National Exams must not determine students' fate<\/p>\n
Mateus Yumarnamto, Surabaya<\/p>\n
Ignoring the controversies surrounding the National
\nExamination for junior and senior high schools in Indonesia, the
\nMinister of Education Bambang Sudibyo has issued the schedule for
\nthe examinations. This year the national examination will be held
\ntwice; the first in May-June and the second in October. The
\nsecond examination is meant to give an additional opportunity for
\nstudents to pass. The government insists that a national
\nexamination is needed to maintain quality and establish a
\nnational standard for junior and senior high schools.<\/p>\n
The goals of the national examination sound quite reasonable,
\nhowever in practice there has been much criticism. Last year, a
\ncontroversy erupted on the score conversion used, which was
\nconsidered not to be transparent. Parents complained bitterly
\nabout the fairness of the conversion and schools complained of
\ninconsistency. The outcry was such that authorities eventually
\nhad to withdrew the controversial conversion.<\/p>\n
Educational practitioners have also criticized the exam. The
\nbig question they ask is "what for?" Do we need a national
\nexamination to improve the quality of education? Keeping in mind
\nthat the government has promoted school-based management that
\npromotes their autonomy, so that in future each school will have
\nroots in its local community and can meet the demand of that
\ncommunity. Furthermore, each school has its own identity and its
\nown uniqueness and strengths. This school-based management system
\nwas developed to deal with the problems of a centralized
\neducational system, applied since Soeharto's New Order regime
\ntook power in 1965. The national examination system is simply not
\nin line with the policy of school-based management.<\/p>\n
The government believes that standardized national
\nexaminations can improve the quality of education since students
\nand schools will try harder in order to meet the demands of
\npassing it. However, education deals with human beings, and the
\nprocess of education is not like a production process in a
\nfactory. The examination is used to test the accumulation of
\nknowledge and skills mastered by students during the educational
\nprocess and test questions have been carefully framed based on
\ncertain statistical considerations. Consequently, the examination
\nmeasures not the whole achievement of students, but merely a
\npart: the cognitive faculty. The process of education, on the
\nother hand, considers human beings as unique creatures with
\ndiverse and dynamic personalities. Their achievement, therefore,
\ncannot simply be measured using a standardized test.<\/p>\n
National standardized tests can be manipulated. Instead of
\nimproving teaching-learning processes in the classroom, schools
\nwill rather develop drilling techniques to anticipate the
\nexamination. As a result, scores in the national exams will
\nprobably be higher, but will not reflect the quality of
\neducation. Learning, once again, drops to the lowest common
\ndenominator. It lacks interest -- no creativity, no fun, no
\nexploration.<\/p>\n
How about the teachers? By conducting national examinations,
\nwill teachers improve and develop their skills and knowledge? All
\nthey have to do is prepare their students for the exam. What then
\nis the point of individualized learning by preparing modules and
\ninteresting activities if in the end students face an examination
\nthat has no concern for the affective and creative aspects of the
\nstudent's education? What is the point of paying more attention
\nto the uniqueness of a student's personality if in the end they
\nface a standardized and uniform test that has no concern for
\nindividual uniqueness? The biggest concern of teachers will be
\nequipping themselves with test-drill resource packs, a quick and
\neasy way to be called a good teacher.<\/p>\n
So what is the purpose of this national examination system?
\nThe answers vary. For the government, a standardized national
\ntest means it can control the quality of schools so that in
\nfuture every school in the nation can meet the minimum demands of
\nthe national standard. This year the passing grade for the
\nnational examination is 4.25 of 10 (last year 4.01). For the
\nschool, the national examination will determine their prestige on
\nthe national stage. For teachers, the national examination
\nrequires no skills, just drills. For students who take the
\nexamination, the benefit is far from clear. For those who pass
\nthe examination, other tests are waiting if they want to continue
\ntheir education. Junior high school students have to compete to
\nget into the best senior high school in town. Senior high school
\nstudents who want to continue their study to a university have to
\ntake an entrance test.<\/p>\n
A national standardized test is one way to control the quality
\nof education. The problem is that it determines whether or not
\nthe students pass a certain level of education. The schools have
\nno authority and the government does not place any trust in
\nschools. Passing students at a certain level of education, junior
\nor senior high school, is the right of schools. Schools and
\nteachers know their students best. Why should the government
\nburden themselves with such a responsibility? A national
\nstandardized test is fine as far is it is meant to control the
\nquality of schools, but it must not determine the fate of a
\nstudent.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer at the Faculty of Teacher Training
\nand Education of Widya Mandala Catholic University in Surabaya.
\nHe can be reached at mateus@mail.wima ac.id<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/national-exams-must-not-determine-students-fate-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}