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?

“What new problems might be created by solving the original problem?” – Neil Postman

This is the third in Neil Postman’s series of questions for anyone who wants to introduce a new technology. Often technology is seen as the savior of much of the world’s ills. However, in more recent times we have become more acutely aware of the problems that have arisen as a result of the introduction of new technologies into the world. Some of these new technologies have made it already threatened our own existence. And we are not only talking about nuclear missiles here.

The trick for us is to discern what that technological genie is going to be doing once it has been released from its bottle. Too often we cannot put the genie back in. For this reason we have to do our very best to try and understand the impact of any technology before we unleash it to the world. As I have written and mentioned before, in this regard we have a lot to learn from the Amish people and their approach and attitude towards technology. Far from being Luddites, I believe they have tried their best to have a proper conversation with technology which is a lot more than can be said of many of us in the developed and developing world. The Amish people try to pre-empt problems that may arise from the use of technology. Those involve in education should adopt the same attitude.

For schools, the introduction of ICT for educational purposes can create problems within the school environment. Bear in mind, this is in addition to the fact that the jury is still out about the positive impact of ICT use in schools. One of these problems is that the introduction of ICT for education can be a distraction from the goals of education itself. many have even come to believe that acquisition of software and ICT hardware skills have become one of the goals of education. They may not announce these as goals but in practice that is what it means. I have on a few occasions already mentioned in this blog how schools teach software to their students in the computer labs s if these students will be Adobe Photoshop  or some other specialists of some other software. How many have stopped to ponder if it is the business of schools to teach students specific software? Not recognizing this means that schools will overburden themselves on wrong priorities and worse, think they are making great progress on educational goals. The real problems related to education that can be addressed in schools may not be addressed in such an environment as there are many things that become distractions.

Teachers already have enough problems making learning meaningful and effective. If ICT is brought into the classroom without careful thought and preparation, there is a real danger that it will add to the problems of designing and managing effective lessons. Teachers become more stressed out if ICT use becomes a requirement when they are ill-prepared to do so. This was the experience even in Singapore. When the MasterPlan for IT in Education (MPITE) was introduced, there was quite a number of teachers who decided to retire early to avoid having to meet the “recommended” dosage of ICT in the classroom. They know all too well that what has been recommended has a tendency of becoming a “requirement” soon enough. The pressure to adapt to the use of ICT  tools can lead to a negative reaction to ICT use for education

ICT for education has often been touted as the way to get students to learn through collaboration, personal and group research and inquiry and make learning meaningful such that students become life-ling learners. But seriously, if the only ICT adaptation to education that occurs in the classroom is the kind that only re-emphasizes rote-learning and mechanical operations only, then there is only a pretense at trying to achieve those goals. Unprepared teachers will resort to ICT that only repeat what they have been doing all their teaching lives, albeit in an electronic form. It does not matter if they use a software found on a CDROM or on an online platform. The way the teaching and learning is done is still very traditional. In fact, it can easily be further compounded with ICT.

The introduction of ICT on a mass scale for education can also lead to a problem of high maintenance costs, which will then be passed on to the consumer either through higher taxes or higher school fees. Computers need to be repaired regularly, costs of maintaining printers and their ink or cartridges will also rocket as the paperless classroom is still a long way to go despite the introduction of ICT. Will this lead to a greater divide in education between that for the rich and the poor? In Indonesia, we see the divide getting bigger as privately-owned schools which cater to the higher income families try to boast an ICT infrastructure within the school. It is an irony of sorts that the schools for the rich who can already afford the computers in their homes are getting computers in the schools while the poor are not likely to see any for their use both in the home and the schools. Even in ICT-rich Singapore schools, the Minister of Education has had to fend off parental worries that member schools of the FutureSchools@Singapore will be out of reach of lower income families.

ICT in schools is often described as an “enabler”. But many forget that ICT in schools can also be a “disabler”. For this reason, conversations like this, must continue, to help those responsible to draw up better plans for ICT usage in schools. It should also continue so schools will continuous check and -re-check what they are doing with ICT to see that it does not become a “disabler”.

“Whose problem is it?” ~ Neil Postman

This is the next question that Postman posed when considering why a new technology is to be introduced. After answering “what is the problem to which this technology is a solution”, Neil Postman wants us to identify the real owner of the problem. This is important because by seeing this we will realize whether we are trying to solve our problems or that of someone else?

Let’s look at virtual environments. Why are virtual environments created for schools? As explained in my previous post, I do not think that such virtual environments are important for schools. I believe that the fact that it was pushed to schools shows that there is a problem but it is not that of the schools. It is that of the software industries. They want to create a market for them to sell their products. It is largely a problem for the sales managers and their salesmen. Not for schools. For this reason, school teachers and administrators must learn to see through the hype, or sales pitches. Do schools really need them?

As mentioned in my previous posts, ICT is also often introduced to schools to lend an aura of prestige and progressiveness to the schools. For example, one reason why Singapore’s schools are considered world class is the ubiquitous presence of ICT equipment. In Indonesia, the surest way to lend a school an air of “international” quality is to promote the availability of computers in the school. Never mind if in both cases, rote learning and mechanical operations are the order of learning in the schools.

Whose problem is it that there is a need for such prestige? Does the prestige affect the teaching and learning process in schools? Quite obviously, it doesn’t. What it does affect is the image of the school. This is important for the owners of the schools, the parents of the students and the student themselves. What it does give to all three groups is bragging rights. For the owners of such schools, it means that they hope bragging about the introduction of ICT will bring about more “customers” for the school. For the parents, it assuages their fears about not giving the best for their children’s future. And for the students themselves, they can brag that they come from a “technologically sophisticated” school.

Whose problem is it also that schools are expected to use ICT to teach students the so-called 21st century skills like collaboration and problem-solving? Are students and teachers supposed to be test pilots of every new technology? Does this come under the ambit of the schools? Where is the line drawn with regards to what is considered to be suitable as part of a school’s goals? School teachers and administrators need to ask these questions so they do not become saddled with other people’s problems. Schools as they are, are already crammed with all kinds of new initiatives to overcome all of society’s ills. Currently everybody’s agenda has become the schools’ agenda. A more discerning approach can help to reduce the overload that is happening in schools and bring back some semblance of sanity.