From a Concerned Educator
The decision to abolish the UPSR primary school examination and PT3 lower secondary exam in 2021-2022 was initially welcomed as a bold move towards holistic learning.
However, after several years of implementation, the realities on the ground reveal a system struggling with inconsistencies, uncertainty, and unintended inequality.
As classrooms across the nation grapple with the weaknesses of the PBD classroom-based assessment, it has become increasingly clear that reinstating UPSR and PT3 is not a nostalgic return to the past, but a necessary step towards restoring fairness, integrity, and credibility in our education system.
PBD was introduced with well-meaning intentions, yet its practical execution has exposed significant flaws.
Teachers consistently report that guidelines for awarding Tahap Penguasaan achievement levels are broad, vague, and unevenly interpreted.
Without clear, standardised benchmarks, teachers are often forced to rely on personal judgment rather than objective criteria.
This ambiguity produces glaring disparities, where students of similar ability can receive vastly different TPs simply because they were assessed by different teachers.
Such variation undermines the very purpose of having a national standard and erodes confidence in the system.
Bias in assessment
More worrying is the way PBD unintentionally opens the door to bias. Although most teachers are committed and ethical, the structure of PBD makes complete impartiality nearly impossible.
Because assessment is tied closely to classroom interactions, parents and students have reported that TPs often reflect factors unrelated to academic achievement.
Parental involvement in class “gotong-royong,” donations of classroom supplies, or assistance with school events can subtly influence how students are perceived and ultimately assessed.
When these non-academic factors become entangled with formal evaluation, PBD ceases to be a measure of learning and becomes a reflection of privilege, proximity, and personal relationships.
A national assessment system should never hinge upon who sweeps a classroom or who sponsors materials.
The pushback against reintroducing UPSR and PT3 often rests on the claim that examinations “produce parrots.” This argument, while popular, oversimplifies the function of examinations.
What exams can do
Properly designed exams do far more than test memorisation. They measure reasoning, application of knowledge, comprehension, and the ability to articulate ideas clearly.
If students end up memorising, the problem lies not in the exams but in ineffective teaching methods.
Instead of eliminating exams, the far more responsible approach is to improve pedagogy while maintaining objective assessment tools.
Moreover, examinations remain essential across secondary education, higher learning, and professional certification. Avoiding them does not prepare students for the academic and professional demands they will inevitably face.
Reintroducing UPSR and PT3 is therefore not a regression, but a strategic correction. These examinations offer a transparent, standardised, and nationally comparable means of evaluating student performance.
They ensure that every child, regardless of background or school environment, is assessed against the same criteria. They also remove the possibility of bias – conscious or unconscious – by relying on objective marking rather than subjective impressions.
At the same time, standardised exams provide teachers and policymakers with reliable data to identify gaps, improve curriculum delivery, and support targeted interventions.
Towards a balanced system
This call to reinstate UPSR and PT3 does not suggest abandoning PBD entirely. Classroom-based assessment has value, especially in cultivating creativity, collaboration, and practical skills.
However, when PBD becomes the sole basis of academic evaluation, the risk of inconsistency and bias becomes unavoidably high.
A balanced system where PBD complements, rather than replaces, national examinations would provide the comprehensive approach our students deserve.
Malaysia’s education system must prioritise fairness, transparency, and trust. The current reliance on PBD alone compromises these principles.
By reinstating UPSR and PT3, we can restore clarity in assessment, reduce teacher burden, prevent inadvertent bias, and reaffirm our commitment to merit-based evaluation.
This is not a step backward, but a decisive move towards safeguarding the future of our children.
If assessment is to be meaningful, it must be credible. To be credible, it must be fair.
Bringing back UPSR and PT3 is an urgent imperative for the nation’s educational integrity.
The writer has been an educationist at several entities under the education ministry for the past 35 years.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
