Commentary

I disagree with the author's claim that schools are producing illiterate students that are unable to communicate efficiently with effect of the abolishment of debate competitions and alocution lessons. It is indeed unfair to make this claim as there are alternative ways to develop and nurture communication skills in the children of today. Such others would include critical thinking exercises to be creative in their arguments against controversial issues and a wider emphasis on argumentative essays that is equivalent to having a debate, with pen against paper. Although students can further develop their communication skills by utilizing debates as suggested by the author, I feel it is imperative for them to be skilful at substantiating their ideas first before they take the next step to delivering a debate. As they say, you should learn to walk before you run. In Singapore, in our pre-university days we focus more on our writing skills as we built our fundamentals in communication in secondary school. Also, to spice things up, interclass debate sessions are held to let students gauge their previous performance with their current as well as learn from their mistakes to strive for excellence. Doesn't all this build on their literacy and communication skills? Thus the author is delusional to make such a claim.

The author also mentioned that we are devaluing knowledge as there is no requirement to remember anything. I disagree with his claim. In the past, we place heavy emphasis on rote learning as the examinations then were solely on memory. This might be what he considered to be a method of remembering, however in reality this would be very ineffective as people study without understanding how the knowledge can be applied into life. Progressively, they have been changing the questions asked in the examination that would require more application rather than regurgitation. This would then test on their understanding and critical thinking on the implications of the question, which in my opinion, actually adds value to it. The American system of assessment takes into account every piece of work throughout the semester. Thus, there is a greater scope of the topic covered as this extends out into projects over the internet. The internet is a fountain of knowledge that provides knowledge to people from people with different perspectives. As such, students are able to introduce new material into the classroom, whilst the past they were restricted to the teacher's range of knowledge. In Singapore, we are able to utilize the two forms of assessments, with a larger focus over the examinations. We feel that it is essential for students to have a greater understanding of the subject, so bringing in the occasional project works for greater analysis of the topics is effective. However, as ultimately what defines the future is the examination grades, we are trained consistently on scoring for the GCE A levels. Thus, the author is not right to say we are devaluing knowledge, merely passing it to the later generation differently.