My daughter is writing the Secondary Entrance Assessment (SEA) exam next year, so I have been coaching her in creative writing and comprehension. I can’t speak to the mathematics part of the exam, being a maths dunce myself, but, as a professional writer, it seems to me that the language arts paper promotes poor pedagogy.

In my estimation, the vocabulary range and grammar complexity tested are not necessary until a child is in Form Three. The language arts paper is calibrated for children who, like my daughter, are in the 97th percentile and above. This undermines the scaffolding required to ensure less able students can cope with secondary school.

It seems to me that the people setting the exams are more concerned with maintaining ‘high standards’ than constructing an exam that tests whether children are learning what they need. (I am particularly irked by the creative writing rubrics, which actually contravene good writing practices.)

I believe the SEA should be kept to sort children into different types of secondary schools. But the exam’s inappropriate content undermines the academically challenged children, who need constant scaffolding from First Year to Standard Five to learn the basics of reading and writing.

It’s called ‘primary’ school for a reason.

Kevin Baldeosingh
Freeport