Below are some quotes pertaining to the importance of numbers for our reflection. Have numbers distorted our perceptions of reality?

~~~

(Francis) Galton is also known as the founder of “eugenics,” a term he coined, which means the science of arranging marriage and family so as to produce the best possible offspring based  on the hereditary characteristics of the parents. He believed that anything could be measured and that statistical procedures, in particular, were the technology that could open the pathway to real knowledge about every form of human behavior. The next time you watch a televised beauty contest in which women are ranked numerically, you should remember Francis Galton, whose pathological romance with numbers began with this idiocy. Being unsatisfied with vagueness about where the most “beauty” was to be found, he constructed a “beauty map” of the British Isles… If this was not enough, he also invented a method for quantifying boredom (by counting the number of fidgets) and even proposed a statistical inquiry for determining the efficacy of prayer.

~ quoted from “Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology” by Neil Postman

~~~

Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s many recent visits abroad appears to have paid off – the 62-year-old ranked No. 32 in the inaugural list of top thinkers that mattered most this year in the latest issue of the influential Foreign Policy magazine in the United States.

~ quoted from “Anwar listed from among 100 Top Global Thinkers” by Debra Chong, The Malaysian Insider

~~~

Rainer Kalb, a veteran writer who’s spent six years at kicker, once said: “The yearning for grades is a reflex to the debates about school grades in childhood. Now you can once again get upset about what you consider an injustice.” If that’s supposed to mean that the players secretly, subconsciously wish to be graded, it’s rather been my experience that it’s the writers who secretly, subconsciously react to a childhood experience. Now they wield the power to rate and grade and classify, now they are the teachers. WTF.

~ “Making the Grade”, Soccernet by Uli Hesse

~~~

There is a sad joke about a fifth-grade teacher in a ghetto school who asked a grim Negro (sic) boy, during the course of a “science” lesson, “How many legs does a grasshopper have?” “Oh, man, he replied, “I sure wish I had your problems!”

~ quoted from “Teaching as a Subversive Activity” by Neil Postman & Charles Weingartner

~~~

Schools in a nation are viewed as factories of one national industry that produces the product to compete with that of other nations’ education systems, and henceforth should be held to the same standards and produce the same values.Further, schools are considered as businesses and test scores on a few subjects represent their profit margin – the bottom line to judge their performance. As a result, it narrows the curriculum to a few subjects considered essential for competing with others.

~ “Global Competitiveness Reinterpreted: Homogenization vs Diversification” by Yong Zhao

~~~

(Added on)

Singapore had the largest proportions of highly competent students who reached the advanced benchmark in Primary 4 Science (36%), Secondary 2 Science (32%) and Primary 4 Mathematics (41%). For Secondary 2 Mathematics, Singapore’s proportion was the 3rd highest (40%) (behind Chinese Taipei and Korea). [international medians: 7%, 3%, 5% and 2% respectively]

quoted from “Singapore Performs Well Again in Latest Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2007, Press Release from the Ministry of Education (MOE), Singapore

~~~

 

The top student in this year’s Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) is a China national Qiu Biqing, 13, from  Qifa Primary School, who achieved an aggregate score of 290, with four A*s and a Distinction in Higher Chinese.

~ quoted from “Top student in PSLE this year from China”, the Temasek Review

~~~

This post was inspired by my friend, Dennis, whose intelligence is not impaired by his O levels only qualification. He compared the Singapore school system to the English Premier League (EPL).

I have read some concerns about the sekolah-sekolah berstandar internasional (SBIs) in Indonesia. One of these concerns is the reduction of the Indonesian identity as a result of the attempted shift towards international educational standards.

I can understand the concerns. I think this is again (as I have been saying all these while) there is a general confusion about what an “SBI” means. One of the most glaring problems that is the result of this confusion is the copying of a model which is perhaps most unsuited for Indonesia. Here I am talking about the Singapore school model that has often been adopted by schools in Indonesia as the model par excellent. This adoption of the Singapore model may be due to a few reasons.

Firstly, it may be due to Singapore’s international reputation for producing “top” students in international olympiads and also in international surveys like TIMSS. Secondly, it is due to Singapore’s proximity to Indonesia which perhaps serve to remind Indonesians of what is lacking in their educational system especially bearing in mind how small Singapore really is in comparison to giant Indonesia. Thirdly, wealthy Indonesians have historically sent their children to Singapore before the financial meltdown of the 1980s for an education and that is the education system they are most familiar with. It is not a surprise therefore that they look to Singapore as a model. Fourthly, the setting up of the Singapore International School (SIS) with its Singapore curriculum in Jakarta, brings the model even closer to Indonesians. The result is a rush to imitate the Singapore system. With Diknas promoting the idea of SBIs, the SIS model is seen as the model to follow for Indonesia. I believe that in general this is no fault of Diknas but more the fault of the owners of such schools which are usually privately-owned schools who have one eye fixed on profits. While making profits is not a sin, owners should be more serious about what education is about.

This blind aping of the Singapore system has meant a few things for these schools that aspire to be of international standards. Firstly, it has led to an emphasis on students taking international examinations like the iPSLE and the IGCSE because that is the nearest equivalent to the PSLE and the Singapore-Cambridge GCE “O” and “A” level examinations done in Singapore. The adoption of these examinations has meant that some subjects traditionally found in Indonesian schools have been given reduced emphasis especially subjects like Bahasa Indonesia and Social Studies with sometimes these subjects being combined. Nobody really stops to ask why international examinations are necessary in the first place. Indonesian students have had no  problems going to overseas universities in the first place without these examinations. They still can with their indigenous educational qualifications.

The second change which is perhaps another reason for the lament about the loss of the Indonesian identity, is the over-emphasis in the use of the English language. Here again there is an unchecked assumption that to be of international standard, a school must offer English as the medium of instruction. For schools like SIS where students take the iPSLE and the IGCSE, English is required as a medium of instruction because the examinations are done in English. Mastery of English is crucial. But some of the National Plus schools in Indonesia who have been touting themselves or planning to be SBIs have also chosen to take the same route. But what the owners have ignored is that, in the SIS model, almost all the teaching staff are very effective expatriate speakers of English. You have a staff of native English speakers supported by teachers from Singapore and the Philippines. Almost all the National Plus schools that want to offer IGCSE don’t have that. They have opted for a token approach with maybe one or two native English speakers. I do not mean any disrespect to Indonesian teachers but teaching in English is a problem for most of them. I am sure Indonesian teachers will agree that if Singapore teachers are asked to teach in Bahasa Indonesia to prepare their students in Bahasa Indonesia-based examinations, it will be pure folly. Using English as a medium of instruction requires a higher English language competency than a TOEFL score of 500. Even then Indonesian schools that aspire to be SBIs and touting the use of English as one of the essentials of SBIs, have great difficulty of getting teachers with that score of 500.

But despite these language difficulties, I believe Indonesians should not think that it is beyond them to get to the level of SBIs. But a re-intepretation of what an SBI is must be done. Perhaps, “re-intepretation” is not the correct term. A return to a proper understanding of what SBI is more accurate. Mastery of a foreign language was never one of the goals set for the SBIs by Diknas. What Diknas wants at the end of the day is a good educational standard where good teaching is done. Schools in Indonesia can set themselves that standard of quality teaching. By quality teaching it means teaching that is relevant to the needs of a modern Indonesian nation who aspires to be a member of this globalized world, yet firmly anchored in its Indonesian identity.

This can be done using the Indonesian curriculum with a lot of re-training for the teachers and some tweaking of the curriculum. Indonesian schools should still use the Indonesian language as the medium of instruction. This is for both nationalistic and pragmatic reasons. Indonesia is not Singapore and I believe the Indonesian schools will be better off as Indonesian schools then as “half-baked Singapore schools”.

Both Singapore and Finland enjoy international repute for the sterling performances of their students in international surveys like PISA and TIMSS. Both countries have also been known to produce students who have done well in international Mathematics olympiads. Singapore students have been known to do well in the Cambridge GCE O and A levels too. For the lay person, these are indicators of good educational systems.

But even then, Singapore’s leaders have repeatedly said that it has to move away from the examination-focus of the country’s education system. It is interesting to note in this video of a lecture by John Seely Brown, he mentioned at the tail end of the video during the Q&A session of a lecture (see video here), that Singapore leaders have indicated to him that while they have done well in international surveys, these surveys are for 20th Century skills not 21st Century skills. In other words, they are near irrelevant.

In explaining their success in international surveys, the Finnish National Board of Education, said that among the reasons for their success is:

“Assessment of both schools’ learning outcomes and pupils is encouraging and supportive in nature. The aim is to produce information that will help schools and pupils to develop. There are no national tests of learning outcomes and no school league tables. Pupils and schools are not compared with each other. National assessments of learning outcomes are based on samples and the key function of assessment is to pinpoint areas requiring further improvement in different subjects and within the entire school system.”

and also:

“Organisation of schoolwork and teaching is guided by a conception of learning where pupils’ own active involvement and interaction with teachers, fellow pupils and the learning environment are important. Pupils process and interpret the information that they absorb on the basis of their prior knowledge structures.”

Here you see that in the Finnish system does not stress on summative assessment of its pupils unlike in Singapore where high stakes national examinations, ranking of students against one another and school league tables (we call it school ranking in Singapore) is the norm. In contrast, teaching and learning in Finland is through the “pupils’ own active involvement and interaction with teachers, fellow pupils and the learning environment are important. Pupils process and interpret the information that they absorb on the basis of their prior knowledge structures.” I will revisit this point in a subsequent post.

The other commonality between the two countries is the centralized steering albeit done in different ways. In Singapore, educational policies are laid out by the Ministry of Education (MOE). In addition to this, the fact that almost all schools in the country are required to do high stakes examinations, it means that the syllabus for almost all the subjects are defined by the University of Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) examination syndicate which works in tandem with the MOE. The MOE is beginning to allow some exceptions to this link with the CIE but such exceptions are only allowed for the more prestigious schools. The MOE does allow schools some degree of autonomy in the daily running but almost all schools must subscribe to its major policies, for example, with regards to ranking and examinations.

In Finland, according to the Finnish National Board of Education:

The education system is flexible and its administration is based on intense delegation and provision of support. Steering is based on objectives set out in the Basic Education Act and Decree and within the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education. Responsibility for provision of education and implementation of objectives rests with local authorities (municipalities).

This devolvement of responsibility gives the Finnish system that flexibility with regards to the running of schools. Furthermore, in the Finnish system, there is greater level of partnership building with relevant institutions and organizations with regards to the educational support that the schools receive. They sought to ensure that:

“Activities at all levels are characterised by interaction and partnership building. In order to develop the school system, there is co-operation between different levels of administration, schools and other sectors of society. Finnish school authorities also co-operate a lot with subject associations and teacher and rector organisations. This has secured strong support for development measures.”

In Singapore, little such interaction and partnership building is done. If they do exist, they are from institutionalized.

The two countries also offer comprehensive education for students. In Finland this is up to the age of sixteen. In Singapore, the Compulsory Education Act made it compulsory for all parents to enroll their children in school till they have completed primary education (twelve years old).  This measures are likely contributors for the two countries relatively good reputation in the educational arena.

So while there are similarities in the two countries’ educational systems, even in the similarities, there are, I believe, important differences that account for the markedly differing character of the two educational systems. I will be delving more about this in subsequent posts.

(to be continued)

Getting IT certification is no more a dream with testking JN0-100 online training. Download testking JN0-400 study pack with self paced testking HP0-J22 practice test and pass your exam on first try.