I know it is not always an “either or” issue. But I thought that I should revisit this issue of what is more important between the two after reading this article especially after reading the comments by readers that followed it. The article was reporting on ICT trends in education for the year 2010 (is that enough for a trend?).

I am not talking about an ideal scenario where schools have well-trained teachers and lots of funds for ICT purchases. It is rarely like that. Even in a rich country like Singapore with its massive MasterPlan for IT in Education (MPITE) didn’t escape this problem. When I was with the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Singapore as part of the team pushing MPITE, I knew that the teachers in general were not quite ready to use ICT in education. And mind you, these were trained teachers.

I am not against the use of ICT in education. But I think ICT in education, especially its use in the classroom, must be accompanied or even preceded by good teaching strategies and good instruction. Too often in my experience with teachers, I have found that they were unable to make a successful transition to the use of ICT for teaching and learning. This was because they needed to make a few changes before they can successfully use ICT in the classroom.

To make that transition more successful and less foreboding for the teachers, there is a need for teachers to first change perhaps the way they teach. Cooperative learning methods and a shift away from the traditional frontal teaching is a pre-requisite. There are others but I think these two are essential.

Among the most important purpose of using ICT in the classroom is the opportunity for students to explore and collaborate. If the use of ICT does not reflect these, then I think the use of ICT in the classroom is severely curtailed. In order to do these, teachers must undergo a paradigm shift in the way they teach. They must be willing to take a more “hands off” approach. They will have to design meaningful learning activities that involve collaboration. There is no point in having 21st Century tools and yet teach as if it is a 19th Century classroom. At the other extreme, you may have teachers who enjoy using ICT so much that they lose sight of the learning goals.

Schools would do well to invest more in teacher training and development to make this paradigm shift among teachers. Of course, there is also a need to change the syllabus and move away from traditional written high stakes examinations but that is another story. If schools move into ICT in education without these changes, they will find their teachers teaching ineffectively in an old mode in a high tech environment or having lots of classroom activities involving the use of of ICT but with little learning done.

I enjoy cooking. My friends know that. I find that when I am able to transform simple ingredients into delicious and nutritious meals. For me it is amazing how simple ingredients can make something great. The same can be said about education. You do not need all the big, fanciful things to make an education system great. I believe that what you need are the people who know how to combine the small things to make that great transformation.

This idea of combining and transforming small things into something great has a lot of relevance with the concept of the sekolah berstandar internasional (SBI) in Indonesia. I think too often the attampt to raise the standards of Indonesian schools to schools of world standards has focused too much on the hardware rather than the software, or more accurately perhaps, “people ware”. It is this focus on hardware that has resulted in a concern among some Indonesian commentators that the push for SBIs is leading to two-different education systems, one for the haves and the other for the have-nots. I believe this is true only if schools are seen only as being able to become SBIs with the pre-requisite hardware in terms of modern technology and buildings.

However, if the idea of the SBI is not tied to hardware but to good teaching then ANY school in Indonesia can be an SBI, a school of world standards. In my view, a school of world standards is one where quality teaching is done and not one where only quality hardware is present. I have seen in my days as a consultant for the Ministry of Education (MOE) of Singapore pushing the country’s MasterPlan for IT in Education (MPITE) program, teachers teach in mediocre ways in well-equipped and modern schools.

If Indonesians are clear that it is good teaching that makes a world class school, more emphasis should be put on the teachers and the people who assist in the education process. These includes the school administrators (at least at the school level). If teachers can be trained to teach in a way that takes out the tedium of the usual process that has been unjustifiably called “teaching”, and if they can be trained to to a more participatory approach to teaching and learning by all involved in the process, any school can be become great.

Money then does not become the most important pre-requisite for SBI status. Good training for teachers does. This is more accessible then money for many Indonesian schools including the National schools. You do not need hardware to get students interested. You do not need hardware to teach students to think. You do not need hardware to get students to be creative. You do not need hardware to teach students to be tough. You do not need hardware to get them to be imaginative. You do not need hardware to inspire students. You do not need hardware to produce leaders. If Indonesian school set their minds to producing such students, the schools will become SBIs. It is a natural by-product of good teaching. Best of all it can be done with ingredients already found in Indonesian schools, both rich and poor ones. Both private and National schools.

What needs to be done is to train the teachers well. If this is done properly, they will transform the Indonesian schools into institutions that provide world class education. It is just like cooking. The ingredients are the same. It is the cook that counts.

Two “leading” countries in education, Singapore and Finland had a head-to-head of sorts with regards to how they perceive and take care of their teachers. At the Global Education Competitiveness Summit, a representative of the responsible departments for education in the two countries presented their approach to maintaining the well-being of teachers.

A snapshot of Finland

Low Khah Gek, the Director of the Curriculum, Planning and Development Division (CPDD) of the Ministry of Education represented Singapore’s approach while Timo Lankinen, the Director General of the Finnish National Board of Education represented Finland.

It is interesting to note the differences in approach to teacher welfare and teacher selection. According to Low, in Singapore only the top third of the graduating classes are selected to be teachers. She also mentioned the pre-service and in-service training training that teachers in Singapore are expected to undergo, mentioning the hours of training. She also described the career track of those in the education service adding that the jobs of administrators is the “pinnacle of education service” because of their influence over instruction and the school environment. She also talked about the performance bonuses of between one and three months pay that teachers can get.

In contrast, in the Finnish system, Mr Lankinen says that in Finland they only have a “very limited” performance pay. For him what is more pressing is “how to maintain good working conditions in school” as Finland’s leaders feel that such good conditions are essential to luring talented people into the classrooms and retaining them there.

In response to a question about America’s current pre-occupation with NCLB and testing, he said that Finland only tests representative samples of students, primarily as a way to gauge trends in school performance and teachers routinely assess students’ progress in class in order to improve instruction. According to him, to the Finns, “having well-trained and educated teachers” is more important to raising student achievement. He says in Finland, “people dream to be teachers.”

I cannot help feel that in Singapore the approach is to see teacher welfare as just a case of paying them and they will keep quiet about the working conditions. Bear in mind also the civil service code in Singapore of not criticizing the service in public. The Singapore approach is very impersonal. It is all about numbers. Tests are the norm in Singapore schools because the only measure of student achievement are written tests. They didn’t mention what Singapore’s representative means by performance bonus for good instruction. It usually means how well the students do on high stakes examinations. Singapore also harps on numbers in terms of hours of teachers training. It is numbers and numbers and more numbers. From this love affair with numbers you can see that Singapore’s approach is very administrative and seldom from the teaching point of view. It is therefore no surprise that someone high up in the administration says that the job of administrators is the pinnacle of the service.

Maybe another statistic is worth mentioning. According to a Straits Times report, teachers form the highest proportion of patients at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) in Singapore. Of course, this wasn’t mention at the summit.

So which approach do you think is more enlightened?