Pages

Saturday 27 April 2013

Education Recalibration


The recent speech by the Minister of Education Mr Heng Swee Keat goes deeper than the usual arguments about the pros and cons of present education system. One key word that he emphasized in his speech is “fundamental”. We need to go back to the fundamentals of education. An education system does the best when it best fulfills its fundamental missions. Each society has common expectations and values shared by all members of the community. To ensure the continuity of those fundamental spirits, education of the young generation becomes an indispensable tool. Hence we can better evaluate the Singapore education system in light of the fundamentals as a more effective approach of analysis.

First, the society values fairness. In addition to human inherent sense of fairness, Singaporeans appreciate the critical function of fairness in running a racially-diverse society or maximizing the use of talented people in a small population1. Hence, it suffices to say the idea of fairness has been nailed into the head of Singaporeans. Such an idea is also reflected in Singapore’s education system. Despite the calling for abolishing exams, particularly the PSLE, such a possibility remains distant. Even the minister of education does not endorse the move, as seen in his description of how some countries that used to abolish exams are returning to exam-based systems2. Exams, as stressful as they are, set objective standard of comparison. A score of 90 is better than a score of 89. Though it is arguable how much difference does that one mark really makes, the score-based evaluation based on standardized exams has proven to be more reliable and fair than any other alternative: the interview-based assessment, the talent-based assessment where subjective evaluation is involved. The score given to a dance performance by a student applicant is essentially arbitrary, and varies across different assessors, who may themselves be influenced by their own idea of excellence, their experiences and even their “mood” on the day of assessment. Hence, exam scores carry much more weight of authority that appeals to people’s sense of fairness. Hence, it may not be wise to argue for abolishing exams when such a proposal infringes one of the fundamental values people hold dear to.

Secondly, the skills and values taught in school reflect the social demand for such qualities among students. The schools are generally responsive to social demands due to competition in attracting the best students. The students with the right set of qualities the society wants are more likely to succeed after they graduate. Graduating a successful batch of students enhances the reputation of schools that can attract students with better branding. Hence, the school will aim to equip students with the socially desirable skills and values. The Anglo-Chinese School (Independent), with its unique IB syllabus that emphasizes breath and independent research, is attracting top secondary school students3. The Singapore Management University, because of its unique seminar teaching style and extensive presentation training, makes its graduates highly marketable4. Some critics worry about the value education and skill impartation that are compromised by a strong emphasis on exams. However due to competition among schools for diversity and branding, the future of education scene may not be as bleak as some may predict. Schools know that just by producing high scorers will not make their graduates go far, and that will be reflected in testimonials like the graduate employment survey5 that parents and prospective students closely examine every year. Hence what the government should do may not be dictating value education from a top-down approach, but rather encourage the diversity and competition among schools while enhancing a series of graduate surveys and research to enhance the information flow, which ultimately incentivizes schools to respond to what society really needs.

Lastly, the undesirable aspects of education may well be reflections of values of general society. As being pointed out by the minister of education, the definition of success in education cannot be changed if the definition of success in society is not changed. If society places a premium on five C (Cash, Condominium, Cars, Credit Card, and Country Club), students, teachers and parents are likely to place a premium on things that are going to lead to the possession of five C in the future. Grades, which determine the branding of school one is entering or the streaming one is placed in, of course become the Holy Grail that people go after. Hence to try to criticize about the over-emphasis on grades while not recognizing the underlying social mentality is to exercise double-standard. If one wants to reduce exam stress and obsession with results, he has to start from society. And some people are actually doing that. For example, the Think Family campaign is good social movement in getting people to value love and togetherness more than materialistic gain. While measures can definitely be taken to reduce exam stress, such as the non-disclosure policy of top scores of PSLE candidates, the fundamental problem lies with society at large. Education is a reflection of social attitude, which we have to take into account to give a fair verdict of the performance of education sector in Singapore.

The speech by the Minister offers fresh perspective on thinking about education. We need to put the issue in a large social context and realize that no policy can be suitably recommended without recognizing the influence of society on education. As problems of education are reflections of problems in society, we need to bear in mind what educators are capable of and give them fair credit that we often forget in the mist of emotional criticism of education.
References:

1.       http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2000/sp24112000_print.htm

2.       http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202055/Tories-We-bring-O-level-boost-exam-standards.html

3.       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Baccalaureate_Diploma_Programme

4.       http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=181

5.       http://moe.gov.sg/education/post-secondary/files/ges-nus.pdf

The author is a private educator in Singapore , doing private tuition at www.frankltuition.sg 

Exam Results Oriented Society


Pros and Cons of Exam Result Oriented Teaching

Exam result oriented teaching is basically a concept whereby the instructor knows the exam contents very well and leads the class through the coursework, all the while keeping his/her eye on the fact that the only goal is to help the student achieve high marks on the exam itself – irrespective of the syllabus contents.

There can be many arguments both for and against this method of teaching. The instructor will need to know which topics should be weighted more or less than others and then lead the students down a very carefully constructed path of precise education – with one goal – high exam results.

While there is no arguing that this teaching method achieves the goal of making sure that the vast majority of students will score well on the exams, one must ask again – is this the proper way to educate our children?

In actuality, the system that incorporates an exam result oriented method of teaching is creating a false environment of ‘easy testing.’ This could cause a student who transfers out of this school and into one where a more traditional philosophy is taught to fail miserably because there is no longer a very clear and concise understanding of exactly what to expect when it comes time for exams. In parallel, when a student graduates from high school and enters college, if they happen to attend a college, or a class, where exam result oriented teaching is not the normal practice, they will find it invariably more difficult to succeed in that testing environment. Yet still, besides immersing in an exams-oriented schooling environment, students can implement strategies to do well in examinations.

Exam result oriented teaching creates a false sense of security and confidence in life itself. A student who has gone through an exam result oriented education does not know how to rebound when they have a misstep on an exam; nor do they know how to study hard for the ‘unknown’ of not being able to say with certainty that they already know all of the answers to all of the questions in life to all of the questions that will be on the exam.

While the pros are heavily weighted in the good for the school; for retention of critical funding and for the overall ease of a cookie-cutter curriculum that becomes stale and repeatable, the cons are much more ominous for our children who are not learning the invaluable skill of how to learn on their own, or how to study hard for something they want or need to attain.

When these youth enter the workforce and the real world they may find that the utopia they are used to, this overall sense of entitlement brings with it a harsh realization that life is not fair. That life is not easy. And unfortunately, that they are ill-prepared. This can cause depression, confusion, and despair. This could cause an otherwise average individual to perform sub-par in their careers, and thus create a lifelong path of underachieving; simply because they were not taught during their formative years how to work hard to get what they want, instead of having everything basically handed to them.

However, it is also possible that the confidence that was instilled by a somewhat “easy” education process will serve to give a young adult the confidence to succeed in tougher situations. When presented with an unknown variable, they will feel confident that they can tackle it with finesse and ease, because - after all - they’ve always been able to do so. Therefore, when they enter the workforce and society as an adult, they are a go-getter, because they know they can succeed. It’s been a proven fact of their entire life up to adulthood that they carry with them throughout every challenge they face in life.

The jury may be out on the real impact to society of exam result oriented teaching, but it is clear that we are teaching our children a lesson – whether it is a positive lesson or a negative lesson may not yet be clear.