SBQ Comparison

Singapore’s Education System after 1965

Similarity• The sources are similar in telling us about the

S’pore government’s efforts in reforming the education system.

Similarly,

Source B shows that the government through the Ministry of Education (MOE) was actively involved in planning the allocation of educational resources. This can be seen where MOE has to deal with managing the costs and subsidies of the different courses, and make difficult decisions to rank their importance.

Other acceptable criteria for similarity

• The government was placing emphasis on education

• The government was investing a lot on education.

Unacceptable criteria

• How the education system helped the economy.• The presence of the changes in the education

system.• Education and its importance towards the society

then.• That education has improved.• How to boost the economy in Singapore

Difference• The sources are different in telling us about the

different areas of focus of the education system in S’pore.

Source A shows that (infer) the focus of educational improvement was on language skills in schools.

(relevant source evidence) This can be seen in Source A where the government had made it compulsory that “every pupil should offer a second language in the PSLE with effect from 1966”.

(explain) By doing so, the government had quite clearly signalled their emphasis on students being bilingual whether or not they were from an English medium school.

Whereas / However,

Source B shows that the focus of educational improvement was on training technical skills in schools evidenced by the higher monetary costs incurred for students in technical and vocational courses. The source states that the cost per student in a technical stream per year was $420 per year” while that for those in vocational courses was $800 per year”. Subsidies given for technical training in tertiary courses in Polytechnics and Universities amounted to up to $5000 a year per engineering student.

Comparison of PurposeThe sources are similar in their purpose.

Source A (provenance) a speech made by Minister of State for Education, Abdul Rahim Ishak is targeted at(audience) the members of parliament & the public who might have been following parliamentary proceedings.

Source A’s message was that the government had done many things to improve the quality of education in Singapore by implementing English as a 2nd language in non-English Speaking schools.

I know this as Source A states that (relevant source evidence & explanation) during the last 2 years that English language instruction in Government-Aided Tamil Primary Schools has been put on a firm basis.

Source A’s intended outcome was to make Singaporeans appreciate and support the decisions made and work done by the government to improve the education system in Singapore.

Source B (provenance) by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew targeted (audience) is for students and staff of S’pore Poly and members of the public who read about the speech made in the newspapers.

Source B’s message was that education was expensive, especially vocational courses which cost more and that the government had to make difficult decisions about allocation of resources and subsidies.

I know this as Source B states that (relevant source evidence & explanation) we are subsidising the cost of an engineering student and the government is presented with a very difficult problem of priorities.

Source B’s intended outcome was to show Singaporeans the difficult decisions the government had to make in order that Singaporeans understood, appreciated and supported the decisions made and the work done by the government to improve the education system in Singapore.