This is the first in a series on the educational systems of Singapore and Finland. Both countries are have highly regarded educational systems which have become the subject of much study in the world of education. Both countries have a comparable population size although they differ markedly in terms of land area. While both countries do display similarities, in my view, the differences are more obvious and interesting. I will start off by just sharing a simple comparison chart between the educational systems of both countries. I will proceed in forthcoming posts to discuss the two systems using this comparison chart as the basis of my discussion. I hope you will look forward to my posts and you will also contribute actively to the discussion later.

Join testking CISA online training to get certified in days! Download testking JN0-342 dumps and testking JN0-532 study guides for guaranteed success.

When I first came across Finland in my life, it was in the context of their war with the Soviets at the start of World War Two in the Winter War. I was (still am) a History buff, especially about the Second World War. I had read then about how the smaller Finnish army gave the Soviet Army a bloody nose despite being numerically inferior.

The second time I came across Finland was when I was doing Modern European History and Political Science at the university. That was when I came across the term “Finlandization”. Finlandization then basically refers to an independent state’s foreign policy that defers to that of a much stronger neighbor, meaning it would nto do anything to contradict the interest fo the stronger neighbor. That was the relationship then between Finland and the Soviet Union.

The third time of Finland hit me was due to Nokia. I am assuming everybody knows about Nokia so I shall not say very much about it. It is the fourth that I am interested in writing about. This is about Finland’s high quality education system.

If we read about Finland’s education system, its story is quite akin to that of their fight against the mighty Soviet Army. In an “education” world where “maintaining standards” have become a euphemism for centralized, high stakes testing of the written kind, Finland has been standing tall against the relentless onslaught of high stakes examinations or testing to produce a first class education system.

For many countries, this is almost unthinkable. But the Finland education model is very successful and more countries should try to imitate it instead of that of countries with high stakes written examinations like that of Singapore. Its success starts from the lowest rung at nursery level and goes all the way to the top. It is a system that ought to be given a serious look which what I will do in my upcoming posts.

There was an interesting news report yesterday in the Straits Times (22 July 2009), entitled “Retool for a world after the recession”. The report was essentially the result of an interview with the Education Solutions Executive for IBM’s Global Education and Industry, Ms Patricia Sullivan.

In the report, she argues for a need for a change in mind sets especially in education. With the increasing emphasis on KBEs and the need for workers with “21st century skills”, the education system has to change to meet these demands. The education system must produce students who are “flexible, adaptable and proficient with information technology”. She warned that:

If an education system is not aligned with economic objectives and strategies of a region, country or state, then it’s going to lose its validity and certainly its value.”

I have stated on numerous occasions in this blog about the need for Singapore to change its education system and move away from the traditional emphasis on written high stakes examinations because such an approach does not help Singapore to produce the workers that it needs. In fact, I have also suggested that this current emphasis on traditional written examinations and accompanying reliance on indicators like TIMSS, is misleading and can lead us to being lulled into a false sense of complacency about the prowess of our content-emphasized education system.

The emphasis in a new education system will be on the learning of skills rather than content. It will be on real world learning rather than on participating in a giant Trivial Pursuit or “guess what is on the teacher’s mind” game.

Ms Sullivan believes it will not be about grades and the teacher’s role will be one of intervening only when the students go off track. In the interview, she challenged Singapore by saying:

The world is truly going to become a global education market…you want to export your education services and import students, and the only way that’s going to be possible is by finding new ways of delivering education in non-traditional, non-classroom approaches.”

This ties in also with what I have been writing about the way Singapore pushes itself as an educational hub in the region. Singapore is still taking advantage of its reputation as an education hub based on an already outmoded approach to what education is all about. I have described how many “educational consultants” from Singapore have simply adopted a “cut-and-paste” approach in their dealings with schools in the region. Little thought is given about what kind of education is relevant for this day and age. A “simple” transfer of the examinations-oriented system is usually their solution and modus operandi, never mind its relevance. This mind set is not only found among private educational consultants but also in the people in the civil service who deal with educational matters.

I have written about how in Singapore’s Ministry of Education (MOE), the emphasis is still on written examinations as the focus of learning and assessment. While there are some schools doing away with the traditional GCE O levels, the assumption is that only the top schools should do that because the students will do well in them anyway. What they don’t stop to consider is whether the O levels is good indicator of learning for all students in the first place. Those students not normally regarded as bright in Singapore may simply have other types of intelligences and habits of mind that the MOE simply doesn’t want to focus on but which Ms Sullivan is saying may be even more important today and in the future.

The MOE also persists with streaming despite all criticism. According to the Straits Times report Ms Sullivan was reported to be of the view that:

…more change is needed as the standardisation and structure of society along with continued streaming at a relatively early age may not translate well into the future. She sees technology enabling students to individualise their learning and progress at their own pace instead of being part of a cohort who methodically go through the same learning process.”

What she is essentially criticizing is also the very basic approach of our school system which is no different from that of factory assembly line system.

We see also the old paradigm in the thinking of Singapore’s attempt to be the Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) syndicate of the East. Singapore has set up the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) . The SEAB is part of Singapore’s plan to be an educational hub. However, what it promotes is nothing visionary in the area of assessment. It sells the iPSLE to neighboring countries.

This is definitely not as Ms Sullivan that is “delivering education in non-traditional, non-classroom approaches.”