Judging by the number of articles on the education system published in last weekend’s Sunday Times, it can be said that many are still unsettled with the education policy. One issue that appears to bug parents most is the to be included criteria for students to be assessed – ie “special qualities” such as resilience, character and leadership.
Now exactly how are you going to assess that? Unlike paper based exams where an objective marking system can be worked out, how do you grade such subjective criteria? Below is an article from the Sunday Times last weekend that highlights the problem.
Beware pitfalls of direct admissions
Expanding scheme is a good idea but assess character differently, address diversity issue
– ST ILLUSTRATION: ADAM LEEThe complaints have already started coming in over the education tweaks announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong last Sunday.
Parents have had much to say about the changes to the Primary 1 registration scheme and the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) scoring system, but some of the strongest reactions have been to the expansion of the Direct School Admission scheme.
Mr Lee announced last Sunday in his National Day Rally speech that top secondary schools will take in more students from different backgrounds through the scheme, which allows Primary 6 pupils to secure a place even before sitting the PSLE.
They get in for exceptional ability in some academic subjects, or for their sports or artistic skills, among others. Now the scheme is being broadened to include pupils with “special qualities” such as resilience, character and leadership.
There lies the problem. Isn’t that a subjective criteria which would be opened to dispute?
The writer also implies that the “good character instilled” is artificial if it is tied too much to material gains. As explained below.
A few years ago, hospices and homes for the aged reported that during the December to March university application period, they see a rush of 18- to 20-year-olds applying to be volunteers.
The homes were glad to have the extra help and their elderly residents were cheered by having youngsters in their midst.
But once the administrators write the students a testimonial to attach with their university application, many of them are never seen again.
However, the bottom line is still “to get into the top schools”. The second half of the article appears to suggest “spreading out” the top schools geographically so that everyone would have a “fair chance”.
Now why this obsession with top schools? I mentioned in my post last week that the reason is due to the fact that the govt limits the number of vacancies for locals. Hence, in order to get into the coveted uni, you need to be in the top schools to enhance your chances of getting into the universities. Heng Swee Keat shifts blame to parents
Trickle down effect of restricting varsity places -
Now comes the rat race. To get into the limited varsity places, you need to be in the top JCs because it is shown that most of the unis in Singapore accept top students. By statistics, it is shown you stand a better entering university if you are from top JCs.
The trickle down effect goes further. To stand a better chance to be in top JC, you need to be in top Secondary Schools. Better still if you get into the through train IP schools.
The trickle down effect does not stop there. To be in top Secondary Schools, you will stand a better chance if you are in top Primary Schools. Again, the stats prove that. That about explains the mad, mad rush by parents to get their children into top Primary Schools. That’s because the chances of getting into top Secondary Schools will be higher. Which will mean that the chances of getting into top JC will be higher. Which will mean that the chances of entering uni will be higher.
Isn’t all this because of that one silly PAPpy policy, that is to DELIBERATELY restrict the number of varsity positions for locals?
I don’t buy the argument that we would have to end up with jobless grads in the streets. If that is the case, the govt would not liberally take in so many immigrants to “fill up the shortage” as what the PAPpy always claim. So what now, Mr Minister for Ed?
As mentioned earlier, it all starts with the mad policy of restricting the number of local grads. Everyone now wants his/her child to have a headstart at a very young age so that his/her child would stand a better chance to enter the university. The MOE should look into this crazy policy that is causing so much stress to students and parents.
Barrie
* The writer blogs at http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com