The Straits Times reported today that the National University of Singapore (NUS) will be introducing compulsory writing modules for freshmen from August next year. The modules will focus on topics like press freedom, information and technology, or the environment. Students are expected to pick up skills ranging from taking good notes, effective presentations, analyzing texts and constructing coherent arguments.

The university’s provost, Professor Tan Eng Chye explained that the university needed to introduce such modules because NUS students have been found wanting in presentation skills, or are inarticulate or unable to write succinctly.

Professor Tan was reported to have said that he had attended presentations where students would read from their notes rather than make eye contact with the audience. He also was reported to have said that:

“I have also read minutes of meetings written by university students that are not clear at all.”

The report reminded me of a book by a Harvard education professor, Tony Wagner, who had argued that secondary students in the US are not “jury ready”. By this, he meant that students leave school without acquiring the skills to be able to analyze an argument, weigh evidence, and detect bias. In his book, “The Global Achievement Gap”, Professor Wagner defines his “Seven Survival Skills” for students to succeed at the university and at the workplace, and in life in general. The Seven Survival Skills are includes problem solving and critical thinking, collaboration across networks, adaptability, initiative, effective oral and written communication, analyzing information, and developing curiosity and imagination.

It seems that Professor Wagner’s view about this inability to produce “jury ready” students is not only true for the US, but also for Singapore, an island lauded for its rigorous education system. One wonders what our students are learning in their English Language classes in our schools?

Why are our students still unable to master these skills by the time they finish their secondary or junior college education? Is the format of the GCE O levels English Language paper to be blamed? Most teachers in Singapore will tell their students to avoid the expository essays for the examinations and concentrate on writing descriptive or narrative essays. This is their “pragmatic” strategy that they teach their students in order to get better grades in the high stakes examinations.

Should the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Singapore seriously reconsider how English Language for the GCE O levels is designed? To be sure, students in Singapore, at the Junior College level are required to sit for General Paper, where they are required to write expository essays  and analyze text more critically, as part of their GCE A Levels high stakes examinations. Many have found this subject “tough”. They are also required to do a Project Work module. In addition, they have also been taught thinking skills in the other Humanities subjects like History and Geography even at the O levels. So why are our students still not “jury ready” that NUS now has to consider compulsory modules to instruct its students in these skills?

I suspect that despite thinking skills being officially incorporated in the secondary and junior college syllabuses, teachers in Singapore have found a way to work around these to prepare students for their high stakes examinations in a very mechanical way. What is supposed to be  the teaching and learning of critical thinking skills has been reduced to rote learning and mechanical operations only.

This is made worse by the lack of interdisciplinary connections across subjects. Students, therefore, think that the skills they have learned are only for use within the specific subject matter. Little transfer of knowledge or skills is emphasized perhaps by the teachers and MOE. A silo mentality is created where little of what has been learned in school is used for anything else. This is despite MOE’s “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation” (TSLN) and “Teach Less, Learn More” (TLLM) drive. Teachers and students still think that what matters most are the grades students obtain for the high stakes examinations that mainly encouraged rote learning and mechanical operations.

The new NUS initiative, while laudable in its aims, is in my view, too little, too late. Our students should be “jury ready” at an earlier stage of their education. All our students should be “jury ready” irregardless of whether they finally attained a university education or otherwise. After the secondary education, our students will be channeled to the university track or the polytechnic track or the technical education institutes. To think that such skills are only required of those in the universities will be folly. We cannot afford to be so wasteful in the face of the challenges of globalization in the 21st century.

In a recent issue of Time magazine, it highlighted the ridiculous situation in South Korea, home of Samsung, where a policing force has been set up to ensure that cram schools, hagwons, would not function beyond 10.00 pm. South Korea has enacted laws to that effect. This policing force would patrol the streets and raid hagwons that keep open past 1.000 pm. The country’s school and university examinations are deemed to be so important for South Korean children that cramming themselves till very late at night is expected of South Korean students. It was reported that teachers in the mainstream schools there have also resigned themselves to having students sleeping in class because they know these students go for such cram schools after the normal school hours. An industry has also flourished to provide these sleepy students with accessories to enable them to sleep better in class! Interestingly, these cram schools have not declined but have just moved a portion of their activities on line where their clients can buy, for example, additional assessment sheets.

In Singapore, the Sunday Times highlighted a new development in the country’s infamous tuition industry. This multi-million dollar industry has traditionally focused on school students who attend additional private tuition classes in addition to their already long school hours and mammoth amount of homework from school. But the Sunday Times report that these tuition centers now have a new breed of students. These new students attending these tuition classes are parents of school-going children. They joined these tuition classes for parents so that they can learn how to support their children in the latter’s learning!

Yet recently, the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Singapore announced some reforms, through the Minister of Education, Heng Swee Keat, in the education system. Among these changes, they announced plans to reduce homework to reduce the notoriously high stress levels in Singapore schools. From the Sunday Times report, it sounds like too little, too late.

The South Korean and Singapore experiences show that legislative measures and half-baked attempts to control stress through reduced homework is not likely to work. This is because these two largely Confucian heritage countries (CHCs) still have as their focus in their education system, high stakes examinations which decide largely the fate of students academically and from the employment point of view. As long as these examinations play such an important role, no real change will take place with regards to amount of homework or additional tuition classes.

But unfortunately perhaps for these countries, their education administrative elite is probably made up of people who came through such a system and is unable to envisage anything else. They begin to believe the increasing number of students doing well in these examinations is testimony of their systems’ success at education. Their belief is further given credence by books like Amy Chua’s “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother”. Should schools all over the world jump on this testing bandwagon too? If they do, don’t they realize the effect of such a choice?

Heng Swee Keat, Minister of Education, Singapore

At the Ministry of Education (MOE) Work Plan Seminar, Singapore’s Minister for Education, Heng Swee Keat, announced that the MOE will move towards an educational system which is more “holistic and balanced”. According to a report from the Today Online website today, it is announced that:

“To achieve a more student-centric culture, a review will be conducted to determine which practices are too achievements-driven, as well as those which generate too much administrative work, bogging down the teachers. These practices will be refined or done away with entirely, where possible.”

The MOE will also “create a new Character and Citizenship Education framework” in response to request from parents to “place a greater emphasis on character-building among the children.”

My initial impressions of this brief announcement is that this new reform will not make much of a change with regards to reducing stress except perhaps for teachers and school administrators by reducing their administrative workload. No mention is made about making changes (much less removing) the high stakes examinations focus of the Singapore education system.

This the main cause of much of the stress that is in the system. School administrators, teachers, students and parents are affected by the outcome of the students’ performance in these high stakes examinations. No mention is made of the removal of the school ranking system either. In short the changes are only cosmetic at best, and at worst it shows that the country is still stuck in its 19th century factory-like schooling system abetted by an Imperial China-style examination system.

Perhaps more interesting is that the lack of real changes reflects the reluctance by the Minister’s bureaucratic advisors in the MOE themselves to rock the boat. Despite claims in the past, of the need to make changes to meet the demands of the 21st century, little has been done except for an expensive cosmetic infusion of money into a massive MasterPlan for IT in Education (MPITE), that has still to show any significant result with regards to how teaching and learning is done differently in Singapore schools. Underneath that ICT gloss, Singapore schools are still stuck in the 19th century.

What do you think of these changes that the Minister has just announced? Let us know your thoughts on these planned changes for the Singapore education system.