LAST Saturday's article ("Helping the needy: 5 fresh fixes/Scrapping the PSLE") picks up on one of the debates about education reform in Singapore as they are covered in the Lien Centre for Social Innovation's recent publication, A Handbook On Inequality, Poverty And Unmet Social Needs In Singapore.
One sentence in the article, citing the handbook, suggests that Associate Professor Irene Ng referred to the PSLE as "the single most harmful early streaming practice that increases unnecessary stress on students and potentially reduces social mobility".
Due to errors in the editing process, this sentence is inaccurate and does not reflect the opinions of Prof Ng.
The original sentence in the handbook will be deleted.
The Lien Centre for Social Innovation deeply regrets the error.
The debates covered in the handbook, about streaming and the PSLE, are not new.
There are plans for some changes, such as broader streams and letter grades rather than number grades, which are discussed in the handbook.
However, it does not appear that, at present, serious consideration is being given to scrapping the exam entirely.
According to many Singaporeans, this may be a good thing. A Straits Times poll found that two in five Singaporeans believe the PSLE is necessary, and only one in five believes it is redundant ("One in five thinks PSLE is redundant"; April 19, 2014).
There are many criticisms of the exam in its current form: the stress it is said to cause, that it might not be the best gauge of ability, the young age at which such a high-stakes exam is administered, and Prof Ng's suggestion that it appears to contribute to social immobility.
These concerns, however, feed into a variety of proposals that range from changing the exam to abolishing it entirely.
For example, in 2012, MP Denise Phua proposed a pilot programme in which several schools would forgo the PSLE and the streaming process entirely.
Prof Ng noted, however, that the risk of such a proposal was that these programmes might ultimately be limited to an elite group of pupils, and that if such a programme were to be implemented, it should be made available to all.
This example illustrates the difficulty of the debate over the PSLE.
The discussion will continue, with a focus on identifying the problems inherent to the exam and addressing them, while being careful to preserve the goals behind its creation.
The Lien Centre for Social Innovation's handbook was written to contribute to these and other debates, which promise to be vigorous and constructive.
Catherine J. Smith (Dr)
Research Associate
Lien Centre for Social Innovation
The writer is the main author of A Handbook On Inequality, Poverty And Unmet Social Needs In Singapore
One sentence in the article, citing the handbook, suggests that Associate Professor Irene Ng referred to the PSLE as "the single most harmful early streaming practice that increases unnecessary stress on students and potentially reduces social mobility".
Due to errors in the editing process, this sentence is inaccurate and does not reflect the opinions of Prof Ng.
The original sentence in the handbook will be deleted.
The Lien Centre for Social Innovation deeply regrets the error.
The debates covered in the handbook, about streaming and the PSLE, are not new.
There are plans for some changes, such as broader streams and letter grades rather than number grades, which are discussed in the handbook.
However, it does not appear that, at present, serious consideration is being given to scrapping the exam entirely.
According to many Singaporeans, this may be a good thing. A Straits Times poll found that two in five Singaporeans believe the PSLE is necessary, and only one in five believes it is redundant ("One in five thinks PSLE is redundant"; April 19, 2014).
There are many criticisms of the exam in its current form: the stress it is said to cause, that it might not be the best gauge of ability, the young age at which such a high-stakes exam is administered, and Prof Ng's suggestion that it appears to contribute to social immobility.
These concerns, however, feed into a variety of proposals that range from changing the exam to abolishing it entirely.
For example, in 2012, MP Denise Phua proposed a pilot programme in which several schools would forgo the PSLE and the streaming process entirely.
Prof Ng noted, however, that the risk of such a proposal was that these programmes might ultimately be limited to an elite group of pupils, and that if such a programme were to be implemented, it should be made available to all.
This example illustrates the difficulty of the debate over the PSLE.
The discussion will continue, with a focus on identifying the problems inherent to the exam and addressing them, while being careful to preserve the goals behind its creation.
The Lien Centre for Social Innovation's handbook was written to contribute to these and other debates, which promise to be vigorous and constructive.
Catherine J. Smith (Dr)
Research Associate
Lien Centre for Social Innovation
The writer is the main author of A Handbook On Inequality, Poverty And Unmet Social Needs In Singapore
