小学教育检讨：仍需更多“家长教育”

自本世纪初，新加坡的教育生态就不断地出现转变。大大小小的制度检讨与改革，乘着“全球化”、“新世纪公民”等在世界范围具有主导性权力的话语巨浪，为本地教育注入新元素，并在许多方面注入新生机。每一波的改革，虽然在初期总难免面对来自不同方面的阻力，教师尤其是闻“改”色变，但事实是，当经济体制、文化样式、意识形态等方面在急速转变并相互渗透的时候，教育机构无可避免地必须进行相应的调整。

回顾过去八年的制度检讨，不难发现，改革的重心放在了中学以上的阶段，包括设立第四所大学、中学毕业后“殊途同归”的多元性出路、中学直通车课程等。小学与幼儿教育阶段，虽有废除分流、语文课程改革等举措，则迟迟未听闻体制上的检讨。也许，这具有策略性意义——先解决了离就业与择业最近的阶段，再回过头来放眼长远，“整肃”基础教育。当然，也可能如部长所指出的，目前的小学制度，根基扎实，无需大幅度的改变。

不论之前是无暇顾及小学教育，或是本着“放长线钓大鱼”的心思去慢慢“雕琢”21世纪的小学教育生态，本周公布的《小学教育检讨及执行委员会初步建议报告》，算是本地教育界的佳音，哪怕迟了些。其主要建议，涵盖了教学法、课堂评估与反馈、师资素质与专业提升、单班制度、硬件设施的增加等方面，强调个体的全面发展，重视“软技能”、价值观及“硬知识”的平衡。

作为一个教育学系的研究生，报告书的建议对我来说并不难消化，而且很明显地在试图与西方发达国家的基础教育进一步接轨、靠拢。然而，我真的很怀疑，有多少家长能够明白报告书的内容与教育部的用心？又有多少的小学教师有能力充当“代言人”，从孩子长远发展的角度，让家长信服于新制度？

对于任何的教育事业而言，家长都是不容忽视的支柱之一，也在相当的程度上掌握某种权力，有时甚至足以左右教育工作者的行为与决策。然而，家长也是最现实的。特别是在小学阶段，潜藏在许多家长脑后的观念也许始终是让孩子拼成绩，希望孩子在学业上有所长进。这是本地教育与社会制度长久以来所造就的心态，无可厚非，但如果不在这次检讨中与家长进行足够的沟通，就可能出现以下的局面：课堂上寓教于乐的教学法，在家长眼中或许是无关紧要的游戏；孩子偶尔没有功课，教师还会被投诉；强调“全人发展”的新计划，重视体育与美育，但家长为孩子找的补习班，频率不一定会减少，于是孩子疲惫不堪；低年段的质性评估，小学生不一定能向家长清楚解释其中的含义，家长也不一定有兴趣了解评价标准的细节。

我也许有“诽谤家长”之嫌，但我不认为《小孩不笨》中刻画的家长是社会的少数，更不信服于新时代会使那类家长成为“过去式”。《海峡时报》留言板上许多关于“下来，是时候改革补习中心了”的调侃式意见，是有几分真理的。制度变革最忌讳的，便是被家长、学生和教师视为多一些的工作和压力；而在这三方之中，家长经常是为另两方施压的共利益者（stakeholder）。特别是小学阶段，由于孩子还不被视为拥有自主权，因此家长所掌握的权力便更加的大。讽刺的是，《初步建议报告书》共五十八个段落，却只在中间不起眼的第三十二段，轻描淡写地提出“委员会相信家长是教育的关键共利益者，在小学教育中扮演特别重要的角色。为了达致所建议的举措，教育部应该与家长紧密合作，因为他们强有力的支持，将对实现全方位的小学教育，至关重要”（笔者译）。

不论最终的报告书是否对此冠冕堂皇的空洞建议有所补充，希望教育部能正视“家长教育”，协助教师与学校切实地增进与家长的沟通，减轻各方的担忧与负担。

（作者是香港大学硕士研究生。vocalxiong@gmail.com）

And in vindication of my viewpoint, here's an article from today's Sunday Times:

Cheers and fears over move to scrap exams

Having no exams at P1 and P2 would make it hard for kids to cope later, say some parents

By Nur Dianah Suhaimi You would think that parents would be happy with last week's news that a Ministry of Education committee has proposed to do away with exams at Primary 1 and Primary 2. Not a good number of the 120 parents of young children surveyed in a Sunday Times poll. Fifty-one parents wanted exams to be retained as they are concerned their children will not be able to cope with exams when they reach Primary 3. And 65 of them felt that having tests throughout the year instead - as is being proposed - will cause more stress for their kids. While most parents felt that English is an important subject which should be tested, 34 of them wanted their children to be examined in all three core subjects - English, Mathematics and Mother Tongue. Others felt that children will become too complacent and will not be able to differentiate between small tests and major exams later. The Primary Education Review and Implementation (Peri) Committee had felt that education at lower primary level should focus on building confidence and developing a love for learning which cannot be achieved with the current emphasis on formal exams. Instead, it recommends 'bite-sized assessments' such as topical tests to provide parents with feedback on their children's learning. The recommendation is not finalised. But once the Education Ministry gives the thumbs up, changes will be implemented over 10 years. One parent, tutor Maslena Mohamad, 34, said without exams, children may become complacent about their studies even when they move on to upper primary later. 'It is good to get them used to exams from the start so that by the time they get to upper primary, they are used to preparing for major exams,' said Madam Maslena, whose son is in Primary 1 this year. Housewife Angeline Wong, 40, is concerned that after two years of sitting for mini-tests, the children would treat major exams 'just as lightly'. Mr Tan Sze Tong, 40, a regional director of a telecommunications company, said children may get a 'huge shock' in Primary 3 when they are suddenly faced with major exams. Last year, Mr Tan wrote to The Straits Times Forum page to complain about how his seven-year-old Primary 1 daughter had to sit for six examinable subjects for her semestral assessment. He said: 'It is such a drastic change - from too many exams to no exams at all. The ministry should take a more balanced approach and retain exams for core subjects like English, Maths and Mother Tongue.' Another parent, engineer Michael Goh, 41, said it would be 'cruel' to reserve exams for later. His son, now 10, used not to have any homework in his first three years in primary school. But now that he is in Primary 4, he is getting 'tons of homework' each day and cannot cope. 'Kids who suddenly have to sit for exams after two years of fun will be faced with the same problem,' he said. While many applaud the effort the ministry is taking to make learning stress-free and fun for young kids, some felt that the committee should have gone all out in doing so. Sales manager Rachel Yeo, 37, who has a seven-year-old son, said there is no point in scrapping exams at the lower level if education at the upper primary level still revolves around exams and grades. Dr Brian Yeo, a consultant psychiatrist at Mount Elizabeth Medical Centre, agrees. 'Parents are not so short-sighted. They know that their kids will still have to sit for the streaming and PSLE at the end of the day. Without exams at Primary 1 and 2, parents won't know how far they have to push their kids and may end up pushing them even more. It is like holding back a volcano,' he said. Primary school teacher A. Tan, 35, worries that without exams, parents will find other ways to assess their children. She said: 'I can already foresee them burying their children with past-year exam papers. For the new system to be effective, parents need to change their attitude first.' ndianah@sph.com.sg