a) Key Constraints in Holistic Evaluation

For the purposes of this report, holistic evaluation denotes the adoption of alternative approaches aimed at measuring student performance through a wider, more integrative perspective in schools. Operationally, this may include related structural changes in education (such as curriculum reduction and the removal of high-stakes examinations) on the grounds that they are implemented to facilitate and are accompanied by alternative assessment methods.

With the parameters established, the belief that the education system should direct more attention towards skills acquisition was generally accepted early on (Teo, Ng, and Wang 2003). It was not long after that the merits of diversifying evaluation methods gained traction in parliamentary discussions too (Chan, Daipi, and Yeo 2005). Nevertheless, many constraints hindered progress in the realisation of these suggestions.

Chiefly, “values such as perseverance and loyalty are intangible and difficult to measure quantitatively” (Teo, Ng, Shanmugaratnam, et al. 2003). Considering this, exploring holistic evaluation would likely necessitate delving into elements of subjectivity in assessment, a change that renders standardisation problematic and brings about equity concerns. Without a reliable benchmark for comparison, efficacy judgments that yield meaningful policy calibration are unlikely too. Indeed, the call for new holistic indicators persisted since 2014 (Heng, Rajah, and Sim 2014), yet robust, widely adopted indicators remain limited as of 2025 (Chan 2025).

a) Aptitude-Based Admission [CCA;1998, 2003, 2011; DSA; 2004, 2018, 2022]

Aptitude-based admission points to the consideration of broader competencies beyond standard examination performance (Ministry of Education 2016c). To frame the discussion, this section presents a series of policies that together demonstrate how MOE has developed aptitude-based admission as a layered, progressively tiered initiative.

With that in mind, the earliest instance of aptitude-based admission after TSLN originated in 1998, when ECAs were stated to provide point advantages for JC and polytechnic admissions (The New Paper 1995). These advantages were, however, not too significant in that they only took precedence as tiebreakers for students with equal academic performance. Subsequently, in 2003, the role of CCAs as additional considerations for admission extended to universities (Teo, Ng, et al. 2002). In addition to this, the LEAPS CCA grading system was introduced in the same year, serving as a framework that standardised how schools evaluated CCA achievements (Sim 2014). LEAPS was also refined and rebranded as LEAPS 2.0 in 2011 to reframe CCA achievements under ‘Excellent’, ‘Good’ and ‘Fair’ rubrics away from grades (Ministry of Education 2014). Otherwise, after they were made compulsory in 2006 (Teo, Koo, et al. 2002), CCAs became the first layer of holistic evaluation that is broadly accessible to every student.

On the other hand, the Direct School Admission (DSA) was another prominent policy spurring aptitude-based admissions. Introduced in 2004, DSA attempts to weigh non-academic merits with greater flexibility (Liviniyah 2018). Essentially, independent schools could offer early placement for up to 10% of their intake based on demonstrated talents in specific areas. Autonomous schools can do the same but only for up to 5% of their intake. Under the discretion of said schools, these talents can be assessed in a variety of ways: portfolio submission, CCA records, interviews, trials, etc. The next significant development occurred in 2018, when DSA admission was expanded in all secondary schools to up to 20% of the student intake (Ng, Puthucheary, and Ong 2017). Concurrently, the utilisation of the general academic ability test in DSA was also discontinued, perhaps to further the agenda of highlighting alternative merit. In a similar vein, DSA admissions cap for JCs was also increased to 20% of cohort intake, up from 10% starting from 2022 (Chan 2022b).  Despite these expansions, DSA stands as a more exclusive albeit influential means of aptitude-based admissions. Consequently, this positions them further along the continuum of holistic evaluation, where they are more intensively calibrated to target specific talents.

Lastly, a more miscellaneous series of changes in terms of examination formats was also explored to more stringently ascertain merit. Most notably, Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) were once used in 1999 as an additional assessment test for university admissions (Teo, Ng, et al. 2002). Besides this, there has also been a gradual modification to examination questions such that they better elicit a student’s ability to draw inferences and tap into their creativity. Examples of said innovation include open-book examinations, source-based questions, etc. Altogether, these contribute to MOE’s advancements towards aptitude-based admissions.

b) Edusave Awards [2001, 2012, 2024]

Since the 1993 Education Endowment Scheme Act, every Singaporean has been entitled to receive government grants credited to their Edusave accounts (Ministry of Education 2013). Under the act, additional one-off grants such as the Edusave Scholarship, Edusave Merit Bursary and the Good Progress Awards were also accorded to top-performing students. Thereafter, the Edusave Awards for Achievement, Good Leadership & Service (EAGLES) launched in 2001, aligning with the TSLN agenda of recognising excellence in non-academic activities (Chan 2022a).

With that said, eventual sentiments that Edusave awards are still strongly skewed towards academic achievements led to the introduction of the Edusave Character Award in 2012 (Heng et al. 2012). Like their name implies, these awards strive to valorise and incentivise good conduct, further expanding notions of merit. At the same time, the maximum quota of EAGLES award was doubled with its value increased. Where Edusave Scholarships were once tiered, making the distinction between the top 5% and 10% of academic performers, they are now banded under the same category too. These evaluation changes conformed with the greater focus of holistic education and character development then.

Finally, to perhaps echo the 2023 revision of the 21CC framework (Ministry of Education 2025a), the EAGLES Awards were once again expanded in 2024 to include a 21CC domain covering critical thinking, cross-cultural literacy and communication skills (Chan 2024; Ministry of Education 2024).

d) Low-stakes Assessment and Curriculum Reductions [2000, 2009, 2021, 2023, 2024]

The final measure under discussion comprises a suite of policies aimed at reducing the high stakes associated with assessment to ultimately create room for holistic education pursuits.

To begin, content reduction in the curriculum was first executed in 2000 (Teo, Wong, et al. 1998). The general consensus was that there was an excess of content that were either too technical or broad to carry significant real-world relevance or potential to stimulate critical thinking among students. Coming from a practical standpoint, these items were therefore removed from the syllabus to simply “free up time “for more collaborative learning, more self-directed research” and other holistic education objectives. However, while this potentially set the precedent for future curriculum adjustments, recognition that a grade-obsessed culture was deeply entrenched prompted calls for more targeted interventions (Teo, Low, et al. 1998; Teo, Wang, et al. 2002).  

In light of this, the possibility of adopting a varied selection of assessment types that promoted learning was surfaced by PERI in 2009 (Ng et al. 2009). The proposal was to harness a mixture of non-weighted modular tests (or bite-sized tests) and rubric-based assessments (or qualitative descriptors) to not only provide students with more holistic feedback to work towards, but also to reduce pressure by lowering exam stakes. At the formative socialisation stage of Primary 1 and 2, this dual approach to assessment would completely replace both mid-year and final examinations to emphasise the spirit of lifelong learning – in line with the third evolution of holistic education (see Part 1). Following many rounds of successful pilot testing, the above solutions from PERI were fully administered to all primary schools in 2019 (Ministry of Education 2018). In this round of implementation, students and parents alike were no longer able to access academic indicators such as level positions through their holistic development profile (HDP) or report books. This was once more to divert the competitive focus in academics and foster lifelong learning.

To further commit towards this direction towards lifelong learning, mid-year examinations were similarly phased out at all primary schools, secondary 1 and 3 levels in 2021 (Ong et al. 2020). The intention behind this policy expansion was to spread out assessments such that sustained learning takes place rather than last-minute cramming for high-stakes examinations. With positive impact observed from the aforementioned changes, mid-year examinations were subsequently removed for all secondary levels in 2023 too (Chan 2022b). Once again, this was backed by motivations to allow for more time for self-directed learning and developing 21CCs. Finally, this discontinuation of mid-year examinations extended to all JCs with implementation starting from 2024 onwards (Chan 2023a).

a) Expansion of Merit Theme in Holistic Evaluation Methods

With the outline of developments in holistic evaluation covered, two distinct but interrelated policy directions can be identified.

The first trend is characterised by broadening the definitions of merit to encompass non-academic areas. This is evident in the early renditions of aptitude-based admissions, as seen in the trialling of SATs for university admissions, the consideration of CCAs for JC admissions, and ultimately, the DSA system. If anything, these attempts to valorise alternative talents in education were comparatively limited in effect, in the sense that they are still mostly subsumed by academic merit. Particularly, SATS were not that much dissociated with traditional academic indicators; the incentive of CCAs, being only an additional 2 points, limited it to an ancillary role with little bearing on positional merit; and DSA still subjected every student to generalised academic testing. Later policies and calibrations to widen merit definitions were articulated more ambitiously. The inclusion of Edusave Character Awards directly valorised ethics and virtues as important merits. Furthermore, the quantity of such awards was also increased for greater accessibility to students. On another note, the DSA system moved away from academic indicators that were irrelevant. The new LEAPS framework served to more clearly map CCA objectives to the bigger picture of recognising values like leadership and service too.

b) De-ranking Theme in Holistic Evaluation Methods

In contrast, the second holistic evaluation trend was in how policy leaned towards de-ranking. To elucidate, de-ranking refers to the phenomenon where new mechanisms within education make it such that direct comparison between students is practically unfeasible. This effect is most notable in the relatively recent policies, such as the AL scoring system and those related to low-stakes assessments. As opposed to expanding notions of merit, de-ranking policies endeavoured to redirect attention away from academic merit; the AL scoring system does so by reducing fine differentiation, whereas non-weighted modular tests, rubrics-based assessment, and the scrapping of mid-year examinations coalesce to allow flexibility for pursuits complementary to academic development. In the broader context, while merit-broadening policies created new categories aligned with holistic outcomes, it was de-ranking policies that aimed at reshaping local culture to embrace these categories more sustainably.

c) Implications for Future Directions in Holistic Education

As can be seen, MOE’s approach to the lifelong learning iteration of holistic education (See part 1) hinges substantively on attempts at de-ranking. To promote holistic learning without compromising on academic standards, a careful balance of new holistic descriptors and measures to reduce the stakes of traditional assessments formed the crux of recent policies. Yet, a fundamental tension appears to remain unaddressed – despite publicity efforts, there is a lack of policy awareness exhibited by parents regarding the holistic education vision (Heng, Rajah, and Daipi 2013).

Empirically, assessments serve a performative function. They possess an inherent purpose to signal the values that students are expected to cultivate. And in a competitive education landscape where most seek to maximise advantage, piecemeal reductions in assessment stakes are unlikely to encourage awareness and change behaviour so long as PSLE serve as the medium for displacement. For high-stakes PSLE and alternative merit frameworks to coexist, holistic assessments should be assigned comparable weight and consequences to elevate their perceived importance among students and parents. Be that as it may, the creation of new stakes is wholly incompatible with MOE’s motives to move away from internal relativities. Indeed, a weakness of MOE’s process-oriented attitude towards holistic evaluation would be its inability to demonstrate system-level changes to external stakeholders. With this, whether future holistic education policies can sustainably engage stakeholders is dubious at best, and unachievable at worst. This tension offers two preliminary directions worth considering: to bestow comparable stakes to holistic assessments while somehow preserving lifelong learning motivations; or to remove stakes altogether in early education when learning dispositions tend to manifest and cement themselves.