Automatic progression sureties

Tshwarelo Hosia | Monday December 22, 2025 09:45

There are concerns from both educators and the community regarding this arrangement. Opinions are divided.

It is argued that those students who could not pass the proficiency bar at the most rudimentary primary school education level may not prosper when confronted with much more rigorous and challenging junior secondary school academic hurdles.

Those who still have faith in the efficacy of the primary school leaving examinations as an enabler - a facilitating instrument ensuring students’ readiness for the academic journey ahead are raising concerns about standards.

They just do not see a future without primary school leaving examinations.

There are two sides to any debate.

Automatic progression is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, advocates of automatic progression argue that it leaves no child behind.

It is a very accommodating system doing justice to the principle of inclusivity. Let’s ponder the world of education before automatic progression dispensation.

Before the introduction of automatic progression, students who did not overcome the PSLE hurdle were doomed and deposited into the dustbins of history.

Of course, some were given a lifeline to repeat their primary school education. Repeating salvaged some, but not all. Those kicked out of the education bracket by PSLE were left to their own devices so early in their lives.

The situation forced young boys in their early life to seek employment, especially in the South African mines and farms, while circumstances forced the girl children into early marriages or the domestic service sector. Whatever form of employment route they settled for, they were subjected to exploitation of man by man.

Automatic progression restored the dignity of children. It seems to be saying all children, regardless of their standing in the PSLE academic log, are worthy of a lifeline- a second chance.

This takes the power of having the final word on the fate of a child away from PSLE. PSLE had historically enjoyed the monopoly of power and wisdom insofar as making a determination as to who proceeds with the academic journey. Now the wings of PSLE have been clipped in the interests of the well-being of children.

Thanks to the power of the new kid in the block - automatic progression! Now, questions are being raised about the survival of PSLE. Does PSLE have any future?

Those who doubt the wisdom of automatic progression equally advance their solid grounds against it.

It compromises standards.

They argue that students enter the junior secondary school level without the necessary academic tool kit to withstand the academic instructional rigour ahead.

As a fact, some of the students enter the JC grounds without proficiency in reading. And without a reading culture, students would be found wanting across subjects.

This, they say, could be the contributory factor to the reported declining academic achievement levels not only at the junior secondary school level but also at subsequent stages.

There is an iota of truth.

What is to be done under the circumstances, to paraphrase a famous question raised by the leader of the Russian Bolshevik Revolution, Vladimir Lenin.

The need for a balancing act cannot be overemphasised. The principle of inclusivity is non-negotiable.

It is an inalienable right, which cannot be taken away or tampered with.

All interventions should be conscious of the need to safeguard and preserve the rights of children to education while upholding their well-being. This is sacrosanct.

Delving into further controversy, if safeguarding the principle of inclusivity could mean doing away with PSLE, so be it. Finland and Singapore give inspiration and direction in this regard.

Their reliance on continuous assessment as opposed to standardised examinations at the education foundation stage is paying dividends in terms of improved student learning outcomes.

PSLE is a one-off event with a narrow focus and does not give a holistic and comprehensive feedback about the performance of a child. In its current form, PSLE prioritises memorisation/ remembering/ recalling to the detriment of high-order cognitive skills of creativity, problem solving, peer collaboration, critical thinking and other tools necessary for prosperity and survival in the 21st-century world.

Above all, subjecting a 12-year-old kid to standardised examinations, which are devoid of future survival skills, is a waste of time while mounting unnecessary pressure, anxiety and stress on young minds.

There is a compelling need to abolish PSLE and replace it with the more effective continuous assessment, which would allow students to apply their minds in a more relaxed and less exacting environment.

This means that our learners could thrive and prosper in a learning environment encouraging peer support, collaboration, and teamwork, rather than a system pitting a child’s strengths against peers.

To address the challenges of entrenching a reading culture, there is an urgent need to strengthen learning from the early childhood care to secondary levels, with emphasis on reading.

Building a reading culture should not be seen as the sole preserve of primary schools. ]It should be a community affair involving active and prominent participation of parents.

And the junior secondary level, too, should embrace and incorporate a reading programme to close the reading gaps identified.

This comes with additional responsibilities, which might rightly be interpreted as overtaxing the teaching troops.

But there is an opportunity in every challenge, so says Winston Churchill.

That opportunity presents itself in the form of teacher professional development. Teachers should undergo further professional development, giving them the tools to thrive under the trying circumstances.

The goal is to cater for every child. No child is useless, and no system of education should give up on our children.

They deserve our best selves at every stage of their development and education. This is a sacrosanct approach. The right of students to education is indivisible.