“His son is very intelligent; he has secured 96 percent marks in board exams.” “Samina’s son is such an average boy, only B+ in intermediate exams.” “We are sorry to inform you that you have not been short listed for a job interview because your CGPA does not match our requirements.” We all can relate to these statements. Very often, we are judged for our intellectual capabilities based on our grades. Similarly, we are not much shy of classifying someone as being very sharp or intellectually sub-average. Ironically, despite being so frequently used, the term ‘intelligence’ is not that well understood. If people are asked to define intelligence, the most common descriptions centre on ability to memories, retain and recall information. Our examination system seems to be structured around this definition of intelligence. During the last two decades, I have asked hundreds of regular schoolteachers, during training sessions, to define intelligence, and interestingly, almost all started from ability to memories. But once provided with an opportunity to deliberate on nature of intellectual capabilities, they moved on to describing it as an ability to learn new things, problem solving, adapting to new environment, understanding environmental requirements, and applying learned facts and skills in new situations. Over the years, many psychologists and educationists have studied intelligence. Different theories of intelligence emphasize its differed aspects. In early 1900s, psychologists like Charles Spearman described intelligence as a general ability that was required to do any intellectual task. With the passage of time it was discovered that it was not one general ability; rather, there were different types of intelligence. Gardener’s theory gives eight types of intelligences and describes that variable intellectual capacity in different aspects explains performance of different individuals on different tasks. A good player has good kinesthetic intelligence; motivational speakers, writers and politicians have stronger verbal and linguistic skills; and engineers and scientists are very smart in terms of logical mathematical intelligence. On the other hand, a highly intelligent persons in terms of naturalistic intelligence can be average or below average in interpersonal intelligence. In order to make our examination system learner-friendly, reliance on one-time rote memory based testing has to be discouraged Another interesting dimension in academic performance is learning style. If we keenly observe, it becomes quite apparent that each individual has specific learning preferences. For example, a student prefers learning through different visual representations like flow charts, diagrams and drawing, while another student naturally remembers most of the words said by the teacher during lecture. Some students report that they prefer to learn by doing. These are all different learning styles. If learning is actually so diverse in terms of learning preferences and potential for learning, our current teaching and assessment practices become a big question mark. A typical class normally offers learning material mostly in auditory or written mode, lacking the ability to engage learners with different learning styles. Very limited sets of formative or ongoing class assessment are used for learning assessment. These methods mainly focus on how many facts students have learned during a lesson. Interestingly, memorising facts has much to do with short-term memory with very limited involvement of higher order mental functions. Formal examination system is even more rigid. A student is required to gulp large amount of facts and reproduce it in a specific time of examination. Such an examination system is an evaluation of rote memory, not an assessment of learning. It is said that nature of assessment guides students about what they are expected to learn. Our present assessment system promotes memorisation of facts, and significantly ignores critical thinking and creativity. There was a time when equality was emphasised, but time has revealed that equitable education is required to ensure participation and successful education for diverse learners. Equity means providing everyone what he/she requires to be successful. There is a dire need to train existing and future teachers to enable them to plan lesson, select instructions and teaching material, which suit requirements of students with varied intellectual capabilities. Supplementing verbal instruction with visual aids e.g. charts, models, presentations, and practical, hands-on experiences can facilitate learning of all students in a classroom. Assessment of learning requires serious revision. In order to make our examination system learner-friendly, reliance on one-time rote memory based testing has to be discouraged. A student who attends school for the whole year should be regularly assessed for his performance in classroom, home preparation, participation, and behaviour. Three hours of examination cannot represent a year-long struggle and efforts of students. On university level, there have been gradual changes in assessment system, incorporating quizzes, projects, group assignments and class participation into the overall assessment mechanism and giving less weightage to final term exams. We need to revise and improve our school and standard certification examinations (middle, matriculation, intermediate) as well. A flexible system for learning assessment system not only allows diverse learners to express their learning in their preferred style, it also facilitates thinking and reasoning. If we want to produce intelligent future generation we need to equip them with critical thinking and creative skills. Right now, we are only focusing on loading young minds with tons of knowledge without assimilating it into their character. The writer is a Director Programs & Projects at Rising Sun Education & Welfare Society