Are high stakes exams and assessments still relevant? | OECD Education and Skills
- 19 hours ago
- 4 min read
A summary of the OECD Webinar | January 29
For those of us in Aotearoa, this OECD webinar should not be read as distant international commentary. It arrives at a time when conversations about secondary assessment and certification reform are underway, and its insights deserve careful consideration. The OECD’s framework of fairness, credibility, relevance, and manageability offers a disciplined lens through which to evaluate any proposed changes. Before adjusting weightings or structures, we must be clear about purpose. |
As discussions about secondary certification reform continue in Aotearoa, we’re asking our community:
What is the primary purpose of a secondary qualification?
0%A fair and reliable university entrance filter
0%A broad recognition of diverse learner capability
0%A credible credential for employment pathways
0%It must serve all three
Are high stakes exams and assessments still relevant?
On 29 January, the OECD hosted a webinar discussing a question that continues to surface in education systems worldwide:
Are high-stakes exams still fit for purpose?
It is a question that refuses to go away. And perhaps that is because it sits at the intersection of fairness, credibility, student wellbeing, labour market signalling, and social mobility.
The webinar explored findings from the OECD report The Theory and Practice of Upper Secondary Certification, which analysed 71 certification systems across 38 countries.
Rather than arguing for or against exams, the discussion focused on something more foundational.
What is upper secondary certification actually for?
Four Principles Worth Sitting With
The OECD framed the discussion around four principles:
Fairness
Credibility
Relevance
Manageability
Fairness requires that students have equal opportunity to demonstrate what they know and can do.
Credibility requires that results are comparable and trusted across schools, universities, and employers.
Relevance demands that certificates reflect the knowledge and capabilities young people need for both current and future contexts.
Manageability reminds us that systems must be sustainable for students and teachers. When assessment overload becomes normalised, reform fatigue follows.
That last principle is rarely headline material, but it may be the one that determines whether reform succeeds or collapses.
France and Sweden: Different Histories, Similar Pressures
The most thought-provoking part of the discussion was hearing how two very different systems are responding to similar tensions.
France historically relied heavily on final written examinations. Since 2019, reforms have shifted the balance:
60 percent final exams
40 percent continuous assessment
University admissions now rely heavily on two years of school reports. Students still must pass the final examination, but ongoing performance plays a significant role in progression.
Sweden, by contrast, has traditionally relied on teacher grading. Its current reform direction is to strengthen national exams to calibrate grades between schools and address inconsistencies.
Two countries. Opposite starting points. Converging toward balance.
The takeaway is uncomfortable in its simplicity. Systems at both extremes eventually encounter trade-offs. Purely exam-driven models risk narrowing learning. Fully teacher-based systems risk losing comparability and public confidence.
Hybrid approaches appear to be the emerging norm.
Exams and Student Wellbeing
The relationship between exams and anxiety is often presented as settled. The OECD analysis suggests it is more complex.
Using PISA mathematics anxiety data, the report found no significant relationship between the proportion of students taking exams and levels of mathematics anxiety.
That does not dismiss wellbeing concerns. It does complicate the narrative.
Continuous assessment, portfolios, and coursework can also generate sustained stress. When high-stakes evaluation stretches across an entire year, pressure does not disappear. It simply changes form.
The question may not be whether exams cause anxiety. It may be how assessment systems distribute pressure and how visible that pressure becomes.
Skills Beyond Recall
Modern curricula emphasise critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and adaptability.
These are not easily measured through traditional timed written examinations.
The webinar highlighted a range of approaches being used internationally:
Project-based assessment
Portfolios
Oral examinations
Practical demonstrations
Workplace evaluation in vocational tracks
Vocational systems in particular often involve employers in assessment processes, whether through placements, evaluation reports, or participation in juries.
That introduces its own challenges, including consistency and potential bias, but it also ensures alignment with labour market realities.
The broader issue is not whether exams can assess higher-order thinking. They can, if designed carefully.
The issue is whether assessment systems collectively reflect the breadth of what societies say they value.
The AI Question
Artificial intelligence surfaced repeatedly during the webinar.
Two concerns dominate:
Students using generative AI in coursework
Systems using AI in grading
Several systems are responding cautiously. Some are shifting high-stakes assessment back into controlled environments. Others are issuing ethical guidelines for AI use in schools.
More fundamentally, AI raises a deeper curriculum question.
If information recall becomes less scarce, then critical evaluation, judgement, and communication may become more central competencies.
Assessment design will need to reflect that shift.
The Real Question
The most useful closing insight from the panel was this:
Before redesigning assessment, a system must decide what its certificate is for.
Is it primarily:
A passport to higher education?
A labour market signal?
A recognition of broad competencies?
A mechanism for selection?
Without clarity of purpose, reform becomes reactive.
Perhaps the most important takeaway from the 29 January OECD discussion is not that exams are good or bad.
It is that upper secondary certification sits at a crossroads.
Between selection and recognition.
Between equity and comparability.
Between manageability and ambition.
And that balance is rarely static.
Comments