http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/07/12/an-open-letter-to-the-education-minister-from-a-secondary-4-student/
Summary of this article:
It is a letter from a Secondary 4 student by the name of Janelle Lee. She is appealing to the new Education Mr Heng to make changes to the education system so that it would be"first class" and be able to cultivate and develop students with certain talents like the Arts, Acting instead of just academically.
Assignment:
It is a letter from a Secondary 4 student by the name of Janelle Lee. She is appealing to the new Education Mr Heng to make changes to the education system so that it would be"first class" and be able to cultivate and develop students with certain talents like the Arts, Acting instead of just academically.
Assignment:
You probably have already heard that a Secondary Four student recently wrote a to letter the Education Minister, Mr Heng Swee Keat, which generated much heated debate again about Singapore's much-discussed education system.
What are your views?
- 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 do agree with the fact that the School system is currently stifling students' real abilities, character and talents. For example, for major examinations, it is the mark that ensures that you enter a prestigious school or a school of your choice. People do not look at your portfolio, whether you have been a approachable person well-liked by peers or simply a studious boy who does not know how to respect others, thinking that he is always right.
Another point I would like to look to would be that people are not subject to change but create the change. This means that people are the beings with creativity and cause the change, but are not the followers of change. As youngsters, we are the greenhorns in this area, ready to "change the world". A really good example would be in the Middle East, where demonstrations are organised and started by the younger generation who are eager to make changes to their countries. Similarly in Singapore, the teenagers will be the future generation driving the Singapore economy and ensuring that Singapore withstands the test of time. If the education system suppresses the teen's abilities, won't we be ruining our country's future?
Another point I would like to look to would be that people are not subject to change but create the change. This means that people are the beings with creativity and cause the change, but are not the followers of change. As youngsters, we are the greenhorns in this area, ready to "change the world". A really good example would be in the Middle East, where demonstrations are organised and started by the younger generation who are eager to make changes to their countries. Similarly in Singapore, the teenagers will be the future generation driving the Singapore economy and ensuring that Singapore withstands the test of time. If the education system suppresses the teen's abilities, won't we be ruining our country's future?
- Examine her tone and attitude in this letter. Do you think it’s a well-crafted letter with the appropriate tone?
Her attitude in this letter would be one of frustration, yet generally, there is a tone of respect in the letter. I believe that the letter is well-written. After all, she is writing to the Minister of Education. Even if she is extremely disappointed and angry with the school system (which she believes is messed up and badly needs reviewing), she cannot just vent her anger on the Education Minister. Besides, Mr Heng has just transferred to the education, she cannot be blaming him at all for what Mr Heng's predecessors have done.
- 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.
An issue I would raise would be the current effectiveness of PSLE.
The PSLE is held in Primary 6, where students are termed as "tweens", the age between a child and a teen. Students start to mature at different times, some at Primary 5, others at Secondary 2. Naturally, the students who mature first would be the students will a better advantage. Personally, I had a lot of difficulty looking at figures in Mathematics, and it was only when I reached Secondary 1 when I started to finally understand and look at things in different angles. PSLE is no longer a good gauge of how smart you are, unlike in the 1960s, where students had to rely on themselves to get through the examination. Now, it just shows how good you are able to memorise facts and how good your tuition resources are. Moreover, the PSLE total mark for Chinese and English are 200 each, while Math and Science are 100 each. That would mean that those naturally better in languages would perform better in the PSLE, thus academically better. That is, or course, not true at all.
Similarly, I would like to raise the problem with the Gifted Education Programme.
Last time, the GE Programme was designed to picked out the 'gifted' students from the cohort to be placed under a special syllabus where they have more expanded lesson objectives to be fulfilled compared to the rest of the mainstream students. This would be fulfilled via a General Ability Test (GAT), as well as a series of Math and English tests.Does that mean that as long as you are trained to tackle problems in the GAT, know how to cram or are academically inclined to English and Math, you are 'gifted'? What about those good in Science and Chinese? What about those in sports? The GE Programme needs to be heavily reviewed.
A third issue I would raise would be the Arts curriculum in primary schools.
Usually, in Primary Schools, there is a lack of Art and Music teachers, thus the teachers from the mainstream curriculum would be roped in to help. Typically, if that teacher happens to the subject teacher of the class, if she/he is lacking of time to finish teaching the curriculum, the subject teacher would usually convert that class into a main subject class, effectively removing the purpose of an Art curriculum to be there at all. Of course, no one is to be blamed, but perhaps the tight schedule due to the prepared lesson syllabus might be stressing the teacher out too much. Therefore, if the government wishes to ensure that students have the chance to appreciate arts and music, a balance should be made between the 2 syllabuses.
The PSLE is held in Primary 6, where students are termed as "tweens", the age between a child and a teen. Students start to mature at different times, some at Primary 5, others at Secondary 2. Naturally, the students who mature first would be the students will a better advantage. Personally, I had a lot of difficulty looking at figures in Mathematics, and it was only when I reached Secondary 1 when I started to finally understand and look at things in different angles. PSLE is no longer a good gauge of how smart you are, unlike in the 1960s, where students had to rely on themselves to get through the examination. Now, it just shows how good you are able to memorise facts and how good your tuition resources are. Moreover, the PSLE total mark for Chinese and English are 200 each, while Math and Science are 100 each. That would mean that those naturally better in languages would perform better in the PSLE, thus academically better. That is, or course, not true at all.
Similarly, I would like to raise the problem with the Gifted Education Programme.
Last time, the GE Programme was designed to picked out the 'gifted' students from the cohort to be placed under a special syllabus where they have more expanded lesson objectives to be fulfilled compared to the rest of the mainstream students. This would be fulfilled via a General Ability Test (GAT), as well as a series of Math and English tests.Does that mean that as long as you are trained to tackle problems in the GAT, know how to cram or are academically inclined to English and Math, you are 'gifted'? What about those good in Science and Chinese? What about those in sports? The GE Programme needs to be heavily reviewed.
A third issue I would raise would be the Arts curriculum in primary schools.
Usually, in Primary Schools, there is a lack of Art and Music teachers, thus the teachers from the mainstream curriculum would be roped in to help. Typically, if that teacher happens to the subject teacher of the class, if she/he is lacking of time to finish teaching the curriculum, the subject teacher would usually convert that class into a main subject class, effectively removing the purpose of an Art curriculum to be there at all. Of course, no one is to be blamed, but perhaps the tight schedule due to the prepared lesson syllabus might be stressing the teacher out too much. Therefore, if the government wishes to ensure that students have the chance to appreciate arts and music, a balance should be made between the 2 syllabuses.
