Recently, proposals for new regulations on the education system were submitted for public discussion. Although the vacation/holiday period is not an auspicious time to decant the opinions/suggestions of all stakeholders, numerous positions have emerged in a very short time on the wide range of potential issues identified in the proposed legislation.

Next, I would like to outline some considerations regarding the proposed secondary school entry option. More precisely, it is an entrance exam that is organized at the level of national colleges (or other secondary education institutions of equal quality).

The Honorable Minister of Education informed us: “I am addressing the students who will enter the 7th grade in September: they will have an additional chance to pass the entrance exam for high school.” This way of presentation is not much different from some gambling halls, which gently inform us (paraphrasing from memory behind advertising panels): come to us, risk only to win!

The alleged basis for the changes is said to come from the generous ideas of the Enlightened Romania project.

The alleged basis for the changes is said to come from the generous ideas of the Enlightened Romania project. However, it should be noted that the motivation for this new approach, presented on pages 15 and 16 of the document, is not specifically linked and not justified in any way.

It offers nothing more than a simple game of roulette. We all remember those who 30-40-50 or more years ago passed the national entrance exam (1st level) to a certain school. Competition was fierce, and those who failed the first and only option (the majority!) ended up taking the remaining vacancies at who knows what industrial universities. Practically like roulette, the candidate will at best bet on red/black, but unfortunately will only bet on a certain number (read, high school) and on failure (a situation in which he is likely to 70-90% of candidates will fit in) the alternative will be the meager 10% of seats left for the current computerized allocation methodology.

I believe that the only positive result of this decision will be the diversification of the composition of classes formed in high schools, which are currently in the middle part of the hierarchy created on the basis of the current computerized admission system (it is known that higher heterogeneity of the population can have positive consequences for the educational process ).

But what are the weaknesses (negative results) of this solution?

First of all, the increase in unfairness caused by the low chance of access to some deserving students, but who do not have access to the meditation industry to support them in taking places after this “no chance” proposed by the new legislation. See here great point made here on a similar topic.

Secondly, it will not be possible to create elite classes to counter the migration of super achievers (which is quite recent was illustrated in the article). This is because the proposed percentage (90% seats in the new version versus 10% in the old system) does not lead to elitism. In fact, if that were the real reason for this new procedure, what is suggested in Section XI of the Statement of Reasons (a good procedure implemented as early as the 2021-2022 school year) would be sufficient.

In fact, the representatives of the International High School of Informatics in Bucharest are even “headhunting” at the national stage of school Olympiads in the subjects of mathematics/informatics/physics/chemistry/biology/astronomy. A more attractive scholarship system together with the creation of a single class for Olympians (across a wide range of disciplines) could be sufficient.

But even one class per national college may be too many because the population of elite students (national Olympians) is not large enough to support that many special classes. In this context, if the ministry also wants to fund super-distinction, it can fund 3-5 groups per district with a maximum of 10 students each (but with funding per group equivalent to or higher than the per capita standard class of 26 students) and formed strictly according to options of Olympiad students.

Third, the proposal only upsets a system that works more than decently (transparently, with a predictable result, stably, mostly mastered by dozens of graduates and their families). The few percent of students who are not assigned computer sessions related to the current procedure will be multiplied by an index that may even consist of a two-digit number.

Fourth, if it is considered that the current system is distorted by the heterogeneity of the averages obtained at the gymnasium, the weight assigned to the average for the gymnasium can be changed. The current percentage of 20% is, however, quite low and makes it attractive, however, to make consistent and systematic efforts throughout the 4 years of secondary schooling. In fact, with a new and wonderful proposal for subjects in the curriculum areas of Physical Education or Arts or for Education for Life, these distortions of high school environments will be partially mitigated! And, in addition, in the case of the discipline “Education for Life” to have “pass/fail” grades instead of grades.

N. ed.: Claudio Herceliou is Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Cybernetics and PhD Coordinator at the Department of Statistics and Econometrics of the Academy of Economic Studies (ASE),