http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_274214.html
Home > ST Forum > Online Story
A tale of two students of different social status
I REFER to Mr Jonathan Tan's letter last Friday, 'Keep quality of education consistent for all'.
Mr Tan's dismissal of Mr Muhammad Farouq Osman's viewpoint ('Elitist danger in Singapore education', Aug 21) as 'engendering an anti-elitist siege mentality among non-elite' is unnecessarily defensive and smacks of a holier-than-thou attitude.
Mr Osman's mental picture of a quintessential scholar from a well-to-do family is not atypical nor absurd. But the thrust of his letter, I believe, is not to cast doubt on the meritocracy of Singapore's education system, thus Mr Tan's follow- up misses the point.
What Mr Osman is driving at is how the Singapore system is advantageous to students from well-to-do families. The academic competence of a student from a high-income household is in no way superior or inferior to that of a student from a poor family backgrounds, but he is likely to do better in school because of his dominant social status.
I present a simple example: Students A and B are equally academically gifted. A comes from an affluent background with wealthy parents, while B is the eldest brother in a poor family with five siblings.
Since A was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he does not fret over financial difficulties. His parents hire the best tutors for him, and with his gifted mind wholly focused on results, he aces his exams. In his free time and during school holidays, he engages in co-curricular activities (CCAs) such as basketball, excels in them, joins the chess club and becomes its president.
A is drafted into the Gifted Education Programme from a young age, goes to the best Special Assistance Plan schools to which the best teachers are assigned, goes on an abundance of overseas trips and exchange programmes, receives the most prestigious scholarships and is earmarked as a future leader.
In telling contrast, B has to constantly grapple with financial issues. He holds part-time jobs to earn pocket money and contribute to the family income, cutting time for self-study, and has never taken part in any CCAs. He enrols in an average junior college and does fairly well in his A levels, but gives up his chance to embark on university studies due to exorbitant fees, to work full time in order to help out with his family income and lessen his parents' burden.
B's abilities, apparently, are never fully stretched.
Now, given the fact that B has never received monetary benefits when he is clearly the one who needs them more, to stigmatise and discriminate against less well-to-do students from a young age as academically less gifted is simplistic and unfair. (very gd pt!)
Even though enrolment in special programmes such as the Gifted Education Programme and Integrated Programme is based on academic performance and not social status, one important question should be asked: How is the quality of education consistent for A and B, who are both academically gifted students?
Does meritocracy means A deserves the scholarship more than B because of his superior social status?
Among those from poorer family backgrounds, I believe there is a plethora of untapped talent. Students A and B do not differ in intellect and capability, but because they differ in social status, they start from inequitable points. That is something that needs to be addressed.
Kam Zhihao
Home > ST Forum > Online Story
A tale of two students of different social status
I REFER to Mr Jonathan Tan's letter last Friday, 'Keep quality of education consistent for all'.
Mr Tan's dismissal of Mr Muhammad Farouq Osman's viewpoint ('Elitist danger in Singapore education', Aug 21) as 'engendering an anti-elitist siege mentality among non-elite' is unnecessarily defensive and smacks of a holier-than-thou attitude.
Mr Osman's mental picture of a quintessential scholar from a well-to-do family is not atypical nor absurd. But the thrust of his letter, I believe, is not to cast doubt on the meritocracy of Singapore's education system, thus Mr Tan's follow- up misses the point.
What Mr Osman is driving at is how the Singapore system is advantageous to students from well-to-do families. The academic competence of a student from a high-income household is in no way superior or inferior to that of a student from a poor family backgrounds, but he is likely to do better in school because of his dominant social status.
I present a simple example: Students A and B are equally academically gifted. A comes from an affluent background with wealthy parents, while B is the eldest brother in a poor family with five siblings.
Since A was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he does not fret over financial difficulties. His parents hire the best tutors for him, and with his gifted mind wholly focused on results, he aces his exams. In his free time and during school holidays, he engages in co-curricular activities (CCAs) such as basketball, excels in them, joins the chess club and becomes its president.
A is drafted into the Gifted Education Programme from a young age, goes to the best Special Assistance Plan schools to which the best teachers are assigned, goes on an abundance of overseas trips and exchange programmes, receives the most prestigious scholarships and is earmarked as a future leader.
In telling contrast, B has to constantly grapple with financial issues. He holds part-time jobs to earn pocket money and contribute to the family income, cutting time for self-study, and has never taken part in any CCAs. He enrols in an average junior college and does fairly well in his A levels, but gives up his chance to embark on university studies due to exorbitant fees, to work full time in order to help out with his family income and lessen his parents' burden.
B's abilities, apparently, are never fully stretched.
Now, given the fact that B has never received monetary benefits when he is clearly the one who needs them more, to stigmatise and discriminate against less well-to-do students from a young age as academically less gifted is simplistic and unfair. (very gd pt!)
Even though enrolment in special programmes such as the Gifted Education Programme and Integrated Programme is based on academic performance and not social status, one important question should be asked: How is the quality of education consistent for A and B, who are both academically gifted students?
Does meritocracy means A deserves the scholarship more than B because of his superior social status?
Among those from poorer family backgrounds, I believe there is a plethora of untapped talent. Students A and B do not differ in intellect and capability, but because they differ in social status, they start from inequitable points. That is something that needs to be addressed.
Kam Zhihao
