IT HAS been three years since the Ministry of Education (MOE) revamped the annual report card it hands out to secondary schools.

The School Achievement Tables still rank schools based on their students' performance in the O levels, but instead of listing them in rank order using their exact academic scores, schools are now banded in groups with similar results.

The more significant change is that the tables now also display, just as prominently, how well a school performs in non-academic fields, such as the arts and sports.

The change was made to signal to parents and schools that academic excellence is no longer the sole measure of success in education.

The MOE wanted to emphasise the importance of a holistic education and encourage parents to assess schools based on all-round performance.

But three years down the road, has the change had the desired effect?

Four of the 20 parents polled by The Straits Times said they do not refer to the achievement tables at all.

Two others felt any ranking list that excludes the country's premier schools is inaccurate.

The two Raffles secondary schools are among a clutch of well-regarded institutions that are not included in the annual lists released by the ministry, as they allow their students to skip the O levels under the integrated programme.

One parent remarked that it was similar to excluding gold medallists and just recognising silver and bronze medal winners.

For 15 out of the 20 parents, academic rankings are still the sole concern.

They say that they look for two things when assessing a school: the academic band the school is in and its cut-off entry score, which is not included in the tables but is available both on the school's website and in a booklet handed out to secondary school applicants.

One parent put it bluntly: 'Let's face it - the academic ranking is still the most important thing. So I look for the best school, in terms of O-level scores, that my son can get into.'

But principals, who are used to hearing such comments, believe it will take a while to effect a mindset change.

Parents have been conditioned by tables ranking schools according to absolute O-level results since 1992.

And the current tables recognising achievements in the arts and sports were introduced only a few years ago.

But perhaps two other issues raised by parents could be given more immediate attention - the number and titles of awards.

Most of the parents polled had no idea or at best a vague understanding of what the various awards stood for.

Take the Sustained Achievement Awards, which many secondary schools have won over the last few years.

Most parents are clueless about the significance of the awards.

These awards are given out to schools which do consistently well in sports, the arts or uniformed groups.

For example, to win the award for the arts, schools must obtain a gold or distinction award in the same three areas (dance, choir or band, for example) for two consecutive Singapore Youth Festival Central Judging competitions.

When this is explained to parents, they suggest that the MOE should state this in plain English. Instead of listing the schools that won the Sustained Achievement Awards, it could provide a list indicating the schools are good in a particular co-curricular activity, be it soccer, table tennis, athletics or the arts.

Parents also suggested renaming the top two awards - the School Excellence Award and the School Distinction Award.

Some asked, why not label the schools that clinch the top award as 'excellent schools' and those that reach the second-highest level as 'good schools'?

There is merit in some of these suggestions.

The MOE should give them serious thought if it wants its annual honour rolls to have the desired effect of emphasising the importance of an all-round education.

Is this article useful to you?