Petition to Review the Singapore Education System

[Lock]

Reducing class size is really not possible cos MOE provides a public education which is very different from a private one. 90% of Singaporean kids study in public schs, to reduce class size, MOE will have to employ many many many more teachers. Now, education is highly subsidised by the govt. It's very high cost running a sch. I remember the operation manager from my previous sch (I was an ex MOE teacher) mentioned once that the monthly electrical bill was more than $30,000 a mth and that did not include water bills and other miscellaneous. As it is, Singapore teachers are already one of the highest paid compared to teachers from other countries.


Streaming has its benefits. I have friends whose kids are slower learners and they appreciate that they are put in a class where the teacher can go slower and their kids can learn with peers of similar stds. Before streaming, they had to suffer the insults from faster kids who felt that they had slow down the class' progress.

I still think that the bell curve, class size, streaming are not the main problems in our education system. It is really the mindset, attitude and expectation of parents.

One thing I feel MOE CAN change is the syllabus. There's no need to study so many topics in elementary level. If syllabus can cut down, then more time can be spent on instilling moral values, aesthetics, sports and character building.

[zeemimi]

Lock:

With more kids going tuition and learning more than what is being taught in sch, the exam board has to set harder questions to 'normalised' the bell curve. Bell curve is NOT the problem in our education system. It is a necessary tool. Imagine if 80% of the cohort scored A* and assuming they continue to do well, you would get so many university graduates that the degree will become valueless. End up, we will have degree holders doing menial jobs. We don't want that to happen.

this unfairly penalises kids who don't go for tuition (for whatever reasons). If a student deserves an A*, he should get one and not be denied one because the bell curve has to be normalised. and why should a kid be denied a chance to go to university just because we want uni grads to be a rarer breed?

i'm one of those parents who resist sending my kids for tuition. i teach them as much as i am able to. whatever is beyond me, i ask them to ask their teacher, search the internet, look for answers in books, etc.

The sad thing is, i'm not an \"uneducated\" parent. it's just that the syllabus is :siao:. i've never learnt some of the stuff before.

our educational system needs a radical change.

[BeContented]

Hi Chenoneau,

I have been following the thread (not 100% tho) and have not had the courage to comment......until now as I finally found a similar voice in Lock :oops: ......

Despite having followed your petition since the start, I have not been able to 'SUPPORT' it cos' somehow deep in my heart, I feel that the system has evolved to this extend largely because of the demand from parents. All of us WANT our child to succeed, to do well, to be at the top whenever possible. Maybe not all, but many (and a big enough percentage) start being kiasu and push our child. Perhaps some of us will argue that the child is not doing well, so we need tuition, more pushing, more coaching etc...a lot of times it's because we can't accept Bs & Cs or Band 2/3. (but let's be fair, if the child is borderline/failing, pls get tuition) and that 'urge' to not fall behind others.
Sadly, even I fall into this category despite not the very kiasu type That's why even tho my kids are already in the top classes, I have started tuition by P4 & P5 just so that they are stretched sufficiently, won't lose out, continue to maintain and of course, score in PSLE. I'm sure my kids can pass the school syllabus, but yet I did it :frustrated: .....so things will not change until I change my kiasu mindset :sick:

One thing I do support tho is to have a smaller teacher-student ratio as well as a more rounded education and not just focusing on academics. How workable is this, I really dunno. A lot of changes are required, not just the education system, but more importantly, our mindset........

Having said the above, I do appreciate your effort, sharing and the willingness to do something for the children It's not an easy task.
Think coward-me will :siam: a bit after this

[Chenonceau]

Cwc - I do think that if something is worth doing, it is worth disagreeing about. No one person, no matter how smart can have the wisdom to develop systemic changes all by herself/himself. Collective wisdom is a beautiful thing, even if it is made up of ugly little pieces of disagreement here and there.


That is why it is dangerous when in the civil service, power is concentrated at the top, and little attention is paid to the feedback from the bottom. Unless feedback is collected from everyone, and PROCESSED and integrated, not ignored, policy can't be strong.

Disagreement, especially if focused on the topic, and sincere (not meandering here and there because someone WANTS to be seen as right) is valuable and precious. It is only in the competition of ideas that the strongest ideas will emerge. Ideas translate into reality... and if ideas are not strong, the reality will damage our children.

This is a matter worth disagreeing about. As this thread moves, I get a chance to develop the ideas in the petition further. As people critique those ideas, the ideas either get stronger, or they cannot stand. That is a good thing.

I don't need to be right. If an idea has merit, and I cannot counter it, I will have the intellectual honesty to cede the point.

[Peony]

decided to delete my comments…

[Lock]

zeemimi:

Lock:

With more kids going tuition and learning more than what is being taught in sch, the exam board has to set harder questions to 'normalised' the bell curve. Bell curve is NOT the problem in our education system. It is a necessary tool. Imagine if 80% of the cohort scored A* and assuming they continue to do well, you would get so many university graduates that the degree will become valueless. End up, we will have degree holders doing menial jobs. We don't want that to happen.

this unfairly penalises kids who don't go for tuition (for whatever reasons). If a student deserves an A*, he should get one and not be denied one because the bell curve has to be normalised. and why should a kid be denied a chance to go to university just because we want uni grads to be a rarer breed?

i'm one of those parents who resist sending my kids for tuition. i teach them as much as i am able to. whatever is beyond me, i ask them to ask their teacher, search the internet, look for answers in books, etc.

The sad thing is, i'm not an \"uneducated\" parent. it's just that the syllabus is :siao:. i've never learnt some of the stuff before.

our educational system needs a radical change.

That's why all parents should stop being so competitive and kiasu. Allow kids to learn at their own pace. Kids should only get outside help if they are failing, not failing to get As. Currently, the bell curve does not show real results as those in the top % may not be those who are truly smart, these kids are only PSLE exam smart. It's not right to say that the result is skewed, therefore do away with the tool. Just like, it would be silly to say that a knife can be used as a murder weapon, stop using it altogether. Instead of taking the tool away, it's more sensible to try to make sure that the result the tool is used to measure is as accurate as can be.

As an ex MOE sec sch teacher, I am still in contact with many ex-colleagues and friends who are currently teaching in Sec schs (in top as well as neighbourhood schs). The common complain i hear from them is that these kids who scored their As through tuition in Pri sch, continue to 'survive' on tuition in Sec sch. The huge problem is Sec sch life is much more hectic and they hv many more subjects and kids are really being stretched thin, very thin.

The observations on these teenagers are:

1. those who manage to get into top sch or even top neighbourhood sch thru pushing and numerous tuition struggle when they move onto sec sch cos they cannot meet the std and the rigour of the sec education, and guess what....they continue to mug, go for tuition till a breaking point (there's just so much a kid can take). The truth is there are many suicide cases in sec schs which are not publicly announced. There are many teens problems which root cause stems from the pressure from parents, not so much society or peers.

2. even when some kids do have the potential to excel, these kids are not confident of handling their own work w/o the help of tuition teacher(s), they have been crippled since young.

3. a large number of kids (esp those who are used to getting the As) are unable to face anything less than an A. They have very low self esteem and a slight drop in their results will send them into panic and they will start to think very lowly of themselves as a person.

Why do kids end up like that?

So, what do parents suggest? Lower 'O' level bar, then lower 'A' level bar, lower University Entry criteria, make learning easier, less stressful, less competitive? But who are really the ones who are making learning more stressful, more competitive for YOUR kid? Who set the std for YOUR kid to meet? Who decide what is good or not good enough for YOUR kid? Who has the DIRECT IMPACT and INFLUENCE on YOUR kid?

Dear parents, let's all do some reflection on our behaviour and the way we raise our kids. No doubt, all parents have the best intention but not all methods will yield the best result.

Every kid IS DIFFERENT and everyone has his/her own story to lead. Have we, as parents, ever paused and really look at each child and try to follow his/her script or are we just writing the script for our children and 'force' them to follow the way we want their story to be.

[janet88]

I believe majority of son’s classmates attend enrichment/tuition to boost results. My boy’s results are so-so…he has CL tuition since P1 bcos I can’t teach him. Maths-wise, he just started bcos he has been failing. Science results below class average. English sama-sama.

Will he be at a disadvantage if he does not have enrichment ? I worry for him bcos I can’t afford to send him classes for everything.
Exam questions are getting harder and harder but kids somehow can manage bcos they attend enrichment. But not everyone can afford that. I just heard from a friend that an intensive Science course for PSLE cost $650. That’s just SCIENCE…what about the rest ?

I resist sending my son for Science bcos I feel that I can still coach him (although he’s not getting A*, he’s not failing). Must the standard be so high ? MOE is trying to impress who ?

That degree now is a MUST, but are the grads doing what they really want ???

[Lock]

Dear Chenonceau,

I agree with your point that there must be debates and to debate objectively. I am a silent follower of your blog and was all for your ideas when I first read your blog on this issue (I even pasted the article on facebook to garner for votes frm my frens..:))

However, as I continue to ponder over the issues, I 've come to some different views and have posted them in the earlier posts. I look forward to your comments and continue this 'debate'. I think at the end of the whole journey, it's not abt who is right or wrong. It's about getting people to think and make a stand, to discuss and form new perspective. I thank you for this opportunity.

[Chenonceau]

Lock:

One thing I feel MOE CAN change is the syllabus. There's no need to study so many topics in elementary level. If syllabus can cut down, then more time can be spent on instilling moral values, aesthetics, sports and character building.

Hey... thanks for writing your comment. :love: I like the idea of changing the syllabus very much. It was one of the ideas that occurred to me at the first.

However, as I dug deeper, I realized that the bell curve and the syllabus are linked. If you even hold the syllabus constant (not to mention reduce it), the bell curve's belly will move further and further to the right. A skewed bell curve is essentially what I would like to see, if you must have a bell curve

A sociological/psychological system a bit like those hanging mobiles above a baby's cot. If you move one part, another part will be moved. You can move Part A down (reduce the syllabus) or Part B up (allow a skewed bell curve). It is the same difference.

[Lock]

I am just thinking, if all is constant. As in parents dun send kids for further enrichment, kids learn as much as they can frm sch, then the bell curve will skew to the left if exams r beyond kids’ std.


The problem now that the bell curve keeps skewing to the right is that more and more children are levelling up, not thru sch but thru tuition n enrichments. Even if u remove the bell curve, as long as parents remain kiasu n refuse to accept their children innate abilities and keep pushing, the environment will hv little change.

Eg, i know a sch who quietly stream the kids for easy teaching for their teachers. The streaming is not extreme as like top 40 in a class, next 40 in 2nd class n so on but more putting the above aveg in a few classes, the aveg in a few classes and finally the below average in a few classes. The spectrum is purposely wide to avoid parents from being competitive and comparing. The P also refused to release the info to parents as to which class is the better class. But u know what, within 2 wks, parents are able to find out unofficially which class is better and competition starts all over again.

Then there’s this sch with no streaming from P1-P3 and guess what, some parents whose kids are alr top in their class are trying to find out if their kids are also among the top of the top in other classes. You see, it all boils down to parents’ mindset and competitive nature.