Rilek1Corner

Tag: education policy

  • SDP: Just Whom Is The PAP’s Education Policy Serving

    SDP: Just Whom Is The PAP’s Education Policy Serving

    When he was Minister of State for Education, Dr Ng Eng Hen said that “Our universities must become engines of growth for our economy.”

    In 2012, Minister for Trade and Industry Lim Hng Kiang reinforced this point saying that our education system is “to build industry-relevant manpower capabilities for the economy.”

    We had even wanted to become the ‘Boston of the East’, with our universities modeled on Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    But Education Minister Ong Ye Kung now says that the number of graduates will be capped at 30 to 40 percent of the student population because the government had, in the past. placed an over-emphasis on academic qualifications in education.

    This chop-and-change approach to education has damaged the country’s ability to plan for the longer term. For example, the PAP had at one time focused on Information Technology and later switched to preparing students for life sciences. Its current emphasis is on “technology adoption” – whatever that means.

    Such short-sightedness contradicts PM Lee Hsien Loong’s boast of the PAP’s “far-sighted leadership who can anticipate problems”. If the leadership is. indeed, far-sighted, how did we place emphasis on our universities being growth engines for our economy and become the Boston of the East only to realise now that we have over-emphasised academic qualifications?

    Serving local or foreign students?

    And while the PAP caps the number of Singaporean graduates, it subsidises foreign students under the Global Schoolhouse project.

    A majority of international students studying here are given Tuition Grants (totaling more than $200 million per year) as well as scholarships (some of which are not open to Singaporean students). It is reported that foreign students make up between 18 and 20 percent of the total undergraduate intake in Singapore.

    In addition, foreign students receiving the grants have to serve a bond upon graduation (which many, by the way, don’t fulfill). They further compete with local graduates for jobs, many of whom are as it is having a hard time finding employment.

    The discrimination is made even more unpalatable when one considers Singaporean parents spending an average of $21,000 a year on their child’s university education. This is more than twice the global average, with over half of the households going into debt because of it. These parents even prioritise funding their children’s education over paying their bills or saving for retirement.

    And the PAP is limiting the number of local graduates while funding foreign ones? Mr Ong Ye Kung must explain whom exactly his latest policy is serving.

    Read SDP’s alternative education policy: Educating For Creativity And Equality: An Agenda For Transformation.

     

    Source: http://yoursdp.org

  • SDP Questions The Singapore Education System

    SDP Questions The Singapore Education System

    As this article is published, thousands of pupils would have gone back to school to collect their PSLE results. Some students will celebrate; others will be in tears, crushed in spirit.

    What sort of system inflicts such travesty on 12-year-olds? What sort of education do we have that treats academic performance like a trophy sport: Glory in victory and agony in defeat?

    What values are we imparting to young minds? What happens to the self-esteem and the sense of self-worth when he or she discovers that she is only a ‘Normal’ or ‘Technical’ student?

    And then they can streamed to ‘elite’ or ‘neighbourhood’ schools. The really ‘smart’ ones, who are usually also the richer ones, get extra help in independent schools and gifted programmes.

    A radio DJ yesterday had to sound this caution to pupils: “Whatever score you get, your parents love you.” What kind of society have we built where our children have to be reminded that their score in one exam does not mean that their parents hate them?

    If they don’t do well who have they let down? Themselves? Their parents? The Government?

    This subject is not just a theoretical one, good only for an academic discussion. It affects real lives:

    • 22% of Singaporean children between 6-12 yrs thought of killing themselves. (ST, Jan 2014) Sadly, many actually carry out the act.
    • The no. of children warded for “aggressive, suicidal or hallucination tendencies” at IMH jumped by 35% between 2005-2010. Mental health professionals attribute these problems to academic stress. (CNA, 2 Feb 2013)
    • One in three students say they sometimes think that life is not worth living because of the fear of exams. (FEER, August 2001)

    We must stop doing this to our children. It is not good for them, it is not good for parents, and it is not good for the future of our country. In its place, we must device a system when we educate our children to be creative, compassionate and intelligent members of society with self-confidence and a strong sense of self-worth.

    There are a few ways that we can do this and they are spelt out under the SDP education policy titled Educating For Creativity and Equality:

    1. Remove PSLE. As pointed out, the stress of exams inflict horrific psychological trauma on our children. What’s more, it is not an intelligent approach to assess the abilities of primary-school students on a single exam.

    2. Cultivate creative minds. Build confidence in children by helping them adopt an attitude of independent thinking, willingness to make mistakes, and persevere in the face of failed attempts.

    3. Reduce syllabus, broaden curriculum. The syllabi for existing subjects will be reduced while subjects such as music appreciation, speech and drama, literature, etc. as well as periods for students to collaborate and interact to develop creativity will be introduced to provide a well-rounded curriculum.

    4. Reduce class size. The SDP will reduce class size in our schools to 20 pupils/class from the current 40 to provide students the individual attention they need to succeed.

    5. Scrap school and class ranking. Comparing exam results and ranking students and classes will detract from the real purpose of education which is self-improvement and self-actualisation.

    To read the full paper with other proposals, click here.

     

    Source: http://yoursdp.org