A

pril 16, p8

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. (By Erwin Wirawan, Tangerang, Banten)

Your comments:

In my humble opinion, you need to reverse your logic. Now that inequality of infrastructure is widespread, is it fair to standardize the quality of education nationally? If you know the education standard at Finnish schools very well, you would know that the frequency of taking tests is very low. Therefore, the Finnish national exam is only a matriculation examination to make students go to college or university.

Likewise, we cannot use the results of the national exams as the only source of information about the condition of our education system because answer leaks and other forms of cheating during the exams occur every year. Additionally, most proctors just let students cheat in the exams, since they are also intimidated by the school teachers.

Cheating has been a part of Indonesian culture ever since students were made to take the national exam, remember? Last but not least, it is undeniable that the national exams will force students to be autonomous learners, but do you think that they learn to be independent learners while they go to high school? I don'€™t think their school teachers lead them in such a way.

Ronaldi

I quote: '€œThe absence of standardized national exams would mean no indicators of knowledge or competency among students.'€

Students should not have to study using boring and uninspiring methods.

That they are useful has not been shown in the past either. Looking at the numbers and result lists won'€™t make a difference. If a district supervisor and his team do not know the state of education in his schools then there is something wrong.

Perhaps it is a lack of genuine interest in education among bureaucrats. Public service reform is the key to education reform too.

Jasam