This blog was found and a standard comment was left (unpublished since I rejected it) by the same group of people who were spreading the message of "Have you seen the CSE programme, judge for yourself" kind of comment all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 listMost 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.
Posts
