My thoughts on an even playing field in the education landscape surfaced when I read an article from The Straits Times on 2nd May 2012. The feature was on Kindernomics, a financial literacy programme for 4 to 6-year-olds. With interactive games, e-books, animated videos and a portal for parents, it seems like it’s going to be quite a head-start in finance management for children attending this programme! However, at $550 for 10 sessions, it will ironically be beyond the reach of the ones who probably need it more. This seems to be one of many child development enrichment ventures that supply the fodder for an uneven playing field.
That idiom of a "even playing field" is an interesting one :-) I have yet to find a complete answer on the Internet with regard to its origin. But, based on the touch-and-go readings that I have done, it seems fair to assume that we are talking about a fairly vast patch of grass, 100m by 45m, pretty much like one the one used in a game of soccer. If this field is not level, if it slopes, then the team attacking the end sloping downwards would have an advantage. Regardless of the skills, talent and fitness of the opposing team, the slope will make it more difficult for its players to move the ball uphill than it would have been on an even field. Unfair, isn't it? Hence the term uneven playing field.
I want to be very clear that I am not referring to the Singapore Education System, but rather the Singapore education landscape of which the system is only a part. Many many years ago, you could say that the landscape IS the system. That was a time when parents left education entirely to schools. This does not seem to be the case anymore. Parents want more for their children. And schools aren't able to offer everything.
The Singapore Education System is not designed to be a "playing field", or at least there are increasing efforts to distance it from being competitive. It is moving towards greater customisation based on the interests and abilities of the individual. This is the direction from the top, is spelled out in policy and syllabus documents, and publicised in press reports. For example, the primary school just next to my block offers Rugby as a Co-Curricular Activity (CCA). At most neighbourhoods, the sight of boys kicking a soccer ball despite a "No ball-games allowed" sign is quite common. Here, in Senja, we sometimes see boys wrestling with rugby balls much to the annoyance of the elderly and those with young children. There are other enrichment activities offered by schools to make education more holistic such as Robotics and Classical Guitar-playing. Of course, all these are beyond the expertise of teachers, and the services of external vendors are sought. To pay for these activities, there are funds that can be tapped.
The main fare via these activities are not only inclusive but affordable. Of course, now and then, you do get a pupil who is not able to attend an enrichment activity because he or she claims it is not affordable. Yes, many activities usually do require some form of co-payment from the pupils, but pupils from financially disadvantaged families have access to additional funds. Only Singaporeans are entitled to these funds. Despite the additional subsidies, it is possible that this particular pupil has used up all the funds allocated to him or her for the year. Not difficult to imagine because there are pupils who are super-active - having more than two CCAs, holding leadership posts, etc.
The education landscape on the other hand, is undeniably competitive. Thus, it deserves the "playing field" label. Why do I think it is a playing field? Because, let's face it, there are ultimately only a finite number of vacancies in any given career that one would like to pursue. It is fair to assume that every organisation wants the best person for the job. Contrary to what most people still believe, paper qualifications are mattering less and less in the job market. Many experts on 21st century skills development claim that employers look for strong evidence of leadership, life skills, critical thinking, creativity, collaboration and communication skills in their prospective employees. How do you look for evidence of mastery in all of these areas merely by analysing academic scores?
I suppose, entrepreneurs in the landscape running these ventures might argue that they are supporting the education system i.e. by offering more options to develop the interests and abilities of children. I agree. For example, offering financial literacy courses certainly adds diversity to a child's curriculum. But when this customisation is based on what one can afford and what one cannot afford, as clearly is the case in many of the enrichments on offer in the education landscape, then this is what I believe results in an uneven playing field where some children have access to more opportunities than others. And, let’s not pretend that there is no value in these activities.
The Ipad has a lot to offer in children's edutainment. My father-in-law bought us our first tablet PC (not Ipad) just a few weeks ago when he visited China for work. So, after having downloaded and screened the many interactive e-stories, educational videos and other children games for my girls, the revelation of where education is heading became even clearer to me. But I don't know if many children, especialy those coming from single income households will be able to afford one, at least without much sacrifice on the part of their parents. At the rate of change, don't be too surprised that by the time these kids go on to secondary school, some other state-of-the-art gadget might be the new thing-to-have.
What about a $58.95 Category 3 ticket to a Dora concert? Maybe less to offer than an Ipad, but still people are not stupid enough to spend so much on a cartoon character if there is nothing to be reaped. What about a $69.90 right to watch the 2012 London Olympics on MIO TV? It could certainly motivate an aspiring athlete, wouldn't it?
I hope it does not seem as if I am resting any sort of blame on these educational ventures for increasing the angle of the playing field. The pursuit of success is healthy. And on the contrary, we want these ventures to prosper. In fact, we should continue to nurture young entrepreneurs and encourage them to use their talents and look for niches to exploit in the market— both locally and abroad. It's good for them, and our nation. But perhaps, just perhaps, if we could also nurture these entrepreneurs in a way that couples their creativity with a good dose of compassion, I am sure these entrepreneurs will quite easily find a way to make their programmes accessible to children from less privileged backgrounds, and to do this without loss in revenue. But this is not the objective of this note.
Neither do I think we should blame more affluent parents for being the market. No. Every parent wants best for his or her child. If there is a programme that is beneficial and if it is within their means, I don't see why they should stop their children from going for it.
One can hypothesize that these children, as a result of this headstart, and many many other related ones that emerge along the way such as Music enrichment, Debate workshops, Drama camps, Tuition, Fencing lessons, More tuition, Ballet, Art, Gymnastics, and even more tuition, go on to do better all because their parents are able to afford more.
So how? I confess that my answer to this is an emergent one.
In 2009, I vetted the speech written by the school's 2008 Outstanding Student of the Year, Rashid. I encountered a line, which still resonates with me till today: "Be your own trailblazers." That struck me all the more because Rashid, with a PSLE score that would easily put him in the Top 10% of his cohort had chosen to come to a neighbourhood school with a cut-off score 60 points lower. At such a young age, he had already learned to live by his own mantra. To put it less poetically than he had, Rashid has decided to play on his own field.
I don't know how relevant this is to education, but please let me talk about shoes. When I was in school, my parents used to get us those Panda-brand shoes. I remember looking with envy at my friends' BM2000 pairs. Oh, and we always got shoes a size bigger so that they last longer. Funny, because even till now, when my feet have stopped growing, I still buy shoes a size bigger. Haha! I find it really uncomfortable when my toes touch the inside of the toe-box. In retrospect, I don't think my parents couldn't afford BM2000 pairs of shoes. They probably didn't see them as being worth the cost. My guess is that they probably felt that the money could be better spent elsewhere or simply saved. Truthfully, I don't think my Panda shoes caused me to run like a panda i.e. any slower than my friends with the BM2000 ones. Neither did I feel any sort of serious discomfort. If it wasn't for my pride, and perhaps my desire to fit in, I can't think of any other reason why I had wanted to wear a pair of BM2000 shoes. So, I guess at an early age, my parents were either intentionally or unintentionally, teaching me that it was not always important to fit in.
I do see kids wearing Nike, Adidas and even Bubble Gummers to school these days. Doesn't faze me. Both my girls wear shoes from Bata to school. Thank you, Bata!
Some time back, I shared the following on my Wall:
"As a tightening-of-the-belt measure, we switched her over to the Methodist Church Incarnation Kindergarten, but not without much deliberation. Fees are less than half that of her previous school. But, after a month, we are at peace with our decision. She seems happier, it’s a lot nearer, we like the school’s simple, values-centric approach and… her Singlish has reduced."
Switching Leanne over to MCI taught us a valuable lesson. Sometimes, you don't always get what you pay for, and sometimes you get more than what you pay for. I have asked a few of my friends who teach at Primary schools if they see any differences among children from the various preschools. Not one of them has given me an answer that would lead me to conclude that any preschool develops better kids, be it in academia, sports or character.
I have heard of parents buying houses and flats within the 1 km radius of supposedly elite schools just so that their children can be guaranteed a place in that particular school. And, partly because of the demand of such homes from equally eager parents, these homes are far from being affordable. Why do parents do that? Because the teachers are better? Really, where MOE posts its teachers has nothing to do with how well these teachers perform at NIE. We all stand an equal chance of getting posted to any school. It's usually a matter of distance. Better programmes? The press has covered many neighbourhood schools offering some interesting programmes. Outstanding results? Likewise, there are many neighbourhood schools that have produced top pupils. Besides, how sure are you that it is the effort of the school that is solely responsible for a child's results? Better peer influence? Define "better peer influence". Are we that powerless as parents that we can't have the ultimate say in the influences on our children?
I went to Rosyth. I had been streamed into the first of three classes. My mother, an experienced and reputable PSLE Teacher, a former head of department, was teaching at the school literally next door. So apart from having the luxury of being chauffeured to school daily, I had a free live-in tuition teacher, someone who would coach me 24/7. At our bungalow home, I never had to lift a finger to do any housework. We had a helper who did everything from making our beds to cooking our meals. But, at the PSLE, I scored a single A* in the one subject I had been most interested in, and would continue to be most passionate about. Sadly, this achievement was never celebrated. Given my circumstances, I was deemed to have underperformed. An antithesis of a middle class teacher's kid from an elite primary school. I entered my second-choice secondary school fully aware of my underachievement and sought to make it up by excelling in other areas *cough cough*.
When Leanne was only 8 months old, we tried her out in "brain-development" classes. Pfft! It's true. We really did. These were weekly hour-long lessons attended by young toddlers together with their parents. For the first half-an-hour, children would be shown flash cards that exposed them to the areas of Encyclopaedic Knowledge, Languages and Mathematics. For the next half-an-hour, it would be basic gym work- rolling, tumbling, hanging on a bar, etc. At $120 a month, I learnt that a modest version of this course (and many other courses for that matter) could be put together by a capable adult with a PC, a deskjet printer, Internet connection and some time off hobbies.
Everyday, we read to the girls. We don't just read one or two books, but quite often we go through a few books. And we have just started on some thicker than usual books with No. 1. She likes to be read to, but has yet to gain full independence with the books that she truly likes. I have always had a love for the written word. But, I'll have to confess reading children's stories was absolutely torturous in the beginning especially when the girls used to bring me these long princessy or cuddly animal stories. And I have considered the many reading enrichment programmes that could hurry their independence.
However, as time goes by, I'll have to say that I have really started to enjoy my time with them. It's possibly the cuddles that I enjoy most. I usually read to them when we tuck them into bed at night. Having gone through several of the stories multiple times, I often try to add a little bit of spice (more for myself) by changing the names of characters and storylines. So, Prince Philip in Sleeping Beauty sometimes becomes Prince Papa. I've learnt that my No. 1 absolutely hates me doing that to the point of tears. She prefers stories to stay the way she remembers them. My two-year-old looks at me with mouth agape wondering perhaps if there really was a Prince Papa. But quite often she attacks me with "Why" and "How come" questions that I have no answers for. At other times, I will change Snow White's voice into a deep baritone, and the voice of the Giant from Jack and the Beanstalk into a shrill giggly Barberalla imitation. I do a pretty good imitation of Captain Hook's voice too. But I reserve that for the Big Bad Wolf and the odd little Rumpelstiltskin. Of course, story-time also gives me an opportunity to inculcate values, for example by pointing out how Beauty asked nothing else of her father but a simple rose, and how Hansel and Gretel's father is really a man without a backbone. Not doing what he believes to be the right thing in fear of his wife, the children's stepmother. Imagine a father sending his own children away! If a bit more time allows, we role-play the stories. The children's favourite? The Three Little Pigs. And guess who has to be the wolf? And guess which part they like best?
If you have never recognised the existence of a "playing field", then you are probably one of the few who have grown your own field for your kids to play on. Parents who homeschool, you could be in this category. This note is not for you. But, like me, if you see it, then join me as I synthesize the snippets of my life experiences into what I would only call a draft conclusion. 1) I think some us have to accept that we may never make it big enough to afford many things for our children. We’ve to guard against the temptation of breaking the bank to access ‘rainy day resources’ just so that our children will "not lose out". I wouldn't give up annual family holidays just so that my girls can go to an International school. 2) Then, we need to delineate the must-haves from the good-to-haves, and the good-to-haves from the better-to-haves. I might enrol my five-year-old for basic swimming lessons. But a course on life-guard skills would be given more thought, if not a complete miss. 3) By all means, trumpet the tiniest of your children's achievements, but remember, our children are not our trophies to be put on display at family gatherings. A fine line there :-). Requires that we search our motivations from to time. As human beings, the quest for doing things better never ends. Even when our time has passed, we look to living our lives through our children. 4) We have to accept that all children are their parent's responsibilities. Every other person in their life is peripheral. It amazes me to see how much effort parents invest to have children, and once their job is done popping them out, they outsource them to all-day child-care centres, to helpers (even on Sundays), to grandparents and recently to Ipads and Iphones. I sometimes outsource my daughters to Disney Junior. Haha!
5) Last but not least, and I am going to put this in a separate paragraph for impact, the greatest gift a parent can give to his or her children is really honestly truly none other than time. There are many things that compete for our time and attention. But only a few hold lasting value. I regard my time with my girls as one of them.
My father passed away when I was 15. I struggle to know who he really was, what his innermost thoughts on life were, what he truly felt for me and what he would have wanted for my future. But I am thankful I have a God who has been more than a father to me, and who is showing me the ropes of fatherhood. You know, it is so easy to follow the crowd. But growing your own field, tending to it and teaching your children to play by a set of rules that sometimes goes against the grain of society, requires courage, determination, wisdom, lots of love and constant divine guidance. At the end of the day, I'll do it because I am convinced it'll be worth every ounce of effort.
