ARGH!!!!!

ni nah bu eh... this is such utter rubbish!

and i am sure Mr Chan would define a good teacher as someone who can produce hoards and hoards of students who can score straight A's, even if they have to cheat to do so. who cares whether the student actually do learn, who cares whether the student grows up to be a person of high moral fibre. so long as they come out of schools scoring straight A's that's fine and that's what teachers should be measured by.

how astute of Mr Chan to point that out! but it looks like he has not kept up with the news nor has he bothered to listen to the Minister of Education, that education goes beyond grades. it goes beyond anything that can be measured.

and it seems that Mr Chan is advocating an equality of results. he not scared arh? trying to be a bloody commie in today's day and age? wake up la. we are now talking about equality of opportunities, which is practically impossible. but we are trying our darnedest best.

what took the cake is this:
"Poor students should choose the school nearest their homes, so that they can save on bus fares and spend more time helping with household chores."

how more condescending can he get?! we all know that a good education is a worthwhile investment and we know that an education in one of our premier institutions (from the Rafflesian trinity, the HCI, ACS(I), etc) are more often than not better than in most other schools. so spending the bus fare and the time travelling, studying and being educated in one of the 'elite' schools is a definitely a wise long-term investment. only someone extremely myopic would suggest that poor students should choose the school neares their home just so that they can save on bus fare and spend time helping with household chores.

i was so disappointed with the quality of the Forum pages after reading that letter. how could such a crap letter be published? what the hell were the editor(s) or whoever it is who decides which letter to print thinking about?!

but i was somewhat mollified after reading this. very observant and incisive. someone once commented that an education where students can't do without private tutors is a failure. alas, this is a problem that parents are partially responsible for. more well to do parents would want their kids to do well and hence would find ways which they can use money to put their kids at an advantage. and in Singapore, it means to game the system of exams. this create the demand for private tutors where there is good money. then other parents want to follow, more demand, better money, more tutors, and then students have to continually get better, have better tutors just to stay at the same spot.

and the students who can't afford private tutors lose out. Ms Tao suggests that we should have a system that is less reliant on private tuition. and i agree. though it is hard to implement. in fact, i wonder whether there are actually any practical and feasible way to achieve this. project work? tutors can help in that too. then what?

the other way out is for kind-souls who are competent to offer free tuition to students who can't afford it. retired teachers, professionals, etc. should come out and offer their services pro bono. alas, this depends on the goodness of heart of the suitably competent people. and given the temptation of the rather lucrative pay in private tuition, i don't think many people would come out and offer to tutor children from not so well to do families.

so how?