The Minister of Education, Culture, Sports and Youth, Mr Prodromos Prodromou, participated today in a meeting of the Committee on Education and Culture of the House of Representatives, where the results of the evaluation of four months in Lyceums and Technical Schools were discussed.
After the session, Mr Prodromou made statements to journalists as follows: "There was another discussion today in the Education Committee of the House of Representatives on the procedures and the Evaluation System in schools. The studies conducted, for the first time, by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports and Youth (MPSAN) with statistical analysis tools were presented. The general conclusion is that in the three years that the New Assessment System has been implemented, albeit in parts - one quarter in 2019-20, another quarter in 2020-21, this year the first quarter and we will hopefully finish the year in May/June - the written exercises of quarters have been successfully implemented.
We should underline here that it is not only performance and results that matter - although it is normal for each individual to focus on them - but also that, for the first time, we have reliable data on which to base our policies. We have a comprehensive and detailed picture of how well teaching, programmes, etc. are performing. We need to identify weaknesses that appear. I would particularly like to emphasise, as I did in the Commission, that it seems that some portions of students are probably following a curriculum which they cannot cope with, for which they are not prepared. We will then have to see what solutions we can provide so that at school everyone benefits from attending. The fact that there may be this or that outcome, average or higher, does not prove anything about our policies. After all, there is underperformance in places where there is comparable data - that of the Pancyprian Examinations - for more than 15 years now. The question is what we can do to bring improvement.
So far, the reform - which includes the new Timetable, the merit-based selection of teachers and the new Student Evaluation System, but also the Teacher Evaluation System we are discussing, as well as the updating of the Curricula - has worked and we have tangible results. Very specifically, we have in our schools over the last 4-5 years more than a thousand teachers - both in permanent and contract positions - who have been recruited through more meritocratic procedures. This reform will be fully implemented from 2027 and it is certain that its positive impact will gradually increase.
With regard to the Pupil Evaluation System, I should point out that, with the experience we have gained in the three school years of even partial implementation, some conclusions have been drawn. As in 2021, when some suggestions for improvement were proposed and accepted, so now the Ministry of Education is submitting some proposals, for which we are waiting for the opinion of teachers, the OELMEK and OLTEK, as well as organized parents.
- First of all, taking into account the remarks that there is pressure from multiple writing procedures, we need to see what is happening in schools. In addition to the quarterly written assessment - 20% of the total for each quarter - the remaining 60% is continuous classroom assessment, the so-called "oral assessment". So that is where the written exercises, i.e. exams, should be limited to what is necessary. Instructions are given in this direction, but perhaps sometimes they are not followed and abuse is noted. We therefore propose, even if it was not originally an option, that it should now be enshrined in the legislation that no more than one examination per term for a course taught four periods a week can be given. Perhaps even that there can be no more than two such writing assignments in the same week and that appropriate arrangements and planning should be made within schools.
- Again in the context of "concurrent" or "oral" assessment, it is suggested that there should be a requirement for teachers to assign, supervise and monitor the carrying out of assignments (those known in English terminology as "projects"). To this end, the Ministry will also organise specific training for teachers who will need it.
- As regards the assessment of the second quarter this year - and taking into account the conditions of the pandemic that still apply and the fact that we will inevitably have absentees due to the pandemic - special examination centres will be set up. As were the 'COVID centres' we had in the Pancyprian Examinations. So that children who will be hampered because of the pandemic will not be referred to the second row, but will participate in the first row, in other places. There will of course be a second row, as always, for others who will not be able to participate in the first row for various reasons. But there will be far fewer of them. So we will not have discussions, as we did last January, and comparisons of subjects.
More generally, the Ministry is open to dialogue. We accept the proposal that we have heard in the Education Committee to start, with the participation of Members of the Education Committee, a comprehensive review to see if there are ways to improve the procedures for assessing students. We will also immediately examine the proposals submitted by the DIKO, since I think that most of them can be accepted.
At the same time, I will remind you that there are two other proposals on the table that we may discuss. As mentioned in the Committee each has both "pluses" and "minuses". We need to take all factors into account and judge what is best.
The first proposal, to limit the number of written assessments, but without losing the periodicity of the quarterly assessment, is to limit to three - from the current five - the subjects tested. This would also avoid the many combinations of courses that arise in the various Directions, and the total duration of the examination period would be less than one week. Not only would more teaching time result, but the feedback process could be applied more comfortably.
The second thing we can discuss is the legislative proposal which the Ministry has already prepared since last summer and was left for discussion in due course. That is to shorten the testing procedures for seniors from three to two. It could even be, as is the suggestion heard today in the Committee by the DIKO group, to discuss a special arrangement in the second quarter in order to have a separate assessment for dismissal and for access to universities on the same day. It is up for discussion.
We are open to enter into dialogue with a positive attitude in order to improve the arrangements of the evaluation system. We only reject the logic of deceptive convenience and ultimately the populism of some who would like there to be no assessment at all, but a level playing field.
But at the moment when these discussions are taking place, at this moment, having been largely relieved of the suffocating pressure of the pandemic - the disease is of course still around, but there is a gradual relaxation of the measures - my plea is that some people should avoid, even if they do not want to, causing disruption in schools with constant questioning and a spirit of opposition or even interventions, announcements of measures and slogans.
I believe that thanks to the efforts of teachers, students and parents we have managed to keep education going and avoid shortages and interruptions, so let the school year end smoothly. At the same time, we can continue the reflection and discussion to improve the evaluation process. But we should also remember that the main issue is not the assessment, not the exams. But it is about improving, adapting and upgrading, sometimes even restructuring the curricula, so that on the one hand we take into account needs that have emerged, in the necessary spirit of modernisation, and on the other hand we also take into account the real facts and the needs of children. The aim is always to make school beneficial and to provide everyone with the knowledge and skills required by our times and by a competitive world. The aim is to give young people the opportunity to have the necessary knowledge for this age and tomorrow, to become full European citizens, in line with the strategic objectives of the EU, but also as Greek Cypriots to master our language, to know our history and to have self-consciousness. I will even say that we definitely need to do more for the knowledge of Greek."
Responding to a comment if he believes that some people are "fighting" the public school and want to level the playing field in examinations, the Education Minister said: "It has become clear, through all these discussions, that there are two political philosophies. There is a political philosophy which is trying to entrench assessment, because we want education in schools to have value, and we cannot have quality and value without assessment. There is also a logic of illusory convenience, which unfortunately resorts to both populism and a political approach to levelling. We have seen this policy of levelling out in practice when AKEL was in power and, unfortunately, in other sectors as well as education. It is with the logic of levelling that they had brought the country to bankruptcy. We must not return to this logic of levelling, we want evaluation, we want to pursue values and, within public schools, we want quality. If we do not ensure quality in public school, it is essentially as if we are pushing parents and citizens to resort to other solutions: to private means, but which will only apply to those who can afford it, while for others, absolute inequality will result.
Asked about the request of OELMEK for an adjustment of the curriculum due to the shrinking of time, Prodromou pointed out: "The time this year is more, it has not shrunk. You ask to be informed when the school year started, how much time has been allocated for non-instructional purposes and you will find that this year the time was more. It was not something that was sought, but came about mainly because of the restrictions that were in place everywhere. The fact is, however, that time has not been reduced. We should also take into account that in the last two years we have gained time from the beginning of the year thanks to successful efforts to staff schools on time. We have thus gained several days, several weeks... However, I would also like to emphasise something that was discussed before the Commission earlier. The ministry's original plan for the school year was that teaching would last until 20 May. We were reminded of this because parent representatives complained because this was revised a week early. But why did this happen? Because at the time the OELMEK, citing regulations, demanded a shortening. In order to avoid unnecessary friction, the Ministry accepted what the OELMEK was asking for, namely a slight shortening. However, it is at least paradoxical that the OELMEK itself now invokes problems arising from the shortening!
In any case, I would like to add that, as far as management and consultations are concerned, for the first time this year we have a dialogue and cooperation between the Associations of Specialities, the teachers of the various courses, and the Inspectorates in the Ministry. They cooperate and harmonize what is taught and at what time. This is the first time this has been done and we intend to continue it. Therefore, they cannot claim a mismatch between the time available and the expected teaching outcomes. I think that it would be in everyone's interest and the OELMEK to continue in this logic of cooperation."
Contents of this article including associated images are owned by PIO
Views & opinions expressed are those of the author and/or PIO
Source
