Abolishing UPSR is a regressive policy decision

 

From Moaz Nair

The country’s education policy has been subject to changes and try-outs too frequently, and the outcomes leave much to be desired. First, PMR (Pemeriksaan Menengah Rendah) was abolished and now they are abolishing the UPSR (Ujian Peperiksaan Sekolah Rendah).

The education ministry is now experimenting with the controversial and subjective School-Based Assessments (SBA) for 11 years of education, which is not considered by many educationists as a wise move.

With this approach, students will sit for a standardised examination, that is the SPM, only at the end of the 11 years of primary and secondary education.

This is a regressive step that will not make students achieve much in education.

Standardised examinations

Let’s peep into our neighbour’s education policy for comparison. The Primary School Leaving Examination (PLSE) in Singapore is recognised as a standardised examination by external educational bodies though they are not used as the benchmark when students apply to go for tertiary education.

The PSLE is an annual national examination that is taken by students at the end of their final year of primary school education. And the next step is to prepare students for secondary school examinations, namely, the Singapore-Cambridge GCE Ordinary Level (O-Level), Singapore-Cambridge GCE Normal Level, Singapore-Cambridge GCE Normal (Academic) Level, and Singapore-Cambridge GCE Normal (Technical) Level. All these are standardised examinations that are globally recognised.

As for the local scene, the ideal approach would still be that after six years of primary education students should end up with a standardised examination. Students will be left with five more years to complete their basic secondary education and within these years they should be allowed to sit for the SPM or, if students prefer, the Cambridge O-Level before proceeding to A- Level, STPM or the matriculation examination. Many countries have opted for the Cambridge O-Level as this is globally recognised.

Students usually take the O-Level after completing Secondary 4 at age 16 for the Special and Express streams, or Secondary 5 at age 17 for the Normal Academic Stream. This approach is a better option as students who are ready for the O-Level can sit for the examination at an early age. There is no minimum or maximum age for taking the exam.

The O-Level, an alternative to our government examination, is usually taught as a two-year course for students aged 14 to 16 years, although candidates may complete the course over a different timescale if they wish. This is one of the reasons that some students opt for O-Level rather than SPM. It’s a fast-track approach for them to enter universities or do the A-Level. Some local residential and private schools for a privileged group of students are offering the O-Level and A-Level examinations.

A competitive environment

Overall, tests help measure the knowledge level of students and allow the teaching strategies and learning material to be fine-tuned accordingly. Like it or not, standardised tests are still the best motivating factor for students to study. It has been proven worldwide that examinations will motivate students to study.

The SBA on the other hand will not motivate students much to study as compared to having students sit for standardised tests as the former is not going to help prompt students to perform meritoriously in a competitive environment.

Obviously, standardised tests are more structured and are still the best form of evaluation. They are still the best unbiased predictor of a student’s performance. Only standardised tests account for students’ performance to be recognised by external bodies.

Due to their impartiality and ability to measure student learning, standardised tests are valuable indicators for holding teachers and schools accountable for success or failure.

Standardised tests can also help identify problem areas in individual students, as well as schools and the curricula. Besides providing guidelines for the curricula, these tests give teachers a structure of what needs to be taught. This helps keep classroom material consistent across the country.

Studies have found student testing to have a positive effect on student achievement. They have been shown to enhance learning and make it more meaningful to students. Research has suggested that the testing effect can be beneficial to both students and their teachers in planning teaching strategies.

Research has also found that tests can be valuable tools to help students learn, if designed and administered with format, timing, and content in mind — and a clear purpose to improve student learning.

As for the SBA, it is less efficient and school performance will be subject to reproach, as there is likely to be manipulation and bias in grading students. Beyond that, there will be more work for stakeholders. Results of students’ performance will be subject to scrutiny, as there is no uniformity across schools in the process of grading.

Teachers complain that they are bogged down with too many hours of paperwork to meet their own and their superiors’ KPIs instead of attending to teaching students in class. This has even made some teachers quit their job.

The issue of holistic approach to teaching and learning does not arise with having standardised examinations. Teachers can always be creative by providing a holistic approach to teaching by exploiting the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor aspects of pupils’ learning in many ways, as this can be indirectly incorporated into the conventional teaching process and also extra curriculum.

Stress and anxiety

All students should take tests periodically. They can’t avoid them. Even people of all ages must sometimes take tests. No doubt for some students, standardised testing causes a lot of stress and anxiety because they have to be continually at their studies.

Students and even parents need to be counselled that a little anxiety is necessary to motivate students to study for examinations.

Parents need to be aware that testing is a part of learning to allow students to show what they know and what they can do. The test results will show the strengths and weaknesses of students which can be used to further educate them. Teachers then will be aware of what their students need to learn.

Hence, the reason of “stress and anxiety” faced by students cannot be made the excuse to abolish examinations. Taking standardised examinations like the UPSR can provide evidence that all students are learning effectively and mastering grade level expectations after six years of primary education. It should not be abolished. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.