Reddit forum : Is every school really a good school?

[tinker_bell]

2nd half of the reddit forum reply here.


https://www.reddit.com/r/askSingapore/comments/zc2wqd/comment/iyuzrhz/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Part 3 - The Real-Real Problem

But the government's counter-argument is a simple one. Is it fair to expect a student from a rental flat to hit the same achievement levels as someone from a bungalow? Surely that goes against the grain of what education is supposed to be about! To quote a very wise saying by a man who the government has never had any issue with, shouldn't it be 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?'

Well, yes. But also no. Because what this system does is assume your ability from your needs. The student at XYZ Primary will not reach the heights of the student at ACS. This goes back to PM's statement a while back about a 'natural aristocracy'. This is the final unspoken assumption that we need to deal with. There is a 'natural' immutable hierarchy in this country. Some people are better and some are ... not. Those who are better need one thing. Those who are not need another. How do we know who is better? Well, let's look at their results. That's fair. Everyone takes the same PSLE. But surely the kids in the school with greater exposure and funding and fewer behavioural / socio-emotional issues will perform better? Yes, so their school takes care of those needs. And then they will move on to secondary schools that take care of those needs. And to ITE, because well, those needs can't be met at JC or Poly. And then to technical jobs which are better fits.

You see where this is going. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Some people are better, some people are not, so we cater different things for them and when they turn out differently, we use this as our justification for the fact that some people are better and some people are not. It's the insidious assumption at the core of not just the education system, but the entirety of Singaporean society. And all the while we ignore the effect of wealth and privilege and instead play up the one student from a rental flat who gained a PSC scholarship and use them as a stick to beat the rest of the students from his/her situation. \"Look, they did it. Why can't you? It's possible\" - ignoring that the other 99% of scholarship holders come from similar backgrounds.

So yes, OP is absolutely right to be unhappy with VB's statement as a response to CSJ's. Not because it's factually wrong, but because it's so entirely inadequate. It's sticking a plaster on a broken bone. It's the 'I have minority friends' response when accused of racism. It's a statement of (largely) truth ... only if you ignore EVERYTHING ELSE. Which unfortunately, many people in this country are very good at doing.

P.S. I need to clarify something a few misconceptions that I see here as well.

Number 1 - the amount of funding each school gets is dependent on the number of students, not on student outcomes. As such, the 'neighbourhood' schools get less not because of their results, but because of their lower enrolment. Yes, on the whole this has the same overall impact, but I don't want people to think that the G is deliberately underfunding students who need the money.

Number 2 - the quality of teaching at neighbourhood schools is categorically NOT worse than those at elite schools. Quite the opposite, actually. Elite schools take alumni - but how do you know those alumni can teach? Elite schools also have numerous dinosaurs hanging around who may have lost whatever touch they had decades ago. Furthermore, most elite schools also have quite a bit of inertia ('we've always done it this way), making them slower in terms of catching up to the latest developments in curriculum and pedagogy. Also, bad teachers can coast and hide for years in elite schools due to the students being largely self-motivated and having external help. Neighbourhood schools on the other hand, have a constant churn and turnover that keep things fresh. The best teachers (both in terms of skill and heart) I've ever seen are the ones at the lowest end schools. These are the cream of our profession.

[floppy]

Is there a TL;DR version?


What was written…
说了等于没说.

[pirate]

What a lot of words to say next to nothing. Is this what they teach in Social Studies?


Fine. Every school is a bad school. Happy now?

[skii]

floppy\" post_id=\"2091480\" time=\"1670265876\" user_id=\"97579:

Is there a TL;DR version?

What was written...
说了等于没说.

IMO only

the TLDR version is\"
\"
The original statement made by HSK was NOT intended as a statement of fact, but a statement of intent.|
\"

[sushi88]

skii\" post_id=\"2091493\" time=\"1670296991\" user_id=\"82603:

IMO only

the TLDR version is\"
\"
The original statement made by HSK was NOT intended as a statement of fact, but a statement of intent.|
\"

A good summary indeed.

This article actually says a lot... generally, most people only choose to read what they like to read and miss the point.
Selective comprehension.

[pirate]

sushi88\" post_id=\"2091495\" time=\"1670298546\" user_id=\"100857:

A good summary indeed.

This article actually says a lot... generally, most people only choose to read what they like to read and miss the point.
Selective comprehension.

Wait. It says a lot more than the \"good summary\"? So it is not really a good summary?

[Zeal mummy]

Casual read, I wouldn’t take it too seriously. Ultimately there will be achievers from both elite and neighborhood schools, whether or not- every school is a good school.

[sushi88]

pirate\" post_id=\"2091503\" time=\"1670301137\" user_id=\"66252:

Wait. It says a lot more than the \"good summary\"? So it is not really a good summary?

Missed THE point?
In any case, an article does not just say a lot within the article.

[bbbay]

When I first heard every school is a good school, I have taken it as referring to MOE philosophy on education instead of school rankings.


MOE’s philosophy is to maximise the potential of each student. And every school in Singapore has many systems in place to maximise each potential. And we even have the luxury to choose one that fit the student’s potential.

Talents are mostly inborned. and talents are diverse. If students are academically talented, IP schools’ curriculum challenge them further. Every school’s express/NA/NT streams to suit individuals students’ academics abilities. And there are so many pathways (via JCs, poly or ITE/poly) to Uni. Almost every school has a DSA; another pathway for students not so strong academically to have a chance to enrol into academically strong schools. And our subject banding system: allows same opportunity to continuous developments of strength while managing weak subjects. All our public schools have so many systems in place to maximum potential of each students, still not good enough?

Some parents want the best for their children - best ranking schools. The thinkings behind could be best schools have the best environments and resources and those translate to best learning outcomes for the children.

MOE states every school is a good school. MOE does not say every school is best.