Home About Us Cover Story Selected Articles
Editorials 编辑室 > Looking Back: Streaming and Its Significance
回首来时路:分流制度让新加坡教育起飞
Looking Back: Streaming and Its Significance
By Poon Sing Wah
Published: EduNation, Issue 2, Mar-Apr 2013
Last November, it was only through advertising that Lianhe Zaobao managed to get the name of the top performer in the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) - Xie Feng Yu, from Nanyang Primary School, who scored 285 points. The school itself collectively commended 45 of its students who scored above 270 points. There was no mention at all of having produced the top scorer in Singapore.

Ms Tan Chiew Hua, a reporter from Lianhe Zaobbao, wrote, "Having the top scorer should have been an occasion for celebration, so why did it become so secretive and hush-hush?"

Within a fortnight of all our Principals repeating the mantra, "Grades are personal in nature, and announcing them only encourages unhealthy and unnecessary competition," the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) report came out. It published the results in Maths and Science of Grade 4 and Grade 8 students (i.e. Secondary 2) from 50 and 42 countries and/or cities respectively. Singapore ranked first in Primary 4 Maths and Secondary 2 Science, and second in Primary 4 Science and Secondary 2 Maths.

Singapore has achieved sterling results once more, and instead of a celebration, we seem to be somewhat embarrassed. Why has it come to this? As a reporter who has observed the education scene in Singapore for three decades, I hope that parents and educators alike will take pride in our students' performance and not take it for granted.

In 1983, Singapore's Secondary 1 and 2 students took part for the first time in an international assessment - the Second International Science Study (later to become TIMSS with the addition of Maths), administered by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). 12 years later in 1995, Singapore again participated in TIMSS and came in top in both Maths and Science, followed closely by Korea, Japan and the Czech Republic. In the study that year, data from 500,000 students from 41 countries was collected. American students were found to be trailing in Maths and Science, behind Singapore, the Czech Republic, Japan, Korea, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Austria and Hungary. China did not take part.

In 1997 after the IEA had published these results, Mr Richard Lee Colvin, an education reporter from the Los Angeles Times, came to Singapore to compare the education systems of Singapore and the US. He wrote in his article, "What everyone in Singapore tells you about education is that it's not merely about learning, or about serving individual students' needs. It's about survival. In order to improve, there has to be sacrifice; nothing is free in Singapore."

Indeed, having our students top the international leagues was the combined effort of the entire nation. But it was the streaming system that had radically transformed our education system.

In the PSLE last year, there were 47,163 candidates. 97.6 per cent of the cohort passed and were therefore able to be promoted to secondary school, and we have long since become used to such exemplary figures. But it is not widely known that 38 years ago, the PSLE results from the 1974 cohort produced only a 59.3 per cent pass rate from its 71,049 students. After six years of education, only 60 per cent of the cohort had managed to secure promotion. This figure startled the then Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, so much so that in June 1975, he took up the education portfolio himself. After four months in the Ministry of Education, and after gaining a fuller understanding of the severity of the situation, he asked the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Goh Keng Swee, to find the crux of the problem and propose solutions.

After four years, the "Goh Report" was published in March 1979, and it proposed the "streaming of children according to their ability to absorb instruction." Said Dr Goh, "One system cannot do justice to all children. The system recognises that not everyone is academically inclined. It tries to seek ways of giving half a loaf when a whole loaf would choke." However, the idea of streaming was met with strong objections by members of the society at large.

"Educationists and others who oppose the streaming of children according to their ability to absorb instruction often forget that the final result could be even more cruel to the children who do not make the grade and suffer repeated failures. The end product could be that they lose both self-confidence and self-esteem, and develop a host of character defects produced by feelings of inadequacy.

"Much of the prejudice against the streaming of school children derives from an egalitarian philosophy fashionable in the Western World after World War II. This philosophy partly rests on a prejudice against the pursuit of excellence. We do not want to enter into a controversy against those egalitarian ideas. Perhaps this is just what Western societies need. But in Singapore, many of the problems in the present school system would not have arisen if those concerned had earlier accepted the logical consequences of the fact that different children have different capacities to acquire knowledge, and following what other countries do will not help much. The system has been structured such that only the brightest 12 to 15 per cent of school children can cope. To subject the less able students to the same regime of learning has been the chief defect of our education system in the past."

As we know, in 1995, Singaporean students topped the ranking charts in both Maths and Science, beating their peers in every other country. From 16th place a dozen years before, the jump can only be attributed to the streaming system which had been in place for 15 years. Motivated by efficiency, this initiative produced an increase in the overall cohort participation rate for the new generation, and propelled Singapore into a different league. The success of our education system also assisted in the rapid advance of the economy, which grew by 9.2 per cent in 1989.

However, streaming also led to the labelling of students, the further stratification of society and the growth of apathy - effects which could not have been predicted by Dr Goh. The streaming system, after all, was a product of the times, and has since changed as circumstances have dictated. Indeed, it has now evolved into "specialised independent schools". In this issue of EduNation I have brought up the topic of streaming not with the intention of reviving it, but to remind everyone that our impeccable results, which have come at some cost, should not be under-valued or taken for granted. We might not always be at the top of the ranking game, so we should now set about learning from other countries that have successfully managed a fall after such a heady rise.

Translated by: Lee Xiao Wen
 


《新学》关心教育 > 回首来时路:分流制度让新加坡教育起飞
回首来时路:分流制度让新加坡教育起飞
文:潘星华
刊载:《新学》, 第2期,2013年3月-4月
去年11月小六会考放榜,新加坡《联合早报》是通过刊登寻人启事,才得知全国状元谢丰宇

(285分)出在南洋小学。公布成绩那刹那,南洋小学只集体表扬获得270分以上的45名学生,对学校出了全国状元只字不提。

《联合早报》记者陈秋华写道:"考到全国第一的成绩,原本是值得嘉奖和鼓励的好事,为什么反变成了得遮遮掩掩的坏事?"

正当校长们口径一致地表示:"成绩其实是很个人的东西,公布了就会比较,而这种比较是不健康的,也是不必要的。"不料,《国际数学与科学趋势研究报告》,就在两个星期后,公布了2011年对50个国家和地区的四年级生及42个国家和地区的八年级生(新加坡中二生)进行数理能力评估的报告--新加坡学生在小四数学、中二科学名列第一,在小四科学和中二数学排名第二。

新加坡"又"取得这样光荣的成绩,从前是举国欢庆,现在似乎很尴尬。为什么会这样呢?作为一个对新加坡教育观察了30年的记者,我非常希望家长和教育工作者要异常珍惜新加坡学生所取得的成绩,不要以为这一切是理所当然。

翻查历史,1983年新加坡的中一中二生首次参加由国际教育成绩评估协会(IEA)举办的国际学生科学能力研究调查,当时名列世界第16。12年后(1995年)新加坡再参加了这项调查,无论数学和科学都超越其他国家,排名世界第一(韩国、日本、捷克紧接在后)。这一年的调查,收集了41个国家50万名学生在1995年全学年的资料。

美国学生的数学和科学考试成绩均落后于新加坡、捷克、日本、韩国、保加利亚、荷兰、斯洛文尼亚、奥地利和匈牙利之后(中国没有参加)。

1997年IEA成绩公布后,美国《洛杉矶时报》教育记者里察·李科尔文特别到新加坡来做了一次美新教育的比较。他在文章写道:"在新加坡,人人会告诉你,受教育不只在读书,它是与生存攸关... ...要进步,就必须付出代价,这里没有一样东西是免费的。"

是的,新加坡学生的成绩能排到世界第一,是经过全国上下努力的。其中推行分流制度是让新加坡学生脱胎换骨的重要因素。

去年小六会考,4万7163名考生中,有97.6%及格,能升读中学,这项优秀成绩我们已经见惯不怪。但是有多少人知道38年前,即1974年的小六会考,全国7万1049名考生,仅59.3%的学生及格?六年的小学教育,只有六成的学生能升学,这惊人的耗损率让当时的总理李光耀震惊。

1975年6月,李光耀进驻教育部,兼任教育部长。在教育部的四个月,他了解到事态的严重,于是请副总理吴庆瑞博士找出教育问题的症结和解决方案。

经过四年的努力,1979年3月《吴庆瑞报告书》提出了"按学生吸收能力的进度进行调整的分流制度"。吴庆瑞说:"单一的教育制度不适合不同能力的学生。按能力分流是设法适应不同人的需求,那些消化不了一碗饭的孩子,先吃半碗。"但是这个按孩子智力加以划分的分流制度,招致了许多社会人士的强烈反对。

吴庆瑞说:"那些反对者往往忘记了如果不这样做,对于那些跟不上而屡次不及格的学生是更加残酷。最后所产生的,将会是失去了自信心,失去了自尊心,而又由于力不从心的感受而酿成了在个性上缺点百出的新一代。

"那些反对按照学生智力划分的偏见,主要是起源於第二次世界大战後在西方世界盛行的'平等主义哲学'。这种哲学思想,有一部份是基於反对追求超凡卓越的偏见。我们不想要针对这类平等主义的意念,与人进行争论。也许这正是西方社会所需要的。但是在新加坡,如果学校教育有关方面,早就认识到儿童学习能力各有不同会产生不同的结果,那么,在现行学校制度里的大部份难题,便不会产生了。死跟着其他国家的做法是于事无补的。现行的制度,是使到只有12%到15%的最聪明学生有办法应付。强迫那些智力较差的学生也在同一制度下学习,正是我们过去的教育制度的主要缺陷。"

1995年,新加坡学生无论数学和科学的表现都超越其他国家,排名世界第一。从12年前的16名跳到第一,是分流制度推行了15年后的成绩。这个以"效率"为导向的措施,普遍提高了新一代的就学率,终使新加坡的教育扬帆起航,从此进入新的境界。教育制度的成功带动了经济迅速发展。1989年,新加坡取得了9.2%的经济增长率。

然而,分流制度为孩子贴上标签,加大社会分化,制造社会冷漠,当然也是吴庆瑞始料不及。分流制度毕竟是时代的产物,时移势异,它已经进化成为今天的"专才中学"。本期《新学》重提"分流制度",并无意要它死灰复燃,只认为我们经过付出沉重代价所取得的成绩,有必要非常珍惜,千万不要以为理所当然。优秀的成绩有可能在旦夕间离开我们远去,发达国的衰败,是我们必须引以为鉴的。
 

» Past Issues
» Last issue
» Contents

Contact us   |   Advertise with us   |   Privacy Policy
Published by WS Education is a subsidiary of

Copyright © 2021 EduNation Co. All rights reserved.