Review of the changes to Exams in Primary and Secondary Schools

As many who follow my Facebook account would know, I am an avid writer on the topic of education. I have written commentaries on many education related policies and articles, having written in to TODAY once too. I take a keen interest in education as not only have I been brought up in the system, there is also a responsibility for those who have been brought up in this system to improve it to ensure future generations benefit from it too.

I actually took a hiatus from writing extensively about education following my enlistment and experience applying for the MOE Teaching Scholarship. However, I noticed now that I have a blog running, it would be good for me to start sharing my views on education to a larger platform. 

This blog will not become a full education-only blog. I will continue to blog on diverse issues, personal or current affairs. However, you may expect education to be present as an issue more often than not.

This week, I will be blogging on the changes to exams in Primary Schools and Secondary Schools. I feel that the changes are well summarized in this Straits Times article (not premium!) 

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/5-key-changes-to-examinations-and-assessments-in-schools. 

In general, I personally welcome the changes announced by the ministry. It is certainly a much appreciated development considering MOE's ongoing mission to de-emphasize the importance of academic results, promoting holistic education and more paths to success.

The removal of all assessments for Primary 1 and 2 students allows Primary Schools to reduce stress on its developing students, giving them ample time to progressively prepare for the academic rigour of the upper primary. The previous version of having students take an exam every term is in effect throwing young kids into the deep end of the pool, forcing them to learn how to thrive or risk drowning, which may be too much to handle for new students. The revision of the MOE Edusave Awards to reward good learning attitude also reflects MOE's commitment towards character-based education.

I also agree with the removal of mid-year exams for Primary 3, 5, Secondary 1 and 3 students. These years are called transition years, whereby students take on more responsibilities (academic and otherwise) in school. Expectations are also raised in these years, considering that students begin a new phase in school (middle primary, upper primary, lower secondary, and upper secondary). From my personal experience, my results do take a blow during these years as I struggle to adapt to new environments and expectations. The same can be said for quite a few of my peers (not all though, some just score well all the way). Taking away the mid-year exams allows students sufficient time to transit into their new phases of schooling.

I must especially commend the article for pointing out that while some exams are scrapped, it is specified that there will still be regular assessments such as quizzes, tests, and assignments will be used to monitor the students' progress. This shows that while reducing stress on students, MOE is committed to maintaining its high standards of education for students by providing regular feedback to them on what they are excelling/falling back in. Students falling behind can still receive help from their teachers, and those excelling can be encouraged to further their knowledge. This means that yes, there will be less stress on students, but students are still expected to work hard for these assessments. Students will still remain competitive in a less stressful environment, a win-win situation.

Perhaps the only thing I may pick on is the removal of rankings being published in the report book. Although I acknowledge that I come from a school that does not publicly rank students (but rankings are very much abundant for the teachers and college counselors) and the no-bell-curve CAP system allows us to strive for our own best, I feel that rankings are still rather necessary for other schools. My reasons are as follows:

1) Students will end up having national exams when they are facing off against other students. The bell curve will still be necessary. Instead of giving the false illusion that rankings do not matter, we should instead tell our students what is the reality and encourage them to strive to do better. There is still a need to instill a competitive spirit in our students, this will serve them well in the future.

2) Rankings can also be used as a validation for student's hard work. Raw scores may be poor reflections of a student's abilities since exam standards vary. However, rankings give a more clear indication of whether a student is performing well, or needs to buck up.

3) In JC, Poly, or University, the bell curve is still well used. It would also be detrimental for our students to not be used to the idea of relative ranking until their tertiary education. It would be ideal to have them get a feel of the competitive nature of tertiary grading. Removing rankings is at best kicking the can down the road (similar to point 1).

This is not to say we must continue the exact rankings of students, though. I would like to propose the following system to complement the other plans presented by the MOE.

Rankings will not be published for P1, P2, P3 (Sem 1), P5 (Sem 1), S1 (Sem 1), and S3 (Sem 1) as per the scrapping of exams. For the other semesters, students will be ranked by bands of 20 students. For example, 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, and so on. The top students for the level can still be recognized for their work during the annual speech day / prize giving ceremonies. Being banded reduces the chase for the next rank, but still gives the students an idea of where they stand, and encourages them to work harder for the next semester. Ranks will be more of a guide rather than a toxic competition point.

In conclusion, the changes made by MOE are sound and very much welcomed. I am not always very welcoming of changes made to the education system, and I have openly disagreed with some policies in the past. My stand is to not fix a system that is not broken, however make tweaks to improve it.

However, this is a mature and sensible change which is not too drastic and radical as compared to previous changes. My only wish is that MOE will reconsider taking away the rankings and consider banding the students instead.