TWO reports in a row, coming just after the announcement that the Ministry of Education (MOE) was revamping its pay system based on performance, have set me thinking.

Has the time come for the Ministry of Education to review its appraisal system?

First, some background on the two reports.

The Straits Times reported on Saturday that an all-girls' mission school had advised some of its pupils to join the Institute of Technical Education even though they had qualified to study for the GCE O levels in Secondary 5.

As parents fumed over that advice, and the manner in which it was done, the school defended its stance.

It seems the principal had gone into a supposedly 'weak' class and displayed the results of the girls on a transparent slide.

Her point was that she was trying to give the girls a wake-up call and she argued that it was a fact that a student who just scraped through the N levels was not likely to do well in the O levels.

The students' emotions were quite clear.

One of them was quoted as saying: 'It is very sad when your principal doesn't have faith in you and will not give you a chance.'

Then, yesterday, this paper ran another story of N-level students discouraged from returning to their school for the Olevels.

In this case, the students had qualified to take the O levels.

Their results were above average.

Yet, they were asked to seek permission from all the teachers who had taught them to ask for a place in the school.

They were labelled 'disciplinary cases'.

Hurt and humiliated, some of them decided not to return.

F GRADE IN COMPASSION

In both instances, the schools failed in compassion, a basic virtue in education. Held up against their actions, talk about giving people a second chance seemed hollow, at least to the pupils and their parents.

But the larger question is: What is driving our schools to take such measures?

As suggested by The Straits Times, ranking and banding of schools could be a factor.

But there is another factor that needs to be looked at seriously.

This is the latest MOE initiative involving a performance-based bonus structure.

With this system, will we see more of such cases?

Especially since teachers and principalsaregoing to be rewarded financially, to a large extent, based on their students' academic results.

Naturally, they would want only the best and brightest to stay on. But is that fair to the clients, the students?

And that is why I say that perhaps the clients should also have a say in the appraisal system.

One thought that keeps coming to mind is: Should these students play a part in the banding and ranking of their teachers and principals?

Should school superintendents interview these students and find out about how they benefited from their teachers and schools?

The 360-degree top-down, bottom-up, peer appraisal system is notnew.

Some private companies swear by it. So why not schools?

Why not have teachers assess their Heads of Department and their school leaders?

Yet another idea is peer appraisal.

Teachers feel that the current system where the principal alone decides on the quantum of money each teacher is to receive is lop-sided.

It makes one person a bit too powerful in the school, they say.

And there is little room for appeal.

When asked what would help, the general consensus was: The MOE's personnel division should interview all D-graders and hear their side of the story.

A fair request, I thought, given that there are still teachers who, just like their students, feel that they have been unfairly dealt with.

Is this article useful to you?