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

【冠状病毒19】樟宜监狱迄今共三名囚犯与一名护士确诊

截至本周五(29日),樟宜监狱有三名新入狱的囚犯,以及一名在该监狱工作的护士,确诊冠状病毒19。 新加坡监狱局在今日(30日)发表声明称,四名患者相互间无关联,也未出现进一步传染现象。 三名新入狱囚犯在经检测确诊后已被隔离。其中两人经已出院,另一人也在康复中。至于有关确诊护士也已康复并返回工作岗位。 监狱局强调他们对囚犯和工作人员都有采取防疫措施,例如新入狱的囚犯都要隔离14天等。每位囚犯也会获得一片可重复使用口罩。 昨日我国再有1337名确诊病患出院,此外新增九起社区病例,包括三名本地公民和永久居民,其中包括一名在樟宜综合医院工作的物理治疗师。

Another 38 cases of Zika virus infection confirmed, total confirmed cases now 189

Ministry of Health (MOH) has just issued a press release which states…

【冠状病毒19】8月13日新增102例确诊人数

本地新增102例冠状病毒19确诊病例,回升三位数,包括五起社区病例和六起入境病例。 根据卫生部发表的文告,截至今天(13日)中午12点的新增病例有五例是社区病例,包括一名本地永久居民以及四名工作证件持有者;六例入境病例,所有入境病例在入境后开始履行居家通知。 其余新增病例均为隔离中的工作准证持有人。本地病例总数目前累计5万5497起。 当局正在搜集新病例的详情,并会在今晚提供更多细节。

疑涉嫌企业管理违法 凯发及其董事被调查

包括商业事务局(CAD)、金融管理局(MAS)和会计与企业管制局(ACRA)等机构,将联合调查凯发集团(Hyflux)及该集团董事及前董事。 调查机构怀疑该集团董事及前董事,涉嫌虚假与误导陈述、违反信息披露规定,以及没遵循会计标准等。 金管局、新加坡交易所(SGX)以及ACRA是在2019年4月16日,宣布将检视凯发集团,与会计相关的披露和遵循标准。经检讨,当局有理由怀疑当中涉及违法行为。 当局将联手调查凯发在大泉水电厂项目的信息披露方面是否有疏失;同时,2011年至2018年间,是否遵循会计标准。不过,当局表示刑侦与凯发当前的企业拯救程序无关,并非干扰该集团当前的重组计划。 2011年至2018年期间,在凯发董事会的董事都将接受调查,相信这也包括凯发集团创办人林爱莲。