- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
TUESDAY'S article ("More subjects to choose from, so fewer take pure literature") revealed the startling statistic that 3,000 students took pure literature last year, compared with 16,970 in 1992.
Senior Minister of State for Education Indranee Rajah said this decline "needs to be understood in the context of an education system responsive to a changing social context, and which has offered increasingly more curricular choices for students over time".
This is misleading.
The initial drastic drop in the candidature for literature occurred in 1992, when the practice of ranking schools based on academic results started.
The next significant dip occurred in 2001, when social studies was introduced as the compulsory "half" of the combined humanities subject.
Thus, over the last two decades, literature has been dying a slow death in secondary schools. It is these two main reasons, and not the more recent offering of subjects like "drama, physical education, computing and economics" to boost curricular choice, that have led to the decline in enrolment for literature.
Literature has suffered vis-a-vis history and geography when it comes to the selection of the elective for the other half of the combined humanities subject. A disproportionate number of students take the latter subjects rather than literature because they perceive geography and history to be factual, content-heavy subjects that are easy to attain good grades in.
The nature of the social studies syllabus also promotes the idea that geography and history are a better fit than literature as the complementing elective. Left to "choice", this is the kind of imbalance that results.
This is surely a distortion of the holistic and interest-driven education that we want for students here. It is a problem that the Education Ministry should seek to redress.
Ms Rajah has affirmed the ministry's stance to persuade schools to be less grade-conscious by not overly publicising results. This is a step in the right direction for the Primary School Leaving Examination.
Ironically, not publishing the distinction rates in the case of O-level humanities subjects has led to the perpetuation of erroneous ideas about the alleged difficulty of a subject like literature.
Literature thus has the dubious distinction of being the policy victim of both an over-emphasis on academic achievement and the move to de-emphasise grades.
Failure to discern the irony just proves my point that literature as a subject should be strongly encouraged, and not needlessly allowed to be collateral damage in the false name of greater curricular choice.
Angelia Poon Mui Cheng (Dr)
- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/premium...ratures-decline-20130228#sthash.BItxXNtK.dpuf
Senior Minister of State for Education Indranee Rajah said this decline "needs to be understood in the context of an education system responsive to a changing social context, and which has offered increasingly more curricular choices for students over time".
This is misleading.
The initial drastic drop in the candidature for literature occurred in 1992, when the practice of ranking schools based on academic results started.
The next significant dip occurred in 2001, when social studies was introduced as the compulsory "half" of the combined humanities subject.
Thus, over the last two decades, literature has been dying a slow death in secondary schools. It is these two main reasons, and not the more recent offering of subjects like "drama, physical education, computing and economics" to boost curricular choice, that have led to the decline in enrolment for literature.
Literature has suffered vis-a-vis history and geography when it comes to the selection of the elective for the other half of the combined humanities subject. A disproportionate number of students take the latter subjects rather than literature because they perceive geography and history to be factual, content-heavy subjects that are easy to attain good grades in.
The nature of the social studies syllabus also promotes the idea that geography and history are a better fit than literature as the complementing elective. Left to "choice", this is the kind of imbalance that results.
This is surely a distortion of the holistic and interest-driven education that we want for students here. It is a problem that the Education Ministry should seek to redress.
Ms Rajah has affirmed the ministry's stance to persuade schools to be less grade-conscious by not overly publicising results. This is a step in the right direction for the Primary School Leaving Examination.
Ironically, not publishing the distinction rates in the case of O-level humanities subjects has led to the perpetuation of erroneous ideas about the alleged difficulty of a subject like literature.
Literature thus has the dubious distinction of being the policy victim of both an over-emphasis on academic achievement and the move to de-emphasise grades.
Failure to discern the irony just proves my point that literature as a subject should be strongly encouraged, and not needlessly allowed to be collateral damage in the false name of greater curricular choice.
Angelia Poon Mui Cheng (Dr)
- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/premium...ratures-decline-20130228#sthash.BItxXNtK.dpuf
