Essay: Our education system is a waste of time and resources

Many are quick to denounce and point fingers at individuals and corporations that waste food, plastic and any other resource. Yet we often fail to realize that one of the most wasteful institutions across the globe might just be education. In this essay, looking specifically at the context of Singapore and schools as the main mediums of education, I posit that our education system is a waste of time and resources, as well as students’ potential, or what economists might call “human capital”, and explore possible reasons that reinforce these vicious cycles.
Our education system, unlike what the government would say, was not premised solely upon the desire to gain and grant knowledge, or to impart the joy of learning. Looking back on the historical context out of which schools arose, there were 3 main purposes the government needed to meet which necessitated the creation of schools and shaped their structure. During the 1950s and 1960s, when Singapore started developing her own economy, schools were borne out of the need to industrialize, ensure economic growth and imbue commonality across Singaporeans (who had yet to identify themselves as Singaporeans). Because of its role in supporting industrial development and emphasis on human resources for survival and competitiveness in the global economy, we see till today that schools are modelled on the interests of industrialization and in the image of it – the rigidity of the curriculum and structure, and how rote learning is promoted instead of critical thinking. Additionally, schools were crucial in this period of economic and social dislocation as a tool for integrating the new nation together. [cite bc it’s history?]
“The analogy with the factory is telling: young people and qualifications are produced; there are precise goals and targets; the curriculum provides directives for each stage of production; and teachers are technicians and therefore substitutable.” (Sterling, 2001, p.40)
Firstly, I propose that there is much wastage of time and resources because of the redundancy and irrelevance of the system, as well as the preeminent purpose to indoctrinate and standardize mindsets from young. It is important to remember that the government, being the main stakeholder in the development of the structure and curriculum of education, utilizes it as a socialization tool in its political pursuits and nation building efforts. Schools always function as a subset of a larger political climate in which there are many competing social forces and always a power play. Taking a closer look, we dissect the structure and curriculum of schools in Singapore. [link back to this!!!]
The structure of schools is incompatible with reality. For example, the system of bell ringing alone teaches students that they cannot get too involved or invested in any subject since they must move on to the next class when the bell rings. This indifference and categorization of thought and emotion is ingrained in them since day one. And one might further question why subjects are taught in isolation and not as interrelated material, or at least consolidated in an ecological manner, for students to realize the interconnectedness of all things and to build up this frame of thinking from young. There are many more examples of how schools are run mirroring mechanistic and factory-like production, including educating children by age group instead of allowing for mixture and diversity. These are examples of how the education system guides students towards convergent thinking. There is a lot of emphasis on conformity and standardization as seen from the consistent assessments administered that involve standardized testing. [bring in how this aligns with gov agenda? + link back to waste]
– Formal education – a purposeful, planned effort aimed at imparting specific skills or information (a systematic process)  not alw enriching/liberating/positive experience; can be an impoverishing/narrowing experience (e.g indoctrination, brainwashing)
– (w/o some agreement, “the whole nation would be divided and break down”) – functionalist perspective
– Other functions – reliable baby-sitters, dating pool and marriage market
Curriculum-wise, subjects are a means through which the issues the government defines as most critical are voiced, how information the government deems important for political purposes are repackaged purposefully and intentionally passed down, and how other sources of knowledge that goes against what they are trying to promote are actively avoided. We see through formal curriculum that the government is very careful in their selection of school subjects, and very intentional about making certain subjects compulsory like Social Studies and Moral Education. Even more interesting to note is their non-selection of subjects like the liberal arts; this module, UTS2710, involving social critiques would never be allowed in government schools. And we see how schools are also used as a tool to serve the function of “uniting” the country via its Bilingualism Policy that takes the form of having to take English as our first language together with our Mother Tongue as a second language. In the early years, this was very carefully engineered via the reduction of funds for non-English-speaking schools. But on top of subjects, there is also a hidden curriculum that students are being taught – namely class position, intellectual dependency and provisional self-esteem. Class position refers to how everyone identifies with their place in class via a number that ranks their intelligence. Intellectual dependency refers to how students learn to turn to “experts” or answer keys for the model answer, and rarely try to think creatively in the face of problems. Provisional self-esteem refers to students’ self-esteem being tied to their test results and report books, believing that these are objective measures of their worth based on the opinion of “experts”. [link back to waste + split into 2 paras?]
If this system is so problematic, what then is reinforcing it? Why do people still invest in it? To put it plainly, it pays. Good grades are not valued in isolation – they are price signals of better employment which means higher pay, and based on how educational credentials are so essential for employment, some might even start to wonder if they are possible indicators of desirable character and personality traits. This functions like a reward system, a reinforcing loop, that motivates people to get better grades because they are almost synonymous with “a better life”. It is unsurprising then that so many are caught in the rat race to enjoy some sense of employment security, and this system is hardly challenged or viewed as wasteful because it works. Or at least it seems to serve some kind of certifying and therefore differentiating function. There is some sense of convenience and ease for employers, teachers and policymakers when students can be easily categorized into strata via standardized measures rather than believing that there is an entire spectrum of potential in every individual which makes things unnecessarily complex for everyone. These stakeholders are not the only ones benefitting: in Singapore, tuition centres these days are commonplace – these businesses are making big profits because good grades have just become another commodity on the market that happens to be in high demand. With the booming industry of tuition centres comes less incentive to reduce emphasis on grades, and more reason to drive up competition further. [link back to waste + split into 2 paras?]
It is therefore … [conclude POINT 1]
Second, I argue that there is great waste of potential because people are being displaced by the system when they do not make the cut. Unfortunately, it might seem as though our education system has become a form of waste production, not because actual waste is being produced, but because people are being labeled as such. Ken Robinson, in one of his TED talks, shed light on the habits of American schools that result in habitats occupied by its users (Figure 1), and one can see its possible extension in application to Singapore’s context. Analyzing how competition is introduced and encouraged in our education system, we see its direct links with our government’s strong endorsement of meritocracy, and how it results in the unnecessary and degrading process of elimination of individuals.
Figure 1. The displacement of students in our education system
The Singapore government firmly believes in meritocracy, a system where those with innate and demonstrated talent will become an elite (Bellows, 2009). It is constantly reiterated that the basis for such a model is to spur fair competition and ignite motivation towards excellence. However, this has led to the issue of unfair competition that is rooted deeply in Singapore society. I posit that this issue is maintained by elitism. Unfortunately, such a model in the hands of the wrong people can be manipulated and turned into a self-serving aid. It does not take too much to realize that the ones perpetuating this system do so because they are the winners of this very competition.
The trend is increasingly evident: students from “elitist” schools mostly come from high socioeconomic backgrounds, have parents who are well-educated and earning high incomes, can afford luxuries like cars and tuition, and have social circles with people of their ilk. They are advantaged because their backgrounds lend them in greater stead when they begin and as they progress through the education system. For example, they often have greater mastery of English compared to peers of lower socioeconomic backgrounds because their parents are well-versed in the language thus allowing for greater exposure to proper English. Or perhaps they tend to have better grades because they have more financially stable families which means less obstacles in daily living and less psychological stress regarding the acquisition of basic necessities and thus a better frame of mind to process information learnt at school.
The social reproduction theory suggests that schools function as a sorting mechanism that disproportionately eliminates students from disadvantaged backgrounds (Bordieu, ____). This is showcased especially through the administration of examinations. Examinations are a clear sign to students that education is meritocratic – that grades are awarded according to demonstrated academic abilities and not family connections or class privilege. The flaw then is that we accept examinations as objective measures of academic achievement when in reality, students from advantaged backgrounds are better at taking examinations than students from disadvantaged ones. This is because test makers are likely to be from academically advantaged backgrounds, thus they write questions that reflect their background, making it easier for those who come from such backgrounds to relate to these questions. Part of acing examinations is also trying to figure out what the teacher wants. This process is harder for students from disadvantaged backgrounds because they evaluate examination questions based on a different habitus. As such, the educational experience is structured to create and perpetuate advantage and privilege (Figure 2).
Figure 2. The reality of meritocracy in Singapore’s education system
The wastefulness of this model comes in the form of those rejected by the system purely because they do not fit the mould, or those who give up along the way because they know they are not endowed with enough to level the playing field and win a losing battle. [elaborate]
Why then and how is such an unfair system maintained? In a global context, Wallerstein’s World Systems Analysis claims that there is a world economic system in which some countries benefit while others are exploited. In a similar vein, our education, and subsequently employment, system is such that the underdevelopment of others becomes a necessary component/driver of our own development. The system grows by eliminating others because power shifts accordingly. These winners of the system subsequently go on to take on positions of influence and power. If we look at the demographics of those in corporate leadership and Singapore’s government, it is almost unsurprising that the ones at the top of the ranks are the ones who were top in the education system. The system works for them and they have no incentive to change it.
Many a times this issue also fails to be resolved because, with the widening income inequality, there is a disjunct between policymakers and the needs of the ground. Perhaps the privileged are not inherently evil or intentionally dismissive, they simply do not understand what those from less advantaged backgrounds go through because of a lack of interaction and exposure. Their problems are simply not real to the elites. And the elites do not realize or are insensitive to the extent of the impact of their actions on the less advantaged.
Those in power, namely the government, maintain this system by propagating a rosy and hopeful picture of meritocracy. They champion the system, invest greatly in it in the guise of maintaining economic growth and gaining competitive advantage in the knowledge economy, and most importantly encourage competition by promoting it as a prerequisite for motivation. They tie productivity very closely to the presence of competition and they extend this to all sectors of the economy. They ingrain in us the mentality that every man is for himself, and that if you fall behind, it means that you are not working hard enough. They repeatedly tell us that if you are motivated enough, competition only serves to spur you on. They rig the game, provide an incomplete set of rules, leave the players to figure out the rest while they lie in wait to devour the successors of the system.