This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on November 10, 2025 - November 16, 2025
As the first Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) cohort without the experience of sitting the UPSR or PT3 begins their exams this week, questions are resurfacing about whether the removal of these national assessments has left a gap in the education system. The intention behind abolishing them — to reduce exam pressure and promote holistic learning — was well-meaning.
Yet, in practice, the absence of clear academic checkpoints has created uncertainty about students’ progress, readiness and learning consistency across schools. It is time to re-examine whether bringing back structured national assessments, in an improved and less punitive form, could restore balance, accountability and motivation in our education journey.
Introduced in 2017, TP1-TP6 refers to the Tahap Penguasaan (Levels of Mastery) used in the Pentaksiran Bilik Darjah (PBD) — the classroom-based assessment system that replaced traditional exam grades like A, B or C. It is part of the Ministry of Education’s (MoE) effort to shift from rote exam results to a more descriptive and developmental assessment of student learning.
How are TP1-TP6 used? Teachers assess students throughout the year — in class work, projects, discussions and assignments. The TP level represents a summary of progress for each subject. It replaces the traditional exam marks, for example, 85% = A). Its purpose is to reflect how well students have understood and can apply what they have learnt — not just what they can memorise — to provide constructive feedback for teachers, students and parents on areas that need improvement and to support a more personalised and less exam-centric education system.
Further introduced in 2022, UASA (Ujian Akhir Sesi Akademik) also contributes to determining the final TP level for the year. It serves as a standardised end-of-year assessment for primary and lower secondary students (Years 4 to 6 and Forms 1 to 3). It aims to replace the role of major exams like UPSR and PT3 to provide a summative measure of what students have learnt over the academic year and to support the PBD, or classroom-based continuous assessment, by offering a national-level reference point.
It is conducted once a year, typically at the end of the school session. Questions are prepared by the MoE through the Examination Board (Lembaga Peperiksaan) while schools administer the tests simultaneously nationwide, but the marking and grading are done at the school level based on ministry-provided rubrics. It covers core subjects such as Bahasa Melayu, English, Mathematics, Science and other key subjects according to the level.
UASA is meant to offer a balanced approach between continuous classroom assessment and national benchmarking, encourage students to view assessment as a part of learning, not as a high-pressure event, and provide teachers and parents with data on a student’s progress without the stress of a national exam.
Some teachers and parents argue that UASA still resembles an exam in structure and stress level, especially for older students. There is inconsistency in marking standards across schools and that it may not fully address the need for national benchmarking, leading to renewed calls for reintroducing structured exams like PT3.
Over the past few years, teachers and parents alike have observed growing disparities in student performance and preparedness. Without national benchmark exams like UPSR and PT3, there is no common measure to gauge learning progress between schools or regions. Continuous assessment through the PBD was meant to fill this role, but its implementation has varied widely — some schools apply rigorous standards, while others take a more lenient approach. As a result, many students reach upper secondary without the exam experience or academic discipline that earlier cohorts gained through UPSR and PT3, leaving them less confident and less accustomed to structured assessment when facing SPM.
In the absence of formal checkpoints, parents and schools have increasingly turned to private tuition, mock exams and external assessments to monitor progress — effectively recreating the exam culture that the reforms sought to eliminate. This reliance not only places a financial strain on families but also widens inequality between urban and rural students, as access to such resources varies greatly. Moreover, without the structure and discipline that national exams encourage, many students struggle with goal-setting and sustained focus. The result is a system that risks favouring self-motivated learners while leaving behind those who need clearer targets and measurable milestones to stay on track.
PBD has failed in its implementation. It still lacks a clear and transparent evaluation — which is the real problem that needs to be resolved. Neither parents nor teachers are confident that PBD has got the students learning. PBD needs to go through rigorous quality checks, control and even independent audits.
However, rather than reinstating national examinations, the focus should be on improving the consistency and credibility of PBD. With better teacher training, moderation systems and digital assessment tools, schools can still ensure a fair and transparent evaluation without reverting to an exam-oriented model.
Ultimately, Malaysia’s assessment reforms will only succeed if they reinforce the purpose of education — to nurture understanding, not memorisation; progress, not pressure.
Datin Noor Azimah Abdul Rahim is chairman of the Parent Action Group for Education (PAGE) Malaysia, an educational lobby group that serves as a channel between concerned parents, the Ministry of Education and other educational stakeholders
Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.
P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's App Store and Android's Google Play.