the singaporean way
http://economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9989914
This is a brilliant and insightful piece on the education industry!
in particular, i liked this bit:
"Begin with hiring the best. There is no question that, as one South Korean official put it, “the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers.” Studies in Tennessee and Dallas have shown that, if you take pupils of average ability and give them to teachers deemed in the top fifth of the profession, they end up in the top 10% of student performers; if you give them to teachers from the bottom fifth, they end up at the bottom. The quality of teachers affects student performance more than anything else."
- The Economist
teacher allocation is something i feel strongly about. why do the best schools get the best teachers? this is a contentious issue, i suppose, but from what i gather from various sources (sister, friends etc), it seems to me that the better teachers are being siphoned off to the best schools. conversely, the average quality (there are exceptions!) of teachers in a neighborhood school seems to be distinctly lower. i can't prove this with statistics, but i think my gut feel is pretty close. after all, the top schools are mostly independent and have autonomy in choosing their own teachers. the incentive to teach in a top school is obvious, coupled with the independent schools' ability to choose the best teachers available to them, it is no wonder they get the best, though there are some teachers who are posted there by the ministry. talk about market power.
if indeed the above study is accurate, then equality within the education system, and possibly within singapore's society, could be improved by allocating the best teachers to the weaker schools. in practice, i doubt the relationship is so direct, but surely it will make a difference!
Then maybe, we wouldnt see such a huge gulf in standards between the top 20 secondary schools and the next 20 ones. of course, there are other factors for this huge gulf, chiefly the admissions criteria. the best schools take the best students, period. combine the best students with the best teachers, and u have scholastic hegemony!
giving the weaker students a boost by allocating them the best teachers could see them perform better at the O and A levels, and eventually at the tertiary level. the impact is felt the greatest at the secondary level, which is the student's formative period. the basics for higher learning are taught at this level, so a better (in my opinion at least) allocation of teachers at this level will encourage a more equal student population. furthermore, weaker students are discouraged more easily in general, since failure can cause a downward spiral. the best teachers may be able to help them get better grades and a renewed confidence, which is so vital in any endeavour. The brightest students, even if they are given so-called weaker teachers, will excel and be the best. definitely the performance of the top schools will suffer a little, but call me utilitarian for i believe in the greatest good for the greatest number of people! roar! besides, the gains made by the weaker students will most probably outweigh the losses made by the brighter students, so this represents a hicks-kaldor improvement, making the education system more efficient (i hope i got this theory right).
eventually, what singapore will get is a workforce with better higher-order thinking skills. the average ability of the workforce will be higher, with less inequality. this translates into more competitive workers and a more equal society. once again, my theorizing is based on two assumptions:
1. there is a difference in the average quality of teachers in the top and bottom schools
2. better teachers will make a tangible difference to weaker students
another point in the article was that the most important factor in a successful education system is the quality of the teachers. What this means is that the success of the singaporean education system, which employs teachers from the top 30% of graduates, is built on the high quality of its teachers, and less on its curriculum! by curriculum, i mean the style of teaching and learning (rote application, the irony). hopefully, our system will move away from the current one, which has its benefits, to a true application-based learning model. the integrated programme is a baby step towards that eventual target, but hardly enough (or effective, as it currently seems). so let's go MOE *clap clap*!
woah this is a long long long entry, and the most intellectual one i've ever made. this is something i've always felt strongly about though.
back to the suck.
This is a brilliant and insightful piece on the education industry!
in particular, i liked this bit:
"Begin with hiring the best. There is no question that, as one South Korean official put it, “the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers.” Studies in Tennessee and Dallas have shown that, if you take pupils of average ability and give them to teachers deemed in the top fifth of the profession, they end up in the top 10% of student performers; if you give them to teachers from the bottom fifth, they end up at the bottom. The quality of teachers affects student performance more than anything else."
- The Economist
teacher allocation is something i feel strongly about. why do the best schools get the best teachers? this is a contentious issue, i suppose, but from what i gather from various sources (sister, friends etc), it seems to me that the better teachers are being siphoned off to the best schools. conversely, the average quality (there are exceptions!) of teachers in a neighborhood school seems to be distinctly lower. i can't prove this with statistics, but i think my gut feel is pretty close. after all, the top schools are mostly independent and have autonomy in choosing their own teachers. the incentive to teach in a top school is obvious, coupled with the independent schools' ability to choose the best teachers available to them, it is no wonder they get the best, though there are some teachers who are posted there by the ministry. talk about market power.
if indeed the above study is accurate, then equality within the education system, and possibly within singapore's society, could be improved by allocating the best teachers to the weaker schools. in practice, i doubt the relationship is so direct, but surely it will make a difference!
Then maybe, we wouldnt see such a huge gulf in standards between the top 20 secondary schools and the next 20 ones. of course, there are other factors for this huge gulf, chiefly the admissions criteria. the best schools take the best students, period. combine the best students with the best teachers, and u have scholastic hegemony!
giving the weaker students a boost by allocating them the best teachers could see them perform better at the O and A levels, and eventually at the tertiary level. the impact is felt the greatest at the secondary level, which is the student's formative period. the basics for higher learning are taught at this level, so a better (in my opinion at least) allocation of teachers at this level will encourage a more equal student population. furthermore, weaker students are discouraged more easily in general, since failure can cause a downward spiral. the best teachers may be able to help them get better grades and a renewed confidence, which is so vital in any endeavour. The brightest students, even if they are given so-called weaker teachers, will excel and be the best. definitely the performance of the top schools will suffer a little, but call me utilitarian for i believe in the greatest good for the greatest number of people! roar! besides, the gains made by the weaker students will most probably outweigh the losses made by the brighter students, so this represents a hicks-kaldor improvement, making the education system more efficient (i hope i got this theory right).
eventually, what singapore will get is a workforce with better higher-order thinking skills. the average ability of the workforce will be higher, with less inequality. this translates into more competitive workers and a more equal society. once again, my theorizing is based on two assumptions:
1. there is a difference in the average quality of teachers in the top and bottom schools
2. better teachers will make a tangible difference to weaker students
another point in the article was that the most important factor in a successful education system is the quality of the teachers. What this means is that the success of the singaporean education system, which employs teachers from the top 30% of graduates, is built on the high quality of its teachers, and less on its curriculum! by curriculum, i mean the style of teaching and learning (rote application, the irony). hopefully, our system will move away from the current one, which has its benefits, to a true application-based learning model. the integrated programme is a baby step towards that eventual target, but hardly enough (or effective, as it currently seems). so let's go MOE *clap clap*!
woah this is a long long long entry, and the most intellectual one i've ever made. this is something i've always felt strongly about though.
back to the suck.
posted by jenhan at 8:18 AM
0 comments
