skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Recently, Trisha talked about the topic of streaming, and Piper has talked about how everybody wants to have their say about education, and how it should be done.
I would like to talk about streaming too. When streaming is discussed in public discourse, there usually are very few pro-streaming views. Perhaps everyone who saw Jack Neo's I Not Stupid will agree that our education system and its streaming policies are responsible for promoting academic elitism and the social stigmatization of academically weaker students.
If streaming is so intrinsically bad in the first place, why then does MOE implement streaming in the first place? Perhaps some people would be quick to sarcastically cry "Meritocracy!" After all, our government wants to create elites because it is the elites who will be our future leaders, and streaming is part of that process to identify and separates the elites from the peasants. Although I suspect there is some truth in that assertion, as mentioned by Piper (in the comments thread), there are also good pedagogical reasons for streaming.
For a teacher, it is easier, and more effective to teach a class of students who are approximately of the same academic aptitude, then to teach a class with a very wide range of academic abilities. The weaker students will have difficulty catching up if the class is taught at a pace catered to the rest, and the stronger students will become bored and unmotivated if the pace of the class is catered to the weaker students. Someone noted to me that most of the critics of streaming have never seen a normal (technical) or a normal (academic) class during an actual classroom lesson before, and have never experienced how much a teacher struggles just to keep the class in order, and still yet have to finish a teaching a fixed portion of the syllabus within that class period. (Perhaps Piper can share some of her experiences?) It also makes pedagogical sense for weaker students to study a simplified syllabus, given that a teacher needs to spend more time to get through the same amount of academic material for weaker students. And also, if weaker students take the same tests and exams as the stronger students, they will inevitably just get horrible grades, and this too does not do wonders of the students' self-esteem.
But how about elitism and social stigmatization? Yes that is a real issue, just like WSM was a real phenomenon. But streaming is not the only factor behind this issue. Streaming labels students as "Gifted", "Express", "Normal (Academic)" or "Normal (Technical)", but perhaps it is not so much the labels themselves which causes elitism and social stigmas, but it is our attitudes towards such labels.
Streaming or not streaming, there will be some individuals who qualify for University and some individuals who don't. There will be some individuals who will be more bright, and some individuals who will not be as bright. I absolutely believe that there are different kinds of intelligences. I also believe that someone who appears "stupid" may in fact be extremely gifted in other kinds of intelligences. I also believe that academic grades may not be the best metric for intelligence. All absolutely true. But if you claim that "No one is stupid. Everyone is equally intelligent, just intelligent in different ways.", then I think you are fooling yourselves and that is a lie you tell yourself because you don't have to deal with the word "stupid".
In the same sense, the claim "there are no differences between races" is a lie so that we don't have to deal with racism, and in reality this lie just exaggerates the problem. In the same way, this issue is really about discrimination. "Intellectual discrimination", if you will. Yes, being academically bright will give you a higher chance to succeed in society, than if you are not so. But is this sufficient reason for us to treat intelligent individuals as if they are superior human beings, and not so intelligent individuals as inferior beings?
Imagine this scenario: there is still streaming in schools, but all the individuals involved (parents, teachers and fellows students) treat "normal (technical)" students with the exact same kind of respect and love as "gifted" students. In such a scenario, will the "gifted" student grow up to be elitist? Will the "normal (technical)" students grow up feeling inferior about themselves?
Perhaps some might say: students are still young. It is only natural for young students to feel superior and prideful about themselves if they are academically brighter, and it is only natural for academically weaker students to feel inferior about themselves. That may be true, but I believe it is precisely because they are so young, their attitudes toward others and about themselves are the most malleable. Recall the movie I Not Stupid. When the EM1 kids bullied the EM3 kids, did you think the EM1 students were more to blame, or was it the teachers and the parents, who themselves looked down on the EM3 kids, who failed to prevent the EM1 students from developing such attitudes, or perhaps even encouraged such elitism through the display of their own attitudes?
I am not saying it is okay to call children or students "stupid". I think it is not. That is because "stupid" is no longer just a descriptive word, but a derogatory one. You cannot call someone "stupid" without insulting them. I believing that there are individuals who are more intelligent than other individuals, and we should not deny this fact. But I think we should never use the word "stupid" to label those less intelligent, since such a label is nothing but destructive.
If the real problem behind social stigmatization and elitism is not the labels conferred upon students by streaming but instead, how we choose to react to such labels, then are we not pushing the blame to something else when we criticize streaming for being the cause of such problems? Are we, and not the system, the ones to blame?
i like to eat ice cream. =)
one of the brands of ice cream i used to eat regularly is Ben & Jerry's. B&J ice cream is most well known for its diverse and unique flavors, usually with a lot of liao mixed in the ice cream. i knew i was a B&J nut when I went to see what were the top 10 flavors of B&J ice cream and i realized i have tried all of them except no. 10: vanilla ice cream. my personal recommendations? half-baked (no. 5), new york super fudge chunk (no. 6) and peanut butter cup (no. 9).
if you explore the B&J website, you'll notice than B&J are not just ice cream makers, but activists, and self-confessed "left-leaning liberals". i'm not a "rightist", and hence I don't have anything against B&J by virtue of the fact that they proclaim to be liberals, but sometimes I look at some of the issues they champion, and i wonder if i would support such issues. and if i would not support such issues, then i ask myself, should i even buy their ice cream and help fund such movements which i don't agree on? but if i don't buy their ice cream, what other brand can satisfy my craving for brownies and cookie dough in ice cream? dilemma. this is why it sucks to be a politically aware (and non-left leaning) ice cream lover.
what is this post really about? i was reminded of my B&J boycott-dilemma when i read kitana saying "i'm never buying a dove product again" (after dove's "campaign for real beauty" advertisements). i remember reading when Mr Brown left his job at TODAY, there were some cries to boycott TODAY. recently, Sperenza Nuova urged us to boycott companies which display racist attitudes.
why do we boycott? do boycotts work in Singapore?
according to wikipedia, a boycott is an "expression of protest" or a "means of coercion". will my not buying B&J, or Kitana not buying Dove soap, constitute "means of coercion"? Highly unlikely. There will be too many left-leaning liberals to continue buying B&J, and unless Kitana can get several hundred dove users to agree with her, the sales of Dove products will probably not be affected. (the scenario might be different for these companies identified by Singapore Patriot to be racist, but then again, maybe singaporeans are so apathetic that it is not.)
does this constitute an "expression of protest"? well yes, if you mean "are you expressing your unhappiness by this action?" but maybe not, if you mean "is this action you express a successful protest?" what makes a protest successful? surely, the if guy you protest about does not know about, or does not feel the effects of your protest, then how on earth is your protest useful in any way?
i'm not saying boycotts are not useful or if they will always be unsuccessful. boycotts are about strength in numbers. today, the internet (and the blogosphere) provide powerful tools for the consolidation of such numbers. but currently, singaporeans are either too bochup or kiasee to seriously consider joining in such boycotts. and if i'm quite certain mr Ben and mr Jerry will not even know about my boycott, and will never feel the effect of my boycott (economically or otherwise), then why the heck should i deprive myself of that delicious pint of ice cream?
perhaps, its not about coercion, or about protest. it's not about being able to change things. it's about being true to yourself. i suspect Kitana will say, i can't possibly live with myself if i use a dove product, after that commercial. so even if it doesn't change things one bit, it doesn't matter. it's about me, my values and my beliefs.
as for me, i like to eat ice cream. but a diet is good too.
Just before Christmas last year, Aaron (on Singapore Angle) wrote an article on sex education. Following Aaron, Ben and myself also wrote articles about the issue. Ben and myself also engaged each other in the comments thread of this article.Last week, Aaron, Ben, Kitana and myself had the opportunity to meet up over coffee. Among the issues we talked about was sex education, and Kitana has blogged her views on the discussion which transpired between us. This post is a reply to Kitana, as well as an attempt to clarify certain issues which I think are muddled together.
***
Firstly, I want to talk about moral obligation and responsibility. Shinaux (the Legal Janitor) commented in Kitana's article that it is the responsibility of parents to teach children about sex, and if they shirk this responsibility, then they are "morons". Being a young person and not a parent, I would feel rather uncomfortable calling parents "morons", but generally I do agree with his (and Ben's) sentiments. I don't think any one of us feel as if it is NOT the parent's responsibility to teach sex education. If you are a parent, and you really believe that no it is not your responsibility but the government's responsibility to teach your children about sex and you don't need to talk to them about it, and if your children get unwanted pregnancies or STDs then it is the government's fault, then I have to say sorry sir (or ma'am), I have very little respect for you.
However, to be fair, some parents are simply helpless, clueless, or ignorant on how to teach children about sex. It is not that they think they SHOULD NOT teach their children, but they don't know how. Or maybe even if they did, the children are not receptive to what they say (generation gap?). Or maybe they keep thinking, later then teach lah now they still young and don't realize until it's too late. Or maybe they think, since the schools surely got teach this, then they probably do a better job than me anyway, and hence I don't need to teach. Perhaps Ben is thinking about the last kind of mentality when he suggested that the state should just not have any sex education at all. Don't give parents an excuse not to teach sex ed to their children.
In a deontological sense (Aaron, I blame you for spamming this technical word!), Ben's suggestion is rather satisfying. But let's talk about point of view. Let me ask the question: who is the moral agent (the person making moral decisions)? If the moral agent is the parent, the moral question is "Should I teach my children sex education or not? How if so?" But if the moral agent is the government, the moral question then becomes "Should we have sex education in schools or not? How if so?" This is a different question for a different moral agent, and ought to be treated differently from the first question. If the answer is yes for the first question, then it is fair to say that there is moral obligation for the parents to teaching sex ed. However, that does not mean that the answer to the second question is definitely a "no", and it also does not mean that the government therefore has no obligation just because it is the parent's obligation. Hence in this sense, the question "who's burden is it to teach sex ed" is a misleading question.
Let's talk about the second question now. What are the factors that the government need to consider when thinking about such a policy? Governments can take an ideological approach, or a pragmatic (consequentialist) approach to policies. One possible ideological approach could be "we think abstinence is just silly, and hence we'll just teach safe sex". Another ideological approach would be "since sex ed is the responsibility of the parent, it is not our dai chi, so we're not going to give sex ed. If you kids got STD or unwanted pregnancies, that's your problem." These are not unreasonable views, and there can be arguments to defend such views. But the government is not likely to adopt such views, or any ideological views for that matter. Good governance always has a strong aspect of pragmatism, and keeping in mind the consequences of policy.
So if we want to talk about pragmatism and consequences, what are the factors behind state-sanctioned sex education? STDs and unwanted pregnancies definitely. It is in the best interests of the nation, people and government to clamp down on STDs and unwanted pregnancies. But that is not the only factor. Not causing unhappiness among the people by implementing a policy which directly contradicts the values and beliefs of the such people, is another factor to consider.
In the conversation I had with Ben over coffee, Ben talked about "community values". Currently, the community majority would probably frown upon pre-marital sex, and hence they would rather advocate something which promotes abstinence, instead of safe sex. Ben thinks it is okay to implement policies which agree with the community majority, but ultimately, the harm (of STDs and unwanted pregnancies) ought to be clamped down. I don't disagree. I personally think that just the pure dissemination of information (tell the kids what will happen when you have sex without condoms), yet maintaining no stand on advocating either abstinence or safe sex is sufficient to do that. This is probably able to clamp down on STDs and unwanted pregnancies enough without offending community values. If it so happens that it is only the MINORITY of the community which believes in abstinence, I agree that perhaps the government ought to promote safe sex instead, since that is probably more effective in clamping down STDs and unwanted pregnancies (as opposed to a non-advocacy of either view), and maybe the unhappiness of the minority is insignificant compared to that.
A last work about neutrality when teaching sex education. I think that pedagogically, when you tell a student "If you don't use condoms then you will have STDs and unwanted pregnancies", and NOTHING ELSE, that is as good as saying "you SHOULD use condoms when having sex". And that is advocating safe sex over abstinence. To be truly neutral, the teacher might have to say "Different people have different views about sex. Some believe that we should abstain from sex until marriage [maybe give reasons here]. Others believe it is okay to have sex before marriage, provided you are responsible about it [maybe give reasons here]. Ultimately, you decide for yourself which one you want to believe in."
[Addendum: I forgot to talk about the incident of the pregnant 9 year old girl. I think we are too quick to blame lack of sex-ed on this case. The father of the child is a 14 year old. If he was say, a 16, 18 or 20 year old, what will we be crying instead? Pedophile? Statutory rape? I think it is importance to investigate the specific circumstances behind this situation, and find out what was the cause of such a unlikely occurance. After that, we can think about how to prevent such things from happening again.
I had my first sex ed class when I was 10 years old. None of us took it seriously. Everyone was giggling or covering their eyes. I think sex education for kids this young is just not going to work. If there is a problem with sex at such a young age, one must take a look at what are the factors which causes such young sex, and see if there are other ways to curb this problem. Here are two possibilities: greater enforcement for the restriction of pornography to minors, and education for parents on how children might be getting themselves exposed to sex at a young age.]
[Addendum 2: From New Paper (2/3/07): in a survey of 1,553 13 and 14-year-olds,
27% said they had sex before (13% had "no opinion")
12% said they were pregnant or made someone pregnant before (25% had "no opinion")
61% said parents did not inculcate the responsibilities of sex to them (12% had "no opinion")
60% felt that there is insufficient sex education in school (7% had "no opinion").
In the same newspaper, it is reported that MP Ang Moh Seng suggested that to boost birth rate, a new CCA club "the Friendship Club" can be formed in schools to teach students how to "pak tor" correctly.]
i recently had a conversation with somebody, and made the comment that the plogosphere is not really centered around issues, but around individual bloggers. when a single blogger roughs up feathers so much so that there is a multi-blogger co-ordinated counterstrike against that single blogger, we see this in full glory.
normally, as FO, i would probably preach: look guys, lets be civil and rational, and let's not resort to such tatics. sure that dude has some pretty radical ideas, but it's his right to hold such views and voice them right? surely we can afford charity?
but is that the real story behind this counterstrike? is this about the disagreement between conflicting views, or just a sheer loss of patience towards a single blogger's persistent insensitivities and lack of grace?
bloggers are human. you irritate them enough, they will hate you. i preach, and will continue to preach, charity and civility to all bloggers. but i am also human too.
sorry dude, you're on your own on this one.
This Friday, hordes of 18-19 year olds will flock to their JCs to receive their A level results (including Ms Gayle Goh). It will be a time of celebration and partying for some, and for some it might be a time of great sorrow and disappointment. Regardless, for everybody, it will be a time of contemplation and decision making for the future. For a handful of such 18-19 year olds, they will be thinking about scholarships.
I am of the opinion that there are good reasons to take a scholarship, but there are also good reasons for not taking a scholarship. Usually, 18-19 year olds are only exposed to the former and not the latter. I believe, more JC students are reading the blogosphere than ever, (thanks in no small part to Gayle) and as "alternative media" we are somewhat obligated to present views about scholarships which these JC students might not be aware of.
I was going to write my own article on the considerations necessary before taking up a scholarship, then I realized many others have blogged before I did, and I can in no way write a better piece than what has been collectively done so far. So instead, I will compile a short list of articles on scholarships, and urge you, if you are a potential scholar (or if you are a parent of one) to take the time to read these and think about the issues raised. What's at stake may not just be half a million dollars worth of a scholarship bond, but also your career choice and what you will do for the rest of your life.
Links:
On Singapore Angle, a 19-year old who qualified for but chose not to go for scholarships gave his reasons for doing so.
On A Pedagogue's Progress, kungfuzi talks about spoken and unspoken reasons for taking up a scholarship, and contemplates on such reasons. I think this dude is actually a PSC/MOE scholar himself, so he knows what he's talking about.
The KTM, on his last contribution to STOMP, quotes Mr Ngiam Tong Dow in saying that not everyone has the temperament to be a civil servant, even if they qualify academically.
Mr Wang talks briefly about the dangers of accepting a scholarship here.
The Legal Janitor, in a recent article, shares how to make a thoughtful and matured decision when talking about career choice and one's own future.
Lastly, if you are interested to talk to a famous ex-scholar who has vocal views about scholarships, you can contact Mr Elia Diodati (his email is available on his blog). He's probably a busy guy (incidentally Mr Philip Yeo is currently still commenting on his blog), but I suspect he'll be more than happy to talk to you about his views and experiences as an ex-scholar.
Recent posts by Kitana, Humanoid Interface, and Trisha (how come all female bloggers ah?) got me thinking about parenting and education. A long time ago, a teacher of mine shared this with me: in order to drive a car, we need to pass an exam to get a license, because driving a car without adequate knowledge of how to handle a car can cause much harm and destruction. Being a parent without adequate knowledge of how to be a good parent can cause even greater harm and destruction compared to an automobile (think if your child grew up to be a mass murderer, or Hitler), yet there is no such thing as a parenting license or a parenting exam.
I recently asked myself and two individuals this question: "If WSM was your daughter, how would you feel about what she said?". Would you feel upset that such a "horrible" person was your daughter? Or would you feel sad that you have in some ways, failed as a parent, because you are also responsible for the kind of person your daughter turns out to be? [Note: I am making no claim about WSM's actual parents. This is a thought experiment, nothing more.]
I don't think anyone denies that parenting plays a very very big role in determining what kind of person the child grows up to become. This role is so big, that some of us have a tendency to attribute moral blame to parents for "poor upbringing" whenever a child has done something undesirable, even after the child has attained legal adult status.
I have two questions. The first question: what is good upbringing? Is there any gauge or metric for good or not-so-good parenting? Is academic success an indication of good upbringing? Some parents like to brag about the schools their children go to, or if their children go on to become successful doctors, lawyers or whatever high places in society. If your child is relatively bright, and mugs like crazy so that he can enter RI and RJ, but acts like a complete snob to your neighbour's children, would you feel like you've been a successful parent? Or perhaps you feel better that than the ah beng across the street who can only be a sweeper at best? Other metrics of good upbringing? Perhaps the popularity of your child? Or perhaps the very generic sense of is he/she a "good boy" or "good girl"? Or perhaps, as I suspect, you'll never really know how successful you were as a parent, until you see your children when they are 30, and you see how they treat their own spouses and children, as well as how they treat their colleagues, friends and fellow human beings in general.
To be fair, there is some sense which, surely we know, certain things are definitely bad parenting. And avoiding such bad parenting is some progress towards good parenting. Things such as spoiling the kids so that they have no sense of discipline or respect towards others. Things such as too much restrictions, or worse, physical abuse, that the kids have a battered self-esteem. Things such as exposing them to risks and dangers.
But for each of these trademarks of "bad parenting", there are grey areas. One should not spoil the kids but one must love them, and loving them sometimes means buying that barbie doll for them. Where to draw the line? One must not restrict/scold/punish the child too much, but a total lack of restriction is no discipline at all, and an ill-disciplined person is doomed to failure in life. Where to draw the line? Some risks and dangers are easy to identify. Drugs, for example. How about more grey areas? Smoking? Alcohol? Pre-marital sex? Or how about dating at the age of 15? 17? 19? 21? Where to draw the line?
The second question is this: if there is someone whom we feel is not practising very good parenting, do we, either as individuals or in the collective power of the state, have any right to force them to change? In the US, and I'm sure many other nations, there is a child protection agency which picks up children from parents who fail to meet certain criteria of good parenting, and puts them in foster care. As far as I know, there is no such agency in Singapore, and the state does not intervene in parenting, except in cases where there is clear abuse. A few years ago, there have been some failed attempts to draft a law in the US (as well as the UN) making it criminal for any form of physical punishment by parents at all.
Perhaps another way to think of this question is this: if I think my way of parenting is right, and your way of parenting is not so right, how sure can I be of that? If I have children one day, I might teach them to love fellow humans selflessly (although be wary of strangers). Some others might want to teach their children to be more self-interested, because in that way you protect yourself, and also you stand a higher chance of success in a world which is highly competitive. I might believe in caning my child, because I believe the pain is necessary for them at a young age because it protects them from greater dangers. But some others might believe that are other ways of teaching instead of using physical punishment. Which philosophy of upbringing is more "right"? Can we really know whether or not it is the "right" philosophy until after we see our children grow up and see how they function or fail to function as adults in society?
I believe that by and large, parents ultimately love their children very much. I believe most parents, if shown irrefutable proof (maybe a magic looking glass into the future) that their current way of parenting is indeed not the "right" way, then the parent would change the style of parenting without battling an eyelid. Ultimately, a parent will try his/her best to do what's in the best interest of the child. This I believe to be true for almost all parents. The problem is, there is no magic looking glass into the mirror. There is only, I say this is the correct way, and you can disagree. But at the end of the day, my child is my responsibility to raise, not yours.
Parents love their children. Tremendously so, even. But parents are also human. They may also love success, wealth, a comfortable lifestyle, career, status, themselves. And parents being also human, may make mistakes. They might balance the different loves in less than ideal ways. They are not superhuman after all. Or it may not even be their fault, it may be circumstances beyond their control.
Do I have a point to make in this article? Yeah, and that is that it is a ridiculously difficult job to be a good parent. Too much uncertainties, too little information, and quite literally, lives are at stake. Perhaps someone might feel that this is sufficient reason to decide never to have kids. I would see where he/she is coming from, but I would personally disagree. I would love to have kids. I think having kids to love and to love you in return, is by itself so valuable that it is worth taking the risk of parenting. Although nothing might hurt more than realizing you failed to be a good parent, but then again nothing might make you feel happier to know that you've brought up and help to mould a person of solid character, who is making a difference to the lives of others and of society.
At the end of the day, let's not forget that its a tremendously difficult job to be a good parent. It is so difficult I think, some parents, many parents perhaps, are bound to fail. But if you think you are blessed with great parents who brought you up well, then do take the time, perhaps today, to show your appreciation for them (give them a hug and tell them you love them, for example) and the wonderful job that they've done, for it is not an easy job to do at all.
me has been too busy stuffing myself silly with CNY goodies to blog my previously promised posts on Dungeons and Dragons and on ice cream. will get around to doing that once i get over feeling depressed about how i'm going to lose all the weight i've gained during CNY.
in true spirit to CNY, where families gather once a year to share gossip, take the time to go read the comments thread at this post. juicy stuff. [thanks to Cognitive Dissonance for drawing my attention to this]
Happy CNY to all!!
