Singapore Teachers

I just read an interesting article on teachers in Singapore in the Christian Science Monitor from the March 24, 2009 edition. The article states that when a group of education leaders visited Singapore last spring [about a year ago], one [state superintendent of W. VA schools, Steven Paine] . . . asked a Singapore official about the basis of their math curriculum, she cited a standards framework put out by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics—in the United States. W. Virginia uses the NCTM standards in their curriculum, “so the question remains, why is it that they lead the world in student achievement? I think it’s because of their teacher quality,” he says.

“Only the top third of secondary-school graduates in Singapore can apply for teacher training. The National Institute of Education winnows that field down more and pays a living stipend while they learn to teach. Each year, teachers take an additional 100 hours of paid professional development. And they spend substantial time outside the classroom to plan with colleagues. Not only is teaching an honored profession in Singapore, but it’s also paid as well as science and engineering careers.”

Now let’s compare the Singapore approach to the one in America. Arthur Levine reported in his “Educating School Teachers.” “The nation’s teacher education programs are inadequately preparing their graduates to meet the realities of today’s standards-based, accountability-driven classrooms, in which the primary measure of success is student achievement.” Levine, who recently left the presidency of Teachers College, Columbia University to become president of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, “concludes that a majority of teacher education graduates are prepared in university-based programs that suffer from low admission and graduation standards. Their faculties, curriculums and research are disconnected from school practice and practitioners. There are wide variations in program quality, with the majority of teachers prepared in lower quality programs. Both state and accreditation standards for maintaining quality are ineffective. . . [and] the study found that too often teacher education programs cling to an outdated, historically flawed vision of teacher education that is at odds with a society remade by economic, demographic, technological, and global change. Equally troubling, the nation is deeply divided about how to reform teacher education to most effectively prepare teachers to meet today’s new realities.”

Levine’s statement about admission standards coupled with [programs] “cling to an outdated, historically flawed vision of teacher education that is at odds with a society remade by economic, demographic, technological, and global change” seem to be at the core of the problem. “Universities use their teacher education programs as ‘cash cows,’ requiring them to generate revenue to fund more prestigious departments. This forces them to increase their enrollments and lower their admissions standards. Schools with low admissions standards also tend to have low graduation requirements. While aspiring secondary school teachers do well compared to the national average on SAT and GRE exams, the scores of future elementary school teachers fall near the bottom of test takers. Their GRE scores are 100 points below the national average.”

Some observations based on the information in the CSM article and Levine’s report.

• Admission to the teaching profession in Singapore is tough and thus the quality of candidates is high. In contrast, the admission requirements for American teacher training is low, very low. We must remember that graduating secondary school in the top third in Singapore is much more rigorous than graduating in the top third would be in the typical American high school. As Levine points out the majority of elementary school teachers have very low SAT and GRE scores.

• If you look at state achievement test results you will see that the kids generally perform at lower levels as they move to higher grades, especially in math. It seems obvious that the weak teaching in elementary schools is not giving the kids the foundation they need to cope with the more advanced studies they are expected to complete in middle and high school. When you are several years behind when you start high school it doesn’t matter if your high school math teacher knows more about math because you are very unlikely to be able to catch up.

• Pay was mentioned as a factor in Singapore. Yet, if you look at the Wall Street Journal article of Sept. 13, 2005, Wage Winners and Losers, page B1 you will see a ranking of 22 occupations by average annual pay based on the then newly released U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report. From highest to lowest you get: Economics Teachers, Physicians, Airplane Pilots/Navigators, Lawyers/Judges, Architects, ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS, Natural Scientists, Computer Programmers, etc. You have to conclude that as in Singapore, American elementary school teachers are paid as well as natural scientists. Thus, we already are paying at high levels but we don’t have the performance to go with the pay. This does not mean all teachers are overpaid because some clearly deserve more pay. It does mean that the current “step-pay” plans where teachers are paid more each year for getting older is not giving incentives to perform better over the course of a long teaching career.

• The education schools are a foundational part of the problem. Their standards are too low, their faculty and curricula are out of touch with the current reality of real-world requirements, and the state regulatory entities continue to base their worthless certifications predominately on education school degrees and training. Yet, the education schools continue with the same outdated curricula that are rooted in the progressive movement of a hundred years ago and also don’t stand scientific scrutiny as E. D. Hirsch points out in his book, “The Knowledge Deficit.”

• The American educators who visited Singapore didn’t get the message because they viewed everything they saw through the distorted lens of American education context. They showed that they didn’t “get it” by continuing to approach problems with the same attitudes and methods that have been spectacularly unsuccessful in the past. Until they learn to face reality and break with the “conventional wisdom” of the education establishment, they will continue to serve our students poorly.

American education insiders have a remarkable ability to ignore or warp reality to their own points of view. They have an ironclad belief that they alone are the education experts and that they don’t need or want input from “outsiders.” That is perhaps the biggest difference of all between Singapore and here. Thomas Friedman in his famous book, “The World is Flat” tells of an Indian company, Heymath.com that has a contract with the Singapore education establishment. The contract is for Heymath.com to hire engineering students at their local Indian Institute of Technology [considered equivalent or better by some than MIT in the US] to work with Singapore teachers on the best ways to present the math content to their students. They also work via the web to tutor Singapore students. The quality control for their work is done by Cambridge University in Great Britain. Unlike their American counterparts the Singapore educators are willing to gain synergy by partnering with other disciplines and other countries as well if it benefits their students. That approach does not happen here because the education establishment wants to hold tightly to every education decision. There are many problems to be faced before positive change will occur. Until then Singapore and other nations’ kids will continue outstripping our kids in achievement, career opportunities, job security and all of the other things that go with being better educated.