Should SOTA churn out graduates for the arts?

Recently, a news article in Strait Times sparked debate when it was revealed that more than 80% of School of the Arts (SOTA)'s 2015 graduating cohort ended up pursuing non-arts degrees. This has triggered some people to complain that these brats are squandering taxpayers' money by going to SOTA when they have no intent of an arts career, or that SOTA is therefore a flop.

When I was in secondary school, I dreamed about playing in an orchestra. I played the piano and I was quite good at it too, so I thought it would be the coolest thing ever, to become a musician. One day, the Singapore Youth Orchestra (SYO) paid a visit to my school and after giving what I thought was a totally awesome performance, they mentioned that they would be holding auditions for members. I don't remember how I found out about the audition date, I must have scoured the newspapers daily for the notice, but I did manage to find out and went for it. It was quite out of character for me, really. I was so shy and retiring back then, it must have been a stomach-churning experience.

I went for the audition, played a few pieces on the piano and sat for some sight-reading and aural tests. The auditioner, a bubbly lady, told me very kindly that she thought I was an accomplished pianist but since I was already 16, there would not be enough time to train me in a new instrument for the SYO.

On my way out, I met another young hopeful in the waiting room, gripping her violin case. She was with her mother and they were both visibly kancheong about the audition. The girl asked me what happened in the room and when I told her I was auditioned by Vivien Goh (she had introduced herself), both mother and daughter gasped "Vivien Goh!" in hushed tones. That's when I had an inkling that Vivien Goh must be somebody of repute in that circle. I had no clue myself, an outsider in this mysterious world of musicians and orchestras. 

Anyway, after finding out that just knowing how to play the piano was not going to get me into any orchestras, I decided to try and pick up a new instrument at JC. I joined the chamber ensemble CCA which opened up a violin class for beginners. There were only five of us, if I recall, and we paid a small fee for a violin teacher to teach us the fundamentals every week. We could only afford cheap $100 violins which made the most horrendous squawks. If you entered the music room when we were having our lessons, you would hear these blood-curdling screeches fit for any horror movie scene.

I think I lasted for about a year. Even when I had improved and the sounds from my instrument bore the semblance of a tune, I came to the realisation that a violinist I would never be. I could never tune my instrument properly and holding it under my chin for a long period gave me a stiff neck. The violin always felt like a foreign object to me, and I was never as excited to learn a new piece on it, the way I was with the piano.

If not a string instrument, then what? Later on, a friend gave me a few lessons on the clarinet. This wasn't for me either. I figured that as a musician, you probably should be able to play for more than half an hour without feeling like you're going to pass out from the lack of oxygen. So that ruled out all wind instruments.

Why am I relating this long, grandmother story? My point is that as kids, many of us have dreams of pursuing a certain career, but being kids, we have very little idea what it takes or whether we're even suited for it. It is also not surprising that many kids' dreams are in the arts and sports, partly because in kids' minds, these areas appear more "fun" and tend to be more visible. For instance, if they enjoy playing soccer, they might think that being a professional soccer player is the best job in world. Or they might look at Taylor Swift and think, "I want to be a singer!" Whereas no young kid will dream of becoming an IT analyst or logistics manager because they won't even know such jobs exist, let alone know what these people do.

It took me most of my youth to figure out that not only did I not have the aptitude to be a musician, that career (which demands exacting standards and passion in a very specialised area) would have made me utterly miserable. Note that I was already into my teenage years when I was harbouring those dreams. Yet, we expect 12-year-olds to have decided on their careers when they enter SOTA?

The point is that for most kids who enter SOTA, they have an interest in the arts, that's for sure. But at 12, it is really premature to say that they will pursue a career in the arts. The value of SOTA is not in grooming careers, otherwise we fall back on the age-old fallacy that education should be purely vocation-driven. Certainly not at the secondary school level. The value of SOTA is providing a place that is conducive to grooming ability and nurturing interest in the arts. In fact, sometimes in the course of studying something, you discover what you DON'T want to do.

One student was quoted as saying "SOTA gave me a safe space to experiment", and that, I feel, is more valuable than people understand. It's a delicate balancing act when it comes to the arts because for some art forms which have a short shelf life, you definitely do need to cultivate talent early. Think ballerinas who traditionally retire at around 40. However, the discovery of passion can take time so we need to groom talent without forcing it into a mould.

Side track: The only people I have an issue with are the parents who encourage their kids to enter SOTA simply to bypass the dreaded PSLE and have a through train education to IB. They know full well there is little chance their kids will pursue the arts, yet will put their kids through special DSA coaching classes in theatre, singing, dancing, music, etc. I know this practice is prevalent in certain schools, especially  a particular girls' school in the east. I'm quite certain if you do a check on which primary schools SOTA kids come from, a few schools will be over-represented. In these cases, the parents are doing their kids more harm than good and it's baffling that they're too myopic to see that.

Back to the criticism that SOTA has failed in its purpose or that these kids are brats. My question is: why then don't we go after people who go to law school and don't become lawyers? Or go to medical school and eventually change their minds mid-career? Many, many students sign up for law and medicine not because they have the elusive "passion" but simply out of prestige and the illusion that you can do anything with these degrees. After getting their degrees, they promptly pursue careers in other areas (law more than medicine, partly because of the long bond attached to medicine). Why don't we take them to task for wasting taxpayers' money? By the way, these are undergraduate degrees, so the students are much older than the ones in SOTA when they made their choice. Shouldn't they know better?

My suspicion in this: the arts is traditionally perceived as the poorer cousin in our society. Whether in school or in careers, it's always considered the second (or last) choice. Because of this, there is a prevalent mentality that the arts is undeserving of help and therefore arts folks should be eternally grateful for any form of support. In fact, it's a given that people should suffer for their art, so to have the chance to attend a fancy school like SOTA and not do arts after? What ungrateful brats!

I wouldn't be surprised if the people who expect a direct return on the support they perceive to have provided ("taxpayer dollars!") are the ones most unsupportive of the local arts scene. I bet they are unable to tell you when they last went to a local concert, play or read a book by a local author. These are also the people like to pigeon-hole others - you belong to the arts! You sports! You stay in those lanes. As if individuals are digitally programmed to have only singular interests and pathways in life.

Of course I hope that the SOTA graduates who decide not to pursue arts-related degrees are doing so for genuine reasons and not because they think they won't earn enough moolah as an artist. That would just be tragic and contrary to the spirit of the arts.  Anyway, what the ST article says is that SOTA graduates go on to pursue non-arts degrees (how many arts degrees are there anyway, especially locally?), not that they won't still end up being involved in the arts later on. The optimistic part of me keeps hoping. Look at me - I ditched my dreams of becoming a musician but I embraced another - to be an author. (I also worked at the SSO, not as a musician but in marketing, which was fulfilling in a different way).

People who love the arts usually find their way back to it somehow. And if SOTA's purpose is to nurture more people who can create and appreciate all forms of art, then regardless of whether the graduates pursue the arts as a career, the role of SOTA remains an important one.

The DSA vs kiasu parents

The latest news on the education front is the changes to Direct School Admissions (DSA). A reader asked me what I thought about the changes and I told her that after all these years, having witnessed cohort after cohort of students and parents undergo the system, I've become quite pessimistic about the possibility of a real transformation in education.

Two reasons: one, the mindset of parents in this country HAS NOT CHANGED. If anything, parents have become more kiasu than ever. This is not to say that all parents are kiasu, but as long as the majority of parents believe in chiong-ing to ridiculous extremes to chase the "best" school, the top grades etc, change cannot take place, no matter what tweaks are done to the education system.

The second reason is related to the first: the changes that MOE have made do not address the root problem of parents' mindsets. Removing DSA via academic ability will simply shift the focus onto sports and other abilities. If your attitude is that the DSA is a fast ticket to the school of your choice, then you will work backwards to calculate what it takes to get the DSA. This accounts for the horrifying number of pre-schoolers being pushed into swimming, golf, theatre and what have you, with the aim of hot-housing them for the sole purpose of DSA.

Honestly, how do you, as a parent, know that your 5-year-old has or will have a real passion or talent in competitive badminton? Or violin? Or hip hop? The short answer: you don't. These misplaced efforts have the potential to do real damage by forcing a child into an activity which serves only a pragmatic purpose, with almost no consideration for his or her real interest. I personally know of parents who pour thousands of dollars into singing or acting lessons with the hope that their kids can get DSA into SOTA, without even thinking whether their children have any interest in pursuing the arts as a career.

Education Minister Ng Chee Meng was quoted as saying, "With this expansion, students can better access schools with suitable programmes via DSA to nurture their strengths, talents and interests."

That may be MOE's intention, but the way that parents are trying to game the system, I argue that the DSA currently does not nurture strengths, talents or interests. If you have been training for a sport for 7 years by the time you're 12, chances are you will be very good at it, simply due to the amount of time invested. It does not mean that you have the natural strength or talent in it, let alone interest. In addition, the DSA nurtures nothing. Let's not kid ourselves - students don't have their abilities honed upon being successful in DSA. The DSA rewards students who ALREADY display ability.

The only way that the expanded DSA relieves stress is simply by increasing the number of spaces allocated. So instead of being able to take in only 2 basketballers, maybe a school can now take in 5. In other words, the child now doesn't have to be the top 2 trying out, just the top 5. Whoop dee doo!

Another problem is the schools themselves have a pragmatic agenda. Schools who offer DSAs via sports and arts see these kids as potential medal grabbers for school glory. Don't believe me? When was the last time a school offered DSA for a sport or CCA that wasn't competitive?

In fact, this clumping of DSA students into niche schools for specific activities creates other problems at the secondary school level. The same old schools tend to dominate all the medals in specific sports, which is not surprising because they already took in all the top players to begin with. It makes a mockery of competitive sports and the arts, leaving very little room and recognition for schools who don't take in DSA kids and actually DO nurture students with no prior experience. Forget about sportsmanship, growth and effort. Those take a backseat.

The DSA, therefore, has become an avenue for schools to become "elite" in certain sports and the arts, in the same way that branded schools like to trumpet their academic achievements, when the chances of success are already skewed in their favour. Ironically, instead of closing gaps, the DSA has inadvertently created an unlevel playing field in a whole different arena.

Andre's experience

I was initially reluctant to post about this topic because I felt that nothing I said would make a difference. It's like using a fly swatter to pit myself against the kiasu parents wielding Thor hammers. Plus, I'm perfectly aware that the parents who follow my blog tend to share my views, so I'm only preaching to the converted.

But in the spirit of giving encouragement, I thought I should share Andre's case, so for those of you who are despairing, you might take heart.

When Andre was in p6, he tried out for DSA for badminton to a few schools. He was rejected by every single one of them. There was one particular school that his badminton coach recommended him to, that she was quite confident he would be successful in. Then just three months before the badminton trials, the school changed the coach. The new coach took a different approach and didn't select Andre.

At a badminton competition

Back then, we were bitterly disappointed and so was he. We couldn't understand why God seemed to close all the doors to Andre, even though he realistically should have stood a chance. It was only years later that we realised we should have just trusted God from the beginning. The school where he eventually enrolled in, via an unlikely appeal, became such a blessing for Andre. It amply recognised and rewarded him for his badminton achievements and efforts, as I've blogged about before. He even became the CCA's captain and vice-captain for four years, an opportunity he would have been unlikely to receive in the other schools with DSA candidates.

In addition, many of the schools which offer badminton DSA are SAP schools, meaning Andre would have had to take Higher Chinese. With his horrendous Chinese standards, this would have been an unequivocal Disaster with a capital D, and maybe caused Andre to be retained. As a poetic ending, Andre's school badminton team, with no DSA students, beat out that earlier school he had missed out on the DSA for, in this year's school badminton tournament. It's a lesson in sportsmanship, humility and character-building.

I'm sharing this from the vantage point of a parent who has been there and done that. For Christian parents, have faith that God really knows what's best for your kid. You may not see it now, but it's my experience that every time we try to arm twist God into giving us what we want, it usually turns out to be disastrous. No need to chiong and stress - just trust that He will provide. Remember, God knows the future, we don't.

For non-Christian parents, I know it can be nerve-wrecking to trust that you're making the right decision in not chiong-ing with the crowd. But from the many parents I've spoken to and know about, I found that a significant number of children who took up DSA sports or arts eventually regretted doing so and dropped their speciality. I'm not saying that DSA, or even preparation for DSA, is bad. I'm saying that if you want to take this route, do make sure that your child is truly passionate about the chosen sport/art form, and it's not just because you're trying to bypass the PSLE or chope a place in a desired school at all costs.

As I'd also observed from the paths Lesley-Anne and Andre's friends took, the vast majority of them ended up in a similar route in higher education. At Yale-NUS where Lesley-Anne is now, the students come from a wide spectrum of schools and had amassed an equally wide range of grades, which makes me believe even more fervently that all the panicking and stress are so needless. The Big Bad PSLE is REALLY just one exam and it doesn't make as great an impact on your child's future as you might think.

It all boils down to perspective. At the end of the day, if what you want are happy and fulfilled children with values and character (and I hope you do), then understand that it doesn't start with killing their childhood with work, drills and more work (both academic and non-academic). I see so many unhappy teenagers around who are stressed out, insecure and hate their parents, and I say this emphatically: it's not worth it.

"For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." - Jeremiah 29:11

'O' level results and other milestones

Last Wednesday was the release of the 'O' level results. It shouldn't have been nerve-wrecking for Andre, since he'd already been accepted for early admission to the polytechnic course of his choice. All he needed to do was earn 26 points for his L1R4, which shouldn't have been a problem.

Yet, on Tuesday, he was a bundle of nerves. He moped around the house, mournfully singing Les Miserables' "One Day More", and repeatedly asked, "What if I don't make the minimum cut-off?" until I started having doubts myself. I began to wonder what rubbish he'd written during the exams to warrant this level of fretting. This is a boy whose self-assessment of how he'd done in exams holds a spotty record, to say the least. There had been times when he's come home to say the exam was "easy" only to be confronted later by a failing grade. This would inevitably lead me to shriek, "I thought you said it was easy! What happened?", to which he would look baffled and say "I don't know!"

He forbade me from going to school with him and said he would text me the results. So I waited anxiously and every time the phone beeped, I jumped. After a heart-pounded wait, I received a text from him. 11 points!!

This was a way better result than any of us could have hoped for and we were ecstatic. To put Andre's results in context, during his four years of secondary school, there have been exams where he had failed more subjects than he'd passed. In sec3, I wasn't sure he was even going to be promoted to the next level. We were particularly surprised by his B3 grade for A. Math, since he'd consistently flunked this subject in school. He had aimed for 16 points for the 'O' levels but surpassed that by a mile. The early admission turned out to be quite unnecessary after all. With this score, he can almost have his pick of courses at the polytechnic. What a wonderful boost to his confidence.

That's a nice close to Andre's secondary school journey and the last bit has been an especially eventful one. I'd shared in an earlier post how his school awarded him the Outstanding Leadership Award for his contributions in badminton, and how his teachers wrote him glowing testimonials. As it turned out, the school also chose him for another school award: Most Valuable Player...

as well as the Eagles Award (under Edusave), for leadership, service and achievements in CCA. The award ceremony was held yesterday.

I've always believed that God takes extra care to look after the sparrows and that's Andre - one big sparrow. As a student, he might not be considered the most "accomplished" in the traditional academic sense, but I've come to realise that he has made his mark in his own funny and affable way, and always on his own terms. My sparrow is all grown up and I'm so very proud of him. 💖

Prom night

About Yale-NUS and demystifying liberal arts

When I tell people that Lesley-Anne is in Yale-NUS, I'm often met with puzzlement. "Oh, NUS?" Well, not exactly..."Oh, the medical school?" No, that's Duke-NUS.

Then when they ask what she's studying and I say that Yale-NUS is a liberal arts programme, the response becomes even more interesting. "Oh, arts! Cos she likes writing and stuff?" Then there are those whose faces show distinct alarm from which I know they've only heard the word "liberal" and think my daughter is gonna get seduced by dem wicked Americans keen on sex and drinking and turning people gay.

So this post is to clear up misconceptions and shed light on what a Yale-NUS education entails.

Curriculum

One of the main differences between a US and UK tertiary education is that for most UK universities, you have to choose a subject to study right from the start. Eg. if you wish to attend UCL or Imperial College, you have to apply for a particular subject like Econs or Engineering. Right from the start, your programme is designed around that course. The US, however, believes in a more holistic broad-based education, so for most universities, the first couple of years cover a wide spectrum of subjects to give students a good general knowledge across disciplines, including both sciences and the humanities. Only in the last two years (a US university education is typically 4 years) do students specialise in a chosen major. The intent is to create more well-rounded individuals and broaden minds.

Fundamentally, the latter is what a liberal arts education is about. Contrary to what its name suggests, liberal arts isn't just about the arts subjects. It covers the humanities, social sciences and natural sciences, although the proportion of each can vary quite drastically among universities. At Yale-NUS, all freshmen (1st years) and sophomores (2nd years) have to undergo a common curriculum to ensure that the students are knowledgeable across disciplines.

For Lesley-Anne's first semester, she's studying four compulsory modules - Literature and Humanities, Philosophy and Political Thought, Scientific Inquiry, and Comparative Social Inquiry. What she finds particularly interesting is that true to the liberal arts approach, the lines between disciplines are blurred, which better reflect real life. In Lit and Humanities, for example, they don't just study a lit text like you typically would in a traditional Literature programme. They discuss a lit text in relation to history, culture, other forms of art, etc. Eg in Comparative Social Inquiry, they have discussed how an economic principle can also be applied to politics and education.

The point of a liberal arts education is less about content and more about the application of content. If I could be uber simplistic here, it's to teach you how to think, not what to think. That's the reason why a student who may be very good in Science may not do well in Scientific Inquiry, and likewise a Lit student may not do so well in Literature and Humanities. It's less about the facts in science or the ability to annotate texts in Lit, and more about how to analyse patterns, and see logic and connections across different fields. In other words, it can get pretty intellectual, so to do liberal arts, you probably should enjoy reading and finding out about different things, and pondering about deeper meanings. Which Lesley-Anne does, as she has this innate thirst for knowledge. You can find out more about liberal arts and its origins in this article.

Campus and Residence

Yale-NUS College is an entity set up as a collaboration between NUS and Yale University in the US. Yale is one of the oldest and leading proponents of liberal arts education in the world, so the partnership was meant to establish a solid liberal arts programme in Asia. Yale-NUS College is situated in U-Town at NUS in its own self-contained campus, where its students live and have their lessons. It's very, very new - it enrolled its inaugural class in 2013, so 2016 is only the first year where it has all four years of undergraduates.

One of the defining characteristics of Yale-NUS is its residential programme. Following the Yale tradition, all Yale-NUS students have to live on campus throughout their four years in the programme. This is because the College believes firmly that the residential model allows students to move beyond academics to interact and work better with others. Having stayed in the hostel during my university years, I fully agree that hall life made all the difference in my tertiary experience. Learning to live independently and with others offers invaluable opportunities to learn life skills.

The advantage about this compulsory residential programme is that students don't have to "fight" for rooms, vs at other NUS hostels, because of the lack of supply. There are three high-rise residential colleges within the Yale-NUS campus and all students are guaranteed a room throughout their four years.

The campus is very new, just one year old and we had a chance to tour the place the day Lesley-Anne moved in. Can I just say it? It's gorgeous. The facilities are closer to those of a serviced apartment than a hostel. Everywhere we went, Andre was muttering, "This isn't a hostel! It's a hotel!" Yes, he was pretty envious.

The students stay in suites of 4 or 6, meaning that each suite has 4 or 6 single rooms, with a common living area like this one (the doors you see are to each individual room):

Each suite has a shared shower stall and toilet.

This is Lesley-Anne's room:

Each residential college has its own facilities, like laundry room (with washers and dryers):

Student-run buttery where you can buy late-night snacks and chill:

And a Harry Potter-esque dining hall:

Don't even get me started on the food. The residential fees cover three meals a day (two on weekends) and these are buffet-style meals, with vegan, Halal options, and the type of cuisine changes regularly. The food is provided by SATS Catering and the students are free to take as much as they need, no fierce server dumping blobs of unrecognisable mush on metal trays like in my time. Fresh fruit, milk, coffee, they're all for the taking.

The rest of the campus is equally picturesque.

Many other spanking new facilities including a library, fully equipped gym and indoor basketball court. Lots of indoor and open areas to study or relax.

Before you go "wah, so unfair!", I should state upfront that the tuition fees of Yale-NUS are much higher than those of regular NUS courses, especially once you take into account the residential fees, which are compulsory. So I guess you get what you pay for.

Overseas representation

One of the biggest plus points for us is that Yale-NUS has a very high percentage of overseas students. For me, it's important to meet different people with different points of view - that's one of the advantages of studying overseas. I find that students from the local JCs tend to have a rather similar mindset, as they have gone through similar experiences with similar backgrounds, and I don't think that's healthy at all. At Yale-NUS, the overseas student makeup is as high as 40% and that contributes to richness of diversity on campus. In Lesley-Anne's suite alone, she has a Japanese suite mate and an American one.

Academically, this adds a dimension to discussions. A professor was sharing that when talking about the Israel-Palestine conflict, they could actually hear the views directly from  an Israeli student and a Palestine student, as well as those from the American student.

Lesley-Anne was recounting how she was in the buttery and an Egyptian student asked if he could play his country's dance music. Other nationalities later followed suit and they began jamming to different types of music, a lot of which she'd never heard before. It's instances like this that make for an enriching campus culture.

Another big draw about Yale-NUS is their abundant overseas opportunities, but I will talk about these in a later post.

Beyond the grades

This is a follow-up post from the one I shared on Andre's graduation from secondary school.

After that post, I received some emails asking me what school Andre was in, where the teachers sounded so fantastic. I feel I need to put up this disclaimer: I'm not saying every teacher in Andre's school is "good". I believe that every school has its share of dedicated teachers and not-so-good ones, however you want to define "good". But if a school culture is one which understands a child's worth is more than the grades in his report book, especially if upheld and reinforced at the top, you're more likely to have teachers who translate this philosophy on the ground. And that's where I think Andre's school has gotten it right versus Lesley-Anne's secondary school.

Over the last four years, Andre's secondary school journey has been eventful. Academic-wise, there have been heart-stopping moments when he's performed less than satisfactory. At one point in sec3, I even wondered if he was going to be promoted to sec4 as he struggled with his new subjects.

But at every juncture, I found most of the teachers to be encouraging. It has become a running joke in my own head that whenever I attended a parent-teacher conference, the form teacher or subject teacher would look at his grades, then turn to me earnestly and say, "but he's a very nice boy!" Translation: ok lah, let's focus on something else more positive.

It's not lost on me that should Andre have been in a different secondary school, he might have had his spirit crushed, due to his academic challenges, and for this, I'm so thankful God led him to this school. We didn't know it at the time but it turned out to be a much bigger blessing than we could have imagined. One of Andre's greatest passions is in badminton and here, his ability was allowed to bloom. He was given the opportunity to be Captain and Vice-Captain of the school team for four years, where he developed his own gentle leadership style by setting a good example for his teammates. Andre's a quiet leader and not one to expect anything in return, so it was a wonderful surprise when his badminton teacher picked him for this Outstanding Leadership Award.

In addition, he wrote Andre a glowing testimonial. Quoting a portion of it here:

"Despite the grueling nature of the physical training, he had endured the demanding sessions without any complaints. He had even taken the initiative to encourage his peers in striving to complete their training. During competitions, Andre has always shown his presence. On the court, he plays to his utmost and fights hard for every single point. Off the court, he is supportive and motivates his team mates throughout their games...He had demonstrated that he is a caring and nurturing leader. He treated his peers and juniors with respect and yet still managed to demand standards and quality from them. He is patient towards the beginning players and would work tirelessly with them in practicing their fundamental skills."

It's so heart-warming to know that Andre's efforts have not gone unnoticed (especially since the badminton teacher is a man of few words, so it was a real surprise to read such ardent praise). Andre also received a testimonial from his form teacher, as is the normal practice for all graduating students. Here's a snippet of what she wrote:

"Andre is extremely good-natured, often the peacemaker in difficult situations. He gets along easily with everyone regardless of differences in cultural background. He is sensitive to peers and has a strong sense of empathy due to his ability to see and understand from the perspectives of others. Andre works very well with others, contributing positively and effectively in teams. Andre shows the potential to be both a follower and a mover. He can adapt easily to situations, follow instructions or step up to lead others. He is a promising youth with aspirations."

I picked this snippet because I think the teacher has summed up how Andre's character has grown and solidified over the last four years. Today, when I look at Andre, I see someone who's compassionate, humorous and well-liked - qualities that I believe are what maketh a man. Many people have said, and it's true, that it's the secondary school years that mold a boy's character. For this, I give a lot of credit to the school for consistently looking at every facet of his development more than just academic, and giving him the space and opportunities to discover himself and develop his abilities.

To the school, thank you for helping my son blossom. You score an A+ in my books.

The happy boy graduates

Last weekend was a momentous one for Andre. For one, it marked his graduation from secondary school. "But wait!" you might say. "What about the 'O' levels?" Ah yes. The 'O' levels will begin for him on 19 October but most secondary schools hold the graduation ceremony for sec 4 and 5 students at the end of September. The rest of the time up to the 'O' levels, the students are on home study leave, although they are still free to contact teachers for consults.

The graduation ceremony on Friday was a blast. Unlike at elite schools where the graduation ceremonies tend to be serious affairs, the one at Andre's school was noisy, fun and well, downright celebratory. 

The students went up on stage to collect their testimonials, to loud cheers from their friends. I kid you not when I tell you that at least a couple of students took selfies with their teachers right there on stage! To me, it was such a joy to see the abundance of spontaneity and merriment.

But more than the fun and laughter, what came through during the ceremony was how much the teachers of this school cared for their students. A long video was played, featuring messages from many form and subject teachers wishing their classes all the best. Most of the messages were not generic ones. For instance, Andre's form teacher (also his geography teacher) created a powerpoint that inserted all sorts of funny puns using geography terms that the students had learnt. A literature teacher read out some of the inspiring poems written by the students in her class.

Then another video montage was played which featured photos of the graduating cohort, not just in 2016 but all the way back to 2013 during the sec1 orientation. The hall was in an uproar as the students would whoop whenever one of their friends appeared on the screen. It's amazing how much some of the chubby, cherubic kids have changed over four years, especially the boys!

Later, Andre showed me the cards he's received. One was a personalised note of encouragement from a teacher who was his form teacher for only a short while in sec2. Yet, she took the time to write to everyone who was in her class then. This same teacher had made them write a note to their future self. She had kept the notes and returned them on graduation day. One of the goals Andre had written was "Must learn more about Minecraft", next to "Must listen more in class" :)) It was a wonderful way for the students to see how far they've come.

Neighbourhood school, champion teachers. I couldn't have asked for a better school for Andre to grow in his secondary school years. Here, the teachers always looked beyond academics to see and care for the whole child. Even when he was failing badly, they never quashed his spirit and always looked to encourage him in other ways. The response of the students during the graduating ceremony was testament to what the teachers have accomplished. 

With that, Andre has (more or less) completed his secondary school journey. Just before he celebrated his 16th birthday on Sunday. I can scarcely believe that in a matter of months, both my kids would have entered the higher education phase of their lives.

More challenges ahead? Probably...but I'm ready! Armed with old flower eye glasses and glucosamine cream for creaky knees, I'm looking forward to the journey.

Scholarships and universities - letting God lead

This post is a testimony on Lesley-Anne's scholarship journey. Some of you may recall that I blogged about how Lesley-Anne would only go overseas for her university education if she could secure a scholarship.

While most students think of the scholarship bond as a burden, Lesley-Anne holds a different view. Since she's looking to study Liberal Arts or Literature (which don't necessarily have the best job prospects), she sees the bond as an advantage because it would guarantee a job upon graduation. I guess she's unusual that way.

So when exploring scholarships, she applied only to organisations where she was interested in carving out a career. One particular organisation stood out as her first choice. Funnily enough, it has nothing to do with the arts. What she found out about their role and work intrigued her. She was invited to go for the first round assessment centre and the process was rigorous. Lasting a full day, she had to analyse real industry papers, present recommendations, participate in a debate and do a written test. While it was exhausting, she found the content fascinating. That reinforced her belief that it would be interesting to work for this organisation.

From our past experiences, we have learnt not to just pray for something as what we want may not actually be good for us. So we asked God to grant her this scholarship and create a place for her ONLY if this organisation was right for her.

Lesley-Anne must have done well in the assessment centre because she received a call-back the very next day to attend the first round interview. Yay!
 
We were hopeful but the interview didn't turn out the way she wanted. She came back all moody and said "I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT." Later, the kaypoh in me managed to pry a little out of her. She said the HR director, who was the main interviewer, started off cheery but as the interview progressed, he didn't seem to like some of her answers and started looking bored. At one point, he even slumped in his seat.

She was deeply discouraged but I reminded her of what we prayed - if it's right, God will make it happen. If it's not, then it's actually a blessing in disguise not to get it because it wasn't right for you.
To be perfectly honest though, we all kinda thought it was a lost cause. She was shortlisted for interviews/assessments with other organisations, so she began preparing for those.

It was also around this time that Lesley-Anne had to consider which university she wanted to go to. She had received 4 offers from UK universities to study Literature, including UCL and University of Edinburgh. Apart from those, she also had an offer from Yale-NUS, the only local university she had applied to. If she didn't manage to secure a scholarship, the choice would be clear because we had told her we would only be able to fund a local tertiary education. However, if she did manage to get a scholarship, she would have to indicate her preference.

One attribute about Lesley-Anne is that she's terribly indecisive. If we left her to decide where to have dinner, we'd probably starve. On one hand, she knew that going overseas would be a once-in-a-lifetime experience. On the other hand, she was very attracted to the Liberal Arts programme in Yale-NUS, with its broad-based curriculum, international student mix and incredible opportunities for overseas exchanges.

There she was, swinging like a pendulum from one to another, unable to decide. In the end, she added a request to God - if she were to land a scholarship, let the organisation tell her where to go. I could just imagine God smacking His forehead and going, "Aiyoh, this girl! Everything oso must specify until liddat." (Yes, in my imagination, God speaks Singlish).

Then out of the blue, the first organisation called her back. She had been shortlisted for a final interview with the top brass! It was an unexpected and fantastic surprise. I don't think the interview panel knew what to make of Lesley-Anne. She's just so different from their usual candidates, most of whom chose to study fields relevant to the industry, like engineering, law or economics. Here instead was this girl who had written books, enjoyed dance and applied to study Literature and Liberal Arts. She was an outlier if ever there was one.

But clearly, they must have seen something in her because in the end, after a long excruciating wait, they offered her the scholarship! We later found out that the organisation only gave out 7 scholarships out of 1,500 applicants this year. (I'm glad we didn't know the odds beforehand as she might have just given up due to the sheer improbability!) What was even more amazing: hers was the ONLY award where the organisation specified the university - they wanted her to attend Yale-NUS.

God answered every request she had made. Tell me that's not divine intervention. Everything happened with such uncanny leading that we could scarcely believe it.

A little more related information: after she was offered the scholarship, she was shortlisted for a final interview with the CEO and Chairman of another organisation. My gut tells me she would probably be successful in that application as well, as the people there like her and it's an arts-related organisation. Plus that scholarship would probably allow her to go overseas.

Some people may think, oh why not try for it then? But Lesley-Anne turned down that final interview with our blessings because she knew what the right path was. Isn't it great when God has shown the way so clearly, that you know that's the one to take? There's no better feeling.

So long story short, Lesley-Anne did get her scholarship but the irony is that she won't be going overseas after all. Sometimes, God is funny that way. And it's all good.

Reforms in PSLE scoring - good news for most

Finally, after much anticipation, MOE has released the new grading system for PSLE, to start in 2021 (meaning that those in p1 this year will be the first batch to be affected).

How it works is that scores for each subject will be calculated on 8 bands or Assessment Levels (ALs) as follows:

Source: MOE

Very simply, your PSLE score will be the total AL score for all four subjects. Eg. if you score AL2 for English, AL1 for Maths, AL 4 for Science and AL5 for Mother Tongue, your total score will be 12. It's very similar to how the 'O' levels are calculated, ie A1 for a subject = 1 point, B3 = 3 points and so on. For PSLE, the minimum score is 4, maximum 32.

The scores will then be used for secondary school posting. The better your score, the higher up your queue number is to select your school.  Which stream you will be eligible for depends on your total score as follows:

Source: MOE

A Step in the Right Direction

1) This banding scoring style is long overdue. From the time this move was first mooted in 2013, I've written about how the fine stratification of the PSLE t-score is meaningless and only serves to exacerbate the kiasu culture among parents and students, to chiong for every last mark. Banding sends the message that whether you score 91 or 99, you're considered equally high achieving in that subject.

Some people are curious as to why the AL bands don't all have a similar range of marks, eg. AL2-4 have 5-mark ranges while AL5 has a 10-mark range and AL6 a 20-mark range. After all, someone who scores 45 marks in a paper (a fail grade) can hardly be considered of the same achievement level as someone who scores 64 marks, even though they would both fall under AL6.

I've always felt that the PSLE is less of an ability gauge and more a school placement device. If every school was equally in demand, the PSLE would simply need to test if a student understood the fundamental concepts for each subject. If yes, then congrats! Off you go to secondary school. But that sort of Utopia exists only in Sesame Street and we're more like Harry Potter - everyone wants to go to Gryffindor and nobody wants Slytherin. Hence, my gut feel is that the ALs are carved out as such to facilitate school placement. In other words, whether you score 45 or 64 marks, it probably has less consequence on the range of schools available to you (because fewer people are vying for one or two particular schools).

2) Another major change in the scoring is the departure from t-scores to raw scores. I'd previously written in detail about the brutality of using the t-score in PSLE. The t-score calculates your score in relation to others'. While it's more efficient in determining placement for school posting, it encourages unhealthy competition because the more people you beat, the better you score. At that tender age when we're supposed to be nurturing kids, the t-score sends the message: To hell with helping my friends. Winner takes all. Kinda like the Hunger Games.

Raw scores, on the other hand, reflect individual effort and ability, not in comparison with one another. In other words, just do the best you can. However, banding based on raw scores means that many kids are likely to share similar scores, unlike in the past where your t-score can be differentiated down to decimal points. So MOE felt the need to impose three other criteria for school placement, in case of ties. These are (in that order):

2) Citizenship
3) Choice order of school
4) Balloting

I have to admit, I chuckled when I saw the last criterion. To me, that's like MOE subtly giving kiasu parents the middle finger. You see, I can just imagine how vexed MOE must feel, that every time they try to introduce a different initiative to create a more holistic system or level the playing field, some parents will find innovative and extreme ways to game the system. Take DSA, IP, niche schools, etc. By introducing balloting, getting into the school of your choice could come down to pure, dumb luck. Hah! Try getting around that!

Let the Angst Begin

As mentioned, I feel this change is long overdue and it's good overall. It's more holistic and kinder in its assessment of students' abilities. However, as with every announcement about changes in the education system, there is bound to be anxiety among parents, often due to the uncertainty.

One group would be the ones whose kids are consistently top performers and gunning for schools like RI/RGS/HCI/NYGH. Suddenly, a perfect score may not guarantee entry to these school. If these parents are protesting that it's "unfair to deprive a perfect scorer a place in a top school", may I be so bold as to suggest that the changes are necessary precisely because we need to change this sort of narrow-mindedness. For the better of society, we really need to move away from the prevalent mentality that 1) some schools are superior 2) because a kid beat another by 1 mark in an exam paper, he's somehow more entitled to go to that school.

A school is a conduit for learning. If a child is that good, he can do well and receive fantastic opportunities anywhere. In the past couple of decades, we've seen how the narrow funnelling of top scoring kids into a handful of schools have led to a proliferation of young adults who are completely oblivious that the world doesn't revolve around their middle-income families, paper distinctions, high end tuition centres and overseas stints. While this new scoring system may not completely solve this elitist mindset, it is more likely to spread the top scorers across a wider range of schools, allowing for better integration and socialisation.

Other parents might be concerned about how to choose schools, now that choice order is a consideration. For the first year at least, there will be a lot of uncertainty since there is nothing to refer to. If my child scores 12 points, which school should he pick as first choice? Or if my child scores 4 points, how many other kids scored the same? Should he opt for a less competitive school just to be safe? It's anyone's guess, really.

Even after the first year, we might not have a clear idea what the cut-off point for each school is. Since the points are now based on raw scores, not t-scores, the distribution of total scores for each year can vary quite a lot, depending on how easy or difficult the papers are. In fact, if MOE wants to play puppeteer, they can theoretically adjust the difficulty of the papers to affect the results. For example, set very difficult papers to restrict the number of 4-pointers or very easy papers to flood the market. Such manipulation will need to be handled with care though, because it could drastically affect the proportion of kids qualifying for the Express stream, for instance.

If they want to be extra sneaky, they can also "tweak" the raw scores, the way they've been doing for the current PSLE scoring. Whether you get an A* or A today is supposed to be based on raw scores (eg. 91 marks and above for A*) but in reality, the grades for each subject are based on a bell curve drawn by MOE. I'm wondering if they will resort to this down the road if the results deviate too much from projections. Anyway, these are all speculations. I suspect they will observe the workings of the system and adjust it as they go along.

Good...But Faster Can?

So yes, there are some kinks to work out and that's probably why MOE is taking so long to implement it. If I have one criticism of the initiative, it's that it will only be rolled out in 2021. Considering this was first announced in 2013, that's 8 years to implement what is a relatively straightforward system. MOE says they want to give people time to get used to the new system. I think they're being too kind. That's giving parents another 8 years to find ways to game the new system and chiong for DSA harder than ever. If it were up to me, I'd say rip off the band-aid and get over the pain quickly.

There are two gaping loopholes which I feel MOE needs to review quickly with this new announcement, namely the DSA scheme and MT exemption. While they were both implemented with good intentions and have their uses, again that hasn't stopped some parents from exploiting them purely to get into branded schools.

The stress that I commonly hear people complain about our education system is both a result of the system and parents' attitude. Changing the system itself isn't enough unless we change our mindsets, but at least we move away from rewarding and hence reinforcing kiasu-ism. For that, I would say we're on the right track.

Making the push for reading and appreciation of Singapore literature

Reading has been in the news a lot lately. In March, Straits Times reported that an NAC survey showed only 44% of Singaporeans had read a book in the past year. This statistic is even sadder when you consider that for some, this one book could be 50 Shades of Grey. The common excuse given was lack of time, which I feel is rubbish lah. I constantly see people on their phones. If they have time to Facebook for hours, they have time to read.

A reading culture is best nurtured when young. Unfortunately, I feel our school environment doesn't help. The obsession with grades, tuition and studies leaves little time for much else. Our kids are so bogged down that when they have free time, all they want to do is zone out. It's made worse by the fact that many parents prefer to have their kids read only educational books (Guide to Acing your PSLE!) and fiction is considered simply a "nice-to-do" but unessential activity. How do we groom a reading habit with such practices?

It was therefore such a refreshing change when Lesley-Anne and I spoke at the Canadian International School last week and found out from the librarian that the kids there are avid readers. Last year, each student borrowed an average of 40 books. The librarian had set out a special Danger Dan borrowing box and all the books were out!

Here are more Danger Dan updates:

First, Secrets of Singapore was one of the finalists in the recent Singapore Book Awards (Best Non-Fiction Title)!

 
Even though the book didn't win in the end, we were happy to have made the finals list. We were even more thrilled that and even happier that our publisher, Epigram Books, was the big winner at the awards. Here we are the inimitable Mr Epigram Books himself, Edmund Wee, and Lydia, the designer for Secrets of Singapore.

To celebrate the awards, Secrets of Singapore and all other winning/shortlisted titles at the Singapore Book Awards are going for 20% off on the Epigram Books website, now till end of May! Coupon code: SBASLP2016.

In other news, the first book in our new Danger Dan and Gadget Girl series, The Animal Abduction, has already created plenty of excitement in schools, especially with the introduction of the new furry character, Power Paws!

Here's a review of the book by book blogger, Priscilla. She gave the book five stars and suggested it be included as supplementary reading for schools. Quote:

"Kids shouldn’t be kept in the dark when it comes to serious issues like global warming and wildlife conservation. But that doesn’t mean you should tell them bluntly in the face. Somehow, the mother-daughter writing team managed to keep the book light-hearted, educational, and engaging."

Finally, Straits Time reported in May that Singapore's literary scene was enjoying a revival. I'm not sure I would go that far but certainly, the increased publicity and focus on reading has helped. And I'm very proud to be associated with Epigram Books, which has been at the forefront, pushing for Singapore literature to gain recognition and acceptance in its own right.

Danger Dan got a small mention in the article as one of the most borrowed children's titles from the National Library Board. It's a modest achievement but we're always happy to hear that kids enjoy reading Danger Dan. It's what keeps us going. Here's hoping the trend will continue!

The standard of English in university communications - what gives?

Like all other students who graduated from JC last year, Lesley-Anne has been receiving many flyers and brochures from the local universities of late. This is quite typical, I guess, as every university fights to attract the best and the brightest from each cohort.

Since I'm a professional writer, I'm usually less interested in the glossy covers and illustrious people gracing the pages of the magazines. For me, it's more interesting to see how each university positions itself based on its writing style.

The NUS style is quite corporate and very professional - it projects authority and credibility. Very much in line with its track record and heritage.

SMU is more casual - it tries to engage the student in a personal way. Again, in line with its image as a smaller and cosier university.

Yale-NUS is the most vibrant and projects the most fun image, befitting its youth, size and liberal arts curriculum.

I don't have an impression of SUTD because I haven't seen any flyers. I believe Lesley-Anne might have received one but she chucked it because SUTD's courses are not suitable for her.

Then we come to NTU. Lesley-Anne showed me the cover letter that was enclosed with a magazine and we were both bemused by the standard of English, particularly in the second paragraph:

The phrasing in the second sentence (second paragraph) is totally awkward. The third sentence gave us giggles. Lesley-Anne asked, "Their professors are spinning toys?"

That prompted me to flip the magazine that was enclosed. I didn't read the articles in detail but just by browsing, I quickly spotted some very strange phrases.

"Learning at NTU has a new icon in a 24-hub..." What? Does the writer even understand the word "icon" and how to use it?

"Do-gooder" is a noun. I know it's all the rage now but you can't suka suka change a noun into an adjective, especially in an official magazine.

Nothing wrong with the English here, just the very, very odd last sentence. Apparently, because Stephen Hawking is a scientist, it's okay to substitute his name in a Star Trek phrase. Which incidentally, referenced teleportation. Nothing to do with holograms...or Stephen Hawking.

Oh look, they used the phrase again! Twice in the same magazine - they must really like the phrase. This time correct name but guess what, still nothing to do with teleportation. The third sentence is so confusing I can't comment on it. I wish people would understand that writing is so much more than just planting catchy phrases here and there. The content and the context have to make sense.

I wish to qualify that I have nothing against NTU. I have actually written for NUS, SMU, Yale-NUS and NTU in the past and enjoyed working with all of them. I'm posting this because as a copywriter, I get vexed when I spot instances of bad English in official collaterals, as blogged about here. And it is my fervent belief that while it's unprofessional for organisations to put out communications publications with questionable English, it's even more unforgivable when that organisation is a university.

You may say, well, probably the Engineering and Accountancy students won't care or even notice but that's not the point. A university is supposed to be the bastion of knowledge and academic rigour. It reflects terribly on the standards of a university when it can't even communicate correctly. Also, I thought NTU has been trying to move away from its rather stodgy reputation as a mostly engineering university, and attract more students to its arts and social sciences courses. This doesn't help.

I don't know if the writing for the letter and magazine was done in-house or outsourced to external writers. Whatever it is, the editing can and should be tightened. If all else fails, NTU, if you're reading this, you can always give me a call.
 

When students in top schools don't make the grade

When the 'O' level results were released this year, there was some hoo-ha when the Middle Ground reported that only 1 out of 10 students in RI's pioneer 'O' level class scored well enough to make it to JC. Many people were in shock, including the students, it would seem - RI? How could this have happened?

My reaction is: this was no surprise at all.

I've always been baffled by the intrinsic belief of some parents that because a high percentage of top school students score well, you will automatically score well if you go to a top school. It doesn't work that way. That's like saying if you hang out with a whole bunch of rich people, you will also become rich. So much logic.

Whether you are likely to turn in good academic results depends on a few factors:

1) Your natural talent or aptitude, which is largely genetic
2) Your work ethic, ie how hard and how well you study
3) How much help you get, eg whether you have tuition, good teachers, father-mother help, etc.

Of course there are other factors like luck, performance during exams etc, but I won't get into those as I think they play a smaller part. In general, how well a student performs in school is largely dependent on those three factors. Students in the elite schools tend to have a good combination of all three. That's why they do well. It's that simple.

However, in every top school, you will have a handful of students who do not perform quite as well academically. The group who entered via sports or arts Direct School Admissions (DSAs), for instance. Many of these kids enter the school far below the cut-off-point (COP), sometimes 30 or 40 points below. While the PSLE t-score is not definitive, it does offer a pretty good indication of general ability. If a student is lacking in Factor 1) and his Factor 2) is compromised because he has to commit a lot of time to his CCA due to DSA, he is already at a huge disadvantage when it comes to performing academically. It's the brutal truth.

I don't know if all the kids who scored badly in the 'O' level class were from DSAs. There could also be students who entered RI due to very high PSLE scores but somehow along the way, slipped and were unable to catch up.

Being in a branded school doesn't automatically mean you get a leg up in grades. In fact, it's often the opposite. Based on my own experience with my two kids, branded schools actually teach less and test more. When they teach, they go very quickly and assume knowledge of basic concepts. Many teachers of branded schools are simply unaccustomed to dealing with less academically-inclined children and much less sympathetic to failing grades (when Lesley-Anne flunked sec 3 maths, her teacher just assumed she wasn't trying hard enough). If you struggle to understand the fundamentals, tuition is often the only recourse for these kids. In contrast, Andre's teachers in a neighbourhood school go through concepts more slowly and hold more extra classes for weaker students.

This whole saga with the 'O' level class at RI is due to the way the Integrated Programme (IP) has evolved. When IP was introduced some years ago, the assumption was that the top PSLE scorers would naturally be JC-bound, so the through-train system made sense - kids in schools like RI/RGS/HCI/NYGH would bypass the 'O' levels and go straight to JC, saving them the hassle of preparing for another national exam. After all, these schools attract the top 5% of kids. Shouldn't be a problem, right?

Except there was a problem. Kids are human beings. They don't always perform according to statistical projections. Plus these schools took in some kids way below the COPs, as mentioned above. The result was that some kids in these schools just couldn't keep up, for whatever reason. The schools then faced a huge dilemma - what to do with these students? They couldn't in good conscience promote a student who failed practically every subject, let alone allow him or her to enter JC. So in the past, these kids would either be retained, transfer to an overseas school or transfer to a secondary school which offered 'O' levels.

The worst case scenarios were the sec 4 kids who couldn't make the grade - it was too late to transfer schools and study a completely different syllabus for the 'O' levels. What route could they take then? Poly? Drop out and take 'O' levels as a private candidate? Graduate with just a PSLE certificate? It was an untenable situation. I say this with first-hand knowledge because Lesley-Anne was from a branded secondary school and during her time, it was pure IP, with no 'O' level classes. There were students who couldn't make the grade and quietly transferred out to different schools, whichever would take them. At the sec 4 graduation ceremony, some students went up on stage to receive a fake scroll, bitterly knowing there was a chance they might not graduate. It's sobering and horrible and nobody talks about it.

So these top schools which previously didn't have 'O' level classes, came to realise that they were not doing right by these students. They had no choice but to open up 'O' level classes for the kids who really couldn't cope. It was with good intentions. However, it's laughable to call schools like RI "dual-track" schools because they're not. A dual-track school is one like ACSI, Victoria/Cedar or SJI where there are two distinct tracks from the start - IP and 'O' levels - and students can move from one track to another at sec 3, depending on their performance.  In these schools, teachers are trained and curriculum designed specifically for these two very different tracks and there is a sizeable student enrolment in both.

In schools like RI however, the 'O' level track is not a real option but a last resort for the students whom the teachers feel are not equipped to continue with the IP. In fact, many kids may be borderline cases but the schools often try to keep everyone in the IP (it's that or admit that the IP is a sham). The 'O' level class is a no-choice situation to at least try and give the failing students a decent qualification. That's why there were only 10 RI students in this class, out of a cohort of maybe 400 or so (I don't know the exact numbers).

In other words, the 10 RI students were already struggling academically. That's why they were in the 'O' level class. I also wonder how familiar the teachers were with the 'O' level syllabus as they were all trained for the IP curriculum. Was it any surprise then that the students didn't do well in the 'O' levels? It's not fair to compare their performance with the ACSI or SJI 'O' level cohort because the circumstances are completely different.

So what's the lesson in this whole saga? I loathe to add to the very judgmental "oh, RI is falling from their pedestal!" sentiment. I feel sorry for the students. They probably feel badly enough, first at being downgraded to the 'O' level class, then having to deal with the results. They don't need to be known as "the RI kids who failed".

For me, if there's anything to be learnt, it's this: don't get starry-eyed by the brand name of a school. Schools only share their glory-makers, their top-scorers, their Ivy-league goers. They never tell you about the ones who don't make it. And there are ALWAYS those who don't. Every cohort, every school, not just RI. People don't hear about them, except in whispers, because the parents and students are likely too ashamed to advertise their situation. And it suits all parties involved - the students, the parents and the school, never to speak of them. 

Getting into a school is the starting point, not the destination. Otherwise, it's like thinking you've seen the Eiffel Tower in Paris when all you did was board the plane at Changi. If your child is not of that calibre or suited for a highly competitive environment, getting into a top school can have disastrous outcomes. It is not a guaranteed route to success.

Nobody thinks it will happen to them but guess what, it always happens to someone. Know your children and ask yourself if they will truly thrive in that sort of environment. Don't let them be victims of your own ambitions.

Look beyond the numbers when talking about the decline in Literature

Today in the Straits Times is an article on the decline of Literature students. It's not the first time they've reported on this and it always annoys me to read about this topic on MSM because they tend to skim the surface without digging deeper. There's no analysis to speak of and they focus superficially on the numbers as if that gives legitimacy to the story.

No doubt, Lit has become less popular but WHY? Fewer kids taking Lit means kids are not interested? More schools offering Lit suddenly means the situation is improving? They interviewed one student who said she didn't take Lit because Lit was hard and they thought that explained everything? Many kids, even in my generation, found Lit hard. That hasn't changed.

1) The more basic flaw when looking at numbers: You can't look at the decline in the absolute number of students taking Lit at 'O' levels over the years and simply conclude that Lit is less popular because the NUMBER OF 'O' LEVEL STUDENTS HAS DECLINED OVER THE YEARS. Duh.

In 2012, 37,267 students sat for the 'O' levels. In 2014 just two years later, the number had dropped to 30,964. All numbers found on the MOE website. In other words, the "worrying drop" in Lit students reported in the Strait Times article over the same period from 6,000 to 5,500 Lit students was just a corresponding drop in cohort size.

Even I, who's hopeless in Maths, can tell you that if you insist on harping on figures, looking at the percentage of Lit students over the total number of kids sitting for 'O' levels would at least be a more accurate reflection of reality.

Do you know why the 'O' level cohort has been systematically falling? Apart from the corresponding fall in birth rates, it's also because from 2004 when the IP programme was introduced, the PSLE top scorers have been siphoned off to IP schools, where kids skip the 'O' levels. The number of students going into IP schools increases every year, hence the 'O' level cohort continues to shrink. And because Lit is typically considered a hard subject, ie only top students would take it, these students are likely in your IP schools, so the potential target audience has already been reduced.

2) The more complex issue: The way the education system is structured locally for 'O' levels is not conducive to kids taking up Lit and this is something I suspect many in the literary world who are trying to promote Lit in schools may not be aware of.

Let me share how 'O' level schools typically work. When you choose your subjects at sec 3, schools often offer only a few combinations. There are no more "Science" or "Arts" streams as in the past because in current day 'O' levels, you have to take at least one Science, one Maths and one Humanities subject. Quite commonly, a school would offer a Triple Science combination, a Double Science combination and a Combined Science combination. To fulfil the humanities criterion, most schools make students take Combined Humanities, which is half Social Studies and half an elective (Lit, Geography or History). In other words, when MSM reports that students prefer Combined Humanities over full Lit, it's not true. For most schools, Combined Humanities is COMPULSORY. The students don't have a choice. (I dare say many students absolutely abhor Social Studies).

So let's do a count of subjects: These would be your mandatory subjects: 1) English 2) Mother Tongue 3) E. Maths 4) Combined Humanities 5) one Science. That's 5 subjects. Many kids are told that if they want to increase their options at JC level, they should take another Science and A. Maths, so that makes 7 subjects. Many students take a total of 8 subjects so they may either choose yet another Science subject (hence Triple Science) or a less common subject (eg. Music, Design & Tech, Principles of Accounts) or another full humanities (Lit, History or Geog). This is where a student can choose to take full Lit as a subject if the school offers it.

However, many kids take only 7 subjects to lighten their workload, especially if they're looking to enter the Poly route (which requires only the calculation of 5 subjects for entry). Some schools even offer a 6-subject combination to help their weaker kids cope. Taking Lit as a subject is not an option for these kids, even if they're interested.

In other words, where would be the opportunity to take Lit? It's all very well to glibly say more kids should take Lit without understanding the constraints of the education system. In my generation, more kids took Lit but it wasn't so much that more kids were interested in it. We just didn't have a choice and we took all subjects imposed on us depending on the stream we were put in.

Whereas nowadays, Lit is usually an option and a small one offered only to students in the better classes. While more schools offering the subject is a good thing, it doesn't necessarily translate into significantly more students taking it up. And with 'O' level grades more critical than ever for entry into competitive JCs and Polys, coupled with the perception that Lit is terribly difficult to score well in, you have your answer as to why Lit is unpopular.

To me, trying to force Lit down the 'O' level track is an uphill task because of the limitations of the education structure. Where I think we can make a bigger impact promoting Lit is among the IP schools. Lit requires analysis and higher order thinking, and on paper, the IP students have the ability. IP schools also have the advantage of not having to put their students through the 'O' levels, so they can focus on subjects that develop the mind instead of teaching to the test. Yet many IP schools don't practise this.

Lesley-Anne was from the IP track. I was constantly frustrated at how her secondary school was narrowly exam-focused, despite IP touting freedom of academic and intellectual pursuit. At sec 3, the students were only offered two tracks: Triple Science or Double Science. In Triple Science (which formed majority of the classes), you had ZERO opportunity to take Lit (or any other full humanities subject). The combination was fixed as: English, Higher MT, 2 Maths, 3 Sciences, Social Studies. If you chose the Double Science combination, you could take one Humanities subject in place of the third science. This was the only option where you could choose Lit.

Lesley-Anne is clearly humanities-bound and she loves both Lit and Geography. But as you can see, her secondary school is so Science-biased (reinforcing the ancient fallacy that Science is superior) that there was no option for her to study both Lit and Geog. The best she could do was take up Double Science and she chose Lit. Oh, there was a very selective Humanities Programme where she could have studied a variety of arts subject but in order to get in, you had to score top marks in all your exam subjects at sec 2 (a large portion of which comprised Maths and Science subjects). Nothing about identifying those with special talent or interest in the humanities at all. What a farce.

The reason Lesley-Anne is enjoying JC so much more than secondary school is that at the JC level, you're allowed to study the subjects you enjoy. I'm not dissing the importance of Maths and Science, by the way. I'm rejecting the notion that they're considered so important that every kid has to study these at an advanced level whereas the Humanities are dubbed the inferior "can't do Science then I bopian do Arts" option.

I don't know if it's the same for all IP schools. I'm saying that there's a lot more potential for Lit to be taken up by students in these schools and if the obstacle is the schools' attitude towards the Humanities, then this is the area we should be looking at. If those looking to promote Lit in schools can engage IP school Principals and teachers, and change their mindset towards the Humanities, we might actually get somewhere in the long term.

And it's not just attitudes towards the Humanities, it's attitudes towards learning in general. As mentioned, IP schools should be focusing on learning more than scoring because that's what eliminating the 'O' levels was meant to do. Yet the legacy of this obsession over scoring dies hard. When Lesley-Anne decided to choose Lit in sec 3, her friends thought she was crazy. They felt she should have chosen Geog because she had topped her class in Geog in sec 2 - go with the "easier to score" option. But Lesley-Anne chose Lit because she decided that she loves Lit more and she enjoyed the lessons tremendously. I guess she had the last laugh because at the end of sec 4, she topped the level in Lit in her school.

It's a nice end to that chapter in her life but my point is that in our education system, there are more obstacles to taking Lit than just interest. The kids have to be very sure, they have to have support at home to go against the grain, because sometimes, the school doesn't encourage it. If kids, parents and teachers continue to view education as a numbers game obsessing over scores, Lit is fighting a losing battle.

Lit opens up our worldview and perspectives, and helps us see how language is used as an artform to influence emotion and shape opinions. Appreciating Lit takes time and that's part of the process of learning. If we are to promote Lit in schools, we need to jolt educators out of their misconception that there's more value to teaching a tangible concept like how molecules work than teaching about the depths of a human soul. We really have to move out of this rut of equating education with training, something I've written about before.

Back to the ST article, when journalists look at the numbers and think they tell the whole story of the state of Lit, they're ironically no different from the Maths/Science proponents. Delve deeper and ask the question why, beyond the numbers and without jumping to conclusion. Lit will teach you that.