Dhruba Dhungel

The students who could not score the magic number of 32 or more in up to two papers in the SLC results have just taken a re-examination. The majority of students taking this re-examination, held two months after the regular SLC results were out, are expected to get through. The failed students, some of the low-profile educational institutions and some of the other vocational institutes that have not been able to attract many students are hoping the majority of these students will pass so that they can enroll in their programmes. State educational bodies responsible for measuring achievement in the current practice of learning will undoubtedly boast of administering the re-tests within a short time and passing many of the examinees. How much the students actually do learn between the two exams only a couple of months apart is apparently nobody’s concern, including the educationists. The pass rates of these supplementary exam takers in the past few years indicate that about 80 per cent of the students will pass this year as well. However, such high pass rates without adequate learning raise questions about the reliability and validity of such tests. If most of the students are to be passed within two months of failing their first attempt, there is no point in keeping these students traumatised for two months in the first place.

There is no justification in keeping these students waiting for two additional months if they are all more or less sure of getting a cut-off score after completing the formalities of appearing in the exams again. Have they learned anything significant since their last exam that may help them do much better at their second try? The educationists will have to answer if two months are all it takes to meet the standard of education to pass the SLC hurdle. If so, why was there such a hue and cry over the poor SLC results?

The much-debated issue of a student getting a certificate even if he fails has not been resolved yet. This may help relieve the trauma of the students but it will not resolve the problems of faulty educational measurements. This is an indication the time for redesigning of the old educational measurements in Nepal has arrived. The century-old system has to be overhauled, starting from the decentralisation of the education system. Our long-held belief that the teacher is the most knowledgeable person about the skills, the level of knowledge and attitudes of his students is not a wrong one. This belief should be reflected in our educational policies. Teachers should be given the authority to predict the future potential of their students. Hence the educational measurement system should be set in accordance with the recommendations of individual teachers from schools. A system that gives the schools complete authority and makes them accountable for the adopted educational standards is the need of the hour. Many educationists argue that such systems are not feasible in the present context of Nepal. But if not now, when will it be possible? We should start before it is too late.