Why Are National Exams Needed?

published @ The Jakarta Post

There are various arguments for and against the national exams. Those for the exams argue that after three or six years of study, students should be tested. The exam results reveal weaknesses in the education system and the progress of students in each area and school. This allows policymakers to devise solutions for improvements. Those against holding the exams say that students should not be judged by a single examination but that other variables should be taken into consideration, and that ranking students does not reflect their true capacity. Worse yet, many students experience stress during the exams, which is bad for them.

I am in favor of exams. The absence of standardized national exams would mean no indicators of knowledge or competency among students. Accordingly, there would be no feedback for education policies. It is like thinking you are very good at karate but never competing in any karate tournament to confirm your ability.

Those who argue against the exams don’t reject exams or student ranking outright. The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which assesses 15-year-old students’ performance in mathematics, science and reading, is widely accepted. Although the PISA represents the performance of a city or a country rather than that of an individual, it compares education systems, and most importantly provides feedback.

To me, the arguments against exams lean too much toward the ideal education. Education is about teaching how to learn and to master basic skills, not how to pass tests.

One of the world’s best education systems can be found in Finland, where descriptive feedback is adopted rather than exams. Unfortunately, Indonesia’s education system is hardly on par with Finland’s. Hiring the top graduates to become teachers, delivering education at an individual level and equality for all are the main characteristics of the Finnish education system, all of which are absent in Indonesia. In Finland, the rivalry to become a teacher is cut-throat. Only the best can be teachers. The government also deems education a human right so that every student obtains the same high quality of education regardless of the conditions of students and parents. So all students are guaranteed a high quality education and no student is left behind.

In contrast, Indonesian teachers are recruited from people who just simply want to be teachers. Moreover, top graduates are unlikely to sign up to become teachers. Inequality is also widespread. Urban students have better infrastructure and better teacher attendance than rural students.

However, all the downsides of Indonesia’s education system justify national exams. Why? First, the current education system is still considered inadequate to produce smart students who are ready to compete in the 21st century. The impact of the education system is barely measured until students are tested. The results of national exams keep policymakers informed about the condition of our education system. The data should lead to improvements.

Second, it’s about making students study on their own. Unlike Finnish teachers, Indonesian teachers are assumed to deliver a poor quality of education, making Indonesian students struggle by themselves. National exams push students to learn the material.

* * * * *