|
I read the article about banning school exams, which says that by age 16 students have sat an average of 70 tests . . and i agree that if the only purpose of tests is to get the grades for A levels/university, and to put your school higher in league tables then why bother - all that happens is the people who aren't very academic or good at tests just feel demoralised.
But I don't think we should ban tests, because they can work in the opposite way to benefit and motivate less academic students. Before reading the news article I also read about the student-centred school system which suggests students take a lot of tests. The difference is these tests are there to show you've acheived a 'unit', and only the unit (not your whole academic reputation) rides on the result. if you fail it's no big deal, you just keep going until you pass. The chances of passing first time are high anyway because you take the test when you're ready.
In this system testing means that even non-academic students get through school with a record of passes and not failures, and the passes mean something - i.e. that you can do that one unit and can therefore go to the next. Each one is a stepping stone, not a hurdle. This should be the point of testing, and if it were I don't think students would be in 'a state of panic' as the article says they are now.
|
