Posts Tagged ‘values’
A Yahoo! headline loudly declares “S’pore is now richest in the world” and shows these stats:
I can imagine some folks getting drunk with joy.
But I would put that table beside the words of John F. Kennedy:
Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.
It is a sobering truth. It was true then and it is true now.
So if you ask me to choose between a smart man and a good one, I would put my money on the good one.
It was written by a parent who thinks that values education begins at home and that it must be modelled first by parents.
But there was one thing I did not agree with and it was the end of this short paragraph:
A proper education should be synonymous with values. It is the current form of rat-race schooling that most do not associate with good values.
So here is my stand. If you wish your child to be academically challenged (read that either way), send him or her to a Singapore school. If you want your child to not turn out to be a monster, nurture him or her yourself first. Schools alone are not likely to provide a proper education.
No amount of incentives or academic programmes will nurture good values if the approach is old-school, one-size-fits-all, and predicated on extrinsic motivation.
You have to be good and do good not on the threat of cane or reward of carrot, but on the fact that it is simply the right thing to do. Only then have you been educated.
Last Friday, CNA reported that MOE will establish a Student Development Curriculum Division (SDCD). Its purpose as outlined by CNA:
The new division will give greater focus on areas such as character and citizenship, values education and co-curricular activities.
It will develop a character and citizenship framework by building on existing programmes in national education, co-curricular activities, and civics and moral education.
I am all for character development and values education. But I am not for holding new ideas in old wineskins (very old and Biblical reference intended).
I take issue with the word curriculum. I wonder if that is the right word and approach for something that includes values, character and citizenship education.
I can understand the rationale for having a prescribed and minimum list of things to cover (or better still, uncover). This one-size-fits-all approach aside, one could argue for some well reasoned and common fundamentals like civic-mindedness, social courtesies, filial piety, etc.
At its roots, curriculum means to run or to race. Teachers, students and parents already understand this when they use phrases like “keeping up with the curriculum” or needing to “complete the curriculum”.
It is hard to look down the road and see what the SDCD would design for implementation in schools. But I think we don’t need another race to run. This would impart the wrong values about values education.
Curricula tend to be tested because policymakers and teachers want answers to “What did you learn?” But the answers don’t lie in a test. More often that not, the real test of character happens when no one is looking.
There is at least one thing that MOE is planning on doing that I like. It wants schools to work more closely with parents. Values should begin at home and be reinforced in school, not the other way around.
So like some other parents, we are not waiting for schools to “infect” our son with positive values like integrity, confidence and thoughtfulness. We try to live those concepts and he gets tested every day. We are not waiting for a system to shift, particularly one that uses outdated language and practices to tackle fresh issues.
This is my final thought on last week’s MOE Work Plan Seminar (WPS) 2011. Honest!
I just started following @LeticiaBongnino on Twitter. This is a parody account of “a celebrity maid”.
Many of her tweets are hilarious and here are two that have accidental relevance to the main theme of the WPS:
You can pay for school, but you can't buy class.—
Leticia Bongnino (@LeticiaBongnino) July 30, 2011
Knowledge is power, and power corrupts. So study hard and be evil.—
Leticia Bongnino (@LeticiaBongnino) July 11, 2011
Tongue-in-cheek the tweets may be, but there is truth behind the humour. They give us something to chew on as we attempt to better integrate values into schooling.
Last Thursday, I attended the MOE Work Plan Seminar 2011. Our new education minister, Mr Heng Swee Keat, delivered his opening address and outlined some changes in education.
I created this Wordle shortly after the embargo on the speech was lifted. It reveals the words in the transcript that were used the most often.
I expected the word “values” to feature more prominently since that seemed to be the main theme of the speech. I think the minister put it best when he said the next stage in our education system was to put “value in our learners and learning values” (point #37 of transcript).
That is a tall order, but I doubt anyone would deny the importance of emphasizing values even over academic results.
The question that remains is how. How are we going to do this when schools, parents and kids have been taught to value grades above all else?
While the speech provides some clues on broad steps that we might take, I think there is mindset we should drop before taking any action.
All of us were given 2×2 Rubik’s cubes as we entered the hall. On the faces of the cubes were MOE’s ideas on what the desired 21st century and student outcomes were.
To engage the audience, the emcees asked us to scramble the cubes, pass the cubes to a neighbour and try to solve our puzzle in 30 seconds. I thought this was a nice touch up until what happened next. After the time limit, the audience was shown a video clip on how to solve the puzzle.
Granted we did not have the time to figure out multiple strategies to get the faces lined up. But we knew what the message was: It takes much time and effort (and mistakes) to realize these concepts. Instead of emphasizing this, we were shown a formula to solve the puzzle, but as one person behind me remarked, “Eh, for one side only!”
The “solution” was a shortcut to success. We are already a tuition nation and tuition centres make it their business to figure out formulae for anything thrown their way. They then feed the formulae to students the way mother birds catch, chop up and partially digest food so that their baby birds do not have to.
This creates learners who become dependent on consuming the academic equivalent of instant noodles. I call such consumers the Maggi mee generation. But while the noodles might be “fast to cook”, they are not as “good to eat” as Maggi may claim.
The showing of the video might send an unintended and wrong message. There are no formulae or shortcuts or even best practices for achieving the desired educational outcomes. Furthermore, the solution to get one side of the cube solved left the others jumbled.
No one is going to show us a video with model answers and no tuition centre is going to model values. We must be willing to make, acknowledge and learn from our mistakes.
There are several iterations and remixes of the Did You Know/Shift Happens video by Fisch and company. Now from New Brunswik, Canada, comes a video I’d like to call Do You Realize.
The Did You Know series presents thought-provoking factoids that might stimulate questions or discussions about whether current schooling prepares students for the 21st century. The Do You Realize video goes a step further and provides some examples of how we might actually do this.
But we might need to take a step back before pushing forward. I think that we do not have a common and clear vision on what these desirable 21st century attributes are. A quick search will reveal many definitions and frameworks of 21st century thinking, skills, attitudes, behaviours, etc.
- Anytime Anywhere Learning Foundation’s 21 steps to 21st century learning
- Apple’s ACOT2: Understanding 21st century skills and outcomes
- ASCD’s challenges ahead for 21st century skills
- Cisco, Intel and Microsoft’s ATCS 21st century skills (PDF)
- Elearn’s 21st century skills
- METERI Group’s 21st century skills (PDF)
- Partnership for 21st century skills
- THE Journal’s 21st century skills: Evidence, relevance and effectiveness
One could try to identify the similarities from all these examples and say that this distillation represents the wisdom of many parties. But I think we need to be more critical. Just what makes a 21st century property something that is uniquely 21st century?
A commonly cited 21st century trait is collaboration. Is collaboration only important now or in the future? Did generations in the past not collaborate? The obvious answer to both questions is of course not! The same could be said about other traits like communication or creativity or empathy for others.
At the risk of oversimplifying the argument, what these separate bodies have suggested as 21st century traits are actually ones that are mediated, emphasized or exacerbated by rapidly evolving technology.
Current and future technologies are allowing us to publish, share and communicate more easily. The world is flatter and smaller because we are not only acutely aware of what is happening in some other part of the world, we are possibly working with someone there. A call to create a shared document, video or Prezi can originate anywhere and find collaborators and contributors all over the world.
The video above is oDesk’s vision of the Future of Work but you already see some of it happening today. We are doing this with various technologies and over a distance instead of being face-to-face and over a handshake. This in turn creates problems and opportunities. But these problems and opportunities are not what schools prepare students for.
Yes, there is talk of revision, reform or evolution in schooling. But there is little action. Compared to the rest of the world, schools are used to life in slow motion. Its returns are not immediate and its primary clients (the students) influenced by so many other factors that one cannot fully attribute success or failure just to schooling. If education has not changed much since the 19th century, what is its hurry for the 21st?
Fortunately, some educators on the ground sense the need for change and do not wait for administrators and policymakers to make up their minds (see Will Richardson’s recent entry on this). I am particularly heartened by Richard Byrne’s blog entry and I hope that more teachers think and act this way. It is part of the culture and expectation of the 21st century to believe and behave as such. If we put our children and our students first, we will figure out what we must do, with or without help from the higher ups.
The online Straits Times decided to feature something from My Paper (slow news day?) and in the Breaking News section no less.
The article? Kids’ errors posted online. A secondary school teacher posted “her students’ poor English usage in their assignments on her Facebook account.”
Of course people had a reaction to that. The article was careful to include the feedback from Stompers and MOE. And we know how, um, different those perspectives can be. (Several English lessons can be conducted on the article and their responses alone!)
My reaction is in the title of my entry, but I am not nonchalant about it.
There is nothing new about teachers doing this. Before Facebook there were blogs. Before blogs, there were personal Web sites and email. Before that teachers would compile these gems on paper.
The greater issue is why and how teachers do this. Are they doing this for a hearty laugh, privately I might add, among a community of practitioners? Are they also sharing these with students for the purpose of educating them instead of embarrassing them?
In either case, the paper medium used to restrict access to these gaffes. Blogs and Facebook are more public, hence the greater access and scrutiny. The public reacts to the published work but does not necessarily understand the teacher’s intentions.
Instead of reacting negatively to this event, I see this an opportunity to educate. Administrators and educators should not shy from Web 2.0 because it is an excellent platform for personal publishing and social networking. Informally it is also a platform for modelling values and practices.
In this case, how the teacher shared the examples is a key issue. If the examples were incriminating, then limit the posting to one or only an invited few. If the examples were educationally useful, then prepare them and the posting for public viewing. In the latter case, this could include clearly stating the intent, stripping the writing of all means of identifying the students, and maintaining a professional tone in the posting.
There may be a thin line in social media that divides when one is writing personally or professionally. But there is a line nonetheless. If you cross it, you deal with the circumstances.
Image source: http://www.andybudd.com/presentations/dcontruct05/
One of the most sensitive things to blog about is politics. But I bring up a mrbrown blog entry for a specific purpose.
mrbrown posted a letter by someone who could not get his letter published in the regular press. His letter was titled “New media: This government doesn’t get it“. The author raised some good points about how the practice and culture of Web 2.0 was different from current mainstream media. He also hinted at self-regulation and the wisdom of the crowds as key to its success.
But I digress. I’d be among the first to point out New media: Most educators don’t get it (and don’t want to). Those who do realise they have to change the way they teach. Those that do recognise that our learners are both students and teachers, just as Web 2.0 users are both consumers and producers. Those that do recognise that they must simultaneously “let go” and somehow spend much more time nurturing their charges.
Web 2.0 is not just about the technology (the technology will change after all). It is about values, attitudes and beliefs, all of which shape behaviour. As usual, commercial entities have taken the initiative to ride the Web 2.0 bandwagon. This is followed closely by society as a whole and then those in politics (USA politics that is!).
As for education, let’s just say that we are playing catch up. I just hope that we are not too late!
Remember the example I mentioned in class about plagiarism? Here’s one a case at the highest level! Focus on the bits that involve the girl colouring pieces of paper.
Singapore’s ad for National Day 2008
The original ad for a non-profit organisation, the Children’s Foundation (YouTube version online since 2006)
At least one blogger refutes that plagiarism took place, but he really misses the point*. The issue is not how the Singapore ad company changed the ad elements. The central issue is the use of the idea, which was not attributed to the original ad company. If the Singapore ad company gets noticed for its ad, this can translate to monetary gains.
Simply arguing that the practice is common does not make it right. Some may argue that that’s business. But we are in the business of education. Nurturing children with socially responsible attitudes and values is one of our products. Do we want to mass market defective goods?
Let us stamp plagiarism out!
*If the blogger meant to be sacarstic or ironic, it is not obvious. He also does a disservice to the rest of the blogospere by promoting ignorance juding from the comments to that post. Do you see a difference with edu-blogging?