Anhui announced the University entrance exam "glass door" results of the survey:-entrance examiners disposed in accordance with provisions, Proctor, the glasses-IT information
According to Anhui daily reports: candidates glasses suspicious, halfway through the exam, the examiner took glasses , candidates say the tests are subjected to great effect, and have identified a candidate glasses without problems, not cheating tools. After our exclusive coverage of this event June 13, has aroused extensive concern. Yesterday, shitai County Education Board announced the test detection video surveillance investigation to verify the incident, the County Education Bureau, examiners actions and dispose of in accordance with the relevant provisions.
However, the glasses right candidate Yes, examiners and compliance, but the effects of this incident has aroused widespread controversy? Clearly, a thought-provoking place.
[Playback] prior to examination candidates passed through detector detection
June 7 morning exam prepared ringtones ring had, 8 points 17 points 37 seconds, arts 3rd examination room b Proctor Member door into examination room, 8 points 19 points 22 seconds, b Proctor member with handheld detector began check 1th, candidates; 8 points 20 points 08 seconds, b Proctor member with handheld detector check 2nd, candidates (was received go glasses of candidates round round), check 1, and 2nd, candidates shoes Shi security equipment issued alarm voice, b Proctor Member again began detection, from 1th, began by sequence detection, and requirements candidates signature Hou in corresponding seat sat good.
Due to a small number of candidates to the bathroom, Bob Proctor made a review of these candidates, 8 42 minutes and 10 seconds, in order for all the candidates examined.
Abnormal examinations detected two candidates in glasses
After the formal examination, 9, 28 minutes and 22 seconds, the examination as invigilators as prohibited goods inspection processes and considerations, hand-held detectors and empty road from among candidates in order to detect.
10:22 minutes 36 seconds, b examiner again hand-held probe in the probe sequence on examinee hollow road, 10:22 minutes 41 seconds, detect 2nd when candidates, vibration detector, b examiner to check the 2nd candidates glasses.
10:24 minutes 20 seconds, a vibration detector when the 24th candidate is detected, examiners check the 24th candidate b glasses and glasses Proctor test, after the glasses to the candidate.
Ask invigilators after two candidates away glasses
Findings of the later b examiner at the examination room door to the floor discipline and teach in chizhou City Bureau reporting; according to the relevant requirements, 10 36 minutes and 48 seconds, b examiner has no 2nd glasses to invigilate, 24th candidates, placed in front of the main Proctor's desk.
11:06 minutes 45 seconds, b examiner in accordance with the notification or glasses for the 24th candidate, 11:06 minutes 51 seconds, examiners also glasses, 2nd b candidates.
[Disposal] teach Board: examiners disposed in accordance with specification
Shitai County Education Board said the Chinese subject exams, received a parents reflect the invigilators job specification, test centers in entrance examination for County departments and leaders attach great importance to, and immediately set up an investigation group on surveillance video for playback verification exam, the examination room and found three invigilating teacher discipline inspection staff carry out investigation to verify and floors. And released to the media the investigations to verify the situation.
Shitai County Education Board believes that throughout the exam invigilators during examiner operations and dispose of in accordance with the 2016, Anhui Province general college entrance examination manual requests. Detectors appeared, and why?
It currently has an unanswered mystery, two glasses of candidates do not cheat tool, two pairs of glasses in the exam pass detection, and test trigger detectors "alarm". A test so many candidates who wear glasses, why only two glasses of this trigger "alerting"?
This is the spectacle of materials problems? Is a handheld detector question? Or invigilator at all problems?
Examiner to blame, cause not cause?
One close involved thing Proctor member of people told reporter, he and that name Proctor teacher chat had this thing, she is a work is seriously of people, also not first times participate in Proctor has, found detector "alarm" Hou, she is in asked has tour test Member Hou by requirements received go two name candidates glasses of, in this pieces thing Shang was people accused she somewhat "cause".
He said, some ugly things on the Internet, this instructor has been alarming.
Yesterday, Anhui commercial news reporters from shitai County Public Security Bureau confirmed Proctor police said.
Girl exam affected, depressed
Yesterday, the candidates rounded, "said glasses Yes, instructor and I also right, that's what causes exams were disturbed? And because the first test was a serious interference also affected test playing behind me. ”
It is understood that, in this case, candidates round went to three last year, but did not go to school, but try it again for a year. This year, she tried to get into a better College, unexpectedly encounter such a thing. Most people think that great impact on candidates
Several parties are not at fault, what's wrong?
NetEase launched an online poll, red point is "suspicious examiner suspected glasses, take identification beyond reproach"; blue is "candidates over more than 400 degrees of myopia, take too much influence." As a result, more than 53,000 people took part in the review, 51923 chose blue point.
Don't let the "due process" fate affected candidates
Comment on the China Youth daily said that Proctor grabbed the glasses issue, surely didn't mean to mess with this girl, but in strict respect for invigilation duty. Programs that appear to be just, but the result is not just.
"The toughest college entrance examination," of course not wrong, examiners seem to also have no wrong, nothing wrong with this candidate, but candidates of interest clearly has suffered a loss, cannot help but ask: what is wrong? Who should be responsible for losses incurred by the candidates?
Examiners can do better-and suspect that a candidate's glasses may be a problem, can leave candidates examined after the examination, if there is a problem, her grades will set aside, can't escape the punishment of a; if there is no problem, you can avoid accidental injury of innocent, impair a candidate's examination. Have the best of both worlds, can fulfill the invigilation duties and protect the rights of students is not wrong, but it happened that an incident occurred, had to make people feel sorry for them.
Hope this incident led to invigilate on the system and the way of improvement. Duties to be performed by the invigilator, not just to prevent cheating. Maintaining the order of examination room and quiet environment, maintaining student interest, as is the duties of invigilators--the implementation of "toughest college entrance examination", whose ultimate goal is to better protect the interests of candidates do?
Most accidental injury of college entrance examination candidates who take responsibility
Beijing times commented that: college entrance examination in relation to the strict, but is only a means, not an end, to create a calm and fair environment for the students, was "the most strict entrance examination" of departure. Regrettable is that in the process of implementation of the examination system, individual invigilator approaches going sideways, or even deviated from the original intention.
Since the candidates have successfully passed the layers of security, why after the exam, and authoritative identification of glasses?
In fact, examiners "due diligence" selectively: check cheating in equipment is the examiner's responsibility, creating a quiet environment for the students is also Proctor responsibilities, Proctor was putting too much emphasis on the former and ignore the latter. Objectively speaking, this "selective due diligence" should not be, because both responsibility and no essential conflict.
It also exposed some drawbacks in the examination system itself. Students Yes, glasses can't be wrong, the only thing wrong is mechanical understanding and execution system as well as the system itself.
安徽公布高考“眼镜门”调查结果：监考员处置符合规定 - 高考,监考,眼镜 - IT资讯
据安徽商报报道：考生近视眼镜可疑，考试中途，监考老师收走眼镜，考生称考试受到很大影响，而经过鉴定，考生的眼镜没有问题，并非作弊工具。本报6月13日独家报道这一事件后，引起社会广泛关注。昨天，石台县教体局公布了事发考场的探测视频监控调查核实情况，该县教体局认定，监考员的操作和处置符合有关规定。
然而，眼镜没错，考生没错，监考员也合规，但这一事件处置的效果为何引起广泛争议呢？其中显然有值得深思的地方。
[回放]开考前考生都经过探测仪检测
6月7日上午考试预备铃声响过，8点17分37秒，文科第3考场乙监考员开门进入考场，8点19分22秒，乙监考员用手持探测仪开始检查1号考生；8点20分08秒，乙监考员用手持探测仪检查2号考生(被收走眼镜的考生圆圆)，检查1、2号考生鞋子时安检设备发出报警声音，乙监考员重新开始检测，从1号开始按序检测，并要求考生签名后在相应座位坐好。
因有少数考生上厕所，乙监考员对这些考生做了复检，8点42分10秒，按顺序对全体考生进行了检测。
考试中检测到两考生眼镜异常
正式开考后，9点28分22秒，乙监考员按《考试违禁物品检查工作流程和注意事项》，手持探测仪，从考生中间空道按序探测。
10点22分36秒，乙监考员再次手持探测仪按序在考生中间空道中探测，10点22分41秒，探测到2号考生时，探测仪振动，乙监考员对2号考生眼镜进行检查。
10点24分20秒，检测到24号考生时探测仪有振动，乙监考员检查24号考生眼镜并将其眼镜交甲监考员检测，后将眼镜还给该考生。
请示后监考员收走两考生眼镜
针对发现的情况，后来乙监考员在考场门口向楼层纪检员和池州市教体局巡视员汇报；根据相关要求，10点36分48秒，乙监考员先后将2号、24号考生眼镜交给主监考，摆放在主监考前讲台上。
11点06分45秒，乙监考员根据通知还眼镜给24号考生，11点06分51秒，乙监考员还眼镜给2号考生。
[处置]教体局：监考员处置符合规范
石台县教体局称，语文学科考试结束，接到一考生家长反映监考员工作不规范后，县招生考试部门和考点领导高度重视，立即成立调查组，对考试监控视频进行回放核查，并找到该考场三名监考教师和楼层纪检员进行调查核实。并向媒体公布了调查核实情况。
石台县教体局认为，在整场考试监考过程中，监考员的操作和处置符合《安徽省2016年普通高等学校招生考试工作手册》的要求。探测仪出现误判，为什么？
这事目前有个待解的谜，两个考生的眼镜确实不是作弊工具，两副眼镜在考前顺利通过探测，而在考试进行中却触发探测仪“报警”。一个考场那么多考生戴眼镜，为何只有这两人的眼镜触发“报警”？
这是眼镜的材质问题？是手持探测仪的问题？还是监考员操作问题？
监考老师受指责，冤不冤？
一名接近涉事监考员的人士告诉记者，他和那名监考老师聊过此事，她是个工作很认真的人，也不是第一次参加监考了，发现探测仪“报警”后，她也是在请示了巡考员后按要求收走两名考生眼镜的，在这件事上被人指责她有点“冤”。
这位人士表示，针对网上一些不堪入耳的话，这名监考老师已经报警。
昨天，安徽商报记者从石台县公安局证实了监考员报警一说。
女生考试受影响，情绪低落
昨天，考生圆圆表示，“眼镜没错，我和监考老师也没错，那又是什么原因导致考试被干扰了？而因为第一门考试被严重干扰，也影响到了我后面考试的发挥。”
据了解，本起事件中，考生圆圆去年考上了三本，但没有去就读，而是选择再搏一年。今年，她想努力考上一所更理想的大学，没想到遭遇这样的事情。绝大多数人认为对考生影响大
几方都没有过错，错在哪？
网易对此事进行网络投票，红方观点是“监考老师怀疑眼镜可疑，收走鉴定无可厚非”；蓝方观点是“考生近视400多度，收走影响太大”。结果有53000多人参与评论，其中51923人选择蓝方观点。
别让“正规程序”影响考生命运
中国青年报发表评论认为：那名监考员揪住眼镜问题不放，想必不是故意跟这名女生过不去，而是在严格履行监考职责。程序看上去是正义的，但结果显然是不正义的。
“最严高考”当然没有错，监考员似乎也没有错，这名考生更没有错，但考生的利益明明遭受了损失，不禁要问：究竟谁错了？谁该对考生遭受的损失负责？
监考员完全可以做得更好——怀疑某个考生的眼镜可能有问题，可以等考试结束后留下考生细查，若真有问题，她的成绩自然会作废，该受的惩罚一个都逃脱不了；若没有问题，则可避免误伤无辜，影响考生的考试。本来有两全其美的办法，可以做到履行监考职责与保障学生权益两不误，却偏偏发生了误伤事件，不得不让人感到遗憾。
希望此事能促成监考制度和方式上的改进。监考人员所要履行的职责，不只是防止考试作弊。维护考场秩序、营造安静环境、维护考生权益，同样是监考人员应尽的职责——实行“最严高考”，其最终目的不就是更好地保障考生权益吗？
最严高考误伤考生谁担责
京华时报发表评论认为：高考就该严一些，但严只是手段，不是目的，为考生营造一个安静、公平的环境，才是“最严高考”的出发点。令人遗憾的是，在落实监考制度的过程中，个别监考人员的做法跑偏了，甚至背离了初衷。
既然考生已顺利通过了层层安检，为何不等考试结束后，再对眼镜进行权威鉴定？
其实，监考员的“尽责”有选择性：检查作弊器材是监考员的责任，为考生营造安静的环境也是监考员的责任，而监考员过于侧重了前者而忽略了后者。客观讲，这种“选择性尽责”很不应该，因为两种责任并没有本质冲突。
此事也暴露出监考制度本身存在的某些弊端。考生没错，眼镜更不会错，错的只能是机械地理解和执行制度的人以及制度本身。