Why should primary schools matter so much?

I find it rather strange when parents place so much emphasis on the selection of primary schools. Personally, I do not think that the choice of schools matter at all at the primary level!

Let me state this simply: I think that primary schools are all about the same. There may be one or two that are particularly famous, such as Rosyth, but the fame of the school does not translate into better education for the students - in other words, I still think there is very little substantive difference between Rosyth and another 'average' school. I'm not saying that the famous primary schools do not provide good education; instead, my point is that all primary schools can provide rather good education for your children.

So what differentiates the so-called 'top' primary schools from those that are not so prestigious? I think the only difference is the climate of competition: top primary schools are probably more competitive. My personal preference is to send my children to less competitive schools, because I do not see the point of forcing them to cross swords with the smartest kids when they are so young. As far as primary education is concerned, I would rather see them develop at their own pace, and build up the self-esteem and confidence that I regard as much more important than results per se.

In fact, I also do not think that secondary schools matter much. I know that many people will disagree with this view, but that's alright, because that's what the 'comments function' on this blog is for! :) Basically, I tend to think that there must be a 'fit' between the individual and the school itself - in terms of affinity for competition/tolerance for a kiasu culture, English- versus Mandarin-speaking orientation, and social class of the majority of the students (e.g. some schools are full of rich kids, and a child from a poorer family may not fit in so well). Thus, schools like Raffles Institution may not provide the best environment for the academic development of every student, contrary to what many parents think. For some students, even if they can make it to the top schools, they might be better off studying in an average secondary school. The above argument applies to junior colleges too.

I have seen many people who had been star performers at one or more of the three levels (primary, secondary, and JC). But they failed to shine when it came to university, for some reason. Conversely, there are many who did not shine at all, or 'fumbled' at one or more of the three levels, but performed brilliantly at university. The moral of the story is this: every stage of education is a new game.

Hence, this is my central argument: that primary schools really do not matter. A weaker version of this argument will apply to secondary schools: that is, secondary schools may not matter as much as parents think (although they may matter as far as the 'disciplinary culture' of the schools are concerned). An even weaker version of this argument will apply to JCs: that is, JCs may not matter that much, unless parents want their kids to aim for the various competitive scholarships. At all three levels, it is the 'fit' between the student and the school that is important, which means that a student may well find that school X, which is ranked somewhere in the middle, is best for his or her personal and academic development, given his or her academic power, personality, and social background.

So parents, please relax, don't be so kan-cheong....! :) It's definitely not the end of the world if your child cannot or chooses not to enter a top primary school, secondary school, or junior college!