I think they are significant enough to be worth public discussion. Hopefully, this summary here will spur additional contributions from interested readers.

These may just be impressions but I will share them as honestly as I can. I know several teachers who feel the same way but have been prevented from voicing our concerns to the mainstream media because of protocol.

Educational policies have been subject to countless adjustments and changes. The Ministry of Education (MOE) can do more to monitor impact on students' psyche. These changes are also quite disturbing because to some extent, they may be interpreted as elitist policies which benefit a small section of students / educated elite. Education as an effective tool of social leverage has become a means of fueling (future) potential class division. This may be unhealthy in the long run. Policies enacted by MOE ought to be studied and examined in close detail.

Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) for university entrance was introduced in 2002, then was removed 2 years later. No statement was satisfactorily issued. This policy resulted in much stress for Junior College (JC) and Pre-university students [2] especially those from lower income families who have to fork out $70 per test. MOE assumed that it would not disrupt curriculum time since the SAT may be studied independently. However, schools began to organise classes for students, adding to their already crushing curriculum. For students of lower ability, many had to retake it.

As the SAT was already being criticised and replaced in the States, many teachers questioned the need for MOE to define international standards in such narrow terms. By 2005, the SAT was mysteriously removed as a compulsory university entrance marker. The 2 batches of students still resent the government for treating them like guinea pigs on punishing tread-mills, drained of their money and time for something that was not meant to be used in the long haul.

It is the same regarding policies on Chinese Language and Project Work assessment (the grading on oral presentation used to be centred entirely on fluency. Students who needed time to develop such skills were sadly under-marked or poorly graded. I may not speak well but does this make me a less effective work partner and collaborator?) More thought ought to be put in the implementation of education policies to do with curriculum and assessment modes.

Educate the whole person in real terms. Don't just limit it to a ministry emblem.

This runs counter to the present 'Teach Less Learn More' credo. Pre-university students are now required to take H1-H3 subjects including one contrasting subject. This puts considerable pressure on students especially those who need a slower learning pace. This new A Level initiative and Policy sounds really good in theory (pupils given ability-driven and broad-based education). In practice however, all students are effectively taking 4 A level subjects! Any level-headed tutor and JC student will tell you this amounts to an extremely heavy workload.

While the Ministry has advised that H1 subjects be given less academic content than H2 topics, the load difference is almost negligible. What is worse is that teachers receive added pressure to deliver more within a reduced curriculum time for H1 subjects. Weak students and their committed teachers are the first to be affected.

The 5-day work week has now been transformed into a gridlock, ironically. The solution - have tests that end later on weekday afternoons some as late as 7pm. What does this translate to for teachers and students?

Also, some students in other JCs learn at a slower pace and would benefit from a less pressurised school system. The same critique applies to SPA and Project Work, compulsory subjects which claim to develop student competencies only to have these very aims dampened by ineffective and limited assessment modes which operate within a over-taxed school systemic model. You only need to interview outspoken teachers or students to obtain more evidence.

Weary but astute educators often comment that policy makers at MOE HQ often dish up new initiatives (I&E, TLLM, BlueSky [3] and the like) and impose them down the hierarchy, often caring little as to how schools and teachers are affected. This can range from re-constructing extended timetables (and it is an excruciating process) to imposing additional marking load (SPA, PW [4]) to an already heavy marking schedule resulting in teachers having to cope with steep learning curves rung around them. Principals likewise have limited lobbying power, sometimes due to inbuilt party-whips (not just applicable to political parties) at other times, hindered by powers-to-be and their own career image.

Next, in terms of human resource, teachers take on more and more work year after year. Although MOE has introduced some measures to curb this problem, not much has changed. The constant curriculum revisions impede a teacher's desire for reflective learning. To assess the effectiveness of a policy, it is necessary to adopt a reasonable time frame to do so. However, changes are so frequent that teachers and management are made to trim or overhaul former initiatives at the expense of teacher fatigue and exhaustion. These policies (and some are very good in terms of quality delivery and sophisticated objectives) require time and testing to be distilled effectively into a school system. Too many changes result in much unnecessary stress and systemic imbalance.

Teachers are also ranked in a highly subjective manner which does not take into account the vocational spirit of their profession. It has often been said tongue-in-cheek that to be promoted in the service, one only needs to chair more school projects while classroom teaching can quietly take a back seat. It is true to a large extent. Ranking and appraisal of staff is made top down instead of bottom-up. This creates much dissatisfaction among many teachers who see the annual work appraisal exercise as a rubber stamp of sorts. The system may be fine-tuned so that quality staff can be developed fully, retained and effectively tapped for passion and experience.

A lot of effort has been put into new A level syllabus e.g. H3 subjects. However, a quick survey will tell you that only students from the so-called 'top' 5 JCs will be able to qualify in fairly large numbers for this option. The criteria demands so. This also applies also to a new subject known as Theory of Knowledge. The other JCs can only muster a very small number of pupils to qualify for this subject. What exactly does MOE have in mind when it crafts policies, in which much effort and resource have been pumped in promoting them? Who are they serving? It seems clear that these policies have been crafted to be matched and pegged to the ability of the best students in the 'top' JCs. It does not mean that students from other JCs are less capable. They just require more time. They are definitely no less able or talented than those in 'top-ranked' JCs.

Some even comment wryly that these very policies have been influenced by elite administrative officers themselves who craft educational programmes based on their own schema of educational excellence (having been sent to the best universities overseas without having stepped into a Normal Academic / Technical class for that matter), without bearing in mind the whole spectrum of student abilities in real terms. Every Singaporean matters but it seems that in terms of policy investment in specialist educational fields, some Singaporeans deserve more 'stretching' than others. A case in point concerns classroom sizes. Till today, MOE has not come up with a satisfactory explanation as to why classes are significantly smaller in Gifted Streams compared to other levels. Their usual response to reduction in classroom sizes (a frequent grouse by opposition parties here) has always been to recruit more teachers. Any educator would admit in your face that classroom sizes does have a significant impact on teaching and learning.

Education, it seems, has taken on a 'class-based' mentality, never admitted on paper but disturbingly sown and present in the mindset of the younger generation today. The constant discourse on top and lower end JCs and the poly/JC divide is another case in point. The recent debate between a JC and poly student attests to this sad fact of class division. Many see it as a trivial example of teenage angst. I see something more, a sad mindset being developed -- the unintended consequence of MOE's educational policies. This may be traced all the way to the Gifted Education Program and SAP schools. We have developed a mindset that perceives some class of students / schools as being better and more worthy / 'intelligent' / elite than others. Have we lost sight of the goal / heart of education? Or should education be solely cast in economically pragmatic terms?

Many doubt if a President's Scholar will ever be picked from Serangoon JC , Yishun JC or Pioneer JC. Will Jurong JC ever displace Raffles JC as a 'premier' college? Year after year, the same bunch of elite scholars are picked from the 'top' JCs. They are published in the papers and celebrated in news. They are then groomed for higher office, where possible. Certain realities are so fixed in the educational landscape that imagining otherwise becomes foolish. Raffles JC seems to have been made to be a breeding ground for future politicians as well. Should this be the case? Why was such a link established in the first place? We all know education has been heavily tweaked as an ideology in many countries. For once, can we embrace the roots of education for its own sake?

Special ed teachers are not put on the same pay scale as other mainstream teachers. In terms of recognition of equal professional competencies, special schools and special ed teachers should be given the same support as mainstream teachers. Many mainstream teachers would readily regard their fellow colleagues in special ed as true AND real educators in every sense of the word since their specific vocation involves caring and inculcating the whole child with life skills. It seems that MOE has other perceptions in mind.

It is a sad fact of life that reflects the education scene in Singapore where the able and strong (whatever that means) are deemed to be more worthy of attention since they are more likely to make visible economic contributions to Singapore unlike their brothers and sisters with special needs.

* * * * *