by Kalsum Harun
Layout by Zarah Saleem Javeed & Kalsum Harun
“To many, the experience of suffering under the education system is a rite of passage to being Singaporean.”
KAMALUDEEN MOHAMED NASIR, SOCIOLOGIST
The nature of Singapore’s PSLE as a high-stakes examination has evolved over the decades since its inception. Those interested in the history and evolution of the PSLE and education system can read Dawn Fung’s Homeschooling in Singapore: An Education (2021) and watch the ChannelNewsAsia-commissioned documentary, Regardless Of Grades: Why Are Singaporeans So Obsessed With PSLE? (2024), which traced the changes in the PSLE over the years with the help of Assoc Prof Jason Tan of the National Institute of Education (NIE). One can then observe how the economic rationale and eugenics underpinnings of the PSLE in the ’60s and the addition of streaming in the ‘80s anchored it as a “sorting hat for children to attain to the best schools to gain opportunities for better employment” (Fung, 2021). The diet of “rags to riches” stories served to the populace in subsequent decades, and the entrenched narrative of meritocracy fueled aspirations for social mobility via education. In time, the rise of Singapore’s middle class, falling birth rates, and the trend of dual-income families led to increased affluence that exacerbated parents’ “investments” in their children’s education. These developments helped morph the PSLE into how it is today.
Singaporeans have always prided themselves in their education system and strong political leadership in producing phenomenal economic growth and, according to global leaderboards such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the brightest 15-year-old students in their cohort. Successive generations of parents observed the incremental rise in the “standard of education” but, for the most part, had tacitly accepted this as a necessary progression for Singapore, a nation with no natural resources except for its human capital. Education holds the key to engineering the desired workforce for Singapore’s economy. In the last decade, however, societal debates have been simmering about the effectiveness and impact of the education system on our children and youth.
“Moulding the Future of Our Nation”1
1The mission of Singapore’s Ministry of Education is “to mould the future of our nation by moulding the people who will determine our future.”
From both ground-up and top-down perspectives, the nation is preoccupied with whether our education system adequately prepares its citizens for the future global economy. The Monetary Authority of Singapore, while reporting positive salary growths, especially among middle-income workers who underwent further education, warned that their jobs and incomes “could be impacted by ‘structural shifts’ in the next phase of Singapore’s economic growth, such as generative artificial intelligence and other technological changes.” Anxiety over an uncertain future drives polarised responses from Singaporean adults in preparing their children for the future – ranging from those who eschew traditional ways to success via the “paper chase” to those who pursue these as a baseline upon which they would pile on other “competencies”. The outcome: overcommitted, overworked, and over-stressed individuals.
The issue of the social and emotional well-being of our youth is urgent. For years now, parents’ and teachers’ accounts of the stress levels that students face are corroborated by helpline centres for children citing hundreds of calls received related to academic stress. A study published in 2013 that investigated self-reported anxiety and depression symptoms in Singaporean primary school-aged children that sampled 1655 8- to 12-year-olds concluded that a substantial minority of primary school-aged Singaporean children reported elevated anxious and depressive symptoms. The Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) reported in 2021 that “suicide… remains the cause for the highest number of deaths among youths aged 10 to 29 for the past three years… (having) risen by 23.3%.”
While some may perceive the quick succession from the topic of “wellness” to “suicide” in a single paragraph as alarmist, as Chirag Agarwal urged in his opinion piece, “(d)eath by suicide amongst 10–29-year-olds in Singapore is at an all-time high… (w)e should not accept or become indifferent to this tragic statistic.” After all, with our endeavour to mould the future of our nation through education, we need to take ownership of the present state of our youth.
Locating the Faultlines
The connection between the high-stress levels of our youth and high-stakes examinations like the PSLE is not merely derived by Singaporeans. An Australian documentary aired in 2019 that sought to uncover how the Singapore education system often tops global rankings inadvertently spotlighted the high-stakes testing of 12-year-olds in Singapore (i.e. the PSLE) and asked if the culture of competition puts too much pressure on them.
Academic studies have linked educational stress and the fragility of mental health, leading to suicide. UCL researchers found this positive association concerning the academic pressure in “proximity to exams.” Reviewing over 52 studies across the globe, they found “mental health-related hospital admissions,” “stress-related emergency admissions,” and “suicide attempts by adolescents” were higher during term time and rarer during non-school months. In another study based out of East Asia, closer to home, its researchers suggest that “academic stress should be an important entry point to tackle adolescents’ mental distress.”
To what do we attribute this intense culture of competition and a high-pressure academic environment?
“Parentocracy”
In a 2023 case study submitted for the Center for Universal Education at Brookings, three NIE researchers described the city-state’s “policy layering” intended to achieve “holistic student development (that) emerged as a priority alongside academic development.” They asserted a shift in the macro-level policy environmental factors and purpose of education “from a predominant focus on fulfilling economic needs to an increasing focus on holistic student development, including character formation, societal participation, and self-actualization.” While pointing out the “paradox” in how “students in the lower primary and lower secondary given opportunities for more student-centred learning, while the focus for upper primary and upper secondary is to prepare students for high-stakes national examinations,” the authors maintain that the “pushback from parents… constrain(s) efforts for education systems building.” By pursuing “strategies geared toward narrow academic achievement outcomes”, parents have even constructed a “shadow education infrastructure” via the tuition industry. According to a Straits Times poll, 85% of pupils start tuition classes before reaching the upper primary level. Singapore households spent S$1.4 billion on tuition, based on the latest Household Expenditure Survey conducted by the Department of Statistics from October 2017 to September 2018. The authors term this “parentocracy.”
The recent Regardless Of Grades documentary also contributed to the narrative of parental-induced stress. The documentary closely followed three PSLE-bound students during their preparation period and interviewed other stakeholders, including parents, tuition teachers, and representatives from the SEAB. A clipped portion of the documentary posted on CNA’s social media account highlighted an interactive poll conducted on 20 Primary Six students on “who gave them the most stress for the PSLE.” The result was conclusive:
Systemic High-Stakes Points
While it is essential to critique prevailing societal practices, it is also crucial to acknowledge the underlying assumptions and power structures that have shaped these norms. These patterns of behaviour among those striving for social mobility did not emerge in a vacuum. Local sociologists, like Kamaludeen Nasir and Teo Youyenn, pitched in on the education debate. Deep in the abyss of former speeches by one of our National leaders is an acknowledgement of how structures have shaped behaviour.
Although formidable, the connection between incentive structures in the labour market, the education system and societal behaviour that Minister Ong made above is often underplayed in national narratives. For example, in 2016, the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) conducted a Survey on Parental Perceptions of Education with 1,500 citizens and PR parents to obtain a quantitative picture of sentiments towards Singapore’s primary school system. Its results showed that less than 25 per cent of respondents were undertaking activities (such as volunteering) “to actively secure a good school for their child.” Nonetheless, based on this statistic, coupled with the result of 73 per cent of respondents reporting being able to get their child into a school of their choice, the IPS study concluded that “worries over parents’ alumni connection and the unfair advantages this creates may be the concern of a smaller group than public discourse suggests.”
Picture this: with the enrolment in primary schools in Singapore from 2013 to 2015 averaging slightly more than 240,000, nearly 60,000 partook in volunteering activities to gain spots in “good schools.” The force of tens of thousands of parents engaging in such competitive activities over school enrolment must overwhelm parents within the same cohort. Although the majority was not involved in the specific competitive strategy of volunteering, they would likely have had to explore this strategy (and several others) to make informed decisions on their participation. I vividly recall my husband returning from a focus group discussion when our firstborn was five years old. He recounted his conversation with a group of well-meaning parents who advised him that our son was at the very age for us to strategise his placement in good schools. One of the moves they recommended was relocating near our choice school – a move that privileges the upper class. That was not the only time we had to engage with these ideas and those who expound them.
While the competition for “good primary schools” involves direct participation by parents, students are the “designated players” in the competition for good secondary schools. Parents may engineer their opportunities and preparation, but the outcome is based on the student’s performance. The game: PSLE – or for a fraction of the student population, an early placement for preferred secondary schools through the Direct School Admission (DSA) scheme.
Students who secured a spot in their preferred secondary school via the DSA are relieved of the pressure to score well for the PSLE. After all, the DSA process was intensive enough – requiring submissions of portfolios and going through interviews for each application. DSA applications have been rising, with a record 38,000 DSA applications from 14,500 students in 2023. Successful applicants are often celebrated, and they are, in turn, happy to share tips on how they ace the DSA. However, with only over a third of the students receiving offers, this also means that students applying for the DSA face a higher workload in juggling the rigour of the DSA application while preparing for their PSLE to attain the requisite grades in case the application fell through. As students are eventually assessed for secondary school admissions via the PSLE, this is the point at which the intense culture of competition and a high-pressure academic environment would peak.
The high-stakes nature of the PSLE trickles down to test-taking culture in general. For one, according to PISA results (OECD, 2017), 76% of Singaporean students felt very anxious about tests even when they were well-prepared. This percentage is above the global average of 55%. Secondly, despite the Education Minister’s announcement in 2022 that all mid-year examinations would be removed in primary and secondary schools by 2023 to induce a shift towards more plural forms of assessment, tuition centres have filled in the gap to conduct mock exams during the school holidays. Ironically, this move had begun further subjecting students to more learning hours outside school.
While Kieira called for a mindset change to turn the tide against the “obsession with grades,” as Minister Ong pointed out, we “cannot tackle these cultural issues with another promotional campaign.”
As I scoured multiple sources to locate the faultlines in our education system, the recurring reference point was the PSLE. Firstly, the build-up to the PSLE in one’s early educational experience socialises our young into an examination culture that follows them through their academic life. Secondly, the PSLE entrenches the notion of some schools being better than others – through elite selection and general “streaming.” A former Principal of Raffles Institution also admitted to this point on elitism, saying, “A long period of conditioning means that we often fail to see elitism even when it is staring at us in the face.” Thirdly, buying into the classic path of success, students endure years of intense competition and the anxiety it causes. It is understandable this mental and emotional fatigue eventually affects the mental health of our young.
Reforming Singapore’s Education
To be fair, Singapore’s educational reforms have targeted various hot-button issues over the years.
One of them is the hallmark of our education system: streaming. Since its emergence in the 1980s and its various manifestations, a key policy turnover came in 2004 when MOE merged the EM1 and EM2 streams and eventually scrapped the EM3 in 2008. This change brought into effect, according to former Education Minister Ong, a “single primary school course” that customises “learning not at the stream level but at the subject level” via introducing “different standards for the subjects – Higher, Standard and Foundation.” This system is called Subject-Based Banding.
With the continued high anxiety levels of Singapore’s very young learners, Member of Parliament and Mayor of Central Singapore District Denise Phua proposed that the Government start a “pilot cluster of schools” offering ten years of through-train education, allowing students to bypass the PSLE. In 2015, the Workers’ Party proposed a small start to this through-train programme with more detailed suggestions. This idea was the first policy alternative to the PSLE ever raised – and it captured the public’s imagination, driving thousands to chime in on the topic in online chat platforms.
One of the Workers’ Party members, Yee Jenn Jong, also pointed out how the PSLE drives a sorting system that affects students’ morale due to the adverse effects of labelling. This was corroborated in 2018 through a social experiment, “Regardless of Class,” that involved youth from the Integrated Programme, Normal (Academic) and Normal (Technical) of local secondary schools, hosted by former Senior Minister of State for Education, Dr Janil Puthucheary. The experiment stirred Singaporeans over social and class stratification issues aggravated by streaming in the education system.
Several months later, after a series of forum letters, focus group discussions, and parliamentary debates, the Ministry of Education (MOE) announced the implementation of Full Subject-Based Banding in two stages: 2020 and 2024. Proponents hail this reform as the end of streaming in Singapore, while sceptics argue for the persistence of streaming—“if not within schools, then certainly between schools.”
The other landmark reform took place in 2021 in the form of the PSLE scoring system, aimed at “reducing undue differentiation between students and ensuring meaningful secondary school posting outcomes.” Although criticisms of the new system still abound, the state spearheaded the changes, coupled with the Full Subject-Based Banding launched in secondary schools this year and the new Singapore-Cambridge Secondary Education Certificate (SEC) examinations in 2027.
Speaking to Parliament this year, Minister of Education Chan Chun Sing summarised these recent changes in the education system, projecting an air of confidence that the three-pronged change will result in the necessary changes in the education system. He then turned his attention to calls by Singaporeans to remove the PSLE, cautioning against the “temptation to ‘teach to the average’” and urging Singaporeans to “understand that exams like the PSLE and SEC exam are not an end in themselves, but a means to help our children find a suitable learning environment in the next stage of their education journey.”
A Persistent Spotlight on the PSLE
Education enthusiasts have yet to be fully appeased by these reforms, and the spotlight on the PSLE persists. Conversations range from calling for its outright removal to making it optional and delaying it to a later age.
Former and current members of Parliament have urged for the “sacred cow” of the PSLE to be slaughtered.
Interest groups have also taken on the cause. Everychild.sg, a group founded by Pooja Bhandari, published a white paper, Towards A Future-Ready Education System for Every Child. The paper promotes three fundamental changes, one of which is a “through train” from primary to secondary schools that will render the PSLE optional. In building its case, the paper outlines the negative impacts of the PSLE on children’s holistic development, social inclusion, mental health, family relationships, and teaching, among other things.
As for the masses, the 2016 IPS study, which provides the most comprehensive data on parents’ perspectives to date, reveals a lack of consensus. Less than half of the respondents (42.5 per cent) “agreed or strongly agreed that the PSLE should be postponed to a later age.” The study’s quantitative nature and the absence of further information on the reasons for this choice led the researchers to conclude that “at this stage, a slight majority still see a major national examination as a necessary checkpoint for their child’s learning progress, and a means to gauge their academic aptitude relative to their peers.” However, this lack of consensus and the researchers’ subsequent deduction on the parents’ motivation have not been fully expounded in subsequent narratives.
Those who wish to maintain the PSLE as the status quo are content with the lack of a simple majority favouring its repeal. At the same time, those who begrudgingly accept it as a necessary feature of our education system find it hard to see past the prevailing system, especially amidst the non-fully developed alternatives.
When considering whether the PSLE should be postponed to a later age, we are highly influenced by how we perceive what would take its place. Embedded in the term “Primary School Leaving Examination” is a milestone that marks the end of primary level into secondary level education.
Most of us are locked into the model of facilitating our children’s enrolment in secondary schools via a channelling based on the PSLE results as both fitting and fair. When asked to step outside the premise of the PSLE being a sorting system and construct an alternate reality based on the permutation and combination of proposed ideas, we are more likely to fall back on the system we are familiar with.
In addition to the lack of fully developed proposals for members of the public to contemplate, debates on the PSLE often funnel to a particular sticking point. Even the most fervent advocates of self-led learning and homeschoolers whom I know not to place much emphasis on the PSLE have thrown up their hands in the air in this regard, proclaiming,
“If there is no PSLE, or if the PSLE is any less rigorous than how it is, how will the system decide who gets into RI or RGS?”
Why, though, should the consideration of placement into elite or coveted institutions dominate the way we think about the education system for the masses?
A Call to Action
There are “non-trivial issues” in rethinking the educational landscape without the PSLE. We ought to think about these issues together because they concern aspects of our ecosystem that require rethinking – from coveted schools and programmes to policies involving acceptable assessment methods. We can all agree that the future of our young is a subject of much concern to every Singaporean.
The thematic series on Rethinking the PSLE aims to create space for inputs and discussions on this topic. We are calling everyone to step aside from their daily grind to think about Member of Parliament Denise Phua’s question to Parliament in 2019:
There are plenty you can do if you are passionate about educational issues in Singapore. Comment on our social media platforms or submit your stories or opinion pieces to homeschoolsingapore.sg via our intake platform (below). For any queries, reach us via email: editor@homeschoolsingapore.sg.
Let’s write the next chapter of our Singapore story together!
References
“Enrollment in primary schools in Singapore from 2013 to 2022,” Statista. 2004. https://www.statista.com (accessed Apr 3, 2024)
“How will the current PSLE scoring system benefit your child?” Ministry of Education. https://www.moe.gov.sg (accessed Apr 13, 2024)
“Inside Singapore’s elite education system.” YouTube, uploaded by SBS Dateline, Dec 20, 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoelS0XIhSg (accessed Apr 10, 2024)
“Link found between academic pressure and mental health problems in adolescence,” UCL. Aug 14, 2023. https://www.ucl.ac.uk (accessed May 8, 2024)
“MOE FY2024 Committee of Supply Debate Response by Minister for Education Chan Chun Sing,” Ministry of Education. Mar 1, 2023. https://www.moe.gov.sg (accessed Apr 5, 2024)
“No more streaming for students: Full transcript of speech by Education Minister Ong Ye Kung,” The Straits Times. Mar 5, 2019. https://www.straitstimes.com (accessed Apr 3, 2024)
“Parliamentary Replies: Number of students placed in secondary schools under DSA scheme and talent areas covered under scheme,” Ministry of Manpower. Feb 5, 2024. https://www.moe.gov.sg (accessed Apr 10, 2024)
“Singapore’s Suicide Rates Decrease, Yet Youth Numbers Cause for Concern,” Samaritans of Singapore. Jul 2022 https://www.sos.org.sg/ (accessed May 10, 2024)
“We asked 20 Primary 6 students who gave them the most stress for the PSLE. Here’s what they got to say.” TikTok, uploaded by SBS Dateline, Dec 20, 2022, https://www.tiktok.com/@channelnewsasia/video/7351361139831344385 (accessed Mar 30, 2024)
Agarwal, Chirag. “Commentary: Latest suicide stats show Singapore youths are not coping — here’s how to help them,” Today. Jul 12, 2023. https://www.todayonline.com (accessed Apr 10, 2024)
Ang, Hwee Min. “Mid-year exams for all primary and secondary school levels will be removed by 2023: MOE” ChannelNews Asia. Apr 7, 2022. https://www.channelnewsasia.com (accessed Apr 15, 2024)
Ang, Jolene. “Denise Phua again calls for MOE to abolish ‘sacred cow’ of PSLE,” The Straits Times. Mar 4, 2019. https://www.straitstimes.com (accessed Apr 7, 2024)
Bhandari, Pooja. “White Paper: Towards A Future-Ready Education System for Every Child,” https://www.everychild.sg
Chia, Elisa. “How to ace the DSA interview and prepare for PSLE: Five teens share tips for Primary 6 pupils,” The Straits Times. May 12, 2024. https://www.straitstimes.com (accessed May 30, 2024)
Davie, Sandra. “Singapore students suffer from high levels of anxiety: Study,” The Straits Times. Aug 20, 2017. https://www.straitstimes.com (accessed Apr 3, 2024)
Goh, Timothy. “Middle-income earners in Singapore saw fastest salary growth among workers over past decade: MAS,” The Straits Times. Oct 30, 2023. https://www.straitstimes.com/ (accessed Apr 2, 2024)
Imelda Saad Aziz. “Run pilot schools that offer 10 years of through-train education: Denise Phua,” Today. Jan 21, 2014. https://www.todayonline.com (accessed Apr 7, 2024)
Kheng, Cameron. “Reasons to Doubt the ‘End of Streaming’ in Singapore,” Harvard Kennedy School. Jul 1, 2022. https://studentreview.hks.harvard.edu (accessed Apr 15, 2024)
Kuah, Adrian W. J. “The S$1.4 billion question: What is tuition really costing Singaporeans?” Today. Sep 26, 2019. https://www.todayonline.com (accessed Apr 10, 2024)
Kwek, D., Ho, J., Wong, H. M. “Country Brief: Singapore’s Educational Reforms Towards Holistic Outcomes: (Un)intended Consequences of Policy Layering,” Center of Universal Education at Brookings, Mar 2023. https://www.brookings.edu (accessed Apr 10, 2024)
Magiati, I., Ponniah, K., Yoon, P.I., Yiong, H.C., Fung, D.Woo, B. “Self-reported depression and anxiety symptoms in school-aged Singaporean children.” Asia-Pacific Psychiatry, Volume 7, Issue 1, Sep 8, 2013, pp 91-104
Mathews, Lim and See. “Parents’ Perceptions of the Singapore Primary School System,” IPS Working Papers, No. 27, 2017
Nasir, Kamaludeen (2020). “Social Class, Piety, and the Formation of the Singaporean Muslim: Exploring Educational Choices in a Highly Regulated Society” in D. Jung and K. Sinclair (eds.) Muslim Subjectivities in Global Modernity: Islamic Traditions and the Construction of Modern Muslim Identities, pp. 192-215, Netherlands, Brill
Ng, Jing Yng. “WP proposes small start for through-train plan,” Today. Sep 5, 2015. https://www.todayonline.com (accessed Apr 7, 2024)
Ng, Wei Kai. “Applications for direct admission to secondary schools rising steadily: MOE,” The Straits Times. Nov 16, 2022. https://www.straitstimes.com (accessed Apr 10, 2024)
Phua, Denise. “Sacred Cows of Education,” Denise Phua. Mar 6, 2019. https://www.denisephua.sg (accessed Apr 15 2024)
Pui, Esther Yung Chu & Chen, Ji-Kang. “Associations Between Academic Stress, Mental Distress, Academic Self-Disclosure to Parents and School Engagement in Hong Kong,” Frontiers in Psychiatry, Volume 13, Jul 14, 2022
Tan, Fiona & Tan, Nixon. “MOE considering primary to secondary school through-train programme idea but ‘non-trivial’ issues remain: Chan Chun Sing,” Mothership. Mar 2, 2023. https://mothership.sg (accessed Apr 4, 2024)
Tan, Jeanette. “Raffles Institution principal takes refreshingly hard look at elitism,” Mothership. Jul 31, 2015. https://mothership.sg (accessed May 8, 2024)
Teo, Kieira. “Voices of Youth: Mindsets need to change to achieve focus on learning,” The Straits Times. Apr 16, 2022. https://www.straitstimes.com (accessed Apr 7, 2024)
Teo, Youyenn (2022). Education as care labour: Expanding our lens on the work-life balance problem. Current Sociology, SAGE Journals, Volume 71, Issue 7
Yang, Calvin. “Over half of pupils who receive tuition start at 7 or younger: ST poll,” The Straits Times. Dec 9, 2019. https://www.straitstimes.com (accessed Apr 2, 2024)