Spending in education: How dumb money can become smart

Those who have spent a lesson or two in our school’s new Humanities Hub would definitely realise what an improvement it is. Not only does the setting of the room make classroom learning more dynamic by encouraging discussion, the presence of many whiteboards are also excellent for brainstorming ideas in different groups simultaneously instead of one centralised whiteboard. Furthermore, these shiny classrooms appeal to our childlike fascination with the new. Fancy facilities do seem to help learning after all.
But think: how much of this is really necessary? Is this really cost-efficient, especially considering the fact that these facilities do not come at a low price, and that many of these benefits can be simply done by slightly altering a normal classroom too? As Theil’s article argues, more modern and well-equipped schools do not necessarily imply better learning. Yet, it is foolish to dismiss classroom facilities altogether as they do have an effect on learning, like many of us have experienced. On the other hand, globally, the current bias is to overspend on infrastructure. As such, spending in education really needs to strike a good balance between “hardware”, the environment where the teaching is conducted, and “software”, the teaching itself, by starting to focus more in the “software”.
First, too much focus on “hardware”, or better facilities, distracts attention from the teaching, to the gadgets and trinkets in place. For example, look at the Science Hub’s Discovery Labs. It is a common sight that the swivel chairs are frequently being played by the students during the lesson, who find great amusement in repeatedly raising and lowering the chair’s height instead of placing the attention to where it should be—on the teacher. In the Humanities Hub, the tall bar stools are also uncomfortable to sit on for students, who shift and fidget incessantly too to find a good resting position. Wouldn’t it be so much better if we just had the normal, plain, but ultimately practical and comfortable green chair? Talk about dumb money.
Second, the resources would be better spent on with more focus on “software”, or the teaching process itself, involving the selection of teachers and upgrading their training. As the article argues, it is teacher spending that makes the big difference in education outcomes. After all, the teachers are the people in charge of the teaching process, so they will logically affect the students’ learning the most. They can either incite a passion in the student or bore them to tears such that they give up. Remember that boring so-and-so who drones on and on, compared to our favourite teacher who keeps us excited throughout the whole lesson? The truth is, teachers evoke strong feelings in us, and we associate these emotions with their respective subjects, all the more why we should select them carefully and train them well.
Let’s face it. Spending money on education for better facilities can only do so much good to the system. Maybe the model for spending on education can already be found in our school. The Audio-Visual Theatre is a warm, cosy, little lecture theatre, though rather simple compared to those in the Science or Humanities Hubs. Nevertheless, lectures held in the former are equal in standard to the latter. We do not suggest discarding “hardware” altogether, but rather that we strike a balance on both, since one cannot work without the other and both are integral in the quality of education. What the education system needs to recognise, however, is that just like a functioning computer, the “hardware” should support “software”, not vice versa.