Wishlist for the education system
This is a repository for things I would like to see included/removed/altered from our education system here. As and when I think of stuff, I’ll put them down here so that it doesn’t get forgotten. If you have any comments/ additions etc , do feel free to list them in the comments section.
Education system = Education as a whole, including education by parents, private enrichment classes outside school etc etc. Not just limited to the MOE structure.
- Stop categorising students based on examination grades
- If some form of categorisation is necessary for efficient teaching, categorise by preferred learning styles eg. group students who learn better through visual materials together, students who learn better through audio materials together etc. This way, teaching materials can be tailored and optimised for the students. Of course this is only applicable for young students where the syllabus is the same across the board.
- Give all students the opportunity to study any of the subjects they have interest in. I’m not too sure if this is still practised, but when I was in school, to do triple sciences, one had to have a certain minimum examination grade.
- Have a structured program to teach students social skills. Social skills are not limitted to eating and sitting properly. They should include things like gender sensitisation, racial sensitisation, religious sensitisation, financial planning, social/political/economic/global/environmental etc issues, relationship management, sexuality education etc etc
- A support programme in place to educate and support students on psycho-emotional issues like peer pressure, bullying, relationship management, family problems, stress management, body image perception, gender identity acceptance, etc. Not only should affected students be involved, everyone needs to be involved so that peer support will be available, stigmatisation would be reduced.
- As part of teacher-training, all the above should be mandatory subjects.
- Equal resource for all schools. Currently, it seems as if schools performing better examination-grades-wise tend to have more resources. This seems like a business investment philosophy to me where you channel your resources to the best performing stock. But applied to education, disadvantaged students would be doubly disadvantaged.
- Stop categorising students based on examination grades
And your reason would be…?
If some form of categorisation is necessary for efficient teaching, categorise by preferred learning styles
Great idea. Similarly, we can categorise teachers based on their preferred style of teaching too.
Give all students the opportunity to study any of the subjects they have interest in. I’m not too sure if this is still practised, but when I was in school, to do triple sciences, one had to have a certain minimum examination grade.
Triple sciences and some humanities subjects in secondary schools still have minimum grades. I think this should be kept in place, to provide an incentive for students to perform well. Why mug hard for Science in Sec 2 if you know you can take Triple Sciences in Sec 3 regardless of your grade?
And there are also limited resources too…
As part of teacher-training, all the above should be mandatory subjects.
Very good idea (:
But applied to education, disadvantaged students would be doubly disadvantaged
But ‘disadvantage’ is relative. Perhaps we should use a time comparison to be fair – are resources in XYZ Secondary better now than ten years ago? Comparing among schs is unrealistic, because in the first place there are limited resources for schools to share. Obviously some will have a greater share.
- Catagorising based on exam grades has been responsible for the low self-esteem for many children and adults. It makes people feel inferior or stupid, when all it means is that their exam skills is not as good as someone else. They could excel in so many other areas over others.
- By putting a minimum grade on certain subjects, you are saying that you don’t really have to be as smart for other subjects. What’s the rationale? You get a situation where the nation has smart people in some areas and lower quality in others. Secondly, you deny students chances unnecessarily. If a student is in a top school, the student may be denied the chance to study triple science because hs grades were not as good compared to his schoolmates. That same student, if he went to a lower rank school, may have topped the school and been allowed to study triple science. What this student has been denied is not just the chance to study triple science, but may have been denied his dream to be a doctor. Is that just and fair? Simply because he chose to go to a better ranked school?
- I think we need to stop falling for the idea that our resources are so limited, we need to deny students of opportunity and resources. If a country that is constantly Top 10 in GDP rankings cannot allow all students to do the subjects they want, or have good facilities at schools, who else can? And even if the resource pool is limited, why should some be intentionally given a greater share?
Catagorising based on exam grades has been responsible for the low self-esteem for many children and adults.
I agree. Yet it is still a fact some students will not do as well as others in exams. Even if there is no categorisation, comparison will still take place through peers, teachers and parents. At least categorisation allows for more efficient teaching, and hopefully restore the student’s self-esteem in his academic ability.
They could excel in so many other areas over others.
“Subject banding” has replaced streaming in primary school, and is also popular in secondary schools and even JCs. A student can be in Band 1 class for Math and Band 4 class for English. Hence this form of categorisation recognises that students are better in some subjects than others.
Of course there will be a minority who ends up in Band 4 classes for ALL subjects…
By putting a minimum grade on certain subjects, you are saying that you don’t really have to be as smart for other subjects
No, I’m not saying this.
Minimum grades are usually enforced in either “popular” subjects such as Triple Sciences, or “demanding” subjects such as English Lit, Music. Why don’t schools enforce minimum grades for Food & Nutrition or Design & Technology? Simple, because they are neither popular nor seen as demanding. Minimum grades provide an incentive, by saying, “Look, if you don’t do well, then don’t bother taking this subject because there’s not enough space/you’re simply not good enough”.
Schools are responding to students’ demands, and these are ultimately shaped by many factors, including themselves, their families, peers and of course society.
Secondly, you deny students chances unnecessarily.
The example given is good. “Is that just and fair?” Yes, from a larger perspective, that’s just and fair. The system has been meritocratic enough – what else do you want?
I think we need to stop falling for the idea that our resources are so limited, we need to deny students of opportunity and resources.
You proposed, “Equal resource for all schools. Currently, it seems as if schools performing better examination-grades-wise tend to have more resources”. How are you going to give “equal resource”, when resources are limited and we must maximise their use? Even if S’pore is No 1. GDP in the world, we will still have limited resources to meet our endless wants.
And even if the resource pool is limited, why should some be intentionally given a greater share?
Giving top-school XYZ a multi-million science lab is a more efficient use of budget than giving a less-performing school ABC the same expensive science lab. But that doesn’t mean ABC students do experiments in a slum. What I’m implying in my previous response is that their facilities are already better than say ten years ago, and they are not really disadvantaged because they can still learn sufficiently.