In my last post I mentioned that the Ministry of Education (MOE) of Singapore has set up a mock classroom at Raffles Place as part of its recruitment drive to get more people to join the teaching profession. I also said that the layout of the mock classroom with its neat rows of tables and chairs indicates the kind of activities that take place in the classroom. Any serious educator will know that such classrooms represents a certain paradigm that the owner of such a classroom has about what schooling ought to be. Thousands of Singaporeans have gone through such an environment, myself included. We all know that such a classroom layout typify a schooling environment in Singapore where the teacher does most of the talking while the students are expected to sit quietly and give their attention to what is said by the teachers.

While the MOE is lauding itself with the latest TIMSS release, the reality is that the Singapore education system, the Singapore school and the Singapore school principals and teachers have only one thing in mind; the examinations. Schooling in Singapore is, even after acknowledging the diverse views about what is education, not about education. It is about or examination or test preparation.

 

The static layout of the Raffles Place classroom suggest a uni-directional approach to teaching. Very old-fashioned and certainly mostly irrelevant in this day and age. It is irrelevant on many counts. John Dewey and Marshall McLuhan (click on the book cover on the left if you want to learn more about McLuhan’s ideas) has already argued that what students are allowed to do, that is what they will learned. If all they get to do most of the times is to try and sit quietly and intently, then all they learn is to sit quietly and intently, and also total obedience and deference to authority.

The neat rows with each chair and desk separated by a space also implies that little team work or co-operative learning is done in the Singapore classroom. This is again easily proven if you ask any Singapore student of today or yesteryear about what goes on in the classroom. How do we expect to produce team workers or even a harmonious society if everyone sits in his little island?

Instead, what we will produce are people who will just await instructions about what they ought to do and how they ought to do it. Forget about cultivating the spirit of inquiry. Even in Science they do not teach scientific inquiry, they teach FACTS! Forget about independent learning too. It does not take place. The only form of independent learning valued is the mugging that one does on your own to ace the examinations. We will produce great muggers willing to work very late. This parallel is seen at the work place where workers in Singapore stay up till very late but showing little in the way of productivity. The Raffles Place classroom will produce people with little initiative. They will expect to be told of the only way of doing things, just as there is one way to answer the questions in the examinations in school.

Worse, as I have quoted from Schmoker in my last post, the continuation of this paradigm of schooling as promoted by the MOE at Raffles Place, will hinder quality teaching and learning from taking place. Teachers and schools will see no need to change their paradigm to fit the present world. The methods of yore still works fine because our students still are among the best in the world based on their performance in international examination scores and wonderful international surveys like TIMSS. We have come to believe our own delusions.

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.

Look at the tables from the Ministry of Education (MOE) of Singapore’s website on Teach Less, Learn More (TLLM) initiative. I almost wanted to rejoin the teaching service when I saw it. The MOE is going to de-emphasize drill and practice, “one-size-fits-all” instruction, grades, tests, and so on. All the things that I believe in.

But wait a minute. Why didn’t they tell us how they hope to achieve this? It is all fine to have all these goals scribed on a (virtual) wall. But how does the MOE hope to achieve this?

I can’t help a reluctance on the part of MOE to move away from the high stakes examinations that has been a permanent feature of the education system in Singapore. The success of students from Singapore in such examinations has been the benchmark used by MOE to laud itself all these years. They have even gone into examinations in a big way by setting up their own Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) to promote Singapore’s examination-linked brand. The iPSLE is now being sold to neighboring countries.

Will teachers bite into this new initiative? A lot will depend again on MOE. It is not enough to say it wants all these wonderful learning and teaching goals but if it still has the high stakes examinations and the related school ranking system. No teacher who wants to continue in the Singapore education service will change from what he has been essentially doing, which is, to teach to the examinations. Teaching to the examinations of course means all those things that MOE wants less of under its TLLM initiative. Teachers will continue to cover the syllabus, push for drill and practice and rote-learning, continue to teach set formulae and expect standard answers. Their teaching mode will continue to be one of dispensing information. High stakes examinations don’t reward teachers and students to do what TLLM wants them to do. Just stick to the examination-type questions and answers. Students, teachers and principals will continue to fear failure.

The MOE must make a clear signal to all. It can’t pretend all the TLLM goals can be achieved as long as high stakes examinations continue as it is today. Even if changes are made to these examinations through the inclusion of project work the way it is done now,with its direct link to the students’ summative evaluation, it will only serve to emphasize that all learning is for the final results at the end of the academic year. Project work should be encouraged not just to see if students can do another type of assessment but more because it is to encourage deeper learning through inquiry. Teachers are not dumb neither are the students. They will see a summative assessment in whatever bottle it appears in.

All the goals stated under TLLM must be accompanied by appropriate changes to the assessment modes. Alternative assessment modes must be used throughout the year rather than on a seasonal basis as it is done today in Singapore schools. The assessment modes should be able to capture the deep learning and understanding that is called for under the TLLM initiative.

It would be nice to hear from MOE how it plans to go about doing all these. Changing the course in education for Singapore involves more than just stating goals. Just how does MOE plan to get there? Right now the clear destination for all teachers, principals and parents in Singapore is to continue holding their course and head for the next end-of-year examinations. MOE needs to reset its compass and chart new routes and take on new supplies if it hopes to get where it wants to go.