The conception of an education
system came with the aim of equipping students with the necessary skills to
fill the jobs in the economy to make the country more productive. This form of
education is most efficacious when there is a fixed set of rules for those that
comprise it – it guarantees an entire batch of workers able to work efficiently
on the assembly line. As society develops, so has the system of education,
which aims to meet society’s needs. In a world where societies are becoming
increasingly meritocratic, education has become less about knowledge and more
about students’ achievements and grades, compelling people to avert from “the
road less taken”. As a result, education restricts one’s choices, and ends up
developing multiple individuals who are good at abiding by rules but lack
personal voices and interests.
It is claimed by some that the
education system has diversified, allowing a vast array of choices for students
– we can now choose what school to attend, and what courses to take. The
choices individuals make, they argue, would be reflective of the differing
qualities and characteristics of each person. Theoretically, this argument may
hold true, but education today is not just as simple as they suggest. Granted,
it may be true that there is now a larger variety of choices for a student, but
the overwhelming need to conform to expectations overcomes it. On the most
basic level, students need to conform to the most basic school rules or risk
punishment. For instance, a large number of schools mandate a uniform appearance
– all students of the same school have to wear the clothes of the same design,
and there are rules about every single part of one’s appearance. Not only is
this inherently an expectation to conform, it conditions young minds to think
that their actions will represent that of the school, so anything that catches others’
attentions is deemed to be “bad”, and is frowned upon. This means that students
are discouraged from taking up courses commonly associated with unsuccessful people.
For example, Korean society expects its crème de la crème to study engineering
or medicine in university, although that may not be everyone’s cup of tea. This
is because they buy into the concept that people should practice what others
before them had done, because that is thought to be the “safe” route to success
which guarantees a stable income. As a result, those with good results are
pressured into taking these courses even if they find greater interest
elsewhere – a quarter of all Korean university graduates major in engineering. This
overwhelming expectation quells any earlier consideration of taking up a course
that one has an affinity or interest in, like the arts, which is vehemently discouraged
because it is seen to be a job with an unstable income. As a corollary of this,
heuristics are being taught in many societies, especially in Asia. For any question,
there is a thought to be a predetermined method to derive the answer that would
“guarantee” high marks. Students follow these “model answers” to meet the rigid
requirements present in national examinations to gauge the ability of students.
This means that they blindly apply formulas without understanding why these
concepts and formulas apply to solving the problem at hand. This encourages
rigidity in terms of thinking, and all that results from the system would be
people who can only excel in repeating what they have done before. Evidently,
students in the education system are not only overtly conforming to the school
rules, but they covertly begin to conform to society’s beliefs and mindsets
instead of developing their own, individual passions and qualities.
Opponents of the thesis argue that effective
teachers can instill a sense of interest in learning in their students. As a
result, students will have a life-long thirst for knowledge. Despite the claim,
the truth remains that the system of education today creates obstacles for
teachers, which limits their ability rather than help them teach effectively. Most
education systems around the world today have national exams, because it is
deemed as necessary in order to determine the standard of the students. In the
face of these inevitable examinations, teachers rush to prepare students for
the multitude of questions to be tested. In such a circumstance, even a teacher
who believes in developing the interests of students has no choice but to focus
the bulk of his or her lesson on the curriculum to be tested. This is because
the education ministry gauges the ability of teachers based on how much improvement
students make in terms of grades, and focuses less on students’ holistic,
all-rounded development, something that cannot be measured accurately. In Singapore’s
case, parents that traditionally adopt the “kiasu” mindset fret over finding
tuition classes for their children sitting for the Primary School Leaving
Examination (PSLE), GCSE “O” Levels or “A” Levels examinations, while teachers feel
pressured to get as many “A”s in class as possible. Effectively, the
requirements of education as set out by the country’s government limits the
ability of teachers, even good ones. Furthermore, it would be idealistic to
argue that all teachers are as effective as opponents claim them to be – in many
cases teachers are more focused on getting students to do well in order to get
a raise in pay, as compared to trying diligently to help develop each individual
student based on his or her needs and interests. Anything outside the declared
curriculum is seen to be “unnecessary” or “irrelevant”. In addition to the fact
that teachers are limited by the requirements of the system, the school also
has to be accountable to society. Parents send their children to school with
the expectation that the latter group will gain knowledge and learn some
morals, and this expectation falls on the teachers and the school. Schools tend
to err on the side of caution because they are paid to take care of the needs
of students, so they are unwilling to take risks. However, to create a system
actively promoting individual development hinges on not just the curriculum and
the school rules – it comes with a large amount of risk. Encouraging
individuals to find out more about themselves necessarily means that teachers do
not advice students on what they should do – teachers let children develop without
interference. When a system is lax, it cannot identify children who are acting
abnormally and help them. As a result, if a child grows up in a poor living
environment, he is likely to be negatively influenced, and this is where a
hands-off system fails. It is exactly this that many schools are afraid of,
compelling them to hold a tighter leash on students and forces them to conform
to the rules, thereby limiting students’ ability to explore and develop their
interests.
Critics would argue that individuals
can spend time on their own outside of the school gates in order to develop their
own passions, because they are still able to choose what extracurricular
activities to take up and what activities they should pick up in their free
time. However, this is increasingly untrue in a world where the burden of
students keeps increasing. Students of today recognise that their future
choices hinge upon their grades – even with an outstanding co-curricular
portfolio, it all comes to naught if they cannot manage their academic grades.
This is because educational achievements are the determining factor of the
nature of one’s future – when hiring employees, many corporations today look at
the school the applicant attended, his grades, the scholarships he received and
so on. Hence, the students of today go to school not to gain new knowledge
about topics they are interested in, but rather in a mad paper-chase to build
up their portfolios. This generates an interest to focus more on academics,
equating to a heavier workload. This results in individuals unwilling to spend time
nurturing their own passions and interests – the time spent on learning a musical
instrument is thought to be better spent on revising more past-year physics
papers. Even if students pick up an activity that they are interested in, for
example a sport, it would take a backseat in students’ lists of priorities.
When push comes to shove, most students would rather drop their sport when the
national examinations approach, because the sport is unlikely to define their
future lives, unlike good grades achieved in exams. Hence, even outside the
school gates students are compelled to conform to society’s expectations of
them, instead of developing their own personal passions.
The idea of rules is central to all
forms of education – people need rules to teach them the limits of what they
can and cannot do. For instance, a person cannot be allowed to search up the
steps needed to make a pipe bomb because the information can cause great harm
if misused. However, as are most things in society, rules are double-edged
swords. While it protects people from others, it also limits the areas of
interest because people avert from testing boundaries, making them conform to
what the government or society deems as “safe”. Ultimately, while some can
still have that personal space to develop themselves, and indulge in their
interests, education systems largely warn individuals against challenging
social norms, and force them to make decisions that may not be the best for
every individual in society.
0 comments:
Post a Comment