Recently at the workplan seminar of the Education ministry, Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam made sweeping changes to the primary school education by replacing streaming with subject-based learning.
"The people who were calling for doing away with EM3 were also calling for doing away with ability-based education. In other words, everyone studies the same thing. It doesn't look nice to be studying a simpler subject and so on, so forth."
"We think it is fair, and the most decent thing to do is to give a student, who is struggling in a subject, something more fundamental to work on, consolidate his learning and progress from there. And that is why the foundation subjects have their place."
"What we are doing is moving from a fixed menu to an ala carte menu - choose the subjects you are strong in, for the subjects you are weak in, consolidate your learning at a foundation level."Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, 28th September 2006
As a Singaporean who underwent his education under the previous streaming system, I got to applaud the Education Ministry for adopting a beneficial, effective and less discriminatory methodology of teaching in primary schools. Kudos for the initiative of the Education Minister.
However, to my surprise, I was shocked to realise that the education ministry took exactly 18 years to consider and formulate a policy that was beneficial to all Singaporean students.
"There should not be "ability" streaming as practised in the present educational system. An American educationalist called Dominick Esposito writing in the 1973 Review of Educational Research at pp 163-179 reviewed research into streaming in the United States during the 1960s and early 1970s and concluded that streaming aggravates social and economic differences between children and is of no demonstrable value in the teaching and learning process."
Workers' Party 1988 Manifesto
"The current system of streaming is based on aggregate points of subjects obtained at an examination and is used as the basis for segregating students. This does not really measure the potential ability of students. In addition, the social stigma of streaming far outweighs its usefulness as a convenient way to segregate the students based on academic results."
"WP welcomes the launch of the subject-based pilot classrooms plan. Further customisation of the education and learning process by re-organising the class system based on subject and module should be looked into. "
"Each student should be allowed to advance in different subjects at his pace."
Workers' Party 2006 Manifesto
Way back in 1988, the opposition had already suggested that the government led by the PAP looked into the system of streaming students, replacing it with subject/module based learning, customising the learning of each student according to their competency in each subject. The point was reiterated in the Workers' Party 1994 and 2006 manifestos.
I have 2 questions that I would like the Education Minister to address:
a. Why did the Education Ministry took 18 years to consider & recognise the positive benefits that subject-based learning would give to our students?
b. Why did the Education Ministry took the idea of the Workers' Party and treated it as their own brainchild? Why isn't credit given when it is long overdue?
At this critical juncture of a new leadership in Singapore, I would like to urge the government led by PM Lee Heisn Loong to refrain from being elitist and idealistic, thinking that only the PAP possessed the talents and ideas that would bring the country forward. It's high time for the PAP leadership to practise more circumspection and prudence.
The fact is no one single party has the monopoly of talents and ideas influencing the populace in Singapore.By recognising that the Workers' Party had a strategic role in the implementation of national policies would only give them more credibility and send out the signal to Singaporeans that the Workers' Party and the opposition in general possess creative and capable leadership with ideas that would propel Singapore forward, contrary to what the PAP would like Singaporeans to believe.
In politics, It's all about credibility. It's all about telling the truth. If that's that case, the PAP should have admitted that the Workers' Party had in 1988 and subsquently in 1994 and 2006, been proposing for such a change in the education policy and they have overlooked it. The PAP should recognised that they certainly looked forward to co-operating with the leadership within the opposition to better formulate effective and beneficial policies for all Singaporeans.
Where's the humility?Every political party was formed to stand up for what they believe in, putting the interests of the country before anything else. No one political party was formed to enhance its own interest at the expense of national interests. Not for own personal electoral gain, but for the progress of the country. The PAP must urgently realised this flaw within their goverance.The final message that I would like to convey is this:
When the PAP government suggests a good initiative, the oppostion would certainly back it, and vice-versa. Only with 2 way communication can the country porgress and move forward.
