Reflections on the Week - Evaluating the Thru-train System

The first batch of 'thru-train' students in Singapore received their A Level results on Friday. To put this in context, there were 2 major changes to the education system in recent years, first the thru-train system and second the change in curriculum. So this batch of A Level results could have shown an indication on both changes. The main media release by the Ministry of Education, subsequently published in the mainstream media was that, 'there was no real dip in the results as compared to previous batches.' I found this very interesting.

The choice of words, 'no real dip' carries a double-meaning. Behind the obvious 'fact' of no real dip, is the more subtle, 'no real increase'. So while, there may be no real dip, there is definitely no real improvement. The press release then goes to great deal to re-emphasize not less than 2 tims that due to a change of curriculum, results are non-comparable. Again, if results are non-comparable, why state that there are has been no real-dip? Then the evidence to show no real dip must be put to question. Compared with the percentage in 2006 of students with 3 A Level passes and a pass in GP (88.2%), the 'closest comparison' in 2007 of students with at least 3 H2 passes and a pass in GP or KI is 87.5%. I grant that this shows no real dip.

But, but, but, lets revisit the impact group of the through train system. These are the students from the Raffles and HC family, as well as NJC. The rest of the student population did not go through the through-train system, which means they set for the O Levels. Now, the students in the'thru-train' programme have been the academic elite with the PSLE results in the nation, and thus their selection for the thru-train programme. Obviously then, the indicator of comparison for the success of the 'thru-train' system cannot be A Level PASSES, but DISTINCTIONS. To this effect, it is glaring that RJC refused to release details comparing current bacth results with previous batches. HCI released that the current batch did better than their seniors but with no general statistics. Now, everyone in Singapore knows RJC and HCI, or in fact the education body as a whole. (think NUS) If there were any good news, they would be the first to broadcast to the world. If there isnt, its hush-hush. This brings me to my concluding suspicion that, the results for the first batch of 'thru-train' students do not support the proposition that 'thru-train' has led to better students, at least academically when measured by the A Levels.

My area of content however, lies far deeper than that. I am not concerned on the 'output' results of if students under thru-train fared better. The concern must be the outcomes. The problem however, is, if there is no recognition that the outputs indicate a possible negative outcome, then there will be no inquiry into possible reasons for this drop in outputs, and subsequently, no inquiries into detailed implications on outcomes. I know that for obvious political reasons, MOE will find it very difficult to admit that the thru-train may have not worked, and after all, its only the first year. But surely, the key here, is not whether if the thru-train worked or not, but WHY it worked or did not work.

There were 2 key features of the thru-train system. The first was ideological, 'more learning, less teaching', the second was procedural, 'no need for O Levels'. I never agreed that these had to be complementary. I never saw the link between 'more learning, less teaching, and no O Levels'. Could we not have had 'more learning, less teaching, and STILL O Levels? My impression is that for the average Singaporean student, academically inclined or not, the motivation to study is largely still exams. Therefore, I suspect that the lack of a need to prepare for the O Levels would have severely weakened the foundations of the students, which more likely than not, would lead to less A Level accomplishment. Let me break down the concept of 'teaching and learning'. Teaching refers to an action on the part of the teachers, while learning refers to action on the part of the students. The argument that teachers spend too much time teaching and preparing students for the O Levels and not enough time to encourage learning, is logically flawed. Because, while teaching and preparing students obviously require both the time of the teachers and the students, encouraging learning falls largely on the time of the students. I will argue that quality of education is the key in terms of inculcating learning, rather than quantity of time spent. Therefore, it should be perfectly possible for teachers to prepare students for the O Levels and encourage learning through non-time consuming approaches. On the other hand, students who may have been excused from the need to prepare for the O Levels need not spend time learning, but may spend time instead on other more leisurely pursuits which will have a fundamental negative effect on their academic performance.

Therefore, while the move towards a more 'learning' approach should be encouraged, the move to scrap the O Levels should not be maintained. My fear however, is that if MOE approach the entire issue negatively, they may confuse the 2 features, and try to remove both, i.e. re-instate O levels, and revert to old-style preparing for exams approach. Far more research needs to be done in the area, but the start to this is a recognition that there is a problem. Mixing the two up, mixing the changes to 'thru-train' and 'new curriculúm' up, while possibly confusing public attention and defusing possible criticism, may resolve MOE of blame, but huge questions over the interests of of young and their education will be left unanswered.

Yet, the crux of this entire post is not education, or MOE, or media scrutiny. Politics and governance are too complicated to be easily simplified in a few words and there are far more issues that need consideration, which is really beyond me. For me, the far more humble lesson is in the fundamental way which we EVALUATE ourselves as individuals. If we do not dig deep and question our true motivations and intentions and rely completely on 'surface facts', then I fear that will spiral into a fashion of 'self-justification' and more critically, 'self-delusion'.