ will be too drastic a pill for the examinees to absorb," the court said.
Di man tuwiran o sa magandang paraan sinabi ng CA'o sige mali yong Res 31 kaya may retake" pero ang mahalaga ay ang sinabi na tama ang NBI/PRC, walang malawakang pandaraya at kung mayron man walang epekto sakadalisayan ng naganap na eksamen at tungkol sa stigma, balewala yan dahil ang board exam ay hindi naman paraan para masukat ang kredibilidad. Ngayon doon naman sa nabiyayaan ng leakage kung galit kayo habulin ninyo isa isa. NBI ayaw, malacanang ayaw. Palagay ang maghahabol, UST, UP, Dennis Bautista, Abs CBN etc at yong malalakas manggatong.Hahabulin kaya nila isaisa yong umaattend sa last briefing ng inress, gapuz at pentagon. Aba pag ginawa nila yan, matidi talaga galit nila personal.
Posted by
Anonymous |
4:04 PM
THANKSGIVING MASS TODAY(SUN) AT 5:30PM AT LORETO CHURCH, EARNSHAW, SAMPALOC, MANILA...BRING FRIENDS AND FAMILIES..INGATZ
Posted by
Anonymous |
2:59 PM