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!

Look at the tables from the Ministry of Education (MOE) of Singapore’s website on Teach Less, Learn More (TLLM) initiative. I almost wanted to rejoin the teaching service when I saw it. The MOE is going to de-emphasize drill and practice, “one-size-fits-all” instruction, grades, tests, and so on. All the things that I believe in.

But wait a minute. Why didn’t they tell us how they hope to achieve this? It is all fine to have all these goals scribed on a (virtual) wall. But how does the MOE hope to achieve this?

I can’t help a reluctance on the part of MOE to move away from the high stakes examinations that has been a permanent feature of the education system in Singapore. The success of students from Singapore in such examinations has been the benchmark used by MOE to laud itself all these years. They have even gone into examinations in a big way by setting up their own Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) to promote Singapore’s examination-linked brand. The iPSLE is now being sold to neighboring countries.

Will teachers bite into this new initiative? A lot will depend again on MOE. It is not enough to say it wants all these wonderful learning and teaching goals but if it still has the high stakes examinations and the related school ranking system. No teacher who wants to continue in the Singapore education service will change from what he has been essentially doing, which is, to teach to the examinations. Teaching to the examinations of course means all those things that MOE wants less of under its TLLM initiative. Teachers will continue to cover the syllabus, push for drill and practice and rote-learning, continue to teach set formulae and expect standard answers. Their teaching mode will continue to be one of dispensing information. High stakes examinations don’t reward teachers and students to do what TLLM wants them to do. Just stick to the examination-type questions and answers. Students, teachers and principals will continue to fear failure.

The MOE must make a clear signal to all. It can’t pretend all the TLLM goals can be achieved as long as high stakes examinations continue as it is today. Even if changes are made to these examinations through the inclusion of project work the way it is done now,with its direct link to the students’ summative evaluation, it will only serve to emphasize that all learning is for the final results at the end of the academic year. Project work should be encouraged not just to see if students can do another type of assessment but more because it is to encourage deeper learning through inquiry. Teachers are not dumb neither are the students. They will see a summative assessment in whatever bottle it appears in.

All the goals stated under TLLM must be accompanied by appropriate changes to the assessment modes. Alternative assessment modes must be used throughout the year rather than on a seasonal basis as it is done today in Singapore schools. The assessment modes should be able to capture the deep learning and understanding that is called for under the TLLM initiative.

It would be nice to hear from MOE how it plans to go about doing all these. Changing the course in education for Singapore involves more than just stating goals. Just how does MOE plan to get there? Right now the clear destination for all teachers, principals and parents in Singapore is to continue holding their course and head for the next end-of-year examinations. MOE needs to reset its compass and chart new routes and take on new supplies if it hopes to get where it wants to go.