Presentation at ICSEI: January 2018

Singapore Paper

This paper is principally based on a recently co-published paper in Comparative Education seeking to identify and explain the factors behind Singapore’s stellar performance in a decade of international assessments, including PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS.

The Issue/Question

Main research question: are current explanations for high performing systems like Singapore’s adequate? Is enough attention paid to contextual and cultural factors? Singapore inherited a problem ridden education system upon gaining independence in 1965. It was a system characterized by medium-of-instruction segmentation, few resources, high attrition rates and poor student performance. But two decades later, the system had improved so much that the government felt able to decentralize.

The focus in this presentation will be on the period from the mid-1990s when major reforms in citizenship education, ICT integration into instruction and the key pedagogic reform – Thinking Schools, Learning Nation was launched. Two decades on, how well has the system done? What explains what has changed and what hasn’t? And what challenges still remain in building a system fit for 21 century education goals?

Key Ideas, Conceptual Approach, Research Design and Methodology

Key ideas underpinning the analysis is the key role of Singapore’s development-oriented state in shaping education policy and practice in response to changing socio-economic circumstances. The role of an elite but performance-oriented bureaucracy which built upon cultural and aspirational foundations is seen as central to Singapore’s success.

Research was principally, analysis of policy documents, personal experience of policy making on various policy government committees (Resource Person for Government Parliamentary Committee on Education, Member and Junior College/Upper Secondary Review Committee). Additionally, four decades of experience at senior management levels in school leadership, teacher preparation and education research at the National Institute of Education, Singapore.

Main Findings and Conclusion

The centrality of education and training to Singapore’s socio-economic development has remained consistent. Education continues to be well resourced, led by able ministers and a highly competent bureaucracy. The government of the day is able to build on strong foundations established in the 70s and 80s. Efforts to build capacity and professionalism amongst teachers and school leaders, updating curricula and pedagogy to ensure relevance are examples of careful and calibrated reform.

Yet problems remain which will require further reform. Assessment reform initiatives have been modest and excessive competition pervades the system, spawning a large ‘shadow education’ system. There is scope for greater school autonomy given how well schools are currently managed. There is still a ways to go before the educational ideal of broad based educational outcomes is achieved in Singapore’s system.

References

  1. Zongyi, Deng & S. Gopinathan (2016). PISA and high performing education systems: explaining Singapore’s education success. Comparative Education.
  1. S. Gopinathan (2015). Singapore Chronicles: Education. Singapore: Institute of Policy Studies, Straits Times Press.
  1. Koh, A. (2010). Tactical globalization: Learning from the Singapore experiment. Peter Lang.
  1. Lee, S. K., Lee, W. O., & Low, E. L. (Eds.). (2013). Educational policy innovations: Levelling up and sustaining educational achievement. Springer Science & Business Media.