On January 27, 2009, the Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE) released  the preliminary recommendations of the Primary Education Review and Implementation (PERI) Committee. While the preliminary recommendations represents another attempt to change the direction of education in Singapore schools it still suffers from the MOE‘s traditional reluctance to let go or downgrade the position of the main reason why education is not education in Singapore but just a huge examination preparation exercise, namely, the high stakes examination system.

If we just look at the people that PERI consulted it will be no surprise why the changes are not fundamental changes. The changes would result in miniscule impact on the education system. the Committee it seems consulted “School Management and Advisory Committees of Primary Schools, Principals, Vice-Principals, Heads of Department (HODs), teachers, parents, students, as well as members of the public.” One can’t help feeling that what the MOE has done is to ask the people who have been responsible for perpetuating the Singapore school system’s emphasis on examinations to change themselves. As much as I would like to believe that real changes or reforms will take place as a result of these group of people’s recommendations and views, I am reluctant to believe so. These are the people who have through sheer inertia or reluctance to contemplate other possibilities, scuttled most of the MOE‘s initiatives in the past because of they can see nothing better than what they have been good at, that is, examination preparation. These are the people who have long been in their comfort zone. They are just implementers of the examination systems. But where are the experts? Where are those people in academia who specializes in education? Are we to assumed that they are included in the consultations as members of the “School Management and Advisory Committees“, “parents” and “members of the public”? Is this a reflection of the traditional disdain in MOE and schools for these academics? I know that lecturers for example at the National Institute of Education (NIE) of Singapore have often been regarded by MOE staff both at HQ and school levels as people who are out of touch with reality and as people who are stuck in their ivory towers. This is because the reality that the MOE people refer to is that examinations is one of the bedrock of Singapore’s “education” system.

It is interesting that the recommendations started with the following ominous words:

“Retain the strong fundamentals of our education system…”

No prizes here for guessing what one of those “strong fundamentals” are. In effect what those words really mean is “It is the exams, stupid!” This has been repeatedly hammered by MOE and this simply means that no matter what the changes that will take place as a result of these recommendations, the front line workers in the Singapore school system knows that at the end of the day it is the examinations that matter. School principals and teachers will humor these new initiatives as another that will come and go.

PERI wants that through this recommendations “the future of primary education should be about developing well-balanced and confident children who enjoy learning as they build strong fundamentals in both knowledge and skills during their foundational years of education.” It is strange that to change the primary education to be more well-balanced the high stakes examination system will on the whole remain untouched. The PERI Committee recommended that, among others, instead of the semestral examinations at Primary 1 and 2, the “MOE consider using “bite-sized” modes of assessment, such as topical tests, to provide regular feedback on pupils’ learning to parents.” Here I agree with an editorial by Singapore’s leading newspaper, the Straits Times. In an editorial entitled “Parents primary (school) concerns” on 30 January 2009, it pointed out:

“But how the substitute periodic tests are to be conducted will also depend on the inclination and occupational beliefs of subject teachers and principals. Old-style educators (sic) reared on drilling and school rankings could design these “mini” tests to be as grueling and constant as normal exams.

When spread over subjects and topics within subjects, continuing assessments can grow so intense they become replicas of the semester exams. The net effect is that child stress attributed to “exam hell” is hardly reduced.”

I can already imagine the MOE responding by saying that the stress is due to the parents as no matter what it does, it is the parents who will push their children and cause the additional stress. This view is based on past comments from the MOE. It does not take a genius to see that this will be the net result of “bite-sized” topical tests! So why still insist on topical tests. Where is the Senge system thinking that MOE has tried to push to its administrators and teachers?

The answer is in the mindset of the people that PERI have consulted, namely the school principals, vice-principals, HODs and teachers. The fact that the term “topical tests” is used indicates the mentality of the people that PERI have been listening to. They cannot see any other way of assessing learning. Such tests by nature also tend to focus on the end result rather than the process of learning itself. That same editorial goes on to say:

“The pedagogical (sic) system has been so exam- and grades- validated it is hard to shake habits. Teachers need to undergo self-reform of mind and reflex in order to accomplish what the Review committee has suggested in the way fo rounded learning for pupils and giving parents more useful feedback on their children’s strengths and weaknesses than test scores.”

Therefore base on this comment, we can, by logical extension, also say that because these teachers (school principals, vice-principals and HODs included) still need to make that self-reform in their minds, they should perhaps be the LAST people to be consulted about reforms in the school system in Singapore.

Don’t forget also that the “removal” of the examinations is only for the Primary 1 and 2 levels. The message to teachers and principals is still very clear. At the risk of sounding boring, it is the exams, stupid! This is because teachers will still see the examinations as the real “business end” of their work. After those two levels, the preparation for the Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE) will continue maybe even at an increased pace since as the time given to complete the course has been shortened by two years. Knowing the mindset of many of those in Singapore schools today, the first two years of Primary school learning without the examinations will be soon  be considered as mere fluff. It will not be considered as fluff only if the topical tests become extended “bite-sized” exam hell.

One also wonders about other possible reasons for the retention of the PSLE, and retained probably not much different from its current format and approach. Is it also because MOE has through the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) been pushing the international version, the iPSLE, to our neighbouring countires as part of the effort to make Singapore an education hub and bring in the money? How can they be selling the iPSLE to out neighbours if we do away with it or even admit problems with it? Moving away from the PSLE may also eventually affect our Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) performance which has been used by MOE shamelessly to sell Singapore’s education system. Maybe they are doing systems thinking here after all!

Before the age of the “talkies”, there was the silent movie era where movie stars graced the silver screen minus any sound except for the sound of some pianist in the movie theater. Occasionally, you will see some text dialog appear on screen so that the audience can keep pace with the story. Some of us may have watched videos or movies with the volume turned off. Of course it is strange to be watching the moving pictures without the sound. But with the pictures, we can still make good inferences about the possible dialog or even story line.

We can use this approach for teaching inference skills to our students. Choose an appropriate video. It can be clips  a documentary or a news broadcast or even a short story. I would not recommend a long one for practical reasons.

Play the video in your class with the intention that the students use the visual clues to guess what is being said. The students can be asked to pay attention to familiar scenes or faces for contextualizing. The students can be reminded to use their prior knowledge of things to make more sense of what they are viewing.

Get them to write in groups a possible script for the video clip that they have seen. Replay the clip as and when is necessary. Get the class to share their script by reading it as the clip is being replayed. When they have done so, show the clip with volume on.

Get the rest of the students to compare the student-created scripts against the original video clip’s script. How similar were their scripts to the original and how different were they? Remember this is not about getting an exact match. It is about getting something which is reasonable and acceptable and consistent with the visual clues they see in the clip. This is what making inferences is all about.

The IGCSE is a popular internationally recognized examination that more schools in Southeast Asia are opting to participate in. There is nothing wrong with this because there are some real advantages of taking the examinations. The most important perhaps is that it is universally-recognized as an entrance examinations for furthering one’s education especially in the English-speaking world. This is in large part due to its parent examination syndicate, the Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) syndicate, having been around for a long time in this area. It is also due to the relative security and impartiality of the examinations as compared to local examinations in some Southeast Asia where “irregularities” during and after examinations is far from irregular. Participating in the IGCSE also means that the schools concerned would have to put a greater emphasis on the English Language. This would force the students in the school to pick up what is often regarded as the international language for commerce and science.

However, it would be a mistake for schools in countries in Southeast Asia, like Indonesia and Vietnam, and even in China, to believe that taking such an examination will make them a good school with an international curriculum. Overseas educational consultants from elsewhere have been selling the idea that the IGCSE will change them into good schools plus they also pander to the gullibility of parents in those countries about what is a good education.

All examinations, not only the IGCSE, that have the nett effect of schools getting teachers to only teach to the examinations is bad. Such an approach to school will not result in schools becoming good schools but only good examination preparation centers. While this may secure for the students placings in higher educational institutions, what is left behind through under-emphasis is the other skills which are deemed to be more important for anyone to succeed in the 21st century. The dictum, “what is not tested will not learned”, will come true. Therefore schools who still do want to take advantage of the IGCSE must also be aware of this pitfall of becoming nothing more than just examination prepartion centers. They must also be wary of educational consultants who only peddle international examinations and little else.