RELOOKING the
determined pursuit of excellent grades is not a precursor to a
"de-grading" of systems of assessment and an inevitable descent into
mediocrity. Rather, it challenges the assumption that grades matter above all
else in the real world of commerce, social interaction and governance.
Performance-focused employers need people who can deliver
results - execute tasks, demonstrate innovation, cut deals, size up
opportunities, weigh risks, manage projects, raise revenues, solve problems,
communicate issues, negotiate agreements and interact with diverse groups.
Having scored top grades in science, literature or maths is no guarantee that a
candidate can easily acquire such competencies that increasingly count more in a
fast-changing world.
This lies at the heart of the debate on the future of
Singapore's education system, as expounded by Education Minister Heng Swee Keat
when he noted that schools would have to move beyond equipping students for
examinations and prepare them for life. Towards that end, secondary schools
will offer by 2017 a programme intended to help students understand the
relevance and value of what they are learning. Another programme will encourage
them to better understand both themselves and their relationship with others.
These schemes will institutionalise cognitive values necessary if the education
system is to help Singapore meet the qualitatively new demands of the
globalising economy.
That the country can focus now on these higher-order skills
attests to its success in first ensuring a strong educational foundation for
its young. However, unlike times when students had to be made employable in an
industrial economy, today's information economy demands that they are equipped
for workplace demands that cannot even be foreseen when a child enters school.
Hence, the need, as Mr Heng made clear at his ministry's annual workplan
seminar recently, for all-round students who can collaborate with people from
different backgrounds in an environment that is volatile, uncertain, complex
and ambiguous.
Parents and educators can make a real difference by laying
aside their own assumptions and experiences. They need to help children learn
to live in the complex world in new ways. This is largely uncharted territory
with no study guides, assessment workbooks and private tutors readily
available. It is at home, around the dinner table, in particular, that children
get to imbibe a sense of what they must do to thrive in a challenging world.
And it is in school that they will be transformed, beyond the changed
curricula, by the cultural change of making them more than the sum of their
grades.
The Straits Times Oct
03, 2013
Changes in Education in Singapore
Education Minister Heng Swee Keat recently
announced changes to the education system. But is there a need to change?
Aren't we doing fine? By many accounts, Singapore has one of the best education
systems in the world. Singapore students are top performers in international
tests. Its curriculum-based textbooks have been adopted by 39 countries.
A common gripe, however, is that our students are only
exam-smart and that our education system is very competitive and highly
stressful. Such concerns suggest that there is always room for improvement. Addressing these concerns at the Ministry of Education's
Work Plan Seminar, Mr Heng unveiled plans for a "Student-Centric,
Values-Driven Education" with four key attributes. At first glance, we may
wonder whether these are achievable or a far-fetched vision. Is it possible to
engage every student? Can every school be a good school? Will every teacher be
a caring educator? Will every parent be a supportive partner?
These, in my view, are not statements of outcomes but
statements of strategy. The idea is that actions guided by these principles
would lead to a better education system through which our learners can receive
a well-rounded education, with positive learning experiences. They also
reiterate that the responsibility of educating a child rests not just with the
school but also with the student, parents and the larger community, reminding
us of the African saying, "It takes the whole village to raise a
child".
MEASURING ACHIEVEMENT, TO WHAT END?
In line with this vision, the minister announced the removal
of the achievement-oriented school banding, saying that academic results alone
cannot be a good yardstick of a good school. While this has been welcomed by
some, there is also disappointment expressed that removing competition poses a
danger to standards of education.
This makes one wonder about the purpose of the banding. While the practice has its merits and has served the purpose
of identifying schools that have achieved academically, be it in terms of
progress or sustained achievement, and spurring innovative programmes to
enhance learning, it fails to provide insights on how the school, educators,
students and parents have brought out these achievements. So, yes, the banding
measures achievement, but the question is, to what end?
Should we simply measure achievement for the sake of
measuring, or should we measure achievement to learn and improve? In other
words, is measurement going to be of achievement - or for achievement?
COLLABORATE, NOT COMPETE
Interestingly, many of the news articles on this issue have
covered only the abolition of the banding but have not elaborated on the
alternative that takes its place. This is to recognise key attributes that
contribute to a good school, such as best practices in teaching and learning,
character and citizenship education, student all-round development, staff
development and well-being, and partnership (with parents).
Though banding of schools based on academic results and
recognition of good schools based on best practices have the same goal - to
improve quality of education - they operate differently. The awards are suitable as administrative measures of the
performance of schools, and therefore push schools to come up with various innovative
programmes so as to be the best.
On the other hand, the measures of best practices allow
schools to learn from one another and build the overall quality of education in
Singapore, while recognising the effort that has gone into this.
So which would be a suitable approach for nurturing our
students: Competition (banding) or collaboration (sharing of best practices)?
The answer is obvious.
ASSESS STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
What else is needed to make these changes successful?
I hope that there are also changes in ways of assessment. If
school assessments continue to be mainly exam-focused and academics-oriented,
it is highly likely that this is what schools, educators, students and parents
will continue to work on. It stands to logic that what will be delivered is
what is going to be measured or counted. To ensure that the various stakeholders do not go back to
the old heavily exam-oriented practices, the way forward would be to assess
student engagement as an additional measure. This would require new tools or tests: We should consider
alternative assessments and include more formative tests that support
assessment for learning, in addition to the typical summative assessment of
learning (such as the final-year exams).
However, as grades in standardised national exams (such as
the PSLE, GCE "O" levels, "A" levels) or traditional
end-of-year/ module exams have been conventionally used as the "currency
of education" to gain admission to higher education or jobs, it is not
easy to do away with such exams. I can hear the murmurs that additional assessment would mean
extra work and stress. But this additional assessment will help students learn.
REVIVING 'TEACH LESS'
Another aspect not mentioned in the minister's address was
the impact of changes on curriculum. Student-centric learning activities would require more time,
as it involves active engagement and not just passive transmission of
information and knowledge to the students. So the question is, are teachers going to be expected to
cover the same curriculum or content to the same extent? If we expect our teachers to do so, carry on with other
teaching-related administrative, co-curricular activities, counselling and
mentoring duties and, on top of this, come up with ways to engage students, our
teachers are going to be overwhelmed.
Therefore, we may also need to rejuvenate the concept of
"Teach Less, Learn More". With a re-scoped, student-centric
curriculum, the focus would be on not content coverage but deeper, meaningful
and valuable learning for life.
As an educator, I look forward to the changes, for there are
numerous advantages to student-centric education. This is evident from the
teaching and learning literature. Based on this, I am also confident that our
students would enjoy it and am hopeful that they would adapt well.
As a parent, I look forward to connecting with my kids'
schools and hope this is not limited to information sharing but purposeful
interaction. Perhaps, as a first step, schools can consider creating
opportunities for parents to experience the student-centric education. Our
experience of school was so different that we may need to go back to school
today.
(Dr Nachamma Sockalingam holds a PhD in Educational
Psychology and is a lecturer at SIM University's Teaching and Learning Centre 20 September 2012 )
Copyright © 2012 MediaCorp Pte Ltd
No comments:
Post a Comment