hold open house for parents to sit in as 'students' to experience learning today.

It is very different from 20 years ago when the parents themselves study.

We no longer read from textbooks or notes directly from page 1 to page n, expect students to mug till their death to score their A's... We are doing so much more now and we need to bridge the huge gap between the conceptions of education in the past to that of today. We have moved away significantly from teacher imparting knowledge to students model towards that of student centred learning. Jargons like cooperative learning, constructivism, inquiry based learning and more can be introduced to parents and they can be 'invited' to such lessons (especially those better lesson plans that won the Most Innovative Teaching Awards in schools) and experience for themselves the difference in teaching and learning.

Wait... MOE Excelf Fest is open to the public (at least in 1 year as far as I remember) and parents can experience it if they are keen. Perhaps we should market and promote it more effectively...

-------
I ought to get some sleep, but my nose keeps running away...

This blog was found and a standard comment was left (unpublished since I rejected it) by the same group of people who were spreading the message of "Have you seen the CSE programme, judge for yourself" kind of comment all around some forums in Singapore. I rejected it because I do not want people to start discussing about the same points over and over again in this quiet blog of mine. But I'm raising it up now because MOE has finally spoken up on the issue and I feel that we can now comment on the case of CSE with an almost complete picture in mind.

Yes, I read the CSE programme outline (including other parts that were not highlighted). Personally, I find that it adheres to MOE guidelines clearly in 95% or more of its programme and the other 5% or less are areas that can be debatable. Let's be clear also, the 5% that is debatable refers to the keywords like homosexuality that were supposedly placed under "neutral", and here's my take on that 5%.

Before you get to be a qualified teacher in Singapore, you have to go through a teacher training programme with NIE. And one of the most important thing you learn in NIE is to write a lesson plan for your intended lesson. The CSE guide, in my opinion, was a form of a lesson plan. A lesson plan details the learning outcomes you would like in your lesson, how you achieve the outcomes, the activities/materials to be used and address potential problems/questions that you are likely to face. It is the blueprint of your lesson and one will have to write countless of such lesson plans before you get to graduate from NIE. Trust me as I still have my thick binder of such lesson plans.

Lesson plans, as it is, is meaningless without the teacher/trainer. You can write the world's best lesson plan but if you can't deliver it well, it means nothing. NIE recognises this therefore, the most important part in our training is practicum where trainee put their lesson plan into actions. We are not judged based on our lesson plan but rather based on our ability to teach and improvise our lesson plan accordingly. The best person to judge AWARE's CSE would be the teachers who were observing the lessons when it was conducted.

The ice-breaker activity that was under dispute was a common teaching strategy. Get students to list words related to a topic and ask them to classify those words accordingly, and get them to justify the reasons for doing so. This is somewhat similar to the concept development model by Hilda Taba as the students will be the ones actively developing the concepts of sex and sexuality themselves. So if my educated guess is correct, the role of the trainer is to facilitate the discussion rather than directing the discussion herself. I know I'm 90% correct because you can find such descriptions in their lesson plan

Facilitation tip: If participants list a particular word as positive and negative, ask them what makes the shift from negative to positive.

They facilitate and they seek the response of participants rather than giving their own response. The main points of debate come from the suggested points of discussion for some key words for trainers to use. One such example can be found below.

10. Homosexual – people have different preferences for their partners. Homosexuality is perfectly normal. Just like heterosexuality, it is simply the way you are. Homosexuals also form meaningful relationships, and face the same emotional issues that heterosexuals do. The Singapore law does not recognize homosexuality and deems homosexual sexual activities as unnatural.

Homosexuality is normal is also suggested in Health Promotion Board's website, the guide also acknowledge that Singapore's law does not allow for it and it repeat's our government's stand with respect to the issue. It aims to inform students about homosexuality in accordance to the norms as required by the government.

Some parents are also alarmed by the suggested response written about anal sex, which I will not reproduce here. I understand why some people will be uncomfortable with the neutral/positive response towards it but remember anal sex is legal in Singapore between consenting adults.

Another common argument is that with all this homosexuality and anal sex points in the CSE guide, it seems that AWARE is trying to promote alternative lifestyle. But let's remember that this is a student-centred lesson, if the students themselves did not bring up anal sex or homosexuality during the activity, I doubt that anal sex or homosexuality will be discussed in the class at all unless the situation calls for it. It is important for the lesson plan to spell out as many words related to sex or sexuality as possible so their trainers will be prepared for lesson. The students will lose respect for their trainers if they failed to respond adequately, so it is better to list down such words and be prepared, in case they seem dumbstruck when anal sex was discussed. You will need to sit through such a lesson before we can come to a conclusion if AWARE did cross the line or not.

How can I be sure of that? Just look at the comments meant for the trainers

Trainers should familiarize themselves with concepts of respect, consent, sexual rights and gender in order to conduct discussion around these words. An attempt should be made to help the participants realize that what they think about sex and their bodies has been influenced by their family, religion and society. This is an integral part of understanding the meaning of sexuality. Understanding this will help them understand why they make certain decisions.

In the event that the workshop participants are 12-13 year olds, trainers must take the lead in explaining the meaning of the terms used. Do not assume that the participants know/are aware of what contraceptives, oral sex or anal sex means. Take the time to explain the terms and in the event of lack of time, do not attempt to facilitate discussion on each word on the list

Most likely, the participants will come from different family background, religion etc. And their decision to list words like homosexuality in neutral, positive or negative terms will be influence by such factors too. This, in my opinion, is a good way to help students understand why their friends make certain decisions to list homosexuality different from them rather than simply telling them what is right and what is wrong. We have to look at the CSE on the whole and look into the context of the situation rather than judge based on a few lines.

Another fact is that the whole activity is meant to last for only 15 minutes and there are 20 words listed in the lesson plan. If you read off the whole lesson plan word by word, completed with the table etc, you would likely to have taken up the whole 15 minutes, isn't it? Of course, I can't tell for sure because I did not sit in for the lesson, neither did majority of those armchair critics. It will be most unwise to jump to conclusions based on the lesson plan. NIE do not pass students based on their lesson plan, they pass them because they can teach in class. We should do the same for AWARE. Let's not judge their CSE based on their lesson plan, but based on their actual lesson.

(In case you are not aware, experienced teachers do not always follow their lesson plan, they will adapt according to the situation based on feedback from students on the spot and other factors so the lesson plan changes as they go along)

The main problem, perhaps, with AWARE's CSE program is that they left the discussion on such controversial issues open for students. General paper were also under attack as students are required to discuss issues related to homosexuality critically in lesson to hone their thinking and writing skills, but a CSE program may not be a suitable platform to do such a thing. Especially when you are dealing with young teens around 12 to 14 as they may not be ready to discuss such controversial issues critically hence may be easily influenced if the discussion goes haywire. But certainly I do not see the 'Pro' homosexuality message in their program. In fact, I thought that it was a pretty well written lesson plan that may not be suitable for the intended audience (for the ice-breaker part)

And finally, the point of using neutral terms such as partners instead of husbands in discussion to be more inclusive was to reach out to homosexual teens and get the message out to them, as explained by AWARE. From the educator's point of view, this is a valid reason to use terms such as partners. We are warned against bias towards any gender, racial, socioeconomic background and whatsover. For example, when we teach physics, if we kept using trucks and race cars as examples, we will lose our female audience as they may not be interested in the examples as race cars are more likely to appeal to males. (Though I'm still guilty of using race cars a bit too often myself). Unfortunately, some may not be ready to accept such an explanation as they prefer to interpret it as a 'Pro-gay' stance instead.

The AWARE's CSE may be a well written lesson plan based on sound educational background and theories, but Singapore may not be ready for it (We still need to focus on the heterosexual family unit rather than being too inclusive). The lesson plan is meant for a trainer who knows how to use it, and not meant for the public to judge it. Now that AWARE and all other agencies will have to submit their CSE for validation with MOE, hopefully this will end all discussion on the CSE affair.

Now, I have said my last piece on the saga. It's time to move on.
---------------------------------------
I thought it's time to move on... but here goes...

To the gentleman? who's comments keep getting rejected from me. Please stop as I would not publish your comments linking to your website. Neither do I want to engage in any debates in the comments area. If you would like to leave any comments, please use the cbox instead. Thank you.

Do they know what is meant by "confidential"?

Do they realise why there is a sign that says "photography of materials not allowed"?

Do they understand why such materials are not allowed to be brought out of the room and back to their own school?

I'm sure that they do, after all, they are suppose to educate the future of our nation.

Then why did they make a copy of it when given the chance to? The intention may be noble but their actions are disgraceful to say the least. And the sheer number of them doing it is an insult to the profession to me.

Today, I am totally disgusted.

All the mis-information, false claims, crazy conjectures and consipiracy theories online as a result of the AWARE saga. All the backstabbing, smear campaign and throlls, perhaps the key to get our citizens ready for the information age, to be able to think for themselves is through PW. Where students learn how to think critically and learn how to question logically, challenge their own assumptions and misconceptions. Hopefully they will learn well from PW.

Do not mistake for conspiracy and intrigue what can best be explained by stupidity and incompetence

I spend $40 to sign up as an associate member of AWARE and attended the 7 hour marathon EGM last Saturday. The atmosphere was electricfying and the old guard really proved their point that Josie Lau's team is incompetent to lead AWARE. Here's some of the observations I made that was not reported by the press.


Info pack from the old guard

1.) The old guard helpers came in different age, race, gender and other background, dress in white and red tee with 'we-are-aware' written on it while JL's helpers came in red with 'pro family' messages written and were mostly Chinese aged 30s plus. Some of the old guard helpers were young and fashionable ladies who modified their tee that they wore. Both groups managed to organise their supporters to volunteer their service to help out in this event.

2.) The old guard helpers greeted us along the escalators all the way up to the registration booths. They passed around drinks and snacks and gave out information sheets to all voters. JL's helpers were suppose to give members a copy of the proposed amendments to the constitution for the EGM but they failed to do so. In fact, one red shirt gentlemen actually caused a bit of confusion in the queue not once but TWICE by leading people to the wrong queue and also getting others to cut queue. In that terms, the old guard are more experienced and better at handling such events compared to the JL and co. So it is 1-0 for the old guard

3.) During the EGM, JL had to constantly refer to their legal counsel for advice or re-direct questions to the legal counsel. E.g. On why the male chapter is removed, the answer was the constitution did not provide for one. When asked why sub-committee heads were removed the answer was the constitution says the term lapse after AGM etc. However, when it was mentioned that JL's actions were not constitutional, e.g. that sub-committee members have the right to appoint their own head but they ignored, that they need to consult members to spend $20,000 or above in a month which they hadn't done so. The series of quickfire exchanges between the old guards and JL shows that JL's team is indeed incapable of leading AWARE as they really know nothing about AWARE. 2-0 for the old guard

4.) Most of the questions came from the old guard's supporter and they queued up for the microphone to ask questions in an orderly manner. JL's team asked for opinions from different perspective on several occasions but her supporters were largely silent or when they speak, they were incoherent or downright insensitive. For example, one such supporter said that $120000 - $90000 = $30000 gain when referred to the points that JL's team spend $90000 in 3 weeks but managed to get in 3000 new members for AWARE, totally missing the point that AWARE is a NGO and that amount of money should be better spent on programs to help the marginalised etc. The fact that JL's managed to garnered about 35% of the votes in her favour but failed to get even a single person making a strong stand for her leadership also show that her supporters are not able to answer the old guard's critics nor find any constructive points of their short term in office. 3-0 to the old guard.


Many supporters turn up and are enjoying this occasion. Many old friends met up.

5.) When the old guard is in trouble, you get NMP Mr Siew Kum Hong supporting them, you get other lawyers giving legal counsel pro bono, you get TV artists like Irene Ang speaking up for them, you get NUS lecturers speaking up for them, you get people from all walks of life, different professions, racial background, religious background (Buddhist, Christians, Atheist and Muslims) etc speaking up for them. When JL's team is in trouble, no one from outside their circle speaks up for them. This fact along speaks volume of the differences in status, respect, moral authority that the old guard has compared to JL's team. 4-0 to the old guard.

6.) JL's team, which came from the corporate culture hence would not bat an eyelid for spending $90,000 within weeks was ill-suited to NGO culture which a lot is about consensus, inclusiveness and working for nothing. Some of the JL's team members spoke of working hard till 4am in the morning just to make things work, but they seemed to forget that the old guard spent 24 years of their life building AWARE up to today's level. In terms of personal sacrifice, we all know who made more and for a better cause. 5-0 to the old guard.

7.) That JL's team failed to recognise and understand some of the more subtle points put forward by the old guard. For example, JL's team quoted that CCTV were installed because of security reasons as there was a break in 5 years ago when the old guard pointed out that women in need will be turned away by the cameras. JL's team failed to realise that the basic needs of a desperate women is to be able to turn to help anoymously and the presence of their husbands and cameras in the centre will really turn away those who need help.

Also, when questioned if they knew about the monthly free legal clinic and that they failed to hold the recent free clinic, JL's team immediate response was to blame others for their failure. Such response from them clearly show that they are ignorant about how to help others.

That JL irresponsibly published the CSE guidelines meant for qualified trainers online and in the papers in order to prove her point that the old guard is pro-gays will caused confidential information be leaked out and may cause more harm than good if untrained people get hold of the information package but does not know how to implement it properly.

How could JL be sincere about helping other women when she and her team is oblivious to such basic facts is really a mystery to the old guards and many others. 6-0 to the old guards.

8.) JL's team managed to sit through 6 hours of constant grilling by the old guard on the hot seat proves their determination to hang on to their position till the very last hour. 1-6 as JL's team pulls one back on the old guard in this respect.

There are more observations but I don't think it will be suitable for me to share it here. What you can read online and from papers would be part of the story that the reporters get to report since the press were not allowed in until the old guard took over. Although a few reporters went in as members and the online community provided instant feedback, one will miss out the tone, the hesitation and lack of confidence in their words, the lack of direction that JL's team display and the responses of the people attending the EGM that day. It was truly an enriching experience.


Josie Lau trying to make her Presidential speech while many of the old guard supporters displayed their unhappiness at her by jeering her points that she made

Here's some of the classic and defining moments I experienced during the EGM.

a.) When NMP Siew sat with the old guards at the ordinary member (read female) area, JL's team protested and requested NMP Siew to move to the associate member (read mostly male) area. The old guard and NMP Siew refused but the mike on the ground was turned off (so much for engaging women as they even control when you speak and where you sit). When they finally managed to speak up via the microphone system, the old guard pointed out the following points.

• There is nothing in the constitution that separates the associate members from the ordinary members in a general meeting
• That JL's team member has her husband with her during AGM, so why is it that the husbands now have to be separated in this EGM
• That NMP Siew is a legal counsel for the old guard hence he has the right to be seated with the old guard.

b.) Self proclaimed feminist mentor Thio showed off her credentials as the first female law dean, proclaimed that the old guards supporters were hooligans, threaten that AWARE will be gone if they do not abide to the constitution, and barked that people should show her respect as she is an elder etc. In responses, several men and women took up her challenge and retorted

• Respect needs to be earned
• That she is a women and she would not want her to be her mentor
• That in other religions (e.g. Buddhism) and according to Health Promotion Board, being a homosexual doesn't make you less normal. Hence proving FM Thio's points about AWARE's Comprehensive Sex Education in the press conference previously as superfluous.

c.) The fact that JL's team asked for security to escort some of the old guards out because they disrupted Josie's presidential speech, that she wanted the security to escort all photographers out because some used the flash when she set the rule 'NO'. The fact that she had 4-5 security guards at the door step to inspect all bags, that she constantly have at least 2 security guards around her at all times. The fact that female security guards were stationed inside the washroom. The constant paranoia display by JL's team, I don't even remember so many security guards when an MP came to our school for visit.


Video recording by someone.

d.) That a Muslim father of 3 children, a self proclaimed conservative Christian and many others who stood up to express their support for AWARE's CSE program to prove to JL, FM Thio and co that there is a considerable group of Singaporeans who find CSE totally acceptable in their point of view cast doubts on their claims that majority of the Singaporean would be alarmed at the neutral words used for terms such as homosexuality and anal sex in CSE.

e.) Sally Ang told the old guard to "Shut up and Sit Down". In respond, the old guard supporters mentioned that today, we have to "Stand up and Speak up!" instead.

f.) Some old guard supporters thanked JL for making the old guard of AWARE household names in the past weeks because they have been working tirelessly in the background, fighting for the rights of women and other marginalized group without recognition from Singaporeans for 24 years and through this saga, many Singaporeans stood up and took notice of their fine achievements and contributions to our Nation.

g.) After the vote of no confidence results were out, JL needed half an hour to consult her legal advisor etc before deciding to step down, something that, the old guard rightly pointed out, someone else will just take one minute to do so.

h.) While waiting for JL's team to return from their private time to consider their positions after the vote of no confidence, the old guard got all their supporters to stand up and stretch out with some laughing exercise to lighten the tension in the hall.


Many engaged supporters in the EGM

i.) After the old guard decided to move the motion of removing JL's team as they failed to return 15 minutes later, the old guard reminded all of us to accept and welcome JL's team graciously with applause should they turn up on the stage later.

j.) Many old guard supporters stayed late till the last committee member was elected into AWARE, long after the last of JL's supporter left. The smiles of victories, the old guard helpers embracing each other, the signs of believe that the worse for AWARE is over in everybody's face. The passion and emotions running among the old guard, this is an organisation who truly believe and is making a difference in Singapore.

In the end, JL's team was booted out. Throughout the EGM, JL's team still maintained her knower's stance as she kept ordering the old guards, supporters, and security guards around. This stance is neatly summed up when FM Thio stood up in the EGM and proclaimed that the old guard were slacked and didn't care any more when they let others have the chance to take over in the AGM. How wrong can she be. Hopefully this won't repeat itself, there are plenty of avenues for Singaporeans to voice their concerns, and the last one to choose is to act like a saviour by taking over groups, and hopefully, this will not become as vicious as what some other groups have done in overseas.


The cheers from the old guard supporters, this is the day for them where they get their justice and take back their organisation.

NRP Award Ceremony 2009



Speech Day 2009
Enjoy!

Parents who hold MOE or other groups responsible for teaching their children morals are simply turning over their parental responsibility to the state.

- Let's talk to teens about sex Teaching kids morals is the duty of a parent, not schools or other groups (Straits Times 1 May 09)

By Chua Mui Hoong, Senior Writer

It's depressing at times, as a educators, to find parents putting the blame on us when we give in our 101% to educate their children. The kind of witch hunt going on among the loud minority can be pretty intimidating.