Talk:Education in Singapore/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

",On the other hand, Singaporean students have topped international science and mathematics quizzes regularly, along with South Korean students. " what quizzes? conducted when, how and by whom? I've frequently heard similar statistics cited, yet have never seen details to back them up. ✈ James C. 05:55, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC) i suppose it is competitions

Not really. The studies refered to must be the "Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study" (TIMSS). Do a google search for more info! :D--Huaiwei 19:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Aiyah, the whole education system in S'pore is just so narrow -thinking! Everthing teachlike the textbooks don't have, lots of unnecessary homework and exams that test student's memory and not the thinking. Also so biased towards elite schools. -- "Don't want to be named"

Meh. The quantity of homework and examinations are satisfactory: just that technical rote seems to be favoured over technical conceptualisation. -- Natalinasmpf 23:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Are u from elite school? i dun know wat r u talking. --"Don't want to be named"

I'm from Fairfield Sec. Do you consider that an "elite" school? Yes, there are problems, and there are merits as well, and reducing homework as you say is certainly not the way to go about it. ;-)

Regarding the bias towards elite schools, i do believe that this phenomenon arises out of the government's policy of maintaining a meritocratic system of education. It is in such a situation that we evidence the policy of fairness and meritocracy being diametrically opposed to each other. Perhaps it would be too harsh on the government to criticise them for purely favouring "elite" schools when they are merely trying to find a balance between the two, inasmuch as I do think that there is a slight slant in government policy towards the "elite" schools. -- Talonclaw 23:24, 06 March 2007

Guys, relax. It's just because James C. is an American, so forgive him. I understand that Americans don't particularly shine in Science and Maths. Look at New South Wales competitions, our average always like 80 percentile in the region (including Australia). Although I disagree with the Korean part. I think Japan's use of abacus makes their maths better, after having seen two 10 year old children multiply 7 digit numbers within 10 seconds using abacus. Imba! --218.186.8.12 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

---

From Demographics of Singapore - I think here is a better place for this text - can anyone please integrate it?

The government has mandated that English be the primary language used at all levels of the school systems, and it aims to provide at least 10 years of education for every child. In 2000, primary and secondary school students totaled about 482,00, or 12% of the entire population. In 2000, enrollment at the universities was approximately 50,000 (full-time, part-time and postgraduate) and about 58,374 at the polytechnics. The Institute of Technical Education for basic technical and commerce skills has almost 16,000 students. The country's literacy rate is 93%.

Does it exist in Singapore? 119.74.163.71 (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not legally for secondary students. Ok for primary. Ironic, considering that lots of US homeschoolers seem to use Singapore mathematics text books. 219.78.186.58 (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of the quizzes and competitions quoted in the article are as below:

International Mathematic Olympiad

International Physics Olympiad

International Biology Olympiad

International Chemistry Olympiad

The above 4 are more commonly participated in.

List of international Olympiads

Why is much of the article content duplicated? Somebody familiar with the system please sort it out... Jpatokal 05:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I contest this statement. I think our command of English is rather good, actually. I mean, most of it is basically interjecting and empathic statements and funny stresses, which is a side effect of being an amalgam of individual cultures. How is this different from say, interjecting French phrases into English? People do this all the time, and I don't see anyone counting that as wrong. I consider the Singapore standard of English better than the the average teenager say in the....United States whose half their language use is colloquial. -- Natalinasmpf 19:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree that the line "Singaporean students also have a relatively poor command of the standard English language" sounds unsubstantiated. Relative to who? In fact, Singapore was ranked 4th in the World, and way ahead of any other Asian country in the TOEFL tests.--Huaiwei 19:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Is there any figures for Singapore in TSE? — Instantnood 19:24, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

What is the TSE? Tokyo Stock Exchange? Testicular self-examination? Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy?--Huaiwei 19:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Test of Spoken English. By the way this report from the TOEFL website shows that the mean score of Singaporean test takers is the highest in Asia. Yet the number of test takers of Singapore is rather small, with respect to its population. — Instantnood 20:08, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I dont think there is. Perhaps you can help us find that data. As for the number of examinees, singling out Singapore alone for having a small number of examinees probably to signify its statistical handicap is equally relevant to plenty of other countries in that test. It remains, however, one of the few tests around the world which allows for a relatively comprehensive comparison across nationalities. Without the aid of better sources of comparison, and without data to contradict its findings, we have to make do.--Huaiwei 20:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The figures for that report hardly allow a good comparison. Only the English proficiency of the takers can be compared and examined, but not that of the citizens of a certain country in general. — Instantnood 20:57, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

You are stating the obvious, and you are stating a statistical handicap prevalant in the educational industry (and also just about in any other industry in actual fact), but which cannot possibly be eliminated...unless of coz you can come up with a standard English test which everyone on Earth has to take?--Huaiwei 21:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right. Average results of Singaporean test takers in TOEFL cannot justify whether Singaporean students have good command in English. — Instantnood 21:45, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

And the whole study gets thrown out of the window too since it dosent represent all of the populance of any other country either. Heck, lets throw all major exams of the world too, since not everyone goes to school too. Maybe this site should also be destroyed, since not all in the World are contributing to it, so it isnt exacly representing the World's views on every conceivable topic?--Huaiwei 22:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Calm down... :-D — Instantnood 22:40, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I am perfectly calm. I am actually smiling when reading your posts.--Huaiwei 22:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

To put an end to this debate, Singapore's command of English is better than that of Britain's (Straits Times). You'll be surprised at how many Britons cannot pronounce properly or even write a proper sentence. Yet, many world atlases give Singapore a much lower literacy rate (sometimes up to 20%) than that of Britain.

Singaporeans may have decent written English (although it's sometimes hard to tell, given the obscene proliferation of SMS language), but our genereal standard of spoken English has a long way to go. My $0.02.

I also have two cents. As a speaker of standard midwestern American English (urban, not rural) with no other criteria other than my eyes and ears, most Singaporeans I meet are unintelligible to me and almost everything I read, as in the Straits Times, has serious syntax problems. It could be that my ears are not adjusted to the local dialect, but almost everytime someone speaks to me I believe they are speaking Chinese. Only after they repeat themselves many times over do I realize that some of their words are English, which leads to the conclusion that perhaps everything they have said to me is in English (which scares me). Occasionally I meet people are incredibly clear and all is well, but that seems quite rare. In truth, I usually have no idea what languages are being spoken on the MRT, none of them sound familiar to me.

The version of Singlish I most often hear and do understand has several traits that stand out. There are usually a lot of very large words which if spoken in my city sound more pretentious than educated. Generally the tone is more lecturing than conversational. Many tag questions like "Am I right?" "Is that right?" or "Is it?" seem to be spoken with a "I know better" or "I don't believe you" sort of tone, which most people in my city would take as an insult.

As for writing, the higher the level of the publication, the better it gets. The street paper, Today, is guilty of some terrible crimes against grammar though. My favorite headline is "Taiwan Celeb Poke Fun at Singapore English." Heh, right. Nouns and adjectives can be confusing sometimes.

Still, I have this constant grounding realization that this is the first language of this culture, it is a creole language with a valid grammar system that I am not a party to. Singaporean should be granted just as much validity as any other English speaking culture. For the record, I had an aweful time understanding people when I was in Scotland.

I don't mean to cause offense, but Singlish stresses me out. The more time I spend here the more venom builds in me. I just keep encountering superiority without reason and deaf ears. The trees are lovely though. DaronDierkes (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment on our greenery. It was painted specially for sifting purposes. Allow me to address some of the issues that you have raised with the difficulties you have faced when interacting with our fellow SingaporeanS.

Newspapers - The main ingredient to ensure the survivability of a company would be money. Press companies are no exception. To ensure profitability, newspapers published by the company would to SELL. As a result, newspapers are written for the masses. Our education system had not been compulsory 45 years ago resulting in a large proportion of the population being "uneducated". Poverty at that time was also a common sight and children were forced to quit school in order to help their parents through odd jobs. Even if people had been admitted to primary school (around elementary level), most do not progress to further education levels. Newspapers are not meant for a specific group of individuals who are well educated and have a firm hold on the command of the English language. They are written with these people in mind who have contributed equally if not more to the rapid progress of Singapore's economy. Unlike the United States where there are different newspapers available within one city itself, most Singaporeans rely on "The Straits Times" for their daily dose of news. What appears as syntax errors to you may well be written to illustrate a point in the simplest ways in order for ALL readers to understand.

Singlish - It seems your reference to this matter and the problem you face whilst speaking to someone is that the words sound like Chinese. Just a side note here, Singapore is a multiracial community and I find it hard to believe that the other races would actually sound as if they are speaking Chinese. In fact, it may come as a surprise to you but English is hardly our first language. English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil are categorized under National Languages and none of them whole superiority over the rest. A first language refers to the language you speak at birth. My grandparents(uneducated) converse with me in Teochew (a dialect), my parents in English, my relatives in Chinese and neighbours in various languages based on ethnicity. The television, internet videos, music all around the world converse to me in a myriad of languages ranging from English with an American accent, English with a British accent, Japanese, Korean, Cantonese(dialect)...the list goes on. Based on the definition of first language, it appears that I have acquired 3 first languages, Teochew, Chinese and English. Now that doesn't seem right to me. We're (not only Singaporeans) surrounded by a multitude of languages everyday due to the diverse society we live in and the interaction at a close proximity (result of land scarcity) has led us to create a style of English from the meshing of languages that we are exposed to.

Tone - I'm sorry but I really do not understand why this constitutes to Singlish. When the issue of tone is discussed, even the my Professors of English Literature state that tone is something that is extremely subjective and highly debatable. So what may appear offensive to you may not be to others.

Conclusion - English as a medium to communicate across cultures is an undisputed fact. I myself find the need for English a necessary tool for anyone if they wish to communicate effectively. However, English is NOT a Global Language i.e. it is not a language that countries adopt as a first language but a language that is frequently used due to the United Kingdom bearing the white man's burden years ago and it has stuck til now out of convenience. Singapore is predominantly an Asian society. Geographically, we ARE Asian and demographically, Asians are the majority. English is used to communicate between our different ethnic communities and to forge both diplomatic and business relations with other countries. The proficiency of our English may not be comparable to that of countries like the United Kingdom or the United States, but across Asia, I believe we do hold our own in terms of communicating effectively in English. An example, Miss Universe 2009. YouTube has a collection of videos interviewing various contestants and Miss Singapore is one of them. Other Asian contestants are also available, Miss Japan, Miss Korea and so on. Keep in mind that these are merely representatives of their countries and there will be individuals with better or worse command of the English language. Should anyone find this example too unsophisticated for you then please look at the mirror and think hard about your life. The issue revolving English here would then be what defines "good English"? Who came up with the measure for "good English"? Can a language be measured? Will the device be called a Lang-o-meter? SI units ELP(English Language Points)? Liken this to the IQ tests available and ask yourself, if it wasn't initially written in English but Swahili, would the test results still be the same? Would those who speak English as a first language be able to achieve even a score of 100? KopiTalk (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)KopiBrackPrease

I have seen people get a neat 100 on their english yet fail in oral, and vice versa. Language can never be "calculated" - it is not math. Thus there is nothing such as "Good" or "Bad" English, since you can never tell. One person can tell you that they got full marks on English but as they speak to you, they speak without proper enunciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wathyreckk (talk • contribs) 09:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"The public secondary education in Singapore are generally not receptive of international students with the exception of perhaps Malaysians and admission is a covert closet-operation that is marked by much bias and total lack of transparency."

Can the person who contributed this part of the article state the source? --Eraser78 00:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted this part as there is no substantial evidence to support this claim.

It is probably a well-known fact that in the education industry, hordes of scholars usually group with their own kind and are unsocialble, leading to ostracisation. Malaysians, on the other hand, are very similar to Singaporeans. --218.186.8.12 16:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"At the end of Primary 4, students will be classified into EM1, EM2 or EM3 language streams"

There has been changes regarding that. Could this piece of information be reviewed and edited?

In response to people who want to deny the fact that Singapore has a relatively high budget allocation for education, try here [1], its only 1999, but it states " or 19 percent of total expenditure" - however, this tends to flux around 18-22% - I'll dig up more sources. -- Natalinasmpf 18:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a dismay mention of Co-Curricular Activities in the article, and ... it doesn't seen fun or exciting. In fact, it sounds pretty scary:

Co-Curricular Activities become compulsory at the Secondary level, where all pupils must participate in at least one core CCA, and participation is graded together with other things like Leadership throughout the four years of Secondary education, in a scoring system. Competitions are organised so that students can have an objective towards to work, and in the case of musical groups, showcase talents.

Is it really that miserable nowadays?? Does anyone enjoy CCA and participate just for fun? -- Vsion 4 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)

As a current secondary school student in the IP programme, you could say that for a fair amount of people, that holds true - a number of people would much rather not have any CCA at all. Sad but true. Of course, people still do enjoy their CCAs... Factually speaking, anyway, I think it should remain the same because it is technically true. It is compulsory and you must participate in a core CCA. - unregistered user, 20 Aug 2005 08:34 (UTC)

Yes, CCAs are COMPULSORY at Secondary level...Sometimes certain students complain about CCA a lot because they don't get accepted by the CCAs that they want to join. What they don't see is that CCA is to develop extra talent and when they send us to another CCA that we dislike, we don't develop talents properly at all.--

This template should not be substituted. User:Wathyreckk/sig

09:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I created a template, Template:Education infobox which can give a quick at a glance demographics table for education articles. See its implementation at Education in the United States and feel free to help improve the template.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Strange... but why aren't the universities mentioned? Even the paragraphs on poly and ITE seem rather short and uninformative as compared to the gigantic chunk on secondary education. Surely our universities aren't so bad as to not qualify to be considered part of "Education in Singapore" right?

That aside, perhaps comparisons with other countries' education systems (especially those with similar demographics) could be cited in the criticisms, or even placed under its own subheader. Just a suggestion. 05:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right. From what I've read, NUS is the 13th top university in the world, far beating all other Southeast Asian universities and even Australia's (50+ if I'm not wrong). --218.186.8.12 16:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid NUS isn't 13th in the world. There are a number of ranking systems used to measure universities based on research abilities and other factors. It varies from system to system and none mentioned NUS as anywhere in the top 20th. The highest rank I've seen is 30th place. NTU is hovering around 70th plus. Different universities adopt different systems. So it would be hard to generalize the details here. GPA's alone are measured differently in NUS NTU and SMU. Unlike the secondary schools and primary schoos or even JCs where curriculum is standardized and implemented by MOE, Universities have different criteria and curriculum for each. So it would be difficult to put down a detailed description on the entire university education because it would be unfair to the rest if only one University's system is put down. Just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KopiTalk (talk • contribs) 11:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

International and private schools in Singapore cannot admit Singapore students without the permission from the Ministry of Education. However, two international schools, Anglo-Chinese School (International) and Hwa Chong International as it plays the National anthem and follows the country's billingual policies.

Although the second sentence, strictly speaking doesn't make sense, it seems to suggest that Anglo-Chinese School and Hwa Chong International admit Singaporean students because they play the Singaporean national anthem. From my experience this is either incomplete or incorrect. The Australian International School played the Singaporean anthem (along with the Australian one), I dont know if any of the students there are Singaporean, although (when I was there) many of them certainly weren't Australian. I have a feeling that all international schools have to play the national anthem by law. --BadSeed 21:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: the United States on contrast, only allocates around 4%.

I think this 4% only refers to federal budget, US education is decentralized, there are fundings by state and local district. --Vsion (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. But the article is on education in Singapore, not education in the U.S., so this is irrelevant. The sentence has already been removed by someone. Neutrality^talk 21:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What are the relative sizes (percent of enrollment) of each of the secondary education streams (Special, Express, Normal (Academic), Normal [Technical])? Neutrality^talk 21:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a question I've never seem to be able to answer myself. I believe there are standard classifications, which by here are suggested to be:

• Independent
• Government autonomous
• Government aided
• Government aided autonomous
• Government
• Full school

Which is more than enough to scratch one's head at. For example, Fairfield Secondary (which I am so dearly fond of!) declares in its website [2] it is an autonomous school and "government-aided". List of schools in Singapore puts in both government-aided and autonomous anyway, but I think the list needs to be reorganised to prevent redundancy. Anyway, is there an actual distinction (there can be private schools which are government-aided but not autonomous?) I thought there were only three classifications (government-aided/autonomous, which I assumed to be the same previously, government-run, and independent) Can a government-run school be autonomous?

Also, standardisation seems to be an issue, because doesn't the SAP schools fall under one of these six classifications anyway? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe there are such distinct classifications because they can be independent of one another, i.e. you can have a government school that is autonomous and is SAP but is not a full school. They are akin to independent attributes that are tagged to define the classification of any non-private school in Singapore. These tags are:

• Government or Government-aided or Independent
• Autonomous or non-autonomous
• SAP or non-SAP
• Full school or non-full school

Of course, certain tags are the exclusive domain of certain types of schools, e.g. all full schools are government-aided or independent schools, and so it would seem that certain categories are redundant.

—Sengkang 02:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Autonomous just means 'extra funding due to performance'. - Mailer Diablo 12:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Aided schools used to be completely funded by private organisations like the Hokkien Huay Guan. Now, teachers are being paid by the Government and have become very similar to government schools. --218.186.8.12 16:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Er...to clarify. During times when there were two classifications: Government and Government-Aided, they simply represent various levels of goverment funding: full, and partial. In 1988, the "Independent school scheme" was started, which involve zero funding but also full liberty in school management, including recruiting their own teachers and modifying their school syllabus or even dumping the GCE examinations as and when they wish to. Some of the schools seleted as Independent schools were actually fully-funded government schools, including the likes of RI and RGS. Upon selection as Independent schools, they shed their previous classifications due to the removal of all funding.

Fast forward to 1994, when it was felt more schools could gain greater autonomy in terms of school management, but without the need of becoming fully independent. Thus "Autonomous schools" was formed which borrow some elements from Independent schools, but the key difference is that they do not shed their previous classification as they retain funding from the government as per previous arrangement. Thus, Government as well as Govt-aided schools can be autonomous schools, and it is not accurate to assume that autonomous schools are all govt-aided. In fact, 15 out of 26 Autonomous schools today are government schools.--Huaiwei 15:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Just curious what was the state of the Chinese schools before independence? I suspect that there were a lot less people who spoke Mandarin then, and a lot more people who spoke dialects, although they could intercommunicate. I just wondered what they used in the classroom. Then there's before 1949, before the implementation of Simplified characters and pre 1920s, before the era of Putonghua. Just curious if there's any information on it. Because it seems rather difficult to teach in one language even in the Chinese schools at the time (I don't like the effects of the SMC though - promoting a common language is one thing but discouraging dialects is another). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course they use Mandarin. You cannot read a language like Hokkien, you can only speak it. 121.6.0.168 (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Bull. You can read any language if it's written. Hokkien does have a writing system. 78.42.105.173 (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"... H1 subjects are worth 1 Academic Units (AU), H2 subjects 2 AUs, H3 subjects 3 AUs and ..."

H3 for 1 AU(s)?

should be one

Image:Ministry of Education Singapore.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As an American, I am very confused by the British Education System, and that of Singapore. Many of the terms overlap with the American model, but the meanings differ greatly. Would it be unreasonable to label like so,

Kindergartens (age 3 to 6) Primary education (age 7 to 11) Secondary education (age 12 to ??)

You see, I really do not understand the age ranges here. If someone tells me they are in secondary level two, for instance, I really have no idea what they mean. How old would they be? If it is a bad idea to label as above, then just including the age range in the opening sentence, as under Kindergartens (I've never encountered the plural version of that word before), would be quite helpful. Thanks, DaronDierkes (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

For general Express stream, Kindergarten (ages 4~6), Primary (7~12), Secondary (13-16), Junior College (17~18) [Pre-U (17-19)], then it's Army for the guys and University for the girls. Depending on the course of study, it could be anything from 3-5 years. 121.6.0.168 (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There are also retainees, and those with the Normal Academic and Normal Tech courses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wathyreckk (talk • contribs) 09:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi i'm a school teacher in an asian democracy. In my country whichever it is, it is quite common to praise the Singaporan education system and say just how good it is, especially in comparison to our educational system which is often bad mouthed by the media and others. Not always justly. any how you'll often find newspapers in my country saying just how high test scores are for students of all ages in Singapore etc etc.

therefore i have two questions:

1. Is that reputation justified? are all those superlatvies properly used about Singaporan education? Do Singaporans regard their own country's education to really be that good?

2. I'd be truly happy if somebody could tell me more about learning techniques and educational precepts of the system employed in Singapore. Or otherwise if you can't expand or do not wish to expand the article yourself please send me some URL's where i can find that info.

Cheers 2u! Monkey dog2088 (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Singapore's educational system is thorough and systematic, however it does have two primary problems: 1) Over-reliance on textbooks and prepared answers like Ten Years Series, 2) Streaming, a very big problem IMHO, see I Not Stupid. Although it is now more streamlined and the EM3 situation resolved, the problem remains. Certainly, if you aren't academically inclined, you'll have a hard time in Singapore, and may be labelled as "stupid" or "lazy". 121.6.0.168 (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My "dispute" tag is based on the fact that alot of the section seems to be part of the larger "Math methods dispute". It's also all totally uncited (Or at least they aren't inlined). 68.39.174.238 (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are we talking about the dispute on the 2005 PSLE Mathematics paper dispute or the criticism of the Singapore education system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wathyreckk (talk • contribs) 09:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand the use of Chinese dictionaries is allowed in the A Levels, but in what subjects? All Chinese-based subjects, including history in Chinese and Chinese studies in Chinese? Does anyone know? 121.7.193.204 (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Language, Chinese Studies in Chinese, Chinese Literature, Chinese History... almost all of them 周鸡掰 talk 10:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to point out that SJI has been granted the Integrated Programme but they have not implemented it yet. Should we put SJI inside the list?

Hydriz (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why this page is still tagged as having disputed factual accuracy. If there are specific factually disputed statements, perhaps someone could identify them? After looking through this page, all the statements that were disputed seem to have been dealt with. Brythain (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The rationale for the tag was given in this post above. I moved the tag to the relevant section. -- œ^™ 08:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I see the point about the section not having citations. But that part about math methods disputes is misleading since the present section has nothing about it. Thanks. Brythain (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A section titled "School grades" was recently added to the article. Although I like to have the table in the article, the current table doesn't take into consideration about streaming at the secondary school level. Currently the table only shows the case for the Special and Express streams. Also, there are junior colleges at the post-secondary level, and universities, polytechnics as well as ITE which are considered tertiary institutes. The complexity of the streaming system and my inadequate knowledge of designing a table prevent me from changing it in the article. Can someone look into this? --Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What I've done?} 09:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Brythain, please explain your revert. The key points I added are that a) Singapore, in violation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, does not grant disabled children the right to schooling, and that b) there are no public schools for disabled children, only ones run by charities, which are only partly funded by the MOE. Why did you remove both these points? Jpatokal (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The citation you linked, and which I read, explicitly states something different. Rather, Singapore has made schooling compulsory for all children EXCEPT severely disabled children because it "would impose unduly harsh requirements on their parents to comply with the Act". I quote in full (from para 1), "Almost all children with special needs already attend Special Education (SPED) schools or our mainstream schools. A very small number of children do not attend school each year — 8 of them for this year’s P1 cohort — but this is because very severe disabilities or medical conditions prevent them from doing so. Enforcing Compulsory Education on this group of children will not benefit them, and would impose unduly harsh requirements on their parents to comply with the Act." I note that this figure of 8 children is in relation to a total Primary 1 intake of 40,000-50,000 students a year.

Yes, that's how the government justifies the exclusion. It's still an exclusion, and it's in violation of the Convention, which is why Singapore hasn't signed it. Jpatokal (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that some people might say you can be in violation of any convention to which you are not a signatory. However, that's an odd formulation, as it would render (for example) the USA in violation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court despite being one of the seven countries (the others being Iraq, Israel, Libya, the People's Republic of China, Qatar, and Yemen, in alphabetical order) that did not sign it and voted against it. Brythain (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The article states simply the neutral observation that Singapore has not signed it, and its current practice is not in line with the mandate of the Convention. Jpatokal (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, what are these SPED schools? They are schools heavily subsidised and even constructed by MOE — your 'partly funded' comment is very misleading; again, I quote in full (from para 2), "MOE works closely with the National Council for Social Service in funding and supporting the SPED schools. SPED schools receive funding of up to 4 times the per-capita funding of mainstream schools, with MOE contributing more than 80% each year. (MOE’s share is estimated to be 84% this year). MOE has also provided 95% of funding to build or re-furbish facilities for SPED schools. Currently, 16 SPED schools are in newly built or upgraded facilities, with another 3 schools doing so by 2011." This actually means that there are publicly funded (at least 80%!) schools for disabled children, built (95%) by MOE!

The edit you just reverted stated "receive more than 80% of their funding from the Ministry of Education". This still stands in stark contract with public schools, which are 100% funded by MOE and operated directly by it, not VWOs. Jpatokal (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that 'stark contrast' is overstating the case, since many schools — all the government-aided schools and the independent schools (85 out of 341 primary and secondary schools), and the govt-aided junior colleges (4 out of 13) — are not operated directly by MOE either, but are considered part of the public education system. I'm sorry, but you don't seem familiar with Singapore's education system (do correct me if I'm wrong). The data you want is in the Education Statistics Digest, available online at www.moe.gov.sg. Brythain (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Your interpretation is highly misleading, I'd say. I invite others to examine the details and give their opinions. Brythain (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

A further note on interpretation. In the Singapore Education System, there are a) government, b) government-aided, c) autonomous and d) independent schools. Despite the labels, they are all considered part of the public education system. The key differences elude many commentators. A brief, rough summary would be: a) 100% govt-funded and govt-run; b) 50-90% govt-funded and 100% govt-compliant with input from their own boards; c) 100% govt-funded, school decides how to spend the money while being govt-compliant; d) govt provides a capitation grant and the school decides how to spend it as well as determines the way the syllabus is taught (and in some cases, what syllabus to teach). SPED schools are certainly considered part of the public education system, except that children without special needs are denied access — so in a sense, they are not available to a large part of the community. Brythain (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As if there are tons of 'normal' kids just crying out to attend special schools for the blind, deaf, retarded etc? Give me a break.

Anyway, I've now added a new "Special education" section with more references and the Government's view as well. Your comments and changes are welcome, but wholesale reversions are not. Jpatokal (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

My point, of course, is that MOE at considerable cost (which you left out of your selective presentation) does indeed finance not only the running but the building of such schools, such that compared to about 43000 students (see the Education Statistics Digest, which gives a figure of 42765 for the number of students entering the mainstream cohort), only 8 end up not going to school. I'd say that's pretty good for most countries. I've shifted things around a bit, but not (I think) deleted anything you added. Brythain (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I've shuffled around the content a bit more to clarify a few points; in particular, Singapore exempts all disabled children from compulsory education, it's just that the ones that actually don't attend are severely disabled (or that's what the Garmen claims, anyway). Unfortunately the precise wording of the exclusion is in some random gazette, not the letter of the law, but I've sourced a cite to Maruah for it.

And I'm glad we're actually collaboratively editing instead of edit-warring! Jpatokal (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm always glad to have new points raised; we're in this together after all. I'm just a bit OC about getting it right. I think the present wording is pretty good. However, we need to check something: according to Chapter 51 (the Compulsory Education Act), the definition of national primary schools includes schools which receive a grant-in-aid from MOE. That seems implied by the MOE page on special education. It's correct to say MOE doesn't run them (just as it doesn't run Raffles Institution or ACS(I) anymore), but may not be correct to imply that they are not official provision. These schools are covered by the School Boards Incorporation Act, Chapter 284A. Any ideas? Brythain (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Certain schools, such as secondary schools under the Special Assistance Plan (SAP), which encourages a richer use of the mother tongue, may teach occasionally in English and another language.

219.78.186.58 (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bit late, but I've fixed this as best as I could. Overmage (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously ??? Please do the needful and fix the grammar.

2605:6000:8E02:1000:45BA:9D78:9B5D:9629 (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You need a source that compares the US and Singaporean systems; see WP:SYNTH. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• By contrast, standards-based education reform in the United States seeks to eliminate tracking by setting one high standard and expectation for all. The principle of continuous improvement is thought to enable success for all students, although in most states, all groups still achieve at different levels in the current and foreseeable future. Mathematics reform in North America was driven by the NCTM standards in a direction away from mastery of basic skills.

^ The above sounds like an advertisement for American education, is not a direct comparison with Singapore's education system, and is original research / uncited. There are too many reasons why this passage is crap.

• However, this has mostly been lip service, with little concrete action being taken to give ITE students greater recognition or address the stigmatisation that exists.^{[citation needed]} This is admittedly a difficult job as such views have been ingrained in society for many years.

Removed for blatant non-NPOV, this should have been removed a month after no citations appeared from initial challenge 3 years ago...

Overmage (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I am seriously concerned about the level of factual accuracy in this article. I have removed multiple paragraphs of poorly-sourced/unsourced allegations which have no place here. And just to make it clear, letters by the public to the forum is not a valid reference. Anyone can have an opinion, ridiculous or not! Even if this letter was written by an expert, the inclusion of this as a source would contravene WP:NPR. --82.28.198.237 (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Are there any general information about Apprenticeship in Singapore? I just had contact with SwissNex and they said that for e.g. Novartis is doing a pilot in running a "Apprenticeship"-like program with students, I was asking my embassy if I could use my valid swiss IT instructur license to have my own: Apprenticeship in my new company. Thanks! --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi all,

Having read the article, I realised that there is no mention whatsoever of Singapore's Islamic religious institutions, which are also known as the madrasahs. These madrasahs, although forming a tiny part of Singapore's educational system, are particularly note-worthy because their curricula, school activities, medium of instruction, pedagogy, etc, greatly differs from the conventional educational system in Singapore. Can anyone advise me as to the appropriate section under which content on madrasahs can be placed? Would it be better to create a new section for this, i.e. "Full-Time Religious Institutions"? I also intend to create a new article for this. Thank you very much. Khairulash (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've made a new article for Madrasahs in Singapore, and I have added a new section under this very article for Madrasahs. Thank you! Khairulash (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• A single course is not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. Rogermx (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• My take is that General Paper should go under Singapore-Cambridge GCE Advanced Level since that is a defining subject that pertains and applies only to GCE Advanced Level qualifications in the Singapore context. Putting General Paper under Education in Singapore would require background of Singapore-Cambridge GCE Advanced Level (and the broad topic here is non-examination specific). Lyg 2001 (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• That makes stuff clearer anyway, since General Paper, as the contents pointed out, is an academic subject tested in the examination. I will do that merger then. This discussion can be closed. Tayx81992 (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion is closed. The result of the discussion is to keep article in discussion as of 6 December 2017 (UTC) latest revision; merge General Paper as sub-section of another concerned article: Singapore-Cambridge GCE Advanced Level

Currently, there are 4 specialised independent secondary schools in Singapore - Singapore Sports School, NUS High School of Math and Science, School of the Arts, and School of Science and Technology, Singapore. All the schools have their own focuses; for example, Singapore Sports School specialises in sports, School of Science and Technology, Singapore specialises in Science and Technology, etc. Though forming only a tiny part of education in Singapore, these schools have different pedagogies, curriculum, and is different from the conventional secondary school. Would it be useful to add these schools in a new section? Thank you! RamboTanX (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure as long as it's kept concise on this page. We can't have it being pages long but there is nothing wrong with adding a section. Zubin12 (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! RamboTanX (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's a YouTube officially produced videos that may be good ELs

• "Inside Singapore's world-class education system". SBS Dateline. SBS. 2019-10-15.
• "Talking Point | E19: Singapore education reforms - What do parents, students feel about it?". Channel News Asia. 2019-09-07.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The page has quite a few instances where NPOV is not adhered to, I was wondering if this seems to other editors too. For example (it has been described as "world-leading") Im looking for advice from a experienced editor about this. EpicSnek ^{Talk to me here} 04:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

There may be wp:due considerations, but that description does appear to be sourced. What are other instances you note? CMD (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems there are also some other areas such as the critisism section where opinions from a person without asking for consensus from the talk page and also with no citations or sourcing. As wikipedia's stance is Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but don't assert opinions themselves. I have to agree with you on the WP:due part the criticism parts seem of very weight although debatable, Hence I was asking for advice from a experienced editor about this matter on due weight. EpicSnek ^{Talk to me here} 05:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

anyways thanks EpicSnek ^{Talk to me here} 05:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion is closed.