Petition to Review the Singapore Education System

[Chenonceau]

ksi:

This is one statistics I would like the MOE to establish. Is the whole nation suffering tough exams in PSLE just because of 10-15% of the cohort are really so outstanding that it is difficult to rank them meaningfully for secondary school placement to top-notch popular secondary schools which is about 7-10 schools?


If that is the case, perhaps offer a choice of exam papers. Consider an exam where people are willing to go to second-tier-onwards seondary schools and this exam is something suited for the mass as a \"main\" paper(\"M\" paper). Another optional exam of \"special\" papers can be given to the children who can be stretched and they get to choose the premium schools based on the \"M\" paper plus the \"S\" paper results. So it.

Hope I am making sense. :oops:

You do make a lot of sense. There are so many good suggestions coming out now. Things I never thought of and which when I read makes me go \"Cool! Good to explore this!!\" Collective wisdom is kicking in and with a LOTTA common sense too, instead of theoretical principle.

There are many nice suggestions here. We should EXPLORE them to cool this RED HOT educational system that is behaving like the PROPERTY MARKET.

I am thinking the Heng Swee Keat's experience in Finance would come in handy in education because he would be familiar with inflation and red hot economy.

[Chenonceau]

2ppaamm:

Actually, more like I don't have time... :frustrated:

I also stopped attending... but for different reasons. I realized that I was part of a long assembly line of parents when one teacher pretended to know my kid - nodding sagely and sharing generalities. All he could do was read from the marks sheet. That was the extent to which he knew my kid. I can read the marks sheet too.

From there on, I stopped attending but developed the habit of writing small notes and emails to talk about specific problems.

[Chenonceau]

Here is another lovely letter to Heng Swee Keat http://hedgehogcomms.blogspot.com/2011/05/letter-to-mr-heng-swee-kiat.html AND another version here http://www.facebook.com/notes/monica-lim/letter-to-heng-swee-keat/10150267225049783


For those haven't signed and wanna, here is the petition...
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?SgEd2011&1

For those who wanna publicise the petition but haven't, here is the Facebook link...
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Review-Singapore-Education-2011/131186106955434?sk=info

[jedamum]

ksi:

This is one statistics I would like the MOE to establish. Is the whole nation suffering tough exams in PSLE just because of 10-15% of the cohort are really so outstanding that it is difficult to rank them meaningfully for secondary school placement to top-notch popular secondary schools which is about 7-10 schools?


If that is the case, perhaps offer a choice of exam papers. Consider an exam where people are willing to go to second-tier-onwards seondary schools and this exam is something suited for the mass as a \"main\" paper(\"M\" paper). Another optional exam of \"special\" papers can be given to the children who can be stretched and they get to choose the premium schools based on the \"M\" paper plus the \"S\" paper results. So it
(a) becomes a choice for parents and children who want and can pursue difficult questions by choice in a paper to increase the chance of getting into a premium school, these should be the pool of schools with high COP. Setting the expectation right upfront on the type of schools possible based on the types of exams. Why try to do everything one size fits all?
(b) does not demoralise majority of children with a tough paper by taking away the trauma of a tough paper and the fun of learning. Test must match learning process and not trip the kids.
(c) provides a learning option within the school by special teachers who can coach children who opted for the sitting of the \"S\" papers in line with the \"S\" paper approach. Do not throw them into the deep end without such a teaching option, otherwise this will fail again. Even if it means outsourcing, the school can do the outsource to enrichment centres who can handle such \"S\" papers. So the real education and the \"Shadow education\" can co-exist. They do now too except that the end objective is a very general PSLE where everyone is trying to shoot for the bulls-eye, not knowing where is the limit.

Now if there are kiasu parents who want to push ahead with the \"S\" papers even if the child does not have the calibre, it is their perogative, the consequence is if the \"S\" paper result is not good enough, the placement of the secondary schools will be based on the master paper's results and the child is made to learn more and do more exam at their own choice. Well, learning extra is never wasted if an immediate outcome is not associated.

So the \"S\" papers results act as a supplement score for entry into the premium secondary school.

So in this way, give parents and children the choice if they want to go through a rigorous exam routine or not instead of forcing 50k children to do the same thing which is of little value to the 80-90% of kids if they have no ambition to go to a highly premium school and yet have to suffer a traumatic exam with questions that they have never been taught before. I believe this also eases the teaching process and makes teachers happier. If not all 50k children in a cohort are ready for the tough process, then let the parents decide if their children can be pushed forward. At the end of the day, people want a choice to live a balanced and happy life. The 10% who opt for this are also happy people if they have the calibre to do it, then another 10% who opt for it without the calibre to handle such \"S\" papers but willing to give it a shot, it is BY CHOICE. Personally, I believe it would reduce the amount of grievances to 10% of people who want to attempt and at least this 10% get into such exams consciously and it is no longer a system issue.

Now if this progresses to the level whereby 80% of the parents are pushing their children to go for the \"S\" paper, then it is not an issue of the MOE system anymore, a choice has been given but everyone is opting to go down the tougher path to squeeze into the limited resources of premium schools. Case closed and build more good schools to pander to the demand or parents get real?

Our current systerm operates too much on a secrecy mode, the T-score, the quiet streaming criteria in schools and top/best classes, the special selection of children for special programs or supplementary classes offered in schools. I know some schools operate this way, shielding alot of info from anxious parents and it is annoying. Place all the cards on the table for people to make their own choices. I believe Singaporean parents have now matured to a level that they can make a choice.

If MOE finds this feasible, please do a detail feasibility study first, I don't want to be a hero who creates a future that spells zero for any children if this idea is not feasible. :lol: I am just a simple parent who wants teaching and exam to be matching in standards and face a society with less stressed faces around me. As of now, my child is not suffering in the system in terms of grades at all but the learning environment irks me and some practices. We know how to avoid certain pitfalls but not everyone knows.

As I mentioned before, when we solve any trouble, new trouble may surface. With this model, we may possibly \"regress\" into a less goal-getting society which our government actually does not want us to be but if kiasuism continues to burn in us, that would be the very spirit to sustain this model.

Lastly, no system will satisfy everyone....so one other way to vary the exam game is perhaps have graded \"S\" papers, S1, S2..
The more levels a child chooses to clear well, the higher chance to get into a desired school. I believe this will keep all levels of gifted, advanced, high ability kids happy and leave the mass happy too. Using this \"S\" paper approach, MOE can pander to the various cohort's brain strength, especially now with so many brain training programmes in the market and higher educated parents(more GEP parents too), I foresee more and more \"SPECIAL\" children coming out of the product of brain training programmes and better educated parents and the pressure becomes greater at the top. Yet we cannot ignore the mass nor their suffering as the pressure cascades down and they should not be left behind in esteem due to tough exams being the majority.

Hope I am making sense. :oops:

Hi ksi,
When i read the above, this thought immediately flashed through my mind; the above system is similar to the subject banding that MOE is now adopting that indirectly 'forces' students that are currently weak in subjects during P4/P5 to take foundation subjects with the 'good intention' of a guaranteed a secondary placement (albeit via Normal Acad/Tech route) but make it an uphill task for those taking foundation subjects who wanted to take a shot at going to Express stream.
With the above system, there will still be schools that wish to hit a certain KPIs and have the portfolio of having the 30-40% of students sitting for 'Higher Math/Higher Science/Higher English' etc. Schools with only a handful of students eligible to sit for such papers will similarly will not be able to 'impress' parents and this will be reflected in the P1 registration (deja vu).
It is all about expectations. If parents are not able to resist temptation and want to join the rat race, why blame the system? There is a place in the system that children can enjoy schooling and childhood, without stress in trying to get into first tier secondary school ; that place is call 'not-the-top-class-in-the-neighourhood-school'.

[Chenonceau]

jedamum:

With the above system, there will still be schools that wish to hit a certain KPIs and have the portfolio of having the 30-40% of students sitting for 'Higher Math/Higher Science/Higher English' etc. Schools with only a handful of students eligible to sit for such papers will similarly will not be able to 'impress' parents and this will be reflected in the P1 registration (deja vu).

It is all about expectations. If parents are not able to resist temptation and want to join the rat race, why blame the system? There is a place in the system that children can enjoy schooling and childhood, without stress in trying to get into first tier secondary school ; that place is call 'not-the-top-class-in-the-neighourhood-school'.

You've come up with a good point. I thought of that but did not want to post because I thought it would be good to have more idea generation at this point. There will be time later for MOE to refine and critique ideas when/if they review.... but really, it is a valid point, and it's good to raise it.

I don't think we are blaming the system. We are not blaming anyone. We are trying to see if we can together bring systemic changes that will mould behavior.

The introduction of KPIs in schools was done approximately a decade and a half ago. Clearly, it has moulded and incentivised a set of behaviors in the direction of more and more academic achievement. That was a systemic change that incentivised a set of kiasu behaviors on the part of everyone involved from Teachers (who need the KPIs to move in their career) to Principals (same career concerns) parents (concerns about children's future livelihood) and children (wanna please parents).

Can we find other systemic levers to mould parent behaviors?

If not, there will be deserving children left far behind for lack of tutor and parent support. And there will be poor children charging ahead in the sweat shop of education.

Unless there is another way to influence parent behavior by TELLING them not to be kiasu, then we are stuck with trying to find a systemic solution. It isn't a blame game. It's a necessary process so that we can address a malaise effectively, because the only other way is to tell parents that the system is cast in stone, and it's all the parents' fault.

Which doesn't make sense too 'cos it takes 2 hands to clap.

[corneyAmber]

jedamum:

Hi ksi,
When i read the above, this thought immediately flashed through my mind; the above system is similar to the subject banding that MOE is now adopting that indirectly 'forces' students that are currently weak in subjects during P4/P5 to take foundation subjects with the 'good intention' of a guaranteed a secondary placement (albeit via Normal Acad/Tech route) but make it an uphill task for those taking foundation subjects who wanted to take a shot at going to Express stream.
With the above system, there will still be schools that wish to hit a certain KPIs and have the portfolio of having the 30-40% of students sitting for 'Higher Math/Higher Science/Higher English' etc. Schools with only a handful of students eligible to sit for such papers will similarly will not be able to 'impress' parents and this will be reflected in the P1 registration (deja vu).
It is all about expectations. If parents are not able to resist temptation and want to join the rat race, why blame the system? There is a place in the system that children can enjoy schooling and childhood, without stress in trying to get into first tier secondary school ; that place is call 'not-the-top-class-in-the-neighourhood-school'.

Hi jedamum,

My proposal is different because the choice is left to the parents and children. People need to be given the choice and not be made to feel that they are lousy and in truth, they are not really lousy but as you said \"indirectly forced\". The driving factor is to have a balanced and healthy lifestyle and not because they are weak and have to do foundation level. That is completely a wrong positioning. If majority are suited for the \"normal\" level, it is wrong to position them as weak and do foundation only. I believe there are parents who can accept second-tier secondary schools but there is no need to emphasize that their children are going there because they are not good enough. It is better to let people have the choice to go there for the majority and leave the \"chiong\" ones to go for the tougher papers to get to their objective. The feeling I get now in the system is it is pushing everyone to go up with their design....who wants to see their kids being \"forced\" into foundation?? If the government's objective is to drive people to work harder, then nothing will change. However, if it is happening because they have no clue what went wrong, then it is worthwhile changing the positioning to allow more people to make the choice.

In summary, I am saying for parents who believe their children can be pushed to go for \"S\" papers, let them. For parents who think \"S\" papers is only a good-to-have, even if their children are fantastic academically, let them. No one likes to feel that they are cornered, everyone loves choices.

[jedamum]

Chenonceau:

I thought of that but did not want to post because I thought it would be good to have more idea generation at this point.

:scared: :siam: :peekaboo:

[corneyAmber]

Chenonceau:

You've come up with a good point. I thought of that but did not want to post because I thought it would be good to have more idea generation at this point. There will be time later for MOE to refine and critique ideas when/if they review.... but really, it is a valid point, and it's good to raise it.

I don't think we are blaming the system. We are not blaming anyone. We are trying to see if we can together bring systemic changes that will mould behavior.

The introduction of KPIs in schools was done approximately a decade and a half ago. Clearly, it has moulded and incentivised a set of behaviors in the direction of more and more academic achievement. That was a systemic change that incentivised a set of kiasu behaviors on the part of everyone involved from Teachers (who need the KPIs to move in their career) to Principals (same career concerns) parents (concerns about children's future livelihood) and children (wanna please parents).

Can we find other systemic levers to mould parent behaviors?

If not, there will be deserving children left far behind for lack of tutor and parent support. And there will be poor children charging ahead in the sweat shop of education.

Unless there is another way to influence parent behavior by TELLING them not to be kiasu, then we are stuck with trying to find a systemic solution. It isn't a blame game. It's a necessary process so that we can address a malaise effectively, because the only other way is to tell parents that the system is cast in stone, and it's all the parents' fault.

Which doesn't make sense too 'cos it takes 2 hands to clap.

I agree it is not about blame here because the stress can indeed be felt tremendously albeit my child is not in P6, I feel it around me all the time from people in general. At this point, to expect a bottom-up solution is tough because everyone is kinda lost in the sea of pursuing the T-score by now. So a top-down change of better policies in discussion with parents' feedback will help to start the process of mindset change.

[2ppaamm]

I also agree it is not a blaming session. However, back to my culture thingy. No matter how we put it, the educators tend to believe that if we propose alternatives, it is a reflection of their abilities. I have tried to say things in many different ways, using analogy, persuading, etc. At the end of the day, once you disagree, you are against them. I think our educators need to learn how to disagree, and learn that they can be wrong, too. At this point, I think their pride is too big. Again, this is not a blaming session. This is an inherent and culture problem that needs education.

[jedamum]

hi Chen and ksi,

maybe i should come back to comment after my son get hit by the reality (of being cornered) in P4/P5. :oops:
maybe all secondary school posting should go DSA (via teacher recommendation/CCA portfolio). not only first tier/niche CCA secondary school. Maybe all/more primary schools should go affiliated/brothers-sisters school. :dancing:
(maybe already suggested, but this thread is too long. :oops: again).