High-stakes assessment in England and Singapore

Theory Into Practice, Wntr, 2003 by Kelvin Gregory, Marguerite Clarke

One in three primary Singaporean children finds life not worth living; nearly four out of five spend as many as three hours studying after school; and seven out of ten receive extra classes after school (The Straits Times, 2000). A 1992 survey of 1,052 Singaporean households, together with interviews with 1,261 students, found that 49% of elementary students and 30% of secondary students received tutoring (George, 1992). Students frequently complain about the lack of time to play (Tan, 2001). And two-thirds of Singaporean parents have punished their children for performing poorly by caning them (Agence France Presse, 2000). More than 20,000 students, two-thirds of them in primary schools or preprimary centers, received psychiatric treatment in 1998 (Agence France Presse, 2001). Given the intense pressure students are under, combined with little avenue for escape, a number of students commit suicide each year. For example:

   Lysher Loh left her home in Singapore early one day
   but never made it to school. The 10-year-old, a top
   student with a cheerful personality, had confided in her
   father about pressure from mounds of homework and
   joked with classmates about what she would do if her
   Chinese-language grades did not improve.... Lysher
   went up to the fifth floor of her apartment block and
   leapt to the pavement below. (Tan, 2001, pp. 1-2)

Yet, the suicide and self-inflicted injury death rate for the 5-14 age bracket in Singapore is similar to that of the United States. For the 15-24 age bracket, the male rate of suicide in Singapore is less than half of the United States, but the female rate is approximately twice that of the United States (World Health Organization, 1999). In order to head off incidents like that of Lysher Loh, schools in Singapore get suicide-intervention guides from the Ministry of Education.

Potential Lessons for Educators in the United States

The national curricula in England and Singapore give specific direction to education. In these two countries, the curriculum is normalizing, conveying a value-laden message regarding what should be taught and assessed and, by default, what is of limited value. Through the accompanying high-stakes assessments, this normalization is taxonomic, classifying people and schools according to specific, often narrow, criteria. Problems associated with such curricula include a narrow operational definition of education, an unhealthy focus on test results rather than learning, and detrimental stress on the student. Because these problems are often manifested at the classroom level, they remain relatively hidden from centralized policy makers. Consequently, educators have a role in the educational process that extends beyond implementing the curriculum. That is, they must participate in the formulation and critical review of education policy. Three broad ideas specially aimed at enabling educators to participate in the policy process are presented below.

Establish credibility

In the face of continued media, political, and public scrutiny, educators must establish and reaffirm their credibility. Each educator must develop, and continue to refine, a comprehensive and cohesive framework that relates theory to practice. Such development will initially occur within the constraints of a normalizing curriculum that exerts power over the education process (Koutselini, 1997).