Petition to Review the Singapore Education System
-
This is the MOE's response to our petition... I haven't read it yet (need to run) but had an understanding with them that their response would be posted in this thread. Parents can feel free to comment. We have a respectful dialogue started and MOE should be watching this thread. It is nice that MOE has responded. I had not hoped for as much.
1. Thank you for your email to Dr Ng Eng Hen, highlighting your blogpost which raises several issues of concern to parents. We recognise the strong desire of parents who want their children to do well and, at the same time, the anxiety they feel over the competitive pressures that their children face.
2. Many students aspire to be admitted into certain popular schools or programmes like the Integrated Programme. So our children strive to achieve the best results possible. This competitive pressure to do well, and to do better than others, is indeed present in our schools. For most, this means getting better PSLE marks.
3. You attributed this competitiveness to the way the PSLE is graded on a bell curve. We would like to explain how PSLE papers are graded. PSLE results are reported in two ways – subject grade and aggregate score. Subject grades are not determined based on a fixed quota of pupils for each grade. There are also no fixed cut-off scores based on a bell-curve distribution. If in a particular year, more children do well, the proportion of higher grades (say, A* and A) would be higher. From year to year, such fluctuations do occur.
4. In order to add up the marks scored in each of the 4 subjects into a total aggregate score, the Singapore Examinations and Assessments Board (SEAB) uses a device called the transformed score (T-score). This is a device statisticians use to add up scores from different subjects in one examination. The transformation aims to account for the different characteristics of different subjects. The transformation process preserves the rank order of students. The child with the higher marks ranks above another with lower marks.
5. SEAB also does not allow the difficulty of examinations to ratchet up every year. The papers are set by experienced examiners in accordance with the test blueprint, which spells out the coverage of the syllabus and specifies the distribution of questions of different difficulty levels. In addition, SEAB also puts in place statistical processes to calibrate the difficulty level of each question and control the overall standard of the paper so as to ensure that the standard is comparable to those of the previous years.
6. These notwithstanding, we do recognise that there is competition in the system. Over time, as aspirations rise and as people see that hardworking students do reach their goals, across the country, parents and teachers encourage their children to work harder. This is not entirely a bad thing, but it does bring in its wake many social consequences.
7. A potential hazard is an obsessive drive to compete in order to do better in examinations as the sole outcome of education, often at the expense of other equally important goals of learning. Excessive tuition is one manifestation of this drive, with cram schools in South Korea and Japan as prime examples. We are mindful of the dangers of going down that road and are putting in place more measures to shift the emphasis in the education system to a more holistic approach, which focuses on a balance of values, skills and knowledge.
8. But doing away with exams is not the solution. South Korea did away with national entrance exams into its secondary schools in 1969. Apart from other problems it caused, the pressure on students did not abate. We believe that exams are integral in any sound education system, and it is a generally fair way to decide on school admission.
9. Your idea of declaring a group of schools as good schools is an interesting one. But how do we get consensus to move from what we have – which is one where students choose schools and compete on the basis of PSLE aggregate - to one where by policy, we add some other rules, like defining each school to comprise students of a certain range (in your example 240-280) and then randomly assigning them. How about the children who score below 240? Why 240? Why not mix across more ability groups?
10. These questions illustrate the challenges of designing a public education system that is fair and also meets the needs of the 40,000 students in each cohort. But we do not stop trying to find better ways.
11. For example, we do have something that is similar in intent to your suggestion – the Direct Schools Admission scheme. Students who can demonstrate their talents or achievements in areas (both academic and non-academic) which the schools are selecting students can receive offers from schools before the PSLE. This allows a wider range of students to access the popular schools. Indeed, today, all schools with DSA, especially the popular schools, see a wider range of PSLE T-score than before.
12. We have also expanded the Integrated Programme (IP) to more schools. The new IP schools will offer dual tracks – the IP track and the ‘O’ level track. This caters to a wider range of academic ability, and allows for late bloomers or early bloomers to switch tracks.
13. Schools catering to students with talents in specific fields – sports, mathematics and science, the arts, and applied learning – select students using other dimensions. They are popular with many students and their parents. They break the sole reliance on PSLE results.
14. Beyond the schools, there are also DSA-like pathways for admission into pre-university institutions, the polytechnics and universities. Polytechnic capacity is being expanded by 20%, and new programmes are being introduced. With the set up of new institutions like the Singapore Institute of Technology, Singapore University of Technology and Design, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine and Yale-NUS College, we are on track to increasing the university cohort participation rate to 30% by 2015.
15. Selecting students on the basis of examination results is not a perfect system, but it is one which encourages effort, allows children from different backgrounds to compete and strive for what they want to achieve. Rather than changing the rules completely, which may also not be viewed as fair, we can retain the current system, and graft onto it features that modulate the rigidity and downside consequences, like having DSA and dual-track schools, and different types of tertiary institutions.
16. Even as we do so, we continue to work hard to uplift all schools, to resource them better and to encourage more of them to develop distinctive niches that attract students. You may have read about the 14 additional primary schools and 6 secondary schools with niche programmes, bringing the total number of such schools to 178.
17. In terms of physical infrastructure, MOE is progressively adding new or enhanced facilities to all schools. These include computer laboratories, media resource libraries, pastoral care rooms, health & fitness rooms, and indoor sports hall. We have also focused on recruiting more quality teachers, and developing their skills throughout their careers. This is a key priority for us. MOE met its 2010 target of having 30,000 teachers and targets to grow the teaching force further to 33,000 by 2015.
18. You mentioned that class sizes have changed little over the years. You may remember that the class size at Primary 1 was reduced from 40 to 30 in 2005 and for Primary 2 in 2006. The smaller class sizes help to smoothen the transition from pre-school to formal schooling.
19. Beyond reducing class size for the lower primary years, the larger teaching force has allowed us to better customise our teaching to meet the needs of students. Students who have weak literacy or numeracy skills at Primary 1 receive coaching via the Learning Support Programmes in groups of 8-10. At the secondary and JC levels, students now have a wider range of subject combinations, enjoy greater flexibility between courses and streams (e.g. Normal (Academic) students offering ‘O’ level subjects in Sec 4, Normal (Technical) students offering Normal (Academic) subjects). There are also new co-curricular activities in schools, more enrichment programmes, including overseas visits, to develop students holistically. For teachers too, having more teachers provide the space for them to upgrade themselves, to undertake professional development, which in turn benefit students.
20. All in, we have improved our pupil teacher ratio or PTR (number of students divided by number of teachers). Between 2006 and 2010, Pupil-Teacher ratio has been reduced from 21.9 to 18.8 in primary schools and 18.9 to 16.1 in secondary schools. The 2010 PTRs are close to the average in the OECD countries.
21. Put another way, between 2006-2010, on average, each primary school was given 6 more teachers, while each secondary school was given 10 more teachers. (Between 2004 and 2010, the increase was 1,700 [additional 10 per school on average] for primary schools and 1,900 [additional 10 per school on average] for secondary schools.) If we reach our 2015 target teaching force size, compared to their current number of teachers, our primary and secondary schools will add a further of about 5 teachers each.
22. These additional teachers have not been deployed to reduce class size, but to improve education in the ways described above. We have been careful not to make class size reduction an end in itself. While it would be ideal to have small classes with every one taught by good teachers, the reality is that the supply of good people to be teachers is limited. Studies by the OECD and McKinsey have indicated that the quality of education is not simply a factor of more spending or smaller class sizes, but the result of a judicious choice of policy measures that maximise learning outcomes. Countries which recruit good candidates to be teachers and pay them well, like Korea and Singapore, show good results in international benchmarking tests.
23. We have also been creative in expanding the supply sources for good quality teachers. In addition to recruiting fresh graduates, we have been successful in recruiting individuals making mid-career switches and also a small number of foreign teachers with specialist expertise. We have also provided teachers with more support by recruiting allied educators who assist teachers with teaching, or provide counseling and learning support for students.
24. How we shape the education system to make it more student-centric is a work-in-progress. We are glad our students do well in international benchmarking tests and are welcomed in overseas universities. But we need to constantly make improvements, enhance the quality of the educational experience, and help our students learn well and also form happy memories of their school days. The inputs and suggestions from parents like yourself encourage us to keep trying harder.
25. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to clarify these matters of concern to parents. We are happy to continue to hear your views and feedback. You may wish to drop me a note with your views. -
I think, I on the other hand may become more Kiasu. Today more schools are turning IP. IP traditionally mean richer curriculum for more capable kids. So more IP to cater to more capable kids. So if time comes for my DD to take her PSLE and she cannot make it into an IP school, does that mean she is lagging?
-
Funz:
I think, I on the other hand may become more Kiasu. Today more schools are turning IP. IP traditionally mean richer curriculum for more capable kids. So more IP to cater to more capable kids. So if time comes for my DD to take her PSLE and she cannot make it into an IP school, does that mean she is lagging?
I think you've made a nice point here. -
Chenonceau:
:goodpost: It's been really interesting reading about this topic. To the people who say it's just parents who are being kiasu, I would like to differ. Yes parents are being kiasu, after all who would not want their child to be a top performer. Here when even national newspapers get into the act, then why should not we as parents react. Just go through the past few months ST editions. When they speak of 'someone', it is invariably with regard to his primary or secondary school - see the new candidates who were introduced during the recent elections. How many of these were introduced in the article as 'RI/HCI/VJC' etc boy/girl?System Mechanisms Mould Parent Behavior
Whilst I cannot see how telling parents to stop being kiasu can effectively change parent behavior, I CAN see how system changes WILL change behavior.
The incentive for kiasuism comes from the design of the PSLE. As long as the PSLE stays the way it is, you can take away exams at P1 and P2, but schools will find a way to slide in tests. And they do.
As long as the PSLE stays the way it is, you can keep parents in the dark about streaming and they will find a way to discern the contours of what the best classes are doing. Now, before anyone asks me to reveal how the PSLE should be changed in the specifics, let me say first that until I have access to info and data, I too don't know.
What I do know is that my behavior has changed in response to a system change recently announced. There will be 7 new IP schools. Till now, I had set my heart on HCI. I realised that VS, NJC and RVH are now IP too. The pool of desirable schools have grown!! I realise also that my friend's daughter who went to NJC, is now in Stanford on a PSC scholarship! Just that one small change in system component has made a difference to my behavior.
Having come to the realization that there are more IP schools, I am far less kiasu today than 4 months ago. I'm not keen to compete for a place in HCI or RI anymore... for all you know, all those who go there are so competitive that my son may never learn to love and care.
I want him to learn to love and care. I want him to know that losing out can be enriching.
I am sorry if I seem to have been disrespectful to RI and HCI. I have no basis because I have not attended any open house as yet, though I do know many young people from both schools (and they're lovely even if a tad too competitive to be properly collaborative). The most competitive parents and children self-select into those schools, perhaps?
Before, the system allowed me no choice. Now, I do have a choice... and I am already less kiasu. The thing is this... there are parents who must have children win out at all costs. Before, the system incentivised me to compete with these people because there were only 5 IP schools.
Today, there are 7 more. This SINGLE system change allows naturally LESS KIASU parents (note that I did not say NOT kiasu) to choose to be less kiasu. So you see, when we find the correct system leverage points, we can change parent behavior. Not all parents surely but there are enough parents like me, Peony and QuiteKSMum who actually see 2nd best as The Best.
DS and I discussed and we have decided that even if his Teacher said that RI is possible if he works hard, we will stick with Work Fun and push just hard enough for other schools, with lower COP. I now have a choice and my level of kiasuism has dropped by a lot.
At present, the larger proportion of PSC scholars come from HCI, RI, NYGH & RGS. Suppose that a quota were set to pick at least 2 scholars from each of the 11 IP schools, then what will happen is that competition into the top 4 schools will be less frenzied. The prospect of a scholarship spurs many to compete for places in the Top 4 schools.
Indeed, talent will be more evenly distributed across 11 IP schools as parents like me with children who have the potential to be in Top 4, choose to go elsewhere just to have a better work-life balance.
System changes, can change parent behavior immediately. Unless we leverage on system components, it will be difficult to dial down parent kiasu-ism. That's why I focus on system. It is not blame, it is hope.
When this happens, how can you call parents kiasu? The whole system is kiasu, so why just blame parents? We are also part of this system which rewards students from certain schools. So why should we not aspire for our children to make it there? We know that once they make it to these top schools, they have a higher chance of becoming more successful in the Singapore system as against someone who is not from one of those schools. -
Funz:
I think, I on the other hand may become more Kiasu. Today more schools are turning IP. IP traditionally mean richer curriculum for more capable kids. So more IP to cater to more capable kids. So if time comes for my DD to take her PSLE and she cannot make it into an IP school, does that mean she is lagging?
True, so instead of reducing competition, will we be actually enhancing it?
Also by the time my children reach S1, I think there may be a greater awareness of IP schools, so more competition for me!! :nailbite: -
Status Update - The Petition has 142 signatures to date.
Find signatories' comments here - http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=21969&p=423060
Here is the Facebook page too. It may be good to suggest to your friends to LIKE it. This will raise the profile of the petition.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Review-Singapore-Education-2011/131186106955434?sk=info -
I will not quote since it will be too long and 'cluter' the page.
I will try my best to answer the questions posed (pardon me if I've left out some and do pose the qns again if you need me to explain my points)
Why do I keep harping on parents' kiasuism?
Cos personally, I feel that as long as parents remain to be kiasu, nothing much will change even if there is a change in system. Maybe there will be a little change but after a while, the pressure will slide back to its original position. Chenonceau, u mentioned that ur kiasu level dropped when there are more IP schs now. However, I believe the parents after you (maybe 3-5yrs later) will continue to lament that the 7 IP schs r insufficient, they would want more. The chasing will not end. The education system is already constantly undergoing changes. From EM1/EM2/EM3 streaming to subject banding to IP schs. From drillings to more project works to experiential learning. But, at every stage, you dun get parents to be satisfied for long. Why do every parent peg a kid's success to attending IP schs, to getting scholarships, to landing in high profile jobs? Is that the true measure of success?
Allow me to share this post http://hedgehogcomms.blogspot.com/2011/05/value-of-paper-qualifications.html
My fav part: \"Paper qualifications are merely the tools to help us achieve our goals. Realising that these qualifications don't define us also helps us to be less judgmental towards those without. Let's have some perspective.\"
What is MY 'solution'?
My 'solution' begins at home, with me. I choose to focus on the virtues of excellence(means doing their best), diligence, responsibility, perseverance and self-discipline when my kids prepare for exams. I choose not to focus on results. When my kids have displayed the above-mentioned virtues while preparing for exams, I embrace whatever results they have achieved. Of cos there are moments of panic when they failed to understand a topic. But, i keep the panic to myself and try my best to coach them, focusing more on their learning attitude.
I am a kiasu parent, otherwise I wouldnt be in this forum.
I am kiasu to want to know what's in store for my kids' education and future. I am kiasu to want my kids to be the best too. It's just that the best need not be IP schs or scholarships or the most coveted job. I believe that as long as my kids develop a strong character and good attitude, they can be the best in anywhere and in whatever they do.
What solution can I propose to others?
None. :oops: This has to be a personal choice. But, like the starfish story, I hope to influence parents around me to share my perspective. And hopefully, those who share my perspective will continue to influence people around them.
And I hold on to the idealism that if all parents were to allow their kids to just learn at their pace, to be their best and not subscribe to the society's perceived best, then the whole learning environment will be less stressful and learning will be more meaningful. -
My brother isn’t happy with the N level streaming. His eldest boy was in N level … My brother commented the teachers teaching the N levels students aren’t good so further ‘jeopardize’ these kids study … His daughter also ni good in study … So to him, Singapore education is v stressful and should take away the n level streaming. What u guys think?
-
Chenonceau shared an article about Finland education system earlier and the conclusion is that teachers make the difference between other systems and Finland. I cant agree more. The consistent lack of teachers could be due to our system that overdrives our teachers as we continue to lose good teachers. I am not sure if allied teachers, VP of administrations etc are the answers to having the teachers that will have the \"heartware\" as well as the \"software\" to bring out the best in our children.
We are kiasu, and the system stimulate kiasuism. This is a chicken and egg issue, which comes first? While I have no solution too, I believe we should continue to look for one.
I felt the recent discussions with different perspectives are really healthy. -
vlim:
My brother isn't happy with the N level streaming. His eldest boy was in N level .. My brother commented the teachers teaching the N levels students aren't good so further 'jeopardize' these kids study ... His daughter also ni good in study ... So to him, Singapore education is v stressful and should take away the n level streaming. What u guys think?
Currently I volunteer in a non-profit organisation that conduct leadership training to secondary schools. It was an eye opener for me as I helped in the classes of normal/ acad and normal/ tech, and see with my own eyes how some of the students can be so uninterested in study or disruptive in class. But if the system or teachers dont help these kids, who will? I am sure they are who they are because they are less fortunate compare to other kids in their upbringing etc 人之初性本善
I agree with your brother comment and that her daughter needs to be really self disciplined and mix with the right group of friends. 近朱者赤 近墨者黑
N level is meant for those who are slower in their studies to eventually make it for O level. The intention of the system is right and suppose to bring down the stress of the less academic inclined by giving them more time. However, there is a social stigma and chances of mixing with wrong group of friends. I think there is still room to improve and review the system.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login