Today’s Mailbag in the Life section of the Straits Times presents a mixed bag of views written by Singapore parents about the recent preliminary recommendations made by the Primary Education Review and Implementation (PERI) Committee. However, in my view all of them except one, sidestepped the real issue of the usefulness of written examinations or tests as a gauge of meaningful learning.

The first writer obviously thinks that the way to go around the examinations is through being “diligent” and “consistent”. It is interesting she was angry at the Straits Times Money editor, Ignatius Low, who argued in favor of examinations perhaps because he had found a way of doing well in the examinations through cramming! If anyone can do well in examinations by cramming, and let us face it that this does happen regularly, what value is the examination in terms of real learning? If the writer argues that examinations teaches diligence and consistency, then what is so bad about cramming as it can be argued that it is learning how to tackle a problem (the examinations) in a smart and efficient way? The point here is that both have something in common about the examinations. The examinations heavy syllabi itself don’t seem teach students anything of real value intellectually. The supposed good values of the examinations is in the building of character which I am certain can be done in some other way. They can be learned without examinations.

The lack of meaningful intellectual learning is further raised by another parent, again perhaps unconsciously. She wrote:

“Learning is a lifelong process. It is not for exams. A person who does well is not necessarily smarter than the one who does not.

How often have we seen children keeping away their textbooks once the exams are over? They think they do not have to learn anymore.”

While one may argue that children are not the best judges of things, this is an example where children have realized the meaninglessness of examinations. They are the ones who go through it and the accompanying stress that comes with it. They know deep down all of the examinations is almost for nothing really meaningful in terms of their intellectual development.

The next writer who is a parent of three boys. wrote about how her second son almost had a mental breakdown when he was going to sit for the PSLE “because of all the worksheets and remedial classes his school insisted on.” She had to tell his teacher and school principal to “back off”. This is one parent who dares go against the grain. Many Singapore parents would have just swallowed the same from their children’s school.

A third parent is against the scrapping of the examinations for Primary 1 and 2 pupils as recommended by PERI. She said:

“Kids are highly adaptable and having exams early gives them an idea of what the experience is about. Parents can also use the exams during the first two years of primary school as a testing ground and guide them in preparing for more important exams in the future.”

Here is a parent saying that the purpose of having examinations is so that students know how to take examinations! This shows how the Singapore school system which is examination-dependent has become a farce! It is not about learning. It is about the examinations only!

Another parent, wrote about how she used to do “intensive training” for her children only when the exams came around but has had to change her intensive training routine into a year round thing when “small tests” became the norm in Singapore schools.

Lastly, still another parent argued for the retention of the examinations only because the “small tests” or “topical tests” as has been recommended by PERI, “can be draining or stressful.” She went on to say that there is “no difference in stress levels when it comes to holding examinations or small tests.” She was the only one who seemed to have considered alternative modes of assessment but in her view these alternative modes, like project work, “is subjective” and “not an objective and transparent system of assessment.”

A careful reading of these letters show that none of them to argue for the need for high stakes examinations for what they were purported to be for in the first place, which is they are tests of the intellectual knowledge and skills that the students have learned in school. We would expect that since the issue is examinations this ought to be the first thing addressed yet while they quibble over small or big written tests none seems to have a view of whether the examinatiuons really test anything worthwhile. Even PERI falls into the same mindset. The reason given by PERI for having or not having examinations is because of the stress levels not because whether such written tests really offer any valuable assessment of any meaningful learning taking place. The real issue is, therefore, sidestepped. Again as I have stated in my last post, this is not a surprise since the PERI has largely consulted the same people who have perpetuated the exam culture in Singapore.

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!