Petition to Review the Singapore Education System
-
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? -
Look like some healthy discussion going on here.
Keep them coming.
The catchphrase now is not \"moving forward\"; it is \"we are listening\". :xedfingers: -
mamemo:
Schs are kiasu because of parents! ALL parents want to put their kids in top performing sch, then other schs, in order to have a higher intake of students, have to level up. Some of you may not know, MOE dispatches teachers according to a teacher/students ratio. A certain number of intake will be given a certain number of teachers. Principals know how beneficial it is to schs to have more manpower. Then, there's the funds allocation. More funds to schs who have shown that they have used the funds 'wisely' to educate the kids. There are 100 over schs here, MOE will need some form of assessment and accountability in the use of public funds. The most tangible way is thru awards.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.
-
looking4Tutor:
Yes... PAP realised that they were \"moving forward\" no one wanted to follow. So now, they stop to listen. But listen is no use, if they then ignore.Look like some healthy discussion going on here.
Keep them coming.
The catchphrase now is not \"moving forward\"; it is \"we are listening\". :xedfingers:
We do not want to be ignored. -
Lock:
Let me start by linking us all to a picture of skewed bell curves have the same understanding of what is left skewed and right skewed - http://www.kwiznet.com/p/takeQuiz.php?ChapterID=12045&CurriculumID=42&Num=9.29. As you can see, left skewed means the belly is on the right. Right skewed means the belly is on the left. Please forgive if I correct the sentence above as follows\"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.
\"... 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 right (with belly to the left) if exams r beyond kids' std\".
The problem now that the bell curve keeps skewing to the left (with belly to the right) is that more and more children are levelling up, not thru sch but thru tuition n enrichments....Lock:
I am just thinking, if all is constant.
Let me now acknowledge your point. It is important to do so because it shows that I have integrated your point into the discussion. I am not countering you. We agree on this point. If all is constant, and nothing changes (no policy review), then yes... parents are kiasu and in this kiasu spirit, they will buy more and more tuition, so that their children can level up.
SOLUTION = Parents must stop being kiasu.
This is the solution that I reject because I see no way to convince hundreds of thousands of parents to be less kiasu. So yes... one of the root causes of the malaise we face today in primary education is that parents are kiasu. We agree on that, but after that? How do you propose to stop parents from being kiasu? Can you change parent behavior by telling them it is a problem?
(1) If yes, how?
(2) If no, then how?
I myself have no answer to \"If yes, how?\" Lock, if you have a workable solution, share it with us. The question \"If no, then how\" leads us to another roadblock. If parental behavior cannot be changed, then it seems we have to live with the status quo (all things remaining constant).
It is because I dunno how to change the behavior of parents by simply TELLING them not to be kiasu, that I turn my energies to analyzing system issues. We are not BLAMING the system. Guilt, emotion, blame etc... are irrelevant. I am trying to ANALYZE the system much as one would analyze a machine to see which parts can be changed. My focus is turned towards the system because I dunno how to change parent behavior by talking/lecturing alone.
However, Lock, if you do have a concrete solution to how parent kiasuism can be reduced without systemic analysis and changes, it is a good time to suggest it. If you don't have a concrete suggestion (that's ok because I don't either) then why pursue this line of analysis? It is unproductive because at the end of this line of analysis, we are forced to conclude the following - There is no solution.
Why not analyze the system to see if there are possibilities for a solution, than harp on parents and how kiasu they are? -
Lock:
Let me acknowledge and show that I agree with your point so that we work towards integrating not arguing. I quite agree that it is not easy for MOE to find teaching resources because...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.
(1) high teacher turnover
(2) leading to lack of teaching resources
Specifically on this point, I am not a layperson. As an I/O Psychologist every client that comes by has a turnover problem. They want me to resolve their turnover issues so that they don't need to train and train new people. They want me to help put in a high performance culture. Believe it or not, I once had a client who told me \"We expect our staff to do impossible things, and we want them to stay\". We found a solution even there.
Whilst I agree that this is difficult, I have done it before and can actually see solutions. Research in I/O psychology has moved BEYOND high pay and fast promotion to keep staff engaged and with the organisation. I don't see these staff schemes in MOE... but then I dunno. Unless MOE can provide data and info for analysis, I also cannot see a solution. But at least here, I am reasonably confident that with enough data and info, I can actually see a solution. I feel helpless in solutionning the issue of kiasu parents.
So... it isn't that I disagree that parents are kiasu. I just can't see solutions there. I can see some here. So I focus on system instead. It isn't sour grapes or pointing fingers at system without acknowledging that parents have a role to play. I just find it more worthwhile to spend time here... me.
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