The "watch-word" for any reform of the examination system must be caution, as any procedures undertaken by Matsec will affect the path of students' lives, the president of the University Students' Council said yesterday.
"It is absolutely essential that any change be made only if they can show a tangible benefit. By their nature, experiments can have negative consequences on those to whom they are applied," warned Anthony Camilleri.
Mr Camilleri, together with the Junior College Students Council (KSJC), yesterday gave their reactions to the government's proposals on the Matsec system at a press conference.
The reactions presented yesterday have been submitted to the Education Minister and the Matsec Review Committee, and are officially endorsed by the Informational Technology Students' Association, the Science Students' Association, the Gozo University Group, the Malta Pharmaceutical Students' Association and Pulse.
KSU education commissioner Matthew Mangion, who read out the reactions to the review committee's report entitled Matsec: Strengthening A National Examination System, acknowledged that the report was "excellent".
However, in considering the Matsec system solely as "an independent benchmarking system separate from the schooling system", the report understated the depth of influence the examination system had on the type of education offered in schools.
"Any review of Matsec cannot be complete without considering its interaction with the entire educational landscape and its effect on curriculum development in the most holistic sense of the word."
Mr Camilleri said that unfortunately, the Matsec reform has been poorly received by students mainly due to the highly unpopular proposal to shift the examination sessions from May/September to June/ December. The KSU could not sanction such a proposal, which amounted to experimentation.
"It is strange how a report that claims to have consulted students could come up with such a universally opposed proposal and motivate it by saying it is good for them," he said.
It was KSU's view that the rationale for migration was currently not well established to warrant a "grand experiment" that could negatively affect the lives of hundreds of students.
On the issue of private tuition, KSU believed that an urgent effort was necessary to licence private tuition providers and hold them accountable to the same quality standards as schools, since these operated mostly beyond the boundaries of the education system and fiscal regulations.
On the subject of the Systems of Knowledge, though highly unpopular among sixth form students, KSU felt that it nevertheless imparted a great deal of knowledge. However, the content of the syllabus needed to be tweaked to provide knowledge that is not only useful in an intellectual sense.
With regards to the Technological Project subject, KSU felt that it did not impart any sense of entrepreneurship, project management or problem-based approaches and it should be replaced with a project scheme that imbued these skills.
On the issue of coursework, KSU felt this was one of the more progressive elements in the Matsec system and it believed that as far as possible, this practice should be extended throughout all the subject areas and be subject to supervision.
KSU also welcomed the suggestion that Intermediate-level examinations should be made available as single-subject examinations, as it would encourage people of all ages to attain learning and certification in additional areas.
The council also commented on the fact that the Matsec board remained one of the few statutory bodies that did not have student representation.
It was also categorically against any exercise that lowered the standards so as to increase pass rates or university admissions.
"Such an exercise would only shift the problem to later on in the system, heightening the drop-out rates from university courses and fooling students as to their level of competence," the document pointed out.
KSU also commented on the review committee's point of view that excluded any university student who failed even a single credit on the first session of assessment from their definition of a student who successfully completed the year.
While welcoming the suggestion for three levels of revision of paper, KSU condemned the exorbitant fees proposed for such a service.