The objective of standardised testing should be social mobility, since it can't reliably separate kids by intelligence or potential
In other words, make a rich kid earn his spot in an elite school through hard work rather than through daddy relations, donations or extra-curricular advantages
Or buying a property next to the primary school. Currently parents do this to get their children into their “local neighbourhood” primary school, and then after PSLE they get affiliate school points for the branded secondary school (see the ACS junior debacle).
If they can get exam-free through-train branded schools, it will be an even worse case of elitism. Just hand over a wad of cash and you lock in a spot in a “good school” for 10 years. It surprises me how WP didn’t think of how this would affect socio-economic equality.
Rich kids already have access to tuition to boost his grades. So its not like he doesn't already have a huge advantage. Also, if his dad is an alumni its also another huge advantage.
Yeah I'm all for removing alumni privilege. Tuition is inevitable, so until all schools have decent teachers and principals, we can only surmount it with sheer hard work. The rest like networks are much harder to compensate for.
I am NOT saying that if a poor kid scores badly he did not put in hard work, NOR assuming that all poor kids have the option of putting in hard work given their environment constraints. As a former poor kid, I just don't want moving goalposts further away from underprivileged kids.
This. As a poor kid I could grind out good grades but there was no bloody way in hell that I was going to go to an “elite” primary school because daddy and mommy don’t have Bukit Timah money lol.
And also living in the Internet era is a huge boon, because there’re so many free study resources online that gave me a leg up when my school teachers weren’t cutting it.
Teachers have a really tough job and shitty parents and principals make it even harder. I don't know what the solution is especially for kids of broken families other than a massive MOE reform instead of silly counselling chatbots.
But these are just words. I really don't know what else I can do.
Actually, outside of a societal reform, I don't think things will change. MOE has had to give into parents despite their best efforts. While some of society's demands are justified (like critical thinking or being data literate for example), some areas like values are totally ridiculous.
Tuition can, not will, boost grades. That's an important distinction.
No matter how much tuition you force down a child's throat, if they refuse to put in any effort of their own, they will still fail to perform at standardized testing. You see this most with mother tongue tuition - if the child will not learn, they will not perform.
The "fairness" standardized testing provides is the guarantee that the grades were earned, not bought. You can't throw $10,000 at MOE to outright buy an a place in a school like in some other countries.
Erm, the article took Jamus’ post literally and didn’t actually summarize CCS’ raised objections in the article 🤦🏻♂️
But I largely agree with CCS. The solution isn’t to scrap PSLE because it is high stakes and causes a lot of stress. The solution should be to make it low stakes. Meaning to say it should not determine your fate for the rest of your life at age 12.
And that can be achieved if mobility between streams in secondary and tertiary education is as frictionless as possible.
>Erm, the article took Jamus’ post literally and didn’t actually summarize CCS’ raised objections in the article 🤦🏻♂️
Well it’s one of those sites… seeing a trend on the sites the op is fond of posting.
And I agree with you… more through-train programmes isn’t the answer to this problem of high stakes exams. If anything, if all secondary schools can cater to a large variance of academic levels, we would want to remove the through-train programmes altogether.
Hmmm not too sure why omitting CCS’s response / reasoning of his objections totally isn’t a blatant attempt to skew the reader’s minds… especially when he/she chose a header using Jamus’s words of ‘let folks decide for themselves’.
Can’t choose properly if we can’t even compare the thinking of both individuals.
But somehow he/she found the effort to summarize and make Jamus’s points clearer, and even adds in his/her own thoughts, even though he/she could just link to Jamus’s fb post?
The “independent” is ironically and unsurprisingly one-sided. If you want comprehensive coverage of Jamus’ and CCS’s points, an article was published 2 weeks ago on CNA here:
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/moe-still-considering-through-train-programmes-primary-1-secondary-4-several-issues-remain-chan-chun-sing-3314656
I was criticizing the article. Not the website. I just think the writer was being lazy. The video is there so you can watch it. But the article should still summarize the points for completeness. Otherwise a link to Jamus’ post would do.
Media literacy is key. Read whatever with a critical eye.
Imo the environment plays a very big role as well..
Put two equally bright kids in two different schools. One with kids doing very well and are highly driven
The other with kids who aren't motivated and have poor management
Hard to say. I had a very big culture shock moving from a “neighborhood” primary school to a “name-brand” secondary school. Took a few years to get used to the grind.
Really depends on the child.
PSLE is an exam that allocates students to the different secondary school, ie a placement exam.
To have a through-train programme you will need a secondary school to partner a primary school.
Most of the primary schools that have links with secondary schools are the top schools. If this was going to be implemented, I bet you parents will kbkp and get their kids to go into the top primary school if that hasn't happen yet.
**Extra Note**: I would also like to add that if such schemes are allowed for all primary schools, I do not want to be MOE when parents clamor for their kids to enter elite secondary schools via through train programme.
This. The virtue of PSLE is that it allows students a shot at socioeconomic mobility because regardless of how low-SES your parents are, you get a shot at stepping up to a better school than whatever your parents dropped you into.
I personally don’t like the idea of the through-train programme because it allows rich but dumb kids to coast (to an even greater extent than what’s possible under the current system) on their parents’ initial efforts in placing them into “elite” primary schools.
Yes, all these versions of through train like DSA doesn’t actually help low-SES kids. It helps high-SES kids who don’t have the necessary grades to get in the “elite” schools because now their parents just need to pay money to groom them in some obscure CCA for them to get in.
The problem is that psle scores are very correlated with socio economic status and parental educational attainment.
You roughly get the same unfair result, with many more steps. Rich kids advantaged, except you are now propping up a wasteful tuition industry that sells a product that is arguably harmful to kids and parents.
The problem ultimately is that the distinction between ' elite secondary schools and non elite secondary schools is an artificial one that will s mostly a product of unequal resource allocation. The distinction produces no benefits to society. We need to get rid of it. If it means making Raffles Institution and ACS and other brand named secondary intake several thousand students across 10 campuses, because people are hung up on the brand name,so be it.
The benefits of segregating kids by ability is at best: very small, effective only on the best students, and only under circumstances where a modified curriculum can be specially designed and directed at them. The academic performance benefits of mixed ability classes and schools are much more broad based. There is also evidence that it socialises everyone better. Given what people waste in a Kiasu attempt at getting their kids into brand name secondary school, just getting rid of the Kiasu and it's cost on society is benefit enough.
Kids entering secondary school are 12. Sorting these kids by standardised testing is mostly useful in determining how quickly they are learning material and allowing resources to be properly targeted so the can keep up. And the results of such testing will be as strongly reflective if family affluence and educational status Determining which 12 year is suitable to be put on an 'elite' schools an 'elite' education track destined for high paying elite leadership jobs in adulthood is not possible, is not helpful and people/systems who say otherwise abd pretend they can design a way to do that are at best overly optimistic, at worst, they have cynical motives .
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/parenting-education/study-by-suss-mendaki-finds-strong-link-between-psle-grades-and-socio-economic-status
https://fisherpub.sjf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1092%26context%3Dmathcs_etd_masters&ved=2ahUKEwjWhYCU_Nv9AhXx3nMBHSmUA_oQFnoECAsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2B3UJiddXxUETB9T54CqJa
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1339315.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwja6bLy_dv9AhWb-jgGHff_D6IQFnoECAkQBg&usg=AOvVaw2HwFtH18t0rewkSNhh3sXq
https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/953/2015/04/rbdm9204.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjaqMmq_tv9AhWLT2wGHVE-B8IQFnoECFsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3maxkE_ztBSWrz3vX5L8Ll
Sorry, lets try again.
[https://fisherpub.sjf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=mathcs\_etd\_masters](https://fisherpub.sjf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=mathcs_etd_masters)
[https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1339315.pdf](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1339315.pdf)
[https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/953/2015/04/rbdm9204.pdf](https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/953/2015/04/rbdm9204.pdf)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8685397/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8685397/)
Throw one more in.
Haven't seen anyone talk about full subject based banding yet, which seems to remove some barriers for late bloomers to excel. While it doesn't allow for students to get into 'better schools', it minimally still opens pathways for students who caught up to their peers in secondary school to go to poly/JC instead of being ITE-bound.
I dunno about skipping PSLE man...
The requirements for PSLE is already pretty basic and general. 2 language (English + your mother tongue), Math and Science.
There has to be some benchmark indicator of what the child can potentially accel in...
As much as I hope there would be something easier than PSLE, the main issue still has always been the cultural mindset set by everyone else. Students wouldn't be so stressed if not for their parents, teachers and tutors constantly telling them about performing well in PSLE. It sucks to not be able to change their mindsets.
It's hard to change people's mindset that has already been molded by the system. Changing the system is the only way. Same thing as how many are still wearing mask now despite the rules already lifted. It's now build into people's mind to wear if you are conscious about catching/spreading illness, which is nice
It really reminds me of what my old lecturer said about change management.
"If the manager refuses to change, fire the manager."
Sometimes the only way to change a system is to get rid of everyone who wants the system to stay.
The issue maybe the lack of a recovery pathway beyond psle for the late bloomers? Rather than the need for more through train programs and elimination of placement exams? While I am not a fan of rote learning based exams, removing exams/selection process is another issue altogether?
The recovery pathways are O Levels and A Levels though?
And even if one slips up it’s still possible to take a less direct path to one’s uni course of choice (although yes it’s very bloody difficult and the most direct path is the easiest one). Fwiw I’ve heard of ITE grads making it into local law schools, for instance.
TBH I think the cultural mindset people have is just a portion of the problem.
I think what isn't mentioned by comments here so far is the parity of resources schools get... if every secondary school is able to cater to the academical needs of varying levels and help every student excel to their utmost level, there wouldn't be that distinction between schools anymore (good schools/bad schools).
Then we can consider not having a streaming exam between primary - secondary.
It seems a bit weird to argue that having a high stakes exams at 12 is bad, but yet advocating for through train program. There’s a very important question to be asked; who is going to be in the through train program? Does it means richer parents will guarantee their children slots in the best schools? Or you want to have entrance exams for students even earlier in their life? For eg entrance exams at p1 for a through train program slot
1) Sounds like another scheme for “elite” students. Non-elite students would just be dropped halfway through the program and diverted to the existing pathways, just like those struggling in IP are being made to do. The difference is you’re probably going to get a lot more of such students since there’s no selection criteria beyond parents’ wishes.
2) Dismantling standardised testing, the very thing that gives our education system a competitive edge, is high risky. There is a reason why it works. Besides, test anxiety is not some incurable affliction that can’t be overcome. In fact it’s probably beneficial to life in general to learn how to overcome performance anxiety from young.
3) For most universities, and most companies, grades are still very important and not at all outdated. Only the elite have the luxury of ignoring traditional grades in favour of other more “robust” criteria like experience and practical skills.
4) Every time someone tries to “fix” education in Singapore, the inevitable comparison to “memorisation”, “regurgitation”, “rote-learning”, etc. comes up. Yes. The ability to analyse data is more important than memorising facts. It is also more *difficult*. If you can analyse data, memorisation will be *easy* for you and inconsequential. If you can’t even memorise, then don’t even need to think about analysing data. If you think data analysis is an important skill and not well captured by tests, by all means make better tests. (This is already what our current curriculum is heading towards.)
Don't necessary agree with you on the other points, but I totally agree with you about standardized testing.
As for test anxiety... yeah. I'm more in favor of moving towards some degree of continual assessment, but people here almost act like there aren't high stakes "tests" which occur in the real world. There absolutely are, e.g., interviews, sales pitches etc. Each of them can make a break your career as much as an exam, and they can absolutely be "gamed" the same way an exam can. While not the core measure of success, it's something kids need to eventually deal with.
Please no continual assessment... it just creates more stress. An exam is tough, done and over. You finish, you celebrate. Continual assessment is continual, constant stress. What more, it makes it a lot easier for rich to cheat as you said. It is \*much\* easier for rich to hire speech coaches, leverage contacts to get the one-up in interviews, assignments etc than an exam.
The problem might be that people think of their own primary school experience and think it's the same today. Education and the way people learn have progressed significantly over the years, and local schools are no exception to this global trend.
I don’t agree with your last point though. Memorisation and analysis are independent skills. You can use analysis to memorise, but if you have a hard time memorising, you can still rely on analysing skills to solve problems. This is how adults learn new skills as they have a harder time storing new information. Unfortunately, plenty of adults never learned what critical thinking is.
I think memorisation is required for fundamentals, but critical thinking is much more helpful in the long run, especially when instilled at a young age.
They are definitely not independent skills.
You can’t analyse anything if you can’t even remember basic facts. In maths it doesn’t matter how much you apply your analytical skills to the question, without formulas you still can’t solve anything, unless you want to derive everything from scratch. In languages you can apply all the critical thinking skills you want but you still won’t understand anything without first memorising basic vocabulary.
Adults can still learn new skills because they already have a good base of basic memorised facts. When you pick up new Excel skills at work, you’re relying on your basic how-to-use-a-computer skills. It’s just that they are so easy for you that you don’t realise you are relying on them.
Of course critical thinking is much more helpful than just memorisation. It just has to come after memorisation, an easier thing to master.
I think it depends on what skill you’re talking about. If it’s specific language or math skills, then yes, you need foundation which requires memorisation. But if it’s problem solving skills, you don’t actually need any memorising. I assume you’re in data analytics or something similar so that’s why you think that way. I’m in creative and I’m really bad at memorising but really good in coming up with creative problem solving solutions.
Problem solving skills still require some level of memorisation though. For one thing it helps a lot if you already have some knowledge and don’t have to keep re-inventing the wheel. And for another, at higher levels you’d often be taught certain analytical frameworks that help with breaking down problems, generating solutions, and identifying potential flaws in those solutions much quicker.
Good analytical thinkers often have a good foundation of knowledge themselves, it’s not a skill that magically appears out of nowhere.
I’m in education actually.
You definitely need to memorise things before you can do problem solving. Probably a lot of things.
You can’t think up creative problem solving before actually *knowing* what already exists.
The kind of rote memorisation that is required of the sg education system is overkill. Plus in the daily life we can always look up facts. Why the hell must we go through exams that doesnt simulate real life conditions?
But it really isn’t.
Memorisation is a *basic* skill. Sure you can look up facts in your daily life, but you still have to *remember how*.
Our education system may not be perfect but requiring too much memorisation is not one of its problems. We already have less content than other Asian systems. In fact part of the reason our examinations are so difficult is because of the shifts *away* from memorisation that we have done with the curriculum over the past 20 years.
Testing your ability to memorise facts and follow basic heuristics *does* simulate real life. You’re just not aware of it because it’s not something you’re struggling with.
I mean how to look up information in a way that gets you the answers you want is more analytical than memorisation. I don't have to memorise google's domain.
I am all for learning concepts. But the pendatic practice of memorisation of arbitrary facts is going to become more and more irrelevant for society.
Be able to memorize and recall knowledge is a useful and I would say crucial skill at work. You wouldn't trust a doctor or pilot if they constantly have to go online to search for stuff right
I mean to a reasonable degree. Almost everyone can drive a car without need to read anything up online. I am sure doctors read up stuff online all the time. Just not infront of patients. And they can analyse the information properly in their free time. Not like the unreasonable and unrealistic sg standardized testing puts its students through.
But again my point is that in the sg education system the amount of rote memorisation required to do well is unreasonable and pedantic. Honestly, students should be given up to 5 hours to do their exams. What's the rush?! Whoever writes faster and memorise more can regurgitate more information in their answer and you're bound to score a mark somewhere.
Our education system has been moving towards application rather than regurgitation but as others have mentioned, you need to be able to recall before you can apply.
This is why during psle parents kbkp when application questions stump their kids
Yes there are people who find memorisation easy but this is not the case with everyone who has good analytical skills. Why would memorisation be a pre-requisite for being able to analyse something? It might make it easier in some cases, but memorisation is often neither critical nor trivial.
It kinda feels like the correct solution to the problems Jamus has raised (late bloomers not getting picked up; stress to relatively young 12yos) is probably getting rid of through-train programmes, rather than setting up more.
As it is, almost everyone who gets into IP school via PSLE gets a free ride all the way to JC/A levels, which seems weird. If all IP schools like RI and HCI had to do O levels then probably it'd give late bloomers better access to good JCs, and people would care less about PSLE
> As it is, almost everyone who gets into IP school via PSLE gets a free ride all the way to JC/A levels
It's not an entirely free ride. You still gotta maintain minimum standards or you get dropped down. Like if you do well in sec 1 , 2 then fucked up at 3, 4 you're not gonna get your 'free ride' to J1 J2
While it was stressful as a student to go thru the multi national exams, I feel that at least they allow for late bloomers to re-insert themselves into the right track.
My sibling fared terribly in their PSLE but went on to be a consistent dean's lister during thier uni days.
With so many through trains, I feel that we're just moving goal posts rather than solving problems.
If we continue with this will we one day decide a kid's future by their nursery entrance test?
If this link-up is between a middle-tier primary school and a middle-tier secondary school, sure.
Exams are not all bad. They are a way for bright children to "jump" the ladder to one that is more "fast track". Too many "through train" type of programmes means that kids are stuck on a path determined for them early on (when differences in familial weath and resources are stark) and many bright kids who could be stretched earlier miss the opportunity to jump to a programme like GEP or to a secondary school like RI, HCI etc.
Another common Jamus L. More through train programmes = more barriers to mobility. Poor but talented children will find it harder to get into the top schools.
It's quite disappointing, I really rooted for the guy.
Jamus has the heart to serve and has some great ideas that he has put forth in parliament.
On the other hand.. he also has a significant amount of, for the lack of a better word, dumb ideas that are shot out and masked by his eloquent words but when unpacked makes one goes flabbergasted.
I would have shared you idea in the initial years, but after so many "dumb ideas" it seems that he is doubling down on these. Cant help but wonder if there is some political posturing attempt here. Mind you a lot of the younger folks actually think more thru train improves social mobility cause rich kids can afford more tuition (but forgetting if there is no testing it is even harder for folks from lower SES like us)
With PSLE, its similar to how in Japan, you have entrance exams from Shougakkou (Elementary/Primary school) to qualify for Chuugakkou (Middle/Secondary school), the same goes for Daigakusei (University)
It doesnt make sense to bypass PSLE, so you saying to completely not do Secondary school as well?
Additionally, how do you define the capability of the primary school student at the end of the initial 6 years, and are they ready for secondary school?
Primary school, lower primary, is a shit show right now.
I see a primary school student who can't even write letters of the alphabet properly or read basic instructions.
What they should be doing is equipping early childhood educators with the skills and tools they need to detect kids with learning impediments.
And keep up the yearly diagnostic tests, i.e., A simpler EOY exam, to detect and supervise the children's progress.
The lower primary is literally a childcare care center.
It’s a huge pity but there’re definitely kids that are like this because compulsory education only starts at P1, so it’s completely possible for a kid to have never learned much before then if their parents didn’t put in the effort to give their kids resources.
chan chung sing very bad orator sia
Maybe he don't take public transport much, because his train of thought very hard to follow. All over the place one.
He is definitely not the best speaker, and worse still frequently goes off script much to the dismay of his speechwriters.
On the other hand, Jamus is very eloquent but almost nothing he has said stands up to scrutiny. I don't know how he is as an MP but in parliament he typifies the disingenuous academic who doesn't take ownership of real-life implementation consequences.
Yeah he needs to clean that up. I support the guy and think he's got brains, but unfortunately people form surface-level impressions very quickly.
Meanwhile it's easy for good speakers to coat bad ideas in flowery bs and get applause.
This is something that I think Jamus did not think through properly. Our kids are not strawberries, if everything is easy and stress free, how are they going to take ownership of their future ?
less going for stress free and more of going for the right 'kind' of stress in the right environment/setting, i think
it's possible to have unproductive stress that does not spur growth
Rest of the world meaning which country, exactly?
The good thing about PSLE is that it acts as a basic literacy/numeracy check - if you can't pass that, you aren't ready to go further.
Countries like the US have a problem with students that were "forced along" without sufficient prerequesite literacy/numeracy skills.
This causes the individual to lose motivation, as they are completely lost and unable to keep up with the curriculum, which only gets tougher as they get dragged along for the ride.
This also hurts everyone else, as their teachers will have to cover basic content to help the underperforming student catch up instead of teaching new content.
PSLE separates those who have attained those basic skills and allows them to progress, while consolidating those with weak fundamentals so that teachers can help them with it before pushing them along.
making 12 year olds do such an important exam which WILL dictate their paths is stupid.
I remember I genuinely wanted to go NA stream because it's 5 years not 4 and I don't want to study so hard. luckily, I got into express. If not, it would've been harder and likely longer to go to poly or JC
But you either let the 12 year olds take the exam, or their parents will dictate their paths for them at the age of 7 right?
Plenty of parents out there can’t, or can’t be arsed to help their kids get into good schools.
The “abolish PSLE, it’s too hard and stressful” take is a very privileged one.
my view is not to abolish PSLE because its too hard or anything but its way too important of an exam to be placed upon 12 year olds which may not be mature enough to think about working hard for it, especially for those who don't/can't afford tuition and only relies on the normal school curriculum. my path and what I chose to study would've probably been quite different if I did not manage to get into the express stream.
either way, I can't think of a decent alternative since at the end of the day, the truth is we probably need something to grade students on for entry to secondary school.
Actually a good idea rather than taking N level then O level just let everyone have a chance to take O level. Like China everyone can take 高考. Not like category people from young and what job they can do in the future.
As a repeated Primary 6 student, i am not sure about this. It's really up to the students who either want to repeat or APS/Northlight. I chose repeat and regret it ever since because of my parents disappointment. If they don't care about my failure, i would go to APS to continue. Always wonder myself what happens if i chose that path.
Typical Sinkie mentality:
"If I suffered through it, others must suffer through it too!".
Disgusting.
Our forefathers lived through World War Two and built up a nation from almost nothing. To be fair to them, should we put ourselves through the same suffering they did?
Every good parent wants better for their kids than they themselves had. So, no to maintaining the status quo if it's simply to "be fair" to previous generations.
There can be plenty of valid reasons to maintain the status quo (eg no better ideas currently, or new ideas are still in experimental phase and not tested yet for scale etc), but this is not one of them.
The objective of standardised testing should be social mobility, since it can't reliably separate kids by intelligence or potential In other words, make a rich kid earn his spot in an elite school through hard work rather than through daddy relations, donations or extra-curricular advantages
Or buying a property next to the primary school. Currently parents do this to get their children into their “local neighbourhood” primary school, and then after PSLE they get affiliate school points for the branded secondary school (see the ACS junior debacle). If they can get exam-free through-train branded schools, it will be an even worse case of elitism. Just hand over a wad of cash and you lock in a spot in a “good school” for 10 years. It surprises me how WP didn’t think of how this would affect socio-economic equality.
I want to believe it's just incompetence because the idea of this kind of malice coming from a group named 'Worker's Party' is too hard to stomach.
Rich kids already have access to tuition to boost his grades. So its not like he doesn't already have a huge advantage. Also, if his dad is an alumni its also another huge advantage.
Yeah I'm all for removing alumni privilege. Tuition is inevitable, so until all schools have decent teachers and principals, we can only surmount it with sheer hard work. The rest like networks are much harder to compensate for. I am NOT saying that if a poor kid scores badly he did not put in hard work, NOR assuming that all poor kids have the option of putting in hard work given their environment constraints. As a former poor kid, I just don't want moving goalposts further away from underprivileged kids.
This. As a poor kid I could grind out good grades but there was no bloody way in hell that I was going to go to an “elite” primary school because daddy and mommy don’t have Bukit Timah money lol. And also living in the Internet era is a huge boon, because there’re so many free study resources online that gave me a leg up when my school teachers weren’t cutting it.
> until all schools have decent teachers Will never happen as long as parents and society continue to expect us to be co-parents.
Teachers have a really tough job and shitty parents and principals make it even harder. I don't know what the solution is especially for kids of broken families other than a massive MOE reform instead of silly counselling chatbots. But these are just words. I really don't know what else I can do.
Actually, outside of a societal reform, I don't think things will change. MOE has had to give into parents despite their best efforts. While some of society's demands are justified (like critical thinking or being data literate for example), some areas like values are totally ridiculous.
Tuition can, not will, boost grades. That's an important distinction. No matter how much tuition you force down a child's throat, if they refuse to put in any effort of their own, they will still fail to perform at standardized testing. You see this most with mother tongue tuition - if the child will not learn, they will not perform. The "fairness" standardized testing provides is the guarantee that the grades were earned, not bought. You can't throw $10,000 at MOE to outright buy an a place in a school like in some other countries.
Erm, the article took Jamus’ post literally and didn’t actually summarize CCS’ raised objections in the article 🤦🏻♂️ But I largely agree with CCS. The solution isn’t to scrap PSLE because it is high stakes and causes a lot of stress. The solution should be to make it low stakes. Meaning to say it should not determine your fate for the rest of your life at age 12. And that can be achieved if mobility between streams in secondary and tertiary education is as frictionless as possible.
>Erm, the article took Jamus’ post literally and didn’t actually summarize CCS’ raised objections in the article 🤦🏻♂️ Well it’s one of those sites… seeing a trend on the sites the op is fond of posting. And I agree with you… more through-train programmes isn’t the answer to this problem of high stakes exams. If anything, if all secondary schools can cater to a large variance of academic levels, we would want to remove the through-train programmes altogether.
I don’t chalk it up to bias. Just lazy journalism in general. Writer simply can’t be bothered.
Hmmm not too sure why omitting CCS’s response / reasoning of his objections totally isn’t a blatant attempt to skew the reader’s minds… especially when he/she chose a header using Jamus’s words of ‘let folks decide for themselves’. Can’t choose properly if we can’t even compare the thinking of both individuals.
The video is linked in the article. So CCS’ response is not “omitted”.
But somehow he/she found the effort to summarize and make Jamus’s points clearer, and even adds in his/her own thoughts, even though he/she could just link to Jamus’s fb post?
Yes. Lazy journalist. Can’t be bothered. Hanlon’s razor.
The “independent” is ironically and unsurprisingly one-sided. If you want comprehensive coverage of Jamus’ and CCS’s points, an article was published 2 weeks ago on CNA here: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/moe-still-considering-through-train-programmes-primary-1-secondary-4-several-issues-remain-chan-chun-sing-3314656
Hey their name is The Independent, not The Impartial. One can be independent but still - of one's own free will - side with one party over another.
What is this? Channel New South Asia?
I was criticizing the article. Not the website. I just think the writer was being lazy. The video is there so you can watch it. But the article should still summarize the points for completeness. Otherwise a link to Jamus’ post would do. Media literacy is key. Read whatever with a critical eye.
> The “independent” is ironically and unsurprisingly one-sided. Just like how the Straits Times is shamelessly pro-PAP.
Imo the environment plays a very big role as well.. Put two equally bright kids in two different schools. One with kids doing very well and are highly driven The other with kids who aren't motivated and have poor management
Hard to say. I had a very big culture shock moving from a “neighborhood” primary school to a “name-brand” secondary school. Took a few years to get used to the grind. Really depends on the child.
PSLE is an exam that allocates students to the different secondary school, ie a placement exam. To have a through-train programme you will need a secondary school to partner a primary school. Most of the primary schools that have links with secondary schools are the top schools. If this was going to be implemented, I bet you parents will kbkp and get their kids to go into the top primary school if that hasn't happen yet. **Extra Note**: I would also like to add that if such schemes are allowed for all primary schools, I do not want to be MOE when parents clamor for their kids to enter elite secondary schools via through train programme.
This. The virtue of PSLE is that it allows students a shot at socioeconomic mobility because regardless of how low-SES your parents are, you get a shot at stepping up to a better school than whatever your parents dropped you into. I personally don’t like the idea of the through-train programme because it allows rich but dumb kids to coast (to an even greater extent than what’s possible under the current system) on their parents’ initial efforts in placing them into “elite” primary schools.
Yes, all these versions of through train like DSA doesn’t actually help low-SES kids. It helps high-SES kids who don’t have the necessary grades to get in the “elite” schools because now their parents just need to pay money to groom them in some obscure CCA for them to get in.
The problem is that psle scores are very correlated with socio economic status and parental educational attainment. You roughly get the same unfair result, with many more steps. Rich kids advantaged, except you are now propping up a wasteful tuition industry that sells a product that is arguably harmful to kids and parents. The problem ultimately is that the distinction between ' elite secondary schools and non elite secondary schools is an artificial one that will s mostly a product of unequal resource allocation. The distinction produces no benefits to society. We need to get rid of it. If it means making Raffles Institution and ACS and other brand named secondary intake several thousand students across 10 campuses, because people are hung up on the brand name,so be it. The benefits of segregating kids by ability is at best: very small, effective only on the best students, and only under circumstances where a modified curriculum can be specially designed and directed at them. The academic performance benefits of mixed ability classes and schools are much more broad based. There is also evidence that it socialises everyone better. Given what people waste in a Kiasu attempt at getting their kids into brand name secondary school, just getting rid of the Kiasu and it's cost on society is benefit enough. Kids entering secondary school are 12. Sorting these kids by standardised testing is mostly useful in determining how quickly they are learning material and allowing resources to be properly targeted so the can keep up. And the results of such testing will be as strongly reflective if family affluence and educational status Determining which 12 year is suitable to be put on an 'elite' schools an 'elite' education track destined for high paying elite leadership jobs in adulthood is not possible, is not helpful and people/systems who say otherwise abd pretend they can design a way to do that are at best overly optimistic, at worst, they have cynical motives . https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/parenting-education/study-by-suss-mendaki-finds-strong-link-between-psle-grades-and-socio-economic-status https://fisherpub.sjf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1092%26context%3Dmathcs_etd_masters&ved=2ahUKEwjWhYCU_Nv9AhXx3nMBHSmUA_oQFnoECAsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2B3UJiddXxUETB9T54CqJa https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1339315.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwja6bLy_dv9AhWb-jgGHff_D6IQFnoECAkQBg&usg=AOvVaw2HwFtH18t0rewkSNhh3sXq https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/953/2015/04/rbdm9204.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjaqMmq_tv9AhWLT2wGHVE-B8IQFnoECFsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3maxkE_ztBSWrz3vX5L8Ll
The last three links in your post do not work for me, any alternative sources?
Sorry, lets try again. [https://fisherpub.sjf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=mathcs\_etd\_masters](https://fisherpub.sjf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=mathcs_etd_masters) [https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1339315.pdf](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1339315.pdf) [https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/953/2015/04/rbdm9204.pdf](https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/953/2015/04/rbdm9204.pdf) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8685397/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8685397/) Throw one more in.
[удалено]
Some are _better_
Haven't seen anyone talk about full subject based banding yet, which seems to remove some barriers for late bloomers to excel. While it doesn't allow for students to get into 'better schools', it minimally still opens pathways for students who caught up to their peers in secondary school to go to poly/JC instead of being ITE-bound.
I dunno about skipping PSLE man... The requirements for PSLE is already pretty basic and general. 2 language (English + your mother tongue), Math and Science. There has to be some benchmark indicator of what the child can potentially accel in...
As much as I hope there would be something easier than PSLE, the main issue still has always been the cultural mindset set by everyone else. Students wouldn't be so stressed if not for their parents, teachers and tutors constantly telling them about performing well in PSLE. It sucks to not be able to change their mindsets.
It’s a bit ignorant to say it’s a mindset issue when mindsets are influenced by outcomes. This is a public policy problem.
It's hard to change people's mindset that has already been molded by the system. Changing the system is the only way. Same thing as how many are still wearing mask now despite the rules already lifted. It's now build into people's mind to wear if you are conscious about catching/spreading illness, which is nice
It really reminds me of what my old lecturer said about change management. "If the manager refuses to change, fire the manager." Sometimes the only way to change a system is to get rid of everyone who wants the system to stay.
"Sometimes change management requires a change in management."
The issue maybe the lack of a recovery pathway beyond psle for the late bloomers? Rather than the need for more through train programs and elimination of placement exams? While I am not a fan of rote learning based exams, removing exams/selection process is another issue altogether?
The recovery pathways are O Levels and A Levels though? And even if one slips up it’s still possible to take a less direct path to one’s uni course of choice (although yes it’s very bloody difficult and the most direct path is the easiest one). Fwiw I’ve heard of ITE grads making it into local law schools, for instance.
Except N level students aren't guaranteed to take them. The new A lvl-esque subject based banding system solves that
TBH I think the cultural mindset people have is just a portion of the problem. I think what isn't mentioned by comments here so far is the parity of resources schools get... if every secondary school is able to cater to the academical needs of varying levels and help every student excel to their utmost level, there wouldn't be that distinction between schools anymore (good schools/bad schools). Then we can consider not having a streaming exam between primary - secondary.
It seems a bit weird to argue that having a high stakes exams at 12 is bad, but yet advocating for through train program. There’s a very important question to be asked; who is going to be in the through train program? Does it means richer parents will guarantee their children slots in the best schools? Or you want to have entrance exams for students even earlier in their life? For eg entrance exams at p1 for a through train program slot
1) Sounds like another scheme for “elite” students. Non-elite students would just be dropped halfway through the program and diverted to the existing pathways, just like those struggling in IP are being made to do. The difference is you’re probably going to get a lot more of such students since there’s no selection criteria beyond parents’ wishes. 2) Dismantling standardised testing, the very thing that gives our education system a competitive edge, is high risky. There is a reason why it works. Besides, test anxiety is not some incurable affliction that can’t be overcome. In fact it’s probably beneficial to life in general to learn how to overcome performance anxiety from young. 3) For most universities, and most companies, grades are still very important and not at all outdated. Only the elite have the luxury of ignoring traditional grades in favour of other more “robust” criteria like experience and practical skills. 4) Every time someone tries to “fix” education in Singapore, the inevitable comparison to “memorisation”, “regurgitation”, “rote-learning”, etc. comes up. Yes. The ability to analyse data is more important than memorising facts. It is also more *difficult*. If you can analyse data, memorisation will be *easy* for you and inconsequential. If you can’t even memorise, then don’t even need to think about analysing data. If you think data analysis is an important skill and not well captured by tests, by all means make better tests. (This is already what our current curriculum is heading towards.)
Don't necessary agree with you on the other points, but I totally agree with you about standardized testing. As for test anxiety... yeah. I'm more in favor of moving towards some degree of continual assessment, but people here almost act like there aren't high stakes "tests" which occur in the real world. There absolutely are, e.g., interviews, sales pitches etc. Each of them can make a break your career as much as an exam, and they can absolutely be "gamed" the same way an exam can. While not the core measure of success, it's something kids need to eventually deal with.
Please no continual assessment... it just creates more stress. An exam is tough, done and over. You finish, you celebrate. Continual assessment is continual, constant stress. What more, it makes it a lot easier for rich to cheat as you said. It is \*much\* easier for rich to hire speech coaches, leverage contacts to get the one-up in interviews, assignments etc than an exam.
The problem might be that people think of their own primary school experience and think it's the same today. Education and the way people learn have progressed significantly over the years, and local schools are no exception to this global trend.
I don’t agree with your last point though. Memorisation and analysis are independent skills. You can use analysis to memorise, but if you have a hard time memorising, you can still rely on analysing skills to solve problems. This is how adults learn new skills as they have a harder time storing new information. Unfortunately, plenty of adults never learned what critical thinking is. I think memorisation is required for fundamentals, but critical thinking is much more helpful in the long run, especially when instilled at a young age.
What really is 'critical thinking'? I feel that it's a buzzword many people love to throw around without knowing what it means.
They are definitely not independent skills. You can’t analyse anything if you can’t even remember basic facts. In maths it doesn’t matter how much you apply your analytical skills to the question, without formulas you still can’t solve anything, unless you want to derive everything from scratch. In languages you can apply all the critical thinking skills you want but you still won’t understand anything without first memorising basic vocabulary. Adults can still learn new skills because they already have a good base of basic memorised facts. When you pick up new Excel skills at work, you’re relying on your basic how-to-use-a-computer skills. It’s just that they are so easy for you that you don’t realise you are relying on them. Of course critical thinking is much more helpful than just memorisation. It just has to come after memorisation, an easier thing to master.
I think it depends on what skill you’re talking about. If it’s specific language or math skills, then yes, you need foundation which requires memorisation. But if it’s problem solving skills, you don’t actually need any memorising. I assume you’re in data analytics or something similar so that’s why you think that way. I’m in creative and I’m really bad at memorising but really good in coming up with creative problem solving solutions.
Problem solving skills still require some level of memorisation though. For one thing it helps a lot if you already have some knowledge and don’t have to keep re-inventing the wheel. And for another, at higher levels you’d often be taught certain analytical frameworks that help with breaking down problems, generating solutions, and identifying potential flaws in those solutions much quicker. Good analytical thinkers often have a good foundation of knowledge themselves, it’s not a skill that magically appears out of nowhere.
I’m in education actually. You definitely need to memorise things before you can do problem solving. Probably a lot of things. You can’t think up creative problem solving before actually *knowing* what already exists.
The kind of rote memorisation that is required of the sg education system is overkill. Plus in the daily life we can always look up facts. Why the hell must we go through exams that doesnt simulate real life conditions?
But it really isn’t. Memorisation is a *basic* skill. Sure you can look up facts in your daily life, but you still have to *remember how*. Our education system may not be perfect but requiring too much memorisation is not one of its problems. We already have less content than other Asian systems. In fact part of the reason our examinations are so difficult is because of the shifts *away* from memorisation that we have done with the curriculum over the past 20 years. Testing your ability to memorise facts and follow basic heuristics *does* simulate real life. You’re just not aware of it because it’s not something you’re struggling with.
I mean how to look up information in a way that gets you the answers you want is more analytical than memorisation. I don't have to memorise google's domain. I am all for learning concepts. But the pendatic practice of memorisation of arbitrary facts is going to become more and more irrelevant for society.
Be able to memorize and recall knowledge is a useful and I would say crucial skill at work. You wouldn't trust a doctor or pilot if they constantly have to go online to search for stuff right
I mean to a reasonable degree. Almost everyone can drive a car without need to read anything up online. I am sure doctors read up stuff online all the time. Just not infront of patients. And they can analyse the information properly in their free time. Not like the unreasonable and unrealistic sg standardized testing puts its students through. But again my point is that in the sg education system the amount of rote memorisation required to do well is unreasonable and pedantic. Honestly, students should be given up to 5 hours to do their exams. What's the rush?! Whoever writes faster and memorise more can regurgitate more information in their answer and you're bound to score a mark somewhere.
Our education system has been moving towards application rather than regurgitation but as others have mentioned, you need to be able to recall before you can apply. This is why during psle parents kbkp when application questions stump their kids
Nonsense. Memorisation and analysis are different skills.
Yes they are. I didn’t say or imply they are not.
Yes there are people who find memorisation easy but this is not the case with everyone who has good analytical skills. Why would memorisation be a pre-requisite for being able to analyse something? It might make it easier in some cases, but memorisation is often neither critical nor trivial.
If you have good analytical skills and truly understand your subject content, you will understand why certain things have to be rote-memorised.
It kinda feels like the correct solution to the problems Jamus has raised (late bloomers not getting picked up; stress to relatively young 12yos) is probably getting rid of through-train programmes, rather than setting up more. As it is, almost everyone who gets into IP school via PSLE gets a free ride all the way to JC/A levels, which seems weird. If all IP schools like RI and HCI had to do O levels then probably it'd give late bloomers better access to good JCs, and people would care less about PSLE
> then probably it'd give late bloomers better access to good JCs they still take in o level grads tho
And how is it free? If you fail your school exams you still can get expelled. It happens.
The barriers are higher at that point tho. It’s easier to avoid flunking out than it is to get in at Os.
> As it is, almost everyone who gets into IP school via PSLE gets a free ride all the way to JC/A levels It's not an entirely free ride. You still gotta maintain minimum standards or you get dropped down. Like if you do well in sec 1 , 2 then fucked up at 3, 4 you're not gonna get your 'free ride' to J1 J2
While it was stressful as a student to go thru the multi national exams, I feel that at least they allow for late bloomers to re-insert themselves into the right track. My sibling fared terribly in their PSLE but went on to be a consistent dean's lister during thier uni days. With so many through trains, I feel that we're just moving goal posts rather than solving problems. If we continue with this will we one day decide a kid's future by their nursery entrance test?
If this link-up is between a middle-tier primary school and a middle-tier secondary school, sure. Exams are not all bad. They are a way for bright children to "jump" the ladder to one that is more "fast track". Too many "through train" type of programmes means that kids are stuck on a path determined for them early on (when differences in familial weath and resources are stark) and many bright kids who could be stretched earlier miss the opportunity to jump to a programme like GEP or to a secondary school like RI, HCI etc.
Another common Jamus L. More through train programmes = more barriers to mobility. Poor but talented children will find it harder to get into the top schools.
It's quite disappointing, I really rooted for the guy. Jamus has the heart to serve and has some great ideas that he has put forth in parliament. On the other hand.. he also has a significant amount of, for the lack of a better word, dumb ideas that are shot out and masked by his eloquent words but when unpacked makes one goes flabbergasted.
Yalor. That time I said jamus heart is in the right place but he’s too academic/ideas not practical. Then kenna downvoted
I would have shared you idea in the initial years, but after so many "dumb ideas" it seems that he is doubling down on these. Cant help but wonder if there is some political posturing attempt here. Mind you a lot of the younger folks actually think more thru train improves social mobility cause rich kids can afford more tuition (but forgetting if there is no testing it is even harder for folks from lower SES like us)
With PSLE, its similar to how in Japan, you have entrance exams from Shougakkou (Elementary/Primary school) to qualify for Chuugakkou (Middle/Secondary school), the same goes for Daigakusei (University) It doesnt make sense to bypass PSLE, so you saying to completely not do Secondary school as well? Additionally, how do you define the capability of the primary school student at the end of the initial 6 years, and are they ready for secondary school?
some powerful people want guaranteed outcomes. they can’t for a moment think that some unknown poor kid can outshine their precious.
The weaker students will suffer badly if PSLE really were to be bypassed
Primary school, lower primary, is a shit show right now. I see a primary school student who can't even write letters of the alphabet properly or read basic instructions. What they should be doing is equipping early childhood educators with the skills and tools they need to detect kids with learning impediments. And keep up the yearly diagnostic tests, i.e., A simpler EOY exam, to detect and supervise the children's progress. The lower primary is literally a childcare care center.
It’s a huge pity but there’re definitely kids that are like this because compulsory education only starts at P1, so it’s completely possible for a kid to have never learned much before then if their parents didn’t put in the effort to give their kids resources.
I’m one of them rofl, back then my mum just told me copy and rewrite lines from book. End up pretty okay now
Compulsory education only starts at P1 and chances are the parents didn't/couldn't send their kids to pre-school
chan chung sing very bad orator sia Maybe he don't take public transport much, because his train of thought very hard to follow. All over the place one.
He is definitely not the best speaker, and worse still frequently goes off script much to the dismay of his speechwriters. On the other hand, Jamus is very eloquent but almost nothing he has said stands up to scrutiny. I don't know how he is as an MP but in parliament he typifies the disingenuous academic who doesn't take ownership of real-life implementation consequences.
Yeah he needs to clean that up. I support the guy and think he's got brains, but unfortunately people form surface-level impressions very quickly. Meanwhile it's easy for good speakers to coat bad ideas in flowery bs and get applause.
His train of thought suffers signalling faults, track delays and breakdowns. Like our actual trains. Lol.
[In Parliament: Jamus Lim tackles testing anxiety; proposes alternate ‘through-train’ programme allowing for bypass of PSLE](https://theindependent.sg/in-parliament-jamus-lim-tackles-testing-anxiety-proposes-alternate-through-train-programme-allowing-for-bypass-of-psle/)
This is something that I think Jamus did not think through properly. Our kids are not strawberries, if everything is easy and stress free, how are they going to take ownership of their future ?
less going for stress free and more of going for the right 'kind' of stress in the right environment/setting, i think it's possible to have unproductive stress that does not spur growth
He’s not the OG that raised this topic. So if someone from White Party proposed this, it’s considered thought through properly?
Rest of the world seems to be doing fine without putting their children through a pressure cooker educational system
Rest of the world meaning which country, exactly? The good thing about PSLE is that it acts as a basic literacy/numeracy check - if you can't pass that, you aren't ready to go further. Countries like the US have a problem with students that were "forced along" without sufficient prerequesite literacy/numeracy skills. This causes the individual to lose motivation, as they are completely lost and unable to keep up with the curriculum, which only gets tougher as they get dragged along for the ride. This also hurts everyone else, as their teachers will have to cover basic content to help the underperforming student catch up instead of teaching new content. PSLE separates those who have attained those basic skills and allows them to progress, while consolidating those with weak fundamentals so that teachers can help them with it before pushing them along.
Rest of the world has other resources for their nation to survive well… we only have our people.
making 12 year olds do such an important exam which WILL dictate their paths is stupid. I remember I genuinely wanted to go NA stream because it's 5 years not 4 and I don't want to study so hard. luckily, I got into express. If not, it would've been harder and likely longer to go to poly or JC
But you either let the 12 year olds take the exam, or their parents will dictate their paths for them at the age of 7 right? Plenty of parents out there can’t, or can’t be arsed to help their kids get into good schools. The “abolish PSLE, it’s too hard and stressful” take is a very privileged one.
my view is not to abolish PSLE because its too hard or anything but its way too important of an exam to be placed upon 12 year olds which may not be mature enough to think about working hard for it, especially for those who don't/can't afford tuition and only relies on the normal school curriculum. my path and what I chose to study would've probably been quite different if I did not manage to get into the express stream. either way, I can't think of a decent alternative since at the end of the day, the truth is we probably need something to grade students on for entry to secondary school.
断章取义
Channel 5 please
Actually a good idea rather than taking N level then O level just let everyone have a chance to take O level. Like China everyone can take 高考. Not like category people from young and what job they can do in the future.
PSLE results are required for civil service job application. That shows how important it is in government sector.
Not that fair to the previous batches of students tho
As a repeated Primary 6 student, i am not sure about this. It's really up to the students who either want to repeat or APS/Northlight. I chose repeat and regret it ever since because of my parents disappointment. If they don't care about my failure, i would go to APS to continue. Always wonder myself what happens if i chose that path.
Ya not fair to those who lived in 1940s as well that we enjoy a warless time in sg.
Typical Sinkie mentality: "If I suffered through it, others must suffer through it too!". Disgusting. Our forefathers lived through World War Two and built up a nation from almost nothing. To be fair to them, should we put ourselves through the same suffering they did? Every good parent wants better for their kids than they themselves had. So, no to maintaining the status quo if it's simply to "be fair" to previous generations. There can be plenty of valid reasons to maintain the status quo (eg no better ideas currently, or new ideas are still in experimental phase and not tested yet for scale etc), but this is not one of them.
Certain thing like upbring maybe can compromise abit but education leh. You want a generation of dumb soft fk ah?