Regarding the announcement of the OELMEK dated 14 April 2022, the following is recalled:
The legislation and the whole process of evaluation of students has been approved since 2017 with the agreement of the OELMEK, while the Parliament adopted proposals of the organisation.
Further adjustments and improvement changes proposed and approved by Parliament in 2020 (after the first implementation in December 2019), were recommendations of the OELMEK and organised parents, as they emerged through a process of dialogue.
It should therefore be clarified that the option currently available is either to discuss further improvements based on the experience of the previous and this school year or to maintain the current practice.
We would expect to see the organisation's position on suggestions for further improvement communicated to it, both in writing and in detail, at our last meeting last Tuesday. In case the OELMEK considers some other improvement changes useful, it can certainly submit suggestions.
For example, and taking into account reports of abuses of the practice of written exercises (competitions) that are sometimes observed, our suggestion is, if necessary, to regulate this issue with an explicit provision in the legislation. That is, to provide for a maximum permissible number of written exercises and their frequency in the context of school life. The same applies to the need for explicit provision to be made for assignments (of the 'project' type) in the context of 'oral assessment'. These regulations are aimed at the overall limitation of written assessment procedures in school.
It would also be useful for the OELMEK to take a position on the two other central proposals before it for "offloading" assessment procedures. Namely.
It remains to be seen in practice whether everyone is seeking to avoid excessive written assessment procedures, as is also the Ministry's ambition, or something else.
The whole reform of the assessment process, according to the legislation, will be completed in the next school year, covering the whole of secondary education. Changing the position of the OELMEK now, before the implementation of the new student evaluation process is completed, besides showing inconsistency with its original positions, does not contribute to the goal of reliable evaluation processes, upgrading of the public school, conditions of greater transparency-accountability, as well as, ultimately, the improvement of learning outcomes.
Today a detailed presentation of the entire evaluation project, of the research conducted and of the check of the reliability and validity of the procedures carried out by the Ministry's Quality Control Team for dozens of examination essays was made at the Ministry for the leadership of OELMEK, so that we have, for the first time, scientific conclusions on which we can rely.
But it is truly astonishing that the OELMEK talks about "sloppiness" and thus actually speaks out against teachers! Because this year, for the first time, for the first time, there were workshops and coordination between the subject associations, i.e. the teachers, together with OELMEK and the inspections at the Ministry on learning frameworks and assessment. As well as, it is teachers who collaborated in the large survey conducted between the directorates or worked diligently and with scientific methods for quality control.
OELMEK has before it specific proposals for improvement that will relieve the school of written tests. If any are submitted from its side, we will consider any views or any other suggestions and proposals in the same direction. But at a time when consultations are underway, it is strange that the leadership of OELMEK is so eager to announce "taking measures". It goes without saying that if, instead of dialogue, methods are chosen that will disrupt the schools, the responsibility will lie with the leadership of the OELMEK.
Opinions and any suggestions are also expected from the ELTEK, which was informed last Monday. While consultations are also taking place with organised parents.
IP
Contents of this article including associated images are owned by PIO
Views & opinions expressed are those of the author and/or PIO
Source
