¡°Education does not develop individuality but conformity¡± Is
such a statement valid?
Education is the act of imparting knowledge and skills from
teachers to students via a school system; education systems vary in
style and administration with respect to different countries.
Individuality is the aggregate qualities and characteristics
(especially in personality) that distinguish one person from
others; it involves diversity or different people similar to the
ingredients of a ¡°salad bowl¡±. Conformity, on the other hand, is
unconditional similarity in form or character in correspondence to
socially acceptable regulations.
Education systems all over the world can be more or less fit into
two main groups; the Liberals (Western countries) and the
Functionalists (East Asian countries). The Liberal system has been
the educational ideal of many Western countries including Great
Britain and the USA. Liberal education seeks to develop analytical
skills and critical thinking in students to prepare them to live
life in all its dimensions. The liberals aim to liberate students
from the immediate pragmatic concerns of society in education. On
the other hand, Asian countries like Singapore and Malaysia have
their functionalist system. Functionalist education believes that
education needs to be fit into the needs of society as a whole. The
functionalist system values education for its ability to prepare
students for specific roles in society by teaching them what they
need to survive for life.
To say that education develops conformity instead of individuality
is silly because the statement does not specify exactly which
education system. Countries with dominant Western liberal education
tend to stress each person¡¯s right to individual freedom of
expression and choice of lifestyle. But African and Asian
functionalist systems more often emphasize the
responsibilities/obligations of the individual for the benefit of
the group.
The statement is not valid for British liberal education. Education
in Britain encourages open discussion throughout all levels of
education, right from junior to senior and pre-university levels.
Subjects are taught by encouraging students to apply what they
learn from the text in school assessment projects, effectively
engraining information into the students while building critical
analytical skills at the same time. The open-minded culture of the
system enables students to immediately clarify any doubts they have
with their teacher. The system is flexible with fixed school
schedules and timetables, students are allowed to study whatever
subject they choose, as there are no compulsory items of syllabus.
Students are not stressed with the burden of excessive homework
since most learning is done practically in school. The practical
methods of education include skit themes (pertaining to history)
and set construction, material work (e.g. wood, metal, plastic
D&T subject), science experiments (e.g. constructions of siege
engines to demonstrate science behind forces and potential energy)
and computer-based learning. With such a ¡®hands-on¡¯ approach in
place, students are motivated to learn due to self-interest, not
because they are ordered to. There are also minimal restrictions on
hair length, attire and appearance because it is deemed as
irrelevant in determining quality of grades. All these measures
help to form a conducive climate for creativity, which require
ample room for individual experimentation, and ultimately
individuality. Thus liberal education in Britain does not develop
conformity but individuality.
In contrast, the statement is valid for functionalist education in
Singapore to a certain extent. Throughout Singapore history up till
the late 1990s, the Singapore system is highly instrumental,
regimented, pressurizing, competitive and highly performance
oriented. Students are pressured to study by memorizing and
regurgitation in the exam room from a very young age (primary
school). The system is filled with restrictions on hair length and
color, the use of gel on hair, attire and jewelry. The system has
compulsory obligations on students to study certain subjects
(deemed needed by the government for the ¡°new economy¡±) and
perform certain social tasks (the Community Involvement Programme);
wandering the streets collecting money in donation tins for worthy
causes. School timetables are inflexible from time to time
depending on different schools; some schools make no arrangements
to fill lost time from their ¡°college days¡± or ¡°sports meets¡±
when lessons are supposed to take place, thus forcing
students/teachers to make up classes in their free time. Students
spend at least 10 hours in school per day at the secondary level.
Although doing CIP is a noble cause, bear in mind that students
also have to do CIP and cope with compulsory subjects (some of
which they have no interest or say in taking) in an inflexible
schedule, they must do all that in a limited time that decreases as
they get older (6 years for primary, 4 years for secondary, 2 years
for junior college). Such restrictive environments are not
conducive for individuality. The numbers of suicide cases due to
stress are a reflection of the intensity of the system. However,
the government has attempted to put less emphasis on ¡°memorization
and regurgitation¡± (in junior colleges) in an attempt to teach
critical thinking, but suddenly attempting to change the routine of
a student (who is so used to the original system in his 17 years of
age) makes it all the more stressful for him. Thus the statement is
valid for Singapore to a certain extent.
Because the government has taken a functionalist role by making
¡°useful¡± subjects compulsory and giving priority to
science/engineering batches, the populace has grown (over time) to
adopt a submissive attitude towards education subjects, students
look at subjects with an eye for the market; ¡°what jobs would I be
able to get if I took Engineering instead of History, even though I
am better at History?¡± The ¡°in¡± thing is not how well you will
do as a person to your fullest potential, but how much money you
will make in a certain career. The ¡°monetary career¡±-mentality in
Asian students brings out a desire to do extremely well in tests
and exams, often at the cost of passion for what they study. Due
the inflexibility of the system, the student is forced to take up
compulsory units in certain courses and programmes, this
contributes to his lack of interest in what he studies. The
mentality is further engrained because public provision for the
less advantaged is minimal, in Singapore, more money is granted to
schools with higher results instead of helping the weaker
institutions. This attitude is passed down from generation to
generation, making it a kind of culture of conformity.
The ¡°memorization and regurgitation¡± routine has (past tense
because attempts are being made at restructuring) bred generations
of submissive/conformist students in Singapore. In class, students
hesitate to ask questions and do not participate actively in class;
they rely heavily on what the teacher has spoon-fed them.
Discussion groups take a long time to warm up, with most students
looking at one another with nothing to say. This conformity
persists even into adult hood, Asian members of the world
delegations hardly ask questions, and it is mostly the Westerners
who ask. Hence, education in Singapore mostly develops conformity,
not individuality.
Why then, does Singapore develop conformity? Conformity is
developed because of the functionalist system. Before knocking
Singapore any further, we must examine why there exists the
functionalist system. Much of the phenomenon (conformity and
passivity) of the Asian functionalists has its roots in Confucian
socialization, in which exercising caution in speech is a virtue,
while opening one¡¯s mouth exposes one to various dangers, such as
invoking the anger of authority figures; being immodest; or being
ridiculed by one¡¯s peers. The phenomenon also results from
traditional cultural role definitions, i.e. the teacher is ¡°god¡±
and imparts knowledge while the inferior student must listen and
obey without question.
Singapore has come along way since its independence, as of its late
National day on 9th August 2003, Singapore has existed
independently for 39 years. Singapore has advanced tremendously
given its small size and a mere lifetime of development, other
countries with more resources couldn¡¯t possibly reach Singapore¡¯s
level given 2 or 3 lifetimes! The secret to Singapore¡¯s success in
development lies in the functionalist system, the government has
drilled students to perform and be the best in their results, this
has enabled Singapore to advance rapidly and survive the post war
years. But presently, in the face of a real threat of competition
from Malaysia¡¯s new and cheaper port, as well as China¡¯s lower
costs, Singapore all the more needs to drill its students to
perform for Singapore¡¯s survival. Unlike the Western countries
with vast natural resources (with which they can fall back on in
economic crisis), Singapore does not have the luxury of relaxing
its education policy. Thus from the government¡¯s point of view,
it¡¯s a trade off between small amounts of freedom for national
survival and development.
In conclusion, whether or not education develops conformity and not
individuality depends entirely upon which education system is being
referred to. The statement is invalid for the liberal systems of
the West (Britain), and is valid for the functionalist systems of
East Asia (Singapore).