In my last post on the education systems of Singapore and Finland, I have highlighted the differences between the two with regards to the area of student ranking and streaming, and high stakes examinations or testing. I have also indicated the difference in the two systems’ approach to assessment with Finland paying more emphasis on formative assessment. In this post, I will look at the difference in teacher quality and their approach to teaching in the classrooms.

In Finland, all teachers are required to have a Masters degree while those in Singapore varies. In Singapore usually for those teaching in the secondary schools and above they are required to have a degree and are usually chosen from the top one-third of the university cohort each year. Even then there are exceptions with some new Mother Tongue teachers having only GCE AO levels. In the lower levels, there are still many with just A levels and a growing number with university degrees. At the preschool levels, in child care centers and kindergartens, a minimum GCE O levels is the norm with certification in early childhood.

In Finland as has been mentioned in an earlier post, teaching is a highly regarded profession which is given as much status as even professionals like lawyers. In Singapore, while parents still in general defer to teachers and expects their school-going children to be respectful towards teachers, teaching does not enjoy the same position as other professionals. It is for this reason the Singapore government’s approach to attracting and retaining teachers has been through a quick succession of pay increases. No doubt the Ministry of Education (MOE) has also introduced different tracks for teacher mobility and career satisfaction within the teaching service but without a doubt it is the relatively high pay that has attracted and retained most of the teachers. In contrast in Finland, the Finnish National Board of Education has consistently sought to make good working conditions as the attraction of the teaching profession.

The difference in teacher quality is also seen in the approaches to teaching that is employed in the two countries. In Singapore because of the heavy emphasis on high stakes testing or examinations, the approach used has generally been a very traditional teacher-centered one where the teacher does most of the talking while the students listen. In other words, it is very much the factory assembly line approach to teaching. This is made necessary as the high stakes examinations has always been the tail that wags the dog. The focus on examinations means that a lot is to be covered for students to do well in the examinations. There is an emphasis on width as opposed to depth. Speed becomes a necessity in the “coverage” of the examinations-centered syllabus. This in turn necessitates for the traditional teacher-centered approach generally carried out in schools as student-centered discovery and exploratory approaches will require time. A recent study on science teachers in Singapore supports this contention (see here). This is despite all official policy claims of the MOE like “Teach Less, Learn More” (TLLM), “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation” (TSLN) and others. As a result, while Singapore teachers are highly professional with regards to fulfilling the goals of schools, which is to do well in the national examinations, they are a lot less skillful at honing the “new” skills that students need to acquire for the 21st century.

In Finland, an exploratory and student-centered approach are the fundamental approaches to teaching done in schools. The absence of high stakes examinations also means that much curriculum time is freed for deep learning rather than spent in examination preparation.What this means is that the usual stress, anxiety and demoralization that occurs in an examination-centric systems do not happen in Finland’s schools.

This approach does not seem to have negatively affected the quality of learning that is done in Finnish schools as Finnish students to do well in international educational surveys. More importantly perhaps is that the Finnish system reduces the human costs in terms of quality of life in schools for the students and teachers.

(End of series)

If you are looking for easy and fast certification then join testking BH0-006 online training and pass your exam using self paced testking JN0-522 study material and testking 642-611 exam dumps.

In our continuing look at the educational systems of both Singapore and Finland, we will discuss the issue of student ranking and streaming, and the related subject of high stakes testing or examinations.

The egalitarian nature of Finnish schools is seen especially with the absence of ranking of students or the streaming of students up to the age of 16. Among the fundamental principles upon which the the education system in Finland is built is:

The main objective of Finnish education policy is to offer all citizens equal opportunities to receive education, regardless of age, domicile, financial situation, sex or mother tongue. Education is considered to be one of the fundamental rights of all citizens. Firstly, provisions concerning fundamental educational rights guarantee everyone (not just Finnish citizens) the right to free basic education; the provisions also specify compulsory education. Secondly, the public authorities are also obligated to guarantee everyone an equal opportunity to obtain other education besides basic education according to their abilities and special needs, and to develop themselves without being prevented by economic hardship.

~ Finnish National Board of Education

In addition, the Finnish National Board of Education also declares on its website:

The student assessment and evaluation of education and learning outcomes are encouraging and supportive by nature. The aim is to produce information that supports both schools and students to develop. National testing, school ranking lists and inspection systems do not exist.

And also:

The organisation of schoolwork and education is based on a conception of learning that focuses on students’ activity and interaction with the teacher, other students and the learning environment.

Despite the absence of high stakes examinations, student ranking or school league table (or ranking as they are known in Singapore), the Finns have been able to produce a world-class education system. As is already well-known Finnish students have done well in international educational surveys.

Even locally:

The general finding is that there are no considerable differences between major regions when measured in terms of pupils’ average performance, and that the situation becomes even more balanced when socioeconomic background factors describing schools’ operating environments are taken into account.

~ “Thematic approaches to equality and equity in basic education” by Jorma Kuusela, Finnish National Board of Education, Assessment of learning results, 6/2006

It is clear, therefore, even without ranking and streaming of students and its accompanying high stakes examinations focus and high stress levels on both teachers and students, the Finns have produced a very successful educational system. The Finns are clear that learning is not linked to student ranking. They know that learning can take place in a nurturing environment minus all the stress, anxiety and the demoralizing labeling that is attached to students who have not done well in high stakes examinations.

In contrast, Singapore is known for its reliance on student ranking and streaming and its main instrument for such purposes, the high stakes, national examinations carried out by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Singapore and the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) in conjunction with the Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) syndicate. Singapore’s leaders have long felt that the examination system is a bedrock of the Singapore educational system. The SEAB has also produced a book, “Examinations in Singapore: Change and Continuity 1891 – 2007″, that seemed to justify its reliance on examinations.

But the current Chief Executive of the SEAB, Tan Lay Choo, admitted:

At present, there is a heavy reliance on national examinations as a means for assessing learning. A healthy assessment climate should have a good balance of both assessment ‘of’ and assessment ‘for’ learning. I would like to see greater focus given to assessment ‘for’ learning in Singapore schools. As a system, we may not have fully tapped on the many opportunities that school-based assessment can offer to inform teaching and learning.

~ SEAB-ling, Issue No. 7, May 2008

It is indeed a very welcome thing to hear the SEAB Chief Executive talking about the need to do more assessment for learning. Yet, she added in the same newsletter:

Next, I would like to see greater international recognition of SEAB’s products and services, such as the Singapore International Primary School Examination and our consultation services on educational assessment. I hope that with the sound reputation of the Singapore brand of education, SEAB would be able to share our products and services with more countries so that educators and, ultimately, the children in these countries can also benefit from them.

This is strange and perhaps inconsistent with what she had said earlier about assessment and the need for greater assessment “for” learning. While assessment “of” and “for” learning are not always mutually exclusive, advocating for a high stakes examinations, like the International Primary School Leaving Examinations (iPSLE), for Singapore’s neighbors does sound like applying double standards. She has already admitted Singapore’s over reliance on national examinations yet she is pushing that Singapore’s neighbors should value the iPSLE more at a time when the SEAB is saying that Singapore should move away from such examinations! If the SEAB really believes that we in Singapore should move towards more assessment “for” learning than it should advocate the same for its clients from around the region.

Could it be then that talk of moving to a greater emphasis on assessment “for” learning is just sop for the world? Is the MOE and SEAB serious about it for Singapore or are they still stuck in the national examinations paradigm? Are they still reluctant to admit the folly of the current emphasis on national examinations? Or is it because the SEAB is only seriously interested in making money from our gullible neighbours? This is something that schools in the region around Singapore ought to seriously think about. Too many are emulating the “Singapore model”, not realising that Singapore is trying to discard that model (or at least seem to). Furthermore, it is not as if there is no alternative model to that of Singapore for schools in the region. The Finnish model is a world class model. Why is Singapore still reluctant to admit that its stressful (read an email from a mother comparing school in Singapore and the US here) model is outdated and smacks more of the assembly line model of school more suited for the late 19th Century?

The testking 1z0-053 online training is the best source to get certified. Using testking 000-100 tutorials and testking 000-330 exam dumps, you will pass your certification exam on first attempt guaranteed.

In the Forum page of today’s Straits Times, Mr Visakan Veerasamy, commented on Tuesday’s Parliament snapshot which highlighted that “most top-scoring students live in HDB flats.” The impression given was that students living in HDB flats outperform those living in private housing. Mr Veerasamy pointed out the flaws in the way the statistics was used!

According to the letter from Mr Veerasamy:

About 82 per cent of Singaporeans live in public housing. More than 60 per cent of the top 10 per cent of PSLE scorers live in HDB flats. More than 50 per cent of Secondary 1 students enrolled in Integrated Programme (IP) schools live in HDB flats. But the same statistics also mean that while only 18 per cent of Singaporeans live in private housing, they account for almost 40 per cent of the top PSLE scorers and more than 40 per cent of IP school enrolment. Let us not deny the obvious, which is that SIngaporeans who can afford to live in private housing end up in better schools (emphasis mine). Perhaps thes estudents are mor eprimed to succeed or can afford costly private tuition.

What is amusing about this is how statistics was used initially. But then again there are people out there who wants to believe there is a level playing field in Singapore and it is all a meritocracy! Mr Veerasamy was spot on when he wrote:

Being able to afford private housing gives students a statistical edge over the average HDB dweller.