Ranking our children helps nobody – which is why Singapore is ditching it

Years ago, I remember a friend telling me about her first parent evening. Eager to hear about her daughter’s progress, she asked, “So how is she doing?” – “She’s doing fine, exactly as she should be doing,” the teacher replied. My friend left feeling dissatisfied. What she really wanted to know, of course, was how her daughter was doing compared to everyone else. But, over the years, the teacher and her colleagues stood their ground – until SATs came along and gave parents the comparison they wanted, much to the detriment of many children.

Discussions of grades and rankings tend to focus – rightly – on mental health concerns. But ranking also harms learning. Children who are ranked or openly graded (and can therefore compare) care hugely about their perceived relative performance and much less about what they’ve learnt or how they can find out more and grow their learning. Whether it’s grades, house points or stickers, if it can be compared, it will be. And as parents, we often make matters worse by asking, “so how did it go?” meaning “how did you do?” rather than “what did you learn?”. Any comparative grading (e.g. school prizes) or ranking “shifts the focus from learning (what students are doing) to achievement (how well they’re doing it) but also teaches students to regard their peers not as friends or allies but as potential obstacles to their own success,” according to education expert Alfie Kohn.

Continue reading

Do prizes kill creativity?

Who wins is what matters. This week, Donna Strickland was hailed as the third ever woman to win the Nobel Prize for Physics. Much of the media coverage talked up the historical significance of Strickland’s gender, showing less interest in the substance of her work (research on laser beams). Of course the relative lack of female Nobel Prize winners is newsworthy, and its discussion positive and necessary. But the story illustrates the point that prizes are seen as the ultimate validation of scientific endeavour. Never mind that you have made a life-changing discovery, a public prize is what ultimately wins most adulation, attention and prestige. Commenting on the science Nobel prizes more generally, the Observer’s Science Editor Robin McKie questions their value: “[C]ritics claim the award is now out of step with modern collaborative research methods”. The prizes, he argues, do not reflect the reality of modern scientific cooperation. Worse, perhaps, they create a false public impression of the value of scientific research.

Continue reading

Our schools – another way

Our schools are a microcosm of the role of competition in our society. They show how competition becomes increasingly institutionalised, normal and expected as we grow up. We turn from playful, inquisitive and creative toddlers into teenagers and adults who are compared and ranked against each other, measured against standardised benchmarks and conditioned to do “better” than others if we want to succeed.

Most people would probably agree that some change over the course of our childhood is justified or necessary. We try (and often fail) not to compare our babies and toddlers, accepting that every child develops at their own pace. At the same time, we accept that when we leave school, in most cases training and education institutions or workplaces will need to differentiate and select to some degree based on our school record.

But these assumptions do not begin to answer a whole range of questions. For example, what skills and aptitudes do individual employers need in today’s world? Are these the same as those our society will need to thrive into the future? How do we best capture and reflect this range of aptitudes and attidudes? How do we measure and recognise effort and motivation compared to talent? How do we best nurture all of these so everyone has the opportunity to discover and develop their aptitudes and interests and engage fully in society?

Continue reading