|
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.
|
关于学校排名，重造新加坡委员会建议，往后以分组排名取代个别排名。学校排名似乎和考试一样，是个必要的罪恶，年年有人欢喜有人愁。 排名会产生竞争，竞争能提高各校的教学水平，是好事。竞争有良性竞争，有恶性竞争；良性恶性竞争必如影随形，我们很难只要好的，不要坏的。 恶性竞争难以避免，然而恶性竞争在教育圈可能造成的损害却可能要比想像的大许多，不能忽视。 为了证明我的学校有进步，一年打赢一场战，那么，校长、教师、学生必须把精力、时间投注在争取优越的成绩上面；学习，在很大的程度上，不幸的，是必须以分数为优先的考虑因素。 对于教师和学生，这是无形的损耗。若学生变成竞争的工具，学习与教学，变成竞争的策略，就更不幸了。 再说，学生的潜能各有不同，学校本应该提供一个“凭鱼跃、任鸟飞”的天地，让他们学习，给他们尝试发挥所长。可是，考试加上排名的压力是多方面的，来自校长、教师、家长，同辈、甚至社会，层层的压力，学生只得把爱好先搁置一旁，专心搞好功课再说。 参加戏剧学会的学生，不观赏戏剧演出，学小提琴参加弦乐团的不听音乐会，参加美术学会的不看画展……因为抽不出时间。 学生，本可以愉快地接近艺术，从容地享受学习生活,在潜移默化不知不觉之间人格得到更加完善的培养与发展。排名，创造了骄人的学术成绩，可是，从另一方面看过来，它是不是把原本海阔天空的快乐天地在压力又挤又压下，给缩小了呢？ 排名具透明度，各校在学术上的表现一览无遗。家长想知道哪所学校比哪所学校优越，有具体的数字可参考，铁证如山。据说家长喜欢这个措施。不过，是不是也有不少的家长听取了在教育的最前线的教师和学生的意见之后，表示不介意排名不排名，或者反对排名？ 是不是不排名就没有竞争？没有了透明度？是不是一定要按名次排列，才能凸显学校增值的意义？思考这些问题，同样是希望我们的莘莘学子能得到最健全的教育，不是无的放矢。 重造新加坡委员会的建议，无疑的能够纾解排名所带来的直接的聚点式的压力。虽然委员会尚未说明分级的标准，可以预见，那些应该会列入第一级的学校，从此可以松一口气，它们彼此再也不必为谁第一谁第二而耿耿于怀放心不下。 被列入第二级第三级第四级……的仍要努力不懈，力争上游；大家都有个标签，即使被列入最后一级的学校，因为有个伴，一路上可以互相安慰互相扶持，心里虽不好过，总踏实些吧。 委员会考虑把艺术科目、人文科目、体育等方面的表现，也作为分级的标准。这可能是个困境的出口，可以走出排名的阴影，摆脱排名所产生的种种负面影响。 学校的好坏，本来就不应只以学术成绩作准的，这个观念不改，教育的真正内涵便难以淋漓尽致地展现出来。委员会的用意至善，不过，到了学校层面运作起来的时候，希望不要变成另外一种恶性竞争。 ·作者是一名资深教育工作者
|
