Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Know who to give the wake-up call to, please
Lui Tuck Yew has come out to defend the principal who advised her Secondary 5 class to transfer to ITE since they are ‘unlikely do well in the O levels’.
According to Lui, 40 per cent of Sec 5 students will not do well enough at the O levels to enter polytechnic. The principal in question apparently considers a 60% chance of entering polytechnic as being ‘unlikely to do well in the O levels’. I think that principal operates with really cranky logic. I would like to ask that principal a hypothetical question: if you have a terminal illness and the doctor says you have a 60% chance of recovery if you undergo surgery, will you do it? I wonder what her response will be.
Anyway, I digress. I don’t disagree with Lui’s point that certain tough messages need to be delivered. However, please draw a clear distinction between who should and should not be given tough messages. We are talking about N level students who worked hard enough to gain promotion to Secondary 5. Are these students lazy bums who need the wake-up call? Probably not. The lazy bums would not have made it in the first place.
So, is the ‘wake-up’ call necessary for these students? I don’t think so. I am of the opinion that these students should be further encouraged to better their good performance in the N levels. I can’t think of any reasonable justification to tell these students that they should seek a transfer to ITE as soon as possible.
There is no excuse for the behaviour of this principal, and Lui Tuck Yew just made things worse defending the principal. And, in defending that principal, Lui also said that educators should not be deprived of tools to manage student performance. Honestly, no one is saying that we should ban educators from delivering tough messages. The issue here is that the wrong tool was used. You don’t use a hammer on a screw, and neither do you use a spanner to saw a piece of wood.
Know who to give the wake-up call to, please. To demoralise hardworking students with such insensitive remarks is not the right thing to do for an educator.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 17/01/2008 at 9:59 am, and is filed under Perspective. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 4 years ago
For NSmen…pls don’t waste time preparing for IPPT…kindly book your RT sessions straight away
about 4 years ago
Sad but true…
I mean I took my O’s not long ago and I think too many schools are just too result-orientated (although in my school’s case it churned out rather satisfying results).
And I really think this is very unfair for these students – having put in so much effort to regain lost ground they’re not being pushed back again…
about 4 years ago
Although I agree that the method the principal used seems very highhanded but I kind of disagree with the hypothetical question u posed – it does not consider the alternative provided. To me, the doctor is saying that there is only a 60% chance of recovery if you undergo surgery but you can give alternative treatments such as TCM a try.
With this perspective, I believe it’ll be good if the relevant parties are able to provide statistics to justify e.g. the percentage of higher Nitec students (only those with N-level results good enough to move on to secondary 5 but chose not to) who moved on to polytechnic. With this comparison, students will then be able to make better decision.
If the percentage is indeed higher, the principal’s advice should be taken. And although one may argue that higher Nitec takes 1 year longer than the secondary 5 route, those students are allowed to be exempted from up to 1 year worth of modules in polytechnic (source: http://www.republic.edu.sg/admissions/admissions_info/jaefaqs/entry_requirements.asp#11). Hence the duration to getting a diploma adds up to be about the same.
The only problem with this education route is that the general public still deem the ITE to mean It’s The End. This perception simply reflects the narrow-mindedness of these people. The reality is that there are students from ITE who moved on to polytechnic and ultimately to local universities like NUS and NTU. My cousin is one example. His N-level results were good enough for him to move on to secondary 5 but he chose to go to ITE instead. And from there, he got scholarship every year until he graduated with his diploma. He’s currently studying in NTU. People need to stop seeing ITE and the students in negative light. Such social stereotyping will result in the vicious cycle of prejudice.
While I may disagree with the way the principal delivered her advice, I do believe that her advice warrants some consideration. And instead of Lui defending her with statistics telling half the story, it will be better if he is able to give statistics telling the other half. This way, the students and parents will be able to decide which education path is more suitable.
about 4 years ago
there are two ways to motivate – positive motivation and negative motivation.
i think it’s sad that our society and education system, wanting to be so diversified, ends up being so segmented and stratified.
i feel the best motivation for such youths is to tell them that with hard work and pride in what they do, they can definitely go places; and no route is a bad route.
last time if parents were to scare their children that they’ll be sweeping roads if they didn’t study hard, it wasn’t a big deal. now schools are doing some degree of parenting and a little bit of negative motivation has resulted in people crying foul. odd?
about 4 years ago
I guess if the principal had pitched the comment differnetly; ie to inform them to apply for everything else to keep their options open, it would not have attracted the same rancour as attracted currently. But i would think that one of the considerations the principal had, when making the comment, in view of the language used, was more concerned about the effect on the sch grades and that is what pisses most people, self included of.
about 4 years ago
Don’t blame it on the principal wholely. Blame it on the government system too. They put KPI and benchmarking which means that all high-flyers have to prove themselves with stellar result to get higher pay and better prospect in future (like becoming principal for some prestigious school. The principal, moral or no moral, is just adapting to the system.
It does remind of hanky-panky to achieve the result, but as I like to clearly elaborate, the mean to achieve is not important, the end result is more important as exemplified by our government.
Not enough baby = Increase foreigner citizenship or PR
More traffic = Increase ERP + more gantries etc…
You figure out what I mean.
Look Aaron, read the following extract from our beloved minister
from our credible ShitTime “http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/STIStory_196894.html”
“But Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui said the educators mean well and just want to make sure the students are ‘on a firm footing for the path ahead of them’.
‘It is important we recognise what it is our educators are really trying to do because the greater danger is indifference.
‘We do a great injustice to principals when we keep insinuating that they do so because they see their performance linked to the results and to the performance bonus,’ he added.”
Now all the principal and teacher have pegged salary and benefit through result KPI. A case of for our own good again !
People love carrot, don’t they ?
about 4 years ago
Weiye,
Good point. An alternative hypothetical scenario could probably that if one have a malignant brain tumor and there’s a 60% chance of recovery if you do sugery, but you have the option of going for TCM. Thanks for pointing this out.
And yes, perception is a big problem for ITE. I am sure that ITE is no lousy institution but it still doesn’t address the issue of why the principal is recommending hardworking students to just go into ITE without letting the students have a shot at taking the O levels. Sure, the principal advised, but the element of intimidation involved surely isn’t much of a choice.
By the way, do you have your own blog? I would love to read it.
about 4 years ago
Sam,
You have an interesting point about parents scaring their children that they will end up sweeping the roads if they didn’t study hard. My parents did that to me, but that was because I was more interested in playing than studying. When I became hardworking and spent much more time studying than playing, they didn’t say such negative things anymore. Instead, they talked about how they would help me go through university if I made it there. My point here is the same as the main point of my entry, and that is, you tailor your advice according to the individual. If it’s a lazy bum, negative motivation is perhaps more appropriate. If it’s a hardworking and motivated student, positive motivation would be better.
about 4 years ago
David,
The issue here is not KPIs per se. Rather, it is the type of KPIs that are being set. If the KPIs have a heavy component of “value-add”, then there’s no problem. It’s probably not the instrument but how the instrument is being used.
about 4 years ago
Lui and the principal have overlooked an important aspect of character building — determination and endurance.
Encouraging them to try their best in O-levels, despite a certain chance of falling short of whatever requirements for polytechnic, would reinforce the message that hard work is important. The value of ingraining such character in the students cannot be over-emphasised.
By telling the students to take the easy way out and go to ITE, these students will never know their own limits and will perhaps live with the what-if regrets their whole life.
about 4 years ago
its a mentality which is hard to change – results = good always and it also means bonuses for the teachers as well. While ideally it is laudable that education is about the student, and education is an end in itself, i don’t think that is an aim which is totally practicable. Just ask any teacher in Singapore…