December 5, 2004

In search ofbetter resultsin the exams, we must work to improve the whole school system in the country

While addressing local newsmen on November 22, the federal education minister termed the results announced by the education boards in the country ‘doubtful’. He justified the procedure of holding entry tests as the substitute for the examinations conducted by the education boards.

Interestingly, similar views had been expressed by the education minister in 2003 on the launch of a much pampered examination board in teh private sector. These views are utmost deplorable on two essential counts. They reflect a deficiency in the understanding of top management in the education ministry about the procedures and characteristics of the subject areas assigned to them for governance. It is also disappointing to note that despite recognizing possible shortcomings in the matter under consideration, no serious attempt has been recently made to rescue the situation.

Many pertinent issues need a thorough review in this respect before a policy decision is adopted for implementation.

Our education minister has mentioned the conduct of examinations through a private board as a near ultimate remedy! Examination is the last phase of a normal academic process that conventionally includes curriculum setting, developing teaching materials, teachers orientation and training, student intake and finally the delivery of the curriculum according to prescribed guidelines. In addition to these stages, a conducive physical and social environment, mental peace of teachers, students and their parents are entirely vital to make the academic process function normally.

Several scientific studies conducted by research groups have very clearly revealed that these ‘basic’ pre-requisites are not accessible to an overwhelming majority of pupils in this country. Only a few months ago, the provincial administration in Sindh showed concern over the non-functioning of over 3700 schools in the province. Thus if an elite examination procedure is applied to judge the socially unequal candidates, the result will certainly not lead to the creation of merit. To obtain sound educational competence, focus on examination is not enough. A holistic approach is needed.

Of and on the policy makers lambaste at the poor performance of the education boards. However, much of this allegation is found to be rhetorical as no scientific evidence has been produced to substantiate the statement. Besides, no distinction is drawn between the various boards that exist in the different parts of the country. It is common sense that all the boards do not perform at par with each other. These boards, which are public sector entities, are administratively controlled by the government. Thus it is the government itself which is responsible for their functioning. If the concerned minister is serious in improving the performance of the boards, he must undertake a past and present situation analysis to get the full picture of the scenario.

In sum, accusations without objectively verifiable claims would hardly hold any ground!

Administrators of higher secondary education who consider entry tests as an equivalent measure of board examination are at entirely wrong premise. The two entities are simply not comparable. Hence it will be blatant shortsightedness to consider entry test as a means to determine the educational merit. An HSC examination is given to students who are certified to have studied throughout the stipulated academic year in an institution. After the completion of prescribed course work, examination is conducted to establish the educational attainment of the candidates. For each course, there is a time of three hours that is assigned for conducting the theory exam. Practical examinations are conducted separately. Thus for 11 courses, average time for examinations is over 40 hours. It shall appear to be an intellectual crime if such a massive effort is equated against a three hour entrance test with a confusingly unified pattern of questions and answers. A case two student can be taken. One scored 50 per cent in HSC examination and 80 per cent in entry test. The other scored 80 per cent in the HSC exam and 50 per cent in entry test. According to the norms of merit in some private universities, both would be placed on the same status. The two, obviously should have a remarkable difference in competence level that entry test cannot detect alone!

It is also amusing to note that the ‘privilege’ of entry tests are kept for professional degree programmes such as engineering and medicine. Going by the assumption of officially pronounced sanctity of entry tests, it shall mean that only professional degree holders would require some form of higher secondary level competence. Candidates pursuing degree courses in natural and social sciences would automatically stand at below desirable level of competence, if one goes by this analogy. Thus degrees earned by them shall have an in-built flaw/deficiency.

Correspondingly, the standing of the degree itself shall become questionable.

Aptitude tests or similar procedures are normally prescribed when the applicants hail from heterogeneous educational backgrounds. For instance, Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) is conducted on a global basis. It draws applicants from across the world with diverse backgrounds. As a specific yardstick, the test only serves to establish a minimum level of competence and attainment. Other testing services also operate around similar objectives with comparable procedures. However, in situations where there is a prescribed curriculum delivered through a uniform teaching methodology, the question of conducting another entry test can hardly be justified. If it is given weightage that results in shuffling of the merit list, it shall amount to injustice for meritorious students unless it is assumed that an average student will obtain average marks in test.

Two anomalous outcomes that have evolved out of entry tests, are the mushrooming spread of tuition centres and reshuffling of board’s merit lists. The tuition centres found an enormous opportunity of enterprise in relation to a captive clientele-aspiring students for professional institutions. After charging huge sums, these centres attempted to train the students according to testing formats of different universities.

If one carefully reviews the mechanics of entry test several objectionable aspects shall surface up. For instance, some universities assign weightage to the marks obtained in the test. This tinkers with the established merit from a board examination. The case of a ‘13th’ grader, who topped the merit list as a result of entry test in a private university, may be taken as an example. Whether the same candidate becomes capable of obtaining an ‘A’ or ‘A1’ grade — if made to sit again in a board examination — is anybody’s guess. Therefore it can be safely concluded that using performance of entry test in merit listing is not a viable option.

The problems and issues faced by the various public sector boards are acute. However, they are not incurable. It requires the political will to initiate the reforms in such boards where the maladies are severe. Unfortunately the harbingers of reform process consider creation of parallel channels as the solution. Those who have been criticizing the falling efficiency and performance level in public education boards did not lay down any blueprint for their improvement. A logical manner of dealing with the issue is to undertake focused fact finding into the performance matters of such boards, analyze and recommend solutions based on ground realities.

It has become a running tradition to launch acts of policy change without a policy or morally justified procedure. The inception of such acts are simply marred by the most shameful acts of corruption and nepotism. In this case also, a faithful buddy was suitably rewarded. The **inaction of a private board was done in a private drawing room affair in 2003. Without even discussing this matter with reputed public or private sector institutions, the ordinance was promulgated and applied. Besides, the financial assistance of $4.5 million from Uncle Sam was gratefully accepted for a task which otherwise is the foremost responsibility of the state. One wonders how transparency in examinations shall be achieved by a board that has come into being through the most non-transparent manner itself. One must not be at a fault to underestimate the ulterior motives of the forces inducing globalization into this country. All such sectors that have a rising need level will be made a target. Education is undoubtedly a highly sought after service in this nation which now contains more than 50 per cent young people in its folds. It is up to the polity, especially educated souls, to take a stand on the matter. To accept the west propelled product oriented systems of education that could serve the sophisticated enterprises is one option. The other is to toil to revive the ailing public institutions as equal opportunity premises, particularly for the down trodden and wretched out masses. The matter must be decided openly through a process of informed decision making by the concerned quarters.

In the interest of educational performance and standard of this country, it will be appropriate that policy makers take stock of ground realities of the pressing issues before taking decisions or making sweeping remarks. It will not be out of place to first educate the top most policy making echelon about the status of education in an objective manner before allowing them to play with the destiny of this vital sector. There must be a process of consultation between all the stakeholders who may initiate this dialogue to highlight the issues and corresponding remedies for consideration of the minister and his associates. Unless an accommodating and open ended approach is adopted, little good can be expected from the decisions and decrees alone!

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)