What other countries can learn from Singapore’s schools
amp.economist.com
amp.economist.com
Firstly, as the article says, SG divides "high achievers" from "low achievers" at a pretty early age and enforces a social stereotype that the low achieveres who attend polytechnic schools are somehow dumb. This is needless segregation. Just offer everyone the same tests and let them choose their specializations.
Secondly, and this is anecdotal, SG produces workerbees who are content to follow orders and processes rather than make their own. The government gives them free money (called a "bond") to go study abroad and then come back and perform 6 years of government labor as a middle-manager. Singaporean students typically study hard, but in their new social surroundings, quickly binge on drugs and alcohol and etc, even more so than Americans binge.
Thirdly, Singaporeans treat ethnic Malays as non-citizens. The Han Chinese of SG are thoroughly content to see Malaysians attending "religious school" as if this were some great freedom. In reality, they are happy to prevent the Malays from becoming as successful as the 70% Chinese population.
Needless?
My experience is this pushes many middle of the road kids to work harder and achieve more.
"Needless segregation" - like another poster replied... "needless"? Can you explain what you mean by needless? Have you ever compared our academic achievements with the same aged counterparts from other highly developed countries including US? If it's "needless", how come we are academically so far superior? What is needless about it?
"Singaporeans..... quickly binge on drugs and alcohol" LOL. as opposed to.... what? Americans who reads books in the dorm rooms? Europeans who sip tea and chat about politics? I've attended 3 different schools in Canada and US, and rarely have I ever seen Singaporeans outdrink and outparty the really wild and affluent Eastern Europeans (Russians, Bulgarians, etc) and even the Americans themselves. Are there SOME singaporeans who party hard? Of course, but your comment is just ridiculous sensationalism.
"They are happy to prevent the Malays from becoming successful" This is the most laughable of your statements. Trust me when I tell you, we did nothing to oppress them. We gave them free education up to university, which is not offered to the Chinese citizens, and yet they remain in the lower rungs of society. Go read Lee Kuan Yew's statements on Malays and you'll read about it from someone far more articulate than me. Wanna know an interesting fact? Even in their native country Malaysia, the rich and powerful are still the Chinese. Can you explain that?
Your exposure to life long propaganda is far greater.
> Trust me when I tell you, we did nothing to oppress them. We gave them free education
If there was integration of Malays as equals you wouldn't be saying 'we did nothing to oppress them' or 'we gave them' because you would think of Malays as 'us' and not 'them'
They were responding to a commenter who introduced that dichotomy into the convo, fair or not.
imo This is true for most of East and SE Asia due to culture. Confucianism has greatly influenced most if not all of them, specifically with the importance for respecting hierarchy i.e. your parents, your bosses, or any other authority figure.
While western societies attempt to espouse this philosophy as well, imo the fundamental focus on the individual as well the tendency for constant rebellion tends to balance things out better
Western countries push this type of thinking, but imo it doesn't take well due to culture. People routinely question authority figures which is a good thing imo.
First, the age 12 examination, likely a reference to the primary school leaving exam, is not a "needless segregation". It's just another examination, whose results are used like any other examination - to see where you go next as a student. Is your objection towards exams? But that can't be, because right in that paragraph you do advocate students taking tests. That is exactly what is happening, students are taking tests and moving on based on the results of those tests. You can choose whatever specialisation you want to but if your results are bad that's the system working as intended.
Further, that exam at age 12 does not lead to attendance at polytechnic for being "dumb". At age 16/17 you take another exam, the GSCE "O" levels, and the results of that let you be placed in a tertiary education institution. It is true that the standards of entry are different, but again, that is the system working as intended.
Second, the workerbee anecdote is, on its own, fairly accurate in my experience, but also in my experience this is true for most peoples everywhere. Not everyone can tread new ground with all they do. I think we'd all be better off if we didn't look down on "workerbees".
But your following sentences don't parse. The government gives these workerbees "free" money? It's called a scholarship, it's not free, and it does not come from the "government", it comes from whichever organisation that wants to sponsor your further education. Assuming you even qualify, then in return for the money you are given to further your education, you are supposed to serve that organisation that paid for that education using the knowledge you gained from it - this is the "bond". Do you oppose this quid pro quo arrangement? Or is your objection to the "free" money (which isn't really free), in which case, is the Scandinavian model of free university tuition somehow abhorrent to you, too? Or are you somehow denigrating these scholar-middle-managers as you put it?
And what are you on about re: Singaporean students binge-ing on drugs and alcohol overseas? You mean the "freeloading government scholar middle management" types you just described? If we're going to use personal anecdotes, mine is that those scholars overseas study like hell and don't squander the opportunity because that's a Stupid Thing To Do.
Third, your comment on ethnic Malays. The first sentence is outright false. Singapore's relationship with Malaysia is complicated, but ethnic Malays are as Singaporean as Singaporean Indians and Chinese. If you have specific points to make as to how Malays are less, please do.
The rest of your third point is also difficult to parse. The Chinese are... somehow... complicit in stopping Malays from advancing in society... by setting a trap where they get to attend madrasahs and dressing it up as a privilege...? So you're saying that it would be better if the Malays attended regular schools instead, to advance in society? The same regular schools you apparently claim treat Malays as non-citizens? The same regular schools that the vast majority of Malays attend anyway?
To be maximally charitable to your comment, it sounds like your issues are with society and not with the education system. As a society we look down on polytechnic diploma holders and students who did badly in their exams and this is a bad thing. I hate that we do not value blue collar jobs and contributions as much as PMEBs, especially when those blue collar jobs and workerbees form the core of society. Such discrimination breeds a divide that, IMO, should not exist. But this is a problem worldwide, not isolated to Singapore.
You also seem to be ticked off that Malays are being brought down somehow, and somehow more so than any minority would be, but other than that I really don't understand what you're on about.
Not being in the education field myself, what do other countries currently do, that isn't an evidence-based test-and-then-roll-out approach?
Growing up in the U.S., my parents were told by teachers that 6th and 7th grade was too early to teach a child algebra, because <various studies> showed that children can't handle the abstraction. But my parents, being first generation immigrants, insisted that the counter example of all my cousins in China is clearly evidence to the contrary. But surely my teachers in the U.S. had to have gotten their information from somewhere...