If academic excellence forms the bedrock of the typical Singaporean parent’s aspirations for their child, excellence in national exams must constitute the cornerstone of this structure. Surely then the degree of controversy surrounding the proposed reforms to the Primary School Leaving Examinations (“PSLE”) is not surprising, ranging from criticisms that the reforms do too little to criticisms that the reforms do too much. The proposed revamps include adopting a cumulative T-score of each student’s Achievement Level (“AL”) for the 4 compulsory PSLE subjects based on how well each student does in a subject (instead of how well each student does according to their peers), changes to the Secondary School balloting system to accord more weight to a student’s listed priorities, and amending the Direct School Admissions (“DSA”) criteria.

This essay seeks to critically analyze 3 assumptions inherent in these reforms: that stress is ‘bad’, that a less fine and more generalised grading system would reduce stress, and that grading is, ultimately, still beneficial for students, families, and Singapore as a whole. This essay concludes that these reforms should be lauded as a step in the right direction, although the effectiveness of these reforms will be hampered by current societal attitudes and biases.

Assumption 1: stress is ‘bad’  

First, the revamps assume that more stress is bad for children and their families, and thus must be addressed through means such as adopting a more general grading scheme. Instinctively, this must be correct, as the notion of deliberately causing a child unhappiness through institutional means reeks of a dystopian nightmare. Asian parents bear a stereotypically harsh approach towards the upbringing of their children (see the New York Times bestseller, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother by Amy Chua), and Singaporean parents are no exception. On the contrary, Singaporean parents are notorious for being at the frontier of such extremes in Singapore’s pressure-cooker society. Families are not spared too – it is not uncommon to hear of annual family holidays being cancelled because of a child’s exams, or a parent taking a sabbatical in the year when a child is taking the PSLE. Psychological studies further buttress the general trend that stress, at any point of an individual’s life, has negative effects on that person’s mental health.

However, a more big-picture perspective presents things in a less gloomy light. Fundamentally, the issue lies with the definition of ‘bad’. Contemporaneous discomfort can be justified as a prelude to prospective delayed gratification. For example, the stress caused to a child in his formative years due to an intensive education may be justifiable if it is seen as a crucial part of enabling the child to perform excellently in his future studies and even career. Such a connection between Singapore’s stressful society, its highly educated population and its booming economy is unlikely to be coincidental. This may be supported by Singapore’s commendable ranking on the United Nation’s ‘Happiness Index’ of 22nd, the highest score in the Asia-Pacific, based on factors such as per capita Gross Domestic Product, level of social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom to make life choices, generosity and freedom from corruption.

Ultimately, the issue of whether childhood stress is ‘bad’ is not as clear-cut as considered at first glance. There might not even be a clear-cut answer to this, as it depends on each individual’s priorities in life, such that academic excellence might lead only to economic happiness. The results of a 2015 Gallup survey bear this out: out of 145 countries surveyed, Singapore did well for financial well-being (9th), but poorly for community well-being (72nd), purpose well-being (111th), social well-being (127th) and physical well-being (137th). This survey shows the wide range of concerns that collectively constitute an individual’s ‘happiness’, and these dismal results paint a more sobering picture than the UN’s ‘Happiness Index’, which focuses more on larger institutional measures of happiness. Notably, Singapore’s regional standing of 97th was rather poor, as compared to the following scores: Myanmar (20th), Malaysia (41st), Philippines (43rd), Thailand (50th), Indonesia (73rd), and Vietnam (93rd). There is, perhaps, cause for concern in relation to this issue.

Assumption 2: a less fine and more generalised grading system would reduce stress

Acting Minister for Education, Ng Chee Meng, shared that “[t]he main issue to address is that the way we currently score the PSLE is too precise, and differentiates our students more finely than necessary”; there was hence a need to “move away from such fine distinctions, which are not meaningful, especially at that young age". The basis of this revamp thus seems to be to encourage students to view themselves in a more egalitarian manner, as students within a certain range of scores will all receive the similar AL. This is a commendable approach, as it is generally questionable how different children who have only had limited opportunities to fulfil their academic potential by the tender age of 12 can be. It should follow from the developmental nature of education that the disparity between students of differing intellectual capability should be proportionate to the amount of time spent in the educational system, such that a more specific differentiating system is crucial at older ages, while a more general system may be applied at younger ages. Furthermore, the normative effect of such broad achievement levels stresses that all students within the same AL are of equal capability. This is a particularly notable point in relation to AL6, which applies to scores from 45 to 64 marks, hence straddling the numerical pass-fail margin of 50 marks; the government appears to be implicitly stressing that the difference between a pass and a fail is but an arbitrarily blunt label.

Crucially, the government appears to have avoided basing its approach on the belief that students will be less competitive in their quest to achieve the highest AL. This must be correct, as Singaporean parents have demonstrated a cynical commitment to competing in every manner. For example, although the DSA programme was initiated to reward a more holistic education instead of purely academic rigor, a market for DSA preparation and enrichment classes has since developed. Hence, the DSA program has backfired; instead of its initial goal of encouraging parents to stress the child less by recognizing a child’s wider strengths beyond academics, parents now stress their child even more by requiring their child to be the best at everything. It is also doubtful whether the change from a bell-curved system (where students are graded in relation to their peers) to a raw score system (where students are simply graded on how well they do) will be effective in reducing inter-student competitiveness, as their competitiveness is still ultimately propelled by the recognition of the scarcity of the desired vacancies in the best schools only for the best students.

The classification of achievement bands into ALs also raises the specter of arbitrariness: how logical can it be that a student is distinguished from a Normal (Technical) stream (which requires a 5-year secondary school syllabus) instead of a Normal (Academic) stream (which only requires a 4-year secondary school syllabus) on the basis of a single mark? Arguably, however, this criticism can be leveled against any sort of classification system. One can only hope that such a rigid system is tempered by the enlightened exercise of discretion by its administrators in deserving cases. 

Assumption 3: grading is, ultimately, still beneficial for students, families, and Singapore as a whole

It is notable that the government has not adopted the extreme measure of doing away with examinations completely, as would be the case if the only concern was to reduce stress for children and their families. There are, instead, 2 countervailing considerations. First, the categorization of children according to their academic ability is meant to enable students to receive education most befitting to their academic ability so as to maximize their potential. It does no one any favors if teaching is simultaneously too fast and too slow for different students in a single class. This approach is supported by the recent development of alternative paths of education, on the basis that academic strengths are not everything. For example, the government has invested heavily in the development of Institute for Technical Education (“ITE”) facilities recently, as well as in the development of educational institutions for children with special needs. 

Second, and most primarily, this must be because of the countervailing concern of ensuring meritocracy. A lack of examinations would mean a lack of means to select the most qualified (and hence most deserving) individual for any particular opportunity, thus undermining the mechanism by which meritocracy functions. Admittedly, the common criticism of meritocracy that it entrenches elitism holds true, since the classification of students according to their academic ability creates institutionalized social strata even at a young age. However, this problem should be addressed through ‘softer’ means instead, such as through the reformation of societal mindsets to recognize the societal worth of members of society that contribute in different ways.

A more palatable proposal could be, instead, to abolish the PSLE with the intention of making the ‘O’ level examinations the first form of nationalized examinations. The basis for this proposal would be to recognize the importance of differentiating examinations, but argue instead that the appropriate age for such sorting should be at 16, instead of 12. However, this goes against the present government’s assessment of the appropriate manner to assess a child’s development. Without descending into the myriad of sociological and psychological arguments for the merits of each side, it should suffice to say that presumptively, a democratically elected government has the moral authority to make such a determination on behalf of society, and the PSLE at the age of 12 is what our present government has decided to endorse.

Conclusion

The effectiveness of these measures is still hampered by ‘soft’ non-institutional factors. Primarily, there can be no watershed progress in improving Singapore’s educational system if parents still possess a mindset that academic achievements are paramount. Additionally, the effectiveness of such a newfound emphasis on holistic education is also hampered by employers’ primary bias towards academic excellence. It is perhaps in light of these considerations that Minister Ng commented that the changes were not meant to be revolutionary, but rather evolutionary: “[s]ome things are best evolved and not revolutionalised”. Nevertheless, this essay bears hope that the normative effect of such changes signify slow but steady progress towards a society where each child’s strengths are discerned and catered for, be they in the pursuit of academic excellence or in other non-academic strengths.