The Straits Times today reported that Singapore’s Education Minister Heng Swee Keat, claimed that “nobody has suggested abolishing examinations” when he announced that the Ministry of Education (MOE) is finally undertaking a review of its high stakes examinations policy. That is very strange indeed. Readers of this blog know that I have been calling for the removal of high stakes examinations for quite some time (click this as just one example). A quick search on Google, using the search terms, “high stakes examinations in Singapore” will find at least two of my postings in the first page of the search result page. Do any variation of these terms on Google and you may even find up to three of my postings that criticize the use of high stakes examinations in Singapore. I am not highlighting this just to show how good my SEO ratings are. I am just merely pointing out that on the internet, you will find many complaints about the Singapore school high stakes examinations system and also calls for its removal. It is simply amazing that these are not seen by Singapore’s Minister of Education.

You may now wonder if the Minister of Education actually uses the Internet or even read, much less, consider views aired on the internet. This is the minister of the MOE that has been globally recognized and lauded for its massive MasterPlan for IT in Education (MPITE). This is also the same MOE that has been pushing for 21st century learning.

Minister for Education Heng Swee Keat was responding to a query from a Member of Parliament (MP) about the the need for a review of the Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE) as it is known to be a major factor in the high stress levels in Singapore’s schooling system. The MP also said that the high stakes examinations also adds “to the coffers of the tuition industry” which I have also posted about.

In response, the Minister said that the review should not be rushed. He also said:

“Examinations well done serve an important purpose… allowing teachers and parents to gauge the extent of (students’) learning.”

I think the key phrase here is “well done”? What is meant by “well done”? If the examinations only reflect only the kind of assessment of learning that high stakes (largely written) do, is it well done? If these examinations do well in allocating students to their “proper” places in the economy, can it be said to be “well done”?

He went on to say that Singapore has a rigorous system. I agree it does but “rigorous” at doing what? Testing shallow rote-learning and mechanical operations?

Minister for Education Heng Swee Keat also went on to justify the need for caution in the review by citing the failure of a curriculum reduction to reduce student stress levels in Japan. According to the Straits Times report he claimed that education standards fell significantly! I begin to wonder if he knows what he is talking about.

Is curriculum reduction the same as reviewing the need for high stakes examinations? The MOE in Singapore has been doing curriculum reduction for years. Ask any teacher in Singapore. It can be argued that despite that the stress levels has gone up over the years. Again ask any teacher in Singapore. Ask the students and parents too.

And what “education standards” was it that fell in Japan? How did they measure that? Vague pronouncements like this do not help but confuse the issue.

He also cited that the sudden changes in the Japanese education system had led to Japanese teachers and principals complaining that the text books are thicker than before. So therefore, sudden change leads to more stress. My response to this is that the changes are sudden because education ministries are historically slow to make changes. Can we really do this review slowly as we have already wasted so much time?

The MOE is no different. Despite policy proclamations to show it is being adaptive to changes, the MOE is a very conservative organization run and advised by many who themselves were the successful product of the old system. It is hard for leopards to change their spots. The Minister of Education not told of the need to review high stakes examinations by his own officials is evidence of their unchanging nature. This organizational inertia seems to be postponing necessary changes until it is very (too?) late. It may become necessary, therefore, to call for drastic sudden changes to keep abreast of developments in the world. So if there are drastic changes to be made, it is due to this organizational inertia and perhaps the cultural ethos in MOE where speaking up to criticize policy, is to put it mildly, “not encouraged”.

The Minister of Education was then reported to have asserted that “we have a high-quality, strong system”. Do we? Strong and high quality in what sense? I know we are good at management and getting students to mug and ace examinations.

But what does this all mean for our foreign observers who have been praising and even been trying to imitate our examinations system? I wrote some time ago about President Obama calling for America to emulate Singapore. America has now introduced high stakes examinations system. So who is following who now?

What does it mean also for countries in Southeast Asia like in Indonesia, Vietnam and even in mainland China and who has been rushing to get their students to sit for Singapore’s iPSLE, the international version of the PSLE? Aren’t they going to look silly?

In today’s Straits Times, January 25, in its headline report, “Social Studies to get a boost in schools”, is a clear evidence that the political education of students will be given added impetus. It is said to be consistent with the 2007 report of the Committee on National Education. A Ministry of Education (MOE) spokesman is reported to have said that the aim of social studies is to mould students into “well-informed, thinking and concerned citizens.”

In the same edition of the same newspaper, there is also full copy of the text of Singapore’s Foreign Minister George Yeo’s Fullerton-SJI Leadership lecture.

It is strange that despite it being clear for most “well-informed, thinking and concerned citizens” that political education is already taught in schools, the government in Singapore is trying to pretend that there is still a debate as to whether political education should be “introduced” to schools. Is this an attempt to pull wool over the public’s eyes?

An anonymous (they usually are when they don’t know whether they will get their heads bitten off or otherwise) school principal who was privy to the discussions about this new development was quoted as saying that students would be taught why group representation constituencies were introduced. For those, not in the know about Singapore politics, this policy has been the subject of intense criticism from the opposition. So make a guess whose view will be given a lot of airing in this new syllabus? Will it be objective or “objective according to a certain view”? The fact that the word “mould” is used is scary as implies “clones”.

The MOE should take a leaf from what Singapore’s Foreign Minister George Yeo said in his recent Fullerton-SJI Leadership lecture. Yeo said:

“The fact is hierarchies are breaking down, dissolving into messy networks and this affects everything. It affects the relationships of teachers with students, of parents and children, employers and employees, ministers and ordinary citizens. With the revolution in information technology, everyone has choices they never had before.

You ask a kid anything now, you give him a textbook, he will Google, he will check, he will find alternative views and teachers are often put on the defensive. Well you can try and shout down the student, say “Shush, quiet,” but can you win the respect of the students? Or is it not wiser to say, “Look, what does Google say? What does Wiki say?…let’s have a discussion.”

He also said:

“In this day and age, clone armies are weak armies. Mindless supporters are worthless.”

Compare this last statement from George Yeo with MOE‘s attempt to “mould” students!

I am actually amazed by what George Yeo has said in the light of the current debate over the need to teach “political education” in Singapore schools.

Is the MOE’s new initiative an outdated reflection of the thinking in the MOE. The recommendations of the Committee on National Education was in 2007. At least two years have passed by and the intent to teach more political education seems to run counter to what MOE George Yeo wants to do. George Yeo seems to suggest an openness while knowing MOE there will be a textbook with an official view of things. They seem to run counter to each other. The bureaucrats in MOE should take stock of George Yeo’s speech before they proceed further on their new social studies syllabus.

I am also amazed at George Yeo’s speech as it seems to run counter to what the Minister for Law, K Shanmugam, who was pushing for “introducing” political education. Are there two camps in the People’s Action Party’s (PAP), the governing party in Singapore, leadership now? Though George Yeo did not rule out teaching politics but I suspect what he has in mind about teaching people will be very different from what the Law Minister meant, and what MOE will do.

Reading Foreign Minister George Yeo’s speech, I cannot help but feel that he makes a lot more sense than the people in MOE especially. The bureaucrats in MOE tend to try to satisfy the whims of their immediate masters. My fear is that the new social studies syllabus is going to reflect more the perceived need of these bureaucrats to appease their political masters and they usually become ultra-conservative in doing so.

Ok I know I mentioned Indonesian education in the header above but really this article is relevant for any school out there that does not have English as its main medium of instruction.

Google has introduced Google Translate translation service. It is free. Teachers and students can now have better access to websites for educational use. Students will find it easier to use the massive resources of the Web for their research work. Also for example, where once to design a WebQuest, a teacher will have difficulty finding web resources in their native languages, this hurdle can largely be overcome with Google Translate. Though not perfect, I think it can assist students and teachers to overcome much of the language barrier.

Anyway, at the very least no one can insult me (in written form anyway) in French and get away with it.  By the way. what are those French lines in the Beatles’ “Michelle”?