All about the 'A's

Posting on a public blog about academic results is always tricky, in my opinion. I'm constantly in two minds whether to do so. If the results are bad, announcing them would embarrass my child. On the other hand, announcing good results can sound like I'm bragging. I faced this dilemma when each of my kids went through their PSLE.

You probably all know by now that I'm alluding to Lesley-Anne's 'A' level results, which were released last Friday.

Some background: Even though Lesley-Anne had been performing consistently well in JC, the subject that had given her the most trouble was English Language and Linguistics (ELL). I'd written about this in a 2014 post on how she chose her rather unconventional subject combination. It was a subject she chose to take due to interest, even though it wasn't highly encouraged because it has a historically low distinction rate at the 'A' levels, compared to other subjects. As you know, in the Singapore education system, you're supposed to pick subjects where you have the highest chance of scoring an 'A', since that's all that matters in education! Bleeaah.

ELL is a subject that is very hard to score well in. When I saw what Lesley-Anne has to study, many of the topics were those that I learned in university and in as great detail. The work she put in for ELL was more than what she had to do for her other subjects. The grading was equally tough. The best grade she ever received in the subject in her two JC years was a 'B'. The worst, an 'E'. However, she never regretted her decision to take ELL. ELL was interesting and opened her eyes to how language is used, something that's infinitely useful to a writer.

Then came the 'A' levels and my heart sank when she came home from the first ELL paper, terribly upset. She said the paper featured some very odd questions and she took a long time to figure out what to write, so when time was up, she couldn't finish and missed out writing a very important point. Nevertheless, I told her to put that aside and focus on her other papers. Before her second ELL paper, we all prayed ridiculously hard and even though it also turned out to feature quite non-standard questions, thankfully, she found it more manageable than the first paper.

So fast forward to last week, before the 'A' level results. If you've followed my blog all these years, you'll know that scoring straight 'A's has never been a fixation with us the way it is with many Singaporean parents. Not that we don't think grades are important, but they're not everything. In fact, when Lesley-Anne conducts talks in primary schools, one of the things she shares to encourage the kids is that she was never a straight 'A' student and that has not stopped her from chasing her dreams.

However, for the 'A' levels, the number of 'A' grades Lesley-Anne scored would have significant impact on her tertiary path. She had already received an unconditional offer from a local university and a few conditional offers from overseas universities. For one of the conditional offers, the condition is straight 'A's. In addition, I'd previously blogged that if Lesley-Anne wanted to go overseas, she would need to secure a scholarship as we wouldn't be able to pay for her. So without straight 'A's, going to the other overseas universities would also be unlikely (even thought they didn't impose the straight 'A' condition), simply because the chances of winning a scholarship without straight 'A's would be that much lower.

With all the different configurations weighing on her mind, by Thursday night, Lesley-Anne was a nervous wreck. To calm her down, I said I would drink with her. By drink, I meant we shared one small bottle of 4.8% alcoholic drink. Peach flavoured some more, haha. We watched mindless sitcoms on TV until we zoned out (mostly Big Bang Theory).

We also prayed. A lot. I asked God to reward Lesley-Anne's hard work (I thought it would be terribly discouraging if her admirable work ethic came to naught). As you know, I'm constantly vexed by the kiasu and soul-less attitude that's rife in our education system - "study what you can score in!", "do what is prestigious!", etc. So I asked God to also let her results be an inspiration to those who have the courage to follow their own path and go with their conviction, not the ones who constantly look to game the system.

After an excruciating wait on Friday, she finally called me at about 3pm...

She got her 'A' in ELL. And in all her other subjects as well. Six distinctions in total.

I'm not gonna elaborate on our response and feelings - ecstatic doesn't even begin to describe it. But what I can say is, the deep gratitude I feel towards God's grace is what made me decide to reveal Lesley-Anne's results in the end. Whether her experience will encourage you that going with your passion can bring rewards, or whether it will strengthen your own faith, I don't know. All I can do is share.

I suppose at the end of the day, it's less about the actual results and more about what a combination of faith, prayer and diligence (plus some alcohol) can accomplish. I don't even know if Lesley-Anne will eventually go overseas for her university education. At this stage, we have adopted the attitude that it really doesn't matter. Whatever God has planned for her, it will be good.

"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. Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you." - Jeremiah 29: 11-12

Junior college or polytechnic - factors to consider

The 'O' level results will be released today, so I thought it would be timely to write a JC vs poly post. This topic is something that has been discussed in our household over the past couple of years, since Andre will have to make the decision soon.

 As I'd blogged about previously, Andre is certain that he will be pursuing the poly route, unlike his sister. This decision was reinforced when we visited a couple of poly open houses last weekend. He was instantly drawn to the vibe and energy there. There's just something about polys - probably partly due to the large open campuses and the fact that the students don't need to wear school uniforms, but you can practically inhale the vibrant atmosphere.

We spoke to a few lecturers and students. Andre was very impressed by the practical curriculum offered, with the myriad of opportunities for internships and overseas attachments. The facilities are, of course, fantastic. So he's now more motivated than ever to work for his O levels and aim for the course he wants.

Sometimes, I despair when I hear parents' views like, "you should go to a JC if you can because it's better." Better? What constitutes "better"? Often, the very myopic consideration is simply based on cut-off-point (COP). It seems like in Singapore, people monitor COPs the way stock brokers do with share prices. From the time of PSLE, parents scrutinise COPs like they hold the answer to the secret of their children's success. That's like believing a weighing scale is all you need to tell you how healthy you are.

JCs and polys couldn't be more different in terms of the curriculum, teaching style, grading system and overall environment. There is no one "better" path for everyone. Ultimately, the most important consideration is fit. I just can't imagine Andre in a JC - that would be like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole - with great difficulty and unlikely to generate satisfactory results. Whereas when I saw him at the poly, I could see how easily he would fit into the culture, with a real chance of thriving. It was a no-brainer, no matter what his eventual results will be. 

I'd previously worked at a polytechnic and with Lesley-Anne having undergone two years of JC, I feel I have garnered sufficient knowledge on both options. So here are my views on the JC vs Poly debate and how you can determine which is a better fit for your child. Note: Lesley-Anne sat for the 'A' levels so I'm referring to JC only from the 'A' level point of view, not IB, as I don't know enough about the latter. 

Academic vs Applied Education

JC is basically an enhanced version of secondary school. Most of the subjects are familiar, just taught in greater depth and detail. However, one point I would like to make to parents is that the leap in difficulty from secondary school to JC is exponential. Not only is the subject content enlarged significantly, at JC level, application skills are essential. You can't simply memorise content and regurgitate in the exams, and expect to do well, unlike at the 'O' levels, especially for the arts subjects. There are many students who scored A grades in secondary school, in Chemistry for example, and find themselves failing 'A' level Chemistry. So do understand your child's abilities when making the decision. You hear about the straight A students from the media so often that you might think it's almost a cinch to do well. It's not. Many students struggle and more than a few end up repeating a year or two, even in the top JCs. You don't read reports about these cases.

The course selection for 'A' levels is also much more limited. Out of the four core subjects, one has to be a contrasting subject. For Arts students, this subject is often required to be Maths, unless they take Knowledge Inquiry (KI) which takes the place of General Paper (GP) and can be counted as a contrasting subject. There are also many more restrictions on subject choice. In Lesley-Anne's JC, for instance, you can't take Chemistry without taking Maths, and you can't take Biology or Physics without taking Chemistry. (In other words, Maths and Chemistry are practically compulsory if you're in the Science stream). For the Arts subjects, you can't take both Geography and History. You also can't take two special or niche subjects, like KI and English Language and Linguistics (ELL).

Poly education is applied - meaning it's designed to groom graduates towards certain industries or vocations. The modules tend to be very practical and poly students are trained to be work-ready upon graduation. As such, poly education is also very much more specialised. As of now, there are 234 courses offered by the 5 polytechnics. It's enough to make your head spin. There are often electives in years 2 and 3 where you can specialise even further. Since most courses carve out a specific niche, you need to be very sure what you want to do as a career. It would be disastrous to enroll in Early Childhood Education, for instance, then later realise that you don't really like teaching or kids all that much.

From talking to poly lecturers, one of the biggest problems they face is students who enroll in courses and later realise that the courses are not what they expect or not suitable for them. Then they find themselves having to ask for transfers to a different course mid-way, thus wasting time and funds, or sticking to a pathway that they are unhappy with. So if your children, at age 16, aren't sure what they would like to do with their lives, it's probably a safer bet to study general academic courses at a JC.

Course Structure

The JC course structure is similar to that of secondary school. You sit for various common tests and exams throughout the year, culminating in the main one at the end of the year (promos for J1 and the big 'A' levels for J2). I find the JC journey very short. Since you enter in February and graduate before the 'A' levels in October, the teachers have to squeeze a heck of a lot of curriculum within 1¾ years. As a result, it feels like the students spend the entire period just mugging for exam after exam, especially in J2. 

The added stress comes about because the 'A' levels is a national exam where you're pit against the nation's other 18-year-olds and race towards accumulating as many A grades as you can possibly muster. The pressure is on both students and teachers alike. Also, the grades in this one exam are all that matter, for university admissions. You could be an excellent all-rounder throughout your JC life but choke at the 'A's and find that your previous stellar record didn't matter in the least. Terribly unfair and unhealthy, in my opinion. 

Polys run on the modular system, which gives you more flexibility. There is less focus on exams and more on assignments and project work. Your grading is based on Grade Point Average (GPA), taking into account your work throughout the three years. While this means that your grade is not dependent on one major exam, it also means that you can only do well if you put in consistent work. You can't slack off throughout the year and chiong only at the last minute - that's a recipe for disaster. Once your GPA drops, you might find it difficult to pull it back up on track.

Higher Education

The traditional thinking is that you go to a JC if you're university-bound whereas you go to a poly if you're not, since they train you for the workplace. These days however, many poly graduates want to further their education to improve their career prospects and progression. What are their chances then? If you look at the stats, you will see that the odds are stacked against poly graduates: about 70% of JC students and 20% of poly students enter local universities.

Statistically speaking, your chances of a local university education are much lower if you're a poly grad, even though the government now acknowledges the dreams of poly students for higher qualifications and are trying to widen avenues for them, such as the expansion of the Singapore Institute of Technology, which offers applied degree programmes for poly students. Many poly grads thus choose to go overseas for their degrees which is definitely pricier. Sometimes though, overseas is more appropriate if you prefer specialised programmes which are not offered by local universities anyway, such as Human Resources or Interactive Media.

In terms of time investment, you may be surprised to learn that there can be no difference between the JC-university and the poly-university route. Even though JC takes 2 years and poly takes 3 years, poly students, if taking up a related university programme overseas, are often granted exemptions on certain courses, as much as 1.5 years in a three-year programme! This is, of course, assuming you go on to a related course, eg. Mass Comm in poly moving on to a Mass Comm degree. If you move on to an unrelated course, you will not get any exemptions and have to complete the full programme. Local universities too, tend not to offer exemptions.

English Proficiency

I added this last point because I think it's an important one often overlooked. I'd written before how I'm baffled by the 'O' level point system which grants two additional points to students who pass Higher Mother Tongue. Two points for 'O' levels is a LOT. In addition, you can choose to count either English or Higher Mother Tongue as your L1 in L1R5 for admission into JC. Why? This implies that Mother Tongue is more important that English, our official language.

What can potentially happens then is this: a kid who is very proficient in Chinese and attains A1 for Higher Chinese can use it as L1 AND shave off 2 additional points from his total L1R5, thereby giving him or her a very good L1R5 score, while scoring poorly in English.

This is a loophole that I feel MOE should close, not only because it's a farce but because a student who is weak in English will struggle in JC. At JC, writing essays is a must. Even if you choose to go to the Science stream, you'll need to take a contrasting Arts subject, which would definitely require essay-writing. A friend of mine, who's an Econs teacher at a JC, recounted to me her frustration in trying to teach students who lack the English proficiency to express themselves clearly. In addition, GP requires a good command of the English language. Incidentally, if you fail GP, you would have deemed to have failed your entire 'A' levels. Gulp. It explains why so many students have tuition in GP.

In short, a student who is weak in English might want to reconsider going to JC as the language skills required are substantial. Not that you don't need English in poly education but because the modules are applied in nature, language use tends to be more practice-oriented. Polys also have communications skills modules to help students brush up on their English.


At the end of the day, I stress again that fit is the most important consideration when choosing between JC and poly. Visiting open houses is a great way to get a feel of the environment, and do speak to students and teachers. The poly open houses were last weekend but I believe many JCs have open houses this week. Go take a look with your child if you can.

The superpower of teachers

I've always believed that few people impact on others as much as teachers. Good or bad, they can leave a deep impression that influences attitudes and behaviour, even years later.

Lesley-Anne and I have dedicated quite a few Danger Dan books to teachers - it's our way of publicly showing our gratitude. Since it's Teachers' Day this Friday, I thought it would be fitting to pay tribute to teachers in this post, specifically, two of Lesley-Anne's teachers who have been inspiring mentors in her writing journey.

The first is Ms Heng, Lesley-Anne's JC1 Lit teacher. This teacher basically grew Lesley-Anne's appreciation of Lit ten-fold with her intellectually stimulating lectures and tutorials. Apart from that, she intuitively understood Lesley-Anne's reflective temperament and encouraged her to express herself. When I first met her at the parent-teacher conference last year, I was struck by how she seemed to "get" Lesley-Anne, despite having taught her only for a few months.

Titbit: we dedicated Secrets of Singapore to her!

Here she is at her own book launch which she invited us to. She's a poet and writer herself and had published a book co-authored with three other writers.

The second teacher is Lesley-Anne's p6 English teacher, Ms Lee. There's a heart-warming backstory to this one. Before p6, Lesley-Anne actually found writing dreary, thanks no less to all those "model compositions" and the "good phrases" she was told to emulate. Bleaaah. Instant formula for killing the love of writing.

Thankfully in p6, Ms Lee advised her to put aside the model compositions and to find her own voice. Even though Lesley-Anne's language use was much simpler than the generally preferred bombastic language at p6, Ms Lee recognised her potential and continued to encourage her efforts. From there, Lesley-Anne's love of writing bloomed and she developed her personal writing style, which till today, leans towards simplicity and clarity.

Lesley-Anne credits Ms Lee in her school talk when she speaks about her writing journey. However, we had long lost touch with Ms Lee as she had left Lesley-Anne's primary school and we didn't know where she had gone.

Then in July, we conducted a talk at North Vista Primary School. After the talk, a teacher excitedly bounded onto the stage. It was Ms Lee! What serendipity! It was a very special moment for both of them.

These are just two teachers who made a difference in Lesley-Anne's life. We have the opportunity to thank them publicly through our books and our talks, but there are many, many more students whom I'm sure are privately thanking teachers for their own lives and successes. The teachers who disregarded their own safety to protect their students during the Sabah earthquake earlier this year come to mind.

For this, I would like to wish all teachers a very heartfelt and happy Teachers' Day. May your work continue to inspire and bless those who cross your path.

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.

Secrets of Singapore - a fun history book for SG50!

For the past month or so, over the June holidays, Lesley-Anne and I have been busy putting to bed this baby:

Yup, it's another Danger Dan book! However, this one is significantly different from the previous series of five books in that it's non-fiction and a solid 232 pages.

How the idea for the book came about

Having seen kids read our Danger Dan series, we noticed something unexpected: some kids, upon receiving the latest book, would turn to the back portion first - where we have two pages of Fascinating Facts offering historical information about the people, places and events covered in the book.

That's when we realised that some kids are very interested in facts and information. Personally, I love the Horrible Histories series by Scholastic and always wished there was a version for Singapore history. Currently, there is no one single children's book that talks about Singapore's history in a fun way and that's a shame.

So Lesley-Anne and I discussed this and to cut a long story short, we set out to write this history book ourselves! It ties in with the historical theme of Danger Dan and acts like a companion to the series.

Writing this book was challenging, not least because of the massive amount of research needed. The larger challenge was trying to explain everything simply so that kids would understand and not get turned off. I was especially motivated because both my kids didn't find social studies in school terribly interesting, especially the political bits. I don't think Andre remembers much, he was only interested in the parts about the war.

I know the textbooks have been simplified somewhat over the years but I feel they still fall short, especially when it comes to the political portions. The problem is that politics is a very alien concept to kids and history books tend to throw in many unfamiliar terms within a section, thinking that giving definitions for key words would sufficiently address this issue. Eg. this is half a para in my kids' history book:

"Although the Labour Front won the most number of seats, it did not have an absolute majority (won 50% or more of the seats) in the Assembly. Thus the LF formed a coalition government with the Alliance Party with David Marshall becoming the Chief Minister."

The definition for "coalition" was given as "coalition government is a government made up of a combination of two or more parties."

Zzzzzz. I can imagine kids nodding off just reading this short segment. Did the writers think that only "coalition" was a difficult word? What about Assembly? What about party? What about seats? Lesley-Anne told me that in primary school, when she read that a political party had won two seats, she pictured a man holding two chairs! Even at lower secondary level, Andre had a foggy understanding of local history. Referendum, alliance, commissions - they all went over his head.

In other words, don't assume that kids would understand any of that stuff, let alone be interested. Why should they? They've lived only about a decade. Politics is something completely foreign to them.

So, with great determination, Lesley-Anne and I set out to try and make local history interesting for kids. Or at least show that "fun history book" is not an oxymoron!

About Secrets of Singapore

We've kept it simple. The language is similar to what we'd used for the Danger Dan series, casual and simple. The target age group for this book is 8-14 years old. Where we've had to use more complex terms, we tried to explain them simply. If it meant omitting details that would leave kids' heads swimming, we chose to do so. For us, it's better for kids to have an idea of the overall concept than confuse them thoroughly with details.

We've kept it fun. Similar to the style of other Danger Dan books, it's quirky. Apart from the chronological retelling of Singapore's history, we also covered a lot of ground in thematic areas, eg. transport, housing, nature, sports, etc. The book is also wonderfully illustrated and designed (Epigram Books' brilliant designer really outdid herself, adding drawings and graphic elements to every page, which lend such vibrancy to the text). Here's a sample spread of the Food section.

We inserted many snippets of information that we call Fascinating Facts to make the narrative richer, on things that we thought kids would find interesting, even if they were not as historically significant.

We've kept it neutral. We tried to stick to the facts, to be as objective as possible. Our aim is to educate in a fun way - we're not interested in making any sort of statement, political or otherwise. When choosing what areas to cover, we focused on what we thought kids would find interesting. For instance, we deliberately chose not to cover the Singapore economy. And because the book is not commissioned by anyone, we're not obliged to include or exclude certain things, or to write it in a certain way.

We don't claim that the book is comprehensive (although we do cover a lot!) or that it can replace local history textbooks. But we truly believe that it would be a great supplement to help kids better understand what they're learning (and hopefully raise their interest). I wouldn't put it past some adults to enjoy this too. At the very least, it might make you nostalgic reading about some of the things we grew up with!

We've been very encouraged by the positive advanced reviews of Secrets of Singapore.

“A very comprehensive and interesting recounting of Singapore’s history from its earliest times, Secrets of Singapore is wonderfully written in a style that is exquisitely simple and appropriate for young readers.” —Koh Boon Long, former MOE Deputy Director, National Education, and retired principal

“Danger Dan and Gadget Girl have really outsmarted me this time. There are secrets of Singapore that I didn’t even know about! Secrets of Singapore is a comprehensive account of everything Singaporean—from history to politics to transport, education and food—and has fascinating details, interesting commentaries and humorous illustrations. It is a book that should be in every Singaporean kid’s collection.” —Dr Cheah Yin Mee, partner and consultant, Learning Ventures, council member, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) Singapore

“I wish Danger Dan and Gadget Girl were around to help me with History back when I was in school. Secrets of Singapore will be a boon for those mugging for Social Studies, as it presents facts about the social and cultural history of Singapore in an interesting way, with memorable illustrations by James Tan.” —Lim Cheng Tju, country editor for the International Journal of Comic Art

“An easy-to-read, interesting book that should appeal to any young reader who wants to find out more about Singapore’s history. It also contains many fun facts that are not commonly known.” —Lee Siong Boon, History teacher

Pre-orders for Secrets of Singapore

Finally, how to buy the book! The book should hit bookstores end July/early August in time for National Day (yes, it was timed that way!) Retail price is $15.95 (after GST).

However, you can pre-order the book from my favourite bookseller Closetful of Books, who has generously offered a 10% discount on Secrets of Singapore, from now till 19 July 2015 midnight. Click on this link and key in the coupon code SECRETSOFSINGAPORE at the last stage of the payment process to enjoy the discount. The discount will apply to my other books as well (other Danger Dan books and The Good, the Bad and the PSLE) and shipping is free if you spend at least S$30!

Secrets of Singapore will be delivered to you within two weeks of its release date (24 July 2015). Lesley-Anne and I will autograph all books purchased from Closetful of Books and they will include a small gift as well.

The year in review for Lesley-Anne

2014 has been a whirlwind year for Lesley-Anne. As a JC student, school ends at 4pm on most days and during CCA days, she comes home after 9pm. Then there are assignments to complete and endless exams and tests to study for. She also began her journey as a published author, launching four books. Although all the writing had been completed last year, she still had to attend meetings and was involved in the editing stages of the books. She also conducted talks and workshops, as well as participate in book launches and other official events. Overall, it has been exhausting.

As I'd mentioned in an interview to another blogger, I always joke that Lesley-Anne is a full-time student with a full-time job (actually, that’s not a joke!) When we went to the Hong Kong International Young Readers Festival, she missed two days of school and came back to find a whopping stack of homework waiting for her.

People have asked me how she does it and I tell them it's tough. Lesley-Anne knows that she can’t afford to have any pockets of time wasted. She does her homework during free periods in school, reads in the MRT and catches up on sleep in the bus. As parents, we help by providing logistics and administrative support. For instance, Kenneth drives her to school talks when possible and I coordinate media interviews and school talks, which I try to arrange during her free periods or non-core lessons like PE.

I'm especially proud of the way Lesley-Anne has handled school talks. She's not a naturally outspoken person and approached such talks with much trepidation at first. However, she understands that it's part of her role as a published author and took it in her stride. Today, she is able to engage and related to the kids much better than I can. Nevertheless, it's still very tiring and energy sapping. Often, after a talk and a school day, she comes home and naps on the sofa for hours. As you can imagine, she doesn’t get much leisure time. If she does, it often goes towards sleep! In other words, being a teen writer may sound glamorous but it’s a lot of hard work.

The school holidays started last week but we've been laughing at the thought of any "holiday". The teachers have piled on the homework like there's no tomorrow. Eight pieces of work for Literature! Another eight for GP! Repeat for all subjects. And when school reopens in January, the students are welcomed back with...exams. My friend Lilian commented: no wonder the school does well in the 'A' level exams. The kids practically teach themselves! Do schools really not understand the concept of a holiday?

On top of that, Lesley-Anne has intensive CCA sessions throughout the holidays, sometimes all day, which baffles me. How on earth do you dance from 10am to 6pm? "Won't your legs drop off?" I ask her. Apparently not because there's also an upcoming CCA overseas trip and camp.

And as if all that is not hectic enough, she will have to make time during these holidays to write another book with me. That's right! Another book! We're still sorting out the details so can't reveal much at this point but if all goes according to plan, there will be an addition to the Danger Dan series.

So it's all very exciting but challenging for Lesley-Anne. Epigram Books has been incredibly supportive and never loses sight of the fact that she is still afterall, a teen. The marketing manager once asked me whether 10 years from now, Lesley-Anne will look back and resent the fact she didn't have much of a youth, that it was spent working. That prompted me to have a long chat with Lesley-Anne.

Her reply: Even though she's busier than ever now, she feels fulfilled, unlike in secondary school where she didn't have much time either but felt that her life was empty. It's a whole cosmos of reasons: She's studying subjects that she enjoys, she's passionate about her dance CCA and Danger Dan makes her feel like she has accomplished something special, giving her added meaning to her life. She loves JC so much that she's sorry to see the year come to an end.

From the beginning of the year, I've been concerned as to whether Lesley-Anne has too much on her plate and whether she would be able to juggle everything. (I'm a mum, ok? Worrying is in my DNA!) I mean, the school is very supportive but I don't think it would very sympathetic if Lesley-Anne flunked her exams. It was therefore very comforting to me when she did well in school. In fact, for Literature, she was ranked second overall in her level (although she did say that the boy who was ranked first was in a league of his own!) She loves the subject and her Literature teachers have been extremely supportive of her, which we're very grateful for. She has qualified for H3 (equivalent to the 'S' paper in our time) in both Literature and Geography but will be opting to do Literature.

So it's all good and I really thank God for His countless blessings on Lesley-Anne as well as for her work ethic. 2015 will be another crazy year, if not crazier, with the 'A' levels in view. Besides school, the book circuit looks to be busy as well, with some creative writing workshops already being planned by the NAC. It's overwhelming just thinking about it, so we're praying for peace and guidance and taking it one step at a time.

Making the most of JC life

Before Lesley-Anne entered Junior College, she'd heard loads of horror stories about how hectic JC life is, how some kids can barely keep up and find it so stressful compared to secondary school.

Now that she's been in JC for slightly more than 2 months, she can verify that the rumours on workload are all true. She has lessons until 4pm on most days. On CCA days, she reaches home after 9pm, exhausted. There are lecture tests and class tests almost every week, so many that she has lost count. She often has so much homework that she can't finish it at home and has to complete it during free periods in between classes.

But here's the thing: Lesley-Anne LOVES JC life.

I think it's a combination of three factors: subject combination, class and CCA. Lesley-Anne's subject combination came about not without sleepless nights and having to jump through multiple hoops. Already choosing to go to the humanities stream was considered second rate in a crazy system that still values the sciences (unless you're in the special Humanities Programme which Lesley-Anne chose not to try out for because of its over-competitiveness). She wanted to take Literature, English Language and Linguistics (ELL), Geography, and Maths at H1 level. This met with some concern by the school because they felt that taking Lit and ELL would "limit" her options. As the Epigram Books' editor commented, "aren't they the ones limiting her options? She's a writer!"

The school would have preferred her to take the more conventional subject Econs, in place of ELL. Just to give some background, almost everyone in the humanities stream (and many in the science stream) takes Econs as it's considered a "useful" subject and also one that's relatively easier to score in. Econs has a high percentage of A grades at the 'A' levels, while ELL is considered a straight B subject (negligible number of A grades). But Lesley-Anne went for the introductory Econs lectures and she was bored out of her mind (besides being perplexed by many of the concepts).

Even choosing to take Maths at H1 level (in my time, the 'AO' level equivalent) was a controversial choice. Maths at H2 level is one of those subjects that almost everyone takes because it has one of the highest level of A grades. In a cohort where more than 1,000 kids in Lesley-Anne's JC take Maths, only a paltry 26 take Maths at H1 level. And these are mostly the students who didn't meet the qualifying grade (based on sec4 Maths results) to take it at H2. So Lesley-Anne was an exceptional case because she qualified for Maths at H2 but didn't take it. Her reasoning was that to do well in Maths at H2, she would have to put in five times more effort in a subject that she doesn't care about. She would rather dedicate her time and energy to her other subjects.

I agreed with her assessment. I've always found that looking at the percentage of A grades as an indication of whether you would get an A is so flawed. Plus choosing subjects based on what you think you can score in, not based on interest, has always been one of my bugbears about the education system. So at the time when she was going through multiple subject combinations in her head and trying to think about the ramifications of each choice, I told her: forget about trying to chiong with everyone else. JC is 2 years of your life you'll want to remember - choose the subjects you are passionate about and enjoy the experience.

So Lesley-Anne appealed to take ELL, sat for a qualifying test and was selected. Thankfully, the school granted her request to take ELL and Lit together. It's been only about two months and she is enjoying her subjects tremendously. She loves the classes and I think at JC level, the humanities teachers really welcome divergent views, as long as your arguments are cogent. Lesley-Anne loves that the lessons call for critical thinking instead of merely parroting someone else's opinions, as was often the case in secondary school. It's a lot of work but it's interesting work.

The second factor is her classmates. In the beginning of the year, Lesley-Anne was quite apprehensive as to who her classmates would be. In secondary school, she encountered many, for a lack of a better description, what we call "mugger" kids. There's a difference between being hardworking and being a mugger. Hardworking kids understand the importance of diligence and study hard. Mugger kids take this to a whole new level - they consider grades THE most important thing in life, judge others purely by academic results and are myopically competitive. If they get a B grade, they moan and whine that their life is over (whether they really mean it or do it to get attention, it's annoying). So they're always poring over their books and great at regurgitating content but when you have a conversation with them, you often find that there's no depth to their thoughts or views.

I think God really answered Lesley-Anne's prayers for a good class. Her class is a mix of quirky and bright kids, the majority of whom are hardworking but not muggers. They strive to do well but they don't obsess over their grades. Lesley-Anne loves that they challenge her intellectually and constantly broaden her mindset. They have all kinds of interests, from sports to dance to debating, and add so much fun and personality to the class.

Finally, CCA. Over the past couple of years, Lesley-Anne's passion in dance has blossomed. Even though she has completed her Grade 8 in ballet, she wants to continue lessons, just because she loves it. In JC, she really wanted to get into the modern dance CCA but it's extremely competitive as there are limited spaces (mostly taken by kids who had been in the dance CCA in secondary school). So she prayed very hard for this and at the audition, danced her heart out... and was selected. She's one of only four girls who weren't previously in dance CCAs.

In Lesley-Anne's own words, "this completes my JC life." We're very, very grateful that God has been so gracious in answering all her prayers.

I know it's early days yet and we can't tell what will happen. She may end up not doing that well for 'A' levels, for whatever reason. But I've always maintained that the education journey is never solely about grades - it's about the experience and the learning, regardless of the end result. And I know that I've not seen Lesley-Anne this happy and engaged in a long time, so it's all good.

Here comes Danger Dan!

This has been an eventful year for me, to say the least. And even as 2013 draws to a close, instead of winding down, the excitement is heating up.

Here's a piece of news that I've been keeping under wraps for the past few months:

I'm writing a children's book series! With Lesley-Anne!

There! I've never been terribly good with secrets so it's very cathartic for me to finally be able to share this publicly. Earlier this year, Epigram Books (my publisher of The Good, the Bad and the PSLE) called for a pitch for writers to propose a series of children's books. The brief was simple - it had to involve time travel back to Singapore's past.

I thought this was an interesting project and something that Lesley-Anne could take on. However, Epigram Books was rightly concerned that it might be too much for her to handle alone since she has to juggle school, so we came up with the proposal to be co-authors. To cut a long story short, we prepared synopses for the series and wrote a sample first chapter. And Epigram Books loved it, so we got the contract :)

About the books

The protagonist is Danny aka Danger Dan - a hyperactive 11-year-old boy who loves comics and has superhero fantasies. However in real life, he's an unlikely hero as he's small and scrawny, with three older sisters who constantly bully him.

His shot at saving the world (well, Singapore at least) comes when he travels back in time and meets Melody, an enigmatic 14-year-old girl from the future. There, he learns that certain parts of Singapore's history have been changed due to a time warp, with horrendous results! Danger Dan and Melody rush to correct the mistakes. In the process, they run into some wacky situations!

First book in the series is out January 2014. Reading age is 8-11 years old.

Illustrations

For me, partnering with Epigram Books has been absolutely fantastic, for many reasons. But one big plus is that they understand the importance of design, especially for children's books. The illustrator they selected really brought to life how we envisioned Danny and Melody. Apart from the illustrations, Epigram Books' inhouse designer also went the extra mile to add many visual points of interest. Don't you just love this teaser above? We do!

Thought process

When we heard that we had to write about time travel back to Singapore's past, our first thought was that we had to make the books FUNNY. In fact, we balked at using the word "history" altogether because we knew kids would immediately have the impression: "Yuck! Another social studies textbook disguised as a fun book!" And who can blame them? I feel that most attempts to jazz up social studies, either in book form or video form haven't been very successful so far.

So I want to say upfront that the books are not commissioned by any government agency. This gives us the creative freedom to think up storylines and pick the time travel periods according to what we feel would make engaging and compelling plots.

Danny and Melody navigate through various places and meet different historical figures back in time but these tend to be in the course of their adventure, not so much because we feel we have to feature them. This frees us from the burden of having to be politically correct. However, we always try to ensure our facts are accurate, of course. And it's actually quite fun when we stumble on fascinating little-known trivia of Singapore's past that we think might be interesting to include for readers.

Coming up

Exciting developments are underway - check out our Danger Dan Facebook page! Please like the page to be notified of updates. Besides notifications of book launches, Lesley-Anne and I will also regularly share titbits eg. what it's like to be co-authors (lots of angst but also lots of fun!)

Hope to have your support!

"What do you think I think?" The absurdity of exam questions

Andre's year-end examinations are coming up and I was looking at his work as he was revising for History. I saw one of the questions in a worksheet:

"The Gupta Dynasty was known as the Golden Age of India because of its scientific achievements. Do you agree? Explain your answer."

According to the model answer provided, he's supposed to write the statement "I agree..." or "I disagree..." and give supporting reasons. Which makes perfect sense. But then came the kicker: after giving all the supporting reasons, he's then supposed to write the opposite statement of what he gave earlier, eg if you previously said you agree, now you had to say "However, I don't agree..." And THEN give all the supporting reasons for this statement.

I was perplexed. I checked with Lesley-Anne and found out it's true for her school too. Basically for such questions in History, you're supposed to say you agree and then say you disagree. If you only say one part, you will fail because you'll get at most half the marks, according to the marking scheme. (I know! I'm only finding this out now!) Incidentally, I think this is the O level format for History and/or Social Studies.

Qualifier: I have no problem with exam questions that ask for both sides of an argument. I understand that they want to ensure the students have studied all aspects of an issue, which is all well and good. My quarrel is with the way the questions are phrased. They seem to ask for your opinion but actually, they couldn't care less what it is.

I find that in the past decade or so, we've seen a lot more "what do you think?" kind of questions in exams, right down to the primary school level. If I were to hazard a guess as to why, I think it ties in with MOE's constant mantra that they want to groom "thinking" and "life-skills", not just book-smart muggers. So they decided to move from "what do you know?" to "what do you think?", to try and get students to give their views beyond what is provided in the textbooks or exam passages.

However, as is always the case, it boils down to execution. And in true Singapore style, everything has to be recorded regimentally into a marking template, down to the number of points for each key word, so that nothing will be left ambiguous. By which time, there is no room left for any opinion that doesn't fall within the "acceptable answers" pre-determined by the marker.

Eg. in primary school English comprehension questions, those "what do you think?" questions always make me snort. Maybe when the kid first starts school, he naively thinks, "oh! I can write what I think!" Then he quickly wises up when he finds that his "I think Aminah is dumb because she gave her money away." was marked wrong because what the teacher really wanted was "I think Aminah is kind because she gave her money to someone."  In other words, they don't give a flying bumblebee what you think. It's really "what do you think I think?"

Same with this History case. By all means, ask to see both sides of the story. But if that's what the marker wants to see, then just ask, "Explain why the statement is both true and untrue." Don't couch it in a "I wanna know your views!" kind of question and then fail the student if he gives his views, even with supporting arguments.

My point is that looking at the way the exam questions are designed, I suspect we're nowhere closer to grooming creativity and thinking than we are 10 or 20 years ago. The questions have changed but the mindset hasn't. As long as MOE feels that it needs to assess "thinking" or "creativity" via a structured template (don't we just love our KPIs and our numbers!), we're back to marking for content, which was the Singapore syllabus of old. Because honestly, if you truly value thought and opinion, you cannot start off by having a pre-conceived idea of what that opinion should be.

Lesley-Anne recounted how her Integrated Humanities class (which is something like a social studies cum history subject) was in an uproar because of one exam question:

"The government has to play the main role in the alleviation of poverty in China. Do you agree?"

Like in Andre's case, the students knew they had to give both sides of the story, ie say you agree and then say you disagree. So for the "I disagree" portion, many of the students wrote a statement along the lines of "I disagree because people play the main role in the alleviation of poverty in China." The students who did thus, even with all the supporting arguments, failed or barely passed the paper. Apparently, this statement is considered WRONG. You had to say "I disagree because the government doesn't play the main role but the supporting role to the people in the alleviation of poverty."

Note that the supporting arguments given could be exactly the same in two papers, except that the statement is different. But one was deemed to be a fail grade, the other an A grade. The teacher's rationalisation was that the main point is the government so it had to be mentioned in the statement.

The commotion came about because the students in Lesley-Anne's school rightly saw how illogical the marking scheme was. Nowhere in the phrasing of the question was it clear that the government was the main point (I too, thought the alleviation of poverty was the main point). Again, the only explanation I can come up with is our system's relentless obsession with the need to differentiate the kids. It reminded me of that recent primary school science question a mother posted on Facebook. The teacher in that case, defended the question by saying it "differentiated the A students from the A* students".

I'm absolutely positive that it doesn't. In both cases. To the teachers: what you've succeeded in doing is create a wider range of marks, if that's what you deem "differentiating". But don't kid yourself into thinking it actually picks out the brighter students. Unless you define "bright" as someone who possesses magical mind-reading abilities.

Neither of the examples I've cited does anything towards creating more thinking individuals. Quite the opposite. They probably create more confused individuals who are constantly being told that the way they think is wrong. The skill that is assessed and reinforced here is not thinking or creativity, it's the ability to guess and tell someone else what they want to hear. What do you think I think.

I wonder if some academicians have been in education for so long that they have lost the plot. I keep hearing how our education system has to evolve to be relevant to life but from these two examples, I really doubt the markers have any clue what skills are important in real life.

In real life, your opinion matters. In fact, if you were to state "I agree" with something and then follow that up with "I disagree", you'll be told, make up your damn mind already. In real life, it's important to know how to make intelligent arguments and back up your views. Not mind-reading. Not second-guessing. Not meaningless hair-splitting of semantics.

Make education more relevant to life? Yes. But first, understand what's really relevant in life.

Reading in pairs

In case the title of this post gives you the wrong idea, this post is not about reading as a couple. It's about books are interesting when read one after another.

The idea of reading books in pairs came to me when Lesley-Anne was reading a few classics as part of her literature class. It occurred to me that many of these classics either had a modern equivalent or a modern book that made reference to the classic.  I recommended some of them to her and she was pretty fascinated by the parallels or references. In some cases, it made the classic even more meaningful. At the very least, it invoked thought.

Here are some of the pairs:

In sec 3, Dostoevsky's epic Crime and Punishment was on Lesley-Anne's literature choice of reading. Hardly anyone chose to read this book, mainly because it's a gazillion pages long. Lesley-Anne chose to read this partly because she's always up for a challenge but partly also because I had a brand new copy sitting on my shelf. In other words, it was convenient.

Crime and Punishment is essentially about this guy Raskolnikov who kills somebody and then philosophises about the murder throughout the entire book. It's tough going for various reasons: 1) there are so many long names that sound alike and begin with 'R' that it's easy to lose track of who the author is referring to. Sometimes the author refers to the same guys using their second names instead (just for a lark). After a while, we dubbed the protagonist Ratsky just so we'd know who we were discussing. 2) This Ratsky guy can really go on and on. On the same issues, back and forth. It's both fascinating and frustrating.

In the end, Lesley-Anne did well for her assignment, I think because the teacher was so impressed that someone actually bothered to plow through the entire book.

The book I recommended to her after that was Patricia Highsmith's Ripley's Game. It really is a modern parallel of Crime and Punishment. Like Ratsky, Ripley is involved in a murder and tries to justify his actions using psychological and philosophical reasoning. But written in a more fast-paced and readable manner. 

 

The next pair is Arthur Miller's play The Crucible and Kathleen Kent's The Heretic's Daughter.  The latter is not really a parallel of The Crucible but it was written to take place during the same period and there are references to some of the characters in The Crucible. It's important to note that many of the characters in both these books were real people in history, during the 17th century at the time of the infamous Salem witch trials.

The third pair is a no-brainer - J.D Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye and Stephen Chbosky's recent hit, The Perks of Being a Wallflower.  Both are coming-of-age stories and have protagonists who struggle to make sense of life in general during the tumultuous teenage years. Lesley-Anne hasn't read the latter yet but I'm sure she'll get around to it eventually.

The fourth pair is Pearl S. Buck's The Good Earth and Anchee Min's Pearl of China. The Good Earth is a classic because it gave people a glimpse of what real China was like at the turn of the 19th century. Even more interesting is that it was written by a foreigner. So how did an ang moh woman manage to capture rural China life so realistically? The answers are in Anchee Min's novel, which tells the story of Pearl's life as a little girl, growing up among the Chinese in a little Chinese town with her missionary parents. In fact, Pearl considered herself Chinese, not American. Compelling read.

Does this spell the end of literature?

Last month, there was some debate on the drop in number of students taking Literature at 'O' levels from 16,970 in 1992 to just 3,000 in 2012, and whether this signals a decline in appreciation of the humanities among students. You can read the news article here.

While the drop in numbers sounds terribly alarming, I always hesitate to take numbers at face value. Instantly, two "BUTS" came to mind:

1) BUT: Wouldn't the decline also be due to the drop in number of kids taking 'O' levels?  Today, with the IP and other alternative educational pathways, many kids no longer take 'O' levels.

2) BUT: There are more 'O' level subjects these days, compared to 20 years ago. Wouldn't the increase in choice automatically dilute the number of kids taking any one subject (except for compulsory subjects)?

MOE's reply shed more light.  With reference to my point 2), it seems that the drop happened most drastically at the 2001 point when Combined Humanities was introduced.  This is a social studies subject with an elective of Lit, Geog or History and became a popular alternative to the other pure humanities subjects - Lit, Geog and History.

With regards to point 1) though, it's still a little hazy. MOE reveals the percentage of sec 4 cohort that took Lit in 1992 (47.9%), 2001 (21.8%) and 2012 (9%) but it's important to note that a percentage of the Sec 4 cohort not the same as a percentage of the 'O' level cohort.

A drop in 'O' level Lit does not necessarily translate into an equivalent drop in kids studying Lit at sec 4. In many IP schools, Lit is a compulsory subject for sec 4 kids as they take Language Arts (which is a fusion of English and Lit).  For the IB programme, Lit is compulsory all the way to year 6.

Typically also, even from the 1990s, Lit has been considered the more challenging humanities subject (because it requires critical thinking and language skills, not something you can mug for it), so it is usually reserved for the more academic classes (usually the top science and arts classes).  If you postulate that these kids are now likely in the IP track at secondary school, then it's no surprise that Lit has fizzled out in the 'O' level arena.

Beyond the numbers

Nevertheless, it's hard to deny that the number of students studying Lit (whether at 'O' levels or not) has declined.  Perhaps not as drastically as the numbers suggest but still undeniable... and that's sad.  I won't bother to write all about the importance of Lit since I'd already done so previously.  Besides, I came across this passionate Facebook post by Joshua Ip, which laid out all the points very convincingly.  It's a little over the top (there's a little bit of theatre in every true blue Lit student) but the points are pretty solid and more substantial than any argument I'd read in the mainstream media.  Plus it's a highly entertaining read, which reflects well on his Lit background.
 
This decline in Lit is not just about Lit alone. Looking at the bigger picture, it reflects the persistent worldview that the humanities in general are the poor cousin to the firmly footed maths and science.  After 20 years, the triple science combination is still considered the most prestigious in your sec 3 choices. In some schools, only the "top" students are offered the combination. In Lesley-Anne's school, there's no real humanities combination - you either take triple science or double science. Double maths is compulsory.

Moving on to 'A' levels, this bias continues. The 'A' level syllabus now requires you to choose a contrasting subject to create balance, ie science students have to take at least one humanities subject and arts students have to take at least one science subject.  In theory, this is great but in reality, I find the practice flawed.

If you're in the science stream, you can choose from a long list of humanities subjects, eg. 3rd language, Geog, Lit, History, Music, Art and Econs.  I always felt that Econs was such a miscategorisation.  It's nowhere remotely near a true humanities subject that encourages the broadening of worldviews or right brain thinking.  It's about statistics and trends, and the analyses are more akin to the scientific type.  That's why many science students choose Econs as their contrasting subject - yet another "pragmatic" choice.

Whereas if you're in the arts stream, you're pretty much limited to one contrasting subject - Maths.  Don't believe me? Most JCs don't offer science subjects as a contrasting subject, meaning that if you don't like maths, you're pretty much screwed.  It also sends a very clear message - the most important subject in the Singapore education system is MATHS MATHS MATHS.

Don't misunderstand me, I acknowledge that maths is important.  However, I find this obsession with maths baffling. The maths proponents tend to play up the pragmatic value of learning maths but honestly, most people will never apply the kind of maths you learn at 'A' levels.  If you want to focus on pragmatics, I would have thought it's more important to learn about human geography (urban planning!) or human biology (understand your body!).  I suspect this practice is again linked to scoring - Maths is one of those subjects with the highest percentage of distinctions at 'A' level so it's attractive to JCs looking to raise their overall scores. 

Quality not quantity

I was chatting with a teacher friend recently and he mentioned that he happened to see one of his sec 3 student's Lit essays. He was perturbed to see it littered with grammatical errors that were not corrected by the teacher.  Upon questioning, she replied "Miss W said in Lit, we're not marked on grammar, only based on the points we give."

Stab a knife through my heart now, won't ya.  Is that how we're addressing the difficulty to score in Lit, by reducing it to a factual content subject?  I don't think the teacher recognised the irony of it - that a subject supposed to test your critical thinking and arguments is awarded marks according to a marking template.  Instead of embracing the humanities, we try to turn it into something more scientific.  And when English ceases to matter in English Lit, well... I've no words.

I was so appalled by this that I checked with Lesley-Anne if it was the same at her school.  Thankfully, she shared my disbelief and said no, her Lit assignments are marked on both language and content, where original arguments are valued.  Phew.  So maybe it's just that school or that teacher.  I hope and pray that's not how Lit is marked at 'O' levels these days.

It's a sad state of affairs.  It's the belief that education in Singapore is still primarily about scoring.  There's a lot of talk about holistic education, creativity and critical thinking but the truth is, so many educators, parents and students are still stuck in the old mindset that education is about amassing facts and A's.

Lesley-Anne had this to say: "The problem is many students are still learning things in isolation, so they don't understand the relevance of what they learn beyond the narrow confines of that subject. Even English becomes relevant only to the English subject in school. So many things in the world are linked.  When we are unable to see the inter-connectedness of different issues, we miss the big picture. How then can we innovate and solve problems?"

I love how a 15-year-old can have the wisdom to see this truth where many adults cannot. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Do we really need to learn calculus in school?

I received a request from Frederick Koh, a JC maths tutor asking me to contribute a guest post on his blog, White Group Mathematics. My first reaction was maths? What do I know about maths?

He then clarified that I didn't actually have to write something on maths, just anything on education but the obsessive personality that I am thought a maths-related post would be more appropriate.

Objectively, I think I have enough of a logical brain to tackle basic maths. I coached both my kids in primary school maths and there's something about the puzzle-solving aspects of primary school maths that appeal to me. My personal experience with maths was generally positive too - I sailed through maths in primary school and E Maths at 'O' levels.

However, this led me to erroneously believe that I could manage Maths C at 'A' levels even though I hadn't studied Add Maths at 'O' levels. Boy, was I wrong. I sat in oblivion throughout the 2 years, despite my classmates' best efforts to help. The tutor practically gave up on me and skipped past me whenever he asked my classmates a question. In the end, by a miracle, I achieved a C grade, to which the tutor reacted epically - "You?? You got a C???"

There's just something about the strings of random numbers that baffle my mostly right brain. Sometimes, they're attached to letters, other times, with funny incomprehensible squiggles and notations. Worst still, sometimes the numbers don't even line up in the same row (miniature ones written above or below other numbers like they're an afterthought). It's like Morse code in an alien language.

I have a PRC friend and back in China, he was in the gifted programme for maths. He shared how in China, there are only gifted programmes for maths and science - such is the emphasis on what is commonly perceived as the pragmatic and "superior" subjects.

"What about China's great legacy of literature and the arts?" I asked. He explained that the government felt China's heritage in the arts caused the country's economic decline so they are now over-compensating. In fact, he told me that all the current China leaders have backgrounds in maths or science.

He feels that this complete neglect of the humanities is a great disservice to Chinese kids. He cites his own example where he wishes that he had learned more soft skills like communications, people management and so on so he can better function at work. He says up to today, he has yet to apply any of the calculus he'd studied (even though he once worked as an engineer).

As someone who's always been in the humanities underdog camp, it isn't hard for me to sympathise with him. But I got to thinking, there are actually two different controversies at work here.

The more obvious one is clearly the maths/science-humanities struggle. Which is more important? It would be easy for me to side with the humanities but my answer is both, and I'm not just trying to be politically correct. The maths and sciences set the foundation for logical thinking and deduction, there's no denying the importance of this. It's not enough just to be able to give customers the correct change or work out how much that bag of apples at the supermarket costs. That's why even though Lesley-Anne doesn't have the aptitude for maths, I tell her that having a good foundation of maths is important.

As for the humanities, well, it fosters critical thinking and deeper reflection into the intangibles, into human behaviour. Much in this world is different shades of grey, not black-and-white. Solutions often can't be calculated via a fixed formula or measured on a quantitative scale, and the humanities teach us how to wrap our minds around the fuzzy and give it meaning. In this connected world where people brashly push forth their arguments and opinions, it's more important than ever not to blindly believe what you read and to question everything with a critical mind. (Yes, including my post).

But beyond the superficial maths/science vs humanities conundrum lies another conflict in my friend's statement. He felt that the years he spent learning calculus would have been better spent learning skills like communication because he could use it in real life. It's this intrinsic belief that in education, what you learn must be usable to be considered useful.

Granted, if you're training to be a mechanic, I sure hope whatever you learn will be useful enough to enable you to fix my car. But this idea that education has to be practical is essentially another left brain argument. To me, it dilutes the value of education because it reduces education to yet another commodity.

It means that if you don't intend to draw, there's no point in learning art. By that same token, learning Chinese is needed only if we intend to do future business with China. I've always thought this moot point as I suspect all the enterprising Chinese entrepreneurs are mastering English as we speak, for the same pragmatic reasons.

Education is not the same as training, it has to have a higher purpose. That's been one of the main criticisms of the Singapore education system, that it doesn't educate individuals, it trains them. Beyond learning how to read and write, count apples and how gravity works, education should enable us to be more thinking versions of ourselves.

At every level, we should have this, to different degrees. At primary school, it could be as simple as asking questions about a science experiment. At secondary school, critical analysis of a social issue. At JC and university? Well, why not calculus?

Right upfront, I'll say the only thing I know about Calculus is that it's the name of a character in the Tintin comics. I looked at the universal authority on all things aka wikipedia and here's what it says: Calculus (Latin: a small stone used for counting) is a branch of mathematics focused on limits, functions, derivatives, integrals and infinite series.

Ahhhh... nope. Catch no ball.

But despite my ignorance about calculus, I'm pretty certain that calculus does make you think deeper about certain concepts of maths. And as long as something you learn in school helps you exercise your brain in thinking deeper and more laterally, chances are, it's valuable. You just don't know it. The same way that many people think literature isn't useful cos nobody spouts poetry at work in real life. But literature helps you read between the lines, analyse human behaviour and appreciate the subtleties of the written word, all of which is important in life.

So I wouldn't write off calculus just yet. (Do I hear Frederick heave a sigh of relief?) As I've always advised parents, when your child has to choose his or her subject combinations, instead of saying, "take the most useful one" (which is only marginally better than "take the subjects you can score in" or "take the subjects that can earn you the most money"), tell them to take the subjects they're passionate about. Passion ignites learning and from there, they will have a better chance of extracting value from it and becoming more thinking individuals.

That's what education is all about.


This post was published on White Group Mathematics here.