<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Educating kids: Not a level playing field for all
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to Mr Ken Tai's letter on Monday, 'Parents' aspirations for kids play big part', and wish to stress that parents' aspirations for their children have a lot to do with their financial capability.
I do not share Mr Tai's sentiments that the education system is fair. His observations on the lower stress threshold of HDB-dwelling children and the lack of academic support by lower-income parents are misplaced.
Would lower-income parents disagree that academic achievement by today's standards is largely driven by nurture rather than nature? Why do they not send their children for more and better tuition during school holidays? Do they not aspire for their children to be doctors, lawyers and engineers? The reality is that they can hardly afford the expensive $50 an hour tuition costs.
Furthermore, it is not true that stress threshold is closely related to parents' aspirations for their children. Many of my classmates in the 1950s from low-income families have children who are specialist doctors, architects, lawyers and engineers. None of them could afford private tuition, but these children excelled in the common education system where there was no streaming, no gifted programme, no special school and no international independent school.
Current pedagogical methods used in the classroom are superior to those in the old system. A good system is not necessarily a fair system. In basketball and swimming, unless the rules are changed, tall people always have a distinct advantage over short people. It is only when all school children are put through the same programmes, same regime and at the same pace, can we say that the education system is fair.
It is a fact that a well-tutored, well-trained and well-exposed child performs better in academic tests. Can the gifted from poor families afford to match such opportunities? Income disparity and unequal right of access to academic coaches for gifted children from HDB homes and private housing can yield different results. It becomes difficult to promote excellence without being accused of elitism.
Paul Chan
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to Mr Ken Tai's letter on Monday, 'Parents' aspirations for kids play big part', and wish to stress that parents' aspirations for their children have a lot to do with their financial capability.
I do not share Mr Tai's sentiments that the education system is fair. His observations on the lower stress threshold of HDB-dwelling children and the lack of academic support by lower-income parents are misplaced.
Would lower-income parents disagree that academic achievement by today's standards is largely driven by nurture rather than nature? Why do they not send their children for more and better tuition during school holidays? Do they not aspire for their children to be doctors, lawyers and engineers? The reality is that they can hardly afford the expensive $50 an hour tuition costs.
Furthermore, it is not true that stress threshold is closely related to parents' aspirations for their children. Many of my classmates in the 1950s from low-income families have children who are specialist doctors, architects, lawyers and engineers. None of them could afford private tuition, but these children excelled in the common education system where there was no streaming, no gifted programme, no special school and no international independent school.
Current pedagogical methods used in the classroom are superior to those in the old system. A good system is not necessarily a fair system. In basketball and swimming, unless the rules are changed, tall people always have a distinct advantage over short people. It is only when all school children are put through the same programmes, same regime and at the same pace, can we say that the education system is fair.
It is a fact that a well-tutored, well-trained and well-exposed child performs better in academic tests. Can the gifted from poor families afford to match such opportunities? Income disparity and unequal right of access to academic coaches for gifted children from HDB homes and private housing can yield different results. It becomes difficult to promote excellence without being accused of elitism.
Paul Chan
