PSLE furore: who is to blame?
October 25th, 2009 | 
Author: By Bhaskaran Kunju, Political Correspondent
The issue of examinations being too difficult is one that has been around for a long time. So the most recent incidents of the PSLE Mathematics and Chinese Language papers being too difficult making headlines came as a bit of a surprise to me. Of course a story has to be sold, so it’s been called even more difficult than those of past years.
Looking at the sample questions that have been released it does appear to be difficult. But I suppose it is a matter of opinion if the questions are indeed more difficult than that of previous years. But at the heart of the matter, what exactly is the problem? How is it that the same type of complaints isn’t heard at the ‘O’ Level or ‘A’ Level examinations?
I think for one, there is an over emphasis on the streaming process, and even more so wrongly at a relatively young age. To a lot of parents the primary school phase becomes a make or break period of their child’s lives when they should be cherishing the fleeting moments of childhood. Don’t blame the parent for obviously wanting what’s best for their child. The fault is in the system.
A lot of students at age 12 would not have matured intellectually and may only reach their peak years later. For the few who have reached that peak at a young age, they get the advantage of continuing their education in a more robust and academic oriented stream.
The lack of good grades at a young age, specifically at the PSLE, doesn’t mean the student will be handicapped if placed on an equal learning path as others who did better than him or her. There are students with weak academic grades who are accepted in elite schools given their sports or artistic background. These group of students often times fare no worse than their peers. In other words they actually benefit from being placed in the same learning environment as their academically better peers. In these instances there is just no correlation between prior academic results and capabilities of a student.
There is I believe some rationale in the current system of streaming. Given the limitations of resources and capabilities of some students it may make sense to have a system of streaming in place to ensure each child receives optimum education and allocative efficiency for resources is achieved. But the present system is without a doubt being applied too broadly and that ultimately weeds out too many students from entering the mainstream or higher.
Yes there is room for student to move in to other streams should they demonstrate the capability to. But why should a child be starting from a position of disadvantage? And in practice this flow of students between streams, is far less flexible as well. The crucial flaw in the system as mentioned earlier is how the streaming stage is placed at such a young age.
Students sitting for the ‘O’ and ‘A’ level examinations largely contend with rote learning with little emphasis on application. Yes, there have been some changes in syllabus over the years to incorporate more application skills into the exams, but any student will be able to tell you how insignificant the additions have been.
I mentioned in a previous article, “Should Universities be Re-Politicised?” about how we have become a nation that produces great workers but not leaders. That really is the reality for our education system. When taking into account the perpetual problem of brain drain as cited by our ministers, this only further emphasizes that issue. It is no wonder then that we have resorted to foreigners to fill the gaps of our labour pool.
Mr Sim Wong Hoo, the founder and CEO of Creative Technology is probably one of Singapore’s greatest entrepreneurs. For the uninitiated, Mr Sim is the brain behind one of the key computer utilities we take for granted, the sound card. His stand-alone sound card, the Sound Blaster is one of the most widely recognised brands in the world and has taken its place in IT history. Having won multiple awards and been used as an example by our ministers in various speeches over the years, his independent success seems to be an anomaly for Singapore in general.
I remember a talk given by him at my alma mater, Raffles Institution. He mentioned how his early sound cards were sold off the street and were only intended to play music. But upon receiving feedback, he expanded the capabilities of his device for other uses as well and the result of it is a dominant company that is largely unmatched in its core expertise of sound cards.
The path to success is never fixed and it takes a lot of adjustments and creativity to maneuver through each obstacle that comes in the way. But most of all it also requires persistence and endurance to take in each setback. Mr Sim’s education record and route is not one that we would associate with as leading to success but he has achieved more in his life than what most of us will fail to in all our lifetimes combined.
Unsurprisingly Mr Sim has been a critic of our system as well. In his book Chaotic Thoughts from the Old Millennium, he uses the analogy of U-turns, to describe restrictions on Singaporeans and their subsequent inability in response and reaction without an authoritative figure. We just do not have the system in place to produce more Mr Sim Wong Hoos.
We’ve produced students who do well at each International Science Olympiad, which almost always automatically leads to praise for our education system. But how relevant are these awards in judging the actual intellectual capabilities of the students, when what they have demonstrated is largely rote learning.
There is an inherent flaw in the system that instead of being fixed has been papered over the years instead. With this latest issue over the PSLE papers looking to subside we may just have to contend with status quo yet again.
Other articles by Bhaskaran Kunju:
>> The saga of (dethroned) beauty queen Ris Low
>> Is there room for more foreigners in Singapore?
>> Why social cohesion is at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally
>> Changes in political system to allow more alternative voices
>> The untimely departure of Chip Goodyear
>> Should universities be re-politicized?
About Author:
Bhaskaran Kunju is a political science undergraduate in a local varsity. He is a regular contributor to the Straits Times Forum and TODAY Voices.
Posted in 
Sim will always be an anomaly. A real entrepreneur.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://asiancorrespondent.com/secretblog/why-it-matters-when-psle-papers-are.htm
It is likely that exams are truly becoming more difficult as our education standards rise. However not everyone is able to catch up, especially the poor who cannot afford poor tuition, go to less ideal primary schools, face more problems at home etc. The problem then becomes one of examinations being made more difficult to reflect the rise in education standards for the rich while the poor is unable to catch up and is left to be condemned by the PSLE exam and Singapore’s “stream-lined” education system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Let creativity and expression of all creativity flourish. If you oppress that and continue to oppress dissenting and divergent thoughts, you suppress this nation’s survival in a competitive world. Robotic specie doe NOT comprehend change, how can they have survival hope in a changing world except as a fiction in the most stupid of minds constantly talking and living of the past of borrowed times.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
x12831 on Sun, 25th Oct 2009 10:59 am
Sim will always be an anomaly. A real entrepreneur.
————————————————–
Right.
Never dig out a rare, exceptional and ‘one in a million’ example to address or defend a widespread problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Every year parents complain about the maths paper, every year there’r a few difficult questions.
My aussie friend always boast to me that their children are not so stress, they just progress up secondary school naturally. When I ask what if I want my kids to enrol in the good schools, my friend would sheepishly said the children must sit for iq or higher ability test.
You see, everywhere is the same. If you want to go to good schools, there must be some differentiation. Since S’pore is so small and easier to manage, it would be ideal if most schools can be as interesting and challenging as the top schools. In that case, more students benefit from that kind of environment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I find this talk of “tough” exam questions quite ridiculous.
At the end of the day, the entire batch of students is graded by a bell curve. Having tough questions or easy questions will result in the same bell curve.
We need to correct this misconception of students and parents that students are expected to be able to answer EVERY single question correctly. So what if a question is hard? Simple logic will tell us that most students will get it wrong too, so it will not make a difference. So the student should simply skip the question and move on to an easier one! Why cry over a tough question that nobody else can answer in the first place?
On another note, I find it ironic how the author points out that rote learning is bad, and yet fail to defend the challenging questions (that reward smart creative thinkers) present in our PSLE.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Reader,
The reason why I didn’t defend the challenging questions in the PSLE papers is stated in the article. I don’t find it fair at all that the streaming process is allocated at such a young age. It puts the children who develop late at a disadvantage when it comes to access to better streams. Every parent wants the best for their child. When you take that into account, you can see why parents are so edgy about PSLE questions being too difficult even though ultimately their worries over the questions may have no basis at all.
Bhaskaran
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Stupid people don’t understand that in a bell curve (curse) you need discrimating (difficult) questions to cut off the extraordinary form the ordinary, for selection purposes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Bhaskaran,
The difficulty of the questions has no bearing on the final results (bell curve ranking) of the students. Thus the issue of streaming is not related to the recent “difficulty” furore, and I feel you should not link them together.
With regards to streaming, the debate has been around for quite a while. The cons of streaming are that it disadvantages late bloomers, and might create a self fulfilling prophecy.
But the pros of streaming are that it provides more stimulus for smarter kids, and it also allows more attention to be focused on the slower ones.
I personally have no idea whether streaming is thus good or bad, and I believe the debate will continue on for a long time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just linking with the comment from ‘i don believe it’, I think it is the same/difficult everywhere too. I’m a Singaporean currently living in aussie and although children are not streamed as young as in Singapore there are still barriers. I used to think as well that school was really easy in aussie, just one big exam in year 12 to get into Uni and nothing else to worry about but that’s not true. Primary and Secondary and possibly Universities here are zoned that means you are only allowed to study where you live regardless of your grades. Or you can choose to study in a private school and pay upfront expensive fees such as your school uniform costing $400. As such, people who live in poor areas because they can’t afford much for a house in a safer area can only go to schools where standards are lower and the children your child mixes with is often of bad influence. Thinking about it, I guess then children here are probably streamed even earlier in a way that has given them no choice and no power at all. Also, in aussie for children who attend kindergarden there is now a new policy in place where educators write up official legal reports about the children’s developments and interest which is then needed to be submitted to teachers in prep-schools or primary schools when they apply/begin which in a way is streaming them even earlier as well because how much they develop and in what way is already being recorded when they are only so young. So I guess in a way it’s the same everywhere, but just because we are not living in each and every single society we become unaware of what actually goes on and only see what is easier, like aussie schools being easier but there’s more to that in fact. I think what’s beneficial in aussie though is that the Govt supports highly those who do not make it academically, such as paying laborours higher wages. I think streaming will always be there in every society but it’s important that there is support for where each stream ends up, and I think Singapore only supports those who do extremely well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
-> But the pros of streaming are that it provides more stimulus for smarter kids, and it also allows more attention to be focused on the slower ones.
==
Double-edged sword it is. We have to ask what kind of attention they are getting. The perception that they are dumb and hopeless? That they are not as smart? That they are less capable?
What a stigmatisation at a young age.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Reader,
There is a link between difficult questions and streaming. The difficult questions are put in place to stream the smarter kids from the rest of the cohort. So the underlying problem really isn’t over difficult questions but the process of streaming itself. Which then ties into the other issues of overt parental concern over a child’s performance and the unfair age at which streaming takes place.
Also regarding the pros of streaming, as Jezebel pointed out it is a double-edged sword. I think streaming to a certain level should be put in place to aid the development of both the weaker students and the stronger ones. BUT, and it is a big but here, is the EXTENT of the streaming process. It has been applied too broadly. There are far too many students who start their secondary education at a disadvantage.
There are very strong elements of socialism in place here which I think we need to break out of so creativity and individuality can flourish. Much like Mr Sim.
Bhaskaran
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“The difficulty of the questions has no bearing on the final results (bell curve ranking) of the students.”
Huh? Then if 20% of the students score full-marks on the Maths paper, how do you tell who are in the top 10%?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Godwin on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 9:02 pm
I only have an ‘O’ level but all these stuff to me are but common sense, right?
The Japs, Israeli, Taiwanese, etc are doing what we are doing. Why?
“Then if 20% of the students score full-marks on the Maths paper, how do you tell who are in the top 10%”
20% is still a good catch, right? If based on year-on-year, stats performance is predictable on the level of difficulty then if you need to select 10% raise the level of difficulty by all means. Put it simply, P6 attempting some Sec 2 questions.
That’s why our students are beyond others elsewhere on the same level (year). On the same graph you’ll have 2 curves like one ours, one say, Malaysia’s, for the 6th grade.
To put it simply, if you are a Malaysian, you’ll know currently meritocracy for university entrance means the Malays do one exam (simpler Matric) and the non-Malays another tougher one. Why? If you put all on the same norm and do your cut off then the result is quite obvious, right?
But what’re the negative impact and implications, short and long term?
You think abt it.
Ha! Ha! Ha!
They call space tourists “astronauts”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Godwin,
I believe you have misunderstood me. I have been trying to make the point that “difficult” questions are good and necessary, as they reward smart creative thinkers. Like you said, we need difficult questions to discriminate smart kids from really smart kids.
However, the recent furore in the papers that PSLE questions are supposedly “too hard” would suggest that many parents do not understand this point.
Hi Jezebella & Bhaskaran:
I do agree with you both that streaming is a double-edged sword. Like I said before, there are both pros and cons to streaming, and self-fulfilling prophecies and stigmatization would belong to the cons.
Bhaskaran you argue that that the problem is one of extent. But how we can be sure that the current level really is too much? Where is the evidence or logic that a revised streaming system will produce more benefits than cons?
And the tougher question is, so what extent will be “just right”? And at what age will streaming be “fair and ok”?
(Do realize that if we delay streaming, it also means that gifted kids will only get more stimulation later, and slower kids will have to struggle in big classes longer too. No matter which direction we take, there is always a trade-off.)
I have not seen any concrete answers offered by anyone so far, and this is why I argue that the debate will not end anytime soon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Stupids,
In a 80-20 pareto senerio, the 80 is unlikely to do the difficult questions. Right?
So you’ll get an ocean of omplaints from the majority whose children can’t do those sums without first understanding the authority’s rationale behind the hurdle.
Only smart people who can think knows why it’s done.
What’s the purpose of an exam if everyone gets 100 upon 100 marks??????????
Writers please write intelligently if you have the grey matter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is the way our education system is you see. I find it highly ridiculous that students nowadays can enter mental breakdowns just because they were unable to answer a single question in the exam! But is anything done to address this? No, they talk about enhancing the system. A well-rounded education. The truth is, all they are doing is just piling up more and more activities. Okay, so now, you do not just need to get your As. To give you a well-rounded education, we require you to take part in the 1001 activities we have prepared for you. AND get yours As.
The exams will get tougher. There is no doubt about that. But the main issue here is…why are children breaking down so easily the moment they are unable to finish just ONE question?
@Harold
I agree. There is no purpose if everyone gets full marks. HOWEVER, that is the way our system is. It encourages perfection! The inability to answer one or two questions normally spells trouble for the PSLE and the Os. There is a good chance that you will be unable to get that A1.
Actually, I really wonder about the education system. I am 100% sure that 90% of what I learn will never be used in the future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I find it ironic that you, as a receipient of the ‘rewards’ of this education system (as evident from your history as a Raffles Institution student), chooses to question the system itself.
Nothing wrong, really. It is really alright for us to relook at our system, do some analysis, consolidate, tweak, improve and start the whole cycle again.
What is troubling, however, are people who cry foul at our education system saying that it does not allow for accurate streaming of students especially those who slip through the net as they are ‘late-bloomers’ or those who are simply not inclined academically.
I will gladly put both of my hands up in agreement with the notion that measuring a student’s ability based on academic results alone is not ideal. In fact, it is flawed. However, what they do not consider is the fact that academic results are the most tangible attributes to measure in a student.
The logic is simple, how can I measure someone’s character, moral fiber, tenacity or emotional quotient, crunch the numbers and sort the population according to these numbers? Conceptually, using academic results to measure a student’s worth is flawed but logically speaking, it is the easiest to implement and measure. Unless someone can come up with a fail-safe way to measure all other non-academic attributes of a student, we can only rely on academic results.
Granted, the top students who have excellent academic results may not have the other necessary skills to survive and excel in society. However, given the fact that all other attributes are pretty much lifeskills and something that can’t be picked up from books, it will only be counter-productive to forcefeed students with such lifeskills or worse, teaching such lifeskills from textbooks just like how you try to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Just as democracy is a form of governance but it is still better than its alternatives, academic results are a flawed measure to measure a student’s worth but it is the closest that we can get to in producing a tangible evaluation of a student.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Stupid
“Actually, I really wonder about the education system. I am 100% sure that 90% of what I learn will never be used in the future.”
Again you want someone to spoon feed you with the rationale?
No wonder bloggers write hollow stuffs and creat more idiots in the process.
In fact some bloggers’ writings show their actual caliber or helicopter viosn.
Sad lah . . .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
no one here is talking about children not getting full marks. everyone knows why there are difficult questions and simple ones. if you want to have a discussion dont insult people and read what they are saying. you’re the one who looks stupid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi reader,
You’re right, I should have provided more evidence for the extent of the streaming system. Given time constraints I did not elaborate much on that portion. I suppose the best I could offer would be anecdotal evidence. As raxip mentioned, I myself benefited from the streaming system by being placed in better streams and am very fortunate to be pursuing undergraduate studies. But in my years of schooling I realised how little intelligence has to do with excelling in our academic system. I’ve seen how students achieve straight As and scholarships with rote learning but still struggle when faced with questions that deviate from the norm. Most I would say fit this description, and it is no different even at the tertiary level. On the flip side, I’ve also encountered those who went through the less academic oriented streams and they are just as intelligent if not more than their counterparts from the higher streams. I can’t help but wonder how much more better off these students would have been had they been given a chance.
Yes, we are measured through our level of performance in the exams, but when success or failure is dependent on rote learning and not even intelligence it makes the whole process moot. Rote learning, however hard work it may require is not equitable to or a substitute for intelligence. Hard work is a virtue and I will not deny that, that’s why I strongly believe we are a nation that produces great workers but not leaders.
Bhaskaran
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This Math exam is UNFAIR. Students/teachers were caught unprepared that is the sole issue. Not al the craps you are talking about!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0