by Singaporean Sophist
I refer to the article “MM Lee: Family backgrounds play important role in students’ learning environment“.
Statistically, there is nothing factually wrong with saying that kids whose parents have degrees tend to fare better in academics. The Economist cites OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) research, saying that,”Parents who graduated from university are far more likely than non-graduates to raise children who also earn degrees. This is true in all countries, but more so in America and France than in Israel, Finland or South Korea, according to the OECD.” With due respect, what MM Lee said was absolutely true, but it’s very insensitive to utter those remarks when A) it’s a politician who does it, and B) he said it in a public school at that.
The mission of a public education system is meant to facilitate social mobility. What’s the point of saying something that discourages that very mission? It’s extremely counter-productive and antithetical to everything this country stands for in the spirit of meritocracy.
I do not think it is necessary to harp on about what our education system has achieved. It is fundamentally sound and gives our children the needed competitive edge to excel in this era of globalization, but we should at first acknowledge that it has its critical flaws that severely hamper social mobility. Below are several points that will address the flaws:
1. Regulate private tuition
Let’s not kid ourselves. Our education system is heavily supplemented by not just school-held enrichment classes, but also by private tutors. Some may think of them as overcharging parasites, some think of them essential to the system because teachers are incapable of teaching their children well enough. I’ve been through the “elite” schools as an ACS(I) boy and I can attest to the substantial sums of money that are spent on private tuition so that the students could get into the “elite” schools, and move on to excel in them onwards to JC.
Private tuition is costly. It may not be as prohibitive as trying to buy a new car, but the additional costs are hefty enough to leave the everyday heartlander out of the picture and denies them the advantage that private tuition offers in order to compete in our local system. Private tuition will not go away for good, so it has to be regulated. Every private tutor has to be registered and their fees regulated as well.
But that will be merely treating the symptom, not the cancer that eats away at the education system and oppresses the kids. What can be done to get rid of the cancer?
2. Reduce the complexity and insanity of primary school syllabus
Before people retort that relaxing standards will make our children less competitive, I want to cite the observations made by Malcolm Gladwell in “Outliers”. He observes that as long as people are trained to a certain level of capability for general intellectual pursuits, overdoing it becomes redundant and a waste of time and resources as a person with “good enough” training will perform just as well as an overtrained person.
This isn’t advanced university education we’re talking about. This is primary school education. These are young minds we’re talking about here and there’s only so much they can do and absorb before they break down. The syllabus and curriculum needs to be significantly relaxed for the kids to play and grow and dream. Foundations are important, but destroying the kids’ minds in the process and numbing them to the joys of learning is counterproductive.
To further help in this cause, streaming in primary school should be abolished. Children these days feel helpless and categorized like things instead of being treated like proper human beings. Streaming can wait till secondary school. This leads on to-
3. Effective training for teachers
Our teachers have one of the most unenviable careers in this country and I salute them. It’s difficult to stay in this field for long without having genuine passion for their work and they need to be better equipped for the job with better training so that they can better cope with the syllabus, and the students need not resort to private tuition.
Take a look at this, and understand how Finland manages to keep pace with Asian students in international contests without potentially damaging their children’s psyches.
4. Cease the madness in examinations
School is where children go to, to learn how to be proper members of society. One of the key lessons that the kids learn is that if you work hard and play by the rules, you will be rewarded accordingly. Makes sense right?
But this hasn’t been the case until 1-2 years ago when the kids have been studying their textbooks and find their PSLE papers to have questions that feature nothing in their textbooks. Students with natural inborn talent score well in those papers and those who get left behind feel that they have not been rewarded properly for following the rules. What happens then? They stop giving a damn when they go to secondary school and a good lot turn to delinquency.
I used to work at a LAN gaming center for 18 months and have been part of a gaming clan for 7 years. One of the young customers I spoke to was a former gangster and he recounted how he stopped caring about studying ever since his primary school experience demonstrated to him that he wouldn’t be rewarded well even if he followed the rules and studied hard. Now we get surprised that someone got hacked to death by youngsters at ages 16-19 at Downtown East?
The textbooks and tests are a contract between teacher and student: I tell you what to study in them, you study it and I set questions from the textbook. If you do well in the test, well done and good job. This contract applies also in universities when the professors give out the syllabus for the semester, and students have the right to bring it to the dean if there is a discrepancy.
Our Ministry of Education has broken that contract with our kids many, many times at the PSLE until recently when the madness stopped, and the exam papers have resembled sanity befitting of primary school education. This madness needs to stop for good – we cannot afford this to be a mere temporary measure.
___________________________________________
Excellent article ! The rich have access to all sorts of enrichment programmes which the poor do not. The rich can afford to pay for expensive tuition. But the poor cannot.
Eugenics is very wrong. A long time ago in Europe – there was someone who believed in eugenics. Adolf Hitler.
Singapore must not go the way of Nazi Germany.
Compassion cannot be taught from text-books. Honor and chivalry cannot be taught from text-books. Integrity and honesty cannot be taught from text-books.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
4. If what appears in the textbooks is set to come out in test papers, the students will eventually believe that memorising the book page to page is the way to go. (As with humanities subject in secondary schools)
How will students learn to exercise creativity, to think out of the box to solve a problem? As long as the method to resolve the question is taught, I don’t see the harm in having the student apply their knowledge to resolve the said question.
This process should, of course, begin from everyday classes, which then lead up to examinations and PSLE.
Thank you for the response, Dr. Alwi and Juliana! Some may notice that this posted article and the one on Temasek Review are similar – that’s because they’re submitted by the same person. I think I ought to just put myself down as my real name from now on.
In response to you, Juliana, creativity is something I value incredibly and agree that it ought to be nurtured and allowed to grow as much as possible.
My idea behind point #4 is to state my opposition against putting down out-of-this-world questions in the PSLE that have no place in the syllabus or curriculum, especially mathematics and science. Foundations are critically important when it comes to primary school education in maths and science and to put down zany questions in PSLE only serves to bewilder and discourage our young kids.
The way I see it, the freedom to roam ought to be encouraged in the language classes, art, moral education and music, but unfortunately art, moral education and music class time are poached consistently by math & science teachers in order to cover the intensely zany material that we subject the young minds to.
Don’t see the education system in Singapore is of world standard, find it narrowminded and restrictive, no encouragement for students to think out of the box, and this frame of mind is carried over to their future working life.
Worst of all, our young, having to keep up with academic excellence, have no time for moral education, and we are churning out young people who are selfish
in thought and mind. So selfish-minded parents have selfish-minded children, it is a vicious cycle, nothing to be proud of.
Look at the IHLs. How many are employing immigrants, PRs. Shaking legs drinking kopi. Come at 10am, watch video, do NOTHING but broadcast simple achievement.
900 millions budget on IHLs is simply ridiculous.
Allowing managers to splurge on UNNECESSARY items. Subscript to UNNECESSARY services. Now, worst, LOTs of SINGAPOREANS are jobless while thy paint such GREAT pictures. Phui to the system,
Our educational system basically will proof he is right. As only the rich and with resources parent can send their children to external enrichment class.
As someone who has been through the Singapore Educational System (up until JC2)I can confidently say that the Spore educational system in terms of creating a literate and numerate person is probably among the best in the world.
However, in terms of University education, it is my belief that a sound University education should encourage the student to think outside of squares and challenge existing norms with the ability to think and execute new paradigms. Sadly NUS does not do this and it normally is pro Govt advocates who label NUS as the best in the world – this is bull.
In summary, Asian schools are generally very good when it comes to educating up until Year 12 (or JC2) but when it comes to a University education , the West is the best.
@Political Post
Yeah, I think I can agree with you about universities being better in the West. Look at NTU. It’s rank has fallen drastically and NUS’s ranking has remained relatively stagnant over the past few years. Students from better universities that come here on a exchange program are shocked at how much hours NUS students put into studying per day. I think there is one thing our public universities can teach and that is learning how to play.
Political Poet;
“…. Asian schools are generally very good when it comes to educating up until Year 12 (or JC2) but when it comes to a University education , the West is the best”.
isn’t there a contradiction? It is the cream of the crop from local schools that goes on to university (probably not more than 5 or 6% of each cohort). If the schools are so good, then these students should continue to do well at university.
‘Out of the box’ thinking cannot be taught late in life, the foundations must be laid in school and, if they are not, something is wrong.
@Peter Sellers,
I can back up NiHaoMa’s claim that the Western brand of higher education tends to fare better that brings intangible values, skills and attitudes that go above and beyond the grade point average.
In my personal experience, no one can say that I’m unqualified to comment on Singapore’s education system – I have experienced them all save for ITE. I have a very.. uh, storied history when it comes to post-secondary education: it was Pioneer JC before dropping out to give Singapore Poly a shot, dropping out again into a year-long hiatus in pro-gaming and enlistment, and now I’m in a US college located in Singapore.
So, considering I somehow managed to enter JC, I’m supposed to be that “cream of the crop” to be groomed for university, but I’m an odd duck, I suppose. I have Asperger’s Syndrome so it was difficult for me to adjust to the heavily structured life of either JC & Poly so I dropped out of both. The Singaporean attitude to education is a top-down command system of:
1. Spoon-feed and cram head full of memorized information
2. Regurgitate onto exam paper at the end of semester/year
3. Give everything back to the lecturer/tutor
4. Rinse & repeat
While it cannot be denied that a strong foundation must be had before one can qualify for university, to enter university is not the end of the path. Sneaking into the NUS lecture halls gave me a free world class treatment for insomnia, and going back to my simple private school classroom returned me to my own element.
Why?
Students in NUS lecture halls shut up and listen. The students in my American college classrooms take up half of talk-time in class.
Think about it. There’s an active learning process on the part of the students on every step of the way. The imported American professors feel intensely uncomfortable when students remain too quiet in class.
That’s just scratching the surface of finding out why the West still maintains its uncontested superiority when it comes to higher education.
David Ng:
I totally agree and support your point 2, of “overtraining” kids in primary school level.
My son was born and raised in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Even at age 14 and grade 9, they hardly go tmuch homework…mainly play, read books and excercise to be active. They are allowed to choose their own elective gade 7 onwards.
And look at their overall results:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/looks+lessons+from+Alberta+education+system/4081411/story.html
@Peter Sellers
“…. Asian schools are generally very good when it comes to educating up until Year 12 (or JC2) but when it comes to a University education , the West is the best”.
isn’t there a contradiction? It is the cream of the crop from local schools that goes on to university (probably not more than 5 or 6% of each cohort). If the schools are so good, then these students should continue to do well at university.
‘Out of the box’ thinking cannot be taught late in life, the foundations must be laid in school and, if they are not, something is wrong.”
I am not disputing that the best of Singapore students from Secondary Schools and JCs go on to NUS and they indeed do very well at the University. All I am saying is that Universities are different from schools and JCs in that they are dealing with students that have already excelled in all the basic literate and numerate stuff – they need to build on that and encourage students to be articulate on the relevant discipline and not just toe the line. That is the fundamental difference between Singapore Universities and those in the West. I also take your point that “thinking out of the box” has to be ingrained in basic education and cannot be taught too late in life. The West has tried to include this in late primary curriculum but sometimes that is achieved at the expense of basic literacy and numeracy. I personally do not believe that teaching one to think laterally is best achieved at Primary school as that is when rules (in English, Maths etc) have to be stated and reinstated so that the fundamentals are not seen as “changeable”
Nice article.
However, I would say it near impossible to regulate private tuition. Focus on 2, 3 and 4, and you won’t need to do anything about private tuition.
“it’s very insensitive to utter those remarks when A) it’s a politician who does it, and B) he said it in a public school at that.”
I had to lol at that. It’s really him telling those kids that their parents are academically incompetent and that they’ll nvr make it.
About tuitions, I dont think it might b possible to regulate it at all. Private tutors infest the country faster than a colony of cockroaches in heat. The way to go would b to curb demand, and not supply. The kiasu-ism of this nation must be put under immediate chemotherapy lest cancer ‘eats away at the education system’.
Here is an interesting read: http://singaporedesk.blogspot.com/2011/01/height-of-kiasu-ism.html
David Ng
“Students in NUS lecture halls shut up and listen. The students in my American college classrooms take up half of talk-time in class”
David, I agree with you completely and that is entirely my point. You cannot expect students to speak up in university if the culture of questioning, challenging and positing alternative interpretations is not instilled early in school. Singapore’s education system, a reflection of the top-down government culture of “you do what you are told’ is fundamentally lacking in this respect. This is reflected in the whole of society and is a major hinderance to Singapore’s ambitions to develop a knowledge based economy.
Political Poet
“I also take your point that “thinking out of the box” has to be ingrained in basic education and cannot be taught too late in life. The West has tried to include this in late primary curriculum but sometimes that is _achieved at the expense of basic literacy and numeracy_. I personally do not believe that teaching one to think laterally is best achieved at Primary school as that is when rules (in English, Maths etc) have to be stated and reinstated so that the fundamentals are not seen as “changeable” ”
You are closer to the mark but I cannot agree with your last sentence. Maths and science are objective subjects and there is ample scope to question, challenge, discuss and debate. English and languages in general are creative subjects and there are infinite ways of expressing oneself (in that sense, they are “changeable”).
It all boils down to a question of culture. But I do agree with David that the curriculum is too heavy, teachers are over-worked and too deadline-bound and Singapore parents too ambitious.
Which brings me to my point of agreement with you “The West has tried to include this in late primary curriculum but sometimes that is achieved at the expense of basic literacy and numeracy”: this is not at all a bad thing. Schools don’t have to turn out Einsteins. There has to be time to breathe, to develop and cultivate other interests. Those who are good will continue to do well and prosper under any system. Those who are not will have the opportunity to develop other interests or simply to grow into better human beings. And society as a whole will be better, less “pressure-cookerish”, more relaxed and hopefully more creative.
Of course, all this will be anathema to the authorities whose only interest is to turn out automatons to drive economic growth. I submit there is no harm in being less competitive. We will all be a lot happier.
Nice article Davin.
I feel that the scholarship system is actually the root of all the stress. The payoff for being a “winner” in the educational race is just too high, that means there are many that want to be the top 1% of the cohort.
It also affects everyone down the line since that is the nature of the bell curve. If I am contented to just get into a local university for example, I also need to work harder just to catch up.
Until we change that, the stress will remain where it is at now. In the West, no one gets very rich by being a scholar, the true riches are for Steve Jobs, Michael Dell and Bill Gates.
Really. I work in public Uni. The oversea Scholars are shaking legs and sleeping on the job.
I remember V1v@n mentioned they r here 2 create jobs. Where r the jobs created by them?
Prostitution. What a joker.
Just some brief opinions:
Teachers do not need more training – we need more colleagues to share the workload. When the workload is reduced, we can begin to do quality work without burning out and quitting early. This is especially true in short-handed departments – e.g. English and Humanities.
How is regulating tutors that way useful? What is more relevant is – if there is so much private demand for tutoring, why not incorporate it into the public system? If it’s not desirable to implement it in the public system, why are parents and students acting so irrationally and attending tuition when it’s not useful?
My view is – the examinations have to be updated, to really test what is worth testing (don’t allow schools, students, tutors to game the system). That way, effort that is put into exams will not be just for exams, but will be useful in later life as well.
The problem here is that the “elite” believe that they are “entitled.”
I got this impression from a response to a letter I wrote in Today that suggested that we should encourage the “bright” and young teachers who top their NIE classes to be sent to the worst performing schools.
The logic here is that we need the bright and enthusiastic minds to focus on the “problem” kids in failing schools.
While most agreed with me, there were a few who told me I was denying the kids in the elite schools and we should just “focus” on upgrading the teachers in failing schools.
Not sure how this works? You mean the elite get to keep everything while we just send the rest on course without doing anything.
Anyway, I’m not against competition. However, I think the government needs to ensure a wide enough talent pool and to ensure there’s fair competition.
The American NFL for example has a system where by the worst teams get the first pick of the top college players. This way the teams are pretty even and there’s greater competition -which leads to more interesting games, which leads to continued revenue for everyone involved in the league.
Contrast this to the European soccer leagues where the top teams (Man U, Real Madrid etc) get all the money, talent etc and win everything – it’s good for them but have you noticed most clubs in Europe suffer in very boring leagues………
Winner takes it all is good – but you need to SUSTAIN things and the NFL system when applied to schools could do wonders for the greater good.
BS. Teacher need more training. Look at what teachers are teaching now. Any changes 10 years ago and now.
Lots of them are teaching the same thing. Any improvement?
I am surprise 2c lots of teachers drinking Kopi while complaining about workload.
U fellows really work for it in the Uni?
Actually, I think they are trying to incorporate what is being done in private intuition into the public system, e.g. full day classes in primary schools. However :
(a) if the teachers are already unable to cope with the current load, what makes us think they will be able to when full day sessions are implemented entirely ?
(b) there is a limit how much a child at primary school, especially lower primary levels can absorb, and yet continue to enjoy the learning process. No point putting up full day sessions if the kid’s mind gets tired after half a day.
Private tuition supplemented by half fay sessions are different, because they allow the kids to rest, or other activities before coming back to books.
In addition, it appears the policy makers are not interested to level the playing ground, even during crucial years in primary school. No point asking the elites to give way for ‘better teachers’, because we have bred a society where moral values take a back seat, and it’s every man for himself anyway. Policy makers are still thinking that the upcoming Budget is going to get everyone inclusive. If the downsides in this policy remain unchecked, we will not move together as a society.
Hi! I am a student myself and I think your post is really sensible and interesting =D
I have written an article in response to yours and hope you would enjoy it. http://comrade-jerrie.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-do-you-think-of-singapore.html
=D
Thank you!