ALTHOUGH I agree with Mrs Sylvia Lee ('Packed syllabuses won't
make thinkers'; Monday) that the current education system is overly
focused on examinations and textbooks, I do not think that cutting
the syllabuses would help. After all, many gifted students excel
even with the current curriculum volume. There are, in contrast,
weaker students who muddle along.
The solution lies in greater flexibility in studies, allowing
each student to explore his academic and non-academic
interests.
Granted, steps have been taken that theoretically grant students
greater breadth in their studies. One example would be the revised
A-level framework, allowing students to take a variety of subjects
at either H1 or H2 level, and stronger students to take an extra H3
subject. H1 is meant to allow students to broaden their scope,
while H3 is meant mainly for enrichment.
However, the requirements of the same A-level framework compel
most students to offer four content subjects (excluding general
paper, mother tongue and project work). Rarely does a student opt
for five content subjects with the intention of broadening his
scope.
The requirement for a student to study at least one contrasting
subject - for example, a science student studying a humanities
subject - has also not had the desired outcome. Almost all arts
students take mathematics as a contrasting subject: In many junior
colleges, this is mainly due to the restrictive subject combination
list.
In secondary school, the option for students to study a subject
at either a higher or lower level is rare. There is also a lack of
enrichment programmes.
Students should be allowed to excel beyond the rest of the
cohort in a particular area if they are so inclined.
Let us allow our children to enjoy their school life as well as
maximise their potential through a differentiated education
system.
Lee Chee Yann