Spending in education: How dumb money can become smart

Those who have spent a lesson or two in our school’s new Humanities Hub would definitely realise what an improvement it is. Not only does the setting of the room make classroom learning more dynamic by encouraging discussion, the presence of many whiteboards are also excellent for brainstorming ideas in different groups simultaneously instead of one centralised whiteboard. Furthermore, these shiny classrooms appeal to our childlike fascination with the new. Fancy facilities do seem to help learning after all.
But think: how much of this is really necessary? Is this really cost-efficient, especially considering the fact that these facilities do not come at a low price, and that many of these benefits can be simply done by slightly altering a normal classroom too? As Theil’s article argues, more modern and well-equipped schools do not necessarily imply better learning. Yet, it is foolish to dismiss classroom facilities altogether as they do have an effect on learning, like many of us have experienced. On the other hand, globally, the current bias is to overspend on infrastructure. As such, spending in education really needs to strike a good balance between “hardware”, the environment where the teaching is conducted, and “software”, the teaching itself, by starting to focus more in the “software”.
First, too much focus on “hardware”, or better facilities, distracts attention from the teaching, to the gadgets and trinkets in place. For example, look at the Science Hub’s Discovery Labs. It is a common sight that the swivel chairs are frequently being played by the students during the lesson, who find great amusement in repeatedly raising and lowering the chair’s height instead of placing the attention to where it should be—on the teacher. In the Humanities Hub, the tall bar stools are also uncomfortable to sit on for students, who shift and fidget incessantly too to find a good resting position. Wouldn’t it be so much better if we just had the normal, plain, but ultimately practical and comfortable green chair? Talk about dumb money.
Second, the resources would be better spent on with more focus on “software”, or the teaching process itself, involving the selection of teachers and upgrading their training. As the article argues, it is teacher spending that makes the big difference in education outcomes. After all, the teachers are the people in charge of the teaching process, so they will logically affect the students’ learning the most. They can either incite a passion in the student or bore them to tears such that they give up. Remember that boring so-and-so who drones on and on, compared to our favourite teacher who keeps us excited throughout the whole lesson? The truth is, teachers evoke strong feelings in us, and we associate these emotions with their respective subjects, all the more why we should select them carefully and train them well.
Let’s face it. Spending money on education for better facilities can only do so much good to the system. Maybe the model for spending on education can already be found in our school. The Audio-Visual Theatre is a warm, cosy, little lecture theatre, though rather simple compared to those in the Science or Humanities Hubs. Nevertheless, lectures held in the former are equal in standard to the latter. We do not suggest discarding “hardware” altogether, but rather that we strike a balance on both, since one cannot work without the other and both are integral in the quality of education. What the education system needs to recognise, however, is that just like a functioning computer, the “hardware” should support “software”, not vice versa.

Scrap the CCTs

Close your eyes, take a deep breath, and imagine a world without CCTs, those grey ominous clouds looming on the horizon of your live. Bliss.
Back to reality. The test paper is in front of you. Every printed word seems unintelligible. You panic, because you know you will flunk the test and there is nothing you can do to escape it. As always, the adults say that CCTs are practice for A-levels. Just like CCTs, nobody can escape them. These hurricanes have started forming since the tempest of PSLE, unstoppable, furious, life-changing, and in a few years they will finally descend.
Sure, CCTs do prepare us for A-levels, but do they prepare us for life? Real life does not comprise of taking test every four weeks to test one’s understanding of a subject, nor is it graded. The truth is, many skills needed in post-university life are not tested in CCTs.
Different kinds of abilities exist, be it physical, intellectual, artistic and so on. CCTs are incapable of reflecting all these types of abilities. Take Einstein for example. He himself did badly for his physics and mathematics tests in high school, but did that mean he did not have the ability to do so? How could the ability of someone who had the intellectual capacity to revolutionise physics not be reflected in a test? How many of these “Einsteins” are we losing because of our current assessment system?
CCTs stifle creativity. Even though subjects like literature allow one to express their own views about a poem, a piece of prose, and so on through essays, has this form of assessment ever been truly creative? Do CCTs ever ask you to write a poem or paint a picture, and through this, grade you?
CCTs also generate huge amounts of stress. There is stress in studying for the CCT, where there is always the possibility of being caught off guard by the essay question. There is stress during the test, when you wrack your brains trying to rush it within the narrow time frame. There is stress after the test, where you have to psychologically deal with the aftermath and the unsettlingly different answers which your friends put on their scripts.
The fundamental question here is do we really need CCTs? Creative assignments or projects are equally capable, if not more capable of reflecting our diverse talents, or effort that we put in. Additionally, this would also test our ability to manage our time effectively to complete a project. These are the skills we would probably be using in employment, for example putting up a proposal for a million-dollar building plan, or managing a construction project.
This is why we should scrap the CCTs, and install creative assignments for grading instead. Creative assignments not only reflect the student’s ability better, but also bear a closer resemblance to the real-life projects which we have to handle during employment. Creative assignments are the solution to revamping our assessment system.
The question is: Are we willing to accept this change?

What is an exposition?

The word exposition partly comes from the root, expose. Hence, the function of an exposition is to expose the issue which it targets, and show more about the topic. An exposition is a form of writing where information that is difficult to understand is conveyed. Such a piece of writing cannot be one-sided, and has to consider all the possible perspectives whic exist in an issue, as an exposition is supposed to expose more about the issue.
Of course, an exposition can also mean a public exhibition if taken literally. In a way, expository writing does share some similarities with an exibition, mainly that it has to at least increase the knowledge or perception of the audience which reads it of the issue at hand.