All schools are good schools, but that doesn't mean all schools are equally good.

All Schools are good schools.

It is important to ensure that all schools are good schools. I quote:

• A good school cares for its students, studying and knowing the needs, interests and strengths of her students and motivates them to learn and grow.
• A good school ensures all students acquire strong fundamentals of literacy and numeracy and develops them holistically, in character, knowledge and critical competencies.
• A good school creates a positive school experience for each student, making him a confident and lifelong learner.
• A good school has caring and competent teachers who are steadfast in their mission to impact lives.
• A good school has the support of parents and the community, working together to bring out the best in our children, and
• A good school cares for and provides opportunities to all students, regardless of family circumstances.

This is a good list of what good schools should be. But as I have noticed, the recent debates on education regarding this "All schools are good schools" notion has been targeted at the presence of "elite schools". And I feel that that is not the point of mission/goal by the ministry. I think many people have missed the point. The Ministry clearly aren't saying "All schools are equally good". 

To say that all schools are good is to say that all schools fulfil a certain criteria for being a good school, such achieving those points mentioned. That is to say, all schools in singapore should provide a good education of a certain standard. That in itself is probably the goal of education ministry. Every country wants all their schools to consistently provide education of high quality, and of course we expect that quality to improve over time. So how can this be achieved? We probably need to provide more resources and assistance to schools which are not performing as well. More importantly, we need to identify the reasons why they are not doing as well, (teachers, students, administration) and address them appropriately with the resources we have. For instance, (just as a preliminary idea), we could encourage senior teachers who have had broad teaching experience to teach in these under-performing schools. Or, gather such a group and let them visit these schools on a regular basis to offer advice. Therefore, the ministry's goal of having all schools become good schools should be an attempt to help the not-so-good schools raise their standard.

This is where the misunderstanding arises. To raise all schools to a certain standard does not mean that all schools will become equally good. As long as each school is above that standard of a "good school", they each school will be free to excel in its own ways. Therefore, some schools will be better, but all schools are still good schools. Who says that for all to be good, they must be equally good? 

I can give you an analogy. All teachers are qualified. This statement implies that all teachers are good enough to teach. But does that mean that they are equally good? Of course not! All students are good. Does that mean they will do equally well in exams? So does this become a debate on elite schools? Well, because people are dissatisfied.

"They" (people who have brought in "elite schools" into the discussion and criticised them) claim that these elite schools breed elitism and whatnot, which is bad. But hey, essentially, elite schools exist because they perform well in the criteria that we have for "a good education". Though some may argue otherwise, this is to a large extent very true. Elite schools tend to have more resources, and thus their students can explore academics to a greater depth and also have more opportunities to excel in their CCAs.  

....




(I shall continue with this some other time)