UPDATED: Tested to limits: Why testing is overrated in schooling

One of the favoured opinions in Pakistan nowadays is that education should be about merit. Of course merit is well and good, however, that in itself is not good enough. Students from different, social, linguistic, geographical and economic backgrounds have various advantages and disadvantages that a pure meritocracy cannot account for. This allows a certain, often narrow, social elite to monopolize areas of influence dominated by certain educational qualifications and backgrounds. That is, in cases where educational achievement actually contributes to professional success. 

Further, the arguments surrounding merits and achievement comes down to testing. Now its the emphasis on testing that I want to deal with in this post. 

Gaining good grades and scoring high marks acts as a proxy to judge intellectual and academic ability. That does not mean that good marks is always equal to academic success. 

The following Al Jazeera report from Hong Kong illustrates the unbelievable pressure students have to face during their schooling. Many in Pakistan would argue that this is a system that we should emulate. "Disciplined" students spending their days studying and carefully managing their times. As a teacher and someone who has studied in Hong Kong and currently teach some Hong Kong students, the cost of this system far out way its benefits. Thankfully, the Hong Kong authorities have also come to the same conclusion and changes and reforms have become. If you ever wanted to see the direction in which education should not progress towards, have a look below:

The same emphasis on textbook and syllabus based learning, uni dimensional and focused on passing exams is a common feature across East Asia. We see it in Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and China. In Japan, parents pay upto $5000 to get into what are essentially tutorial centres which focus on drilling in facts and figures, with no emphasis on critical evaluation or independent thought. 

The Economist recently published a detailed article on education in South Korea, where the government has finally begun reforming the system to emphasise values that will help students in the global economy of the year 2040, rather than 1900. A bit of a long read but you can access it here: http://www.economist.com/node/21541713

Testing has its place in any educational system. Life is full of tests and there is no point sugar coating schooling so that students are unprepared for adulthood and professional challenges. However, the emphasise on testing is misplaced. 

Education has also become a rallying cry for political figures in Pakistan, who are using access to education and its reform as a transformative, egalitarian process that will help provide justice to the majority of have nots. That's all well and good, however, I hope we don't follow the examples of the cases mentioned above!

Much, much more on education in Pakistan in future posts!

----------------------------------------------------------Update---------------------------------------------------------------
Just to build on the arguments above, let me take this as a shameless opportunity to plug my recent post at the Express Tribune blogs. The arguments in that particular piece nicely round up the discussion above.

However, the fact that for most people who will be reading this blog, the privatisation of education in Pakistan means that there is very little incentive to actually do anything about it. Education is a very nice talking point, but from a distance.

But even more worrying is my, ever cynical belief that, there is actually an incentive not to do anything about education in Pakistan. People love to talk about abolishing O and A level and giving their servants kids a chance at sitting the same exams as their own children, but is that really the case? Would you really want O and A levels abolished? Or only after your kids have sat their exams?

Perhaps the simplest way to put it is to consider education as an end in itself rather than a means to an end (employment). I also realise that  in a country like Pakistan that sort of thinking is neither rational, economic or pragmatic. That is why, private schooling is limited as a provider of "education", for it will provide what the market demands, and at the moment the market demands grades! Whether those "grades" actually translate to better future financial security and income opportunities is debatable.

A few people wrote in asking me what I mean by "creativity" in education and what should happen. Below is a an RSA animation of Sir Ken Robinson's talk on the need for greater personalization in education and the importance of creativity.

Perhaps the greatest misconception about "creativity" is that its not limited in application to "arts" subjects, as if that was somehow how a bad thing. More on that though later.....

Back to the future: thoughts on Imran Khan, corruption and the Musharaf "boom" years

Fair warning: Long read, potentially rubbish

The following post is based on my observations and interactions with individuals ever since the Musharaf regime ended. They may be some generalizations and perhaps given the narrow sample of people on whose comments a lot of the discussion below is based, the discussion may not neatly fit reality or apply to a majority of people. I am hoping someone would comment on any irregularity or inconsistency with the arguments below for they may have better insight then myself. This is quite a long post, and it may seem abit incomplete at the end, I hope to extend the argument later. 

The rallying cry for Imran Khan is justice. For his supporters and detractors alike, the state of, or the perception of the increase in corruption under the Zardari is ubiquitous.

For a lot of people since 2008, the decline in the national economy is linked with an increase in corruption. But then who is to say corruption did not dominate transactions prior to 2008? Is it that the new, post 9/11 middle class that were able to increase there consumption of consumer goods under the Musharaf regime have suffered the most post 2008?

Easy money

For a lot of people the 2000s saw an increase in wealth and consumption. 2 photocopies of your ID card could get you a car on lease. You could pay Rs. 20,000 to stage a “theft” or “accident” of your car, which on lease was also insured (in the examples I am aware of, peoples cars would mysteriously reappear stripped of anything valuable on Kahuta road in Islamabad/Rawalpindi). Contacts in the bank and/or the insurance company would do their trick. The car would be written off, new car would be presented, everyone’s happy.

Alot of wealth was generated through the development of urban property during the Musharaf era. Advertisements filled newspapers, people lined up outside banks to submit forms, a wink and a nudge and the right “file” could be yours in the morning, and given the rabid speculation by nightfall you could sell of the same “file” for a tidy profit. With some more winks and nudges, people were able to choose ideal plots. The best example I know off are people who bought plots in Bahria Town and DHA Islamabad, who knew people in these organizations or in the primary developer, HRL who knew which plots were allocated on filled in and flattened earth and which plots were on the original surface. Many of the plots in DHA Phase 1, facing the Soan river especially, that were earth filled and flattened out, later sank. Yes, the houses literally sank!

The other example was when CDA launched the sector I-15 plots and apartment ballot and people called friends working in individual banks to get forms submitted and completed on time, while asking them to “go slow” on other peoples applications. Suffice to say, several phone calls were also made to friends fathers who were CDA board members, political figures or high ranking Army officers, surely someone would pay out.

They were people who were importing second hand cars and selling them off. I forget the model of the exact Tayota car which was initially imported with a waived tariff for disabled drivers, which then led to a flood of people getting fake medical reports declaring themselves disabled. They of course then sold off the same car at a premium.

Now the thing is, and I am sure readers of this post from Pakistan would have heard similar stories in one form or the other from the Musharaf years, that all these cases are clearly examples of corruption!

What I find particularly frustrating today is, that the same people who were able to not only enjoy a marked increase in consumption, but also accumulated wealth during this period, are now on the vanguard complaining about corruption under Zardari.

Is it that corruption has increased over the past 45 months as we are made to believe, or is it that the people who enjoyed the benefits of corrupt actions previously no longer can do so or have to pay a higher price to arrive at the same results?

The bubble burst

It doesnt help that the speculative bubble that was the Pakistani property boom, unsurprisingly collapsed. All those multi-billion dollar, in partnership with this and that UAE property developer went down the toilet as the global property boom slumped, and Dubai itself went bankrupt. The highly liquid market of files dried up. Quick money through property and of course the stock market (should have mentioned earlier) came to an end. .

What I suspect is that a lot of people who are unhappy with the current government dont really want justice or an end to corruption. They are looking for a return to the past.

This property boom, egged on in large part by the military run DHA, led to a virtuous cycle, where rising prices fuelled increased development. It was the rule of a military dictator that allowed a lot of the expansion into suburban areas without due and legal process that fuelled this boom. However, people dont view this as corruption, they see this as “nation building”.

The Musharaf era “boom” if you want to call it that, lead to a period of “growth” which appeared highly tangible. People could “see” the progress. They could see the mobile phones in their hands, the many many channels on cable, the TV, Fridge, Refrigerator etc, that had been purchased conveniently in instalments, while a piece of paper declaring future possession of a piece of land, gained in value over weeks and months while sitting ideally. The corruption, the winks and nudges that facilitated this bomb in consumption is viewed as beneficial, thus considered desirable. Even if its genesis is plagued by dubious corrupt actions.

Whether the PPP and Zardari were handed a poor set of cards; highly tangible examples of state failure, electricity, gas, law and order etc, is debatable. People argue that 45 months into government Zardari cant blame Musharaf for today’s problems. Add, the Army, media, judges issues, global economic crisis, rising commodity prices etc to the mix, and even a pretty competent government would have struggled to deal with things.

Corruption of a higher order

So what does this have to do with anti-corruption rhetoric today and Imran Khan? Well for one, I am very sceptical about what exactly we mean by reducing corruption that has plagued us. To me, it appears more an attempt to redistribute the winners and losers. I may be wrong, but for a lot of PTI supporters, the Musharaf regime may be despised for cozying up with America, but the economic “vision” and “progress” of that period is still something that they aspire to.

People are more offended by the corrupt practices of an underpaid, working 12 hours a day young cop who may palm Rs. 1000, but have no qualms picking up the phone to further there cause. This more subtle, sophisticated form of corruption, which is also known as networking or calling in a favour is part and parcel of how the upper middle class functions the world over. These small “benefits” however, translate into long terms financial gains. The few thousands paid to your KESC electrician, policeman or SNGPL gas worker pales in comparisons to the financial gains of those in power.

My contention is that those in power and influence are aspiring for a future that is a rehash of the past. Justice and policies touted to end corruption will not distort their own ability to influence transactions. However, these same policies which hope to end corruption will effect small rent seekers thus reducing the cost of those in power and allow them to get on with their business. Not only do I think that Imran Khan's, PTI's or any political parties rhetoric of ending corruption is a sham, the people who rally for this cause are selective in their application and given that their position in the social hierarchy will remain unchanged. At worst, those below them will be pushed down further and put in their place.

Disappointment

I believe that the political noise which targets corruption is all well and good, and probably in most cases well intentioned. However, the way the PTI especially, has made it what appears a one point, end game of his politics does not address the deep divisions in our society which allow those with greater influence, resources and power to work what ever law, system or circumstance to their benefit. 

To reduce corruption, in word and in spirit, the PTI needs to evolve beyond corruption to actually reduce it. Otherwise, I fear, Imran Khan with all his well intensions is unknowingly doing nothing more than rearranging the winners and losers, to bring back the good times. 

The good times (read: Musharaf rule 2004-2007)? Yes, the time when people (urban, middle class) thought things in Pakistan were on the up, corruption was lower, so that "ideal" state is somehow emulating. After all, if you are aged 20-50, middle class and urban, in the past 30 years, nothing in terms of consumption possibilities beats the Musharaf years. That has captured the imaginations of many as what has been lost since Zardari has come into power. 

A first post and a confession from the past

As a quick first post, I am going to replug a previous piece I submitted to the Tribune Blogs when I first started contributing. The emails, calling me names, questioning my patriotism and threatening me the next time I arrived at Islamabad International really got me thinking how polarised Pakistan had become on the one hand, and how blindly follow an emotive, hyper nationalist, manufactured narratives. 


Anyways, I think that the following post will kind of give you an idea of what I am all about. Over the next few days I'll start populating this blog with some new stuff. Enjoy!


I confess, I am a traitor


My name is Syed Nadir El-Edroos and I am a traitor. For my actions, deeds and words I should receive an exemplary punishment so that no one ever dares repeat the treachery that I am responsible for.

I have received some emails in reference to my general comments on The Express Tribune and in particular to my article “Whose country is this anyways.” The authors of those emails have deemed me a traitor and an all round general sell-out or worse a Mossad-CIA plant, who has been inserted to “defame and malign Pakistan’s most disciplined institution.”

In short, the thrust of the accusations go something like this.

“How dare you question the benefits of Army officers? You no appreciation of the sacrifices they make, the love for Pakistan that they have in their hearts!”

One gentleman added that he would “starve his children so that the Pakistani Army can play its role to defend the nation.” How can anyone compete with such a strong sense of patriotism? Regardless of what I say and do, I will always come off as a traitor!

However, is this even patriotism? Is the relationship between the individual and the state limited to an outpouring of blind support for one institution? Or can someone be patriotic while also critical of the nations armed forces?

We like to present the “Army” as one monolithic institution. However, like any institution it is far from uniform. Present day actors have a monopoly over claiming the “Army” as their own, as it will continue to function long after they have passed on. The only individuals that can actually claim the Army as their own are the public at large, for it’s to protect their interests that the institution is funded and granted a monopoly in the use of arms.  Indeed the institution that they represent and the privileged position that society has granted high ranking military officers, should not be equated to the individual. The position of authority and the responsibility invested in the offices of the COAS or DG ISI should ideally be greater than the individual himself.

By extension, the institution is much larger than the individuals that inhabit it. Therefore, any criticism of the Army, is not necessarily a criticism of the institution, rather it’s a criticism of the policies implemented by the actors which happen to be in power at any given time. It seems to me that those in power are merely leveraging nationalism to justify their actions, equating property development and military land grabs with the security of Pakistan.

Likewise there is a big difference between criticising perks and privileges and equating such criticism with treachery.  Neither does such criticism take any thing away from supporting our troops who are fighting and dying for their country.

However, in an environment where fake degrees are being uncovered, the government of the day is busy politicking rather than governing, MNA’s and MPA’s are suffering from verbal diarrhea; the role of the military high command goes largely unquestioned.

Why are we hesitant to question or hold those who wield power and influence in the name of the country that we inhabit accountable? Is it because in our chaotic and somewhat dysfunctional state the military represents the only institution to be proud of? Is it because many people have relatives in the military and are hesitant to criticize them? Or is it because we are scared of the consequences of openly voicing criticism?

However, the most important question is why call for greater transparency and accountability of the military to begin with? After all, the plots, the benefits, the 10% quota in the civil service, the appointment as ambassadors and state position, the large military-industrial complex that helps retired officers to find plush jobs etc, is a small price to pay to individuals who lay their life on the line. But where do we draw the line? Where do we say enough is enough?

I was in Fairy Meadows, Nanga Parbat in 2005. On my final day, a military helicopter arrived with mess staff carrying main dishes, cutlery and tables. They promptly laid it out in the grounds of a privately owned hotel without the permission of the owner. Then a second helicopter landed, and this time a group of officers with their hunting rifles strode off to take there places amongst the pre-set feast. Ignoring the sign in the corner that stated hunting was not allowed in this region, the generals prepared themselves for the hunt. The local community was fuming with anger and resentment; however they had little choice but to facilitate their “guests”. Are the expenses incurred on public expense for a helicopter ride up to Fairy Meadows justified? Or what of the moral implication of hunting in an area declared a hunting free zone? Can we draw the line here or are such extravaganzas justified?

Then they are other examples, such as demolishing barracks in Lahore to construct a General’s colony, or the case of Chashma Goth (and here) where the military baton-charged the local community, or the case ofJangua Town or the case of DHA-Islamabad which has established a joint venture with Bharia Town, where both organizations have been accused of land grabbing. Or what of the conversion of land allocated for testing and camping into a housing scheme in Rawalpindi.  Or what off all the villagers who were the original inhabitants of DHA-Islamabad who have yet to receive compensation?

I have always been skeptical of those individual who demand respect rather than earn it. Whether generals, politicians or religious leaders. However, while questioning politicians is (rightly) considered socially acceptable, there seems to be some pact between the military and society that I seemed to have forgotten to sign up to, whereby regardless of the action, we patiently and obediently consider every decision that flows through the upper echelons of the military as correct, and our patriotic duty to support it.

How does not publishing the details of the military’s allocation of the budget serve Pakistan’s national security? One can be vague regarding sensitive programs, but the entire budget? Why does keeping the salary, perks and pension of the military high command a secret, make our country any safer? Why does the military get exemption from land taxes in cantonment areas? Is it not enough that the people of Pakistan, who pay their taxes and are indebted to the international community to the hilt, pay for their wages and perks, should also subsidize their local communities?

So why call for greater transparency and accountability? If the military in Pakistan considers itself as the nations most disciplined institution, then surely it must also accept that it must be held to a higher standards. By holding those in uniform accountable to a higher standard than other organs of the state, only then can it truly claim to be the nations “most disciplined institution”.  For those who serve their country, society owes them a debt of gratitude. However, we have to draw a line where those who extract benefit from the public’s purse appreciate the reality that surrounds them. I may be a traitor based on certain interpretations of patriotism, however, if the military wants respect,  then it should be seen to earn rather than demand it.

Originally posted on Tribune Blogs: http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/606/i-confess-i-am-a-traitor/