Giovanni DeMartino’s letter (Do no abolish exams, TMID, 13 September) regarding the possible abolition of entrance exams is somewhat flawed because (1) he fails to recognise that the world has changed since his (and my) childhood days and (2) that the reason for entrance exams was twofold, one which he correctly explained in his comment and the second which he did not comment on.

While it is true that under Nationalist administrations many schools, both primary and secondary were built, decades ago entrance examinations served a dual purpose which were: (1) to judge the academic capabilities of the student and (2) to limit the number of students advancing to secondary level since not enough space was available to admit larger numbers. Those who marginally “failed” had to be held back another year.

As an example, if a student obtained a 49 per cent mark in one of the exams, he was deemed to have failed while someone who obtained a 50 per cent mark was allowed to advance. I consider both marks to be arbitrary. Nowadays there are a much larger number and type of secondary schools and the number of admissions is not critical at all.

There is no doubt that there will be serious debate regarding the exams and streaming issues but things should be put in the right perspective in the light of present needs and not necessarily what has traditionally happened. Emphasis should be on the “term results” method whereby at the end of each term the student’s progress is examined and registered and at the end of the year an average is taken and if found that the student has obtained a passing grade, then he should be allowed to pass on to the next level even if the next level means the transition from a primary to a secondary school.

This method will ensure that both teacher and student become more accountable and the parents would be compelled to follow their child’s progress by attending, more regularly, parents’ days for direct discussions with the teachers involved.

I fail to see that by eliminating exams the system will be opening the doors for abuse since the exam system was equally prone to abuses, corruption and allegations.

J. Martinelli

London, Ontario

Canada