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?

During the Vietnam War, the Americans used body counts, that is casualty figures for the enemy as an indicator of the success of their war against the North Vietnamese. Numbers are a convenient way to indicate success or failure of almost anything.

The problem is when those people who use such simple indicators begin to believe in that such numbers actually reflect reality. It is made worse when such indicators like body counts, is not used by your enemy as the indicator of a successful war. Ho Chi Minh once said of the French whom he had fought before the Americans, “You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win.” Clearly Ho Chi Minh had a better idea of what is real. Body counts were never his measure of success.

Education today is facing its own Vietnam. Policy makers, school administrators and teachers have become obsessed with key performance indicators (KPIs) to measure the success of educational programs. Instead of body counts, we have test scores as our KPIs. The figures from such KPIs have a life of their own. Once adopted, it becomes an article of faith in terms of its accuracy. It becomes hard to let go of such measures because they become dogma. It becomes hard to let go also because the faithful cannot see any other alternative. Right or wrong it is held on to with the fervent of the converted.

So test scores, drop out rates and international surveys becomes part of the liturgy of education today. Never mind if intelligence cannot be reduced to a test score. Never mind too if many pass through these KPIs undetected. What is important is that we think have a measure. Sadly as the Americans found out with the Tet Offensive, body counts don’t count. Will we have to experience our own Tet Offensive in education before we realise this?

I have written a few posts warning my friends and readers in the countries around Singapore, like Indonesia and Thailand, not to blindly ape Singapore’s much vaunted education system. I have warned about looking at Singapore with rose-tinted glasses. I have argued that Singapore does not have an education system. What Singapore possess is a huge test prep system. Everything that is done in the test prep centers (they call them “schools” in Singapore) is geared towards preparing students to pass those high stakes examinations. I have also written about how foreign observers are eager to praise and copy the Singapore system. Even Barack Obama has mentioned how “well” Singapore’s “education” system is during his campaign trail.

Some readers may argue that there are schools that are skipping traditional examinations like the GCE O levels but they forget these are only for the elite top schools in Singapore. Why is this not the norm in Singapore? I have argued passionately that the examinations system is out of date and is one factor for the disconnect that affects many teenagers in schools in Singapore.

Yet, the Singapore system is being imitated by schools in the Southeast Asian region in countries like Indonesia and Vietnam, and even as far away as China. Today, we see this trend being followed eagerly by Obama‘s Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan. To quote Gerald Bracey:

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan wants a longer school day, a longer school week, and a longer school year and national subject standards, which will inevitably lead to one national test. Duncan wants to institute merit pay, which is a euphemism for paying teachers to produce higher test scores. Such merit pay, combined with national academic standards and one national test, will inevitably continue to transform our public schools into test prep factories. Thus, more and more of the same old industrialist factory model of education. All we need to do to improve schools, says Duncan, is intensify the command-and-control model of education.

Do all these sound familiar to Singaporeans out there? Is it a surprise that Arne Duncan wants something akin to what Singapore has now? TIMSS has caused American bureaucrats and politicians to panic. They fear that the dragons of the East will leave America in the dust with the dragons’ consistent high rankings in TIMSS. But they forget that it is precisely America’s lack of centralized control that has allowed it to produce the world’s most creative talents in all fields that has powered America’s ascendancy in the world today.

Yet, even in Singapore, the Ministry of Education (MOE) is trying, probably reluctantly, to move away from the traditional examinations mode because it recognizes at least officially, that there is a need to change the schooling experience to reflect the 21st century needs. But the change is only for the elite schools. But as Bracey puts it:

“Shouldn’t every child have an education like the President’s daughters?”

Bracey was of course commenting on Arne Duncan’s reforms. He was highlighting a clear contradiction between what the Obama Administration intends for education for the rest of America, and what the President’s daughter receives. In Singapore, what the “elite” receives, is different from that of the lesser mortals too. The elite in Singapore, like Obama’s daughters, will get schools that are not factory-like in nature, boasting of enlightened approaches to education. The rest of America, like the rest of Singapore, will get the rags and the factory assembly line which is indicative of where the powers-that-be think such students should be heading for.

“The working, the working, just the working life.”

- “Factory” by Bruce Springsteen