(Find out more about the two new subjects)
Generally, I think that with these two new subjects, students can preform not only well academically, but also scholastically.
As End-of-year Examinations have 70% weightage in the overall marks for individual subjects, I think students will put in more efforts and spend more time studying for examinations.
With Current Affairs in both langauges have taken up 60% of OC, I think that students will be well-prepared for Current Affairs discussions and take them more seriously and formally. OP has taken up 40% of the subject OC, encouraging students to speak up more in class.
50% of the subject IS is made up of ACE. Students are required to do ACE for Higher Chinese and Language Arts in term one, Higher Chinese and three other subjects in term two, Langauge Arts and three other subjects in term three. This prevents students from rushing for ACE submissions only at the end of term three. Instead, they will start doing their ACE at the begining of the year. Lastly, with the other half of IS made up of Project Work, I think students will put in more effort in doing their project.
In conclusion, I think the two new subjects bring a lot of advantages. What is your opinion towards these two new subjects? Please share them below.
(215 words)
I do not think that those two subjects bring advantages because they are trying to pull our MSG down in some way. Also, the oral communication part also have the interviewing session about the current affairs which i was not good in it. This shows that my oral communication will NEVER score an A1. The independent studies is also very hard to get A1 as the project competition will get rid of a lot of people in semi-finals......
ReplyDeleteTherefore, in conclusion, the two new subjects is just trying to pull the MSG down.(that sucks)
This new system only reveals one thing in the entire school system: it is not transparent, was never transparent, but will HAVE TO be transparent.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost. The way they decided the policy change was based on an ideology of corporatism - i.e., the differing sectors of society are coordinated to achieve one goal (usually the goal of the State/authorities). Why else do they give all kinds of excuses to justify their change in policy as one which aims to follow the school's framework of education?
Secondly, this reeks of non-accountability to me. Who does this policy affect? Who are the primary stakeholders of the policy? THE STUDENTS. But who decided the policy? THE STAFF. And does it affect the staff in any way? NO.
I find this outright disturbing. If you're going to do something, do it FOR THE PEOPLE. For the ones whom will be affected by it.
Therefore I call for a change in the system. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. Authorities will have no role in deciding these stuff. Only if the power is vested in the hands of the students themselves, can the results produced be considered legitimate. Then only can we consider ourselves a "Future School" in a supposedly open society.
Cheow Yong Jian
Co-founder of the Anti-Fascist International
Formerly 3I1 (03)