Is it right to lower the difficulty of school exams because less people pass them?

[Deleted]

Ok, so I live in Romania, Central-eastern Europe, a country inside the EU.
So first, some background, in our country you go to highschool, then at the end of it, so at the end of grade 12, when you're 18-19 years old usually, you are given an exam. This exam consists of:
-a written test for romanian language/your native language if you're a minority
-an oral test for romanian language/your native language if you're a minority
-a written test for a foreign more spread language, like English, French, German, Spanish, you get the picture.
-an oral test for another foreign language that is more spread in the world.
-a written test for either History(of Romania mostly) or Geography (of Romania mostly)
-a written test to some other stuff, you can either chose the one from history of geography you didn't chose, but this time for Europe, phychology, sociology, biology, chemistry and a few others.

Now to pass you need the average of the notes from all these tests to be at least 6 out of 10.
Last year over 30% of all students who went to this exam (about 10% of all the students that should have went didn't even show up) failed it. Now this is because of multiple reasons, including, but not limited to: the fact that our education system changed how it works almost every year, the fact that teachers aren't payed enough, the fact that teachers themselves fail their tests yet they're still kept on post, the fact that there aren't enough teachers, the fact that some teachers don't care and nobody cares to check, the fact that some parents are out of country and the relatives taking care of the children don't give them as much attention, the fact that the children themselves are some kind of rebels thinking they're smart anyway, who cares about a diploma etc. All this stuff happened in the last 15-20 years since education was a subject for test for all politicians that came to power and the parents had to work more because... well we're a poor country with low salaries.
So the Gouvernment has thought that there's too many subjects and too hard for our children and decided to remove some: they want to remove the last subject and written Romanian or maternal language(the subjects will exist, as they say, in oral examination). So, in the face of 30% failed rate last year, do you think it's a good thing to to to lower the needed requirements to pass? Would you agree with something like this if this happened in your country(I don't care how smart your children are, hypotetically this year 30% of the students in your country fail a similar exam in this scenario)?


Edit: So a few hours after making this thread I watched the news... and seems the ministers in my country changed their mind(again) today. Seems they decided that from now on the subjects will be like this:
- a written test for romanian language(or I presume maternal language)
- an oral test for romanian(or I presume maternal language)
- an oral test for a foreign language at choice
- digital competences (this is stuff like Microsoft Office Basics)
then the sciences high schools get:
- a subject in maths
- a subject combined of chemistry, biology and physics
and the humanistic high schools get:
- a written subject in foreign language
- a subject combined of history, geography and socio-human studies
and the tech high schools get:
- a giant subject with everything ever learned

I don't even know what to say now... they go from one extreme(cutting subjects) to merging all and giving questions about biology and physics in same test for example? And don't the science people need to know how to write in a foreign language? Only speak it?

[Elim Garak]

No it's wrong. The sooner you filter the losers out and send them into lower paid lower responsibility jobs or army - the better. Don't want to meet them, as practicing students during your surgery, right? Or helping design the air-plane you are gonna use tomorrow? How about an idiot manager of your project?

[TyrionLannister]

Some material is just difficult. There's no way around it.

[Deleted]

No, the exams should not be made easier...
However, they should match the curriculum set for the class they are for, and the teachers should make sure that they have covered the required material properly.

After that, it's up to the student to pass, not the school to pass the student.

[crica]

what is this thread?

how do you lower the difficulty of an exam?

if the question is what is 1+1 then how does one make that question easier to answer without just giving the answer???

[Deleted]

what is this thread?

how do you lower the difficulty of an exam?

if the question is what is 1+1 then how does one make that question easier to answer without just giving the answer???

If you'd have read, you'd have seen that, in this case, it's by removing subjects. Romanian/maternal language written (so if you're english for example and speak properly but only know how "2 rite liek dis" you'd still pass) and the last subject which is a choice of all subjects covered by all specializations of highschools.

[Deleted]

what is this thread?

how do you lower the difficulty of an exam?

if the question is what is 1+1 then how does one make that question easier to answer without just giving the answer???

Easy, giving them the answer in class before the exam...
However, something that's been happening in schools a lot over here is that the actual hours of class-time is being cut and replaced with 'free hours' that students are required to plan in for themselves. If they need extra help in maths, they go to a maths class. If they need help with biology, they plan in an extra hour biology.
The thing that happens here is that the classroom may be filled now with students from years 1 to 5 (random number) who all need help with their subject on various levels from the same teacher who is presiding in that classroom...
And even the ones on the same level might not need assistance on the same problems...
So most teachers elect NOT to give any instructions unless you're just doing your homework now and need a little explanation on a specific problem in your book.

Which means with less actual time spent in class and less actual instruction and teaching given by the teacher, the student may run the risk of not actually having been given the proper materials to prepare for the exam.
This is not a problem of the exam being too hard.
This is a problem of the schooling being insufficient.

[Stir]

This is not a problem of the exam being too hard.
This is a problem of the schooling being insufficient.

I would say Valleera has the right of it. Well; usually, of course.

Indeed, the exam should be made to match the curriculum. However, if during the making of the exam, the people making it find out that they simply cannot match it, even at the highest levels, they should seriously consider upping the curriculum. Students should be incited, emotionally, to learn. They should be enthused by the teacher about a subject. If you ask me, the most important part of teaching a subject is not explaining it, but making people enthusiastic about it. Make the kids interested in a subject, make the kids love your subject, and you're more than halfway there.

And, indeed, learn to spot when someone's in trouble. As Valleera mentioned in their example situation, a lot of teachers will not explain a problem, even when asked. I know cases, especially in math, where, when asked, a teacher simple follows the steps exactly as given in the textbook, without explanation, and then goes: That's how you do it. But that doesn't explain the 'how' at all; the child cannot learn from that. Droning up a series of actions does not contribute to the child's grasp of the theory. At best, the child is now able to make exactly thát sum, purely by memory. But unable to use the same theory on other problems.

But it's easier.

It's not lean, because it's not efficient.

So no; don't change the exams... Change the way people educate.

[Deleted]

So no; don't change the exams... Change the way people educate.

This is precisely my opinion as well, but it seems many teachers and politicians in my country disagree. The teachers take all the 100 subjects (oh yes, forgat to mention, 3-4 months before the actual exams, you're given a list of 100 possible subjects) and then just tell you what are the responses (the Romanian class teacher when I was in highschool was the worst, this was... 4 years ago, in last year of highschool we did the previous year 100 subjects in the first semester and when the new subjects came, we just did those, and she also wrote a book and suggested we buy it... it was a great book and helped but... she should have told us all those things while in class as well) without actually teaching you anything, just forcing you to memorize stuff and the politicians just see the fail rate and think "oh no, people will think we're responsible, let's lower the requirements to more students pass and we can breathe easily".

Of course there are exceptions to the rule, my history teacher from highschool was one, she explained the history in such a way that it actually sounded interesting and made you search more. Sure she gave us the exam subjects when they were available, but she explained us when and why, and to help us remember, she told us funny stories. I can still remember how she told us our first foreign king of united Romania came into country on a Habsburg ferry and because he was Prussian and the two were at war(he came incognito) when he got close to a romanian port, because the habsburgian authorities caught the idea since people were cheering from the shore, they went to arrest him since the boat was foreign soil so the prime minister just pushed our future kind overboard then jumped too. If not for this story, just remembering the years he got to rule and what he did would have been forgatten by now.

[Klingers]

I'd say you'd be stupid to ignore that there's something wrong with your curriculum is people are consistently failing them, but lowering the standards isn't the answer.

Look at the teaching methods and the syllabus content. Is it relevant, well-thought, has it been bogged down with unnecessary "hobby" subjects that detract from the basics?

I cringed a few years ago when I heard in New Zealand they weren't allowed to mark people down for using SMS short-hand in their exams.

[Deleted]

Here in Portugal we have to do a math test and a portuguese language test, we can also choose to do a test for other subjects if we need them for university. I think students should decide what exams they want to do, being required to do mandatory exams is stupid because they might be useless for some students. Also most stuff you learn in highschool will be useless in your future.

[Stir]

Here in Portugal we have to do a math test and a portuguese language test, we can also choose to do a test for other subjects if we need them for university. I think students should decide what exams they want to do, being required to do mandatory exams is stupid because they might be useless for some students. Also most stuff you learn in highschool will be useless in your future.

While it is true that most information will be relatively useless in your future, there are a few important reasons for not following your idea:
#1: The human brain doesn't stop developing until you're about 25. Even after that, the brain develops, but a lot more slowly; 25-ish is the age of your brain reaching maturity.
In lieu of this, you need stimulation, not specialization, to further develop your brain.
#2: If students were to decide on the kinds of exams they wanted, they would pick only the few that they personally like best (or score the easiest grades on). You get the so-called 'fun packages,' which are absolutely useless in later life. The Netherlands actually tested this kind of education in the past, and it did not work, because they simply couldn't meet the demands of curriculum for later studies.
#3 In puberty, you shouldn't make decisions about your future like that. I know it's all the trend right now, but teenagers are unable to make decisions. Teenagers are unable to plan successfully, and teenagers are unable to submit themselves to discipline of their own making. This is not because teenagers are bad, but because the brain goes through very serious changes. It's a neurological fact. Therefore, a teenagers should NEVER be allowed to choose what kind of classes they would need for the future. Simply because they are physically unable to.

[Xl House lX]

If you keep lowering the difficulty of educational work... your just going to put the students in an ever dwindling effect of lowering not only expectations but overall intelligence of said students. No.

[Linkedblade]

We have the same epidemic with schools in the US. In stead of changing the tests, they should be abolished. Standardized tests are terrible at judging knowledge. Teachers should be able to teach a curriculum that interests the students. Then only the teacher should be the judge, or administer finals, for the students as the teacher knows what they've been taught.

In my High School, we had the administrators creating finals for ALL the classes. So we had dumbasses creating finals for AP classes like Physics and Biology, and they couldn't even tell they ass from a whole in the ground.

The teacher should be the judge of how well students know the class material, but the administrators should be able to judge the material taught and if the tests are strong enough. You shouldn't have people at the state/province level or federal level creating tests, as government makes for bad administration.

[Draenox]

So no; don't change the exams... Change the way people educate.

Quoted for truth, a bad teacher/book can really make or break a given class.

[Deleted]

Students lazy to study? Lower difficulty.Students even more lazier? Lower it again! repeat until students will get their degree bassed on multiplication.

[Ogretron]

No, the difficulty shouldn't be lowered. If that many kids are failing the tests, then the teachers (or school system) need to get looked into and/or punished. At least in America a lot of teachers don't even care and will not go out of their way to help a student who is falling behind. I can count on one hand the amount of teachers I've had that actually cared, and that's all the way through college.

I'm not saying the kids aren't in the wrong, but the teachers are obviously not paying enough attention to notice whether or not a kid is struggling.

[Xeones]

If the tests contain content they learned in that educational year (semester whatever) and previous information that was a basis for what they learned (like asking about addition when you recently learned multiplication). If people can't pass this test you need to look at the instructors and educational cirriculum. YOU DON'T MAKE IT EASIER.

[crica]

If people can't pass this test you need to look at the instructors and educational cirriculum.

this is just what a generation of lazy kids need to hear - they wont have any consequences for being too lazy to learn...

good luck with that

[Xeones]

this is just what a generation of lazy kids need to hear - they wont have any consequences for being too lazy to learn...

good luck with that

Yep. It's everyones fault, having a boring education system that focuses on memorization instead of ACTUAL LEARNING and doesn't even TRY to engage students is not at fault at all.