Who's making wild deductions?
1. You aren't a teacher.
2. You visited a few schools in New York nearly three decades ago and think this is enough to make deductions about all Western education systems today.
3. You claimed Western school teachers are poorly trained and educated, and only in the profession because they have no other options. You have no basis for this statement.
4. You tried to say local teachers are the cream of the crop all highly educated and hand selected. You have had to later admit that Singaporean teachers are not as highly trained as that after all.
5. You have not yet been able to name a SINGLE school that offers a curriculum that is not monitored or accredited by any governing body. Yet here you are still suggesting that this exists.
What do you have to say to the fact that the above list of eleven education systems, cited in the very same report that you have referred to, shows that actually several Western countries are doing an excellent job of educating children in a system that does not rely on exams? Do you think this is down to luck? Surely you see there is a curriculum in place in these countries and the teachers/schools must be assessing their students?
Interesting.
For item 5 - thats not my argument - somebody else said that. You are quite confused in your thinking.
For the other items, you have re framed them in a way to try to make generalisations when they should have been read in the context. You used exaggerations "poorly trained and educated" - those are your words not mine. I think you unconsciously believe it.
I did not admit anything about Singaporean teachers being "not highly trained". Some do not specialise in their subject as a basic degree. To say one "specialise" is different from "having or not having training" - that you keep using "training", "trained" - how did you arrive at those conclusions? you don't seem to think straight. Those 2 are different concepts.
As for having no options - thats not what i said - a "career of choice" or "not a career of choice" is not the same as saying "no options". Again, what were you thinking??
Who's making wild deductions?
1. You aren't a teacher.
2. You visited a few schools in New York nearly three decades ago and think this is enough to make deductions about all Western education systems today.
3. You claimed Western school teachers are poorly trained and educated, and only in the profession because they have no other options. You have no basis for this statement.
4. You tried to say local teachers are the cream of the crop all highly educated and hand selected. You have had to later admit that Singaporean teachers are not as highly trained as that after all.
5. You have not yet been able to name a SINGLE school that offers a curriculum that is not monitored or accredited by any governing body. Yet here you are still suggesting that this exists.
What do you have to say to the fact that the above list of eleven education systems, cited in the very same report that you have referred to, shows that actually several Western countries are doing an excellent job of educating children in a system that does not rely on exams? Do you think this is down to luck? Surely you see there is a curriculum in place in these countries and the teachers/schools must be assessing their students?
Interesting.
For item 5 - thats not my argument - somebody else said that. I am all for assessment/testing & curriculum development. You are quite confused.
For the other items, you have re framed them in a way to try to make generalisations when they should have been read in the context. You used exaggerations "poorly trained and educated" - those are your words not mine. I think you unconsciously believe it.
I did not admit anything about Singaporean teachers being "not highly trained". Some do not specialise in their subject as a basic degree. To say one "specialise" is different from "having or not having training" - that you keep using "training", "trained" - how did you arrive at those conclusions? you seems quite dense in your thinking. Those 2 are completely different concepts. Or can you not make the distinction?
Did I say "highly educated" and "hand selected"?? Having a degree is not the same as being highly educated. Do you not know the difference? academic excellence does not equal being an educated person.
As for having no options - thats not what i said - a "career of choice" or "not a career of choice" is not the same as saying "no options". Again, what were you thinking??
item 2 - thats not 3 decades ago- just because I use 1979 as a watershed year for MOE, it does not mean I was there in that year. It is in the history books in case you care to find out. You thought you were clever?? Again, a wild deduction.
Another wild deduction - actually I was educated locally in the early years but also in the West. I lived & worked in the U.S through the 90s. And came back. And having briefly participated in those education delegations does not make me an expert - I never claimed to be. I presented the facts & reported the situation/conversation. You make wild deductions and came to wrong conclusions. Why did we even go there? Cos for tertiary education, U.S excel. For a high school cohort to get there & many to shine in 4 years of college, there must be something we can learn. And the foreigners factor as well.
How on earth did you conclude that some in the 11 educational systems did well without exams?? Did the McKinsey report say that? (btw, i did not quote from this report; I referred to the TIMSS & mentioned very briefly the PISA). But if you read this report thoroughly, you will see some of what I said - its uncanny that some of those facts are mentioned there as well. The key is teacher selection - Finland, South Korea & Spore did that right.
Again, don't just take it at face value - some one quoted the Report - gave a brief summary & you take it all hook & sinker without verifying. Go read it - all 56 pages.
In a nutshell - I don't care that the UK doesn't feature in the top 10, because the ranking just show an average. If we go back they won't be in an average school. In Singapore we have some very good international/British schools to choose from so whether it's UK curriculum or IB, doesn't matter - the curriculum and teachers are excellent, as is the parental support.
I agree that there are a few very good international schools here - in fact, I did make mention of that. But there are also a lot of bad ones too - those were the ones i was referring to.
I found it quite incredulous that many came to such quick conclusions over the local system without fully understanding the merits & over emphasize on the fact that its rote learning & all.. it isn't. Just heresay & off the cuff comments seem to become facts & generalisations. I have very little patience for such.... Most of us benefited from this system and its improving, even when it is already consistently near the top of the TIMSS (top for many cycles) & other charts - sure there is pressure but if you look around the region - in China & Japan - you have not seen the worst.
Let's not even start on the number of local parents who want to immigrate so their kids can go to a more holistic education system elsewhere
You sound as if this is failing & families are moving primarily because of this. The push factor was mostly because of the second language policy - it was compulsory to pass the second language in order to even be eligible for Pre-University & University entrance. But MOE has relaxed that policy. There is another reason - it became quite difficult to get a place in the universities here as the entry grade requirements went higher as the number of places are limited. As for families - they are getting out because its a small country with fewer job opportunities. There are many other reasons.
