- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>In education, there will always be haves and have-nots
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to Mr Muhammad Farouq Osman's letter, 'Elitist danger in Singapore education' (Aug 21).
Although Mr Osman seems disillusioned with our meritocratic education system, he fails to suggest a resolution to restoring faith in the system, which, according to him, is in danger of widening income gaps.
I disagree with his views, based on a case study of my two children.
My son is in the Gifted Education Programme, for which I am thankful. Without such a programme, school to him would be a place where he socialises, and participates in class performances and co-curricular activities. Unlike the mainstream curriculum, the programme challenges his mind, with continuous projects and more in-depth analysis of subjects.
On the other hand, my daughter is an average student on the mainstream syllabus. She has to work hard to keep up.
Brand students like my son elitist? Simply because he is in a specially tailored programme? If elitism is about attitude, then I would argue that high-ability students have the attitude that drives them to excel. They excel not only academically, but also in other fields such as music, sports and co-curricular activities. If scholarships are awarded to all-rounders, why not these students? Shouldn't scholarships be awarded on such a basis, and not after a survey of family background?
In fact, our meritocratic system has improved tremendously over time. We have the Sports School for those talented in sports, the School of the Arts for those keen to pursue a career in aesthetics, and the polytechnics which are increasingly recognised as higher institutions providing life-long skills. The Institute of Technical Education can no longer be regarded 'the end of the world' as it has nurtured and trained students to be successful in their respective fields.
Students of differing ability benefit from all these specialised programmes. Are they not all trained at 'the expense of vast amounts of public funds', as Mr Osman complained? So why does he only pick on academically talented ones?
If attitude is the deciding factor, students from any background will not be disadvantaged. The right attitude motivates students to forge ahead in studies and in life. However, as in any society, we must accept that there will always be a dichotomy between the 'haves' and 'have-nots', between the gifted and not-so-gifted. Once we accept that, we can progress further at our own pace. Agnes Tan (Ms)
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to Mr Muhammad Farouq Osman's letter, 'Elitist danger in Singapore education' (Aug 21).
Although Mr Osman seems disillusioned with our meritocratic education system, he fails to suggest a resolution to restoring faith in the system, which, according to him, is in danger of widening income gaps.
I disagree with his views, based on a case study of my two children.
My son is in the Gifted Education Programme, for which I am thankful. Without such a programme, school to him would be a place where he socialises, and participates in class performances and co-curricular activities. Unlike the mainstream curriculum, the programme challenges his mind, with continuous projects and more in-depth analysis of subjects.
On the other hand, my daughter is an average student on the mainstream syllabus. She has to work hard to keep up.
Brand students like my son elitist? Simply because he is in a specially tailored programme? If elitism is about attitude, then I would argue that high-ability students have the attitude that drives them to excel. They excel not only academically, but also in other fields such as music, sports and co-curricular activities. If scholarships are awarded to all-rounders, why not these students? Shouldn't scholarships be awarded on such a basis, and not after a survey of family background?
In fact, our meritocratic system has improved tremendously over time. We have the Sports School for those talented in sports, the School of the Arts for those keen to pursue a career in aesthetics, and the polytechnics which are increasingly recognised as higher institutions providing life-long skills. The Institute of Technical Education can no longer be regarded 'the end of the world' as it has nurtured and trained students to be successful in their respective fields.
Students of differing ability benefit from all these specialised programmes. Are they not all trained at 'the expense of vast amounts of public funds', as Mr Osman complained? So why does he only pick on academically talented ones?
If attitude is the deciding factor, students from any background will not be disadvantaged. The right attitude motivates students to forge ahead in studies and in life. However, as in any society, we must accept that there will always be a dichotomy between the 'haves' and 'have-nots', between the gifted and not-so-gifted. Once we accept that, we can progress further at our own pace. Agnes Tan (Ms)
