Singapore Best Education System Ranked 79 in Adult Literacy

last SG · 2008-07-09T01:42:07+00:00

Well, singapore is probably the only country tat include the independent thinking into its curriculum while the other countries just concentrate on teaching...

robertteh SG

Our best education system has produced many wee shu mins who feel they are of higher breed or pedigree deserving to sit high on the pedestal and ministers who say they must be paid the world's highest pays to prevent corruption while workers should not as they will cause inflation.

foxtrout8 SG

Our best education system has produced many wee shu mins who feel they are of higher breed or pedigree deserving to sit high on the pedestal and ministers who say they must be paid the world's highest pays to prevent corruption while workers should not as they will cause inflation.

Robertteh, i believe the aim of paying our civil servant their high pay is so that the civil service is attractive enough to pull in a higher number of prospective civil servant and from this pool of candidates, they will choose the top talent. How it can actually prevent corruption is just perhaps a by catch of the main aim.

True, our education system has produced antagonist such as wee shu mins but our education system has also produced people like gopalan, chee soon juan whom stand differently. Dont forget that our education system has produced particularly almost everyone of us here in Sgforums and education has a play on our thoughts, beliefs and aspiration.

We may beg to differ on wee shu min ivory idea but we are the child of the same education system.

maurizio13 SG

The curriculum is a very broad word which includes the syllabus, the teaching and learning approach expected of the teachers and the students. How can it be the failure of the syllabus and not the curriculum?

All of them plays apart in the teaching of sex education. As demostrated by my news article, the conservative value of the chinese society produced unsupportive parents, unmotivated teachers whom are uncomfortable in teaching the subject and students whom find the subject boring. If that social value will to change, we will see a whole new result with supportive parents at home doing the talking, eager and unapologetic teachers motivated to put up a interesting and engaging lesson and students benefiting from the attractive lessons.

Damm I didnt say that sex education should be scrap in China and neither did i say the parents were right. I said that social values should work hand in hand with their curicullum to tackle the problem.

See this as quoted:

""However the news article shows clearly that values hold by society must work hand in hand with the curiculum for it to work.""

In fact, im calling the society to change it's mindset and work hand in hand with the new emphasis on sex education.

U didnt learn values of fillial piety, respect, social responsibility in your chinese lessons? Your time has no moral education? I even have moral education examination and projects at secondary school damm.

I think we are of different time.

Suggest you read and understand what is the difference between a curriculum and syllabus before you make any more comments.

The schools have a stronger role to play in imparting sex education to the students. You say the student's parents are unsupportive of sex education, the teachers unmotivated, how else would students know about sex education. You can't change the attitude of the parents, but you can change the mindset of the teachers, because they are under the control of the Ministry of Education.

Well, from the way you are presenting your case, parents unsupportive, teachers unmotivated, how else do you intend to carry on the sex education drive.

Social values take time to change, paradigms are not shifted overnight. Therefore a more likely course is to change the mindset of the teachers to teach sex education to students.

You are "calling the society to change their mindset". Alright, put in the the news and the Chinese will change their mindset overnight.

Even if the moral education was implemented, it does not mean 100% effective; way you have a course teaching Calculus, does it mean 100% will acquire the necessary skills.

maurizio13 SG

In my quote :

""For example, the liberal approach in the sex education curriculum seen in the west may not yield the same result if put in place in China. The curriculum may be shaped for the best interest of educating the society but the approach may not fit into the culture of the society. The conservative society of china may too apprehensive to accept that approach in teaching.""

Ur reply:

""Sex education is subject to cultural bias no doubt. But are you saying that China should forsake sex education just because of cultural bias.""

I didnt say anything about forsaking sex education due to whatever reasons. I am not even blaming you for ur misinterpretation but just highlighting that there is a misunderstanding.

You mistook sarcasm for misunderstanding, obviously you didn't learn that in school or the real world.

maurizio13 SG

Taken from wiki:

- In formal education or schooling (cf. education), a curriculum is the set of courses, course work, and content offered at a school or university.

Taken from yourdictionary:

- A fixed series of studies required, as in a college, for graduation, qualification in a major field of study, etc.

Taken from wiki the defination of syllabus:

- A syllabus is an outline and summary of topics to be covered in a course.

As u can see, the syllabus is part of the curriculum. How can the exam criteria change the syllabus and not the curriculum?

I believe the british administration got to do with the poor education level of our pre independence generation because of they didnt help much in educating the population.

I didnt say that the british administration did not promote education in Singapore, i said that they didnt emphasized as much importance as the post independence government. Just look at the amount of government aid schools at that time as compared to MOE's time for empirical evidence.

I didnt say that the illiterates all belong to the pre independence generation. I said that they may consist of the bulk of the illiterates.

And for goodness sake, the administration is different in hong kong as compared to Singapore. We are on equal terms by name onli because the governor is different and their policies are different. The policy on education by the colonial masters in Singapore may be different from the masters in Hong kong. I have no details on hongkong's education policy during colonial time but by understanding that there is a difference in administration shows that there is no equal ground to compare.

I think your dictionary definitions are right, but they are not complete. You only covered the learning areas (subjects) but not the values (morals & ethics). Changes in the inclusion or exclusion of topics in subject areas only changes the content, the learning area still remains (English, The Arts, Health and Physical Education, Mathematics, Science, etc).

National Curriculum for New Zealand

Ok. Then what makes you think that the British "didn't emphasized as much importance" of education? I do not have the statistics for the number of schools per population for the British period and MOE period, perhaps you could be so kind as to provide me with this information which you have obtained. The growth in schools now as compared to the past was a result of population growth, more population therefore more schools.

Well, your guesstimate of the pre-independence generation making up the bulk of illiterates is wrong. Singapore Statistics has provided figures for the components of the highest educational attainment with age group. The post-independence generation illiterates (ages 35-44) makes up about 9.7% of the total population of Singapore in the year 2000. While those (post-independence generation) with primary school qualification make up 27.1% of the total population in the year 2000.

http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/higheredu.html

Yes the British administration is different from the MOE's style; therefore doesn't this prove that the British Education system is far superior to MOE education system. Both Hong Kong and Singapore are quite similar, Singapore adopted MOE system whereas Hong Kong stayed they course with the British system till 1997. Hong Kong ended up with higher adult literacy rate than Singapore.

maurizio13 SG

my friend, a link to MOE's primary and secondary civic and moral education syllabus.

http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/syllabuses/humanities-and-aesthetics/files/civics-and-moral-education-primary-english-2000.pdf

http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/syllabuses/humanities-and-aesthetics/files/civics-and-moral-education-secondary-2000.pdf

Obviously the syllabus is flawed, because we have comments from forumers about kids these days scolding their parents, beating their maid and ignoring their grandparents.

maurizio13 SG

quote from Dr Aline Wong Senior Minister of State for Education in 2000.

""The learning of moral and cultural values is infused into the teaching of the mother tongue, as well as strengthened in civic and moral education which is a compulsory, though non-examinable, subject from primary to secondary schools.""

http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2000/sp24112000.htm

Judging from the behaviour of children these days, the implementation must be flawed.

maurizio13 SG

U see any problems with the education here ? Frankly speaking I felt it is fine and people can get accepted in overseas university easily with the qualification u get from the studies here. If u talk about other form of education like taking care of yourself, I don't find singaporean stupid and cannot do tat. I think th problem is the longevity of singaporean is high, older generation r not literate and tat explains the figure. Otherwise u have to name me someone who is below 30 and cannot read and write. Personally, I don't know anyone who cannot read or write and is below 30

Whether you know of anyone not being able to read or write is of little consequence to factual evidence from statistics. You only see a small portion of the 4.5 million population of Singapore, therefore your observation is not a true representation of the 4.5 million population. It's only a bias observation, because your social group is limited to your set of subjective criteria. Enclosed is the statistics of illiterates post-independence (ages 35-44 y.o.) for the year 2000, it shows that 9.7% of the total population in Singapore has No Qualification and 27.1% of the total population with Primary School Qualification.

http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/higheredu.html

maurizio13 SG

Looking at some folks hanging around these forums, you already have the answer, don't you? ;)

Moreover, if you had an even higher literacy rate where folks are capable of engaging in critical and rational reasoning, this regime's survival would certainly come under grave threat. Hence, how can you expect the regime to shoot themselves in the foot?

Their inability to participate in critical and rational reasoning is prima facie that our education system if flawed. I guess this handicap works in the favour of the ruling P4P government, they should promote such handicap to ensure their continued dominance.

foxtrout8 SG

Obviously the syllabus is flawed, because we have comments from forumers about kids these days scolding their parents, beating their maid and ignoring their grandparents.

It clearly shows that the curiculum alone cant do much impact without strengtening social values. In my opinion moral education is running up a steep slope in Singapore due to the erosion of social values.

And if our syllabus is flawed due to the occurence of kids scolding their parents, then the british civic education system that u pointed out must be flawed too, they have their own share of problems which sure include petty things like ignoring their grandparents.

just a link to demostrate the above point

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/759276.stm

I like to ask which society doesnt have it's fair share of maid beating, rape, lack of filial piety and even treason? So i think it's wrong for u to conveniently label the syllabus just because we have some of the unfortunate occurence.

foxtrout8 SG

http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/higheredu.html

Please look at the table again.

Look at the the year 1990. In 1990 about 50% of the people whose age is 45-54 (that means these group of people are of age 55 to 64 in 2000) are without education.

Lets consider that that the pre independence generation would be above the age of 56 (considering them 5 years and above after 1957). We see that just between the age of 55 to 64, half of them are without education. Looking at how the figure for people without education rise up as age increase, the figure will be higher for those that are 64 years old and above.

It clearly shows that the pre-independence group of people are significantly higher in terms of no education (49.7% for those 55 to 64 years old as compare to 19.8 for those 45-54 ) and thus brought forward my theory that they the pre independence people (56 years old and above) may form the bulk of the illiterates.

Not only that, those figures shows that the proportion of educated individual increase as the age group lowers. It means that more of the population had at least basic education after independence. Since the figures are of percentage, it has nothing to do to population growth and whatsoever.

Why the percentage of educated individual in the population group grew exponentially after independence? Isnt it because the post independence govt place much more importance than the pre independence govt in the establishment of education?

An elder's view on this matter about the lack of british support for education during colonial days.

A blog entry by the late Dr Lee Kum Tatt:

Education Policy in Singapore during the colonial era

'''There was no education policy for development in Singapore and Malaya during my grandparents’, parents’ and my own early days. British policies during the colonial period in Singapore and Malaya were meant primarily to serve British interest. The demand for education was not widespread because of the cost which the poor could not afford. Parents prefer that their children work to supplement household income or do household chores, especially the girls. Still the supply did not meet the demand for more education. Under these conditions voluntarism had been an integral feature of British colonial education policy. The colonial government only set up a few primary and secondary schools for those who could afford or some, like my parents, who were prepared to make personal sacrifices for their children’s education.'''

http://leekumtatt.blogspot.com/2007/09/education-in-singapore.html

foxtrout8 SG

U misinterpreted my point again.

What i meant was that the british administration in Singapore is different if u want to compare it with the british administration in Hong Kong. There is no common ground to compare.

Singapore and Hong Kong are like cousins. We were under the same colonial surname (sharing the same grandparents) but taken care by different parents in our different family.

I have a article here by Ting Wong Hong. She unfortunately did not put up references but the article is nevertheless good enough for a read.

"''In Singapore, the British were forced to follow an oppressive approach. This is because Singapore is a multi-ethnic society, and pressures from the Malays, another powerful group in the local setting who had a rivalry relation with the Chinese, hindered the British from being concessionary in Chinese school policy. In sharp contrast, in Hong Kong—a mono-ethnic Chinese society—the colonial regime, not under compulsion from other ethnic group, was more accommodating when dealing with Chinese schools.""

www.historyofeducation.org.uk/Wong.doc

It shows that she too believe that the administration of the 2 island is different.

Considering that 2 different governors were place in the 2 lands supported by 2 different group of staffs, the administration of Singapore is different from that of Hong kong.

foxtrout8 SG

deleted

maurizio13 SG

just a link to demostrate the above point

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/759276.stm

Curriculum can't make impact unless social values are strengtened? In case you still can't grasp the idea, a school child's main source of influence are his school mates. They don't have many other sources of external influence. Almost 50% (8-9 hours) of their waking hours are spent in schools. How else do you suggest you change social values, other than to start them when they are young. It's harder to change values in adults because their values are already etched into their mind.

Your points only seek to discredit the UK system, if their system has flaws, that doesn't mean our system of education surpassed them. The link you posted is also a moot point, there are people two sides in the argument, hardly conclusive. There must be distinction in your comparison between morality between the general population and morality between specific criminals.

maurizio13 SG

Please look at the table again.

Look at the the year 1990. In 1990 about 50% of the people whose age is 45-54 (that means these group of people are of age 55 to 64 in 2000) are without education.

An elder's view on this matter about the lack of british support for education during colonial days.

A blog entry by the late Dr Lee Kum Tatt:

http://leekumtatt.blogspot.com/2007/09/education-in-singapore.html

You lack analytical skills in your understanding of the statistics. I also notice you have a knack for posting irrelevant articles that makes no supportive claim to your arguments.

In year 2000, the percentage of adults with no qualification after P4P gain power. Singapore gained self government under the P4P government in 1959, they have the right to enforce policies except military (which was still under the jurisdiction of the UK government).

The figures below are the perentages of age groups with no qualification after P4P gain parliamentary power and self governnance.

25-34 y.o.-----4.3%

35-44 y.o.-----9.7%

45-49 y.o.-----9.9% (In 1960, those born in 1950 will be 10 y.o. primary 3-4) {approx}

Shocking isn't it, MOE's system resulted in 10% of the population in 2 age groups without qualification. Maybe it's the result of teachers and principals, convincing the students to quit because they can't make the grades and might cause school averages to drop.

More interestingly, why is there a 4.3% of 25-34 y.o. without basic education.

maurizio13 SG

U misinterpreted my point again.

What i meant was that the british administration in Singapore is different if u want to compare it with the british administration in Hong Kong. There is no common ground to compare.

Singapore and Hong Kong are like cousins. We were under the same colonial surname (sharing the same grandparents) but taken care by different parents in our different family.

I have a article here by Ting Wong Hong. She unfortunately did not put up references but the article is nevertheless good enough for a read.

www.historyofeducation.org.uk/Wong.doc

It shows that she too believe that the administration of the 2 island is different.

Considering that 2 different governors were place in the 2 lands supported by 2 different group of staffs, the administration of Singapore is different from that of Hong kong.

Two system might be different, but it doesn't mean no comparison can be made; we are comparing the product (resultant) of the 2 system. Although a Mazda RX-8 and a Porsche 911 Carrera run on different types of engine, but we can make comparisons in handling, top speed, fuel consumption and century dash. I don't know the kind of education system you go through that forbids comparision between 2 different system.

Gosh! With your kind of logic, we probably can't compare lots of other things. We probably can't compare GDP per capita between Switzerland and Singapore, because both have different system of governance. We probably can't compare the different level of creativity between Japanese students and Singapore students, because they have different education system. What's the point of all those Maths Olympiad? Don't they know that we can't compare the knowledge of these students in the many different system.

foxtrout8 SG

You lack analytical skills in your understanding of the statistics.

The figures below are the perentages of age groups with no qualification after P4P gain parliamentary power and self governnance.

25-34 y.o.-----4.3%

35-44 y.o.-----9.7%

45-49 y.o.-----9.9% (In 1960, those born in 1950 will be 10 y.o. primary 3-4) {approx}

Shocking isn't it, MOE's system resulted in 10% of the population in 2 age groups without qualification.

Ur analytical skills marred by biasness is truely laughable.

The table had shown the very significant. 49.7% for those 55 to 64 years old are without education (and mind u that this generation of people belong to the days of our colonial government). MOE came in 1957 and did a brilliant job reducing the amount to just 10% as evident in the population of those 45-49.

Their ability to reduce the number of people without education from 50% to 10% in 8 years time (considering those 49 years old were 5 years old at that time from 1957 - the birth of MOE) is shockingly remarkable.

foxtrout8 SG

U can compare the systems of course but it depends on what are u comparing and what are u expecting.

Ur comparison has flaws because u made alot of assumptions.

U assumed that the british administration in Singapore and that of Hongkong is similar and thus the british system must be successful in Singapore as it is in Hongkong.

The very fact that the British administration is different shows that u cant take the result of hong kong and place a hypothetical result to Singapore.

I have shown u proof that despite the success of hongkong education system, the British had did little to promote education in Singapore. For that very fact, i have shown that it is stupid to compare the 2 systems that is different.

Since they did little to promote education in Singapore why are u looking so highly of the british administation in Singapore just because u compare to hongkong and hongkong is incidentally successful? Can u compare the british resolution to defend britain to their resolution to defend Singapore?

foxtrout8 SG

Stop misreading my words. I didnt say that our system surpass them neither did i discredit the UK System.

All i meant with so much proof is that the British Colonial Administration did little to promote education during their time. If they will to continue with their administration of similar policies in Singapore, our educated population may be lesser than what MOE can produce.

maurizio13 SG

Ur analytical marred by biasness is truely laughable.

Bias? Please explain yourself.

49.7% of the 55-64 y.o.? You conclude yourself from your own study? 49.7% in 1990 doesn't equate to 49.7% in 2000. It's also natural for the size of the educated to increase due to economic prosperity, it would be a sad day for Singaporeans if our uneducated are still in the 49.7% range of the 1940s to 1950s. In the early years, people use bullock carts to transport goods, I wonder if they still do it these days.

« Previous Page Next Page »