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?

I have read some concerns about the sekolah-sekolah berstandar internasional (SBIs) in Indonesia. One of these concerns is the reduction of the Indonesian identity as a result of the attempted shift towards international educational standards.

I can understand the concerns. I think this is again (as I have been saying all these while) there is a general confusion about what an “SBI” means. One of the most glaring problems that is the result of this confusion is the copying of a model which is perhaps most unsuited for Indonesia. Here I am talking about the Singapore school model that has often been adopted by schools in Indonesia as the model par excellent. This adoption of the Singapore model may be due to a few reasons.

Firstly, it may be due to Singapore’s international reputation for producing “top” students in international olympiads and also in international surveys like TIMSS. Secondly, it is due to Singapore’s proximity to Indonesia which perhaps serve to remind Indonesians of what is lacking in their educational system especially bearing in mind how small Singapore really is in comparison to giant Indonesia. Thirdly, wealthy Indonesians have historically sent their children to Singapore before the financial meltdown of the 1980s for an education and that is the education system they are most familiar with. It is not a surprise therefore that they look to Singapore as a model. Fourthly, the setting up of the Singapore International School (SIS) with its Singapore curriculum in Jakarta, brings the model even closer to Indonesians. The result is a rush to imitate the Singapore system. With Diknas promoting the idea of SBIs, the SIS model is seen as the model to follow for Indonesia. I believe that in general this is no fault of Diknas but more the fault of the owners of such schools which are usually privately-owned schools who have one eye fixed on profits. While making profits is not a sin, owners should be more serious about what education is about.

This blind aping of the Singapore system has meant a few things for these schools that aspire to be of international standards. Firstly, it has led to an emphasis on students taking international examinations like the iPSLE and the IGCSE because that is the nearest equivalent to the PSLE and the Singapore-Cambridge GCE “O” and “A” level examinations done in Singapore. The adoption of these examinations has meant that some subjects traditionally found in Indonesian schools have been given reduced emphasis especially subjects like Bahasa Indonesia and Social Studies with sometimes these subjects being combined. Nobody really stops to ask why international examinations are necessary in the first place. Indonesian students have had no  problems going to overseas universities in the first place without these examinations. They still can with their indigenous educational qualifications.

The second change which is perhaps another reason for the lament about the loss of the Indonesian identity, is the over-emphasis in the use of the English language. Here again there is an unchecked assumption that to be of international standard, a school must offer English as the medium of instruction. For schools like SIS where students take the iPSLE and the IGCSE, English is required as a medium of instruction because the examinations are done in English. Mastery of English is crucial. But some of the National Plus schools in Indonesia who have been touting themselves or planning to be SBIs have also chosen to take the same route. But what the owners have ignored is that, in the SIS model, almost all the teaching staff are very effective expatriate speakers of English. You have a staff of native English speakers supported by teachers from Singapore and the Philippines. Almost all the National Plus schools that want to offer IGCSE don’t have that. They have opted for a token approach with maybe one or two native English speakers. I do not mean any disrespect to Indonesian teachers but teaching in English is a problem for most of them. I am sure Indonesian teachers will agree that if Singapore teachers are asked to teach in Bahasa Indonesia to prepare their students in Bahasa Indonesia-based examinations, it will be pure folly. Using English as a medium of instruction requires a higher English language competency than a TOEFL score of 500. Even then Indonesian schools that aspire to be SBIs and touting the use of English as one of the essentials of SBIs, have great difficulty of getting teachers with that score of 500.

But despite these language difficulties, I believe Indonesians should not think that it is beyond them to get to the level of SBIs. But a re-intepretation of what an SBI is must be done. Perhaps, “re-intepretation” is not the correct term. A return to a proper understanding of what SBI is more accurate. Mastery of a foreign language was never one of the goals set for the SBIs by Diknas. What Diknas wants at the end of the day is a good educational standard where good teaching is done. Schools in Indonesia can set themselves that standard of quality teaching. By quality teaching it means teaching that is relevant to the needs of a modern Indonesian nation who aspires to be a member of this globalized world, yet firmly anchored in its Indonesian identity.

This can be done using the Indonesian curriculum with a lot of re-training for the teachers and some tweaking of the curriculum. Indonesian schools should still use the Indonesian language as the medium of instruction. This is for both nationalistic and pragmatic reasons. Indonesia is not Singapore and I believe the Indonesian schools will be better off as Indonesian schools then as “half-baked Singapore schools”.

In our continuing look at the educational systems of both Singapore and Finland, we will discuss the issue of student ranking and streaming, and the related subject of high stakes testing or examinations.

The egalitarian nature of Finnish schools is seen especially with the absence of ranking of students or the streaming of students up to the age of 16. Among the fundamental principles upon which the the education system in Finland is built is:

The main objective of Finnish education policy is to offer all citizens equal opportunities to receive education, regardless of age, domicile, financial situation, sex or mother tongue. Education is considered to be one of the fundamental rights of all citizens. Firstly, provisions concerning fundamental educational rights guarantee everyone (not just Finnish citizens) the right to free basic education; the provisions also specify compulsory education. Secondly, the public authorities are also obligated to guarantee everyone an equal opportunity to obtain other education besides basic education according to their abilities and special needs, and to develop themselves without being prevented by economic hardship.

~ Finnish National Board of Education

In addition, the Finnish National Board of Education also declares on its website:

The student assessment and evaluation of education and learning outcomes are encouraging and supportive by nature. The aim is to produce information that supports both schools and students to develop. National testing, school ranking lists and inspection systems do not exist.

And also:

The organisation of schoolwork and education is based on a conception of learning that focuses on students’ activity and interaction with the teacher, other students and the learning environment.

Despite the absence of high stakes examinations, student ranking or school league table (or ranking as they are known in Singapore), the Finns have been able to produce a world-class education system. As is already well-known Finnish students have done well in international educational surveys.

Even locally:

The general finding is that there are no considerable differences between major regions when measured in terms of pupils’ average performance, and that the situation becomes even more balanced when socioeconomic background factors describing schools’ operating environments are taken into account.

~ “Thematic approaches to equality and equity in basic education” by Jorma Kuusela, Finnish National Board of Education, Assessment of learning results, 6/2006

It is clear, therefore, even without ranking and streaming of students and its accompanying high stakes examinations focus and high stress levels on both teachers and students, the Finns have produced a very successful educational system. The Finns are clear that learning is not linked to student ranking. They know that learning can take place in a nurturing environment minus all the stress, anxiety and the demoralizing labeling that is attached to students who have not done well in high stakes examinations.

In contrast, Singapore is known for its reliance on student ranking and streaming and its main instrument for such purposes, the high stakes, national examinations carried out by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Singapore and the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) in conjunction with the Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) syndicate. Singapore’s leaders have long felt that the examination system is a bedrock of the Singapore educational system. The SEAB has also produced a book, “Examinations in Singapore: Change and Continuity 1891 – 2007″, that seemed to justify its reliance on examinations.

But the current Chief Executive of the SEAB, Tan Lay Choo, admitted:

At present, there is a heavy reliance on national examinations as a means for assessing learning. A healthy assessment climate should have a good balance of both assessment ‘of’ and assessment ‘for’ learning. I would like to see greater focus given to assessment ‘for’ learning in Singapore schools. As a system, we may not have fully tapped on the many opportunities that school-based assessment can offer to inform teaching and learning.

~ SEAB-ling, Issue No. 7, May 2008

It is indeed a very welcome thing to hear the SEAB Chief Executive talking about the need to do more assessment for learning. Yet, she added in the same newsletter:

Next, I would like to see greater international recognition of SEAB’s products and services, such as the Singapore International Primary School Examination and our consultation services on educational assessment. I hope that with the sound reputation of the Singapore brand of education, SEAB would be able to share our products and services with more countries so that educators and, ultimately, the children in these countries can also benefit from them.

This is strange and perhaps inconsistent with what she had said earlier about assessment and the need for greater assessment “for” learning. While assessment “of” and “for” learning are not always mutually exclusive, advocating for a high stakes examinations, like the International Primary School Leaving Examinations (iPSLE), for Singapore’s neighbors does sound like applying double standards. She has already admitted Singapore’s over reliance on national examinations yet she is pushing that Singapore’s neighbors should value the iPSLE more at a time when the SEAB is saying that Singapore should move away from such examinations! If the SEAB really believes that we in Singapore should move towards more assessment “for” learning than it should advocate the same for its clients from around the region.

Could it be then that talk of moving to a greater emphasis on assessment “for” learning is just sop for the world? Is the MOE and SEAB serious about it for Singapore or are they still stuck in the national examinations paradigm? Are they still reluctant to admit the folly of the current emphasis on national examinations? Or is it because the SEAB is only seriously interested in making money from our gullible neighbours? This is something that schools in the region around Singapore ought to seriously think about. Too many are emulating the “Singapore model”, not realising that Singapore is trying to discard that model (or at least seem to). Furthermore, it is not as if there is no alternative model to that of Singapore for schools in the region. The Finnish model is a world class model. Why is Singapore still reluctant to admit that its stressful (read an email from a mother comparing school in Singapore and the US here) model is outdated and smacks more of the assembly line model of school more suited for the late 19th Century?

The testking 1z0-053 online training is the best source to get certified. Using testking 000-100 tutorials and testking 000-330 exam dumps, you will pass your certification exam on first attempt guaranteed.