In the lean times that Singapore is facing, Singapore’s Ministry of Education (MOE) has announced plans to recruit 3000 teachers in 2009. The current Minister of Education, Ng Eng Hen, has moved to assure everyone in Singapore that although that is the target, the MOE will be quite happy if it does not meet the quota it has set for itself. The Minister said:

“We will… ensure that only those with the passion, aptitude and commitment to teaching are selected,”

He also said:

“We would rather hire less to get the type of teachers we want to maintain a quality teaching force.”

He was responding to queries in Singapore’s Parliament by its members about MOE’s recruitment policies. The Member of Parliaments (MPs) were voicing the concerns of many in Singapore that the MOE’s recruitment drive would capture the wrong people for the job in the light of the current depressed job market. But these assurances were already given earlier so why do these MPs still need to be reassured.

Perhaps this is because the MOE has not explained how it is going to “ensure that only those with the passion, aptitude and commitment to teaching are selected.” The Senior Minister of State for Education, Grace Fu added that only half of those applicants who met the academic criteria passed the selection interview. This suggests that the MOE still depends very much on the interview process to select teachers. How the interview panel is able to do this is anyone’s guess.

It is about time that the MOE introduces psychological tests to help it make more informed choices with regards to the selection process for teachers. The MOE also can choose to look for candidates whose views of what learning is all about would be more suitable to producing students for the 21st century. Sure it is perhaps too much to ask untrained people to discuss about educational issues but at the very least, I am certain we can find out if such people are stuck in the old traditional paradigm about what schooling is. The selectors must be brave to select people who, to borrow the Apple tagline,  “think different”. Singapore needs it if it is going to solve the problems created by the old paradigm of teaching and learning.

The psychological tests can also be used to sought such people. People who are creative and dare to take on and bring on change. The MOE must also make sure there are real changes to its schooling system so that such people will not be penalized for trying to be different. Here, the MOE must work harder on changing the paradigms of the teachers and school administrators already in service. This, I suspect, will be difficult for the MOE because how do you tell a group of workers who have always been raised for a wonderful job that a lot of their current practices need a serious revamp? The MOE has always praised its teachers and the pay structure for teachers is one of the best in Singapore’s civil service. But “the times they are a-changin”. They ought to be told and given clear signals that the old ways alone will just not be sufficient anymore for education in Singapore.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin’.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’.

- “The Times They Are A-Changin” by Bob Dylan

On January 27, 2009, the Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE) released  the preliminary recommendations of the Primary Education Review and Implementation (PERI) Committee. While the preliminary recommendations represents another attempt to change the direction of education in Singapore schools it still suffers from the MOE‘s traditional reluctance to let go or downgrade the position of the main reason why education is not education in Singapore but just a huge examination preparation exercise, namely, the high stakes examination system.

If we just look at the people that PERI consulted it will be no surprise why the changes are not fundamental changes. The changes would result in miniscule impact on the education system. the Committee it seems consulted “School Management and Advisory Committees of Primary Schools, Principals, Vice-Principals, Heads of Department (HODs), teachers, parents, students, as well as members of the public.” One can’t help feeling that what the MOE has done is to ask the people who have been responsible for perpetuating the Singapore school system’s emphasis on examinations to change themselves. As much as I would like to believe that real changes or reforms will take place as a result of these group of people’s recommendations and views, I am reluctant to believe so. These are the people who have through sheer inertia or reluctance to contemplate other possibilities, scuttled most of the MOE‘s initiatives in the past because of they can see nothing better than what they have been good at, that is, examination preparation. These are the people who have long been in their comfort zone. They are just implementers of the examination systems. But where are the experts? Where are those people in academia who specializes in education? Are we to assumed that they are included in the consultations as members of the “School Management and Advisory Committees“, “parents” and “members of the public”? Is this a reflection of the traditional disdain in MOE and schools for these academics? I know that lecturers for example at the National Institute of Education (NIE) of Singapore have often been regarded by MOE staff both at HQ and school levels as people who are out of touch with reality and as people who are stuck in their ivory towers. This is because the reality that the MOE people refer to is that examinations is one of the bedrock of Singapore’s “education” system.

It is interesting that the recommendations started with the following ominous words:

“Retain the strong fundamentals of our education system…”

No prizes here for guessing what one of those “strong fundamentals” are. In effect what those words really mean is “It is the exams, stupid!” This has been repeatedly hammered by MOE and this simply means that no matter what the changes that will take place as a result of these recommendations, the front line workers in the Singapore school system knows that at the end of the day it is the examinations that matter. School principals and teachers will humor these new initiatives as another that will come and go.

PERI wants that through this recommendations “the future of primary education should be about developing well-balanced and confident children who enjoy learning as they build strong fundamentals in both knowledge and skills during their foundational years of education.” It is strange that to change the primary education to be more well-balanced the high stakes examination system will on the whole remain untouched. The PERI Committee recommended that, among others, instead of the semestral examinations at Primary 1 and 2, the “MOE consider using “bite-sized” modes of assessment, such as topical tests, to provide regular feedback on pupils’ learning to parents.” Here I agree with an editorial by Singapore’s leading newspaper, the Straits Times. In an editorial entitled “Parents primary (school) concerns” on 30 January 2009, it pointed out:

“But how the substitute periodic tests are to be conducted will also depend on the inclination and occupational beliefs of subject teachers and principals. Old-style educators (sic) reared on drilling and school rankings could design these “mini” tests to be as grueling and constant as normal exams.

When spread over subjects and topics within subjects, continuing assessments can grow so intense they become replicas of the semester exams. The net effect is that child stress attributed to “exam hell” is hardly reduced.”

I can already imagine the MOE responding by saying that the stress is due to the parents as no matter what it does, it is the parents who will push their children and cause the additional stress. This view is based on past comments from the MOE. It does not take a genius to see that this will be the net result of “bite-sized” topical tests! So why still insist on topical tests. Where is the Senge system thinking that MOE has tried to push to its administrators and teachers?

The answer is in the mindset of the people that PERI have consulted, namely the school principals, vice-principals, HODs and teachers. The fact that the term “topical tests” is used indicates the mentality of the people that PERI have been listening to. They cannot see any other way of assessing learning. Such tests by nature also tend to focus on the end result rather than the process of learning itself. That same editorial goes on to say:

“The pedagogical (sic) system has been so exam- and grades- validated it is hard to shake habits. Teachers need to undergo self-reform of mind and reflex in order to accomplish what the Review committee has suggested in the way fo rounded learning for pupils and giving parents more useful feedback on their children’s strengths and weaknesses than test scores.”

Therefore base on this comment, we can, by logical extension, also say that because these teachers (school principals, vice-principals and HODs included) still need to make that self-reform in their minds, they should perhaps be the LAST people to be consulted about reforms in the school system in Singapore.

Don’t forget also that the “removal” of the examinations is only for the Primary 1 and 2 levels. The message to teachers and principals is still very clear. At the risk of sounding boring, it is the exams, stupid! This is because teachers will still see the examinations as the real “business end” of their work. After those two levels, the preparation for the Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE) will continue maybe even at an increased pace since as the time given to complete the course has been shortened by two years. Knowing the mindset of many of those in Singapore schools today, the first two years of Primary school learning without the examinations will be soon  be considered as mere fluff. It will not be considered as fluff only if the topical tests become extended “bite-sized” exam hell.

One also wonders about other possible reasons for the retention of the PSLE, and retained probably not much different from its current format and approach. Is it also because MOE has through the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) been pushing the international version, the iPSLE, to our neighbouring countires as part of the effort to make Singapore an education hub and bring in the money? How can they be selling the iPSLE to out neighbours if we do away with it or even admit problems with it? Moving away from the PSLE may also eventually affect our Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) performance which has been used by MOE shamelessly to sell Singapore’s education system. Maybe they are doing systems thinking here after all!

Charlotte Danielson (1996) pointed out teaching is not a random activity. It must have clear purpose. In other words, a teacher must be goal directed.  There are times when the students are also involved in these goal setting. This happens when the class behaves as a community of learners.

In instructional goal setting, the teacher must, as Danielson pointed out, among others, set goals which are “worthwhile and represent learning central to a discipline as well as high-level learning for the students.” This is to prevent learning becoming nothing more than a trivial pursuit game. It must have importance to the students.

Instructional goals must be spelt out clearly and they must be stated in terms of what students will learn. This may be concerned with skills, thinking, in addition to knowledge and understanding.

Instructional goals should also be measurable. This does not imply only the use of traditional pen-and-paper examinations. Alternative modes of assessment become important to measure the differing skills, thinking and conceptual understanding that the student is supposed to learn. Teachers and students alike must be clear what is the learning that is supposed to take place and how this earning is going to be measured or assess. It is even necessary sometimes for teachers to show how the assessment is to be done through samples of student work.

Instructional goals should also reflect that diversity of skills and abilities of the students under the teacher’s charge. A one size fits all approach is an injustice to the learners. It will also mean that the teacher does not take into account the differing levels of the students. The instruction will therefore be skewed toward either the better or weaker students or  the teacher may choose to adopt what the teacher considers to be the median level to accomodate the different learners.  All three option will mean that no one student will be taught according to his level which is against all known pedagogical principles. It makes teaching a farce.