by Lisa Li

Source: MOE

In December 2010, Singapore’s Ministry of Education (MOE) published an extensive report by the Secondary Education Review and Implementation (SERI) Committee, which conducted seven focus group discussions in Singapore’s schools and studied education systems in Australia, China, Germany, Japan, the Nordic countries, UK, US and the International Baccalaureate (IB) Middle Years Programme.

It is evident that much hard work produced the SERI report which offers a wide range of recommendations, such as the creation of Student Centres in all secondary schools, the implementation of new modules to give Express and N(A) students more variety, the “Step Curriculum” for N(T) students, and Through-Train Programmes to polytechnic for N(A) students.

It is also heartening that MOE plans to provide secondary schools with three more teacher posts from 2011, and more teachers in tandem with the start of new programmes. Accordingly, the Pupil-Teacher Ratio in secondary schools is expected to improve from 16:1 in 2009 to 13:1 by end 2015 (Report of the SERI Committee, p61), which will certainly be a welcome improvement.

The collaboration between MOE and commercial publishers

Yet, in the midst of all these clear and specific recommendations, there is one issue that seems rather vague — SERI’s point on commercial publishers and instructional materials.

On page 46 of the SERI report, it was briefly mentioned that “currently, secondary school textbooks are collaboratively published with commercial publishers” and MOE should “facilitate the production of better instructional materials with commercial publishers for the teaching of the English language and Mathematics.”

The report elaborates that such resources “could include teachers’ guides, manipulatives and digital resources” in order to “strengthen the alignment between the instructional materials and the intended curriculum, pedagogy and assessment of students.” (emphasis added)

Abruptly, the next paragraph in the SERI report was on the provision of allied educators in the N(T) and N(A) classroom.

Given that teachers’ guides and other digital resources have already been produced for many years, it is unfortunate that the SERI report did not include any new insights or recommendations gleaned from their study of the other education systems, instead leaving it to the relevant MOE department to evaluate on their own.

To get a better understanding of these issues, The Online Citizen spoke to N, an editor in a major publishing house which has been publishing textbooks, teachers’ guides and digital resources for many years.

N explained that the current mode of collaboration is one that gives MOE officers overall control over the material, while not needing to write the textbook themselves. In this model, MOE produces the syllabus and different companies submit chapters in a tender process. Upon obtaining the contract, the commercial publisher(s) would hire writers to develop materials, with MOE involved at almost every stage to review the material and suggest changes.

Although N did not elaborate on the tender process, it seems likely that a combination of quality, price and production efficiency would be some criteria by which this contract is awarded.

If so, what are the implications of producing instructional materials via a tender process and commercial contract? Might MOE be swayed by the “Cheaper, Better, Faster” mantra, and is this the best way to produce quality textbooks and teachers’ guides?

More specifically, who are these writers hired by commercial publishers to write the textbooks and are they well-equipped to do so? According to N, the writers are “almost always former teachers”. As writers with classroom experience, they may indeed be able to produce practical lesson plans.

Yet, to the layman, it seems logical to wonder why our schools’ textbooks and teachers’ guides are produced by anonymous writers privately hired by commercial publishers seeking to win a tender, instead of Singapore’s curriculum specialists and pedagogical experts who are employed by MOE and the National Institute of Education (NIE).

Furthermore, would a competitive commercial contract give publishers and MOE sufficient time to create useful, engaging and lasting instructional materials?

“Timelines are always tight,” N said. “We (the publishers) are given one year to create a textbook package, which includes a textbook, a teacher’s guide, workbooks and CD-ROMs as well.”

For the writers, it appears that the timeline is even tighter, as, according to N, they only have about “two or three months to write the first draft for an entire book”, although the timeline varies with length and difficulty level of the project, and they are also involved in the rewrites that come after each review and feedback stage.

The improvement of instructional materials

Of course, being laymen unfamiliar with this process, we would not know if this commercial collaboration is really the best way, and if MOE’s final vetting and approval is adequate in producing quality instructional materials.

That is why it would have been beneficial if the SERI Committee, which studied other countries’ education systems, had also conducted a comparative study of how these systems produce quality instructional materials. For example, do they all produce their textbooks and teachers’ guides via a tender process with commercial publishers collaborating with the education ministries?

Perhaps this comparative study was indeed done, but left out of the SERI report due to space constraints. We hope so, as such a study would surely help MOE to come up with clear improvements to “facilitate the production of better instructional materials” and “strengthen the alignment between the instructional materials and the intended curriculum, pedagogy and assessment of students.”

It is undeniable that the SERI Committee has collated and produced many beneficial and specific recommendations. Nevertheless, when good recommendations come without specific suggestions, the danger is that it may be too easy to accept — without any real change.

You can download the pdf file of the report here.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

本地患者体内惊现变种病毒 专家:无证据表明病毒传播和毒性更强

在本地冠病患者体内发现变种病毒,但传染病专家表示,当前仍未有足够证据,能证明变种病毒的传播力和毒性更强。 自冠状病毒19疫情爆发以来,基因学家已不断将致病的冠状病毒 SARS-CoV-2 基因组排序,从而了解病毒传播机制。 据《立场新闻》报导,SARS-CoV-2 基因组平均每个月就可累积到两个改变,大部分改变都不会影响病毒活动。 不过部分仍可能会影响到病毒的传染及严重性。 而根据外国研究显示,排在第614位的氨基酸发生突变,使变异体从“D”(aspartic acid,即天门冬氨酸)变成了“G”(glycine,即甘氨酸)。因此被称为614G病毒。 这样的细微改变使刺突更稳定,导致病毒更容易侵入宿主的细胞,并产生更高的病毒载量。 根据《联合早报》报导,冠状病毒表面的刺突蛋白必须附着在宿主、也就是患者细胞上,病毒才能侵入细胞,这个刺突蛋白由千多种氨基酸(amino acids)组成。…

人权观察轰新法赋部长独断权 律政部反讥对方去年不敢出席听证会

《防止网络假信息和网络操纵法案》在国会经过一读,遭来国际”人权观察组织”(Human Rights Watch)抨击,该法涉及层面广泛,恐扼杀网络讨论,且部长不应赋予独断权力来裁定消息真伪。 对此,我国律政部在昨日发文告指出,直到人权观察组织准备好捍卫他们观点前,不会作进一步回应。 律政部批评,去年的蓄意散播假消息特选委会召开听证会,也有邀请该组织,但对方不敢出席面对特选会,因为自知他们的观点是“偏激、无法抗辩且毫无事实根据”。 人权组织日前发声明抨击,防止假消息法允许部长,只要认为有关消息不实,就可对全球范围任何网络内容发出“更正指示”,但是,却没有阐明部长是依据什么准则,来判断消息真伪。 “不应赋予部长独断权力” 人权观察组织亚洲助理总监罗博申称,不应赋予部长独断权力,来裁定消息真伪。再者,新加坡政府长期打压对政府、政策和领袖的批评,可见担忧“网络假消息”和“选举被操纵”的说辞是荒谬的。 在新法草案中提及,若部长认为基于公共利益,可指示相关部门对涉散播假消息者,发出更正指示。 新法案赋予政府更大权力,可强制发出假消息的个人/网路平台,更正或撤下假新闻。不愿遵守指示的机构,可被判罚款高达100万元。 此外,恶意散播假消息、损害公共利益者,可被判坐牢长达10年、罚款最高10万元。 罗博申也指出,新加坡政府似乎希望成为仲裁者,来裁定世界各地对新加坡的言论。“这项草案公然公然违反言论自由,侮辱互联网自由,世界各国政府和企业应立即呼吁新加坡撤回。”…

那位针砭时弊的“孔大山” 文化奖得主英培安离逝

文化奖得主、笔耕半世纪的本地知名作家英培安,于昨日(10日)下午1时35分因病去世,享年74岁。 英培安出生于1947年1月26日,早在公教中学时期就开始创作,七八十年代曾以笔名“孔大山”写了不少风格犀利,针砭时弊的杂文。他还曾在黄金大厦经营“前卫”书店,并先后出版独立杂志《前卫》和《茶座》。 不过,1977年11月,英培安却被怀疑与“马来亚解放阵线”有联系,在内安法令下被捕而拘禁近四个月,最后才发现无罪。此后他致力长篇小说写作,例如1987年出版《一个像我这样的男人》,1989年出版《孤寂的脸》。 1995年,他在桥北路中心三楼开设“草根书室”,专营文史哲书籍,顿时成为本地文史爱好者的宝库,也是文化旅客的朝圣之地。 2014年三位有心人林仁余、林永心和林韦地接手草根书室,英培安则专心写作。 早在2007年,英培安就被诊断罹患前列腺癌第四期,即便无法动手术,他仍以顽强意志力抗疾。25万字的长篇小说《画室》,就是在抗癌和面对官司期间的四年完成的。 不幸的是,2015年,又被诊断患有大肠癌,手术切除了一段大肠。据《联合早报》报导,英培安的妻子吴明珠指出,2020年5月英培安接受检查,又发现胰脏癌,手术过后血糖高低不定,胃口也不好,血糖过低时会变得神志不清,曾经因此由救护车紧急送院。 回溯六年前,他针对武吉巴督补选受访表达看法。对于有人称,民主党秘书长徐顺全和执政50年政府硬干,如同“鸡蛋碰石头”,对此他直言“我选择站在鸡蛋这一边,我也希望你们站在鸡蛋这一边。” “只有独裁国家文化人才不会出来讲话”,“如果没有了批评的自由,那是很严重的事情”。