Schemes targeted at kindergarden level not enough

(in response to "Social escalator needs oiling" p. A33, The Straits Times)

Are better opportunities for pre-primary education going to help? And have we adequately addressed the issues of education for children of the lower income families? The answer is no. In fact, I was shocked when I came to know through that "of 61 President's scholars from 1992 onwards, only five had parents who were not professionals, white collars, or engineers" and "53 per cent of the 2008 batch of Public Service Commision scholars came from private housing, up from 47 per cent in 2005." Thus, I wish to raise my views about the constraints and problems faced by children of poorer families, and highlight some of the reasons to why they weren't able to "afford" it even though there were many scholarships available in Singapore.

Facing the growing income gap and inequality in Singapore, Janice Heng (writer) mentioned the solution noted by our PM Lee in his rally speech in her report - "One step in the right decision is increased spending on kindergardens," which (to a certain extent) addressed part of the concerns of lower income families hoping to fight better education opportunities for their children. Evidently, "meritocracy can promote social mobility only if one's starting point does not greatly affect one's chances of academic success" but I felt the "starting point" here not only meant pre-school education, but also at the various "starting point" of deciding to pursue higher level of education. Of course, we have also "other levelling factors," such as direct assistance to poorer household, to lessen the burden of poor families providing a better education for their children. Nonetheless, I believed that the government can and will be willing to do more, so I wish to make a humble suggestion and summarize in a few paragraphs below.

---

"If we want poorer students to be able to climb society's ladder, perhaps we need to give them a leg up." I absolutely agree with the writer that this statement holds the KEY to helping childrens of poor families to achieve a higher education; however, directing more spending on kindergarden is not enough to solve the issue in my personal opinion. Clearly, it is just an initial step to help lower income families to at least achieve a condusive and proper pre-primary education for their kids; but, in order to help them climb the "society's ladder," they need more guidience along the way.

In the fast-paced society, I have seen many lower income families who"require" their children to come out to the society to work even though they did well in school. I can fully understand the pain, uncertainty, lack of guidience and dilemma of many outstanding but "poor" students faced when they are deciding whether or not to further on their studies after their O'Levels, Polytechnic, or even JCs. I was one of them! We knew that it is important to get a degree these days, as a higher proportion of younger generation are achieving above tertiary education compared to the past. Can the children from the poorer families keep up with the chase? Personally, I find it a hard but it can be achieved only if you find the right people to talk to (academic advisor, consultants, teachers who are willing to help) and right channels to achieve your educational goals. Thus, the key concern for these students (from lower income households, who achieved high performance in their schools) is not just about having a wide variety of scholarships, study loans, and bursaries to cater to their needs, but where to get them and how to plan for their further studies (especially when they are still willing to fight for it).

In other words, to make my point short, we need a platform for high performers from poorer families to attain proper and greater guidience easily - starting from neighbourhood secondary schools may be a good choice. Take some time to think about this: polytechnic's and university's open-houses which happened once in a year, detailed brouchures about furthering education laying on the shelves of school reception offices, and educational "advisors" who are more likely to sit in their desk and passively waiting for "interested" students to approach them for help on further education, can these measures be fully utilized if most of these students are having second thoughts about furthering education after O'Levels, A'Levels or a Diploma? I doubt so. Unless parents themselves have clear minds of where to find help for their childrens to realize their educational goals, most childrens and high scorers from poor families are going no where (especially if they cannot make up their mind on whether to further studies or go out to work).

Therefore, if neighbourhood schools can head start a programme IMMEDIATELY after students passed their O'levels (probably to be integrated during the meet-the-teachers session) to help parents and students lay a possible guideline and assistance as to how they can achieve a degree or even a masters in the future, it will broaden the opportunities for these high performers in school. Moreover, it will also allow more preparation time for parents to calculate the expenses for their children if they pursue a higher education (degree, masters or Phd) before they even start studying in polytechnic or JCs. Of course, we can devise a more holistic solution to make the programme more extensive, so that most students who opted for the programme are able to do well in their field of studies and achieve their targeted goals. For instance, apart from a one-time meeting affair with teachers or advisors, we can provide assistance and do follow-ups through communittee centres to clarify their doubts and plan their route. Similarly, it will also reach out to more scholars residing in the grassroots.

At last, if any government member happens to possibly view this section of my blog... I hope that you can take my suggestion into consideration. Thank you, and God bless!

China needs time for change

(in response to "Games face just a mask?" p. A2, The Straits Times)

Why hurry for changes, when China already took a huge sacrifice for the Olympics 2008?

The Bejing Olympics 2008 has left us with spectacular hosting, fireworks, performances and preparations that will be remembered in history. It is their first time after a long time waiting, and they made it brilliant and "truely exceptional." Of course, their efforts came with a price. Apart from the extraordinary costs of displaying what they are capable of doing for the Olympics, security issues, compensations for polluting factories and power plants on the outskirts of Beijing, and five provinces who had suspended their operations without satisfactory explanations are current issues that China has to face after the games. If we were to evaluate whether the Olympics have changed China, it is too early too comment. They are not "tough questions" in my opinion, we just need more time to anticipate the changes in China. Is it going to be the same for China in its transformation to become a "polite and gracious" country?

Evidently, China has to balance the "socio-econmic forces that the Games bring" and find the right solutions to consolidate their political grounds and tackle their air pollution problems; and I do not wish to comment on that at the moment. However, if we are concerned that all of these joyeous moments, Olympic limelights and "occasional rains" were a face behind a mask for China, I thought it was a bit too harsh to bear for the Chinese. They deserve more credit on what they have done for us, and fulfill their promise for hosting the Olympics remarkably.

Thus, let us embrace their courage and significant exhibitions that will keep in our minds for a long time. I hope that China will continue to give us more surprises to come outside of the Olympics.