Botswana’s primary school leavers are entering a period of potentially profound change. The Ministry of Child Welfare & Basic Education (MCW&BE) has made a high-level decision to discontinue the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) from 2029 and the Botswana Examinations Council (BEC) has already begun preparing for the transition. This is not a proposal at the margins of the education system. It concerns an examination that has been part of Botswana’s public examination since the 1980s and has long marked the end of seven years of basic primary education.
For parents who
grew up writing the PSLE, for teachers who have prepared generations of pupils
for it, and for communities accustomed to following examination results, this
is more than an administrative adjustment. It is a change in educational
culture. The important question, therefore, is not whether the decision is
bold. It plainly is. The harder question is whether Botswana is prepared to
replace an established mechanism of selection and accountability with something
evidently better.
Rationale
for Abolition
The rationale
for reform is without doubt understandable. Botswana’s education system has
changed substantially since the period in which the present examination
structure was established. Universal and expanded access to basic education has
altered the conditions under which primary schooling operates, while the
country’s curriculum reforms increasingly emphasize competencies, application
of knowledge and broader educational outcomes. The government’s stated
direction is consequently towards a system in which assessment supports
learning rather than allowing a single examination to dominate it.
A distinction has
to made between the fact that the PSLE is not simply a test taken at the end of
Standard 7 and that its consequences are significant. It can influence what
teachers teach, what pupils practice and what parents demand. Examination
preparation can become particularly intense in the upper primary years. Yet it
would be unfair to suggest that every teacher or school reduces education to
examination drilling. Many teachers continue to teach broadly and creatively
while preparing learners for the national examination. The issue is therefore
not the existence of examinations as such, but the weight attached to one
examination and the incentives created by that weight.
Potential
Positives
If the reform
is implemented well, the first potential gain is a broader conception of
learning. Removing the PSLE as the main gateway out of primary school could
create more room for teachers to devote sustained attention to reading,
mathematics, practical work, creativity, problem-solving, communication and
other competencies. This is consistent with Botswana’s wider curriculum modernization
agenda, including the General Education Curriculum and Assessment Framework (GECAF)
and the country’s increasing emphasis on competencies and 21st-century skills.
The second
potential gain is a healthier assessment culture where learner’s achievement is
not be inferred from a single examination sitting alone. Classroom performance,
projects, practical activities, oral work, reading development and progress
over time can provide valuable evidence. Continuous assessment, however, is not
automatically more valid simply because it is continuous. Poorly designed
classroom assessments can be repetitive, subjective and administratively
burdensome. The reform will succeed only if BEC equips teachers to assess
learning reliably and if schools are subject to credible moderation.
Legitimate
Concerns
The PSLE has
provided a common national reference point over the years. It has made it
possible to compare performance across schools and educational regions and has
supplied information for educational planning. Removing it without replacing
those functions would create an accountability gap. Botswana should therefore
distinguish between assessment for individual learners and assessment of the
education system. Children do not necessarily need a high-stakes exit
examination in order for the country to continue measuring whether schools are
producing satisfactory learning outcomes.
A sensible
replacement would combine teacher-based assessment with independent national
monitoring. Botswana already has experience that can be developed further. The
Botswana Educational Achievement Monitor (BEAM), developed with the BEC, the
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IAEEA)
and the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), is a sample-based
assessment designed to monitor learning at Standard 4. Such instruments are
valuable precisely because they can provide system-level evidence without
turning every learner into a candidate competing for a national rank. The
Southern & Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Education Quality (SACMEQ)
can provide an additional regional comparison. These assessments should inform
intervention, resource allocation and curriculum improvement rather than become
another high-stakes gatekeeping mechanism.
Continuous
assessment requires teachers to design worthwhile tasks, establish clear
criteria, record evidence, provide feedback and participate in moderation. It
can increase workload if it is treated simply as additional paperwork. A
teacher responsible for a large class cannot produce high-quality individual
assessment records indefinitely without time, manageable class sizes,
administrative support and appropriate digital systems. If the 2029 transition
is to be credible, assessment literacy and moderation should be treated as a
national professional-development priority from now, not as a training exercise
introduced shortly before the PSLE disappears.
Continuous
assessment can also appear more humane while quietly becoming less equal. A
learner attending a well-resourced urban school may have access to books,
computers, specialist teachers and extensive enrichment, while another may be
assessed in a crowded or rural classroom with limited materials. If
school-based results are used for progression without adequate moderation,
differences in resources can become differences in grades. National standards
therefore remain necessary even when national high-stakes examinations are
reduced.
Placement into
junior secondary school is another issue that cannot be left vague. The PSLE
has been closely connected with progression and admission arrangements. Once it
disappears, parents will reasonably ask how places will be allocated,
particularly where demand exceeds capacity. The answer should be published
before the new system begins. Criteria could include catchment arrangements,
school capacity and evidence from moderated learner records, with transparent
procedures for exceptional or specialized cases. Whatever model is adopted, it
must be understandable, auditable and resistant to favouritism.
INTERNATIONAL
COMPARISONS
International
comparisons offer useful lessons, but they should be used carefully. Finland
has no national standardized tests for pupils in basic education and teachers
carry substantial responsibility for assessment. Their model rests on strong
teacher preparation, professional autonomy, national curriculum guidance and
extensive support structures. It is not evidence that abolishing tests alone
produces good education. Kenya provides a more directly relevant African example.
The Kenya Certificate of Primary Education (KCPE) was last administered in
2023, after which the Kenya Primary School Education Assessment (KPSEA) became
part of a competency-based system designed to monitor learner progress rather
than reproduce the old ranking function. Botswana can learn from Kenya’s
transition, but it should not copy it mechanically.
The same
caution applies to Southern Africa. South Africa’s system should not be
described as having simply replaced examinations with continuous assessment.
Its Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) combine school-based
assessment with formal examinations and standardized assessment arrangements.
Namibia also uses continuous assessment for promotion, but its system retains
formal assessment requirements at several stages. These examples demonstrate
that the choice is not between examinations and no examinations. The real
policy question is how different forms of assessment should be combined and
what purposes each should serve.
The
psychological argument also deserves precision because examinations can be
stressful, particularly when their consequences are high. Thus, reducing
excessive examination pressure is a legitimate educational objective. However,
claims that the PSLE itself causes widespread anxiety, or that its removal will
automatically reduce stigma, require Botswana-specific evidence. Reform should
therefore be accompanied by baseline research on learner wellbeing, teacher
workload, attendance, repetition, learning outcomes and parental perceptions.
Otherwise, policymakers may know that the system has changed without knowing
whether it has improved.
The transition
should also protect learners who are falling behind. Removing the PSLE must not
become an excuse for allowing pupils to progress without adequate reading,
writing and mathematical foundations. Botswana already has experience with
early assessment and remediation. The reform should strengthen these
mechanisms, particularly in the first years of primary school, when learning
difficulties can often be identified and addressed before they become
entrenched. The central principle should be simple; early identification,
timely intervention and evidence-based support.
Public
communication will matter almost as much as technical design. The PSLE has
acquired a social meaning beyond its examination function. Results are
discussed by families, schools and communities, and the examination has become
part of the rhythm of national education. If the government explains only that
the PSLE is being abolished, some parents may understandably interpret the
change as a relaxation of standards. The message should instead be that the
standard remains, but the means of measuring it are changing. That claim must
then be demonstrated through credible evidence.
THE ULTIMATE
TEST
There is also a
broader philosophical issue. Abolishing the PSLE can be understood as a vote of
confidence in the proposition that education is more than examination
performance. That is a defensible proposition. However, trust in teachers must
be accompanied by investment in teacher quality, assessment systems and
professional accountability. Trust without systems is weak governance; systems
without professional trust become bureaucracy.
Botswana
therefore has a limited but important window between the policy decision and
full implementation. The country should use the planned pilot period to test
new assessment arrangements, test placement mechanisms, consult teachers and
parents, establish moderation procedures, strengthen early literacy and
numeracy interventions, and publish evidence from the pilot exercise. The
transition should be judged not by how quickly the PSLE disappears, but by
whether the replacement system measures learning more fairly and supports
better teaching.
The PSLE served
an important purpose in Botswana’s primary educational history. Its abolition
does not make examinations inherently wrong, nor does it make continuous
assessment inherently superior. It creates an opportunity to build a more
balanced assessment system in which national monitoring protects standards
while classroom assessment captures the development of the whole learner.
The ultimate
test of this reform will therefore come after the headlines have faded. Can
Botswana identify a child who is struggling to read early enough to intervene?
Can it recognize genuine mathematical understanding rather than memorized
procedures? Can parents trust the placement system? Can a learner in a rural
school receive the same recognition of achievement as a learner in a
well-resourced urban school? Can policymakers tell, from reliable evidence,
whether the education system is improving?
If Botswana can
answer those questions convincingly, the end of the PSLE will be more than the
disappearance of an examination. It will represent a shift towards a system in
which assessment serves learning, national standards remain visible, and
accountability is shared by teachers, schools, parents and the state. That is
the reform worth pursuing.
Oabona Moses Sello
Teacher, Blogger & Writer
Grab a copy of his published
book titled “CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH
FROM AFRICA; BOTSWANA.”
obmsello@gmail.com/+267 73 352 030
No comments:
Post a Comment