last day...
Today is the last day of school. It might as well be the last day of my university life. Well, it might be. I came home with the intention of starting my last lit paper (alliteration!). But I guess blogging about this is more important. I was bugging me since this morning when I read the newspaper. Not to blog about this would have surmounted to a pure disregard of my university education as well as Dr. Abra*ham.
I am going to talk about a letter in the forum of The Straits Times. It is a reply by the Min*istry of Education, a potential employer if I might just add. The reply was to a father's, Mr. Tan, concern about his daughter career which appeared in the same forum on Tuesday, 15th April. Suffice to say, I'm not pleased with the reply that the ministry has given.
If I had not read the letter from Tuesday, I might have been placated by the reply given in today's forum. Unfortunately for the ministry, I did happen to read the letter from Tuesday and I thought that the ministry had totally skirted the real issue raised by Mr. Tan.
The main gist of the Tuesday letter was that Mr. Tan's daughter had applied to further her studies overseas. During this period, she would have to take no-pay leave. However, while she had no qualms about this, she did have an issue with the fact that there would be no teacher sent to replace her in her absence. The only way that the school could get a replacement teacher was if she had left the profession. In order not to disadvantage her students, she decided to leave her job so that a new teacher could come in. She was then a Head of Department. Mr. Tan then talked about how she then got a scholarship from an Australian university and might decide to stay there in the long term. This will result in a brain drain.
The reply today from the ministry was mainly about how the ministry could not hold Mr. Tan's daughter's school position while she was studying and that the ministry was looking at different ways that could allow more teachers to further their studies without having them leave the profession. In a very indirect way the ministry states, and I quote, "the school can draw on the additional teacher posts MO*E will set aside while she is away for her studies." I take this to mean that the school can request for a replacement teacher.
I thought that the reply did not readily answer the most salient point of Mr. Tan's letter. I thought the most important point was that if Miss Tan had taken no-pay leave instead of quitting, there would be no replacement teacher. The reply should have concentrated on this point. Or at least state it more explicitly that the school is able to draw upon replacement teachers. By putting the point that the ministry cannot hold Miss Tan's position for her while she goes to study was totally irrelevant. The ministry sees this as the most important point of Mr. Tan's letter. However, if Miss Tan were so concerned about her position in school, she wouldn't have quit in the first place, she could have just taken the no-pay leave.
This letter just proves that most people usually emphasize the wrong points which results in the letter being not as effective as it could be. It's also quite frightening to know that a reply given by the Mini*stry of Education can be so... argumentally (no such word!) ineffective. No wonder kids these days whine instead of reason.
I am going to talk about a letter in the forum of The Straits Times. It is a reply by the Min*istry of Education, a potential employer if I might just add. The reply was to a father's, Mr. Tan, concern about his daughter career which appeared in the same forum on Tuesday, 15th April. Suffice to say, I'm not pleased with the reply that the ministry has given.
If I had not read the letter from Tuesday, I might have been placated by the reply given in today's forum. Unfortunately for the ministry, I did happen to read the letter from Tuesday and I thought that the ministry had totally skirted the real issue raised by Mr. Tan.
The main gist of the Tuesday letter was that Mr. Tan's daughter had applied to further her studies overseas. During this period, she would have to take no-pay leave. However, while she had no qualms about this, she did have an issue with the fact that there would be no teacher sent to replace her in her absence. The only way that the school could get a replacement teacher was if she had left the profession. In order not to disadvantage her students, she decided to leave her job so that a new teacher could come in. She was then a Head of Department. Mr. Tan then talked about how she then got a scholarship from an Australian university and might decide to stay there in the long term. This will result in a brain drain.
The reply today from the ministry was mainly about how the ministry could not hold Mr. Tan's daughter's school position while she was studying and that the ministry was looking at different ways that could allow more teachers to further their studies without having them leave the profession. In a very indirect way the ministry states, and I quote, "the school can draw on the additional teacher posts MO*E will set aside while she is away for her studies." I take this to mean that the school can request for a replacement teacher.
I thought that the reply did not readily answer the most salient point of Mr. Tan's letter. I thought the most important point was that if Miss Tan had taken no-pay leave instead of quitting, there would be no replacement teacher. The reply should have concentrated on this point. Or at least state it more explicitly that the school is able to draw upon replacement teachers. By putting the point that the ministry cannot hold Miss Tan's position for her while she goes to study was totally irrelevant. The ministry sees this as the most important point of Mr. Tan's letter. However, if Miss Tan were so concerned about her position in school, she wouldn't have quit in the first place, she could have just taken the no-pay leave.
This letter just proves that most people usually emphasize the wrong points which results in the letter being not as effective as it could be. It's also quite frightening to know that a reply given by the Mini*stry of Education can be so... argumentally (no such word!) ineffective. No wonder kids these days whine instead of reason.
Labels: d.o.a.
posted by alvin_c at 6:13 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home