Education

1. To what extent do you agree with the issues that the student has raised here? Point out some issues of agreement and possible contention.

I partially agree the points the student had raised in her letter’s content. Firstly, regarding her point about Singapore’s education is training students not to ask “Why” and stifles their inquisitive and curious mind. I do believe that is one of the flaws that education system has. Nowadays, teachers throw tons of information to students and ask them to memorise, but that seems to apply to subject teachers like Integrated Humanities and Geography. Subjects which require memorisation. We cannot deny the fact that these subjects are about memorising, they are not as flexible as other subjects like Maths. Well, can we change History? Yes we can, by using time machine and travel back to time and change the events happened. For Science, well we can use a super device to change all carbons into metallic element. As we can see, they are all “dead” subjects, we cannot possibly change the way they are as they do not possess the flexibility. I still don’t get what the student meant by “students are not taught to ask ‘why’ “, is questioning abilities part of teacher’s job, part of the education’s system? If the students are keen enough in learning and wish to venture more and solve the mysteries lurking in their mind, will the students sit back in class and keep quiet? I don’t think so, one with a inquisitive mind and keenness in learning will ask questions more than they should and question till the teachers are dumb-founded. I suppose students’ disabilities to ask ‘why’ are not teachers’ faults, rather students themselves. Perhaps she meant another way round like: Students are not given the chance to ask ‘why’. If that’s the case, I partially support her. In Hwa Chong, students definitely have the opportunities to speak up and clarify whatever doubts from teachers. If the teachers have no time to clarify our doubts and uncertainties, we can actually approach them after school ends. Perhaps for the other schools, it’s the other way round, thus I can’t clearly make a judgement in her statement. Moreover, I think she had messed up memorising and understanding. Through the memorising process, there are actually skills to it. I don’t know how other people will look at it, but for me, I always read through the notes once and try to understand roughly the ideas, and after that, it actually helps me to memorise faster. This is my key point, memorising requires understanding, we can’t simply memorise everything and not understand the concept behind. If we don’t even understand the contents, what’s the point of memorising? Again, it all depends on the students themselves, whether they bother to learn and understand. If they were to memorise some notes but not devote to learning, then I can say they are indeed “manoeuvre their way around school exams and the education system”. We students are all given the opportunities to learn, to seek knowledge from teachers and schools, but the problem is whether the students are keen enough to treasure the chance given. I believe the student in the letter has the intellectual ability to think is it the education system’s fault, or the students? Teachers are suppose to guide, mentor students to their way up a bright future, not spoon feed students. If she is blaming the schools for not teaching students properly, I Isuppose she is sending a message that the students are not keen in learning, they are not independent enough to acquire knowledge by their own. All in all, I think there are a lot of points that she has to reconsider and think thoroughly one more time.

2. Examine her tone and attitude in this letter. Do you think it’s a well-crafted letter with the appropriate tone?

I think her tone and attitude are not that appropriate in the sense that she is like backstabbing the minister of education by stating out all the flaws in education and stating her own opinion and hope some feedbacks from the MOE. If the MOE was not a good listener and put her views aside, they are just admitting the education system is a failure: students do not have their own voice and students are not given the chance to question and seek clarification. If that is the case, it is clear cut that the education system is exactly what the student had pointed out in her letter. However, I think her letter can be more well-crafted with a more appropriate tone as she seems to put all the blames on the education system and her points are not balance and all are one-sided arguments. There is no rebuttal in her arguments. Besides, she did not consider the feasibility in her suggestions. She said the system is stifling the students’ characters. I want to ask one question: can the system possibly ensure every single student to be all rounded? There are a lot of difficulties in planning the education system, and it is not easy like ABC, it requires a lot of works. The student is rather self-centred, egocentric; she did not consider other people feelings and seems to command the education system to suit her desire. Overall, I think the letter is not well-crafted and lack appropriation in her tone and attitude.

3. If you should write a letter to Minister of Education, what are some issues you would raise? Remember- your intention is to make the system better for society’s betterment via CONSTRUCTIVE ideas.

If I should write a letter to Minister of Education, I will not point out the flaws in education instead I will give constructive feedbacks and suggestions. As a Malaysian scholar, I don’t really know what Singapore’s education looks like, but I can confirm that Singapore has a successful education system compare to other countries. But I think Singapore’s education system can be improvised. Firstly, I think Singapore’s education system should not only focus on student’s academic results and put the weightage on this higher compare to student’s character development and CCA achievements. I think they should be balanced and each has the similar weightage. Grades and results definitely have a significant importance in students’ life but we cannot deny the importance of their character development in terms of moral and good character. It is very typical in Singapore’s schools that the one excels in results will achieve the school’s goal. Thus, competitiveness increase and students become more ‘kiasu’, they will compare each other’s grades and marks and tend to strive hard in order to achieve good grades only. Sooner, students are developed into “graders”, they do not bother about their character development but only grades , grades and grades. These result in stress, these will mislead their lives as they will think that they are failures if they do not excel in academics and to make matter worse, some may even choose to suicide. Hence, I think student’s character should not based on their academic results and grades. Singapore should focus on their character development as well whether the students possess a high morality or not. Their character developments are equally important as their grades in their future. For example, a company is hiring two people; one with excellent grades but with a bad character and one with moderate grades but with a good character. Obviously the company will choose the one with a good character, only with a good character, he or she will commit to his or her works. And surely they can get along well with their colleagues with lesser conflicts between them. In conclusion, I think Singapore’s education can be more balanced in terms of academics and student’s character development. With these two balanced, students’ future can be ensured.