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

Early admissions to polytechnic

You might have noticed that the updates on this blog this year have mostly centred around Lesley-Anne - 'A' levels, university choices, scholarship, etc. There have been so many developments this year that time has just tornado-ed by. Are we already coming to the last quarter of 2016? Gosh!

No, I haven't forgotten that I have another kid (the perpetually hungry one). It's not that it's all quiet on the Andre front. It's just that some events were up in the air so I haven't been able to talk about them yet...until now.

This is Andre's 'O' level year and as any parent of a kid sitting for a national exam would know, it's called the "Year of No Life". Apart from mugging, there's really little time for much else. Andre's last experience of this was in 2012 when he sat for the PSLE. As mentioned in a blog post then, his leisure time was mostly spent playing sports like mini ping pong.

2012

Four years on, the mini ping pong has made a comeback!

In reality though, these upcoming national exams are a lot less stressful than the PSLE. One reason is that being four years older (and hopefully wiser), Andre is more responsible when it comes to planning his own revision and timetable.

There's another reason though. In 2014, I wrote about how Andre communicated to us that he wished to pursue the polytechnic path instead of jc and study a particular course. Since then, his interest in that industry has strengthened and he's now very sure that's where he wants to go.

So earlier in June this year, he applied for Early Admissions Exercise (EAE) to the course. EAE is essentially like DSA for p6 students, except it's for sec 4 or 5 students to apply for early admission to the polytechnics. It was previously called Direct Polytechnic Admissions (DPA) but was changed to EAE this year as the process was tweaked. You can find out more details about EAE here.

As part of the course criteria, Andre had to attend an interview and sit for an aptitude test. When Lesley-Anne and I were prepping him for the interview, we could tell he was pretty nervous as he'd never attended an interview before. He kept asking, "What if they ask me this? Or that?" until I said, "Aiyah, then just use your common sense!" To which, he replied rather indignantly, "Like I have any!"

Andre is usually quite chill so it was quite unusual to see him behave like an eager beaver during the process. On the day of the interview, he arrived at the venue a whole hour early, prompting the person marking attendance to mutter, "Wah, this is very rare." Thankfully, Andre was not nervous during the interview. He could answer all the questions asked and he felt that he left a good impression. It probably helped that he was captain and vice-captain of his school badminton team for four years (leadership attributes matter in EAE, from what I understand). The aptitude test was a series of general knowledge MCQs specific to the industry.

His instinct was good because when the results were released in end August, he found that he was successful in his EAE application. Woohoo! Once again, as with Lesley-Anne's tertiary journey, we'd prayed for God to grant Andre this pathway only if it was right for him, so we're very glad that all indications seem to be yes.

It definitely takes the pressure off the 'O' levels as he will just have to meet the minimum criteria and not the cut-off point for his course. But it's the knowledge that Andre has finally found some direction in life, that is more rewarding and reassuring. We've warned him not to think that polytechnic studies will be a piece of cake, that it requires consistent effort. He knows this but he says he's motivated to work. And that makes all the difference.

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.

Oh, to be bored

Recently, I was invited to a Singapore Conversation session on education and while I was there, I was asked to give a soundbite for an MOE video that's to be produced for teachers and staff.  There were many things I could have said but in the end, what I chose to say within the 2 minutes or so was the importance of letting kids have their free time.

This topic just happened to be topmost on my mind because Lesley-Anne was reading up on the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and she became all excited when she came to Article 24: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure.

"I wish my school knew this!"

When Lesley-Anne first started secondary school, she was full of anticipation.  By the end of sec 3, she was physically and mentally exhausted.  Don't get me wrong, it's not that she doesn't like her school.  It's because her schedule had become so intense she barely had time to breathe.  It's not just lessons. After school, if there wasn't some supplementary or enrichment class, there would be CCA.  If it wasn't CCA, it would be some excursion or project discussion. When there's the rare occasion that there's nothing on or a holiday coming up, you can be sure the teachers would pile the students with extra homework.  If the students protest, they're often told not to be lazy or have better time management skills.  School holidays are a sham. There's never one where my kids don't need to go back to school for something or the other.

CCA is almost on par with schoolwork in its demands.  In sec 1, Lesley-Anne was super psyched to be in band. She got to learn a new instrument and perform in a musical group.  It was fun.  By this year, she had grown thoroughly sick of it. Why?  Band practices are 3 times a week, 3 hours each time.  When the Singapore Youth Festival (SYF) draws near, rehearsals intensify to almost everyday.  The pressure placed on the band for SYF is intense. If they miss out on a Distinction, there is much hue and cry.  The students feel the loss keenly and the school demonstrates its disappointment by cutting the band budget.  Even during non-SYF years, the band is expected to put on school and other performances, again the justification for intensive practice.

This trend is not just for band, obviously. Lesley-Anne tells me that many students in the school choir over-practise to the point that they suffer vocal cord damage and have to go to the doctor to have a tube inserted into the throat to heal it.

Doesn't this strike anyone as ridiculous? I find that our culture is fixated on the maxim that if something is good, it's better to keep doing more of it. To the point where something that used to be fun and interesting becomes detestable and downright unhealthy.

We are grooming a generation of jaded kids.

I recently read a BBC News article on the importance of boredom and enforced solitude for creativity.  Through interviews with authors, artists and scientists, Dr Belton, an education researcher found that free time allowed people to tap into their latent creative energies.

If this is true, then it perhaps partly explains why Singapore seems to have so much trouble in this respect.  Our kids barely have enough time for rest, let alone time to be bored.  When Lesley-Anne was very young, about 3 or 4, I used to see her sitting on her bedroom floor, just staring into space. I never knew what she was thinking about, I like to imagine she was in some childhood fantasy land, maybe with flying teddy bears and talking dolphins.  She doesn't have time to daydream anymore. Today, when she has some free time, she catches up on sleep. She has learnt the art of sleeping anywhere - at the desk, on a cushion, on the bus.

My friend, Lilian, was recounting to me how at the International School in Bangkok, the students get to try out a diverse range of interests throughout their school life, eg in photography or music or art, and some emerge to be fantastic talents in these areas.

My belief is this: it's not that Singapore kids don't have talent, it's just that they don't have the time to discover them. Their schedules are so packed with academic work that any such activity is considered extra and comes out of their own time. Curriculum time seldom allows for non-core subjects, except in a cursory manner.  Typically, by the time the kids have finished studying, CCA, tuition, etc, they're so tired the last thing they want to do is fill their remaining time with more stuff.  All they want to do is veg out in front of the tv or computer because it's a shutting down mechanism. (Note that tv and computer time does not constitute boredom and does not increase creativity).

If children here are musical or sporting talents, chances are it's because their parents invested resources and made their kids carve out time to bear out these talents.  That's why I'm sometimes a little sceptical about the DSA scheme.  Although it tries to be more holistic by recognising talents other than academic, it focuses only on the end result and doesn't aid the nurturing process.

The truth is that passions and skills in areas like the arts and sports take time to develop.  It starts with exposure, discovery, and trial and error.  Then gradually, the child will come to see if he has a passion in it before the honing of the skill.  The process is slow and it requires an extensive amount of time, something our kids don't have the luxury of. Because of the DSA, some parents are pushing their kids to accelerate their artistic and sporting potential for the sake of admissions at pri 6. When we rob the kids of the natural process of creation and development, we risk killing the passion because the objective becomes a pragmatic one and it all becomes too much, too soon.

I feel strongly that schools, teachers and parents alike have to recognise the value of letting kids have their time and space.  What I said in the MOE video was that teachers (and parents) have to stop thinking that whenever the child has some time, they have to fill it.  At some point, we've got to realise that filling time doesn't improve learning, it impedes it.

Less really is more.

The girl who is humanities-bound

If there ever was any doubt that Lesley-Anne is right brain-oriented, this removed it once and for all.


This is the result of the Higher Ability Selection Test administered by the Australian Council for Educational Research that Lesley-Anne sat for late last year. The school made all the students who entered via DSA sit for the test, to see if it can replace the current General Ability Test (GAT) for DSA applicants. I suppose they want to assess if the results are consistent with those of the GAT.

The test comprises a few comprehension passages, a series of math questions and a writing test. Since there are two English components and only one math component, it seems to me the test is slightly skewed in favour of those good in language. That definitely contributed towards Lesley-Anne's total score (not that we're complaining).

Anyway, this test sort of came at the right time. Since Lesley-Anne is is in sec 2, she'll have to choose her stream for sec 3 and 4 by the end of this year. The results confirm our belief that she'll fare much better going down the humanities route instead of the ever popular triple-science stream.

Getting into the heads of China kids

Almost every year when the PSLE results are released, you'll read in the papers about some kid from China who is among the top in the cohort. In fact, some of these kids came to Singapore with scant or no knowledge of English but within a few years, have managed to beat the crap out of local kids academically.

All sorts of theories have surfaced. Some say that the China kids are smarter. Others think it's the age advantage. You can't deny the fact that these kids are usually one or two years older than local kids - a huge difference at the elementary level.

While I agree that these could be contributing factors, I believe the main reason is that these China kids simply work harder. (See my earlier post on Gladwell's 10,000 hour rule). Recently, I spoke with a badminton coach originally from China. She's the guardian of her nephew who's in p5 this year. Everyday after school, he finishes his lunch and does his homework before sitting down to complete six different worksheets or assessment papers set by his grandma. After which he memorises 20 English phrases, checking the dictionary for words he doesn't understand. At the end of the week, he hands his grandma the list of 20 x 7 phrases and she tests him. He has to recite all of them, indicating the meaning of each of the words she calls out. He gets no breaks except for meals - his life evolves around his studies.

If that's the extent to which China kids work, then it's little surprise that they tend to do better than local kids. Some people immediately jump to the conclusion, "oh, Singapore kids are lazy" or "they're not as motivated". To me, that's as pointless and condescending as the some gahmen folks lecturing the later generations on how we take life in Singapore for granted because we didn't suffer during the war times.

Simply put, the circumstances and environment are different. Singaporean kids don't put in the same Herculean effort at their studies, not because they're inherently lazier but because our value systems are different and there is less at stake. There is nothing wrong with this, it's just the way it is.

As the coach told me, her nephew was sent here by his family so he could improve his prospects and his future compared to staying in his little hometown in China. The child is told this in no uncertain terms and is given a choice - he stays in Singapore and focuses only on his studies or he gets sent back to China. He chose to be here.

I joked with her, "you can send your kids back to China, where can I send mine?"

I realise this case may be a little extreme and certainly doesn't apply to ALL kids from China. But it's no exaggeration to say that for many China kids, the objective of coming to Singapore is simply to do well in school so that they can have the credentials to move ahead in society. Often, that's the sole reason for the entire family relocating here from China.

In contrast, for many Singaporean parents like myself, we decide that we want our kids to have a balanced lifestyle, to enjoy sports, to enjoy music and dance, heck, even to enjoy learning (which means we don't kill the interest by focusing only on acing exams). For most of the China folks, there's no such angst. Enjoy learning? Bah. They're just here for the tangibles.

Unfortunately, the Singapore education system is exam-centric and assesses students primarily based on their performance in these exams. And so the China kids do what is necessary - to them, it's not about the process, it's about the results. If they have to memorise model compositions or model answers to score in exams, they will do it. If our education system one day imposes the testing of Swahili in PSLE, make no mistake about it, the China kids will learn it (and ace it). Whatever it takes.

But this is not the life we want for our kids because to us, it's no life. For example, if I want Andre to ace his PSLE, what I have to do now is make him drop badminton, piano and remove all his play time. He just has to adopt the coach's nephew's formula and focus on studying during every waking hour. Will I do this? Of course not.

If that's the case, then we cannot begrudge the China kids who score superlative grades because they have fixed this as their life's goal. But neither do we need to be apologetic about our approach. If I believe that life is more than acing exams and give my kids the type of childhood I endorse, then I also need to accept the fact that the China kids will likely out-perform mine academically.

To use an analogy, when we compete in a race, we first acknowledge the terms for winning. But if we decide that our first priority is not bringing home the challenge trophy, that there are other aspects of the race that we value like sportsmanship or the process of racing, then we don't have a right to complain about not winning or about fellow racers who zero in on the winning at the expense of all else. By the same token, we shouldn't let others dictate to us that winning is everything.

Do I resent these China kids? Not at all. I admire their tenacity, their single-mindedness and dogged perseverance. But I also feel a little sorry for them (of course this is from my developed world, middle-class mindset) and I do not want my kids to live that life. That is my conscious decision and I will have to accept the outcome, whatever it may be.

Surviving the countdown to PSLE Part 2

So with all the extensive preparation the kids are already receiving for PSLE, what more can parents do? I thought I'd share what I've been doing for Lesley-Anne's PSLE preparation:

Nothing. Zip.

Sorry for the anti-climax. Let me explain: since she was already getting so much work from school, I haven't assigned her any additional work from Term 3 onwards. After her prelims ended on 28 August, I told her to drop everything and play for the next two weeks, till the end of the one-week holidays. But as it turned out, the school still scheduled supplementary lessons on three days of the holidays and dished out more homework @*%&$@&*!! So anyway, apart from that, Lesley-Anne spent the bulk of last week playing computer games, reading her favourite books and watching tv. Am I the best mum ever or what!

I can imagine what some parents are thinking: "Of course lah! She got DSA already, can relax what!" I admit getting DSA does take away some of the pressure but here's the thing: I'm not one of those cool as a cucumber mums (like some who have commented that they're taking it easy for PSLE - kudos to you, you're part of a small minority and I'm glad this blog attracts so many of these mums!)

But for me, I still get kancheong, I still want Lesley-Anne to do well for PSLE and she feels the same. Of course I can't speak for all kids who have gotten DSA but I suspect many of them share this feeling. You may think these kids will now bochap and stop bothering about PSLE but going by Lesley-Anne's classmates, this is not so. It's a matter of personal pride. Not to the extent of being ugly competitive, but just to do well. Nobody wants to be the one who got into a good school DESPITE a poor t-score.

For example, Lesley-Anne sat for the final Social Studies exam in end August. Passing the paper is one of the pre-requisites of keeping the GEP status but the grade is of no consequence. Before the exam, she was poring over the her Social Studies notes and files. Concerned that she was working too hard, I told her, "aiyah, Social Studies pass can already, right! No need to study so hard." Her reply was "Yah but want to do well, otherwise your results so koyak and your friends all do well, so embarrassing!"

Peer pressure. Amazing what it can do.

Anyway, getting to the point, what I'm trying to say is that my asking Lesley-Anne to take a two-week break from studying is not a yaya papaya attempt to act cool because her t-score doesn't matter anymore. (Yes, I'm aware there are many such annoying parents out there. My eyes are rolling as I speak.) Believe it or not, it's actually my strategy for her to do well.

I've used the analogy of the marathon and the sprint before. Right now, the kids can see the finish line. But it's still somewhere in the distance. If they have been accelerating since the start of Term 3 (or some even more kiasu ones, the start of this year) without halting, there's a chance they're going to peter out just before the PSLE, which is the worst possible time. Common sense tells me it's difficult to maintain such a feverish study pace for four months straight. Already towards the prelims in end August, I could see that Lesley-Anne was appearing mentally saturated and exhausted.

It's just not sustainable. There's such a thing as over-preparation. In fact, Lesley-Anne said that her science teacher was musing over some of the class's test papers, "Why is it that the more you do, the more mistakes you make?" To me, it's a simple case of burnout.

Rest and play are not time wasted nor opportunity lost. They are legitimate parts of optimal performance strategy. Just ask any sportsperson. I think Lilian had the right idea - she took Brian for a short vacation during the holidays. Hopefully, the time-out will let the batteries recharge before the final surge, peaking at just the right moment. I think four weeks is enough time to regain momentum.

If you have a p6 kid, I realise that this advice might come too late! Not to worry, just make sure your kid has enough scheduled rests and breaks during these four weeks, sports is great too for letting out steam. Of course you'll need to adjust according to your child's temperament.

So that's my layman opinion on how best to gear your kid up for the PSLE. I'm no child psychologist so if you follow my advice and your child doesn't do well, don't blame me! But I believe it's a kinder, more humane approach and I'm sure your child will be grateful for it.

Lesley-Anne's DSA portfolio

One of the items Lesley-Anne had to prepare for her DSA interview was the portfolio. According to her teachers, the portfolio should lay out the child's relevant achievements, as well as reflect his or her academic journey in GEP thus far. We were not shown any samples, I think the teachers rightly wanted to avoid any copying which might result in every child's portfolio looking identical.

Left to our own devices, I suggested to Lesley-Anne that she do a summary of each major project that she had done in GEP, covering all subjects. The teachers did caution against bringing entire physical mockups or detailed writeups as the interviewers would hardly have time to plow through them.

I know for a fact that many of these kids receive extensive help from their parents in putting their portfolios together (In fact, I wouldn't put it past some parents to take on the entire project themselves.) To be fair, I think the schools expect at least some parental involvement. So naturally I offered Lesley-Anne my help, thinking I'd assist in getting some design templates to dress up the summaries of her projects.

To my utter astonishment, Lesley-Anne was quite adamant in tackling the project herself. She wrote up the summaries and reflections for each project, went onto scrapblog.com and independently navigated her own way round the site to create designs for her work. This was the cover:

Here are some of the inside pages. This one is of an English project done on the book 'The Secret Garden' by Frances Hodgson Burnett.

This is another book project, on '101 Dalmatians' by Dodie Smith.

And this is of a maths game that she created in p4.

After all the designed pages, she filed her school results, certificates and teachers' feedback forms.

At first, I was slightly peeved that she rejected my help. Everything I offered to do, she would protest, "I want it to be my own work!" Finally, she consented to let me cut the photos for her. And some minor editing of the writeups. Yay! I have a role!

But I think I finally understood her thoughts when I read what she wrote as a cover page for the portfolio:

Magnum Opus

This portfolio is a snapshot of what I have learnt and experienced over the past two and a half years in GEP, as well as my achievements outside school. During this journey of my life, I have not only grown academically but also in character and I have come to know myself better.

My creativity is what I value most in myself. I have really enjoyed creating my portfolio - it is an achievement I am proud of. To me, it is my magnum opus.

To those unaware, "magnum opus" means "great work", borrowed from EB White's 'Charlotte's Web'. Lesley-Anne wanted to take ownership of this project because to her, this is her journey, her achievements and she wanted to showcase something that she could call her own.

As it turned out, for both interviews that Lesley-Anne attended, no one even bothered to glance at the portfolio! But Kenneth and I both think this project revealed her great sense of responsibility which is more valuable than all her academic achievements. For that, it didn't matter whether any interviewer saw it - it IS her magnum opus.

DSA results!

I'm absolutely delighted to announce that Lesley-Anne has been successful in her DSA application. For privacy reasons, I will not disclose the names of the two schools she applied to, they shall only be known as School X and School Y. This post is for me to share how this little journey of just one-and-a-half months had been a test of faith of sorts.

As a family, we had obviously been praying very hard for Lesley-Anne to be successful in her DSA application. She'd applied for two schools, and Kenneth and Lesley-Anne had both prayed for God to give them a clear signal, ie give her only one acceptance so she would know which was the school for her. But unbeknownst to them, I’d been praying for God to give her BOTH schools. Why? In my own twisted way, I felt that asking God to close all options except the right one was a cop-out. Faith to me is about making a conscious decision to follow God's will and I felt that this DSA decision, which would impact on Lesley-Anne's next four to six years, was a milestone - it should testify to God's love somehow. Following God because you don't have a choice is hardly an act of faith. I know, I know, geh kiang right! Must make an easy thing difficult.

So anyway, we went through the whole process of DSA from application to tests to interviews. Initially, all three of us had School X as the school of choice, School Y was the back-up. But within that short timeframe, things slowly changed. It was a combination of things - the admissions process, the school environment, the vibes we got talking to the students of both schools, the fit with Lesley-Anne's personality, the teachers, anecdotal stories we had heard about both schools, even the types of students who wanted to go to each school. Strangely enough, everything seemed to be in favour of School Y.

Kenneth and Lesley-Anne became more and more drawn to School Y and started discussing the possibility of choosing it over School X. But I stubbornly clung on to the idea of School X because in the world's eyes, it was the sensible choice. Even though certain aspects of School X were making me feel apprehensive and uneasy. (Note to those who know or think they know which is School X, I'm not saying it's a bad school, I'm saying that God was trying to point us to the right school for Lesley-Anne, just as we'd prayed).

Finally, epiphany struck when I was sitting on a bench at School Y as Lesley-Anne's DSA interview was underway. I was saying a prayer for her interview to go well and suddenly felt like a big fat hypocrite because while I kept spouting that we'd leave it to God, I still kept worrying about it, trying to second guess God's decision. I then came to this realisation: it’s not that I didn’t trust God, it’s that I was resisting Him. The honest truth was that I’d come to know that God intends for Lesley-Anne to go to School Y but I didn’t want it to be, so I closed my ears. All the time that I was praying for a school where Lesley-Anne could be happy, in my heart I really wanted her to be happy at School X.

The message I received loud and clear sitting on that bench that day was to let go. Really let go. And it was only at that point that I was finally ready to accept God's lead and say, yes, if Lesley-Anne eventually gets accepted into both schools, I am able to let her reject School X without any regret. I actually sent an sms to Lilian right there and then, sharing my thoughts. She was most encouraging as always and told me how great it was to have such a clear idea of God's plan. She's right of course. I thought, how stupid I was to even think of resisting the good gift that God has planned for my child!

So when Lesley-Anne was accepted into School Y, we were jubilant, but not entirely surprised. As a final piece of confirmation, one of the disadvantages of School Y versus School X is distance. Then a couple of weeks ago, Kenneth went jogging in our estate and lo and behold, he caught sight of a student from School Y. We've lived in this estate for over 12 years and never seen that uniform here. He stopped her and asked how she got home. Turns out, there's a public transport route that we didn't know about from School Y, that would take significantly less time than we thought. When God blesses, He doesn't sprinkle, He showers :)

As it turned out, God did answer my prayer - He gave Lesley-Anne both schools. I'm guessing it's because He knows He can now trust me to make the right choice. The nay sayers out there will probably think we made a foolish decision. It really doesn't matter. What matters is that I know deep inside that Lesley-Anne will be happy at School Y and it will play a big role in shaping her very important teenage years. I can't ask for more than that.

Note: Please understand that I wish to keep both schools anonymous so I request that you refrain from speculating openly in the comments. Thanks!

DSA or how to bring forward PSLE stress

Some parents have asked me to expound on the Direct School Admission (DSA) exercise. Since Lesley-Anne is undergoing the process now, it won't be prudent for me to share her progress and my thoughts in detail until after. However, I can share the factual information and mechanics of DSA. You can get a good overview of DSA from the MOE website here.

I first heard of DSA only when Lesley-Anne was in p4 and even up to last year, I had a hazy idea of what it entailed. It is essentially an advanced booking for a school, to put it bluntly. Remember back in our generation when we had schoolmates who may not have made the cut-off point to our school but managed to get in via their prodigious violin playing or Michael Jordan-esque basketball skills or something like that? Well, DSA is similar except it's no longer considered the "back door", it's now a mainstream MOE process.

To me, the two biggest advantages of DSA are:

1. Schools have an offical channel to recognise and admit talents in both academic and non-academic areas.
2. By giving a place in advance, you drastically reduce the stress of PSLE as the make or break exam.

Individual schools offer DSA through one or more of the following areas:

• Academic - can be special ability in one particular subject or overall high ability academically. GEP students apply under this category.
• Arts - special ability in performing or visual arts. Usually requires a minimum level of certification and/or performance at the school or national level.
• Sports - special ability in a particular sport. Usually requires a record of achievement at the school or national level.

This year, 74 secondary schools are offering DSA so the availability is quite extensive. Once again, I highly recommend you visit the school you're interested in. The fit of the school is very important. When I mentioned I had changed my mind about a school for Lesley-Anne after visiting it, I was so tickled to get all these emails from concerned *coughkaypoh* parents asking me what school it was! I'm going to go out on a limb and say that when I visited yet another school, I also had a 180 degree change of heart, this time in the other direction. From not being on my radar, the school now has become a real contender because Lesley-Anne, Kenneth and I all loved its ethos.

And this time, I will state upfront: don't email me to ask me what school it is because I won't tell you! I'm not being a tease, I'm just getting concerned that some people are taking my word so seriously that they let it influence their own choices. What matters to me and fits my child may not fit yours, so do visit the schools and get a sense of their cultures.

This is the DSA process (different schools have varying dates but these are the general time-frames):

May-July: You apply for DSA to the school(s) of your choice. Many apply for more than one school but I don't recommend the buffet mentality as the DSA process itself can be very stressful for the child. In my opinion, two is ideal, three tops.

June-August: Selection process. Some schools require you to sit for written tests and attend interviews (usually for academic domain). For the arts and sports domains, auditions and trials are often required.

Late August/early September: Release of DSA results. You will receive the results for each of your DSA applications, which is either Confirmed (yay!), Waiting List (hmm...) or Rejected (sob). I'll probably need a Valium on that day.

Late October: If you have at least one Confirmed or Waiting List result, you will be given a School Preference Form to indicate your choices. If you list a Confirmed offer as one of your choices, you are GUARANTEED a spot in that school. How great is that??

Late November: You will be given your DSA school allocation results on the same day as the PSLE results. If you are successful in DSA, you can proceed to do fun things like buy your new school uniforms. If you are not, then look at your PSLE results, hopefully you don't faint, and then decide which secondary school you want to apply for under the annual centralised S1 Posting Exercise (where the majority of p6 kids choose their schools).

I will be praying very hard that Lesley-Anne is successful in her DSA because I know that if she has to rely on PSLE, I'll probably keel over from the stress...

Choosing a school for your child

Recently, I went to attend a DSA briefing at a secondary school which has a great reputation. This was a school that we had initially thought would be a good choice for one of Lesley-Anne's DSA applications. To my own utter surprise, after the briefing and having walked around the school, I returned from the session with a 180 degree change of heart. In fact, I was pretty sure that I did not want my daughter to study there because its values were not quite in sync with ours.

Choosing a school is serious business. Whether it's a primary school, secondary school or higher, our kids will spend a good part of their waking hours there - it will influence their thoughts, their behaviour, greatly. Some parents think the school with the best academic results is automatically the best. Not true! You need to select a school that's best for your child.

A mum whose child will be entering p1 soon had written to me asking my views on choosing schools. Since it's time for p1 registration soon, I thought I'd share some of the thoughts I shared with her. These are based on my own experiences in choosing a primary school.

To me, there are three important aspects to consider: 1) distance 2) coed or single sex 3) culture.

No 1) is a practical reason. You really don’t want your kids spending so much time travelling. In lower primary, they’re entering the formal school system for the first time - it can be very tiring. If they have to spend an hour on the road travelling home, lunch (or dinner, depending on whether morning or afternoon session) will be very late and they’ll be ravenous by then. This can really wreak havoc to their systems. I know some parents resort to getting their kids to eat in the car.

In upper primary, the kids will usually have to stay back at school quite often, for remedial, extra lessons, CCAs etc. Again, it's not conducive to spend a lot of time travelling. This can really take a toll on the energy levels of the kids in the long run.

No 2) for me was also a practical reason. I chose a coed school to cut the hassle of registration for Andre since he would be a shoo-in following his sister's school. But pragmatics aside, I've come to notice that there are other pros and cons of coed vs single sex schools. I have relatives and friends with kids in single sex schools and the advantage is that the teachers tend to be more adept at catering to the learning styles of boys/girls (since boys and girls tend to learn and socialise differently). In a coed school, if the teacher is more suited to teach boys, the girls in the class will be disadvantaged and vice versa. I also find that if you have a very quiet girl content to be a wallflower, she might end up being overshadowed by her noisier, attention-seeking male classmates, so she might thrive better in a girls' school.

But what I like about a coed school is that being around boys has helped Lesley-Anne learn not to be so siao jie and being around girls has toned down Andre's boisterousness. Basically they balance each other out. Whereas I find that boys learn to be more aggressive and rowdy when they enter a boys' school (to keep up with the raging testosterone, I guess!) And some girls, when they go to a girls' school end up very "girly", if you know what I mean.

No 3) is very important. Eg if you are a very English educated family with questionable Chinese standards, doesn't take a genius to figure out that your child will probably be miserable in a SAP school where most of his classmates will be chattering away in Mandarin! If your child loves dance, for instance, it might make sense to join a school with dance as a niche activity.

Personally, we wanted a mission school as we’re Christians and we feel that mission schools place more focus on values. Since the Singapore system is already so academically-focused, we wanted a good balance. One of Lesley-Anne's teachers, during a DSA briefing, encouraged us to visit the schools we're interested in and walk around to get a feel of the school. I didn't realise how important this was until I visited the school I mentioned earlier. From walking around, reading the notice-boards, looking at the kids, you can actually get quite a good sense of the school's culture. If you can, visit the school you're interested in (some of them have open houses) before you decide. Trust your instincts - will you child fit in here? Or will she be like a fish out of water?

Notice that among my three criteria, I didn't include academic performance. Many parents want their kids to be in schools with top academic ratings because they think that their kids will perform better there. I don't subscribe to that. To me, it's cyclical - schools with high focus on academics attract high ability kids. These kids are bright to begin with, so they're more likely to do well in national exams, contributing to the high academic scores of the school.

If your child is not academically inclined to begin with, he might not thrive in an environment where everyone is a top scorer. In fact, I've heard that some of these so-called "top" schools do less teaching because they expect the kids to learn on their own and supplement with tuition at home. In contrast, neighbourhood schools tend to "teach" more, which benefits kids who need such nurturing. When you look at the national exams, you'll find that kids from neighbourhood schools can also churn out top scorers and there will be kids from "top" schools who don't do so well.

But having said that, I prefer my kids to go to schools with a reasonable academic standard (though not necessarily the top), not because I believe the teaching is superior in any way, but because my experience tells me that these schools tend to have fewer “pai kias” or kids who don’t like studying, and I don’t want my kids to be influenced or make wrong friends at this impressionable age. Of course this is a generalisation but when you're in a school/class where the kids are motivated to study, there's a higher chance you will be the same. Similarly, if your classmates treat school as a chore and are trying to play truant half the time, you might be influenced. Never underestimate peer pressure at this age.

I've been very, very pleased with Lesley-Anne and Andre's primary school - it has played an integral part in shaping their characters. I hope and pray that we can make an equally wise decision for their secondary schools.

Let someone else worry about DSA!

I had an epiphany last night.

Rather, it was at about 2.30am when I was in bed, unable to sleep. It started with comments on Lilian's blog about the Direct School Admission (DSA). For the umpteenth time, I'm realising how clueless I am about such things. I know that most GEP kids apply for DSA in p6 but I never knew that they had to take a General Ability Test even before they're called up for an interview, and that if they apply under the academic route, they should preferably have some special achievements in a particular area like maths or languages or science.

So upon reading the comments by a very in-tuned dad, I immediately started to worry about Lesley-Anne. Here's the background story: from what I've been told by the GEP teachers, most GEP kids are encouraged to go on to Integrated Programme (IP) schools at sec.1, the 6-year programme which skips 'O' levels and go straight to 'A' levels. These schools have their own school-based gifted education programme whose pedagogy is in line with what the kids have been learning under the GEP. However, there are only 7 IP schools and many of them are off-limits to Lesley-Anne. For instance, Nanyang Girls and Dunman High offer Chinese as first language and NUS High is catered for those extremely talented in maths and science. Many of the schools are boys' schools. Based on these limited choices, Lesley-Anne wants to get into RGS.

But here's the catch: last year, RGS has THE highest cut-off point in the WHOLE OF SINGAPORE. Phwaah!! We attended their open house this year and we learnt that their girls are basically the top 2% of each cohort. How's that for intimidating?

So I'd long told Lesley-Anne that if she really wanted to get into RGS, her best bet was through DSA. Then I found out about the DSA criteria mentioned above. Lesley-Anne is generally fine all around but she doesn't have any stand-out, knock-your-socks-off ability like some of those Math Olympiad geniuses or Sarah Chang-ese violin prodigies.

Which was what brought on the worrying last night. What if, what if. How, how. Then completely out of the blue, this message just whacked me at the side of my head: God will have a place for her. I can't really explain it but suddenly it became clear - if God thinks RGS is the best school for Lesley-Anne, He will clear the way for her. If He doesn't think she will thrive in that environment, He will create a place in another school for her. No amount of worrying or planning will change that.

Wah, really ah, God? I didn't really have to ask, I knew in my heart it was true. (I often have these strange conversations in my head with God - in Singlish no less. Like before any of the kids' exams, I sometimes pray, God, please, please, pleeeeeeease. Aiyah God, you know what I mean lah.)

Once that truth hit me, there was nothing left to worry about. I remembered how God had always led the way in terms of Lesley-Anne's education. Even before she entered p1, we chose the school she's at because 1) it is a Christian school, 2) it is relatively close to our home, 3) it is a co-ed school (so we wouldn't have to worry about Andre later). Since the school is more than 2km from our home, we had to volunteer to be able to register her at Phase 2B. For Phase 2B that year, there was no balloting (we were just two more applicants shy of balloting) so she got a place. When she was in p3 and went for the GEP test, we didn't think she would get in but I remembered distinctly asking God, "if you think GEP will be good for her, then give her a place." And what a blessing that turned out to be.

Don't think that I am a saint. Far from it. I squirm when I hear loud, zealous proclamations of faith, and overly pious people grate on my nerves. I don't pray as often as I should, I don't give thanks as much as I should, I miss church more than I should. But I know God is real, whether politically correct or not, and this keeps me straight. As you probably know by now, I'm an intellectual at heart - I overthink everything, I analyse things to death. The danger with intellectuals is that we do so much thinking that we sometimes start to think that we know better than God. So I constantly have to check myself and that's why my favourite verse from the bible is this lesser-known one:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." 1 Cor 1:18,19

I'm not advocating that we stop thinking altogether. Neither am I saying that since God will take care of everything, we can just slack off and do nothing. If you don't work at something, you can't expect God to call up a miracle and reward you. Not that He can't and not because I believe in that oft spouted phrase "God helps those who help themselves" (nowhere in the bible does it say that). It's more the fact that I believe as part of life's journey, God wants to develop the whole person - mind, body and spirit. Rewarding a lazy bum generally doesn't serve that purpose.

Ironically, after the epiphany, I still couldn't sleep because I started to think of how I would write this post! I'm so heartened by how some of you have commented that you found my blog useful. I'm not lost to the fact that there could be some divine intervention at work here as well - often when I start to write, I find that the thoughts flow very easily, as if someone is guiding them. When I read some of my back posts, I sometimes wonder how I came up with all those thoughts. Honest.

I couldn't figure out what label to give this post. I contemplated creating one called "God" but I baulk at giving God a label, so I'm just going to place it under "faith" and "parenting" for now. Can or not, God? Hmmm... I'll take that as a yes.

The badminton dilemma

As you know, Andre is going for weekly badminton coaching organised by his school. He really loves the sport and his aim is to get into the school team next year, which looked like a clear possibility as he's progressing well.

But you know Murphy's Law, whatever can go wrong will go wrong. When I fetched him to his coaching session last Thursday, I received the bombshell from the coach that the school badminton team is likely to be scrapped next year due to budget constraints. The badminton CCA would still exist but there would be no coach, which to me was just plain silly. What, the kids would just meet up weekly and randomly whack at shuttlecocks?

Since there might be kids reading this, I'll resort to visual swearing - #$!%@!!%#^@!!! That's truly how I felt when I heard the news. It just throws a spanner in the works. You may wonder why since it's only a CCA, right? Well, since Andre is enjoying badminton so much and playing the game reasonably well, we had hoped the school might be able to train him up to a respectable level where he can play in competitions and eventually use it for DSA.

For those who don't know what DSA is, it's Direct School Admission - a scheme that some secondary schools offer to p6 students. That means the secondary school would conduct selection tests and offer direct admission to students before the PSLE results are out. The criteria can be academic or non-academic, depending on the individual school and its needs.

Of course ideally, we hope Andre will be able to get into a secondary school of his choice without relying on a CCA, but no harm preparing for Plan B, right? I admit it sounds a little kia-su since Andre is only in p2, but it's not like we had mapped a path for him right from the start. It was only since his interest in badminton emerged that we thought we might as well nurture it to serve a double purpose.

When I broke the news to Andre that there would be no school team next year, he was so disappointed. He looked like he was about to cry and shouted, "But I've been trying so hard!"

So now, we're at a crossroads. The coach, who is from one of the major badminton academies in Singapore, recommends that we continue coaching sessions at the academy from next year if Andre is serious about the game. Kenneth and I are two minds about it.

Pros:

• At the academy, it's serious training. The coaches are past winners from professional tournaments like the Thomas Cup. No kidding. Andre's game will definitely improve exponentially.
• The academy holds their own competitions so he can still participate, experience playing in matches and hone his skills.
• For DSA sports, the secondary schools usually hold their own trials and look at individual records, so if Andre does well at the academy, it will carry weight.
• School budgets change every year, so for all we know, the school team might be reinstated the following year, giving Andre a second chance to be selected.
• Less tangible benefit but equally important - we feel that kids who are actively involved in a sport tend to befriend those with the same interest, and their activities and conversations are likely to centre around this common interest. Especially in the teenage years when kids are the most impressionable (especially boys, in my opinion), I think it helps to keep them on the straight and narrow path. This view was reinforced by the coach who has groomed cohorts of kids in the sport.

Cons:

• The time commitment is tremendous. According to the coach, we're talking 2-3 two-hour sessions of training a week, in order for skills to reach a certain level of proficiency. Especially with Andre's school workload set to rise at the higher primary levels, we're not sure if he can cope with the extra demands without compromising his academic standards.
• Even if he can cope, there's no guarantee he will ever reach a level good enough for DSA, in which case, is it worth investing all the time and effort for something that will just be a hobby?
• Not just time commitment from Andre, it's time commitment from me too! Guess who'll be the one who has to shuttle him to and fro training sessions? It's sometimes already a massive juggling act trying to fit my meetings and work in between ferrying kids, especially during peak periods like annual report season.

Looks like there's definitely more pros than cons, but the downside is a BIG one. We haven't quite decided what to do. If you have any views, I'd love to hear them.