(1) Comment on the Janelle Lee's view on the education system in Singapore.
From the effectively written letter, I could see that Janelle Lee owned a critical and precise mind – what she stated and mentioned in the beautifully-written letter would simply strike home to any Singaporeans the messages it conveyed. It especially gives a sense of familiarity to us students, and perhaps also teachers.
The foremost and main point she argued was about the education of Singapore killing the interest of many students who originally had the ability to ask a simple ‘why’. I felt very sincere to this opinion, as it is what I felt to be extremely relevant to the education system here, and just a few days ago I realized that I actually might have lost the ability of inquiring. It was just after the recent release of the Integrated Humanities results, when many of the students had written one extra point for the essay thus wasting time, including me. I explained to my father about this matter, and he replied to me asking ‘why’ did we write three points instead of two, as the question required. I then answered very honestly that it was because the LOMPS we were exposed to all required us three points in order to score full marks. Then my father again asked why three points should be written for essay, and claimed that we were only memorizing and not understanding. During that time, I felt quite indignant as I felt that it was only natural for us students to follow the LOMPS and we actually had a debate.
But now, I come to think that perhaps it was really because we lack of the inquisitiveness to seek further to what appeared to be ‘the standard’. And indeed, I feel that this is the fruit of the education system in Singapore, as what we learnt was just from pure memorizing and aiming to achieve the marks we goaled. Another example is mathematics, which we only learned the rules and formulas to apply to questions, never understanding how the formulas were derived. If we asked, the answer that was usually shot back to us was ‘it is out of syllabus, and you do not need to understand it at your level’ or that ‘it might only confuse you’.
The next point this teenager brought up is the civic and moral education in Singapore. I have much less to comment about this idea, as this education is only taught in primary school. However, I honestly feel that when in primary school, this curriculum period was indeed a relaxation period to us students, and I still remembered vividly how we dreaded it to be taken away by other main subjects, and thus it brought forth to us the message that was unintended that civic and moral education was not compulsory and of no great importance. The teachers might say that it is how we treated the subject – whether we ourselves treat it seriously or not. I do not deny what they claimed, but I feel that it is the teacher’s job to ensure that students treat this subject seriously and do benefit from it. If the teacher’s attitude is not even serious and allow other teachers to take over their lessons, how do they even expect us students to put in enthusiasm when they do not even adopt a positive attitude when teaching that subject?
However, there were some points that I regarded not to be very accurate. For example, she stated that “the problem is that Singaporean youths are often not taught as individuals with separate talents, but as a collective who are all the same”. A counter example to this is the streaming program introduced by Dr. Goh Keng Swee. We learned in history that students are streamed at 9 years old according to their intelligence,at 10 to determine if the student should be put into foundational class. Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), and the examination in secondary 2 testing if the student is eligible to be placed in an IP school or Special Programme are other examples. However, let us just discuss about The Gifted Education Stream, which is reserved only for the academically and intellectually gifted. The rationale behind streaming is to allow the system to cater best to the needs of each student according to his or her academic ability, preventing a scenario where the best students are bored by a standard curriculum, and the weakest students struggle to pass. Therefore, it is not true to say that Singaporean youths are taught as a collective due to the introduction of the School Based Gifted Education.
In conclusion, I feel that this letter was really magnificent and sensational. It was really eye opening and reflected also on how we students should be like in school. I feel the same for what this teenager had mentioned, and I also hope for a better tomorrow.
(2) Is an ideal education possible? Explain.
An ideal educational system – what exactly is it? Since this term has not obtained a specific definition, I would give it my own interpretation. An ideal educational system, to me, consist of academic and moral education, treating both equally important, and developing, not curbing, one’s inquisitive mind and interest, and at the same time, giving the students freedom and time yet also producing results in the exams. With so many specifications to fulfill, an ideal educational system is totally impossible, since these many terms and conditions could not possibly occur at the same time.
Firstly, treating academic and moral education on the same basis is already too high an expectation. Academic subjects are by itself numerous, thus there is simply no time to yet learn another subject. Many might say that the government could lengthen the school time, however, that is again not giving students enough freedom to do their own reading and even for relaxation.
Another problem lies within the means of developing an inquisitive mind and at the same time, producing results. The ways to develop a curious mind includes probing the students to ask more, not letting them be bounded by the marking scheme, be creative, and most importantly, enabling students to see education as a process of learning and not being overwhelmed by all the marks and results. However, these could not happen at the same time. To produce results – that is already not feasible when shaping the students’ mind into a creative and innovative one, since the worldwide examinations have marking schemes standardized. If the educational system allows students to think out of the box and not follow the marking scheme, these students would not be able to score high in examinations, since they would not bother to stick to the guideline.
Furthermore, this idea also wearies the teachers, since they need to answer to many questions not inside the syllabus, and they would need to spend too much time on topics irrelevant to the examinations. And, if students keep inquiring and the teachers busily answering those questions, the teachers would not be able to finish the syllabuses in time in order to prepare the students for the examinations. Thus, the students not only would not be able to follow the marking scheme, they also would not be able to fare well in the examinations since the lack of understanding to certain topics prevents them from exceling in the examinations.
Many might say that students would have a better future if they are exposed to more knowledge, thus, they would oppose to my opinion of saying that developing an inquisitive mind and producing results could be done together. However, one must come to think of it that if the student took an examination and scored badly due to the reasons previously stated, he would enroll for a school not so ideal, thus, hindering his success. The student would not learn as many things as those in better schools, therefore, being unable to excel in his career.
Once again, I shall reiterate that it is not possible to have an ideal educational system. Educational systems definitely have its own flaws, and some areas must be compromised depending on the schools priority. Therefore, what is being taught is the school’s decision, and the students nonetheless also have the opportunity to choose which school they would like to be in.
No comments:
Post a Comment