The Remaking Singapore Committee has suggested that school rankings be replaced by a system of grouping schools of similar quality in common bands. Like examinations, the annual ranking of school is a necessary evil. It is a boon to schools which do well and a bane to those which fail to measure up.
Ranking is good in that it will lead to competition which will raise the overall teaching standards of schools. However, competition can be both virtuous and vicious and it is quite impossible to just retain the former and say no to the latter.
The negative effects of the inevitable vicious competition may be a lot more damaging than we think. For a school to prove that it has made progress and emerge winner in the yearly battle, the principal, teachers and pupils will all have to focus their time and energy on achieving excellent academic results.
It is unfortunate that to a large extent, academic scores have become the primary concern in the learning process.
Over time, this will take a heavy toll on teachers and students. It would be even more unfortunate if students were made the instruments of competition and teaching and learning methods were reduced to mere strategies for coming out tops in the race.
Pupils have different potential and should rightly be provided with an environment where they can excel in areas they are good at by schools. However, the stress from examination and rankings comes from many sources - principals, teachers, parents, peers and even society. Very often, they will buckle from the pressure and put their interests aside to concentrate on schoolwork.
As a result, students who are members of the school's drama society do not watch theatre； students who are learning the violin do not attend concerts； and students who belong to the art society do not visit arts exhibitions……all for the simple reason that they can't afford the time.
Students should be exposed to artistic activities and enjoy the process of learning which will help gradually to encourage positive character development.
Rankings have brought about brilliant academic performance. But on the other hand, has it not reduced the space for fun and enjoyable learning？
Rankings is transparent and how well a school has been doing is clearly reflected in concrete statistics. Parents can easily decide for themselves which school is a better choice.
It is said that parents favour rankings. But are there no parents who, after getting feedback from teachers and students who are in the front line of protecting the school's ranking, feel otherwise？
Does doing away with ranking mean there will no longer be competition or transparency？ Is ranking necessary to highlight the “value-added” services introduced by schools？ These are not rhetorical questions, but questions that should set us thinking about other ways which can also give pupils the best education they can possibly get.
The proposal by the Remaking Singapore Committee will no doubt ease the direct pressure of rankings. While the committee has not provided details on banding, schools which are likely to be in the band one group can now heave a sigh of relief - they no longer have to fight tooth and nail for the top spot.
Those which are banded lower will have to work harder. Banding is of course still a label, but even for schools which are banded in the lowest category, it will be comforting to know that they have company and that they can support and help each other to do better.
The committee has also suggested including subjects like art and sports for banding purposes. This may provide a way out of the predicament and do away with some of the undesirable consequences of rankings.
To begin with, a school should not be judged only on its academic results. It is time for us to change our mindset so that we do not lose sight of the basic purpose of education.
The committee has given much thought to the matter, let's hope that when the suggestions are introduced in school, they will not be turned into a different form of vicious competition.
。The writer is a senior educationist. Translated by Yap Gee Poh.
關于學校排名,重造新加坡委員會建議,往后以分組排名取代個別排名。學校排名似乎和考試一樣,是個必要的罪惡,年年有人歡喜有人愁。
排名會產(chǎn)生競爭,競爭能提高各校的教學水平,是好事。競爭有良性競爭,有惡性競爭；良性惡性競爭必如影隨形,我們很難只要好的,不要壞的。
惡性競爭難以避免,然而惡性競爭在教育圈可能造成的損害卻可能要比想像的大許多,不能忽視。
為了證明我的學校有進步,一年打贏一場戰(zhàn),那么,校長、教師、學生必須把精力、時間投注在爭取優(yōu)越的成績上面；學習,在很大的程度上,不幸的,是必須以分數(shù)為優(yōu)先的考慮因素。
對于教師和學生,這是無形的損耗。若學生變成競爭的工具,學習與教學,變成競爭的策略,就更不幸了。
再說,學生的潛能各有不同,學校本應該提供一個“憑魚躍、任鳥飛”的天地,讓他們學習,給他們嘗試發(fā)揮所長。可是,考試加上排名的壓力是多方面的,來自校長、教師、家長,同輩、甚至社會,層層的壓力,學生只得把愛好先擱置一旁,專心搞好功課再說。
參加戲劇學會的學生,不觀賞戲劇演出,學小提琴參加弦樂團的不聽音樂會,參加美術學會的不看畫展……因為抽不出時間。
學生,本可以愉快地接近藝術,從容地享受學習生活,在潛移默化不知不覺之間人格得到更加完善的培養(yǎng)與發(fā)展。排名,創(chuàng)造了驕人的學術成績,可是,從另一方面看過來,它是不是把原本海闊天空的快樂天地在壓力又擠又壓下,給縮小了呢？
排名具透明度,各校在學術上的表現(xiàn)一覽無遺。家長想知道哪所學校比哪所學校優(yōu)越,有具體的數(shù)字可參考,鐵證如山。據(jù)說家長喜歡這個措施。不過,是不是也有不少的家長聽取了在教育的前線的教師和學生的意見之后,表示不介意排名不排名,或者反對排名？
是不是不排名就沒有競爭？沒有了透明度？是不是一定要按名次排列,才能凸顯學校增值的意義？思考這些問題,同樣是希望我們的莘莘學子能得到健全的教育,不是無的放矢。
重造新加坡委員會的建議,無疑的能夠紓解排名所帶來的直接的聚點式的壓力。雖然委員會尚未說明分級的標準,可以預見,那些應該會列入第一級的學校,從此可以松一口氣,它們彼此再也不必為誰第一誰第二而耿耿于懷放心不下。
被列入第二級第三級第四級……的仍要努力不懈,力爭上游；大家都有個標簽,即使被列入后一級的學校,因為有個伴,一路上可以互相安慰互相扶持,心里雖不好過,總踏實些吧。
委員會考慮把藝術科目、人文科目、體育等方面的表現(xiàn),也作為分級的標準。這可能是個困境的出口,可以走出排名的陰影,擺脫排名所產(chǎn)生的種種負面影響。
學校的好壞,本來就不應只以學術成績作準的,這個觀念不改,教育的真正內涵便難以淋漓盡致地展現(xiàn)出來。委員會的用意至善,不過,到了學校層面運作起來的時候,希望不要變成另外一種惡性競爭。
Ranking is good in that it will lead to competition which will raise the overall teaching standards of schools. However, competition can be both virtuous and vicious and it is quite impossible to just retain the former and say no to the latter.
The negative effects of the inevitable vicious competition may be a lot more damaging than we think. For a school to prove that it has made progress and emerge winner in the yearly battle, the principal, teachers and pupils will all have to focus their time and energy on achieving excellent academic results.
It is unfortunate that to a large extent, academic scores have become the primary concern in the learning process.
Over time, this will take a heavy toll on teachers and students. It would be even more unfortunate if students were made the instruments of competition and teaching and learning methods were reduced to mere strategies for coming out tops in the race.
Pupils have different potential and should rightly be provided with an environment where they can excel in areas they are good at by schools. However, the stress from examination and rankings comes from many sources - principals, teachers, parents, peers and even society. Very often, they will buckle from the pressure and put their interests aside to concentrate on schoolwork.
As a result, students who are members of the school's drama society do not watch theatre； students who are learning the violin do not attend concerts； and students who belong to the art society do not visit arts exhibitions……all for the simple reason that they can't afford the time.
Students should be exposed to artistic activities and enjoy the process of learning which will help gradually to encourage positive character development.
Rankings have brought about brilliant academic performance. But on the other hand, has it not reduced the space for fun and enjoyable learning？
Rankings is transparent and how well a school has been doing is clearly reflected in concrete statistics. Parents can easily decide for themselves which school is a better choice.
It is said that parents favour rankings. But are there no parents who, after getting feedback from teachers and students who are in the front line of protecting the school's ranking, feel otherwise？
Does doing away with ranking mean there will no longer be competition or transparency？ Is ranking necessary to highlight the “value-added” services introduced by schools？ These are not rhetorical questions, but questions that should set us thinking about other ways which can also give pupils the best education they can possibly get.
The proposal by the Remaking Singapore Committee will no doubt ease the direct pressure of rankings. While the committee has not provided details on banding, schools which are likely to be in the band one group can now heave a sigh of relief - they no longer have to fight tooth and nail for the top spot.
Those which are banded lower will have to work harder. Banding is of course still a label, but even for schools which are banded in the lowest category, it will be comforting to know that they have company and that they can support and help each other to do better.
The committee has also suggested including subjects like art and sports for banding purposes. This may provide a way out of the predicament and do away with some of the undesirable consequences of rankings.
To begin with, a school should not be judged only on its academic results. It is time for us to change our mindset so that we do not lose sight of the basic purpose of education.
The committee has given much thought to the matter, let's hope that when the suggestions are introduced in school, they will not be turned into a different form of vicious competition.
。The writer is a senior educationist. Translated by Yap Gee Poh.
關于學校排名,重造新加坡委員會建議,往后以分組排名取代個別排名。學校排名似乎和考試一樣,是個必要的罪惡,年年有人歡喜有人愁。
排名會產(chǎn)生競爭,競爭能提高各校的教學水平,是好事。競爭有良性競爭,有惡性競爭；良性惡性競爭必如影隨形,我們很難只要好的,不要壞的。
惡性競爭難以避免,然而惡性競爭在教育圈可能造成的損害卻可能要比想像的大許多,不能忽視。
為了證明我的學校有進步,一年打贏一場戰(zhàn),那么,校長、教師、學生必須把精力、時間投注在爭取優(yōu)越的成績上面；學習,在很大的程度上,不幸的,是必須以分數(shù)為優(yōu)先的考慮因素。
對于教師和學生,這是無形的損耗。若學生變成競爭的工具,學習與教學,變成競爭的策略,就更不幸了。
再說,學生的潛能各有不同,學校本應該提供一個“憑魚躍、任鳥飛”的天地,讓他們學習,給他們嘗試發(fā)揮所長。可是,考試加上排名的壓力是多方面的,來自校長、教師、家長,同輩、甚至社會,層層的壓力,學生只得把愛好先擱置一旁,專心搞好功課再說。
參加戲劇學會的學生,不觀賞戲劇演出,學小提琴參加弦樂團的不聽音樂會,參加美術學會的不看畫展……因為抽不出時間。
學生,本可以愉快地接近藝術,從容地享受學習生活,在潛移默化不知不覺之間人格得到更加完善的培養(yǎng)與發(fā)展。排名,創(chuàng)造了驕人的學術成績,可是,從另一方面看過來,它是不是把原本海闊天空的快樂天地在壓力又擠又壓下,給縮小了呢？
排名具透明度,各校在學術上的表現(xiàn)一覽無遺。家長想知道哪所學校比哪所學校優(yōu)越,有具體的數(shù)字可參考,鐵證如山。據(jù)說家長喜歡這個措施。不過,是不是也有不少的家長聽取了在教育的前線的教師和學生的意見之后,表示不介意排名不排名,或者反對排名？
是不是不排名就沒有競爭？沒有了透明度？是不是一定要按名次排列,才能凸顯學校增值的意義？思考這些問題,同樣是希望我們的莘莘學子能得到健全的教育,不是無的放矢。
重造新加坡委員會的建議,無疑的能夠紓解排名所帶來的直接的聚點式的壓力。雖然委員會尚未說明分級的標準,可以預見,那些應該會列入第一級的學校,從此可以松一口氣,它們彼此再也不必為誰第一誰第二而耿耿于懷放心不下。
被列入第二級第三級第四級……的仍要努力不懈,力爭上游；大家都有個標簽,即使被列入后一級的學校,因為有個伴,一路上可以互相安慰互相扶持,心里雖不好過,總踏實些吧。
委員會考慮把藝術科目、人文科目、體育等方面的表現(xiàn),也作為分級的標準。這可能是個困境的出口,可以走出排名的陰影,擺脫排名所產(chǎn)生的種種負面影響。
學校的好壞,本來就不應只以學術成績作準的,這個觀念不改,教育的真正內涵便難以淋漓盡致地展現(xiàn)出來。委員會的用意至善,不過,到了學校層面運作起來的時候,希望不要變成另外一種惡性競爭。