Went back to TJ as part of our almost-annual affair, and met up with the 2 Civics Tutors once again. Yet again, I found myself blessed with 2 of the most passionate teachers around, who still have the faith in them, even when faced with the changing paradigms of education. Look at veteran teachers and compare them with the new teachers of today. What differs? The former educates, but the latter only teaches.
Interestingly, just barely a week ago, some of my friends had this little discussion over supper, about the JC education in Singapore. One of the main points brought up, was how the JC system lacked substance and how little exposure the students are getting. Really, how can 2 years of education in Math and Science, give young JC graduates an idea of what's in store for them later? On what basis should they decide whether to go the path of an engineering or business or accountancy career? More often than not, they take up scholarships without really knowing where their interests lie, but instead, choosing according to prestige. Without a wider exposure to the real world, JC students choose a tertiary course based on whatever information and signals fed to them by peers, parents and teachers. And what happens? Lack of motivation and embarking on careers that are totally irrelevant to the 4 years of effort in the course of study.
The need for a JC overhaul seemed to be lightly brought up during the visit to our 2 Civics tutors too. The policy-makers from up above have got certain guidelines that teachers have to follow strictly. Yes, they review syllabus every now and then, but are they really for the better? Some are downright unnecessary and worse, they might even contribute to a loss in interest in the subject. An example was given by one of my Civics tutors, and I did agree that the said change (of removing one of the previous topics and adding another) was unnecessary, as it delves deep into an idea, and will run into the danger of losing the JC students, who I admit, are barely past the foundation level of the Math, Science and Humanities subjects.
And there was the Project Work, which was the bane of both students and teachers alike. Such an unpopular subject was given even more emphasis. As someone who has undergone this initiative, I feel that it is useless and a waste of precious time, which could be channeled to widen the students' exposure. Look, Project Work is supposed to be good--to work on a problem with your team-mates and then present your findings to the assessors. But when guidelines after guidelines are issued, there's only this 'generic formula' that students are 'allowed', what will happen to creativity? Moreover, the strict assessment guideline also means that students and teachers will prepare these Project Work towards how it would be graded best. Now, I can't really see any value in this anymore. Recently, a group of Project Work teachers, wrote an open letter anonymously to the Education Minister, charting out the many problems of this subject. There had been no updates at the moment. But seriously, the policy-makers are in a pressing need to stay connected to the ground, which includes both students and teachers.
WL recommended me to watch a speech by Sir Ken Robinson, titled Changing Paradigms. (Click it.) If you are a would-be educator, you might really want to listen to it. In fact, policy-makers ought to listen to it too, as he talked about the focus of public education and how millions of students are made to do things that they may not be necessarily good at. For an elitist society like Singapore, it could really be thought-provoking. Quoting what a friend said during last week's supper, could the current JC system that emphasize heavily on Math and Science, be really just a convenient way for the government to sieve out their top brains for public service? If it's true, it's going to be a vicious cycle, because that is how policy-makers are always sourced.
We've come to a new generation. Older teachers who joined the service because of that 'calling' to teach, may not be very common among newer teachers. Turnover rates might be higher now, and newer teachers might be pre-occupied with delivering results. No, they're not to be blamed, because that's how the 'system' works-- Results are still the key performance indicator. The system should really change, not only because it's an unhealthy trend, but also, it is not giving teachers the joy of teaching, nor students the joy of learning.
If you're a would-be educator, do remember: to Educate, not Teach. It should never be the case that Character Development is being sacrificed at the expense of Results.
人生是黑白的.
8:59 AM <3
>>>
