Introduced in 1984, the GEP tests third-graders, usually age 9, to see if they are “outstanding” cognitively. Currently, only the top 1 percent of students are eligible to participate in the program, which is only offered in nine schools and means that some students who qualify must transfer schools.
At a rally last week, Wong acknowledged that not everyone is sold on the “all schools are good schools” slogan. “I think I had a good upbringing,” he said of the neighborhood school he attended.
Experts say in recent years the Department for Education has sought to make the system fairer and less stressful for students, in line with the government's approach to redefining meritocracy and success.
In 2021, the overall mark in the primary school leaving exam was replaced with a wider mark band, allowing students to achieve good marks regardless of how their peers performed.
All intermediate exams at primary and secondary levels will be abolished in 2023, and this year students' allocation based on overall marks was replaced by subject allocation.
“The system is diversifying. The whole definition of what is good, what is success and what is achievement needs to be redefined, and parents also need to define it for their children,” said Ho Boon Tiong, principal consultant at education training and consulting firm Classpoint Consulting.
Jason Tan, an associate professor at the National Institute of Education, noted that when the “every school is a good school” slogan was first used in 2011, the government was focusing on issues of social equality in response to criticism that the education system was too elitist.
A little-known fact, Mr Tan said, is that the standards set by the government at the time for defining a “good school” placed little emphasis on academic performance or achievement, focusing instead on having dedicated teachers and parents who were involved in their children's education.
Edmund Lin, principal consultant at Singapore Education Consulting Group, said such standards “means the government will ensure that all schools in Singapore are adequately resourced and staffed with trained and motivated teachers and education personnel”.
The former headteacher added: “It's not that all schools are alike in terms of academic performance. If we were to adopt the definition of 'all schools are good schools' then I would say that they are.”
Terence Ho, an associate professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, said while all state schools adhere to the definition of a “good school,” “branded schools are still more popular and sought-after among parents compared to local schools.”
“Anecdotally, one reason is the variation in student profiles across schools, with some parents concerned about the influence classmates and friends may have on their children. So convincing parents that all schools are good remains a tough task,” Mr Ho said.
“The focus now is on fostering creativity, inquiry and a love of learning. However, it will take time for students and parents to move away from the current emphasis on exams and grades.”
While Tan noted that the GEP reforms “dispel the notion that quality education is only available in a few schools”, he argued that Singapore's education system needs to segment students based on their different needs to meet competing policy objectives.
“This is difficult. They want a system that caters or tries to cater for diverse learning needs, not a one-size-fits-all program. They want diversity, but it also means having unequal offers and unequal outcomes. And not all these offers and outcomes are equally prestigious or desirable to parents,” Tan said.
“There is still a bias against vocational education and a tendency to value students who are academically successful.”
As for further policy changes to create a fairer education system, Mr Ho of Classpoint Consulting, a former GEP expert for the Ministry of Education, said more safety nets were needed. “Some students are slow to develop, so if we don't catch them at a certain point, they may not be able to keep up with the system.”
Meanwhile, Tan noted that the registration process for first-grade primary school students would give priority to children who, for example, live close to the school or whose parents are alumni or have volunteered at the school.
“If they're serious about rethinking meritocracy and making things as fair as possible for all kids and removing barriers to individual success, they're going to have to question any practice, policy or structure that seems counter to what they're trying to achieve,” he said.
Mr Tan noted that even if schools try to ease the pressure on students, private learning centres will likely fill the gap by offering parents more opportunities for mock exams and extracurricular activities in response to the policy change.
“Unfortunately, many parents still see education as a competition and place a premium on these prestigious educational offerings,” Tan said.
“It's hard for governments to interfere with parental decisions. They can offer incentives and change policies and school structures, but they can't tell parents to stop spending thousands of dollars a month on private tutors.”
Jonathan Sim, deputy dean of the School of Education at the Centre for AI Educational Technology at the National University of Singapore, agreed that not only the education system but also the culture of education needs to change.
“For example, we have reduced the number of exams, but it hasn't worked very well because the culture is against it… Telling people they have a second chance is a good first step. Now we need to show people that academic achievement is not the only path to success,” Sim said.