Two parents have written to the papers about their primary school children losing their wallets in school. One parent called on the MOE to release school theft figures. The other wanted to know what the school was doing about such theft.
I share with both parents their outrage at this sort of 'crime' being committed by such young children. However, my two cents about this is that parents, not schools or the MOE, bear the main responsibility for bringing up children who will not steal. Unfortunately, there are, obviously, parents who do not believe in doing this.
The son has 'lost' stationery items several times in his own classroom, right under the teachers' noses, I'm sure. Apparently, people borrow these pencils and other things, don't return them, and then claim they never took them in the first place. I'm told that it is common for kids to lose pencils, erasers, etc. This is news to me because it was definitely uncommon when I was in school.
If these 'minor' thieving incidents can take place in the classroom, I don't know how schools are going to prevent theft from taking place in the library, canteen or anywhere else. Teachers are teachers, not policemen and women. While schools can be vigilant and haul up culprits whenever they can be found or caught, the more important role lies with the parents who find their children coming home with things that don't belong to them. I can't think of good reasons why any parent out there should close an eye to their child keeping things which are labelled with the names of other children.
One of the parents suggested that there should be 'more' moral education. Again, no matter how much moralising is done in school, children, ultimately, learn values from example, experience and sustained action and these are most effectively gained from interaction within family life. It is very difficult for the school to give children the experience of having to be honest, for example, but there is so much that can be done by the home.
On a separate note, I must say that the way moral education is conducted does leave room for a lot more to be done, and to be done better. The son's school implements the much-lauded Character First! programme. My first 'complaint' is the way it is conducted. Based on what he says, the teacher tells a story that is supposed to illustrate the value in question. The value is linked to an animal that supposedly embodies that particular value. The children are then given a handout with the relevant animal to colour. Now, apart from some head knowledge, some rather questionable links between the values and certain animals (e.g. 'a lion always tells the truth'... duh!), and quite a bit of grief -- on his part anyway -- colouring the picture, I don't know how much can really be internalised. Couldn't they at least inject a bit more fun and reality into the whole thing? For example, instead of colouring the animals (even though they are part of the actual programme), they could use stories with a local context, role play, dramatisation, newspaper articles, etc.
And I really must complain about those animal pictures. They are either forest animals depicted in a wooded area (hence resulting in a rather dull brownish theme) or huge animals such as the elephant or lion. How inspiring can colouring such pictures be??
My other complaint is the values chosen by the school. Out of some 49 values, the first few chosen have been those relating largely to the child's behaviour in school, e.g. attentiveness, obedience and orderliness. Only recently did 'truthfulness' make an appearance. I suppose over a number of years, other values will be touched on but I would certainly prefer it if 'generosity', 'sincerity', 'patience', and even 'flexibility' and the like were 'brought forward'. If some homes do not stress true character and teach honesty and respect for others and the property of others, and schools, for their own reasons, set a higher premium on behavioural traits, there will be many loopholes in children's moral upbringing. This is not even taking into account instances where there is a clash between what is advocated by the school and what is accepted by the home.
Anyway, another thing I must teach the son is to report straightaway when he loses things so the poor teacher can spend some of her precious time investigating the case of the missing yellow colour pencil, or whatever the case may be. I'm sorry to inflict this on his teachers but I'm rather annoyed at having to replenish his store of pencils every now and then and I'm certainly outraged about the parents who allow their children to get away with a stolen pencil or two.
I share with both parents their outrage at this sort of 'crime' being committed by such young children. However, my two cents about this is that parents, not schools or the MOE, bear the main responsibility for bringing up children who will not steal. Unfortunately, there are, obviously, parents who do not believe in doing this.
The son has 'lost' stationery items several times in his own classroom, right under the teachers' noses, I'm sure. Apparently, people borrow these pencils and other things, don't return them, and then claim they never took them in the first place. I'm told that it is common for kids to lose pencils, erasers, etc. This is news to me because it was definitely uncommon when I was in school.
If these 'minor' thieving incidents can take place in the classroom, I don't know how schools are going to prevent theft from taking place in the library, canteen or anywhere else. Teachers are teachers, not policemen and women. While schools can be vigilant and haul up culprits whenever they can be found or caught, the more important role lies with the parents who find their children coming home with things that don't belong to them. I can't think of good reasons why any parent out there should close an eye to their child keeping things which are labelled with the names of other children.
One of the parents suggested that there should be 'more' moral education. Again, no matter how much moralising is done in school, children, ultimately, learn values from example, experience and sustained action and these are most effectively gained from interaction within family life. It is very difficult for the school to give children the experience of having to be honest, for example, but there is so much that can be done by the home.
On a separate note, I must say that the way moral education is conducted does leave room for a lot more to be done, and to be done better. The son's school implements the much-lauded Character First! programme. My first 'complaint' is the way it is conducted. Based on what he says, the teacher tells a story that is supposed to illustrate the value in question. The value is linked to an animal that supposedly embodies that particular value. The children are then given a handout with the relevant animal to colour. Now, apart from some head knowledge, some rather questionable links between the values and certain animals (e.g. 'a lion always tells the truth'... duh!), and quite a bit of grief -- on his part anyway -- colouring the picture, I don't know how much can really be internalised. Couldn't they at least inject a bit more fun and reality into the whole thing? For example, instead of colouring the animals (even though they are part of the actual programme), they could use stories with a local context, role play, dramatisation, newspaper articles, etc.
And I really must complain about those animal pictures. They are either forest animals depicted in a wooded area (hence resulting in a rather dull brownish theme) or huge animals such as the elephant or lion. How inspiring can colouring such pictures be??
My other complaint is the values chosen by the school. Out of some 49 values, the first few chosen have been those relating largely to the child's behaviour in school, e.g. attentiveness, obedience and orderliness. Only recently did 'truthfulness' make an appearance. I suppose over a number of years, other values will be touched on but I would certainly prefer it if 'generosity', 'sincerity', 'patience', and even 'flexibility' and the like were 'brought forward'. If some homes do not stress true character and teach honesty and respect for others and the property of others, and schools, for their own reasons, set a higher premium on behavioural traits, there will be many loopholes in children's moral upbringing. This is not even taking into account instances where there is a clash between what is advocated by the school and what is accepted by the home.
Anyway, another thing I must teach the son is to report straightaway when he loses things so the poor teacher can spend some of her precious time investigating the case of the missing yellow colour pencil, or whatever the case may be. I'm sorry to inflict this on his teachers but I'm rather annoyed at having to replenish his store of pencils every now and then and I'm certainly outraged about the parents who allow their children to get away with a stolen pencil or two.
Comments