Skip to main content

Confidence rather than perceptions is needed for neighbourhood schools

 
'Perceptions about neighbourhood schools must change' as reported in the Straits Times on the 8th of March 2012. And so the Ministry of Education hopes to make all schools as good schools, neighbourhood schools to become good schools. 

Can the perceptions really be changed? Ask yourself as a teacher, as parents, as men in the street, the answer will most likely to be the same – it is very hard to change the mindsets as the nation is divided, the society is divided and the rich-poor is divided.   

Is it too idealistic? MOE wants a change of mindset and perceptions on how to turn the bad to good, the neighbourhood schools to top schools.   If you recall not long ago a minister of state’s view on ITE students, you will know the government is ‘talk and act is not in concert’ (说一套做一套).

It is always difficult to make a change of perceptions and mindsets towards neighbourhood schools – who is the genius recommending such a discriminated term. Is this another scholar from a top school?

Confidence rather than perceptions is needed in the neighbourhood schools to face the challenges.  You cannot change the mindsets of others but you can build up your own confidence.  MOE should encourage schools to improve the confidence level of students, especially the ministry is trying to enlarge and enrich its values and character education. And confidence is in the values and character of a student.  A scholar with no confidence or always work under the protection of the government will not shine. However, a F9 student with full of confidence can still be a top salesperson or a top cook.  

(Education Minister Heng Swee Keat) Mr Heng said that as schools are geographically sited in neighbourhoods, they naturally draw students who live nearby. 'We have to ensure (that there are) good schools in every neighbourhood, and not use the term 'neighbourhood school' as an apology. So we must collectively change perceptions and change mindsets,' he said. (ST 8Mar2012)

Perceptions and mindsets are always there.  We have long wanted to correct these attitudes but when the economy goes faster, more enrichments courses and tuition options are made available and so more financial commitments are needed.  In the past decades, when the real income of the middle and lower income groups increased slower than the upper income group, where could they find the financial resources to close up the learning gap?

Need no explanation. We know where the majority of the middle and lower income students attend their schools.  So the mindsets and perceptions are there, the rich will send their children to top schools if not possible the affiliated international schools of the top schools (tuition fees are not a problem).    

Rich-poor gap, good-bad schools gap  

Since independence, Singapore has been looking for a balance, or a better a word ‘harmony’, for all citizens living here as what described in our National Pledge – a just society for all.  However, like the rich-poor gap, the Gini index has shown a very unhealthy imbalance, the gap becomes bigger with the rapid growth in our economy, so do the gap between good and bad schools, top and neighbourhood schools.

Our continuing stress on economic growth, productivity, and profit will not narrow the gap between good and bad schools.  On the contrary, like the richest people in the world, their wealth increased last year despite 2011 was a bad year for economic performance. Good schools will get better and the rich will get better increase in income. And so it will reflect, in mindsets and perceptions, of the good and bad schools.

Good schools will have better examination results and academic achievements. However, neighbourhood schools will have the opposite unless we see an improvement in the rich and poor gap.   In the mean time, not so good schools have to equip students with confidence – this intangible and valuable asset will accompany them all their life without fail.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...