Challenges of Inequality in the Implementation of National Education Policy Initiatives in School - Essay Example

? Challenges of Inequality Issues in the Implementation of Singapore National Education Policy Initiatives in School Singapore’s National Education policy concerns of ensuring that the education system serves the needs of national economic development and ensuring that the education system fosters social cohesion are aimed at developing national cohesion, cultivating instincts for survival, and instilling in students confidence in the future of the country. However, the implementation of these National Education policies have to contend with the inequality issues prevalent within the social context of teaching and learning some of which are associated with an individual’s race/ethnic, social status and gender. Despite the meritocratic educational system adopted to diminish the rather diverse students’ backgrounds, teaching might still be experienced differently due to their ethnic, racial, gender or social class orientations (Kang, 2005). Stemming from these limitations, teachers in the hope of encouraging competition among students might unconsciously promote inequality of learning across groups of students, and further attempt to justify their actions without taking into consideration the possible implications. Generally, The MOE policy initiative was targeted at developing a sense of national identity, that consider Singapore’s developmental challenges and constraints, as well as a confidence in the country’s future (Chang, 1995). According to Poon (2008), the Singapore government on its part has promoted equality of opportunity across the student divide irrespective of the racial, social or religious backgrounds. First, Singapore has established integrated schools in place of the colonial era separate language medium schools that hampered interaction between students from diverse racial backgrounds. Secondly, education has been made accessible to all citizens through the government-subsidized education and educated well-trained teachers. In addition to the centralized resource distribution for all schools, the curriculum and examinations have been standardized as a measure for all students irrespective of their social backgrounds. Therefore, the comparatively exhaustive education opportunities available for the Singaporean population mean that a level competition field has been created for students despite their social or ethnic backgrounds (Tan, 2008). Research has however established that despite the equal opportunities, inequalities are evidenced in the educational outcomes. For instance, certain groups such as the Chinese seem relatively highly educated than their Malay and Indian counterparts. Further, it is not determinable as to whether education yields equal returns in the economy with respect to the segments of the population. But with equal education opportunities, inequality of outcomes exists because of biological destiny and cultural deprivation (Sim & Print, 2009). According to Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968), theorists of the biological destiny believe that difference in intelligence exist across the racial/ethnic, male/female or rich/poor segments is derived from the notion that some groups are naturally dominating and therefore would be “natural” for some groups to perform better than others. Disagreements have arisen as to whether IQ tests measure that which is learnt or innate to a student. From a sample of questions in an IQ test, it is clear that specific pieces of knowledge are measured (Lai, 2004). Additionally, cultural deprivation as a source of inequality in outcomes postulates that certain individuals or groups of people (especially from the lower social class or ethnic group) are viewed as inferior in throughout the culture. Such groups are considered to experience failures in life due to the cultural values that they hold (such as laziness, disobedience and rashness in decision making). For instance in Japan, while a specific section of Korean origin is deemed lowest in social order due to their violence and dumbness, immigrants with Korean origin compared to other Asian Americans in the United States (Kluver & Webber, 2003). Through the NE education initiative instances of class inequality would hinder the implementation process. Class inequality exists when a relatively large group of individuals belonging to the same economic level lead a lifestyle that is determined by the resources. These disparities across different groups of individuals escalating from the diversity of economic resources and equivalent lifestyles are considered class inequality. In comparison to other forms of structured inequalities, class inequality is considered flexible due to the associated ease of social mobility (Chang, 1995). Social mobility which allows for the graduation of groups and individuals from one socio-economic position to the other can thus be used to address the plight of class inequality as it bridges the gaps between classes. In the case of the Singaporean population, students can benefit from family influence and motivation that have been vital in altering an individual’s socio-economic status. Further, when an individual is prepared for the job market through socialism, their lifestyle and status will automatically be improved. In addition to family and motivation, opportunity equally influences social mobility by altering an individual’s exposure to networking opportunities and better facilities that eventually betters their social position (Chee et al., 2006). Children in Singapore schools are absorbed into primary schools with priority accorded those whose parents had studied in the institution or have siblings in the school. But for students who do not meet the criteria, another policy of proximity to the school is applied, with those closest having higher probabilities of admission. Both criteria are discriminative because the NE education policy initiative of providing equality in opportunities would be limited to those families that originate within the school vicinity. Visitors and minority races /ethnic groups will be disadvantaged due to their inability to satisfy the required criteria. However, entry into better primary schools will mean higher chances of joining university because of adequate facilities and appropriate learning environment. This will further translate into being employed in better-paying companies; and thus an improved lifestyle and social status. Having benefited from the better primary schools, these successful students are likely to enrol their kids in the schools; thus establishing a cycle of children from higher social class performing better with the encouragement of their learned parents. It is however unfortunate for children whose parents lack the necessary education to motivate their studies (Ho, 2009). The meritocratic system of education for the Singapore government is aimed at levelling the ‘playing field’ for each child to excel according to ability. Once admitted into primary the system applies throughout primary to secondary and even to university. While the rigorous process allows for Singaporeans to acquire skills for reaching full potential, the system is considered efficient for students in the better primary schools. Because of the recognition that students in the better primary schools receive, they are highly motivated to study compared to those in the less renowned schools. Their performance through secondary to university is comparatively higher than students in the less renowned schools, who suffer lack of recognition and thus “shattered confidence”. Right from primary, this lack of confidence results into poor performance due to the feeling of inferiority. With poor performance, the students end up in less renowned secondary schools and even in their post-secondary education. Therefore, the disparities in the admission policy has segregated the lower class students against the higher performing higher class counterparts; thereby widening the social gap (Lai, 2004). Similarly, the Singapore government’s meritocratic process in the effort of availing “equity in opportunities for all” discriminates on its streaming system and admission policy. Based on the performance, higher class students are enrolled in the renowned institutions which in addition to the well equipped facilities enjoy better learning environment and receive enrichment programmes. Such features provide opportunities for these students to interact both among themselves and in forming corporate relationships. Unfortunately, the lower class students in the less renowned institutions receive relatively fewer opportunities both for interaction and in building the necessary networks for the job market. This challenge pits them in the bottom of the social ladder, and instead of bridging the social gap, the meritocratic system further widens it (Poon, 2008). In conclusion, the NE policy has catered for most of the intended issues as anticipated by the Singaporean government, such as needy students receive bursaries and loans for studies; and education has become available and accessible for all. However, certain areas should be improved to further attend to the issues resulting from class inequality. First, the admission policy should be changed to a more equitable policy to further reduce the widening gap in the social class. Secondly, the streaming policy should be altered so as to allow for students in the lower class that lack opportunities and motivation might achieve in life. Lastly, the highly exam-oriented education system should be toned down to be considerate of individual’s technical skills as well as better linguistic skills. References Chang, H. Y. (1995). Singapore: Education and Change of Class Stratification. Southeast Asian Studies, 32(4): 469. Chee, K. J. W., Khoo, A., Goh, Tan, S., & Gopinathan, S. (2006). Patriotism and national education: Perceptions of trainee teachers in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 26: 51-64. Ho, L. C. (2009). Global multicultural citizenship education: A Singapore experience. The Social Studies, Nov/Dec., 285-293. Kang, T. (2005). Creating educational dreams: The intersection of ethnicity, families and schools. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic. Kluver, R., & Webber, I. (2003). Patriotism and the Limits of Globalization: Renegotiating Citizenship in Singapore. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 27: 371-388. Lai, A. E. (Ed.). (2004). Beyond rituals and riots: Ethnic pluralism and social cohesion in Singapore. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. Poon, K. (2008). Special needs education. In J. Tan & P. T. Ng (Eds.), Thinking schools, learning nation: Contemporary issues and challenges (pp. 159-171). Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall. Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Sim, J., & Print, M. (2009). The state, teachers and citizenship education in Singapore schools. British Journal of Education Studies, 57: 380-399. Tan, J. (2008). Whither national education? In J. Tan & P. T. Ng (Eds.), Thinking schools, learning nation: Contemporary issues and challenges (pp. 72-86). Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall. Read More