The following comic came up in my Facebook feed today which made me think of our exam system, I wonder if any of you have seen this:
I know there will be some people who will protest that I'm making a mockery out of the LSP and SDR programmes and the students enrolled in these programmes really do benefit from them. However, that is not the point. Yes, there are weak readers and dyslexic students who really need the LSP and SDR programmes. They do improve with the additional guidance and it can make a difference in their academic performance.
This is the point I'm trying to make: That we have these programmes to help them succeed in OUR SYSTEM, not necessarily always to help them find their own.
Consider this, that ever since the PSLE system was first formed, it has continued to assess in the same medium, that of a written paper. It is fully impartial, like that of blind Justice. It sets out a set of standards and expectations, and it weighs its candidates according to those.
This is one of its strengths, but it also leads to its weaknesses.
It does not, for example, acknowledge PROGRESS. It does not see that a student may have strenuously struggled with the Chinese language for 6 years and finally passed for the first time in the exam. It only sees a C.
It does not acknowledge SOCIALIZATION SKILLS. It does not acknowledge what we know as the 'people skills'. This may include the ability to lead, to motivate a team to a common goal, the ability to work in a team etc. Ironically, these traits may even be stronger factors of a person's success in the corporate world than their PSLE or O level grades.
It does not acknowledge CREATIVITY, from the wide-ranging vision of a CEO who may scout out new directions for a company right down to the practising artist who thinks of new ways of creating art.
I write this because I have seen the system fail some of my past students in these ways. I saw kids who couldn't read a word in Primary 1 finally write out 80 words in a (somewhat) coherent composition in Primary 2, who would fail because the composition had too many grammatical mistakes to make the passing grade. I also saw kids who would work hard every night on their own with minimal parental supervision have their efforts rewarded with a barely-passing mark above 50. Of course, I also saw kids who were masters of leadership, who did badly in their exams and yet could plot and instigate other kids to do their bidding. (For the sake of the country, I hope they used their leadership powers for good in the end.)
Whenever some of the above situations occur, the system impartially puts a failing grade on them. And for all the changes in the PSLE system since the very first paper, it remains the same. That is, of a written paper which tests reading, writing, listening and analytical skills (in the case of Math and Science). If the system cannot assess, monitor or reward our kids in the 3 areas I mentioned above, then instead of having it fail our kids, we should say IT HAS FAILED us.
As of now, I cannot decide where the blame lies. Do we blame the system, for only rewarding the A students who were lucky enough to be born with brains and those born with the money to go for tuition and enrichment? Do we blame society, for catering to the system and demanding higher levels of accountability? For letting the system stay in place without higher demands for change at a more profound level?
*Sigh* Such big questions just because I've been marking some English papers. I'm not sure anyone can answer them easily in my lifetime but maybe, if some people read this, think about it and start changing mindsets, I'd be satisfied enough. For now, enough with the big questions, away from the keyboard and back to the red pen...
What do you think? Do you agree about the system or not? Why do you do so? Please leave your thoughts in the comments! (Trolls will be sent out of class)
No comments:
Post a Comment