Yesterday, the Singapore paper, the Straits Times carried a report on the newly released Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). The heading says, “Singapore students still top in science”. Singapore is no longer tops in Math as it has lost out to Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea.Singapore’s Math scores did improve over the last TIMSS but there were others who did better. The MOE has also indulged in another round of self-congratulations with this newly released TIMSS results.

What is interesting about the report is that it is found on page 10 of the Home section, which is the second section, of the Straits Times. One wonders why the report was found there. For those new to TIMSS and what it means to Singapore, do a quick search on my site to see how important TIMSS is to Singapore’s image as an education hub. For those who do not want to do any additional browsing, let’s just say that the placings and figures given by TIMSS concerning Singapore’s students has been used by the Singapore government and the MOE (and other foreign observers) as almost an indispensable proof of Singapore’s wonderful education system.

The second interesting thing is that on the same day I also received my copy of the “Educational Leadership” from the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Planning (ASCD). This particular edition of Educational Leadership was focused on the use of data to assess performance in schools. One article by Frederick M. Hess is entitled “The New Stupid” where he highlighted how even in schools that have adopted a data-driven approach, they are still barking up the wrong tree. He wrote:

Today’s enthusiastic embrace of data has waltzed us directly from a petulant resistance to performance measures to a reflexive and unsophisticated reliance on a few simple metrics – namely, graduation rates, expenditures, and reading and math test scores of students in grades 3 to 8. The result has been a nifty pirouette from one troubling mind-set to another; with nary a misstep, we have pivoted from the “old stupid” to the “new stupid”.

In another article in the same edition of Educational Leadership, Mike Schmoker wrote in “Measuring What Matters” that:

In many schools, it (data-based reform) has morphed into an unintended obstacle to both effective instruction and intellectually rich, forward-looking education.

For data-driven instruction to transform schooling – which it can – it must serve a master different from rigid accountability formulas. It must aim to help students from all  backgrounds attain an authentic 21st-century education.

As Schmoker highlighted it therefore becomes important to decide first of all what is meant by a 21st-century education. Schmoker pointed out that there is a general consensus that a 21st-century education would have students being able to demonstrate critical thinking and problem-solving. Students should “acquire an ability to argue, analyze others’ arguments, conduct research, and acquire such “habits of mind” as the ability to invent or synthesize information.” It also calls for a new literacy that includes not only the ability to read and write but also make effective presentations. Schmoker then raises the question whether the data that that has been collected by schools promote 21st-century teaching and learning?

Schmoker has drawn the conclusion that in general schools and even whole states in the US “could make steady gains on standardized tests without offering students intellectually challenging tasks.” Schmoker contended that it was test-prep activities that was responsible for much of the increase in test scores, not authentic and intellectually challenging tasks. Schmoker described how classrooms in schools have scenes for:

…ill-devised lessons, aimless group activities, and busy work predominated. Worksheets were everywhere…There was almost no emphasis on critical thinking, problem-solving, reading, discussion, or writing. Ironically, faculties showed little interest in improving instruction because each of these schools enjoyed exceptional test scores, and some had received their respective state’s highest ratings for academic achievement. The data itself created a ceiling on instructional improvement.

While all that I have quoted are from the American experience, I think those who are familiar with Singapore and its much-vaunted education system will know that it describes Singapore’s preoccupation with examinations and also international surveys like TIMSS, that does not match the needs of the 21st-century. If one visits the MOE website, we will see speeches and policy statements that call for the schools to produce students akin to the kinds of students that Schmoker has described as products of a 21st century education system. But what does the MOE test? How does it test its students?

In the same edition of the Straits Times that reported the TIMSS results, there was a report about the MOE’s most recent attempt to recruit teachers. The report was accompanied by a photo of a mock secondary school classroom that was setup at the Raffles Place MRT Station. The picture showed a neat brand new classroom with new chairs and desks. Of course the chairs all faced the front arranged in parade ground fashion, in neat rows. The picture sums up what the MOE is doing. All that it talks about that is new, is all gloss like the new chairs, tables, and computers that it places in the schools. But from the arrangement of that mock classroom, an educator will know the kind of “learning” activities that take place in the classrooms of Singapore’s schools. From this, one can also infer as to the kind of testing that is being done in the Singapore schools. Authentic testing for 21-st century learning certainly does not take place in Singapore schools.