“The biggest challenge I see is in time constraint – we need time to build rapport and we also need time to ensure that the students do well.” ~ Daniel Tan, primary school teacher, Singapore quoted in the Straits Times, January 20, 2010.

The above quotation is the response of a teacher in Singapore in response to a lecture by two American psychologists at the National Institute of Education (NIE) in Singapore. The two psychologists, Professors Edward Deci and Richard Ryan from the University of Rochester had delivered a lecture at the NIE on their findings in a 20-year period study on nurturing motivated learners and the effects of testing which had covered covering 15 countries.

No surprise that they recommended that students be given autonomy to decide how and what to learn. They also recommended that teachers spend less time on preparing students for tests. They also recommended that teachers build strong rapport with students. So this is what the research says. I will also add that this is not new.

I find the reaction to the findings by the teacher that I have quoted above interesting. He identified time constraint as “the biggest challenge.” My question is why is there a time constraint? Why is studying tied to time? He said that time is needed “to ensure that the students do well.”

Do well in what? The learning and deep understanding of concepts? Surely not as that should not be limited by a time cap. So where did that time constraint come from. Singaporeans will know he was probably referring to the high stakes examinations that Singapore students need to sit for in the course of their student life in Singapore schools.

What has been said at the lecture is nothing new to the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Singapore. I am certain they know that. But why bother with learning from research (and the MOE has been pushing for research-based teaching) when it is continually ignored in favor of administrative convenience? High stakes examinations are an administrative convenience rather than a tool to assist teaching and learning.

The remark also points to the MOE’s continuing love affair with high stakes examinations despite all the evidence to the contrary about the effects of such an approach in schools. When will “doing well” in school refer to a deep understanding of concepts instead of being well-drilled to examinations like the PSLE, GCE O and A levels?

At the end of the day, the remark suggests that all teachers in Singapore know that all that really matters in Singapore schools are the results of these high stakes assessments. All else for the MOE is just a PR exercise for the gullible, both local and foreign.

A medieval high stakes test. Click on picture.

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.