The Economist - USA (2020-11-28)

14 Leaders The EconomistNovember 28th 2020

2

A

round theworld covid-19 has messed up children’s educa-

tion. They began to be shut out of classrooms all the way

back in February. Even in countries where schools have stayed

open, lessons and tests have been disrupted. Some countries

pressed ahead with national exams (see International section)

this year. A few others, including Britain, France and Ireland,

cancelled them all. They came up with new ways of awarding

grades instead. The fact that big exams have proved so vulnerable

to disruption has led to new questions about their usefulness.

Are there better ways of measuring what children have learned?

Exams have plenty of problems. They are often unreliable; a

study in Israel found that test-takers’ performance can be affect-

ed by smog. Many children find them stressful.

Plenty of places run them badly. School-leavers

in China are often set questions that require

them to parrot propaganda. Poorly written test

papers in developing countries lead to wild

swings in pass rates. Countries, including Alge-

ria and Ethiopia, have resorted to shutting down

the internet at exam time to prevent cheating.

Yet most of the world’s best-performing

school systems retain some kind of high-stakes tests, and for

good reason. Other kinds of assessments are rarely better and

many are worse. If teachers are responsible for appraising their

pupils’ work, they may reinforce their own biases. Studies have

caught them giving lower grades to students from ethnic minor-

ities or those who are fat. Grades in American high schools are

inflating fast, in part because pushy middle-class parents insist

their little darlings deserve better. A glut of top marks makes it

even harder for clever pupils from poor homes to stand out.

Forgoing exams does not always alleviate pupils’ anxiety.

Some would rather be tested at the end of their course than have

their work constantly assessed. Coursework can waste students’

efforts by encouraging them to tweak a few projects endlessly.

That leaves less time for other kinds of learning.

The pandemic should not alter these judgments much. It is

true that officials in England, where important exams were can-

celled, would have found it easier to calculate which grades to

hand out if their system had allowed pupils to acquire some

marks in advance of their final tests. But other places managed to

plough ahead with exams. Countries as diverse in their success

against covid-19 as China, Germany and Spain all held some kind

of examination this year, even if they changed the format.

In many countries the prospect—and pressure—of exams

probably helped get pupils back into classrooms after initial

lockdowns came to an end. Those facing impor-

tant tests were generally invited back to school

first. Their return helped give teachers and par-

ents confidence that other pupils could safely

join them. Kenya ended up letting exam-takers

return to school in October, even though it had

previously announced that it was cancelling all

classes until the end of 2020.

Some countries that called off exams this

year are still deciding whether and how to hold them in 2021.

Many pupils are still making do with remote learning. Wales says

it will not hold any of the tests usually sat by 16- and 18-year-olds

next year because disparities in the amount of face-to-face

teaching pupils are receiving would make formal exams unfair.

Governments may need to tweak next year’s tests, as many

did this year. That could mean cutting the amount of material to

be tested. Exam boards may also have to boost the grades of pu-

pils who have spent the most time out of the classroom. But the

most important exams should go ahead in some form. Many pu-

pils have studied ferociously throughout this difficult year. They

should have the chance to earn the grades they deserve. 7

Papers, please

Exams are grim, but most alternatives are worse

Covid-19 and school exams

Clear thinking is needed. It should start with the recognition

that public debts in rich countries, though soaring, are sustain-

able because of rock-bottom interest rates. Despite borrowing

19% of its gdp this year, Britain will save about £13bn ($17bn) on

debt interest compared with last year. While rates are low, higher

debt will not by itself demand belt-tightening after the crisis.

A different problem will arise if the pandemic scars econo-

mies, reducing tax revenue and increasing welfare spending for

a long time. The result would be a persistent shortfall in the pub-

lic finances. Yet the extent of the pandemic’s lasting impact is

highly uncertain owing to the novel nature of the crisis. The

main driver of recent economic fluctuations has been govern-

ment diktats about whether shops and restaurants can stay

open, the impact of which baffles orthodox economic models.

America’s unemployment rate undershot the Fed’s summer fore-

cast by more than two percentage points within a matter of

months. The scenarios presented by Britain’s official forecasters

this week ranged from there being no enduring damage to a long-

term hit to gdpof 6% a year.

It is better to wait to see how large a hole the pandemic leaves

in budgets than to risk slowing the recovery with premature aus-

terity. Britain has chosen to wait. More countries should follow

the example of Australia and pledge not to tighten fiscal policy

actively until the economy has crossed a defined threshold—in

its case an unemployment rate of 6%. Much as clear “forward

guidance” by central banks helps monetary stimulus to work,

fiscal rules would help boost confidence in the future.

Sadly, putting in place a new, formal, fiscal framework will be

hard in America, with its divided and gridlocked political sys-

tem. All the same, a pragmatic deal may be possible in the short

run—Democrats should accept the smaller stimulus on offer

from the Republicans, rather than hold out for the enormous

spending they would prefer. With the unemployed burning

through their savings and small firms facing a bleak winter, the

speed of emergency support matters more than its size.

The consequences of any policy mistakes will be all the great-

er today because low interest rates mean that central banks can-

not easily ride to the rescue. Governments can afford to wait a lit-

tle longer before tightening the purse-strings. And waiting is the

cautious and responsible choice. 7