I refer to the letter, "Not wrong to devote more resources to train the gifted" (ST, Feb 22), by Mr Tan Pei Jiun.

Mr Tan seems to have missed the point. The issue is not whether it is right to help the smart ones attain to their potential. Instead, the real questions are whether the balance has been rightly struck, and whether we are doing enough to help everybody attain their potential.

I think it is grossly unfair and eminently elitist to say that only those who have been identified at an early age to be bright deserve to be nurtured to the full extent of their potential, but that is certainly what Mr Tan implies.

Mr Tan makes this specious argument: "While a brilliant teacher may not be able to turn a non-gifted student into a genius, a mediocre teacher can certainly hurt the progress of a brilliant student."

By the same token, an excellent teacher may not end up contributing much to a genius, whereas a mediocre teacher can certainly keep an under-achieving student from doing better.

He adds that "the educational system does not guarantee how rich or poor a student becomes in the future." This statement is similarly absurd, because, taken to its logical extreme, it then suggests that there is also no point in pouring resources into the gifted.

And let us not even question the selection process by which these high-flyers are identified.

Nobody disputes that high-flyers must be given extra resources to help them grow.

But how much is enough? And where do we strike the balance between this, and the need to prevent the under-achievers from lagging too far behind? Mr Tan never comes to grip with this.

Mr Tan also rehashes the economic arguments in favour of "trickle down" economics, adding that "the poorest will not be half as poor as those in, say, India or Indonesia". I have never been homeless, but I would think that there is not much difference between the homeless in the US and those in India and Indonesia.

More importantly, the fundamental assumption of his arguments has never been questioned. Why is an economy with 10% annual growth that only a few benefit from, better than an economy with 5% growth that everybody shares in?

I for one think the latter economy is better and fairer. I also think that helping everybody fulfill their potential, as opposed to concentrating all resources on a selected few to the point of overkill, would help us achieve that.

Then again, I probably do not belong to those privileged few who are directly responsible for that difference of 5%.

Mr Tan ends by saying this: "While it may seem to some that such views will result in a society with an under-class, I prefer to see it this way: Such practices will help stem the loss of talent and prevent us from becoming a nation of the under-class."

I can only say that Mr Tan obviously does not belong to, and does not empathise with, the under-class. I would rather see a nation without an under-class at all.

First letter by Siew Kum Hong

I refer to the article "Mind the widening income gap" (Sunday Times, 18 Feb 01) by Ms Chua Mui Hoong.

She rightly points out that, given the disturbing news of a rapidly widening income gap in Singapore, education appears to be our last, great hope in preventing a permanent socio-economic under-class.

But it remains to be seen if our present educational system is geared towards that.

In "Kids in gifted programme are born, not made" (ST, 17 Feb 01), the 25 primary schools contacted claimed not to prepare students for the GEP selection tests.

However, later in the article, it was reported that at Haig Girls' and Rulang Primary, "good pupils are placed together in classes with more experienced teachers".

This suggests a deliberate effort on the part of the two schools named, to concentrate their best teachers on the better-performing students - ironically, those who perhaps need them less than their under-performing peers.

It is hard to reconcile the two competing demands on limited resources, of developing the best to their best, and helping the less-privileged better themselves and break the poverty cycle.

But it seems to me that our system is concerned much more with the former than the latter.

For instance, the Education Ministry recently acknowledged, finally, that small class sizes do help improve student performances, although it is but one factor of many. The problem of implementing smaller class sizes was one of quality control of teachers.

But this has not stopped the Ministry from having small class sizes for GEP students, or even for the independent schools, which tend to attract the better students anyway.

To me, all these policies, which devote scarce resources to developing a disproportionately small group of identified high-fliers, smack of sacrificing the interests of those who have not been so identified.

The inexorable conclusion is that the desire to develop "world class talent" has prevailed, to the exclusion of the at least equally important objective of socio-economic equity.

By focusing so much attention and devoting so many resources to developing the few into stunning successes, we risk failing to help the many achieve the far more modest accomplishments that they are certainly capable of. And that is a huge pity.

In the Insight feature "Where have all the high-IQ people gone?" (ST, 17 Feb 01), Mensa members, educationists and psychologists apparently concluded Singapore must "do much more to invest in high-IQ people".

The same would go for the academically under-performing.

I am familiar with the Government's arguments that we need the few geniuses, to pull the rest of us along.

But such trickle-down economic thinking has led to the ludicrous income gap that currently exists in the US. Do we really want to go down that route?

The hard numbers may seem persuasive. The US has the biggest, and fastest growing, economy in the world. It has the most millionaires. It has the biggest and most successful companies.

But the US also has a disturbingly disproportionate number of homeless persons, families living below the poverty line, the unemployed and unemployable.

We do not know if those are the inevitable results of globalisation. We only know that those are the results of US-style economics.

Singapore has never shied away from choosing its own path, conventional ideologies be damned. Why have we not even attempted to do that here? Why are we being asked to simply accept that this is inevitable and unavoidable?

The irony is that there is an ongoing debate in the US over the widening "digital divide".

But instead of learning from that, we appear to have an educational system that simply encourages a widening income gap and socio-economic stratification without even making a token attempt at resisting it.

Is that what we want for Singapore? Sadly, that seems to be so from the general tenor of speeches, which is that globalisation is inevitable and the best will fly while the rest will have to be happy with treading water at best.

To those who do not have small class sizes, who do not have the experienced teachers who have been assigned to teach the bright students, I extend my sympathies.

Siew Kum Hong

Reply to Siew's 1st letter by Tan Pei Juin

Feb 22, 2001

Not wrong to devote more resources to train the gifted

I REFER to the article, 'Mind the widening income gap' (ST, Feb 20), by Ms Siew Kum Hong.

I would like to share a few thoughts on why the education system cannot be 'the last hope in preventing a permanent socio-economic under-class' from developing.

First, let us revisit the notion that Singapore's greatest resource lies in the quality of its manpower - this fact cannot be reiterated enough.

In addition to providing the population with high rates of literacy, identifying and nurturing the brightest are important functions of the education system.

Which country does not need political, business and community leaders to maintain decent growth and standards of living?

If devoting more educational resources to train such people can ensure a ready pool of such talent, then, why not?

Ms Siew wrote that many Ministry of Education policies end up 'sacrificing the interests of those who have not been so identified'.

However, there are two sides to this issue.

If one is born blessed with a higher intellect than others, it is only natural for him to want to progress faster.

If one is born less gifted, how fair would it be to push him along?

Or how fair would it be to slow down the former for the latter?

It is certainly fair to match more experienced or better teachers with the first group and let the second group formulate a reasonable pace with less-experienced teachers.

While a brilliant teacher may not be able to turn a non-gifted student into a genius, a mediocre teacher can certainly hurt the progress of a brilliant student.

Take the example of our neighbour, Malaysia.

Its bumiputra policy favouring university placements for native Malay-Muslims has alienated brilliant Malaysians who are not bumiputras.

Brain-drain aside, the standard of Malaysia's tertiary education is being driven down and, eventually, the country will not produce enough talent to propel itself into First World status.

Would you want your tax dollars to be pumped into additional educational programmes for ordinary students, while the brilliant ones leave the country for some place more willing to groom talent?

It would be like paying tuition fees for a child who is interested in playing video games only.

Next, I would like to discuss the relationship that Ms Siew sees between the education system and poverty levels.

It is true that an education of higher quality frequently leads to more opportunities, but the character of a person cannot be determinedby the education system.

Not everyone who goes to better schools and reaps the benefits of higher-quality resources ends up in the upper echelons of society.

We have all heard of the government scholar who was jailed for cheating.

We also know of many local entrepreneurs who did not attend elite schools.

This point is made simply to illustrate the fact that the educational system does not guarantee how rich or poor a student becomes in the future.

It only allocates resources according to what best serves the nation.

MOE is part of the civil ervice, not a welfare agency.

Non-gifted students are not deprived, and the state should not be expected to expend additional resources and funding to carry out the functions and duties that parents and students should be responsible for.

If we nurture enough talent to pull everyone else along, even if we reach the 'ludicrous income gap' similar to that in the US, we can be sure that the poorest will not be half as poor as those in, say, India or Indonesia.

In many ways, this is still progress.

While it may seem to some that such views will result in a society with an under-class, I prefer to see it this way: Such practices will help stem the loss of talent and prevent us from becoming a nation of the under-class.

Tan Pei Jiun

Reply to Siew's 1st letter by MOE

Feb 23, 2001

Quality education for students of all abilities

I REFER to the letter, 'Education system does little to narrow income gap', by Ms Siew Kum Hong (ST, Feb 20), where she expressed her views that our education system was more concerned with developing the best, than with helping the less privileged, and that 'we appear to have an educational system that simply encourages a widening income gapand socio-economic stratification without even making a token attempt at resisting it'.

Contrary to the views expressed, our education system provides opportunities for all, and seeks to develop every student to his full potential, irrespective of background. However, outcomes may not be the same for all.

Our education system delivers quality education to students in all ability groups. It provides opportunities for all to proceed as far as they are capable of, and to learn at a pace which they can manage.

Various special programmes are in place to help students who have difficulties do better, and students who are academi-cally able progress further.

At the primary school level, MOE has in place the Learning Support Programme (LSP) to help pupils weak in English and Mathematics and the Encouraging Achievement and Better Learning (ENABLE) Programme to give additional support to pupils who are not performing as well as they are capable of.

About 15 per cent of Primary 1 and 2 pupils benefit from the LSP, and 13 to 17 per cent of pupils in Primary 1 to 3 are in the ENABLE Programme. These pupils are given focused lessons in small groups by trained Learning Support Coordinators (LSCs) and teachers trained in an approach of diagnostic and focused remediation respectively.

The deployment of teachers as LSCs and in ENABLE represents an additional investment of resources in the less academically able pupils.

For the less academically inclined at the secondary level, the Normal (Technical) (N(T)) course was introduced in 1994 to provide these students with a technically-oriented curriculum at a pace of learning that suits their ability.

The course is designed to strengthen the foundation of these pupils in English Language and Mathematics so as to prepare them for further training. By providing a more hands-on and achievable curriculum for these students, who make up about 15 per cent of each Primary 1 cohort, we are able to allow students, who would otherwise have dropped out, to receive 10 years of general education.

This provides them with the foundation for further education and training, thus ensuring that they will not be left behind by the advent of the New Economy.

To support the N(T) curriculum, N(T) students were among the first in their schools to have access to computers; computer laboratories were specially set up for the teaching of Computer Applications, a subject offered only to N(T) students.

Ms Siew also brought up the debate in the United States over the issue of the 'digital divide'.

Students who avail themselves of opportunities in our national schools are provided with a high quality of education, with strong emphasis on English, Mathematics, Science and IT, to stay on the correct side of the digital divide.

We have invested in the design of a comprehensive and relevant curriculum which is coherently implemented across all our schools, quality teacher training and development, and good learning resources (including IT).

Almost nine in 10 students attend post-secondary educational institutions, acquiring the necessary skills and knowledge to participate fully in the New Economy.

Our achievements have been validated by various international studies. For example, in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 1999, we outperformed many developed countries.

In this 38-country survey which included developed countries such as the US and Japan, Singapore Secondary 2 students chosen from all courses - Special, Express, Normal (Academic) and Normal (Technical) - ranked first in Mathematics and second in Science.

In the Second Infor-mation Technology in Education Study conducted in 1998, Singapore ranked highly in the use of information and com-munication technologies in education, compared with 26 other participating countries or economies, including Canada, Finland, Israel and Japan.

We would like to assure Ms Siew that we share her concerns for our students and we are committed to providing quality education to all.

PHOON LEE CHAENG
Director (Planning)
Ministry of Education

Siew's response to MOE

The MOE response misses the point. It does not at all address the question of whether the balance that has been struck is appropriate and correct. MOE cites specific programmes and studies. This approach is entirely illustrative of what I term the 'symptomatic' approach to problem-solving that is so prevalent in the Singapore government: a focus on eliminating the symptoms, without addressing the fundamental problem itself.

MOE fails to adopt the macro perspective that is required to examine the issues raised. Without taking a step back and considering whether the balance struck is correct, the citation of individual programmes does not add to the debate, but instead serves to obfuscate the discussion.

I must emphasise that I do not need MOE to agree with me; I am not so arrogant as to assume that I am definitely correct. But what I had hoped, but evidently failed, to accomplish, was to provoke a thoughtful debate on the fundamental questions of socio-economic equity and fairness. That has not happened.

The MOE response states: 'Contrary to the views expressed, our education system provides opportunities for all, and seeks to develop every student to his full potential, irrespective of background. However, outcomes may not be the same for all.' For everybody's sake, I hope MOE is correct and I am sadly mistaken.