In our continuing look at the educational systems of both Singapore and Finland, we will discuss the issue of student ranking and streaming, and the related subject of high stakes testing or examinations.

The egalitarian nature of Finnish schools is seen especially with the absence of ranking of students or the streaming of students up to the age of 16. Among the fundamental principles upon which the the education system in Finland is built is:

The main objective of Finnish education policy is to offer all citizens equal opportunities to receive education, regardless of age, domicile, financial situation, sex or mother tongue. Education is considered to be one of the fundamental rights of all citizens. Firstly, provisions concerning fundamental educational rights guarantee everyone (not just Finnish citizens) the right to free basic education; the provisions also specify compulsory education. Secondly, the public authorities are also obligated to guarantee everyone an equal opportunity to obtain other education besides basic education according to their abilities and special needs, and to develop themselves without being prevented by economic hardship.

~ Finnish National Board of Education

In addition, the Finnish National Board of Education also declares on its website:

The student assessment and evaluation of education and learning outcomes are encouraging and supportive by nature. The aim is to produce information that supports both schools and students to develop. National testing, school ranking lists and inspection systems do not exist.

And also:

The organisation of schoolwork and education is based on a conception of learning that focuses on students’ activity and interaction with the teacher, other students and the learning environment.

Despite the absence of high stakes examinations, student ranking or school league table (or ranking as they are known in Singapore), the Finns have been able to produce a world-class education system. As is already well-known Finnish students have done well in international educational surveys.

Even locally:

The general finding is that there are no considerable differences between major regions when measured in terms of pupils’ average performance, and that the situation becomes even more balanced when socioeconomic background factors describing schools’ operating environments are taken into account.

~ “Thematic approaches to equality and equity in basic education” by Jorma Kuusela, Finnish National Board of Education, Assessment of learning results, 6/2006

It is clear, therefore, even without ranking and streaming of students and its accompanying high stakes examinations focus and high stress levels on both teachers and students, the Finns have produced a very successful educational system. The Finns are clear that learning is not linked to student ranking. They know that learning can take place in a nurturing environment minus all the stress, anxiety and the demoralizing labeling that is attached to students who have not done well in high stakes examinations.

In contrast, Singapore is known for its reliance on student ranking and streaming and its main instrument for such purposes, the high stakes, national examinations carried out by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Singapore and the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) in conjunction with the Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) syndicate. Singapore’s leaders have long felt that the examination system is a bedrock of the Singapore educational system. The SEAB has also produced a book, “Examinations in Singapore: Change and Continuity 1891 – 2007″, that seemed to justify its reliance on examinations.

But the current Chief Executive of the SEAB, Tan Lay Choo, admitted:

At present, there is a heavy reliance on national examinations as a means for assessing learning. A healthy assessment climate should have a good balance of both assessment ‘of’ and assessment ‘for’ learning. I would like to see greater focus given to assessment ‘for’ learning in Singapore schools. As a system, we may not have fully tapped on the many opportunities that school-based assessment can offer to inform teaching and learning.

~ SEAB-ling, Issue No. 7, May 2008

It is indeed a very welcome thing to hear the SEAB Chief Executive talking about the need to do more assessment for learning. Yet, she added in the same newsletter:

Next, I would like to see greater international recognition of SEAB’s products and services, such as the Singapore International Primary School Examination and our consultation services on educational assessment. I hope that with the sound reputation of the Singapore brand of education, SEAB would be able to share our products and services with more countries so that educators and, ultimately, the children in these countries can also benefit from them.

This is strange and perhaps inconsistent with what she had said earlier about assessment and the need for greater assessment “for” learning. While assessment “of” and “for” learning are not always mutually exclusive, advocating for a high stakes examinations, like the International Primary School Leaving Examinations (iPSLE), for Singapore’s neighbors does sound like applying double standards. She has already admitted Singapore’s over reliance on national examinations yet she is pushing that Singapore’s neighbors should value the iPSLE more at a time when the SEAB is saying that Singapore should move away from such examinations! If the SEAB really believes that we in Singapore should move towards more assessment “for” learning than it should advocate the same for its clients from around the region.

Could it be then that talk of moving to a greater emphasis on assessment “for” learning is just sop for the world? Is the MOE and SEAB serious about it for Singapore or are they still stuck in the national examinations paradigm? Are they still reluctant to admit the folly of the current emphasis on national examinations? Or is it because the SEAB is only seriously interested in making money from our gullible neighbours? This is something that schools in the region around Singapore ought to seriously think about. Too many are emulating the “Singapore model”, not realising that Singapore is trying to discard that model (or at least seem to). Furthermore, it is not as if there is no alternative model to that of Singapore for schools in the region. The Finnish model is a world class model. Why is Singapore still reluctant to admit that its stressful (read an email from a mother comparing school in Singapore and the US here) model is outdated and smacks more of the assembly line model of school more suited for the late 19th Century?