I am not well-versed in entrepreneurship and do not know why you asked. Perhaps, you could clarify what you are trying to drive at.

As for students, I believe they should be allowed to explore their interests freely. But at the same time, freedom to explore also comes with taking responsibility for one’s actions and decisions. Sadly, from my observations (and I am going to be stoned or this), most of our students and parents want the best of both worlds. They want things done their way but do not want to take responsibility for the consequences. Such is the blaming culture so prevalent here.

Framed in the context of this incident about the principal, firstly, I do not condone or condemn what she has done because I do not know the full picture. Much depends of what actually transpired and the reactions may or may not be proportionate or even justified.

I believe in encouraging students with kind words and having faith in them. But we also have to recognize that there will be recalcitrants who will need more than the soft approach. That is where I do agree with giving “wake up calls” especially where time is the essence.

One might argue that the decision rests on the students and what the principal did was uncalled for. But there might also be students who would turn around and blame the principal for not having cautioned them about the consequences.

As much as we can empathize with the principal, we must also not forget that there might be some who do it for their own interests.

Finally, I believe that harsh words spoken out of love and sincerity is much better than sugar-coated ones coming from a deceitful heart. EQ is not only about being sensitive to other people’s feelings, but the ability to withstand criticism and to speak with honesty.

I hope that answers your question.

I would like to ask you one question – how do we encourage and foster those entrepreneurial qualities as well as other positive, intangible characteristics – among our students ?

Interesting that you raised the issue of EQ. In fact, it would be good if this sparks a debate because EQ, as important as it is, has often been misused and misinterpreted, to achieve specific ends such as obedience, submission and to silence dissent. I will not be surprised if it happens even in schools, and not only used on students, but amongst teachers, HODs and principals as well, in the classrooms, and appraisals and informal gossips.

It may be worthwhile to note that not everyone, including in academia, subscribe fully to the notion of EQ:

Locke, E.A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 425-431. (Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence#Origins_of_the_concept)

As far as I can remember, the concept took flight in Singapore after MM Lee touted its virtues. Since then, it has been taken as the gospel truth or holy grail.

I think it is important to recognize when there is a need to “watch our words” and when to lay the cards exactly as they are on the table. If we are not carefully, we might end up as a largely plastic society that thrives on pleasantries that border hypocrisy for the sake of “success” in life, which in turn, is subjective.

I am already doing you a big favour by helping to narrow down the main problem in my opinion.

How about going back to the drawing board and start thinking from the perspective of students, parents and teachers? Are you really concerned about the future of the students. What is education to you?

How about dropping the idea that money can solve all problems? Stop using money to attract talents if you dare. You probably don’t because you are only concerned with making up the numbers, not quality. You are afraid that applications will plummet. But that is because you do not have faith in the goodness of people who may have other priorities besides big bucks. You think others are also interested in money as much as you are. Have you ever thought that good teachers are not showing up precisely because of the system?

How about letting go of what you think is best for the people and country and start listening to what the people has to say?

How about go down to the grassroot level instead of sitting in your ivory tower waiting for glossed-up reports from your superintendents and principals. How about going through the tedious process of checking school records and examination papers and scores to see how figures can be massage? You probably won’t because you are afraid the truth will be ugly.

Still not enough? Alright, here’s more.

How about re-looking the teachers’ role – are they educators or Jack of all trades? Which will be better for the sake of our students? Is the Ministry trying to get the most tangible outcomes out of the additional dollars they have given out to attract “good teachers”? Is it value for money or money for quality? How do you define “good”? 100% passes? At the expense of humanity, compassion, love and real education? The shallow appeals more doesn’t it?

You know why you can’t think of any other ways to improve the system apart from being defensive? Because you do not have what it takes to see things from other perspectives. You are probably blinded by the material. You know why you keep asking for solutions? Because your heart is focused on things that matter to you and as far as the education system is concerned, it works perfectly from your perspective, based on your goals.

Comments edited by moderator.

“the Ministry should review their selection process and criteria to ensure that only those with genuine interest in teaching are admitted into the service.”

how? please enlighten me.

We all know how to stand on the highground and criticize but we give little to no attention on how to solve the problem. These sort of erudite linguistic vehicles are sure inspiring and even impressive but lack the practicality. Sure, we want a selfless teacher as much as we want a deeply sincere and passionate civil servant. We want an education system that caters to the weak as well. We view the scholarship system with disgust. But until someone can really provide a credible alternative solution, all this shall stay.

Interesting propositions but there are ways and means to “earn” students without being a competent and good teacher. In fact, there might be even more politics and massaging of figures.

We have all seen what kind of people material rewards have attracted to our Civil Service. Instead of focusing on the reward system only, the Ministry should review their selection process and criteria to ensure that only those with genuine interest in teaching are admitted into the service. Thereafter, work towards retaining them to reduce the attrition rate. That includes redefining the teachers’ job scope. Throwing more money at them will not solve the problem when you pile more and more irrelevant responsibilities on them.

That will not only boost our pool of dedicated and competent teachers with the right attitudes and character but also save us thousands of tax dollars because we will not have to recruit and train so many teachers every year to replenish the pool of teachers and only for them to leave after their bond.

And where might these trained teachers go? To employers in the private sector and other countries who do not have to spend a single cent training them.

The problem with Singapore’s education system is that it is too focussed on high-stakes, academic examination results. Singapore’s meritocracy is way too materialistic. Therefore character development has been neglected. Intangibles like honesty, courage, humility etc are not relevant anymore in our education system. What matters are percentage points and KPI’s based on them. Not creativity. Not ingenuity and certainly not the milk of human kindness.

I suggest a way forward. Perhaps entry to JC’s, Poly’s and Universities should be based on 65% Academic grades and 35% CCA & CIP performance/involvement. So that it goes beyond mere exams.

I think head of school’s remuneration should not be tied to the students’ result simply they do not teach them directly. The HR should be more creative and structure something more directly related to the head’s job when assessing them. Something like how well they can manage their teachers and boost morale.

Parents and students should be given a formal platform to choose their perferred teacher when it comes to learning. Then, teachers’ remuneration can be tied to the number of students they can “earn”, because they have proven track record for being a quality teacher.

My humble two cents worth. :)

So when things do not turn out as well as expected, attitude starts changing. People start to use different approaches to educate or urge their students to improve. In the past, students have to tolerate the lecturing they got from their teachers. Sometimes, it does work, as some would adopt the “I’ll prove you wrong” attitude and really perform well in their exams.

However, I have to admit that times have changed, there is a need to change our method of teaching,adopting a more creative way and prevent hurting our students fragile feelings.

Its the education system itself that is rotten. Singapore places too much emphasis on academic test scores and grades – over intangibles like honesty, courage, humility etc. All in the name of a materialistic meritocracy.

Perhaps entry to JC’s, Poly’s and Universities should be based on 60% academic grades and 40% CCA and CIP performance.

My own personal example:
- Failed ‘O’ levels
- A teacher in my school encouraged me to take the exam again
- Failed ‘O’ levels the 2nd time, the same teacher encouraged me again to take the exam as a private candidate
- Obtained 5 ‘O’ levels on 3rd attempt
- Went on to attain ‘A’ levels
- Attained first class honours degree in Australia
- Obtained a MBA degree from a well-known UK university
- Present day – a successful professional in my own right

All because a teacher in my school spent time and encouraged me not to give up. I therefore encourage the 27 students not be disheartened and press on. The world is your oyster and if the Singapore system cannot provide you what you want, work hard and find a way to be educated overseas. Get that degree or masters and prove the high and mighty civil servants WRONG! NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!! I sincerely empathise with you all as I believe some of you will be leaders of the community in the future.

DON’T GIVE UP & TAKE CARE.

Your fellow Singaporean now living overseas.
AY

whereas in a private school, the faculty and staff are accountable to their clients, namely the students and their parents, because if clients are dissatisfied with the level of service they can take their business elsewhere. The owners of the school ie the shareholders will hold the principal responsible if profits suffer because of bad decision making. if this principal had been in a private system, she might have reconsidered her words and done a better job to serve her clients’ interests, because in a private system, her selfish interests are aligned with the students.

don’t blame the principal for looking out for number one. blame the system, and the bureaucrats it serves, for making it better for principals to focus on the numbers rather than the people.

Damage control went all the way up to him and bypassing the normal channels in the ministry. If the newspaper have quoted wrongly or out of context, we always get quick rebuttals from the ministries for any mis-representations. We have seen this kind of actions often enough. The minister did not correct any mistake of any reported words used by the principal as written in the news reports. If the principal had been seriously misquoted, the ministry will have a press release to correct it.

Our esteemed government simply do not allow our “best” newspaper to cause any embarrassment to the government under the premiership of Mr Lee, without any green light to proceed. We all know how our ST works (mee siam mai hum?). You simply cannot alter 27 students’ words to suit their tone of the message. If the newspaper wrote differently from the actual message heard, the witnesses at the talk would have cried foul.

So, in this case, ST does not have enough options but to write closely (or exactly) whatever were said.