¡°Education does not develop individuality but conformity¡± Is such a statement valid?
Education is the act of imparting knowledge and skills from teachers to students via a school system; education systems vary in style and administration with respect to different countries. Individuality is the aggregate qualities and characteristics (especially in personality) that distinguish one person from others; it involves diversity or different people similar to the ingredients of a ¡°salad bowl¡±. Conformity, on the other hand, is unconditional similarity in form or character in correspondence to socially acceptable regulations.
Education systems all over the world can be more or less fit into two main groups; the Liberals (Western countries) and the Functionalists (East Asian countries). The Liberal system has been the educational ideal of many Western countries including Great Britain and the USA. Liberal education seeks to develop analytical skills and critical thinking in students to prepare them to live life in all its dimensions. The liberals aim to liberate students from the immediate pragmatic concerns of society in education. On the other hand, Asian countries like Singapore and Malaysia have their functionalist system. Functionalist education believes that education needs to be fit into the needs of society as a whole. The functionalist system values education for its ability to prepare students for specific roles in society by teaching them what they need to survive for life.
To say that education develops conformity instead of individuality is silly because the statement does not specify exactly which education system. Countries with dominant Western liberal education tend to stress each person¡¯s right to individual freedom of expression and choice of lifestyle. But African and Asian functionalist systems more often emphasize the responsibilities/obligations of the individual for the benefit of the group.
The statement is not valid for British liberal education. Education in Britain encourages open discussion throughout all levels of education, right from junior to senior and pre-university levels. Subjects are taught by encouraging students to apply what they learn from the text in school assessment projects, effectively engraining information into the students while building critical analytical skills at the same time. The open-minded culture of the system enables students to immediately clarify any doubts they have with their teacher. The system is flexible with fixed school schedules and timetables, students are allowed to study whatever subject they choose, as there are no compulsory items of syllabus. Students are not stressed with the burden of excessive homework since most learning is done practically in school. The practical methods of education include skit themes (pertaining to history) and set construction, material work (e.g. wood, metal, plastic D&T subject), science experiments (e.g. constructions of siege engines to demonstrate science behind forces and potential energy) and computer-based learning. With such a ¡®hands-on¡¯ approach in place, students are motivated to learn due to self-interest, not because they are ordered to. There are also minimal restrictions on hair length, attire and appearance because it is deemed as irrelevant in determining quality of grades. All these measures help to form a conducive climate for creativity, which require ample room for individual experimentation, and ultimately individuality. Thus liberal education in Britain does not develop conformity but individuality.
In contrast, the statement is valid for functionalist education in Singapore to a certain extent. Throughout Singapore history up till the late 1990s, the Singapore system is highly instrumental, regimented, pressurizing, competitive and highly performance oriented. Students are pressured to study by memorizing and regurgitation in the exam room from a very young age (primary school). The system is filled with restrictions on hair length and color, the use of gel on hair, attire and jewelry. The system has compulsory obligations on students to study certain subjects (deemed needed by the government for the ¡°new economy¡±) and perform certain social tasks (the Community Involvement Programme); wandering the streets collecting money in donation tins for worthy causes. School timetables are inflexible from time to time depending on different schools; some schools make no arrangements to fill lost time from their ¡°college days¡± or ¡°sports meets¡± when lessons are supposed to take place, thus forcing students/teachers to make up classes in their free time. Students spend at least 10 hours in school per day at the secondary level. Although doing CIP is a noble cause, bear in mind that students also have to do CIP and cope with compulsory subjects (some of which they have no interest or say in taking) in an inflexible schedule, they must do all that in a limited time that decreases as they get older (6 years for primary, 4 years for secondary, 2 years for junior college). Such restrictive environments are not conducive for individuality. The numbers of suicide cases due to stress are a reflection of the intensity of the system. However, the government has attempted to put less emphasis on ¡°memorization and regurgitation¡± (in junior colleges) in an attempt to teach critical thinking, but suddenly attempting to change the routine of a student (who is so used to the original system in his 17 years of age) makes it all the more stressful for him. Thus the statement is valid for Singapore to a certain extent.
Because the government has taken a functionalist role by making ¡°useful¡± subjects compulsory and giving priority to science/engineering batches, the populace has grown (over time) to adopt a submissive attitude towards education subjects, students look at subjects with an eye for the market; ¡°what jobs would I be able to get if I took Engineering instead of History, even though I am better at History?¡± The ¡°in¡± thing is not how well you will do as a person to your fullest potential, but how much money you will make in a certain career. The ¡°monetary career¡±-mentality in Asian students brings out a desire to do extremely well in tests and exams, often at the cost of passion for what they study. Due the inflexibility of the system, the student is forced to take up compulsory units in certain courses and programmes, this contributes to his lack of interest in what he studies. The mentality is further engrained because public provision for the less advantaged is minimal, in Singapore, more money is granted to schools with higher results instead of helping the weaker institutions. This attitude is passed down from generation to generation, making it a kind of culture of conformity.
The ¡°memorization and regurgitation¡± routine has (past tense because attempts are being made at restructuring) bred generations of submissive/conformist students in Singapore. In class, students hesitate to ask questions and do not participate actively in class; they rely heavily on what the teacher has spoon-fed them. Discussion groups take a long time to warm up, with most students looking at one another with nothing to say. This conformity persists even into adult hood, Asian members of the world delegations hardly ask questions, and it is mostly the Westerners who ask. Hence, education in Singapore mostly develops conformity, not individuality.
Why then, does Singapore develop conformity? Conformity is developed because of the functionalist system. Before knocking Singapore any further, we must examine why there exists the functionalist system. Much of the phenomenon (conformity and passivity) of the Asian functionalists has its roots in Confucian socialization, in which exercising caution in speech is a virtue, while opening one¡¯s mouth exposes one to various dangers, such as invoking the anger of authority figures; being immodest; or being ridiculed by one¡¯s peers. The phenomenon also results from traditional cultural role definitions, i.e. the teacher is ¡°god¡± and imparts knowledge while the inferior student must listen and obey without question.
Singapore has come along way since its independence, as of its late National day on 9th August 2003, Singapore has existed independently for 39 years. Singapore has advanced tremendously given its small size and a mere lifetime of development, other countries with more resources couldn¡¯t possibly reach Singapore¡¯s level given 2 or 3 lifetimes! The secret to Singapore¡¯s success in development lies in the functionalist system, the government has drilled students to perform and be the best in their results, this has enabled Singapore to advance rapidly and survive the post war years. But presently, in the face of a real threat of competition from Malaysia¡¯s new and cheaper port, as well as China¡¯s lower costs, Singapore all the more needs to drill its students to perform for Singapore¡¯s survival. Unlike the Western countries with vast natural resources (with which they can fall back on in economic crisis), Singapore does not have the luxury of relaxing its education policy. Thus from the government¡¯s point of view, it¡¯s a trade off between small amounts of freedom for national survival and development.
In conclusion, whether or not education develops conformity and not individuality depends entirely upon which education system is being referred to. The statement is invalid for the liberal systems of the West (Britain), and is valid for the functionalist systems of East Asia (Singapore).