Expanding the primary school curriculum to give boys and girls at that age exposure to formal tutoring in the arts and sports is a move in the right direction. It acknowledges these endeavours as part of the human capacity that goes beyond academic learning. That the SEA exam will test the boys and girls in those areas of activities sends the right signal to the entire society-that human beings are wonderfully varied and complex and their intelligences and skills cannot and should not be restricted to a few academic subjects. That has the potential to show that the value of a human being cannot be determined according to a very narrow range of criteria.
Increasingly, sport and art are not part-time sideline activities, with athletes and artists having to "moonlight" at some "serious" occupation to earn a living. Indeed, internationally, those at the top of their professions earn 20 times more than bankers, doctors and lawyers. Even those who don't grow up to be world-class athletes or world-famous artists can derive enjoyment and improve their mental and physical health from such pursuits. These are good habits to get into for a lifetime, not just at school. So having young people acquire an appreciation of arts and sports at the primary-school level has many benefits. But changing the school curriculum to effect the change is only half the problem. Implementation is the other element.
In addition to the challenge to be faced by the bureaucracy to implement the system, finding the necessary personnel-teachers, coaches and administrators-is another, very different story. The question must be asked: are the human, physical and financial resources in place to facilitate this new SEA programme? The answer must be "No." People with such talent are not standing around on every corner waiting for someone to call them for a job. Moreover, being a talented sportsman or artist does not necessarily qualify the individual to pass on his or her knowledge and expertise. Whether new teachers are recruited specifically or teachers already in the system are mandated to teach these new elements of the syllabus, they will have to be trained and equipped with the ability to pass on the knowledge to students.
The attempt to implement the new programme within one year, then, is unrealistic. It is not that the programme cannot be started within the prescribed period-it is more that it will be lacking efficiency and quality at the start and there could be too long a learning curve for all involved.
Why must the children who are sitting next year's SEA be part of the new project? They will be guinea pigs for the new scheme. They have spent the current school year preparing for a particular type of examination-only to be told at this eleventh hour that they are required to do something quite different. Even the parents who protested yesterday outside the Education Ministry had no objection in principle to the new, wider curriculum. It was the timing and the manner of its introduction that make them concerned for their children. It would be fairer to begin introducing the new syllabus with the new intake of children who start school in September. They will have the opportunity to spend years developing their sporting and artistic abilities. If there are any drawbacks in the plan, there would be years to iron them out before those children actually have to face the exam. The new curriculum is an excellent idea. It will still be an excellent idea two, three or four years from now. It also entails a huge shift in both the mindset and the methods of teaching and learning-and change of that magnitude needs more time.
