Before teachers and students alike get angry with me with the above, let me explain what I have in mind. Yes, I am going to suggest lengthening the annual academic calendar of schools in Singapore. But there is one very important caveat before I will agree to such a step. I propose that if schools (read teachers too) are willing to discard the written examination approach and teachers are allowed the freedom to allow time for their students to be able to explore what they learn meaningfully and deeply, with an emphasis on deep understanding and learning for transfer, then I say lengthen the school academic calender. Consider even banishing the school holidays.

I am inclined to believe that if schools decide that learning is to be done in this manner, students and teachers will find the teaching and learning more meaningful. It will not be the daily repetitive chore of the Singapore school sweat shop that students and teachers undergo. Teaching and learning would find new meaning and purpose. This alone, I believe, will inspire teachers and students alike to want to be in school. It becomes less of just mundane work.

Students can be given that independence to be real learners rather than just licking whatever that has been dished out to them or in many cases, rejecting what has been offered. Learning can be more in tune with the natural curiosity of students. When the task is consistent with nature, then it is not work but to be in a state of “flow”. The same will apply to the teachers. For students, it also means that they will not be treated like individuals with differing learning needs as opposed to the mass assembly line approach currently used.

Teachers will no longer find themselves as the Nuffield Review described, that is, as mere “curriculum deliverers” rather than “curriculum directors and developers”. Ownership of teaching goes back to the teachers. If that is not motivation for teachers then I do not know what is. It is telling the teachers that they are the professionals. It is telling the teachers that they are the ones who know their students best. It is reminding the teachers and reaffirming that they are the ones who know best what suits their students. It is also about humanizing a profession that has been reduced to concern only for high stakes examinations performance.

So extend the school calendar. But do so only if meaningful teaching and learning is encouraged and supported as the main activity of this place called school.

I cannot help feel that often foreign observers who view the Singapore education system tend to see it through rose-tinted glasses. This is not to say that there are no strong points in the Singapore education system. However, some of the examples cited by foreign observers makes me wonder if they are really seeing it for it really is.

For example, the oft-cited prowess of Singapore students in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Singapore’s 10 and 14-year old students came out tops in both Maths and Science among the 49 countries assessed. The Minister for Education, Dr Ng Eng Hen, recently said about the TIMSS results:

But more importantly, note that our lowest quartile is above the median of the world. In other words, students who are academically weaker do better in our system compared to others.

While trying hard not to belittle these results, one wonders how much of it is really due to the school system and the teachers in Singapore? It is a well-known fact that many students in Singapore go for extra tuition with private tutors. Top students go for tuition to get even better grades and weak students go for tuition to improve on their pass grades. That is Singapore’s most well-known educational secret. In fact, the government, has tacitly also encouraged the tuition industry by encouraging local \\”self-help\\” groups like Mendaki, CDAC and Sinda to organise tuition classes as perhaps their main activity to uplift the locals. With a whole army of tutors coaching both top and weak students can we honestly say that the education system in Singapore is as great as they say. This is not to mention the huge amount fo extra classes that the teachers and students have to put in schools in Singapore to drill the students on exam paper type questions. If the system is so good why is there a need for all these?

In my view, what it does suggest is that the school system alone is inadequate to even get most of our students to do well on its own. The exam-oriented curricula covers way too much for most students to absorb or do well within the given time. What the system does is not hothousing the students. What it does is to make them go through a sweat shop. There is a difference between the two. Foreigners who still think that the system is good and is responsible for the good test scores, just need to talk to parents about it. Ask them how much time students have for any other thing besides school and tuition.

What is even more scary is that some schools in neighboring countries like Indonesia, Vietnam and even China want to copy the Singapore school system without considering all these. Do parents really want a system that would mean a lot of private tuition for their children? Is this what education is all about?

In the Middle Ages, what kept alchemists busy was the elusive search for the process  to create gold. The ancient Greeks had it much easier, with fables of King Midas and his Golden Touch. Today, many schools, including schools in Indonesia, are also looking for their version of the Midas Touch, a quick surefire way of creating gold. Privately-owned schools do have the goal of making financial surpluses at the end of each year. This is perfectly acceptable.

The alchemist and the search for gold

However, in their rush to make profits, some schools in Indonesia very quickly tag themselves on to foreign school models with foreign examinations or highlighting the presence of computer labs in the schools. They would look for administrative systems from abroad. Many of such schools in Indonesia try to follow the model in Singapore. But what remains key to ensure good academic excellence is often overlooked because they are harder to achieve and it takes a little more time than quick-fix measures.

The key area that all schools must look into is the quality of the teachers. Teachers define the quality of teaching that takes place in a school. It is not the curriculum or syllabus. Good teachers can more than make up for a poor curriculum. Curricula and syllabi can never fire the imagination of students while good teachers can. Good teachers can make lessons seem easy. The latest ICT hardware will not make much of a difference to the learning in school because it is only useful for education in the hands of skilled teachers.

Schools in Indonesia that rush to call themselves Sekolah Berstandar internasional (SBI) or “schools of international standards”, without paying much attention to teacher quality through investment in good teachers and their training, are deluding the parents who send their children to such schools, and themselves in the long run. This is especially true since the majority of teachers teaching in Indonesian schools do not have proper teaching qualifications. This includes the expatriates who teach there too. The lack of attention to teacher quality will eventually show. Parents and school administrators cannot afford to let this happen because the ones who will bear the brunt of poor quality teaching are the students.

To state the obvious, teaching is done by teachers, not good administration, nor a bank of computers on its own nor an international curriculum or international examinations. There is no Midas Touch in teaching. There are no quick fixes. What is required is good quality teaching by well-trained and highly motivated teachers.