A mother’s thoughts on
|
A mother’s thoughts on
|
Dear Minister for Education Mr Ong Ye Kung,
RE: A mother’s thoughts on pre-assigned scorings for students exempted from Chinese The education system in Singapore has always been much debated in Singapore and the international sphere. Some praise the system for producing top Olympiads and brightest brains; others criticize the system, saying that it is punishing to young minds. We acknowledge that there has been many good attempts for the education system to be more inclusive, with the government and society providing assistance to open up opportunities for students with learning difficulties, including dyslexia, autism and attention deficit and hypertensive disorder to have a chance in primary school education through the deployment of allied teachers, establishment of SPED schools and more recently, the compulsory education for special needs children. Albeit the latter can be contentious on whether the rule meets the basic needs of severely handicapped children. The general direction is good. We applaud the effort to engage parents with school-going age children years before the start of implementation of the new PSLE system. As early as 2016, we have been hearing reports of PSLE grading system change. However, as with all communications, miscommunications can happen. It seems like what was communicated in 2016 is not quite the same as what is being communicated now, in 2019. “In response to queries from The Straits Times, MOE said the same approach will continue under the new scoring system. A pupil exempted from mother tongue will be assigned a grade for the subject based on how peers of comparable calibre perform in it. The PSLE score will be the sum of ALs for his three subjects plus the assigned mother-tongue score.” -- Young Parents, July 27, 2016 (1) However, teachers and principals are told that “In a standards-referencing assessment, the AL awarded to a student reflects his own level of achievement in a subject, regardless of how well his peers have performed. This will be more educationally meaningful for our students.“ when SEAB engaged them in 2018 to orientate them into the new system, according to SEAB-Link(2). The liners “A pupil exempted from mother tongue will be assigned a grade for the subject based on how peers of comparable calibre perform in it” and “the AL awarded to a student reflects his own level of achievement in a subject, regardless of how well his peers have performed”, are not in sync. Inconsistency is implied. (1) https://www.youngparents.com.sg/education/mother-tongue-exemption-psle-what-parents-should-know/?slide=3 (2) https://www.seab.gov.sg/docs/default-source/publiccommunications/seab-link-newsletter/seab-link_issue25_final.pdf The difference in treatment is apparently shown in the table below on the next page. Referring to Table 1, we can infer four conclusions:
(1) The current system may be seen as unfair to children who are not being exempted from mother tongue (MTL); the new system can be seen as being unfair to students exempted for MTL, especially those who are medically diagnosed with learning difficulties or special needs. (2) If students exempted from mother tongue wish to enter Express stream, they need to perform better than students taking all 4 subjects. (3) Students who are exempted from MTL are at a disadvantaged due to exempted subject, regardless of capability, whether or not they are diagnosed with learning difficulties. These students would be allocated to the next lower secondary stream available, should they score any lower than the average of AL5 or AL6 per subject which allows them to enter the Express/Normal (A) or Normal(A)/ Normal (T) stream respectively; whereas MS students are given the leeway of not performing below AL5 or AL 6 respectively in any one of the four subjects. (4) Only at the Normal Technical entrance level, were the students exempted from MTL granted a level playing field. Hence, under the new PSLE banding system, children with learning difficulties end up having to be better performers academically in order to get enrolled in secondary streams where their capability in non-MTL subjects can bring them to, compared with other students who are of equal non-MTL capacity. This demand is not only counter-intuitive, but also runs contrary to the rationale behind the grant of MTL exemption to special needs students, which is, to provide a scaffold to enable them to focus on their strength and other areas of needs. I quote, Ministry of Education’s reply to MP Mr Murali Pillai’s parliamentary query in 2016: “The MTL exemption is given to students with special educational needs (SEN) who are not coping well with their overall studies. This is to help reduce their total academic load so that they can cope better with the learning of other subjects. When reviewing applications for MTL exemption from students with special educational needs (SEN), the consideration is not just whether they have diagnosed special needs, but also how they are coping with their overall learning.”(4) We appreciate the understanding towards the learning challenges for special needs students. Indeed, many parents would bear witness to the effort that needs to be committed to teach a new concept, compared to teaching the concept to a neurotypical child. By this, we have not taken into account non-academic learnings in areas such as fine motor and gross motor skills, daily living skills, self-regulation and behaviour socialisation etc. (4) https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/mtl-exemption-criteria-and-learning-of-students-with-special-educational-needs Going forward: Support for L1R2 System Going forth, I second with the proposal for best three out of four subjects to be considered as admission criteria for secondary school (5). As the proposer rightly pointed out, the L1R2 PSLE scoring considerations might be the most equitable as it “allows both the linguist and the intelligent to excel in their strengths without disabling each other.” The below table can be how a scoring under the new system will look like. Looking at the two columns to the right, we can see that both groups of children who are, and are not, exempted from MTL are given a level playing field, based on their individual strength. Best of ability scoring is consistent with scoring system in other levels
When the Singapore Examination and Assessment Board engaged school teachers and principals on the new PSLE AL scoring system, The new PSLE scoring system is standards-referenced, similar to that of GCE N(T)/N(A)-, O- and A-Level examinations.(6) (5) https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/take-best-three-out-of-four-subjects-for-psle?&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=addtoany&fbclid=IwAR0Z7YEne7kssxciSfYAU3nf8LaF4DsyNDxqqmCocrY2eDpH1VEEGGIbPtE (6) https://www.seab.gov.sg/docs/default-source/publiccommunications/seab-link-newsletter/seab-link_issue25_final.pdf As the proposer rightly pointed out, the L1R2 PSLE scoring considerations might be the most equitable as it “allows both the linguist and the intelligent to excel in their strengths without disabling each other.” Should that be the case, L1R2 scoring would also allow the PSLE scoring system to be more tightly aligned with the GCE N(T)/N(A)-, O- and A-Level examinations. All GCE N(T)/N(A)-, O- and A-Level system appreciate that students do better in some subjects and less so in others, hence offering them a choice of reflecting only the most relevant subject when applying for enrolment into institutions for their next level of studies. The below are how results are read from different national level examination result to determine students’ acceptance into their next level of studies: (7) http://www.nus.edu.sg/oam/apply-to-nus/singapore-cambridge-gce-a-level/admissions-requirements
A bilingual mum with a child with special needs Coming from a Chinese family, educated in higher Chinese all the way to Junior College and working in the Chinese media industry for a substantial number of years, I understand the importance of a language to hinge ourselves to our culture and the values associated it. It reminds us of our root and anchors us as a community. When I started a family, I had always held the secret aspiration to raise my child as a bilingual speaking individual like myself, a more efficient one at that than myself. However, fate had it planned otherwise, my first-born could not even speak a single word when he was two. He needed a multidisciplinary team of professionals to help to multiple challenges. His first word were the result of many individual’s hard work. Therapists and pediatrician advised us to focus on English only. We started to come to terms with reality and agreed that baby steps are needed. That was also when the Chinese speaking family became an English-speaking one, even the grandparents started learning English. That was how my two children started to be raised in a mono-lingual environment. Then came the day for primary school enrolment – mainstream or Special education school – that’s the common question asked by all parents. Cognitively, I was clear that the small class environment and extra Daily-Living-Skills curriculum offered by Pathlight, was what he needed. However, the heart is reluctant to give up. I ask myself, “Perhaps he is naturally better in Chinese than English. Denying him of a chance to learn, at such a young age (per-school), does not do him justice.” I emailed many principals around my area. Most did not reply. Two schools were kind enough to meet me. One of them spoke to my husband and myself for two hours. The message was clear: (1) The entire school had only two allied teachers, even if they have pull-out lessons for weaker students, they will only get such sessions once or twice a week, it is not going to help much; (2) When the curriculum picks up at primary three, most students with learning difficulties will find it hard to catch up; (3) bullying is a very real issue to consider. The other school, was really kind, they met me three times. (1) The first occasion with the principal and the vice-principal, who gave me a overview of the school culture and support available. They also shared their experience with special needs students and that they allow shadow teachers to sit in lesson, if need. The take-away was positive. It instilled hope. (2) The second meeting was with their allied educators, who spoke on how students will be assisted during recess etc, but they also shared case studies where teachers had to be constantly on the lookout for some students who exhibit dangerous behaviours that might harm themselves and the students. That was a glimpse at reality. (3) Finally, they arranged for me to sit in in one primary one lesson, where there is a special needs student with a shadow teacher. Reality hit. The teacher was going at train speed, starting second chapter of 1B book when it was only May. The students were talking amongst themselves as the teacher shouted for them to stay focus. My audio sensitive boy would not be able to survive in the environment. Everyday meltdowns and emotional trauma are to be expected. No learning will be possible. *That was the home environment until my boy was in primary one. We switched back to speaking Mandarin when he was in primary one as we needed to give his younger sister a bilingual environment. He is now learning to understand Chinese in a non-formal manner focusing on conversational exchange. His level of Chinese might be still at the level of a three year old child, however, we believe he can learn at his own pace. The decision, hence, was made simple. SPED school with normal curriculum was the only choice. We enrolled and was happy with our decision. Nonetheless, I did not give up hope on teaching Chinese. I bought pictorial word cards from China and the MOE Chinese textbook and workbooks, intending to home-school him in Chinese. It happened for the first two chapters before I gave up. There were simply too many other areas like penmanship skill, toileting skills, buttoning and zipping skills, focus and recall, etc to focus on, on top of the academic learnings. We would love to have him use a pair of chopstick on the Chinese dinner table and tried to induct him to the tool. He tried and failed. If it is so, that a fork is all he can manage and it can help him to complete his meal without mess, then a fork is what he shall have. But that should not mean that he gets any less on his plate. He should be given all that we can provide, and he can choose to absorb whatever nutrients he can take, without getting stuffed or sick. Conclusion In 2013, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, MP for Potong Pasir SMC ask the Minister for Education in respect of changes to the PSLE and education system, what is the key driving ideal behind the education system envisaged for the coming decade and how this education system is envisaged to mould our children.(8) The reply was: “Education is fundamentally about helping each individual to discover and develop his or her interests, talents and strengths. It is about developing the whole person, enabling each individual to lead a full, creative, and meaningful life.At the same time, education helps all of us to appreciate our roles and responsibilities to our fellow men, as citizens of our nation and of a global community. This enables us to build a cohesive and harmonious society… … We will be student-centric in our approach, by creating multiple pathways to cater to the different needs of every child. We want each child to learn at their own pace, in an environment that supports their needs, so that they can progress as far as possible.“ We strongly call for the ministry to stand by this ideology and “reaffirm and preserve the strengths that we have built up over the years, but yet be bold in refreshing or recalibrating in areas where a better balance must be struck.“ (8) https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/ideal-behind-the-education-system-for-next-decade Parent. |