Petition to Review the Singapore Education System
-
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. -
decided to delete my comments…
-
zeemimi:
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.
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?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.
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.
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. -
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 ??? -
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. -
Lock:
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.
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.
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. -
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. -
Lock:
Hi,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.
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.
guess I'll break my own word about :siam:
I can vouch for this......even amongst my friends, I see it too. Many of the kids are already the super dooper, GEP etc, but you can see that the kids have little play time, goes tuition for everything (sometimes, even 2 tuition for the same subject) and the parents are forever 3Cs - complaining, comparing and chasing after that extra few marks. :faint: -
I disagree that only parents are kiasu. Schools are also kiasu, just look at the variety of awards that MOE gives to schools? Since schools have limited resources like teachers, and with syllabus changing frequently and becoming "heavier", schools will turn to parents to co-teach the students. (Many schools conducting parents’ briefing on maths modelling and other subjects’ curriculum briefing) Parents who don’t know how to teach or have no time teach (since both parents are working) will turn to enrichment classes.
I agree that we should go easy on the syllabus. I remember that we only start writing compositions in Pri 3. Now children expect to do creative writing in Pri 1. Similar for Maths, I don’t remember having Problem Sums in P1, did we start in P2/P3 ? Did we end up any worse?
On the other hand, if we "lighten" the syllabus, will the future batches of students be at a disadvantage as compared to current batches? This is a policy issue that MOE has gotten themselves into,"进退两难", similar to HDB housing issue.
Something is very wrong with our system, but I really don’t have a solution to that. -
This is about REDUCING CLASS SIZE:
It's always easier for a lay person to say reduce class size and then blame MOE for not doing it. MOE is already trying but it IS really not easy.
Trust me, ALL teachers welcome the small class size idea. But where to get teachers? Where to get quality teachers? I am sure we all don't want any tom, dick or harry to be teaching our kids. As it is, with the criteria set by MOE HR department, there are still sub-std teachers around. If we just recruit in mass to reduce class size, what will the quality of the teachers be like? If we raise the salary to attract talent, then are parents willing to pay more? Or will ALL parents be able to pay more? It is a known fact that during recession, you see many applying to be teachers but once economy recovers, a lot will leave the profession to seek for higher paying and better jobs.
Not many teach cos they have the passion.
There's a period when we saw an influx of foreign teachers teaching MT and local trs r unhappy, n parents worry that these ppl may inculcate their own value n culture which is not in line with our culture and values. These are real fear.
The govt has reduced class size to 30 for P1 n P2 and has to revert back to 40 in P3 onwards, the only reason is NOT ENOUGH teachers. It's not that MOE does not want small class size, it's just that this idealism is very difficult to achieve in our public education. Like it or not, MOE IS providing a mass education to all with the main aim of getting every citizen a place in sch. During GE, the opposition party keeps pushing for smaller class size, but do they have concrete plans to achieve that? Anyone care to share?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login