It’s a long way to Tipperary,

It’s a long way to go.

- “It’s a Long Way to Tipperary” by Jack Judge and Harry Williams

Is Singapore education going to embrace authentic assessment? A friend of mine recently seemed to suggest a “yes” to that question or was that perhaps a prayer in her heart? Education in Singapore is always associated with a school system that emphasizes high stakes examinations. There have been many initiatives by the Ministry of Education (MOE) of Singapore to change that and also because the leaders of the country have felt the need to produce students who are more in tune with the needs of the workforce of the 21st century. So the MOE has introduced project work and the “through train” approach for the top schools where students do not have to sit for the GCE O levels. Recently PERI has also recommended the removal of examinations from the Primary 1 and 2 levels. It is perhaps not surprising to hope or think that MOE would move away from high stakes examinations in favor of authentic assessment.

However, despite these changes, I have serious doubts about MOE’s desire to make such a fundamental change to the system. The high stakes examinations have been long been regarded as one of the bedrock of Singapore’s education system. It has always been the way Singapore has differentiated the “good” learners from the not-so-good” learners. It is perhaps the only way that the MOE knows how to differentiate learning ability. From these high stakes examinations the bell curve will be applied to the mass of Singaporeans and each will take their “rightful” place in society. It has always been regarded as the handmaiden of Singapore’s “meritocratic” system. It has always been hailed as the way for the less well-off to socially and economically catch up with the well-to-do. The examinations-heavy school system is seen as the only “impartial” way of determining the successful and the less successful. For these reasons alone, the MOE is not likely to abandon or make these examinations less important in the near future. They simply do not have the expertise to do so. I also suspect that the officials in the MOE responsible for the school curricula are of the old paradigm and cannot but see any other method of assessment as anything more than just mere fluff. Just look at the alternative to examinations that PERI has recommended as an example of their inability to change their paradigm. Instead of the written examinations, they recommended “bite-sized, topicals tests”! The same applies for the many running and teaching in the schools in Singapore today.

Secondly, high stakes written examinations are sustained by a bureaucratic mentality, not by an educational mind set. Schools, and indeed “educational” ministries, have also seen written examinations as an easy option to use to “assess learning”. It is less complex and seemingly impartial in that “right” and “wrong” answers becomes “clear”. It is easier to administer than authentic assessments. It is also administratively easier to rank students locally and internationally. A by-product of this is that it is also easier to rank teachers in schools!

The high stakes examination culture is also important to the MOE because it is these examinations that has given Singapore that international prestige it is getting with regards to education. The Government has declared its aim to make Singapore an educational hub for the region. The exploits of students from Singapore in international surveys, like TIMSS, has been used by our leaders as justification for the success of the system and also for publicity. In fact we are so proud of our examinations success, we have even started our own examination syndicate, the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB), to sell our Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE) to neighboring countries as the iPSLE. No prizes for guessing what kind of assessment is involved in the PSLE or iPSLE. We are proud that our system is being exported elsewhere.

So how do we now say we are going to change that system of assessment when we have been selling it to foreign shores? How will serious changes to our written examinations affect international perception of us. Imagine no more written examinations like the PSLE, GCE O and A levels. How will Singapore measure with the rest of the world? Will the rest of the world still continue to regard Singapre’s students highly still if it moves into an authentic assessment mode? I suspect the officials in MOE are afraid to think of that. Right now, MOE is enjoying the prestige due to the written examinations. That international prestige will come under closer and more serious scrutiny if they move into authentic assessment. It is something MOE cannot afford to let happen. The examinations have been MOE’s version of the Emperor’s new clothes. Nobody wants to admit that the so-called quality is only illusional (or delusional?). No one in MOE wants anyone to look closer. Authentic assessment is not coming to Singapore in a big way soon. While some attempts have been made to downplay the high stakes examinations role in Singapore schools, it is hard to admit that you have no clothes on when you have unconsciously been parading yourself naked to the world!

Yesterday, the Singapore paper, the Straits Times carried a report on the newly released Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). The heading says, “Singapore students still top in science”. Singapore is no longer tops in Math as it has lost out to Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea.Singapore’s Math scores did improve over the last TIMSS but there were others who did better. The MOE has also indulged in another round of self-congratulations with this newly released TIMSS results.

What is interesting about the report is that it is found on page 10 of the Home section, which is the second section, of the Straits Times. One wonders why the report was found there. For those new to TIMSS and what it means to Singapore, do a quick search on my site to see how important TIMSS is to Singapore’s image as an education hub. For those who do not want to do any additional browsing, let’s just say that the placings and figures given by TIMSS concerning Singapore’s students has been used by the Singapore government and the MOE (and other foreign observers) as almost an indispensable proof of Singapore’s wonderful education system.

The second interesting thing is that on the same day I also received my copy of the “Educational Leadership” from the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Planning (ASCD). This particular edition of Educational Leadership was focused on the use of data to assess performance in schools. One article by Frederick M. Hess is entitled “The New Stupid” where he highlighted how even in schools that have adopted a data-driven approach, they are still barking up the wrong tree. He wrote:

Today’s enthusiastic embrace of data has waltzed us directly from a petulant resistance to performance measures to a reflexive and unsophisticated reliance on a few simple metrics – namely, graduation rates, expenditures, and reading and math test scores of students in grades 3 to 8. The result has been a nifty pirouette from one troubling mind-set to another; with nary a misstep, we have pivoted from the “old stupid” to the “new stupid”.

In another article in the same edition of Educational Leadership, Mike Schmoker wrote in “Measuring What Matters” that:

In many schools, it (data-based reform) has morphed into an unintended obstacle to both effective instruction and intellectually rich, forward-looking education.

For data-driven instruction to transform schooling – which it can – it must serve a master different from rigid accountability formulas. It must aim to help students from all  backgrounds attain an authentic 21st-century education.

As Schmoker highlighted it therefore becomes important to decide first of all what is meant by a 21st-century education. Schmoker pointed out that there is a general consensus that a 21st-century education would have students being able to demonstrate critical thinking and problem-solving. Students should “acquire an ability to argue, analyze others’ arguments, conduct research, and acquire such “habits of mind” as the ability to invent or synthesize information.” It also calls for a new literacy that includes not only the ability to read and write but also make effective presentations. Schmoker then raises the question whether the data that that has been collected by schools promote 21st-century teaching and learning?

Schmoker has drawn the conclusion that in general schools and even whole states in the US “could make steady gains on standardized tests without offering students intellectually challenging tasks.” Schmoker contended that it was test-prep activities that was responsible for much of the increase in test scores, not authentic and intellectually challenging tasks. Schmoker described how classrooms in schools have scenes for:

…ill-devised lessons, aimless group activities, and busy work predominated. Worksheets were everywhere…There was almost no emphasis on critical thinking, problem-solving, reading, discussion, or writing. Ironically, faculties showed little interest in improving instruction because each of these schools enjoyed exceptional test scores, and some had received their respective state’s highest ratings for academic achievement. The data itself created a ceiling on instructional improvement.

While all that I have quoted are from the American experience, I think those who are familiar with Singapore and its much-vaunted education system will know that it describes Singapore’s preoccupation with examinations and also international surveys like TIMSS, that does not match the needs of the 21st-century. If one visits the MOE website, we will see speeches and policy statements that call for the schools to produce students akin to the kinds of students that Schmoker has described as products of a 21st century education system. But what does the MOE test? How does it test its students?

In the same edition of the Straits Times that reported the TIMSS results, there was a report about the MOE’s most recent attempt to recruit teachers. The report was accompanied by a photo of a mock secondary school classroom that was setup at the Raffles Place MRT Station. The picture showed a neat brand new classroom with new chairs and desks. Of course the chairs all faced the front arranged in parade ground fashion, in neat rows. The picture sums up what the MOE is doing. All that it talks about that is new, is all gloss like the new chairs, tables, and computers that it places in the schools. But from the arrangement of that mock classroom, an educator will know the kind of “learning” activities that take place in the classrooms of Singapore’s schools. From this, one can also infer as to the kind of testing that is being done in the Singapore schools. Authentic testing for 21-st century learning certainly does not take place in Singapore schools.