By Carlon T. Knight

The results from Grade Six National Assessment are out, or in my day, simply the “Common Entrance Exams”.  Anxious grade six students from across the island have now received their grades and have found out which secondary school they will be attending in the fall as ‘Universal Secondary Education’ has meant a guaranteed place for all students, regardless of performance.

Despite the jubilation of many parents who are no doubt proud of the performance of their children, the regular chorus of critics who condemn the exams as an ‘anachronism’ worms its way through the celebratory air.

They call, in some quarters, for these exams to be abolished, claiming they are cruel relics that entrench inequality. But let’s be clear: the solution to inequality is not to lower the bar or to scrap exams, but to improve opportunities for every child while maintaining high standards.

Abolishing common entrance exams would do nothing but replace transparent measurement with backdoor patronage, while robbing us of critical data needed to improve our education system.

Examinations are not the enemy. They are tools—imperfect, yes, but essential. Without measurable data, policymakers fly blind, unable to target interventions where they are most needed.

A 2018 UNESCO report on Caribbean education systems highlighted that robust assessment data is a key driver in closing achievement gaps.

When students sit these exams, the Ministry of Education gains insight into which schools are underperforming, which communities need targeted literacy and numeracy interventions, and which students require additional support to thrive.

Remove the exams, and we remove a key diagnostic tool for improving educational outcomes.

Critics argue that these exams “stress children,” but stress is not inherently harmful when coupled with support. Exams teach preparation, goal-setting, and discipline—skills children will need for CSEC, CAPE, and the modern workforce.

If Singapore, one of the world’s highest-performing education systems, can continue to use the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) while producing globally competitive students, surely, we can manage exams while ensuring our children’s wellbeing.

Moreover, the notion that abolishing exams will somehow address inequality is wishful thinking at best and deeply patronising at worst. Inequality in education stems from disparities in resources, teacher quality, and home environments—not from the existence of exams.

We should be fighting for smaller class sizes, better-trained teachers, breakfast programmes, and after-school tutoring for children in Gray’s Farm, Point, and Old Road, not removing one of the few meritocratic gateways available to working-class students.

As American education scholar Frederick Hess aptly notes, “Lowering standards in the name of equity is the bigotry of low expectations.” Are we saying that children from less affluent homes cannot succeed in exams if given the right support?

As a product of the Gray’s Farm Community who placed 8th in the island in my own 2003 sitting, and as someone who attended the Antigua Grammar School with many working-class scholars from humble beginnings, I find this view personally noxious.

Indeed, abolishing exams often favours the middle and upper classes, who can navigate informal networks and gain placements for their children without public scrutiny.

A 2021 report by the UK’s Education Policy Institute found that the removal of testing in certain areas disproportionately benefited wealthier families while reducing mobility for poorer students.

Without exams, entry to “better” schools will depend on who you know, not what you know.

We should look to best practices globally. Singapore has consistently topped PISA rankings while maintaining rigorous testing, because testing is accompanied by aggressive interventions for underperforming students.

They identify weak areas early and deploy targeted programmes, from small group tuition to intensive language support. They don’t blame the test—they use it as a compass.

A 2019 OECD report underscores this: “Countries that use assessments to guide targeted interventions rather than as blunt sorting mechanisms see stronger gains in equity and outcomes.”

Locally, common entrance data can inform summer bridging programmes, targeted literacy drives, and teacher training where it is most needed.

Instead of scrapping exams, we should use the data to close the gap. If students in some schools consistently underperform, that is not an argument to kill the test but to fix the inequity.

Some claim that exams are “colonial relics.” But the desire to measure and strive for excellence is not colonial—it is universal. It is how we ensure that the child in a wooden house in Bolans has the same shot as the child in a gated home in Hodges Bay.

Exams should not be abolished; they should be reformed where necessary to ensure fairness, support, and transparency. Perhaps there is room to include coursework or continuous assessment to complement exam results, but the principle of measurement must remain.

We are failing our children if we teach them that excellence is optional, that discomfort is always harmful, and that the solution to inequality is to eliminate standards rather than lift everyone to meet them.

Let us reject the paternalistic idea that Antiguan and Barbudan children cannot handle testing, or that it is somehow kinder to hide from measurement than to confront our educational shortcomings honestly.

In the end, it is not the exams that fail our children, but our failure to support them before and after the exam. Let us work to give every child access to high-quality education, nutritious meals, and safe learning environments.

Let us invest in teacher training, infrastructure, and community engagement. But let us also keep our exams—reformed, yes, but present—as a vital measure of accountability and opportunity.

Testing is not the problem; inequality is. Let’s focus our energy on fixing what truly matters.

Carlon Knight has written on social, economic and political affairs and is a former AOSIS Fellow.