When I Was Young

Image via Wikipedia

Letter from Edmund Kwan

05:55 AM May 11, 2009

I REFER to “Aware’s, other sex ed courses put on hold (May 7) and “Did MOE do its homework?” (May 8).

I am certain the Ministry of Education (MOE) and schools would have been prudent in dealing with external vendors. How is it then that a “slip-up” occurred? Could it be that teachers and educators are overworked, despite the fact that more manpower and resources have been dedicated?

I have a child in primary school. His lessons were behind schedule because teachers across subjects did not complete the syllabus in time.

Homework was “dumped” on the pupils right up to the day before the commencement of the current mid-year assessments. My son’s classmates told me a teacher had not taught much during curriculum time and had asked the pupils to do their school work at home.

Teachers were in a rush to complete their lesson plans so that they could be accountable to their head of department. A form teacher told pupils verbally that exam dates had to be changed in spite of an official timetable posted on the school’s website earlier. After that had caused some “panic”, she apologised and said it was based on hearsay from another teacher. Could it be that she had too many things on her mind? Colleagues relate similar incidents in other schools too.

Taking off from the recent Comprehensive Sexuality Education issue, parents should take a greater interest in their child’s school work as well as actively engage with the school. This must go beyond just the parent support group role. In some countries, parents form national associations to seek a say in school affairs and education policies.

I hope that more parents are now encouraged to step forward to contribute towards an education tripartism, comprising MOE, educators and parents and pupils.

From TODAY, Voices – Monday, 11-May-2009

Below is an article lifted from Today daily, a comment to a comment to a comment on additional lessons to schoolchildren conducted during school holidays. I agree with this one. Do you?
-----

More lessons are not always better
Letter from HO KONG LOON

I REFER to the letter “Why lament extra school lessons?” (May 29) by Goh Kian Huat. The writer does not understand what goes on in our schools. Generally, in the education sector, the perception is that more is better. The reason is obvious: School heads favour teachers who go the extra mile, giving extra lessons being one of the requisites.

Teachers conduct supplementary and remedial lessons during term time. In some instances, these extra lessons are held three times a week, each one lasting two to three hours. I know of a school where extra lessons were held on weekends.

Even so, during term time, many teachers are finding it increasingly difficult to teach students who are inattentive, disruptive, noisy, quarrelsome, lazy or just indifferent.

Extra lessons do not add to the learners’ academic storehouse if they are just not keen to learn. Extra lessons are only necessary for slower and weaker learners to reinforce key points of lessons or to remedy pupils’ weaknesses through extra tests and discussions.

It is not mandatory to have extra lessons just to assuage the angst of nervous or demanding parents. Equating conducting extra lessons to diligence or commitment misses the issue altogether. The law of diminishing returns negates the assumption that more is always better.