Essay Draft 3

Social Consequences of Income Inequality on Education in Singapore

Singapore is an open and small country with a Gini coefficient of 0.478 as of 2012, higher than neighboring countries (Ngerng, 2013). The issue of income inequality is one that brings much unhappiness and tension towards society and would affect any country politically, economically and socially if not handled well.  As mentioned by Goldin (2009) in his TED talk, globalization is not inclusive, and income inequality is worsening. Ashdown (2011) has also identified that wealth has been concentrated in a minority in recent years making the disparity between the high-income earners and the low-income earners bigger than ever before. Thus, with an increasing income gap between the top income earners and low income earners, social impacts on educational opportunities and social mobility within the society is greater than ever before. The Singapore government should not only focus on financial aid, but instead give attention to equalizing educational opportunities to keep social mobility up.

However, in Singapore, because educational opportunities are not equalized, they tend to benefit the rich who are more influential and have more networks. These would indirectly affect a child’s chances of being accepted into a better endowed primary school and impact the child’s subsequent academic performance (Edweb). For example, the admission criteria of primary schools mostly come with the efforts of parents’ contributions to the school. This includes alumni involvement, regular parent volunteering and recommendations from an active community service leader or church organization directly linked to the school. This clearly gives the rich more advantages to enroll their children into better or more popular schools, giving them a better head-start into their education journey while widening the gap of educational achievements (Wells, 2005, p. 11).

As shown in Table 1 (Minstry of Education, 2013), phase 2B, parents have to rely on volunteering their services to the school or connections with community service leaders. Even though this may encourage parents to play a more active role in serving the community, this would generally motivate the parents who can afford to spend their time on these activities. Singapore, being one of the most expensive cities in the world (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2014), has a high cost of living. Most low-income families would have both parents working in order to cope with the high and rising cost. Thus, the time spent at work will reduce the amount of time to participate in such activities.

Eligibility	Primary One Registration Phase
For children who are Singapore Citizens or Singapore Permanent Residents	Phase 1 For a child who has a sibling studying in the primary school of choice
	Phase 2A (1) (a) For a child whose parent is a former student of the primary school and who has joined the alumni association as a member not later than 30 June 2012. (b) For a child whose parent is a member of the School Advisory / Management Committee
	Phase 2A (2) (a) For a child whose parent or sibling has studied in the primary school of choice (b) For a child whose parent is a staff member of the primary school of choice
	Phase 2B (a) For a child whose parent has joined the primary school as a parent volunteer not later than 1 July 2012 and has given at least 40 hours of voluntary service to the school by 30 June 2013 (b) For a child whose parent is a member endorsed by the church/clan directly connected with the primary school (c) For a child whose parent is endorsed as an active community leader
	Phase 2C For all children who are eligible for Primary One in the following year and are not yet registered in a primary school
	Phase 2C Supplementary For a child who is not yet registered in a school after Phase 2C

Table 1: Registration Phases and Procedures

As we are moving towards a fair and inclusive society where all schools are good schools, we need to improve on the current system and give all students an equal chance to enroll in their ideal school regardless of their parents’ socio-economic status.

The Straits Times (2013) has reported that the government has decided to make the system fairer by reserving 40 seats and dividing it fairly between phase 2B and 2C for students with no prior connections. This is a slight improvement from the previous system where no concession was given, and it would ensure that 20 places be available for balloting giving more opportunities for those who have no connections. This helps to ensure that popular primary schools with good performance records in the “Primary School Leaving Examination” (PSLE) are not kept within the elites or the rich who are able to secure places through alumni involvement or regular volunteering.

Even though the 40 places may prove to be good in assuring a more impartial way of selection, the rich would still be able to use the balloting criteria or put more commitment into these alumni activities in order to gain priority to get their children through the system in phase 2B. Also, Phase 2B offers a religion organization endorsement as criteria, if the school is connected to a clan, putting priority of some religion over others, which goes against Singapore’s main values of equality. This should not be the case, especially when primary school education is compulsory under Singapore’s laws (Minstry of Education, 2000).

In this context, I would like to suggest removing phase 2B completely, removing alumni connection or parent volunteering. There are always other measures in order to get parents involved in a child’s education journey, without having to place them as admission advantages. This would help to ensure that all schools receive a random distribution of students. The different abilities of students will increase the dynamics among students and enriches the school’s culture, moving closer to a Singapore where all schools are good schools. More importantly, this will help to equalize educational opportunities and the lower income group will not be denied a chance to enter a school with better academic performance.

Although this suggested solution may be tough to implement in the short-run as it would bring about much disapproval from the rich and influential, thus this solution may only be achieved in the long-run. Giving all students an equal starting point is crucial to ensure that social mobility is up and equally accessed by anyone regardless of their background. Only with fair opportunities, will there be healthy competition in the economy.

[850 words]

Works Cited

Ashdown, P. (December, 2011). The Global Power Shift. [Video] Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/paddy_ashdown_the_global_power_shift.html?source=facebook#.Uvj0BmChr9I.facebook

Edweb. (n.d.). Edweb. Retrieved from The Walls Speak: The Interplay of Quality Facilities, School Climate, and : http://edweb.sdsu.edu/schoolhouse/documents/wallsspeak.pdf

Goldwin, I. (July, 2009). Navigating our global future. [Video] Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/ian_goldin_navigating_our_global_future?language=en

Minstry of Education. (2000). Compulsory Education. Retrieved from Minstry of Education: http://www.moe.edu.sg/initiatives/compulsory-education/

Minstry of Education. (2013). Registration Phases and Procedures. [Table] Retrived from http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/admissions/primary-one-registration/phases/

Ngerng, R. (21 Feburary , 2013). The Heart Truths. Retrieved from http://thehearttruths.com/2013/02/21/singapore-has-the-highest-income-inequality-compared-to-the-oecd-countries/

Straits Times. (19 August, 2013). 40 places in every primary school reserved in phase 2B and 2C from 2014: MOE. The Straits Times. Retrieved from: http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/40-places-every-primary-school-reserved-phase-2b-and-2c-2014-moe-20130

The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2014). Worldwide Cost of Living 2014 survey. Retrieved from The Economist Intelligence Unit: http://www.todayonline.com/business/singapore-now-worlds-most-expensive-city-economist

Wells, R. (2005). Education’s Effect on Income Inequality: A Further Look. Los Angeles: California Center for Population Research. Retrieved from http://www.ccpr.ucla.edu/publications/conference-proceedings/CP-05-054.pdf

­