As a student, I have had the unique experience of attending one of Singapore’s top-ranked local primary schools, where I sat for the PSLE, after which I transferred to Grade 6 in an international system school in Singapore. This journey gave me firsthand insight into the contrasts between the two systems, at the same grade level, which I would like to share with you.
I compare the main factors which I believe impact student outcomes – the school’s approach to academics, and the school’s culture and expectations surrounding students. I explain how these influence the social-emotional development and well-being of students.
I was driven to write this as an expression of my personal experience. I recognise that others may have a different experience, but I hope you will appreciate my reflections of this time in my life.
Academics
Local:
My local primary school placed a significant emphasis on academic performance, often at the expense of holistic learning. The large number of students per teacher (about 40 in a class) meant that individual attention was scarce. Teachers would often rush through the curriculum since almost all children attended tuition outside school. And teaching was heavily focused on what would be tested in the PSLE.
In Primary 6 specifically, most of the year was spent revising and rote-memorising what had been taught previously to prepare us to take the PSLE. We learnt almost nothing new the whole year.
International:
My international school adopted a more student-centric approach to academics, with smaller class sizes (about 25 in a class) and a better teacher-student ratio. This setup allowed teachers to cater more to individual learning styles and needs.
The curriculum was more holistic, designed to promote reflection, understanding and application of knowledge, rather than rote memorization. Assessments were as frequent but more broad-based, including project-based work, group work, and using real-life scenarios, rather than just standard written tests. The focus of teaching was on students’ overall development and critical thinking skills, rather than delivering a set curriculum.
Culture & Expectations
Local:
The culture at my local school was characterised by a hierarchical and competitive environment. Bullying amongst students was a significant issue, often inadequately addressed by the administration. Discipline was enforced through embarrassment and shaming, rather than constructive feedback.
Frequent high-stakes testing and the pressure to excel create a stressful environment for both students and teachers. Negative reinforcement, such as being put down by teachers and peers, was common, further dampening students’ enthusiasm for learning.
Students at my local school often found themselves with little time for hobbies or personal activities due to a packed schedule. Almost all students attended tuition after school. The school’s strict homework policies and many teachers’ use of shaming as a disciplinary method added to the stress.
Parental pressure to excel in exams was immense, driven by the fear of not making it to a good secondary school. This competitive atmosphere fostered a negative mindset among peers, where students viewed each other as rivals rather than collaborators.
International:
In contrast, my international school promoted an inclusive and diverse school culture, where mutual respect was emphasised. Strict anti-bullying policies ensured a safe and supportive environment for all students. Teachers were much more approachable and supportive. The school’s commitment to diversity taught students to appreciate and respect differences, fostering a sense of community.
When behaviour issues occurred, the school sought to hear and understand the student’s perspective and put in place a plan to support the student in their area of need, if necessary, rather than using shame or punishment to get to the desired behaviour. This created a positive atmosphere conducive to learning, self-esteem and personal growth.
There was also a more balanced approach to stress management and academic pressure. Structured academic labs offered students time for independent study, ensuring they also had time for personal interests outside of school. Homework policies were reasonable, with time allocated during school hours to complete most assignments.
The focus on holistic development encouraged students to explore their personal academic and non-academic interests and manage stress effectively. Healthy competition was promoted, with a focus on personal growth and reflection, rather than rivalry with other students.
Student Well-Being
Local:
The high-stress environment often manifested itself in physical symptoms among young students, such as headaches and stomachaches. There was not much support from teachers and counsellors. The counsellor would talk to students or hear them out, but rarely was there any follow-up plan to address the issues raised. This meant students were often left to deal with their emotional issues by themselves. This approach lead to negative coping mechanisms among many students, and a diminished sense of well-being.
International:
In contrast, the international school I was at, placed a strong emphasis on student well-being. The counsellors seemed better trained and more professional (some were psychologists by training), and were more available to address students’ emotional and mental health needs. There was a higher ratio of counsellors to students, and counsellors would follow up with students to ensure that issues were resolved, or students were equipped to handle the challenges they were facing.
Teachers played a crucial role in helping students filter positive influences into their lives. They prioritised creating a supportive environment, ensuring students had the resources to manage stress and thrive. Proactive measures are taken to address and prevent stress-related issues, fostering a healthier school experience.
This nurturing environment taught students that they did not have to face challenges alone, promoting a balanced approach to handling life’s challenges. It helped build trust and self-esteem among students and educators. The supportive atmosphere encouraged students to seek help when needed, fostering self-love and confidence.
So Which Is Better?
I believe this comparison between my two schools highlights significant differences in the overall educational approaches of both systems. While my local school focused primarily on academic performance and fostered a competitive atmosphere, it often did so at the expense of students’ social-emotional development and well-being, especially in the more competitive/ elite/ ‘good’ schools.
In contrast, my international school placed a strong emphasis on holistic development, creating a supportive and inclusive environment that nurtured students’ individual learning as well as overall growth and well-being. Its strength lay in its ability to cater to the diverse needs of students, and provide adequate resources for supporting student learning and well-being, thus promoting not only academic excellence but also emotional and social development.
Ultimately, the goal of education should be to develop well-rounded individuals equipped with the skills to navigate life’s challenges. A more holistic and inclusive approach to education, which prioritises student well-being and a balanced lifestyle, could serve as a model for our local primary school system, and provide students with a more robust foundation for their future endeavours.
Written by Zoya Parkier
