Some trips make you think. Some experiences reported about that trip makes you think even harder. And reading about their experiences make me think even more.
Amelia Teng, Education Correspondent, recently made a trip to Finland to study how they did it and this is her opening salvo: -
“Finland has often attracted global attention for being an education miracle - there are no major exams until the age of 18, private tuition is unheard of and yet students still do well in global education rankings.”
As a parent of three growing kids, putting my kids through the rigors of our local educational system, the part that raised my eyebrows to the heavens was “private tuition is unheard of” and “students still do well in global education rankings.” (And I won’t even get to the part about there being “no major exams until the age of 18” - I only have two eyebrows to raise).
Well, our students here have done equally well in global education rankings too. That has to be said. But still, our route (or experiences) is quite different from the Finland’s path.
And I know there are many roads that lead to Rome, but can one of the healthier road be the Finland’s way where (as reported and experienced) there is no major exams (until 18) and tuition is unheard of?
PSLE and GCE “O” level are the sacred cows of our educational system. They are what our unique meritocracy is based on. They are the cornerstone of how we streamline society, kind of like a filtering system, where the academically bright are separated from the academically less bright - to put it simply.
Mind you, it has been with us since independence and it has worked well - so, what’s ain’t broken, shouldn’t we just let it be?
At most, we can tweak the entrenched system a little or progressively in the same way a race car would be spruced up at a pitstop at F1 race. But don’t expect major overhaul because the driver has a race to catch, and most times, it can be really intense.
But before I drone further on this point, let’s return to the article’s main point.
The report on the trip was mainly on inclusivity in schools, that is, “more than 95 per cent of its students with special needs, including those with severe conditions such as cerebral palsy, are in publicly funded, regular schools known as comprehensive schools”.
In Singapore, we have a comfortable percentage of 80 (who attend mainstream schools).
To be exact, the stats are that “these students have learning difficulties due to conditions such as dyslexia, autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The rest, or about 6,200 students, attend 19 special education schools, which are for those who require more support.”
But many felt that we can do more, and do more without compromising and undermining the development of other students.
In fact, according to the report, “a 2016 paper by Harvard Graduate School of Education found that students with special needs who went to general education classes outperformed their peers in segregated settings.”
Lien Foundation chief executive Lee Poh Wah said “the concept of special education here is still rooted in an archaic system of separate special schools run by social service organisations.”
What was suggested was for the channeling of resources “to create a network of inclusive primary schools, training more mainstream teachers in special needs and equipping schools with dedicated specialists such as psychologists, therapists and social workers.”
This is similar to the experience of Finland educators where “special education teachers in Finland are highly qualified and well-trained; a key feature of the inclusive classrooms was their co-teaching and co-planning of lessons with the mainstream teachers.”
Surprisingly, it reports that this system “may even improve teaching practises for all students, as teachers and principals are required to support the needs of each child individually.”
And “by law, special classes even in regular schools are kept small in Finland - one teacher to a group of six to eight students with severe learning problems.”
If you put a mental tag on that aspect of inclusivity in Finland, and move back to what I discussed earlier about no major exams and where tuition is unheard of, you get a picture of a system that is somewhat kinder and healthier for students as a whole as they progress from age to age until maturity.
Now, of course, the ultimate goal is testable results and the report card (at the end of the day) must show learning, knowledge gained and applied, and academic maturity. But this has to be bore in mind, at what cost?
Let’s take our system on tests at every crucial stage for example. Dr Jacqueline Chung, academic director and senior principal at St James’ Church Kindergarten, said that “primary school teachers here tend to focus on gearing up children for the Primary School Leaving Examination.”
She added: “It can be pressurising for students with learning difficulties if they cannot keep up with the pace of learning.”
In Finland, it reports that children “do not have any standardised or high-stakes exams. Teachers use projects or homework to evaluate their progress and track learning.”
Dr Marjo Kyllonen, head of development services in Helsinki said that “schools in Finland believe in portfolio assessment - assessing students based on learning tasks and objectives. This learning is more natural for students...as opposed to cramming for tests and not remembering anything you studied the next day.”
To sidetrack...parents, she does have a point right?
We all experienced this before, when we study to pass and not study to learn (or study for interest). The major difference is that for the former (study to pass/score), it is all about that day, and everything that leads to that day of exam.
Once we have done it, completed it, we jettison most of what we have stored mechanically in our brain out of the system. The mental script is: Mission accomplished, let’s prepare with technocratic focus to jump through the next academically-intense hoop.
My concern is that our system somehow risks setting up our children for that kind of mindset. Alas, it is said that education is not about cramming everything into our kid’s brain, but lighting a fire within - stoking curiosity, rekindling passion, igniting desire and fortifying interest.
The gist of my post this morning is about rethinking. This sentiment is expressed aptly by executive director of Rainbow Centre, Ms Tan Sze Wee, when she said: -
“If we can move away from exams as the primary way to decide on places for schools, and look instead at different ways of teaching and evaluating diverse learners in one classroom, our children will learn to value and respect diversity.”
That’s the direction I trust our system designers are taking. Not just a more inclusive system where no one is left behind (or feels as if he or she is left behind), but also valuing each child for what he or she can excel in within an environment that is essentially child-centric and not exams-centric.
Imagine with me for a moment: Our education system is not a race to see who finishes first, to crown the winner with trophies and the glam-lights and leaving the rest in winner’s shadow. But it is a marathon, where the first to arrive is no doubt recognised for his or her endurance and character, yet those who come in thereafter are also applauded for their endurance and character.
There is still an element of competition to some extent and it is unavoidable. But unlike an academic rat-race to the bottom, a marathon is more about challenging yourself, beating your personal best, and doing better the next time round.
While a race like a sprint is to see and compare who’s better/faster, a marathon is about completing it with pride of one’s achievement and about self-congratulation and giving a good pad on one’s back.
Most importantly, the whole community rejoices with every marathoner arriving at the finish line. But in a race, the celebration is usually about who comes in first, and by how much he or she beats the last timing. One is communal and the other is largely individualistic. One is about intrinsic motivation and the other fiercely competitive.
I feel that the Finland road is a marathon while our system is largely about racing within certain highly anticipated timing - lest you, as a competitor, is frowned upon. No doubt we are evolving, and that is why we send delegates to Finland to learn from them.
But my concern (as I end) is that if we remain fiercely meritocratic coupled with the all-consuming goal of putting the economic growth cart before the inclusive/communal horse, we run the risks of merely paying lip-service to changing our educational system without changing the script behind it, which we have unwittingly elevated to the status of inscrutable sacred cows. Cheerz.
No comments:
Post a Comment