Another well-known secret of Singapore’s education system is that schools tend to pack their best teachers to teach the best classes. This practice is so prevalent in Singapore because of one important reason. The Singapore education system is very examination focused. The Ministry of Education (MOE) in Singapore has introduced project work for the Junior College level and alternative modes of assessment recently to reduce the emphasis on examinations.

One wonders where these alternative modes of assessment were placed before they “officially” introduced it. Still despite the introduction of alternative modes of assessment, all parents, teachers and principals know that at the end of the day to paraphrase a Clintonian era catch phrase, “It’s the exams, stupid!” It is the high stakes PSLE, GCE “O” and “A” levels examinations that really count in the Singapore system.

It is the examinations that drive the schools. All teaching is geared to the examinations. Anything else that is added is just pure lip balm. It is the examinations that has caused schools to start programs earlier than the official 7.30 “start” time of schools in Singapore. It is the examinations that has caused the schools to provide extra classes even though the teaching official hours has already been stretched till mid-afternoon. It is also the examinations that drive the lucrative private tuition industry in Singapore.

Is there time to teach for deep understanding in Singapore schools? Just listening to teachers in Singapore, one would know that there almost isn’t any. Teachers almost unanimously moan that they hardly have time to “prepare the students for the exams.” This is a refrain you will hear often from Singapore teachers. What they mean is that they don’t have enough time to “cover” the examinations syllabus, and to drill their students to answer the questions in the examinations. Everything else is secondary. There is no time for students to learn to think. “Just do it” (for the examinations), would be an accurate description of the teaching and learning processes in schools in Singapore. To be sure the government has talked many times about the need to produce workers who can work in teams, learn independently, think and problem-solve. But obviously, these messages have not sunk through into many bureaucrats in the MOE and also the principals and teachers in SIngapore schools. Those in MOE give mixed signals to the schools and the schools are quite happy to remain in their hard-earned area of expertise: preparing students for examinations.

The rapid pace of technological change is expected to continue to propel demand for highly skilled workers who can develop the new technologies and bring them to market and who can exploit the new technologies in the production of goods and services. Moreover, the transition to a knowledge-based economy continues to fuel demand for well-educated workers. Maintaining a high-skilled workforce is also a key component of U.S. comparative advantage in the world economy. Shifts in organizational forms and the nature of employment relationships, brought about by new technologies and global competition, also favor such high-level cognitive skills as abstract reasoning, problem-solving, communication, and collaboration, attributes associated with so-called “knowledge work.”

- “21st Century at Work: Forces Shaping the Future Workforce and Workplace in the United States”, RAND Report
by Lynn A. Karoly and Constantijn W. A. Panis”

Schools often claim that their main function is to prepare students for the work place. This belief has become so entrenched today that to have had an education is almost synonymous to have been prepared for work. I will not discuss here the concerns that I have with such an a belief. I am willing to assume, for the purpose of focusing this discussion, that this view that schools will prepare students for work, is valid.

However, assuming that the goal is valid is one thing but doing it is another. I started off this article with a quote from a RAND report on the future workforce and workplace in the US. I am also making the assumption that the conclusion made above is going to be relevant also for Asian countries like Singapore and Indonesia too.

The report claims that technology is going to continue to be a major driving force in shaping the kind of workplace and workforce of the future. Most school administrators and owners I think are able to accept the idea that technology is important today and for the future. But I believe many of them do not realize exactly how ICT is going to be used in the future workplace. For many of them, the extent of their readiness to prepare their students for such a workplace is to provide the computer hardware in the schools and to teach the students the “how-tos” of software (see my other postings on this blog).

What they neglected are the competencies or skills of such a workforce. If schools seriously claim that they prepare students for the future workplace, then they must take a serious look at the skills or competencies required by it. According to that conclusion made above by RAND, workers of the future need to be able to “who can develop the new technologies and bring them to market and who can exploit the new technologies in the production of goods and services.” Here, it is not only about inventing new technologies but also about using them so that they become part of a productive work environment that can bring about more wealth.

Furthermore, because of the new technologies and globalisation, the workers of the future workplace need “high-level cognitive skills as abstract reasoning, problem-solving, communication, and collaboration, attributes associated with so-called “knowledge work.” Government leaders in Singapore have repeatedly acknowledge this need for change. However, how often are these skills consciously taught or encouraged by teachers? Is the normal behavior seen in a classroom one where collaboration and communication is regarded as a highly-prized asset? Is abstract reasoning or rote-learning the norm in the classrooms? I believe that this is far from the case in most schools all over the world, including those in Singapore.

I suspect that teachers in the US are even more keenly facing this issue of what and how to teach. The “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) policy introduced by the Bush Administration, is forcing US schools to face high stakes examinations. As the US turns to high stakes examinations, we hear great unhappiness from the ground, and also from education experts about what is being sacrificed at the altar of examinations.

This has been the case for many years in Singapore. In recent years, there has been a surge Indonesia in the number of new schools offering high stakes international examinations. Many of these new schools in Indonesia try to emulate the school model that exists in SIngapore. Recently also Indonesia has made the sitting of the UASBN compulsory for the Sekolah Dasar or SD (Primary) level schools. While I can understand the reasons for the move towards high stakes examinations in Indonesia, it is important that it be proceeded with caution. The “Singapore model” with its heavy emphasis on high stakes examinations is often touted as the model to follow for Indonesia and is gaining in popularity with “Singapore-style” schools sprouting like mushrooms.

However, it is important for Indonesians to remember that in Singapore itself, the Ministry of Education (MOE) realizes that it cannot be sticking to the well-known “Singapore model”. In Singapore, the MOE is beginning to introduce different educational pathways for different students including those where students can skip taking the once unquestioned Singapore-Cambridge GCE O levels, whose equivalent examination is the IGCSE that is done in Indonesia in some international schools. The MOE in Singapore is also allowing schools to introduce the International Baccalaureate (IB). Although the IB is still a form of high stakes examination, it is generally considered to offer a more rigorous course that requires greater use of abstract thinking skills.

In addition to these abstract thinking skills, schools in Singapore must also get students to do more work of a collaborative nature where, to follow a co-operative learning principle, they sink or swim together. Where good individual academic performance is usually applauded, it should also applaud good collaborative academic performance. Perhaps even consider that good individual academic performance should not be prized as it has been traditionally. Students must be acclimatised to such an approach an attitude to “work” while in school. It is because schools are so lacking today in preparing such students that employers often lament the selfishness and the difficulty or inability of their new workers to work in teams. Therefore, in general, schools in Singapore and I am certain elsewhere in the world, do not really prepare their students for the future workplace despite all their claims to the contrary.