In the 1980s, I recall composing a persuasive essay titled “Floods: Blessing or Curse?” for our school exams. The core argument centered around the advantages of sediment-rich floodwaters enhancing crop growth post the natural disaster. The recent failure of over six hundred thousand students and the drop in GPA 5 achievers in this year’s Secondary School Certificate (SSC) and equivalent exams prompted a reevaluation of this debate. The decline in the overall pass rate to 68.04 percent from the previous 80-90 percent over the last 16 years can be seen as both a setback and an opportunity. It signifies a necessary shift towards academic integrity, moving away from inflated data and automatic passes that had undermined the credibility of our public examination system.
The deliberate move away from superficial excellence towards a more realistic assessment has shaken many students and institutions. Numerous schools witnessed a 100 percent failure rate, leading to incidents of parents confronting school authorities. These alarming results serve as a wake-up call for a system striving for meritocracy. The crucial question arises: who bears the responsibility for the students’ failure — a challenging exam, an unstable education system lacking resources, or a backdrop of political and social unrest? Someone must be held accountable, especially considering the unfortunate consequences following the exam results. Failure to address these issues would render reform efforts meaningless.
Authorities have openly committed to rigorous evaluation methods, eliminating grace marks for marginal cases. Mathematics saw the highest number of failures, turning the cleansing flood into a personal catastrophe for many students, particularly those from rural or marginalized backgrounds lacking access to necessary resources for competing in an increasingly technology-driven academic environment. It is evident that these students faltered due to the system’s failure to adequately prepare them for the terminal exam, highlighting systemic neglect.
Identifying the avoidable missteps that led to this situation is imperative. Abruptly reverting to the 2012 examination model post a change in government, abandoning the competency-based curriculum midway, and rushing through a condensed syllabus with minimal adjustment time for teachers and students were detrimental actions. The shift in curriculum necessitated widespread teacher training, which was lacking, leading to ineffective testing mechanisms and a lack of institutional support for learning losses. Despite warnings from teachers, unprepared students were allowed to sit for high-stakes exams, emphasizing the need for a more balanced approach to educational reform.
The recent SSC exam underperformance was influenced by various factors, including political unrest exacerbating post-pandemic learning loss, challenging mathematics papers, and stricter assessment standards. The failure rates in humanities and business studies had a cumulative impact on the overall results, although female students continued to excel, showcasing their dedication and surpassing male counterparts in pass rates and GPA scores. Bridging the urban-rural education divide remains a challenge, as disparities in resources and infrastructure hinder fair competition.
Addressing false academic achievements and failures among the youth requires educational and psychological support for both students and teachers. Reforms should be gradual, with proper administrative backing to navigate changes smoothly. A focus on foundational literacy, early gap identification, teacher training alignment, timely textbook provision, and realistic preparation through pre-tests are essential elements for successful educational reform. Responsibility lies not just in celebrating success but also in addressing failures, ensuring a fair and supportive environment for all students.