Education and the Marketplace II

Received this letter from a friend I've known for almost a decade:

Allow me to add salt onto wounds: Do you know how I see schools, or rather, education system? It is merely a 'factory' of some sort, transforming raw materials (young children) into finished goods (marketable, or rather, employable adults for today's marketplace). The more the school systems fails to meet market demand, the free market forces of supply and demand will ultimately win and displaces the original inflexible education system. And by then, the harder the backlash onto that education system.

Let me ask you, if a certain type of raw materials is not that suitable in making a particular finished goods, do you just grade them into EM1/2/3, just to conform to your original inflexible production line? No! You find out what that certain type of raw material is good in making, modify/change your production line and make them into good finished goods. However, what is sad is many production lines are too standardised (maybe in an effort to achieve maximum efficiency). Maybe that is still ok during the early days of Singapore's independence where the focus is in producing engineers to transform us from a 3rd world country to a 1st world country. However, in this 21st century, that 'business' model may no longer be meeting today's globalised market demand.

Hence, what I propose is this 'factory' takes into account the type of raw materials they are dealing with and putting them into correct use. That will generate greater economic benefits on the long-term. Of course, I don't believe in allowing complete free market forces to choose their wishes either. In this sense, a suitable amount of governmental regulation would be needed. Total free market forces tends to generate either excessive or inadequate supply and demand at times. For instance, back in 2007, banking and finance course was at the top of the wish list, where every student dreamt of landing that five figure investment job upon graduation. But now, you know that bubble has just burst. And in 2009, civil service jobs like teaching (and along with it, NIE courses) is nearing the top of the list soon..

My point is this: Our school education system must always anticipates tomorrow's (future) needs of the market and serves it dutifully. However, the system must not caters to each and every insatiable desires and wants of the market blindly. In this process of ongoing adjustment, not every student will be happy but it surely does maximises the potential on the whole. This is what we must aim for.

To emphasize what I might have said in the past, there are two forms of education that must be strengthened (and not fool around with) in schools. 1. Physical education. It should be broadened to include life-long heath management education and physical health crisis management like CPR. You won't want to wait for the population and public health budget time bomb to balloon dangerously like those of Americans before you take action. 2. Financial education. Like it or not, everyone is born to play the game of money. And you don't pretend the financial problems of your people are all solved with something called "CPF". Enough bullshiting in this paragraph, I know those people at M*E HQ never listens.

And long live those entrepreneurs who gave back to society. They are finally making themselves heard by some. They want to be change agents of the society and are letting money do the walking (for unless you are at the HQ, who ever pays attention to you?) So far, I am glad by the way their money have positively uplifted the lifes of many.


My reply:

Well at a policy level, all that you've said makes a lot of sense. In fact, this is the trend everywhere under globalization. That's how we have 'knowledge economies', and that's why education is moving towards 'skills-based education' and 'lifelong learning'. What I do not agree, however, is that we are too 'standardized'. Things have changed in the past few years, and certainly polys and even ITEs are producing students with good skills. Streaming may still be in place, but it is paradoxically not obsolete because in order to 'make the best use' of all the raw materials, you have to make sure they are the most suitable materials for the products they will become. The only problem is when we really stigmatize them and see them as inferior all the way. That will eventually lead to social classes and social imobility. For that reason, teachers and the whole education system cannot afford to see children as goods or materials. Hence the 'shaping the future' metaphor. Moreover, I think 2009 really showed that the world is changing, and we really don't know what can happen in the future, eg jobs creation. Singapore has come to a stage where we try to anticipate future demands but cannot be sure our projections will be right beyond 5 yrs. But education is a long-term investment, and we cannot change things abruptly because the whole system will screw up. I am a critique of the system myself, but compared to HK, compared to China, I think we are going in the right direction of diversification, and I believe MOE will continue moving forward.

Your opinions about health education and financial education are valid. But I have my reservations about the latter, at least the stage at which we push out financial education. If you ask me, high school (JC or poly) or even university is better. Because, as you should know, when you introduce such 'high-level' stuff in the public school system, it can be watered down to very dry knowledge. In this new day and age, I would say that economics is one subject we can try having more kids do. But as I found out recently, exposing children to money knowledge too early may have its adverse effects too. Children, being children, have a right to enjoy their childhood and teenage-hood. We've never learnt financial modules, but we are not unhappy. At the end of the day, I don't foresee the system introducing the technicalities of finance - at least not before university. Instead, I would rather focus on the roots of human nature and behaviour, which I'm sure you also know is fundamentally what determines market dynamics. The challenge here as an educator is to prepare children for the marketplace, but at the same time to allow them more reflxivity into their own beliefs and identities. That may be my stand as someone who did a degree in the Arts and now doing a Masters in social sciences, but I believe that in this new era, making money is not the real problem for children born in the 21st century. Finding out who they are, what they believe, their value systems - all of which ultimately feedback into how the society will be like and how political forces work in tandem with the folks, are where the tensions will arise. The stint in HK made me accept the influence of market forces on the education system, but at the same time, it also all the more strengthened my beliefs that education is ultimately about humans and how we perceive ourselves as individuals and our place in society (and the world). Right now, I do see that Singaporeans of our generation have got relevant skills to meet the challenges of the global market - at least for the top 30% or so. But what we lack is really the ability to deal with our changing thoughts and beliefs which may or may not be different from our parents' generation (now here's a dual paradox: If they are different, we have to learn to accept and then look back to try and ascertain who we are; if they are the same we also have to worry whether those values and beliefs are obsolete and if they can be integrated into the whole societal fabric).

So if you ask me, I will strengthen social studies, introduce basic philosophy and revamp moral and national education. Put in tandem with knowledge about the market and physical education, that's how we 'create' a post-modern version of ancient Greek society - of sorts.

Yes, long live the entrepreneurs who give back the wealth they created so ppl like me can deliver value. At least for 华社, I believe the business community still has an important role to play in education. In fact, I have been thinking these days what a new model of ’新‘ 华社 will look like in a few decades to come (Haha.. nice name right.. New Chinese community + Singapore chinese community).

In Singapore, we have many many people who can give ideas and suggestions to the education system from the perspective of the market's needs, but not enough people who think about what the new global economy will do to the 'soft' aspects of our society. A key question I have been pondering and will continue to bear in mind is this: How is society possible in Singapore under the challenges of economic and cultural globalization？The way I see it, this question incorporates all that we have discussed, but focuses on the person, not the market - which I still believe is fundamentally a product of human behaviour, as have been shown by the financial upheaval this time round. Our government prides itself for being pragmatic and non-ideological, but in my opinion, this is the rhetoric most detrimental to our society if we over-interpret it and place too much focus on just economic and financial forces. Singapore IS at a cross-roads, not because of the current recession, but because we need deeper roots. The same issue goes for the new immigrants: The marketplace, which once was a neutral arena free from race and cultural differences and that could make all equal, is now working in the disadvantages of the new entrants into our society. That is because new immigrants are perceived to be here for the gold. And you do realize that most of the time problems arise because of job opportunities isn't it？What we really need now is a re-balance of social forces, something which is beyond the market. The national integration council is thus also a move in the right direction, except I seriously doubt its effectiveness. If you ask me, we need more civil societies. But that's a whole big separate issue altogether, so let's leave the discussion till our next meetup.