Still on National Exams: Do we win the battle, but lose the war?

The life-cycle of the National Final Examination (NFE) is crystal-clear: when it is done, it always ends up with controversy. Many disagree with its use to determine those who pass and don’t. However, no matter how harmful the effects of the exam are and no matter how hard the criticisms are, the government remains unmoved. The national exam ritual annually repeats itself. Ideally, the exam should serve two purposes. Firstly, it provides a comprehensive and accurate portrayal of the quality of education nationwide. Secondly, based on these psychometric test results, appropriate measures are to take. The Education Department certainly could spot the poorest areas to help, and decide what appropriate policies are to take.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. So far, the NFE results are unlikely to be used to help identify the problems in different regions and to determine what help is necessary for each region. They are also not used to determine the rewards awarded to successful schools to allow sustainable development. Instead, they are merely used for a limited purpose, i.e. determining who pass and don’t. This limited use of the National Exams, or generally called as high-stakes, as shown in many incidents all over the country, has at least led to two serious negative impacts on learning process.

In the first place, meaningful learning experiences are more likely to be neglected. With the purpose of merely attaining the passing scores, many schools are forced to teach to the tests rather than make use of the effective learning period to allow students to investigate the subject matters in-depth. Merely engaging in test-taking strategy training apparently does not stimulate critical thinking and creative problem-solving skills among students. Memorizing selected materials that generally appear in the old tests does not equip students with transferrable skills in real life. This is certainly a superficial target. In the short run, it is very possible that we raise the learning “outcome” in numerical terms, but in the long run, it may be a misleading target. In other words, such a condition is best described as winning the battle, but in the same time, losing the war.

In the second place, such a product-oriented learning may develop poor attitudes toward genuine learning among students. When the emphasis in on the product, i.e. scores, many tend to neglect the process since the overemphasis on the results tends to justify the means. No matter how bad or unfair a result is obtained, as far as it is there, it is enough. The focus is merely on the form, not the essence. Furthermore, the issues on honesty, integrity, and life values do not become an integral part of the learning process. Rampant violations in the National Examination, such as a school principal stealing the test material and students collaborating during the exam or even given the answer keys, are an obvious indicator that honesty, hard work, perseverance and commitment to achieving better quality of education are easily neglected.

In brief, when the public policy is determined solely to serve short-term political targets, the outcomes will certainly be more harmful, rather than helpful. It is the students who suffer most, because they are not equipped with genuine learning experiences that lead them to be autonomous individuals. This unintended impact clearly provides a stark contrast with the real objectives of education. In this highly unpredictable world, critical thinking skills, coupled with high commitment, perseverance, and social skills (i.e. skillful team work), and supported by the spirit of honesty and integrity are the major ingredients of success. It is clear that the NFE makes the ideal qualities are getting harder to achieve for each individual.

A growing body of research show that the success of a country is not merely determined by its long standing history or its abundant natural resources. Egypt, for example, is known for its glorious records in the past. But, now, this country does not play a significant role in contemporary civilization. This is true to Indonesia as well. Without highly qualified human resources, Indonesia’s abundant natural resources will not be useful. Again, education for the whole population is one of the urgent needs to address.

Unfortunately, education is one of the most complex fields to measure. Obtaining a comprehensive and representative measurement of the educational achievement is thus always a challenge. However, many rely on product-based parameters, as shown in psychometric testing. This test method, usually employing some sorts of multiple choice types, is preferred thanks to its practicality in terms of its administration and its vast coverage. Despite its practicality, this test type is by no means flawless, since it specifically addresses limited coverage, i.e. merely gauging some amount of knowledge at the lower-order thinking skills. It does not necessarily require high-order thinking skills, such as problem-solving activities that involve inquiry-based processes, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

A closer look on what happens within the National Education Department itself turns to reveal a controversy. On the one hand, it supports a groundbreaking change in learning and teaching processes. As shown in the major literature released for the purpose of establishing a theoretical framework for 2004 Competency-based Curriculum, in order to boost learning process, as it claims, a number of changes were introduced. The literature is full with contemporary buzzwords such as contextualized teaching and learning, student-centered learning, broad-based education oriented to life-skills, and performance-based and portfolio-based assessments. At this point, the department seems to successfully grasp the objective reality of educational reform at classroom level that is expected to target the change in materials, methods, and conceptual beliefs (Fullan 2001). Even, in Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan 2006, which is broadly translated into school-based curriculum, it is the schools and teachers that are held accountable to determine the learning targets, what learning experiences are, and what learning assessments are. In brief, the department strongly recommends authentic learning experiences to boost the learning process.

On the other hand, it is the Department that eventually violates its own “golden rules.” No matter how meaningful the learning experiences developed by the school, the success of schooling is only determined by a single-shot national exam. This clearly indicates that the government is not really willing to provide ample room for teachers to explore, experiment, and conduct genuine learning with their students. Highly creative teachers who happen to bring groundbreaking learning experiences among students can be considered failing, when his/her students do not pass the single-shot national exam. It is a pity to see that teachers lose their prerogative rights to determine who pass and don’t, despite their being authoritative to do so. When it happens, the best that we can expect is a mediocrity syndrome in our education system, i.e. doing the most effective things to pass the exams through teaching to the tests. Teachers and schools are not wrong, since the government only targets such a short-term, short-sighted, myopic goal.