New, but not necessarily better
Gillian's school is going single-session next year. She comes home with a long letter from the school, excited about the change. After several years in the holding campus, the new school building is finally ready and with the larger size and enhanced facilities, the school is able to go single session. Normally, I am pretty non-committal about this. I think a single-session school is not a bad idea. But the more I read of the letter, the more I frowned.
With the single session in place, the girls will now start school at 7.30am (a mere 10-minute 'improvement' from the current 7.20am). The teachers will then engage the girls in various activities ranging from PE to USSR (yes that got me too until I realised it meant: Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading. The lengths people go to just to create 'cute' or quirky acronyms never fails to annoy me. Call a spade a spade and forget the cheesy acronyms already!) So from 7.30am to 8am, the girls either have PE or reading. Class proper starts at 8am. School follows as per normal with staggered recess times.
The P5/6 girls have lunch around 1230pm and then all this followed by CCA, remedial, supplementary etc until 4pm.
For someone like Gillian, who has to get up at 5.45am to take the school bus at 6.20am, the new SS timetable will mean very long school days. And on those days when she has no remedial or CCA, she still has to stay on in school because the bus only picks the girls up at4pm. So what should she do on those days? Presumably the girls would keep busy somehow - finishing off their homework etc. But for someone like Gillian, this is very hard because she requires supervision and mentoring to get the work done.
Seems like this SS idea is just a compulsory extension of the normal school hours. I don't see any evidence where the school is making more productive use of the time, there are no details of any enrichment or after-school activities offered. To me, it just spells a longer (more tiring!) day for the girls and a more expensive one for parents because they now have to pay for lunch at school, as opposed to lunch at home. I thought we were in a culture where schools should 'teach less, learn more' but hours like these seem to imply the opposite!
I have other beefs. With the new school building, the entrances and exits have been re-arranged so much so that parents now have to take a longer route to reach the school because of the one-way streets. And parking is no longer allowed in the school so parents just have to park in the residential areas. I don't know about you, but I imagine the residents of Jalan Pacheli, Li Hwan Drive and the other streets nearby will be none too happy about the inevitable congestion! I know I wouldn't! I am not sure if this was ever factored in when the school drew up its plans for redevelopment. Nor, I think, were the residents ever consulted in this exercise.
Secondly, the school decided to close a side gate. Where previously girls taking the public bus can now stop, cut across a park and a small residential lane and be in school in under 5minutes, they now have to make a significantly longer detour. Why do this? For almost 30 years or so, the side gate at Cooling Close has remained open and presumably, with no complaints from the Sisters across whose compound the girls have to cut in order to get to school. I can't see the sisters complaining about this now. So why the change? Come rain or shine, the girls and parents who take public transport now have to walk much farther to get to school.
So how exactly have all these changes benefitted the girls? A new school building with spanking new facilities is an exciting thing but these policy changes seem to have been made without much thought for the girls or with much consultation with parents. This kind of top-heavy approach really makes me think twice about whether the school is the right one for my other girls. To me, its not about the building and the facilities or even the curricula, but whether the school is managed sensibly and with heart. Right now, I fail to see either of these qualities in this school.
So next year, its back to the drawing board for Caitlin when it comes to P1 registration.
2 comments:
Pat, several points.
1. USSR: nothing new, lah. You've just not heard of it. It is used in CHS also, and I've heard of it in other schools, only not SNGS. Prob some smart aleck came up with this brilliant acronym and other smart alecks in other schs followed suit.
2. Long Day: Is confirmed already that ALL girls need to stay back? Surely not all girls have CCA everyday, nor remedial & enrichment classes every single day of the week, right? Most single session schs end at 1.30pm and not so early at 12.30pm. Could it be that the one writing the letter did not express it properly or like you said "information does not seem very confirmed" yet? You'll need to clarify on this. Maybe the bus at 4pm is the "CCA bus".
3. Parking in school. I'm so used to this that I don't complain. I've not parked Inside the school ever since the SARS period and the Russian sch incident. Since those events, many schs beefed up their security. Up went the cameras, the security gates or barriers and uniformed security guards. No one could get into school without a security pass. I can only park inside the school after hours. The residents? er.. again, too bad, no choice. I'm sure the residents of Bishan /pemimpin area are not happy with us crowding the roads in front, but no choice, right? Also the one-lane road in front of SNGS. Always have angry drivers honking and strange parents who would park their cars along the side of the road (wei! 1 lane road, leh!!! siao, ah?!). So the poor residents would have to deal with these noisy honking as well!
4. Side gate. Still there or they actually removed it??
Regarding Long Day. I just happened to see my neighbour. She says the afternoon stayback next year is not for all students. Her daughter also takes the schoolbus. She will have 2 daughters there next year - P1 & P3. So it's best that you clarify on this.
Post a Comment