The Commissioner General of Examinations has apparently stirred a hornets nest in the contemplated decision to lower qualifying marks in mathematics for children to sit the A level examination. Before we go on to analyzing the rationale of this decision , if there can be one, let us look at the mission statement of the Department of Examination (2005). It says very rightly that the mission of the department is to ‘ provide guidance towards excellence in educational achievement and certification activities …’ In fact the original name board of the Department of Examinations has been changed to ‘National Evaluation and Testing Services, Department of Examinations’ . This is a very laudable change in that the department not only conducts examinations but also analyses the results ‘ensuring reliability and validity to suit national needs’. To achieve this the department always analyses the results to assist ‘the educationists, policy makers, researchers and others who are in need of information on education’. These vital needs are met by the department annually.

The analysis of "O’ Level examination data for years 2002, 2003 and 2004 reveals some interesting facts. Overall performance ( as indicated in the Statistical Hand Book 2002-2004) in mathematics for all these years has been poor with over 50 per cent failing to achieve even a ‘S ‘pass. However, the percentage of failures ie ‘W’ pass, decreased from almost 60 % in 2002 to 54.5 % 2004 for all candidates. The number of subjects where the failure rate over 50 % was 13 in 2002 fell to 08 in 2004. These data have further to be probed in terms of subjects to get a better feed back of the rate of performances. Science, English and Languages are other subjects where the failure rate is almost close to 50 per cent in all these years. This data also has to be examined in terms of districts and even grama sevaka divisions to identify patterns of failure or success. Coming to conclusions on raw data will not be scientifically valid or help policy decisions. As is well known the success and or failure could be related to many other factors such as social, economic, health, communication, logistical support from school, availability of tuition etc. determine the out put. The quality of the mathematics teachers is yet another important factor. Instead of improving these factors lowering the marks for passes/ qualifying requirement for A levels, is fooling the masses rather postponing the head ache.

The opinions expressed by the many on the subject of ‘O’ Level mathematics and lowering the entry qualifications to sit the ‘A’ Level, considered as an adverse step educationally, is very pertinent. The decision, if already taken, should be validated by a study conducted over a period of time, indicating that the children have been discriminated for disallowing them to sit the ‘A’ level for not passing in mathematics at ‘O’ level. My experience with the MOE is that it never or rarely believe in research in deciding policy, although research is taken seriously in deciding policies in other countries. We have research units at the NIE and University of Colombo. To what extent are their findings taken seriously by the policy makers ? or are they only white elephants ? In this case what is the evidence we have for the conclusion of the Department of Examinations? Is it a another political finding? How fair is this valid in terms of examinations and performance? If this is valid how can we ignore the failures in other subjects (arts and science) disallowing such students to sit for that subject at the ‘A’ levels? Answers would certainly open a Pandora’s box. These and many more questions can be raised for which the MOE should substantiate plausible answers without politicalising one of the few independent institutions we have today in our country.

Dr.Rohan De Silva (Island, 13th May 08) has pointed how such a policy would lead to lowering of the standards at the university. Already there is a hue and cry over the low quality of graduates passing out from the universities in Sri Lanka. This planned policy of ignoring a ‘S’ pass in mathematics at O level as a pre requisite to sit A level will lead to further deterioration in quality.

Having stated this, it is interesting to find correlations between language and mathematics. Studies have indicated that those who perform low in language also perform poorly in mathematics ( Ekanayake, Sedere, Disparities in Achievement, NIE,1989). This correlation between mathematics and language increases with grade levels and the same study hypothesizes that this may be due to increase in verbalisation of teaching… and as a result the student with better verbal skills comprehends mathematics etc. better while the weaker is further weakened. This study was part of UNESCO primary education project (Asia), conducted in 5 districts of Sri Lanka focusing on disadvantaged groups of children. What is the relevance of this finding to the issue of mathematics and qualifying to sit the A level? Since poor performance in language affect mathematics and may be other subjects due to poor skills in comprehension, the students will likely perform poorly in these subjects as well. If that is the case how will a reduction in the pass level of students in mathematics help students to qualify to the university examinations? In fact such students will not perform well in most of the other arts subjects as well. Thus it looks educationally irrational to reduce the pass level in mathematics since it is the subject ‘ language’ ( Sinhala /Tamil /English) that is responsible for poor performance. In view of these findings the department of examination should carry out further studies or analyse their own data, before coming to erratic conclusions of this nature

This takes us to another issue related to the quality of the services provided to the child. which includes teacher and materials. It is well known that teaching, learning and performance are inter-related. All these factors are pre-determined by the socio-economic and cultural factors and services available in the area. In Sri Lanka over 30% of schools fall into the category of small schools and environment of these school are far from satisfactory for positive teaching and learning. Unless these factors are improved, adopting positive discriminatory policies, one cannot expect much improvement in the quality of learning. The quality of life too remains the same, deprived, subject to exploitation, with the services of the state barely reaching them. Instead of improving the facilities to upgrade the teaching learning, reducing the passing mark of various subjects at a terminal point will be disastrous to the whole nation. Sri Lanka will come to be known as a country of mediocrities and ‘schooled illiterates’ possessing certificates without acquiring competencies relevant to the grade.

Dr. Rohan de Silva has very rightly pointed out the skills provided in mathematics at the ‘O’ Level as essentials for a person to transact business in day to day affairs as part of the life skills and not to turn them out to be great mathematicians.

It is true that in some countries students are admitted to higher educational institutions on a quota basis based on social issues such as caste, tribes, religious needs etc. This is a strategy adopted to develop the social capital and eventually resourcefulness of social out castes and other disadvantaged groups. But here again basic levels of merit have to be met. Although Sri Lanka too has populations qualifying on the above categories, reducing marks at O level had not been adopted. One has to qualify to be considered for the quota systems in operation in all countries.

In this respect the Education Service Commission has a responsibility to oversee and guard against institutions or individuals unscrupulously attempting to lower standards without rational arguments and supported by empirical evidence. In the formulation of the New Education Act the authors could built-in safe guards to avoid miscreants manipulating educational policies towards meaningless exercises of the nature we have been referring to above.

In brief the authorities should undertake to provide the basic requirements for children to achieve quality levels rather than lower the standards. It has always been the case of raising standards and targets in all manner of human competitions through out the world which has lend humanity to progress rapidly over the centuries. Lowering targets will reduce human capacity and development in any sphere. The MOE has to take cognizance of the adverse effects of this decision very seriously rather than taking such ad hoc short cuts and measures to serious issues in the field of education. It may only please the crowd but destroy the edifice of education altogether.