Tag: MOE

New PSLE Scoring System Will Dilute Elitism, Now Time To Stop Entry By Affiliation And Direct School Admissions

Your average 4-pointer will be faced with a tough decision. which school to pick as his first choice? what if RI only has a Sec 1 enrolment class of 400 and your 4-pointer knows that there are 4000 4-pointers in Singapore? He is not guaranteed entry into RI any more. The school of his second and third choice becomes very important also – if he picks HCI, for example, and their cut off is also 4-points, he basically has no chance of getting in if there are400 x 4-pointers who put HCI as first choice. so he will be forced to diversify his choice of schools.

In the past, your PSLE 260++ students would all just go straight for the RIs and the HCIs and the RGSes, and go on to hang out together, go to tuition together, apply for scholarships together, marry each other, work in the same high paying jobs together, continue to decide policy together, and send their kids back to same schools together in an entire career and life track cut off from the rest of Singapore.

With this scheme, there is a strong chance that they will end up in any number of 20-30 other schools instead of 2-3… spreading the talent pool. Doubling down on “every school is a good school”. Breaking the concentration of elitism. And this happens all the way down. It’s a good move.

The next step is to end affiliation and to clamp down on DSA.

Source: Joshua Ip

July 14, 2016
Study: Kids From Rich Families More Likely To Attend IP And GEP

Children from higher socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to attend Integrated Programme (IP) secondary schools and their affiliated primary schools, as well as those that offer the Gifted Education Programme (GEP).

This was a key finding of a recent study that examined class stratification in schools and if students from different schools had different levels of educational aspirations.

The study was done by Ms Ong Xiang Ling, its principal investigator who is a Singapore Children’s Society research officer, and Dr Cheung Hoi Shan, a post-doctoral fellow at the National University of Singapore.

Their work pointed to a disproportionate number of students from affluent backgrounds in IP and GEP schools.

In the study, schools were divided into three groups and about 200 students from each group were polled. Type 1 were IP schools, their affiliated primary schools, as well as primary schools which offered the GEP. Type 2 were government-aided schools and autonomous schools which did not offer the IP, and Type 3 were government schools.

Data showed that nearly 41 per cent of Type 1 secondary school students came from families with a monthly household income that exceeded $10,000, compared to 7 per cent in Type 3 schools. About 31 per cent of Type 1 students lived in private homes, compared to 2 per cent in Type 3. About 54 per cent of Type 1 students had at least one parent with university education, compared to 17 per cent in Type 3.

The fact that there is a significant disparity in secondary schools, where entry is supposed to be by merit, points to a possible perpetuation of class differences in schools, said the researchers. Dr Cheung said: “The observation from many news reports… does point to some form of social stratification in our schools; so in elite schools you tend to have families represented by higher socio-economic status (SES) and in other neighbourhood schools you tend to have the reverse.”

She added: “We see SES differences also in secondary schools, where entry is supposed to be determined in large part by the children’s results in the PSLE. Entry is not about distance or alumni associations, yet we also see marked SES differences in elite secondary schools. So it may point to a perpetuation – if you started off with high SES, chances are because you have more resources, you are better prepared for PSLE, so you are more likely to get into good secondary schools.”

Said Ms Ong: “Higher SES children are more likely to be in Type 1 schools, and being in Type 1 schools makes them more likely to have high confidence in attaining at least a university degree. Then it would mean that there could be a perpetuation of class differences, because research has shown that if you have high confidence of attaining a university degree, you are more likely to actually get a university degree.”

Source: www.straitstimes.com

June 2, 2016
Goh Meng Seng: Do Not Divert Attention From Real Issues In Benjamin Lim’s Case

I am utterly disappointed by the Minister for Home Affairs (who is also the Minister of Law, which I always feel is totally inappropriate as it may constitute a conflict of interests but this article is not about this) Mr. Shanmugam’s statement made in parliament with regards to the case of Benjamin Lim Jun Hui.

Instead of addressing the many valid pertinent concerns raised by the public, on and off-line, he has put up a barrage of fire attacks at The Online Citizen (TOC) and the President of Law Society, Mr. Thio Shen Yi with totally irrelevant petty details of bickering.

Whether there were 4 or 5 policemen went to the school, wearing police uniforms or plain clothes are really irrelevant to the pertinent questions asked by TOC, Mr Thio and the public at large.

It is even more ridiculous for the Minister to cast doubts on TOC’s intent by raising the fact that it has reported that the Police refused to comment on the matter when approached!

For whatever reasons the police refused to comment (such as those reasons presented by the Minister himself), it should just say so when TOC asked them! A good and competent Public Relations Officer from the Police would have made simple comment like “We cannot comment on this case as internal investigation is still ongoing.” or “We cannot comment on this case as there will be Coroner Inquiry, please wait for the result of Coroner Inquiry”…etc.

The total ignore or silence from the Police is smacked of either arrogance or complete incompetency in Public Relations communication.

The Police has its own Pubic Relations officers. If the Police refused to answer to TOC’s inquiries, then the Minister cannot blame the TOC for reporting so (the truth that the police refused to comment) and the public will have their own discretion to form their own opinion.

So my dear Minister, it is the FAILURE of Police Public Relations officers in responding to the matter in timely manner that created public perception, not TOC. TOC merely reported the NO RESPONSE from the police!

It is of course the prerogative of the Police in keeping silence but it must also understand that keeping quiet will have its consequences and implications.

By the way, the Main stream media also reported 5 officers went to the school! Please lah! Why not fire at the Main stream media as well?

As for the President of Law Society, the point made was the necessity of the police making the arrest at the school! So, don’t try to divert from this pertinent question by going into the irrelevant bickering. Do you think it is appropriate or necessary for the police to send 4 or 5 police officers to the school to make the arrest?

There are more important questions raised by the public and I expect the Minister to address them, instead of using diversion tactic to dodge from these questions and public anger:

1) Does the Minister think it is RIGHT (never mind if it is legal or not) for policemen to go to school to arrest students who are just suspects of crimes?

2) Does the Minster think it is RIGHT (never mind if it is legal or not) for the police to interrogate minors without the presence of guardian or legal representative? In fact, is it right for police to deny legal representation or aid to suspects, regardless of age, during interrogation?

These are the two important issues raised by the President of Law Society and they are valid questions to be addressed fully. These questions raised does NOT constitute sub judice but it is of GREAT PUBLIC INTERESTS.

I hope the Minister could address these real issues instead of wasting time trying to divert attention to inconsequential minor details and bickering.

Oh, by the way, the poor boy was just investigated but NO OFFICIAL JUDGMENT has been made about him just yet. I do not understand why the Minister would insinuate him as “guilty” in parliament just because, according to the police interrogation, he “confessed” to the crime. His confession could be contested in court if there was really a court case but unfortunately, he won’t have that trial now. So I would urge the Minister not to put judgment on the poor dead boy in parliament even though he is also the Minister of Law, but he is not the judge nor the case has been heard.

Goh Meng Seng

Source: People’s Power Party – PPP

March 3, 2016
SDP: PAP Clearly Violating MOE Policy Of Maintaining Apolitical Schools

Singapore Democrats

In 2009, the Straits Times reported that Minister for Law K Shanmugam had warned his party members in an editorial in Petir, the PAP’s newsletter, that “younger voters can erode its dominant position should the party fail to convince them that Singapore…needs a strong leadership and a political system that allows for effective and speedy decisions to be made”.

Mr Shanmugam felt that for the PAP to prolong its power, it needed to “provide greater political education for Singaporeans, in particular, students”.

Another Straits Times report said that Mr Shanmugam proposed that schools teach “comparative political systems” but to do this in the context of “improving the Government’s effectiveness in reaching out to younger Singaporeans”.

This is why the SDP applied to the Ministry of Education (MOE) to allow us to conduct talks with students and to present another point of view. The MOE, however, says that “schools are neutral places for learning and not platforms for partisan politics”. The SDP documents here how biased and partisan history and social studies textbook are.

Educate students about politics, says Shanmugam
By Zakir Hussain
Straits Times
19 December 2009

For 50 years, the PAP has stayed in power because it has delivered progress to the people, its leaders often point out.

But Law Minister K. Shanmugam feels younger voters can erode its dominant position should the party fail to convince them that Singapore, more than most countries, needs a strong leadership and a political system that allows for effective and speedy decisions to be made.

He gave this warning to his party members in an editorial in the latest People’s Action Party bi-monthly magazine, Petir.

Mr Shanmugam appears to have his eye on the clock when he issued his word of caution, saying no political party had stayed in power continuously for more than 70 years.

The way for the PAP to outlive this record, he feels, is to provide greater political education for Singaporeans, in particular, students.

However, he said: ‘The education should not trumpet the virtues of any particular system.’

Instead, students should be taught, among other things, how political systems work in different cultures, the impact of geographical and social factors on societies and why city states rise and fall.

‘This will make people look carefully at the liberal democratic model and help them decide which aspects best suit Singapore,’ he said as he set out how the PAP can communicate better its message that Singapore needs good governance and that only the PAP can deliver it.

His concern comes at a time when a younger generation of better-educated voters feels the political process and system in a democratic state should be based on the Western model of liberal democracy.

Mr Shanmugam and government leaders reject the view, arguing that the best systems are those that fit the society they govern.

‘Not every aspect can be transplanted in toto across cultures, without regard to different economic, social and geostrategic situations,’ said the Law Minister.

It is a position he has argued vigorously in favour of in the past three months: first to a group of international lawyers meeting here in October, then the Harvard alumni in Singapore last week, and now, PAP members.

Mr Shanmugam, who is also Second Home Affairs Minister, said the PAP’s message had resonated with the older generation who experienced the turmoil of Singapore’s early years.

‘But the collective memory of this is not as strong among newer generations, whose viewpoints will increasingly influence the political process,’ he added.

Younger Singaporeans may therefore believe that the Western model of liberal democracy can be adopted without trade-offs, he said.

‘Singaporeans are entitled to decide whether they want the trade-offs.

‘And if the majority chooses slower development and a lower quality of life, and is willing to accept more tensions within our society in return for changes in the political system, then so be it,’ he said.

‘But that choice must be an informed one,’ he added.

Source: http://yoursdp.org

February 17, 2016
Schools Should Not Be Platforms For Partisan Politics

SDP approached “our schools and educational institutions to initiate a conversation with our youth on national issues that concern them and their future”. This initiative was “aimed at bringing politics and policy-making closer to our students, challenging them to engage in thoughtful analysis on issues facing Singapore”.

As expected, MOE has rejected SDP’s most gracious offer to help educate our students in political matters. Their reason? Schools should be “neutral places for learning and not platforms for partisan politics.” As such, talks by members of opposition parties should not be allowed.

And I agree with MOE’s position completely. We don’t want our education system, at least up to the JC and polytechnic level, to be turned into a battlefield where political parties campaign for support. Our kids are too immature to wrap their minds around the issues involved.

So. We definitely want to ensure that our schools do not become platforms for partisan politics. We need to ensure that nothing in our school promotes the support for any political party. For the sake of being politically neutral, we need to scrutinise every single activity that happens in school to ensure that there aren’t any activity in school that predisposes the students to support any political party.

Let’s start with history and social studies then. We need to ensure that these two subjects are taught in a way that is politically neutral. Are they? According to what SDP claims, the history textbooks approved by MOE aren’t exactly politically neutral. According to the excerpts provided by SDP, the textbook suggests that Singapore would not have been as prosperous and successful as we are if not for the PAP and Lee Kuan Yew. How is that not being a platform for partisan politics? How is that being politically neutral?

“But that’s history! Immutable facts!” Ok. Perhaps. So let’s talk facts.

Edusave is a fantastic scheme by our government to maximise educational opportunities to all Singaporean students. One part of the Edusave scheme comes in the form of scholarships and awards. The money for the awards come from our national budget. Taxpayers’ money. The awards, being part of the entire Edusave scheme, come under the ambit of MOE. Many of Singaporean students are come into contact with the Edusave awards throughout their schooling years.

What is strange is that the awards aren’t presented to the students by the teachers or the school principals. The awards are presented to the students by the advisor of the grassroots organisations of the area the student stays in. All the advisors of the grassroots organisations in Singapore are members of PAP.

In areas where the MPs are from the opposition, it’s not the MP who presents the Edusave awards to the students. It’s the advisor of the grassroots organisation. Don’t believe me? Here’s Victor Lye, PAP candidate who contestedand lost to the WP team in Aljunied GRC in GE2015, presenting the Edusave awards to students earlier this year in his capacity as advisor to grassroots organisation of Bedok Reservoir-Punggol area.

I’m sure that the other PAP candidates who lost in Aljunied would have had similar ceremonies to present Edusave awards to students. In other words, the Edusave award presentation ceremonies have become a platform for politicians from PAP to interact with students and their parents. In other words, the Edusave award presentation ceremonies have been perverted into platforms for partisan politics in favour of PAP.

This needs to stop. MOE and our schools cannot be platforms for partisan politics. They MUST remain politically neutral. To be consistent with the reason that MOE has given in refusing SDP’s offer to conduct talks to students, we need to stop the practice of having PAP members being the ones to present students with their Edusave awards, right? I hope MOE truly believes in what they have said publicly and does something to rectify this gross perversion.

Because I truly believe that our schools and MOE should NOT be platforms for partisan politics.

Source: http://crazyrandomchatter.com

February 15, 2016