Self Improvement for others

Life is odd. A principal's 'advice' has become a debate about how one should better motivate students. The divisions appear neatly drawn. One might choose between the old school "wake-up" call or the more modern "positive" encouragement. I can imagine dinner tables marked by different schools of thought. Seen this way, the principal's 'advice' is at its worst, old school, and at best, solid advice. However, from the statistics, one can learn a lot more. Mobility between "streams" appear limited. There was no consideration that the students might end up in JCs, for example. I am sure there will be a few rare examples. Another rather Singaporean assumption - that polys are better than ITEs. And the list goes on. I feel that when one describes this as a "wake-up" call, you assume somehow that your station in life determines your "worth" - and the worth of you by family, state and society. Perhaps that is indeed the case in Singapore, we are that people who are people only in the eyes of others .

There is this philosopher - his name is Kant - whose idea of Categorical Imperative is often bandied around for a myriad of nefarious purposes - but it still is attractive. It is attractive because, let me quote Wiki,

"On this basis, Kant derives second formulation of the categorical imperative from the first.
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means"[2]"

It is this regard for humanity that will make Kant (be likely) to refuse to turn the switch in any case in the runaway railway wagon paradox. Although I believe that a state must resort to 'logical' apparatus to shape policy (and turn the switch no matter what), there is this part of me that feel that we have come too far from the very attractive ideal that we should treat people as the ends and not the means. There is really nothing 'wrong' in going to ITE, or not desiring to study - if you think about it morally or from the 'humanistic' point of view - there is nothing that morally demands a "wake-up" call. I think Kant will think that our values and our regard for humanity should be far greater and far more nuance than this.

Eavesdropping : Sex and Abstinence

I was momentarily surprised when the conversation turned to sex. After potential for eavesdropping on discussions about sex was not that common, especially while drinking coffee at Coffee Bean. These two young girls (one looks 19, the other looks 17) were initially talking about relationships {and here note inaccuracies of memory, poor hearing and paraphrasing}.

The older looking one said; “We were discussing relationships during our cellgroup meeting. Between us and the external world and God. You know, like how our parent’s love is perpendicular and the relationship with boys are horizontal. And you know how our relationship with God is forever and vertical.”

As she was telling the younger looking girl this, her hands were drawing lines in the air. The older looking girl continued, “I am at the point now where my relationship with God is good. Celibacy. We are walking together. Sex will corrupt this relationship. Heaven and Hell are parallel lines. They will never meet. The relationship with God is like a vertical line. He knows what we are going to do every step of the way.”

The other young girl started giggling, and said, “So you not going to do that…ever..?” The older girl quickly said, ““Everyone does not seem right for me. Hah, I know how a single woman feel. Free of worries and horror. Besides, sex outside marriage is sinful. My cellgroup leader can tell you more. You can join me. Give me your telephone number.”

There are many things one can hazard from this conversation. First the lines metaphor. Horizontal, vertical, perpendicular. Parallel? It probably means she comes from a non-traditional Church where the more common metaphor will probably be "Father""Lover""Husband or Wife" to describe relationships with the external and internal world. Either that, or she comes from a cellgroup with members from a Church which in recent years been active in spreading the “abstinence” message.

I was just wondering then whether her message to her friend is in fact useful.

Our Social Identity

Who the state tells us we are

A warning - this post is written largely tentatively. It does not suggest anything constructive or desires to. This post considers how the State through its institutions - namely the school - manages the 'truth'. I was feeling rather troubled after reading what happened to Otto Fong. I thought, why does a school care whether a teacher is gay? To me, if the purpose of a school is "education" , whether a teacher is gay or not, is insignificant.

It should be insignificant for colleagues, for parents, for the Christian right, and for the conservative majority. 1 + 1 does not make a difference if the teacher is gay. Nor will evolution become less plausible than intelligent design (Considering the number of creationists today, this should be a might). But, of course, there are those who have problems with gay teachers. There are those who might say that by Otto Fong coming out, he was trying to spread homosexual values. And some say that is really bad for an educator because he is in the position of authority.

If it was indeed possible to have and transmit "homosexual" values, who constructs these values? The argument that one's identity (especially sexual identities) can be associated with certain values have to be critically examined. Yet, more importantly, who says what values "homosexuals" have? Who controls what make up those values? Who determines what identities represent what values (I am a Buddhist and therefore I am good?)? What kind of values do heterosexual males have? Will it be better if the teacher was a gay Christian? Who determines them? It is bad science to think that "homosexual" lifestyles can be "transmitted", but more than that, to suggests "homosexuals" values are somewhat contrary to education, I think, is insulting.

In Singapore, while we have an overarching quasi-secular constitution, the idea that certain identities have certain "values" are taught in our schools. The MOE has deemed that "homosexuality does not offer a complete, natural life experience, because the human physique is not designed for homosexual intercourse. Moreover a person cannot conceive through homosexual intercourse." (Sex Education Package, See Alex Au's article for a full critique). There have been also various suggestions in the media by rather important people that somehow "homosexual" values are not good for schools. In other words, there are two implicit assertions here. First : that there is such a thing as "homosexual "values, and second: that those 'values' are not 'good'. The Ministry judges its teachers, and have the ability to punish, reward, evaluate and classify. Like a teacher who has a power to send a child out of his classroom by his position of power and his ability to enforce what are reasonable explanations, MOE can set the standards and apply them. In other words, the relationship here is not one of superior logic or reason, but of power. The power to punish, reward, evaluate and classify 'homosexuality'. A gay man, however, cannot. He cannot speak of his own values in schools. No. The MOE can. In other words, the standard bearer of truth is power. The attempts to argue "reasonableness" with the MOE is very idealistic.

Instrumental reasons have also been given why it was not unreasonable for MOE to ask/pressurise Otto Fong to take down the letter. From this perspective, Otto Fong coming out has upset too many people, there has been too much attention and this thing is probably not good for the kids etc. It has caused too much controversy, some whisper. From this perspective, when an individual joins an institution like a school and becomes part of a group, control becomes possible. As an individual, Otto Fong can be gay, can say he is gay. From that kind of logic, as a teacher, he cannot. At least not under present circumstances. He now serves other purposes. Institutional purposes. It may be that many teachers are willing to serve and sacrifice for those institutional purposes. And Otto Fong might so have chosen. A survivalist-pragmatic mindset advocate in like vein might argue that our social cohesion is so threatened that if there is so much controversy - it will split society apart, and that is why gays who are within institutions should not be allowed to tell others who they are. While one might argue that calls to violence and racism should be prohibited for such survivalist reasons, this argument can simply be flipped around to say that Singapore must learn how to tolerate gays because to survive - we must learn how to be tolerant - when there is no harm done and we must encourage 'creativity'. I have sympathy for survivalist arguments but I cannot believe it applies to gays. To label gays as "dangerous" individuals requires bad science. And if one accepts the science that gays are born that way, and grow up that way, boys growing gay already confused by being different should require support. Especially from institutions. But what is education?

If education, and that is a big IF, is about the "Truth" as scientifically/liberally determined, then it can be seen as unreasonable to ask Otto Fong to bring down the letter. It can be seen as censorship. It can be seen as false. It depends where you come from. But what kind of truth should education be concerned about? That is a question that has yet to be answered. What kind of truth was MOE concerned about? In other words, even from the argument that individuals can be seen as means to an ends, the ability to choose what determines which standard to judge the ambit of an individual's rights is a matter of power.

Finland's Egalitarian Shadow

what can we learn from Finland's Education System?

Singapore's Maths and Science scores have been the very envy of the world. In the United States and Israel, schools use Singapore maths textbooks. Like the United States, Singapore's education system thrives on meritocracy. As Singapore's Minister of Education quipped, ""Yours [the US] is a talent meritocracy, ours is an exam meritocracy." Mr Shanmugaratam praised the American system as one that imbued "creativity, curiosity, a sense of adventure, ambition." But is meritocracy always that appealing? 

Not if you ask my mother. As a parent of two (then) young boys, she was worried her sons might not get into the right streams and the right schools. A movie which highlights the effects of streaming in Singapore "I not stupid" is generally popular.  In that movie, students' self esteem are seen to be unhealthily tied to their examination results and the stream they are in.

And if that sounds convoluted and odd to you, wait till you hear the details. At the top of the pyramid was the Gifted Education System, aimed at the top 1% of the cohort. Then there are the different bands catering to different abilities: EM1, EM2, EM3. These "streaming" takes place before the tender age of 10.

Then at age 12, the PSLE exam will determine whether one will end up in the special stream, express stream, normal academic, or the normal technical stream. At 14, within schools, there will be usually another round of internal streaming, which will determine what subjects you might take. For the budding doctor of age 14, not been able to do well to take biology might prove stressful. 

Each stage is intensely competitive. Students are under intense pressure to excel. Learning merely for the sake of the "exam meritocracy" is common. Moves towards a "talent meritocracy" meant greater focus on "creativity". That too however can be pressurizing in its own way, as creativity is less 'objective' and hard work might not necessarily bring out results. For parents and children, this represents another source of pressure.

Schools are also unequal. They are widely acknowledged to produce different academic standards and cater to different academic groups. Hence intense pressures to get into the right primary school mean long lines outside popular primary schools every start of the registration period. At the secondary school level, due to streaming, only those with the best academic scores end at various "better" secondary schools. Many end up at "better" JCs.

Finland's Shadow
Compare this with Finland. Finland too has produced very good Maths and Science scores. It has consistently been ranked as Europe's best education system. Finns are also very literate. Finns read newspapers, borrow books at public libraries, and train more musicians per capita, than any other OCED country. It is an education system, that although not perfect, have been widely acknowledged as being one of the best in Europe, and among OCED countries.

Finland education system is surprising for the outsider because of this one rather impressive (and rare) achievement: Schools are generally no better or worse. They just are generally good. Generally there is only a 4% variation in standard (based on student performance) between schools. This is very surprising since in other countries, schools fail when their students come from the surrounding poor communities. 

As one happy Finn parent say, "This is one of those big Finnish Principles that people adhere to and we really believe in it and that equity ... equality ... equal treatment for everybody. Nobody is left behind." And it is not very costly for taxpayers either. OCED figures rate it as only slightly above average.

And that is despite the high quality of teachers. The basic qualification to teach secondary and elementary school is a Master's degree. There are also a lot of applications for the teaching job. It is a respectable job and seen as a high quality ethical profession. Teachers are also given quite a bit of freedom to teach what they want, especially when the kids reach 16-17 years old. Teachers are very much seen as friends and partners both by the students and the community. In the words of one Finnish teacher, they are "trusted."

And the children have fun in a very relaxed environment. One trainee teacher described in her teaching experience of some months that the "toughest" thing she had to do to discipline a student was to send a student out of class. And she sounded quite regretful.

Elitism in Singapore : More than Stress
What Singapore can learn from Finland is not the wholesale import of her values. Equality has served Finland well, but only because it is generally accepted in Finland as a value. In Singapore, grudgingly or otherwise, meritocracy is generally accepted. After all, education policies can only properly serve a society when its underlying values are not antithetical to society's practices. Many in Singapore generally believe that ability should be well rewarded.

But this meritocratic ideal has drawbacks. Most scholarship holders - scholarships are available only to those who represent the best and brightest in the education system -  come from much better family backgrounds than the average Singaporeans. This has lead to envy, jealously and increased tensions. 

Advantages from being born in a rich family is significant from this perspective. It can translate to access to resources, better schools, and even access to quality overseas education and job. This quickly numbs the notion that ability is all that matters, and quite naturally, feelings of betrayal takes root. On the other hand, wages of the lower middle classes suffer due to globalization. Calls for a more equal society becomes more common in an increasingly unequal society.

As Young warned when he coined the term meritocracy, it can quickly become corrupted. ""So assured have the elite become that there is almost no block on the rewards they arrogate to themselves." His fear is shared by many Singaporeans. And no better place than in education to solve and nip any problem in the bud.

Singapore challenge is to tweak the education to not serve the interest of the elites but those of meritocracy. The best way to do so is to keep an eye of Finland's example and their practices. This must mean that standards within schools should not vary dramatically. The Ministry should aim that variation of standards within schools should not be more than 20%. This is still a far cry from the 4% that Finland has achieved, but I supposed we have different priorities. Success in this area is cumulative. As more parents recognize that the school of choice will not affect the child's ability to perform, they will be more comfortable in sending a child to any Singaporean school.

In order to do this, affiliation between primary schools and secondary schools which give advantages to old school boys and girls should be abandoned. The Gifted Education is already being phased out. Streaming should also be phased out. Every school should not have more than a fixed percentage of students coming from the top 20 percent of the PSLE exams.

Schools, if they are not doing so already, must start to work more effectively with the community leaders and interact more with families. Community leaders should work with teachers to spot social problems and counsel the families with school going children. Families should be encouraged to work with teachers.

Selection of teachers should be more rigorous. Teachers should at least possess a good honors degree before they teach primary and secondary school. This will ensure that all primary and secondary schools in Singapore get teachers who are well qualified. These suggestions are not unworkable in practice. Most people from the establishment will probably reject such ideas as fanciful or unworkable. It might be decried as expensive. Some, especially teachers who do not meet these standards, might think that the standards excepted of teachers are too high. It is no doubt difficult and goes against the grain of "old-networks" and the regurgitation of an elite class. 

Yet the advantages, as Finland examples shows, are manifold. Higher esteem for individual students, the resolution of tension, the restoration of meritocracy, and greater happiness for the greatest number. Finland example is not perfect, and our culture might mean we cannot follow most of it. But what we can follow will require commitment to an education that reward ability with an eye towards Finland's egalitarian example. 

Notes:
Quotes from the Singapore Education Minister : Newsweek (Jan. 9, 2006; page 37)

Quotes from Finland Students and Teachers from this BBC Podcast Top of the Class 1 available here.