There used to be a predominant belief that our social studies syllabus represents a form of political education for our students, albeit for our ruling party. Well, if students are taught to accept whatever that is given on the plate and not question, perhaps that can be seen as a form of indoctrination.
Yet, when I caught up with a former colleague of mine who is currently in the teaching service, it did raised my hope that the current social studies program can ironically be a good source of sociopolitical education. The learning material is one thing, and much depends on the facilitator or educator. Why is this so? Well, if the educator simply tells the students to digest whatever textbook material that is printed, then that is really indoctrination, NOT education. However, it came as a comfort when I heard my colleague’s account on how social studies are taught at the ground level. Basically, students investigate the sociopolitical phenomenon and realities in other countries and compare them with Singapore, and then come to their conclusion regarding the realities in Singapore. Thus, it is a form of inquiry and investigative-based learning whereby students are encouraged to explore nations outside Singapore, and then compare the benefits and drawbacks of different systems.
As with the current science syllabus that promotes inquiry-based learning, teachers do try and achieve the same for social studies.
There is indeed room for improvement in the way educators conduct sociopolitical education for students. As with science where there is a field studies component in which students go outside and collect data, the same can be done for social studies. For instance, students can take on a project, where they can sample the sentiments of different demographics of voters. They can interview each unique age group of voters and obtain data on their views towards various political parties and the policies advocated by the latter. Or they can capture the views of ruling party and opposition voters.
Detractors who do not agree to the inclusion of such field studies components may cite the fact that such an approach will lead to partisanship. Ironically, that form of reasoning in effect shot these detractors in their own foot. Partisanship arises from the fact that students are exposed to only one version that is advocated by the textbook authorities within our education ministry. Hence, discouraging students to explore versions other than that of the ministry’s is in itself a promotion of partisanship. Such field works or projects encourages students to explore multiple versions of sociopolitical realities in Singapore and come to their own conclusion. Thus, in a way, it is a form of inquiry-based learning that defeats partisanship.
There is a belief among some that our youths nowadays are politically apathetic. Others are more optimistic and believe that youths are capable of more. Regardless of their level of political knowledge, educators have an important part to play in sharpening the intellectual tools of our young to raise their “political intelligence quotient” to a new level.
