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?

The IGCSE is a popular internationally recognized examination that more schools in Southeast Asia are opting to participate in. There is nothing wrong with this because there are some real advantages of taking the examinations. The most important perhaps is that it is universally-recognized as an entrance examinations for furthering one’s education especially in the English-speaking world. This is in large part due to its parent examination syndicate, the Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) syndicate, having been around for a long time in this area. It is also due to the relative security and impartiality of the examinations as compared to local examinations in some Southeast Asia where “irregularities” during and after examinations is far from irregular. Participating in the IGCSE also means that the schools concerned would have to put a greater emphasis on the English Language. This would force the students in the school to pick up what is often regarded as the international language for commerce and science.

However, it would be a mistake for schools in countries in Southeast Asia, like Indonesia and Vietnam, and even in China, to believe that taking such an examination will make them a good school with an international curriculum. Overseas educational consultants from elsewhere have been selling the idea that the IGCSE will change them into good schools plus they also pander to the gullibility of parents in those countries about what is a good education.

All examinations, not only the IGCSE, that have the nett effect of schools getting teachers to only teach to the examinations is bad. Such an approach to school will not result in schools becoming good schools but only good examination preparation centers. While this may secure for the students placings in higher educational institutions, what is left behind through under-emphasis is the other skills which are deemed to be more important for anyone to succeed in the 21st century. The dictum, “what is not tested will not learned”, will come true. Therefore schools who still do want to take advantage of the IGCSE must also be aware of this pitfall of becoming nothing more than just examination prepartion centers. They must also be wary of educational consultants who only peddle international examinations and little else.

There are many international schools in Southeast Asia today and more are added each year. This reflects both the impact of globalization which has led to the growth of a large expatriate population in Southeast Asian countries and also a growing demand for good quality education from Asian parents. For many Southeast Asian parents, international schools means quality education for their children.

However, international schools do have a serious problem with regards to their teachers professional development. Many of these schools do not have on their staff trained and qualified teachers. Many of them are taken from the expatriate population that already live in the various Southeast Asian cities. Although I am not implying that untrained teachers make for bad teaching, it would be even better if such teachers are given a concerted and systematic training program with all the basic skills that they need as professional teachers.

Such experience and knowledge can make the classroom learning even more relevant for the students. A widening of the students’ horizons can and should be expected through such teachers. Students will be exposed to a more cross cultural perspective of things. A basic teacher training program can help such teachers be even more effective as agents for a truly global world.

Furthermore, studies have shown that teachers are more likely to stay if they feel that they can affect the outcome of the learning in the classrooms. Trained teachers would be better equipped with the tools and repertoire of skills that will help them exert a more positive impact on what goes on in the classrooms. Teacher training programs although can be costly, can actually contribute positively to the overall quality of the teachers in the school.

Click on this link if you want to learn more about enhancing teacher professional practice.