Quite a few of you came to my post, “A rose-tinted view of Singapore’s education system”, from a link that had this comment:
“Just because many enrolled in extra tuition doesn’t necessarily diminishes contributions made by teachers in schools.”

I think the comment is off the mark. If he had just bothered to read carefully, the point I was making was that too much credit has been given to the Singapore school system by far-away foreign observers.

Our teachers are hard-working. Quite a few are too hard-working for their own good. Some time ago the local paper, The Straits Times reported that teachers made up the largest group of professionals who visited the local Institute of Mental Health (and I am not even suggesting that they are lunatics because of this). The local teachers’ union when asked if teachers were coping well with the work load would always claim that their members were coping well despite this piece of evidence, not to mention that many of the older teachers trying to get out of teaching through “early retirement” on medical grounds. The latter is another open secret of the Singapore education system. So our teachers do work hard.

But in all honesty I think the school system in Singapore is unable to cope with the high stakes exams as it is now without all these extra-school “assistance” like private tuition. The school hours have also been extended yet there are still lots of extra classes. Why is there a need for this if the system is so good or if there is sufficient time? Talk to teachers and they will tell you that they are always in a mad rush “to complete the syllabus in time for the examinations”. Why must learning and teaching be in a rush? In such a “rushed” situation, do they really teach conceptual understanding properly? The focus in our schools is not the mastery of such things; it is the mastery of the examination questions that is sought. Now if these are not evidence of an overloaded, unrealistic exam-oriented syllabus, then I don’t know what is.

Do we want to own up that teachers and students “officially” work longer than the official school hours designated for lessons that we want to tell to our foreign audience. I know of schools where principals close a blind eye to teachers carrying out “illegal” classes on Saturdays in school even though Saturdays are supposed to be off for teachers and students. That would be more honest. And if we do that would our system look as “great” in the eyes of foreign observers? Our education system is pretty good. But let us not go overboard with its achievements.

I cannot help feel that often foreign observers who view the Singapore education system tend to see it through rose-tinted glasses. This is not to say that there are no strong points in the Singapore education system. However, some of the examples cited by foreign observers makes me wonder if they are really seeing it for it really is.

For example, the oft-cited prowess of Singapore students in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Singapore’s 10 and 14-year old students came out tops in both Maths and Science among the 49 countries assessed. The Minister for Education, Dr Ng Eng Hen, recently said about the TIMSS results:

But more importantly, note that our lowest quartile is above the median of the world. In other words, students who are academically weaker do better in our system compared to others.

While trying hard not to belittle these results, one wonders how much of it is really due to the school system and the teachers in Singapore? It is a well-known fact that many students in Singapore go for extra tuition with private tutors. Top students go for tuition to get even better grades and weak students go for tuition to improve on their pass grades. That is Singapore’s most well-known educational secret. In fact, the government, has tacitly also encouraged the tuition industry by encouraging local \\”self-help\\” groups like Mendaki, CDAC and Sinda to organise tuition classes as perhaps their main activity to uplift the locals. With a whole army of tutors coaching both top and weak students can we honestly say that the education system in Singapore is as great as they say. This is not to mention the huge amount fo extra classes that the teachers and students have to put in schools in Singapore to drill the students on exam paper type questions. If the system is so good why is there a need for all these?

In my view, what it does suggest is that the school system alone is inadequate to even get most of our students to do well on its own. The exam-oriented curricula covers way too much for most students to absorb or do well within the given time. What the system does is not hothousing the students. What it does is to make them go through a sweat shop. There is a difference between the two. Foreigners who still think that the system is good and is responsible for the good test scores, just need to talk to parents about it. Ask them how much time students have for any other thing besides school and tuition.

What is even more scary is that some schools in neighboring countries like Indonesia, Vietnam and even China want to copy the Singapore school system without considering all these. Do parents really want a system that would mean a lot of private tuition for their children? Is this what education is all about?