SINGAPORE stands out among South-east Asian countries with a well-rounded educational system, and its students are widely known to have performed remarkably in regional and international competitions.
No doubt, our schools have trained professionals in various fields, but it takes a closer look to see whether our students —— or even their teachers —— have enough scope for developing their individual personalities.
People still remember, I believe, the heated discussion not long ago about the disciplinary problems of some girl students. While few would object to the inclusion of fighting, cutting classes and disrespect for teachers into the discussion, it is arguable that boys-like girls should be labelled as “problem students”。
I remember reading a book on educational psychology for children, which says that adults should not attempt to shape children according to their own stereotypes. Now, we are setting up models for good students and laying down rules of dress and appearances for boy and girl students respectively. Doesn't that go against principles of education？
Our society and schools are stigmatising the so-called tomboys with “improper gender behaviour”, condemning them for their “misdemeanour”, and trying to reform them accordingly.
But, in our modern times, is it still proper to treat them that way？ Who could tell me what a sound personality is like, and what kind of psychology a normal person is supposed to have？
The hero in A Madman's Diary, a well-known story by the late Chinese writer Lu Xun, was a lunatic in the eyes of other people, because he challenged and ignored the values and beliefs of his time. To all readers today, however, it is the madman that was sober-minded and psychologically normal.
Things will turn into their opposites if pushed too far, as the saying goes. Adolescents, who are apt to rebel against authority, hate being ordered about. Apparently, they may observe the bans imposed on them, but that is no victory for their superiors because resentment may be brewing deep in their hearts. The pent-up discontent may grow to form abnormal psychology in them, which will be even more harmful.
Now we are promoting pro-creativity teaching and encouraging our teachers to work ingeniously so as to bring up a young generation full of original ideas. But what do we expect of our teachers？
We have a stereotyped idea of what a teacher should look like. We expect male teachers to appear neat and refined, and female ones to wear skirts. Principals and parents would become suspicious if a teacher fails to fit into the model.
Under such restrictions, I am doubtful, how much freedom can our teachers still enjoy to help foster creativity in their pupils？
Now, to help creativity grow, we must first make sure we can tolerate ways and ideas different from our own. If we can't, but demand that everybody act and live as we ourselves do, then we are denying others' right to individuality.
This is, in effect, depriving people of their right to be creative.
A person deprived of his individuality can expect to produce nothing but copies of others' work. No amount of reference books or lessons on creativity given by doctorate-holders will help them.
What kind of a place are our schools now？ Are they a paradise in which our pupils can learn happily to realise their potentials and fulfil their personality, or are they just a modern factory that turns out standardised products year after year, which bear different serial numbers but perform identical functions？
If the answer is the former, then we are blessed with a beautiful new society in the future.
But, if it is the latter, then …… well, forget it.
讓學生展現(xiàn)個性
新加坡的教育制度在東南亞國家當中,應(yīng)該算是相當健全的,而新加坡的學生在區(qū)域甚至在國際性的學術(shù)性比賽中往往也有不俗的表現(xiàn),這也是有目共睹。
沒錯,我們的學校能夠培養(yǎng)出各方面的人才,對此我們無需懷疑；但是我們的學校是否讓學生們甚至是老師們有足夠發(fā)展個性的空間,則有待進一步的探討。
相信大家還記得幾個月前討論得如火如荼的關(guān)于女生紀律的話題吧。把打架、曠課、對師長不敬等行為列入紀律問題范圍內(nèi),那是不會引來多大異議的,然而把男性化的女生貼上“問題學生”的標簽,卻令人難以理解。
我記得在一本兒童教育心理學的課本里讀到不要按照大人心目中的典型形象把孩子典型化的話。現(xiàn)在我們規(guī)定學生們應(yīng)該是某個模式的才是好學生,什么樣的裝扮才是合格的男生、女生,這種做法是不是有違教育原理？
現(xiàn)在社會、學校給那些所謂的男性化女生貼上“不適當性別行為”的標志,以“行為不端”的罪名判她們有罪,并且還要改造她們。
這種做法在現(xiàn)在這個時代妥當嗎？誰能告訴我,在我們現(xiàn)在的社會里有誰的個性完美,心理正常？這就好比魯迅《狂人日記》里的主人公那樣,在當時封建社會的人們眼里,他是個不懂得禮教條規(guī)的狂人,但在所有讀者心里,大家都很清楚,狂人其實才是正常的。
而且物極必反,處在叛逆階段的中學生不是笨得可以任人擺布的,你抑制他們的行為,他們表面上或許服從你,但這種服從不是校方的勝利,因為說不定他們在心底正郁積著不滿情緒,而這種情緒久而久之就會發(fā)展為更可怕的變相性格。
我們現(xiàn)在不是在提倡創(chuàng)意教育,要老師們發(fā)揮創(chuàng)意以培養(yǎng)有創(chuàng)意的下一代嗎？就說我們對老師的要求吧,在印象中我們對老師的形象就已經(jīng)有了一個固定的模式,認為老師應(yīng)該是某個樣子的,男老師要白白凈凈,斯斯文文的,女老師應(yīng)該要穿裙子,應(yīng)該要如何如何,一旦不符合這種模式的,家長和校長就會對他們印象打折扣。我經(jīng)常懷疑,這些被限制的老師,有多少能力去開拓學生們的創(chuàng)意空間？
說到提倡創(chuàng)意,先問一問,我們首先有沒有包容和尊重存在于自己身邊的異？如果沒有,而是要別人照著你的方式生活,你就是在限制別人,要求他們跟你有同樣的思維方式,這正是在抹殺別人的個性。
抹殺了一個人的獨特個性,你其實就是在剝奪他的創(chuàng)造的能力。
沒有了自己的個性,無論你為他買多少參考書,或給他報名多少堂某某博士開的創(chuàng)意課程,教他如何才能有創(chuàng)意,他所做出來的東西也不過是屬于別人的。
我們的學校是一個什么樣的地方呢？是一個可以讓學生們開開心心學習,能夠發(fā)掘自己潛能,尋找并發(fā)揮自己個性的樂園,還是一個每年制造出一批批編號不同,但類型功能相同,沒有任何獨特性的產(chǎn)品的現(xiàn)代化工廠？如果是前者,那么我們未來的社會將會是精彩的,如果是后者,那么……唉,算了吧。
No doubt, our schools have trained professionals in various fields, but it takes a closer look to see whether our students —— or even their teachers —— have enough scope for developing their individual personalities.
People still remember, I believe, the heated discussion not long ago about the disciplinary problems of some girl students. While few would object to the inclusion of fighting, cutting classes and disrespect for teachers into the discussion, it is arguable that boys-like girls should be labelled as “problem students”。
I remember reading a book on educational psychology for children, which says that adults should not attempt to shape children according to their own stereotypes. Now, we are setting up models for good students and laying down rules of dress and appearances for boy and girl students respectively. Doesn't that go against principles of education？
Our society and schools are stigmatising the so-called tomboys with “improper gender behaviour”, condemning them for their “misdemeanour”, and trying to reform them accordingly.
But, in our modern times, is it still proper to treat them that way？ Who could tell me what a sound personality is like, and what kind of psychology a normal person is supposed to have？
The hero in A Madman's Diary, a well-known story by the late Chinese writer Lu Xun, was a lunatic in the eyes of other people, because he challenged and ignored the values and beliefs of his time. To all readers today, however, it is the madman that was sober-minded and psychologically normal.
Things will turn into their opposites if pushed too far, as the saying goes. Adolescents, who are apt to rebel against authority, hate being ordered about. Apparently, they may observe the bans imposed on them, but that is no victory for their superiors because resentment may be brewing deep in their hearts. The pent-up discontent may grow to form abnormal psychology in them, which will be even more harmful.
Now we are promoting pro-creativity teaching and encouraging our teachers to work ingeniously so as to bring up a young generation full of original ideas. But what do we expect of our teachers？
We have a stereotyped idea of what a teacher should look like. We expect male teachers to appear neat and refined, and female ones to wear skirts. Principals and parents would become suspicious if a teacher fails to fit into the model.
Under such restrictions, I am doubtful, how much freedom can our teachers still enjoy to help foster creativity in their pupils？
Now, to help creativity grow, we must first make sure we can tolerate ways and ideas different from our own. If we can't, but demand that everybody act and live as we ourselves do, then we are denying others' right to individuality.
This is, in effect, depriving people of their right to be creative.
A person deprived of his individuality can expect to produce nothing but copies of others' work. No amount of reference books or lessons on creativity given by doctorate-holders will help them.
What kind of a place are our schools now？ Are they a paradise in which our pupils can learn happily to realise their potentials and fulfil their personality, or are they just a modern factory that turns out standardised products year after year, which bear different serial numbers but perform identical functions？
If the answer is the former, then we are blessed with a beautiful new society in the future.
But, if it is the latter, then …… well, forget it.
讓學生展現(xiàn)個性
新加坡的教育制度在東南亞國家當中,應(yīng)該算是相當健全的,而新加坡的學生在區(qū)域甚至在國際性的學術(shù)性比賽中往往也有不俗的表現(xiàn),這也是有目共睹。
沒錯,我們的學校能夠培養(yǎng)出各方面的人才,對此我們無需懷疑；但是我們的學校是否讓學生們甚至是老師們有足夠發(fā)展個性的空間,則有待進一步的探討。
相信大家還記得幾個月前討論得如火如荼的關(guān)于女生紀律的話題吧。把打架、曠課、對師長不敬等行為列入紀律問題范圍內(nèi),那是不會引來多大異議的,然而把男性化的女生貼上“問題學生”的標簽,卻令人難以理解。
我記得在一本兒童教育心理學的課本里讀到不要按照大人心目中的典型形象把孩子典型化的話。現(xiàn)在我們規(guī)定學生們應(yīng)該是某個模式的才是好學生,什么樣的裝扮才是合格的男生、女生,這種做法是不是有違教育原理？
現(xiàn)在社會、學校給那些所謂的男性化女生貼上“不適當性別行為”的標志,以“行為不端”的罪名判她們有罪,并且還要改造她們。
這種做法在現(xiàn)在這個時代妥當嗎？誰能告訴我,在我們現(xiàn)在的社會里有誰的個性完美,心理正常？這就好比魯迅《狂人日記》里的主人公那樣,在當時封建社會的人們眼里,他是個不懂得禮教條規(guī)的狂人,但在所有讀者心里,大家都很清楚,狂人其實才是正常的。
而且物極必反,處在叛逆階段的中學生不是笨得可以任人擺布的,你抑制他們的行為,他們表面上或許服從你,但這種服從不是校方的勝利,因為說不定他們在心底正郁積著不滿情緒,而這種情緒久而久之就會發(fā)展為更可怕的變相性格。
我們現(xiàn)在不是在提倡創(chuàng)意教育,要老師們發(fā)揮創(chuàng)意以培養(yǎng)有創(chuàng)意的下一代嗎？就說我們對老師的要求吧,在印象中我們對老師的形象就已經(jīng)有了一個固定的模式,認為老師應(yīng)該是某個樣子的,男老師要白白凈凈,斯斯文文的,女老師應(yīng)該要穿裙子,應(yīng)該要如何如何,一旦不符合這種模式的,家長和校長就會對他們印象打折扣。我經(jīng)常懷疑,這些被限制的老師,有多少能力去開拓學生們的創(chuàng)意空間？
說到提倡創(chuàng)意,先問一問,我們首先有沒有包容和尊重存在于自己身邊的異？如果沒有,而是要別人照著你的方式生活,你就是在限制別人,要求他們跟你有同樣的思維方式,這正是在抹殺別人的個性。
抹殺了一個人的獨特個性,你其實就是在剝奪他的創(chuàng)造的能力。
沒有了自己的個性,無論你為他買多少參考書,或給他報名多少堂某某博士開的創(chuàng)意課程,教他如何才能有創(chuàng)意,他所做出來的東西也不過是屬于別人的。
我們的學校是一個什么樣的地方呢？是一個可以讓學生們開開心心學習,能夠發(fā)掘自己潛能,尋找并發(fā)揮自己個性的樂園,還是一個每年制造出一批批編號不同,但類型功能相同,沒有任何獨特性的產(chǎn)品的現(xiàn)代化工廠？如果是前者,那么我們未來的社會將會是精彩的,如果是后者,那么……唉,算了吧。