Singapore GE2015: Rankings of Top Three Parties on Education
1. 3 Education Proposals: PAP, WP, SDP A Professor of Education examines the 3 main parties’ proposals in detail and ranks them. See Who Comes Out on Top!
2. First in Class: SDP 104 pages of clear, detailed proposals; 8 pages of references to news articles, scholarly studies and peer-reviewed research. Highlights include: adequate childcare leave for parents; ensuring that higher education leadership is not appointed by government; scrapping PSLE; looking closely at Finland’s education system in relation to how they handle tests and exams. Overall themes of EQUITY and creating citizens that know how to QUESTION are strongly emphasized in all the proposals. The SDP has provided a strong blueprint for the overhaul of the entire education system. This proposal allows citizens, experts and the MOE to look at the proposals closely, argue about it, consider the feasibility, and implement. It is extremely helpful for public dialogue. Read proposals here:
http://yoursdp.org/publ/sdp_39_s_alternatives/education/26
3. No.2: WP 3 pages of proposals. They are concrete proposals but are not thorough or clearly supported by evidence or research. Highlights include: government’s role in balancing out differences in school resources, changing the PSLE to be a criterion-based test. Overall themes of EQUITY and HOLISTIC education are somewhat emphasized in the proposals. But proposals do not seem well-thought out and it’s not clear what kind of evidence or research they are based on. Citizens can easily respond to the overall themes, but it’s not clear how the WP sees the entire system as changing based on these themes. Not as helpful to public dialogue about education. Read proposals here: http://wpge2015.s3-ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/29111924/Manifesto- 2015-Official-online-version.pdf
4. Last in Class: PAP Half a page of general educational goals. Very difficult to find a concrete proposal. Not a single reference to evidence or research. It is unclear how the general themes of “transcending grades” and developing “everyone’s potential” translate into concrete proposals. These statements are brochure-like general statements that everyone would agree with. Citizens are unable to think about the proposals because it is difficult to know what the concrete proposals are and the rationale for them. There are just general statements like “strengthen the professional development of our educators”. Not helpful to public dialogue about education. Read proposals here: https://www.pap.org.sg/Upload/Manifesto/Manifesto2015.pdf
5. When we interview someone for a job or a promotion, what do we want our candidates to know? We want them to show us that they know the job very well; that they have expertise; that they have concrete ideas about how to do the job; and that they are engaged with the company’s goals and concerns. That’s what the elections must be. We, the people, are interviewing the parties for a job and we have to look closely at whether they know the job well and if they have concrete ideas about how to go about it. And after the elections, we take the best proposals from everyone and pay close attention to them, to see how our system can improve. We don’t abandon them just because they belong to “another party”. LESSON
6. • Dr. Woo Yen Yen, Doctorate in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University; Associate Professor, Long Island University (New York). • This analysis is based on the three official documents the parties have put out on education. PAP and WP proposals are from their GE2015 manifestos because detailed proposals could not be found. SDP proposals are from a document they released together with their manifesto titled, “Educating For Creativity and Equality: An Agenda for Transformation” .URLs for all documents provided in the notes with this slideshare. AUTHOR
7. • Dr. Woo Yen Yen, Doctorate in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University; Associate Professor, Long Island University (New York). • This analysis is based on the three official documents the parties have put out on education. PAP and WP proposals are from their GE2015 manifestos because detailed proposals could not be found. SDP proposals are from a document they released together with their manifesto titled, “Educating For Creativity and Equality: An Agenda for Transformation” .URLs for all documents provided in the notes with this slideshare. AUTHOR
http://www.slideshare.net/YenWoo1/singapore-ge2015-rankings-of-top-three-parties-on-education
1. 3 Education Proposals: PAP, WP, SDP A Professor of Education examines the 3 main parties’ proposals in detail and ranks them. See Who Comes Out on Top!
2. First in Class: SDP 104 pages of clear, detailed proposals; 8 pages of references to news articles, scholarly studies and peer-reviewed research. Highlights include: adequate childcare leave for parents; ensuring that higher education leadership is not appointed by government; scrapping PSLE; looking closely at Finland’s education system in relation to how they handle tests and exams. Overall themes of EQUITY and creating citizens that know how to QUESTION are strongly emphasized in all the proposals. The SDP has provided a strong blueprint for the overhaul of the entire education system. This proposal allows citizens, experts and the MOE to look at the proposals closely, argue about it, consider the feasibility, and implement. It is extremely helpful for public dialogue. Read proposals here:
http://yoursdp.org/publ/sdp_39_s_alternatives/education/26
3. No.2: WP 3 pages of proposals. They are concrete proposals but are not thorough or clearly supported by evidence or research. Highlights include: government’s role in balancing out differences in school resources, changing the PSLE to be a criterion-based test. Overall themes of EQUITY and HOLISTIC education are somewhat emphasized in the proposals. But proposals do not seem well-thought out and it’s not clear what kind of evidence or research they are based on. Citizens can easily respond to the overall themes, but it’s not clear how the WP sees the entire system as changing based on these themes. Not as helpful to public dialogue about education. Read proposals here: http://wpge2015.s3-ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/29111924/Manifesto- 2015-Official-online-version.pdf
4. Last in Class: PAP Half a page of general educational goals. Very difficult to find a concrete proposal. Not a single reference to evidence or research. It is unclear how the general themes of “transcending grades” and developing “everyone’s potential” translate into concrete proposals. These statements are brochure-like general statements that everyone would agree with. Citizens are unable to think about the proposals because it is difficult to know what the concrete proposals are and the rationale for them. There are just general statements like “strengthen the professional development of our educators”. Not helpful to public dialogue about education. Read proposals here: https://www.pap.org.sg/Upload/Manifesto/Manifesto2015.pdf
5. When we interview someone for a job or a promotion, what do we want our candidates to know? We want them to show us that they know the job very well; that they have expertise; that they have concrete ideas about how to do the job; and that they are engaged with the company’s goals and concerns. That’s what the elections must be. We, the people, are interviewing the parties for a job and we have to look closely at whether they know the job well and if they have concrete ideas about how to go about it. And after the elections, we take the best proposals from everyone and pay close attention to them, to see how our system can improve. We don’t abandon them just because they belong to “another party”. LESSON
6. • Dr. Woo Yen Yen, Doctorate in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University; Associate Professor, Long Island University (New York). • This analysis is based on the three official documents the parties have put out on education. PAP and WP proposals are from their GE2015 manifestos because detailed proposals could not be found. SDP proposals are from a document they released together with their manifesto titled, “Educating For Creativity and Equality: An Agenda for Transformation” .URLs for all documents provided in the notes with this slideshare. AUTHOR
7. • Dr. Woo Yen Yen, Doctorate in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University; Associate Professor, Long Island University (New York). • This analysis is based on the three official documents the parties have put out on education. PAP and WP proposals are from their GE2015 manifestos because detailed proposals could not be found. SDP proposals are from a document they released together with their manifesto titled, “Educating For Creativity and Equality: An Agenda for Transformation” .URLs for all documents provided in the notes with this slideshare. AUTHOR
http://www.slideshare.net/YenWoo1/singapore-ge2015-rankings-of-top-three-parties-on-education
