“Whose problem is it?” ~ Neil Postman

This is the next question that Postman posed when considering why a new technology is to be introduced. After answering “what is the problem to which this technology is a solution”, Neil Postman wants us to identify the real owner of the problem. This is important because by seeing this we will realize whether we are trying to solve our problems or that of someone else?

Let’s look at virtual environments. Why are virtual environments created for schools? As explained in my previous post, I do not think that such virtual environments are important for schools. I believe that the fact that it was pushed to schools shows that there is a problem but it is not that of the schools. It is that of the software industries. They want to create a market for them to sell their products. It is largely a problem for the sales managers and their salesmen. Not for schools. For this reason, school teachers and administrators must learn to see through the hype, or sales pitches. Do schools really need them?

As mentioned in my previous posts, ICT is also often introduced to schools to lend an aura of prestige and progressiveness to the schools. For example, one reason why Singapore’s schools are considered world class is the ubiquitous presence of ICT equipment. In Indonesia, the surest way to lend a school an air of “international” quality is to promote the availability of computers in the school. Never mind if in both cases, rote learning and mechanical operations are the order of learning in the schools.

Whose problem is it that there is a need for such prestige? Does the prestige affect the teaching and learning process in schools? Quite obviously, it doesn’t. What it does affect is the image of the school. This is important for the owners of the schools, the parents of the students and the student themselves. What it does give to all three groups is bragging rights. For the owners of such schools, it means that they hope bragging about the introduction of ICT will bring about more “customers” for the school. For the parents, it assuages their fears about not giving the best for their children’s future. And for the students themselves, they can brag that they come from a “technologically sophisticated” school.

Whose problem is it also that schools are expected to use ICT to teach students the so-called 21st century skills like collaboration and problem-solving? Are students and teachers supposed to be test pilots of every new technology? Does this come under the ambit of the schools? Where is the line drawn with regards to what is considered to be suitable as part of a school’s goals? School teachers and administrators need to ask these questions so they do not become saddled with other people’s problems. Schools as they are, are already crammed with all kinds of new initiatives to overcome all of society’s ills. Currently everybody’s agenda has become the schools’ agenda. A more discerning approach can help to reduce the overload that is happening in schools and bring back some semblance of sanity.

What then produces top performing schools systems? The conclusions (of the McKinsey report) are crucial. First, instruction counts. In practical terms, it means that: “when a teacher enters the classroom, he or she has the materials available, along with the knowledge, capability and the ambition to take one more child up to the standard today than she did yesterday. And again tomorrow.” Second, good school systems set clear and high expectations for what the students achieve. Here the report does not seek to be politically correct – it is quite frank: “Examinations have a powerful effect in driving the performance of any school system.” In the words of one Australian educationist: “What gets tested is what gets learnt, and how it is tested determines how it is learnt.” School reviews or inspections are also useful, especially to drive complex outcomes which are difficult or impossible to measure in examinations.

- Opening Address by Dr Ng Eng Hen, Minister for Education & Second Minister for Defence, at the Teachers’ Conference 2008 on Wednesday, 28 May 2008, 10.10am, at the Suntec City Ballroom

I am not too sure if the Minister is aware of what he said when he quoted an “Australian educationist” saying, “What gets tested is what gets learnt, and how it is tested determines how it is learnt.” All educationists will agree with this statement. But I wonder if the Minister understood fully what has been said as I believe that he is not an educationist himself. The quote was used to justify Singapore’s high stakes examinations system. But anyone who knows about teaching and assessment will know that the quote is not meant to only justify a high stakes examinations system.

There is truth in using this quote to justify the high stakes examinations system in Singapore but it is not as the Minister has intended. The key phrase is perhaps “how it is tested determines how it is learnt.” Precisely because if the manner (the how) it is tested is nothing more than the usual examination format traditionally found with its heavy reliance on standard answers and mechanical procedures, then the way it is taught will be geared towards ONLY answering such questions. Drill-and-practise and rote-learning will be the feature of an education system that relies on testing students by such out-moded examinations. So the Minister is right.

But only partially. The Minister may not realize that this is at best a half-truth. Somebody probably failed to advise him properly on this. This is because the Minister and the Ministry of Education (MOE) wants to move Singapore’s students towards acquiring new skills and literacies of the 21st century environment. These skills and literacies will not be taught seriously as long as high stakes examinations are the keys to further education in Singapore. These skills and literacies cannot be assessed by just these old-fashioned examinations. New skills like collaboration, the higher order thinking skills, creativity and resourcefulness, independent learning and must be assessed in a very different way, not the traditional examination format.

So to justify a high stakes examination system by quoting this unnamed Australian educationist in this manner is inaccurate. The Minister quoted a McKinsey report that said that “Examinations have a powerful effect in driving the performance of any school system.” This is correct but the question is what kind of performance? Singapore schools do well, extremely well in fact, acting as high stakes examination preparation centers. The teaching is excellent with regards to teaching to the examinations. The teachers work very hard to give students tons of homework and go well beyond the working hours to conduct lots of extra classes to get their students to do well in the examinations. Singapore’s education system is excellent at monitoring how well the students perform in the examinations. Singapore students learn well. So Singapore schools have performed well but as glorified examination preparation centers. The McKinsey report is right but again only partially.

Don’t forget that from that statement, it also means what is not tested is also not learned! What is not tested in Singapore’s high stakes examinations are all the new skills and literacies of the 21st century environment that I mentioned above. Therefore they are also not learned. So can we conclude then that all the MOE claims to be its learning goals in its new Teach Less, Learn More initiative (TLLM) is just a pretence? Sop for the rest of the world (and parents in Singapore) about its supposedly wonderful education system?