“Whose problem is it?” ~ Neil Postman

This is the next question that Postman posed when considering why a new technology is to be introduced. After answering “what is the problem to which this technology is a solution”, Neil Postman wants us to identify the real owner of the problem. This is important because by seeing this we will realize whether we are trying to solve our problems or that of someone else?

Let’s look at virtual environments. Why are virtual environments created for schools? As explained in my previous post, I do not think that such virtual environments are important for schools. I believe that the fact that it was pushed to schools shows that there is a problem but it is not that of the schools. It is that of the software industries. They want to create a market for them to sell their products. It is largely a problem for the sales managers and their salesmen. Not for schools. For this reason, school teachers and administrators must learn to see through the hype, or sales pitches. Do schools really need them?

As mentioned in my previous posts, ICT is also often introduced to schools to lend an aura of prestige and progressiveness to the schools. For example, one reason why Singapore’s schools are considered world class is the ubiquitous presence of ICT equipment. In Indonesia, the surest way to lend a school an air of “international” quality is to promote the availability of computers in the school. Never mind if in both cases, rote learning and mechanical operations are the order of learning in the schools.

Whose problem is it that there is a need for such prestige? Does the prestige affect the teaching and learning process in schools? Quite obviously, it doesn’t. What it does affect is the image of the school. This is important for the owners of the schools, the parents of the students and the student themselves. What it does give to all three groups is bragging rights. For the owners of such schools, it means that they hope bragging about the introduction of ICT will bring about more “customers” for the school. For the parents, it assuages their fears about not giving the best for their children’s future. And for the students themselves, they can brag that they come from a “technologically sophisticated” school.

Whose problem is it also that schools are expected to use ICT to teach students the so-called 21st century skills like collaboration and problem-solving? Are students and teachers supposed to be test pilots of every new technology? Does this come under the ambit of the schools? Where is the line drawn with regards to what is considered to be suitable as part of a school’s goals? School teachers and administrators need to ask these questions so they do not become saddled with other people’s problems. Schools as they are, are already crammed with all kinds of new initiatives to overcome all of society’s ills. Currently everybody’s agenda has become the schools’ agenda. A more discerning approach can help to reduce the overload that is happening in schools and bring back some semblance of sanity.

Recently, I boarded a local public bus service to go to the National University of Singapore (NUS). Until today, I am not sure whether to laugh or cry at what I saw plastered on the back of the seats in the bus.

On th back of each of the seats were plastered advertisements for teachers. They were adverts from Singapore’s Ministry of Education (MOE). In bold letters it said, “NO CHILD SHOULD BE LEFT BEHIND” (NCSBLB). I stared at it for awhile between puking and laughing. Surely, it must be inspired by George Bush’s discredited, high stakes examinations focused, “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) policy. It must rank as high as the MOE teacher recruitment advertisement at Raffles Place which I had written about.

Is it a coincidence that the people in MOE had approved the NCSBLB advert? Is MOE drawing inspiration from the US? Or is it the other way around? Or the educational authorities in both countries are equally confused? Surely, since our leaders are talking about preparing its people for the new economy of this century, they need to send out a very different message. NCSBLB is no different from NCLB. Or is that telling of the attitudes of those in MOE?

PS: See the PR shot below released by MOE of its staff all decked in black (and leather?)

I just read a Straits Times report about the controversy over whether the national examinations should be allowed to carry on despite a Supreme Court decision upholding a High Court ruling requiring that the Indonesian government upgrade teaching and school facilities nationwide before conducting another national examinations. The courts had made a ruling in response to a suit by a group of parents and students. Also the Jakarta Globe was quoted to have criticized that by going ahead with the examinations, the education ministry or Diknas, was assuming “all students across the country had access to the same opportunities and information, which is far from the truth.” In justifying his Diknas’ rationale for going ahead with the examinations despite the Supreme Court decision, the Education Minister Muhammad Nuh, argued that would be almost impossible to to wait for all schools to be standardised before Diknas can carry out the examinations.

From the controversy here, I think both opposing sides seems to have one thing in common. They both believe in the written examinations that is typical of the national examinations in Indonesia. It is implied in the Education Minister’s argument that the examinations must go on. It is also implied that the people who brought the law suit also believe in the examinations usefulness as they only seem to opposed the unequal opportunities that can skew the examinations.

In my view, both sides are wrong to place such emphasis on examinations in the first place. I have written a lot about this in my blog. Examinations as they are usually carried out are poor indicators of student intelligence and achievement. It does not matter if all the schools and teachers are of equal quality. The problem with examinations is the inherent philosophy and design behind such examinations. For these reasons alone, high stakes examinations should be abolished not only in Indonesia but also for the rest of the world.