I’m sure many would have read and were amused by the statement made by the Federal Education Minister on the reasons for abolishing standardised examinations and exam-oriented learning in schools.
This, according to the minister, was to reduce academic stress among students.
Initially, my reaction was “What on earth is she talking about”, but then I double-checked myself on whether this was simply a millennial generation thing. I was born in the 90s where examinations were part and parcel of education.
The question I ask myself is: “Am I desensitised by the pressure of examinations and am I ignorant of how others feel about exams – are there people who struggle to cope with standardised assessments?”
The conclusion I reached was that this was nonsense. I think everyone is in agreement that an examination is needed to assess a student’s performance.
So, why do away with it? And what possible benefits could we obtain from this policy decision?
Education Minister Fadhlina Sidek said the ministry was adopting an approach where the focus of learning in schools would be based on inquiry, exploration, experience, context and assessments that took into account the holistic development of students.
“The classroom assessment will provide a better benchmark, especially for evaluating children holistically, involving classroom assessments, physical education, sports, curriculum, psychometrics and student tendencies,” she said in the Dewan Rakyat.
I agree that we have to quantify the effectiveness of our education approach in many aspects.
Education shouldn’t be limited to simply being a textbook-based learning experience where memorisation and rigorous exercises are needed to prepare students for examinations.
However, wouldn’t abolishing exams in the first place mean we won’t have a reliable method to identify whether the students are on the right track and possible weaknesses in the policy itself?
That is why standardisation is needed. It is not a matter of seeing who gets good grades and who doesn’t or which school excels and which school performs badly, but it provides a baseline on the room for improvement.
For example, if a rural school obtained a grade that was below average in a standardised examination, this school would then be getting more attention from the ministry and Education department.
They would study the root cause of the problem and eventually, they would find that it probably did not have proper school facilities that hindered the learning experience for students or perhaps there were limitations faced by the students or teachers themselves.
This prompts action to be taken to both improve the conditions of the school itself as well as to look at the students and teachers and assist them in overcoming their limitations.
There could be financial constraints faced by the student’s parents, where their children would skip school to work for the family or other factors.
In terms of teaching staff, maybe there is a shortage where teachers have to be a jack-of-all-trades and can’t focus on their core subjects.
These are real-world challenges, but with attention and prompt action by the higher management at the ministry level and the Education Department, at least it is being addressed.
But what if there is no way of knowing whether students are performing or otherwise or which schools are struggling? This would be the situation we are leading ourselves into.
Schools will be doing their assessments in silo and whatever data collected from them will provide little to no value as there is no standardisation.
Perhaps this non-examination approach is applied better in higher learning institutions, but in this case, their KPI (key performance indicator) is measured differently.
In schools, standardised examinations such as the Year 6 and Form 3 exams were the KPI on which their performances were measured, but these have been abolished.
Meanwhile, Sarawak is introducing its standard assessment for Year 6 and Form 3 students. Sadly, we are seeing states picking up the slack.
At the state level, the weaknesses in the national education policy are apparent and for Sarawak, this is being addressed by the state government.
Sarawak is also embarking on a dual language programme (DLP), conducting teaching and learning in English, despite the fact that some in the federal government do not see the value in it.
Regardless, while many, including myself, would want to see improvements made to the national education policy, this appears to be a step in the wrong direction and a change made for the sake of changing.
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the Sarawak Tribune.
