|
Should
we torture the little ones?
Let me congratulate the five little ones – Anjana Sajini,
Mihindini Amasha, Don Mehesha, Shimani Umesha and Pasupathan
- for their creditable performance in the August 2008 Year
5 scholarship examination. The first three topped the exam
result with 183 marks out of the total of 200 marks. Shimani
came second with 182 marks and Pasupathan came first in the
Tamil medium with 176 marks.
While celebrating with them, please remember that their success
story is only a tiny part of the whole picture. These statistics
will give a better perception of the matter. Number of students
who sat the exam was: 284,000. The number who passed was:
32,000. And 619 students did not score any marks; 519 of them
from the Sinhala medium and 100 from the Tamil medium.
If you look at the statistics this way, the picture becomes
clearer: eight out of every nine students have failed the
exam, and one in every 460 students did not score any marks.
The full story will be apparent only if the Examination Department
publishes the number of schools that presented students for
the exam, and the number of schools that did not secure even
a single pass. The unofficial inquiries made by me revealed
that in over half the number of schools not even a single
student passed the exam.
Does that indicate that something is wrong with our education
system, or that there is something wrong with the exam? The
opinion a group of teachers gave me was that the educational
system and the method of measurement are defective.
I was in the Chilaw district a week before the last exam.
I witnessed the hectic preparations rural children were put
through for the examination. Teachers held special classes
and parents dragged their children for tuition classes. The
children were made to do the past papers in the school and
tuition centers. In the cities too similar coaching
is the norm.
Now look at the five children I have congratulated. Of the
three girls two are from Colombo schools - Anjana Sajini Senadhira
of Lindsay Girls’ School and Mihindini Amasha Hapuarachchi
of Sirimavo Bandaranaike Vidyalaya and the third is from Dona
Mahesha Supipi of St. Andrew’s Central College, Puttalam.
The girl Shimani Umasha Attyagalle who came second with 182
marks is from Kesbewa Dharmasena Attygalle Balika Vidyalaya
in the Piliyandala Education Zone and the boy Dharmalingam
Pashushan is from Weerasingham Maha Vidyalaya in Meesalai,
Jaffna.
You will find these common factors: the schools they studied
are well equipped and their family background is excellent.
All of them got parental or family help. Anjana’s mother
helped her. Mihindini’s grandparents and uncles
coached her, and the entire school took special interest in
Mehesha. Simani’s mother was a teacher.
Mehesha and Pasupathan need special mention. Mehesha was the
first student from the Puttalam district to come first in
the year 5 scholarship examination. Pasupathan was the first
from Thenmarachchi district in the Jaffna peninsula. Mehesha’s
father is a soldier serving in the frontlines and Pasupathan’s
school, Meesalai Veerasingham Vithiyalayam , is close to the
frontline.
Anjana and Mehehsa have told the media that they did not attend
tuition classes. They did not go for tuition because they
got the coaching at home. Please note that Anjana and
Mihindini are the only children in their respective families.
Such facilities are not available to rural children. Most
of the rural schools are ill equipped and are understaffed.
I found during a sample survey I conducted that some schools
are managing with volunteer teachers who had in their younger
days failed the scholarship examination.
Do the question papers measure the intelligence and knowledge
of the 10-year - olds who sit the exam? Teachers doubt it.
Most of the questions are recall questions and the teachers
drill their students to “learn and vomit” them.
For example sketches of birds and animals are given and students
are asked to identify them. I saw teachers training the students
to do that. Questions on applications are few and when such
questions are set sufficient attention is not paid about their
applicability to all the students who sit the examination.
Question 17 in the last August examination asked: What is
the substance you should not use when you cook in an aluminum
vessel? The correct answer given for it was goraka. The examiner
should have known that goraka is not used in the north.
Question 18 was: What do you use to remove jack latex from
the hand. Kerosene was given as the correct answer.
In the north they use coconut oil and not kerosene.
I am told that the question paper is set in Sinhala and translated
into Tamil. Inclusion of a Tamil in the moderation panel would
remove such discriminations.
The questions that worry educationists are: Does the exam
help to select the best? Or does the exam help select
those who cram? The exam definitely helps the students
with better family background and facilities.
The important worry that some teachers pointed out to me was
the message the exam gives to the rural sector: You people
are unfit for scholarships. The scholarship scheme was designed
to promote social mobility and advancement. Does it do it?
Has the Education Ministry followed up the progress of the
scholarship winners? If it has done so the results should
be made public. If the scholarship scheme does not benefit
the rural sector that forms the backbone of this country,
why should the young ones and their parents put through all
this agony? When I read that little Anjana got up at 4:30
a.m. to study for the scholarship examination I felt sorry
for her and my lips uttered: ‘torture’.
|
