I was watching on cable TV recently about what will happen after humans have disappeared from the face of the  earth. I thought that it would be fun today that we try to imagine Singapore schools without its well-known high stakes examinations system.

What would it be like to be in such a scenario? What will it be like for all the concerned with school and education, namely, the students, teachers, school administrators, parents and even potential employers? What will a day in school be like? What will remain and what will change as a result fo the removal of of high stakes testing?

Will the actors in the educational stage die? Will they change and embrace the absence of high stakes testing? Will the manner of teaching and learning change? Will the teachers be taught new skills? Will they have to unlearn many things? Will they welcome it?

Will what is deemed important for learning in school also change? Will it be the same for all schools? Who will considered bright in such an environment? How will learning be assessed? Will students be happier? Will parents be happier?

Will there be more dropouts or fewer? How will the school leavers find their places in the economy?How will employers choose employees? How will the workforce change? How will the workplace change?

What do you think? These are just some of the questions that come to my mind. You may have more. Do share your thoughts with us.

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?

I have been a big fan of mind mapping and I used to teach my classes how to mind map. Many schools in Singapore do get their students to learn mind mapping through external agencies. But usually these efforts to teach mind mapping go to waste because the teachers in the school very rarely follow-up upon the training by not insisting that students make their own mind maps of what they have learned. Teachers even sabotaged these efforts by providing students with teacher-prepared notes.

Perhaps we can all gain by watching this video where the originator of mind maps himself, Tony Buzan, explain the thinking that goes on behind the use of a mind map. Enjoy.