A Singapore Secondary Student

Today, I am a Singapore secondary school student.

Much has been said about what’s wrong with the teaching of English in Singapore schools. The Ministry of Education has its English Language Review committee working on a new “improved” curriculum. Teachers have given their input on how to better the learning of the language in the classroom. Straits Times feature writers and readers have expressed their concerns about the state of the language art. You would think that the ground has been adequately covered.

But have they asked us – the students who are struggling with it?

Well, let me tell you what I think of this whole debacle.

The first problem is classroom size. A class of forty students is an impossible environment to teach or learn English. If the aim of the lesson is linguistic stimulation, how much opportunity does each of the forty students have to communicate with the teacher and with other students? A large class often means teacher alone talking and talking alone. Students are left to tune to something else. You can hire any number of “native-speaking” teachers, but they’ll soon lose interest in teaching massive classes of unresponsive students. The students are by no means quiet the entire lesson, but much of the noise made is of the disruptive type and in other languages. If a teacher has to spend time in class to handle discipline, even the most dedicated of teachers get disheartened fast enough. I’m attending CDAC night tuition in a class of only seven students. We get individual attention from the tutor and can speak up at every turn. If the regular classroom is reduced to twenty students, there’ll be ample chances for students to speak, if not better, at least more, English.

Another major challenge is the materials used to teach the language. Many of the English textbooks for the lower sec classes are locally written. They are anything but exciting. Sticking to one format, the bland texts are followed by comprehension questions that bore and kill our zeal in the language. Often, the passages are written for the purpose of a comprehension exercise. It is not natural English; in fact, some of the writing is downright bad. The vocabulary can sometimes be ridiculously hilarious: I had to search for a word in one passage to replace “things for eating”. If “food” is what I was supposed to look for, then can you blame me for feeling fooled instead? And when you get to Sec 3 and 4, just about the only stuff we do is the 10-year series. After exhausting these past exam papers, we do our school’s own past papers; we then exchange with other schools and do each other’s mocks. We end up getting quite a charge not out of enjoying the language, but of rejecting the English lesson with its practice papers, practice papers and more practice papers?

And the testing itself? The comprehension questions are sometimes phrased in such convoluted language that it serves to confuse rather than instruct. Many a text writer would benefit with some training in how to write precisely and concisely. This is the bunch that has not caught up with the trend of writing clear and direct language. Much vocabulary is thrown in for the sake of providing questionable exercises. The summary is no more than another comprehension question, requiring us to list items from the text. If the teachers think that we are not capable of doing précis, then don’t kid us with summary writing when we are doing merely comprehension. Now about the essay. Almost 99% of the students do either the narrative or the descriptive. After I leave secondary school, I’m willing to bet that no more than 1% of the time will I be asked to write a story or describe my town. So, what’s the point of being tested for this skill? Even in literature lessons, after every chapter there’s a worksheet to fill out. Where is the fun and appreciation promised us in reading “Animal Farm” or about Shylock? Ask Minister of State for Education, Lui Tuck Yew, to show us how to get the “emotional literacy” of literature for “richer relationships”. So, if I am learning a language just to be tested on, then no thank you.

The teachers are another bucket of fish. Little interested in engaging students, they do lockstep teaching and seldom accept alternative views. “Do as you are taught and told, and you will get a good grade. I need you all to do well so that I’ll seem competent enough for promotion.” Most teachers care more about their careers than their profession. Let’s face it, to be an English teacher in Singapore requires a will of steel and certain masochism, what with the tons of marking to do after school and on weekends, and only more money can compensate for this no-life job. The real trouble is that some get promoted for other than their knowledge or teaching abilities. I’ve known principals, vice-principals and subject heads who do not have acceptable language skills. How can one get chosen to set the example of Standard English when they themselves do not speak it? Pay attention to your principal talking at the next assembly and you’ll know what I mean. I’m almost certain The National Institute of Education (NIE) has a few lecturers who have been failed teachers. Remember the saying: “Those who can do, those who can’t teach, and those who can’t teach teach teachers”

The powers that be will surely tell me and the multitudes of students that if we have no suggestions to improve things, then our criticisms are invalid. Well, let them tweak this and fine-tune that and we’ll see if they come up with a hit. Meanwhile, we sing our own songs. Listen if that makes any difference to you.