On January 27, 2009, the Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE) released  the preliminary recommendations of the Primary Education Review and Implementation (PERI) Committee. While the preliminary recommendations represents another attempt to change the direction of education in Singapore schools it still suffers from the MOE‘s traditional reluctance to let go or downgrade the position of the main reason why education is not education in Singapore but just a huge examination preparation exercise, namely, the high stakes examination system.

If we just look at the people that PERI consulted it will be no surprise why the changes are not fundamental changes. The changes would result in miniscule impact on the education system. the Committee it seems consulted “School Management and Advisory Committees of Primary Schools, Principals, Vice-Principals, Heads of Department (HODs), teachers, parents, students, as well as members of the public.” One can’t help feeling that what the MOE has done is to ask the people who have been responsible for perpetuating the Singapore school system’s emphasis on examinations to change themselves. As much as I would like to believe that real changes or reforms will take place as a result of these group of people’s recommendations and views, I am reluctant to believe so. These are the people who have through sheer inertia or reluctance to contemplate other possibilities, scuttled most of the MOE‘s initiatives in the past because of they can see nothing better than what they have been good at, that is, examination preparation. These are the people who have long been in their comfort zone. They are just implementers of the examination systems. But where are the experts? Where are those people in academia who specializes in education? Are we to assumed that they are included in the consultations as members of the “School Management and Advisory Committees“, “parents” and “members of the public”? Is this a reflection of the traditional disdain in MOE and schools for these academics? I know that lecturers for example at the National Institute of Education (NIE) of Singapore have often been regarded by MOE staff both at HQ and school levels as people who are out of touch with reality and as people who are stuck in their ivory towers. This is because the reality that the MOE people refer to is that examinations is one of the bedrock of Singapore’s “education” system.

It is interesting that the recommendations started with the following ominous words:

“Retain the strong fundamentals of our education system…”

No prizes here for guessing what one of those “strong fundamentals” are. In effect what those words really mean is “It is the exams, stupid!” This has been repeatedly hammered by MOE and this simply means that no matter what the changes that will take place as a result of these recommendations, the front line workers in the Singapore school system knows that at the end of the day it is the examinations that matter. School principals and teachers will humor these new initiatives as another that will come and go.

PERI wants that through this recommendations “the future of primary education should be about developing well-balanced and confident children who enjoy learning as they build strong fundamentals in both knowledge and skills during their foundational years of education.” It is strange that to change the primary education to be more well-balanced the high stakes examination system will on the whole remain untouched. The PERI Committee recommended that, among others, instead of the semestral examinations at Primary 1 and 2, the “MOE consider using “bite-sized” modes of assessment, such as topical tests, to provide regular feedback on pupils’ learning to parents.” Here I agree with an editorial by Singapore’s leading newspaper, the Straits Times. In an editorial entitled “Parents primary (school) concerns” on 30 January 2009, it pointed out:

“But how the substitute periodic tests are to be conducted will also depend on the inclination and occupational beliefs of subject teachers and principals. Old-style educators (sic) reared on drilling and school rankings could design these “mini” tests to be as grueling and constant as normal exams.

When spread over subjects and topics within subjects, continuing assessments can grow so intense they become replicas of the semester exams. The net effect is that child stress attributed to “exam hell” is hardly reduced.”

I can already imagine the MOE responding by saying that the stress is due to the parents as no matter what it does, it is the parents who will push their children and cause the additional stress. This view is based on past comments from the MOE. It does not take a genius to see that this will be the net result of “bite-sized” topical tests! So why still insist on topical tests. Where is the Senge system thinking that MOE has tried to push to its administrators and teachers?

The answer is in the mindset of the people that PERI have consulted, namely the school principals, vice-principals, HODs and teachers. The fact that the term “topical tests” is used indicates the mentality of the people that PERI have been listening to. They cannot see any other way of assessing learning. Such tests by nature also tend to focus on the end result rather than the process of learning itself. That same editorial goes on to say:

“The pedagogical (sic) system has been so exam- and grades- validated it is hard to shake habits. Teachers need to undergo self-reform of mind and reflex in order to accomplish what the Review committee has suggested in the way fo rounded learning for pupils and giving parents more useful feedback on their children’s strengths and weaknesses than test scores.”

Therefore base on this comment, we can, by logical extension, also say that because these teachers (school principals, vice-principals and HODs included) still need to make that self-reform in their minds, they should perhaps be the LAST people to be consulted about reforms in the school system in Singapore.

Don’t forget also that the “removal” of the examinations is only for the Primary 1 and 2 levels. The message to teachers and principals is still very clear. At the risk of sounding boring, it is the exams, stupid! This is because teachers will still see the examinations as the real “business end” of their work. After those two levels, the preparation for the Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE) will continue maybe even at an increased pace since as the time given to complete the course has been shortened by two years. Knowing the mindset of many of those in Singapore schools today, the first two years of Primary school learning without the examinations will be soon  be considered as mere fluff. It will not be considered as fluff only if the topical tests become extended “bite-sized” exam hell.

One also wonders about other possible reasons for the retention of the PSLE, and retained probably not much different from its current format and approach. Is it also because MOE has through the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) been pushing the international version, the iPSLE, to our neighbouring countires as part of the effort to make Singapore an education hub and bring in the money? How can they be selling the iPSLE to out neighbours if we do away with it or even admit problems with it? Moving away from the PSLE may also eventually affect our Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) performance which has been used by MOE shamelessly to sell Singapore’s education system. Maybe they are doing systems thinking here after all!

When integrating ICT into the curriculum,  special attention must be given to the teachers in the school. There are those who will be early adopters, those who are fairly conversant with ICT use but choose a wait-and-see approach, and those who are not familiar with ICT and are probably worried about its use in the classroom.It the second and the third categories of teachers that we mus be more mindful of. They can make or break any ICT implementation program in a school.

For the second category, the wait-and-see group, they must be convinced about the importance and the usefulness of ICT use. Teachers are in general a fairly pragmatic group of people. They have been inundated with all kinds of fads that has been introduced into the teaching profession. They have seen fads come and go. A (un?)healthy scepticism becomes part of the outlook of such teachers. To convince them, they must not only be told of the importance of ICT use, they must also be convinced that the school is serious in believing that ICT use is important to achieve the curricular goals set for the school; and very importantly, that ICT really works for their students and the teachers.

Such teachers will watch to see if the school is serious about ICT implementation. By “serious” here, I do not mean that, for example, that the school makes it compulsory for teachers to have a certain minimal percentage of their lessons with an ICT element in them. By “serious”, I mean that the school would actually take into consideration, for example, the kind of assessment that the students would undergoing. If the only assessment that matters are the high stakes examinations where students can be drilled to do well in the traditional way, teachers will see little point doing “extra” since no measurable value is attached to the use of ICT in the classroom. In the face of a heavy work load and responsibilities and the perceived lack of time to “cover” the syllabus, ICT use in the classroom will not be given any importance by these teachers. This is made worse if teachers know that the appraisal of their performance is heavily weighted towards how well their students perform in the pen and paper examinations. A whole lot of serious convincing is needed.

For the non-ICT savvy teachers, not only they must be convinced but additional assistance is required if they are going to adapt successfully to using ICT in the classroom. Some of these additional assistance may include even bringing them to an acceptable level of basic ICT skills. It may mean for them to just learn to use word processing or spread sheet software for their own personal use. The training should be of the just-in-time nature.

Getting them to use ICT in the classroom would require a gradual process beginning with the familiar software they already know. Here again school administrators must not set unrealistic expectations of these teachers. I have already mentioned in a previous posting how some school principals banned the use of PowerPoint. For the new users of ICT among teachers, asking them to try something beyond PowerPoint may be asking too much in too little time. Better for them to learn the finer points of using PowerPoint and other simple ICT tools then be stressed out by unrealistic expectations.

The stress of learning to use ICT for these teachers can also be reduced if they are given adequate demonstrations and also a lot of hand holding by more ICT-savvy teachers. This is to give them confidence that someone is helping them and ready to assist. All they need to do is to try and master the simpler ICT tools.

Perhaps, the last important thing is that ICT tools take time to learn and master. Time is needed for teachers to feel confident to use them in front of an audience of usually ICT comepetent students. Rushing it will only lead to unsuccessful lessons in the classrooms.

In short, an ICT integration programme must be people friendly. It is about people first and technology second. The gates to ICT integration will not open unless we do imitate Gandalf at Moria and “Speak Friend, and enter”

I met an old friend this morning and she was voicing her concerns about her daughter’s education in a Singapore school. She was concerned about the streaming that would affect her daughter. In case you don’t already know, in Singapore students are “streamed” into courses of study at Secondary Three. The courses of study that is offered in the schools in Singapore is very much left to the school principals. My friend’s daughter will be streamed next year and she was concerned that her daughter would not be able to do the subjects of her choice.

My friend’s problem is that her daughter wants to pursue her study of Literature or History. You may ask what is wrong with that but the problem is that these two subjects are going the way of the dodo in Singapore secondary schools. The reason is simple. These two subjects are seen as difficult subjects for students to master by teachers and principals in Singapore. Schools in Singapore here generally feel that students generally don’t do well in the high stakes examinations for these two subjects.

Now the high stakes examination system in Singapore does not only determine the fate of the students but it also determines the fate of the schools (and the principals and the teachers) running them. So if the school offers “difficult” subjects and students don’t do well in them, the school’s academic ranking in Singapore will be adversely affected. School principals in Singapore  are reluctant to offer these subjects to their students because of this. We can imagine some of the possible excuses that would be given (eg. “we are doing it for the students good”, “not enough demand” and perhaps “not enough teachers for the subjects”) but here again we see education being sacrificed for mass consumption and prestige in Singapore.

Soon there will be a strange and unwelcome homogeneity in Singapore schools. Most of the schools in Singapore will only offer the same “exam-easy subjects”. This is one unhealthy by-product of the examination system in Singapore. The Ministry of Education (MOE) in Singapore of course will not officially condone such practices. But it is an unfortunate “reality” here. The MOE will remind us that in the ranking of schools in Singapore, the criteria has been diversified to look at not only the examination results but perhaps what is happening is that the paradigm shift with regards to this has not taken place in the minds of the principals. Or perhaps the weight allocated to academic performance in the school ranking exercise is just not sufficiently shifted away from it.

In the meantime, students like my friends daughter will probably not be allowed to pursue their academic interest in Singapore. Where can they go in a system where most of the schools think in like manner?