Forum Letter Replies
Equal Chances for All
We refer to the letter “It’s about who can afford better tutors” (ST Forum, 26/11), in which Ms Pamela Liu opined that students from well-to-do families would get into better secondary schools and questioned what would be left for bright but poorer students.
Ms Liu is wrong to assert that the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) has “evolved into an exam that divides the haves and have-nots among our 12-year-olds”. The top 5% of students in the PSLE do not come only from a few schools with rich parents. In fact, they come from more than 95% of our primary schools and across all socio-economic groups. In addition, over 2,000 students from 155 schools (or about 90% of our primary schools) successfully obtained a place in participating secondary schools this year under the Direct School Admissions (DSA) exercise, based on their talents in different fields. These students likewise came from various socio-economic groups. The criteria each school uses for the selection of students under the DSA are made public on their websites.
In our schools, all students have access to enrichment activities, such as art, music and sports programmes, or overseas training, exposure trips and competitions. Our school-based co-curricular programmes provide opportunities for all students to develop themselves in art, music, and sports. Additional funding is also provided to help students, especially those from less well-off families, go on overseas exchanges.
MOE strives to enable all students, regardless of their family background and circumstances, to achieve their full potential.
Director, Corporate Communications Division
It’s about who can afford better tutors (Pamela Liu, ST Forum, 26/11, pA25)
Last Thursday, my daughter received her Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) results. We were proud of her 252, not because it is high, but because she wanted no help and designed her own study schedule with no external or home tuition. It will get her to the secondary school of her choice, which is what the PSLE is supposed to do, and nothing else. To us, it does not measure her intelligence or maturity against her cohort, give any gauge of her academic ability or provide any bearing on her future. The PSLE is no longer the placement exam it was designed to be. Through the years, it has evolved into an exam that divides the haves and have-nots among our 12-year-olds.
While hinting at a student’s academic ability, the PSLE measures more the family’s ability to find and pay for good tuition teachers. Those who have money to employ tuition teachers will inevitably do better than their peers with equal academic ability. Many parents fork out thousands of dollars a year to prepare their children for this exam, in the hope of getting them into a better school. Therefore, a lucrative shadow education system is forming, with many good school teachers leaving for it.
A few years ago, the Ministry of Education introduced the Direct School Admission (DSA) programme with some top secondary schools. Those who display talents ‘beyond’ their peers get into these schools via DSA. This fuelled anxious parents scrambling to enrol their children in numerous art, music and sports programmes.
Students from well-to-do families will get into better secondary schools. Students from one-income families who have a stay-home parent and can be driven around can pack in more tuition and activities. With money, students can participate in overseas training, exposure trips and competitions. These beef up their testimonials - a criterion many good secondary schools use to choose their students.
If all this fails to get the average child into a good school, knowledgeable parents will know how to bypass the normal PSLE route, via the supplementary intake or appeal round, visiting principals and authorities to persuade them to accept their child, even if his score falls below the cut-off point.
If average students with tuition, enrichment classes, credible sporting endeavours and smart parents are taking all the places in the good schools, what does that leave bright, promising but poorer students?