Education in Singapore: People-Making and Nation-Building (Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects, 66) 981169981X, 9789811699818

Citation preview

Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects Volume 66

Series Editors Rupert Maclean, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Lorraine Pe Symaco, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China Editorial Board Bob Adamson, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China Robyn Baker, New Zealand Council for Educational Research, Wellington, New Zealand Michael Crossley, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK Shanti Jagannathan, Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines Yuto Kitamura, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan Colin Power, Graduate School of Education, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia Konai Helu Thaman, University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji Advisory Editors Mark Bray, UNESCO Chair, Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China Yin Cheong Cheng, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China John Fien, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Pham Lan Huong, International Educational Research Centre, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Chong-Jae Lee, Korean Educational Development Institute (KEDI), Seoul, Korea (Republic of) Naing Yee Mar, GIZ, Yangon, Myanmar Geoff Masters, Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne, Australia Margarita Pavlova, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China Max Walsh, Secondary Education Project, Manila, Philippines Uchita de Zoysa, Global Sustainability Solutions (GLOSS), Colombo, Sri Lanka

The purpose of this Series is to meet the needs of those interested in an in-depth analysis of current developments in education and schooling in the vast and diverse Asia-Pacific Region. The Series will be invaluable for educational researchers, policy makers and practitioners, who want to better understand the major issues, concerns and prospects regarding educational developments in the Asia-Pacific region. The Series complements the Handbook of Educational Research in the Asia-Pacific Region, with the elaboration of specific topics, themes and case studies in greater breadth and depth than is possible in the Handbook. Topics to be covered in the Series include: secondary education reform; reorientation of primary education to achieve education for all; re-engineering education for change; the arts in education; evaluation and assessment; the moral curriculum and values education; technical and vocational education for the world of work; teachers and teaching in society; organisation and management of education; education in rural and remote areas; and, education of the disadvantaged. Although specifically focusing on major educational innovations for development in the Asia-Pacific region, the Series is directed at an international audience. The Series Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects, and the Handbook of Educational Research in the Asia-Pacific Region, are both publications of the Asia-Pacific Educational Research Association. Those interested in obtaining more information about the Monograph Series, or who wish to explore the possibility of contributing a manuscript, should (in the first instance) contact the publishers. Please contact Melody Zhang (e-mail: [email protected]) for submitting book proposals for this series.

More information about this series at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/5888

Yew-Jin Lee Editor

Education in Singapore People-Making and Nation-Building

Editor Yew-Jin Lee National Institute of Education Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Singapore

ISSN 1573-5397 ISSN 2214-9791 (electronic) Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects ISBN 978-981-16-9981-8 ISBN 978-981-16-9982-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Series Editor’s Introduction

This comprehensive and insightful book, edited by Yew-Jin Lee on Education in Singapore: People-Making and Nation-Building, is the latest volume published in the long-standing Springer Book Series Education in the Asia Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects. The first book in this Springer international series was published 20 years ago, in 2002, this book by Yew-Jin Lee being the 66th volume to be published to date. Education in Singapore provides a comprehensive, holistic portrait of key aspects of education and schooling in Singapore, one of the most admired education system in the world. The official aim of the Singaporean education system is to nurture the best in each and every child, to develop them into lifelong learners who have a repertoire of core competencies which enable them to thrive in, and meet the demands of, the twenty-first century. The education system in Singapore has been consistently ranked by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as being one of the best-performing systems in the world. However, it is well documented that expectations to perform well at school is a great source of stress for many young people. In addition, critics of education and schooling in Singapore argue that the education provided is overly specialised, rigid and elitist, with there being little emphasis on creativity. The 22 chapters in the book are written by leading researchers, policymakers and practitioners, each of whom have extensive, in-depth knowledge and experience of education and schooling in Singapore, a multicultural city-state with a population of 5.45 million inhabitants. As the editor puts it, ‘the purpose of this book is to share insights from one of the world’s most successful and remarkable education and schooling systems, that of Singapore’. The book examines the history, structure and processes of education and schooling in Singapore; and identifies possible lessons that can be learnt from an analysis of this education and schooling system. These lessons will not just be of interest to researchers, policymakers, practitioners and members of civil society

v

vi

Series Editor’s Introduction

within Singapore but will also be of interest to those with an interest in education and schooling in other countries. In terms of the Springer Book Series in which this volume is published, the various topics dealt with in this book series are wide-ranging and varied in coverage, with an emphasis on cutting-edge developments, best practices and education innovations for development. Topics examined in the series include environmental education and education for sustainable development; the interaction between technology and education; the reform of primary, secondary and teacher education; innovative approaches to education assessment; alternative education; most effective ways to achieve quality and highly relevant education for all; active ageing through active learning; case studies of education and schooling systems in various countries in the region; cross-country and cross-cultural studies of education and schooling; and the sociology of teachers as an occupational group, to mention just a few. More information about the book series is available at https://link.springer.com/bookse ries/5888. All volumes in this series aim to meet the interests and priorities of a diverse education audience including researchers, policymakers and practitioners; tertiary students; teachers at all levels within education systems; and members of the public who are interested in better understanding cutting-edge developments in education and schooling in Asia-Pacific. The main reason why this series has been devoted exclusively to examining various aspects of education and schooling in the Asiapacific region is that this is a particularly challenging and dynamic region. It is renowned for its size, diversity and complexity, whether it be geographical, socioeconomic, cultural, political or developmental. Education and schooling in countries throughout the region impact on every aspect of people’s lives, including employment, labour force considerations, education and training, cultural orientation, and attitudes and values. Asia and the Pacific is home to some 63% of the world’s population of 7 Billion. Countries with the largest populations (China, 1.4 Billion; India, 1.3 Billion) and the most rapidly growing mega-cities are to be found in the region, as are countries with relatively small populations (Bhutan, 755,000; the island of Niue, 1600). Levels of economic and sociopolitical development vary widely, with some of the richest countries (such as Japan) and some of the poorest countries on earth (such as Bangladesh). Asia contains the largest number of poor of any region in the world, the incidence of those living below the poverty line remaining as high as 40%percent in some countries in Asia. At the same time, many countries in Asia are experiencing a period of great economic growth and social development. However, inclusive growth remains elusive, as does growth that is sustainable and does not destroy the quality of the environment. The growing prominence of Asian economies and corporations, together with globalisation and technological innovation, are leading to long term changes in trade, business and labour markets, to the sociology of populations within (and between) countries. There is a rebalancing of power, centred on Asia and the Pacific region, with the Asian Development Bank in Manila declaring that the twentyfirst century will be ‘the Century of Asia Pacific’.

Series Editor’s Introduction

vii

We know from comprehensive feedback received from numerous education researchers, policymakers and practitioners, worldwide, that this book series makes a useful contribution to knowledge sharing about cutting-edge developments concerning education and schooling in Asia-Pacific. Readers of this or other volumes in the series who have an idea for writing or co-writing their own book (or editing/co-editing a book), on any aspect of education and/or schooling, relevant to the region, are enthusiastically encouraged to approach the series editor either direct, or through Springer, to publish their own volume in the series. We are always willing to assist perspective authors shape their manuscripts in ways that make them suitable for publication. January 2022

Rupert Maclean, AO School of Education University of Tasmania Hobart, Australia RMIT University Melbourne, Australia

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yew-Jin Lee

1

The Next Phase of Developments in Singapore’s ECCE: Quality in the Best Interest of All Children? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sirene May-Yin Lim and Chee Wah Sum

11

Inclusive Education for Children with Special Educational Needs in Singapore Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kenneth K. Poon

33

Primary and Secondary Education in Singapore: Bringing Out the Best in Every Learner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jeanne Ho and Yew-Jin Lee

49

Post-secondary Education in Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trivina Kang Higher Education in Singapore: Perspectives and Future Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horn Mun Cheah and Laura Lyn Lee

69

87

Post-secondary Education Institutions Internships—The Singapore Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Shien Chue, Ethan Pang, Priscilla Pang, and Yew-Jin Lee The Dynamic Landscape of Adult Education in Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Helen Bound and Zan Chen The Texture and History of Singapore’s Education Meritocracy . . . . . . . 151 Charleen Chiong From Meritocracy to Parentocracy, and Back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Vincent Chua and Kelvin K. C. Seah

ix

x

Contents

Education for the Minority Malay Community in Singapore: A Sociological Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Mohamad Shamsuri Juhari The Dynamic Interplay Between Curriculum and Context: Revisions in Response to National, Societal, and Contextual Needs . . . . . 209 Christina Ratnam-Lim Tong Li and Lucy Oliver Fernandez School Leadership in Decentralized Centralism of Singapore Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Salleh Hairon and Soon How Loh Assessment Reforms in Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Kelvin Heng Kiat Tan Chinese Language Education and Assessment Policy in Singapore (1965–2021) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Yun-Yee Cheong Key Developments in English Education in Singapore from the Post-independence Period to the Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 Suzanne S. Choo, Alexius Chia, and Caroline Chan Innovating Towards Reading Excellence in the Singapore English Language Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Chin Ee Loh and Elizabeth Pang Paths to a Whole: Placing Music Education in Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 E. I. Dairianathan The Coherence Between Policy Initiatives and Physical Education Developments in Nation-Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 Steven Kwang San Tan, Shern Meng Tan, Connie Huat Neo Yeo, and Liang Han Wong Geography Education in Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 Geok Chin Ivy Tan History Education in Singapore: Development and Transformation . . . . 379 Suhaimi Afandi and Ivy Maria Lim Singapore School Mathematics Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405 Lu Pien Cheng and Kai Kow Joseph Yeo A Journey Begins: Singapore Design and Technology Education, an Education in STEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423 Jason Seng Chong Tan and Soo Chin Chia

Introduction Yew-Jin Lee

The place where a child lives and attends school matters, and matters a great deal. Few would dispute this fact, yet the intricacies contained within this assertion are multiple, energizing research throughout the vast field of comparative and international education. As how my favorite activist-philosopher might have put it, that statement is “abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties” (Marx, 1987, p. 76, cited in Mitchell, 2003, p. 235). So when sampling just five regions––the UK, Finland, Israel, South Africa, and Singapore––questions about how long a student there will typically enjoy formal education and the quality of that learning yield rather interesting responses. In terms of the duration of schooling, British, Finnish, Israeli, and Singaporean students will all graduate after spending 12–13 years in school. However, there will be subtle differences: youth from the first three states will leave with fewer years of quality learning (measured in terms of test scores) than those from Singapore (see Angrist et al., 2020). South Africa provides a starker contrast when compared with Singapore. Using the same yardstick, a South African student who graduates after 10 years of schooling will accrue even fewer benefits despite maintaining perfect attendance; she would have obtained just a third of what her counterpart in the Lion City would had managed to learn through school. And the reason behind all these disparities as real estate agents everywhere are wont to say, it’s all about location, location, location. If location is indeed consequential, then this edited book is an attempt to share insights from one of the world’s most remarkable locations for education––Singapore. In the following 22 chapters, we help readers gain a wide-ranging understanding of its history, structure, and processes of schooling and education. As a recent report about education in India has shown, the quality of learning matters far more than the amount of schooling one might receive, which Singapore arguably satisfies the former condition very well (Muralidharan & Singh, 2021). For example, education Y.-J. Lee (B) National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_1

1

2

Y.-J. Lee

Singapore style has been much talked about as well as emulated (in parts) as a reference society by international policymakers (Yuen, 2017), which acknowledges how this relatively young city-state with a modest population and land area has punched far above its weight. Since the 1990s, it has caught the attention of many when students here topped a number of international large-scale assessments. These feats, including reports about the excellence of its teaching force and in the aforementioned paragraph about the strength of its schooling, have not diminished in recent years (e.g., Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; MOE, 2019). They give tangible support to believe that these are not just temporary phenomena. Instead, they likely point towards doing something right here, at least educationally speaking that the invited contributors here will try to identify, explain, and interrogate with a critical eye. While there is ample justification for national pride, telling interested others what exactly were the causes for these successes is not a straightforward thesis (e.g., Jerrim, 2015; Lau & Lam, 2017). Comparative researchers have also long understood that educational systems are complex, and hence one should resist any simple transfer of explanations, programs, or policy levers in order to clone a model of education (Waldow & Steiner-Khamsi, 2019). The Singapore story has “worked” precisely because it was indigenous to its context so let the policy-borrower take heed––caveat emptor. What then are possible lessons from Singapore for educators? Although much of its sociocultural milieu, economic systems, and political machinery are unique, neither does this imply that what had transpired here was a singularity. If that were so, the enterprise of comparative education would then be quite futile. Hence, the broad educational issues and concerns reported in Singapore would likely find resonance with the international community, but whether these can be approached in the same exact manner, or whether their solutions would experience efficacy elsewhere will always be a moot point. There are two bodies of educational research from Singapore that I suggest will hold promise: (i) areas where other systems confront very similar issues or problems and (ii) learning from local educational programs or policies that have missed the mark or have simply failed. Let us consider the first of these twin propositions. A few years ago, a renowned local scholar described the educational challenges confronting the nation that had just celebrated its fiftieth birthday (Gopinathan, 2015). This list included: • the mandatory learning of mother tongue languages in schools within a society that explicitly embraced globalization; • keeping pace with evolving definitions of what it means to be a Singaporean in a nation that has long thrived on immigration; • recalibrating the use-value and status of formal learning, skills, and life-long learning; • managing meritocracy, wage inequality, and educational opportunities in a rapidly-changing society. Are the above issues confined to the Singapore context? Of course, one may answer in the affirmative when certain specifics are under consideration; for example, bilingualism (i.e., learning English and a mother tongue) has been a bedrock of local

Introduction

3

educational policy. This particular constellation of challenges too might be peculiar to thinking about education in Singapore. On the other hand, citizenship education is also to be found across nearly all education systems while trying to achieve alignment between school and the (globalized) world of work has been a perennial frustration among all governments. Neither are meritocracy and questions about achieving equality and intergenerational mobility through education an exclusive anxiety that keeps politicians in Singapore up at night (e.g., Breen & Müller, 2020; MacLeod, 2009; Sandel, 2020). Without too much of a stretch, Gopinathan’s challenges may be distilled into basic questions regarding the nature of being, becoming, and productive work (Gopinathan, 2015). These are age-old, but weighty debates about what it means to seek a good life within a fair and just society comprising of diverse individuals (Rawls, 1999). In addition, they allude to questions regarding which pole (and countless in-between positions) should assume priority––the self (i.e., favoring liberal social policies) or the collective (i.e., more socialist policies)? The latter generate simmering tensions between subjectivity and socialization as part of the ultimate purposes of contemporary education (Biesta, 2010). And being so integral to the exercise of politics, which is derived from the Greek meaning “matters belonging to the state,” it is almost guaranteed that these kinds of ubiquitous people-making and nation-building projects will occupy those in authority here and indeed elsewhere for many years to come. Educational researchers who subscribe to neo-institutionism think along similar lines. They promote the idea that there are a number of common features characterizing modern educational systems due to the explosion of internationalized education policy (Wiseman & Baker, 2005). While their overall intent might be similar, these policies will still be configured by and for their specific national contexts. Baker (2009) identified four such commonalities in institutional values, namely: (a) equality of opportunity and social justice; (b) development of modern individuals as a collective good; (c) dominance of academic intelligence; and (d) meritocratic achievement and education credentialism. Combinations of these core ideas are believed to guide the organization of schooling and education in numerous ways, which is not an unreasonable assertion as they hold significant relevance for the functioning of modern society. For instance, the provision of education for all coupled with the belief in the development of individuals as a societal good has resulted in a huge expansion and investment in education everywhere. This has likewise happened in Singapore with its guiding mantra that its people are its sole resource on a tiny, resource-scarce island. At the intersection between the institutional values of meritocratic achievement and academic knowledge, it has given rise to a slew of policies and school curricula valuing knowledge products and abstract thinking as desired outcomes of education beyond just the 3Rs (Sinnema & Aitkin, 2013). Again, readers will discover how these contagious aspirations have been articulated in policy reforms in Singapore such as Thinking Schools, Learning Nation and Teach Less, Learn More in many of the chapters that follow. And knowing how these lofty albeit very hard-to-teach goals have been negotiated by teachers here would thus be most informative for readers. Other examples could be multiplied to show that some aspects of education in Singapore might not be so radically different from other regions after all––there really is

4

Y.-J. Lee

common ground. So by paying attention to the normative standards of comparative inquiry together with a sensitive discernment of the Singapore story(ies) told in this book, we are therefore confident that educators from distant lands will be able to understand themselves and their own contexts better (Manzon, 2014). The second major area of learning from Singapore stems from the fact that all states experience troubles and paradoxes within their systems of schooling and education. Less charitable researchers might prefer to speak of contradictions inherent within the system, which might sound too negative to some ears although there are also others who regard these dilemmas as active drivers of change and expansive learning (Lee & Roth, 2008). Sharing accounts about the underbelly of the education juggernaut of Singapore is therefore an opportunity to profitably learn from local policies or programs that have missed the mark. These arguably will be more beneficial than the first cluster of learning from Singapore that I mentioned because they are (failed) experiments according to the judgment of our educational connoisseurs here (Eisner, 2017). By being so explicit, failure analysis of whatever stripe (AllenPlatt et al., 2021) is also highly informative; they function like traffic signs telling us “Don’t walk here,” “Slow down,” “Bump ahead,” and sometimes even “Stop.” Chapter contributors have highlighted these useful studies where appropriate, but the curious might refer to excellent work from S. Gopinathan, Deng Zongyi, Jason Tan, Leonel Lim, Jasmine Sim, Ho Li Ching, Charlene Tan, Ng Pak Tee, and many others. Continuing our metaphor of driving, we are now ready to introduce a road map for reading the substantive chapters that follow. This edited book was envisaged to be a key reference, a “go-to” resource that provided a comprehensive survey of schooling and education within a single region, here Singapore. Without calling it a formula, a new generation of experts were invited to perform a scholarly synthesis/review/survey of either an educational level or sector (e.g., secondary, postsecondary, special needs) or relevant policies/phenomena/issues (e.g., assessment, equity, curriculum, leadership). Yet others were keen to contribute reviews detailing the curricular histories and pedagogies of selected school subjects from Singapore, which comparative research in this niche area has been widely neglected (Philips & Schweisfurth, 2014). Accordingly, this book has been divided into three sub-sections (Educational stages and sectors; Educational policies and issues; School subjects in Singapore) that will now be introduced in turn.

1 Educational Stages and Sectors Lim and Sum begin, literally, at the beginning of schooling when they provide a wide-ranging review of Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) in Singapore. Although it is a fairly recent development, there has been an avalanche of policies and legislation concerned with education for the very young here. To frame their chapter, the authors dissect key ECCE policy initiatives in five domains to help readers understand two key questions: (i) How are these policies positioning the role

Introduction

5

and importance of ECCE in the lives of young children and (ii) how inclusive are ECCE services in meeting the diverse needs of children with different abilities and socio-economic backgrounds. In the third chapter, Poon describes what inclusive education here means within the context of children with special educational needs (SEN). Acknowledging the complexity of this social construct, he explains with thoroughness as a certified clinical psychologist the spectrum of SEN conditions and how local schools have supported these learners at different stages of education. While there have been great strides in inclusivity, Poon points out some on-going challenges as well as areas of improvement that warrant attention. The next two chapters can be read together with profit as they survey three major educational sectors here. Ho and Lee in Chap. 4 give us an overview of primary and secondary education, which garnered the largest enrolments in the system as well as in many other regions. They inform us that while the diversity of policies, programs, and structures here are myriad, certain principles have consistently guided local policymaking since independence. These have included, for example, meritocracy, bilingualism, nation building and citizenship, and above all human capital development of this island nation’s most precious resource—its people. Understanding these ideas will enable readers to better understand how and why education has evolved in the way that it did in Singapore. Chapter 5 by Kang is an invaluable piece of detective work that draws upon historical as well as contemporary sources to discuss the postsecondary education (PSE) options here. It enables us to see how changing sociopolitical and economic concerns deeply intertwined with decisions to set up junior colleges, polytechnics, and the Institute of Technical Education. Kang is convincing in claiming that external forces, which are unpredictable and oftentimes random will deny PSE any long-term stability in its programs and practices: We would be well advised therefore to “watch this space.” Higher education (HE) serves many purposes in society; in Singapore’s context the growth of this sector has had strong articulations with the nation’s economic focus as we noted with PSE. Cheah and Lee in the following chapter continue with this leitmotiv when they walk us through the historical development of HE and its past and recent pressures. They inform us how the impact of global connectedness brought about by disruptive technologies and globalization are making themselves felt in HE sectors. This chapter is indeed required reading in this under-researched area of education in Singapore. The transitions between education and the world of work are explored in an interesting report by Chue and colleagues in Chap. 7. They take pains to detail the short, but highly critical liminal spaces that internships occupy across various PSE and HE environments in the country. This they do with confidence as this chapter includes authors that have planned, supervised, and evaluated internship programs for many years, which makes this an opportune gathering of local experts. And being at the intersections of classroom- and workplace-based learning, pre-employment education like internships are now significant enough to receive oversight by the Ministry of Education. Why might this be so? Chapter 8 provides some answers because in here Bound and Chen supply up-to-date insights regarding the training and adult education sector in Singapore. Despite appearing relatively late in the education

6

Y.-J. Lee

landscape here, it has risen to great prominence as part of wider national efforts to promote life-long learning, to transform Singapore into a learning nation. The authors explain how this rapidly growing sector has increased the porosity between HE and workplaces as well as hastened the use of digital technologies for learning. While much beneficial synergy has been generated, Bound and Chen are realistic too. They remind us of the difficulties in implementation of adult education on the ground and some policy disjoints that are surely inevitable when so many layers of initiatives have been launched at scale and speed.

2 Educational Policies and Issues If contributors in the previous section were loosely sequenced by their stages or sectors within the education system, then authors in this current section are narrowing down on some of the bellwether policies and issues in Singapore. Meritocracy has been one such lightning rod issue, which is deftly unpacked by Chiong in Chap. 9 as well as Chua and Seah in the following chapter. Affirming that meritocracy lies at the heart of social policy in Singapore, Chiong justifies with ample evidence that it actually rests on two interlocking, indeed synergistic postures from its beneficiaries– –dependency and responsibility. Although seemingly antithetical, these stances have “worked” in the state–citizen compact in Singapore even as it has also obliged a fine balancing act. In her own words, “[w]hat is important is to recognize the necessary interconnectedness of dependency and responsibility as fundamental to human flourishing––an insight worth highlighting not only in the Singapore context, but more widely across developed economies that seek to be ‘meritocratic’, yet remain highly unequal.” Chua and Seah likewise present a well-argued critique of local meritocracy, but now choosing to warn how it is morphing into a “parentocracy” where the advantages and privileges from one generation accrue to the next primarily through familial ties (see Brown, 1990). They present a number of concrete examples whereby recent policy measures can be tweaked so as to retain “a system of open pathways for all, paying special attention to disadvantaged groups.” Adopting a sociological perspective, Juhari tackles difficult questions concerning educational achievement among Malay students in Chap. 11. While he celebrates the overall rises in attainment over the years, he argues that not every ethnic community has experienced equal measures of success here. Specifically, he shows how students from the Malay community typically struggle in school because of complex, interrelated problems such as lower social capital and feelings of marginalization. In addition, based on his own research data, he brings to attention weak identity affiliation in/for this ethnic group as another significant contributing factor. By no means the final word, he ends his review by offering a number of ambitious yet practical recommendations to help this community. Chapter 12 by Ratnam-Lim and Fernandez sets the context for the following three chapters that deliberate what schools should teach and how they can develop young people. These concerns are, without too much exaggeration, the object of all

Introduction

7

curriculum theorizing and research (Deng, 2015; Westbury, 2008). Thus, RatnamLim and Fernandez want us to remember that a curriculum always exists in tight interplay with its context; one mirrors as well as anticipates the other. While this mutual shaping exists elsewhere (see Datnow & Park, 2009), the Singapore education system with its standardized national curricula presents many lucid examples of this phenomenon, which the authors exemplify with the local English and mathematics curriculum. Taking leadership in matters of curriculum development and innovation forms the subject of Chap. 13 by Hairon and Loh when they describe distributed leadership efforts as part of decentralized centralism in Singapore. The latter is a state of educational governance whereby major decision-making processes are transferred to schools from a centralized system, which ironically also legitimizes standardization and control from the center through a variety of means (e.g., accountability processes). The point Hairon and Loh make is that no longer should school leaders be seen as the sole agents of curriculum leadership; instead, classroom teachers should take priority in this important task. Kelvin Tan then lends his expertise in the following chapter to show how the goals and purposes of assessment have evolved over the decades, favoring its support for learning rather than its evaluative functions in local classrooms. Tan expands on his thesis through case studies of three critical assessment reforms: the de-emphasis of examinations in primary schools; shifting away from norm-referenced testing at the end of Grade 6, and changes in tracking by streams in secondary schools. In common with the other contributors in this book, these changes have clearly not been problem-free nor without contradictions. Cheong in Chap. 15 rounds off this section with a compelling overview of how Chinese language education––part of the mandatory group of mother tongue languages here––has responded to as well as being influenced by changing historical and political events. Concerns about maintaining linguistic standards, building national identity in a multicultural state, and the demands of global commerce were mainly effected through managing assessment policies in this subject. As implementing the national bilingual policy faced various tensions and tradeoffs, it had to be re-defined over time even as the use of English has assumed increasingly greater dominance in Singapore.

3 School Subjects in Singapore The third section is a very fundamental one for this reference book on education in Singapore because it is where selected histories of school subjects are presented, some for the first time. We have to understand that teaching and learning in the classroom is where the “rubber hits the road,” where the commonplace of subject matter gets operationalized into instruction for the benefit of learners. What each contributor in this section is attempting to do is therefore to present an account of how theory and practice of subject matter in Singaporean classrooms have evolved

8

Y.-J. Lee

over time. If they have succeeded in their writing, then readers will be armed with two powerful analytic tools––telescopes and microscopes––metaphorically speaking. While it might be tempting to treat these chapters as isolated accounts as interesting as each might be, they should all be regarded as tightly interlinked in at least two senses. First, subjects really do not exist alone, but in the company of many others within a school/national curriculum. All school subjects hence experience competition, symbiosis, and sometimes endure extinction in the extreme. Second, the teaching and learning of subject matter is not just an isolated transaction between a teacher and her students, but is something that thrives only because the subject is situated within a wider ecology of people, policies, and contexts. Subjects make subjects, to steal a word play from Britzman (1991). Readers are therefore advised to keep these dynamic conceptions of school subjects in mind even as they might savor each individual chapter here on its own disciplinary merits. The learning of English in Singapore has moved light-years away from its early emphasis on mastering grammar or the use of structured learning approaches to now exposing students to a diversity of multimodal texts (see Choo et al., Chap. 16). Curricular outcomes now speak of building empathetic communicators, discerning readers, and creative inquirers among others. And inspired by philosophers of communication such as Habermas, Derrida, and Levinas, the authors of this chapter also speculate that the ethical dimensions of learning this global/globalizing language will take on fresh significance in the future. Loh and Pang in Chap. 17 continue to extend our knowledge of the English language curriculum by zooming in one key aspect: The promotion of extended reading both for enjoyment as well as for gaining proficiency in the language. They draw on three case studies to show how the innovative teaching of reading (and the indispensable role of school libraries) was sensitive to larger developments occurring at local and global levels. Music education takes center stage in Dairianathan’s next chapter where he ponders its (troubled) role as part of a holistic education in Singapore: The “thought that Music and Education could co-exist in consonance in a/ny given context…is simultaneously prospect and problem.” Throughout this chapter, he interrogates the teaching of music within an education system better known for its hardnosed pragmatism than its love of the arts and esthetics. And by bringing us on a journey in his time machine, he points out a number of fault lines in the content, pedagogy, and assessment of music education here that have yet to be fully resolved. Chapter 19 on physical education (PE) by Tan, Tan, Yeo, and Wong documents how ideas/ideals about this subject no longer just dwell on physical development, building teamwork, and other desirable personal attributes. In recent years, much more has been demanded of this “non-academic” subject to align it with international norms and values appropriate for the twenty-first century. Accordingly, PE educators in Singapore now strive for broader and life-long goals through learning recreational games and promoting physical health through active living, for example. Usually flying beneath the radar of scholarly interests, this rare narrative of PE in local schools makes for fascinating reading indeed. As an experienced geographer who has served in schools and the Ministry of Education, Ivy Tan is well placed to offer her critical commentary on the state of

Introduction

9

geography education here. In Chap. 20, she traces in detail the intellectual history of this subject that once favored memorization of facts to its current focus on inquirybased learning and practices that mimic the work of professional geographers. It therefore can be claimed that this subject prepares students very well for taking on the ill-defined and multidisciplinary challenges that confront many societies now. History is another important subject in the Humanities that local students learn, which is presented in the next chapter by Suhaimi and Lim. They truly live out their professional training as they take pains to narrate the changes in history education. For example, how it has been a project intertwined with the state and the formation of an (national) identity. Much like geography, history teaching has transformed itself to favor inquiring like a historian, focusing on enhancing “disciplinary understandings and the application of historical thinking skills.” Of course, numerous challenges prevent classroom teaching from reaching its intended goals, which the authors explain as well as give their considered proposals for overcoming them. While the inclusion of mathematics in the school curriculum is almost guaranteed worldwide, few nations have carved out a reputation for the excellence of its mathematics teaching as Singapore. Cheng and Yeo in Chap. 22 therefore do us a favor by explaining the rationales and goals behind the local curriculum and what they deem as important mathematical knowledge that children ought to learn through school. They also describe some features of the attained and implemented curriculum and teacher PD programs for mathematics, valuable data that shows the workings of an internationally renowned teaching area. In the final chapter, Tan and Chia introduce the subject of Design and Technology, which has been a mandatory school subject in Singapore for three decades albeit called under different names in other regions. The authors explain with much enthusiasm how this subject is really a natural incubator for STEM education as both require learners to solve real-world, interdisciplinary problems through a creative design process. Their chapter is particularly interesting as they walk us through the iterative, but essential steps of the design process using actual samples of student work.

References Allen-Platt, C., Gerstner, C.-C., Boruch, R., & Ruby, A. (2021). Toward a science of failure analysis: A narrative review. Review of Research in Education, 45, 223–252. https://doi.org/10.3102/009 1732X20985074 Angrist, N., Evans, D. K., Filmer, D., Glennerster, R., Rogers, F. H., & Sabarwal, S. (2020). How to improve education outcomes most efficiently? A comparison of 150 interventions using the new Learning-Adjusted Years of Schooling metric. Working paper 558. https://www.cgdev.org/publication/how-improve-education-outcomes-most-effici ently-comparison-150-interventions-using-new. Baker, D. (2009). The invisible hand of world education culture. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. N. Planks (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 958–968). Routledge. Biesta, J. J. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Routledge.

10

Y.-J. Lee

Breen, R., & Müller, W. (Eds.). (2020). Education and intergenerational social mobility in Europe and the United States. Stanford University Press. Britzman, D. P. (1991). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. SUNY Press. Brown, P. (1990). The ‘Third Wave’: Education and the ideology of parentocracy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11, 65–86. Darling-Hammond, L., Burns, D., Campbell, C., Goodwin, A. L., Hammerness, K., Low, E.-L., McIntyre, A., Sato, M., & Zeichner, K. (2017). Empowered educators: How high-performing systems shape teaching quality around the world. Jossey Bass. Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2009). Conceptualizing policy implementation: Large-scale reform in an era of complexity. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. L. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 333–347). Routledge. Deng, Z. (2015). Organization and sequencing of subject matters. In M. F. He, B. D. Schultz, & W. H. Schubert (Eds.), The SAGE guide to curriculum in education (pp. 78–86). Sage. Eisner, E. W. (2017). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Teachers College Press. Gopinathan, S. (2015). Singapore chronicles: Education. Institute of Policy Studies & Straits Times Press. Jerrim, J. (2015). Why do East Asian children perform so well in PISA? An investigation of Western-born children of East Asian descent. Oxford Review of Education, 41, 310–333. Lau, K.-C., & Lam, Y.-P.T. (2017). Instructional practices and science performance of 10 topperforming regions in PISA 2015. International Journal of Science Education, 39, 2092–2149. Lee, Y.-J., & Roth, W.-M. (2008). How activity systems evolve: Making | saving salmon in British Columbia. Mind, Culture, & Activity, 15, 296–321. MacLeod, J. (2009). Ain’t no makin’ it: Aspirations and attainment in a low-income neighborhood. Westview Press. Manzon, M. (2014). Comparing places. In M. Bray, B. Adamson, & M. Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research: Approaches and methods (pp. 97–137). Springer & Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2019).Singapore’s teaching force is passionate and highly-skilled: OECD TALIS 2018 study. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/press-releases/singapores-teachingforce-is-passionate-and-highly-skilled--oecd-talis-2018-study. Mitchell, D. (2003). Dead labor and the political economy of landscape––California living, California dying. In K. Anderson, M. Domosh, S. Pile, & N. Thrift (Eds.), Cultural geography (pp. 233–248). Sage. Muralidharan, K., & Singh, A. (2021). India’s new national education policy: Evidence and challenges. Science, 372(6537), 36–38. Philips, D., & Schweisfurth, M. (2014). Comparative and international education: An introduction to theory, method, and practice. Bloomsbury. Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press. Sandel, M. J. (2020). The tyranny of merit: What’s become of the common good? Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Sinnema, C., & Aitkin, G. (2013). Emerging international trends in curriculum. In M. Priestly & G. Biesta (Eds.), Reinventing the curriculum: New trends in curriculum policy and practice (pp. 141–163). Bloomsbury Academic. Waldow, F., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Eds.). (2019). Understanding PISA’s attractiveness: Critical analyses in comparative policy studies. Bloomsbury Academic. Westbury, I. (2008). Making curricula: Why states make curricula, and how? In F. M. Connelly (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 45–65). Sage. Wiseman, A. W., & Baker, D. P. (2005). The worldwide explosion of internationalized education policy. In D. P. Baker & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), Global trends in educational policy (pp. 1–22). Elsevier. Yuen, S. (2017). Customising ‘Singapore maths’ for use in schools abroad. http://www.straitstimes. com/singapore/education/customising-spore-maths-for-use-in-schools-abroad?login=true.

The Next Phase of Developments in Singapore’s ECCE: Quality in the Best Interest of All Children? Sirene May-Yin Lim and Chee Wah Sum

Abstract Singapore’s early childhood care and education (ECCE) system has undergone significant changes in the last three decades since the government began to invest more in a traditionally all-privatised sector. Childcare centres and kindergartens, formerly overseen by two different government agencies, have been harmonised under a common legislation since the creation of the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) in 2013. This chapter presents a description of key policy initiatives in five areas that are linked to raising quality of ECCE in Singapore: (a) governance and provision; (b) catering to vulnerable population and children with diverse needs; (c) national curriculum guidelines; (d) quality assessment; and (e) teacher development. The description is followed by a discussion framed by these questions: (i) How are ECCE policies positioning the role and importance of ECCE in the lives of young children? (i.e. What is ECCE for?); (ii) How inclusive are ECCE services in supporting the diverse needs of children with different abilities and different socioeconomic backgrounds? The first question considers the societal purpose of ECCE, the second is linked to the government’s recent push for an inclusive society. Keywords Early childhood education · Policy · Inclusivity · Quality

1 Introduction Singapore’s public education system has ranked well in international studies such as the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), but its licensed Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) sector has not been positioned as favourably. The last known benchmark Present Address: S. M.-Y. Lim (B) · C. W. Sum S R Nathan School of Human Development, Singapore University of Social Sciences, Clementi, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] C. W. Sum e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_2

11

12

S. M.-Y. Lim and C. W. Sum

report published ranked Singapore 30 out of 45 countries in terms of quality of ECCE (EIU, 2012). The government started paying attention to the ECCE sector in the late 1990s and has incrementally provided legislative and financial support to re-shape the quality of people and services within the sector, maintaining that while it wants to raise its quality, it will not be taking over the largely privatised sector (Sum et al., 2018). In the city-state with a resident population of about 4 million and a total fertility rate of below 1.2 (Department of Statistics Singapore, 2020), the government has been increasing the number of affordable childcare services in the last decade by providing grants and subsidies to major childcare operators and offering kindergarten services through the Ministry of Education (MOE). Childcare centres providing fullday services for children from 2 months to age 6 are mostly commercially run, while half-day kindergartens catering to children ages 4–6 are typically community run or commercially run. There are now more than 1800 childcare centres and kindergartens and 21 early intervention centres with the capacity to serve more than 180,000 (MSF, 2020a, b, c) children below the age of 7 (prior to primary school). Singapore has been a signatory of the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) since 1995, and the Convention states that all children should be treated equitably. Therefore, policies relevant to children are to be mostly universal and consistent throughout the nation’s population and be non-discriminative regardless of children’s cultural backgrounds, socio-economic status, physical and intellectual abilities. Given Singapore’s academically competitive culture and parental concerns over children’s school achievements, over 90% of Singaporean children aged 5–6 years have been enrolled in preschools in the last four decades even though preschool attendance is not compulsory and Singapore’s Compulsory Education Act was only passed in the year 2000 for 6 years of primary school attendance. Historically, the first kindergartens (serving older preschoolers aged 4–6) were created by churches in the 1950s to cater to children’s primary school preparation and served mainly middle-and-upper-class families who did not need their children to be in full-day care. Childcare centres, on the other hand, were created by social welfare organisations in the 1960s to cater to low-income children (from toddlerhood) who needed to be looked after, cleaned and fed while their parents were at work during the day (Sum et al., 2018). The commercialisation of childcare services took place in recent decades as more families had more disposable income and women wanted to re-join the labour force as soon as their 16 weeks of paid maternity leave was over. To date, we know that close to 99% of Singaporean children would have some preschool experience before entering primary school (MSF, 2020a, b, c). There are various profiles of children not attending preschool, due either to their family’s circumstances or preferences. For example, families that opt for alternatives such as home-schooling, enrichment classes or specialised interventions; and there are also children from more disadvantaged backgrounds who are unable to attend preschool because of the multiple factors. In the last 10 years, the government’s efforts have been directed towards enhancing families’ access to affordable early childhood care and education (ECCE) services, although there were also efforts aimed at improving quality within a largely privatised

The Next Phase of Developments in Singapore’s ECCE …

13

sector of childcare centres and kindergartens. More childcare centres continue to be set up with support from government grants to cater to the needs of an economically diverse population. Many of the ECCE policy initiatives have been designed out of pragmatic reasons, given Singapore’s limited human resource available for the education sector (Sum et al., 2018). And this is in line with the overall pragmatic approach to governance in Singapore (Chang, 2003; Mahbubhani et al., 2016). In recent years, the government has made known its desire to create a more inclusive society, to enhance the social resilience of diverse communities, namely those with disabilities and those who have been disadvantaged in life. The coronavirus pandemic that started in year 2020 has exacerbated the impact of economic insecurity and food insecurity in families’ lives, even though Singapore does not have a poverty index and has been ranked the fourth most food secure nation in the world by the Economist Intelligence Unit (Nagpaul et al., 2020). The pandemic has made visible the social inequities that had already existed in Singapore society. (a) How are ECCE policies positioning the role and importance of ECCE in the lives of young children? (i.e. What is ECCE for?); (b) How inclusive are ECCE services in supporting the diverse needs of children with different abilities and from different socio-economic backgrounds? The first question considers the societal purpose of ECCE, the second is linked to the government’s recent push for an inclusive society. In considering these questions, this chapter provides a perspective on key areas of ECCE policy development, analysed through the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and an inclusive lens (Booth & Ainscow, 2011; UNESCO, 2001) to provide a critical overview of recent policy developments focusing on governance and quality improvements. The term ‘preschool’ is used in this paper to refer broadly to both childcare centres and kindergartens. In the two main sections that follow, the first contains a description of recent ECCE policy developments and the latter contains a discussion of our analysis of these developments.

2 Policy Developments Since 2012 This section contains a description of key policy initiatives in five areas that are linked to raising quality of ECCE in Singapore: (a) governance and provision; (b) catering to vulnerable population and children with diverse needs; (c) national curriculum guidelines; (d) quality assessment; and (e) teacher development.

2.1 ECCE Provision and Governance For decades, the government always had a light touch with ECCE. Singapore’s ECCE system has been harmonised since the creation of the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) in 2013 as the common licensing and governing body for full-day

14

S. M.-Y. Lim and C. W. Sum

infant care and childcare centres for children from 2 months to age 6, and halfday kindergartens catering to children ages 4–6. The ECDA was established as an agency jointly directed by the Ministry of Education (MOE) and Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), and administratively hosted by MSF. Prior to ECDA’s creation, kindergartens and childcare centres were licensed by two separate government agencies. With the introduction of ECDA, the governance of the two sub-sectors was not entirely unified until the Early Childhood Development Centre Act 2017 was passed. The Act accorded parallel terms for the functioning of the two sub-sectors and strengthened ECDA’s oversight of the ECCE sector, granting it more investigative powers within a more comprehensive penalty framework so that families can be better assured of their child’s well-being and safety in a largely privatised and commercialised sector with more than 1800 childcare centres and kindergartens. MOE only started to offer 4 hour kindergarten programmes in 2014 and to date, there are just 28 public kindergartens in the entire nation, all operated by the Ministry of Education (MOE) and this is set to increase to 60 by year 2025. MOE kindergartens were created with the original intent of piloting culturally appropriate curricular and pedagogical approaches that could be shared sector-wide to support quality improvement. The anchor operators have been asked to set up programmes catering for children from 2 months to 4 years old and collaborate with MOE by providing families with seamless transition and registration into MOE kindergartens (in nearby locations) when their children are ready to join Kindergarten Level 1 (age 5). This creation of a coordinated pipeline from infant, toddler and preschool childcare services into MOE kindergartens for 2 years before children enter Primary One may signal the government’s willingness to play a greater role in early childhood education which is currently not a requirement in the nation’s Compulsory Education Act (in force from January 2003). The government has provided families with childcare and kindergarten fee subsidies for decades, but it has never subsidised preschool businesses until recent years. Because preschools are private business entities, ECDA’s first policies since its inception have focused on increasing affordable childcare services by giving out government subsidies to selected preschool operators. ECDA now provides grants to 5 selected anchor operators and 29 partner preschool operators to date (ECDA, 2020a), in a landscape of more than 600 preschool operators. The mandate for anchor operators and preschool partner operators is to provide quality services while capping their fees at an affordable level, in return for government subsidies that would reduce business overheads. Since 2012, the number of childcare places has increased significantly by over 40% across Singapore; plans are ongoing to continue to do so as more families now require full-day childcare services. This move not only supports new parents but it also aims to raise the country’s total fertility rate by supporting families’ efforts to raise children while remaining active in the workforce. The new licensing requirements for ‘early childhood development centres’ (the official term for childcare centres and kindergartens) stipulates the following teacher– child ratios:

The Next Phase of Developments in Singapore’s ECCE …

15

1:25 K2 (6-year olds); 1:20 K1 (5-year olds); 1:18 N2 (4-year olds); 1:15 N1 (3-year olds); 1:12 Pre-Nursery (2-year olds); 1: 8 Playgroup (18-month olds); 1:5 for infants between 2 and 18 months. As a reference point, Primary One classrooms in Singapore has reduced class size to 30, with one teacher addressing the class at any one time typically.

2.2 Vulnerable Populations and Children with Diverse Needs Little is known about how childcare centres and kindergartens have served children with diverse needs. Traditionally, the ECCE sector was always assumed to cater to typically developing children below age 7. This mirrors Singapore’s dual education system with ‘special schools’ catering to children with disabilities and ‘mainstream’ primary and secondary schools catering to typically developing children who may have mild to moderate disabilities but are able to access mainstream curriculum. Singapore’s desire to become an inclusive society is a work-in-progress. An inclusive attitudes poll revealed that only about half of its sample of parents with typically developing children were comfortable with their child attending the same school or class as a child with special needs; and less than a third of its sample of parents of children with special needs regarded Singapore as an inclusive society and felt that their children were at risk of being bullied (Lien Foundation, 2016). The survey also found that almost half of the children with special needs did not have typically developing friends (Lien Foundation, 2016). Early intervention (EI) services for young children who have been assessed with learning difficulties and disabilities have always been in the hands of the private sector albeit these operators too have been recipients of government grants, and families have had access to government subsidies that varied according to their household incomes. But EI services have not been licensed specifically like childcare centres or kindergartens even though some children may spend at least 3 h a day at an early intervention centre. Until 2019, the Disability Office within the MSF had mediated with sector partners such as hospitals, preschools and charitable organisations to offer EI services. With ECDA’s existence, the MSF started to integrate the oversight of EI services with preschool services so that all EI services would come under ECDA by the end of 2020. All EI services range from 2 to 12 h per week, depending on the nature of intervention required by children. Children under the age of 7 with mild developmental needs are supported by government-funded Development Support (DS) and Learning Support (LS) programmes that are offered within preschool settings with children pulled out from their main classrooms to work with an EI professional. Children with moderate to severe developmental needs are supported through Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC), provided at 21 specialised EI centres with about 3000 places annually. These children receive the same model of EIPIC intervention across different ages and needs.

16

S. M.-Y. Lim and C. W. Sum

About 5% of the student population have been diagnosed with special educational needs. The Development Support (DS) and Learning Support (LS) programme provides support to children with mild development needs within childcare centres and kindergartens. Only about 40% of preschools currently offer the DS-LS programme. ECDA is working closely with preschool operators to make the DS-LS programme available at more preschools (ECDA, 2020c). Along with the nationwide expansion of infant care services (for infants aged between 2 and 17 months), MSF is expanding EI services to children below age 2 and will extend its EIPIC service to facilitate individual children’s transition into preschool settings. The current average waiting time for children to have a disability diagnosed or assessed has shortened in the last decade to under 3 weeks. And children’s waiting time for enrolment in an EIPIC centre is approximately 6 months, depending on parents’ preferences for specific providers and/or locations (MSF, 2020a, b, c). In EIPIC, teacher to child ratios vary based on the needs of each child—for children with higher needs, support can be delivered in a one-to-one setting, while children with higher functioning could be placed in groups averaging 6–8 children. Typically, each group is led by an EI teacher, with at least another EI professional (such as a therapist, psychologist or assistant EI teacher). Under ECDA’s current regulations, preschools, including those that enrol children with developmental needs, are required to adhere to minimum staff–child ratios for the different age groups. Preschools may choose to deploy more staff to support classes with children with developmental needs. Other than pull-out EI programmes, inclusive preschools catering to children with moderate developmental needs and typically developing children have begun to appear in the landscape, created by charity organisations and commercial entities; ECDA announced the formation of an inclusive preschools workgroup (ECDA, 2020c). Whilst EI services cater specifically to children with special needs, there are no national guidelines for preschools to better support children from low-income and vulnerable backgrounds. For decades, the government has provided almost 100% subsidised childcare fees for low-income and disadvantaged families. But there have been no other ecological supports to ensure that children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds actually attend preschool or thrive in them. To date, KidSTART (launched in 2016) is a significant step towards creating more comprehensive support for such children. The pilot programme targeted a select group of about 1000 children from low-income and disadvantaged families in a few regions to help them have a better start in the early years. Through the programme, ECDA provides new forms of support for child development, strengthening integrated services for families where needed, monitoring the developmental progress of children from birth onwards. Parents in the programme are taught to bond with their young child through play and conversation and are given information on health and nutrition.

The Next Phase of Developments in Singapore’s ECCE …

17

2.3 Two National Frameworks to Guide Programmes There are two national frameworks that aim to guide centre-based curricular practices in Singapore, produced by different government agencies and both are highly recommended but not mandatory for the sector. Publishing such national frameworks has been a way for nations to improve their early childhood education systems. In Singapore, the first step began in the late 1990s when MOE created a set of Desired Outcomes of Pre-school Education, followed by the first kindergarten curriculum framework to provide guidance on the curriculum of services for 4–6year olds (MOE, 2003). Additional curriculum resources have also been published by MOE to support early childhood educators’ more effective application of its main principles into daily practice, as well as teaching guidelines for the three official Mother Tongue Languages (MTLs) of Chinese, Malay and Tamil (Tan, 2017). The current Nurturing Early Learners: A Curriculum Framework for Kindergartens in Singapore (NEL framework) is underpinned by [iTEACH] principles that have remained like its past iterations: (a) integrated approach to learning; (b) teachers as facilitators of learning; (c) engaging children in learning through purposeful play; (d) authentic learning through quality interactions; (e) children as constructors of knowledge. The kindergarten framework guides programmes that cater to older preschoolers (ages 4–6) in both the childcare and kindergarten settings. The framework refers to theorists such as John Dewey, Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky as well as seminal publications such as Shonkoff and Philips’ (2000) recommendations for the USA, and UK’s longitudinal study ‘The Effective Provision of Preschool Education’ (Sylva et al., 2004). While framed by these constructivist perspectives of learning, the NEL framework also retains a more pragmatic view of learning through subject areas similar to that found in the primary school curriculum (language and literacy, numeracy, motor skills development, discovery of the world, etc.). NEL resources also include the official Mother Tongue Languages (Mandarin, Tamil and Malay), since bilingualism has always been a hallmark of Singapore’s education system. Programmes serving the younger age groups are guided by the Early Years Development Framework (EYDF) (ECDA, 2013). Both frameworks appear to share constructivist ideas about children’s learning and a bioecological view of human development, signalling the importance of having responsive adults provide young children with experiential, play-based learning opportunities over children’s academic hot-housing and rote learning. Both frameworks promote multiculturalism and an image of the young child as a competent, active and curious learner who is best supported by adults who are caring, responsive and intentional in partnering with parents, and facilitating children’s all-round development. In many ways, these frameworks’ theoretical assumptions about children’s learning and development appear antithetical to what has been described as a general Singaporean culture with an ‘entrenched utilitarian and pragmatic paradigm’ that is focused on high-stakes examination preparation (Teo & Koh, 2020).

18

S. M.-Y. Lim and C. W. Sum

2.4 Quality Assessment Most quality assessment tools used in early childhood settings around the world measure either or both sets of these variables: (a) structural variables such as group size, adult–child ratios and teacher qualifications; and (b) process indicators such as warmth and responsiveness in adult–child interactions, as well as the potential for children’s play and learning that is afforded within teachers’ choice of classroom materials and environments. These indicators have become useful for policymakers and researchers to objectively examine ‘quality’ practices in early childhood settings. For public accountability as well as for programmes’ self-evaluation across the states in the USA, early childhood educational quality has been measured by observational instruments such as the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale— Revised/ECERS-R (Harms et al., 1998) which measures global classroom environment quality; and the Classroom Assessment Scoring System/CLASS (Pianta et al., 2008) which focuses on measuring various dimensions of quality adult–child interactions. In using these scales, some research has found that teacher-directed teaching was dominating kindergarten classrooms in Singapore (e.g. Bautista et al., 2018a, 2018b). The system for quality assurance adopted by Singapore is named Singapore Pre-school Accreditation Framework (SPARK), which is a voluntary quality rating system to nudge centres to embark on quality improvement journeys and learn to appraise their programmes in terms of administrative, managerial and pedagogical leadership and practices. It is a four-tier quality assurance system with licensing and registration forming the base level, self-appraisal as the second level, voluntary certification by MOE (and later ECDA) as the third level and accreditation as the fourth level. SPARK assessment refers to the third and fourth levels of the quality assurance framework. Besides helping centre leaders to negotiate the change in the curriculum, SPARK sought to uplift the quality of education offered by kindergartens and childcare centres through self-monitoring and evaluation (MOE, 2010). Currently, SPARK certification is only compulsory for anchor operators and preschool partner operators (i.e. those obtaining government funding) and the accreditation stage has yet to be launched. The tool developed for SPARK is the Quality Rating Scale or QRS. The latest iteration of the QRS is a set of leadership and management standards, focusing on centre-level structures and processes for programmes serving children from infancy to 6 years old. From 2020, all preschools were required to use the new 2019 QRS (0–6) for self-appraisal and external assessment or SPARK certification (Table 1). The tool is a global measure of leadership (administrative and curricular), as well as some aspects of pedagogical and curricular quality aligned with the EYDF and NEL national frameworks.

The Next Phase of Developments in Singapore’s ECCE …

19

Table 1 Components in the quality rating scale (ECDA, 2019) Criterion

Standards

Section A (0–6) Leadership

1. Strategic leadership 2. Curriculum leadership

Planning and administration

1. Strategic planning 2. Programme structure and implementation 3. Administration

Staff management

1. Induction and deployment 2. Professional development and performance appraisal 3. Staff well-being

Section B (0–3) Early years learning environment

1. Physical environment and resources 2. Family involvement

Early years learning and development 1. General principles for pedagogy 2. Social and emotional development 3. Early language and pre-literacy development 4. Physical development 5. Aesthetics and creative expression 6. Early numeracy and natural environment Section C (4–6) Resources

1. Teaching and learning environment and resources 2. Collaboration with parents 3. Collaboration with community

Curriculum

1. Integrated curriculum and holistic development 2. Aesthetics and creative expression 3. Discovery of the world 4. Language and literacy 5. Motor skills development 6. Numeracy 7. Social and emotional development

Pedagogy

1. General principles for pedagogy 2. Assessment of children’s learning and development

Health, hygiene and safety

Now part of basic licensing checks and renewals, and no longer part of the QRS

2.5 Teacher Development and Retention ECCE professionals have endured a long-standing typecast as babysitters who merely feed and clean children and this will need to be redressed in the current climate of quality improvements. Prior to the late 1990s, there was no professional requirement for those who wanted to work with young children in childcare centres and kindergartens. From the late 1990s to 2000s, the Ministry of Education started to specify minimal academic and professional requirements. The first entry requirements for

20

S. M.-Y. Lim and C. W. Sum

teachers into the sector was raised twice, incrementally, within a span of 15 years— the first shift was from not having entry requirements to having three GCE ‘O’ level passes and a pass in English language as the entry requirement. The second shift was from three GCE ‘O’ level passes to five GCE ‘O’ level passes and a B4 grade for English. Making the policy change in two steps allowed teachers already in the sector to progressively grow their professional skills and avoid an irreplaceable exodus of teachers. And as teachers with higher qualifications and skills attract higher salaries, making the change in two steps also meant that the increase in the cost for operators could be more gradual. When the MOE made it mandatory for preschool teachers to obtain a professional diploma qualification, the National Institute of Education (the nation’s only publicly funded institution for primary/secondary school teacher preparation programmes) was not the only one offering such a qualification. To meet the sector’s increasing need in the early 2000s for qualified preschool teachers, much of Singapore’s early childhood teacher preparation was left to private, for-profit training agencies to be accredited by the MOE and the then Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) to deliver the requisite professional diploma courses (approximately 1200 h including practicum). At that time, the MOE monitored kindergarten registrations and the MCYS licensed childcare centres. There was no common legislative act that governed both kindergartens and childcare centres until ECDA. And at one point, there were separate diploma programmes to train kindergarten teachers and childcare teachers. ECDA has created a few initiatives to support teacher development in recent years. In 2016, ECDA launched an Early Childhood Manpower Plan to provide more professional development opportunities for early childhood educators, encourage the provision of more supportive working environments and greater respect and recognition for early childhood professionals (ECDA, 2016). With a rapid increase in the number of childcare centres, there needed to be more teachers trained to work in these centres. ECDA also encouraged centres to raise salaries and offer more career advancement opportunities to retain staff, while not recommending a national salary guide. Over the past few years, the ECDA has been working closely with operators and training agencies to attract, retain and develop educators. It also ensured that the student intakes in the two polytechnics offering early childhood diploma courses increased by more than 70% since 2016, to reach about 800 students annually. At the 2017 Committee of Supply debates today, the Ministry of Social and Family Development announced new initiatives to attract more persons to become infant educators and to develop more rewarding careers in the early childhood sector. EI professionals, on the other hand, are not required to have a professional qualification before being employed in EIPIC programmes although they would eventually need an advanced diploma. ECDA and Singapore Workforce Development Agency co-developed a Skills Framework for Early Childhood Care and Education (Government of Singapore, 2016) as part of the SkillsFuture movement to promote mastery and recognition of skills, and to foster a culture of lifelong learning. The document was revised in 2021 to provide information on career pathways and skills competencies for 14 ‘early childhood education occupation profiles within

The Next Phase of Developments in Singapore’s ECCE …

21

the industry, 5 ‘learning support’ occupations, and 7 ‘early intervention’ occupations. With ECDA’s oversight of the EI sector, the framework underwent review to incorporate EI professional competencies. In its attempt to mobilise change within a privatised sector, ECDA identified the first group of 14 sectoral leaders called ‘ECDA Fellows’ in 2015 to support ECDA in championing quality improvement and professional development efforts, on a 3year contract. These leaders would continue working in their organisations but lend ECDA pockets of time to conduct workshops and share their practices with the wider sector. To date, there are 22 of such ECDA Fellows and the goal is to continue to allow these individuals to renew their contracts as well as to identify new sectoral leaders. In the last few years, ECDA has also launched three structured professional development programmes to help organisations retain quality teachers—there is a Professional Development Programme (PDP) for Educarers, a PDP for Preschool Teachers and a PDP for Leaders. Each of these PDPs are 3 years in duration, with stipulated number of hours of training (mostly short workshops and courses) and cash incentives (e.g. ECDA, 2018). On the special needs front, ECDA is working closely with the regional Development Support—Learning Support (DS-LS) providers and preschools to expand provision of DS-LS to more preschools. ECDA also provides funding to preschools which are prepared to be DS-LS providers themselves, to train their Learning Support Educators (LSEs) and procure therapy services. These preschools are also supported with a Place-and-Train programme to facilitate the training of more in-house LSEs. To raise the quality of the workforce and attract diverse groups of people to enter the ECCE sector, the government has also promoted the sector as important work with an attractive career pathway for graduate career-switchers, through an accelerated diploma programme (Tan, 2017). The next steps in Singapore’s ECCE quality-enhancement journey would need to move beyond these minimal certificateand diploma-level qualifications so that ECCE educators may be required to meet competency expectations that are on par with the graduate teaching workforce that already exists in the public primary and secondary education system. The National Institute of Early Childhood Development (NIEC) was created by MOE in 2018, albeit to provide diploma- and certificate-level qualifications (i.e. preceding an undergraduate degree level) for pre-service and continual professional development for early childhood teachers (MOE, 2017). It is unclear at this point if or how this move is going to raise the professionalism of the sector. However, the launch of NIEC has certainly trimmed the training sector and drastically reduced the number of private, for-profit training agencies offering early childhood diploma/certificates (Sum et al., 2018).

22

S. M.-Y. Lim and C. W. Sum

3 Discussion 3.1 Situating Policy Developments within the Global Landscape For a nation that has done well in international benchmarking tests, the ranking of 30 out of 45 countries in the ‘Starting Well’ benchmark report (EIU, 2012) could have been a surprise to some. The nation only started paying attention to the legislative and professional requirements of ECCE in the last two decades, the ranking affirmed the need for greater public investment to support young children’s development at a critical period of their lives and mitigate the effects of impoverished home environments that some children face. Almost a decade has passed since the harmonisation of the childcare and kindergartens legislation and regulatory oversight by ECDA, however, ECDA’s starting point has been on solving the accessibility and affordability issues of full-day childcare services by increasing the number of government-supported childcare centres set up by anchor operators and partner operators; and with MOE setting up NIEC, it was an important step towards professionalising the entire field. While these are significant developments for improving structural quality indicators, we examine the sufficiency of these policy strategies towards improving opportunities for children with diverse needs. On the front that aims to improve process quality within ECCE programmes, however, the MOE kindergartens are a comparatively small effort in a largely privatised sector, trialling pedagogical applications of its NEL framework and creating locally produced resources such as picture books (MOE, 2013). It is worth examining if these quality improvement efforts could create a ripple across the sector, to cater to the image of child promoted by the UN CRC, considering the nation’s ideal of becoming a more inclusive society in the twenty-first century. In the remaining part of this chapter, we will discuss the two questions that we had raised—(a) How are ECCE policies positioning the role and importance of ECCE in the lives of young children? (i.e. What is ECCE for?); (b) How inclusive are ECCE services in supporting the diverse needs of children with different abilities or children who come from different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds?

3.2 Purpose of ECCE and the Definition of ‘Quality’: Towards ECCE as a Public Good? Given its historical developments thus far, we see that the purpose of ECCE in Singapore continues to be dual in nature—(a) to support working parents across all socio-economic groups; and (b) to support young children’s overall development and transition into an academically oriented primary school system. How best can

The Next Phase of Developments in Singapore’s ECCE …

23

these purposes be fulfilled if ECCE remains fully privatised and even marketised in nature? A free-market economy assumes that consumers know what they want and hence, should be given choices; but parents do not have a whole lot of experience with childcare services nor do they always have an informed understanding of what young children need to learn and develop within centre-based ECCE (Lim, 2017; Lloyd & Penn, 2014; Naumann, 2011). Prior to the formation of ECDA, childcare fees ranged from about SGD600 to SGD2000 with the median rising every couple of years. Some commercial preschools continue to market themselves to justify their high fees, suggesting to parents that quality is synonymous with fees and that they have the latest research-based educational trend. It may not be far-fetched to predict that, over time, leaving a smaller percentage of commercial setups outside of the government subsidised preschool operators may inadvertently reinforce the divide between the higher income and the working class, adding to the yawning gulf between the haves and have-nots. This phenomenon could create the impression that privileged children attend more expensive, and therefore better, childcare provisions. Within the last decade, we see Singapore’s ECCE system shifting towards a mixed market, with a small proportion of public kindergartens and a significant increase in government-subsidised private, not-for-profit childcare entities. We now have about half of the sector’s childcare and kindergarten services being government-supported if not publicly run, made available in public housing estates where the majority of young families reside. Nevertheless, the entire ECCE sector still has more than 600 operators with a generally fragmented and competitive existence in which teachers can job-hop to attain higher salaries and little professional exchange occurs because fraternity does not exist across business competitors. Singapore’s hybrid ECCE system is like some European early childhood systems where private and public provision may co-exist within a mixed economy, often called a ‘childcare market’ (Lloyd & Penn, 2014). In such markets, corporate childcare businesses are among the private-for-profit childcare providers that exist, and their primary interest is getting shareholders a good return on capital invested (Lim, 2017; Lloyd & Penn, 2014). Sweden, on the other hand, had conceptualised a universal and integrated version of ‘educare’ in the 1970s—early years services is a statutory right for all children from age 1 to age 6, and this rare approach was influenced by women’s rights, their equal access to employment and children’s rights to equal opportunities in accessing centre-based care and education (Naumann, 2011). Closer to Singapore, Hong Kong has an entirely privatised kindergarten sector (serving 3– 6-year olds) made up of stand-alone institutions owned either by charitable organisations or commercial enterprises (Wong & Rao, 2015), not unlike Singapore’s ECCE landscape prior to the establishment of ECDA. It has been observed that in countries where early childhood service systems are education-led in governance (i.e. by the education authority), the market argument has been less favoured; but where provision has traditionally been more childcareled (i.e. by the social welfare authority) and fragmented, the for-profit sector has had more success, although the extent of this depends on how funding is offered and how regulations are applied (European Commission, 2011). While ECDA is co-chaired

24

S. M.-Y. Lim and C. W. Sum

by the MOE and MSF, it resides within the MSF. We are not clear how the cochairing has influenced policies in the last few years as MOE kindergartens function independently of ECDA, and ECDA’s policies have been focused on monetary aid given to anchor operators and partner operators to maintain affordable preschool fees. Children’s transitions into primary school have yet to be addressed more systemically. Perhaps with MOE kindergartens located within primary schools now, there are already ongoing collaborations. With the formation of ECDA, we expect greater harmonisation of the childcare and kindergarten segments, in both theoretical and practical terms. But this would not be without challenges. The division of kindergarten and day-care services has had its roots in late nineteenth-century Europe, with these two strands of early childhood interventions run by parallel governing institutions, one under a government agency that is usually responsible for social welfare, family and/or health policy, and the other, under an agency responsible for school education. Such a deep-rooted and artificial dichotomy between ‘care’ and ‘education’ continues to exist within many nations, sometimes having more stringent requirements for kindergarten teachers than childcare teachers; and this division has created challenges to policymaking attempts to meld the natural care (including health) and education aspects of ECCE to benefit all children equitably (Bennett, 2003). Such a dichotomy has certainly created and perpetuated the stereotyping of childcare professionals as babysitters. An example of how Singapore’s policymakers have conceptualised care and education as distinct services can be seen in how the two national curricular frameworks were published at different times by two different agencies—the EYDF (for programmes serving infants and toddlers) was published by ECDA, whereas the NEL framework (for programmes serving 4–6-year olds) was published by MOE and so was the Outdoor Learning Guide launched in 2019 (developed by MOE’s Pre-school Education Branch and Physical, Sports and Outdoor Education Branch). And it is also noteworthy that the latest Skills Framework revision (Government of Singapore, 2021) incorporates EI professionals’ competencies and career pathways within a common map. In practice, MOE kindergartens offer 4-hour programmes and they have outsourced the remaining part of the day’s ‘KCare’ programme to anchor operators while subsiding its operations. In the long run, Singapore’s policymakers will need to forge ahead to further enhance the amalgamation of care and educational aspects of the entire ECCE sector, in policy and practice. Regarding this, here are a few observations we have made from our analysis of the two national frameworks and the Quality Rating Scale: (a)

To define ‘holistic development’ more comprehensively across programmes that serve the spectrum of infants, toddlers and preschoolers. For instance, both the EYDF and NEL frameworks do not mention much about food and nutrition, or feeding practices for the different age groups, or consider ways of supporting young children’s self-regulation at mealtimes, nor facilitate preschoolers’ discovery of food sources and sustainable lifestyles. And yet, these are important areas of development and the early years of a child’s life and can support children’s healthy habits for life. With the existing income gaps

The Next Phase of Developments in Singapore’s ECCE …

(b)

(c)

25

and social inequalities, there continues to be a silence around children facing food insecurity at one end of the continuum (Nagpaul et al., 2020), and at the other extreme, children at risk of or suffering from obesity and its associations with depression (Quek et al., 2017). To encourage ECCE professionals to think laterally across developmental domains (i.e. physical, intellectual, social and emotional) and beyond different subject/learning areas to support children’s lifelong dispositions, conceptual and skill-based development. This has implications on teacher education and professional development—exploring ways to provide teachers with the curricular planning and pedagogical skills to shift away from spending large amounts of time having children rote-learn facts and procedures, to supporting their curiosity, executive functioning skills (Zelazo et al., 2003) and their construction of ideas and discovery of connections between and among things and people. To build a fraternity of ECCE professionals, a community of professionals and learners, despite the sector’s largely privatised and marketised nature. Quality in early childhood education programmes is a value-laden concept and has been defined in both objective and subjective ways (Sheridan, 2009) by psychologists, educators, anthropologists and sociologists who all have not found a universal definition. Singapore’s ECCE professionals need to begin to wrestle with what they perceive as ‘quality’ within our local culture and more academic-oriented approaches to education. They need not always acquiesce to the decisions made by others (e.g., policymakers and other ECCE and non-ECCE professionals) on behalf of their profession in Singapore.

3.3 Inclusivity in ECCE In this section, we discuss how children with special needs and children from vulnerable backgrounds are served in the current ECCE sector; and we also highlight that there has been an increasing number of migrant teachers working in Singapore’s preschools because of the rapid expansion of centres and a shortage of locally trained teachers. Globally, early childhood education has been viewed as one of the most promising means of increasing lifelong opportunities for all children because of research evidence pointing to the lasting effects of high-quality ECCE on children’s early learning and developmental outcomes (Hong et al., 2019; Sylva et al., 2004). The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that the universal provision of care, education and protection of every child is a priority for nations and government policies should treat all children equally and equitably regardless of their characteristics, developmental trajectories or backgrounds. Booth and Ainscow (2011) have shown how inclusive programmes involve such issues as health and wellbeing, citizenship, non-violence, anti-discrimination, community development and environmental

26

S. M.-Y. Lim and C. W. Sum

sustainability—all of which are represented in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2020). In this chapter, we hold a longer term view of inclusivity-as-participation which involves creating educational settings and systems that respond to the diversity of children and adults in ways that value them equally. This means valuing the voices of children and teachers regardless of whether they are citizens, migrants, rich, poor or differently abled. Singapore’s founding ideology as a sovereign state highlights its multicultural citizenry, and acknowledges that the nation’s survival and progress is dependent on respect for a common set of ‘shared values’ as a result of its cultural, linguistic and religious diversity (Government of Singapore, 1991). Over time, Singapore’s rhetoric of inclusion continues to evolve as the nation prospers. For instance, the first World Congress of Disabled Peoples’ International, held in Singapore in 1981, catalysed change; and there have been two Enabling Masterplans to better integrate persons with disability into society (Zhuang, 2016). Since 2019, the Compulsory Education Act included children with moderate to severe needs (MOE, 2016). However, there is, at present, still no statutory support for the inclusion of children with disabilities in preschool, but different service options such as EIPIC and DS-LS are available (as described in the previous sections) although preschool education is also not compulsory for all children in general. Given the diverse backgrounds of children and the important role that preschool plays, some statutory support for the disadvantaged children may be useful for signalling the society’s commitment towards these children’s equitable growth and development. Migrant employees and other immigrants make up almost a third of our population. ECCE settings have an increased number of immigrant children and teachers, from the neighbouring Southeast Asian countries as well as mainland China, who ought to be more actively engaged and participating rather than assimilated into mainstream local culture (Gay, 2018; Lim, 2015; Nuttall et al., 2021; Yang & Lim, 2020). Inclusivity in Singapore must take on a more global outlook: that in recognising and acknowledging the cultures and skills that these immigrant children and teachers bring into our society. Much of Singapore’s ECCE quality-raising policy efforts do not assume ECCE settings to have inclusive programmes catering to children with diverse needs. The ECDA adult–child ratios (e.g. 1:25 children) assume teachers to be very experienced and skilled to be able to actively engage young minds through experiential learning and differentiated instruction. As Singapore’s ECCE landscape matures and progresses with more local research and development, practitioner-researchers will need to re-define quality within an increasingly inclusive cultural context. Based on the PISA scores, for instance, Singapore appears to have next to zero learning poverty (Newman & Gentile, 2020). However, we acknowledge that Singapore has a dual education system—special schools that cater to children with severe disabilities and a ‘mainstream’ school system that caters to children who can access a national, standardised primary and secondary school curricula. Even though measures of achievement such as the PISA and TIMMS are the most commonly used tools for evaluating education systems globally, these do not necessarily assess the effectiveness

The Next Phase of Developments in Singapore’s ECCE …

27

of systems in catering to children with diverse learning needs nor set out to evaluate the opportunities afforded to children to participate actively within school systems (Booth & Ainscow, 2011). If Singapore wishes to become more inclusive as a society, then the success of its education system should be measured by the quality of every child’s level of engagement and quality of participation within childcare centres/kindergartens, and schools regardless of children’s disability or background. By ‘participation’, we refer to both the child’s ‘attendance’ and ‘involvement’ within educational communities to enhance each child’s quality of life and learning (Booth & Ainscow, 2011; Imms et al., 2016). Currently, ECDA’s teaching awards and nominations for notable professional development programmes and scholarships are given only to Singapore citizens or permanent residents. If a diverse workforce were to serve a diverse population well, traditionally hierarchical values would need to be replaced with inclusive values. This requires political will to invest in teacher and educational leadership development for all who work in the sector regardless of their citizenship, in order to provide responsive ECCE services that respect the diverse needs of young children with their individual characteristics and family backgrounds (Gay, 2018; Hyun, 2007). This certainly means going beyond the multi-racialism typically promoted in Singapore’s education system (Tan, 2011). With this broader view of inclusion-beyond-special needs education, the government’s role is to ensure the provision of accessible, affordable and good quality ECCE services to all children including those with special needs, and to enhance preschools’ and social service agencies’ collaborative efforts to reach out to disadvantaged groups who may need complex and multiple supports or targeted assistance such as the KidSTART programme. KidSTART is currently the only governmentled initiative to reach out to and ensure that children from some low-income and vulnerable families have early access to appropriate health, learning and developmental support, including attending quality preschool (e.g. Goh, 2020; ECDA, 2020b; Teng, 2020). We recognise that while KidSTART’s deliberate and selective support is significant, ECDA would eventually need to take into consideration the wide ranging and diverse needs and circumstances of disadvantaged families. Given Singapore’s relatively small resident population and compact urban environment, though, such a national programme should not exclude pockets of communities and families in crises that may prove extra challenging to work with (e.g. family violence, substance abuse, child protection). Moreover, developments in KidSTART should be linked to teacher development efforts which provide preschool educators with the awareness and/or opportunities to learn to collaborate with social workers who will also partner with families facing multiple stressors in life (e.g. Chiu et al., 2019; Ng, 2013); there is currently no published research on how ECCE services in Singapore actually cater to children from impoverished backgrounds and how/whether these children are helped to attend preschool regularly. As Singaporeans become more educated about, and aware of, learning difficulties and disabilities, more children will be diagnosed (though not infinitely) and there will be a need to continue to expand EI services nationwide. More importantly, there will

28

S. M.-Y. Lim and C. W. Sum

also be a need to support all typically developing and atypically developing children as they transition into the public primary school system. At present, the ecological system has yet to be built to create such supports for children and their families. This would not only require the nation to have a population database on the number of children (birth to 6) with special needs but would also require the MOE and ECDA to work together more proactively, in collaboration with a largely privatised ECCE and EI sector.

4 Conclusion Singapore’s ECCE sector is in a phase of multiple developments spearheaded by the government. Even though ECCE will not become part of the national education system, policymakers have made the commitment to provide significant subsidies to more than half of the places to help keep preschool fees as affordable as possible for families. ECCE services will not become a universal provision or public good anytime soon, but with greater government intervention—the anchor operator and partner operator schemes, SPARK, a national Skills Framework and two national guidelines for curriculum, targeted services such as KidSTART, EIPIC and DS-LS, as well as the setting up of NIEC—much remains to be seen as to whether the next phase of quality improvement and inclusivity can be achieved with these structures and provisions alone, within a sector that is still quite fragmented.

References Bautista, A., Moreno-Núñez, A., Bull, R., Amsah, F., & Koh, S. F. (2018). Arts-related pedagogies in preschool education: An Asian perspective. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 45, 277–288. Bautista, A., Moreno-Núñez, A., Ng, S. C., & Bull, R. (2018). Preschool educators’ interactions with children about sustainable development: Planned and incidental conversations. International Journal of Early Childhood, 50(1), 15–32. Bennett, J. (2003). Starting strong: The persistent division between care and education. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 1(1), 21–48. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for inclusion. Developing learning and participation in schools [Revised]. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Chang, J. H. Y. (2003). Culture, state and economic development in Singapore. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 33(1), 85–105. Chiu, M. Y., Ghoh, C., Chung, G., & Choi, K. P. (2019). Multistressed families in Singapore: A focus on transnational families. Children and Youth Services Review, 101, 372–382. Department of Statistics, Singapore (2020). Population and Population Structure. Accessed on 25 Sept 2020 https://www.singstat.gov.sg/find-data/search-by-theme/population/population-andpopulation-structure/latest-data. ECDA. (2016). New manpower plan unveiled to create more rewarding careers for early childhood educators. https://www.ecda.gov.sg/pressreleases/pages/new-manpower-plan-unveiled-tocreate-more-rewarding-careers-for-early-childhood-educators.aspx. ECDA. (2013). Early years development framework for child care centres. Singapore.

The Next Phase of Developments in Singapore’s ECCE …

29

ECDA. (2019). Singapore Preschool Accreditation Framework: Quality Rating Scale (0-6). Singapore. ECDA. (2018). Government to set aside over $5 million in the next three years to develop leaders in the early childhood sector. https://www.ecda.gov.sg/PressReleases/Pages/GOVERNMENTTO-SET-ASIDE-OVER-$5-MILLION-IN-THE-NEXT-THREE-YEARS-TO-DEVELOP-LEA DERS-IN-THE-EARLY-CHILDHOOD-SECTOR.aspx. ECDA. (2020a). More families to benefit from lower fee caps at 324 childcare centres appointed as partner operators. https://www.ecda.gov.sg/PressReleases/Pages/More-Families-to-Benefitfrom-Lower-Fee-Caps-at-324-Childcare-Centres-Appointed-as-Partner-Operators.aspx. ECDA. (2020b). Boosting professional development of preschool educators, enhancing outdoor learning for children and expanding Kidstart to more families. https://www.ecda.gov.sg/PressR eleases/Pages/Boosting-Professional-Development-of-Preschool-Educators.aspx. ECDA. (2020c). More integrated support for children with developmental needs under ECDA. https://www.msf.gov.sg/media-room/Pages/More-Integrated-Support-for-Children-with-Develo pmental-Needs-Under-ECDA.aspx. Economist Intelligence Unit. (2012). Starting well: Benchmarking early education across the world. Commissioned by Lien Foundation. European Commission. (2011). Study on social services of general interest. Final report. Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press. Government of Singapore (1991). Shared values. Singapore. Government of Singapore (2016). Skills framework for ECCE version 2.0. Singapore. Government of Singapore. (2021). Skills framework for early childhood. https://www.skillsfuture. gov.sg/skills-framework/earlychildhood. Goh, Y. H. (2020). Scheme helps needy kids eat healthier. The straits times Singapore. Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early childhood environment rating scale, revised edition. Teachers College Press. Hong, S. L. S., Sabol, T. J., Burchinal, M. R., Tarullo, L., Zaslow, M., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. S. (2019). ECE quality indicators and child outcomes: Analyses of six large child care studies. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 49, 202–217. Hyun, E. (2007). Cultural complexity in early childhood: Images of contemporary young children from a critical perspective. Childhood Education, 83(5), 261–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/000 94056.2007.10522929 Imms, C., Granlund, M., Wilson, P., Steenbergen, B., Rosenbaum, P., & Gordon, A. (2016). Participation—both a means and an end. A conceptual analysis of processes and outcomes in childhood disability. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.13237 Lien Foundation. (2016). Inclusive attitudes survey parts 1 and 2. Singapore Lim, S. M. Y. (2015). Early childhood care and education in a consumer society: Questioning the child–adult binary and childhood inequality. Global Studies of Childhood, 5(3), 305–321. Lim, S. (2017). Marketization and corporatization of early childhood care and education in Singapore. In M. Li, J. Fox, & S. Grieshaber (Eds.), Contemporary issues and challenge in early childhood education in the Asia-Pacific Region (pp. 17–32). Springer. Lloyd, E., & Penn, H. (2014). Childcare markets in an age of austerity. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 22(3), 386–396. Mabubani, K., Yee, T., Khanna, V., & Tan, E. K. (2016). Pragmatism should be retained as Singapore’s governing philosophy. In Singapore perspectives 2015: Choices (pp. 93–120). Ministry of Education (MOE). (2003). Launch of pre-school curriculum framework. Press release Singapore: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/ pdfdoc/2003012001.htm. Ministry of Education (MOE). (2010). Launch of Singapore pre-school accreditation framework. Press release. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.nas.gov.sg/archiv esonline/data/pdfdoc/20101130006/press_release_for_spark_at_klf2010_23_nov_embargoed% 28vdd%29.pdf.

30

S. M.-Y. Lim and C. W. Sum

Ministry of Education (MOE). (2013). Press release: MOE’s first five pilot kindergartens in primary schools and the community. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/press-releases/moe-s-first-five-pilotkindergartens-in-primary-schools-and-the-community. Ministry of Education (MOE). (2016). Press release: Including children with special educational needs within the compulsory education framework. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/press-rel eases/including-children-with-special-educational-needs-within-the-compulsory-education-fra mework. Ministry of Education (MOE). (2017). Press release: Laying a stronger foundation for our children. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/press-releases/laying-a-stronger-foundation-for-our-children. Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF). (2020). Statistics on Singaporean children who have not attended pre-school. https://www.msf.gov.sg/media-room/Pages/Statistics-on-Sin gaporean-children-who-have-not-attended-pre-school.aspx. Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF). (2020). Average waiting time for children who are differently abled to be enrolled in the early intervention programme. https://www.msf. gov.sg/media-room/Pages/Average-waiting-time-for-children-who-are-differently-abled-to-beenrolled-in-the-Early-Intervention-Programme.aspx. Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF). (2020). Percentage of children who have not had access to the Development Support and Learning Support programme. https://www.msf.gov. sg/media-room/Pages/Percentage-of-children-who-have-not-had-access-to-the-DevelopmentSupport-and-Learning-Support-programme.aspx. Nagpaul, T., Sidhu, D., & Chen, J. (2020). The hunger report: An in-depth look at food insecurity in Singapore. Lien Centre for Social Innovation: Research. Naumann, (2011). Towards the marketization of early childhood education and care? Recent developments in Sweden and the United Kingdom. Nordic Journal of Social Research, 2. Newman, K. & Gentile, E. (2020). How teachers teach: Comparing classroom pedagogical practices in the Asia and Pacific Region. Asian Development Bank Briefs, no. 154. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/644266/adb-brief-154-classroompedagogical-practices-asia-pacific.pdf. Ng, I. Y. (2013). Multistressed low-earning families in contemporary policy context: Lessons from work support recipients in Singapore. Journal of Poverty, 17(1), 86–109. Nuttall, J., Grieshaber, S., Lim, S., Eunju, Y., Jooeun, O., Hyojin, A., ... & Soojung, K. (2021). Workforce diversity and quality improvement policies in early childhood education in East Asia. Early years, 1–17. Pianta, R. C., LaParo, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system manual: Pre-K. Brookes. Quek, Y. H., Tam, W. W., Zhang, M. W., & Ho, R. C. (2017). Exploring the association between childhood and adolescent obesity and depression: A meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews, 18(7), 742– 754. Sheridan, S. (2009). Discerning pedagogical quality in preschool. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(3), 245–261. Shonkoff, J. P., & Philips, D. A. (2000). From Neurons to Neighborhoods. The Science of early childhood development, National Research Council. Washington. DC. Sum, C. W., Lim, S. M., & Tan, C. T. (2018). Pragmatism in policy making: Influencing a largely privatized early childhood education and care sector in Singapore. In C. Pascal, T. Bertram, & M. Veisson (Eds.), Early childhood education and change in diverse cultural contexts (pp. 51–76). Routledge. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2004). The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education [EPPE] project: The final report. A longitudinal study funded by the DfES 1997–2004. University of London. Tan, C. (2011). Deep culture matters: Multiracialism in Singapore schools. International Journal of Educational Reform, 21(1), 24–38. Tan, C. T. (2017). Enhancing the quality of kindergarten education in Singapore: Policies and strategies in the 21st century. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 11(7).

The Next Phase of Developments in Singapore’s ECCE …

31

Teng, A. (2020). KidStart practitioners to get multi-disciplinary training under new tie-up. The straits times Singapore. Teo, P., & Koh, D. (2020). Shadow education in Singapore: A Deweyan perspective. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(8), 869–879. UNESCO. (2001). The open file on inclusive education. UNESCO. United Nations. (2020). The sustainable development goals report 2020. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/ report/2020/. Wong, J., & Rao, N. (2015). The evolution of early childhood education policy in Hong Kong. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 9(1), 1–16. Yang, W., & Lim, S. (2020). Toward distributed pedagogical leadership for quality improvement: Evidence from a childcare centre in Singapore. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220975768 Zelazo, P. D., Müller, U., Frye, D., & Marcovitch, S. (2003). The development of executive function in early childhood: I. The development of executive function. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 68(3), 11–27. Zhuang, K. (2016). Inclusion in Singapore: A social model analysis of disability policy. Disability & Society, 31(5), 622–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2016.1197821

Inclusive Education for Children with Special Educational Needs in Singapore Schools Kenneth K. Poon

Abstract Inclusive education is commonly described as a set of values, principles, and practices that seeks meaningful, effective, and quality education for all students (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 2006). General Comment, 9, CRC/C/GC/9 Retrieved from http://www.csie.org.uk/inclusion/GeneralComment9_ Sept2006.pdf). When considered within the context of children with special educational needs (SEN), which is the focus of this chapter, educational inclusion is also commonly regarded as the education of children with SEN alongside their peers. As the earlier discussion implies, inclusion is a value-laden and complex construct. What is inclusive education and how are children with SEN in Singapore included? In this chapter, aspects of this complex construct will be examined. Likewise, the concept of SEN will also be defined. Finally, the extent of inclusiveness in Singapore schools will be discussed across the preschool, primary, and secondary levels. It will be argued that the differing contexts of these educational environments impact upon the extent to which children with SEN may be responsibly included. Finally, reflecting upon international research and the nuances of the Singapore context, considerations for educational inclusion in Singapore will be discussed. Keywords Inclusion · Early intervention · Special educational needs · SPED · Singapore The United Nations’ Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 2006) defines inclusive education as “a set of values, principles and practices that seeks meaningful, effective, and quality education for all students… This goal can be achieved by different organizational means which respect the diversity of children. Inclusion may range from full-time placement of all students with disabilities into one regular classroom or placement into the regular classroom with varying degrees of inclusion, including a certain degree of special education” (pp. 18–19). The same committee also clarified that inclusion should not be understood as an indiscriminate placement K. K. Poon (B) National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_3

33

34

K. K. Poon

of children with disabilities, “regardless of their challenges and needs” (p. 19), into the regular (mainstream) system. What, however, is inclusive education? Although very frequently employed, inclusion is in reality, a complex and value-laden construct. In this chapter, aspects of this complex construct will be examined within the context of educating children with special educational needs (SEN) in Singapore. First, the concept of SEN in Singapore will be discussed. Services for children with SEN across the preschool to secondary schools will be described. Finally, the directions for increased inclusivity in the Singapore educational system discussed across the preschool, primary, and secondary levels.

1 Understanding Inclusive Education The United Nations Convention for Persons with Disabilities (UCRPD, 2016) described four models of educational scenarios for children with SEN. At one end of the spectrum is exclusion which occurs when children are denied education, directly or indirectly, due to their SEN. Segregation occurs when children with SEN are educated in a separate environment away from other children without SEN. Integration occurs when children with SEN are educated with their peers only when they are able to meet the requirements. In contrast to the other three, inclusion occurs when supports are put in place for all children (UNCRPD, 2016, p. 4). The implications of each of these scenarios in relation to the placement, pedagogy, content, and school organization is summarized in Table 1. Although these approaches towards the education of children with SEN may seem, at first glance, to make sense, exclusion and inclusion are polar opposites with most educational systems falling in between them. In fact, few educational Table 1 Implications of the educational scenarios for students with SEN Exclusion

Segregation

Integration

Inclusion

Educational access

Not participating in Education in education separate environment

Education with peers only if they can adjust to environment

Education with peers

Teaching approaches

Not participating in Customized education instruction

Instruction with no adjustment

Customized instruction

Learning content

Not participating in Customized education content

No change in content

Adaptation and modification of content

School structure

Not participating in Separate education school

No change in school structure

Organizational structure to support students with SEN

Inclusive Education for Children with Special Educational …

35

systems in developed countries (e.g., Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) would fit the definition as an inclusive system. Thus, the definitions would be employed in this chapter, not as a means of evaluating educational systems, but rather, educational approaches employed for specific groups of children with SEN. Apart from defining inclusive education, it is also important consider the different contexts where it has been applied.

1.1 Justifying Inclusive Education as an Outcome This value and vision of an inclusive society, which was articulated by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in 2004 at his inaugural speech as Prime Minister (Lee, 2004), is echoed in the Third Enabling Masterplan (Steering Committee of the Enabling Masterplan: 2017–2021 [EM3], 2016). The value of inclusion is one espoused by many internationally and Singapore is no exception. For instance, Singapore acceded to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in October in 1995 and ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in July 2013. Article 24 of the CRPD highlights the right of persons with disabilities for (a) access and participation, (b) to quality education, (c) with adequate support, and (d) within inclusive environments with their peers. With a country’s commitment to international conventions such as the CRCD, educational inclusion can be an outcome in its own right. Perhaps related to these obligations, the right to an education has led some countries to adopt legislation that guarantees educational participation for children with disabilities. This has, within the context of Singapore, led to the removal of the clause exempting children with disabilities from the Compulsory Education Act (Ng, 2016). As such, starting in 2019, all children with disabilities will need to register for education in primary or special schools (Ng, 2016). Understood from these two perspectives, inclusive education is deemed as an outcome on its own right.

1.2 Justifying Inclusive Education as a Process The inherent value of inclusive education notwithstanding, there is also a corpus of research focusing on how inclusive education is important for the development of optimal outcomes of not only children with disabilities but also the social outcomes of their peers, as well as the conditions that facilitate inclusive education. Hehir and colleagues (2016), in their integration of international research findings, articulate the benefits for children with SEN. First, they reported that included students academically outperform those in specialized settings in the areas of reading and mathematics. They are also more engaged in education with higher levels of attendance and exhibiting lower levels of behavioral problems. Furthermore, included students benefit especially in terms of their social and emotional development. There

36

K. K. Poon

is also evidence for longer term benefits such as greater participation in postsecondary education, employment, and independent living. Additionally, they reported that the benefits of inclusive education are limited not only to children with SEN but also their classmates. In their review, they concluded that the classmates within SEN continue to develop academically and having classmates with SEN further enhanced the development of their social emotional skills. Interpreted within this frame, inclusive education serves as a process that leads the desired developmental outcomes in both children with SEN as well as their classmates.

2 Inclusion for Who? Special Educational Needs in Singapore Singapore’s Ministry of Education defines a child with SEN as one that (a) meets the criteria for the diagnosis of a disability; (b) exhibits learning needs in comparison to most of age peers, has issues accessing the educational environment in relation to age peers, OR has difficulties with social, academic, physical, or sensory functioning in compared to most of age peers; AND requires resources beyond what is typically provided in educational environments (MOE, 2018). Understood as such, there can be at least four groups of children who exhibit such SEN, described in terms of the level of support required. In adopting this dimensional, as opposed to a categorical (employing diagnoses), approach of understanding SEN, it is recognized that there can be quite some variability in the presentation of needs even for children with the same diagnosis. Table 2 presents the level of SEN, the corresponding levels of support needs, as well broad diagnostic profiles of children that fall within the corresponding groups. One aspect that is evident of both groups of children with mild SEN is that they are cognitively able to access the national curriculum but would require specialized support to access it. A differentiating factor, however, is that the children with physical and sensory impairments are frequently identifiable by characteristics which are frequently visually discernible by those around them. In contrast, those with learning, social, and emotional/behavioral impairments) are sometimes termed the “invisible disabilities” that cannot be identified by physical features associated with the diagnosis. Rather, these conditions are recognisable only via their learning, social interaction, and behavioral manifestations, and are sometimes misinterpreted as signs of laziness, rudeness, defiance, or shyness. Children with moderate SEN typically participate in social and routine activities when provided with peer and/or adult support but would typically have trouble keeping with the curricular content unless significant modifications are made to the content. This is likely to take the form of a functional curriculum focusing on functional literacy and numeracy, and basic general adaptive skills instead of academic subjects. It is also likely that the pedagogy for such children will need to be adjusted

Inclusive Education for Children with Special Educational …

37

Table 2 Levels of SEN and corresponding levels of support required Description

Support needed

Characteristics (and examples)

Mild SEN (physical and sensory impairments)

Provision of assistive technology and teacher accommodations would facilitate participation, learning, and social relationships Additional support from specialists (e.g., physiotherapists, occupational therapists) will be required

Learners with non-impaired levels of cognitive functioning but have conditions affecting their sensory or physical functions that will impact upon their ability to learn and participate in regular learning environments unless they are provided with assistive technology to help them participate (e.g., learners with visual, hearing, or physical impairment)

Mild SEN (learning and social impairments, and emotional/behavioral regulation impairments)

Accommodations to teaching, provision of assistive technology and additional resources, differentiation of curricular content and assessment Additional support from specially trained staff will be needed as well as consultation by specialists (e.g., psychologists, speech and language, and occupational therapists) will be needed

Learners with non-impaired levels of cognitive functioning but have conditions affecting different aspects of the learning process that will affect their social participation and/or learning in regular learning environments. These conditions are typically not physically evident and the resulting behaviors may be misconstrued as attitudinal or motivational problems (e.g., dyslexia and other specific learning disorders, dyspraxia, mild autism spectrum disorders [ASD], attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD], language disorders, developmental coordination disorder [dyspraxia], mood and anxiety disorders)

Moderate SEN

Accommodations to teaching, provision of assistive technology and additional resources, modification of curricular content and assessment A staff to student ratio that are above that of their typically developing peers will be needed

Learners with cognitive impairments that will impact upon their ability to understand the instructional content. Despite their learning difficulties, learners within this category frequently may enjoy social interaction with their peers and are able to participate in non-academic activities. (e.g., children mild intellectual and developmental disability [MID] with/or without ASD) (continued)

38

K. K. Poon

Table 2 (continued) Description

Support needed

Characteristics (and examples)

High SEN

Individualized pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment, as well as individualized assistive technology and resources A high staff to student ratio is needed to support students with this level of needs

Learners with significant cognitive impairments that will likely impact upon their ability to understand the instructional content and upon their practical skills of getting by in school (e.g., children with moderate, severe, [MSID], and multiple/profound [PMD] intellectual and developmental disability, with/or without ASD)

to support their comprehension of lessons. With the exception of a few instances, children within this group would be expected to cover the content of primary education at the end of postsecondary education. Children with severe SEN typically will need support with self-care and with getting around during recess and throughout the school day, engaging in social interaction with peers and with adults, and in understanding the concepts introduced during the lessons. The curriculum for children with this group also needs to be individualized and learning facilitated with higher levels of teacher attention and monitoring.

3 Understanding Inclusive Education in Singapore As mentioned, inclusion education needs to be considered beyond the context in which education (and the support provided, or lack thereof) takes place. As such, the preceding section does not, in any way, indicate the context that children with the respective SEN profiles ought to be educated, but rather the type of support needed to receive in order to access the educational content. As the provision of education is regulated, at different ages, by different governmental agencies in Singapore, the context of education, by extension, needs to be considered within the different educational environments (see Table 3).

3.1 Inclusion Education in Preschools The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) regulates preschool provision as well as programs for preschool children requiring early childhood intervention.

Inclusive Education for Children with Special Educational …

39

Table 3 Education for children with SEN within Singapore (by age brackets) Preschool

Primary

Secondary and postsecondary

Mild SEN (physical/sensory)

Preschool + DS/LS

Primary (+ CIS) SPED (VI or HI)

Secondary (+ CIS) SPED (VI or HI)

Mild SEN (learning/social/emotional/behavioural)

Preschool + DS/LS Preschool + DS Plus ICCP

Primary SPED (HFASD)

Secondary SPED (HFASD)

Moderate SEN

Preschool + DS Plus EIPIC

SPED (ASD) SPED (MID)

SPED (MID)

Severe SEN

EIPIC

SPED (ASD) SPED (MSID) SPED (PMD)

SPED (ASD) SPED (MSID) SPED (PMD)

Intervention Programs Community Integration Services (CIS); Development Support/Learning Support (DS/LS); Development Support Plus (DS-Plus); Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC); Integrated Child Care Program (ICCP); Special Education (SPED). Support Profiles Autism spectrum disorders (ASD); Hearing impairment (HI); High-functioning autism spectrum disorders (HFASD); Mild intellectual and developmental disabilities (MID); Moderate to severe intellectual and developmental disabilities (MSID); Profound and multiple disabilities (PMD); Visual impairment (VI).

It employs the term developmental needs as a means of describing children under 7 years who display a level of developmental functioning that is below what is expected given their age. Although related to SEN, they are conceptually different as the former pertains to a child’s developmental attainments, and the latter refers to the extent to which a child may access education. However, it is likely that many children with developmental needs would subsequently receive a SEN classification, vice versa. Corresponding to their level of developmental needs, nationally funded early intervention may take different forms with corresponding levels of support and opportunities to participate with typically developing peers. All programs described below are subsidized by the government along a sliding scale (i.e., means tested). As these programs are all run by social service agencies, further subsidies may be provided by the respective social service agencies so these programs are affordable. Early intervention for children with mild developmental needs. The government agency overseeing the regulation of preschool education is the ECDA. Preschool children with developmental needs receive a continuum of support. Children with physical or sensory impairments, as well as those with delays or difficulties with learning, social, emotional, or behavioral regulation can access support from Developing Support/Learning Support (DS/LS), a time-limited government funded early intervention program providing support either by Learning Support Educators (LSEds) or therapists within preschool environments. Children with mild developmental delays

40

K. K. Poon

also receive similar support under the DS/LS programme. Additionally, there is Development Support-Plus (DS-Plus), which provides twice-a-week support for children with mild to moderate developmental needs in preschool environments. The integrated Child Care Programme is a programme that provides the center with resources to support children with mild developmental delays. Currently, DS-Plus is provided as a program for children who make sufficient progress in the more intense Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC; see later). Early intervention for children with moderate and above developmental needs. In contrast to the support that is provided in inclusive environments alongside peers, children with more significant developmental delays attend EIPIC. EIPIC was characterized by Poon and Yang (2016) as having better teacher–children ratios, teachers with special training, individualized curriculum, and support by psychologists, therapists, and social workers. Like the DS/LS program, parents pay for early intervention services but receive a government subsidy depending on the family’s financial means. Understood from this position, there is a comprehensive system providing educational/early intervention opportunities for preschool children from the point of diagnosis to the beginning of formal education. There are, embedded within each service differentiation of resources to provide the pedagogical and curricular adaptations, and where appropriate, modifications for children. One aspect that falls short of the definition of inclusion is the lack of opportunities for children in EIPIC to be educated alongside their peers. More recently, a cross-sectoral workgroup was launched to make recommendations on how preschool children with moderate and severe DN may be included in preschools (Ministry of Social and Family Development, 2020b). Another challenge experienced within the preschool environment is that many children are identified with developmental needs during this period. This implies that regardless of continuum of early intervention, many children in preschools may have an unidentified or unreported developmental need. This highlights the need for preschools to be equipped to facilitate the educational participation of children with different levels of developmental needs.

3.2 Inclusion in Primary Schools In contrast to the diverse context of preschool education in Singapore, primary education is mandated under Singapore’s Compulsory Education Act and is regulated by the Ministry of Education. Children with SEN were included within the Compulsory Education Act in 2019. It was reported that of the children identified with SEN in Singapore, about four in five children with SEN attend mainstream schools in Singapore (Rajah, 2018). Despite the continuum of services reported in Table 3 catering for the spectrum of SEN, primary schools often support a range of children with SEN, including those with moderate and above levels of SEN. This is sometimes due to non-diagnosed child with SEN that are identified only in primary schools. Another reason for the broad range of children with SEN being in primary schools is

Inclusive Education for Children with Special Educational …

41

because parents, who make the decision whether the child attends a primary or special education (SPED) school, sometimes reject a SPED placement recommendation. All primary schools in Singapore have barrier free access allowing children with physical impairments to access any school. For children able to access the curriculum (i.e., mild SEN), primary schools have in place resources to include children with SEN. In terms of personnel, all primary schools are staffed with at least one specially trained Allied Educator (Learning and Behaviour Support; AED-LBS) who can provide either in-class support or small group interventions. Additionally, at least 10% of teachers in primary schools receive over 100 h of training as a teacher trained in special needs (TSN). Children requiring higher levels of support or who might require an assessment are supported by associate and educational psychologists who consult at the school. All children entering primary school are screened for their literacy and numeracy skills. Those lacking foundational skills receive daily small group support from the Learning Support Programme (LSP) to support their literacy skills by specially trained teachers for up to the first two years of Primary school. Those who continue to struggle are screened for placement within the School-Based Dyslexia Remediation program (SDR) by specially trained instructors for Primary 3 and 4. Those in other levels will be supported by the main literacy program offered by the Dyslexia Association of Singapore. Apart from the differentiated instruction provided by teachers, special accommodations for examinations are provided including larger fonts and extra time. Furthermore, schools are supported by Community Integration Support from social service agencies to provide specific itinerant support such as occupational therapy or for children with physical, visual, or hearing impairment. Furthermore, children with social, emotional, or behaviors difficulties may be referred to REACH, a community mental health service. Children with SEN attending primary schools do not pay for additional services they receive within the educational system. More recently, additional programmes to support the inclusion of children with SEN such as the Circle of Friends and Facing Your Fears (Rajah, 2019). There are currently 19 government-funded SPED schools run by social service agencies and 3 schools are still being established, particularly for children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD; Rajah, 2019). SPED schools are divided largely into those serving with mild intellectual and developmental disabilities (MID), moderate to severe intellectual and developmental disabilities (MSID), profound/multiple disabilities (PMD), those serving children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), those serving children with physical, visual, or hearing impairments. As the schools are all specialized to support children with different SEN needs, the choice of a suitable placement can sometimes be difficult. To support this, a Multi-Agency Advisory Panel was established to help facilitate educational planning and child placement decisions (Ministry of Education, 2011). Unlike primary schools, SPED schools are operated by social service agencies and are jointly regulated/funded by the Ministry of Education and the National Council of Social Service. Special schools in Singapore are typically located in purpose-built school buildings, staffed by specially trained special education teachers and supported by allied health professionals (i.e., speech and language therapists/pathologists, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists),

42

K. K. Poon

psychologists, and social workers. In contrast to primary schools which are guided by a national curriculum and that culminate in the Primary Six Leaving Examinations at the end of Primary Six, SPED schools, with the exception of the schools serving children with high functioning ASD, as well as those serving the visually and hearing impaired, do not offer the national curriculum. Instead, SPED schools offer an individualized curriculum guided by the Singapore SPED Curriculum Framework. Further, each student receives an individualized education plan (IEP). Additionally, SPED schools in Singapore also have more teachers to serve students leading to smaller class sizes that are also supported by teacher aides. Due to the unique needs of children with SEN, SPED schools are also resourced with a range of different equipment and material. These may include augmentative/alternative communication technology (e.g., picture exchange cards, speech-generating devices), and assistive technology (e.g., wheelchairs, individual schedules, and Braille machines) specialized facilities (e.g., hydrotherapy pools), (Poon & Yang, 2016). Although SPED schools are run by social service agencies, the Ministry of Education, that regulates the SPED schools, has kept fees affordable. For instance, it was announced that fees for some programs in SPED schools were reduced by as much by a quarter in 2020 (Rajah, 2019). Furthermore, financial assistance programs are provided to children from families with lower income to further support the families in the school fees. Although SPED schools, with the exception of those with satellite partnerships with primary or secondary schools, have little direct opportunities for interaction with their peers, SPED schools are co-located beside or near to mainstream schools so as to offer opportunities for facility sharing such as school canteens (i.e., physical integration), inclusion during non-academic classes (e.g., music), and as mentioned, satellite classrooms (Ministry of Education, 2010). These satellite partnerships potentially facilitate not only physical and social integration of children with SEN in the primary schools but also introduce the intermediate steps where students with SEN may receive their instruction within primary schools before joining their peers in the same classrooms. Despite the increased opportunities for children with SEN in SPED schools to interact with their peers in primary schools, the divide between the mainstream primary and SPED schools remains at the systemic level with primary schools being mostly run by the Ministry of Education and with SPED schools run by social service agencies. This divide is further entrenched by training required for certification as a teacher in either system. Currently, the teachers receive different training with professionals originally trained as primary or secondary teachers being able to teach in special schools but with teachers in SPED schools being able to work only as AED-LBS in primary schools.

3.3 Inclusion in Secondary Schools Secondary schools are similar to primary schools in Singapore with one important difference that entry to secondary education is contingent on the children passing

Inclusive Education for Children with Special Educational …

43

the Primary Six Leaving Examination (PSLE). A necessary implication of this is that children with more significant (i.e., moderate to severe) SEN rarely gain access into secondary schools. Likewise, the PSLE may also screen out some students with SEN impacting upon their learning, emotional, and social functioning impacting upon their academic performance. So unlike preschool- and primary-aged children, children with SEN in secondary schools tend to be better equipped to access the academic content in school. However, secondary schools also mark a period that precipitates some psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The structures supporting children with SEN in primary school continue in secondary schools. Secondary schools, like primary schools, will be staffed with AED (LBS) and TSNs. Additionally, secondary schools also collaborate with the REACH team in supporting students with social, emotional, and behavioral challenges. Likewise, children with SEN attending SPED schools will continue to access SPED schools at secondary levels providing similar levels of support. Additionally, SPED schools will engage in transitional planning for the students with SEN providing them with vocational training before their graduation (Ng, 2016). Students with the potential for work will participate in the School2Work programme that prepares them vocationally for postgraduation. Finally, students in SPED that are able to access further qualifications will have special education extended for 3 years until they turn 21 years of age. With few exceptions, practically all children in secondary schools receive their education in inclusive environments with the support provided. The children in SPED schools, however, continue to receive an education apart from their peers. As in the case of the primary schools, the duality between the SPED and mainstream systems remain at the secondary school.

4 Directions for Inclusive Education in Singapore The development of inclusive education for children with SEN in Singapore has paralleled its political and economic development (Poon & Wong, 2017). Singapore’s educational system for children with SEN has its roots in its colonial past. With the major educational reforms in the United States and the United Kingdom occurring in the 1960s and 1970s during the nascent years of Singapore’s post-independence, the movement did not take root in Singapore. As such, the education for children with moderate and severe SEN by charities run by SPED schools has continued to this day. Despite that, Singapore has developed a system to support children with SEN that has been largely inclusive, fulfilling its obligations addressing the issues of access and participation, as well as the provision of quality education and adequate support (Ministry of Social and Family Development, 2020a). There is, across the age ranges, educational access for all children with SEN. The learning needs of children with SEN are met through differentiated pedagogical approaches and content offered in different educational environments. Also, children with mild SEN also participate in education alongside their peers.

44

K. K. Poon

The success of Singapore in providing education for children with SEN notwithstanding, the relative lack of opportunities for inclusive education for children with moderate and severe SEN is a lost opportunity for the social emotional development both for children with SEN and their peers. Possible directions for consideration in inclusive education are considered in the following sections.

4.1 Preschool The provision of services to support the inclusion of children with DN is one area that offers an opportunity for further study. The preschool years are especially appealing for inclusion. This is because the national Nurturing Early Learners’ Curriculum Framework in Singapore (Ministry of Education, 2012) has a heavier emphasis on the philosophy (i.e., iTeach) and pedagogical processes than on outcomes of learning. Likewise, the focus on individual development and the lack of standardized testing during this period makes the preschool environment an excellent context for inclusive education. Finally, the focus on social emotional development and the increased duration preschool children have for supervised interaction provides an environment for setting the foundation for subsequent relationships with children with SEN that the child may encounter in school. However, the readiness for the sector to include preschool children with DN is an area that needs further development. Currently, only children with mild DN and some children with moderate DN are included via the nationally funded DS/LS as well as the DS Plus program. However, these programs are only present in preschools who opt-in. Moreover, consultation with leaders in the early childhood care and education sector has also highlighted capacity issues, on part of teachers to employ inclusive pedagogical practices and to adapt the curriculum to the needs of children with DN (Lien Foundation, 2019). A national system serving preschool children, many who will be identified during the preschool years, will need to have a comprehensive system of support across the entire system. Although it is likely that not all preschools can provide the support for all children with DN in the early stages, it will be important for all preschools to be able to include all (if not most) children with mild DN, and to have some preschools spread across the island with the capability of including children with moderate (and even severe DN).

4.2 Primary School There is, as mentioned, a national policy for the educational inclusion of children with SEN of primary school age. There is, however, a dual education system based on attendance in either a mainstream or a SPED school. Mainstream primary schools offer the opportunity to learn alongside typically developing peers and access the

Inclusive Education for Children with Special Educational …

45

national curriculum although there are SPED schools also offering access to the national curriculum. The success of satellite classrooms supporting children with mild-moderate SEN in some schools, coupled with the pathway allowing children with MID to access the certification from the Institute of Technical Education, offers an opportunity for further development. The co-location of primary and SPED schools notwithstanding, the lack of opportunities for children with moderate SEN to interact with their peers represents a lost opportunity for peer learning. This need to learn from their peers is especially important with competitive employment being a desired outcome for children with SEN. The opportunities to learn to get along with peers and to develop friends are not available in SPED schools. This needs to be contrasted with the concentration of resources such as psychologists, social workers, and psychologists, as well as job coaches that are available in SPED schools. However, the concentration of resources within SPED schools may also mean that these specialist centres are not accessible from across the island. One possibility for consideration would be the development of SEN resource centres within clusters of mainstream schools specializing in specific areas of needs. This can potentially work for children with MID with SPED classrooms in primary schools to provide not just the academic preparation but also to facilitate opportunities for social inclusion in non-academic areas. As many children with MID would have trouble accessing the national curriculum, it would be necessary, for this group of children, to have a modified curriculum.

4.3 Secondary School Unlike the situation in primary schools, the PSLE serves a triage function effectively excluding those with more significant cognitive impairments from secondary schools. Resultantly, the learning needs of students in secondary schools are less diverse than those in primary schools thus allowing for secondary schools to focus on the educational inclusion for the students with SEN. The same idea for SEN resource centers in primary schools are applicable for secondary schools.

5 Conclusion Inclusive education, apart from being a valued outcome, is also important in facilitating positive outcomes among both children with SEN as well as their typically developing peers. However, inclusive education also cannot be understood outside the context where education is provided. Due to circumstances in Singapore’s development as a society, there are services developed for children with SEN from the point of diagnosis to the end of secondary school. However, the degree to which these educational environments in Singapore are supportive of the needs of the spectrum

46

K. K. Poon

children with SEN varies. While many aspects of inclusive education are present, an opportunity for further developing the social emotional competencies of and relationships among children, with and without SEN, is lost. In particular, the inclusion of children with moderate SEN within the preschool (and even the primary) education sectors offer some directions for consideration for a more inclusive educational system.

References Hehir, T., Grindal, T., Freeman, B., Lamoreau, R., Borquaye, Y., & Burke, S. (2016). A summary of the evidence on inclusive education. Abt Associates. Lee, H. L. (2004). Speech by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the opening of the Spastic Children’s Association of Singapore’s Cerebral Palsy Centre. http://stars.nhb.gov.sg/stars/public/ Lien Foundation. (2019). Vital voices for vital years 2: perspectives on early childhood development in Singapore. Author. http://www.lienfoundation.org/sites/default/files/Vital-Voices-forVital-Years-2_FINAL.pdf Ministry of Education. (2010). MOE to provide greater support for special education. http://www. moe.gov.sg/media/press/2010/03/moe-to-provide-greater-support.php Ministry of Education. (2011). Enhancing quality of special education and placement of special needs students. https://www.mynewsdesk.com/sg/ministry-of-education/pressreleases/ enhancing-quality-of-special-education-and-placement-of-special-needs-students-701262 Ministry of Education. (2012). Nurturing early learners: a curriculum for kindergartens in Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/preschool/files/nel-eduguide-overview.pdf Ministry of Social and Family Development. (2020a). Obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child. https://www.msf.gov.sg/policies/Children-and-Youth/Pages/Obligationsunder-the-UN-Convention-on-the-Rights-of-the-Child.aspx Ministry of Social and Family Development. (2020b). More integrated support for children with developmental needs under ECDA. https://www.msf.gov.sg/media-room/Pages/More-IntegratedSupport-for-Children-with-Developmental-Needs-Under-ECDA.aspx Ng, C. M. (2016). Speech by Ng Chee Meng, Minister for Education (Schools) at SPED conference 2016. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/speech-by-ng-chee-meng--minister-for-edu cation-schools-at-sped-conference-2016 Poon, K. K., & Wong, M. E. (2017). Historical development of disability services in Singapore: Enabling persons with disabilities. In The Routledge history of disability (pp. 204–215). Routledge. Poon, K. K., & Yang, X. (2016). The student profile, service delivery model, and support practices of four early childhood intervention environments in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(3), 437–449. Rajah, I. (2018). Keynote address by Ms Indranee Rajah, Second Minister for Education, at the 2018 SPED conference. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/keynote-address-by-ms-ind ranee-rajah--second-minister-for-education--at-the-2018-sped-conference Rajah, I. (2019). Speech by Ms Indranee Rajah, Second Minister for Education at an extra ordinary celebration concert. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/20191108-speech-by-ms-indraneerajah-second-minister-for-education-at-an-extraordinary-celebration-concert Steering Committee of the Enabling Masterplan 3. (2016). Enabling masterplan 2017–2021: Caring Nation, Inclusive Society. http://bit.ly/EnablingMasterplan3

Inclusive Education for Children with Special Educational …

47

UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD, 2016). General comment, 4, CRPD/C/GC/4. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CRPD/GC/RighttoEducation/ CRPD-C-GC-4.doc UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 2006). General comment, 9, CRC/C/GC/9. http://www.csie.org.uk/inclusion/GeneralComment9_Sept2006.pdf

Primary and Secondary Education in Singapore: Bringing Out the Best in Every Learner Jeanne Ho and Yew-Jin Lee

Abstract Singapore has seen tremendous changes in its evolution of primary and secondary education although it is a young nation with only five decades of history. While the diversity of policies, programmes, and structures here have been myriad, certain fundamental principles have consistently guided policymakers over the years. These have included meritocracy, bilingualism, nation-building, multiple pathways for learning and, above all, human capital development of Singapore’s most precious resource––its people. Once these are brought into perspective, they make understandable the rationales behind a slew of policies and programmes that have shaped primary and secondary education here. While definitely not problem-free, the educational system in Singapore has matured into one that many elsewhere deem worthy of emulation. Keywords Holistic education · Bilingualism · Multiple pathways · Strong fundamentals · Future readiness This chapter provides a wide-ranging overview of the major polices, philosophies, and programmes behind the primary and secondary education sectors in Singapore. The focus is on developments within the last decade that have shaped the contours of these two key sectors. However, where relevant and when space permits, reference will be made to some of their antecedents. Sources such as ministerial speeches, parliamentary reports and the Ministry of Education’s official website were drawn upon. Our account is also written through both authors’ experiences as school teachers, school leaders, Ministry officers, teacher educators and as students who have gone through the education system in Singapore. We alternate between collating information/details and providing commentary on the rationales that have defined mainstream education in Singapore. We are mindful that there are many possible causes behind whatever outcomes that have been reported (Gaddis, 2002) J. Ho · Y.-J. Lee (B) National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] J. Ho e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_4

49

50

J. Ho and Y.-J. Lee

and we concur that “[d]escription in narrative context is explanation….We see what it means when we see that it fits” (Kosso, 2009, p. 24). This chapter is prefaced by contextual information regarding education in Singapore before discussing the primary and secondary education sectors in the light of the former.

1 Contexts of Education Singapore is a relatively young nation that gained independence in 1965. A stampsized city-state of 719 km2 and lacking in natural resources, it is classified as a developed country and ranked ninth on the UN human development indices (United Nations Development Programme, 2019). Singapore’s size, the close coordination between various government ministries and the fact that one political party has held the reins of government since independence likely explain the continuity of worldviews guiding the Ministry of Education (MOE). For example, Singapore policymakers have long regarded human capital in Singapore as its main resource and thus decision-making in educational policies is often intertwined with nation-building and economic development (Bush & Chew, 1999; Ho & Koh, 2017; Tan, 1986; Toh, 1979). Indeed, Mr Ong Ye Kung, the Minister of Education in 2018, once commented that “education today straddles between being a social and an economic ministry” (Ong, 2018a). The deliberate use of the English Language as a common language of instruction for all academic subjects (except for Mother Tongue languages and literature taught in the Mother Tongue) has served these twin goals well. The English language functions as a shared language for nation-building and as an international language of commerce. In Singapore, education is viewed as a critical social leveller, one of the best policy instruments to narrow achievement gaps as well as to create a strong Singaporean identity. Recognising that social inequality involves multiple factors beyond education and requires the support of various agencies, an inter-agency task force was set up in 2018 to support children from disadvantaged households. This task force was headed by then Second Minister for Education, Ms Indranee Rajah, and is known as UPLIFT (“Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce”), with a mandate to help disadvantaged children and their families in preschools and primary schools. This was deliberate as early interventions better ensure that children have a good start in life (Davie, 2018, October 29). Hence, efforts here include strengthening after-school care and support for disadvantaged students in school-based student care centres. Decision-making in Singapore is also undergirded by the idea of meritocracy (Public Service Division, 2015), which has been interpreted as a “value system by which advancement in society is based on an individual’s ability, performance and achievement” (Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, in Prakash, 2014, June 25). Meritocracy in Singapore is about offering equal opportunities, not outcomes. It is also about fairness as it is based on the notion of non-discrimination; part of the national pledge that is recited daily in school reminds citizens to place being

Primary and Secondary Education in Singapore: Bringing Out …

51

Singaporean above race, language or religion. Meritocracy has thus impacted and influenced the development and evolution of education as well as official policies in other areas. These include granting equitable access to quality education for all and the provision of scholarships or government employment based solely on merit. However, acknowledging an increasing gap between those of lower and higher social economic status in the country, success indicators of meritocracy in schools have been broadened beyond just academic performance (Ong, 2018, July 11). There is growing recognition that each child is different, and that education should provide children with multiple pathways to develop their interests and talents.

2 What Defines Education in Singapore As a small nation whose main resource is its people, the mission of MOE is to “mould the future of the nation by moulding the people who will determine the future of the nation” (Ministry of Education, 2019a). The national curriculum in Singapore is designed to prepare students for life and for work. Consequently, it is broad-based with four important principles: holistic education, strong fundamentals, engaged learning, and future readiness (Ministry of Education, 2018, February 6). We describe each of these in turn. The holistic education of students is rooted in the Chinese belief in an education that promotes 德智体群美, meaning an education that develops the child in the moral, cognitive, physical, social, and aesthetic dimensions. This is actualised through a total curriculum that provides students with learning experiences across academic and student development domains, incorporating core values, social and emotional competencies and twenty-first-century competencies (Ministry of Education, 2020). Initiatives have included the promotion of Co-curricular Activities (CCAs) for all students and an increase in Physical Education (PE) periods. At the secondary level, schools are advised to offer at least six different physical activities for every student with each activity occupying at least 16 hours of curriculum time (Ministry of Education, 2016). In addition, there has been an increase in the number of qualified PE, Music and Art teachers, the offering of Art and Music Elective Programmes and the announcement of the National Outdoor Adventure Masterplan in 2016 (Yang, 2016, April 8). To ensure that holistic education efforts within a school are better planned and coordinated, all primary and secondary schools had student development teams and year heads by 2016 to enhance the quality of students’ experience in school. Strong fundamentals include the typical competencies in literacy and numeracy; however, strong fundamentals also include the inculcation of strong values and life skills (Ng, 2017, March 7). Values education is an integral part of the school curriculum, including both Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) and Values in Action (VIA) programmes (Ministry of Education, 2018, September 24). During VIA, students learn about community issues with an eye towards designing and executing proposals to contribute to the community, which may involve their neighbourhood, school or the wider community (Ang, 2018, September 18). The building

52

J. Ho and Y.-J. Lee

of character is also developed through students’ participation in CCA and outdoor education through which students learn about teamwork and resilience with opportunities to make friends with students from diverse backgrounds. About 2 hours per week are set aside for CCE (Ministry of Education, 2012a, 2012b), constituting about 10% of formal school hours while CCA (occurring outside formal school hours) constitutes about three to six hours per week for secondary school students. CCA is optional in primary schools where students who opt to participate in a CCA may devote 2–3 hours per week to it. While students’ engaged learning has always been an important principle as seen in the Ministry’s effort to provide ICT-enriched learning experiences through four masterplans for ICT since 1997 (Ministry of Education, n.d.) and the promotion of pedagogical approaches such as inquiry-based learning, there has been a renewed emphasis on this. At the 2004 National Day Rally Speech, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong introduced the concept of “Teach Less, Learn More” (TLLM), which was elaborated on by the Minister of Education then, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, at the 2005 MOE Work Plan Seminar (Ministry of Education, 2005, September 22). The core of TLLM was to prepare our students for life, much more than preparing them for examinations, with the aim for teaching to touch the students’ hearts and engage their minds (Shanmugaratnam, 2005). In recent years, there has been a move to “take a balanced approach in teaching and assessments, and bring about greater joy of learning” (Ong, 2019, May 28). In this regard, the Ministry initiated a recalibration in school-based assessments that would help to free curriculum time on the assumption that teachers can capitalise on this to better engage students in their learning (Ong, 2018b). This recalibration included, for example, the removal of Primary 2 finalyear examinations, Primary 3 and Primary 5 mid-year examinations, and Secondary 1 and 3 mid-year examinations. Mid-year examinations for Primary 1 and 2, and the year-end examinations for Primary 1 were already removed in 2010. Simultaneously, teachers are encouraged to promote students’ joy of learning through diverse pedagogies including the use of technology, applied-learning, and inquiry-based learning (Ong, 2018b). Consistent with the principles of holistic education and engaged learning, the Singapore Curriculum Philosophy articulates a belief that every child wants to and can learn (Ministry of Education, 2018c). Accordingly, education needs to provide multiple pathways to engage students in their learning and support them to develop their diverse talents and interests. This concept is reflected in Fig. 1 that illustrates the different paths that a child can take with flexibility to move between them as well as to continue learning even after they enter the workforce. At the point of writing, the concept of multiple pathways for learning has begun to move away from assigning students to fixed courses to providing students with greater flexibility in subject offerings based on their strengths. This shift recognises that students have aptitudes for some subjects while they might face difficulties in others. Known as the “One secondary education, many subject bands” initiative (Ong, March 5, 2019), this will be elaborated in the section on secondary education.

Primary and Secondary Education in Singapore: Bringing Out …

PRIMARY ~ 6 years

SECONDARY

53

POST-SECONDARY

4 - 5 years

SPECIAL EDUCATION SCHOOLS

ALT. QUALIFICATIONS

ALT. QUALIFICATIONS

PRIVATELY FUNDED SCHOOLS

UNIVERSITIES

SPECIAL EDUCATION

PRIMARY SCHOOL LEAVING EXAMINATION (PSLE)

SPECIALISED INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

GCE A Level WORK & LIFE LONG LEARNING JUNIOR COLLEGE/ CENTRALISED INSTITUTE GCE O Level

EXPRESS

POLYTECHNICS PRIMARY SCHOOLS NORMAL (ACADEMIC)

GCE N (A) Level INSTITUTE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION

NORMAL (TECHNICAL)

GCE N (T) Level ARTS INSTITUTIONS

SPECIALISED SCHOOLS

ALT. QUALIFICATIONS

Fig. 1 Multiple pathways in education in Singapore. Reproduced with permission from MOE Singapore

Alternative Qualifications refer to qualifications not traditionally offered at mainstream schools in Singapore. Students can opt to transfer laterally between Express, N(A) and N(T) if they are assessed to be more suitable for these courses. By 2024, there will be no more Express, N(A) and N(T) streams when full subject-based banding is implemented in all schools. Future readiness refers to a forward-looking curriculum, which is regularly reviewed to ensure that the learning outcomes remain appropriate for our students and are responsive to future needs (Ministry of Education, 2018, February 6). An important goal has been to develop future-ready learners with a guiding framework for twenty-first-century competencies and student outcomes known informally as the “MOE swiss roll” (Ministry of Education, 2020, June 17). This framework has been used to guide curriculum development to ensure that the development of twenty-firstcentury competencies is integrated into subject syllabuses and instructional materials (Poon et al., 2017). Preparing our young for the future is also associated with national efforts to promote lifelong learning through an initiative known as SkillsFuture. Lifelong learning has become critical because of continual disruptions to industries and the workplace (Ong, 2018a). Whereas in the past a “good” education was sufficient preparation for one type of career, this is no longer the case. We next highlight some other important policies and programmes that have defined education in Singapore.

54

J. Ho and Y.-J. Lee

3 Key Policies and Programmes Bilingualism is “a cornerstone of Singapore’s education system. It is part of our cultural DNA and who we are as a multi-racial society” (Chee, 2019). All academic subjects other than mother tongue languages are taught in English. The value of English is twofold as we explained: as a common language to communicate with people of all races and as a global language to connect Singapore with the rest of the world to give Singapore “a competitive advantage” (Low, 2019). All students are expected to study a mother tongue language (MTL) (Chinese, Malay or Tamil) that is regarded as critical in preserving the heritage, values, and cultures of our various ethnic communities as well as giving Singaporeans access to “valuable economic opportunities around the region” (Ong, 2019, August 24). Thus, bilingualism is an example of the pragmatic and economic slant of the local education system with a simultaneous stress on developing citizens with “deep roots” in our cultural heritage (Chee, 2019). National Education (NE) was launched in 1997 to develop citizens who strongly identify themselves with Singapore. Acknowledging unique challenges and vulnerabilities as a nation, NE aims to inculcate important messages such as “no one owes Singapore a living” or “we must ourselves defend Singapore”. In addition, NE promotes multiracial and multi-religious harmony and is celebrated through four core annual school events: Total Defence Day, International Friendship Day, Racial Harmony Day, and National Day (Goverrnment of Singapore, 2019, October 9). In 2017, a review committee recommended a fresh approach towards teaching NE to “empower our students to discover what being Singaporean means to them personally—not because the syllabus says so” (Chia, 2018b, March 5). Another recommendation was to promote regular NE discussions on contemporary issues enabling students to voice their diverse perspectives. It was also suggested that citizenship experiences could be enhanced to allow students to experience for themselves what it meant to be Singaporean, for example by conducting a ceremony to present 15-year-old students with their national registration identity cards. Singapore has increasingly paid attention to students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) (Ministry of Education, 2018, July 9). Beginning with the 2019 Primary 1 (Grade 1) cohort, (i.e. children born after 1 January 2012), children with moderateto-severe SEN have been included within the Compulsory Education framework. This means that these children are legally required to attend a national primary school, which includes government-funded Special Education (SPED) schools unless they are granted exemption. There are a total of 19 government-funded SPED schools that are managed by 12 social service agencies (Ministry of Education, 2019f) to cater to the needs of children with moderate-to-severe SEN. In 2018, there were about 24,000 students with SEN who studied in mainstream schools (Rajah, 2018). To support students with SEN in mainstream schools who have the cognitive abilities and adequate adaptive skills to learn in large-group settings, several people are involved: teachers equipped with a certificate level-training in special needs; Allied Educators (Learning & Behavioural Support) with a diploma in special education; and MOE

Primary and Secondary Education in Singapore: Bringing Out …

55

psychologists who provide consultancy services and conduct psycho-educational assessment of students. Since 2005, all pre-service teachers have been provided with a basic understanding on how to support students with SEN. In addition, MOE is growing the numbers of senior teachers who specialise in SEN. The Gifted Education Programme (GEP) that was implemented in 1984 aims to nurture gifted individuals to their full potential “for the fulfilment of self and the betterment of society” (Ministry of Education, 2019e). It endeavours to help intellectually gifted students realise their potential by offering them an enriched curriculum that is commensurate with their ability. About 1% of the Primary 4 cohort of students are placed in the GEP annually (Ministry of Education, 2017, November 6). The GEP pupils are placed in mixed form classes in nine primary schools. While they have PE, Art, Music and CCE lessons in these mixed form classes, they are pulled out for differentiated English, Math, Science and Social Studies lessons with other GEP students in their schools. All GEP students have various opportunities to intermingle with school peers in school-wide activities such as cohort camps and CCAs. After graduation from primary school, many of these students progress to Integrated Programme schools that offer School-based Gifted Education (SBGE) (details are provided in the secondary education section). Beyond supervising the GEP, the Gifted Education Branch (GEB) of MOE also organises many enrichment activities for Primary 4–6 mainstream students who demonstrate high ability in English language, mathematics and science, including a Creative Writing Programme, Wits & Words Debate Competition, and Excellence 2000 (E2K) programmes in mathematics and science. Schools that offer the E2K programmes receive training from the GEB. Using open-ended inquiry-based tasks, E2K classes encourage students to express their critical and inventive thinking, ask questions, analyse, and draw conclusions. The GEB also supports schools’ efforts to offer enrichment provisions for highability learners by offering professional development and developing differentiated instructional resources. Some schools also offer music and art elective programmes for students who may not be intellectually gifted, but excel in these domains. This is again in alignment with the principle that children have different talents and can find success in different ways and that it is the ministry’s responsibility to provide multiple pathways to maximise each child’s potential. MOE’s Masterplans for ICT in education provide a blueprint for the development of an ICT-enriched school environment for teaching and learning. Since the 1980s, MOE embarked on the journey of harnessing ICT to engage students in learning and to equip students with ICT skills required in their future (Lee, 2008). The first Masterplan for ICT in education was launched in the same year as the Ministry unveiled its vision of “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation”, which emphasised the development of thinking, communication and life-long learning skills. Over the years, Singapore has implemented four Masterplans for ICT in education: • Masterplan 1 (1997–2002): laid the foundation in terms of basic infrastructure and training of teachers to use ICT • Masterplan 2 (2003–2008): built on achievements of mp1 and to enhance ICT integration to a higher level, through enhancing connections between curriculum,

56

J. Ho and Y.-J. Lee

instruction and assessment using ICT, further professional development and capacity building for educators, research and development and further improvements in infrastructure and support. Masterplan 2 focused on seeding innovations in schools and adopted top-down support for ground-up initiatives to encourage schools to implement innovative ICT-based pedagogical practices. • Masterplan 3 (2009–2014): the vision was ‘Harnessing ICT, Transforming Learners” (Ministry of Education, n.d.), with more emphasis on school leaders providing the direction and creating conditions to harness ICT for learning and teaching. The focus was on strengthening and scaling up effective ICT practice by teachers and fostering self-directed learning and collaborative learning competencies amongst students while also developing students into discerning and responsible ICT users. • Masterplan 4 (2015–2020): vision is to nurture “Future-ready and Responsible Digital Learners”. The focus is to use ICT productively to develop subject mastery, twenty-first-century competencies and responsible digital citizenry. Masterplan 4 also seeks to sharpen teachers’ practice in designing active learning experiences enabled by technology. ICT is infused into Teaching and Learning Guides and the Ministry developed baseline ICT standards (new media literacy) for students. Students have access to learning resources from home, initially through schools’ procurement of Learning Management Systems (LMS), and later in 2018 through the Singapore Student Learning Space (SLS). The SLS, MOE’s own online learning portal, provides every student from primary school to pre-university levels with access to curriculumaligned learning resources. In addition, all secondary school students will be equipped with a personal laptop or tablet for learning by 2021 (Abu-Baker, 2020, June 17).

4 Primary Education In Singapore, education at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels are mostly managed by the state with primary schooling made mandatory since 2003. Parents opting for home-schooling or who wish to send children to attend designated full-time religious institutions may apply to MOE for exemption. These small numbers of children, nonetheless, are expected to later sit for the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) together with mainstream Primary 6 students (Ministry of Education, 2018b). All primary schools are state funded with the majority owned by the government. In 2020, there were 138 government schools and 46 government-aided primary schools. Government-aided primary schools are founded by persons other than the state and partially funded by the school. The ratio of primary-level students to teaching staff was 14.8: 1 in 2018, an increase from 16.5: 1 in 2013. Primary enrolment was 227,406 in 2018 (Ministry of Education, 2019c) and in 2019, 98.4% of 40,265 students who attempted the PSLE were eligible to progress to secondary school, the highest percentage over the last 10 years.

Primary and Secondary Education in Singapore: Bringing Out …

57

Primary school education in Singapore consists of 6 years of education equivalent to Grades 1–6 (ages 7–12). Core subjects comprise English Language, Mother Tongue Language (MTL), and Mathematics with Science being introduced from Primary 3. In alignment with the belief in a holistic and values-based education, students also learn non-examinable subjects such as Art, Music, Physical Education, Social Studies, Character and Citizenship Education (CCE). The latter comprises CCE lessons, the Form Teacher Guidance Period (FTGP) where students have opportunities to interact with their form teachers, CCE programmes at the school level, and a CCE Guidance Module (Ministry of Education, 2015). Many classes are assigned two Form Teachers who are usually deployed to the same class for at least two consecutive years to strengthen teacher–student relationships. Beyond Form Teachers who oversee the socio-emotional needs of students and administrative work for the class, Year Head appointments began in 2010 to provide leadership in pastoral work and to ensure co-ordination of efforts for student welfare. Primary schools have three Year Head positions whilst secondary schools have two.

4.1 Multiple Pathways Streaming or tracking in primary education first began in the 1980s during the efficiency-driven phase (1979–1995) when the focus was for education to become more rationalised through streaming and a standardised curriculum for each course (Gopinathan et al., 2008; Tan & Ng, 2007). Originally, in the 1980s, primary schools had three courses but by 2008 subject-based banding was introduced in primary schools with a differentiated curriculum provided at Primary 5 and 6. Depending on students’ aptitudes and performance in the four core subjects of English Language, Mother Tongue Language, Mathematics, and Science they may take a combination of subjects at two difficulty levels—standard or foundation (Ministry of Education, 2019g). Students who show aptitude in their Mother Tongue Language may also pursue a Higher MTL course. Thus, by 2008, there was a single primary school course where students studied subjects according to different difficulty levels. Nonetheless, MOE recognises that there are students who are weak in literacy and numeracy skills. As these are considered fundamental skills, MOE provides levelling-up Learning Support Programmes (LSP) for English and Mathematics for such students from the foundation years in Primary 1 and 2. These programmes are centrally developed by MOE who trains teachers to implement this programme with accompanying resources (Ng, 2016, April 8). To further support students who encounter difficulties with Mathematics beyond Primary 2, there is the Improving Confidence and Achievement in Numeracy (ICAN) programme that equips teachers to better support low-progress students in Mathematics. Post-PSLE options have been widened beyond the typical secondary school route; students can seek admission based on achievements and talents in non-academic areas, including art and sports, through a Direct School Admission (DSA) exercise since 2004. This allows secondary schools some level of discretion to admit students

58

J. Ho and Y.-J. Lee

who have specific talents and achievements that meet a school’s unique profile or niche, encouraging a “broader definition of merit” (Ministry of Education, 2014, March 3). In 2018, the number of DSA students that all secondary schools could admit was increased to 20% of their non-Integrated Programme Secondary 1 intake (Ng, 2017, March 7), resulting in 3000 DSA students that year compared to 2500 in 2017. A key change made to the DSA system to reinforce the message that merit is not just about academic talents was the discontinuation in 2018 of the use of general academic ability tests in the selection process. Admission requirements thus recognised a student’s interest and aptitude in specific fields (Davie, 2017, March 8).

4.2 Bilingualism While bilingualism is a cornerstone of the education system and MOE’s language policy is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to learn two languages to the best of their ability, MOE recognises that some children face difficulty learning a mother tongue language. This issue arises particularly as families increasingly communicate at home in English. Thus, the MTL curriculum has been revamped with a focus on listening and speaking in Primary 1 and 2 and with a greater emphasis on using the language in daily interactions (Ministry of Education, 2011). Primary 5 and 6 students who are unable to cope in MTL may attempt a Foundational MTL curriculum (Ong, 2019, May 28). In addition, a Mother Tongue Support Programme (MTSP) was piloted in 2018 in 14 schools for Chinese language and in 5 schools each for Malay and Tamil language. Given positive feedback and results, MOE plans to introduce the MTSP for Primary 3 students from 2021 and for Primary 4 students from 2022 (Ong, 2019, August 24).

4.3 Balancing Rigour with Joy of Learning While academic subjects are important, sports and arts education are also core components of a holistic education. About one-quarter of curriculum time at the lower primary level is devoted to arts and sports education, which includes the Programme for Active Learning (PAL). PAL provides students with exposure to sports and games, performing and visual arts and outdoor education, enabling students to discover their interests and strengths (Ministry of Education, 2019, January 14) and enjoy learning through varied and fun experiences (Ong, 2019, March 5). In addition, MOE has been encouraging primary schools to establish Applied Learning Programmes (ALP) so that students have opportunities to apply what they learn to real-life contexts, making learning come alive (Ng, 2017, March 7, 2018, March 5). As of March 2018, more than 80 primary schools in Singapore have ALP that are designed to “encourage exploration, ideation and creativity” (Chia, 2018a, March 5) through hands-on and experiential learning. The intent is for all remaining

Primary and Secondary Education in Singapore: Bringing Out …

59

primary schools to set up such programmes in their schools by 2023 (Ng, 2018, March 5). Recent efforts to revamp the PSLE scoring system (Ong, 2019, March 5) attempt to cultivate the joy of learning and reduce the stress related to narrowly focusing on academic achievements. The change is also in alignment towards a more holistic education system. In 2012, there was an attempt to move the stress away from academic achievement when the practice of releasing the names of the top PSLE scorers in the media was stopped. Since then, the Ministry has instead highlighted students who have performed well in the PSLE, despite the challenges that they faced. The focus thus shifted towards these students’ resilience and determination. In 2021, this major examination will shift away from the current system, where there is a fine differentiation of grades and a student’s performance is reflected relative to his/her peers in the same cohort. Instead, the PSLE will employ wider scoring bands between achievement levels (AL) 1 and 8 (Ministry of Education, 2019b, 2019, July 25).

5 Secondary Education Most secondary schools are state-funded and the majority are owned by the government. In 2020, there were 105 government secondary schools, 31 government-aided secondary schools and eight independent schools, of which two offer only secondary education, while the remaining 6 offer mixed-level education. The ratio of students to teaching staff in secondary schools was 11.6: 1 in 2018, an increase from 13.2: 1 in 2013. Secondary student enrolment in 2018 was reported to be 146,703 (Ministry of Education, 2019c). Secondary school education in Singapore consists of either 4 or 5 years of study, roughly equivalent to Grades 7–10 (ages 13–16). Depending on their performance at the PSLE and their choice of schools, students are assigned to one of three courses: Express, Normal (Academic) or Normal (Technical) (Ministry of Education, 2020, February 27). The Express course attracts nearly two-thirds of each cohort, while the Normal (Academic) occupies about 20% of enrolment. There are opportunities to transfer across courses to cater to students who are late-bloomers or who might find another stream to be more suited to their learning, as indicated in Fig. 1. Students in the Express course are usually offered six to eight subjects at the Singapore-Cambridge General Certificate of Education (Ordinary Level)1 examination, or GCE ‘O’ Level examination at the end of Secondary Four. Some more able students may choose to study a ninth subject. The Normal (Academic) course offers an academic-based curriculum albeit at a more manageable pace, while the Normal (Technical) course offers instruction that is more practice-oriented (Ministry

1

Cambridge offers Cambridge O Levels in many different countries. The resulting qualification provides a foundation for higher level courses, such as the Cambridge International A and AS levels.

60

J. Ho and Y.-J. Lee

of Education, 2015). Students in the NA and NT courses sit for the SingaporeCambridge General Certificate of Education (GCE) Normal (Academic) examination or the GCE Normal (Technical) Level examination, respectively, at the end of Secondary Four.

5.1 Multiple Pathways In the 1980s and 1990s, the Ministry introduced streaming in an attempt to cater to children with varying abilities and aptitudes (Chua, 1978). This was reported to also “eliminate educational wastage” when students left school prematurely, which was substantial in the 1970s (Lee, 1974). At secondary levels, three courses of study were thus implemented as mentioned. Streaming has been hugely successful in lowering student attrition rates from about one-third of every cohort in the past to less than 1% currently (Ong, 2019, March 5). However, an unfortunate consequence of streaming was the stigma that students in the NA and NT courses felt (Channel News Asia, 2019, February 18), with increasing societal calls for streaming to be removed. Over the years, MOE has explored various ways to provide multiple pathways for students; although a student is streamed at Secondary 1 (grade 7), s/he has opportunities to move to another stream as shown by the various arrows in Fig. 1 (Ministry of Education, 2015). These multiple pathways extend beyond the secondary school landscape to the postsecondary landscape. Students in the Normal (Academic) course who perform well in the GCE Normal (Academic) Level examination may choose to continue to do a fifth year of study and take the GCE Ordinary Level examination at the end of that. Alternatively, these students have the option to advance to the polytechnics either directly through the 1year Polytechnic Foundation Programme or through the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) via the 2-year Direct Entry Scheme to Polytechnic Programme (Ministry of Education, 2019d). For students in the Normal (Technical) course, they may apply to various ITEs after they have undertaken the GCE Normal (Technical) Level examinations or they may choose to be transferred to the NA course at Secondary 4 if they meet the required criteria.

5.2 Within Schools: Subject-Based Banding In an effort to expand the multiple pathway concept, the Ministry formalised the idea of Subject-Based Banding (SBB) in 12 prototype secondary schools (Ministry of Education, 2015) in 2014, with SBB expanded to all secondary schools with the Normal course since 2018. SSB meant that students in a lower academic stream (e.g. NA) can study English, Mathematics, Science and Mother Tongue Languages at a more demanding level pitched at a higher academic stream (e.g. the Express stream) in Secondary 1 based on their performance in these subjects at the PSLE.

Primary and Secondary Education in Singapore: Bringing Out …

61

Beyond this initial entry year, students who perform well in these subjects in schoolbased assessments are likewise given the opportunity to take that subject at a more academically demanding level. To provide “an even more customised secondary education experience”, provision is being made for what is known as Full Subject-Based Banding (Full SBB) to secondary schools by 2024 (Ministry of Education, 2019, September 3). Full SBB expands the range of subjects that students can study at a more demanding level to include the Humanities subjects at lower secondary. In addition, students in Express and Normal (Academic) streams may also be allowed to take a subject offered in Normal (Academic) or Normal (Technical) streams respectively (Ong, 2019, March 5). The ultimate goal is to merge the Express, Normal (Academic) and Normal (Technical) courses into a single course by the year 2024 to “reduce the inadvertent labelling associated with streaming” (Ministry of Education, 2019, September 3), while still respecting the different abilities/aptitudes of learners.

5.3 Across Schools: Diverse Programmes to Meet Diverse Needs Over the years, the Ministry has expanded school choice at the secondary level. Between 1987 and 1995, a small number of independent and autonomous schools were set up to encourage ground-up educational innovations and offer more diverse and richer schooling options (Bush & Chew, 1999). A number of specialised independent schools now exist, such as the Singapore Sports School for those with sporting talents, the School of the Arts for students interested in the arts, the NUS High School of Math and Science for students interested in STEM (science, technology, engineering & mathematics), and the School of Science and Technology for those inclined towards applied learning in STEM. For students eligible for the Normal (Technical) course who would prefer a more practice-oriented/hands-on curriculum, specialised schools for Normal (Technical) students (Crest Secondary & Spectra Secondary) are possibilities. Northlight and Assumption Pathway Schools cater to students who did not qualify for the Normal (Technical) course at PSLE (Rajah, 2018, November 8). These two schools adopt an experiential and hands-on approach to learning with a focus on character development and addressing students’ socio-emotional needs. For those who are academically able and can benefit from programmes that provide broader learning experiences, the Integrated Programme (IP) which started in 2004 is an alternative to the normal 4-year secondary course that is followed by a 2-year junior college education. Instead of preparing for the Cambridge “O” Level examinations in the fourth year of secondary school, IP cohorts prepare for a major examination such as the “A” Level examinations only in their sixth year. This frees up curriculum time to “pursue broader learning experiences” (Ministry of Education, 2014, January 20). There are currently a total of 19 IP schools of which eight are known as dual-track schools in that they offer both the “O” level and the IP tracks, with the possibility

62

J. Ho and Y.-J. Lee

of moving from one track to the other. Some of the IP schools prepare students for the International Baccalaureate Diploma (IB) instead of the “A” Level examinations. For the NUS High School that is linked to the National University of Singapore, the qualification obtained is the NUS High School Diploma.

5.4 Bilingualism As with all MOE school subjects, the Mother Tongue Language (MTL) curriculum is under constant review with a revised secondary MTL curriculum due in 2021 (Chee, 2019). This is envisaged to have a greater infusion of cultural knowledge, provide more contemporary learning materials, including more exposure to stories, and harness ICT to better engage students in learning (Chee, 2019). Concurrently, a Language Elective Programme (LEP) that was initially offered in junior colleges will be launched in 15 secondary schools in 2020 to encourage students with the aptitude to study MTL in greater depth to pursue their interest in their mother tongue (Ong, 2019, August 24). Similar to the primary level, there is provision for students to study MTL at a less demanding level at secondary and junior college levels through the MTL ‘B’ curriculum that focuses on oral and listening skills (Ong, 2019, May 28). In addition, to cater to Singaporean students who have lived abroad for lengthy periods and have been learning French, German or Japanese instead of their MTL, they are allowed to continue with these foreign languages in-lieu of their MTL (Chua-Lim, 2013, January 31). Students whose special educational needs significantly impair their ability to learn may apply for exemption from learning their MTL. (Ong, 2019, May, 28).

5.5 Joy of Learning All secondary schools have an Applied Learning Programme (ALP) and a Learning for Life Programme (LLP). These programmes vary from school to school, offering choice for students with varied interests and needs (Heng, 2013). These programmes do not involve the assigning of grades as they are offered with the deliberate intent to encourage students to explore, discover, and enjoy the learning process. The ALP enables students to apply what they have learnt in their academic subjects to real-life situations. Examples include learning about robotics, food sciences, music, the arts, languages, coding, and entrepreneurship. All secondary schools have ALP with the Ministry encouraging all primary schools to establish their ALPs by 2023 (Ng, 2018, March 5). Besides ALP, the Learning for Life Programme (LLP) aims to provide students with opportunities to develop their character, social–emotional competencies, leadership, values and various life skills. These are available in both primary and

Primary and Secondary Education in Singapore: Bringing Out …

63

secondary schools; examples of LLP include community youth leadership, promoting a sporting culture, and harnessing the Future Problem Solving (FPS) model.

6 Conclusion At the annual 2018 Workplan Seminar, then Minister of Education, Mr Ong Ye Kung, shared his ministry’s direction and priorities for the next 5–8 years (Ong, 2018b). One important message was that existing strengths in the education system must be maintained while educators need to be aware that there are always trade-offs that need to be made. Examples of trade-offs include the following: (a) rigour versus joy of learning; (b) sharpening versus blurring of academic results; (c) customisation versus stigmatisation; and (d) having paper qualifications versus skills (Ong, 2018b). To elaborate, the rigour in the education system that has resulted in local students possessing strong foundations in literacy and numeracy, for example, must be maintained. However, in alignment with the promotion of lifelong learning, we need to promote the joy of learning through inquiry-based learning and programmes like the Applied Learning Programmes. The second trade-off is about reducing the excessive focus on preparing students to do well in examinations because good results are often perceived as the only way to succeed. New initiatives were thus introduced such as the Direct School Admission (DSA) to value talents other than academic achievements, and the revamp of the Primary School Leaving Examination scoring system to move away from an over-emphasis on academic results. The third trade-off between customisation and stigmatisation recognises that while the streaming policy introduced in the 1980s helped to reduce school dropouts, it led to an unintended stigmatisation which was demoralising for students in the academically less rigorous courses. The challenge is to continue to let students learn at their own pace with a customised curriculum without facing prejudice in school or in society. This is the intent behind initiatives like the allowance for lateral movement between courses today and the implementation of Full Subject-Based Banding in 2024. Finally, as industries are continually disrupted and new skills become important, there is a need for society to understand that paper qualification is not the be all and end all. In this, MOE has taken the lead by placing non-graduate teachers with outstanding performance on the graduate salary scale without the need for them to obtain a university degree. Consistent with the ministry’s belief that teachers are key and that skills need to be continually honed, SkillsFuture for Educators (SFED) was announced in 2020. This is a professional development roadmap that guides our teachers to focus their professional development effort in six areas of practice: assessment literacy, differentiated instruction, inquiry-based learning, e-pedagogy, special educational needs, character and citizenship education. While the fundamental principles of the Singapore education system are likely to remain for generations to come, the Ministry’s belief is that we should never be complacent; it will be continually reviewing the current situation, “always anticipating the future, [and] figuring out what needs to change next” (Ong, 2019, March

64

J. Ho and Y.-J. Lee

5). In that sense, whatever is written about the education system at a specific point in time would likely need to be updated within a decade or so. As it is, plans are presently being made to revamp the Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE) scoring system and to remove streaming and its potential stigmatisation in secondary school. The MOE is aware that these changes will impact admission to post-secondary institutions and that there is a need to “keep evolving our education system” (Ministry of Education, 2018a). In this sense, the cliché that the only certainty is change applies, and readers who continue to be interested in the Singapore education system may access the press releases, speeches, forum letter and parliamentary replies available on the Ministry’s website at https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches. Because the policy and practice of education in Singapore is so dynamic, this is both an acknowledged limitation by us who are describing it at this point in time as well as a mandate for continual research by the research community.

References Abu-Baker, J. (2020, June 17). Singapore will ‘redouble efforts’ to strengthen social compact amid economic challenges: Tharman. Channel News Asia. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/ singapore/covid-19-tharman-national-broadcast-strengthen-social-impact-12844978 Ang, J. (2018, September 18). Values in Action programme making lasting impact on students: Ministry of Education. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/val ues-in-action-programme-making-lasting-impact-on-students-ministry-of Bush, T., & Chew, J. (1999). Developing human capital: training and mentoring for principals. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 29(1), 41–52. Channel News Asia. (2019, February 18). Government needs to recognise trade-off that comes from streaming students in secondary school: Ong Ye Kung. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/ singapore/secondary-school-nomal-express-streaming-ong-ye-kung-11254106 Chee, H. T. (2019). Speech by Mr Chee Hong Tat, Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Education, at the 8th Mother Tongue Languages Symposium, at Suntec Singapore Convention & Exhibition Centre. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/speech-by-mr-chee-hong-tat--senior-ministerof-state--ministry-of-education--at-the-8th-mother-tongue-languages-symposium--at-suntec-sin gapore-convention-and-exhibition-centre Chia, L. (2018a, March 5). All primary schools to set up applied learning programmes by 2023: Ng Chee Meng. Channel News Asia. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/all-pri mary-schools-to-set-up-applied-learning-programmes-by-10014282 Chia, L. (2018b, March 5). National education in schools to be refreshed: Janil Puthucheary. Channel News Asia. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/national-education-inschools-to-be-refreshed-janil-puthucheary-10014546 Chua-Lim, Y. C. (2013, January 31). Forum letter replies: bilingual education is cornerstone of Singapore’s education system. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/forum-letter-replies/bilingual-edu cation-is-cornerstone-of-singaporeand8217s-education-system Chua, S. C. (1978). Speech by the Minister for Home Affairs and Education, Mr Chua Sian Chin, at the dinner to commemorate teachers day on Friday 1 September 78 at 2030 at Hotel Equatorial. http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/csc19780901bs.pdf Davie, S. (2017, March 8). Education focus shifts to students’ strengths: More aptitudebased admissions in ITE, polys and unis; Direct School Admission tweaked. The Straits Times. https://search-proquest-com.libproxy.nie.edu.sg/globalnews/docview/1875142637/F27 1C48704994811PQ/1?accountid=28158

Primary and Secondary Education in Singapore: Bringing Out …

65

Davie, S. (2018, October 29). New task force aims to give a leg-up to disadvantaged kids: It will propose measures to boost motivation, tackle absenteeism, step up parent outreach. The Straits Times. https://search-proquest-com.libproxy.nie.edu.sg/globalnews/docview/212652 1504/941DE41F4AE0418DPQ/3?accountid=28158 Gaddis, J. L. (2002). The landscape of history: How historians map the past. Oxford University Press, USA. Gopinathan, S., Wong, B., & Tang, N. (2008). The evolution of school leadership policy and practice in Singapore: Responses to changing socio-economic and political contexts (insurgents, implementers, innovators). Journal of Educational Administration and History, 40(3), 235–249. Goverrnment of Singapore. (2019, October 9). HistorySG: Launch of National Education. http:// eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/44f˘a-ddfe-41bc-8bde-8778ff198640 Heng, S. K. (2013). Keynote address by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, at the Ministry of Education Work Plan Seminar 2013, on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 at 9.15am at Ngee Ann Polytechnic Convention Centre. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/keynote-add ress-by-mr-heng-swee-keat--minister-for-education--at-the-ministry-of-education-work-planseminar-2013--on-wednesday--25-september-2013-at-915am-at-ngee-ann-polytechnic-conven tion-centre#sthash.64vu3zhI.dpuf Ho, J.-M., & Koh, T.-S. (2017). Historical development of educational leadership in Singapore. Leadership for change: The Singapore schools’ experience (pp. 29–83). World Scientific. Kosso, P. (2009). Philosophy of historiography. In A. Tucker (Ed.), A companion to the philosophy of history and historiography (pp. 9–25). Wiley-Blackwell. Lee, C. M. (1974). Speech by Dr Lee Chiaw Meng, Minister for Education, at the opening ceremony for course on education administration for recently appointed principals on 16 March 10 a.m. at the Singapore conference hall. http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/PressR197 40316.pdf Lee, S. C. (2008). Introduction. In T. S. Koh & S. C. Lee (Eds.), Information communication technology in education: Singapore’s ICT Masterplans 1997–2008 (pp. 1–12). World Scientific. Low, Y. L. (2019). Speech by Ms Low Yen Ling Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Education at the Inspiring Teacher of English Awards Ceremony. https://www.moe.gov.sg/ news/speeches/speech-by-ms-low-yen-ling-senior-parliamentary-secretary-for-the-ministry-ofeducation-at-the-inspiring-teacher-of-english-awards-ceremony Ministry of Education. (2005, September 22). Greater support for teachers and school leaders [Press release]. https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/20050922987.pdf Ministry of Education. (2011). 2010 Mother tongue languages review committee report. https:// www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/media/press/2011/mtl-review-committee-sfull-report.pdf Ministry of Education. (2012a). Character and citizenship education syllabus: Primary. https:// www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/syllabuses/character-citizenship-edu cation/files/character-and-citizenship-education-(primary)-syllabus-(english).pdf Ministry of Education. (2012b). Character and citizenship education syllabus: Secondary. https:// www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/syllabuses/character-citizenship-edu cation/files/2014-character-and-citizenship-education-(secondary)-syllabus.pdf Ministry of Education. (2014, January 20). Parliamentary replies: Update on integrated programme. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/update-on-integrated-programme Ministry of Education. (2014, March 3). Parliamentary replies: Direct school admission and CCA. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/direct-school-admission-and-cca Ministry of Education. (2015). Bringing out the best in every child: Education in Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/about/files/moe-corporate-bro chure.pdf#:~:text=A%20PART%20OF%20SINGAPORE%E2%80%99S%20SUCCESS%20S TORY.%20The%20Singapore,passion%20for%20learning%20that%20lasts%20throughout% 20his%20life

66

J. Ho and Y.-J. Lee

Ministry of Education. (2016). Physical education: Teaching and learning syllabus for primary, secondary and pre-university. https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/educat ion/syllabuses/physical-sports-education/files/physical_education_syllabus_2014.pdf Ministry of Education. (2017, November 6). Parliamentary replies: Gifted education programme. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/gifted-education-programme-1 Ministry of Education. (2018a). Allied Educators. https://www.moe.gov.sg/careers/allied-educators Ministry of Education. (2018b). Exemption from compulsory education. https://beta.moe.gov.sg/pri mary/compulsory-education/exemptions/ Ministry of Education. (2018c). The Singapore teaching practice. https://www.moe.gov.sg/about/ singapore-teaching-practice Ministry of Education. (2018, February 6). Parliamentary replies: MOE emphasis on broadbased learning. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/moe-emphasis-on-broadbased-learning Ministry of Education. (2018, July 9). Parliamentary replies: SEN support in mainstream schools. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/sen-support-in-mainstream-schools Ministry of Education. (2018, September 24). Forum letter replies: Values education is an integral part of school curriculum. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/forum-letter-replies/values-educationis-an-integral-part-of-school-curriculum Ministry of Education. (2019a). About us. https://www.moe.gov.sg/about Ministry of Education. (2019b). Changes to the PSLE scoring and secondary one posting from 2021. https://www.moe.gov.sg/microsites/psle/ Ministry of Education. (2019c). Education statistics digest 2019. Ministry of Education. https:// www-moe-gov-sg-admin.cwp.sg/docs/default-source/document/publications/education-statis tics-digest/esd_2019.pdf Ministry of Education. (2019d). From secondary to post secondary. https://www.moe.gov.sg/edu cation/secondary/from-secondary-to-post-secondary Ministry of Education. (2019e). Gifted education programme. https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/ programmes/gifted-education-programme Ministry of Education. (2019f). Special educational needs. https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/spe cial-education Ministry of Education. (2019g, March 20). Subject-based banding for primary school. https://beta. moe.gov.sg/primary/curriculum/subject-based-banding/ Ministry of Education. (2019, January 14). Parliamentary replies: Plans for P1 and P2 students, in view of removal of assessment. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/plans-forp1-and-p2-students--in-view-of-removal-of-assessment Ministry of Education. (2019, July 25). Updates to PSLE 2021 scoring system—enabling students to progress, regardless of starting points [Press release]. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/pressreleases/updates-to-psle-2021-scoring-system--enabling-students-to-progress--regardless-of-sta rting-points Ministry of Education. (2019, September 3). One secondary education, many subject bands: 28 secondary schools to pilot full subject-based banding [Press release]. https://www.moe.gov.sg/ news/press-releases/one-secondary-education--many-subject-bands--28-secondary-schools-topilot-full-subject-based-banding Ministry of Education. (2020). Primary school education: Preparing your child for tomorrow. https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/primary/files/primary-sch ool-education-booklet Ministry of Education. (2020, February 27). Courses and subjects for secondary schools. https:// beta.moe.gov.sg/secondary/courses/ Ministry of Education. (2020, June 17). 21st century competencies. https://beta.moe.gov.sg/educat ion-in-SG/21st-century-competencies/ Ministry of Education. (n.d.). ICT masterplans in the Singapore education system. http://www.une sco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/images/singapore.pdf

Primary and Secondary Education in Singapore: Bringing Out …

67

Ng, C. M. (2016, April 8). MOE FY 2016 Committee of Supply Debate—Speech by Acting Minister for Education (Schools) Ng Chee Meng. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/moe-fy-2016committee-of-supply-debate---speech-by-acting-minister-for-education-schools-ng-chee-meng Ng, C. M. (2017, March 7). MOE FY 2017 Committee of Supply Debate Speech by Minister of Education (Schools) Ng Chee Meng. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/moe-fy-2017committee-of-supply-debate-speech-by-minister-of-education-schools-ng-chee-meng#sthash. 3fe7gcJ2.dpuf Ng, C. M. (2018, March 5). MOE FY2018 Committee of Supply Debate Response by Minister for Education (Schools), Mr Ng Chee Meng. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/moe-fy2018committee-of-supply-debate-response-by-minister-for-education-schools---mr-ng-chee-meng Ong, Y. K. (2018a). Keynote Address by Minister for Education Ong Ye Kung, at the Economic Society of Singapore Dinner. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/keynote-address-by-min ister-for-education-ong-ye-kung--at-the-economic-society-of-singapore-dinner Ong, Y. K. (2018b). Opening address by Mr Ong Ye Kung, Minister for Education, at the Schools Work Plan Seminar. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/opening-address-by-mrong-ye-kung--minister-for-education--at-the-schools-work-plan-seminar Ong, Y. K. (2018, July 11). Parliamentary Motion “Education for our future” Response by Minister for Education, Mr Ong Ye Kung. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/parliamentary-motioneducation-for-our-future--response-by-minister-for-education--mr-ong-ye-kung Ong, Y. K. (2019, August 24). Speech by Mr Ong Ye Kung at the 8th Mother Tongue Languages Symposium, at Suntec Singapore Convention & Exhibition Centre. https://www.moe.gov.sg/ news/speeches/speech-by-mr-ong-ye-kung-at-the-8th-mother-tongue-languages-symposium-at-suntec-singapore-convention-and-exhibition-centre Ong, Y. K. (2019, March 5). MOE FY2019 Committee of Supply debate response by Minister for Education Ong Ye Kung. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/moe-fy2019-committee-of-sup ply-debate-response-by-minister-for-education-ong-ye-kung Ong, Y. K. (2019, May 28). Opening address by Mr Ong Ye Kung, Minister for Education at the 9th Teachers’ Conference 2019 at Singapore Expo Hall 2—Learning Languages for Life. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/opening-address-by-mr-ong-yekung--minister-for-education-at-the-9th-teachers-conference-2019-at-singapore-expo-hall-2 Poon, C. L., Lam, K. W., Chan, M., Chng, M., Kwek, D., & Tan, S. (2017). Preparing students for the twenty-first century: A snapshot of Singapore’s approach. Educating for the 21st century (pp. 225–241). Springer. Prakash, P. (2014, June 25). Understanding meritocracy. Today Online. https://www.todayonline. com/singapore/understanding-meritocracy Public Service Division. (2015). Cultivating a Harmonious Society, becoming one people. https:// www.psd.gov.sg/heartofpublicservice/our-institutions/cultivating-a-harmonious-society-bec oming-one-people/ Rajah, I. (2018). Keynote address by Ms Indranee Rajah, Second Minister for Education, at the 2018 SPED conference. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/keynote-address-by-ms-ind ranee-rajah--second-minister-for-education--at-the-2018-sped-conference Shanmugaratnam, T. (2005). Speech by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Minister for Education, at the MOE workplan seminar 2005, 22 September 2005 10.00 a.m. at the Ngee Ann Polytechnic Convention Centre. https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/20050922991.htm Tan, C., & Ng, P. T. (2007). Dynamics of change: Decentralised centralism of education in Singapore. Journal of Educational Change, 8(2), 155–168. Tan, T. (1986). Speech by Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam, Minister for Education, at the NTI Forum at the Nanyang Technological Institute on Tuesday, 22 July 1986, at 7.30 pm: Economic change and the formulation of education policy. http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/tky t19860722s.pdf Toh, C. C. (1979). Speech by Dr Toh Chin Chye in Parliament on the /79/0024 /3/ education resolution. http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/speeches/record-details/70be432c-115d-11e383d5-0050568939ad

68

J. Ho and Y.-J. Lee

United Nations Development Programme. (2019). Human development report 2019. http://hdr. undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr_2019_overview_-_english.pdf Yang, C. (2016, April 8). Parliament: More outdoor education opportunities, including new OBS camp for Sec 3 from 2020. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/ parliament-more-outdoor-education-opportunities-including-new-obs-camp-for-sec-3

Post-secondary Education in Singapore Trivina Kang

Abstract This chapter discusses Singapore’s current post-secondary education landscape in the context of shifts over time. The development of Junior Colleges, Polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education in Singapore reflect dynamic institutional responses to evolving socio-political and economic concerns. This chapter highlights salient shifts that have shaped, and continue to shape, technical, vocational and academically oriented post-secondary education in Singapore. Current transformations in these institutions are bold attempts to seize unique opportunities to ensure student success in, and for, economy and society. However, the chapter suggests that there are challenges and instituitions will need to constantly adapt and balance competing demands as they seek to navigate post-secondary students into the future. Keywords Singapore · Post-secondary · Vocational · Challenges · Skills

1 Introduction The UNESCO International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) classifies Post-Secondary Education (PSE) as all forms of education and study pursued after the secondary level, which is ISCED level 3. PSE has two distinct components, namely, tertiary and non-tertiary education. Tertiary education refers to all programmes offered at ISCED levels 5 and 6. Non-tertiary PSE refers to all programmes offered at ISCED level 4 (UNESCO, 2011). Although the ISCED is a useful classification, PSE options have been further nuanced as illustrated by the Singapore Standard Educational Classification (SSEC) (Department of Statistics, 2020), developed in line with ISCED principles. The Ministry of Education (MOE) defines three PSE pathways after secondary school— junior college (JC), polytechnic and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE). However, in SSEC 2020, only the Polytechnic Diploma is considered “tertiary” by T. Kang (B) National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_5

69

70

T. Kang

SSEC. This is despite the fact that the MOE refers to both ITE and polytechnics as ‘Institutes of Higher Learning’ (IHL) (together with universities). However, unlike junior colleges and universities which have an academic focus, the ITE and polytechnics are regarded as “Vocational and Technical Education” (VTE) (Law, 2015) or “Technical and Vocational Education and Training” (TVET) (Varaprasad, 2016).

1.1 PSE Pathways Most post-secondary students in Singapore will enter one of three PSE institutions. First, those who desire and are eligible to pursue an academic course of study can continue their education at a 2-year junior college or a 3-year centralised institute to prepare for the GCE ‘A’-level examination which is orientated towards university preparation. Second, those who prefer a more practice-based and applied learning experience can apply to one of Singapore’s five polytechnics to pursue a skill focused diploma course which prepares graduates for work. Third, students interested in technical and vocational education can apply to the Institute of Technical Education for a National ITE Certificate (Nitec) or Higher Nitec course for vocational training certification. While there are three main PSE institutions, there are multiple PSE pathways. Admission into each institution is dependent on academic results from the GCE ‘O’ or ‘N’- level examinations. While the three PSE institutions discussed in this chapter are publicly funded, annual fees for Singapore citizens vary from less than $300 at JCs to more than $3000 at polytechnics. This is because unlike JCs that are regarded as part of the school ecosystem, together with primary and secondary schools, polytechnic and ITE education are regarded as part of higher education. Over the years, the percentage of each Primary 1 cohort admitted to PSE ‘higher education’ pathways has increased (Table 1). From 2002 to 2018, the percentage from each cohort admitted to ITE grew from 20% to close to 25% while the polytechnics Table 1 Percentage of P1 cohort admitted to PSE institutions Percentage of P1 cohort

2002 2006 2010 2014 2018

(a) Eligible for Secondary School (refers to students who sat 98.5 for the PSLE and qualified for express, normal (academic) or normal (technical) courses

98.8

97.9

97.6

98.1

(b) Who had at least 5 N-level passes or 3 O-level passes

86.8

87.8

88.9

89.7

85.3

(c) Admitted to: (i) Nitec/Higher Nitec Courses (full-time)

20

22.2

20.6

23.5

24.7

(ii) Publicly Funded Diploma courses (full-time)

39.7

40.6

46.9

48.6

48.8

(iii) Pre-University Courses

30.4

29.4

27.5

27.9

29.3

(iv) Publicly Funded Degree Courses (full-time)

21.7

23.5

26.3

32.1

37.1

Source Ministry of Education: Education Statistics Digest, 2007; 2015; 2018

Post-secondary Education in Singapore

71

percentage grew from 40 to 49%. Table 1 also clearly indicates that over time, more people from each cohort are entering universities, and many are doing so after completing polytechnic. In 2019, almost 1 in 3 polytechnic graduates made it to one of the six locally funded universities (The Straits Times, 2020). The increasing popularity of the polytechnics is also seen in figures; in 2020, about 52% of GCE ‘O’ level school leavers selected this pathway. Many, about 45% of the students admitted to polytechnics “were eligible for JCs” (The Straits Times, 2021). According to a joint Graduate Employment Survey conducted by the five polytechnics, of the 7724 respondents who entered the labour force in 2019, 90.7% were employed six months after graduation, up from 89.5% in 2018 (Channel News Asia, 2020). The survey also showed that the overall median gross monthly salary for fulltime employed polytechnic graduates increased from S$2350 in 2018 to $2400 in 2019. This is higher than the median salary for fresh ITE graduates which is about $1750 (or $2050 after National Service).

2 The Development of PSE 2.1 Foundation Phase Singapore researchers (Chua et. al, 2019; Ng, 2017) have discussed that even though centralised-decentralisation in educational policymaking is not unique to Singapore, its repetition across the various levels of Ministry-school system suggest that this tension or paradox is a lived reality for many system actors. Historical accounts suggest that in the PSE space, which these authors did not explicitly address, strong government presence at all levels of education and tight coupling of educational policy to economic needs (Chan, 2008; Gopinathan & Mardiana, 2013) has shaped PSE development over the years. There have been comprehensive and detailed accounts of the development of TVET post-Singapore’s self-rule (1959) and independence (1965) (see Varaprasad, 2016; Law, 2015; Tucker, 2012) and they will not be duplicated here. Instead this section will highlight salient socio-historical details to complement these accounts. The Chan Chieu Kiat Commission of Inquiry into Vocation and Technical Education (1961) is often referenced as a watershed for TVET in independent Singapore. Such accounts hinge heavily on the economic development strategy of the People’s Action Party government upon coming into power in 1959, their building of vocational secondary schools, establishment of additional technical schools and the conversion of the Trade School into a vocational institute (Chai, 1977). Ong (1965) proudly declared that by 1965, there were 72 vocational schools on the island—a rate of one school built every month the PAP had been in power. But the reality was that such schools were not popular because students entering such schools were perceived

72

T. Kang

to have little option because they had failed their primary school leaving examinations. As Toh (1968:vi) reflected, ‘Our vocational schools are, in fact, continuation schools for the over-aged failures of the Primary Six Leaving Examination.’ In short, despite policy changes, in the late 1960s, post-secondary vocational schools still did have traction with students. The origins of Singapore’s first two polytechnics, Singapore and Ngee Ann, also illustrate that TVET development was not a smooth well-coordinated process. The establishment of Singapore Polytechnic was the result of the landmark Report by the Committee on a Polytechnic Institute presented in September 1953 to propose a polytechnic modelled after the UK model where polytechnics awarded degrees in engineering and applied sciences. But what is less known is that in 1948, a similar proposal by local businessman was turned down by the government, only to be revived in 1951 and successfully accepted in 1953. It took years for the government to support the building of a quality training institution that provided technical training as well as academic qualifications like General Certificate of Education (GCE) and Higher School Certificate (HSC) used for university entrance. Singapore’s first two polytechnics had a distinct academic orientation. Ngee Ann College was first established in 1963 by the Teochew clan association to offer four-year degrees to counter Nanyang University, established in 1955, which was seen to be supported by the Hokkien clan association. Blackburn (2016) observed that Singapore has a strong and longstanding preference for white-collar careers and academic education. He argues that it took the British withdrawal from their military bases in Singapore, announced in 1968 and completed in 1971, with the massive loss of 40,000 jobs to finally galvanised greater acceptance and investment in TVET. As Blackburn (2016:103) puts it, “the ‘education-economy’ nexus intensified as the Singapore developmental state…emerged from this last act of decolonization.” This British withdrawal of troops sparked several quick moves to propel TVET. They included a Technical Education Department (TED) established in 1968 within the MOE to oversee technical education across Singapore and a revised curriculum that required all boys and 50% of the girls complete technical subjects. In 1969, the Singapore Technical Institute (STI), dedicated to training of industrial technicians was established to respond to needs of industry. STI graduates received the Industrial Technician Certificate (ITC), which is the forerunner of ITE’s Higher National ITE Certificate (Nitec). The polytechnics were also made to align their TVET focus. By late 1968, a government decision was taken that Singapore Polytechnic should remain a technician-training institution. In order not to dilute this focus, professional courses and staff were transferred to the University of Singapore and became the foundation of the three faculties of Engineering, Accountancy, and Architecture and Building. At Ngee Ann, the Report of the Committee of Review on the Future Development of Ngee Ann College (1966) made a far-reaching recommendation that the College should become a public institution to train commercial and industrial technicians at diploma level. This led to governmental funding of the first diploma course

Post-secondary Education in Singapore

73

in Mechanical Engineering in 1968 and a subsequent name change to Ngee Ann Technical College (NATC). Parallel to developments happening in polytechnics, there were also changes in pathways to universities. Specifically, an accelerated alternative to existing three-year pre-university courses was established. Four junior colleges were conceptualised as special secondary schools dedicated to prepare students for universities in two years. In these JCs, pre-university teaching was centralised, and teachers and facilities catered specifically for this group of students. This move freed up physical space in overcrowded secondary schools to enrol more students into secondary education. The JCs were also regarded as an effort to foster social cohesion and integrate different ethnic groups as they admitted students from all language streams.

2.2 Expansion Phase The Report of the Review Committee on Technical Education in Secondary Schools (1976) highlighted that only 16% of secondary school leavers entered the two polytechnics and PSE. Taken together with data that only 70% of the cohort leaving primary schools continue onto secondary schools, it was clear that not many students entered PSE. Although controversial, the New Education System (Goh et. al, 1979) and introduction of ability-based streaming at primary and secondary levels to address “educational wastage” succeeded in getting students to complete secondary school. By 1986, only 3772 pupils (or less than 1% of the total school population below 16 years of age) left school without having at least 10 years of education. This provided Singapore with an educated workforce able to cope with the demands of a rapidly expanding economy (Goh & Gopinathan, 2008). The Vocational and Industrial Training Board (VITB) was established in 1979 but without NES polices effected at the primary and secondary level, there would not have been a critical mass of students ready for PSE. This period also saw convergence of the curricula, courses and standards at Singapore Polytechnic and Ngee Ann Technical College. In 1982, Singapore’s second polytechnic, Ngee Ann Polytechnic was officially established. The government heavily invested in new buildings, facilities and equipment. A second phase of expansion was announced and $200 million was invested to develop Ngee Ann and $182 million to expand Singapore Polytechnic (Varaprasad, 2016). The government’s effort to enlarge the pool of scientific and technical manpower to support its economic vision to transform Singapore into a developed nation required a stronger middle layer of professionals. Polytechnics were central to fulfilling this vision and thus needed expansion. When the third polytechnic, Temasek Polytechnic, opened in 1990, it only had 735 students but it was designed to accommodate a student enrolment of 12,000. Subsequently, Nanyang (1992) and Republic polytechnics (2002) were built to similar scales to support Singapore’s Strategic Economic Plan and steadily increase polytechnics’ cohort participation rate.

74

T. Kang

In 1991, MOE’s Improving Primary School Education (IPSE) review announced that all students would receive a minimum of 10 years of education in the school system and a new secondary level course, Normal (Technical) would be introduced. While this was affected in secondary schools, implications for PSE were immense. This new pathway prepared the academically less inclined students for vocational training. It also allowed the VITB to be restructured into a post-secondary TVET institution—the Institute of Technical Education (ITE). The ITE was suddenly endowed with symbolic capital to confer accreditation (Chong, 2014), to provide vocational students a systematic pathway from secondary to post-secondary. The status of ITE was elevated. It was no longer a school for dropouts but just like polytechnics and JCs, positioned to provided PSE after ten years of education. The change of name from “vocational institute” to “technical institute” was a deliberate effort to signal that as a post-secondary institution, ITE would provide higher level skill courses than VITB. Sprawling ITE campuses, with excellent educational and sports infrastructure and cutting-edge technology, were built in locations across Singapore to make TVET attractive and accessible. In the 2000s, ITE campuses were consolidated into three regional campuses, each with about 7000–10,000 students. Economies of scale and industry partnerships made it possible for ITE to further invest in specialised high-end industry equipment for their students. The first mega campus, ITE College East, was completed in 2005, ITE College West in 2010 and the third ITE College Central in 2013. Compared to the ITE and polytechnics, expansion in the junior college system was more gradual and focused on streamlining resources for greater efficiency. MOE introduced centralised institutes as specialised centres for commerce-oriented pre-university education. These provided students with options of three-year preuniversity courses to complement JCs’ two-year courses. Outram Institute was set up in 1987 with an initial focus on commerce but the arts stream was included later. However, the science stream continued to be offered only in JCs. Seletar Institute (1988), Townsville Institute (1988) and Jurong Institute (1989) were soon established in quick succession. However, by 1995, due to rapidly falling enrolment, given the popularity of the two-year JC programme, Seletar and Townsville Institute were closed. In 2004, Jurong and Outram Institute were merged to form Millennia Institute (MI).

2.3 Consolidation Phase In 2008, World Bank published a book ‘Toward a Better Future: Education and Training for Economic Development in Singapore since 1965’ presenting materials developed for a 2006 study tour of Sub-Saharan African countries to Singapore and Vietnam. This section draws on material from the two chapters (Law, 2008; Chan, 2008) on ITE and polytechnic education to provide snapshots of its key features. By the 2000s, TVET played a critical role as Singapore pivoted into a knowledgebased economy. Higher end manufacturing was growing together with the service

Post-secondary Education in Singapore

75

sector and new growth sectors which received heavy investments (Tucker, 2012). Not surprisingly, during this period, ITE embarked on its third 5-year strategic plan termed ‘ITE Advantage’ (2005–2009) that cast a lofty aspiration to become a global leader in technical education. ITE’s award of the prestigious Singapore Quality Award in 2005, the first educational institution in Singapore to be awarded, also signalled its coming of age. In the words of Law (2008: 143), the founding Director and CEO of ITE, “As a postsecondary institution, ITE has effectively rebuilt and transformed its former “vocational institutes” into top-line “educational colleges".” According to Law (2008), ITE has several unique and noteworthy features. First, the “One ITE, Three Colleges” system of governance allows policy making and key administration to be centralised in headquarters for economies of scale while allowing each megaregional college autonomy to specialise and grow niche areas. This centralization-decentralisation approach supports integrated communications and branding of a positive ITE brand; critical for raising the status of TVET. Second, ITE’s “Hands-on”, Minds-on” and Hearts-on” tripartite orientation provides students with a strong foundation in technical skills, flexible and independent thinking, confidence in self and compassion for others. Third, ITE’s “Practice-Oriented Curriculum Model” where 80% of core curriculum time is focused on job skills, 15% of life skills and 5% on electives is holistic. ITE courses are also heavily “hands-on” with 70% of time spent on practical and 30% theory. Lastly, a “Process-Oriented Pedagogic Model” called “Plan, Explore, Practice, Perform (PEPP)” encourages technical, methodical and social competencies acquisition. Unlike the ITE, all five polytechnics in Singapore have their own systems of governance, boards and Principals. But like the ITE, they are statutory boards under the MOE and the number of students admitted each year are based on projections of the number, type, and level of manpower required by industries to support Singapore’s manpower planning and development strategies. In other words, both ITE and polytechnics will know in advance how many places they can offer for each course. This is why all polytechnics offer courses in engineering and Informational Technology but only selected polytechnics have courses in fields like maritime studies and health sciences. Chan (2008:160) puts it this way, “The polytechnics’ core mission is to train and produce technologists and middle-level professionals to support the technological, economic, and social development of Singapore… to equip students with relevant and specific skills for the workplace to give Singapore a competitive edge as it moves into a knowledge and innovation-intensive economy.” This mission is reinforced and cascaded by appointment of senior civil servants with experience in economic agencies (e.g. Economic Development Board) as polytechnic principals. As a result, polytechnics despite having separate governance structures do have similar features (Chan, 2008). First, there is a strong industry focus because the primary objective is to prepare students for the workplace. Even if polytechnic students choose to enter universities, instead of the workforce upon graduation, they are still expected to be job-ready. Second, polytechnic training is oriented to be both development and application oriented. In other words, students are expected not just to execute instructions but understand underlying theoretical principles. They need to be able to apply knowledge to solve practical industry problems.

76

T. Kang

Third, polytechnic education is heavily practice-oriented. Students work in teams, guided by mentors, on projects delving into authentic industry challenges. Fourth, education is balanced and broad-based. Whichever polytechnic or course one is in, instruction on fundamental knowledge and skills is provided in first two years while electives, specialisations and final year projects are parked in the third year to provide industry-relevant experience. Fifth, industrial attachments are integral parts of polytechnic education as real-life experiences in work environment prepare students for working life. Despite broad similarities, each polytechnic has autonomy to decide its approach. For example, Temasek Polytechnic introduced a new curriculum framework called FAST (Flexible Academic System) for all its diplomas in 2002. This framework incorporates a three-pronged strategy, namely ‘Institutional Fix’, ‘Industry Fit’ and ‘Individual Flexible’ as a basis for the curriculum. The curriculum is guided by three core principles for all diplomas, namely, character, competency and change. According to Vijayan (2017), the polytechnic’s applied study model has evolved over time. It began as industry-stimulated settings to enhance learning of skills and work practice, industry attachment and projects, but it has been expanded to incorporate enterprise-based education through learning enterprises and practice-based education within the curriculum. Like the polytechnics and ITE, the JCs have also shifted to make education more broad-based so as to better prepare students for a knowledge-based economy. In 2006, a new and revised curriculum was implemented and the system of categorising subjects according to “Alternative Ordinary (AO)”, “Advanced (A)” and “Special (S)” papers or levels was replaced with the Higher 1 (H1), Higher 2 (H2) and Higher 3 (H3) categories. The new curriculum framework gave students more choice of subject combinations, but more importantly, it is now compulsory that students offer at least one ‘contrasting’ subject. For example, Science students would need to take at least one Arts/Humanities subject, while Arts/Humanities students must take up at least one Science-based subject. To encourage students to work on authentic problems, they must also offer a mandatory subject, Project Work, that has a group project component and contributes 10% to university admissions.

3 Future-Oriented Changes in PSE The SkillsFuture Movement (2014) and Applied Study in Polytechnics and Institute of Technical Education Review (ASPIRE) (Ministry of Education, 2014) have together driven much of the recent changes in PSE. Ms Indrannee Rajah (Rajan, 2014) frames it this way when she introduced ASPIRE to Parliament. “Now, 2014 onwards, we are once again on the cusp. The future is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous—the VUCA environment. We now have to think once again on how to equip Singaporeans to navigate and do well in this VUCA environment.” The demands of the 4th Industrial Revolution where fusion of technologies will not only automate production but shape knowledge creation is central to these current

Post-secondary Education in Singapore

77

concerns. Of particular concern are the different skillsets, toolsets and mindsets needed to take advantage of Industry 4.0 (McKinsey, 2017). Skill mastery continues to be important but flexibility to adapt to changing industry practices and a quest for continuous growth and improvement, i.e. lifelong learning, are now increasingly seen to be critical. Not surprisingly, PSE in Singapore has pivoted to address these new demands.

3.1 Enhancing Learning Experiences The educational experience in the ITE and polytechnics have always been strong in experiential and industry learning through internships and attachments. But what ASPIRE has done is enhance such internship programmes. The whole experience has been reconceptualised. For example, Ngee Ann Polytechnic’s Diploma in Child Psychology and Early Education (CPEE) students are interviewed before being placed in organisations and they participate in a 10-week pre-internships preparatory process at their assigned preschools. Their extended 22-week internship enhances opportunities for learning and stakeholder interactions as well as help achieve a more defined set of learning outcomes through structured mentoring. SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) provides an Early Childhood Capability Grant to incentivise child care centres and kindergartens to host internships for students from the full-time Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) courses from both polytechnics and the ITE. This grant provides funds for the cost of training and deployment of mentors as well as pays the stipends and cost of teaching and learning resources for interns. While skill mastery is critical, there is concern that over-specialisation of skills puts students at greater risk of being displaced in a VUCA environment when industry change is rapid. To address this, the Common Entry Programmes (CEP) in polytechnics have been expanded to 30% of the cluster intake. This allows students to sample foundational modules common to a particular cluster of disciplines and explore interests before deciding on a specialisation. For example, a student in the Information and Digital Technologies cluster will take foundational courses in Computing Mathematics, Introduction to Programming, and Networking Fundamentals in the first year before specialising in the second year. To further support this, polytechnics are reducing courses by 20% by merging courses so that students will be exposed to broad-based skills, increasing their versatility to take on different jobs. For example, Singapore Polytechnic has merged eight media, arts and design courses into one. Interdisciplinary learning is another strategy to encourage students to explore beyond their specialisation. For example, Ngee Ann Polytechnic’s Future City Programme provides opportunities for students from different disciplines to work together to solve real-life problems for Singapore and the region.

78

T. Kang

3.2 Making Admissions More Flexible Early Admission Exercises (EAE) into the ITE and polytechnics have been revised to take into greater account student aptitude and interest. This is recognition that while GCE ‘O’ or ‘N’-level results are objective data points, academic grades cannot fully determine PSE course fit. As such, interests and passions demonstrated through portfolios, record of out of school activities, and subject knowledge outside the formal curriculum will be taken into account for admission. Polytechnics and the ITE’s quota for EAE has increased to 15%. In addition, for one-third of its courses, ITE’s EAE has been expanded to include a Special College Admission Scheme where course-level allowance can reach 50%. Examples of such courses include nursing, community care, information technology, and design and media. As the EAE process allows students to apply for conditional admission to ITE and polytechnic prior to sitting for GCE ‘O’ and ‘N’—level examinations, it also simultaneously blunts the emphasis on high-stake examinations. In addition to considering aptitude and interest, other admission criteria have also been relaxed. For example, academically able students can skip ahead into PSE. The Polytechnic Foundation Programme (PFP) established in 2013 allowed ‘N’-level students to enter polytechnics without completing their ‘O’-levels. Since 2019, the scheme has been expanded and criteria lowered such that the top 15% of Secondary 4 N (A) cohort can join the PFP. According to MOE, outcomes of students admitted via PFP have been encouraging. At graduation, over 35% of the first PFP cohort in 2017 scored a GPA of 3.5 and above, compared to 25% for the entire graduating cohort. Dropout rates for PFP students have also been much lower than average. Flexibility of admissions has also been extended to junior college graduates who chose to enter polytechnics. In 2019, MOE allowed eligible A-Level students midyear entry to about 110 polytechnic courses with exemptions from modules. This provided an attractive PSE pathway for ‘A’-level holders. Students who are not headed to university would still be able to obtain a Diploma, a ‘tertiary’ level qualification. This scheme was further incentivised in 2020, when JC graduates were allowed to obtain up to two semesters worth of exemptions in 56 polytechnic courses if they fulfilled the necessary module requirements. As such, the three-year diploma course can be shortened to two years.

3.3 Blurring Paths Between PSE Options Polytechnics and the ITE have always played a dual role in TVET. They provide preemployment training for students but also support continual education and training for workers. In recent years, this distinction has been blurred through apprenticeshipbased and work-learn programmes that connect pre- and post-employment training. Such programmes, developed in the spirit of SkillsFuture, encourage industry relevance and lifelong learning.

Post-secondary Education in Singapore

79

In July 2019, then Minister of Education Ong Ye Kung (Ong, 2019) announced that MOE will collectively refer to a range of programmes that are workplace based as SkillsFuture Work-Study Programmes (WSP), and they will be identified by their level of qualification. As such, ITE’s programme for students will be called the Work-Study Diploma (WSDip); the post-diploma programmes under the Earn and Learn Programme (ELP) called Work-Study Post-Diplomas; while those run by the universities called Work-Study Degrees. The Work-Study Diploma (WSDip) is of particular relevance to this chapter because it is the first diploma qualification that ITE offered; beyond their Nitec and Higher Nitec certifications. It is an acknowledgement of ITE’s reputation and another example of diversification in the PSE landscape. The WSDip was first offered in 2017 as the Work-Learn Technical Diploma to provide ITE graduates with a skillsbased apprenticeship pathway to attain a diploma. This highly applied programme, designed as 70% on-the-job training in a partner company and 30% classroom learning, is a skills-based avenue for ITE graduates to upgrade and build careers. In 2018, 41 partner companies were involved and hired students as salaried workers in this apprenticeship-based diploma. By 2021, more than 200 companies support 30 WSDip. This provision is part of MOE’s commitment that by 2030, every ITE Nitec graduate will have an opportunity to upgrade beyond Nitec either through a Higher Nitec, polytechnic diploma, or WSDip (The Straits Times, 2019). The Work-Study Post Diploma has its roots in the Earn and Learn Programme (ELP) that was launched in 2015 to provide fresh polytechnic graduates a head start in careers related to their discipline of study, and support transition into industry. This work-study pathway is an avenue to deepen industry related knowledge and skill mastery. Since 2015, over 100 ELPs have been introduced in 35 sectors, including emerging areas such as Advanced Manufacturing, Entrepreneurship, and Digital Marketing. By end-2018, over 3500 participants have enrolled into the programmes, a multifold increase from a mere 144 participants in 2015. The polytechnic diploma is increasingly valued as a passport into universities as well. For example, from 2020, National University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU), have started using polytechnic graduates’ GPA scores for admissions. By doing so, ‘O’-level grades are no longer used as part of the University Admissions Score for polytechnic graduates. This is a major shift for universities who have traditionally required GCE ‘O’ and ‘A’-level grades for admission. The Work Study Degree programme is a first attempt to integrate polytechnics with university education by creating a through-train programme that links fulltime diploma training with university modules, leading to a degree qualification. This programme shortens the award of degrees to five years and students graduate up to 12 months earlier than if they pursued the diploma and degree education consecutively. In 2020, the first two programmes were launched by Temasek Polytechnic in the Building Services sector and Mechatronics sector in collaboration with the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) and the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT). Such programmes were developed in tandem with Singapore’s new autonomous universities. SIT was gazetted as Singapore’s fifth autonomous university (AU) in 2014, and is known for its strong applied learning curriculum and

80

T. Kang

unique work study integration pedagogy. SUSS is Singapore’s youngest university established in 2017 and focuses on the social sciences and lifelong learning. Building new bridges and pathways between polytechnics and new AUs will help fulfil polytechnic graduates’ aspiration to obtain degrees while equipping them with job-ready skills. For example, the social work industry requires social workers to be degree holders. However, in the past, many of those who were interested in social work held polytechnic diplomas and thus could not be certified as social workers. Ministry of Social and Family (MSF) and SUSS developed a pathway for this group of diploma graduates. With this new arrangement, upon polytechnic graduation, they can begin as Associate Social Workers. With good performance, they can be admitted into a Bachelor’s programme in Social Work at SUSS that is delivered in a work-learn format. As their prior education and working experience will be recognised, students can complete the degree programme in 1.5 years and be appointed as Certified Social Workers.

3.4 Shifting Junior College Education In 2010, Eunoia Junior College (EJC) was proposed as a junior college for three Integrated Programme (IP) secondary schools which had no affiliated junior college. When it moved into its new premises in 2020, EJC was the first brand new junior college built in decades. However, it would belong to a smaller junior college system. This is because in 2019, eight junior colleges were merged into four: Anderson Serangoon JC, Tampines Meriden JC, Yishun Innova JC and Jurong Pioneer JC, each bearing the full names of their hosts JCs. School mergers are not new in Singapore. We have discussed above how in the 1990s, Centralised Institutes were merged when student enrolments fell. The recent JC mergers were driven primarily by the changing demographics due to lower birth rates but it is likely that the increasing attractiveness of a polytechnic education, especially with flexible pathways into universities played a part too. Between, 2010 and 2019, the excess of 3200 JC places made these mergers inevitable. Without a critical mass of students in each JC, it would be challenging to offer a wide range of subject combinations, educational programmes and co-curricular activities. Moving forward, the junior college system will see a multi-year, multi-phase JC Rejuvenation Programme. The first phase will begin in 2022, and involve three rebuilds and one upgrade. The new premises will better support the evolution of JC education, with new infrastructure to facilitate interactive lessons and pedagogies. Digitally enabled campuses will provide more avenues for modular and flexible learning modes. It will also support innovative enactments of the revised JC curriculum introduced in 2016. This new curriculum focuses on application of classroom knowledge to real-world contexts. Instead of learning about subjects in silos, the curriculum encourages students to develop interdisciplinary skills, connect and apply concepts.

Post-secondary Education in Singapore

81

4 Challenges Facing PSE 4.1 Ensuring Smooth Secondary to Post-Secondary Education Transitions Secondary and post-secondary education in Singapore are managed by two separate groups in the Ministry of Education. Polytechnics and the ITE (together with universities) are overseen by MOE’s ‘Higher Education Group’ and while junior colleges (together with primary and secondary schools) are managed by MOE’s ‘Schools Division’. Belonging under the same division, JCs and secondary schools are tightly coupled and JCs are very aware of details of initiatives rolled out upstream. Polytechnics and the ITE, on the other hand, are responsible for preparing workers for jobs. They are hence more likely to focus on downstream issues related to the labour force. However, in order for polytechnic and ITE programmes to fully leverage on what learners bring into PSE to optimise their learning experience, it is essential that they connect their programmes to what is happening in secondary school. In recent years, the secondary school system has embarked on several systemwide initiatives that will greatly shape the skills, competencies and mindsets of students entering PSE. For example, by the end of 2021, the National Digital Literacy Programme in schools will provide every secondary student with a Personal Learning Device (PLD). From third quarter of 2021, there will also be time-tabled Home-Based Learning days in the secondary curriculum. Initiatives like these seek to promote greater independence, inquiry and self-directedness; a new type of PSE learner. The replacement of secondary schools streaming by 2024 with Full Subject-Based Banding (SBB), is another radical move that will eliminate academic streams that came into being in the 1970s and were fine-tuned in the 1990s. This change will undoubtedly have implications for the post-secondary posting exercises which is currently guided by different combinations of aggregate scores based on subjects offered within a particular stream. Without traditional goalposts provided by streams, the post-secondary posting system will need to find new ways to recognise and place secondary students. New diverse pathways in PSE will require that students understand PSE options and their suitability for each. Current efforts to enhance Education and Career Guidance (ECG) at secondary and PSE need to be well coordinated and effective. There needs to be constant and updated flow of information between secondary and PSE institutions. While structured platforms like MySkillsFuture portal are useful, students need to be given time and opportunity to explore their own interests, discuss and test-drive different PSE options.

82

T. Kang

4.2 Addressing Multiple Demands We have seen how polytechnics and the ITE have supported pre-employment and continual upgrading of skills. However, since 2014, with SkillsFuture movement, their roles have been redefined and broadened. In addition to designing new programmes for fresh secondary school graduates, TVET institutions are expected to serve as coordinators for specific industry sectors. As sector coordinator, each institution coordinates outreach and engagement across institutions, linking up with employers in their selected industry sector. They are expected to create opportunities to strengthen linkages through partnerships with industry and deliver SkillsFuture Series bite-sized courses for their anchor areas. In the past, continuing education was intended to deepen specialist skills of workers already in a particular sector. Today, it includes re-training mid-career Singaporeans who are entering that sector for the first time. Polytechnic and ITE lecturers have rich industry experience and are wellpositioned to partner and understand sector needs. But balancing the challenges of teaching different profiles of learners while keeping abreast with changing industry requirements is not easy. While the number of new courses mounted by ITE and polytechnics for SkillsFuture is encouraging, only time will reveal if these courses do really meet industry needs. Specifically, Vijayan (2017:186), a polytechnic lecturer is concerned about “the lack of clarity on pedagogy, the appropriateness of pedagogical approaches to meet the changing needs of polytechnic education and the preparedness of staff for these purpose.”

4.3 Balancing Lifelong Learning Outcomes Tan (2017) has argued that attainment of lifelong learning through the SkillsFuture movement is problematic. One reason is Singaporeans’ deep-seated socio-cultural preference for academic rather than vocational education. Even Prime Minister Lee acknowledged “Every parent wants his or her child to do as well as possible, go to university and many ITE (Institute of Technical Education) students hope to go on to poly and most poly students aspire to get a degree” (The Straits Times, 2012). Much is being done to ensure that students can continually upgrade their academic qualifications. But there is a concern that the creation of different PSE pathways and newly developed credentials (e.g. WSDip or Work-Study Degrees) may fuel a new paper chase given Singaporeans’ ideology of pragmatism (Koh, 2007; Tan, 2012). They have concerns that if the system uses credentials as a carrot to encourage individuals to continually learn and upgrade skills, whether this love for learning will continue when incentives are no longer present. Much has been said about the skills that are valued by employers in the 4th Industrial Revolution and they include soft skills such as cognitive flexibility, innovation, risk-taking. While all PSE unequivocally declare that their programmes foster

Post-secondary Education in Singapore

83

such skills, the depth and sophistication by which this is done is not easy to ascertain. Industry demands constantly pressure courses to compress as much content as possible into as short a time as possible. Mastery of technical skills can be easily assessed and showcased. Soft skills, less so, even if they may have longer term advantage for careers. These soft skills are definitely more difficult to box into a course to teach, to assess and for learners to demonstrate. As PSE institutions attend to stakeholder demands, it is critical that they continue to devote as much, if not more, time to develop such skills and dispositions, even if their benefits cannot be immediately quantified.

5 Conclusion This chapter has provided a big picture overview of the post-secondary landscape in Singapore; defining the uniqueness of the landscape, describing its formation over time, detailing contemporary features and discussing selected areas that require further ‘landscaping’. There is no doubt that post-secondary education in Singapore has come a long way since colonial times and bold education policies integrated and embedded with other economic policies have played a critical role. As Ghesquiere (2007:167) a International Monetary Fund economist puts it, “Singapore followed an integrated approach to development. Outcomes, policies, institutions, social and cultural values, and the political dynamics of implementation all reinforced each other. The government pursued this comprehensive strategy across a range of areas such as fiscal, monetary policy, education, health, transportation, housing, finance, wage policy, legal system and law enforcement, labor markets, and political stability and legitimacy….”. It is likely that conditions of the 4th Industrial Revolution, with hyper-globalisation and its associated complexities, will make it more difficult for the government to centrally formulate, integrate and implement policies to achieve desired outcomes. Furthermore, global shocks like the COVID pandemic that began in 2020 has not only resulted in medical and economic crisis, but also raised in individuals deep existential questions about work and life. But what is known, despite these many unknowns, is that Singapore’s postsecondary education landscape will definitely continue to evolve. Another certainty is that, unlike the past, it will do so from a position of strength because of Singapore’s academically robust secondary education system. For example, Secondary Two students were ranked first in the 2019 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) in Maths and Science. Secondary Three students came in second for the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) for reading, maths and science. Furthermore, since close to 90% of each Primary 1 cohort completes ten years of secondary education, the number of academically able students entering post-secondary is not trivial. The question is how will postsecondary institutions evolve to educate students who come with much skill, knowledge and potential. Would they be content to produce workers to fuel Singapore’s

84

T. Kang

economic engine, or would they nurture a generation of learners whose curiosity and ingenuity will transform not just the economy but future society as well. Only time will tell.

References Blackburn, K. (2016). Education, industrialization and the end of empire in Singapore. Routledge. Chai, C. Y. (1977). Opening address at the conference on technical and vocational education by Chai Chong Yi, Senior Minister of State for Education on 14 December 1977. National Archives. Chan, L. M. (2008). Polytechnic education. In S. K. Lee, C. B. Goh, B. Fredriksen, & J. P. Tan (Eds.), Towards a better future: Education and training for economic development in Singapore since 1965 (pp. 135–148). The World Bank and the National Institute of Education. Channel News Asia. (2020, Jan 14). More poly graduates employed six months after graduation, with higher salaries: Survey. Retrieved from https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ more-poly-graduates-employed-six-months-after-graduation-with-12261278 Chong, T. (2014). Vocational education in Singapore: meritocracy and hidden narratives. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35, 637–648. Chua, P., Toh, Y., He, S., Jamaludin, A., & Hung, D. (2019). Centralised-decentralisation in Singapore Education Policymaking. In D. Hung, S. S. Lee, Y. Toh, A. Jamaludin, & L. Wu (Eds.), Innovations in educational change (pp. 3–22). Springer. Committee on Technical Education in Secondary Schools. (1976). Report of the review committee on technical education in secondary schools. Ministry of Education. Committee on Improving Primary School Education. (1991). Report of the review committee on improving primary school education. Ministry of Education. Commission of Inquiry into Vocational and Technical Education. (1961). Report of the commission of inquiry into vocational and technical education. Government Printing Office. Committee of Review on the Future Development of Ngee Ann College. (1966). Report of the committee of review on the future development of Ngee Ann College. Government Printing Office. Committee on a Polytechnic Institute for Singapore. (1953). Report of the committee on a Polytechnic Institute for Singapore. Government Printing Office. Department of Statistics, Singapore. (2020). Singapore standard educational classification 2020. Retrieved from https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/standards_and_classifications/educat ional_classification/ssec2020-report.pdf Ghesquiere, H. (2007). Singapore’s success: Engineering economic growth. Thomson Learning. Goh, K. S., & Education Study Team. (1979). Report on the Ministry of Education 1978. Singapore National Printers. Goh, C. B., & Gopinathan, S. (2008). The development of education in Singapore since 1965. In S. K. Lee, C. B. Goh, B. Fredriksen, & J. P. Tan (Eds.), Towards a better future: Education and training for economic development in Singapore since 1965 (pp. 12–38). The World Bank and the National Institute of Education. Gopinathan, S., & Mardiana, A. B. (2013). Globalization, the state and curriculum reform. In Z. Deng, S. Gopinathan, & C. K.-E. Lee (Eds.), Globalization and the Singapore curriculum: From policy to classroom (pp. 15–32). Springer. Koh, A. (2007). Living with globalisation tactically: The metapragmatics of globalisation in Singapore. SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 22, 179–201. Law, S. S. (2008). Vocational technical education and economic development—The Singapore experience. In S. K. Lee, C. B. Goh, B. Fredriksen, & J. P. Tan (Eds.), Towards a better future: Education and training for economic development in Singapore since 1965 (pp. 114–134). The World Bank and the National Institute of Education.

Post-secondary Education in Singapore

85

Law, S. S. (2015). Breakthrough in vocational and technical education: The Singapore story. World Scientific Publishing. McKinsey Global Institute. (2017). Harnessing automation for a future that works. McKinsey Global Institute. Ministry of Education. (2014). Report on applied study in polytechnic and ITE review (ASPIRE). Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (various years). Education digest statistics. Ministry of Education. Ng, P. T. (2017). Learning from Singapore: The power of paradoxes. Routledge. Ong, P. B. (1965). Speech by Mr Ong Pang Boon, Minister for Education, at Official Opening of the Kim Keat Vocational School on 12 June, 1965. National Archives. Ong, Y. K. (2019). Opening Address by Mr Ong Ye Kung, Minister for Education, at the Work-Learn Carnival on 15 July 2019. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/20190715-ope ning-address-by-mr-ong-ye-kung-minister-for-education-at-the-work-learn-carnival Rajan, I. (2014). Opening Speech by Ms Indranee Rajah, Senior Minister of State for Education and Law, at Parliamentary Debate on the Applied Study in Polytechnics and ITE Review Report on 8 September 2014. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/20140908-ope ning-speech-by-ms-indranee-rajah-senior-minister-of-state-for-education-and-law-for-parlia mentary-debate-on-the-applied-study-in-polytechnics-and-ite-review-report-on-8-september2014 Tan, C. (2017). Lifelong learning through the SkillsFuture movement in Singapore: Challenges and prospects. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 36, 278–291. Tan, K. P. (2012). The ideology of pragmatism: Neo-liberal globalisation and political authoritarianism in Singapore. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 42, 67–92. Tucker, M. S. (2012). The phoenix: Vocational education and training in Singapore. National Center on Education and the Economy. The Straits Times. (2012, Aug 27). 16,000 places yearly by 2020 at six institutions offering fulltime courses. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/40-of-each-cohort-to-getshot-at-local-universities The Straits Times. (2019, Aug 23). All ITE grads will get chance to progress beyond Nitec by 2030. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/all-ite-grads-will-get-chanceto-progress-beyond-nitec-by-2030 The Straits Times. (2020, Jan 28). Nearly 1 in 3 poly grads makes it to a local university. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/nearly-1-in-3-poly-grads-makes-it-to-alocal-uni The Straits Times. (2020, Jan 21) 5% of ITE grads go on to get degrees from local public unis. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/5-of-ite-grads-go-on-toget-degrees-from-local-public-unis The Straits Times. (2021, Jan 11). Half of O Levels holders taking poly route. Retrieved from https:// www.straitstimes.com/singapore/parenting-education/half-of-o-level-holders-taking-poly-route Toh, P.K. (1968). The scope of vocational and technical education in Singapore, economic research paper 1/68. Ministry of Finance. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2011). Revision of the international standard classification of education. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/ files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-isced-2011-en.pdf Varaprasad, N. (2016). 50 years of technical education in Singapore: How to build a world class TVET system. World Scientific Publishing. Vijayan, N. (2017) Polytechnic education in Singapore: An exploration of pedagogies for a polytechnic [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Sheffield.

Higher Education in Singapore: Perspectives and Future Orientation Horn Mun Cheah and Laura Lyn Lee

Abstract Higher education in Singapore has been closely aligned with the social and economic imperatives of the country throughout its history. From the establishment of the National University of Singapore in 1980 to the setting up of the Singapore University of Social Sciences as the sixth Autonomous University, the national drive to develop human resources with education as a vehicle has been key to the country’s success, but the increasing demand for university places, the impact of Industry 4.0, the dominance of ICT and the use of learning analytics have distinctly affected the way higher education has been delivered and to whom since the turn of the century. This changing landscape also calls into question both the nature and meaning of a university education. The focus on just-in-time learning and the provision of ‘stackable’ skills would likely leave learning gaps that a more traditional degree would find difficult to fill. This chapter begins with a brief review of the history of higher education in Singapore and considers its evolution amidst past and recent pressures. It further examines how local institutions have responded to the shifts and challenges that have accompanied the transformations in our environment. Keywords Tertiary education · Historical developments · Future trends · Autonomous universities · Human resource and manpower · Knowledge economy · ICT · Lifelong learning · Continuing education and training · University funding · Industry 4.0 · Learning processes

1 Introduction As a small nation devoid of natural resources, Singapore has had to rely on human resources for growth. A clear focus on education, to develop manpower capability and a skilled workforce, has always been at the heart of this strategy (Lee & Gopinathan, H. M. Cheah (B) Singapore University of Social Sciences, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] L. L. Lee Department of Health, University of Bath, Bath, England © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_6

87

88

H. M. Cheah and L. L. Lee Tech Industrial based widen

Labour intensive industries

Capital & Tech Industries

1960

R&D, engineering design, soware services 1st Naonal IT Plan

Globalisaon, high value-added

IT, financial, industries educaon, medical sectors

1980

1970

Educaon hub

1990

Life sciences, biotech, Smart nanotech Innovaon Naon focused devt

Sci & Maths in English, common curriculum, Tech Educaon

Post Primary Ed Expansion

Streaming started

Gied Prog

ICT in Educaon Broad-based Ed, Lifelong Learning & creavity

Thinking School Learning Naon; mp1

Greater autonomy, University corporased

SkillsFuture

2010

2000 IP Prog

Bilingual Ed

Industrial Transformaon Map

IAL; mp3

Innovaon & Enterprise; Compulsory Ed; mp2

2020 Subjectbased banding

New PSLE scoring; Interdisciplinarity

Changes in Schbased assessment & holisc development

Fig. 1 In tandem: key education, economic and manpower developments 1960–2020

2008; Goh & Tan, 2008). The intertwining of education, economic and manpower policies has been evident in the country’s history as it developed to its present economic level, reflecting a consistent and determined drive to build this capacity (Sidhu et al., 2011). Figure 1 presents a summary of the key policies and development that reflected these alignments. In the operationalisation of this strategy, primary and secondary schools were built as part of an expanded education programme, effectively doubling secondary school enrolment from 1965 to 1970 during the so-called ‘survival-driven’ development phase. During subsequent phases, specifically efficiency-driven and ability-driven, as well as responses to the needs of a knowledge-driven economy, higher education developments had evolved in tandem. The pace of change accelerated dramatically with the advent of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in the early twenty-first Century, and was later boosted again with the global economy signalling the need for the workforce to continually renew its skills and knowledge. The changes in higher education can be seen as strategic responses that focus on addressing the challenges posed by these trends.

2 The Historical Development of Singapore’s Tertiary Education To understand how Singapore’s tertiary education system has evolved, the country’s social and economic priorities are traced briefly from its origins during Colonial Singapore and through the five decades since independence in 1965. This is followed by a review of significant challenges in the nation’s higher education in the recent two decades.

2.1 Colonial Singapore Higher education access, and English education in particular, was once limited by the British during colonial rule (1819–1941) on the presumption that highly educated

Higher Education in Singapore: Perspectives …

89

imperial subjects would pose a threat to the administration. Not surprisingly, there were hardly any noteworthy developments in tertiary education during this period (Goh & Tan, 2008). Singapore began to shape its higher education landscape in the post-colonial years (mid-1950s to early 1960s). While the country saw the establishment of its first polytechnic and two universities during this period, it was not until the late 1970s that significant reforms occurred in the higher education system. Table 1 provides a summary of the key developments between the 1900s and the 1960s (Goh & Tan, 2008).

2.2 1970s and 1980sThe institutionalisation of English as the official language upon Singapore’s independence set the tone for its educational programmes and the alignment of nation state to the dominant geopolitical power of developed Western nations (Sidhu et al., 2011). In so doing, the higher education sector was able to ‘plug into’ important sources and networks of knowledge, particularly in the economic, scientific and technological spheres. Subsequently, a great deal of importance and emphasis was placed on university education for sustainable national and economic development (Lee & Gopinathan, 2008). Technological programmes, particularly in engineering, became key foci in the universities. The ability of local universities to contribute to a well-trained workforce in adequate numbers for the national industrialisation push eventually earned Singapore the status of a ‘newly industrialising economy’ by the end of the 1970s. To further enhance and sustain this high-growth trajectory, the government embarked on a review of university education, and concluded that it was crucial for the economy to be supported by highly qualified people. This triggered active planning for the higher education sector (Goh & Tan, 2008). As part of this planning, a study was commissioned to establish how best to organise university education. This resulted in the Dainton Report (by Sir Frederick Dainton), which was submitted to the Singapore government in December 1979. The report concluded that (The Straits Times, 16 March 1980, p. 11): • it was more beneficial to have a single, strong university at Kent Ridge rather than maintaining both the University of Singapore and Nanyang University; • having a total student population of around 12–14,000 students by the year 2000 should sufficiently meet the demands of Singapore’s demographic changes and manpower needs, and that the postgraduate candidate population should be about 1000; • there should be a wider range of academic disciplines; with about half the students studying science-based subjects and half studying arts and social sciences; but keeping this distribution flexible;

90

H. M. Cheah and L. L. Lee

Table 1 Key developments in Singapore’s higher education (pre-colonial years to 1960s) 1905

1912

1916

1919

By 1920–21

1928

Straits settlements and Federated Malay States Government Medical School officially formed

Medical School renamed to King Edward VII Medical School

Medical degree became recognised by the British Medical Council

The British decided to set up a college for higher education

Medical school was further upgraded to become King Edward Medical College, staffed by a full-time teaching faculty. This laid a strong foundation for medical teaching and research

Established Raffles College of Arts and Sciences

1938

1949

1954

1955

1962

Unsuccessful attempt was made to introduce an engineering department and to upgrade the college to university status. Raffles College was largely left on its own, with little direction and support from the government

King Edward College of Medicine and Raffles College merged to become the University of Malaya

Singapore Polytechnic established

Nanyang University (Nantah), the first Chinese-language university in Southeast Asia, was established by the Chinese community with donations from all walks of life. However, it became a hotbed of trouble for communist student activity during the 1950s and 1960s when student extremists wanted to establish a socialist independent state and destroy capitalism and colonialism

The University of Singapore was established after it was decided by the governments of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya that the Singapore Division and the Kuala Lumpur Division of the University of Malaya should become separate national universities in their respective countries

Source Goh and Tan (2008)

Higher Education in Singapore: Perspectives …

91

• more could be done to enhance the quality of research (e.g. establishment of a Singapore Research Policy committee); • developing links with foreign institutions over the following 10 years will help increase the quality of research and teaching. These recommendations led to the merger of the University of Singapore and Nanyang University, forming the National University of Singapore (NUS) on 8 August 1980. At the same time, the Nanyang Technological Institute (NTI) was formed on the original campus of Nanyang University, catering to train threequarters of Singapore’s engineers, with a strong focus on practice-orientation. The new emphasis on science, medicine and engineering generated some apprehension, particularly amongst the arts and social sciences academics, who felt uneasy about their career prospects in NUS since graduates from the ‘hard’ sciences were perceived to be brighter and better paid (Goh & Tan, 2008). Despite initial concerns, NUS saw remarkable growth. While it had to rely on expatriate staff initially, the university’s employee strength doubled from 600 to 1200 in just four years. Student enrolment also increased significantly from a pioneer cohort of 8600 to 13,000 in the same period, and a considerable sum of S$212 million was spent on developing infrastructure and physical facilities at NUS’s Kent Ridge campus. The university’s advancement was attributed to the intellectual quality of its staff, the community’s support of higher education and the government’s recognition of the university’s role in national advancement (Goh & Tan, 2008). NTI also flourished, with student population in Civil, Electrical and Electronic, and Mechanical engineering programmes expanding from 582 to 6832 between 1982 and 1990. Notably, an employment survey for fresh graduates in 1987 suggested that NTI’s practice orientation appeared to have enabled their graduates to fare better than their NUS counterparts. In fact, in 1986, the Commonwealth Engineering Council recognised the Institute as one of the best engineering institutions in the world, giving great credit to the faculty who possessed relevant industrial experience that provided strong, practical training of skills needed to support Singapore’s industries. To cater to population needs, NTI (including the three engineering schools and the exNUS School of Accountancy) later merged with the National Institute of Education to form the country’s other government-supported university, Nanyang Technological University (NTU). NTU continued to emphasise a practice-oriented curriculum (as opposed to a more research-oriented engineering curriculum in NUS), allowing their engineering graduates to be regarded by prospective employers as being more hands-on and ready for work (Goh & Tan, 2008).

2.3 1990sSingapore experienced its first post-independence recession in 1985, returning a negative GDP growth for two consecutive quarters after having averaged a growth rate of 8.5% per year prior to this (Bercuson et al., 1995). An urgent review of the

92

H. M. Cheah and L. L. Lee

country’s economic approach was led by a high-level economic committee, and the implementation of a range of measures enabled the country’s economy to bounce back fairly quickly. One significant development was a shift towards a high technology focus. In 1986, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (in Goh & Tan, 2008) laid out several goals aimed at advancing the country’s economic strategy, including • encouraging all industries to take advantage of new advances in technology and apply them as widely as possible; • developing competence in selected new technologies where Singapore had a comparative advantage; and • moving into high-technology industries (e.g. information technology, biotechnology, robotics and artificial intelligence, microelectronics, laser technology and optics, and communication technology) as an area for growth. To respond to this, tertiary education increased the diversity of their programmes and associated content, introducing greater flexibility within its structures. This was aimed at strengthening the system to produce a relevant and high-quality workforce that could meet the demands of the shift in economic focus. The government envisioned both NUS and NTI to be among the best higher education institutions in the world by the beginning of the new millennium. They had also forecast a rise in the cohort participation rate (CPR) in higher education, which increased significantly from 1980 to 1990 after lingering at around 5% in the 15 years following independence. Polytechnics saw a tripling in their CPR from 5% in 1980 to 14% in 1985, and a further large increase to 22% in 1990. By then, university CPR had risen from 8% in 1985 to 15% in 1990 (in Goh & Tan, 2008). Further growth was planned by the Ministry of Education (MOE) with goals of 30% CPR for universities by 2015. In both cases, they edged gradually to 40% in 2020. Additionally, a committee on University Education Pathways beyond 2015 was convened to study and recommend expansion in the sector (MOE, 2018a, 2018b). The anticipated demand, and the outcomes of Dainton’s second review of Singapore’s higher education system, spurred the formation of the second full-fledged university, NTU, in 1991 as it became necessary to fulfil the need for more graduates to propel Singapore’s economy into the 1990s and beyond. The presence of two universities would also generate a degree of competition and increase options (and hence attractiveness) for prospective students and employers. By the 1990s, the country’s binary higher education system (comprised of polytechnics and universities) was offering diploma programmes (post-secondary level technical and vocational-oriented education and training), as well as university degree programmes in fields such as engineering, information technology, health sciences, business studies, accountancy, social sciences, mass communications and digital media. While the former was geared towards providing mid-level technical, management, and service skills, university degree programmes focused on high-level skills for the public and private sectors. Polytechnics graduates who performed well academically and wished to further their studies were also given the opportunity to progress to NUS and NTU with their diploma qualifications (Goh & Tan, 2008; MOE, 2015).

Higher Education in Singapore: Perspectives …

93

The growth of tertiary education in Singapore also meant rapid expansion of government spending on university education in the 1990s. As can be seen in Table 2, the expenditure on universities and polytechnics rose in the 10 years from 1995 to 2005, with the most substantial increase occurring between 1995 and 2000. The government was also spending more per student in higher education, particularly amongst polytechnic students, during this period. To ensure sustainability in the development of both universities, the government wanted to decrease their dependence on government grants. As such, the universities were encouraged to diversify their funding, leading to the establishment of the Universities Endowment Fund (UEF) in 1991. This marked an important milestone for Singapore’s administrative and funding innovations in the university education landscape. One of the aims was to keep future tuition fees increases reasonable. It was also envisaged that the fund could help the universities weather the uncertainties of future economic conditions that could affect government funding. With an initial base common pool of S$500m for both universities injected by the government, each of the two universities was to raise S$250m on its own over five years to raise the total amount of UEF to S$1b. The universities could propose and draw from the UEF to fund projects that advanced scientific and technological knowledge. As reflected in Table 2, the amount of government expenditure appears to have been relatively steady and by the end of 1996, this funding model reached a stable level. The common UEF was then dissolved and parcelled out into independent endowment funds for each university. The government continued to encourage the growth of these endowment funds by matching them at a ratio of 3:1; so, for every dollar put into the UEF, an additional matching grant of $3 would be received from the government. (This ratio would decrease to 2:1 and then 1:1 as the respective Table 2 Recurrent government expenditure on university and polytechnic education and expenditure per student in Singapore (1995–2005) Year

Recurrent expenditure per student (universities) (S$)

Recurrent expenditure on universities* (S$m)

% of recurrent expenditure on education (%)

Recurrent expenditure per student (polytechnics) (S$)

Recurrent expenditure on polytechnics (S$m)

% of recurrent expenditure on education (%)

1995 17,241

561

20.9

1999 14,112

632

19.4

776

339

12.6

8032

387

11.9

2000 15,384

984

2001 15,262

1202

23.0

9546

524

12.2

25.2

9668

593

2002 14,287

12.4

1069

22.2

9793

579

12.0

2003 17,477

1116

22.3

10,197

714

14.3

2004 17,609

1103

22.2

10,695

594

12.0

2005 17,793

1099

21.0

10,843

625

12.0

Source Singapore Department of Statistics (2006b, Table 19.22, in Goh & Tan, 2008), MOE (2020)

94

H. M. Cheah and L. L. Lee

funds reached their targeted amount or if the specified period of that contribution ratio expired, whichever occurred first). In addition, favourable tax deductions were provided for private donations made towards the UEF. As a result of these measures, the funds continued to grow over the years. The funding model was extended to the autonomous universities that were subsequently established, namely, Singapore Management University (SMU) in 2000, Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) in 2009, and Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) in 2016. As of 2019, NUS’s fund stood at S$5.9b, NTU at S$1.9b, SUTD at S$1.1b, and SMU with S$1b. SIT and SUSS each had S$400m in their funds. 1997 saw the start of the Asian Financial Crisis, which sharpened the focus on the country’s response to the tumultuous economic landscape. In October that year, the Singapore 21 Committee was formed to examine and articulate a set of principles to guide the future development of the nation. The spotlight was placed on building an educational system that could cultivate an adaptive workforce that was creative and had critical thinking and entrepreneurial skills, representing a critical approach in enabling the country to navigate the changing knowledge-based economy while remaining relevant to the global economy. These beliefs were embraced and became a compass for universities as they implemented curricular reforms and took the lead in making Singapore competitive regionally and globally.

2.4 The New Millennium As reform gathered pace in the new millennium, the extensive restructuring of university education became one of Singapore’s most important public policies. These included reform of the public university funding and governance system, institutionalisation of the university quality assurance system, the internationalisation of university education to build a regional education hub in Singapore, and the restructuring and corporatisation of the public universities, NUS and NTU (Lee & Gopinathan, 2008). Priority continued to be placed on having a highly skilled and adaptable workforce to sustain economic development and keep Singapore competitive. Streaming of students entering secondary schools in Singapore was first introduced in 1980 following the Goh Report (Goh, 1979) that identified the rigidity of the Singapore school education system as contributing to high attrition rates and low levels of literacy attainment. The idea of having sufficient flexibility, sustainable within the education funding structure, that could cater to differing educational needs of the students became an important guiding consideration in educational policy making. Thus, a binary structure of polytechnics and universities, coupled with technical education provided by the Institute of Technical Education (ITE), served to prepare a workforce for a diverse spectrum of contributions, ranging from professionals and managers to technicians and skilled labourers. This approach formed a key pillar for manpower planning and continues to be a mainstay in the tertiary education landscape.

Higher Education in Singapore: Perspectives …

95

In particular, the technical skills developed through polytechnic education were deemed to be valuable to the economy of Singapore, such that the spaces for technical skills development needed to be maintained. This contrasted with the decision of the United Kingdom (UK) to convert polytechnics into universities in 1992, which contributed to a significant decrease in technical and vocational capacity in the workforce, resulting in manpower shortages in these areas. In fact, the strengthening of vocational training provision in higher education was specifically recommended in a report by the Commission on the Future of Higher Education (IPPR on the Future of Higher Education, 2013). Guided by this, and to avoid excessive competition for public resources for university education, Singapore was not keen to upgrade existing polytechnics into universities. Instead, the thinking was that by concentrating resources into a smaller number of universities, it would allow them to be on track for development into world-class universities. This was borne out by the rapid rise in global ranking of NUS and NTU, which stood at 25th and 47th, respectively, according to the recent 2020 Times Higher Education global ranking of universities. Furthermore, a two-pronged strategy of purposive specialisation and healthy competition aimed to ensure the most effective use of public resources in higher education development in the long run, without causing wastage of social resources resulting from excessive overlap of disciplines offered by the universities in Singapore. Thus, while there was inter-university competition, this did not apply to all disciplines but those which were deemed instrumental to Singapore’s economic development and in great demand by the labour market (e.g. business management and engineering). Profession-based disciplines such as education, journalism, law, medicine and social work were rigorously controlled in terms of where these programmes would reside among the universities, adhering to the principle of purposive specialisation. In the new millennium, several significant developments occurred in Singapore’s higher education landscape. Beginning with the official incorporation of the Singapore Management University (SMU) in 2000, supporting policies in higher education were further strengthened to drive the sector forward. Broadly, the transformations in this phase have been structured as: (I) infrastructural reforms, (II) a shift in key principles and approach to higher education and (III) progression of relationship between universities and the government. (I)

Infrastructural reforms Two main changes are discussed here, including the (a) establishment of a third university in Singapore, and (b) restructuring of the university system. (a)

Establishing the third publicly funded university The possibility of setting up a third university was first mooted in 1997 to meet the rising demand for university places in Singapore. However, instead of modelling after NUS and NTU, which were developed based on British universities, the third university was to follow an American approach so as to diversify the offerings from local universities (Official Report of Parliamentary Debates, 31 July 1997). Furthermore, the programmes of this university would be complementary to that of NUS and NTU, focusing on management, business and

96

H. M. Cheah and L. L. Lee

(b)

economics programmes (the name of the university reflects this focus). SMU also differed in an important aspect. Unlike NUS and NTU, which were set up as statutory boards, SMU was incorporated as a company. In fact, this pioneered the eventual corporatisation of all publicly funded universities as autonomous universities in 2006 (MOE, 2005). During the planning of this new university, the taskforce (which had strong leadership and inputs from both the business sector and academia) deliberated the implementation of SMU. In 1999, SMU signed a collaboration agreement with the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania to develop its curriculum and faculty. This approach drew on Wharton’s strong reputation as an institute with a modern and versatile business education. SMU’s curriculum was designed to be broad-based with built-in flexibility, allowing students to determine their subject combinations. The curriculum was delivered typically in seminar-style classes of up to 50 students, moving away from the more traditional large lectures and tutorial structure. Perhaps the most distinctive part of the curriculum was an explicit focus on developing students’ communication skills through its lessons, assignments, and project-based work. SMU also adopted distinctively different practices in student recruitment, becoming the first local university to adopt a holistic admission assessment comprising an interview, essay-writing and the use of the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT). SMU further differentiated itself by being the first university with a city campus, very much in line with its overall character as a university with a strong focus on business programmes. Starting from an initial enrolment of 1400, SMU now has undergraduate and postgraduate enrolments of 8656 and 2184, respectively (SMU, 2019). Restructuring the university system Continuing with the central theme of ensuring that universities remain relevant and in a position to meet national manpower needs, a committee to review the ‘University Sector and Graduate Manpower Planning’, chaired by then Minister of State for Education and for Manpower Ng Eng Hen, released its report in 2003 with proposals to refine the local universities. The structure outlined in the report consisted of two large comprehensive universities, which offer programmes for a wide range of disciplines, and three ‘niche’ universities focusing on specific strengths. Part of this was to transform NUS into a multi-campus university, with each of three autonomous campuses headed by a president. The main campus, situated within Kent Ridge would, together with an expanded NTU, form the comprehensive universities, whereas its remaining campuses and SMU became the ‘niche’ universities. The proposed campuses for NUS were

Higher Education in Singapore: Perspectives …

97

– NUS Kent Ridge (main campus) would retain its existing spread of disciplines with an annual intake of 6500 undergraduates and the total enrolment of 23,900 undergraduates. – NUS Buona Vista was to become a research-intensive university providing for 4000 postgraduates and offering a unique opportunity to 2000–4000 undergraduates with a research inclination in the fields of engineering, info-communications technology, and sciences. – NUS Outram would specialise in medical and health sciences education with an undergraduate enrolment of about 1000 and an enrolment of 200 students in the Graduate Medical Programme. NUS Buona Vista did not materialise, nor did the three campuses become independently autonomous. By 2020, the university did in fact operate three campuses, but under the leadership of one president. Specifically, NUS Bukit Timah campus was established in 2006 to house the Lee Kuan Yee School of Public Policy and the Faculty of Law; while NUS Outram houses the Duke-NUS Medical School. Under this restructuring, NTU added disciplines in the physical sciences, humanities and social sciences, and design and media to its range of programmes. The expansion would raise its annual intake from 4500 to 6500 undergraduates, and the total undergraduate enrolment from 15,000 to 23,000. SMU did not add additional disciplines but would raise its annual intake to 1700 from 600, resulting in a total undergraduate enrolment increase from 1400 to 7000. (II)

Shifts in key principles and approach in higher education Two important advances are discussed in this section. The first was the intentional increase of autonomy and accountability in universities. This was enabled and supported through various initiatives, for instance, deployment of the Quality Assurance Framework for Universities (QAFU); building of stronger links between industries and alumni; and partnering with world-class universities that had extensive experience and were successful in researchbased entrepreneurialism (e.g. the Singapore-MIT Alliance). The second was the move towards internationalisation of Singapore’s university education. This was accomplished by creating a three-tier university system, Global Schoolhouse Initiative and remodelling NUS as “a leading global university centred in Asia”. (a)

Increasing autonomy and accountability Having sufficient resources to run a university is essential, but having the expertise and experience to grow a university effectively require both strong leadership and a conducive environment to exercise that leadership. A comparative study of university governance and funding systems conducted by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in 1999 looked at top public universities in Canada, Hong Kong, UK and the USA. Its main conclusion was that the local universities needed

98

H. M. Cheah and L. L. Lee

sufficient autonomy with an appraisal and renumeration structure that was ‘market-sensitive’ (Lee & Gopinathan, 2008). This would allow the universities to compete for, and nurture, the top talents needed to become world-class. The recommendations of the “Fostering Autonomy and Accountability in Universities” report made in June 2000 were accepted, and progressively implemented from December 2000. The primary effect was to grant increased autonomy in financial and personnel matters to both NUS and NTU (Lee & Gopinathan, 2008). Policy makers hoped to: – strengthen the role of deans to carry out their management responsibilities in financial matters; – support and motivate faculties, departments, and academic staff members to prioritise academic activities and achieve their desired outcomes consistent with the needs of national and economic development; – increase the proportion for competitive bidding in research funding over time to spearhead ‘flagship’ research projects with strategic significance to Singapore. Greater autonomy necessitated a more robust system of checks to ensure that public resources were appropriately administered. A new quality assurance system, the Quality Assurance Framework for Universities (QAFU), was introduced that combined internal quality reviews with three-yearly external reviews commissioned by MOE. Under QAFU, each publicly funded university would have to measure its performance, through its internal reviews, against agreed upon indicators that covered each of the five areas of governance, management, teaching, research and service. The external quality review then served to validate the findings of the internal quality reviews. Upon completion of the external review, feedback would be provided to the university, which was then expected to respond by formulating actions that would address them. To administer QAFU, a Higher Education Quality Assurance Unit was set up after 2001 to oversee quality assurance in the government-funded post-secondary educational institutions. According to the final report of the QAFU released by the MOE, the three main purposes of the quality assurance framework are to: – ensure proper accountability for the use of public money; – help the public universities to become more agile, responsive and resourceful; and – enhance overall quality across the higher education system. The results of QAFU have a bearing on the funding level of the universities (Lee & Gopinathan, 2008), ensuring that the universities use it to guide their developments.

Higher Education in Singapore: Perspectives …

99

The recruitment and retention of top talents in teaching and research was a natural linchpin in the building of capabilities and capacity. This resulted in the reform and refinement of appraisal systems that would be based on performance rather than seniority, with an important marketdriven dimension to determine reward and recognition. While each university operated their own system, the salary component generally comprised of basic pay, individual or group bonuses, and other monetary rewards for extraordinary contributions. Apart from strengthening the quality of staff, the universities also vigorously put in place measures to attract top students. These included scholarships, enhancement of career opportunities through close linkages with industries and provision of high-quality environment for student life. The rapid rise of the reputation of NUS and NTU had made both increasingly attractive to top local and international students, particularly when coupled with well-equipped teaching and research facilities and a strong alumni network. One of the intended outcomes of granting greater autonomy was for the universities to actively develop stronger links with industries and alumni leading to additional sources of funding, as well as for the universities to be continually relevant to the needs of these entities and the wider community. These activities included providing research and consultancy services, such as for government agencies. Furthermore, the universities were encouraged to inculcate an entrepreneurial mindset (in Lo, 2014) both within the institutions and for their graduates. An important manifestation of this was the direct role that universities had undertaken to nurture start-ups and eventually spin-off the successful ones as companies. In particular, these companies leveraged the research and development expertise residing within the universities to develop commercially viable products, and in return provided the universities additional funding sources when successful. For instance, Unum Therapeutics, a spin-off from NUS, pursued development of a universal cell therapy for treatment of a range of cancers. These activities saw parallels in NTU, with spin-offs in the e-commerce and information technologies being examples. The focus on spin-offs seems to be steadily bearing fruits. For example, according to NUS’s Industry Liaison Office, the university now has more than 110 spin-off companies, and a recent NTU spin-off, Nanofilm Technologies, was aiming to raise up to $510 m in its IPO launch (Tan, 2020). The explicit exhortations to incorporate entrepreneurial skills development into university education reflected the belief that such skills and mindsets were necessary for Singapore to be successful in a knowledge-based economy, particularly when entrepreneurial capacity was not sufficiently encouraged during Singapore’s industrialisation period. To some extent, the success of the government in actively establishing processes and practices that were highly efficient might have the

100

H. M. Cheah and L. L. Lee

effect of dampening the need for the general population to experiment. Now recognising this need, there was a collective governmental effort through policies and concerted communications to re-focus and support entrepreneurial skills and mindset development. Higher education institutions, which could operate at the cutting-edge of knowledge, needed to play a strong role in cultivating such skills. A key way to do so was to forge partnerships with world-class universities that had extensive experience and were successful in research-based entrepreneurialism. By gaining experience and learning from the best available, the relatively young universities in Singapore could develop their own successes in entrepreneurialism and innovation, so as to be in a better position to meet the learning needs of a modern workforce in due course. An example to illustrate this approach was the Singapore-MIT Alliance (SMA), which is described below. A 1997 government-commissioned review of engineering education in Singapore, conducted by MIT, to address the perceived insufficiency of entrepreneurial attributes amongst engineering graduates led to the government inviting MIT to establish an education ‘alliance’ with NUS and NTU. The Singapore-MIT Alliance (SMA), aiming to enhance engineering education, was subsequently initiated. The main details of the SMA are (Sidhu et al., 2011): • The government absorbed much of the financial risks and provided extensive resources. This allowed MIT to be positioned as one of the largest providers of international students for elite US universities. • It eased administrative and bureaucratic hurdles that typically confront universities (e.g. seeking accreditation and negotiating quality assurance with national regulatory bodies) that sought to establish cross border initiatives. • Resources and personnel were deployed to support recruitment efforts (e.g. roadshows) throughout the region. • Bond-free scholarships were provided by the government to students, which removed the challenges of the Alliance partners having to levy fees so as to meet revenue targets in the competitive field of transnational education. • Considerable autonomy was also afforded MIT. Operationally, MIT devised the curriculum for the Masters coursework programme and gave shape to the Ph.D. programme. This meant that academic quality remained high. • Research projects were funded through the Alliance to facilitate engagement between Singaporean researchers and their MIT counterparts. Principal Researchers on these projects spent 2 weeks at the partner institution giving research seminars, networking and teaching.

Higher Education in Singapore: Perspectives …

(b)

101

A revised SMA was penned in 2005 to expand the focus to include the Sciences, specifically Biomedical Sciences. This revised SMA, termed SMA-2, also provided students the possibility of obtaining a dual Masters degree from MIT and either one of NTU and NUS. Using performance indicators including student enrolment, Ph.D. completions, publications and patents, the alliance was deemed to be largely successful. On the less positive side, most of the graduates tended to stick to ‘safer’ career options instead of responding to encouragements to take up the entrepreneurial opportunities. It was likely to take time to shift outlooks within a generally risk-averse environment. In additional, it also proved challenging to retain talented MIT postgraduate students, researchers and academic staff members. The MIT counterparts of NUS and NTU naturally brought with them an American approach to knowledge-driven entrepreneurialism. Over time though, there seemed to be a shift towards diversification, with a greater emphasis on connecting with Asian higher education institutions, resulting in increased regional collaboration. Internationalising university education Singapore gained a strong reputation for the quality of its education in the 1990s through to the new millennium. This was brought to the fore when Singapore students began topping international comparisons, particularly in TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) and PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), in which students from a large number of key economies participated. Strong performance in a wide range of parameters prompted intense local and international study of the Singapore educational system. Possibly leveraging this enhanced reputation, a policy paper resulting from the deliberations of the economic review committee (MTI, 2002) envisaged that education at all levels, including public and private providers, could be systematically developed into a key industry for the country. With a strong quality assurance structure in place, higher education represented a key component of the Global Schoolhouse approach (Lo, 2014) where an ecosystem of quality educational institutions provided a basis to establish Singapore as a strong education hub, pushing educational approaches, processes, pedagogies and assessments into ever higher quality of learning for local and international students. In the MTI paper, tertiary education had three major functions: 1. To create an environment that enhances research and development efforts and generates intellectual property. 2. To develop the manpower needed for new economic activities. 3. To establish itself as a quality global player by attracting significant numbers of full fee-paying international students to Singapore. Within this ecosystem, tertiary institutions, commercial and speciality schools, corporate training centres, as well as preparatory and boarding

102

H. M. Cheah and L. L. Lee

schools would provide programmes to meet the learning demands that arose from the individual and corporate learners. These various entities could then be supported by services including assessment and eLearning platforms. In higher education, a three-tier Singapore university system was proposed to support growth in this sector with the target of increasing the university CPR from 20% in the early 2000s to 25% by the year 2010 (Lee & Gopinathan, 2008). This tiered system is represented in Figure 2. The first tier consisted of up to 10 world-class universities that could set up campus in Singapore to focus on postgraduate education leaning towards R&D that could eventually transfer to industries. The second tier, involving publicly funded local universities, would be the mainstay for quality preparation for Singapore’s manpower needs. The third tier would consist of private universities with a focus on teaching and applied research that would provide places for foreign students. Here, even though the number of universities (especially local publicly funded ones) was placed under strict control by the government, it was open to invite foreign universities to set up privately run offshore campuses in Singapore. The three tiers are summarised in Table 3.

World Class Universies 1000 undergrads, 2000 post-grads

NUS, NTU, SMU *50,000 undergrads, 20,000 post-grads * Projected figures based on organic growth; in 2002, combined enrolment in NUS, NTU and SMU was 37,000 undergrads and 15,000 post-grads.

Addional Universies (Diversity: focus on teaching & applied research) **60,000 undergrads, 12,500 postgrads ** New students; an esmated 50,000 (40,000 undergrads, 10,000 post-grads) of the total number were esmated to be internaonal students.

Fig. 2 The proposed three-tier system of university in Singapore

Higher Education in Singapore: Perspectives …

103

Table 3 Summary of the proposed three-tiered higher education system Tier

Purpose

Remarks

First tier (Elite universities)

Focus is primarily on the delivery of postgraduate education, carrying out world-class research and development, and transferring knowledge to the industrial sector

Based on the ongoing World Class University (WCU) programme launched by the EDB under the auspices of the MTI to attract up to 10 world-class tertiary institutions to establish a presence in Singapore. By October 2002, nine top world-class universities were invited, including the MIT, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and Shanghai Jiao Tong University

Second tier (Existing local universities)

Conducting research and NUS, NTU and SMU development activities, catering for Singapore’s manpower needs, and providing education as a public good

Third tier

Focus on teaching and applied research and receive additional foreign students. When well developed, it should also target Singaporean students who would ordinarily have gone overseas to study, working adults/mature learners, and polytechnic graduates

Additional private universities (strengthened quality assurance mechanisms would be needed to ensure that academic programmes provided by the private universities in the third tier are of appropriate quality to compete on a level playing field for local research funding and local students)

In parallel with the three-tier system proposal was the introduction of the Global Schoolhouse Initiative (GSI) in 2002 that aimed to guide development of an education industry in Singapore. Spurred on by the Asian Financial Crisis to diversify and find new avenue streams, one attempt was to ‘monetise’ the strengths of the country by building on its well-recognised quality of its education system. By adopting an ‘import first, export next’ approach, the GSI served to facilitate a transformation towards a knowledge-based economy (Lo, 2014) by building workforce capability and simultaneously developing an education hub that could anchor the development of the education industry. ‘Import first’ represented the drive to bring in elite universities from around the world to establish a presence in Singapore, with the intent to run postgraduate programmes, and to establish research collaboration with local counterparts. ‘Export next’ meant riding on the reputation of the foreign universities and the strengths of the well-regarded local universities to attract a significantly increased number of foreign students,

104

H. M. Cheah and L. L. Lee

particularly from the South-East Asian region, China and India. Taken together, it was hoped that GSI would spearhead the robust development of an international market for university education with a wide range of programme offerings. Specifically, the GSI aimed to (Sidhu et al., 2011; Lo, 2014): 1. Extend financial support to an identified group of ‘world class universities’ to establish operations in Singapore. The sector was to be developed as a key export industry for generating national wealth in Singapore by enrolling a huge number of international students. 2. Attract 150,000 international students by 2015 to study in both private and state-run education institutions. This would supposedly see an increase in the contribution of higher education to the overall economy by 5% by 2015 (Basillote et al., 2016). Lo (2014) recognised several provisions made by the government to help achieve this goal. For example, the government provided a tuition grant scheme which waived part of the tuition fee of international students as a gratuity for a three-year stay in Singapore after graduation. “Talent scouts” were also deployed by established universities to comb the region and offer scholarships to talented young people. Meanwhile, international students who studied at 22 designated institutions were allowed to work up to 16 h per week. They were further allowed to stay in Singapore for one year to seek employment after graduation. 3. Re-model all levels of Singaporean education to inculcate the attributes of risk-taking, creativity and entrepreneurialism. The early period of GSI implementation saw the courting of primarily United States (U.S) institutions. These were universities with strong R&D traditions, particularly in the technology, science and management domains. The notable universities included MIT, Georgia Tech and Duke University, which were funded to conduct postgraduate programmes; Johns Hopkins University to focus on research in biomedical sciences; and the Chicago Graduate School of Business to establish business education in Singapore. As GSI matured, more non-US based institutions, such as INSEAD and the Indian Jain School of Management, joined, reflecting the greater diversity in later years. Setting up offshore campuses in Singapore was not without its challenges for foreign universities. In 2005, Warwick University from the UK abandoned its plans to be present in Singapore after an internal study of financial viability and academic processes indicated potential difficulties. The Division of Biomedical Sciences of Johns Hopkins University in Singapore was asked to close its operations in 2006 on the grounds that it did not deliver on agreed performance indicators, such as the recruitment of doctorate degree students. The University of New South Wales (UNSW), which set up UNSW Asia to operate in

Higher Education in Singapore: Perspectives …

105

Singapore and opened on 12 Mar 2007, represented an initially remarkable achievement in being the first full-fledged private university with both undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. However, it closed on 28 Jun 2007 due to financial issues and lower than expected student enrolment. Perhaps the mixed results in attracting renowned foreign universities to Singapore, operational problems, and the desire to propel local universities to world-class standards (particularly for NUS and NTU), prompted considerable investment in the local universities. In the case of NUS, a key development at the end of the 1990s was the articulated strategy of transforming NUS into a ‘Global Knowledge Enterprise’, with the purpose of enabling ‘NUS to be to Singapore what Stanford is to Silicon Valley’ (Sidhu et al., 2011). Specially, the key foci were to • Effect a change of mindsets amongst the staff to embrace an entrepreneurial spirit in order to become resourceful, innovative and pioneering. • Build a borderless knowledge community by removing obstacles and barriers to departmental and faculty interactions. • Produce students who would become ‘citizens of the world, versatile and alert to global as well as local opportunities, willing participants in lifelong learning, with a sense of personal responsibility and moral obligation to contribute to society’ (Shih, 2000). This remodelling of NUS was premised on fulfilling this long-term vision with substantial support from the government. In operationalising this shift, the steps NUS took included (Sidhu et al., 2011): (1) Setting up NUS Enterprise to coordinate the global knowledge enterprise activities undertaken by the various academic and research department. An Entrepreneurship Centre and a Venture Support Unit was established under this division. While the former researched entrepreneurship, the latter provided assistance to students, staff and alumni who engaged in innovation activities. (2) Setting up an Overseas College Programme to enable the brightest undergraduate students to work as interns at high-tech start-up companies located in five key sites—Silicon Valley, Philadelphia, Shanghai, Stockholm and Bangalore. Over the course of a decade or so, these international locations have diversified, and pivoted towards more Asian locations, particularly in ASEAN countries, China and India (NUS Enterprise, 2018). (III)

Progression of the relationship between universities and the government Perhaps one of the most crucial elements in Singapore’s higher education landscape was the transition of the universities towards greater autonomy. At the start of the millennium, although NUS, NTU and SME were publicly

106

H. M. Cheah and L. L. Lee

funded, the first two were operating as statutory boards, whereas SMU was incorporated as a company. Following the new policy framework government, and aided by SMU’s operational experience, all three universities were redesignated ‘Autonomous Universities’ in 2005. This enabled the universities to exercise greater autonomy and self-governance, consistent with the belief that the universities needed greater freedom to be able to effectively compete internationally, with the caveat that there was sufficient scrutiny of the public funds disbursed to the universities (in the guise of QAFU, mentioned earlier). Corporatisation signalled a fundamental shift in the relationship between the universities and government. Although the government retained its role as the main funding body, it essentially left operations to the universities, playing instead a macro-role in defining the national direction. The universities would self-govern through monitoring and external quality assurance assessments and, navigate their own paths to fulfil their obligations and meet national needs.

3 The Future of Higher Education in Singapore—Some Considerations The higher education landscape has continued to evolve since the policy changes and implementations of the early 2000s. The number of autonomous universities has risen from three in 2000 to six currently, with the addition of SIT, SUTD and SUSS. Collectively, the enrolment numbers have seen increases in line with the projected number of funded university places. These are reflected in Table 4, which compares the changes in intakes and enrolments in publicly funded universities since 2003. Table 4 Undergraduates enrolment and intake of publicly funded university system 2000 to present NUS

NTU

SMU

SIT

2000

Comprehensive Intake: 6421 Enrol: 21,233

Sci & Tech Intake: 4506 Enrol: 14,583

Business & Mgmt Intake: 305 Enrol: 305

2010

Comprehensive Intake: 6568 Enrol: 25,189

Comprehensive Intake: 6132 Enrol: 22,862

Business & Technology Mgmt Intake: 523 Intake: Enrol: 523 1686 Enrol: 6721

2019

Comprehensive Intake: 7847 Enrol: 30,033

Comprehensive Intake: 6482 Enrol: 23,063

Business & Technology Mgmt Intake: 2718 Intake: Enrol: 7714 2365 Enrol: 8656

SUTD

SUSS

Tech & Design Intake: 415 Enrol: 1730

Social Sciences Intake: 886 Enrol: 2601

Higher Education in Singapore: Perspectives …

107

Before reviewing the key trends in recent years that could potentially have had a strong bearing on both the content and delivery of higher education, it is useful to first reiterate the close relationship between higher education and economic imperatives. The drive towards sustainable economic growth has had a strong influence on what is taught and researched. A key strategy that helped Singapore’s growth was to embrace external ideas and practices, so that beneficial ones could be adapted for implementation locally. This strategy seems to be increasingly difficult to execute as Singapore’s economy matures, and the world enters new and uncharted territories, particularly as the pace of technological advances continually disrupts traditional industries, leaving few exemplary ideas and practices to adopt. Perhaps this has prompted the turn towards building local capacity, having recognised that in certain important areas, Singapore could potentially provide regional, if not global leadership. The policy changes highlighted earlier, such as the internationalisation of NUS, seem to have demonstrated an underlying desire to equip local universities to be able to strive competitively in an increasingly uncertain social-economic environment. This increased focus on local capacity building has readjusted the balance between developing local knowledge and adapting overseas lessons. In either case, there is a need for the local population to be in a position to meaningfully use the ideas developed, whatever the origin, in ways that would benefit the country as a whole. To this end, the push towards developing citizens with transnational adaptability, and who are self-sufficient, innovative, entrepreneurial and committed to continual self-development begins to take precedence. These are the attributes deemed to be crucial for the local workforce to compete effectively for national economic health. The universities, and subsequent professional development spaces provided through universities and other entities, represent opportunities for the development and deepening of these attributes. Progress has been made in this direction as the effects of reforms and restructuring of the higher education landscape begin to be felt. In particular, both NUS and NTU have become top university choices in the region and have been ranked within the top 50 universities globally in recent comparisons. As an education hub, Singapore has also seen a rapid growth of foreign students, with some 75,000 students in 2015. However, this has generated negative sentiment among local students as competition for places in local schools and universities has become intense. This has somewhat limited foreign student growth, leading to reductions in student enrolment; there was a drop in student numbers from 65,000 in 2018 to an estimated 50,000 in 2019. As technological improvements and increasing experience in online learning has shown during the COVID-19 pandemic, this could all change as actual physical presence on campus is now less crucial. This aspect will be discussed shortly. The experience with UNSW Asia, as well as the closure of local campuses of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and the Tisch School of the Arts of New York University in 2014-5, hinted at the need to re-think the approach in establishing a strong education hub in Singapore. These closures do not just point to the financial realities for foreign universities to operate in Singapore, they also seem to indicate that when compared to local universities that have achieved international recognition, it would take a truly elite university to stand a chance at succeeding in Singapore.

108

H. M. Cheah and L. L. Lee

As alluded to above, all these could be moot as key trends in recent years could well point to an entirely un-experienced higher education landscape in the near future. Overall, it seems clear that Singapore will have to re-evaluate its strategy for higher education in terms of positioning itself as a premier destination for learning, and develop higher education as a key enabler to meet the country’s economic needs. At the same time, meeting local students’ aspirations would also need to be taken into consideration (Basillote et al., 2016). It is against this backdrop that four key trends are highlighted for discussion in this section, namely, (1) demands as observed from the last decade; (2) higher education in the context of industry 4.0; (3) technologies and the (impact on) delivery of learning and finally (4) learning analytics and support for students. (1)

(2)

Key trends in the last decade (or so): Demands Having a university degree has mostly been regarded by Singaporeans as an important conduit to better employment. Given the strong link between education and economic needs, it should come as no surprise that demand for university places rapidly increased as globalisation took root in the recent two decades, signalling the need to compete for good jobs not just within the country but with the global economy. The Gross Enrolment Rate (GER) is reviewed and revised continually, with a significant proposed increase in 2011 from 25 to 40% by 2020. The then newly founded SUTD and SIT (both in 2009) were expected to provide a significant number of university places to meet the added demand (Natarajan et al., 2016). Given the demand for more articulation pathways from polytechnic graduates to university degree programmes, SIT had, in fact, been set up initially to provide for this. Apart from these new AUs, part of the increased places was also to be provided by then SIM University (UniSIM), a private university providing degree programmes for adult learners, which eventually became SUSS in 2016. The last two decades has seen an increasing demand for technical proficiency and skills to meet a more high-tech and globalised environment. However, given the fast-changing nature of technologies and their rapidly evolving applications, it seems unlikely that any higher education programme could provide a knowledge base that would be sufficient to last a worker’s lifetime. If anything, the rapid obsolescence of skills and knowledge has been taken as a fact for the working adult (Backes-Gellner & Janssen, 2009; Chifamba, 2020; Van Loo et al., 2001). A key response to this was to encourage workers to meaningfully participate in lifelong learning. To this end, the ‘SkillsFuture’ initiative that was introduced after a government-driven reform committee looked into ways to improve technical education and career guidance systems, strengthen workplace partnerships, develop better career pathways, and expand apprenticeship opportunities so graduates can be better placed and prepared for work (Fung, 2020). In effect, this recognises the need for continual education and training (CET), indicating a paradigm shift in higher education and lifelong learning. Key trends: Higher education in the context of Industry 4.0

Higher Education in Singapore: Perspectives …

109

In 2016, Schwab (2016) argued that the world was witnessing a new industrial revolution, one that would fundamentally change the way we live, work and relate to each other. According to him, Industry 4.0 is characterised by new technologies that would fuse the physical, digital and biological worlds, impacting all forms of learning and interactions. This brave new world would be a combination of cyber-physical systems, the Internet of Things and the Internet of Systems. Importantly, it would redefine how manufacturing would transform towards that state where production engines would be able to incorporate data intelligently to analyse and make decisions for the entire production chain. According to the Boston Consulting Group, the impact would be wideranging, affecting the foundational elements of a society—economic growth, education, global trade, health, poverty and much more. Sharing at the AsiaPacific Association for International Education (APAIE) in 2018, then Minister of Education (Higher Education and Skills) Ong Ye Kung highlighted that technological advancement was such that work would be fundamentally organised in ways that jobs of the future would be unrecognisable, and that these jobs could not be accurately anticipated today. Coupled with work re-organisation, it would also be likely that social interactions would change in fundamental ways, that the fourth industrial revolution would create an environment of unpredictability that redefine the ways in which human interactions take place. While these are indeed grim predictions, and could well come to pass, and that little could be done, or should be done, to tamper the technological advances, how human society respond could still be very much dependent on how society wishes to organise itself. As an illustration of what alternative possibilities can exist, consider the case of Perpetual Guardian (PG) (https:// www.perpetualguardian.co.nz/), an estate planning company in New Zealand. As PG grew, the owners decided that the company’s productivity gains would be shared with the employees in the form of experimenting, and later establishing, a 4-day working week without reduction of income. By making this choice, PG bucked the traditional trend that private corporations tended to enrich the coffers of the owners. This demonstration of alternative distribution of company resources to achieve a better work-life balance for the employees points to the possibility that society, as a whole, could determine the kind of work environments they want, and how to share in the overall gains of private enterprises. Thus, instead of an environment dominated by fears of lost income due to disappearance of jobs, perhaps an alternative perspective would look at technologies as the tools that could finally free up time for human beings to pursue individual passions, especially pursuits that would benefit society. Nevertheless, the effects of the fourth industrial revolutions are visible, and that preparations needed to be made to better enable society to evolve relatively painlessly towards new equilibriums. From the education perspective, paradigmatic changes to curriculum and assessment methods seem to be called for (Natarajan et al., 2016). The argument is for the need to shift away from an over-emphasis on academic grades, and towards a focus on achieving and measuring learning outcomes. As to what these learning outcomes ought to

110

H. M. Cheah and L. L. Lee

be would require a further, more in-depth discussion and analysis. For now, it suffices to imagine that these outcomes would benefit both the individual as well as society. One way to make this shift would be to judiciously develop multiple pathways for learners, so that relevant and sensible pathways that best suit the development of the individual student could be offered. Ong further emphasised the importance of an education system that supports lifelong learning (Ong, 2018). And that the learning environment needed to recognise the diversity of strengths and talents amongst the learners, as well as to cultivate passiondriven learning processes that would be self-directed, lifelong and resilient to disruption. To achieve this, several priorities were highlighted: (a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(3)

Develop a curriculum that can provide effective opportunities for experiential learning. This recognises that being able to apply knowledge is much more highly valued in today’s context, particularly when skills are being honed through practice. Hence, learning experiences such as through work attachments, and partnering industry to co-create learning programmes should become the norm in due course. Promote digital literacy given its basic importance in today’s international commerce. Curriculum changes must be made to ensure that students are well-versed in this twenty-first century competency. Support students to identify and pursue their interest, as it will keep them motivated to learn through life and achieve mastery in the process. This could be achieved through creating multiple pathways, as well as to diversify the recognition and admission of students. The polytechnic route is a good used case for this approach; MOE studies suggest that polytechnic students admitted based on aptitude and interest in the course perform better in their studies, compared to their counterparts with similar OLevel aggregate scores. These students are also far more likely to embark on careers in the sectors in which they were trained, compared to those admitted based solely on academic grades. Support and develop a culture for lifelong learning.

It seems clear that Singapore needs to re-examine its economic growth strategies, and with that the education that the workforce receives. Key trends: Technologies and Delivery of Learning It is possible to broadly conceive of learning as two overlapping processes, that of ‘transfer’ and ‘deepening’. A transfer learning process primarily refers to the transfer of values, skills and knowledge (VSK) from the various sources to the learners. Traditionally, the main source has been the teacher, where systematic transfers occur through steady classroom interactions that largely follow a pre-determined curriculum. With the advent of the internet, and subsequently the introduction of web 2.0 interactivities, the number of sources of VSK rose considerably. While the teachers still somewhat maintain a central position in the transfer process, they are no longer able to control what the students pick up from other sources, which include google searches, formal online learning

Higher Education in Singapore: Perspectives …

(4)

111

institutions (such as Columbia University), private learning companies (such as Udemy, edX) and social networks. These sources collectively shape not just what the students learn, but also how the learning takes place. Perhaps more crucially is that technologies are increasingly enabling the transfer process to be self-directed, and in important cases, to be semi-automated, i.e. where learning online is supplemented by online tutors; or even fully automated. Importantly, the Covid-19 imposed isolation has accelerated the transition to non-face-to-face learning, literally opening up the learning spaces to online interactions overnight. While leveraging online interactions for the transfer process can be challenging, such as in terms of proper content curation, the quality of learning might not suffer (McDaniel & Fraser, 2016). If anything, probably a good proportion of learners might even find that online learning suits them well. In fact, up to certain complexity level, an automated, or semi-automated, learning environment can serve the transfer processes rather well, where a student can learn at a suitable pace whilst having the ability to revisit or expand sources of learning once sufficient learning skills have been developed in the new environment. By and large, it is probably safe to say that the transfer part of learning can potentially be very well served by technology-enabled environments. On the other hand, the ‘deepening’ process is different. ‘Deepening’ here refers to the ability to apply learned VSK to both familiar and new context. This requires not just the skills to apply the learnings, but more importantly, the ability to weave the complexities involved into workable solutions. In other words, there is a need to make connections across different pieces of VSK within and beyond the discipline where VSK situate. This is where technologies would still lack behind a human teacher, unless of course, Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies matures sufficient to effectively imitate human ‘wisdom’ and judgement. Until that point in time, it seems logical that the teacher plays a more dominant role for deepening processes. The insertion of technologies into the learning processes will likely continue unabated. For the moment, it seems that sufficient successes have been notched up such that technologies can largely take over the transfer processes effectively. Until they can also dominate the deepening processes, pedagogical responses from learning institutions need to focus on shifting the role played by teachers towards the deepening end of the learning interactions. For instance, flipped learning represents a useful example of this shift, where the transfer learning can be done by the students on their own, while the teachers bring these learnings into deeper understanding and applications for the students. The impact of framing learning in similar manner when incorporating technological contributions signals the strong need for teaching and learning interactions to be re-balanced towards an environment where the teacher spends most of his/her efforts on the deepening processes. Key trends: Learning Analytics and Student Support Not only are technologies able to provide for transfer processes in learning, perhaps they have also fundamentally shifted the learning relationship between

112

H. M. Cheah and L. L. Lee

the learners and the tools used. With the incorporation of data analytics within the technology assisted/enabled interactions, the machine is now able to learn about the learners, such that important information about learning approaches, preferences, content misconceptions and so on can be acquired. When used effectively and ethically, this reveals new possibilities in how students can be supported in their learning. It needs to be pointed out, however, that these learning analytics technologies are still largely in their infancy. Their applications and interpretations need to be carefully developed. For instance, learning analytics that promise to ‘predict’ how a student would perform in the future often rely solely on past data. It has not yet evolved to the point where learning behaviours, such as unexplained changes in learning routine, impact engendered by recent emotional episodes, etc. are taken into account and properly analysed. Using such systems blindly in determining if a student may prove successful or at risk would create innumerable difficulties. On the whole, learning analytics can provide a useful platform for higher education institutions to design strong learning support for the students, which would require a balance between machine generation information and exercise of human judgement to correctly tune the support system for greater effectiveness. Universities which can incorporate this would likely succeed not just in enhancing student learning, but potentially in extending the accessibility of their programmes to much large number of students. The potential for effective transnational education, for instance, could mean that reputable universities create even more student enrolment. On the other hand, such technologies could give upstart universities a real chance to increase their presence in the higher education landscape. In other words, technologies such as learning analytics and those for ‘transfer’ learning would likely rock the established order, and can considerably expand the provision of degree programmes for the masses.

4 Concluding Remarks Singapore’s higher education landscape, very much like the country itself, continually evolves to ensure that national needs are met. The various reforms and policy changes over the years reflect the strong connection between economic imperatives and university education. In fact, the changes seen within the higher education landscape can easily be understood in these terms, and that each change has been clearly designed to ensure that the local workforce remains competitive globally. With the more recent shift towards an aptly called fourth industrial revolution, brought about through a combination of technological advances and a global economic philosophy that had dominated the world for at least the recent century, the urgency to reshape higher education to become more nimbly adaptive to the new and future environments is painfully apparent. This chapter has introduced some of the key trends that will affect how this reshaping needs to be done. While the required

Higher Education in Singapore: Perspectives …

113

responses would vary for each university, some general directions seem clear. These can be summarised as follows: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

Curricular changes that are flexible, tailored to individual needs and experiential; Admission practices that are holistic; Assessment practices that achieve a good balance between academic and reallife performance; Learning deliveries that are well-balanced between technologyenabled/assisted and human interactions; Learning environments that leverage technologies to provide effective learning support; Lifelong learning to continually provide the learner with the VSK to successfully negotiate an uncertain and changing environment; Holistic preparation of students that include soft skills development.

Two further points need to be articulated. First concerns the nature of a university education, and second, briefly mentioned earlier, relates to the kind of economic environment that society can construct. With the introduction of the CET initiatives, and the desire to provide highly flexible learning, strategies such as the modularisation of learning into small, bitesize components have been put in place. While these are good initiatives that are highly beneficial for the acquisition of skills that are work-related or for personal actualisation purposes, such approaches call into question what a university education constitutes. Without overstating, there seems to be a reasonable consensus to date that a university education should develop a person into a committed, productive and contributing member of society (Gleason, 2018; MOE, 2018a, 2018b). It is not merely a place to prepare a student for work, but also an environment that develops depth and capabilities for the graduate to function in life and the community. Assuming that this purpose of a university education can be broadly accepted, then it necessarily translates into three overlapping learning foci that a university education should embrace. These can be variously expressed, but the gist of it is that they contain the development of cognitive depth, life skills and ‘learning extension’. Development of cognitive depth strives to provide a student with a sufficient profundity of thinking that is specific to the chosen discipline. The premise is that once the student is sufficiently skilled to negotiate complex concepts at the ‘degree level’ for this discipline, the student would have the training and skills to reach similar level of thinking capabilities in related and perhaps unrelated knowledge domains. This epitomises the spirit of lifelong learning, in that it provides a strong foundation for the learner to build expertise in other areas as well as gaining further depth in the starting discipline. For a learner to be a contributing member of society, it is important that life skills such as communication, empathy and resilience be developed. Furthermore, learning needs to be situated within ethical boundaries, so that not only would a graduate be in a position to exercise his/her skills, these skills would hopefully be directed through considerations that would work to the benefit and not to the harm of others. Life

114

H. M. Cheah and L. L. Lee

skills development are not new, but they are gaining renewed importance given the uncertain and vulnerable environments that are to come. University programmes would need to make explicit their connections to life skills development through curricular changes as well as assessment practices. ‘Learning extension’ refers to the ability of the students to make connections between what they learn and how the learnings can be applied in real-world context. To a good extent, it represents the ability to apply VSK, but is more than that. It also requires the learners to develop interdisciplinary skills, skills that would enable them to integrate lessons from other relevant disciplines to address complex challenges, particularly those that are anchored in society spaces. For instance, addressing the issue of pollution in a transportation hub (such as a train station or a bus stop) would require concerted and integrative efforts from environmental scientists, data analytics engineers, architects, social scientists and even behaviours scientists to name but a few. University programmes thus have to provide the space and time to expose students to different areas of learnings, diverse perspectives/outlooks, and importantly, the ability to knit these together meaningfully. A final point concerns the direction of society. Since early industrialisation, the economic model that has emerged and dominated thinking is the free-market model. While this has brought unprecedented progress, the distribution of gains is not necessarily ideal in many economies (Piketty, 2014; Stiglitz, 2013). This chapter does not aim to debate the merits of this economic model. Rather, it serves to point out that societies have come to a point where varying layers of challenges are surfacing, from inequalities to climate change, and that universities have a role to play not just in providing the training for a workforce, but also to consider providing a curriculum that would benefit society. An interesting possibility is to have a focus on ‘common goods’, where programmes promote collaborations and applications of VSK that can be operated within the understanding that the individual is necessarily situated within communities, and that economic gains, while of primary importance, should always include elements that would be beneficial to society. To do this would mean that the life skills development could take on a more important position, that the nurturing of ethical and empathetic attributes should accompany learning in university.

References Backes-Gellner, U., & Janssen, S. (2009). Skill obsolescence, vintage effects and changing tasks. Applied Economics Quarterly, 55(1), 83–104. Basillote, L., Gradus, Y., Lamb, J., Sharoni, T., & Thng, M. (2016). Singapore’s higher education cluster. Harvard Business School. Bercuson, K. et al (Eds). (1995). Singapore: A case study in rapid development. International Monetary Fund. ISBN: 1557754632. Chifamba, C. (2020). Career flexibility: A panacea to skills obsolescence. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies 12–16. Education in Singapore. (Last edited 2021, January 10). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Education_in_Singapore

Higher Education in Singapore: Perspectives …

115

Fung, M. (2020). Developing a robust system for upskilling and reskilling the workforce: Lessons from the SkillsFuture movement in Singapore. In Anticipating and preparing for emerging skills and jobs (pp. 321–327). Springer, Singapore. Gleason, N. W. (2018). Higher education in the era of the fourth industrial revolution (p. 229). Springer Nature. Goh, K. S. & Education Study Team. (1979). Report on the Ministry of Education 1978 (pp. 4–1). Singapore National Printers. Call no.: RSING 370.95957 SIN. Goh, C. B., & Tan, L. W. H. (2008). The development of university education in Singapore. In S. K. Lee, C. B. Goh, B. Fredriksen & J. P. Tan (Eds.), Toward a better future: Education and training for economic development in Singapore since 1965 (pp. 149–166). The World Bank. IPPR Commission on the Future of Higher Education. (2013). A critical path. Securing the Future of Higher Education in England. Retrieved from: https://www.ippr.org/files/images/media/files/ publication/2013/06/critical-path-securing-future-higher-education_June2013_10847.pdf Lee, M. H., & Gopinathan, S. (2008). University restructuring in Singapore: Amazing or a maze? Policy Futures in Education, 6(5), 569–588. Lo, W. Y. W. (2014). Think global, think local: The changing landscape of higher education and the role of quality assurance in Singapore. Policy and Society, 33, 263–273. Lung, N. (2018, March 27). Singapore Minister of Education on the importance of higher education reform for Industry 4.0. OpenGovAsia. https://opengovasia.com/singapore-minister-of-edu cation-on-the-importance-of-higher-education-reform-for-industry-4-0/ McDaniel, D. C., & Fraser, B. J. (2016). No significant difference phenomenon for technology-based learning environments. Journal of Education Research, 10(3). Ministry of Education, Singapore. (MOE). (2005, April 12). NUS, NTU, SMU to become Autonomous Universities [Press Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.nas.gov.sg/archiveso nline/data/pdfdoc/20050412991.htm Ministry of Education, Singapore. (MOE) (2015). Education statistics digest 2015. Retrieved From: https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/publications/education-statisticsdigest/esd-2015.pdf Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2018, October 11). Singapore’s University Landscape [Press Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/committee-on-university-education-pat hways-beyond-2015/singapore-university-landscape Ministry of Education, Singapore. (MOE) (2018, October 11). Value of a university education. Committee on university education pathways beyond 2015. Retrieved from: https://www.moe. gov.sg/news/committee-on-university-education-pathways-beyond-2015/the-value-of-a-univer sity-education Ministry of Education, Singapore (MOE) (Updated, 2020, November 2). Government recurrent expenditure on education per student (January 1, 1986 to December 31, 2019). Retrieved from: https://data.gov.sg/dataset/government-recurrent-expenditure-on-education-perstudent?resource_id=1b84f2f7-b11e-4705-af17-82b67f050b85 MTI. (2002). Developing Singapore’s education industry. Economic Review Committee, Ministry of Trade and Industry, 2002. Natarajan, U., Hoe Yeong, L., & Gopinathan, S. (2016). Globalization and Higher Education. The changing context and landscape in Singapore (No. 3). THF Working Paper, Working Papers Series. National University of Singapore, Industry Liaison Office: http://www.nus.edu.sg/ilo Ng, P. T. (2011). Singapore’s response to the global war for talent: Politics and education. International Journal of Educational Development, 31(3), 262–268. NUS Enterprise. (2018, January 9). NUS overseas colleges expands near and far. Retrieved from: https://nusenterprise.medium.com/nus-overseas-colleges-expands-near-and-far-75cc3e684539

116

H. M. Cheah and L. L. Lee

Ong, Y. K. (2018). Speech by Mr Ong Ye Kung, Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills), at APAIE 2018 Conference and Exhibition. Retrieved from: https://www.moe.gov.sg/ news/speeches/speech-by-mr-ong-ye-kung--minister-for-education-higher-education-and-ski lls--at-apaie-2018-conference-and-exhibition Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Belknap Press. ISBN: 067443000X. Report on the Ministry of Education (Goh Report). (1979, February 9). Retrieved from: https://ere sources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/8f0a445f-bbd1-4e5c-8ebe-9461ea61f5de#12 Rigg, J. (1988). Singapore and the recession of 1985. Asian Survey, 28(3), pp.340–352. Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution. Published by World Economic Forum. ASIN: B01AIT6SZ8. Shih, C.-F. (2000). NUS—A global knowledge enterprise. Inaugural address by the Vice-Chancellor of the National University of Singapore 1 June 2000. Sidhu, R., Ho, K. C., & Yeoh, B. (2011). Emerging education hubs: The case of Singapore. Higher Education, 61(1), 23–40. Singapore Management University. (2019). Statistical highlights. Retrieved from: https://www.smu. edu.sg/sites/default/files/smu/statistical_highlights_20190916.pdf Singapore Management University History: https://www.smu.edu.sg/about/history Stiglitz, J. E. (2013). The price of inequality. W.W. Norton. ISBN: 0393345068. Tan, T. (2019, September 3). Parliament: NUS has largest endowment fund of $5.9 billion, followed by NTU with $1.9 billion. The Straits Times. Retrieved from: https://www.straitstimes.com/ politics/parliament-nus-has-largest-endowment-fund-of-59-billion-followed-by-ntu-with-19-bil lion Tan. (2020, October 17). NTU’s nanofilm spin-off may raise up to S$510m in IPO. The Business Times. Retrieved from: https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companies-markets/ntus-nanofilmspin-off-may-raise-up-to-s510m-in-ipo The conclusions and recommendations. (1980, March 16). The Straits Times, p. 11. Retrieved from Newspaper, S. G., & Dainton, F. S. (1979). Report on university education in Singapore, 1979 (pp. 3–4, 7–8). Prime Minister’s Office. (Call no.: RSING 378.5957 DAI) Van Loo, J., De Grip, A., & De Steur, M. (2001). Skills obsolescence: Causes and cures. International Journal of Manpower

Post-secondary Education Institutions Internships—The Singapore Experience Shien Chue, Ethan Pang, Priscilla Pang, and Yew-Jin Lee

Abstract This chapter describes the landscape of formal internship programmes available in our Singapore education context. Focusing on internship programmes offered by the three main types of institutions that define the Post-Secondary Education Institutional (PSEI) space in Singapore, Universities, Polytechnics, and the Institute of Technical Education, we posit internships as an integral part of the curriculum and a critical element of learning. We begin by tracing the roots of internship in these broad institutional categories to highlight the organisation and nuances of the various internship programmes. We will also attempt to draw connections between the development of internship programmes and the Singapore SkillsFuture initiatives and to suggest some areas for enhancement. Keywords Internship · Undergraduate curriculum · Workplace learning · Continuing education

1 Introduction Internship is a form of experiential learning that integrates knowledge and theory learned in the classroom for practical application and skills development in a professional setting (CEL, 2014). It is a high-impact practice where students gain valuable S. Chue (B) Centre for Research and Development in Learning, Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Drive, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] E. Pang Office of Student Wellbeing, Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Drive, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] P. Pang Centre for Experiential Learning, Singapore University of Social Sciences, Clementi, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] Y.-J. Lee National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Walk, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_7

117

118

S. Chue et al.

applied experience through work-based exposure to a broad range of operations within an organisation and make connections in professional fields they are considering for career paths (Crossley et al., 2007; O’Neil, 2010). Where internships first originated in the US, recent estimates suggest that around 1.3% of the entire US labour force are interns and around one-half of college students report completing an internship as part of their studies (Carnevale & Hansen 2015) cited in Owens and Stewart (2016)). Similarly in Europe, data from the Eurobarometer shows that 46% of all young European people reported undertaking an internship (European Commission, 2013). Increasingly, internship has become an integral part of school-to-work transition, acknowledged as a possible strategy to smoothen the school-to-work transition for the promotion of graduate employability (Sin & Amaral, 2017). Internships are not to be confused with Vocational Education and Training (VET), traditionally associated with formal insitutionalised work-learn programmes in countries such as Austria and Germany which have been relatively successful in maintaining stable employment rates among young people throughout the global financial crisis (OECD, 2015). Preparing the individual for the workforce by way of learning through the process of work (Billett, 2011), VET is also perceived as the driver of industralisation of East Asian countries in response to changing market needs (Fredriksen & Tan, 2008). Focusing on specific trades and technical skills for individuals to engage in specific occupational activity, VET structures instructional space for skills transfer important for providing employment opportunitites as well as enhancing the productivity of firms (Agrawal, 2013). Importantly, high-quality vocational education pathways can help engage youths for learning and ensure transitions from school to work (Quintini & Manfredi, 2009) in addition to developing a highly skilled and diverse labour force. While there is no agreed international definition of what constitutes an internship, a reasonable working description is that an internship involves a continuous period of work experience with an employer usually lasting between a few weeks and one year (in some rare cases even longer) but which is neither part of a regular employment relationship nor a formal apprenticeship (O’Higgin & Pinedo,2018). The provision of internship is generally directed towards engaging students in associated fields of occupational practice and developing capacities likely to influence employability on graduation (Billett et al., 2018). In Singapore, a typical internship programme in a post-secondary education institution includes students being selected as interns after evaluation by companies. The duration of the internship generally ranges between 8 and twenty-six weeks and internship performance is assessed either by an academic member or the industry mentor or both. The internship gives students the opportunity to be selected by the company for full-time employment after completion of their post-secondary course or develop competencies that increase their employability (Bhattacharya & Neelam, 2018). Internship in Singapore is at one end of the industry experience spectrum nested within the curriculum of post-secondary education institutions (MOE, 2018a). It often requires a tripartite collaboration between employer, student, and post-secondary

Post-secondary Education Institutions Internships …

119

education institution as an accredited programme. Potentially, it is also at the intersection of the work and pedagogical sites that learners have the opportunity to navigate the terrain of professionalising themselves for the workplace (Virolainen et al., 2011). Student interns are typically required to cross the boundary between work and school as part of their formal education in higher education settings. They are expected to perform knowledge transfer and engage in learning as an ongoing process of participation in suitable activities where context is the background of their learning (Goodwin & O’Connor, 2009). For business organisations offering internships, interns are often an inexpensive source of labour (Divine et al., 2007), a vibrant source of new ideas, and potentially future employees of the company (Lam & Ching, 2007). With manpower and skill shortages, interns may be the flexible workforce for business organisations to fill skill shortages without much emphasis on the development of the intern (Zopiatis, 2007). Internships are also opportunities for employers to evaluate and identify talent for the business organisation and simultaneously create strong ties with the institutions of learning as well as a positive image in the community (Beard, 2007). In Singapore, government grants through the Global Ready Talent Programme (GRT) cover up to 70% of the monthly internship stipend and help promising local enterprises to engage and attract local talents to join their companies on internship (Enterprise Singapore, 2020). Importantly, stakeholder analysis identifies students, universities, and industry as primary stakeholders engaged in internship and embedded in an education context operating within a broader government policy framework (Hoyle & Goffnett, 2013; Patrick et al., 2008). Within the education system of Singapore, how are internship programmes organised for students? This chapter traces the roots of internship in the broad institutional categories to highlight the organisational landscape within which the internship serves as an integral means for learners to engage in learning at work.

1.1 Bridge Between Theory and Practice: Universities Singapore’s six autonomous universities not only offer myriad undergraduate programmes but also actively prepare learners for today’s economy as well as for a future one with new jobs and challenges that do not exist today. Nanyang Technological University Singapore (NTU) adopts a practice-orientated programme to train engineers (Lu, 1995). The Office of Professional Attachments (OPA) launched its first practical attachment programme in NTU for engineering students in 1984 and expanded to offer industrial attachment for applied science students in 1991. Foundations for internship were laid during those early years where questions such as duration, compulsory or optional attachment, the structure of programme, remuneration, assessment, and status of the student during attachment guided the development of the internship programme. Academic staff would visit students on internship and carry out the assessment in conjunction with the organisation supervisor guided by a progress report, logbook assessment, and assessment of work in organisations. At

120

S. Chue et al.

the end of the attachment, students are required to submit a written report to their NTU supervisor for assessment, and the student needed to score a Pass before they could proceed to the final year of study (Hwang & Thim, 1995). The twenty-four weeks of practical training during the penultimate undergraduate year offered pioneering graduates opportunities to be employment-ready and were highly sought after by employers. This was reflected by healthy employment outcomes reported in the 1985 Graduate Employment Survey where most pioneering graduates, some of them having received job offers from their internship companies, were able to secure private sector jobs at competitive salaries despite the standstill in the construction industry (Thim, 2012). Within the Office of Professional Attachments (OPA), functions expanded over the years to include formulation, administration, and implementation of the local and overseas industrial and professional attachment programmes for accountancy, business, and communication studies students in conjunction with the respective schools. It also organised workshops and talks to prepare students for their job search and maintained a Resource Corner containing materials on employers for students to refer to for career guidance, career planning, and management (NTU, 2003). OPA evolved over the years to become the Career and Attachment Office today. Currently, there are local and international internship programmes ranging from ten to thirty weeks available for undergraduates. The current internship programme is an outcome-based one that aims to improve graduate work-readiness through educating learners in the skills and abilities employers look for (NTU, 2020a). For gaining entrepreneurial experience in global innovation hotspots, the Overseas Entrepreneurship Programme (OEP) at NTU aims to equip students to be ‘future-ready’ by accelerating their entrepreneurial and innovative pursuits (NTU, 2020b). Officially established in 1980, the National University of Singapore (NUS) is the oldest and largest public university in Singapore (Ho et al., 2010). Most students undergo the internship programme as part of their undergraduate curricula. The Centre for Future-ready Graduates is the university’s dedicated career centre. It manages a job portal that provides students access to internship opportunities. A feature of how the university supports internship is the curation of internship opportunities for engineering students and social sciences students during the Special Term of 6 to 8 weeks during the summer vacation. Practical training aimed at exposing students to the realities of the workplace is an integral part of the education at NUS and is mandatory in disciplines such as engineering, building and estate management, architecture, medicine, and dentistry. For example, undergraduates of the Building and Estate Management course may undertake a twelve-week internship with an organisation in the construction or real estate industry in their penultimate year. Their work is supervised by a staff member of the university and a senior person from the organisation to which they are attached. Similarly, architecture undergraduates perform a supervised internship in a company for a minimum of 8 weeks during the Special Term or 24 weeks during the regular semester, submitting weekly logbooks and internship reports for the evaluation of their internship. More recently, the Undergraduate Professional Internship Programme (UPIP) introduced in Academic Year

Post-secondary Education Institutions Internships …

121

2011/2012 as an unrestricted elective programme allowed NUS Science undergraduates to learn about career preparation and the job search process while exposing them to the practical day-to-day working environment (NUS, 2014). Moving towards an ‘entrepreneurial university’ model (Etzkowitz et al., 2000), NUS began a programme under its NUS Overseas College (NOC) to send its brightest undergraduate students to five entrepreneurial hubs around the world to work as interns in high-tech start-up companies for one year, during which they would also take courses related to entrepreneurship at partner universities in the region. In essence, the internship model represented an experiment in learning entrepreneurship through ‘immersion’ where the student becomes an apprentice in a high-tech start-up or growth enterprise in a foreign location to expose themselves to the tacit aspects of entrepreneurial practice and foreign business culture. While the internship programme does not expect students to be able to start their own ventures right after graduation, it aims to infuse them with an entrepreneurial mindset and orient them towards commercialisable innovation, as well as influence their future career choices in more entrepreneurial and innovative settings (Wong et al., 2007). To date, NUS has several overseas colleges—one in the Silicon Valley in partnership with Stanford University; another in the Bio Valley in partnership with the University of Pennsylvania; and others in Philadelphia, Shanghai, Stockholm, Bangalore, and Beijing (Wong et al., 2011). There are no additional fees to be paid by students and two-thirds of the cost is borne by the internship companies to which students are attached to (Singapore Parl. Debates, 2002). To meet the rising number of graduates required for the economy, the third university, Singapore Management University (SMU), was established in 2000. While NUS and NTU were developed largely based on the British university model, SMU was American-style and also the first publicly funded autonomous university (SMU, 2001). Focusing on management, business, and economics, SMU complements the two existing universities NUS and NTU. A mandatory internship programme with a minimum duration of 10 weeks defines the SMU undergraduate programme (SMU, 2005). The average SMU student completes between 2 and 6 internships during their degree programme, attesting, thus, to the perceived value of internship. The university has redesigned its undergraduate core curriculum to include internship as a credit-bearing programme from the academic year 2019/20 onwards (SMU, 2018b). According to the university website, more than 1 in 2 SMU students secured employment before graduation, and 1 in 4 students received job offers before graduation through the SMU internship programme (SMU, 2014). At this point of writing, SMU is introducing one academic credit for internships of 10 weeks or longer. Rigour for conferring this academic credit includes additional preparatory modules such as a revamped Finishing Touch career-preparatory programme for students, writing guided reflection journals, and submission of an internship report as part of the internship assessment. Singapore University of Technology and Development (SUTD) was established in collaboration with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Zhejiang University in 2009. It is a small, top-tier research-intensive university focusing on design education in engineering and architecture and cultivating an entrepreneurial spirit in

122

S. Chue et al.

students. The curriculum offers a modern engineering and architecture education that crosses traditional departments enabling students to finish eight terms in three and a half years, which is faster than other Singapore autonomous universities. With a common curriculum for all students in the first three terms, this foundation curriculum requires students to take mandatory classes in the Sciences; Mathematics; Design Thinking; Programming; and Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences. Beyond the core subjects, all students have to undertake two internships of sixteen weeks duration, held during the summer vacation each year. It has been reported that one in four SUTD graduates secured a return job upon completion of their internship (SUTD, 2019). With a focus on the practical application of specialised knowledge and the preparation of students for specific professions with a strong connection to the industry and economy, Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) and UniSIM (now Singapore University of Social Sciences, or SUSS) were identified as the two new applied universities spearheading the applied degree pathway (MOE 2014). SIT programmes have a focus on science and technology. It offers its own applied degrees as well as degree programmes in partnership with reputable overseas universities that have a strong emphasis on practice-oriented learning. Specific to this university, internship takes place at local or international settings as an industry induction programme which spans over 2–4 months during the first year of the undergraduate studies. As it is non-compulsory, there is no formal assessment of learners in this induction programme. The purpose of this induction programme is to enable students to perform more confidently when they embark on the Integrated Work Study Programme that incorporates paid work semesters with performance evaluation. Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) offers an applied education to fresh school leavers and adult learners through its Schools of Business, Humanities, and Behavioural Sciences; Science and Technology; and Law; the SR Nathan School of Human Development; and College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning. It adopts an admissions model that takes into account one’s prior education and work experience and has a diverse student profile combining fresh school leavers and working adults taking classes and working on group projects together. The university champions lifelong learning and embraces a 3H education philosophy: ‘Head’ denoting solid disciplinary fundamentals with an applied focus, ‘Heart’ denoting social awareness and consciousness leading to positive changes to society, and ‘Habit’, independent and self-driven learning as a lifelong habit (Cheong, 2018). Integrated into its full-time degree programmes and a graduating requirement, the Work Attachment Programme requires students to undertake at least twenty-four weeks of work attachment to gain experience, exposure, and network in real-life work settings and encounters. Students have undertaken local work attachments as well as overseas ones in locations such as Vientiane and Bangkok and even with China’s largest Internet services provider Tencent in China (SUSS, 2018). They are mentored and supervised by specialists with extensive work experience and their progress is monitored through weekly reflection journals, site visits by the specialists, mid-term review meetings involving the specialists and students’ workplace supervisors, and a final report.

Post-secondary Education Institutions Internships …

123

Clearly, the internship is an aspect of undergraduate studies in the local universities, though it is of varying emphasis, duration, and structure across the six institutions. While it is mandatory at NTU, SMU, SUTD, and SUSS, it is non-compulsory at SIT where it serves as an induction programme to ready students for the Integrated Work Study Programme that they would embark on. Internships are supervised and/or assessed at a few AUs, and by a faculty or university staff member who may do site visits to the students’ workplaces. Students may be required to submit assignments such as reflection journals, logbooks, and written reports. The minimum duration appears to be 6 weeks and the maximum thirty weeks. We turn now to the internship programme in other PSEIs, namely the Polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education.

1.2 Multiple Pathways: Polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) Beginning with only one polytechnic setup as early as in the 1950s to train craftsmen and technicians to support the industrialisation of Singapore (Straits Times, 1954, June 16), Singapore currently has five state-funded polytechnics that train aspiring professionals to support the technological and economic development of the country. Reflecting the wide range of abilities and aptitudes of students, the polytechnics seek to train students with relevant and specific skills for the workplace. The polytechnics are also a significant provider of continuing education and training for working adults. The five polytechnics in Singapore are namely Singapore Polytechnic, Nanyang Polytechnic, Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Republic Polytechnic, and Temasek Polytechnic. Being practice-oriented education institutions, they offer students a threeyear programme oriented towards practical careers linked to specific job needs and demands in the market. They typically admit students with GCE O-Level qualifications. One of the features of polytechnic education is the strong emphasis on practice-based learning. Work attachments with industry partners are part of the curriculum and can vary in duration from six weeks to six months or longer for selected courses. These work attachment programmes provide students with valuable on-the-job experience and the opportunity to work with industry experts. The provision of internships began in 1976 when the Singapore Polytechnic was entrusted with the task of training 60% of Singapore’s technicians (Tan, 1994). While students were initially ‘encouraged’ to sign up for internships, it was made compulsory in 1982 for all second-year full-time students and given legs in the form of the Skills Development Fund which allowed companies to claim 90% of the SGD250 (maximum) allowance for each intern. While this funding ceased in 1989, there were nonetheless some 900 companies that approached the Singapore Polytechnic to offer placements while bearing the full cost of the interns’ allowances (Singapore Polytechnic, 2007). In 1992, the academic calendar was adjusted to facilitate a longer sixteen weeks of work attachment and the implementation of a structured industrial

124

S. Chue et al.

training programme (Singapore Polytechnic, 1992). Currently, the Industry Services Centre at the Singapore Polytechnic organises an annual twenty-two weeks industrial training programme for students enrolled at the polytechnic, and similar internship programmes are also available within the other four polytechnics. Driving considerations behind the provision of internships to polytechnic students was the global evidence of a high percentage of youth unemployment due to economic conditions (OECD, 2015). In America, for example, there were 3.8 million job openings but 11.8 million unemployed. This was due in part to a mismatch between skills and qualifications in demand and the skills and qualifications that people had (MOE, 2014). The state of youth unemployment in Finland, standing at 16.8%, and in South Korea, at 10.5% (OECD, 2019), reinforces the employability discourse that a degree qualification is not a guarantee of a job and that there must be alignment between skills supply and job demand. Hence, in 2014, the Singapore government convened the Applied Study in Polytechnics and ITE Review (ASPIRE) committee to better strengthen the applied education pathways in the polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) and provide graduates with good career and academic progression prospects. Consequently, Enhanced Internships were introduced in 2015 for polytechnic students to align their skills with industry demand and provide a strong base for skilled work, business ownership, and entrepreneurship. Internships, long accepted as a core programme of polytechnics, were further ‘enhanced’ with governmental intervention through the Singapore SkillsFuture initiative that required companies to assign a workplace mentor to the intern in addition to structuring job scopes with learning outcomes. Alongside this, the government also urged all industry and trade associations to be actively involved in the planning of Singapore’s future manpower resource needs and to support internship programmes wholeheartedly. Through internships, students could have first-hand experience of the work environment and engage in reflection on their personal interests, strengths, and growth potential in the industry, therefore helping them to chart their future career paths. Internships also helped employers to identify and recruit talent. However, it was found that often it was the larger corporations that had the capability to provide internships and attract talent while traditional, small, and medium enterprises lacked the proper system for manpower resource planning and training (Shanmugaratnam, 2015). The Enhanced Internships programme was an important component of a strategic partnership between polytechnics and industry organisations. Underpinned by government support, this structured programme was made available to Year Two and Year Three polytechnic students. It is now an integral part of polytechnic education where practically all students are required to go through. Over a duration of twelve weeks, students experience the ‘university of life’, understand the vocation that they want to go into, cultivate their passions, and observe role models within the industry (MOE, 2016). With the ‘enhancement’, polytechnics, under the guidance of academic advisory councils comprising industry representatives and academic staff, conduct the regular course and curriculum reviews to ensure that course content remains updated and aligned with industry needs. This entails increased involvement on the part of companies in developing and training interns in order to help

Post-secondary Education Institutions Internships …

125

them prepare better for their transitions into the workplace (Nanyang Polytechnic, 2018).

1.3 Institute of Education (ITE) A review of the education system in 1990 led to key changes in the Singapore post-secondary education landscape. Firstly, all students would undergo ten years of general education, which included six years of primary education and four years of secondary education, to equip them with a stronger foundation for further studies and training. This stemmed in part from employers’ preference for workers to have at least received secondary-level education, so that they could be more easily retrained in response to technological advances. Secondly, the Normal (Technical) stream was introduced in secondary schools to prepare students who were more technically inclined (SVITB, 1992; Varaprasad, 2016). As a result, in 1992, the Vocational Industrial Training Board was restructured and elevated to a post-secondary educational institution, the Institute of Technical Education (ITE), to provide higher level vocational and technical courses. Postrestructuring, however, the new institution continued to suffer from the poor public image of vocational and technical education—it was perceived as the educational institution of ‘last resort’ and associated with ‘losers, low achievers, and school dropouts’. In response, the ITE embarked on a journey of transformation starting with the first five-year strategic plan, ITE 2000 (1995–1999), which included raising pedagogic and professional competencies, a rebranding campaign, and infrastructural upgrading and expansion to create a network of 10 modern campuses across Singapore (now reorganised into three regional colleges) (Law, 2015). In the early days of the ITE, internships were loosely defined and consisted of short hours of on-the-job training. Interns may find themselves performing tasks without supervision and learning outcomes were not met (Ting, 2019). With the Enhanced Internships programme established by ASPIRE in 2015, government policy encouraged a practice-oriented approach in the provision of work-based learning at the ITE. It capitalised on the strong theoretical foundational learning in the technical institutions and used the workplace as a learning environment to develop deep skills capabilities needed for real-life work (Ting, 2019). As a result, the Enhanced Internships formalised work-based learning through the setting of specific learning objectives and defining specific sets of skills and competencies to be attained by interns through a set of prescribed tasks. By 2016, a total of sixty-three courses (or 62% of all ITE courses) in the Business and Services, Engineering, Info-Comm Technology, Electronics, Design and Media, Hospitality, and Applied and Health Sciences schools offered Enhanced Internships. It is anticipated that by 2020, Enhanced Internships will be available in all ITE courses, with durations ranging from three to six months and support coming from industry partners (MOE, 2015).

126

S. Chue et al.

Internships are one key component of experiential learning at the ITE (MOE, 2018b) as skills are not just taught in traditional classroom settings. Through internships, ITE students gain practical working experience, connect with people working in the sector as well as understand how the real world works and how the industry really is. It has been described as a make-or-break journey for both the student and the host company as they decide if they are indeed suitable for each other. More importantly, the government hopes to use Enhanced Internships to spark interest in and passion for the sector among students. It was a move lauded as mutually beneficial to students and the industry (MOE, 2016).

1.4 Concluding Remarks: Internships in the Space of Skills Future Initiatives With important and overlapping educational and employment imperatives driving the provision of internship, it is unsurprising that the PSEIs described above have organised the internship, compulsorily or optionally, within their academic framework. Partnering with the PSEIs are private and public sector companies who offer staff and resources to provide these experiences as well as guide and monitor students during their internship. This is most evident in the joint assessment of students’ learning during the period of internship undertaken by several AUs and the internship companies. Critically, internship is about experiential learning at the boundaries of school and work and will require serious considerations of the interaction of classroombased and workplace-based learning within the context of national policy, societal norms, and expectations (Evans, 2009). Within the larger work-learn space in Singapore, the Singapore Government launched the SkillsFuture initiative in 2014 to prepare the Singaporean workforce to face the future world of employment. Four key thrusts undergird the direction of this national movement: helping individuals make well-informed choices in education, training, and careers; developing an integrated, responsive, and high-quality system of education and training; promoting career development based on skills and mastery; and fostering a culture that supports lifelong learning. Part enactment of this movement has also resulted in the creation of the SkillsFuture Division within the Ministry of Education that plans and formulates policies to support continual learning. It collaborates closely with PSEIs in order to develop multiple pathways for skills acquisition and mastery. Hence, the Ministry of Education now oversees preemployment education for students and continuing education and training for adult workers to align formative education and adult learning as one seamless lifelong journey. Continuing education and training with an applied focus is now the order of the day for every individual, and universities contribute to this endeavour through the provision of skills training, speedily and responsively, to enable the workforce to adapt quickly to new jobs (Cheong, 2018). This journey requires learners and

Post-secondary Education Institutions Internships …

127

organisations alike to weave to and fro, across and between, sites of learning and work (Bound & Lee, 2014). Internships offer a view of what it might mean to be doing work-learn in the midst of informing and reaffirming one’s career prospects, interests, and character development (Popov, 2020), alongside structural policies envisioning learning as lifelong, skills-based, and passion-driven (MOE, 2019).

References Agrawal, T. (2013). Vocational education and training programs (VET): An Asian perspective. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 14(1), 15-26. Beard, D. F. (2007). Assessment of internship experiences and accounting core competencies. Accounting Education,16(2), 207–220. Bhattacharya, S. & Neelam, N. (2018). Perceived value of internship experience: A try before you leap. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 8(4), 376–394. https://doi.org/10.1108/ HESWBL-07-2017-0044 Billett, S. Cain, M., & Le, A, H. (2018) Augmenting higher education students’ work experiences: Preferred purposes and processes. Studies in Higher Education, 43(7), 1279–1294. https://doi. org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1250073 Billett, S. ( 2011). In Vocational education: Purposes, traditions and prospects. Springer. Bound, H. & Lee, W. (2014). Teaching and learning across boundaries: Work, classroom and in between. Advances in Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1). http://tlc.unisim.edu.sg/res earch/AdvSoTL Carnevale, A. P. & Hanson, A. (2015). Learn and earn: Career pathways for youth in the 21st century, E-Journal of International and Comparative Labour Studies, 4(1) ,76–89. CEL. (2014). Centre for engaged laerning. Retrived from website https://www.centerforengagedle arning.org/doing-engaged-learning/internships/ Cheong, H. K. (2018). A Singapore University catering to the needs of a population amidst a volatile and changing economy. In C. Teo Anthony Soon (Ed.), Univer-cities: Strategic dilemmas of medical origins and selected modalities: Water, quantum leap and new models (Vol. 3, pp. 205– 229). World Scientific. Crossley, J. C., Jamieson, L. M., & Brayley, R. E. (2007). Introduction to commercial recreation and tourism: An entrepreneurial approach. (Vol. 5, pp. 309–310). Sagamore. Divine, R., Linrud, J., Miller, R. & Wilson, J. H. (2007). Required internship programs in marketing: Benefits, challenges and determinants of fit. Marketing Education Review, 17(2), 45–52. Entreprise Singapore. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.enterprisesg.gov.sg/non-financial-ass istance/for-singapore-companies/talent-attraction-and-development/internships/global-ready-tal ent-programme-for-companies/internships Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhart, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entreprenenurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330. European Commission. (2013): The experience of traineeships in the EU. Flash Eurobarometer (pp. 378). Evans, K. (2009). In Learning, work and social responsibility. Springer. Fredriksen, B., & Tan, J. P. (2008). East Asia education study tour: An overview of key insights. An Africa exploration of the east asian education experience, World Bank. Goodwin, J., & O’Connor, H. (2009). Continuity and change in 40 years of school to work transitions. Journal of Education and Work, 22(5), 341–342. Ho, Y. P., Singh, A.,& Wong, P. K. (2010). National university of Singapore. The development of university-based entrepreneurship ecosystems, 149–176.

128

S. Chue et al.

Hoyle, J., & Goffnett, S. (2013). A stakeholder framework for designing and directing effective marketing internships. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 21(1), 1–15. Hwang, N. B., & Thim, L. Y. (1995). Industrial attachment programme in engineering: NTU’S experience. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 11(3), 232–238. Lam, T., & Ching, L. (2007). An exploratory study of an internship program: The case of Hong Kong students. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(2), 336-351. Law, S. S. (2015). A breakthrough in vocational and technical education: The Singapore story. (pp. 126–127, 171–172). World Scientific Publishing. Lu, S. (1995). The making of a university of industry and business: The NTU story (pp. 11–12). Nanyang Technological University. Call no.: RSING 378.5957 SIN. Ministry of Education. (2018a). Speech by Mr Ong Ye Kung, Minister for Education, MOE FY 2018 Committee of Supply Debate Response, Singapore. Retrieved from https://www.moe. gov.sg/news/speeches/moe-fy2018-committee-of-supply-debate-response-by-minister-for-edu cation-higher-education-and-skills--mr-ong-ye-kung Ministry of Education. (2018b). Speech by Mr Ong Ye Kung, Minister for Education, at the ITE Graduation Ceremony 2018, at the Tay Eng Soon Convention Centre, Singapore. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/speech-by-mr-ong-ye-kung--ministerfor-education--at-the-ite-graduation-ceremony-2018--at-the-tay-eng-soon-convention-centre Ministry of Education. (2016). Opening address by Mr Ong Ye Kung, Acting Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills). Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/openingaddress-by-mr-ong-ye-kung--acting-minister-for-education-higher-education-and-skills-at-themou-signing-ceremony-for-the-power-engineering-sector Ministry of Education. (2015). Opening address by Mr Ong Ye Kung, Acting Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills). Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/addressby-mr-ong-ye-kung-at-the-signing-ceremony-for-enhanced-internship Ministry of Education. (2014). FY 2014 Committee of Supply debate: Reply by SMS Indranee Rajah. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/fy-2014-committee-of-supplydebate--reply-by-sms-indranee-rajah Nanyang Polytechnic. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.nyp.edu.sg/content/dam/nyp/admiss ions/life-long-learners/skills-future-singapore/enhanced-structured-internship/enhanced-intern ship-%20sep2018.pdf National University of Singapore (NUS). (2014). Faculty of Science Annual report. NUS, Singapore. Retrieved from: http://www.science.nus.edu.sg/images/aboutfos/publications/AR_2014.pdf NTU. (2020a). Retrieved from webste https://www.ntu.edu.sg/tlpd/tlr/DesigningYourCourse/OBT LinNTU/Pages/index.aspx NTU. (2020b). Retrieved from website http://www.ntc.ntu.edu.sg/Programmes/oep/Pages/OEPCurriculum.aspx Nanyang Technological University. (2003). NTU Calendar, Annual 2003–2004. OECD. (2019), Youth unemployment rate (indicator). https://doi.org/10.1787/c3634df7-en (Accessed on 26 November 2019). OECD. (2015). OECD skills outlook 2015: Youth OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/978 9264234178-en O’Higgins, N., & Pinedo, L. (2018). Interns and outcomes just how effective are internships as a bridge to stable employment? ILO Working Papers 994999791602676. International Labour Organization. O’Neil, N. (2010) Internships as high impact practice: Some reflections on quality. Peer Review, 12(4), 4–8. Owens, R., & Stewart, A. (2016). Regulating for decent work experience: Meeting the challenge of the rise of the intern. International Labour Review, 155(4), 679–709. Patrick, C.-J., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., & Pretto, G. (2008). The WIL (Work Integrated Learning) report: A national scoping study, [Final Report], Queensland University of Technology, available at https://eprints.qut.edu.au/44065

Post-secondary Education Institutions Internships …

129

Polytechnic, S. (2007). Industrial attachment: A bitter medicine? P Gan Eds Moberly…And untold stories of SP A publication of the Student and Alumni Affairs Department. (pp. 106–107). Popov, J. (2020). Boundary crossing and identity re-negotiation in internships: The integrative, future-oriented and transformational potential of interns’ identity project. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 24, 100383. Quintini, G., & Manfredi, T. (2009). Going separate ways? School-to-work transitions in the United States and Europe. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 90, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/221717700447 Sin, C., & Amaral, A. (2017). Academics’ and employers’ perceptions about responsibilities for employability and their initiatives towards its development. Higher Education, 73, 97–111. Singapore Management University. (2014, June 10). Quick facts. Retrieved from Singapore Management University website: http://www.smu.edu.sg/smu/about/university-information/quick-facts Singapore Management University. (2005). 100% of SMU Grads land jobs within six Months upon graduation with more than half offered employment even before they graduated. SMU Press Releases. Available at https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/oh_pressrelease/37 Singapore Parl Debates. (2002). Vol. 75, Sitting No 7; Col 960; 28–08–2002. Singapore Polytechnic. (1992). Singapore polytechnic annual report 1991–92. The Polytechnic, p. 9. (Call no.: RCLOS 378.5957 SPAR-[AR]). Shanmugaratnam, T. (2015). Budget speech 2015 - section C: Developing our people. Retrieved from http://www.skillsfuture.sg/speeches.html/lbudget-speeche-2015.html Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) (2018). Annual report. Retrived from https://www. suss.edu.sg/docs/default-source/contentdoc/comms/annualreport/ar2018.pdf Singapore University of Technology & Design. (SUTD, 2019). Retrieved from Singapore University of Technology & Design website. https://www.sutd.edu.sg/Student-Development/Career-Ser vices/Student/Internships Straits Times. (1954). $5 million technical school for S’pore. (1954, June 16). The Straits Times (p. 5). Retrieved from NewspaperSG. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/ straitstimes19540413-1.2.60 Singapore Vocational and Industrial Training Board. (SVITB) (1980–1992). Annual report 1991– 1992. The Board, p. 4. (Call no.: RCLOS 331.79407105957 VITBSA). Tan, S. (1994). First and Foremost: Training Technologists for the Nation: Forty Years of the Singapore Polytechnic. Singapore Polytechnic. Thim, L. F. (2012). One degree, many choices: A glimpse Into the career choices of the NTI pioneer engineering class of 85. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Ting, K. G. (2019). Study of structural and organisational factors on the skill acquisition and learning processes of Institute of Technical Education (ITE) interns during enhanced internship (National Institute of Education, Doctoral dissertation). Varaprasad, N. (2016). 50 years of technical education in Singapore: How to build a world class TVET system. World Scientific Publishing, p. 85. (Call no.: RSING 373.24609595 FIF). Virolainen, M. H., Stenström, M.-L., & Kantola, M. (2011). The views of employers on internships as a means of learning from work experience in higher education. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 63(3), 465–484. Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Singh, A. (2011). Towards a ‘global knowledge enterprise’: the entrepreneurial university model of the National University of Singapore. Academic entrepreneurship in Asia: The rise and impact of universities in national innovation systems. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (pp. 165–198). Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Singh, A. (2007). Towards an “entrepreneurial university” model to support knowledge-based economic development: The case of the National University of Singapore World Development. 35(6), 941–958. Zopiatis, A. (2007). Hospitality internships in Cyprus: A genuine academic experience or a continuing frustration?. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(1), 65–77.

The Dynamic Landscape of Adult Education in Singapore Helen Bound and Zan Chen

Abstract The evolution of adult education in Singapore mirrors this young nation’s growth from a third world to a first world nation; a nation that relies on its people as its only resource. Institutionally, adult education in Singapore was barely evident less than twenty years ago. Despite its short history (institutionally), adult education in Singapore is not only well established but a fast-growing, innovative space. The early history of funding for adult education in Singapore begins with legislated funding being established in 1979, along with training for non-professional and lower-skilled workers (1983), and a National Skills Recognition System (2000), which modelled closely those emerging around the world at the same time. However, it was the establishment of the Institute for Adult Learning in 2008 that has since seen a period of consolidation, acceptance, growth, and expansion. A combination of changing demographics and evolving national policy pushing lifelong learning, with calls to become a ‘learning nation’, to make the most of workplace and tech-enabled learning, has seen the mostly private for-profit training providers shift their practices and thinking. Additionally, the Institutes for Higher Learning (IHLs) are increasingly developing programmes for adults, marking a blurring of what were previously rigid boundaries between the formal education available for what is called pre-employment education and those in employment (i.e., adults). The impact on participation rates has of course been considerable, but not without its challenges. This chapter will briefly trace the history of adult education in Singapore, expound on its purposes and outcomes, official and less official, and consider current challenges. Keywords Training and adult education sector · Singapore · Policy · Workforce development · Adaptability · Ecosystem

H. Bound (B) · Z. Chen Institute for Adult Learning, SUSS, Clementi, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] Z. Chen e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_8

131

132

H. Bound and Z. Chen

1 Introduction In providing a brief account of the development of the Training and Adult Education (TAE) sector, the authors consider the adaptability of the sector and its trajectory in the light of dominant discourses, narratives, and practices. We use an ecological systems metaphor to consider the interactions and practices within the system, in light of different policy initiatives. The evolution of adult education in Singapore mirrors this young nation’s rapid growth from a third world to a first world nation; a nation that relies on its people as its only resource. This is an integral part of the Singapore story that is also evident in the evolution of this young sector. Institutionally, adult education in Singapore was barely evident less than twenty years ago. The first section of the chapter provides a brief historical account. In the second part of the chapter, the authors use the ecology metaphor to dive deeper into selected issues of competency-based training enabling the potential of workers, compliance regimes and spaces for innovation, workplace learning, and opening up learner’s pathways.

2 A Brief Historical Account of the Adult Education Landscape in Singapore In Singapore, adult education has always been inextricably linked to the notion of lifelong learning, largely conceived of as training. The first legislated funding (1979) to adult education was a mere 14 years after Singapore became a nation state in 1965. This was followed by funding and provision of training for non-professional and lower-skilled workers in 1983. The continuing theme of lifelong learning was evident in then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong’s May Day Rally speech in 1998: Looking beyond the immediate future we must focus on lifelong learning and employability in the long term. Our future prosperity will be built on a knowledge-based economy...The future economy will be driven by information technology, knowledge and global competition. The types of jobs change, and change rapidly. This means that workers must have broad basic skills and the capacity to learn new skills. Only then will they have employable skills throughout their working lives. So we must have Thinking workers and a Learning Workforce. (in Kumar, 2006, p.561)

Singapore’s strategic, pragmatic but forward-looking approach has always been mindful of its major resource—its people. This partially explains why the focus on workforce development and lifelong learning has been so strong in such a young nation and continues to be so throughout its short history. In 2000, a National Skills Recognition System was established, closely modelling those emerging around the world at the same time. Prompted by an economic downturn in 2001–2004, which included the SARS outbreak, the Singapore government in 2003 established the Workforce Development Agency (WDA), “to promote lifelong learning and make our workforce resilient and competitive” (Ong Ye Kung, Acting

The Dynamic Landscape of Adult Education in Singapore

133

Minister for Education, in MOM, 2016). A statutory Board, WDA, operated under the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to consolidate and rapidly expand the initiatives of previous decades (Willmott & Karmel, 2011). Among a key initiative of the WDA was the establishment of the Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) in 2005. The WSQ is a national credential system that trains, develops, and certifies the skills and competencies of the workforce, in alignment with industry needs. The WSQ articulates clear training and certification pathways for individuals to enhance their skills and progress in their careers and guide employers in training and developing the capabilities of their employees. As an occupational and competency-based system, WSQ does not require academic pre-requisites for entry. It facilitates the recognition of skills and competencies required for each job role (Lee, Chia & Chen, forthcoming). In a statement forecasting changes to come, then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Tharman Shanmugaratnam, at the official opening in 2014 of Singapore’s Lifelong Learning Institute, spoke of a bright and innovative future for Singapore’s trained workforce: In our next wave of development, we will build a first-rate system of continuing education and training: learning throughout life. It will intertwine education and the world of work in ways that strengthen and enrich both. It will make the workplace a major site of learning. It will enable every Singaporean to maximise his or her potential, from young and through life. It will build an advanced economy and ensure us of a fair society. (Shanmugaratnam, 2014, Point 6)

The hopes and aspirations of the continuing education and training system in this speech not only link education and work, highlighting the role of working and learning, but of this next wave of development contributing strongly to an inclusive, fair society within a strong, advanced economy. These sentiments enter the system at about this time, discussed further in the following section, The Shaping of CET. In this same speech, Shanmugaratnam also announced the formation of a tripartite SkillsFuture Council and a new CET Masterplan to oversee and strategically inform the next vocational skills development “wave”. The strategy included changing employment practices to challenge “the way in which companies develop and recognise skills” (Shanmugaratnam, 2014, Points 20–39). These aspirations were realised in the same year, 2014, with the launch of The SkillsFuture Movement. The intent of this government-driven initiative was to develop people to their “fullest potential throughout life, regardless of their starting points” as part of “driving Singapore’s next phase of development towards an advanced economy and inclusive society” (SkillsFuture Singapore, no date). The emphasis was on a move away from the high valuing of paper qualifications to an emphasis on skills mastery and a “mindset of continually striving towards greater excellence through knowledge, application and experience” (ibid). The SkillsFuture movement has four key thrusts: • Helping individuals make well-informed choices in education, training, and careers. • Developing an integrated high-quality system of education and training that responds to constantly evolving needs.

134

H. Bound and Z. Chen

• Promoting employer recognition and career development based on skills and mastery. • Fostering a culture that supports and celebrates lifelong learning. To better implement this vision, in 2016, WDA was split into Workforce Singapore (WSG) and SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG). WSG remained under MOM focusing on jobs and ensuring enterprises can become manpower-lean while remaining competitive (MOM, 2016). SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) came under the Ministry of Education to promote a culture of lifelong learning and to work with educational institutions and training partners to “build a vibrant landscape of high-quality, industry-relevant training” (ibid). SSG was also tasked to work closely with the industry to ensure its skill requirements are met. An additional objective for SSG was to break down the silos between pre-employment and continuing education and training (for adults in work or seeking work) to create greater “inter-operability between the vocational, academic, and adult training qualification systems” (ibid). SkillsFuture introduced a comprehensive range of programmes and initiatives targeted at different stakeholders, including initiatives such as education and career guidance, a one-stop online portal, and enhanced internships for youth, and for adult learners, SkillsFuture Credit and mid-career subsidies for course fees became available. Enterprises were provided with resources such as the new Skills Frameworks for 23 industry sectors; SkillsFuture Enterprise Credits;, for training providers, iN.LEARN 2020 (Innovative Learning 2020) to enhance blended learning; and the Skills Framework for the Training and Adult Education sector. The ecosystem of the TAE sector has become increasingly complex, reflecting the changing policies outlined above. Since the initiatives in relation to workplace learning, and innovation (largely in relation to blended learning with an emphasis on technology-enabled environments), networks and interactions with employers, and their representative bodies, licencing boards, unions and professional bodies, and of course other relevant government agencies have become a requirement to be an actor in the TAE sector. This is particularly so for training providers, public and private, but also for adult educators if they wish to ensure continuing work and to avail themselves of the opportunities that are afforded by such policies. Such affordances do, of course, come with their own challenges for all involved. More details on this can be found in the following section on Shaping the TAE sector. To wrap up this account of policy initiatives, it is evident that Singapore’s lifelong learning strategy and policy environment link the circumstances of its history with the contingencies of a willing engagement with contemporary globalisation (Bound et al., 2014). The TAE sector is well-funded and operates from a strong policy platform. What has not been covered in this brief history is what constitutes the TAE sector.

The Dynamic Landscape of Adult Education in Singapore

135

3 What Constitutes the Training and Adult Education Sector? The training and adult education sector addresses the learning needs of working adults. Funded offerings were for Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ) (competency-based) courses and modules, but now also extend to a range of other short courses. Historically, provision of training was through private for-profit training providers and a small number of public providers set up within the Polytechnics that had traditionally only catered for pre-employment students. The autonomous universities have now moved into this space, establishing Centres such as the School of Continuing and Lifelong Education (SCALE) at the National University of Singapore (NUS); students at the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) are largely working adults, and so on. The type of providers in the training and adult education sector is quite diverse, as evidenced in Fig. 1, illustrating the range of providers delivering WSQ and non-WSQ courses. Private education institutes refer to institutes that offer private education to the general public regulated by the Committee for Private Education (CPE). In-house providers are enterprises that have set up a training unit to design and deliver training. There were about 3000 training providers in Singapore as of 2018 (Chen et al., 2020). Close to 95% of the training provider respondents are small-medium enterprises with less than 200 employees. Almost half (46%) of these had less than 10 employees.

Fig. 1 Programmes and services offered by training providers (2020 Source Chen et al., p.18)

136

H. Bound and Z. Chen

Training providers, including the IHLs, engage and largely rely on adjunct (elsewhere known as associate, casual, short-term contract or, freelance) adult educators (AEs). Only about 40% of their AEs were employed on a permanent basis. The main work of AEs includes curriculum design, training facilitation, assessment, and the learning and performance consultancy (such as linking learning to business outcomes, identifying skills gaps, reducing gaps / lapse in business processes, and analysing organisational business needs and indicators of business performance). But more than 70% of these adult educators perform more than one role in their work. They are highly qualified in terms of academic qualifications (over 80% of them having at least Degree or above qualifications) and training qualifications (with 83% of them having at least one WSQ training qualification or equivalent). They are also quite experienced with at least half of them having more than five years of TAE-related working experience. More than 80% of AEs have experience working in a sector other than the TAE. However, only 1 in 3 AEs currently still hold an industry position other than TAE (ibid). Curriculum design processes have been and continue to be accredited by the Quality Management Division of SSG and previously of WDA. The funding follows from gaining approval of the curriculum. Historically, the requirements were very strict and onerous, but as the TAE sector has matured, SSG has sought to give greater control and autonomy to the providers. The historical legacy, however, is considerable and is discussed in the following section. As a sector made up largely of private for-profit providers, it is at times a struggle to develop quality training provision and quality adult educators, particularly as increasingly fast-paced change requires more and more of educators and greater flexibility. Again, however, SSG is highly cognizant of these challenges and has in place initiatives and programmes to grow and develop the sector. The Institute of Adult Learning, established in 2008, as part of the then WDA, and since April 2018 as an autonomous institute of SUSS, has a key role to play in the provision of programmes and support for the sector and of research that informs policy and practice. There is a close nexus between the practitioners and researchers in IAL with policymakers, who use research findings to inform policy initiatives. Likewise, within IAL and its work with practitioners, research is a core driver of approaches and initiatives. Singapore’s strategy is to develop its workforce towards a high skills economy, where “thinking workers and a learning workforce” (then Prime Minister Gohm Chok Tong, 1998 in Kumar, 2006) constitute a resilient and competitive workforce (Shanmugaratnam, 2014); the desire for a first rate continuing education and training system (now referred to as the Training and Adult Education sector), (Ong Ye Kung, Acting Minister for Education, in MOM, 2016) with the workplace a major site of learning, and a push to the use of technology-enabled learning environments are key threads in the history of Singapore’s adult education and training sector. The intent that these approaches “will enable every Singaporean to maximise his or her potential, from young and through life” to build an advanced economy and ensure us of a fair society (Shanmugaratnam, 2014) speaks beyond merely an economic focus,

The Dynamic Landscape of Adult Education in Singapore

137

to an approach to lifelong learning that is potentially beyond the individual role as a worker. A number of references in the descriptive account above indicate there are multiple forces and challenges that shape the training and adult education sector in Singapore. In the following section, the authors discuss these.

4 The Adaptability of the Training and Adult Education Ecosystem Before launching into the adaptability of the ecosystem of adult education and training in Singapore, it is useful to begin with an explanation of the metaphor of ecosystems as applied to the field of education. In ecological science, ecosystems are understood as different actors who relate to each other in wider systems. The introduction of expansion, contraction, or elimination of various species may significantly change overall balances (Pickett & Cadenasso, 2002). An ecosystem can be of any size, so long as it has a physical environment, organisms, and interactions. Bray and Kobakhidze (2015) observe that the concept is useful for highlighting concepts such as equilibrium, adaptability, and resilience within an ecosystem. These authors provide an explanation from Cremin (1976), who was one of the first users of the application of the ecology metaphor to education: Each of the institutions within a configuration interacts with the others and with the larger society that sustains it and that is in turn affected by it. Configurations of education also interact, as configurations, with the society of which they are part (p. 30). Relationships within configurations, Cremin points out, may be political, pedagogical, or personal; and they may be complementary or contradictory, consonant or dissonant (pp. 30–31). He adds that the analysis of these relationships “must be ascertained in their particularity rather than assumed in some sort of generality” (p. 32). (in Bray & Kobakhidze, 2015, p.466)

Actors in the ecosystem are adult educators and associated professionals, the several thousands of private for-profit training providers, in-house providers, the Institute of Technical Education (ITE), the five polytechnics, and the six autonomous universities. A critical actor is Singapore SkillsFuture Agency (SSG), which funds and sets the strategic direction for the sector. SSG sits under the Ministry of Education (MOE); its practices, such as high-stakes examinations and early streaming, shape adult learners’ expectations, fears, and hopes of formal education. Beyond these core players are those that have become increasingly important following the introduction of policies described in the first section of this chapter. These actors include professional bodies, unions, employer associations, licencing bodies, and other government agencies such as the Ministry of Manpower and the Ministry of Trade and Industry. Interactions in ecosystems are mediated by historical-cultural tools, including hegemonic discourses and collective narratives. Like any nation, Singapore comes with its own shared narratives that unconsciously and consciously inform daily and long-term social and political practice through establishing often subtle “rules of

138

H. Bound and Z. Chen

engagement” (Bound & Rushbrook, 2015, p.6). In examining the adaptability of and within the TAE ecosystem, it helps to understand what these narratives are, as they do indeed inform “rules of engagement”, impacting on the nature of interactions within the system. The dominant Singaporean social imaginary (“common understandings that make every day practices possible” (Appadurai & Taylor, in Rizvi, 2006, p.196) is the survival narrative of the “Singapore Story”. Framed by founding Prime Minister Lee et al. (1999), the Singapore Story is a pragmatic rendition of Singapore’s “can do” reputation embedded deeply in the national psyche. It holds that the country was founded in difficult times and, through a heroic struggle against almost insurmountable odds, was able to drag itself from Third World to First within the short space of fifty years (Lee, 1998). Pivotal to the success of this journey was the combination of strong political will and the contribution of the country’s only national resource, its people. Economic and social transformation, the Story continues, can never be taken for granted because of potential threats posed by the voluntary exposure to the global free-market economy and geographic location within a sometimes politically volatile region (Bound & Rushbrook, 2015). Singapore’s selective implementation of globalising strategies has produced a “Singapore paradox” (Amaldas, 2009, p. 985) of economic radicalism approximating global imperatives and a nationally grown moral conservatism within a strong government framework embedded in public, economic, and civic life (Bound & Rushbrook, 2015). Integral to the Survival narrative is the strong role of government that has made possible the many initiatives and possibilities described above. However, as Singapore shifts from a period of rapid evolution from the Third to the First world—its status for some time now—the legacy of tight quality and auditing regimes has left its mark. The survival narrative tends to be represented in educational and economic policies that consider people as collective human capital resources contributing to ongoing national growth and prosperity (Tan, 2011), positioning workers as economic units. The Singapore story comes full circle in relation to workforce development; it is workers’ skills that are paramount to the country’s survival. Little wonder that investment in workforce development is a high-stakes investment for this small nation. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s announcement that the Committee on the Future Economy will “study how to create opportunities and move faster towards higher skills, innovation and productivity” (Straits Times 18 October 2015, B1) articulates the criticality of this focus in national policy. Three policy initiatives will be examined in more detail, using the metaphor of ecosystems and the conceptualisation of interactions within that ecosystem. Interactions are mediated by historical and socio-cultural artefacts such as the Singapore Story to surface issues related to adaptability of the TAE ecosystem. Adaptability is critical in any ecosystem, but particularly for an ecosystem so pivotal to the social and economic success of Singapore. The policy initiatives are the introduction of competency-based training (WSQ), compliance regimes, and the opening up of pathways for learners to move across the system.

The Dynamic Landscape of Adult Education in Singapore

139

5 Competency-Based Training (WSQ) for Enabling the Potential of Workers The adoption of the WSQ competency-based training system has left a strong legacy that has locked in unhelpful discourses. These include learning and assessment practices that test knowledge and skills removed from their context; narrow task-based skills that separate doing and thinking into skills and underpinning knowledge; and of technical and generic skills, and standardisation of learner experiences, despite their differences. Interactions and pedagogical design based on such discourses do not well serve an outwardly global facing economy, based on innovation, high skills, and productivity. Competence frameworks are implemented on the basis of standardisation, usually at odds with the complexities of dynamically changing landscapes that demand innovation and in creative thinking, resilient workers. “The adoption of minimum competence frameworks often fails to take account of individuals’ capacities to use and build on their existing knowledge in all its forms and the support needed to put knowledge to work” (Evans, 2015, p. 31) in meeting the demands of the workplace. This is in part because of the low-level expectations required of learners in these courses, namely the reproduction of knowledge, as opposed to creating or even using knowledge, and the assumption that every assessment for a cohort of learners has to be exactly the same. The focus is on the reproduction of knowledge, not, for example, assessment criteria that enable the assessment of holistic performance. The revisiting of the competency-based frameworks replacing them with Skills Frameworks (the first was launched in 2016) provided an opportunity to not only update competencies, some of which had not been updated in over a decade, but to rethink the framing of competencies and competence. An important improvement is that all Skills Frameworks will be updated every three to six years or more often as the need arises. SSG website informs us that the Frameworks are co-created by employers, industry associations, education institutions, unions, and government. This information would suggest interactions between these actors involving knowledge flow and knowledge co-construction as they carved out the Frameworks based on their understandings of future needs. However, the description of the Frameworks on the SSG website does not suggest a focus on future needs and definitely not a focus on rethinking of the notion of competence as fundamental to the activity of developing the Frameworks. The Frameworks provided on the SSG website provide information on career pathways, occupational and job roles, and skills, in addition to lists of training programmes “for skills upgrading and mastery”. The intent, among others, is to facilitate skills recognition and support the design of training programmes “for skills and career development” (SSG). The core approach to the Frameworks is that the basic unit is considered at the level of skills, rather than competencies that constitute a skill as in the WSQ competencies. So, while a considerable improvement on the narrow task defined competencies, the Skills Frameworks remain essentially competency-based documents, separating knowledge and doing, theory from practice, and technical from generic skills.

140

H. Bound and Z. Chen

There are two important observations here. One is that, in using the Skills Frameworks, adult educators have expressed frustration with the variable quality of the Frameworks and in some instances of their relation to industry practices. This seems to be another instance of interaction between top-level actors and a distancing from the voices on the ground. The second observation is the tension in such documentation. Skills that are constantly evolving are captured as static; this is a conundrum in education systems across the globe. As Evans (2015) observed, the intent to “develop the creative potential of every worker” (Shanmugaratnam, 2010) needs to reach beyond competence frameworks to support the high-level creative and collaborative capacities required of current and future work. As long ago as 2003, Shanmugaratnam commented “We produce many managers, good at problem solving and achieving predictability, but not enough leaders—people capable of creating and managing change, and inspiring and motivating others. As one of the industry leaders puts it, many Singaporeans are put in a position of leadership, but remain taskmasters, not leaders” (2003). This sentiment remains one of concern. In addition to the policy interventions, it takes time and a bottom-up approach to effect fundamental changes. Interactions and relations within ecosystems are mediated by historical artefacts, including dominant discourses, that are hard to shift, suggesting that these historical legacies along with Singaporean pragmatism involving a top-down approach are a restraining factor in the adaptability of the training and adult education sector, despite considerable policy efforts to create spaces and opportunities for innovation.

6 Compliance Regimes and Spaces for Innovation Innovation in a sector is a marker of adaptability. As would be expected, innovative practices in the TAE sector are very mixed, some leading-edge and many following old established practices, such as considering tech-enabled environments as spaces for content dumps (Chen et al. Chen, Chia, et al., 2021) and labelling it an innovation—the flipped classroom. Historical practices based on older compliance regimes, their discourses, along with understandings of learning as individual, behaviourist, and cognitive, appear to be limiting factors requiring ongoing attention. As the actors in the TAE sector have developed capability, the compliance regimes have lessened considerably. Early in the sectors’ development, a high compliance regime was considered essential because of the inexperience of mostly private forprofit providers and the perceived need for steerage, quality assurance, and surveillance (Willmott & Karmel, 2011). These regimes have led to sector narratives, such as training providers denying requests from their adult educators to change the enacted curriculum. This is a legacy from past practices where (a) full curriculum documentation was required for funding and (b) some auditors were known to point to the documentation indicating a particular activity and its timing, then asking why this was not happening exactly as stated in the documentation. Since research in the continuing education and training sector began in Singapore and to this day, training provider respondents and adult educators comment on their belief that they

The Dynamic Landscape of Adult Education in Singapore

141

cannot change what has been approved by the funding body (Stack & Bound, 2012; Bi et al., 2020). However, over time, as the sector has matured, compliance regimes have changed considerably. For example, no longer do most providers need to submit full curriculum documentation including learner and facilitator guides to gain course approval and funding. With COVID-19, a resubmission for accreditation and funding is required if there is a change in delivery mode (classroom, tech-enabled, workplace), changes in assessment methods, or a reduction or increase in course duration by more than 50% of the approved duration. The legacy of past practices has a long and tenacious hold. However, perhaps it is useful for providers to perceive that they cannot make changes to curriculum and pedagogical practices because such changes usually involve resources and costs. This is an example of inevitable tensions in the system when there are large numbers of private for-profit providers that need to be constantly managed upwards for the system to adapt and grow to serve very different kinds of needs required of today’s workforce. An example of the fallout of these perceptions is that in some instances, courses, especially those based on older competency standards approved a decade or more ago, have not been changed at all; content and pedagogical practices remain the same (Bi et al, 2020; Choy & Bound, 2020). These experiences mark one end of the practices in the system. At the other end are examples of innovative pedagogical approaches, not always within WSQ courses. The following provides an indication of the potential within the sector. We concentrate on an intervention design study conducted in 2012–13 (Stack & Bound, 2013) and more recent developments in the sector.

6.1 Spaces for Innovation The vision for a leading training and adult education system must (as it does) demand spaces for innovation and risk-taking in the system. Working with a small number of educators who were leaders at various levels, Stack and Bound (2012) ran a series of workshops over some six months where participants’ assumptions about teaching and learning were challenged, and participants undertook their own small action research projects. The learning journeys of these participants illustrated both a system that was stuck, but also the untapped potential within the system. For example, Fettia, responsible for overseeing curriculum development, in her training organisation observed, “I am a suffocated and tired human being stuck in the system who would like to explore and experiment.” Another participant in the project, Bill said, “Now I operate in a Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ) environment, pre-occupied with coverage, evidence, outcomes, standards, mandatory qualifications, training numbers, training and assessment specs. There are corporate logo-themed slides, thick learners’ guides and tie-wearing assessors and trainers”. Bill reported that his learners were giving feedback such as “no breaks, tough assignments, practicum and capstone project all consuming. By the time I see the learners in the later units they seem dead; lights are on but no one is home compared to

142

H. Bound and Z. Chen

the bright-eyed and eager people who started out” (Stack & Bound, 2012, p.141). This observation sees the system as one that does not value learners and learning. A system will, of necessity, be concerned with such matters as Bill lists. However, Bill’s concern is that the system does not readily forefront or allow for spaces and processes where learning, and particularly a joy of learning, is the focus. For Anita, a key incident that stayed with her was a student who complained about her feedback, saying it was “physically” harsh. The shock of the complaint caused Anita to reflect on her actions, step into the student’s shoes, and pay more attention to the issue of feedback which provided a focus for her project. It gave her an understanding of her team and their approaches to feedback—the tendency to correct, to scold, and to point out weaknesses in students. She was able to hold a non-judgmental space that aimed to help her team find new ways to think about feedback and the student-teacher relationships (ibid, p. 131). These examples illustrate the trapped potential within the system at that time. The stories also, however, represent some of the historical legacies of the strict mandatory requirements within the system. Cultural beliefs also play their part. A recurring theme was the Confucian notion of the teacher as guru, on a pedestal, the expert, needing to be perfect. This makes it difficult for teachers to take risk with experimentation, as any failing is seen to lower the respect students have for the teacher, thus losing their trust in the learning process. The expectation that the teacher is perfect and right also makes it difficult for teachers to hand over power to students for their learning and to encourage critical thinking that challenges the teacher’s views (Stack & Bound, 2012; Bound, Tan, Chow, Wang & Chuen, 2019). Adjunct adult educators are particularly vulnerable as they depend on good “happy sheet” (student evaluations completed at the end of the course) results to ensure the continuation of their rice bowl. The untapped potential and the hope of these educators are perhaps best summed up in a comment Jimmy made, “How can we help to grow the system that can help grow us? For me, when I experience a sense of liberation within me, an ability to express my values, I have a power within me to help grow the system that can help grow me. If the system does not grow me, then something is wrong” (ibid., p.142). More recent research and other activities have not only evidenced these historical legacies, but also uncovered further evidence of innovative practices. For example, the Centre for Innovation and Development (CID) within IAL brings together and funds organisations with a learning issue they are seeking to have addressed, in a partnership with technology providers. Clever matching has resulted in some leading-edge innovations using a combination of artificial intelligence and data mining feedback loops to provide feedback to learners and to pose options, requiring the exercising of judgement. This is an example of a mini ecosystem in action, bringing together, government funding, a laboratory (CID) that among other roles ensures the quality of outcomes, small companies with technological expertise, enterprise, and educational expertise. A recently completed ethnographic project on learners’ sense-making in blended learning environments found evidence of courses that made the most of opportunities for learners’ sense-making (Bi, et al., 2020). One example was a human resources

The Dynamic Landscape of Adult Education in Singapore

143

(HR) course (non-WSQ), where learners from different departments, HR, and finance were deliberately placed together to work on authentic problems, as a means of being exposed to different perspectives, valuing processes and outcomes. Additionally, the assessment requirement was to identify a relevant work issue and address it, using their newly co-created knowledge, which was further developed in the process. Findings from a project on the assessment for the changing practices of work developed the six principles of learning design (authentic, aligned, holistic, feedback, judgement, and future-oriented) (Bound, Chia & Karmel, 2016) which are being integrated into courses for adult educators and also to potentially form the basis of new quality assurance system for funding and accreditation. Such pedagogical and technological innovations are made possible through government policies and the professionalism and expertise of those involved. There are indeed innovative practices in the sector, but there is also a legacy that continues to see learning design based on the reproduction of knowledge that no longer meets the current and future needs of workers to enable them to thrive and reach their potential. There are practices that keep educators within the walls of their institution and WSQ courses that must be based on Skills Frameworks that are limiting in their potential contribution. The following stories provide examples of adaptability both at ground level and in the higher echelons of the system.

7 Workplace Learning Workplace learning has not been a focus solely of educational providers, but involves other actors in the ecosystem at different levels through the development of Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs). Workplace learning also brings a focus to employers and to interactions between educational providers and employers and other relevant bodies. Both these aspects are discussed below. The ITMs are overseen by the Future Economy Council (FEC), under the Ministry of Trade and Industry with a budget of $4.5 billion for 23 industries. The ITMs provide an “industry-focused approach to address issues and deepen partnerships between Government, firms, industries, trade associations and chambers” (MTI, 2017). In his review of the ITMs, Sekmokas (2019) comments that the ITMs are “a type of governing intervention, with the explicit goals of enhancing inter-agency coordination and tripartite consultation at the industry and sectoral levels. It seems to have little explicit linkages to other financial, market oriented industrial policy instruments deployed in Singapore” (p.105). He further observes that “the growthaccounting logic of economic and industrial policy pervades also the logic” of the ITM (ibid., p.106). Sekmokas’ interpretation of the ITMs as a type of governing intervention,suggests that they are another example of intervention driven from the top. This was born out at the time of the first launches of the ITMs, when there were comments that some ITMs did not reflect what was happening on the ground and the real possibilities. Small-medium enterprises felt this particularly strongly. Again,

144

H. Bound and Z. Chen

there is reported collaboration at higher levels in the system, but it would seem that there is more work to be done, closer to the ground. Workplace learning was always intended to be integral to WSQ courses. However, between the establishment of funding mechanisms that provided greater funding for classroom delivery and provision of WSQ, largely by private for-profit training providers, this intent to include workplace learning was lost (Bound & Lin, 2011), aside from what the accredited in-house training providers delivered, usually in the form of courses for their staff. Following recognition of this, funded programmes such as SkillsFuture Earn and Learn Programmes (ELP), Work-Study Degree Programmes, and others were introduced. Today there is considerable rhetoric about workplace learning in the sector, but as with the examples discussed under spaces for innovation, so too are there practices in relation to workplace learning that limit the potential of workplace learning. The lived experience of workplace learning is not only about high-level initiatives (that provide opportunity and space for the valuing of workplace learning), but about the design and delivery of courses and the recognition by employers of the learning that takes place in, at and through work. A decade ago Bound and Lin (2011) found that a predominant understanding of workplace learning was that it was understood as training that takes place at work, or on-the-job training (OJT) involving the development of a blueprint based on the breakdown of tasks, separated from their context and relations with the whole job. There are certainly now more actors in the system who understand workplace learning, as learning through doing the work through interactions with others and with artefacts, learning that can be expanded or constricted by workplace environments (Fuller & Unwin, 2004; Chia et al., 2019), than at the time of the Bound & Lin study. However, workplace learning understood as training remains a strong common-sense understanding in the system. The implication is that interactions between educators and educational institutions and employers remain as potential. Learners are rarely gradually introduced to work settings, rather, they are placed in internships or practicums that happen mostly at the end of the study. Educators rarely visit their students, and it is unusual for learners to be brought back to the educational institution to share the richness of their learning and to reflect on this, make deeper connections between theory and practice, and learn from each other’s experiences, in protected time. The result is learners, such as Tony (a pseudonym) a mature-age learner undertaking a career shift, experienced what he called a “culture shock” when he undertook his practicum (Bi et al., 2020). Such experiences suggest interactions between provider and workplaces are mechanistic and functional, rather than providing opportunities to enhance the quality of learning and its outcomes. System adaptability is hindered in relation to workplace learning initiatives. The implications of workplace learning initiatives to address mastery, and learners’ future-oriented capabilities, should focus attention on new pedagogies and putting knowledge to work (Evans, 2015). Putting knowledge to work or what Evans et al. (2011) call knowledge recontextualisation involves far more than the metaphor of transfer unproblematically implies. That is, there is a lot of learning required to use knowledge learnt in one type of environment in another environment, such as from

The Dynamic Landscape of Adult Education in Singapore

145

classroom to workplace. For what Shanmugaratnam called work-based learning, known in the literature as work-integrated learning, to evolve requires collaboration and partnerships between educational providers and employers. Programmes where educator rarely visits learners on the job, limited scaffolding and structured connections, between learning environments and hard-to-find examples of programmes that have been co-constructed by provider and employer(s) suggest that capability to support workplace learning and its myriad possibilities is limited.

8 Opening up Learners’ Pathways What will truly open up pathways across systems requires the breaking down of silos between different levels and types of educational provision and improving the “inter-operability between the vocational, academic, and adult training qualification systems” (MOM, 2016). In terms of the ecology metaphor, the different systems such as continuing education and training, polytechnics and ITE, and the Universities can be considered different ecologies within the wider ecology of the TAE system. The universities are further differentiated. Historically, the two prestigious, major universities the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) took in students straight from the end of their secondary education (year 12). It was very rare for a mature-age learner to be enrolled. At this point in time, there are multiple post-graduate offerings taken up by working adults. The introduction of four additional autonomous universities—Singapore Management University (SMU) (2000); Singapore University of Technology and Design (2009); Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) (2014); Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) (2017)—has opened up the space for working adults or adults of working age to undertake a university education, not previously available. While these three autonomous universities make offerings for and cater to working adults, they also have a focus on attracting school leavers, widening offerings not previously available. Polytechnics have also entered this field having likewise previously focused solely on intakes for students who have completed year twelve. For example, the Singapore Institute of Retail Studies (SIRS) was the first Continuing Education and Training Centre established in a polytechnic (Nanyang Polytechnic) in 2006. For many years now there has been a steady stream of polytechnic graduates entering universities, including the two top tier universities. There is no doubt that such provision has grown the ecosystem in terms of students and offerings. Private for-profit providers continue to flourish across all industry sectors, offering both WSQ and non-WSQ courses and in some instances degrees. Entry to autonomous universities can be through aptitude-based admissions. All of this is supported by generous funding. In the light of this description, the opening up of pathways has certainly been achieved, suggesting responsiveness on the part of the actors involved. However, this is top-level description. Policy implementation commonly experiences a gap between intent and implementation (Bengtsson, 2013; Rosli & Rossi, 2014) and another gap between intent

146

H. Bound and Z. Chen

and the users’ experience. Understanding these gaps and designing in systemic feedback (as any ecological system has) to understand the learners’ experience of pathways across different systems is one means of potentially increasing adaptability in the ecosystem. At the time of writing, such feedback loops are limited and would require research that focuses on the learners’ experience as they navigate their journeys and their access to the myriad different funding possibilities. Relations between public and private provisions are also unclear, but appear minimal, operating through mechanisms such as aptitude-based admission. The possibilities for ongoing feedback could be many with strategic use of analytics across the systems.

9 Conclusion The TAE sector has evolved rapidly since its inception, some 20 years ago. Singapore’s constant search for the leading edge, its can (must) do response, and all parts of the Singapore story are evident in the evolution of the TAE sector. With such rapid evolution come challenges. Policy change and development occur rapidly in Singapore, and the challenge is always to minimise unintentional consequences, where bureaucratic systems seek to manage, audit, and impose standardisation. Striking the balance between accountability and innovation and enabling agency is a dance that takes continual system learning. While true of policy initiatives anywhere, in Singapore, this rapid evolution in the context of a Singaporean narrative that the government looks after us, the leading from the top, has seen a distance between the higher echelons of policy promulgation and its implementation in practice. The innovations on the ground, so sought for by more recent policy development, have indeed produced such instances, but the depth and extent of innovative practices and the understandings that support them are questionable. In the examples in the previous section, workplace learning is a case in point. Just like “good work” relies on many agencies and industry bodies working in tandem, similarly, work-based learning arrangements (between educational providers and industry) rely on access to good jobs and strong industry-education partnerships and collaborations. Such institutional infrastructure is not yet well developed (as is the case in many nations), slowing the rapid changes sought. Development of mastery of enabling people to maximise their potential of developing a resilient and competitive workforce requires different pedagogical understandings and approaches than that which was common for the industrial age, such as the reproduction of knowledge. Meeting Shanmugaratnam’s vision requires developing future-oriented learners who thrive in changing circumstances. This requires deep understanding of a field and/or role, and capabilities such as learning to learn/ metacognition, critical thinking, and being something of a risk-taker to feel comfortable with ambiguity and the unknown (Bound et al., 2016; Bound & Chia, 2020). Like so much else, learning has changed significantly; YouTube, MOOCs, and self-organised grouping in and outside of work are small examples of learning that is beyond the walls of educational institutions. The sudden emergence of COVID-19 and its rapid spread has transformed work,

The Dynamic Landscape of Adult Education in Singapore

147

life, and learning as we knew it. Our research found an overall receptivity towards a digital transition for adult education and training in Singapore, as many educators and training providers embrace the affordances of digital technology and the opportunity of a “new educational paradigm” by upskilling and adapting to market changes (Chen et al., 2021; Watermeyer et al., 2021). However, we are not clear what the new educational paradigm articulated by many of the adult educators actually consists of and how markedly different pedagogical approaches in a digitalised environment will be, or whether the use of technology in adult training contexts would remain to be “sporadic, uneven, and often low-level” (Selwyn, 2007). While the online transition has the potential to expand access to education and avail new market opportunities for education institutions and training providers to extend their offerings virtually to a global audience, there come also fiercer international competition and invasion by commercial EdTech giants such as Google that offer free or low-cost learning and training (Watermeyer et al., 2021). The very nature of the educational provision is being challenged. Along with it, come challenges to how learning is understood and practised. Singapore’s TAE sector is poised to launch into providing future needs, but ties in the form of historical artefacts are restraining the sector’s launch.

References Amaldas, M. (2009). The management of globalisation in Singapore: Twentieth century lessons for the early decades of the new century. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, 1(3), 982–1002. Bengtsson, J. (2013). National strategies for implementing lifelong learning (LLL)—The gap between policy and reality: An international perspective. International Review of Education, 59, 343–352. Bi, X., Bound, H., Mohemad, F., Cai, V. & Chuen, K. H. (2020). Understanding adult learners’ sense-making to inform pedagogical innovations in blended learning. Institute for Adult Learning. Bound, H. & Chia, A. (2020). The 6 principles of learning design designing learning for performance. A practitioner note. Institute for Adult Learning. Bound, H. & Lin, M. (2011). Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) and workplace learning and assessment, Stage 1. IAL Bound, H., Lin, M. &, Rushbrook. (2014). Lifelong learning policies and practices in Singapore: Tensions and challenges. In T. Halttunen, M. Koivisto, & S. Billett, Promoting, assessing, recognizing and certifying lifelong learning, (pp.173–189). Springer. Bound, H. & Rushbrook, P. (2015). Problematising workplace learning. In H. Bound and P. Rushbrook (Eds). Towards a new understanding of workplace learning. The context of Singapore, (pp. 1–16). Institute for Adult Learning (IAL). Bound, H., Chia, A., & Karmel, A. (2016). Assessment for the changing nature of work: Cross-case analysis. Institute for Adult Learning. Bound, H., Sadik, S., Evans, K., & Karmel, A. (2019). How non-permanent workers learn and develop challenges and opportunities. Routledge. Bound, H., Tan Seng Chee, Chow, A., Xinghua, W., & Hui, C. K. (2019). Dialogical teaching: Investigating awareness of inquiry and knowledge co-construction among adult learners engaged in dialogic inquiry and knowledge (co)construction. Institute for Adult Learning. Bray, M., & Kobakhidze, M. N. (2015). Evolving ecosystems in education: The nature and implications of private supplementary tutoring in Hong Kong. Prospects, 45, 465–481.

148

H. Bound and Z. Chen

Chen, Z., Ang, B., binte Hardy, S., & Andre, N. (2021). COVID-19 educator survey. Institute for Adult Learning. Chen, Z., Chia, A., & Bi, X. (2021). Promoting innovative learning in training and adult education— A Singapore story. Studies in Continuing Education, 43(2), 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/015 8037X.2020.1772224 Chen, Z., Ramos, C., Puah, L., & Cheng, S. C. (2020). Training and adult education landscape in Singapore: Characteristics, challenges and policies. Institute for Adult Learning. Chia, A. Yang, S., Alhadad, A. & Lee, M. (2019). Innovative learning cultures in SMEs-A cross case analysis. Institute for Adult Learning (IAL). Choy, M. & Bound, H. (2020). Enhancing quality in the TAE sector. Institute for Adult Learning. Cremin, L. A. (1976). Public education. Basic Books. Evans, K. (2015). Developing the creative potential of the workforce: Rethinking the part that workbased learning can play. In H. Bound & P. Rushbrook (Eds.), Towards a new understanding of workplace learning. The context of Singapore (pp. 17–35). Institute for Adult Learning (IAL). Evans, K., Guile, D., & Harris, J. (2011). Rethinking work-based learning for education professionals and professionals who educate. In M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Evans, & B. O’Connor (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of workplace learning (pp. 149–161). Sage Publications. Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2004). Expansive learning environments—Integrating organizational and personal development. In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller, & A. Munro (Eds.), Workplace learning in context (pp. 126–144). Routledge. Kumar, P. (2006). Lifelong learning in Singapore: Where are we now? International Journal of Lifelong Education, 23(6), 559–568. Lee, L. K. (1998). From third world to first: The Singapore story: 1965-2000. Marshall-Cavendish. Lee, W. O., Chia, Y. & Chen, Z. (forthcoming). Towards lifelong learning: challenges and opportunities for higher education in Singapore facing a future of disruption. APO. MOM (2016). Ministry of Manpower (https://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/press-releases/ 2016/0112-new-statutory-boards-to-sharpen-focus-on-skills-and-employment) Accessed 7th September 2020 MTI, (2017). Integrated Roadmaps to Drive Industry Transformation: Broader sector-focused strategies to sustain growth and competitiveness of our economy and industries. https://www. mti.gov.sg/-/media/MTI/ITM/General/Fact-sheet-on-Industry-Transformation-Maps---revisedas-of-31-Mar-17.pdf. Accessed 13th September 2020. Pickett, S. T. A., & Cadenasso, M. L. (2002). The ecosystem as a multidimensional concept: Meaning, model, and metaphor. Ecosystems, 5, 1–10. Rizvi, F. (2006). Imagination and the globalisation of international policy research. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 4(2), 193–205. Rosli, A, & Rossi, F. (2014). Explaining the gap between policy aspirations and implementation: The case of university knowledge transfer policy in the United Kingdom. Working Paper. Birkbeck College, University of London, London, UK. Sekmokas, M. (2019). An analysis of the capacity of Singapore’s industry transformation programme (ITP) to meet the transformation expectations: the case study of precision engineering industry. Institute for Adult Learning (IAL). Selwyn, N. (2007). The use of computer technology in university teaching and learning: A critical perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652729.2006.00204.x Shanmugaratnam, T. (2003). Speech by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, acting Minister for Education, at the MOE work plan seminar, at Ngee Ann Polytechnic on Thursday, 2 October 2003. Shanmugaratnam, T. (2014), Speech at the official opening of the Lifelong Learning Institute. Retrieved month and date, year, from https://www.mof.gov.sg/newsroom/speeches/Speech-byMr-Tharman-Shanmugaratnam-Deputy-Prime-Minister-and-Minister-for-Finance-at-the-Off icial-Opening-of-the-Lifelong-Learning-Institute. Accessed 29th August 2018.

The Dynamic Landscape of Adult Education in Singapore

149

SkillsFuture Singapore. (no date). About SkillsFuture. https://www.skillsfuture.sg/AboutSkillsF uture. Accessed 8th April 2020. SSG (no date) Skills Framework What is it? https://www.skillsfuture.sg/skills-framework Accessed 13th September 2020. Stack, S. & Bound, H. (2012). Exploring new approaches to professional learning: Deepening pedagogical understanding of Singapore CET trainers through meta-cognition and practitionerbased research. Tools for learning design report. IAL. http://www.ial.edu.sg/index.aspx?id=534 Tan, K. P. (2011). The ideology of pragmatism: Neoliberal globalisation and political authoritarianism in Singapore. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 42(1), 67–92. Watermeyer, R. Chen, Z., & Ang, B. J. (2021): ‘Education without limits’: The digital resettlement of post-secondary education and training in Singapore in the COVID-19 era. Journal of Education Policy, (Advanced online publication). https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2021.1933198 Willmott, G. & Karmel, A. (2011). Developments in policy systems and delivery: United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. Institute for Adult Learning (IAL).

The Texture and History of Singapore’s Education Meritocracy Charleen Chiong

Abstract ‘Meritocracy’ lies at the ideological heart of social policy in Singapore, representing a key guiding principle in policy-makers’ visions of a fair, equitable Singapore. Within a Singaporean conception of meritocracy, any individual with talent and hard work can succeed, regardless of their social or economic background. In this chapter, I explore the texture of Singaporean meritocracy as comprised of interlocking elements of dependency and responsibility. I discuss how the dependentyet-responsible posture towards the state has been historically constituted through education policies over time (1965 to present-day). In various ways, education policy encourages Singaporeans’ dependence on the state—notably, through its provision of reasonably high-quality, highly subsidised public education. The ‘dependable’ state provides a context in which individuals and families are expected to take responsibility for future success. While the terms seem antithetical, then, they can be mutually reinforcing and synergistic. I conclude by examining the policy challenges for achieving equity through ‘meritocracy’, going forward. Keywords Education · Meritocracy · Dependency · Responsibility · Equity

1 Introduction The connections between history, policy and the social-cultural norms of society have been sketched in social theory (Rose, 1992; Rose et al., 2006)—as well as in a lecture delivered by the Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, at the 6th S. Rajaratnam Lecture (Ministry of Finance [MOF], 2013). In this lecture, Shanmugaratnam argued that free-market capitalist societies develop a selfish individualism over time, while social-democratic politics develop an over-reliance on state support and weakens work ethic. Singapore, he argued, should be different, it should have an “active” government that seeks to help the poor “in a way that reinforces individual effort and responsibility for the family” (MOF, 2013, para. 56). He advanced a vision of a “paradox of active government support for self-reliance”—a C. Chiong (B) Melbourne, Australia © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_9

151

152

C. Chiong

social compact that couples state intervention with responsibility (MOF, 2013, para. 56). The notion that history, policy and social-cultural norms mutually shape each other is a central premise on which this chapter unfolds. The seemingly paradoxical social compact of “active government for self-reliance” is instantiated in the concept of meritocracy—a key ideological resource used to build and justify policy in Singapore. In this chapter, the texture of Singaporean ‘meritocracy’ is explored via a framing of this concept in terms of dependency and responsibility. I argue that through education policy, a particular posture is constructed towards the state that may be described as simultaneously ‘dependent’ yet ‘responsible’. I discuss how this seemingly paradoxical relationship with the state has been historically constituted by education policies over time, before discussing some of the challenges raised by this analysis for educational equity. Overall, this chapter explores questions such as what does ‘meritocracy’ mean in Singapore, what comprises its texture, what kinds of subject-citizens are created through it, and what are its implications for educational equity?

2 Meritocracy, a Vision for Equity? A key assumption in Singaporean meritocracy is that any individual with talent and hard work can succeed, regardless of their social or economic background. Within a perfect meritocracy, social justice lies in outcomes that are “justly unequal” (Allen, 2011:370); any inequalities that arise result only from differences in ability and effort. ‘Equity’ is thus the state wherein “personal or social circumstances, such as gender, ethnic origin or family background, are not obstacles to achieving educational potential (fairness) and that all individuals reach at least a basic minimum level of skills (inclusion)” (OECD, 2012:9). This conception of equity is closely related to what one might call ‘equality of opportunity’ (as opposed to ‘equality of outcomes’); it generally aligns with the vision embedded in Singaporean meritocracy of an equitable society. The term ‘meritocracy’ was first popularised through Michael Young’s (1958) political satire The Rise of the Meritocracy. Despite its origins in satire, the term has been a key guiding principle and ideological resource in developing and justifying policy in various developed economies, including and particularly explicitly in Singapore, since the early years of the city-state’s independence (Bellows, 2009). Following years of British colonial rule (1819–1959) and a failed merger with Malaysia (1963–1965), Singapore gained independence in 1965. Importantly, one of the reasons for Singapore’s separation with Malaysia was disagreement between Malaysian and Singaporean politicians over the practice of affirmative action—that is, providing ethnic Malays with compensatory discrimination measures (Moore, 2000). Singaporean politicians from the People’s Action Party (PAP), the only party that has ruled Singapore since independence, have since distanced themselves from the practice of affirmative action.

The Texture and History of Singapore’s Education Meritocracy

153

Instead, PAP politicians have argued that within a ‘multiracial’ society, meritocracy should be explicitly enshrined as a key value that educational, political and economic advancement should be based on ‘merit’ (Talib & Fitzgerald, 2015). Under the PAP government’s ‘CMIO’ multiracialism scheme, 76% of Singapore’s resident population identify as ‘Chinese’, 15% ‘Malays’, 7.5% ‘Indians’ and the remainder, as ‘Other’ (Government of Singapore, 2020)—proportions that have held relatively stable for decades. In 1960s and 70 s Singapore, where racial tensions were running high, ‘meritocracy’ was explicitly inscribed by Singaporean politicians as a way to diffuse conflict via the putatively neutral markers of ‘merit’ and to protect against nepotism and cronyism (Moore, 2000). ‘Meritocracy’ was seen to provide a means for a ‘fair’ distribution of resources and rewards, including the distribution of government scholarships and promotions in the civil service (Tan, 2008). Additionally, ‘meritocracy’ is valued for the way it incentivises effort (Tan, 2008). By providing greater rewards to those deemed more talented or hardworking (the more ‘meritorious’) is seen as just and deserving. Meritocracy is therefore not only a mechanism that ‘fairly’ distributes rewards, and it is also seen as a safeguard from complacency and passivity. Unsurprisingly, the concept of ‘meritocracy’ has long had a troubled relationship with inequality, both in academic literature in Singapore (e.g. Talib & Fitzgerald, 2015) as well as more widely (e.g. Littler, 2018; Mijs, 2016). Notably, critics have noted the tensions between the concepts of equality of opportunity and the legitimisation of difference—or, in similar vein, the tensions between the egalitarian and elitist strands in Singaporean meritocracy (Lim, 2016; Tan, 2008). On the one hand, Singaporean meritocracy promises opportunity for all; on the other, it encourages individualism and competition (Goh and Gopinathan, 2006). Meritocracy has been described as stratifying, for at least three reasons. Firstly, “opportunities for merit are themselves determined by non-meritocratic factors” (Mijs, 2016:14); race, class and gender complexly influence one’s capacity to compete for rewards. It has also been described as providing “the veneer of equality while masking the real advantages and disadvantages that have been differentially distributed across a society” (Lim, 2016:161). Secondly, ‘merit’ is often defined by those with power and advantages those from particular social groups and thus is never as neutral as it appears to be (Tan, 2008). Thirdly, a meritocratic framework tends to encourage competition and individualism, rather than cooperation and empathy (Goh and Gopinathan, 2006). In Singapore, a key arbiter of ‘merit’ is educational merit. Singaporean meritocracy might be called an ‘education meritocracy’ because of the valorisation of educational qualifications and achievement as a lever for social mobility. Educational ‘merit’ is typically demonstrated through performance in examinations and the acquisition of qualifications. For instance, the first prime minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, who is widely described as the ‘founding father’ of Singapore, often reinforced the importance of education in achieving social mobility, as seen in the below excerpt from a speech:

154

C. Chiong

Scholars, many of them the sons and daughters of uneducated, unskilled workers, hawkers or drivers, no longer become manual workers and union leaders. They move straightaway into the upper reaches of the top companies, statutory boards or government ministries. (Lee, 1983)

As the arena in which one proves themselves ‘meritorious’, it is unsurprising that the schooling years have been described as a stressful period in a Singaporean child’s life; Sally Jones (2018:14), for instance, describes childhood in Singapore is ‘curricularised’. In recent years, recognising the stressfulness and stratifying consequences related to current policy settings in Singapore, Singaporean politicians have called for a broadening conception of ‘merit’ beyond ‘academic merit’, to a wider range of talents and strengths, including vocational skills (Hakeem, 2018). However, the educational qualification, both in academic and vocational fields, remains highly valorised—with the former retaining a position of cultural and economic prestige over the latter (Chong, 2014). Given that sociological literature has compellingly argued that some socioeconomic groups have easier access to educational ‘merit’ than others (Littler, 2018; Mijs, 2016), it is unsurprising that, “[i]n practice, meritocracy is often transformed into an ideology of inequality and elitism” (Tan, 2008:7). To reconcile the tension between elitism and egalitarianism, politicians often cite the metaphor of ‘levelling the playing field’. This metaphor implies that the state will provide resources to level up or “uplift the bottom” (Hakeem, 2018). However, beyond this, and indeed because of this, an individual student and their family must help themselves. This logic is captured in the 2012 National Day Rally Speech by Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong: [S]ocial safety nets have to be coupled with self reliance and resilience. We have to want to do the best for ourselves…The state will help you where it can but it cannot replace what you and your family can do for yourself and each other” (Lee, 2012).

Nevertheless, awareness of the fault-lines in the theory and practice of meritocracy is growing in Singapore. While economic opportunities in Singapore expanded rapidly as the city-state industrialised in the thirty years or so since independence, there is growing public recognition of the widening educational and economic gaps in post-industrial Singapore (Gopinathan, 2012). Research has pointed out slower, even stagnating wage growth for the less well-off compared to the more well-off (Chew, 2017). Reasons for this include external economic shocks, as well as government policy that has sought to increase the number of low-wage foreign workers which has in turn depressed earnings—as well as rapidly increasing living costs due to high population growth (Rodan, 2016). In its Gini coefficient, a measure of dispersion of income in a population, Singapore’s Gini coefficient has generally increased between 1997 and 2016, from 0.412 to 0.458. A figure higher than 0.4, according to the UN-Habitat International’s Alert line for Income Inequality, represents significant inequality, with potential investment losses and social unrest without remedial action (Chew, 2017). Furthermore, there are sustained gaps in educational achievement between ethnic groups (Government of Singapore, 2017). Research has also highlighted differences

The Texture and History of Singapore’s Education Meritocracy

155

in opportunity and achievement, for students from different class backgrounds (e.g. Lim & Kwek, 2006), and the regressive nature of elements of Singapore’s education system such as its high levels of streaming (Ng, 2014). Former Minister for Education, Ong Ye Kung, has argued that meritocracy is in danger of becoming a “dirty word”, appealing for Singaporeans to not “lose faith” in meritocracy (cited in Teng, 2018). Other Ministers have called for Singaporean meritocracy to become more “compassionate” and “inclusive” (cited in Lim, 2016). Recognition of growing educational inequalities and the unfairness and excessive stressfulness of academic and economic competition have fuelled discontentment in Singapore, contributing to a ‘watershed’ General Election in 2011, where the PAP acquired its lowest share of votes since independence (Chong & Ng, 2016:5). While the PAP retained enough seats in Parliament to retain its rule in Singapore, various high-level PAP politicians have, following the 2011 General Elections, described the need for a shift ‘left-of-centre’ (Rodan, 2016). In a recent speech, President Halimah Yaacob noted: “Meritocracy has been a crucial pillar of our society. It has served us well over the past 55 years” (Yaacob, 2020, Building a fair and just society). However, she also noted that Singapore was at an “inflection point”; new generations of Singaporeans were coming of age, who have new aspirations—including “a desire for more diverse voices to be heard, and stronger checks and balances” (Yaacob, 2020, Imperatives for change). As such, a deeper questioning of what Singaporean meritocracy represents and its equity implications is worthwhile within Singapore’s current historical, cultural and political juncture.

3 A Proposed Framing of meritocracy’s Constituent Parts In this section I offer a novel framing of Singaporean meritocracy, via the concepts of dependency and responsibility. While these terms appear antithetical at first glance, the logic of Singaporean meritocracy might be understood as follows: the state has provided an adequate level of support (it is dependable and worthy of reliance)—as such, the family and the individual self should take responsibility for their future educational and financial success. This is captured in Shanmugaratnam’s description of the “paradox of active government support for self-reliance” (MOF 2013, para. 56). In fact, strong state support is not so much antithetical to self-reliance, as much as it is a precursor for the self-responsibilising assumptions in Singaporean meritocracy. In this chapter, by ‘dependency’, I refer to a relationship where one party entrusts the care and management of themselves to another (Kittay, 1999). By ‘responsibility’, I refer to the dispositions and actions that arise from a reflexive willingness to bear consequences for one’s own actions (Shamir, 2008). A certain version of ‘dependency’ is pathologised by certain political and public discourses in Singapore, whereby citizens are seen as passively relying on the state for support (Teo, 2018). Likewise, a certain version of ‘responsibility’ or ‘responsibilisation’ is pathologised in academic discourse, as it signals the retreat of the state, the regulation of a population in line with the state’s drive for capital accumulation, and excessive burden

156

C. Chiong

on individuals and families (Hage & Eckersley, 2012). In this chapter, the terms are understood more open-endedly and flexibly—not necessarily in the ways the terms are commonly understood in dominant political, public and scholarly discourse. Both terms are seen as carrying the potential to be framed in ways that can be detrimental and disempowering, as well as productive and empowering (McLeod, 2017). The meritocratic link-chain logic might be understood as one of dependency, followed by responsibility, followed by future success. Understanding Singaporean meritocracy in this more nuanced way challenges much academic literature on meritocracy (typically generated in the global North), which tends to link the term unilaterally to a neo-conservative agenda, to self-responsibilisation and the inevitable exacerbation of inequality. Such a theoretical claim obscures the context and practice of ‘meritocracy’ in Singapore. The Singapore state has been described as politically experimental, combining fragments of political philosophy under a meta-ideology of ‘pragmatism’—including fragments one might commonly associate with progressive or conservative policies in other developed economies. Through its meta-ideology of ‘pragmatism’, the PAP government appears to select different policies and concepts deemed to help it achieve its three overarching goals: economic growth, political legitimacy, and social cohesion (Lee & Qian, 2017; Pereira, 2008). To this end, different elements were selected from different political-philosophical traditions, to inculcate both a form of dependency on the state and responsibility of the family and self. Notably, some academic literature on the Singapore state has highlighted that the almost social-democratic provision of the state in realms such as education and housing, is in Singapore more an ‘investment’ rather than for ‘consumption’ (Gopinathan, 2001), primarily intended to enhance workforce productivity (Salaff, 1988). That is, the state is providing resources as a basis or context for the cultivation of the (economically) responsible and high-achieving self. The next section explores how dependency and responsibility—the two constituent parts of meritocracy—have been institutionalised through education policies in the lives of citizens, over time. In so doing, it demonstrates the significance of both dependency and responsibility logics in forging the state-citizen compact in Singapore.

4 Developing Dependent yet Responsible Subject-Citizens The goal of this section is not to provide a detailed, chronological account of the development of Singapore’s education system over time; such accounts have been conducted effectively by others (e.g. Goh and Gopinathan, 2006). Instead, in this section I identify key analytic threads in the historical production of state-citizen relations through education policy. I focus on ‘dependency’ and ‘responsibility’ as key fundamental logics animating Singapore’s education meritocracy and state-citizen relations in Singapore.

The Texture and History of Singapore’s Education Meritocracy

157

4.1 Five Trends in the Production of Dependency The Singapore state has been described as a ‘strong’, paternalistic state (Lim & Apple, 2016) that plays an active, interventionist role in shaping economy and society (Wee, 2001). Since independence in 1965, typical of developmental states, the Singapore state has combined political power with economic expertise (Castells, 1988; Pereira, 2008) to rapidly achieve high levels of economic growth in the first three decades since Singapore’s independence. A key way through which state-led industrialisation took place was through providing “a high level of basic collective-consumption goods and services for the entire population” (Chua & Tan, 1999:137). This is most clearly evidenced in two arenas—the first is the provision of public housing; more than 80% of Singapore’s resident population live in public housing (Bryson, 2019). The second is in a wellsubsidised, reasonably high-quality public education system. This section delves into five trends in how the state has presented itself and continues to present itself, as worth depending on through education policy discourses and practices. Firstly, the dependability of the state is inculcated through the centralisation of Singaporean education. In the 1960s, PAP politicians identified ‘education’ as key to both nation-building and Singapore’s economic development. The PAP government worked rapidly to centralise the schooling system, which, during British colonial times (1819–1959), was largely fragmented and differentiated by race. Race-based communities had practised some form of self-governance, each providing textbooks and teachers within vernacular schools. Recognising that Singapore had very few natural resources except for its port, education (and human capital development more widely) was seen as crucial to Singapore’s survival and success (Gopinathan, 2012). The PAP government identified the importance of a centralised mass education to upskill its largely illiterate population and to build a strong sense of national identity that integrated the different racial groups. Throughout the 1960s and 70 s, many schools were built and teachers recruited, existing school facilities were improved, tuition fees reduced and more resources provided for teacher training. By 1965, Singapore had achieved universal primary education, and by the early 1970s, it had achieved universal lower secondary education (OECD, 2011). Today, the Singapore system today remains highly centralised. The Ministry of Education (MOE) administers national examinations, closely oversees teacher recruitment and teacher professional development and training and largely prescribes curricula and textbook use. All prospective teachers are trained through the National Institute of Education and are seen as civil servants. Around 98% of Singaporeans attend schools that are broadly overseen by the MOE and public spending on education is second highest in Singapore, following defence (Wear, 2020). Secondly, the Singapore state demonstrates its dependability and legitimises its rule through Singapore’s high performance in international education benchmarking tests, such as the Programme for International Student Assessments (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Deng &

158

C. Chiong

Gopinathan, 2016). According to the triennial PISA 2018 tests, which measure 15year-old students’ application of knowledge and skills in reading, mathematics and science across 79 countries, Singapore ranked second place in all three subjects. The regional and international regard for Singapore’s education system occurs both on a global scale (Deng & Gopinathan, 2016) as well on a local scale, amongst Singapore’s resident population, including low-income families (Chiong & Dimmock, 2020). Thirdly, the Singapore state has sought to ‘level the playing field’ and provide equality of opportunity. Tuition fees are highly subsidised for Singaporean citizens and permanent residents—virtually free at primary school level, and around $25/month at secondary school level for many government schools (excluding miscellaneous additional fees). In 2009 and 2010 respectively, the Primary Education Review and Implementation (PERI) report, and the Secondary Education Review and Implementation (SERI) report, were published. Both recommended a range of measures to increase egalitarianism—measures which the PAP government adopted (Lim, 2013). For instance, the PERI report recommended increasing the number of Allied Educators (school counsellors, special needs educators and co-teachers) to support students who are struggling academically. The report also recommended cancelling summative examinations in Primary One and Two, which had hitherto acted as strong stratifying mechanisms in Singapore’s education system (Lim, 2013). The report also sought to increase student–teacher ratio and extracurricular opportunities in schools (e.g. sports, performing and visual arts) which low-income families tend to find difficult to afford. Both reports recommended more holistic feedback on students’ progress beyond academic grades alone and prioritised socio-emotional well-being. More holistic support is beneficial for students from low-income backgrounds because research suggests that these students face particular challenges to their well-being that are related directly or indirectly to financial insecurity (Tai, 2019). While tuition fees are highly subsidised, they are more expensive at ‘independent’ schools—eight high-performing, prestigious government schools in Singapore that are granted more autonomy (e.g. in teacher recruitment and curriculum) than most government schools. In 2018, the former Minister of Education announced that independent school fees were to be reduced by more than half for families within certain income brackets, to “increase diversity at Singapore’s top schools” (Ang, 2018). For instance, at Raffles Institution, which typically charges $335/month, students from households earning between $691 and $1000 monthly per capita will pay $25 (similar to school fees in other non-independent government schools). Furthermore, the inter-agency taskforce, UPLIFT (“Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce”) was established in 2018 to support disadvantaged households. Led by Second Minister for Education, Ms Indranee Rajah, this taskforce seeks to tackle challenges related to household disadvantage, including expanding provision of after-school care, and establishing the UPLIFT scholarship. UPLIFT and Edusave scholarships together help low-income families access prestigious independent schools. Other sources of support include the Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS), which provides means-tested financial support for textbooks, school attire, transport and

The Texture and History of Singapore’s Education Meritocracy

159

school meals (MOE, 2019). Through its ‘Many Helping Hands’ policy, the PAP government initiated the establishment of ‘self-help groups’ where members of each ethnic community provide financial and educational support for other members of their community. This support ranges from highly subsidised tuition, leadership camps, mentorship schemes for students—and for parents, money management and parenting classes at some of these groups. Self-help groups have a degree of autonomy in conducting their activities; at the same time, the state provides financial grants to these groups and government representatives sit on the Board of each self-help group. The three largest self-help groups are Mendaki for the Malay ethnic group, SINDA for the Indian ethnic group and the Chinese Development Assistance Council for the Chinese ethnic group—set up in 1982, 1991 and 1992 respectively. Notably, the PAP government has been described as ‘anti-welfarist’—yet public education seems a main exception to the rule. The PAP government adopts a ‘childcentric’ approach to welfare (Ng, 2014:119) through offering childcare subsidies and kindergarten fees assistance. Recent years have seen growing pre-school education provision for low-income families, including the move to reserve one third of MOE kindergarten places for low-income families. As such, the Singapore state is widely seen in Singapore as having done its part or done its ‘best’ for its citizens (Teo, 2011). Fourthly, the PAP government has broadly succeeded in fulfilling the promise of good jobs for good academic grades in past decades, reinforcing perceptions of its dependability. Education and economic needs are ‘tightly coupled’ and carefully managed in Singapore (Dimmock & Tan, 2015). Thus far, the PAP government has delivered on ensuring that those who secure good academic results are rewarded financially. In this way, the rules of the meritocratic state-citizen compact are upheld. Fifthly, the perception of the dependability of the Singapore state is built through ethical principles embedded in Singapore’s model of governance. The dominant governance style might be described as ‘soft authoritarian’, benevolent and caring (Dimmock & Tan, 2015). The PAP government often employs the language of virtuous leadership that putatively deserves trusting dependence. It draws ideologically on Confucian influences to construct a state-citizen compact that differs from a more politically liberal, procedural exchange between ruled and ruler often seen in Western European and American governing styles (Chua, 2017). Within a Confucian conception, leaders must exhibit ethical integrity to secure the trust of the populace; moreover, if such integrity is displayed, it follows that the populace should trust and obey, rather than question, their leaders. The PAP government advances a vision of itself as an “‘ethical’ government based on ‘moral authority’” (Chua, 2017:67). Survey research demonstrates the PAP government’s success to this end; it indicates that the Singapore state is widely perceived as transparent and corruption-free (Quah, 2010). The culture of both political and educational leadership in Singapore is informed by a Confucian-inspired form of benevolent paternalism (Dimmock & Tan, 2015). Teachers, as civil servants, are also encouraged to uphold this perception of government, as public schools represent a microcosm of the city-state. The professionalisation of teaching in Singapore has long been a priority for Singapore policy-makers. Educational leaders in Singapore are encouraged to develop a collegial, family culture

160

C. Chiong

within the school, while maintaining clear lines of respect and authority (Dimmock & Tan, 2015). Thus, through a range of policy measures, the PAP government has sought to develop a kind of dependence on the ‘strong’, interventionist, paternalistic Singapore state. This seems to be an aspect of Singaporean meritocracy that is less acknowledged and understood in the wider scholarship on meritocracy. Yet, the ‘dependency context’ forms critical background in understanding Singaporean meritocracy—it is the context in which many internalise and accept meritocratic rule and its individualising, responsibilising implications.

4.2 Responsibilising Students and Families Meritocracy is often seen as deeply ‘responsibilising’, because if effort and talent are the main determinants of success (rather than practices of nepotism or one’s socio-economic position, for instance), differences in performance and reward are legitimate and just (Mijs, 2016). Thus, individual effort, talent and responsibility are often foregrounded in typical representations of meritocracy (Littler, 2018). A sense of individual responsibility for success is developed through the highstakes nature of Singapore’s education system. The high-stakes nature of Singaporean education was first visibly introduced in what some historical accounts describe as the ‘efficiency-driven’ (1979–1996) phase of Singapore’s education development (Goh and Gopinathan, 2006). The landmark Report on the Ministry of Education (or the Goh Report) (Ministry of Education [MOE], 1978) introduced exam-based streaming starting from Primary 3, streaming at every grade, and the Gifted Education Programme for the most academically high-achieving 8% in each cohort, with a focusing of resources on this group and the next 30%. This efficiency-oriented approach was expected to reduce ‘wastage’ and increase the efficiency of the system. Such an approach, it was argued, would mean the ‘brightest and best’ were selected for political and business leadership, for the good of collective Singapore—and would maximise the political and economic potential of Singapore (Tremewan, 1994). The weight of individual responsibility to achieve academic grades and qualifications has, for decades, been recognised both by the government and by the Singaporean public as a cause for concern. In response, in recent years, the PAP government has sought to reduce the emphasis on academic grades and the high-stakes nature of the system. Under the PAP government, the MOE has sought to reduce curricular content by 20% through the ‘Teach Less Learn More’ vision (introduced in 2005) and to inculcate the joy of learning albeit alongside a continued rigorous focus on the fundamentals of literacy and mathematics (Heng, 2013). Another move to reduce the pressure on students was through reducing the stigmatising effects of streaming and was the introduction of Subject-Based Banding. In 2019, the MOE announced that streaming would be replaced with Subject-Based Banding, where instead of being streamed categorically into Express, NormalAcademic and Normal-Technical streams, students would be placed at different

The Texture and History of Singapore’s Education Meritocracy

161

levels for different subjects, depending on their measured aptitude for each subject. These changes are intended to take place by 2024. While it is yet to be seen how Subject-Based Banding might alter the subjective experience of Singaporean education, the disjunction between policy rhetoric and classroom practice and lived realities has been oft-noted (Deng et al., 2013; Göransson, 2015). Given the continued highstakes structures and processes of Singaporean education such as the Primary School Leaving Examinations, and strong cultural norms that valorise academic achievement and qualifications—attempts to lessen the felt weight of responsibility on students might not translate to less pressure for those on the ground (Deng et al., 2013). Furthermore, the PAP government has sought to reduce the weight of responsibility in an education meritocracy, by broadening the definition of ‘merit’—thus reducing the focus on the academic grade as an essentialised arbiter of merit. For instance, the PAP government has, since the late 1990s, invested in efforts to “rebalance content, skills and character development to achieve a more holistic education” across the entire education system (Ng, 2008, cited in OECD, 2011, p. 163). Students in Singapore were seen as “overloaded with content, driven to perform, but not necessarily inspired” (OECD, 2011, p. 163) and policy-makers recognised the need to develop higher-order thinking competencies of critical analysis and the desire to continue learning for life. The policy framework: ‘Thinking School Learning Nation’ was introduced in 1997 to develop higher-order thinking competencies (particularly critical thinking) and broaden learning experiences. This policy framework was, however, generally framed as a response to the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997—to develop students’ ability to respond to the vagaries of globalisation and technological advancement. Slightly over a decade later, in 2010, the ‘21st-Century Competencies’ framework was introduced to cultivate future-ready skills and dispositions and to help students respond to economic uncertainty (Tan et al., 2017). The importance of working hard to secure academic results and to prepare for the future through acquiring future-ready skills and dispositions continues to foreground the importance of the responsible self in Singaporean education policy. Furthermore, it is not only the individual student that is ‘responsibilised’ through education policy—families, especially parents, are responsibilised through policy logics, too. Prior to the 1990s, parents were largely marginal to the formal education system; their participation was mainly through attendance at Sports Days or prizegiving ceremonies (Khong & Ng, 2005). In December 1998, COMPASS (COMmunity and PArents in Support of Schools), a National Advisory Council, was set up to advise the MOE on how school-home-community collaborations might be strengthened. The language of home-school partnership became increasingly prominent; parents were increasingly viewed as crucial stakeholders in creating a ‘total’ learning environment for the child (Khong & Ng, 2005:1). In a Work Plan Seminar in 2014, attended by school staff across Singapore, the slogan ‘Every parent a supportive partner’ was introduced (MOE, 2014). The word ‘supportive’ connotes a particular nuance in the responsibilisation of the parent; parents are expected to support, rather than critique, education policy and governance in Singapore. Critics have described

162

C. Chiong

this overall devolution of responsibility as not so much a devolution of control, but of accountability for success or failure (Tremewan, 1994). In addition to providing learning support, parents are expected to be responsible, knowledgeable brokers to assist their child in navigating Singapore’s increasingly complex education system. Singapore’s public education system has been growing increasingly differentiated since the 1980s. In the 1980s and 90 s, Singapore education policymaking was influenced by the American model of choice and diversity to cater to different students’ preferences and talents, and to spur competition and thus innovation and improvement in education. A ‘decentralised centralism’ took place in the 1980s, where the MOE set clear objectives and held schools accountable to particular outcomes, yet encouraged specialisation of schools (e.g. niche schools) and permitted the establishment of prestigious ‘independent’ schools (Tan & Ng, 2007). While high levels of financial support available for academically inclined students, entry into these elite schools is also contingent on a student’s (and, importantly, their family’s) capacity to negotiate entry into these schools. Research indicates that the process of admissions in Singapore is deeply classed, due to information asymmetries between families, low-income families’ struggles to afford housing prices within the prescribed catchment area for popular, prestigious schools, and the difficulties of affording private tuition and enrichment classes (Gee, 2012). There is risk, as some point out, of a shift from a ‘meritocracy’ to a ‘parentocracy’, where a family’s resources count more than one’s effort and ability (J. Tan, cited in Ong, 2014; see also Brown, 1990). The ‘Direct School Admissions’ (DSA) scheme was introduced in 2004, whereby Primary Six and Secondary Four students could gain entry into secondary schools and Junior Colleges respectively not only through academic achievement, but through evidence of talent in leadership, character or in diverse fields such as sports and arts. The DSA scheme works to expand the definition of ‘merit’, however, in so doing, provides greater space for the active role and intervention of parents in helping their child navigate an increasingly complex education system. It has presented opportunities for parents with more economic and cultural capital, and more familiarity with the education system, to leverage their capital and knowledges to help their children gain advantages. Complex school admissions and school choice schemes tend to privilege more well-educated, wealthier families (Musset, 2012). Overall, the emphasis on responsibility and self-reliance is both explicit and implied in education policy in Singapore, and instantiated in the state-citizen meritocratic social compact. The Singapore state has been described as espousing an anti-welfarist, familialist ideology (Teo, 2013), where the ‘family’ (rather than the state) is seen as the first port of call for assistance (Teo, 2011). Yet, curiously, education policy in Singapore has encouraged the development of a posture toward the state that is also dependent on the state. This seeming-paradox is not a paradox— because the dependability of the state is the crucial context that offers the discursive resources to legitimise and make plausible the responsible self. The complex logics of Singaporean meritocracy have been managed with some level of success in securing largely harmonious state-citizen relations in Singapore. However, as the next

The Texture and History of Singapore’s Education Meritocracy

163

section makes clear, significant challenges remain in achieving what Singaporean meritocracy theoretically seeks to achieve—a more equitable Singapore.

5 Policy Challenges: Reflections on and Beyond Singapore Empirical research on the pervasiveness of belief in meritocracy suggests that Singaporeans still largely believe that meritocracy ‘works’ in Singapore. A study by the Centre of Excellence for National Security in 2016/17 found from interviews with young people that the “dominant perception was that meritocracy exists in Singapore (76%) and, hence, upward socioeconomic mobility is possible” (Teo et al., 2018). Most interviewees felt that upward mobility was possible for those with hard work and talent. Survey findings demonstrate a high degree of reproduction of state discourses, including discourses related to meritocracy and self-reliance, amongst Singaporeans (Chong & Ng, 2016). Interviews with low-income, ethnic minority families also suggests that interviewed families generally trust the state and the fulfilment of meritocracy’s promises in their lives if a child exerts adequate effort (Chiong & Dimmock, 2020). However, the theoretical research on meritocracy continually points to its troubling relationship with inequality. Such research reveals that the practice and use of ‘meritocracy’ exacerbates inequality—through obscuring the structural barriers to success beneath the seeming neutrality of academic achievement, through limiting the definition of ‘merit’ in ways that favour particular social groups, and through overemphasising self-reliance and responsibility. Singapore-based scholarship strongly highlights the problems with meritocracy (e.g. Lim, 2013, 2016; Talib & Fitzgerald, 2015), particularly the tensions between its elitist and egalitarian aspirations. From the analysis thus far, it is possible that one way we might transcend the tension between the elitist and egalitarian forces within meritocracy is to see the necessary interconnectedness of certain forms of dependency and responsibility as central to Singaporean meritocracy. By seeing both dependency and responsibility as intrinsic and critical to the logic of meritocracy, one might see policies that encourage dependency and those that encourage responsibility as policies that work synergistically rather than against each other. In Singapore, where responsibility is already deeply valorised, it is particularly critical that policy-makers do not lose sight of the value of dependency as the crucial context in which the uptake of responsibility is made possible and plausible. As argued earlier in this chapter, in the intense anxiety of some politicians that families will become passive and lazy if the state helps them too much, ‘dependency’ is often pathologised in Singaporean political and popular culture. At the same time, ‘responsibility’ should not be pathologised either, as it sometimes almost automatically is in academic literature that critiques the retreating state and the growing weight of economic and educational responsibility. A sense of responsibility and ownership over one’s life and future can be empowering; it is also a kind of social bond that is fundamental to the existence and flourishing of society

164

C. Chiong

(McLeod, 2017). What is important is to recognise the necessary interconnectedness of dependency and responsibility as fundamental to human flourishing—an insight worth highlighting not only in Singapore context, but more widely across developed economies that seek to be ‘meritocratic’, yet remain highly unequal. By seeing dependency and responsibility as fundamental to the logic of meritocracy, one can access a particular vocabulary to interrogate the relationship between meritocracy and equity, through raising questions such as: • How can we ensure that the context of dependency on state provision makes plausible the uptake of responsibility for families and young people? • Under what (familial, individual) circumstances might the provisions of the state be insufficient for young people to reasonably achieve their educational and broader life goals? • How might we de-stigmatise ‘dependency’ and reconceptualise ‘responsibility’ in more relational terms as not only responsibility for one’s own self or nuclear family, but responsibility for the well-being of others? The responses to these questions are particularly critical given that, as commentators and politicians have pointed out, Singaporean meritocracy is increasingly contested (Tan, 2008). It is perhaps true that “putting a competitive vision of meritocracy into play is not hugely conspicuous or controversial at a time when there is a strong social safety net” (Littler, 2018:41). However, as argued earlier, social and economic inequalities are widening in post-2000s, post-industrial and likely, postCOVID-19 Singapore. As such, the importance of more nuanced analyses of what is required to make responsibility plausible for certain families, and the provision of this support, is growing. In light of these social, cultural and economic changes, Singaporean policymakers must ensure that a ‘pragmatic’ education meritocracy is not a mask for a politics lacking compassion and that policies fostering self-responsibility are not over-emphasised in the lives of the populace. Losing sight of the importance of inter-dependency as key to human functioning is one of the greatest challenges for Singaporean meritocracy. While it is increasingly challenging to maintain the meritocratic link-chain that connects dependency, responsibility and future success in contemporary Singapore, the severing of these links will be politically costly for Singapore. Conversely, working closely with the Singaporean populace ‘on the ground’ to ascertain the ways in which responsibility may or may not be plausible in different circumstances can strengthen institutional trust (Chiong & Dimmock, 2020). Finally, while the link-chain of meritocratic reasoning outlined in this chapter can be one model or blueprint for governance of a society, it would not seem right to absolutise the value of meritocracy and the dependency-responsibility-future success linkage embedded within it. As the economic historian Tawney (1931) argues: [I]ndividual happiness does not only require that men [sic] should be free to rise to new positions of comfort and distinction; it also requires that they should be able to lead a life of dignity and culture, whether they rise or not, and that, whatever their position on the economic scale may be, it shall be such as is fit to be occupied by men [sic].

The Texture and History of Singapore’s Education Meritocracy

165

This analysis of the texture and history of Singaporean meritocracy points to ways in which meritocracy has ‘worked’ to provide certain benefits to sections of Singapore’s population in the past. Nonetheless, Tawney’s argument reminds us that there must always be room to consider what might happen should a person not rise to “new positions of comfort and distinction”, as inevitably happens for some. If Singaporean political and educational leaders wish to continue to draw upon ‘meritocracy’ as their chosen framework for policy-making—apart from destigmatising dependency and strengthening relational responsibility, it is the humility of these leaders to consider meritocracy’s limits that will paradoxically sustain its future.

References Allen, A. (2011). Michael Young’s the rise of the meritocracy: A philosophical critique. British Journal of Educational Studies, 59(4), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2011.582852 Ang, J. (2018) Lower fees for students from lower- and middle-income families in independent schools. The Straits Times. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/ more-financial-help-for-students-from-lower-and-middle-income-families-in. Accessed August 16, 2020. Bellows, T. J. (2009). Meritocracy and the Singapore political system. Asian Journal of Political Science, 17(1), 24–44. Brown, P. (1990). The “third wave”: Education and the ideology of parentocracy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(1), 65–85. Bryson, J. (2019). A century of public housing: lessons from Singapore, where housing is a social, not financial, asset. Available at: https://theconversation.com/a-century-of-public-housing-lessonsfrom-singapore-where-housing-is-a-social-not-financial-asset-121141. Accessed 16 August, 2020. Castells, M. (1988). The developmental city-state in an open world economy. Chew, A. Y. (2017). The hidden costs of a successful developmental state: prosperity and paucity in Singapore. London School of Economics. Chiong, C. & Dimmock, C. (2020). Building trust: how low-income parents navigate neoliberalism in Singapore’s education system. Comparative Education. Taylor & Francis, 0(0), 1–15. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2020.1724487 Chong, T. (2014). Vocational education in Singapore: Meritocracy and hidden narratives. Discourse. Taylor & Francis, 35(5), 637–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2014.927165 Chong, Y. K. & Ng, I. Y. H. (2016). Constructing poverty in anti-welfare Singapore. Social Identities: Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture. Taylor & Francis, 1–17. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13504630.2016.1207514 Chua, B. H., & Tan, J. E. (1999). Singapore: Where the new middle class sets the standard. In M. Pinches (Ed.), Culture and Privilege in Capitalist Asia (pp. 137–158). Routledge. Chua, B. H. (2017). Liberalism Disavowed: Communitarianism and State Capitalism in Singapore. Cornell University Press. Deng, Z., & Gopinathan, S. (2016). PISA and high-performing education systems: Explaining Singapore’s education success. Comparative Education. Taylor & Francis, 52(4), 449–472. Deng, Z., Gopinathan, S., & Lee, C.K.-E. (2013). The Singapore curriculum: convergence, divergence, issues and challenges. In Z. Deng, S. Gopinathan, & C.K.-E. Lee (Eds.), Globalization and the Singapore curriculum: From policy to curriculum (pp. 263–276). Springer. Dimmock, C., & Tan, C. Y. (2015). Explaining the success of the world’s leading education systems: The case of Singapore. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(2), 1–24.

166

C. Chiong

Gee, C. (2012). The educational ‘arms race’: All for one, loss for all. 20. Institute of Policy Studies. Goh, C. B. & Gopinathan, S. (2006). The development of education in Singapore since 1965. In Toward a better future: Education and training for economic development in Singapore since 1965, 1965(June), (pp. 12–38). Gopinathan, S. (2012). Are we all global citizens now? Reflections on citizenship and citizenship education in a globalising world (with special reference to Singapore). Centre for Governance and Citizenship, The Hong Kong Institute of Education. Gopinathan, S. (2001). Globalisation, the state and education policy in Singapore. In Challenges facing the Singapore education system today. Prentice Hall. Göransson, K. (2015). Raising successful children: Children as accumulation strategy and the renegotiation of parenting arrangements in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology Taylor & Francis, 16(3), 211–226. Government of Singapore (2017) Percentage of Students With at Least 5 O-Level Passes. Available at: https://data.gov.sg/dataset/percentage-of-students-with-at-least-5-o-level-passes. Accessed June 5, 2019. Government of Singapore (2020) What are the racial proportions among Singapore citizens? Available at: https://www.gov.sg/article/what-are-the-racial-proportions-among-singap ore-citizens. Accessed October 10, 2020. Hage, G., & Eckersley, R. (2012). Responsibility. Melbourne University Press. Hakeem, D. (2018). Education Minister reiterate importance of ‘meritocracy’ and defend PSLE in light of NMPs calling for it to be scrapped, The Online Citizen. Available at: https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/2018/07/17/education-minister-reiterate-importance-ofmeritocracy-and-defend-psle-in-light-of-nmps-calling-for-it-to-be-scrapped/. Accessed October 10, 2020. Heng, S. K. (2013). MOE work plan seminar 2013—keynote address—Heng. Available at: https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/keynote-address-by-mr-heng-swee-keat--minister-foreducation--at-the-ministry-of-education-work-plan-seminar-2013--on-wednesday--25-septem ber-2013-at-915am-at-ngee-ann-polytechnic-convention-centre Jones, S. A. (2018). Teachers, parents, and nine-year-old children explicate the home-school relations at three Singaporean primary schools. Oxford review of education. (pp. 1–18). Routledge. Khong, L. Y. L., & Ng, P. T. (2005). School-parent partnerships in Singapore. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 4(1), 1–11. Kittay, E. F. (1999). Love’s labor: Essays on women, equality, and dependency. Routledge. Lee, S. A., & Qian, J. (2017). The Evolving Singaporean Welfare State. Social Policy and Administration, 51(6), 916–939. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12339 Lee, K. Y. (1983). Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s May Day Rally Speech at the Singapore conference hall. Available at: https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/lky19830501. pdf. Accessed August 21, 2020. Lee, H. L. (2012). Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s National Day Rally 2012 Speech, Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore. Available at: http://www.pmo.gov.sg/mediacentre/prime-ministerlee-hsien-loongs-national-day-rally-2014-speech-english. Accessed June 24, 2019. Lim, L. (2013). Meritocracy, elitism, and egalitarianism: A preliminary and provisional assessment of Singapore’s primary education review. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33(1), 1–14. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2012.711294 Lim, L. (2016). Analysing meritocratic (in)equality in Singapore: Ideology, curriculum and reproduction. Critical Studies in Education. Routledge, 57(2), 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/175 08487.2015.1055777 Lim, L., & Apple, M. W. (2016). Introducing the strong state and curriculum reform in Asia. In L. Lim & M. Apple (Eds.), The strong state and curriculum reform: Assessing the politics and possibilities of educational change in Asia (pp. 1–20). Routledge. Lim, L. & Kwek, K. (2006). Why the elite envy?. The Straits Times, 9 December. Littler, J. (2018). Against Meritocracy. Routledge.

The Texture and History of Singapore’s Education Meritocracy

167

McLeod, J. (2017). Reframing responsibility in an era of responsibilisation: Education, feminist ethics. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education Taylor & Francis, 38(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1104851 Mijs, J. J. B. (2016). The unfulfillable promise of meritocracy: Three lessons and their implications for justice in education. Social Justice Springer, US, 29(1), 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11 211-014-0228-0 Ministry of Education [MOE] (1978). Report on the Ministry of Education 1978—prepared by Dr Goh Keng Swee and the Education Study Team. Available at: http://www.nas.gov.sg/archiveso nline/data/pdfdoc/956--1979-02-10.pdf. Accessed June 26, 2019. Ministry of Education [MOE] (2014). Growing Our Teachers, Building Our Nation. Ministry of Education Singapore, 23 September. Available at: https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/ keynote-address-by-mr-heng-swee-keat--minister-for-education--at-the-ministry-of-educationwork-plan-seminar-2014--on-tuesday--23-september-2014-at-9-15am-at-ngee-ann-polytechnicconvention-centre Ministry of Education [MOE] (2019) MOE Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS). Available at: https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/financial-assistance/moe-financial-assistance-scheme-(fas). Accessed May 30, 2019. Ministry of Finance [MOF] (2013). The 6th Rajaratnam Lecture by Mr. Tharman Shanmugaratnam: The invisible hand of social culture, 2 December. Available at: https://www.mof.gov.sg/new sroom/speeches/The-Invisible-Hand-of-Social-Culture Moore, R. Q. (2000). Multiracialism and meritocracy: Singapore’s approach to race and inequality. Review of Social Economy, 58(3), 339–360. Musset, P. (2012). School choice and equity: Current policies in OECD countries and literature review. Education Working Paper (66), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k9fq23507vc-en Ng, I. Y. H. (2014). Education and intergenerational mobility in Singapore. Educational Review, 66(3), 362–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.780008 OECD (2011) Singapore: Rapid improvement followed by strong performance, strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from Pisa for the United States. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/countries/singapore/46581101.pdf. Accessed December 31, 2018. OECD (2012) Equity and quality in education: Supporting disadvantaged students and schools. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-en Ong, A. (2014). Beware growing “parentocracy”: NIE don. The Straits Times, 30 March. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/beware-growing-parentocracynie-don. Accessed June 20, 2019. Pereira, A. A. (2008). Whither the developmental state? Explaining Singapore’s continued developmentalism. Third World Quarterly, 29(6), 1189–1203. https://doi.org/10.1080/014365908022 01162 Quah, J. S. T. (2010). Trust and governance in the Philippines and Singapore: A comparative analysis. International Public Management Review, 11(2), 4–37. Rodan, G. (2016). Capitalism, inequality and ideology in Singapore: New challenges for the ruling party. Asian Studies Review. Routledge, 40(2), 211–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2016. 1155536 Rose, N., O’Malley, P., & Valverde, M. (2006). Governmentality. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 2, 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.12196-8 Rose, N. (1992). Governing the enterprising self. In Heelas, P. & Morris, P. (Eds.) The values of the enterprise culture: The moral debate. Routledge. Shamir, R. (2008). The age of responsibilization: On market-embedded morality. Economy and Society, 37(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140701760833 Tai, J. (2019). Kids from needy families face risk of poorer outcomes: Study. The Straits Times, 1 April. Talib, N., & Fitzgerald, R. (2015). Inequality as Meritocracy. Critical Discourse Studies, 12(4), 445–462.

168

C. Chiong

Tan, K. P. (2008). Meritocracy and elitism in a global city: Ideological shifts in Singapore. International Political Science Review, 29(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512107083445 Tan, C., & Ng, P. T. (2007). Dynamics of change: Decentralised centralism of education in Singapore. Journal of Educational Change, 8(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-9016-4 Tan, J.P.-L., et al. (2017). Educating for twenty-first century competencies and future-ready learners: Research perspectives from Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. Routledge, 37(4), 425–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2017.1405475 Tawney, R. H. (1931). Equality. George Allen and Unwin. Teng, A. (2018). Parliament: Do not lose faith in meritocracy, says Education Minister Ong Ye Kung. The Straits Times, 11 July. Teo, Y. (2011). Neoliberal morality in Singapore: How family policies make state and society. Routledge. Teo, Y. (2013). Support for deserving families: inventing the anti-welfare familialist state in Singapore. Social Politics, 20(3), 387–406. Teo, Y. (2018). This is what inequality looks like. Ethos Books. Teo, T.-A. et al. (2018). Singaporean youth and socioeconomic mobility, (November). Available at: https://www.rsis.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/PR181120_Singaporean-Youthand-Socio-Economic-Mobility.pdf Tremewan, C. (1994). The political economy of social control in Singapore. The Macmillan Press. Wear, A. (2020). Solved! How other countries have tackled the world’s biggest problems and we can too. Black Inc. Wee, C. J. W. L. (2001). The end of disciplinary modernisation? The Asian economic crisis and the ongoing reinvention of Singapore. Third World Quarterly, 22(6), 987–1002. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01436590120099759 Yaacob, H. (2020). Address by President Halimah Yacob for First Session of the Fourteenth Parliament. Ministry of Education. Available at: https://www.istana.gov.sg/Newsroom/Speeches/2020/ 08/24/Address-by-President-Halimah-Yacob-for-First-Session-of-the-Fourteenth-Parliament.

From Meritocracy to Parentocracy, and Back Vincent Chua and Kelvin K. C. Seah

The number of academics Mr. Lee has dropped from parliament should make clear that academic accomplishments, valuable though they are, by themselves, cut no ice with him. At best they are no more than prima facie evidence that certain people are presumed to possess certain abilities. It is a claim that must be put to test by performance in the rough and tumble of the real world of sinners and saints. Speech by Mr. S. Rajaratnam, Second Deputy Prime Minister (Foreign Affairs), at the Dinner in Celebration of the 60th Birthday of Then Prime Minister, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, 16 September 1983.

Abstract This chapter presents an analysis of Singapore as an emblematic case of the modern-day meritocracy, positing that its meritocracy has evolved, over time, a “parentocracy” that extends and consolidates the lead of wealthy children over their less privileged counterparts. The chapter begins by underscoring the value of meritocracy as a system that is able to facilitate social mobility, spot talent, and usher economic growth. However, attention is also drawn to its downside, which includes a society-wide fixation on measurable indicators such as academic grades, the ossification of class boundaries that makes it hard to identify disadvantaged talents, and ultimately the loss of social cohesion wrought by a class-divided society. The chapter discusses policy interventions that the government has implemented and highlights some paradoxes that these policy levers bring to bear. The chapter argues that meritocracy remains a work-in-progress and that Singapore’s continued flourishing requires that policymakers and other stakeholders imagine meritocracy afresh, keep alive its original intent of opening pathways for all, but also ensure that the system evolves to characterize success more broadly, lift the disadvantaged in society, and disrupt social closures associated with class, race, and gender.

V. Chua (B) · K. K. C. Seah National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] K. K. C. Seah e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_10

169

170

V. Chua and K. K. C. Seah

Keywords Meritocracy · Social mobility · Social reproduction · Policy solutions · Singapore

1 Introduction Meritocracy is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it espouses the principle of open pathways and equal opportunities; indeed, conceptually, meritocracy stands in stark contrast to a system such as caste where people are locked into a bind of durable inequalities based on a system of religious stratification (Hechter, 1978). Yet, neither is meritocracy flawless. As a system, meritocracy has yielded a set of contradictions that leaves something to be desired. This chapter presents an analysis of Singapore as an emblematic case of the modern-day meritocracy, positing that its meritocracy has evolved, over time, a “parentocracy” (Tan, 2018) that extends and consolidates the lead of wealthy children over their less privileged counterparts (Teng, 2016c). We begin by underscoring the value of meritocracy as a system that is able to facilitate social mobility, spot talent, and usher economic growth, thus enhancing the wellbeing of society. But we also draw attention to the downside, which includes a societywide fixation on measurable indicators such as academic grades, the ossification of class boundaries that makes it hard to identify disadvantaged talents, and ultimately the loss of social cohesion wrought by a class-divided society. The second half of the chapter discusses the policy interventions that a proactive government has implemented, but also the paradoxes that these policy levers have brought to bear. Ultimately then, meritocracy remains a work-in-progress, the unending task of which belongs to present and future generations.

2 Social Mobility Unleashed With no natural resources of its own, Singapore has had to rely on the human capabilities of its population, which explains why its early leaders had never dared to imagine the possibility of it surviving, much less flourishing, apart from Malaysia. But as fate would have it, the union with Malaysia lasted a mere 23 months and by August 1965, Singapore was forced to become an independent nation (Lee, 2008). In the months preceding 1964, there erupted racial riots between the Chinese and Malays which ran aground prospects of a successful merger and amplified fundamental differences between the leaders of both countries. Central to it were deep ideological differences in how society ought to go in such pivotal areas as jobs and education. In contrast to Malaysia’s bumiputra policy which meant resources reserved and going to Malays, Singapore’s “multiracial meritocracy” (Chan & Siddique, 2019) was to be based on an open system of competition for all groups, whether rich or poor, whichever the racial group (Chinese, Malay, Indian, or Others) with no preferential treatment accorded to any in particular. This meant that social mobility was to be pinned down

From Meritocracy to Parentocracy, and Back

171

to individual performance rather than one’s category or group affiliation. The nation, in the desperate place it was, needed the best talents from across all society, and the multicultural meritocracy, thus, created ladders of opportunity for a great swathe of the population. The education system had a major role. The schools were the great social equalizers. Recounting his days at Raffles Institution, a highly prestigious school that he attended in the 1950s, Singapore’s second Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong (1990–2004) noted that class posed few barriers to interaction and camaraderie: Raffles Institution did not only cater chiefly to sons of important people. It caters to all alike. It shows no distinction between the son of a millionaire and that of a poor man. A scrutiny of the class registers shows that the majority of the students come from poor families, some of them desperately poor. The school is meant for all, regardless of class, colour, and creed. The school is itself a community, a family of all the races of Singapore, a family of boys from different social ranks. (Back to Raffles@Bras Basah, 2019: 387)

By the 1990s, Singapore had grown a sizeable middle class, with 80% homeownership, the percentage of university graduates grew from 5% in 1990 to 12% in 2000 to 24% in 2010 to 31% in 2017 (Ministry of Manpower, 2018). In the labour market, the rise in educational attainments meant that more could take up PMET jobs (professional, managerial, and technical jobs), and this percentage grew from 10% in 1970 to 57% by 2018 (Singapore Ministry of Manpower, 2018). In the housing market, rising property prices gave pioneer and Merdeka generation Singaporeans, both public and private residents alike, a sizeable wealth investment. It was, in a word, the “golden years of the mobility game” (Tan, 2012).

3 Talent Spotting Through the education system, meritocracy elicits talents from throughout society. The schooling system with its multi-tiers identifies and sorts them into differentiated tracks. The best are channelled into the academic streams, with the exceptionally bright put to the pinnacle, the gifted education programme (GEP). Upon completion of the GCE A-level examinations, a stringent selection process selects successful applicants to government scholarships to leading universities abroad. After their studies, they return to Singapore and serve a bond with a government ministry or statutory board (Quah, 2010). It is intrinsic to meritocracies to be always measuring. It is a system of metrics, assessing, evaluating, and sieving candidates through indicators such as examination scores (Muller, 2018). The school, which Delany (1991) calls a “sorting machine”, serves the purpose of surfacing an elite core of professionals, administrators, bureaucrats, and specialists. As in France, where the administrative elite are recruited from the Grande Ecoles to constitute a “Republic of Valedictorians” (Loriaux, 1999: 240), the corollary in Singapore is a system of “scholars” drawn from elite schools such as Raffles Institution, Anglo Chinese School, and Hwa Chong Institution (Barr & Skrbis, 2008; Chua 2015). Hence, while the education system feeds the labour market with the standard rank and file (Bowles & Gintis, 1976), it also invests in building an administrative

172

V. Chua and K. K. C. Seah

elite for national leadership (Quah, 2010). As to whether academic results actually signal the qualities desired in an effective leader is moot (Chan, 2006), and the quote at the start of this chapter does attest to reservations about using academic achievement in political selection. Yet in everyday practice, decision-makers, whether in the private or public sectors, do continue to rely on grades to legitimate the hiring process, treating examination scores as “signals” or proxies of candidates’ competence and future productivity (Ang, 2019; Spence, 1978).

4 Singapore’s Treasure Chest of Meritocracy Putting the best at the top begs the question as to its eventual impact on society, and here we turn to data, specifically the work of Evans and Rauch (1999) who studied 35 countries to examine the relationship between the public service organization and economic growth. Their study found a strong and positive correlation between the two, an efficient state bureaucracy—what they term a “Weberian civil service”—on the x-axis and national economic growth on the y-axis. By “Weberian civil service”, the study measured a system that hires based on meritocratic sorting, using macrolevel constructs such as the “proportion of higher officials in various agencies that enter the civil service via a formal examination system” (p. 762). The researchers were also thinking in terms of a civil service defined by “predictable career ladders” (p. 751), where employees have a clear sense of the path it takes to progress through the ranks, in other words, a transparent system. They studied Singapore among the 35 countries and found it to occupy extreme positions on both dimensions (a high degree of meritocracy in the public sector but also a high degree of economic growth). They were careful in their analysis to control for covariates such as pre-existing levels of human capital and initial level of GDP per capita, thus lending credibility to their findings. With competent technocrats and a meritocratic rules-based civil service in place, the Singapore government has been able to provide a uniquely efficient approach and the conditions necessary for economic growth. In current US dollars and according to the World Bank, Singapore’s per capita GDP was US$428 in 1960 and US$57,174 in 2017, while the US’s per capita GDP was US$3,007 in 1960 and US$59,928 in 2017. Based on PPP-adjusted measures, Singapore’s per capita GDP has already exceeded that of the US, including Japan and UK. It is not that a bureaucratic industrial policy displaces the pre-eminent importance of markets, rather, the state’s role in the economy is more supportive than directive (Castells, 1988; Johnson, 1982; La Porta et al., 1999). The high growth trajectory of meritocracies has boosted well-being not only in material terms but in social terms as well: Data from the recent 2019 World Happiness Report shows a positive correlation between meritocracy and happiness among

From Meritocracy to Parentocracy, and Back

173

nations (Helliwell et al., 2019). Having thus reviewed, albeit briefly, the value of meritocracy, we are now ready to consider another set of factors, and here we draw attention to three unintended consequences associated with meritocracy: First, the fixation on grades in the educational system; second, the growing inequalities inherent in advanced economies; and third, the loss of social cohesion that has resulted from the effects of meritocratic competition.

5 Grades and Metric Fixation Grade indicators notwithstanding, the one paradox that arises is what Muller calls “metric fixation” (2018: 4), the obsession with grades which yields its own set of consequences. Firstly, it results in students studying for the test. Here, the primary purpose of learning and gaining mastery is inadvertently supplanted by academic competition, which results in short-sighted strategies such as taking courses that are easy to score so as to game the system. This is ultimately self-defeating as it breeds a culture of credentialism, what Dore calls “diploma disease” without necessarily the corresponding skills to match (Dore, 1976). Put another way, the obsession with grades creates a paradox best described by “Goodhart’s Law,” whereby “any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes” (Chrystal & Mizen, 2003). Or as Marilyn Strathern unambiguously puts it: “When a measure becomes a target it ceases to be a good measure” (1997: 308). An over-emphasis on grades can lead to over-investment in academic drilling, such that, over time, grades cease to be true measures of “ability” but come to reflect instead other factors and qualities, such as dogged perseverance and even social class privilege. This begs the question: what do grades actually measure? Do they measure raw ability (as in “IQ”) (Young, 1958) or do they measure the sum total of privileges, which includes studying for the test, private tutoring (here family wealth has a significant impact), and knowledge impartation by professional parents (Coleman, 1988)?

6 Growing Inequalities in Advanced Economies This brings us to the second paradox, which is that the starting lines of meritocracy, especially in advanced meritocracies, have become greatly uneven, and this means that some families are better positioned to win the educational “arms race” (Gee, 2012), and in fact would use education to advance the lead of their children (Calarco, 2014, 2020). Meritocracy is the fairest possible when the starting lines are more equal than different. But when they are starkly divergent, the front starters will have a lead advantage, and it actually becomes difficult to tell if the winners are truly talented or if their success is at least partly due to pre-existing privileges. The winners of

174

V. Chua and K. K. C. Seah

prior stages of meritocracy have been able to pass their privileges to their children. The system undergoes “ossification”, which is that lines have hardened around preexisting inequalities. Singapore’s Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for Social Policies, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, puts it well in saying: What you see in other advanced countries could easily happen here, which is that while you retain some mobility in the middle of society, the top and the bottom tend to be become encrusted… The top tends to preserve its ability to succeed in meritocracy, and the bottom tends to get stuck at the bottom end of the ladder. It is happening in many societies, and we are beginning to see it happen here. (Teng, 2019a, The Straits Times 16 Feb 2019)

Ossification produces in the long run a loss of productivity in the sense that the game of social mobility has tilted towards the successful, which makes it harder for the disadvantaged, even the talented among them, to rise, unless concerted interventions aimed at the bottom are made. To the extent grades remain as the ultimate proxy or signal of competence, those that are better able to procure the resources necessary for academic advancement would see themselves ahead of the pack, even those who aren’t so naturally gifted. To the extent that meritocracy misses to identify and select the talented, whatever their background, society suffers as a whole.

7 Loss of Social Cohesion The third irony in meritocracy is the loss of social cohesion. First, the unequal outcomes elicited by meritocratic competition must divide the population into different class groups, and this extends to the segregated communities in which they live. A 2016 survey reveals a growing social network divide along the lines of class in Singapore, with little mixing between the categories of public housing and private housing and between people from elite and non-elite schooling backgrounds (Chua et al., 2021). At the national level, concerns have arisen over this lack of social mixing between classes, that is, while much efforts have gone into engendering the mixing of racial groups in everyday life, seen in interventions such as the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) in neighbourhoods, an equivalent policy to integrate the classes is still on the horizon. New efforts have arisen to generate class mixing through the colocation of purchase and rental flats, but as to whether these have brought the two groups together remains moot. We imagine it is not so easy as class divisions entail both material and cultural (including status) differences that don’t meld effortlessly (Ridgeway, 2014). Meritocracy has also an ideological dimension, and this is that rewards are allocated on the basis of individual efforts and abilities (Young, 1958). This has implications, one of which is the individualization of blame that comes with failure. This creates pernicious effects, namely that the successful in meritocracies are especially likely to look down on those who have failed (Kuppens et al., 2018).

From Meritocracy to Parentocracy, and Back

175

8 Tackling Inequality While meritocracy has served Singapore well in many ways, it has also created strong incentives for students and parents to focus, sometimes overtly, on academic performance. The national examinations (PSLE and O levels) are widely seen as key pathways to success in life. This notion is understandable given that, until recently (beginning 2004), admission to secondary schools, junior colleges, and tertiary intuitions has pivoted heavily on examination results (Elman, 2013; Spaulding Jr., 2015). Academic grades have far-reaching impacts not only in determining school placement (elite or not) and the type of education received (academic or technical/vocational), but also the peer network and ultimately then the types of jobs accessible to the graduating students. The desire for parents to see their children do well academically, combined with rising household incomes, resulted in a striking growth of private tuition enrichments from the 1990s to 2010s. While around 30% of secondary school students in Singapore received private tuition in the mid-1990s, this figure grew to approximately 70% by the early 2010s.1 Of particular concern is the sizeable disparity in private tutoring resources available to higher and lower income students (Teng, 2019b).2 Because higher income families spend considerably more on tuition, the concern is that inequalities in family wealth exacerbate educational inequalities between children from different socioeconomic backgrounds (Seah, 2019). Similar to other developed countries, household income explains a large fraction of the variation in student performance across students in Singapore, underscoring the importance of parental resources in influencing student achievement (OECD, 2016).3 This is unsurprising given that households with more resources are able to provide children with better academic guidance, a more conducive environment in which to study, and better advice on how to navigate the education system (Calarco, 2014; Lareau, 2011; Putnam, 2016). These developments have, in recent years, ignited a debate on the issue of social inequality in Singapore. The government now acknowledges the challenges faced by children from economically disadvantaged households and has, in recent years, introduced several new schemes to level the playing field. More importantly, several tweaks have been made to balance the goals of meritocracy with inclusivity and diversity. Below, we discuss what some of these are. Given space constraints, a comprehensive listing of all policy interventions is infeasible; hence, we discuss only the most important ones.

1

Authors’ own calculations using the 1995 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study and the 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment. 2 In 2017/2018, the top 20 percent of households by income spent an average pf $121.30 per month on tuition while the lowest 20 percent of households spent only $32.70 per month. 3 For instance, 17% of variation in Science performance is explained by students’ socioeconomic status.

176

V. Chua and K. K. C. Seah

9 Policy Solutions One broad measure pursued by the Ministry of Education (MOE) to foster inclusivity and diversity in the education system is to broaden the way academic success is being defined. In earlier decades, there was the tendency to measure students’ success narrowly in terms of examination results. Talents in non-academic domains were rarely recognized. This narrow emphasis drew concerns that children from lower income households were disadvantaged given the correlation between academic achievement and household income. Popular and more “elite” schools such as Raffles Institution appeared to over-represent students from well-to-do families (Teng, 2015), while certain “neighbourhood” schools seemed to over-represent students from disadvantaged families (Teng, 2018). In a bid to move away from the prioritization of academic achievement, MOE halted the practice of naming top scorers in the national examinations beginning in 2012 and instead had schools celebrate the accomplishments of students who fared well holistically (MOE, 2013). In 2017, MOE announced further changes to the Direct School Admissions (DSA) scheme—a scheme introduced in 2004 which allows schools to admit students based on talents in non-academic areas such as sport and art rather than general academic ability. The 2017 revision would allow all secondary schools to admit a higher proportion (up to 20%) of their secondary one intake through the DSA scheme (up from the previous 5% cap for schools with distinctive programmes and 10% cap for autonomous schools), and thereby to award greater recognition of skills and talents possessed by students in non-academic areas. Perhaps the most notable and symbolic move by MOE to reduce the emphasis on academic achievement was the change it made to the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE)—a national examination widely perceived to be among the most important for students. Specifically, in 2016, MOE announced that, beginning 2021, scoring for the PSLE would no longer be relative but absolute (standards referenced). Under the existing pre-2021 system, each child is scored under a T-score system, where marks received are continuous and normalized, meaning how well a student does depends on how well her peers performed. Even if a child obtained a raw score of 80/100 in each of her subjects, she could eventually still receive a low overall T-score if the raw scores attained by the others in her cohort turn out to be higher. Under the revised system, scoring would no longer be relative, so a child’s performance is no longer dependent on her peers. Also, continuous marks would be replaced by wide grade bands (8 wide grade bands for subjects taken at the standard level, and 3 wide grade bands for subjects taken at the foundation level; foundation level subjects are meant for students who are academically weaker with a pre-specified range of marks comprising each grade band). These changes are meant to blunt the incentives for students to chase every mark and were conceived as a way to reduce excessively fine differentiation of students at a young age (Teng, 2016a). Another notable move by MOE to reduce stigmatization faced by students tracked into less-demanding streams was to redesign the way academic streaming is being practised in secondary schools. The practice of separating students into academic

From Meritocracy to Parentocracy, and Back

177

streams, differentiated by overall academic ability, started in the 1980s and was seen as a way to customize education according to the varying needs of students and to reduce the sizeable dropout rate among those who have failed to acquire basic literacy skills at the end of primary school (Cheung, 1994). While academic streaming has its merits, its drawbacks have also become apparent to MOE over time. In particular, the ministry recognized that students could have varying strengths across different subjects and that simply separating students into different academic tracks while in secondary school gave them little to no opportunity to read subjects beyond the track to which they have been assigned. More importantly, MOE realized that entering a less-demanding stream could carry social stigma and cause students tracked into these streams to hold self-limiting beliefs. In 2019, the MOE, therefore, announced that, starting 2024, academic streaming in secondary schools would be abolished and instead replaced by a form of sorting known as “subject-based banding (SBB)”. Unlike streaming, where students are sorted into fixed classes and learn all the subjects at a pre-determined level (Express, Normal (Academic), or Normal (Technical)), subject-based banding allows students to take each subject at one of three difficulty levels (G3, which is the most demanding level; G2, which is less demanding than G3; and G1, which is the least demanding) based on the student’s demonstrated ability in each subject. MOE believes that subject-based banding would mitigate the stigmatization faced by students tracked into the less-demanding streams as labels would be harder to ascribe when students are not rigidly placed in a particular stream. The redesigning of streaming has also given MOE the opportunity to pursue another objective: social mixing between children of different socioeconomic backgrounds and abilities. Previously, academic streaming inadvertently separated students by academic achievement since students learnt all their subjects in self-contained classes with other students from the same stream. Hence, each student had only limited exposure to students who differed in abilities from them. Because of the tendency for students from higher income families to perform better academically, this also meant that students became stratified along socioeconomic lines. Thus, students had limited opportunities to interact across social backgrounds to develop empathy for one another. As subject-based banding allows students to learn different subjects in different classes pitched at varying difficulty levels, they now get the chance to interact across a wide spectrum of subjects and abilities. In his parliamentary address announcing the abolishment of streaming in 2019, then Education Minister Ong Ye Kung called on schools to use subject-based banding to reshape the social environment in schools by re-organizing students into classes in creative ways based on aspects other than academic ability (MOE, 2019). He suggested that schools organize students into form classes where they learn nonacademic subjects such as Character and Citizenship Education in mixed-ability environments. For examinable academic subjects, students could still attend classes in different subjects at the appropriate level of each. To help students from lower income families catch up with their peers, MOE also strengthened support provisions for these students, enhancing a range of assistance schemes in the 2010s. For example, to address the cost of attending independent

178

V. Chua and K. K. C. Seah

schools, which are widely regarded to be of higher quality but which also charge substantially more fees in comparison to government and government-aided schools, the MOE enhanced its fee subsidies for lower and middle-income students attending independent schools, in the hope that this would attract eligible students who would otherwise not attend these schools due to financial constraints. A task force known as UPLIFT—“Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Task force”—was set up by the government in 2018 to strengthen the support for students from disadvantaged families. Under UPLIFT, children from disadvantaged families are eligible for afterschool care support, through the provision of facilities such as dedicated spaces for self-study and mentorship by teachers and community workers.

10 Policy Solutions not Without Contradictions While the MOE has taken significant steps to encourage diversity and inclusivity in the education system so as to balance the competition induced by meritocracy, some of the tools used are imperfect and will likely throw up new challenges that will need to be resolved. In this section, we discuss what some of these imperfections are. We focus on the three policy measures in particular: 1. 2. 3.

changes to the Direct School Admissions (DSA) scheme; changes to the PSLE scoring system; replacement of streaming with subject-based banding (SBB) and fostering of social mixing through alternative forms of class organization.

10.1 Changes to the DSA Scheme As mentioned, MOE first introduced the DSA scheme in 2004 with the aim of recognizing and admitting students into secondary schools based on non-academic talents. The DSA was conceived as a way to introduce more diversity, especially in popular schools, which have traditionally admitted students based on academic performance. In 2017, the MOE revised the DSA scheme so that, starting 2018, all secondary schools in Singapore would be able to admit a higher proportion of their secondary one intake through this scheme. In addition, the scheme was revised so that schools could no longer use general academic ability tests to select students. Prior to the revisions, critics had pointed out that the scheme primarily benefitted students from advantaged backgrounds, partly because the use of general academic ability tests in the selection process gave affluent families the edge in securing placements in the top schools ahead of the PSLE by sending their children to classes designed to prepare them for these tests (Lee, 2016). In a bid to help children from lower income families take advantage of the DSA scheme, MOE further announced in late 2018 that from 2019, the application process would be streamlined to include a centralized online portal. Previously, each school had a separate application process,

From Meritocracy to Parentocracy, and Back

179

which could disadvantage children from less affluent families since families with better resources are also better able to seek out available opportunities and exploit them. Fees, previously charged for the application process, would also be removed so that they would not deter lower income students from applying. These refinements aim to bring the scheme back to its original purpose of recognizing non-academic talents and to help students from lower income families make better use of it to gain admission into the popular secondary schools. While the DSA scheme is a good way to introduce diversity, it is arguably a double-edged sword because non-academic talents do after all invoke the dominant cultural capitals (e.g. literary and performing arts, debate, and public speaking), which the upper classes have more of (Savage et al., 2013). Music is one form of this cultural capital. Affluent students are often in a better position to gain access to quality music classes from a young age to hone their musical talents. In this way, students from more affluent backgrounds are in fact better positioned to exploit the DSA to gain entry into an elite school of choice through cultural acquisition. While this example pertains to music, the idea is more general. Cultural capital is a significant determinant of upward mobility and the educational system is a major agent in this process (Lareau & Horvat, 1999).

10.2 Changes to the PSLE Scoring System To address the perceived over-emphasis on academic performance among children and their parents, especially among younger children, MOE decided to adjust the scoring system for a major national examination—the PSLE—with the aim of reducing the incentive and pressure among children to chase every last mark. Announced in 2016, the new scoring system would begin in 2021. Earlier, as discussed, this change converts scores from relative to absolute and converts continuous scores to grade bands and would be applied to all PSLE subjects, at both standard and foundation levels. While the new scoring system for standard subjects divides scores into eight grade bands indicating different achievement levels (AL 1 to AL 8, with AL 1 corresponding to the highest performance and AL 8 corresponding to the lowest), the foundation subjects are divided into three grade bands (AL A to AL C). The foundation level grades AL A to AL C will be pegged to the standard level grades AL 6 to AL 8, respectively. In what follows, we discuss the possible implications of this.

10.2.1

Changes to PSLE Scoring for Foundation Level Subjects

Subjects taken at the foundation level are catered to academically weaker students. About 10% of PSLE students in 2018 took at least one foundation level subject (Davie, 2019). Under the new PSLE scoring system for foundation level subjects, a student will receive one of three grade bands depending on the mark received in each subject. Table 1 shows the concordance between the raw marks received and

180

V. Chua and K. K. C. Seah

Table 1 Raw marks and corresponding grade bands for foundation level subjects Achievement level (AL) reflected on result slip

Foundation raw mark range

Equivalent standard level achievement level (AL)

A

75–100

6

B

30–74

7

C

< 30

8

the grade bands, and it shows how the grade bands for foundation level subjects map on to those for standard level subjects. As can be seen, the bands for foundation level subjects are very broad, which leads to concerns that incentives to exert effort may fall for some categories of students. To give an example, a child in the foundation who typically scores in the 40s range for his common tests, and who believes he’ll do the same at the PSLE, might not feel compelled to push himself harder since whether he scores 40 marks or 70 marks, he will get an AL B grade anyway. Reducing grades to only a very small number of bands may inadvertently weaken incentives to exert effort, especially for children who typically score far away from the band thresholds, as they might feel that it is unlikely that they will make an improvement or deterioration so large as to jump from one grade band to another. Weakening incentives to compete by moving from continuous grading to grade banding may not be desirable for students who are taking foundation level subjects, given that these students are already at the bottom of the academic distribution. If anything, more competition should be fostered among them, so that they will be encouraged to do better. The new scoring system for foundation level subjects might also have unintended negative consequences for certain groups of students by altering the incentives faced by their teachers. In particular, it might induce teachers to focus their efforts narrowly on students who typically score near the grade thresholds in common tests. After all, it would be easier and less costly to try to push a student who typically scores narrowly below the grade threshold up to the next grade band than to push a student who typically scores far away from the threshold, up. Likewise, the potential for students to slide back a grade band is higher for students who typically score narrowly above the grade threshold. Consequently, teachers may channel more time and effort to those students who are close to the threshold, to the detriment of other students (i.e. students who are located “safely” within the bands). Indeed, prior studies have suggested that such discontinuous grading practices may prompt teachers to engage in such strategic behaviours. For instance, Neal and Schanzenbach (2010) found that the United States’ No Child Left Behind Act, introduced in 2002, and which created a federal mandate for test-based accountability in every U.S. state, created incentives for teachers to act in such a manner. More specifically, the Act requires schools to engage in standardized testing of Mathematics and Reading for students in grades 3 through 8. Students are scored under a dual-band system—either pass or fail. Schools face the prospect of negative sanctions if they did not meet the target standards set by their respective states. Neal and Schanzenbach (2010) found that

From Meritocracy to Parentocracy, and Back Table 2 Raw marks and corresponding grade bands for standard level subjects

181

Achievement level (AL) reflected on Standard raw mark range result slip 1

≥ 90

2

85–89

3

80–84

4

75–79

5

65–74

6

45–64

7

20–44

8

< 20

the Act induced teachers to shift their focus to those students who were at the margin of passing/failing the tests and away from those students who had either no realistic chance of passing the tests or who were not at risk of failing the tests in the near term.

10.2.2

Changes to PSLE Scoring for Standard Level Subjects

Most students in each cohort take subjects at the standard level. Under the new PSLE scoring system for standard level subjects, a student will receive one of eight grade bands depending on the mark received in each subject. Table 2 shows the concordance between the raw marks attained and the grade bands received for standard level subjects. As Table 2 shows, the range of marks corresponding to each grade band is not uniform. With the exception of AL1, which covers a 10-mark range, the mark ranges at the top bands are notably narrower than those at the bottom. As with the case of foundation level scoring, the broader ranges at the bottom may potentially demotivate some students in the lower ranges of the academic distribution (specifically those who typically receive marks well away from the grade thresholds) and alter the behaviour of teachers so that they focus more on those students typically scoring near the grade thresholds. Also, the broad bands at the lower end, most significantly AL6, produce a stunning paradox where a student who scores a 64 is put into the same band as a student who gets a 45. The noble purposes of pre-empting grade chasing notwithstanding then, the new “passing mark” under the SBB system is effectively 65. A person who scores a 64 gets put into the same category as a person who scores a 49. In this way, the widening bands at the lower end serve only to accelerate academic stress by raising the effective passing grade 15 marks excess of 50. The same applies to the broad middle in the foundation system where getting a 74 or 30 makes no effective difference at all. The narrower bands at the top have their pros and cons. On one hand, it allows for differentiation, so that despite the collapsing of marks into bands, the PSLE can

182

V. Chua and K. K. C. Seah

still be used as a meaningful mechanism for meritorious secondary school posting. Indeed, the MOE explains that the ranges are narrower at the top because the majority of pupils tend to do well for the PSLE, with about half of each cohort typically scoring above 75 marks. The finer bands at the top are, therefore, meant to support differentiation, so that potential bunching of PSLE scores and the corresponding need for alternative posting mechanisms such as computer balloting when ties occur are minimized (Teng, 2016b). At the same time, the narrower bands at the top imply that incentives to compete intensively may continue to persist for the most academically able students. This may be especially true for risk-averse students who tend to exhibit variability in their day-to-day academic performance. Consider a student who typically scores in the 90s but who at times scores in the 80s. Because this student exhibits variability in academic performance, she may prefer to reduce her risk of obtaining a lower AL band by increasing her effort. If such behaviour is typical, the recent PSLE changes may, in fact, not reduce competition among the top academic performers, as intended (Davie, 2015).

10.3 Subject-Based Banding and Social Mixing To mitigate the social stigma faced by students assigned to less-demanding streams and to address the fact that an individual’s strengths may be heterogeneous across subjects, MOE will be doing away with academic steaming in secondary schools beginning 2024 and instead will introduce subject-based banding. Together with this move, schools have been encouraged to do away with the practice of grouping students into form classes by academic ability. Instead, schools are encouraged to group students in other ways, such as by co-curricular activity (MOE, 2019). While the intention is that students will still attend classes in academic subjects such as Mathematics and Science based on subject-based abilities, they may read classes in non-academic subjects with peers from a mixture of streams. This purpose is to encourage social mixing between students from different backgrounds. The move away from ability-based grouping means that form classes will comprise a more diverse mix of individuals. A more diverse class can become more challenging to teach because while some students (the academically stronger ones) may find the material too easy, others (the academically weaker ones) may find it too difficult. Teachers will, therefore, have to be trained to teach such classes and to cater to the needs of a more diverse student body. Perhaps a greater challenge to the objective of social mixing is getting the buy-in of parents. Parents need to be convinced that social mixing is desirable. If parents, especially of the academically stronger students, believe that studying in an environment with lower ability peers will only hurt their children, then they would simply migrate from schools that encourage mixed learning environments towards schools that cater only to academically stronger students (schools which admit only G3 stream students). If that were the case, then paradoxically, this could give rise to a situation where academically

From Meritocracy to Parentocracy, and Back

183

stronger children and academically weaker ones end up clustering separately in different schools, increasing polarization and reducing diversity.

11 Conclusion We have entitled this chapter “From Meritocracy to Parentocracy, and Back” to capture the idea that a merit-based system can over time be mobilized by winner groups to extend a lead and advantage over the rest of society, but also that policy interventions do have a critical role in narrowing the gap. The imperative of levelling up has been made more urgent under conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic, where job losses, business closures, and the stress of work-from-home have been especially acute for lower income groups (Baharudin, 2021). On account of this, a proactive Singapore government has taken steps to lift up the downside, whether through financial aid to lower income families, tweaking the DSA system, changing the scoring rubric in the national examinations, and/or making bold changes to the system of streaming through subject-based banding, including, during COVID-19, programmes to smoothen home-based learning for disadvantaged children (Choong, 2021). The various interventions, as we have noted, are not without some paradoxes, and these include new horizontal forms of stratification among the elite, the continued importance of grades as the first marker of success, and the challenge of social mixing between groups already divided by a process of meritocracy. In a nutshell, meritocracy remains a work-in-progress with policy interventions important for curbing its excesses. It is common these days to speak of innovating and retooling for a post-COVID-19 world of growing inequalities wrought by economic turmoil (Seow, 2020). Meritocracy needs assiduously to evolve a system of open pathways for all, paying special attention to disadvantaged groups. Early meritocracy version 1.0 has made a success story of Singapore. Yet moving forward, society awaits policymakers, academics, and other social architects to imagine meritocracy afresh, keeping alive the original intent of opening pathways for all, but also having the contingent flexibility to evolve a system characterized by broader definitions of success, lifting the disadvantage, and disrupting social closures associated with class, race, and gender (Chua et al., 2019), including the local-foreigner divide (Heng, 2021). Amid troubling times for the world at large, Singapore’s continued flourishing depends on it engendering a version 2.0 meritocracy able to uplift and unite all in society.

184

V. Chua and K. K. C. Seah

References Ang, J. (2019). Grades still good indicator of candidate quality, employers tell student forum. The Straits Times, January 30. Available from: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/gra des-still-the-best-way-to-assess-candidates-employers-tell-student-forum, September 23, 2020. Baharudin, H. (2021). Lower-income folk worst hit by S’pore’s Covid-19 circuit breaker: Study. The Straits Times, August 24. Available from: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/lower-inc ome-folk-worst-hit-by-spores-covid-19-circuit-breaker-study, September 6, 2021. Barr, M., & Skrbis, Z. (2008). Constructing Singapore: Elitism, ethnicity and the nation building project. NIAS Press. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. Basic Books. Calarco, J. M. (2014). Coached for the classroom: Parents’ cultural transmission and children’s reproduction of educational inequalities. American Sociological Review, 79(5), 1015–1037. Calarco, J. M. (2020). Avoiding us versus them: How schools’ dependence on privileged “helicopter” parents influences enforcement of rules. American Sociological Review, 85(2), 223–246. Castells, M. (1988). The developmental city-state in an open world economy: The Singapore experience. Working Paper 31. Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy, University of California Berkeley. Chan, D. (2006). Interactive effects of situational judgment effectiveness and proactive personality on work perceptions and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 475–481. Chan, H. C., & Siddique, S. (2019). Singapore’s multiculturalism: Evolving diversity. Routledge. Cheung, P. (1994). Educational development and manpower planning in Singapore. CUHK Education Journal, 22, 185–195. Choong, J. (2021). Keppel donates laptops for home-based learning to students from lowerincome families. The Straits Times, June 9. Available from: https://www.straitstimes.com/singap ore/keppel-donates-laptops-for-home-based-learning-to-students-from-lower-income-families, September 6, 2021. Chrystal, K. A., & Mizen, P. D. (2003). Goodhart’s law: Its origins, meaning and implications for monetary policy. Central Banking, Monetary Theory and Practice: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodhart 221–243. Chua, V. (2015). Do Raffles boys ‘rule’ and Anglo-Chinese boys own’ Singapore? Analyzing schoolto-work correspondences in an elite developmental state. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 25(1), 1–19. Chua, V., Koh, G., Ser, T. E., & Shih, D. (2021). Social capital in Singapore: The power of network diversity. Routledge. Chua, V., Swee, E. L., & Wellman, B. (2019). Getting ahead in Singapore: How neighborhoods, gender, and ethnicity affect enrollment into elite schools. Sociology of Education, 92(2), 176–198. Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. Davie, S. (2015). New PSLE grading aims to reduce rivalry. My Paper, July 14. Available from: https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/new-psle-grading-aims-reduce-rivalry, May 13, 2020. Davie, S. (2019). Primary 5 pupils to be graded using new PSLE scoring system from next year. The Straits Times, July 25. Available from: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/ primary-5-pupils-to-be-graded-using-new-psle-scoring-system-from-next-year, September 24, 2020. Delany, B. (1991). Allocation, choice, and stratification within high schools: How the sorting machine copes. American Journal of Education, 99(22), 181–207. Dore, R. (1976). The diploma disease. Allen and Unwin. Elman, B. A. (2013). Civil examinations and meritocracy in late imperial China. Harvard University Press. Evans, P., & Rauch, J. (1999). Bureaucracy and growth: A cross-national analysis of the effects of “Weberian” state structures on economic growth. American Sociological Review, 64(5), 748–765.

From Meritocracy to Parentocracy, and Back

185

Fook, S. K. (Ed.). (2019). Back to Raffles@Bras Basah 1823–1972: A book to commemorate Singapore’s bicentennial. Gee, C. (2012). The educational ‘arms race’: All for one, loss for all (pp. 1–37). ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.25818/he73-kx2z Hechter, M. (1978). Group formation and the cultural division of labor. American Journal of Sociology, 84(2), 293–318. Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2019). World happiness report 2019. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Heng, J. (2021). One united nation: What has fuelled the ‘us vs them’ sentiment in Singapore, and how ill we move ahead? The Business Times, August 6. Available from: https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/brunch/one-united-nation-what-has-fuelled-the-us-vsthem-sentiment-in-singapore-and-how-will-we-move, September 6, 2021. Johnson, C. (1982). MITI and the Japanese miracle: The growth of industrial policy 1925–1975. Stanford University Press. Kuppens, T., Spears, R., Manstead, A. S. R., Spruyt, B., Easterbrook, M. J. (2018). Educationism and the irony of meritocracy: Negative attitudes of higher educated people towards the less educated. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76(May), 429–447. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1999). The quality of government. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 15(1), 222–279. Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. University of California Press. Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72(1), 37–53. Lee, E. (2008). Singapore: The unexpected nation. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Lee, P. (2016). 3 unhealthy trends plaguing education: Denise Phua. The Straits Times, January 16. Available from: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/3-unhealthy-trends-pla guing-education-denise-phua, May 10, 2020. Loriaux, M. (1999). The French developmental state as myth and moral ambition. In The Developmental State (pp. 235–275). Cornell University Press. Ministry of Education, Singapore 2013. Not naming the top scorers for 2012 PSLE examinations, January 14, 2013. Available from: https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/not-nam ing-the-top-scorers-for-2012-psle-examinations, January 7, 2020. Ministry of Education, Singapore 2019. MOE FY2019 Committee of supply debate response by minister for education Ong Ye Kung, March 5, 2019. Available from: https://www.moe.gov.sg/ news/speeches/moe-fy2019-committee-of-supply-debate-response-by-minister-for-educationong-ye-kung, January 9, 2020. Muller, J. (2018). The tyranny of metrics. Princeton University Press. Neal, D., & Schanzenbach. (2010). Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability. Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), 263–283. OECD 2016. (2020). PISA 2015 results: Excellence and equity in education. PISA (Vol. 1). OECD Publishing. Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264266490-en.pdf? expires=1578647550&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=28D40ECFF8515D9C11C43608 DBD31C12, January 8, 2020. Putnam, R. D. (2016). Our kids: The American dream in crisis. Simon and Schuster. Quah, J. (2010). Public administration Singapore style. Talisman Publishing. Ridgeway, C. (2014). Why status matters for inequality. American Sociological Review, 79(1), 1–16. Savage, M., et al. (2013). A new model of social class? Findings from the BBC’s Great British Class Survey experiment. Sociology, 47(2), 219–250. Seah, K. (2019). Tuition has ballooned to a s$1.4b industry in Singapore. Should we be concerned? TODAY, September 12. Available from: https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/tuition-hasballooned-s14b-industry-singapore-should-we-be-concerned, January 8, 2020. Seow, J. (2020). Lower-wage workers in Singapore hit hard by fallout of pandemic. The Straits Times, September 15. Available from: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/manpower/lowerwage-workers-here-hit-hard-by-fallout-of-pandemic, September 15, 2020.

186

V. Chua and K. K. C. Seah

Singapore Ministry of Manpower, Labour Force in Singapore 2018. See Chart 14. https://stats.mom. gov.sg/Pages/Labour-Force-In-Singapore-2018.aspx Spaulding, R. M., Jr. (2015). Imperial Japan’s higher civil service examinations. Princeton University Press. Spence, M. (1978). Job market signaling. In Uncertainty in economics (pp. 281–306). Academic Press. Strathern, M. (1997). ‘Improving Ratings’: Audit in the British University system. European Review, 5(3), 305–321. Tan, E. S. (2012). The mobility game in Singapore: Poverty, welfare, opportunity, and success in a capitalist economy. Poverty and Global Recession in Southeast Asia 153–163. Tan, J. (2018). Notions of equality and fairness in education: The case of the meritocracy in Singapore. Routledge International Handbook of Schools and Schooling in Asia 28–39. Teng, A. (2015). Raffles Institution now a ‘middle-class’ school, says principal. The Straits Times, August 4. Available from: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/raffles-institutionnow-a-middle-class-school-says-principal, January 9, 2020. Teng, A. (2016a). Parliament: PSLE scoring system to be revamped; T-score to be removed from 2021. The Straits Times, April 8. Available from: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/edu cation/parliament-psle-scoring-system-to-be-revamped-t-score-to-be-removed-from-2021, May 10, 2020. Teng, A. (2016b). PSLE changes: 8 achievement levels offer a good balance, says MOE. The Straits Times, July 14. Available from: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/8-ach ievement-levels-offer-a-good-balance-says-moe, May 10, 2020. Teng, A. (2016c). Study: Kids from affluent families more likely in IP, GEP schools. The Straits Times, June 1. Available from: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/study-kidsfrom-affluent-families-more-likely-in-ip-gep-schools, September 16, 2020. Teng, A. (2018). Nearly half of low-income students in Singapore attend the same schools. The Straits Times, October 24. Available from: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/nea rly-half-of-low-income-students-in-singapore-attend-the-same-schools, January 9, 2020. Teng, A. (2019a). Tharman: Parenting must evolve with education system. The Straits Times, February 16. Available from: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/tharman-parent ing-must-evolve-with-education-system, September 22, 2020. Teng, A. (2019b). Singapore families spent $1.4b on private tuition for kids last year. The Straits Times, September 6. Available from: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/familiesspent-14b-on-private-tuition-for-kids-last-year-as-parents-fork-out, January 10, 2020. Young, M. (1958). Rise of the meritocracy. Thames & Hudson.

Education for the Minority Malay Community in Singapore: A Sociological Perspective Mohamad Shamsuri Juhari

Abstract This chapter discusses the academic performance of students from the Malay minority community in Singapore. The Malays are currently the youngest demographic group in the country; in terms of new workers entering the country’s labour force, statistics indicate that the other ethnic groups have already ‘peaked’ in terms of contributing their yearly proportion of new entrants to the country’s workforce. However, the Malay community is projected to reach its maximum contribution of new workers only in the coming few years when its present cohort of students graduate and begin entering the labour market. Therefore, a prerogative should be placed on maximising these students’ potential in supporting to the nation’s economic progress. The chapter will begin by first explaining how Singapore’s education system has contributed to the development of unique traits such as the nation’s meritocratic approach and its ‘brand’ of multiculturalism. While these have resulted in the nation’s economic progress, they also surface arguments that the acquired gains have not been evenly felt by all ethnic communities. Malay students’ academic achievements within the education system in Singapore is discussed specifically those touching on themes such as the tension between these students’ notion of ‘identity’ and ‘identification’, the consequence of diminishing social capital as well as the unintended marginalisation experienced by this cohort of students. Several recommended solutions are offered at the conclusion to this chapter. Keywords Malay · Youth · Education · Identity · Marginalisation · Social capital

M. S. Juhari (B) Institute of Policy Studies, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_11

187

188

M. S. Juhari

1 Introduction 1.1 Origins of the Singaporean Malay Community A majority of Singapore’s Malay community see their ancestors as originating from the island of Java with another 15–20% from Bawean Island (Aljunied, 2002). The rest are from the Malaysian peninsula. These sojourners settled down on the island during the period of British colonial rule from the mid-nineteenth century to just after World War II as they were attracted both by urban wages promising a higher standard of living as well as release from the constraints of their native villages where they were often able to occupy only the lower rungs of the economic and social order. Grouped together as the Malay ethnic component of the official Chinese/Malay/Indian/Others (CIMO) categorization, the Singapore Government defines being Malay as any “persons of Malay or Indonesian origin, such as Javanese, Boyanese, Bugis, etc.” (Singapore Department of Statistics, 2019). Unlike the other migrant ethnic communities, the Malays are nevertheless recognised as the indigenous inhabitants of the land as their ancestors came from within the region, specifically peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra, Java, and the other islands of the Indonesian archipelago. This recognition is enshrined in Article 152 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Attorney-General Office of Singapore, 1965). As an ethnic group, the Malays can trace their roots as far back as the twelfth and thirteenth century Majapahit and Srivijaya empires. Today, historians describe the region where they traditionally inhabit as the ‘Alam Melayu’—the Malay realm— while the areas where Malay communities live in are known as the ‘Rumpun Melayu’—the Malay collective (Juhari, 2012). As boundaries, borders and nations appear and disappear, the Malays continue to identify themselves by virtue of their skin tone, language roots and cultural affinity. According to Alatas (1977), the British colonialists at the time regarded the Malays as simple farmers and fishermen albeit with strong religious faith and a ‘raciallyinherent’ tendency toward loyalty and deference to authority. This justified their preference in recruiting Malays for positions in the police and armed forces, and for lesser skilled positions in the public service. A government census taken in 1931 reported that 70% of Malays held jobs in public service positions or in roles such as gardeners, drivers, or small-scale artisans and retailers. The same census also reflects that 18% of Malays then earned their living as fishermen while another 12% worked as farmers (Vlieland, 1932).

1.2 Evolution of Singapore’s Education System When Singapore was founded as a trading port in 1819, the British colonial masters’ first initiative was to put in place a social structure where the island was to be governed based on racial groups and formalised communal leadership. Stamford

Education for the Minority Malay Community in Singapore …

189

Raffles, the Lieutenant Governor who represented the British in signing the treaty with Tengku Hussein, the Sultan of Johor, and Temenggong Abdul Rahman who was head of the Malay settlement at the mouth of the Singapore River, left the island the very next day to return to British Bencoolen (Sumatra). This was after he appointed Major William Farquhar as Resident and Commandant of the new settlement with specific instructions for a township to be created based on his designated plan. Accordingly, spaces were to be separately allocated for the establishment of ethnic enclaves, administrative offices and official headquarters of the East India Company (Buckley, 1984). Based on the plan, the post of community leader was to be co-opted as part of the Colony’s political structure. The Malay indigenous community naturally came under the leadership of the Malay royalty presiding over the region, specifically, the Sultan of Johor who by then had established his official residency on the island. The Colonial administrators subsequently created official designations to be bestowed to an identified leader from the other ethnic groups residing in the island. For instance, Choa Chong Long became the first Chinese community leader to take up the title of ‘Kapitan China’. As part of the official government hierarchy, he was then tasked to supervise members of his ethnic group living on the island (Hassan, 2009). Following this exclusivist and communalistic approach to governance, one can understand why there was the absence of a concerted effort to establish a unified education system at the time. As a result, instead of the formation of standardised and regulated academic institutions, each racial group established vernacular schools according to their cultural preferences and perceived educational needs of their younger members. The Malay-Muslims for example established ‘pondok’ schools which function to provide Quranic instructions to their students while the early Chinese schools focussed on writing and calligraphy. The Colonial government were however less inclined to endorse or promote vernacular education though support was provided for English language-based Christian mission schools (Gwee & Doraisamy, 1969). Nevertheless, an exception was later made to fund education for the native Malays of the island. The earliest example was the establishment of the Singapore Free School which was later redesignated as the Singapore Institution. The school is the predecessor of the current Raffles Institution. Founded by Reverend R. J. Darrah in 1832 following Raffles’ initial proposal, the mission of the school then was to educate the sons of local chiefs especially on subjects focussing on the development of vocational skills such as agriculture and basic arithmetic (Chelliah, 1960). Another mandate was to teach the local language to officers of the East India company. Underpinning this delivery of knowledge however was the government’s objective of creating a more servile local society by normalising the concept of colonial imperialism and conforming to the social controls imposed by the British colonial administrators (Buckley, 1984). By the time Singapore achieved full independence from the British in 1965, the locally elected government was already made conscious of Singapore’s precarious position as a young nation comprising various migrant communities. The realisation was that if not managed properly, the dangers of diversity may potentially be a cause

190

M. S. Juhari

of disunity for the fledgling nation. In fact, as early as 1956, preparations to create an inclusive and united society had already started with recommendations from the All-Party Report on Chinese Education being made public. The report included a proposal for the creation of an education system which will meet the needs of all major ethnic groups in the country (Chew, 1956). It triggered a series of initiatives aimed at creating a multicultural yet inclusive society with emphasis on education for nation-building. For instance, a uniform curriculum for all vernacular and language-based schools was successfully implemented by 1965. This was accompanied by the adoption of locally oriented textbooks to replace those brought in from each racial group’s country of origin e.g. mainland China. Common practices such the donning of uniforms, the singing of the national anthem and recitation of the citizen’s pledge every morning before the start of the school day was made compulsory practices in all academic institutions to instil in students a sense of equality, loyalty, patriotism and unity of purpose in serving the new nation. Homogeneity in the learning process was further encouraged in 1966 with the introduction of the Bilingual Education Policy making English language the main medium of instruction in schools. Nevertheless, appreciation of multiculturalism was maintained as the pupil’s mother tongue was declared a Second Language and made a necessary examinable subject at both the primary and secondary levels (The Straits Times, 1968). A push towards a meritocracy-based approach was initiated when Singapore’s Education Ministry made it compulsory that all pupils regardless of background undertake a common national examination to mark the end of each stage of their studies. Specifically, this entails the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), the Singapore-Cambridge General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level (GCE O-Levels) at the end of secondary school and the GCE ‘A’ Levels at the end of pre-tertiary studies. The requirement served to enforce uniformity in the school curriculum by way of ensuring that lesson contents in all schools were similarly attuned towards passing these examinations. The practice of meritocracy in education ensured that students are recognised and rewarded solely based on their academic results. This translates to their ability to take up positions of high responsibility and the rewards that go with it. Equality of opportunity comes into play as factors such as family background, ethnicity, age, gender, or national origin were very much downplayed as factors ensuring students’ academic success. The strong belief in the meritocratic approach not only became the backbone of our modern education system, it has since permeated to all aspects of Singapore society.

1.3 Economic Progress Over the years, Singapore’s push to project a multicultural outlook backed by the meritocratic approach has resulted in the nation’s growing economic prosperity. According to data produced by the World Bank, Spore’s GDP per capita in 1960 was USD 428. This grew by more than 25 times by 1990 with the GDP increasing to USD

Education for the Minority Malay Community in Singapore …

191

11,862. By 2019, World Bank statistics indicate the Singapore has even overtaken some of its Western counterparts such as the UK when its GDP per capita rose to USD 65,641 (World Bank, 2020). After more than 50 years since its independence, the proponents of Singapore’s meritocratic approach in education can now vouch for its effectiveness by listing a slew of achievements. For one, Singapore’s education system has gained much recognition both locally as well as at the international level. The nation-state’s literacy rates rose from about 50% in 1965 to more than 96% by 2012 (Gopinathan, 2015). Similarly, international indicators reflect that Singapore students have consistently received top rankings when compared to their peers from other countries. This is evident from reports produced by global assessment frameworks such as Trends In International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Progress In International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) and various International Olympiads. World organisations such as the OECD have also commended Singapore for the quality of its education system.

2 Unintended Consequences on Malay Students’ Educational Achievements 2.1 Changing Social Landscape Unfortunately, despite its internationally recognised track record and its subsequent contribution to the nation’s economic prosperity, Singapore’s changing social landscape has over time, revealed flaws in the nation’s education system. While the meritocratic approach provides rationale for the design of an ability-driven education system where students are placed into different learning tracks depending on their exam results, critics are now questioning the design’s overall effectiveness on students. For instance, upon their entry into the secondary level, students are streamed into the various learning tracks based on their Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) results. Posting is dependent on academic achievement with the different tracks emphasising curricula designed to match each student’s learning needs, abilities and interests. Highest scoring students who form the top 10% of their secondary cohort are channelled into the Special stream and are provided with enhanced study modules that allow for greater flexibility in learning by way of a less structured study programme. These students are enrolled into the Integrated Program which exempts them from taking the ‘O’ level examinations at the end of their 4-year course of study. At the end of their fourth year, they will be automatically advanced to their next level of study. In this way, these high achieving pupils will be able to live up to their potential having been immersed in learning experiences which are broader in nature yet without the need to be tied to studies which focus only towards passing their final examinations. The long-term expectation is for these students to advance their academic journey

192

M. S. Juhari

beyond that of basic tertiary credentials. Of the remainder in the secondary level cohort, 50% will qualify for a place in the Express track. This may lead to junior college or the polytechnics. Those who excel at this level will qualify to advance to university studies. The remaining 40% are considered lower achieving students in the cohort. Of these, half are expected to be placed in the Normal (Academic) track which normally allows the better achieving students to advance to a polytechnic diploma. The remainder will fall into the Normal (Technical) stream which, upon completion will enable students to move on to attain a skills-based qualification derived from the various Institutes of Technical Education (Jelita, 2017). Proponents of the model have given their assurance that despite this differentiated approach, quality education will be made available to all students regardless of their academic aptitude. According to statistics published by Singapore’s MOE, the government’s recurrent expenditure per secondary school student had risen from SGD 5614 in the 2002/03 academic year to SGD 15,580 in the 2016/17 academic year (Education Digest, 2019). Supporters thus argue that at the basic level, the government has shown commitment to quality education for all students by way of its yearly increases to the allocation of resources endowed to all local students. In short, no Singaporean pupil has been deprived of the resources required for effective teaching and learning. Statistics indicate that Malay students have made great strides in educational attainment from the 1980s, with the largest improvements registered after 2000. For instance, the percentage of Primary 1 cohort of Malay students progressing to post-secondary education had risen from 87.1% in 2009 to 93.7% in 2018 (Ministry of Education 2019b). In the book Navigating Educational Development: MENDAKI and the Malays, it was reported that the number of Malays with post-secondary education have increased from 23% in 2000 to 38.3% in 2015. Similarly, the proportion of Malays with tertiary education have risen from 7.3% in 2000 to 21.1% in 2015. In addition, Malay students’ potential has also taken a turn for the better with the introduction of specialised schools for those who failed their PSLE such as Northlight School and Assumption Pathway School, established in 2007 and 2009 respectively (Rahman & Surattee, 2019). Despite these improved statistics, criticisms remain in the way the educational structure has taken its toll on the achievement levels of students from the minority groups. This is especially so for students from the Malay community, a group overrepresented at the lower end of the income spectrum (Singstat, 2019). While there is no doubt that the educational status of the Malays has been steadily improving over the years, what is of concern is the inability of this rate of development to match those of the other ethnic groups. It has been highlighted that each community should be granted its own pace of development without the need for comparisons to the other ethnic groups in the country. In this light, the Malays should therefore be proud of their current achievements. Nevertheless, a different strand of argument stresses against the Malay community buying into the belief as it views this to be tantamount to lulling Malays into finding comfort within their own ‘trap of mediocrity’ (Juhari, 2012). The latter notion in fact underpins the fallacy of the meritocratic approach in the way that it fails to recognise the variability of obstacles which create different ‘starting

Education for the Minority Malay Community in Singapore …

193

points’ for each child’s academic journey. McNamee (2014, p. 30) underscores this point when he stresses that the “exhibited behaviours and perceptions associated with a “culture of poverty” reflect the effects of poverty, not the causes”. Taking this into account essentially means denoting the fact that the challenges faced by each student may differ depending on the individual’s circumstance in life. This is especially evident when relating a student’s level of academic success with his or her financial background.

2.2 Achievement Gap While the previous issue of high dropout rates for Malay students at the primary level have been mitigated with the introduction of the Compulsory Education Legislation in 2003 (https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/CEA2000), statistics from the Ministry of Education nevertheless imply that these would-be dropouts are merely advanced to occupy the lower rung academic tracks at the secondary level. Figures reflect that the achievement gap between Malay and non-Malay students at the end of primary school still remains unresolved even upon completion of their secondary school education. At the end of their primary school studies, Malay students are found to continue experiencing higher levels of underachievement compared to students from the other ethnic groups. For instance, results of the Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE) report that Malay students generally fared worse in the core subjects of English, Science and Mathematics, with the achievement gap being the widest with last of the three subjects. As reflected in a 10-year results analysis, the discrepancy for Mathematics was most apparent in 2016 when the gap came up to more than twenty-five percentage points in comparison to the national level. The under-representation of Malay achievers is also especially discernible in the top tier of the educational ladder. While the earlier mention of multiple increases in the proportion of Malays achieving tertiary education is laudable, the citation fails to mention that the bulk of these numbers comprise the lower level diploma qualifications. Upon closer examination, the same statistics unfortunately reveal that only 7.42% of Malays had attained university education as against the national figure of 27.4% (General Household Survey, 2015). This means that in order to catch up with the rest of Singapore society, the Malay community must immediately increase its cohort of graduating students from our local universities by at least fourfold! Taken together, these figures suggest that the achievement gaps between the Malays and the other ethnic groups in Singapore had begun in these students’ earlier years of schooling and widened in the later years of education. These gaps remain persistent and current attempts to narrow them are not achieving their desired success (AMP, 2012). Although there is statistical evidence to reflect a significant number of working-age Malays trying to make up for their earlier educational ‘losses’ by attending adult education classes, it is a situation of there being too few achievers to raise the aggregate level of academic success in the community (Singstat, 2019).

194

M. S. Juhari

2.3 Diminishing Social Capital Bourdieu (1986) argued that families possess different amounts and compositions of capital and that each type of capital, invested in children, may yield the student a comparative advantage in the education system. He cites three kinds of capital that is specifically involved in this process: cultural, economic, and social capital. Cultural capital is transmitted from parents to children through socialization where it contributes to educational success by equipping learners with an appreciation of higher education, and the ability to present an impression of academic aptitude to teachers. Economic capital is reflected in the capacity to finance the direct costs of education, for example the higher school fees charged for enrolment into prestigious institutions or the ability to pay for costs of supplementary activities such as tuition and enrichment classes. Possession of cultural and economic capital then preludes ownership of social capital. Social capital presents itself via the ability of parents to structure their children’s educational paths towards a desired outcome by leveraging on their social connections. For example, these connections may be utilised to secure prized apprenticeship positions with identified employers (Møllegaard & Jæger, 2015). To this end, critics of the Singapore education system have gone to the extent of arguing that the nation’s much lauded meritocratic educational approach have now degenerated into a form of ‘parentocracy’ where academic success no longer hinges solely on pupils’ merit or hard work but increasingly on the knowledge, resourcefulness and extent of involvement of their parents (Ong, 2014). Research has shown that students with high levels of social capital are more likely to benefit from the opportunities and resources which this has allowed them access to. Low levels of social capital, on the other hand, have been linked to students’ poor performance in schools due to the reduced amount of help available to them and due to a feeling of social isolation in certain cases (Carpiano & Kimbro, 2012). Unfortunately, poor families, in many cases Malay families, often correspond to those possessing reduced amounts of economic, cultural and in consequence, social capital. According to Coleman (1988), social capital is determined by emotional ties such as obligations, expectations, norms, and trustworthiness. In the context of parenting and children’s educational success, social capital is enhanced in two ways. The first is underpinned by parent–child communication and interaction at home. Essentially, the more positive the relationship, the higher will be the child’s build-up of social capital. The other kind of social capital enhancement is by parents’ building on external relationships. This is based on positive interactions between the child’s parents and other adults such as other parents and teachers. This kind of social capital is built on connections established by way of parents’ participation in activities such as those organised by the school and parent-teacher associations. The lack of parental involvement in such activities thus leads to lost opportunities to enhance their children’s social capital early on in their life (Carpiano & Kimbro, 2012). This usually occurs with low income parents as they tend to not have the

Education for the Minority Malay Community in Singapore …

195

luxury of time having these taken away by the need to focus on the more basic needs for survival such as taking on more than one job to make ends meet (Lim & Oh, 2019). This is despite the fact that findings from an earlier Institute of Policy Studies research on ‘Parents’ Perceptions of the Singapore Primary School System’ revealed that Malay parents are conscious to the fact that educational attainment is the best medium for upward social mobility. The survey had indicated that compared to those from the other ethnic groups in the country, Malay parents scored the highest levels of stress on issues relating to them not being able to help their child with their studies because the syllabus has become too challenging for them (Mathews et al., 2016). This subsequently increases their fear that their child will lose out in the education system in the long run. Unfortunately, low-income Malay parents typically lack exposure to relevant parenting information such as those emphasising the benefits of involving themselves in their children’s lives. This is because such parents would likely not have access to the same information networks as those with higher SES. This limits their capacity for providing for their children especially if information asymmetry occurs as a result of deficits in the quantity and quality of their social connections (Clarkson et al., 2007). Similarly, research also show that Malay students with low social capital often lack role models and have no one to advise them on the steps to take to achieve educational success. This is especially the case for students whose older relations tend not to go as far up the education ladder (Juhari, 2018). As such, they have to rely on themselves to look elsewhere for sources of information and motivation. Failure to access these inevitably causes them to stumble more along the way resulting in greater stress faced in their studies (Zhang, 2014). As with most young people, the lack of information due to their limited social capital makes Malay students vulnerable to succumbing to less desirable paths which they would have strived to avoid had they fully understood the implications these would have on their future (Juhari, 2018).

2.4 Marginalisation Critics argue that challenges faced by students from low-income families, particularly those from the Malay community, are further exacerbated by the inequality and marginalisation which occur between and within schools. Inequality occurs when learners are not provided with the same level of access to resources as others resulting in their loss of future prospects through education (Zhang, 2014). This can be seen from specific value-added resources made privy only to those at the higher-end learning tracks. It was pointed out that while all students receive the stipulated increases in government funding, schools catering to top-tier students also receive additional support by way of per capita grants and scholarships so as to enable their pupils to participate in more specialised programs (MOE, 2018). For instance, students from the lower end academic track do not enjoy the kind of higher-level exposure and interactions made available via specialised enrichment programmes organised for IP students such as the Humanities and Social Sciences Research Programme

196

M. S. Juhari

(HSSRP) under the auspices of MOE’s Gifted Education Branch (MOE). On their own, top secondary schools have also been able to offer various supplementary activities programmes designed to “stretch and develop its high ability learners”. These include yearly enrichment camps to provide such students with out-of-classroom learning activities. One of these schools, for instance, organises an annual symposium where students role-play politicians and diplomats in a United Nations or Singapore Parliamentary setting (Anglo-Chinese School (Independent), 2018). Additionally, an article in the Straits Times reported that the difference between Singapore’s top-end neighbourhood schools has over the years “widened partly as a result of factors like bigger and better facilities built with alumni funds” (Davie, 2014). Although the government have recently taken steps to reduce and make more equitable the maintenance and operational funding disbursed to these premium institutions, these schools are still financially advantaged by virtue of them being recipients of additional funding endowed by their well-resourced alumni associations. Unfortunately, the proportion of Malay students making up the student body in these well-financed institutions is usually very much smaller than what is representative of the size of the community. These disadvantages faced by students from the ethnic group cumulatively results in lesser opportunities for the Malay community to raise its status quo vis-à-vis the other ethnic groups in the country. The situation is not made better given the nation’s overwhelming conviction placed on meritocratic ideals, underscored by government messages reinforcing the value of pragmatism and self-reliance. Detractors argue that such beliefs have dulled many Singaporeans into a state of ‘false consciousness’ where issues such as the exclusion and marginalisation of minority groups are seen as inevitable, acceptable and one that needs to be tolerated for the greater good of the country. Jost (1995) explains false consciousness as pertaining to “the holding of false beliefs… which thereby contribute to the disadvantaged position [of a group]” (p. 397). Chua (1995) lends support to this argument when he highlights the ‘communitarian’ approach adopted by the Singapore government. Chua insists that “the communitarian ideology is indubitably anti-liberal as collective interests are placed above individual ones” (p. 29). Other commentators picture a more negative situation by emphasising that ‘collective interest’ in the Singapore context typically reflect practices where priority placed on the needs of the dominant community tend to supercede the well-being of minority groups in deference to ‘the greater good’ (Juhari, 2012). An example is the Shared Values framework which was introduced by the government in 1988. These were situated on five key tenets comprising the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Nation before community and society above self Family as the basic unit of society Community support and respect for the individual Consensus, not conflict Racial and religious harmony.

The value underpinning each message are extolled to have been rooted from beliefs common to every Asian society. As such, they are to be championed as values for Singaporeans to live by regardless of their ethnic background. Over the

Education for the Minority Malay Community in Singapore …

197

years, refinements have been made and these values are today incorporated into the current schools’ moral education curriculum. Underpinned by MOE’s Character and Citizenship Education programme, they provide a framework for students to discuss issues of social and national interest (Ministry for Culture, Community & Youth, 2019). Chong (2002) however explains that such values are in fact appropriated from ‘selected’ Confucian ethics that idealised economic processes. For instance, the beliefs which underlie the message ‘Nation before community and society above self’ can be argued as one serving to perpetuate ruling-class interests by securing compliance from the populace.

2.5 Malay Youth Identity According to Kroger (2003), ethnic identity is positively related to one’s “coping ability, mastery, self-esteem, and optimism, and negatively related to loneliness and depression” (p. 220). By the same token, the Singaporean Malay youth’s feelings of value, pride and belonging to their ethnic community are factors which have impacted the way they perform in the education system. In his book ‘Modernity and Self-Identity’ (1991), Anthony Giddens formulated the concepts of ‘agency’ and ‘structure’ in order to understand the impact of modernity on human identity and subsequent human action. He sees human identity as the basis on which our human motivations and responses are shaped. It implies that as individuals possessing free will, we are not social or cultural ‘dupes’. Neither are we passive individuals. Instead, our actions and reactions are intentional and guided by how we perceive our identity to be. Paradoxically, Giddens also asserts that the eventual self-identity on which individuals rely on to guide their thinking—and subsequently base their actions on—is itself not a permanent fixture. It is a continuously forming and reforming product of a person’s reflexive understanding of his or her history. In essence, self-identity is not something which takes shape according to the individual’s conscious will. It is seen to be fluid in nature and changes “depending on the person’s reflexive beliefs about her or his own biography” (Giddens, 1991, p. 53). Pierre Bourdieu (Webb et al., 2002) extends this line of thought by way of his assertion that the State also plays a part in ‘constructing’ the individual’s identity through its ‘rites of institution’. This is evident by regulatory practices such as the issuing of identity cards, categorization of ethnic groups and mandating legality of names and signatures. By implication, Bourdieu apprises us of the fact that the government of the day will also have the means to create structures for its citizens to develop alternative ways of looking at their life histories. Together, Gidden’s and Bourdieu’s perspectives can be synthesized to form the basis of the Mental Model Framework. First introduced by Kenneth Craik in 1943 (Johnson-Laird, 2010) and further explored by psychologists such as like Ruth Byrne, the notion suggests that the human mind constructs ‘small scale models’ of everyday

198

M. S. Juhari

reality which it then uses not only to explain but to anticipate outcomes of events. These ‘models’ are constructed from information filtered either through perception, imagination or the subjective comprehension of reality. Over the course of an individual’s lifetime, these constructs can become entrenched as deeply held beliefs, images and assumptions we hold about ourselves, our community and how we fit into them. Mental models perpetuate beliefs of how scenarios will be played out especially those driven by perceptions of biased or prejudicial treatment. To an uncritical mind, the expected outcome to a situation based on similar scenarios will always be the same. The concern is that once a negatively constructed mental model binds itself to a group’s shared identity, it develops into self-belief which impacts the group’s motivation to better itself. These sociological frameworks serve to explain the lack of aspirations among Malay students who perceive the ethnic group as possessing low social value. In a chapter titled What Does It Mean To Be Malay? Voices Of Youth From The Community (Juhari, 2020a), I describe how respondents gave accounts of their feelings of victimization arising from what they felt to be differential treatment of members of their community because of stereotypes stemming from three categories: (i) (ii) (iii)

Being poor and having low purchasing power Being a community possessing deficient character traits Being followers of a religion which is too restrictive and exclusive.

During the series of focus group discussions involving youths from the community, respondents often peppered their inputs with personal incidences or observations of others around them. For many, these experiences have led to a lowering of their self-value and for some, further concretized their negative mental models of their community leading to further disenfranchisement, lack of motivation and acceptance of the ethnic group’s status quo. In his monograph on perceptions of opportunity and academic orientation among Mexican and Puerto Rican Youth, Fergus (2009) highlights three core questions causing emotional turmoil among youth of the community in regard to their identity formation—‘Who am I?’, ‘Who am I allowed to be?’ and finally, ‘What am I presumed to be?’. Based on these questions, he discusses the issue of how these youths’ self-identity emerges as a product of negotiations between self-perception and external perception. Earlier, Hall (1989, p. 69) laid out the differentiation between the notions of ‘identity’ and ‘identification’. According to him, identity arises from “common historical experiences and shared cultural codes” which then offers meaning to the term ‘one people’. Identity thus provides individuals with a “stable, unchanging and continuous frames of reference and meaning” for themselves and their community. The notion of ‘identification’ however, adds another dimension to this. In the context of impressionable young people from an ethnic group, it reflects a recognition and acceptance of additional “shared characteristics” with a sub-group from within their community. The nature of this sense of ‘identification’ however is that it can “be won or lost, sustained or abandoned”. It is thus “conditional, lodged in

Education for the Minority Malay Community in Singapore …

199

contingency” (Hall, 1992, p. 280). When applied to youths from the Malay community, this ‘identity—identification’ framework is unfortunately mostly seen to be contradictory rather than complementary. Findings from my research projects focussing on Malay youths (Juhari, 2012, 2020a) indicate that local Malay youth ethnic identity currently bifurcates between the more positive cultural and religious norms as much as it does with attachments made with the negative qualities of certain subgroups within the community. The issue becomes problematic as identity and identification is seen as contradictory and imposing competing limits on the youth’s connection to their Malay heritage. Further findings indicate that academically successful youths who possess weak ethnic affiliation will more likely distance themselves from their community identity especially if they have access to a group with higher social status. In line with Social Identity theory, their actions result from the desire to attain a more favourable selfconcept for themselves (Hornsey, 2008). In an interview with an academically high achieving teenage student from a prestigious institution, ‘Ima’, whose ethnicity is reflected as ‘Indian’ in her identity card due to a great-grandfather on her father’s side marrying a Malay, admits that she is motivated to align herself with what she perceives to be an ethnic group possessing a higher status quo. This is despite the fact that after her great-grandfather’s marriage, her grandparents’ and parents’ marriages were within the Malay community (Juhari, 2012). Ima’s admission underscore Turner’s (1999) suggestion that members of low status groups may resort to strategies such as physically or psychologically leaving the group in favour of a higher status group. The corollary of such actions is that it potentially leaves the rest in the lower status group with even less sources of inspiration. Policy-wise, these sociological theories on ethnic identity may have bearing on the state of the Malay-Muslim community. It provides a reference point for explaining issues preventing the ethnic community from progressing at a pace similar to the other ethnic groups in the country. The issue of educational underachievement, for instance, is beginning to be seen not only as pervasive but a trait which is perpetual and unsolvable in the eyes of some members of the Malay-Muslim community. The Malay youth identity research project has unfortunately also revealed that a vicious cycle has been created with younger members of the ethnic group now succumbing to a defeatist mindset by accepting such failures as the result of an inherent character flaw of the community (Juhari, 2020a). Even worse, in some pockets of the community, Mangino’s (2013) forewarning of the emergence of an ‘oppositional’ culture has surfaced where any semblance of a Malay student’s efforts to achieve success in his or her studies is scorned and mocked upon by his or her peers. Such issues has spurred the nation’s Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Mr. Masagos Zulkifli into emphasising on the importance of early intervention so that potential problems can be identified before they arise thus ensuring that Malay families are set “on a virtuous cycle” (Liu, 2019).

200

M. S. Juhari

3 Malay Youth Potential 3.1 A Young Community As of the last census-taking exercise, the Malay population in Singapore comprises 13.3% of the total resident population. As an ethnic community, the Malays nevertheless, are the youngest demographic group in the country, with an average median age of 33.9 years compared to the national median age of 40.8 years (Singstat, 2018). Currently, 19% of Malays are in ages below 15 years compared to 15.2% at the national level. This implies that the larger proportion making up the community have yet to reach the official working age compared to the already falling share from the other ethnic communities. Official statistics indicate that the minority Malay community of Singapore, unlike the other ethnic groups in the small nation-state, has yet to mature and contribute fully to the country’s labour force. The potential for the country’s Malay youths to contribute to the nation’s economy when they reach working age thus underscores the need to maximize the academic attainments of students from the ethnic group. There is therefore a need to seek out ways which can mitigate any negative impacts arising from Singapore’s current education system on this cohort of students. To ensure that the objectives of the nation’s education system are met for all groups of students, tweaks are constantly being made to the education structure to ensure more positive outcomes for students from all backgrounds. There is recognition that appropriate countermeasures are needed to balance educational excellence with equity. It calls for a change in educational approach where equality of opportunity must be tempered with genuine measures to create greater fairness of outcome. Issues of exclusion and marginalisation are continually addressed by the government and attempts made towards resolving them before they become misconstrued as wanton acts of social injustice. During his term as Mendaki Deputy Chairman, Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim stated that as the leading MMO, the institution must “look at areas where we have not made any progress, so that any seeds of discontent…cannot be sowed further and people don’t feel they’ve been left behind (The Straits Times, 22 January 2001, H2). Today, initiatives to mitigate such sentiments are being carried out by all relevant stakeholders. They include the government, non-government and Malay/Muslim Organisations, as well as citizen activists from the general public.

3.2 Role Undertaken by Government According to Amartya Sen (Osmani, 2010), one way of ensuring equality of outcome in society is by balancing up the ‘capability sets’ of individuals. Sen explains that a person’s capability set refers to the alternative combinations of ‘functionings’ that are made available for him or her to achieve success. A student from an affluent family for example will have a different ‘capability set’ compared to one who comes from a

Education for the Minority Malay Community in Singapore …

201

more disadvantaged background. Recognition of its impacts in the area of education implies that policies must constantly be evaluated and refined so as to ensure a more level playing field for all students. Apart from the many forms of assistance offered to financially needy pupils, education policies have continuously been refined so as to allow disadvantaged students entry into ‘premium’ academic institutions based on their other sources of merit. The Direct School Admission programme for example, grants administrators of secondary schools the opportunity of offering a select group of graduating primary school students admission into their institutions even before the release of the PSLE results. These students are identified by their achievements in areas such as the performing arts and sports. Areas for recruitment for these schools include dance and ballet as well as athletics, swimming, rugby, hockey and soccer. Unfortunately, the number of places offered through the Scheme are very limited and as such, the exercise advantages only a small group of best qualified students from disadvantaged families. However, a more promising policy refinement has recently been introduced by the MOE. This is the Subject-Based Banding (SBB) initiative which was made part of the secondary school curriculum in 2020. With Subject-Based Banding, students will be allowed to study English Language, Mother Tongue Languages, Mathematics and Science at differentiated levels of difficulty depending on their ability and aptitude for the subject. The move is expected to result in a reconstituting of the student cohort into mixed form classes. Eventually, MOE will remove the Express/N(A)/N(T) education tracks to give students the experience of “One secondary education, many subject bands”. This will enable more mixing between students thus mitigating exclusivist tendencies. Nevertheless, results of this move are yet to be seen as full SBB implementation will only happen from 2024 onwards (MOE, 2019a, b).

3.3 Role Undertaken by NGOs and MMOs Underpinned by the ‘Many Helping Hands’ approach, the Singapore government adopts a strategy where it empowers Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) such as Beyond Social Services and New Hope Community Services by financially supporting their initiatives targeted towards improving the welfare of needy citizens, specifically in this instance, the nation’s at-risk students. The government has also assisted in the creation of ethnic-based self-help groups and gave much prominence to the programmes that they roll out. Echoed by Goh Chok Tong, the then Prime Minister of the country, this was borne out of the belief that “many Singaporeans remain more comfortable turning to members of their own community for help” (The Business Times, 26 February 2001, p. 8). Mendaki was subsequently formed in 1982 to cater to the educational needs of the Malay/Muslim community. The organization then took up the immediate strategy of classroom supplementation in the form of its trademark Weekend Tuition Scheme. This was seen as a ‘stop-gap’ measure to raise the educational capability of students from the Malay/Muslim community (MMC). Mendaki’s efforts was complimented by other Malay/Muslim Organisations

202

M. S. Juhari

(MMOs) such as Jamiyah, 4PM and the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP) which implemented similar tuition classes under their banner. Today, these organisations have expanded the scope of their supplementary curriculum to cover enrichment courses such as study skills, overseas learning journeys, experiential learning as well as mentoring programmes (Juhari, 2015). The various approaches introduced by these organisations over the years were undertaken after careful examination of particular problems faced by students from the MMC. These approaches are conceptually valid in their premise of elevating the educational achievements of students from the ethnic group thus collectively raising the status quo of the community. Unfortunately, overall results thus far have not forwarded the promise that was expected. Critics voiced that the shortcomings of the programmes rolled out are due to the fact that these are only piecemeal attempts at resolving a presenting problem. The reality is that the difficulty being looked into is merely one part of a set of interrelated issues compounding into a larger crisis. A case of truancy from school, for instance, may reflect more than just the offending student’s negative attitude towards classroom learning. Upon closer investigation, the situation will usually reveal other mitigating circumstances such as the parents lacking the financial means to contribute to the pupil’s bus fare or even needing the pupil to skip school so as to look after a younger sibling while they leave for work. Supplementary classes as such will not solve the student’s situation. Among the MMOs, a possible solution is to look at ways to integrate and consolidate the existing forms of help made available between the community service agencies. This is where the M3 initiative can be seen as a positive development for the community. M3 is a recently formed collaborative effort between the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS), MENDAKI and the People’s Association Malay Activity Executive Committees Council (Mesra). The aim is for these organisations to harness each other’s strengths and resources to better the lives of vulnerable individuals and families from the Malay/Muslim community (https://www.m3.sg/). One result from this collaboration can be seen in the way immediate provision is made in response to the urgent need for desktops or laptops for home-based learning by students from low-income families during the Covid-19 pandemic (Juhari, 2020b).

3.4 Role Undertaken by Larger Society While there have always been arguments by the general public for greater transparency of corporate and social practices to ensure fair treatment to all Singaporeans regardless of gender, age and ethnicity, these calls have been getting louder with increasing education and global awareness. The change in focus relating to the country’s Bicentennial Celebration in 2019 is an example. The one-time event was initially organised to celebrate the 200th year of Singapore’s founding by Stanford Raffles. At the insistence of the public, the retelling of the nation’s history was then extended to include the 500 years prior to Raffles’ founding when the region was under the rule of Malay dynasties (Khan, 2020). Recently, the influence of the Black

Education for the Minority Malay Community in Singapore …

203

Lives Movement in the United States has also created an impact in the way calls are now made for greater assurance against biased and prejudicial actions against minority groups (Kok & Lim, 2020). These actions have benefited members of the MMC, including students, as there is greater attention placed on their well-being.

4 Moving Forward 4.1 Creating a More Inclusive ‘Education for the Future’ Judging by the amount of praise that it has been garnering, the Singapore education system can no doubt be considered as one of the best systems in the world. Nevertheless, the constantly changing social landscape will require continuous tweaks to the curriculum to ensure that it remains viable, efficient and optimal. With regards to enhancing the academic achievements of students from the MMC, a few brief suggestions can be further made to ensure that the Singapore education system remains one which other nations can look up to.

4.2 Developing ‘Conscientised’ Learners According to Freire (1970), conscientisation is a particular kind of critical consciousness stemming from a recursive process of “reflection and action” directed towards individuals and society. Applied to students from the Malay-Muslim community, it can be seen as initiating a process where these students are guided to undergo a means of interpreting and reinterpreting their observations and experiences relating to their community’s reactions to social challenges. This can be achieved by exposing them to encounters involving dialogue, reflexive learning, interculturality, empowerment and ownership, and mentored leadership (Juhari, 2012). These experiences may lead to renewed aspirations among youths in the Malay community triggering individual actions aimed at improving their personal lives. In turn, their ‘small’ accomplishments will collectively contribute to the betterment of the community as a whole.

4.3 Evolving the ‘Markers’ of Success The newly implemented Subject-Based Banding bodes potential success in mitigating exclusivity created by the inherent nature of the differentiated education tracks. A further improvement, however, will be for MOE to consider including subjects not currently placed among the core academic subjects. This will provide recognition to

204

M. S. Juhari

students, especially those from the Malay/Muslim community, who display excellence in areas which are not necessarily academic based though still seen as critical in contributing to the nation’s success. In his book Head Hand Heart: The Struggle for Dignity and Status in the 21st Century (2020), Goodhart reinforces this line of thinking when he warns of how ‘cognitive meritocracy’ negatively prioritises those with Head skills (cognitive ability) above those with Hand and Heart skills (i.e. those with proficiencies relating to manual and caring vocations). The result is a lopsided system that overly rewards those with Head skills, leaving those with Hand and Heart skills lagging behind in terms of wages, status and respect, and consequent feelings of alienation. Recent moves by the Ministry of Education to enhance and valueadd subjects such as Music, the Performing Arts and Graphic Design in secondary schools are thus to be applauded even if these reforms should have occurred much earlier. Given such endorsement from the ‘top’, these changes may serve to make equitable the ‘markers’ of success providing more recognition and prestige to pupils who merit it.

5 Coda Given that the meritocratic approach is firmly established in our education system, we can be confident in saying that there is equality of opportunity for all students to achieve educational success in Singapore. Nevertheless, for Singapore to boast of a truly excellent education system, what needs to be improved are policies and practices which will ensure that there is greater equity in outcomes for its students.

References Alatas, S. H. (1977). The Myth of the Lazy Native: A Study of the Image of the Malays, Filipinos and Javanese from the 16th to the 20th Century and Its Function in the Ideology of Colonial Capitalism. Frank Cass & Co.London. Aljunied, S. M. K. (2002). Making sense of an evolving identity: A survey of studies on identity and identity formation among Malay-Muslims in Singapore. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 26(3), 371–388. Anglo-Chinese School (Independent). (2018). History. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from http:// www.acs.sch.edu.sg/acs_indep/main.php AMP. (2012). Education. https://www.amp.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/8-Section-5_Educ ation-with-edits2.pdf Attorney-General of Singapore. (1965). Article 152 of the constitution of the Republic of Singapore. Retrieved October 15, 2009 from http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/ Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–58). Greenwood. Buckley, C. B. (1984). An anecdotal history of old times in Singapore, from the foundation of the settlement under the Honourable the East India Company on February 6th, 1819, to the transfer to the Colonial Office as part of the colonial possessions of the Crown on April 1st, 1867. Oxford University Press.

Education for the Minority Malay Community in Singapore …

205

Carpiano, R., & Kimbro, R. (2012). Neighborhood social capital, parenting strain, and personal mastery among female primary caregivers of children. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 53(2), 232–247. Chelliah, D. D. (1960). A history of the educational policy of the Straits Settlements with recommendations for a new system based on vernaculars (2nd ed.). Reprinted at G. H. Kiat. Retrieved October 29, 2020 from http://nus.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwd V1NSwMxEB20XrxprfhRy_yBSjazu7pHkRbBYwuFXkqyyYqgrbB66L_3JelSET3mg5AMSe bNMPOGSPStGv_6E6yB3VyXlQc8d1Lmzqs619aK9nVWWB2rv-nZUibPstzHywJpYdGv xCjYvuwdF5JLHjLHD0Xi5V5k0A2Y-EM3TE-oF_IFTunAr_uhCPIuYOKMtg-c2Hy3vGkY QIt9N2je-CMS8nYjgST29bPlmQ-cwjHtjIOLlMNe3tFOpY9aBsZkw8DCnDiYOaghx5s1h5q5 JkaVtgMaTifzx6cx9rraOWhW3XHu9Tn1YPT7C-KqgnaBtVCIMnhmhQUSypwt7pwqgSia Sxr8ucTVP_3XdIy3ppLzYEhHDS63v4kyG0X5fQP_4Hz4 Chew, S. K. (1956). Report of the All-Party Committee of the Singapore Legislative Assembly on Chinese education. Govt. Printer. Retrieved October 29, 2020 from http://nus.summon.serial ssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2AwNtIz0EUrE4wsjcyTUoyBtUuyUZpFajLoSBTD JNMks7SkJIs08G5pJyej4ChjV2_jKMR6WWBLC2hoKeREweJ0pCOTTEFVLTMDs7ExOH GHGwLrBqBCpLrBTZCBBbRfQIiBKTVPhCEG0qBVyE9TALasFBxzcnQDgJFTqQDaiJFZ UpKaCpMC3XOfCFSbquCTmp5ZnAM-gFsBNAebm5RTqZCfpwC62jq1OFUhFbYGQ5RB xs01xNlDF-iEeOi4SzzMlSZGYgwswL58qgSDQiqw-E8zTkxNNjZLMwFVBUmGqaAT5EyS ElOArFRJBlGsRkjhEJdm4AJt-IOMCcgwsKYB02yqLDgo5MDBAgDY9W73 Chong, T. (2002). Asian values and Confucian ethics: Malay Singaporeans’ dilemma. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 32(3), 394–406. Chua, B. H. (1995). For a Communitarian Democracy in Singapore. Debating Singapore. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. pg. 27-31. Clarkson, G., Jacobsen, T. T., & Batcheller, A. L. (2007). Information asymmetry and information sharing. Government Information Quarterly, 24(4), 827–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2007. 08.001 Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement), 95–120. Davie, S. (2014, February 3). Funding cuts for top independent schools in Singapore. The Straits Times. Fergus, E. (2009). Understanding Latino students’ schooling experiences: The relevance of skin color among Mexican and Puerto Rican High School Students. Teachers College Record, 111(2), 339–375. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (15th ed.). Seabury. General Household Survey. (2015). Table 21 Resident population aged 15 years and over by highest qualification attained, marital status, sex and ethnic group. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in late modern age. Stanford University Press. Gopinathan, S. (2015). Education. Institute of Policy Studies. Goodhart, D. (2020). Head hand heart. The struggle for dignity and status in the 21st century. Allen Lane. Gwee, Y. H., & Doraisamy, T. R. (1969). 150 years of education in Singapore. TTC Publications Board, Teachers’ Training College. Hall, S. (1989). Cultural identity and cinematic representation. Framework: The Journal of Cinema and Media (36), 68–81. Retrieved December 11, 2020 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44111666 Hall, S. (1992). The question of cultural identity. In S. Hall, D. Held, & A. McGrew (Eds.), Modernity and its futures (pp. 274–316). Polity Press in Association with the Open University. ISBN 9780745609669. Hassan, A. S. (2009). The British colonial ‘divide and rule’ concept: Its influence to transport access in inner city of George Town, Penang. Transportation, 36(3), 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11116-009-9193-0

206

M. S. Juhari

Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204–222. Jelita, A. (2017). The downsides to Singapore’s education system: Streaming, stress and suicides. South China Morning Post, September 21, 2017. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2010). Mental models and human reasoning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 107(43), 18243–18250 (Inaugural Articles by Members of the National Academy of Sciences). Joraimi, F. (2019, December 21). Singapore’s Malay privileged: Affluence, alienation and anxieties. Retrieved October 29, 2020 from https://newnaratif.com/journalism/singapores-malay-privil eged-affluence-alienation-and-anxieties/share/cwguhz/4a6f9b24d6f5939e244e0eab1b07c79e/ Jost, J. T. (1995). Negative illusions: Conceptual clarification and psychological evidence concerning false consciousness. Political Psychology, 16(2), 397–424. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 3791837 Juhari, M. S. (2012). Conscientising the Singaporean Malay-Muslim Youth: Experiences of MalayMuslim youths participating in community outreach programmes. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing. Juhari, M. S. (2015). Evaluating the work of Singapore’s Malay-based organisations in raising the educational attainment of the ethnic community: A continuing analysis. Journal of International and Comparative Education (JICE), 4(1). ISSN 2232–1802; E-ISSN 2289–2567 (Centre for Research in International and Comparative Education (CRICE)). Juhari, M. S. (2018). Assessing the impact of meritocracy on the Singapore education system: Evaluating outcomes, averting threats. In Proceedings from the Asian Conference on Education 2018. Juhari, M. S. (2020a). What does it mean to be Malay? Voices of youth from the community. In Beyond bicentennial: Perspectives of Malays (Vol. 1–0, pp. 373–398). World Scientific. https:// doi.org/10.1142/9789811212512_0019 Juhari, M. S. (2020b, May 06). Helping Singapore’s Malay-Muslim community beyond the pandemic. Today. Khan, S. B. (2020). Reframing the Malay Past in Singapore’s History. In Beyond bicentennial: Perspectives of Malays (Vol. 1–0, pp. 373–398). World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/978 9811212512_0019 Kok, X., & Lim, K. (2020). Young Singaporeans are ready to talk about race. Are their parents? South China Morning Post, July 25, 2020. Kroger, J. (2003). Identity development during adolescence. In G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp. 205–226). Blackwell Publishing. Lim, K., & Oh, T. (2019). The big read: Unable to make ends meet on their own, low-income households find ways to get by. Retrieved October 29, 2020 from https://www.channelnewsasia. com/news/singapore/household-expenditure-survey-inequality-income-basic-needs-11840660 Liu, V. (2019, February 21). Better coordination across agencies key to helping families in need, says Masagos. The Straits Times. M3. (n.d.). Retrieved October 29, 2020 from https://www.m3.sg/ Mangino, W. (2013). A critical look at oppositional culture and the race gap in education. International Scholarly Research Notices, 2013, 5 pp, Article ID 363847. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/ 363847 Mathews, M., et al. (2016). Parents’ perceptions of the Singapore primary school system. Retrieved October 29, 2020 from https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ips/wp-27_parents’-percep tions-of-the-singapore-primary-school-system.pdf McNamee, S. J. (2014). The meritocracy myth (p. 30). Rowman & Littlefield. Ministry for Culture, Community and Youth. (2019). The relevance of our shared values (April 08, 2019). Retrieved December 16, 2020 from https://www.mccy.gov.sg/about-us/news-and-resour ces/parliamentary-matters/2012/nov/the-relevance-of-our-shared-values Ministry of Education. (2009). Our education system: The Singapore education journey. Retrieved November 23, 2009 from http://www.moe.gov.sg

Education for the Minority Malay Community in Singapore …

207

Ministry of Education. (2019a). 50 years of SG education. Retrieved October 29, 2020 from https:// www.moe.gov.sg/about/publications/50-years-of-sg-education Ministry of Education. (2019b). Education statistics digest 2019 (p. 52). Retrieved October 29, 2020 from https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/publications/education-statis tics-digest/esd_2019.pdf MOE. (2018). Special Programmes. https://www.moe.gov.sg/financial-matters/awards-scholarsh ips/programme-scholarships MOE. Subject-based banding. Retrieved October 29, 2020 from https://www.moe.gov.sg/micros ites/cos2019/ Mohamad, S. H. B. (2014). ‘We talk like normal people’: Contesting representations of Malay Youth Delinquency in Singapore. Retrieved October 29, 2020 from http://nus.summon.serialssolutions. com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV09a8MwED3idildWtrSb47sUV3L2FaHDmkSCqVLEyjNIh znFIKNMpgM-fc9SSmYjlkEQhb2yZzuCb17ByATEQ_-7QmSgUBieCtMVeHUJ5VRRcmx i49mpKTnZg6HyXQuxx9y3oO_Oob7A96itLWw2yAs2K6eggABOzxHS25zmRURRDJ2lK 6ZKxcX8cOdMDE5g9NR53r7HHpkL6DqCyG-CRnl1tisa0LrcGKDgbzdf0GvENU6_jF-eWL qPh_Itrgx-Fk25Q5_XKk7HLnscc993uHa4tTVs2YATZfwOhnP3t4H_EW6Y452ss7dvhtn83S 70t4uHexKruDIbixdAz5TvEiz2FTKy3BVhcpJ0jKrzJKdiOQN5Ae-5PbgmXdwwggiDUl693 Bs2Gfowa__o_8Xv-qinmU Møllegaard, S., & Jæger, M. M. (2015). The effect of grandparents’ economic, cultural, and social capital on grandchildren’s educational success. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 42(11), 19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2015.06.004 Not marginalised, say Malay MPs. The Straits Times, January 22, 2001. Ong, A. (2014). Beware growing ‘parentocracy’: NIE don. The Straits Times, March 30, 2014. Osmani, S. R. (2010). Theory of justice for an imperfect world: Exploring Amartya Sen’s idea of Justice. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 11(4), 500–607. PM Goh urges self-help groups to join hands in running programmes. The Business Times, February 26, 2001. Rahman, N. A., & Surattee, I. B. (2019). Navigating educational development: MENDAKI and the Malays. Singapore: Published for Yayasan MENDAKI by Straits Times Press. Second tongue compulsory as from 1969. (1968, May 15). The Straits Times. Singapore. (n.d.). Retrieved October 29, 2020 from https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/sin gapore Singapore Department of Statistics. (2019). Population trends 2009. Retrieved October 21, 2020 from http://www.singstat.gov.sg Singapore Statutes Online. (n.d.). Compulsory Education Act. Retrieved October 29, 2020 from https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/CEA2000 Tan, B. (2016). Raffles town plan (Jackson Plan). Retrieved October 29, 2020 from https://eresou rces.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_658_2005-01-07.html Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 201–234). Academic Press. Vlieland, C. A. (1932). British Malaya: A report of the 1931 census and on certain problems of vital statistics. Crown Agents for the Colonies. Webb, J. (2002). Understanding Bourdieu. Sage Publications Ltd. World Bank Data. (2020). Singapore GDP Per Capita. https://data.worldbank.org Zhang, J. (2014). Debunking the myth of the lazy Malays. Mendaki Occasional Paper Series (p. 8). Yayasan Mendaki.

The Dynamic Interplay Between Curriculum and Context: Revisions in Response to National, Societal, and Contextual Needs Christina Ratnam-Lim Tong Li and Lucy Oliver Fernandez

Abstract In this chapter, we explore ways in which Singapore’s national curriculum had developed and responded—and continues to develop and respond—to the larger national and societal challenges and contextual needs from colonial times to 2020. We define curriculum as the educative decisions of schooling in all of its forms, including the specification of content and achievement standards of knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are deemed appropriate for the education of the nation’s population of students. A responsible and relevant national curriculum would adapt and change as it responds to changes and evolutions in the economic, societal, and international landscapes. As we describe the evolution of the curriculum in response to changes in context, we also highlight tensions and raise questions regarding these endeavours. Keywords Curriculum decision-making · Response to context

1 Introduction The role of curriculum in any educational system is to “spell out” the educative decisions of the “content of schooling in all of its forms” (English, 2010, p.5), which includes specification of content and achievement standards of knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are deemed appropriate for the education of the nation’s population of students (Westbury, 2008). Since the public school is an instrument of the nation’s government, inadvertently, one would expect close links between the school curriculum and its socio-cultural-political context. A responsible and relevant national curriculum would adapt and change as it responds to changes and evolutions in the economic, societal, and international landscapes. In this chapter, we explore ways in which Singapore’s national curriculum had developed and responded—and continues to develop and respond—to the larger C. R.-L. Tong Li (B) · L. O. Fernandez National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Jurong West, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] L. O. Fernandez e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_12

209

210

C. R.-L. Tong Li and L. O. Fernandez

national and societal challenges and contextual needs. Besides describing the revisions to curriculum in response to changes in context, we also highlight tensions and raise questions regarding these endeavours. To help us do this, we present, firstly, a historical background of key events in the history of Singapore and the world that would have made an impact on the national education system. In the subsequent segments, we describe the impact of the changing economic and societal landscape on the nature of curriculum decision making (centralization vis-à-vis autonomy), and the curriculum elements of two subjects ranging from their aims to learning experiences.

1.1 A Brief Historical Overview To help us curate the key events in the history of Singapore and around the world, we referred to the National Library Board website (https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history) and the appendix on Milestones in the Education System in Ministry of Education’s Education Statistics Digest (2019a). In addition, we also referred to a number of local scholars (e.g. Gopinathan & Mardiana, 2013; Tan & Ng, 2007). In the late thirteenth century, the port-settlement of Temasek or Singapura was a major regional emporium in the maritime trade between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. In 1819, Sir Stamford Raffles of British East India Company established a trading post on Singapore Island. In 1826, Singapore, Malacca, and Penang became British colony of the Straits Settlements, attracting migrant workers and traders from the region and the further reaches of East Asia and Europe. This socio-political-economic situation affected the education landscape in Singapore. To meet the needs of the migrant settlers, a wide variety of schools serving varied purposes were set up, reflecting the complex socio-cultural landscape. They ranged from those established by the colonial administration such as The Singapore Institution (1823) and the Singapore Free School (1834), to schools set up by Christian missionaries and businessmen to protect local girls from vice and a life of servitude. There were also madrasahs with a specific aim to teach Islam in Malaya, as well as clan association schools for the various Chinese dialect communities. The wide range of schools varied in terms of management structure and quality of teaching staff. Curriculum decisions such as the medium of instruction, selection of subjects and textbooks were left up to each school (Gopinathan & Mardiana, 2013). Key events around the world and Singapore after World War II. From the period after the Japanese Occupation to the present, it can be said that there are about four major phases in Singapore’s socio-cultural, political, economic landscape: pre-independence; nation-building; twentieth century internationalization; twenty-first century globalization. Table 1 provides an overview of key events around the world and in Singapore that had an impact on the political/social and economic landscape. It also details key events in the education landscape in Singapore.

The Dynamic Interplay Between Curriculum and Context …

211

Table 1 Key events around the world and in Singapore Political/Social/Economic landscape

Education landscape in Singapore

1946–1964 1955: Partial internal self-government was granted with Mr David Marshall as the first chief minister of Singapore 1959: Self-government attained with Mr Lee Kuan Yew as Prime Minister 1963: Singapore joined the Federation of Malaya Major riots during this period: Maria Hertogh riots (1950); Hock Lee bus riot (1955); 1969 riots In world history: 1948: Communist insurgency in Malaya 1949: People’s Republic of China was established by the Chinese Communist Party 1961: The Berlin Wall was erected 1964: Open involvement of USA in the war in Vietnam

1953: White Paper on bilingual education in Chinese schools 1954: Singapore Polytechnic was established 1955: The Ministry of Education was established 1956: Report of the All-Party Committee on Chinese Education 1958: Nanyang University admitted its first batch of students. In 1962 The University of Singapore was set up 1957: Education Ordinance (Education Act) was enacted 1960: Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) is introduced 1961: Vocational schools for over-aged primary school leavers who did not qualify for admission to secondary schools

1965–1979 1965: Singapore pulled out of the Federation of Malaya and became an independent republic and joined the United Nations 1967: Foundation of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) 1968: Jurong Town Corporation was established 1971: Last of the British military forces withdrew from Singapore

1966: Bilingual education policy was adopted 1969: Junior college education was introduced 1979: Report on the Ministry of Education (also known as the Goh Report)—the basis for the New Education System—was endorsed by Parliament 1979: Report on Moral Education was submitted

1980–1999 1985: Singapore experienced its first post-independence recession 1990: Mr Goh Chok Tong became Prime Minister 1998: Singapore slipped into a recession 1999: Manpower 21 Plan was launched In world history: 1989: Revolutions of Eastern Europe: the Berlin Wall was breached 1997: Asian financial crisis erupted

1980: Secondary streaming was introduced 1980: Establishment of the Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore 1987: Centralised Institutes were introduced 1988: Independent Schools were established 1994: Autonomous schools were established 1991: P3 streaming was removed, and P4 streaming (EM1, EM2 and EM3) was introduced 1994: Sec 1 Normal (Technical) course was introduced 1997: Launch of National Education 1997: Launch of IT Masterplan and Thinking Schools, Learning Nation (TSLN) (continued)

212

C. R.-L. Tong Li and L. O. Fernandez

Table 1 (continued) Political/Social/Economic landscape 2000–2020 2001: Establishment of the Economic Review Committee 2002: Remaking Singapore Committee was formed 2002: National Science and Technology Board was renamed Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR). The main focus of the agency was to develop the fields of science, engineering and biomedicine in Singapore 2003: Workforce Development Agency was launched 2004: Lee Hsien Loong became Prime Minister 2013: Haze smothered Singapore 2013: Little India riot In world history: 2001: 9/11 Terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre in USA. 2002: Bali bombings 2003: Outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) 2004: Asian Tsunami 2008: Global financial crisis starting with the collapse of American investment bank Lehman Brothers. Singapore slipped into recession 2020: COVID-19 pandemic

Education landscape in Singapore 2000: The Compulsory Education Act to make primary school education compulsory for all children in Singapore was passed 2004: Integrated Programme (IP) was introduced 2004: The Direct School Admission (DSA) scheme was introduced 2004: Streaming in primary schools was refined further by merging EM1 and EM2 streams, while keeping the EM3 stream 2004: Singapore Sports School officially opened. Other specialised schools that opened were: NUS High School of Mathematics and Science (2005); Northlight School (2006); School of the Arts (2008); Assumption Pathway School (2008); School of Science and Technology (2010): Crest Secondary (2013); Spectra Secondary (2014) 2008: Subject-based Banding was introduced in primary schools 2009: Report by the Primary Education Review and Implementation (PERI) committee was published 2013: Polytechnic Foundation Programme was rolled out 2015: SkillsFuture Earn and Learn Programme was launched 2018: Expansion of Subject-based Banding to secondary schools

In the following segments, we describe how (a) the nature of curriculum decision making (centralization vis-à-vis autonomy) and (b) the curriculum elements of aims, pedagogical approaches and learning experiences of two subjects have evolved in response to the changing political, economic and societal landscape and changing international trends.

2 Curriculum Decision-Making Curricula are not “ready-made” but are crafted from value-laden decisions about purposes and aims, what knowledge is valued, and perceptions of the nature of the learner. Eisner (2001) noted that countries would differ in the distribution

The Dynamic Interplay Between Curriculum and Context …

213

of authority and autonomy in decision-making, depending on the social, political, cultural and economic contexts. This can be seen throughout Singapore’s history, where curriculum decision-making in its education system would range from disparate fragmentation to centralization to “decentralized centralism” (Tan & Ng, 2007) in response to changing social, economic and political trends. As seen in the brief overview of colonial times before the Japanese occupation of Singapore in 1941, curriculum decision making was left to each school and its socio-cultural affiliation. In the aftermath of the Japanese occupation, the British colonial government realized the need to create a common schooling experience as a way to engender students to be loyal citizens. This was especially pertinent given the communist insurgency in Malaya and the establishment of the People’s Republic of China by the Chinese Communist Party in the late 1940s. The colonial government issued a White Paper on bilingual education in Chinese schools in 1953, offering financial aid to Chinese schools on condition that the schools devote more time to English lessons as well as teaching other subjects such as Mathematics and Science in English. Chinese educators and community leaders, however, saw this as an attempt by government forces to undermine the autonomy of Chinese schools, which would lead to an erosion of the Chinese language, identity and culture, and subsequently strongly opposed it (Gopinathan, 1974).

2.1 Centralized Curriculum Decision Making One of the first organs of state to be established when Singapore was granted partial self-government in 1955 was the Ministry of Education (MOE). In the context of leftist radicalism and passionate nationalistic sentiments in the homelands of the peoples of the various migrant communities in Singapore, MOE’s task was to chart a new course for education in Singapore that would support the necessary reforms in line with the nascent government’s broader sociopolitical policies. The priorities in those turbulent times were to foster a sense of Malayan nationalism and social cohesion among the different ethnic groups. This was evident in its Education Ordinance (still in force today as the Education Act) enacted in 1957 which laid the foundation for a more equitable education system with common textbooks for use in schools. As part of the nationalization of communal schools, the government extended financial aid to all schools that helped to standardize teacher salaries, school infrastructure and equipment. From 1980 to 1996, a division of MOE, the Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore (CDIS) was established to oversee the development of textbooks and curriculum resources. Until today, MOE manages the development of nation-wide syllabi for all subjects and national examinations. The impact of centralizing curriculum decision making in MOE is best seen in the introduction of the Primary School Leaving Examination in 1960, to determine entrance into secondary schools. Prior to this, the various medium schools conducted their own entrance examinations, such as the Secondary School Entrance Examination (1952) by the English medium schools. The Chinese-medium schools had

214

C. R.-L. Tong Li and L. O. Fernandez

their own entrance examinations since 1935, while Malay-medium schools started theirs in 1959. Tamil-medium schools did not conduct any entrance examinations. Through the centralized examination system engendered by the PSLE, MOE was able to align and standardize the various education systems to aid in the new nation’s socio-political efforts at forging a common identity and encouraging loyalty to the nation by uniting the different ethnic groups (Sim, 2016c). The PSLE performed a dual role. It not only summed up the progress of pupils after six years of primary education, but also channelled pupils into different courses at the secondary schools according to how they performed (Sim, 2016c). From the 1980s, the PSLE was used as the means to emplace pupils into various streams in secondary schools—Special, Express, and Normal (Sim, 2014). Alternative vocational pathways were provided for those who repeatedly failed the examination. When primary school education was made compulsory in Singapore in 2003, all children—including those who are educated outside of the MOE system, such as through home-schooling or in religious schools—are required to take the PSLE. As performance on the PSLE determined the next phase in a pupil’s education, its impact was felt in many aspects of the primary school curriculum, such as the perceived importance of particular subjects vis-à-vis others that were not examined in the PSLE. Even for those subjects that were examined, how they were “weighted” in the PSLE scoring system signalled its socio-political value. For example, in 1963, to emphasize the importance of the English Language, its examination was assigned double weightage while the examination of all other subjects carried equal weightage. Later in 1973, double weightage was also given to the second language to signal the importance of bilingualism (Sim, 2016c). With so much riding on it, it is not surprising that the PSLE was, and still is, considered a high-stakes examination, and revisions to it are hotly debated and scrutinized publicly. Educational researchers would point to the negative consequences of the implicit power wielded by the PSLE (Cheah, 1998) and how it impacted the enacted curriculum—many times in tension with the intended aims of explicit reforms such as Thinking Schools, Learning Nations (TSLN) and Teach Less, Learn More (TLLM) (Curdt-Christiansen & Silver, 2011; Gopinathan & Mardiana, 2013; Hogan & Gopinathan, 2008; Ratnam-Lim & Tan, 2015). Using PSLE results to emplace pupils in secondary schools inadvertently created much pressure and stress on teachers, pupils and parents, resulting in strong focus on grades and content acquisition, and heavy dependence on private tuition to keep up with the paper chase (Lim-Ratnam, 2013). Over the years, there have been several calls for the PSLE to be abolished (Gopinathan & Mardiana, 2013; Ministry of Education, 2009). While considering feedback from the public, MOE still believed that “the PSLE remains important as a key stage examination, to allow pupils and parents to objectively gauge their standard of academic attainment after six years of primary education” (Ministry of Education, 2009, p. 34). Following that, in September 2012, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced that Singapore’s education system could not do away with the PSLE (Gopinathan & Mardiana, 2013). In efforts to reduce the pressure, schools were encouraged to develop their own ‘holistic assessment’ systems for the lower primary levels (Ratnam-Lim & Tan, 2015), while MOE sought to reform the PSLE.

The Dynamic Interplay Between Curriculum and Context …

215

Starting from 2021, a new scoring system that comprises wider scoring bands similar to the grading system for the Singapore-Cambridge General Certificate of Education Ordinary examinations will replace the T-score system that was introduced in the 1980s. The highest score for a subject will be “Achievement Level 1” (AL1), at 90 marks and above. Grade bands AL 2, 3, and 4 will have a five-point difference, while the difference between ALs 5, 6, 7 and 8 will be wider (Parliament, 2016). While the PSLE remains firmly entrenched in the Singaporean education system, albeit with revisions, its stakes are still high as it still serves as one of the measures of a child’s success in the centralized system. It remains to be seen if the recent reforms are able to mitigate the “backwash effects” on the curriculum, such as testing and drilling to prepare for the PSLE as the “de facto curriculum”, and prioritizing examination achievements over development of disciplinary dispositions and socio-emotional learning (Ratnam-Lim & Tan, 2015).

2.2 Decentralized Centralism For the purposes of building the new nation, centralizing curriculum decision making under the auspices of MOE was an efficient way to advance social cohesion, build a Singapore-centred identity, and upgrade skills of school leavers (Gopinathan & Mardiana, 2013). By the mid-1980s, however, it was evident that though the centralized system of education was effective in producing achievement-oriented students, it had an adverse effect in developing enquiring minds and encouraging creativity (Lee, 2018). In the post-independence era, one of the key priorities for Singapore in the 1980s till the present is to be able to compete in the international economic arena. The nation’s very survival and future lay in it being a global city (Sharpe & Gopinathan, 2002). Yet, being part of the international economic system brings with it political and economic risks and implications, requiring the nation to be nimble to adapt and change quickly. Such dispositions cannot be achieved through a centralized system which tended to reward compliance with standardized norms. As such, there was need for an education system “that was flexible, varied, [providing] multiple pathways, and one which placed a greater emphasis on innovation and creativity, entrepreneurship and problem solving” (Gopinathan & Mardiana, 2013, p. 23). To mitigate the limitations of standardized education, the concept of independent schools was first mooted in May 1985 by the then First Deputy Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong. Selected schools were given autonomy in various areas, such as recruiting staff, determining salaries, pupil admission and fee structures as well as curriculum decision making which involved things like selection of textbooks and designing school programmes (Lee, 2018). This step to diversify the education landscape had an economic imperative. It was recognized that to survive and excel in the competitive and fast-changing international economy, the Singaporean graduate would need to be adept at creative and critical thinking. Schools would need to innovate programmes to support the development of such skills, providing pupils with a plethora of choice and options to explore interests and opportunities to innovate and think ‘outside

216

C. R.-L. Tong Li and L. O. Fernandez

of the box’. Autonomous government schools received funding to offer elective subjects and enrichment programmes. By 2000, there were nine independent and 18 autonomous schools in operation. The opening of the Singapore Sports School in 2004 blazed the way for more specialized schools that provided customized curricula to meet the needs and nurture the talents of their respective students. Such schools included the National University of Singapore High School of Mathematics and Science, Northlight, School of the Arts, Assumption Pathway School, School of Science and Technology, Crest Secondary, and Spectra Secondary. With Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s clarion call to “teach less, so that [pupils] learn more”, MOE recognized the need to “devolve decision-making power to local schools” (Lim-Ratnam et al., 2016, p. 232) so as to allow for the development of customized curricula and pedagogy that would enhance student learning, nurture positive attitudes, and encourage lifelong learning. The role of MOE is to provide “top-down support”, such as spelling out broad strategic directions, while the teachers in schools design “bottom-up” school-based curriculum innovations aimed at engaging pupils with rich learning experiences customized to their needs (Teo et al., 2013). Tan and Ng (2007) termed the MOE-school relationship as “decentralized centralism”. An example of this is the introduction of the Direct School Admission (DSA) scheme as an alternative to using the PSLE for emplacing students into secondary schools. When first implemented, the scheme gave selected secondary schools and Junior Colleges the discretion to admit 5–10% of students on criteria such as non-academic talents and achievements (Liviniyah, 2018). The scheme was then extended to secondary schools which offer niche talent development programmes. In 2018, all secondary schools were allowed to admit up to 20% of their secondary one students through DSA. The issue of agency in curriculum decision making and implementation is “not a simple process of wresting control from a centralized source and ‘distributing’ it to ‘the ground’” (Lim-Ratnam et al., 2016, p. 241). Hargreaves and Shirley (2011) suggest that teacher-created curriculum innovations are more effective than externally imposed ones. This is supported by Luttenberg et al. (2013), who highlight that teachers need to be actively agentive in critically interpreting and enacting curricular reforms. Effective “decentralized centralism” begs the question of how much control any centralized system is willing to relinquish. As can be seen in the example of DSA, schools are allowed autonomy in admitting a small percentage of students according to their own selection criteria. Independence and autonomy in school management and curriculum decision making is limited to selected schools or for “specialized” purposes. This points to another question: To what extent does MOE trust that schools and teachers are able to conceive and make defensible decisions about curricula that would advance the needs of their students, society and the nation (Albright & Kramer-Dahl, 2009; Curdt-Christiansen & Silver, 2011; Hargreaves & Shirley, 2011)? Scholars have questioned if Singapore’s stellar achievements at international league tables/benchmarks such as TIMMS, PIRLS may have curtailed school-based exploration and experimentation (Luke et al., 2005; Wong et al., 2006), in fear that if MOE relinquishes control, Singapore’s place in such rankings might slip.

The Dynamic Interplay Between Curriculum and Context …

217

2.3 Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Decentralizing Curriculum Even as this chapter was being written, the most recent “disruptor” to the socio-cultural-political educational landscape worldwide has been the COVID-19 pandemic. Practically overnight, nations had to reconsider where and how work and schooling was to be carried out. We were suddenly forced to consider what is “essential” and what makes for effective learning in a very different environment from the traditional. What is essential, then, is the ability to cope with the disequilibria brought on by such disruptions, which involves flexibility to adapt and to see possibilities in the uncertainty of doing things differently. Due to safety precautions, most activities have had to be decentralized. The greatest impact of the COVID-19 experience is the push towards greater autonomy at the school level, with parents, employers and the community playing a greater part in making curriculum decisions. The rapid move to widespread online teaching and learning brought about by this pandemic helped to accelerate the movement away from centralization and standardization to greater customization and self-directed learning by students. Teachers and students will return from COVID-19 with a much more nuanced understanding of how digital tools and platforms, whether in asynchronous or synchronous forms, can complement, not substitute, the immediacy of face-to-face teaching and learning. Perhaps a welcome development would be that educators, students and parents will learn to take charge of making their own educative decisions with greater confidence instead of relying on centralized directives. Inevitably, the “new normal” in the socio-culturalpolitical landscape will affect the curriculum. Gopinathan and Varaprasad (2020) predicted that the curricula of the “new normal” would need to be more varied and adapt to an “on-demand” culture, providing students with a broad range of choices in what they want to learn, how they want to learn, when and with whom.

3 Impact of Context on Curriculum Elements of Subjects As can be seen, the concerns of the nation have a strong impact on curriculum, particularly in decisions concerning what subjects should be taught in schools, which, in turn, reflect what knowledge is valued by the state and society. For example, in the colonial days of the early 1900s, there were some efforts at organizing the various English schools to provide elementary and secondary education with more systematic grading that were aligned to higher education which had affiliations to London University. The purpose of education was mainly scholarly academic (Schiro, 2013). The subjects taught, then, were those examined in the Senior Cambridge (SC) examinations (conducted in the fourth year of secondary education) offered in Singapore by the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES) since the early 1890s (Sim, 2016b). The list of subjects and their textbooks (in parentheses) included: Arithmetic (New School Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry, Logarithm

218

C. R.-L. Tong Li and L. O. Fernandez

Tables), History (Expansion of the British Empire), Geography (Essentials of World Geography, Contouring and Map Reading), Hygiene (General Course in Hygiene), Bible Knowledge (St Matthew), English (Fowler’s English Exercises) and English Literature (She Stoops to Conquer, Essay on Sir William Temple). Following the return of British rule in 1945, students who performed well in the SC examination could progress to a two-year Form Six course to attain the Higher School Certificate (HSC). In the United Kingdom, the Cambridge SC and HSC examinations were replaced by the University of London’s General Certificate of Education (GCE) Ordinary (O-) and Advanced (A-) Level examinations respectively in 1951, and conducted in the colonies thereafter (Sim, 2016b). In 1971, the Singapore-Cambridge GCE O-Level examination was introduced, followed by the Singapore-Cambridge GCE A-Level Examination in 1975. The compulsory subjects for the O-Level examination were the First Language, the Second Language, and Elementary Mathematics (Sim, 2016b). The fact that two of the three compulsory subjects had to do with the learning of languages signalled their importance as well as the impact of the socio-cultural-economic-political landscape on the curriculum of language education in Singapore.

3.1 The Impact of Context on Curriculum Elements of English Language as a Subject The learning of English and one’s mother tongue language—known as “bilingualism” in Singapore—is a distinctive feature of Singapore’s education system which reflects evolutions in Singapore’s socio-cultural landscape. In the nation-building years of the 1950s and 1960s, Singapore faced twin challenges of economic survival and national cohesion amid socio-political ethnic tensions. During that period, students could choose to study one of the four languages (English, Malay, Mandarin, and Tamil) as their First Language. Students would take English as a Second Language if the First Language was one of the other three languages. If English was the First Language, the candidates would have to take one of the other three languages as their Second Language. This indicated that while the four languages are considered the “Official Languages” in Singapore, English was valued as the “first among equals”. To extend the importance of English, in the 1960s, mathematics and science were taught in English at vernacular primary schools. English was valued as Singapore’s working language—as the language of international business, diplomacy and technology— and could function as an inter-ethnic lingua-franca, the language of communication among the different ethnic groups (Alsagoff, 2007; Cheah, 2002). The primary aim of English Language as a subject was to equip a predominantly non-English-speaking workforce with basic and functional English (Cheah, 2002) while the aim of teaching the mother tongue language was to strengthen an individual’s values and sense of cultural belonging (Alsagoff, 2007; Cheah, 2002; Silver, 2005).

The Dynamic Interplay Between Curriculum and Context …

219

By the 1970s, MOE realized that “the policy of bilingualism was not universally effective” (Sim, 2016b). The Goh Report (1978) explained that for most Chinese students, English and Mandarin were considered new languages as 85% of them spoke Chinese dialects at home (Sim, 2016b). As such, it would be too demanding to expect students to achieve the same level of proficiency for both English and the officially recognized mother tongue language. With the introduction of the New Education System (1979), pupils who could not cope with learning two languages were streamed into the “monolingual” stream where they only learnt English and not the mother tongue language. English, while remaining a subject itself, became the medium of instruction for most subjects. This privileged position of English in the education system was to have an effect on the socio-linguistic landscape of the home language. By the 1990s, the number of dialect-speaking Chinese households had dropped significantly, and the proportion of Chinese, Malay and Indian children using English at home was on the rise. By 2010, the Mother Tongue Language Review Committee reported that English had become a dominant language used in many homes. Given the importance of English as Singapore’s “working language” for international business, diplomacy and technology, the priority for teaching English language is to ensure linguistic and communicative competence so that individuals and Singapore society as a whole are well-poised to thrive in the increasingly competitive international economic environment. The curriculum goal is to ensure workplace readiness in competency in an internationally acceptable standard of English in terms of linguistic features such as grammatical and intonation correctness, rather than for creative expression or identity-building. Through the years, there have been several teaching approaches to ensure the quality of competence in the use of the English language. The approach to teaching a particular standard of English (commonly referred to as “the Queen’s English”) tended to be prescriptive, with an atomised grammar focus through repetition, and teacher modelling accurate speech, intonation and expression (Cheah, 2002). In the 1980s, the communicative language approach was adopted as a more natural way to enhance communicative competence in English due to its focus on fluency and functional use. This was reflected in the 1991 syllabus which used the thematic approach to integrate the literacy skills of reading, writing, listening and speaking (Ang, 2000; Sullivan, 1997; Varghese, 1998). The 2001 English Language syllabus marked a shift from the holistic thematic approach to an explicit focus on the skills, strategies and attitudes, and a renewed re-focus on the study of grammar, particularly within text types and the negotiation of meaning across a range of contexts. Kramer-Dahl (2004) observed that the English Language curriculum reflected a tension between responding to the ongoing concern over falling standards in English and meeting the increasing need to apply literary practices and language skills across different subjects and work contexts. As a result, the 2001 syllabus became a curious blend of systematic and traditional as well as descriptive and prescriptive agendas, together with functional and formal grammar and text-types. Furthermore, the demands of highstakes examinations gave rise to technical views about language that were “back-tobasics and literacy-as-lock-stepped” (Kramer-Dahl, 2008, p. 94). The 2010 English

220

C. R.-L. Tong Li and L. O. Fernandez

Language syllabus was built upon the 2001 syllabus and remained “a Language Use syllabus since ‘effective communication’ remains as an important aim” (Ministry of Education, 2010, p. 7); hence a continued emphasis on the teaching of internationally acceptable English (Standard English) was seen. Nonetheless, there was recognition of different levels of competence, with “the majority … (attaining) a good level of competence in English, in both speech and writing”, and that “at least 20% will attain a high degree of proficiency in English”. There was the expectation that “a smaller group of Singaporeans (would) achieve mastery in their command of the language that is no different from the best in English-speaking countries” (p. 6). As with the 2001 syllabus, the 2010 syllabus incorporated elements of twenty-first century issues such as the national initiatives of National education, thinking skills, the use of information and communication technology, social and emotional learning (SEL), cyber wellness and economic and financial literacy. Teachers were encouraged to use “a variety of print and non-print resources that (provide) authentic contexts for incorporating the development of information, media and visual literacy skills in the teaching of listening, reading, viewing, speaking, writing, and representing” (p. 9). Print resources included newspapers, photographs, and print advertisements. Non-print resources included digital resources such as web-based texts (e.g. blogs and wikis), CD-ROMS and DVDs, analogue resources such as films, TV and radio broadcasts, and live performances (e.g. skits). The 2020 English Language Syllabus (ELS 2020) highlights these new and varied modes of communication under the banner of multiliteracies that was introduced by the New London Group in 1996 (Kiss & Mizusawa, 2018). The syllabus defined the “multiliterate person as one who is literate in responding to and using multiple modes of communication, such as print and visual text, over paper, live or electronic platforms, and with knowledge of the social context and situation when communicating or using language” (Curriculum Planning and Development Division, 2020, p.6). Kiss and Mizusawa (2018) observed that of the two aspects of multiliteracy— multimodality and multiculturalism—MOE tended to emphasize multimodality, with scant reference to multiculturalism. The concept of multiculturalism in language learning is the consideration of core issues of identity, voice, access, agency and equity in the range of cultural and social discourses and norms, including multiple varieties of English. This is especially pertinent to language learning, as language is an identity marker which contributes to a person’s comfort with being themselves and a member of a social group (Kalantzis et al., 2016). Appreciating diverse perspectives and exploring and discovering one’s own are important in multicultural Singapore where there are diverse ethnic groups and sub-cultures, and in the context of continued migration and exchange in an increasingly integrated globalized world (Kiss & Mizusawa, 2018). The problem is that such a conception of language learning runs contrary to the goal of the ELS 2020 to promote “standard English”. It also has implications on how MOE and teachers conceive and perpetuate classroom behaviour and assessment norms, selection of texts for study, and topics for discussion.

The Dynamic Interplay Between Curriculum and Context …

221

3.2 The Impact of Context on Curriculum Elements of Mathematics as a Subject Ho and Ratnam-Lim (2018) have noted subtle shifts in what is valued in the teaching of Mathematics, particularly at the pre-university level. Since the GCE A Level examinations, introduced in the 1950s, were a matriculation examination for entrance into universities in Singapore or Britain, the curriculum content that was valued dealt with the academic discipline of mathematical scholarship. An example of such scholarship at pre-university level was “the solution of simple trigonometric equations, small angle approximations, cumulative distribution function, and theoretical and empirical interpretations of probability” (p. 234). The emphasis on acquisition of content knowledge led to the memorization of content such as “proofs of standard results (e.g. De Moivre’s Theorem)” (p. 238). In the period of nation-building and economic development (1960s to 1980s), curriculum aims and content shifted to workplace skills and procedures. Workplace mathematics would include financial mathematics and engineering mathematics. More emphasis was placed on “applied mathematics, e.g. 3D trigonometry for modelling real life objects, use of differential equation to population dynamics” (p. 234). With the turn of the millennium, to keep pace with the fast-changing globalized world of the twenty-first century and the importance of dispositions of innovation and flexibility, reforms in the A-Levels mathematics curriculum aimed at enhancing lifelong learning, critical thinking, innovation, and problem-solving. Emphasis was placed on solving real-world problems, and activities including communication about mathematical problem solving, and interpreting of the solution within context. Two major reforms in this period are the use of information technology in the classroom and the reduction of content to free up time in schools to encourage more thinking activities. This involved a substantial removal of trigonometry from the syllabus (e.g., general solution of trigonometrical equations, small-angle approximations). The most impactful manifestation of the use of technology in the A Level Mathematics curriculum was the introduction of Graphing Calculators (GC) into further Mathematics, with the intention to expose students to the use of a powerful computational tool. The use of GCs allowed a new focus on mathematical processes such as mathematical reasoning, mathematical modelling and communication. New alternative pedagogies include the use of blogs, wikis, podcasts, e-portfolios, video productions, as well as mobile learning. In the introduction to the 2012 Primary Mathematics syllabus, MOE acknowledged that the main aim of the mathematics curriculum is to ensure the Singaporean workforce would have strong grounding in mathematics which is “essential to support the wide range of value-added economic activities and innovations” (MOE, 2012, p. 2). The desired outcome of learning mathematics is the ability to use mathematics in everyday activities involving calculations, measurements, graphical interpretations and statistical analysis. The 2020 Mathematics syllabuses for secondary schools (MOE, 2019a, p. 2) further detailed examples of the use of mathematics in the twenty-first century, from understanding “real-world phenomena (e.g. consumer preferences, population growth, and disease outbreak)”, to creating “lifestyle and

222

C. R.-L. Tong Li and L. O. Fernandez

engineering products (e.g. animated films, mobile games, and autonomous vehicles)”, and improving “productivity, decision-making and security (e.g. business analytics, academic research and market survey, encryption, and recognition technologies).” The 2020 mathematics syllabuses were designed to respond to the twentyfirst century workforce landscape of “engineers and scientist who are pushing the frontier of technologies”, in view of a Smart Nation that “will depend heavily on computational power and mathematical insights” (MOE, 2019b, p. 9). As such, students are shown the connections between algorithms in mathematics (e.g. finding prime factors, multiplying two matrices, finding the median of a list of data) and coding. With such aims and foci, it is inevitable that teaching approaches and learning experiences would be affected. The 2020 syllabus encouraged teaching processes which support self-directed learning and differentiated instruction that support three phases of learning—readiness, engagement and mastery. The syllabus also acknowledged that computational tools are essential in many branches of mathematics and therefore are essential for the learning of mathematics. These computational tools include simulation and digital manipulatives, as well as tools to carry out investigation, such as dynamic geometry software, graphing tools and spreadsheets.

4 Conclusion The disruptions caused by globalization and, more lately, the COVID-19 pandemic are forcing a rethink of curriculum, teaching and learning. It appears that it will not be possible to return to business as usual, nor should we. Disruptions in its many forms are an opportunity to relook at policies and practices to re-envision curriculum that can transform teaching and learning, in deep and fundamental ways, to ensure that all learners, regardless of a digital or income divide can access curriculum and participate in meaningful and authentic learning experiences. This chapter has mapped the interplay between curriculum and context, over time, in Singapore, particularly through the lens of two subjects, English Language and Mathematics. As the landscape continues to shift, with its ebbs and flows and disruptions, so will the curriculum. Curriculum work is never finished; it is best seen as work-in-progress.

References Albright, J., & Kramer-Dahl, A. (2009). The legacy of instrumentality in policy and pedagogy in the teaching of English: The case of Singapore. Research Papers in Education, 24(2), 201–222. Alsagoff, L. (2007). Singlish: Negotiating culture, capital and identity. In V. Vaish, S. Gopinathan, & Y. Liu (Eds.), Language, capital, culture: Critical studies of language and education in Singapore (pp. 25–46). Sense Publishers.

The Dynamic Interplay Between Curriculum and Context …

223

Ang, M. Y. (2000). Developments in the English language curriculum in Singapore. Teaching of English Language and Literature (TELL). Singapore, 16(2), 3–8. Cheah, Y. M. (1998). The examination culture and its impact on literacy innovations: The case of Singapore. Language and Education, 12(3), 192–209. Cheah, Y. M. (2002). English language teaching in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22(2), 65–80. Curdt-Christiansen, X.-L., & Silver, R. E. (2011). Learning environments: The enactment of educational policies in Singapore. In C. Ward (Ed.), Language education: An essential for a global economy (RELC Anthology #52) (pp. 2–24). SEAMEO, Regional English Language Centre. Curriculum Planning Division. (1991). English language syllabus (primary and secondary), MOE. Curriculum Planning Division. (2001). English language syllabus (primary and secondary). MOE. Curriculum Planning and Development Division. (2020). English language syllabus (primary). https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/syllabuses/english-languageand-literature/files/primary_els-2020-_syllabus.pdf. Eisner, E. (2001). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. Prentice-Hall. English, F. (2010). Deciding what to teach and test: Developing, aligning, and leading the curriculum (3rd ed.). Corwin. Fernandez, L. O. (2015). Differentiated instruction: Making sense of it. In C. Lim-Ratnam, L. Fernandez, & M. Abu Bakar (Eds.) Curriculum designs: For teachers, by teachers (pp. 7–13). Pearson. Gopinathan, S. (1974). Towards a national system of education in Singapore 1945–1973. Oxford University Press. Gopinathan, S., & Mardiana. (2013). Globalization, the state and curriculum reform. In Z. Deng, S. Gopinathan, & C. K.-E. Lee (Eds.), Globalization and the Singapore curriculum: From policy to classroom (pp. 15–32). Springer. Gopinathan, S., & Varaprasad, N. (2020). Imagining education of the future. The Straits Times, Opinion, 25th September 2020, page A20. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2011). The far side of educational change. Report commissioned by the Canadian Teachers’ Federation. Retrieved from http://www.ctffce.ca/publications/Briefs/ Report_EducationReform2012_EN_web.pdf. Heng, M. A., & Fernandez, L. O. (2017). Re-examining differentiation: Big ideas and misguided notions. In K. H. K. Tan, M. A. Heng, & C. Ratnam-Lim (Eds.), Curriculum leadership by middle leaders: Theory, design and practice (pp. 104–124). Routledge. Ho, W. K., & Ratnam-Lim, C. (2018). A Vicennial Walk Through ‘A’ level mathematics in Singapore: Reflecting on the curriculum leadership role of the JC mathematics teacher. In P. C., Toh & B. L., Chua (Eds.), Mathematics instruction: Goals, tasks and activities (AME Yearbook 2018) (pp. 229–251). World Scientific. Hogan, D., & Gopinathan, S. (2008). Knowledge management, sustainable innovation, and preservice teacher education in Singapore. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(4), 369–384. Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., Chan, E., & Dalley-Trim, L. (2016). Literacies (2nd edn). Cambridge University Press. Kiss, T., & Mizusawa, K. (2018). Revisiting the pedagogy of multiliteracies: Writing instruction in a multicultural context. Changing English, 25(1), 59–68. Kramer-Dahl, A. (2004). Abuses of grammar teaching: The role of crisis discourse in appropriating a potentially innovative language syllabus for Singapore schools. The Curriculum Journal, 15(1), 69–89. Kramer-Dahl, A. (2008). Negotiating what counts as English language teaching: Official curriculum and its enactment in two Singaporean secondary classrooms. Research Papers in Education, 23(1), 85–107. Lee, G. (2018). Independent schools scheme. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_ 2018-10-09_152727.html.

224

C. R.-L. Tong Li and L. O. Fernandez

Lim-Ratnam, C. (2013). Tensions in defining quality pre-school education: The Singapore context. Educational Review, 65(4), 416–431. Lim-Ratnam, C., Atencio, M., & Lee, C. K. E. (2016). Managing the paradox of control: The case of ground-up implementation of active learning in Singapore’s primary schools. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 15, 231–246. Liviniyah, P. (2018). Direct school admission. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_ 2018-12-19_094426.html. Luke, A., Freebody, P., Shun, L., & Gopinathan, S. (2005). Towards research-based innovation and reform: Singapore schooling in transition. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 25(1), 5–28. Luttenberg, J., van Veen, K., & Imants, J. (2013). Looking for cohesion: The role of search for meaning in the interaction between teacher and reform. Research Papers in Education, 28(3), 289–308. Ministry of Education. (2009). Report of the primary education review and implementation committee. Retrieved from http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Singapore/Singapore_ PERI_2009.pdf. Ministry of Education. (2010). English language syllabus 2010. Primary & Secondary (Express/Normal [Academic]). https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/edu cation/syllabuses/english-language-and-literature/files/english-primary-secondary-express-nor mal-academic.pdf. Ministry of Education. (2012). Mathematics syllabus primary one to six. https://www.moe.gov. sg/docs/default-source/document/education/syllabuses/sciences/files/mathematics_syllabus_pri mary_1_to_6.pdf. Ministry of Education. (2017). Mathematics Higher 2 (2017) (Syllabus 9758). Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board & University of Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate, Ministry of Education, Singapore. Ministry of Education Press Releases. (2018). Many paths, new possibilities—ready for a new world together: Empowering individuals, nurturing joy of learning. https://www.moe.gov. sg/news/press-releases/many-paths--new-possibilities---ready-for-a-new-world-together---emp owering-individuals---nurturing-joy-of-learning. Ministry of Education. (2019a). Education statistics digest. Ministry of Education. (2019b). Mathematics syllabuses secondary one to four. https://www.moe. gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/syllabuses/sciences/files/2020-express_namaths_syllabuses.pdf. Ministry of Education Press Releases. (2020). Learn for life—ready for the future: Refreshing our curriculum and skillsfuture for educators. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/press-releases/learnfor-life--ready-for-the-future--refreshing-our-curriculum-and-skillsfuture-for-educators. Nadirah, N. (2018). Thinking schools, learning nation. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/art icles/SIP_2018-06-04_154236.html. National Library Board History SG: An online resource guide. A Singapore Government Agency website. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/timeline/. NLB website. Integrated programme. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/d0420404-d15f43d5-bc74-48ac95254c06. Parliament. (2016). PSLE scoring system to be revamped; T-score to be removed from 2021. (2016, April 8). The Straits Times. Retrieved from Factiva via NLB’s eResources website: http://eresou rces.nlb.gov.sg/; Davie, S. (2013, August 19). PSLE T-score to go in a few years’ time. The Straits Times, p. 5. Retrieved from NewspaperSG. Ratnam-Lim, C. T. L., & Tan, K. H. K. (2015). Large-scale implementation of formative assessment practices in an examination-oriented culture. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 61–78. Sharpe, L., & Gopinathan, S. (2002). After effectiveness: New directions in the Singapore school system? Journal of Education Policy, 17(2), 151–166. Sim, C. (2014). School ranking. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_512_2005-0103.html.

The Dynamic Interplay Between Curriculum and Context …

225

Sim, C. (2016a). Bilingual policy. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_2016-09-01_ 093402.html. Sim, C. (2016b). General certificate of education. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/ SIP_2016-06-24_110607.html. Sim, C. (2016c). Primary school leaving examination. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/art icles/SIP_2016-07-08_114217.html. Silver, R. E. (2005). The discourse of linguistic capital: Language and economic policy planning in Singapore. Language Policy, 4(1), 47–66. Sullivan, C. (1997). Myths, misconceptions and miscommunications in reading instruction. In Reading for success: A collection of symposium papers. RELC. Tan, C., & Ng, P. T. (2007). Dynamics of change: Decentralised centralism of education in Singapore. Journal of Educational Change, 8, 155–168. Teo, J. E., Deng, Z., Lee, C.K.-E., & Lim-Ratnam, C. (2013). Teach less, learn more: Lost in translation. In Z. Deng, S. Gopinathan, & C.K.-E. Lee (Eds.), Globalization and the Singapore curriculum: From policy to classroom (pp. 99–117). Springer. Varghese. S. (1998). Reading and writing in Singapore secondary schools. In S. Gopinathan, A. Pakir, W.K. Ho & V. Saravanan (Eds.), Language, society and education: Issues and trends. Times Education Press. Westbury, I. (2008). The making of formal curricula: Why do states make curricula, and how? In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 45–65). Sage. Wong, A. F. L., Quek, C. L., Divaharan, S., Liu, W. C., Peer, J., & Williams, M. (2006). Singapore students’ and teachers’ perceptions of computer-supported project work classroom learning environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 449–479.

School Leadership in Decentralized Centralism of Singapore Education Salleh Hairon and Soon How Loh

Abstract The key challenge in Singapore education reforms centres on finding the right balance between centralization and decentralization. An offshoot from such balancing act is the necessity for school-based curriculum development and innovation, along with appropriate support for it. Primary among the support is instructional and/or curriculum leadership to support school-based curriculum development and innovation. Along with this is the necessity to enact distributed leadership to distribute or disperse instructional leadership to support school-based curriculum development and innovation. In this regard, teacher leadership emerges as the outcome of distributed leadership. Nurturing teacher leadership (formal and informal) thus becomes an essential next-phase development. There is therefore the need to develop leadership capacity and competencies to support the scaling up of school-based curriculum development and innovation. Notwithstanding the ideal positive direction, the challenges on the grounds to materialize the vision exist. Keywords Instructional leadership · teacher leadership · Distributed leadership · SBCD · Decentralization

1 Introduction Educational leadership has consistently been an important aspect in improving the school curriculum and bringing about desired educational outcomes in students within the context of evolving needs of diverse stakeholders. This truism holds true in modern nation states across various socio-cultural slants. In the Singapore centralized education system, rather than relying heavily on a centralized education system

S. Hairon (B) · S. H. Loh Policy, Curriculum and Leadership, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] S. H. Loh e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_13

227

228

S. Hairon and S. H. Loh

to help schools formulate effective curricula and pedagogies, there is a growing realization that schools need to take greater ownership in formulating curricular and pedagogical strategies and that leadership that is closest to the classroom is ideal to provide the direction and support for teachers to develop curricular and pedagogical initiatives. The movement towards more devolution on decision-making on curricular and pedagogical matters is premised on the belief that every school context is unique, and likewise, every classroom context is unique. Over the last two decades, teachers’ pedagogical practices have increasingly become a key focus in educational reforms to meet the new demands on student learning outcomes as societies transit into the knowledge economy. The new learning demands are diverse and includes competencies such as thinking critically, being creative, solving real world problems, dealing with complexities, being culturally sensitive in increasingly multi-culturally diverse societies, working in teams, and being technologically savvy. In order to address new and emergent student learning outcomes, there is a need to transform teachers’ pedagogical practices so as to change the way students learn. Such transformations require teachers to develop not only relevant teaching competencies but also and perhaps more importantly, transformations in teachers’ beliefs about curriculum and pedagogies. Such transformations would need concomitant transformations in the way teachers learn. Hence, policymakers place great emphasis on teacher professional development that are deemed to be more germane to current curricular and pedagogical development and transformation and thus explains why they are keen to introduce waves of change in teacher professional development. Increasingly, recognition has been given to teacher learning that is embedded in teacher practice, school-based and school-wide, done collaboratively with other teachers, and involves teachers collectively constructing pedagogies that are suitable for their students in their school and classroom unique contexts. It is no surprise that teacher learning platforms such as professional learning communities have seen increasing usage by teachers over the last 20 years. The growing recognition that teacher learning seems to be more effective when done within school contexts, and that supports teacher learning collaboratively within communities, has tremendous impact on leadership in schools, to provide the needed structure to support impactful teacher learning. This importance is well supported by the growing literature arguing for the importance of instructional leadership that supports teacher learning as a means to impact classroom teaching. Another is the importance of distributed leadership, which in tandem supports instructional leadership practices. Finally, the growing literature on teacher leadership, which supports the view that instructional leadership practices which have been the purview of school principals and department heads need to be distributed to teachers at the ‘ground’ level. In this chapter, I seek to elucidate how teacher leadership sits squarely with the move towards greater decentralization consistent with school-based curriculum development movement, and thus greater devolution of decision-making power on curricular and pedagogical matters to teachers at the ground level. This leadership, however, needs to be distributed and thus increasing importance placed on teacher leadership. However, the need to develop teacher leadership is not without challenges.

School Leadership in Decentralized Centralism of Singapore …

229

2 Transition Towards Decentralization of Curriculum Development Recognizing the growing importance for schools to have more autonomy in shaping their own unique characteristics and identities to develop their strengths and foster creative and critical thinking skills in students to take on the challenges of globalization, the Singapore government had embarked on a policy of decentralization since the mid-1980s (Mok, 2003). This initial transition towards decentralization is also seen as the marketization of education to improve the quality of education through increased autonomy for schools and increased competition among schools (Mok, 2003; Tan, 1998). While greater autonomy was provided to school leaders in terms of increased flexibility in decision-making and a small number of designated “Independent Schools” and “Autonomous Schools” were given greater control of their curriculum, the degree of curricula innovation and diversity remains inhibited by pressures of common national examinations and conservatism on the part of some Education Ministry officials (Tan, 1998). Moreover, increased inter-school competition exacerbates the concern of academic selectiveness by top performing schools and in turn increases stratification of schools, placing Independent and Autonomous Schools, which are typically among the top, as elite institutions (Tan, 1998). These observations are evidently not conducive in setting the pathway intended for schools to prepare students for the challenges of globalization and can potentially increase social inequalities. Neither do they bode well for a direction towards curricula innovation. Instead of a small, selected number of schools, a nation-wide initiative is needed for the decentralization process to take off and for curricula innovation to flourish. Likewise, there was a need to go beyond school leaders and involve teachers in the process, especially in the area of curriculum development. The introduction of the “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation” (TSLN) policy in 1997 marked the first major policy initiative shaping the transition into the decentralization of curriculum development. TSLN, along with subsequent policies that emanate from it, had three key aims: (1) curricular development and innovation; (2) more school autonomy over pedagogic processes; and (3) enhancement of teacher competency—all of which to give greater scope for both school leaders and teachers to initiate school-based curricular and pedagogical transformations (Hairon & Dimmock, 2012). The main objective of TSLN was the reduction of subject content for the purpose of focusing on fulfilling broader learning outcomes. This shift of focus entails greater emphasis on and recognition of school autonomy in curriculum development. To accommodate this shift towards school autonomy in curriculum development, there was increased emphasis on self-evaluation and external validation based on a quality management framework, called the “School Excellence Model” (SEM), which replaced an earlier model of school inspection. This shift was also accompanied by the introduction of school curricular niches. In this process, most schools acquired “niche” status while schools that were more successful in their niche areas gained the autonomous status along with additional funding. The support for niche areas was then further expanded into the current

230

S. Hairon and S. H. Loh

Applied Learning Programme (ALP) and Learning for Life Programme (LLP) initiatives to encourage and help schools broaden their existing niche programmes for all students. The emphasis on teacher competency came together with the implementation of the Enhanced Performance Management System (EPMS) that revised staff appraisal in the form of the following three key features: (1) creation of three Career Tracks (Teaching, Leadership, and Specialist); (2) identified key competencies and areas of responsibilities for each Track; and (3) a detailed framework for performance, promotion and pay. These three developments—curricular development and innovation, school autonomy, and teacher competency—were further shaped with the implementation of the ‘Teach Less, Learn More’ (TLLM) policy initiative in 2005. Holistic development was emphasized in curricular development and innovation while ensuring that academic standards are not compromised. TLLM introduces the following developments: (1) major reviews and revisions of the curriculum for primary and secondary schools and junior colleges; (2) further curricular content reduction; (3) school-based curricular development; (4) pedagogical innovations; (5) greater flexibility in the management of curricular content and use of curricular time; (6) provision of greater educational flexibility and choice for students and parents; and (7) refinement of the assessment and streaming framework. The commitment to school-based curriculum initiatives was made explicit by the Ministry of Education (MOE) which introduces the slogan, “Bottom-Up Initiative, with Top-Down Support”. This accorded greater recognition to the teacher as the main driver in making significant impact on classroom learning, placing the teacher as the key implementer of educational policy. Amidst these comprehensive developments, teacher professional development has been the driver for improving teacher competency since 1997, which highlights MOE’s continual commitment and investment in raising teaching quality. The importance of the aim of teacher professional development policy in increasing teacher competency and autonomy to facilitate school-based curricular development and innovation was apparent with the formation of the Teachers Network (TN) in 1998— a unit within the Training and Development Division (TDD) of the MOE (Tang, 2000; Tripp, 2004). The aim of the TN was to develop policies pertaining to teacher professional development and to build a fraternity of reflective teachers dedicated to excellent teaching practice through a network of support, professional exchange and learning as well as to serve as a catalyst and support for teacher-initiated development through sharing, collaboration and reflection leading to self-mastery, excellent teaching practice and fulfilment. The TN, encapsulated by its slogan “For Teachers, By Teachers”, is regarded as a landmark distinction in advocating a bottom-up approach to change in Singapore (MOE, 2005). Embodied in its key platform for teacher learning, namely the TN Learning Circles (LCs), is the value of teacher-initiated professional development through sharing, collaboration, reflection and inquiry. TNLCs are groups of self-directed teachers engaging in action research to solve problems that have been collectively identified in relation to the curriculum and classroom pedagogy. In general, the aims and activities of TNLCs are consistent with earlier initiatives in enabling teacherinitiated school-based curricular development and innovation with the support of

School Leadership in Decentralized Centralism of Singapore …

231

school leaders. Moreover, TNLCs have encouraged teacher collaboration in reflective practice, action research and lesson study. Further support for TNLCs came in the form of compulsory provision of at least one hour of curricular time every week for teachers to participate in professional dialogue pertaining to school-based curriculum development and innovation. In 2009, the TN and TDD were replaced with the Academy of Singapore Teachers (AST) which carried forward the spirit of teacher-led collective professional learning. As for collective teacher inquiry, it is extended and developed from the group-based professional learning community (e.g., TNLC) to the system-wide school-based professional learning communities (PLCs). This transition towards the decentralization of curriculum development involving policy developments in curricular development and innovation, school autonomy, and teacher learning, is increasingly gaining momentum and its inter-linkages are becoming increasingly tighter. As pointed out by Tan and Ng (2007), the educational changes in Singapore can be understood using Karlsen’s (2000) concept of “decentralised centralism” in which (1) the decision-making process is transferred from a central system (i.e., MOE) to individual schools, (2) encouraging school-based development and innovation (3) that can contribute to programmes better adapted to individual school and student needs, and (4) in turn achieving greater rationalization and efficiency. The underlying thrust of decentralised centralism is that the “decentralization of content and power to set the curriculum at the local level is the reason for and legitimates standardization and central control” which facilitates the centralization of strategic directions and a quality assurance framework, such as the SEM, to ensure accountability (Tan & Ng, 2007, pp. 156, 160). While the SEM places specific importance in school leadership in steering the way forward and for the leadership (i.e., school leaders and key personnel) to engage teachers in school improvement (Ng, 2003), teachers’ roles as leaders in impacting curriculum development are also surfacing via the bottom-up approach movement (e.g., through the practice of PLCs). What is clear now is a growing need for schools to be given greater autonomy to initiate school-based curricular and pedagogical transformations and for school leaders and teachers alike to take the lead in curricular and pedagogical innovations.

3 School-Based Curriculum Development The transition to more decentralization within centralized education system is consistent with educational curricular innovation best encapsulated in an educational movement known as school-based curriculum development (SBCD). Skilbeck (1984) argues for schools to be seen as collaborators of educational changes and empowered to make decisions and changes at the school level. This idea is aligned with the notion of the decentralization of power from the central body to the individual schools, involving teachers in curricular development and innovation. As such, SBCD essentially encourages a collaborative decision-making process to address the needs

232

S. Hairon and S. H. Loh

of the different schools (Bolstad, 2004), and specifically design curriculum to cater to the needs of students in every school (Elliot, 1997). Although SBCD usually entails creation of new curricular products, it can also involve adapting existing curricular materials as well as selecting specific items from existing lists of curricular materials (Walton, 1978). The rationale for promoting SBCD is based on the need to consider the diverse needs of both students and teachers which may not be accounted for when decision-making is made at the level of the central body (Marsh, 1992; Smith, 1993). In the case of Singapore, the start of SBCD as a system-wide movement is evident in the development of the niche areas and eventually to the current roll-out of the ALP and LLP initiatives. The TLLM initiative, as discussed above, can be seen as the main driver of SBCD, furthering the notion of supporting teachers in innovating school curriculum and pedagogies to cultivate attributes, knowledge, and skills relevant for the contemporary economy (Hairon & Dimmock, 2012). The emphasis on involving teachers in SBCD is also apparent in the allocation of a weekly onehour curriculum time for teachers to meet in Professional Learning Teams (PLTs), which are structured space and time for collaborative teacher-led curricular and pedagogical development and innovations. However, this does not equate to a complete devolving of curricular decision-making power to the teachers. As the MOE national curriculum is still regarded as relatively well-developed and effective in terms of achieving student competency in academic subjects, SBCD is treated as an essential complement to, rather than a replacement for, the MOE-directed curriculum development (Gopinathan & Deng, 2006, p. 98). Teachers in Singapore are thus accorded “greater responsibility for curricular decision making than they customarily have had” within the existing MOE-developed national curriculum (Gopinathan & Deng, 2006, p. 99). Hence, Gopinathan and Deng termed the SBCD model in Singapore as “school-based curriculum enactment” which is mostly in the form of adapting, modifying, and translating the MOE-developed curricular materials according to individual school context and needs (p. 98). This paradoxical situation is best understood as decentralised centralism in which the decentralization of power to innovate curriculum is bounded by both an MOE-dictated national curriculum and a centralized quality assurance framework in SEM (Deng, Gopinathan & Lee, 2013; Tan & Ng, 2007).

4 Distributed Instructional Leadership Supporting SBCD In general, school leaders—specifically school principals, in the role of instructional leaders, take charge of leading and managing curriculum and instruction (Hallinger, 2010). They have been described as “hands-on principals, hip-deep in curriculum and instruction” (Cuban, 1984, as cited in Hallinger, 2010, p. 64). Curriculum development thus synonymously resides within the scope of instructional leaders. SBCD, with its specific focus on curriculum development and innovation, thus arguably

School Leadership in Decentralized Centralism of Singapore …

233

falls under the purview of instructional leaders. However, the capacity of principals in achieving the heroic model of instructional leadership has been questioned, considering the heavy burden of specialist subject knowledge it entails in addition to managerial and bureaucratic responsibilities as well as the viability of such a role within larger organizations (Bush, 2015; Hallinger, 2010). The heroic model of instructional leadership within the context of SBCD, which is in itself an intensive and extensive endeavour requiring more inclusive process in collaborative decision-making, becomes understandably more challenging. Taking into account the limitations of the lone school principal as an instructional leader, vice-principals as well as middle leaders (e.g., department heads) have increasingly taken up instructional leadership. This recognition of the need to move away from the hierarchical and procedural idea of school leaders as sole assumptive instructional leaders has led to the reconceptualization of instructional leadership as “shared instructional leadership”, which “involves the active collaboration of principals and teachers on curriculum, instruction, and assessment” (Marks & Printy, 2003, p. 371). As a more inclusive concept, shared instructional leadership empowers teachers with decision-making powers and responsibilities in enacting SBCD. Principals therefore function as transformational leaders (Marks & Printy, 2003), providing the intellectual stimulation and direction, and support while empowering teachers in the enactment of SBCD. The principal, in this sense, is the “leader of instructional leaders” (Glickman, 1989, p. 6), fostering collaboration, providing a positive and supportive organizational culture, and encouraging teachers to be instructional leaders who are willing to innovate on curricular matters (Leithwood, 1994). As such, shared instructional leadership incorporates both transformative and instructional leadership (Ylimaki, 2007) and is also known as an integrative model (Hallinger, 2005; Marks & Printy, 2003). It is therefore understandable for instructional leadership to be shared and delegated to teachers as student learning needs and educational contexts become more complex and challenging, demanding greater optimization of human resources that cannot be accomplished by just the school leader alone. At a more macro societal level, the general weakening of classifications in social relationships and gradual transition from the traditional organized social structure to that of a network culture contribute to the increasing complexities in societies (Hartley, 2007). Contemporary reforms in public service have been observed to demand a type of governance that is more “joined-up”, like a “network”—a societal culture wherein (1) all categories and classifications are weakened and rendered permeable (a flexible “liquid modern” view of space and time) and (2) the new work order consistent with the knowledge economy (where individuals work and learn beyond bureaucratic enclosures using their loose spatial and temporal codes) (Hartley, 2007). This has played a part in the increasing prominence of the concept of distributed leadership in education where instructional leadership practices are shared and delegated to teachers. By extension, this includes the sharing of responsibilities and decision-making processes in curricular and pedagogical development and innovations. Therefore, distributed leadership is closely linked to and supports instructional leadership. To encourage and guide collaborative decision-making in the enactment of SBCD, however, requires more

234

S. Hairon and S. H. Loh

than the delegation of leadership roles and functions. While the shared approach of instructional leadership paved the way for the involvement of multiple instructional leaders in collaborative decision-making, it offers little understanding on how leadership is specifically supported and enacted. Spillane (2005) argued that the focus on leadership should start at “leadership practice”. This is known as the distributed perspective in which leadership practice is defined as “the interactions between people and their situation” (Spillane, 2005, p. 144). Rather than focusing on specific leadership attributes, distributed leadership places the emphasis on the practice of leadership—the ways in which leaders interact with followers and situations. Furthermore, literature on distributed leadership have made claims of its potential impact on the instructional aspects of leadership (Elmore, 2000; Lieberman & Miller, 2011; Spillane & Louis, 2002) as well as its potential, together with transformational leadership, in improving teachers’ instructional capacities (Jones et al., 2012; Spillane et al., 2001). Not only has there been growing interest in distributed leadership, but it has also been lauded for its potential in positively impacting school improvement (Harris, 2007, 2011, 2012; Spillane & Healey, 2010). Besides understanding distributed leadership as interactions between leaders and their followers in a given situation, Hairon and Goh (2015) propose the need to unpack how distributed leadership practices are operationalized. In their study, four distributed leadership dimensions were identified: (1) bounded empowerment, (2) developing leadership, (3) shared decisions, and (4) collective engagement. Bounded empowerment reflects the reality of educational context in which the decentralization of decision-making powers in curricular development and innovations is not one of complete relinquishing of all control of decisions to teachers. Instead, teachers are empowered to make decisions within a boundary (e.g., school priorities, national curriculum standards). This applies very well to the concept of SBCD where teachers are encouraged to take the lead in initiating curricular and pedagogical innovations but taking into consideration specific school needs and priorities. Teachers are also required to consider national education policies in their attempt to develop and innovate the school curriculum. Developing leadership is another important aspect of distributed leadership where specific leadership competencies of teachers are developed. Developing leadership competences in teachers would enable them to be more effective in their practice of instructional leadership, and thus enacting SBCD. As leadership supporting teachers to initiate ground-up innovations in curriculum and pedagogies needs to go beyond senior school leaders (e.g., principals, vice-principals) and middle leaders (e.g., department heads), developing leadership competences in teachers become more crucial in the supporting SBCD. In this way, leadership supporting teachers’ attempt at curricular and pedagogical development and innovations can be dispersed—vertically and laterally in the school organization. While senior school leaders provide the broad major school philosophy and objectives on the school curriculum and middle leaders the administrative support for the school curricula, teachers can take the lead in coming up with specific pedagogies that fit within the broad school’s objectives.

School Leadership in Decentralized Centralism of Singapore …

235

The dimension on shared decisions is important as it works in tandem with bounded empowerment. The shared decision materializes at two levels. The first is between teachers and school leaders. When teachers are given autonomy to make decisions on specific pedagogies to be implemented in their classrooms, these decisions are not done in the absence of senior and middle leaders’ support or endorsement. Teachers’ decisions are therefore shared and bounded by senior and middle leaders’ priorities. The second is shared decision between teachers. In the context of SBCD where curricular and pedagogical developments and innovations are schoolwide, teachers cannot work in isolation but must work in synergistic collaboration with their senior and middle leaders, and with fellow teachers. On the whole, shared decisions take place horizontally and vertically within the school organization. Lastly, as leadership does not reside in the leader or follower, but rather in the interactive actions and interactions between leaders and followers, collective engagement is crucial as it forms the “social material base for shared decisions to materialize” (Hairon & Goh, 2005, p. 711), serving as the foundation for the enactment of teachers’ instructional leadership practices. The provisions for teachers to interact with one another is consistent with the notion of leadership emerging from a group or network of enmeshed interactions between leaders and followers (Gronn, 2002; Spillane, 2004). In other words, when teachers interact with one another to improve or innovate teaching practices, leadership for instruction among teachers is bound to emerge. Further, the emergent of leadership enacted in the contexts of teachers’ interactions is more distributed than leadership enacted between senior and middle school leaders. Also, this more fluid interactions between teachers at the classroom ground level is highly conducive for curricular and pedagogical innovations to take place.

5 Teacher Leadership is the Next Frontier The distribution of leadership practices in the Singapore educational context is common and apparent in middle leaders (e.g., Heads of Department and Subject Heads) taking on leadership responsibilities, especially on matters pertaining to curriculum and instruction. However, increasingly, teachers, outside of school leaders and middle leaders, have also been given instructional leadership practices. This is because of the growing educational demands schools are facing that led to school leaders having to delegate administrative and managerial decisions to middle leaders, especially after the advent of TLLM, which emerged contemporaneously with SBCD. The role of middle leaders is now increasingly focused on managing the curriculum in terms of coordinating the curriculum, and supervising and evaluating instruction. Hence, in recent years, to better respond to the rising intensity, rapidity, fluidity, and uncertainty of educational policy changes, delegation and sharing of leadership decisions pertaining to instructional matters is given to a group of teachers called teacher leaders—formal and informal. This is an understandable recognition that, at least for decisions on instruction and curricular matters, autonomy within the school

236

S. Hairon and S. H. Loh

context needs to go beyond school leaders and middle leaders and extend to the level of teachers, albeit in a bounded form. After all, teachers are the final implementers of educational policies and are thus key to the success of these policies. In Singapore, teacher leaders include formal ones, such as Senior or Lead Teachers (STs and LTs), and informal ones, such as Subject and Level Reps/Coordinators, and PLC Team Leaders. For STs, their primary role is to mentor beginning teachers and teachers who encounter teaching issues and provide support on teacher development in the school. LTs not only perform the role of STs but also lead and support teacher development within a school cluster (or district). Both STs and LTs typically coordinate their work with their respective schools’ School Staff Developers (SSDs) who supervise the school’s staff training and development needs and goals. STs and LTs are also regarded as academic subject domain experts, specializing in one specific academic subject, typically an academic subject that they have been teaching. Hence, formal teacher leadership positions are located within the “Teaching” Career Track (also referred to as Teaching Track). While the Leadership Track positions (e.g., Heads of Department and Subject Heads) are usually considered curriculum managers and leaders in their respective subject domains, STs and LTs, being academic subject experts, can often be expected to be consulted on matters related to curricular and pedagogical development and innovation. Subject and Level Reps/Coordinators, as informal teacher leaders, work directly with their respective Heads of Department, focusing on assisting in the planning, coordinating, implementing, and reviewing of the curriculum within their specific academic subject domain. Another group of informal teacher leaders, Level Reps/Coordinators, may be appointed to plan, coordinate, implement, and review the curriculum within specific grade levels (e.g., Grade 1 or Grade 2). They work directly with the Year Heads—a middle leader position, in carrying out this role at their assigned grade level. Student development matters, such as discipline and counselling matters, are also a primary role of Level Reps/Coordinators. That there is a recent rise in the pool of teacher leaders in an effort to strengthen the Teaching Track (Heng, 2014) indicates the need to address the increasing demands for schools to provide more diverse pedagogical approaches as well as to innovate the curriculum. At the same time, STs and LTs are increasingly recognized as pedagogical leaders who can help to effectively translate educational policies to classroom teaching and learning. Therefore, teacher leaders have an important role in supporting the effective delivery and innovation of the curriculum. As such, the effective distribution of instructional leadership to teacher leaders as well as the support for their leadership development are crucial and needed. A key operationalization of distributed leadership is the turning over of decisionmaking power to others, albeit bounded within the context where leadership operates (Hairon & Goh, 2015). As argued earlier, this entails the need to distribute instructional leadership to not just middle leaders but teacher leaders as well. According to York-Barr and Duke (2004), teacher leadership is the “process by which teachers, individually or collectively, influence their colleagues, principals, and other members of school communities to improve teaching and learning practices with the aim of increased student learning and achievement” (pp. 287–288). While Hairon et al.

School Leadership in Decentralized Centralism of Singapore …

237

(2015) also define teacher leadership as an enactment of influence by teachers, individually and collectively, on school stakeholders towards shared goals pertaining to improvements in teaching and learning, the primary focus of that influence is on fellow teachers. Literature on teacher leadership points to three main teacher leadership practice dimensions: (1) building collegial and collaborative culture, (2) promoting teacher development and learning, and (3) enabling change in teachers’ teaching practices (Hairon et al., 2015). Given the heavy workload required in the enactment of SBCD and the distribution of instructional leadership practices to teachers, teacher leaders are increasingly empowered to participate in curricular development and innovation. In a case study on SBCD in a Singapore primary school, Hairon et al. (2018) found that school leaders appreciate the importance and value in enabling experienced teachers in the position of teacher leaders to lead and champion SBCD at the ground level. Teacher leaders’ work processes entail the following leadership enactments: (1) setting the direction for the implementation of SBCD, (2) facilitating discussions during professional learning meetings to explore and develop specific lesson plans, (3) providing professional development for teachers to understand the broad themes, and exploring and demonstrating appropriate instructional practices during professional learning meetings, (4) providing appropriate instructional materials, and e) monitoring the curriculum implementation through feedback during professional learning meetings (Hairon et al., 2018, p. 525). The involvement of teacher leaders in SBCD is not only pragmatic in terms of taking the pressure and workload off middle leaders and school leaders, it also has the potential in developing teachers’ leadership in practice as they work closely with middle leaders who oversee the management of curriculum. In this sense, teacher leadership is the next frontier in advancing the distributed perspective in supporting the practice of instructional leadership. Teacher leaders, therefore, have the potential in supporting the enactment of SBCD as schools progress towards meeting the evolving learning needs of students.

6 Challenges of Teacher Leadership Although the theoretical foundations for the development of a more distributed approach to leadership supporting SBCD and the widely decentralized centralism policy stance specifically require the development of teacher leadership as instructional leaders, the realities on the ground still poses several challenges to this development. These challenges essentially cause teacher leadership practices to differ in practice in contrast to what they should ideally do in practice. This is both a locally Singaporean experience and an international phenomenon (York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Based on observations and interactions with educators on the ground, the potential chief hindrance to the optimal enactment of the slew of teacher leadership practices has to do with the lack of clarity in the roles and responsibilities of teacher leaders, which is consistent with one of the three key categories of teacher leadership challenges (York-Barr & Duke, 2004).

238

S. Hairon and S. H. Loh

Historically, when the Teaching track was introduced in 2000, schools have to grapple with the new roles of teacher leaders, especially STs and LTs. Although the roles of teacher leaders were spelt out, they were nonetheless broad, and the operationalization of these roles can be varied across schools. This is due partly to the newness of the initiative, and partly due to giving schools greater autonomy in how teacher leaders can operate in response to differing schools’ priorities and needs. The latter is consistent with the belief that more autonomy needs to be given to schools to support ground up efforts for curricular and pedagogical innovations at a school-wide basis. Although this is promising, greater autonomy could also potentially lead schools to deploy teacher leaders in ways that may not lend well to the substantive role of teacher leaders. For example, while one teacher leader may interpret coordinating teacher-parent meetings as being appropriate, another may not. And while the former may argue that her impact can improve classroom teaching and learning due to better home-supported students, the latter may argue that the effect may not be immediate and significant, or that it pales in comparison to other teacher leadership practices that would much better impact classroom teaching and learning such as lesson observations and feedback. A more blatant detraction from the substantive role of teacher leaders include practices of compiling teachers’ suggestions, or coordinating bus scheduling, which would hardly be practised now. Another practice which took place in the initial years is the selection of teacher leaders that was mainly based on age seniority. In the eagerness to increase the number of STs, schools encourage more senior teachers in terms of years of teaching experience to take up the ST positions. Although this can be seen as a pragmatic move, the formal appointments of STs based on primarily seniority in teaching before they were adequately prepared for the position, plus the challenge of role ambiguity, could potentially dampen the effectiveness of their roles. The good news is that schools over the last 20 years have generally a better grasp at how to deploy their teacher leaders in contrast to the initial years. The MOE through AST has narrowed down four key domains for teacher leaders which include (1) teaching and learning, (2) professional conversations, (3) mentoring, and (4) role modelling (Hairon & Goh, 2017). Teacher leaders are now ubiquitously considered pedagogical leaders. This signifies strongly that their primary work should revolve around teaching and learning, followed by leading and supporting teacher professional learning collectively such as PLCs and mentoring. Although the identification of these key domains is a significant milestone, the next challenge is to identify specific teacher leadership practices revolving these domains, and schools are once again left to explore and experiment which of the range of practices that teacher leaders do that would truly impact teaching and learning. Another form of challenge relating to roles is the overlapping instructional leadership roles between teacher leaders and middle leaders (Hairon & Goh, 2017), and more importantly how middle leaders work with teacher leaders to synchronize such roles. The potential overlapping instructional roles include the following: providing direction on the aims of the curriculum, setting key performance targets on student learning, developing teachers, monitoring teaching quality and standards, and reviewing the curriculum. In the Singapore context, the aims of the curriculum

School Leadership in Decentralized Centralism of Singapore …

239

in the school context has historically been under the purview of the Head of Department, who takes direction from the school principal and may also take advice from his Subject Head. But she now have to decide whether she needs to take advice from her ST or LT for the subject, or to instruct her to only. This potential sharing of power would require new ways of power sharing in working relationships. Besides challenges pertaining to role clarity, structural challenges (York-Barr & Duke, 2004) also frustrate the development of teacher leadership. A primary challenge, which is a bugbear among teachers, is that of time constraint in which teachers would expectedly be more inclined to prioritize teaching and classroom related matters than leadership activities. Along a similar vein, concerns with work-life balance may also deter teachers from taking up teacher leadership for fear that heavier workload will consume more time—personal, family and professional. These concerns would have considerable impact on the selection, recruitment, development, and appraisal of teacher leaders (Hairon & Goh, 2017). It also does not help that SBCD is reported to be generally perceived as an additional work that increases teachers’ already heavy workload and seen to be incommensurable with student academic achievements (Hairon et al., 2018). These reflect structural challenges pertaining to conflict with established school routines and teachers’ obligation to meet societal norms on education (i.e., importance in academic achievement outcomes). Time constraint, which is a ubiquitous challenge to teachers, would inevitably be a challenge to teacher leaders (Wenner & Campbell, 2017)—those who are already in the role, and those who are considering to take on the role.

7 Conclusion This chapter has shown the educational policy transition towards decentralization in Singapore, focusing specifically on the decentralization of decision-making powers for curriculum and pedagogical development and innovation from the central body of MOE to the local schools in the form of greater school autonomy. The decentralization of powers, however, do not stop at the school leaders. Educational demands on the school to meet the evolving challenges of contemporary educational and learning needs mean that instructional leadership in the enactment of SBCD cannot be performed as heroic leadership. Given that SBCD is an especially important but intensive and extensive endeavour, instructional leadership must be distributed, dispersed or shared, not only with middle leaders who themselves are increasingly sharing school leaders’ administrative and managerial responsibilities, but also teachers. This gives rise to the notion of teacher leadership—formal and informal. As teacher leaders play an important part in the practice of instructional leadership in supporting SBCD, the need to develop and support teacher leadership is indeed the next frontier to effective educational leadership.

240

S. Hairon and S. H. Loh

References Bolstad, R. (2004). School-based curriculum development: Principles, processes, and practices. http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/content/download/1096/7496/file/SBDCbackgroundpaper.doc Bush, T. (2015). Understanding instructional leadership. Educational Management Administrative & Leadership, 43(4), 487–489. Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the frog into a prince: Effective schools research, policy, and practice at the district level. Harvard Educational Review, 54(2), 129–151. Deng, Z., Gopinathan, S., & Lee, C. K. -E. (2013). The Singapore curriculum: Convergence, divergence, issues and challenges. In Z. Deng, S. Gopinathan & C. K-E. Lee (Eds.), Globalization and the Singapore curriculum (pp. 263–275). Springer. Elliot, J. (1997). School-based curriculum development and action research in the United Kingdom. In S. Hollingsworth (Ed.), International action research: A casebook for educational reform (pp. 17–28). Falmer Press. Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Albert Shanker Institute. Glickman, C. (1989). Has Sam and Samantha’s time come at last? Educational Leadership, 46(8), 4–9. Gopinathan, S., & Deng, Z. (2006). Fostering school-based curriculum development in the context of new educational initiatives in Singapore planning and changing. Educational Leadership and Policy Journal, 37(1–2), 93–110. Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423–451. Hairon, S., Chua, C. S. K., & Neo, W. L. (2018). School-based curriculum development in Singapore: A case study of a primary school. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38(4), 518–532. Hairon, S., & Dimmock, D. (2012). Singapore schools and professional learning communities: Teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system. Educational Review, 64(4), 405–424. Hairon, S., & Goh, J. W. P. (2015). Pursuing the elusive construct of distributed leadership: Is the search over? Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 43(5), 693–718. Hairon, S., & Goh, J. W. P. (2017). Teacher leadership in Singapore and its potential. Paper presented at the Asia Leadership Roundtable, Hong Kong (China). Hairon, S., Goh, J. W. P., & Chua, C. S. K. (2015). Teacher leadership enactment in PLC contexts: Towards a better understanding of the phenomenon. School Leadership and Management, 35(2), 163–182. Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(1), 1–20. Hallinger, P. (2010). Developing instructional leadership. In B. Davies & M. Brundrett (Eds.), Developing successful leadership (pp. 61–76). Springer. Harris, A. (2007). Distributed leadership: Conceptual confusion and empirical reticence. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(3), 1–11. Harris, A. (2011). System improvement through collective capacity building. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(6), 624–636. Harris, A. (2012). Leading system-wide improvement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 15(3), 395–401. Hartley, D. (2007). The emergence of distributed leadership in education: Why now? British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(2), 202–214. Heng, S.W. (2014). Keynote address by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, at the Ministry of Education Work Plan Seminar 2014, on Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 9:15am at Ngee Ann Polytechnic Convention Centre. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/keynote-address-bymrheng-swee-keat--minister-for-education--at-the-ministry-of-education-work-plan-seminar2014--on-tuesday--23-september-2014-at-9-15am-at-ngee-ann-polytechnic-convention-centre

School Leadership in Decentralized Centralism of Singapore …

241

Jones, S., Lefoe, G., Harvey, M., & Ryland, K. (2012). Distributed leadership: A collaborative framework for academics, executives and professionals in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(1), 67–78. Karlsen, G. E. (2000). Decentralised centralism: Framework for a better understanding of governance in the field of education. Journal of Education Policy, 15(5), 525–538. Leithwood, K. (1994). The move towards transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, 49(5), 8–12. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2011). Teacher leadership. Jossey Bass. Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397. Marsh, C. J. (1992). Key concepts for understanding curriculum. Palmer Press. Mok, K.-H. (2003). Decentralization and marketization of education in Singapore. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(4), 348–366. Tan, C., & Ng, P. T. (2007). Dynamics of change: Decentralised centralism of education in Singapore. Journal of Educational Change, 8(2), 155–168. Tan, J. (1998). The marketization of education in Singapore: Policies and implications. International Review of Education, 44(1), 47–63. Skilbeck, M. (1984). School-based curriculum development. Harper and Row. Smith, W.E. (1993). Teachers’ perceptions of role change through shared decision making: A two year case study. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED360299.pdf Spillane, J. P. (2004). Distributed leadership: What’s all the hoopla? Working paper, Northwestern University, Institute for Policy Research. Available at: http://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/publicati ons/…/Spillane_DistribLead.pdf Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143–150. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28. Spillane, J. P., & Healey, K. (2010). Conceptualizing school leadership and management from a distributed perspective: An exploration of some operations and measures. The Elementary School Journal, 111(2), 253–281. Spillane, J. P., & Louis, K. S. (2002). School improvement processes and practices: Professional learning for building instructional capacity. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 101(1), 83–104. Tang, N. (2000). Teachers’ network: A new approach in the professional development of teachers. ASCD Review, 9(3), 48–55. Tripp, D. (2004). Teachers’ Network: A new approach to the professional development of teachers in Singapore. In C. Day & J. Sachs (Eds.), International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers (pp. 191–214). Open University Press. Ng, P. T. (2003). The Singapore school and the school excellence model. Educational Research for Policy and Research, 2(1), 27–39. Walton, J. (1978). School-based curriculum development in Australia. In J. Walton & R. Morgan (Eds.), Some perspectives on school-based curriculum development. University of New England. Wenner, J. A., & Campbell, T. (2017). The theoretical and empirical basis of teacher leadership: A review of literature. Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 134–171. Ylimaki, R. M. (2007). Instructional leadership in challenging US schools. International Studies in Educational Administration (Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)), 35(3), 11–19. York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255–316.

Assessment Reforms in Singapore Kelvin Heng Kiat Tan

Abstract The education system in Singapore has been transformed since its independence from colonial British rule in 1965. Reforms have occurred in four distinct phases: the survival phase; the efficiency phase; the ability-driven phase, and currently its values-driven and student-centredness phase. Each phase of education has been supported and driven by corresponding assessment reform. In the past few years, there has been a distinct effort to shift assessment purposes and discourse away from high stakes testing for placement and stratification, towards using assessment to signal and support learning within and beyond schools. Three assessment reforms are examined in this chapter—the reduction in emphasis on examinations in primary schools in 2008, the shift away from norm-referenced assessment in the high stakes national examination for primary students (announced in 2016), and the changes to assessment and streaming in secondary schools announced in 2018. These reforms demonstrate the tight alignment between policymaking and school implementation and offer insights into the complexities in grappling with tensions between maintaining rigour and control in high stakes summative assessment against transparency of assessment standards for use in formative assessment in schools. Keywords Assessment · Meritocracy · Reform · Formative assessment · Assessment for learning · Standards-referenced assessment

1 Intro to Singapore Assessment Introduction The education system in Singapore has been transformed since its independence from colonial British rule in 1965. Reforms have been described as four distinct phases: the survival phase; the efficiency phase; the ability-driven phase, and currently its valuesdriven and student-centredness phase. Each phase of education has been supported K. H. K. Tan (B) National Institute of Education, NTU, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_14

243

244

K. H. K. Tan

and driven by corresponding assessment reform, and in turn, necessitated a different approach to nationwide assessment practices in schools. In the survival phase of the late 1960s, Singapore had just gained its independence and there was an urgent need to establish its own educational system. Primary school education was an immediate priority, and the Primary School Leaving Certificate (‘PSLE’) examination was created alongside a basic curriculum. In the 1970s efficiency phase, the Singapore educational system was consolidated with the 6-4-2 education system (six years of primary, four years of secondary and two years of pre-university education). It was also during the efficiency phase that streaming of students to reduce school dropouts was first introduced. Through streaming, great efforts were made to customise education according to the different learning abilities of students, and this has been credited for reducing school attrition rates from about one-third of every cohort to less than 1% in 2020 (Ong, 2019). In the 1980s’, the ability-driven phase of education focussed on assigning students to academic or vocational track education based on the academic achievement of students in national examinations. An additional examination was used to select eligible students for the Gifted Education Programme (1984). Based on their PSLE results, students are assigned in their secondary education to the Express Stream, the Normal Academic Stream (‘NA’), or the Normal Technical Stream (‘NT’). Students would complete secondary school education in the academic track in four (Express Stream) or five years (NA). Likewise, the dedicated route towards technical or vocational education in secondary schools was based on students’ academic performance in the PSLE and this permitted early identification of orientation for a vocational track. Arguably, this is reflective of how merit is constructed and construed in Singapore Meritocracy, and there is a risk that suitability for vocational education may be premised on a student’s inferior performance in academic subjects, rather than a natural capacity or interest in technical education. The primacy and privileging of academic education and assessment in the abilitydriven phase of education resulted in greater emphasis on the examination culture. This is premised on academic meritocracy evidenced by examination results, and created pressure for students to excel in their national examinations in order to obtain priority in selecting popular schools. To counter such excessive examination orientation, the late 2000s ushered in the student-centeredness and values-driven phase, most notably with the Primary Education Review Implementation (PERI) recommendations to shift the national focus and discourse from learning for grades to building confidence and joy in learning. This was emphasised again in the lifelong learning context of the ‘Learn for Life’ movement to shift from studying for grades in schools to continually learning new skills for life and work. Arguably, the recent disruptions by the Covid-19 pandemic have necessitated changes and adaptations that exceed the discourse and thrust of ‘student centredness’ and values education. The Minister of Education’s push in recent years for a ‘Learning for Life’ movement seems prescient, and there is an increased urgency to look beyond the nature and quality of learning within schools, ensuring that learning and assessment can sustain students beyond graduation into their working careers. This will be a test for assessment reforms in Singapore—to shift school practices and the mindset of a

Assessment Reforms in Singapore

245

nation from excelling in examinations for discrete economic rewards and educational priorities/privileges, to utilisingassessment to sustain learning beyond examinations in school in order to support learning for life in an uncertain future. In this chapter, the assessment reforms affecting primary and secondary students (grades 1–10) since 2008 are examined against their declared purposes, and their fitness for supporting the national agenda to preparing students to learn for life.

2 The Singapore Education System and Its Assessments The educational system has been and still is very much beset by national high stakes assessment and its washback effects on school assessment and curriculum. Singapore’s education system was characterised as examination-oriented (Cheah, 1998; Gopinathan, 2001; Lim-Ratnam, 2013), and admission to each level of education is determined solely by examinations for the majority of students, rendering them high stakes. The secondary school a child ends up in depends on the results obtained at the Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE). The results also determine the course that the child will be streamed into at secondary school. The scarcity of vacancies in local universities and for popular secondary schools create fierce competition. Consequently, the assessment systems serve as a sorting mechanism in Singapore, and have inadvertently remoulded the curriculum, washing back into primary and secondary schools (Tan, 2011). The consequential effects include a curricular focus on grades and content acquisition over learning and holistic development, as well as restriction of formative assessment in tested subjects (i.e. those subjects with national examinations) to increasing test scores rather than fostering learner agency and development (Hogan et al., 2009; Koh & Luke, 2009). The highly competitive stakes of national examinations create and perpetuate artificial scarcity of success where one succeeds only if one finishes high in the rank order (Stiggins, 1995). Unsurprisingly, private tutoring constitutes a formidable shadow education system (Bray & Lykins, 2012) and the sale of assessment books and examination papers from top-performing schools is a lucrative business (Barr & Skrbiš, 2008). For example, one of the effects of the removal of mid-year examinations in odd-numbered years in schools was the swift response of tuition agencies to offer mock mid-year examinations to students to fill the gap. Such a move reflects the psychological reliance that parents have on examinations, as well as the readiness of the tuition industry to perpetuate examination as learning. The result is the continual maintenance of a high degree of examination washback into Singapore education. These high stakes in the national examinations wash back into stressful schoolbased examinations, and societal mechanisms place great pressures on students and teachers to produce results from any school assessment preceding the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) at the end of Primary Six (Tan, 2011). Consequently, the high stakes of examination results have become an institutional authority of assessment purpose in schools, and have created standards of performativity of teaching and learning for middle and school leaders (Leong & Tan, 2014; Tan,

246

K. H. K. Tan

2017). The narratives of performativity and fairness have been institutionalised and normalised through the notion of ‘meritocracy’. In Singapore, meritocracy assumes a central and unquestioned place in Singapore’s history and education system, and serves as an idealised proxy for considering issues of fairness, equity and inclusion. This is not exclusive to Singapore; meritocracy is a potent, formative force in many societies and their educational systems. The case of Singapore is a useful context to examine how assessment issues of fairness, achievement and merit are recognised, reported, and rewarded in an examination-oriented society. Assessment is the primary mechanism for constructing the notion of merit in Singapore largely in academic achievement in the form of assessment results. Hence, understanding and unpacking meritocracy in Singapore offers essential insights into the agendas of assessment purpose(s) and policy reform. Since its inception as a nation state in 1965, Singapore has been governed by a single political party—the Peoples’ Action Party. Arguably, it can be said that meritocracy has been used as a justification and mechanism for vesting decisionmaking control in the hands of a small minority of approximately three hundred individuals (Bellows, 2009). This elite is elected, maintained and sustained on the basis of having demonstrated merit at a level and of a nature warranting inclusion within this governing minority (Ho, 2014). Meritocracy is presented as the only viable governing principle for dealing with scarcity of resources, and ‘Singaporean meritocracy’ has become “enshrined as a dominant cultural value in Singapore and used to justify authoritarian government” (Tan, 2008, p. 11). Elite political control is replicated in education, through legitimisation of the authoritative and central role of the Ministry of Education (Tan, 2013a, 2013b). Whilst meritocracy pervades all aspects of society and government, the notion of meritocracy in Singaporean education, and the construction of elite decisionmaking is particularly strong. This is because assessment practice and the curriculum, controlled under this central authority, determine and reflect notions of merit. It is these notions of merit that become the technical purposes of national and school-based high-stakes examinations for sorting and stratification. Tests and examinations are typically conducted in controlled environments and this is useful and convenient from the view of managing students and handling marking loads. The purpose of such assessment is not primarily intended to enhance the quality of student learning, but in the case of national examinations in particular to function as “gatekeepers to educational opportunities throughout the Singaporean education system” (Gregory & Clarke, 2003, p. 70). In Singapore, standardised tests and examinations are administered at different stages in the school system, and better students streamed into studies on the arts and sciences, whilst weaker students are channelled to vocational-technical training (Tan, 2006). The cost of emphasising such clinical conditions for high-stakes assessment of learning is the tendency to isolate students through assessment practice and give the impression that knowledge can be reduced to periods of intense examination. Because tests and examinations need to reduce the examination of learning to a fixed period of time, this, in turn, pressures the forms of learning to be demonstrated into isolated instances of different learning outcomes.

Assessment Reforms in Singapore

247

In schools, assessment is commonly understood and labelled as either summative or formative. The annual examinations serve as a reference for describing all preceding forms of school assessment. Typically, assessment is described as continual assessment (CA) or semestral assessment (SA). Both CA and SA are viewed as summative assessments in view of the fact that the marks for both assessments count towards the final computation of a student’s academic attainment. The final aggregate result is high stakes for students because it determines whether they can progress to the next academic year and their placement into an ability differentiated class. Such high-stakes assessments are viewed as summative assessments. Any assessment that does not count towards the computation of marks for progression and placement is typically assumed to be formative. However, the backwash effect of high-stakes assessment in Singapore poses challenges to utilising assessment, especially formative assessment practices, for enhancing learning in Singapore schools and classrooms. High-stakes national examinations do not report students’ learning against predefined standards. Instead, each student is given a numerical score that represents his or her aggregate score for all examined subjects. This aggregate score is then used to rank students’ eligibility for acceptance into his or her school of choice. It is used to discriminate an annual cohort of roughly fifty thousand students to decide on the allocation of school places based on the notion of meritocracy. But the aggregate score in itself does not indicate what, or how well, a student has learned anything. Preceding school assessment in Singapore is meant to prepare students for such a high stakes examination, and the backwash effect of norm-referenced national assessment can be seen in numerous schools’ practice of reporting their students’ assessment outcomes in terms of ‘banding’, i.e. which discriminated level of students’ academic achievement their results falls under. Such bands do not describe standards of learning, but merely pinpoint where they stand in relation to their peers’ academic results. Such practices do not encourage students to understand standards in order to benefit from their teachers’ feedback. Formative assessment practice is difficult, if not impossible, in such circumstances. A large-scale nationwide project on classroom practices (Hogan et al., 2013) was conducted in 2010 that involved 114 primary and secondary schools. Teachers’ responses on assessment were examined in terms of their beliefs about the high stakes testing environment in Singapore schools, about student abilities, instructional practices and innovative pedagogies. The findings indicated that teachers largely used feedback in highly limited ways: to correct or highlight mistakes and students’ weaknesses, re-teaching, giving students suggestions on improvements, using good performance tasks for students to model after, and giving students praise (Rahmat & Wong, 2017). Feedback practices did not seem very formative, with teachers seeming to be concerned with providing student feedback only when students performed below expectations. The teachers did not seem to monitor whether students had understood or had benefited from the feedback given to them by improving their performance beyond the current levels. Despite the heavy investment of the MOE in assessment literacy efforts in schools (see HA publication), attempts to introduce AfL in secondary schools remain mixed.

248

K. H. K. Tan

Teachers value AfL but perceive a lack of assessment literacy and opportunities to practice it (Deneen et al., 2019). In contrast, summative assessment is valued less than formative assessment, but teachers claimed to be more proficient in it and use it more than formative assessment. It would seem that Singaporean teachers are still struggling to balance formative uses of assessment in schools and preparation for high stakes summative assessment. In the past few years, there has been a distinct effort by the Ministry of Education, Singapore, to shift assessment purposes and discourse away from high stakes testing for placement and stratification, towards using assessment to signal and support learning within and beyond schools. These have been communicated and implemented in a series of assessment reforms. In this chapter, three groups of assessment reforms are examined: 1. 2. 3.

From 2008—the shift from learning for grades, to reducing examinations and using assessment to support learning From 2016—changes to the Primary School Leaving Certificate national examination From 2018—changes to assessment and streaming in Secondary schools.

3 From 2008: The Shift from Learning for Grades to Reducing Examinations and Using Assessment to Support Learning Singapore’s first educational reform in pedagogy and assessment may be traced to the 1997 vision for education intended to produce school leavers capable of thriving in the new Millennium. This vision was termed ‘Thinking Schools Learning Nation’ (TSLN) and sought to replace an efficiency-driven education system with an abilitydriven system. This was a watershed moment in the education system signalling a paradigm shift in educational outcomes and rethinking what learning should mean for a nation (Tan, 2011b). Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, then Prime Minister of Singapore, explained TSLN as a vision for a total learning environment, for students, teachers, parents, workers, companies, community organisations and the government (Goh, 1997). Consequently, various initiatives were launched to address the different needs to begin, sustain and pursue the ambitious vision. Syllabi, examinations and university admission criteria were changed to encourage thinking out of the box and risktaking. Students’ involvement in project work and exposure to higher order thinking questions resulted in greater creativity and independent as well as interdependent learning (Ng, 2005). This was followed in 2004 with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong commenting in his inaugural National Day Rally speech that “We have got to teach less to our students so that they will learn more” (Lee, 2004). The term ‘Teach Less, Learn More’ (TLLM) quickly became a catchphrase amongst policymakers, principals and

Assessment Reforms in Singapore

249

teachers, and eventually became a major policy initiative in the Singapore education system (Ng, 2008). TLLM quickly became normative discourse amongst teachers and is frequently mentioned in relation to ideas and practices aimed at enhancing student learning and promoting thinking students. For many teachers, TLLM represents the pedagogical embodiment of producing thinking students that would develop and construct a nation of future learners (Tan, 2007). In 2008, the Primary Education Review and Implementation (PERI) Committee (the Committee) was appointed to study and recommend wide ranging changes to primary education in Singapore. The Committee recognised that some parents “felt the need to shift towards a less exam-oriented culture where academic results are not the only measure of a child’s success” (p. 35), and pointed out that “While assessment remains important, a preoccupation with examinations can hinder the overall development of the student and make learning dreary and less engaging” (p. 34). Consequently, the Committee recommended that: the school-based assessment system should be balanced to place greater emphasis on skills development and to provide constructive feedback which enables more meaningful learning in support of both academic and non-academic aspects of a pupil’s development … and [this] shifts the focus away from an end-outcome where students and parents concentrate too much on assessment of learning in the form of examinations. (p. 35)

The PERI Committee explained that, “Assessment is an important aspect of teaching and learning which should be effectively used to support the holistic development of our pupils” (p. 34) by providing “stakeholders such as teachers, parents and pupils with meaningful information about how well pupils have progressed by highlighting their strengths and areas for improvement” (p. 34). The Committee also noted that some parents “felt that students needed to be prepared from young to sit for examinations” (p. 35). These two recommendations reflect the tension of purposes for assessment feedback in Singapore Primary Schools—that assessment feedback should be informative to identify strengths and areas for improvement, and assessment feedback should also be a form of examination preparation. Consequently, the Committee recommended that, “schools should provide more qualitative feedback to students on their learning and development of skills in both academic and non-academic areas, and to suggest how they can make improvements” (p. 35). In summary, the desired purposes of assessment feedback identified by the PERI committee are: 1. 2. 3. 4.

providing more qualitative feedback on their learning and development of skills, providing more meaningful information on students’ strengths and areas for improvement, preparing the young to sit for their examinations, and supporting the holistic “whole child” development of students.

However, it may be argued that the actual consequences and implications of bitesized assessment may have differed from what was publicly espoused. The then Minister of State for Education, Grace Fu, explained: “instead of a heavy emphasis

250

K. H. K. Tan

on year-end pen-and-paper examinations, teachers should use a range of assessment modes and bite-sized forms of assessment for richer feedback on learning” (Fu, 2010). However, it is not apparent what these bite-sized forms of assessment should actually do for enhancing students’ learning. Tan (2011a) argues that the nature of bite-sizing assessment does not in itself offer any additional benefit for building students’ confidence or enhancing their learning, but instead “dismembers learning into bite-sized portions [that] may have the unintended effect fragmenting learning into unrelated segments of information which do not add up to a coherent whole” (p. 100). Such reductionist outcomes of learning would contradict the stated intention of the PERI recommendations of “providing a more holistic and balanced education for primary school pupils.” (PERI Report, p. 34). Likewise, Klenowski (2009) observed that “bite-sized modes of assessment, such as topical tests, to provide regular feedback on pupils’ learning to parents in Singapore, could lead to the issue of performance-orientated learning to the detriment of sustained and real learning.” (p. 265).

3.1 Reduction of School Examination Frequency The gradual removal of mid-year examinations in odd number years has been introduced to signal that schools should spend less time testing students way before national examinations and to free up curriculum time for learning instead. As recommended by the PERI Committee, mid-year examinations and yearend examinations in P1 were removed in 2010 and for P2 students a few years later. Recently, mid-year examinations were completely removed in odd-numbered years—in P3, P5, S1 and S3 (equivalent to Grade 3, 5, 7 and 9, respectively). In addition, schools were tasked recently to reduce their school-based assessment load by 25% in each of the two-year blocks in primary and secondary schools. In 2019, schools were also told to remove weighted assessments in P1 and P2, as well as the mid-year examination in S1. The decreased frequency of mid-year examinations in primary and secondary schools follows the intent of the PERI recommendation to de-emphasise learning for examination and to use assessment to build students’ confidence and desire to learn. Ratnam-Lim and Tan (2015) reported on a study of 43 teachers on their assessment practices in primary schools from a random sample of 30 (16.4%) schools. To reduce the stress of taking examinations at Primary 1 and 2, the PERI Committee had recommended that, in place of the semestral assessments, pupils be assessed using bite-sized tests. To ease the children into a smooth transition from preschool to Primary 1, marks from the bite-sized tests administered in the first term of Primary 1 are not taken into account in their final grades. In subsequent terms, the pupils are tested after completing each topic. Respondents in the study reported by Ratnam-Lim and Tan (2015) noted challenges with bite- sized assessment and its effect on students’ stress and their desire to learn. It was felt that many teachers and parents treated bite-sized assessments as

Assessment Reforms in Singapore

251

mini-tests. As a teacher pointed out, “the obsession with results has turned the continuous bite-sized assessments into mini-exams. Teachers tend to administer tests with the aim of improving students’ test taking abilities rather than diagnosing children’s learning”. And many teachers still held “the assumption that bite-sized assessments are subsets of the traditional SA. The results are sometimes not used formatively. Instead, the bite-sized assessment scores are recorded to give an overall summative mark.” In this manner, the bite-sized assessments are “just like the bigger test broken down into small tests and students find it stressful as they are assessed in more areas than usual.” In effect, reducing the ‘size’ of each assessment instance inevitably resulted in higher frequency of testing, albeit in small bites. However, students and parents seemed to treat each bite-sized assessment as a mini test, and the resultant effect of the increased frequency of testing did not seem to decrease the emphasis on assessment as testing at all.

4 From 2016—Changes to the Primary School Leaving Certificate National Examination As part of a larger shift to “nurture well-rounded individuals and move away from an over-emphasis on academic results” (Teng, 2016) changes were made to the computation and reporting of assessment results in the PSLE with effect from 2021. These changes were aimed at the following objectives: • Reduce fine differentiation of students • Reflect a student’s level of achievement regardless of how his peers have done • Encourage families to choose schools based on their suitability for the child’s learning needs, talents and interests. The current PSLE system reports students’ results in terms of a transformed score, which emphasises discrimination between different students rather than reporting achievement in terms of grades and/or standards. Whilst each student receives a grade for each subject, entry to secondary schools is not based on students’ grades. Instead, the aggregate raw scores of all four subjects are converted to a transformed score (‘T score’), which is used to discriminate between different students for secondary school selection. This led to students being stressed about achieving the highest possible marks for their subjects, fearing that the difference of marks may lead to an unfortunate difference in the T score they may have depended on for their acceptance into their chosen secondary school. From 2021, each PSLE subject will be scored according to an achievement level, and students’ relative performance within each achievement level (AL) would not be considered in any way. Each subject has 8 ALs, with AL 1 being the highest achievement. This new PSLE Score will range from 4 to 32, and will replace the

252

K. H. K. Tan

T score Aggregate. With the new scoring system, the hope is that students will no longer be as finely differentiated, since there will only be 29 possible PSLE Scores. The setting of PSLE examination questions and marking of scripts is managed by the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Branch (SEAB). On its website, SEAB describes the new PSLE system of reporting examination performance in the form of aggregating the numerical scoring bands of the subjects instead of a single numerical transformed score as ‘standards-referenced assessment’. Assurances are given of careful consideration of the difficulty level of assessment items, measures for inter-rater reliability between markers. These measures are necessary to achieve the requisite standardisation of practices in designing and marking the examination paper. The intent presumably is in the bottom line to “maintain comparability of standards in the PSLE”. However, it may not be the case that standardisation in itself leads to the construction and articulation of clear standards in standards-referenced assessment. And the question arises as to what the SEAB is referring to exactly as ‘standards’, and it is submitted that its use of the term ‘standards’ may differ from how the term achievement standards have been used by scholars and researchers in formative assessment literature. Standards referenced assessment may be understood in terms of its contrast to norm-referenced assessment. Norm-referenced assessment purports to measure and describe individual achievement in comparative terms (Taylor, 1994). Its effect is to rank order student achievement between different students, rather than report each individual student’s actual achievement against clear achievement standards and criteria. Norm-referenced assessment, therefore, communicates to students that their actual assessed achievement is determined in terms of relative merit rather than actual merit. The practice of reporting PSLE achievement in terms of a transformed score instead of raw scores is an example of norm-referenced assessment. The intent is to report the scores of students relative to each other in the cohort, rather than report what each student had achieved in each subject. Note that it is the reporting of transformed scores, and not the reporting of numerical scores per se, that makes it norm-referenced. In contrast, standards-based assessment refers to the provision of clear and unambiguous descriptions of required standards of performance by teachers to students before students are assessed. An example would be an assessment rubric that articulates teachers’ expectations of student learning in terms of clear and unambiguous descriptions of different levels of achievement. Hawe (2002) describes standardsbased assessment or standards-referenced assessment as emphasising “explicit specification of standards, the use of teachers’ qualitative judgments and development of shared understandings regarding the interpretation and operationalisation of these standards” (p. 94). Buckles et al. (2001) argue that clear descriptions of standards of performance are important for informing students what they are expected to learn, how they should perform in their assessed work and for informing teachers how they can assess students accordingly. The key is the clarity in describing requisite standards of performance to students in order for students to identify and address their learning gaps. Such purposes for referencing assessment standards in formative assessment may not be the same purpose for examination bodies in establishing and maintaining assessment standards for summative assessment.

Assessment Reforms in Singapore

253

As part of its efforts to share its views on assessment with the teaching fraternity, the SEAB published a series of short papers on a range of assessment issues (SEAB, 2020). The first two chapters focus on standards-referenced assessment and offer a useful insight into how the term is understood by SEAB. In the first chapter, Yue and Chow (2020) described standards-referenced as judging and reporting student achievement “against pre-determined (fixed) standards of performance” (p. 2). The authors assure that each student’s actual achievement is assessed against pre-determined standards of performance, and that standards or known levels of achievement can provide stable reference points that make it possible to measure and monitor performance over time. In the second chapter, Leong (2020) elaborates that “a standards-referenced assessment makes references to syllabus documents for curriculum standards, and past examination papers and benchmarks scripts for examination standards” (p. 11). These statements reassure the public and the teaching fraternity that efforts are made to align examination questions with curriculum standards and previous examination papers, and that students’ examination performance is not adjusted according to comparison with the performance of their peers. Such practices ensure that the new PSLE scoring system is not norm-referenced. However, if the PSLE achievement levels are to offer formative assessment value to teachers in school, then it is vital that the fixed standards of performance may be made known to students and teachers in a way that can guide the identification of learning gaps. This means that the achievement standards have to be explicit and detailed, and they need to be available to students before they sit for their PSLE. Sadler (1987) argued that a necessary condition for the intelligent use of assessment feedback is that learners know the level or standard aspired to or expected. Four methods for promulgating achievement standards are suggested—(a) numerical cutoffs, (b) tacit knowledge of assessors, (c) exemplars and (d) explicit descriptions. Leong (2020) describes the use of benchmark or exemplary scripts as “comparators of performance” and “tangible expressions of past standards” Whilst these exemplar scripts may inform PSLE assessors, they are not available to students and teachers in school as concrete examples of achievement standards to aspire to. Explicit descriptions of each achievement level in the PSLE are not available for students to identify and address their learning gaps. Such clear and unambiguous depictions of achievement standards are vital for identifying feedback gaps for formative assessment practice (Tan, 2013a, 2013b). The clear and unambiguous change in the PSLE achievement bands is that they report achievement in terms of grades (achievement levels) that are labelled for scoring bands instead of an aggregate numerical score. However, the achievement levels may not possess unambiguous articulation of what students are expected to demonstrate in order to achieve such a level. In that context, the PSLE achievement levels would not be able to serve the function of assisting in the identification of learning gaps in formative assessment. And this is consistent with the current practice of reporting PSLE achievement in terms of T-scores—students can be encouraged to do their best to achieve the highest score possible, but unlike the use of assessment

254

K. H. K. Tan

rubrics in standards-based assessment, they cannot be told in unambiguous terms what exactly is need to achieve a specific achievement level.

5 From 2018—Changes to Assessment and Streaming in Secondary Schools PSLE results are used by students to obtain priority into their secondary schools of choice. This remains the case in the new achievement level reporting system, although the use of 29 different aggregate scores of achievement levels is far less numerically than the hundred or more T score differences in the 2019 system. The PSLE achievement level reporting system remains in effect a sorting and stratification mechanism into secondary schools. In secondary schools, sorting and stratification persisted in the form of streaming into the Normal Express, Normal Academic, and Normal Technical steams, but this has been replaced by "Subject Based Banding" (SBB). The context for introducing SBB is the increased recognition over the years of the downsides to academic streaming of students into Secondary school, and its effects on (the lack of) social mixing in Singapore (Ministry of Education, 2019). Amongst educators, there was also the recognition of the adverse effects of labelling a child at a young age on self-esteem which affected subsequent motivation for learning and perception of opportunities and aspiration(s). Yet, policymakers still considered the provision of distinct tracks of education which streaming afforded as an efficient way of structuring the educational system to meet the human resource needs of the nation. The rationale for streaming was to enable the customization of a centrally planned curriculum to large numbers of students. The downside was the stigmatisation of assigned an inferior educational track, and these labels were used explicitly in mainstream media and everyday conversations to denote a student’s level of academic achievement. The widespread use of these terms in schools and in the general public created a strong association between a student’s educational stream and his or her identity. The response of the Ministry to such stigmatisation of students was to replace streaming of students with ‘subject-based banding’. Essentially, students would be streamed mostly within each subject based on their academic performance for each subject, rather than streamed into a track for all their subjects based on their aggregate PSLE score. The difference was explained by the minister: “Streaming separates education into different courses, and we put students into each course. So each course is like a big jar. Essentially, we break the jar, students come out of it, take subjects of varying difficulty, based on their academic ability. Taking one or two subjects at the Foundation level is not tantamount to labelling the child. And equally important, it encourages students to find their strengths … So from three education streams, we will now have ‘One secondary education, many subject

Assessment Reforms in Singapore

255

bands’. We will no longer have fishes swimming down three separate streams, but one broad river, with each fish negotiating its own journey.” (Ong, 2019). The public response to the idea of replacing streaming with subject-based banding has been largely positive. However, the actual success or realities of implementing subject-based banding in schools would depend on how well its educative and social advantages are realised. Instead of being classified as express or normal (academic) or normal (technical) students and reading all their subjects in their assigned stream, students are now able to read subjects at different levels according to their ability in each subject. Subjects are classified into three tiers in secondary schools—from G1 to G3 in ascending ability levels. Previously, a normal technical student with an inferior aggregate PSLE T score for all subjects would study English language in secondary at the lowest level. In SBB, such a study may be assigned to study English at G3, the highest ability level, based on his or her examination result for the same subject in the PSLE. Furthermore, students who perform well in secondary assessment may be transferred to a higher subject band in the middle or the end of any academic year. Instead of being consigned to a single monolithic stream for all their subjects, students are assigned to a stream for each subject. In effect, SBB offers streaming at a more refined subject level and offers flexible and multiple access to switch streams where assessment results warrant. In terms of practical implementation, the shift to streaming students at the subject level would mean that in some instances students of different academic abilities would be classed together. Multiple ability subject bands in a single class represent two things—(a) an unavoidable logistical and planning consequence based on scarcity of resources that means that class allocation may not always permit single homogenous ability banding. This reflects the efficiency paradigm of SBB. (b) Multiple ability banding, connoting a more diverse student demographic, offers opportunities for social mixing. This social dimension of SBB implementation would require far more than logistical finesse in configuring timetables and curriculum for ensuring that students do not interact only within their social classes. It is argued that SBB offers the opportunity for social mixing and integration, but also perpetuates the originating reasons how education has created different social classes by sorting students in national and school assessment in the first place. In the case of Singapore, its pursuit of examination meritocracy as sorting and stratification for further educational opportunities and future economic rewards is particularly influential in constructing the value and values of learners in terms of their assessment results. Much of this rests on the type of meritocracy that is practiced in Singapore. Meritocracy may be understood as existing in two broad categories—elitist meritocracy or egalitarian meritocracy (Tan and Deneen, 2015), and Singapore Meritocracy embodies tension(s) between its egalitarian and elitist strands (Lim, 2013). Both systems of meritocracy provide utility to the Singapore education system in terms of “matching contribution to reward” (Bellows, 2009, p. 26). However, differences exist in the provision of equal opportunity for all as a starting point for demonstrating contribution and subsequently receiving the reward. An egalitarian approach argues

256

K. H. K. Tan

that unequal outcomes (i.e. reward) are “justified because there is (presumed to be) equality of access and opportunity in the first place” (Ho, 2014, p. 30). Conversely, the elitist approach assumes that knowing that there are unequal outcomes is sufficient to motivate individuals regardless of their starting positions. In the elitist vision, there is no need to systemically construct equality of access and opportunity; the learner’s own motivation and abilities provide sufficient equalisation. Is SBB oriented towards elitist or egalitarian meritocracy for Singapore? It is argued that the initial assignment of students into ability level bands has a strong elitist meritocracy orientation, and this is moderated by the available access for students to switch subject streams. Students who succeed in advancing to a higher ability level would flatten the vertical achievement disparities and evidence a less elitist and more egalitarian meritocratic hierarchy as a result. But students who remain stuck in lower ability bands and access inferior opportunities would then experience the wrong end of an elitist oriented meritocracy of achievement and education in each subject. Ending streaming is a new opportunity to desist from the hurtful stigmatisation of banding and branding students’ self-worth and identity with the educational stream they are consigned to. SBB is not a magical elixir that would banish social perceptions of associating societal and educational worth with an aggregate PSLE score and the name of an educational stream. Much has to be done to ensure that stigmatising students’ identity and opportunities for success do not resurface in subject banding contexts.

6 Conclusion—The Disruptive New Order of Pandemic Induced Education Singapore’s educational system is a carefully planned orchestration of high-level policymaking, loyal meticulous implementation of policies in schools, and efficient management of public perception and discourse. Unlike countries with federal governments and differing practices across states (Australia, the United States), Singapore’s compact educational system permits it to achieve a high degree of integration between large-scale and nationwide assessment policies and classroom assessment practices in schools (Volante et al., 2020). This tight alignment between assessment policy making and implementation in schools has been evident in all its major assessment reforms in the past decade—The emphasis of using assessment to support learning to decrease stress from the high stakes and frequency of examinations, the shift to scoring bands in PSLE results, and the shift to streaming at subject levels and provision of multiple switching of subject streams. In each instance, the assessment reform was first announced with a high degree of detail, and schools were prepared to address questions immediately from parents and commence the implementation with urgent haste. This model and approach to assessment reform have been largely executed on the premise that circumstances and outcomes may be largely controlled, predicted,

Assessment Reforms in Singapore

257

and that mostly tweaks are required from the original master plan. Such a working premise may no longer be available with the disruptions to educational planning and centralised systems that the Covid-19 pandemic has brought to bear. The Covid disruption disrupts everything and a new assessment fit for an uncertain future is required. One that challenges discrete and isolated instances of assessments fit for purpose, because the achievement of the sum total of pre-determined purposes is not enough. The COVID-19 pandemic is a global phenomenon that has devastated economies, increased social divisions, and disrupted educational systems across all countries, albeit to varying degrees. The ensuing changes have drastically altered the foundations and fundamentals of every country’s socio-economic-political systems, and Singapore is no exception. Singapore was fortunate in not having to cancel large sale high stakes examinations because there were no national written examinations requiring invigilation of large numbers of students in the middle of the year when it implemented its lockdown. By the end of the year, management of the pandemic disruption succeeded in permitting all students to return to school, and students in graduating years to sit for their national examinations. Nonetheless, a number of significant disruptions were still experienced, and these create the need for assessment to respond and reform accordingly. Three fundamental disruptions may be identified in this regard. Firstly, there has been the collapse of classroom spaces and school walls with teachers and learners moving swiftly to technological environments and e-spaces. Singapore schools moved quickly into home-based learning, and plans are in place for students to experience home-based learning regularly in combination with normal physical learning in schools. The logistical challenges of providing students with personal electronic devices for home-based learning have been largely addressed, and will be further enhanced with the nationwide provision of personal learning devices for every student. However, the replacement of the school and its classes as a protected community for learners with students individually accessing learning would affect classroom practices. For some students, home-based learning may have undermined the school as a community for learning, and sanctuary for student well-being. Second, the abrupt move to online learning forced educational institutions and systems to radically change instructional practices and rethink their core curricular and assessment priorities. Lessened access to teachers has created an ever more urgent need to cultivate learners and citizens who have the capacity to address uncertainty, global change, and care for themselves and their communities. Changes to classroom assessment and written feedback practices are in order. Epistemologies of ‘quality feedback’ should be reconsidered, and the nature of teacher-student feedback dialogue may have to be rethought when it is mediated in a virtual technological environment. Whilst technology offers expeditious ‘distance learning’ opportunities and social distancing, care must be taken distancing to prevent the transmission of infectious diseases does not morph into relational distancing between teachers and students and students and their peers. Finally, the pandemic has further highlighted equity challenges embedded in systems, bringing forward a fundamental imperative to care for students, not only

258

K. H. K. Tan

in times of challenge, by focussing on well-being, equitable access to opportunity, community, and resilience. The profuse use of tests and examinations perpetuates learning as quantifiable and encourages comparability between pupils, competition and narrowed forms of learning evidence. This is still happening in Singapore with the PSLE achievement levels and subject-based banding, albeit on a smaller scale. Arguably, the Singapore assessment system’s orientation that emphasises control and standardisation unconsciously promotes poor quality learning experiences where young people are less motivated to learn than they are to ‘pass tests’. In contrast, the Assessment for Learning efforts in several countries recognises that formative and classroom-level assessment increases students’ learning capacity and encourages the development of self-regulation (Volante et al, 2020). Assessment is key to improving education and creating a necessary new normal fit for economic, social, and political purposes. This requires more than another major assessment policy reform to shift mindsets about examinations and transform grading and scoring practices. Attention should be paid to assessment as a system, updated with the inclusion of new types of assessment evidence made possible with technological developments (e.g. smart online assessments and digital collaborative assessments). One that includes the range of purposes that assessment is commonly expected to serve: to support learning in individuals, in classrooms and in schools; to provide information to enable progress in learning in local, national and international education systems; and to facilitate decisions about future life paths. Perhaps a new phase of education in Singapore and the rest of the world beckons. And assessment would play that pivotal role of recognising, reporting and rewarding the value and values of learning for our uncertain times.

References Barr, M. D., & Skrbiš, Z. (2008). Constructing Singapore: Elitism, ethnicity and the nation-building project. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies. Bellows, T. (2009). Meritocracy and the Singapore political system. Asian Journal of Political Science, 17(1), 24–44. Bray, M., & Lykins, C. (2012). Shadow education: Private supplementary tutoring and its implications for policy makers in Asia. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank. Buckles, S., Schug, M., & Watts, M. (2001). A national survey of state assessment practices in the social studies. Social Studies, 92(4), 141. Cheah, Y. M. (1998). The examination culture and its impact on literacy innovations: The case of Singapore. Language and Education, 12(3), 192–209. Deneen, C., Fulmer, G. W., Brown, G. T. L., Tan, K., Leong, W. S., & Tay, H. Y. (2019). Value, practice and proficiency: Teachers’ complex relationship with assessment for learning. Teacher and Teacher Education, 80, 39–47. Fu, G. (2010). Speech by Ms Grace Fu, Senior Minister of State, Ministry of National Development and Ministry of Education, at the PERI Holistic Assessment Seminar 2010 on Tuesday, 13 July 2010.

Assessment Reforms in Singapore

259

Goh, C. T. (1997). Shaping our future: Thinking schools, learning nation. Singapore Government Press Release. Speech by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong at the Opening of the 7th International Conference on Thinking, 2 June. Gopinathan, S. (2001). Globalisation, the state and education policy in Singapore. J. Tan, S. Gopinathan, & W.K. Ho. (Eds.) Challenges facing the Singapore education system today. Singapore: Prentice Hall. Gregory, K., & Clarke, M. (2003). High-stakes assessment in England and Singapore. Theory into Practice, 42(1), 66–74. Hawe, E. (2002). Assessment in a pre-service teacher education programme: The rhetoric and the practice of standards-based assessment. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 30(1), 93–106. Ho, L. C. (2014). Meritocracy, tracking, and elitism: Differentiated citizenship education in the United States and Singapore. The Social Studies, 105(1), 29–35. Hogan, S., Chan, M., Rahim, R., Kwek, D., Khin, M. A., Loo, S. C., Sheng, Y. Z., & Luo, W. (2013). Assessment and the logic of instructional practice in Secondary 3 English and mathematics classrooms in Singapore. Review of Education, 1(1), 57–106. Hogan, D., Towndrow, P., & Koh, K. (2009). The logic of confidence and the social economy of assessment reform in Singapore: A new institutionalist perspective. In E. Grigorenko, Assessment of abilities and competencies in the era of globalization. New York: Springer. Klenowski, V. (2009). Assessment for learning revisited: An Asia-Pacific perspective.Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(3), 263–268. Koh, K., & Luke, A. (2009). Authentic and conventional assessment in Singapore schools: An empirical study of teacher assignments and student work. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 291–318. Lee, H. L. (2004). Our future of opportunity and promise. Singapore Government Press Release. Address by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the 2004 National Day Rally at the University Cultural Centre, National University of Singapore, 22 August. Leong, S. C. (2020). Elements of a Standards-referenced Assessment. In SEAB Assessment in Singapore: Getting Ready for the 2020s (pp. 11–16). Singapore: Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board. Leong, W. S., & Tan, K. (2014). What (more) can, and should, assessment do for learning? Observations from ‘successful learning context’ in Singapore. Curriculum Journal, 25(4), 593–619, 1.035. Lim, L. (2013). Meritocracy, elitism, and egalitarianism: A preliminary and provisional assessment of Singapore’s primary education review. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33(1), 1–14. Lim-Ratnam, C. (2013). Tensions in defining quality pre-school education: the Singapore context. Educational Review Ministry of Education. (2019). Updates to PSLE 2021 scoring system—enabling students to progress, regardless of starting points. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/press-releases/updates-topsle-2021-scoring-system--enabling-students-to-progress--regardless-of-starting-points Ng, P. T. (2005). Students’ perception of change in the Singapore education system. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 3(1), 77–92. Ng, P. T. (2008). Educational reform in Singapore: From quantity to quality. Educational research for policy and practice, 7(1), 5-15. Ong, Y. K. (2019) Speech by Mr Ong Ye Kung, Minister for Education, at the Committee of Supply Debate on 5 March 2019. PERI Report. (2009). Report of the Primary Education Review and Implementation Committee. Singapore: Ministry of Education Rahmat, F. A. & Wong, H. M. (2017, June). Analysing the nature of feedback in classrooms in Singapore. Paper presented at the 7th Redesigning Pedagogy International Conference, Singapore. Ratnam-Lim, C., & Tan, K. H. K. (2015). Large-scale implementation of formative assessment practices in an examination oriented culture. Assessment in Education, 22(1), 61–78.

260

K. H. K. Tan

Sadler, D. R. (1987). Specifying and promulgating achievement standards. Oxford review of education, 13(2), 191-209. Singapore Examinations and Assessment Branch. (2020). Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) 2021: Standards Referenced Assessment. https://www-seab-gov-sg-admin.cwp.sg/docs/ default-source/research-and-presentation-articles/demystifying-national-examinations/psle-pos ter-17jan2019.jpg. Accessed on 14 November 2020. Stiggins, R. J. (1995). Assessment literacy for the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3), 238–245. Tan, C. (2006). Creating thinking schools through “Knowledge and Inquiry”: The curriculum challenges for Singapore. The Curriculum Journal, 17(1), 89–105. Tan, K. H. K. (2007). The case for qualitative approaches to assessment. In K. H. K. Tan (Ed.), Alternative Assessment in Schools: A Qualitative Approach. Singapore, Pearson Education South Asia. Tan, K. (2008). Meritocracy and Elitism in a Global City: Ideological Shifts in Singapore. International Political Science Review, 29(7), 7–27. Tan, K. H. K. (2011). Assessment for learning in Singapore: Unpacking its meanings and identifying some areas for improvement. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 10(2), 91–103. Tan, K. H. K. (2011). Assessment for learning reform in Singapore—Quality, sustainable or threshold? In R. Berry & B. Adamson (Eds.), Assessment reform in education: Ploicy and practice (pp. 75–88). Springer. Tan, C. Y. (2013a). Organisational legitimacy of the Singapore Ministry of Education. Oxford Review of Education, 39(5), 590–608. Tan, K. H. K. (2013b). A framework for assessment for learning: Implications for feedback practices within and beyond the gap. International Scholarly Research Notices. Tan, K. H. K., & Deneen, C. C. (2015). Aligning and sustaining meritocracy, curriculum and assessment validity in Singapore. Assessment Matters, 8, 31–52. Tan, K. H. K. (2017). Asking questions of (what) assessment (should do) for learning: The case of bite-sized assessment for learning in Singapore. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 16(2), 189–202. Taylor, C. (1994). Assessment for measurement or standards: The peril and promise of large scale assessment reform. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 231–262. Teng, A. (2016, July 14). PSLE scoring revamp: T-score replaced by eight wider grade bands in 2021, Straits Times, Available at https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/psle-sco ring-revamp-t-score-replaced-by-eight-wider-grade-bands-in-2021 Volante, L. DeLuca, C. Harju-Luukkainen, H. Heritage, M. Schneider, C. Stobart, G. Tan, K. H. K., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2020). Synergy and tension between large-scale and classroom assessment: International trends. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 0(0), 1–9. Yue, L. S., & Chow, H. K. (2020). Standards-referenced Assessment. In SEAB Assessment in Singapore: Getting Ready for the 2020s (pp. 1–7). Singapore: Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board.

Chinese Language Education and Assessment Policy in Singapore (1965–2021) Yun-Yee Cheong

Abstract Discussion of Singapore’s system of Chinese language education and assessment policy requires consideration of the wider political and socio-economic background of this dynamic Asian sovereign city-state. This chapter shows how recent reforms to the Chinese language education and examination system are more fully understood in terms of Singapore’s historical development between 1965 and 2021, alongside broader social and political factors. The chapter is presented in two substantive sections. The first section outlines the development of Singapore’s education and examination system. This is followed by scrutiny of Singapore’s Chinese language education and assessment policy with particular reference to key terms pertinent to this research, such as “mother tongue” and “bilingual policy”. The chapter addresses the limitations of the current bilingual policy and explores the policy’s implications for how the Chinese language is perceived, taught and examined in Singapore. Concluding comments argue that it is imperative for each actor involved in Singapore’s Chinese language education and assessment processes to remain receptive to recommendations and current influences. Keywords Bilingual policy · Chinese language education and assessment policy · Language testing and assessment in Singapore · Mother tongue · Singapore’s education and examination system

1 Singapore’s Education and Examination System A sovereign state since 1965, Singapore is one of Asia’s great success stories. In a short span of little more than 50 years, Singapore has evolved into a first-world nation that fares extremely well in several categories of global competitiveness and effectiveness. With a land area of slightly over 700 km2 and limited natural resources, Singapore attributes much of its economic success to its high-quality education system. As a nation steeped in Confucian ideology, educational achievement has always Y.-Y. Cheong (B) Singapore University of Social Sciences, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_15

261

262

Y.-Y. Cheong

been held in high regard. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s first Prime Minister, put it succinctly when he said that “one of the great strengths in our society is the strong support for education. It springs from the conviction of our people that our children’s future depends on education” (Lee, 1978, p. 1). Singapore’s students regularly rank among the top scorers in international assessments, such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). In a recent report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2011), Singapore emerged as one of the strong performers and successful reformers in education. Meritocracy is heralded as a fundamental ideology in Singapore and a founding policy in the education system (Lee, 2000; Mauzy & Milne, 2002). The very essence of meritocracy today lies in allowing everyone to progress in various fields based on their ability and effort rather than on class privilege and wealth. As early as 1959, when Singapore attained full internal self-government, the government sought to ensure that the education system would allow every child to have a fair chance at success. Concerted efforts were made to eradicate illiteracy and to equip students with the necessary skills and knowledge needed for an expanding economy. Education became a matter of right, instead of a privilege enjoyed only by elite groups. The 1960s and 1970s saw a movement towards a national education and examination system, culminating in the Report on the Ministry of Education 1978 (Goh, 1979) often referred to as the Goh Keng Swee Report. To address the high attrition rates in Singapore’s education system1 and to provide an opportunity for less able students to develop at a pace slower than that of more able students (Goh, 1979), a system of ability-based streaming was introduced. The recommendations in this report have “far-reaching ramifications on Singapore’s education system up till today” (Tan et al., 2008, p. 112) as students continue to be streamed according to their ability. This system espouses meritocratic advancement pathways, serving to maximize the differing capacities of students. Singapore’s Ministry of Education (MOE) is a national-level jurisdiction which controls the development and operation of most national schools. It also directs the formulation and implementation of education policies (MOE, 2019). In the system of formal schooling following the national curriculum, students typically go through six years of primary education, followed by four to five years of secondary education. Primary education has been compulsory since 2003; while secondary education is not mandatory, the “completion of ten to eleven years of general education is virtually universal” (MOE, 2010, p. 1). Students then advance to post-secondary education of two to three years along an academic, applied-oriented or vocational pathway, before one-quarter of each cohort (approximately 13,000 students per cohort) continue to pursue a university degree. National examinations, namely the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), the Singapore-Cambridge General 1

According to the Report on the Ministry of Education 1978, attrition rates were 29% and 36% at the primary and secondary levels respectively, which were very much higher in comparison with education systems such as those in Taiwan, Japan, the United Kingdom and France. By 2000, the overall proportion of each primary one cohort that did not complete secondary education had fallen to 4% and has been less than 1% in the past five years (MOE, 2014).

Chinese Language Education and Assessment …

263

Certificate of Education Normal-Level (GCE N-Level) and Ordinary-Level Examination (GCE O-Level), and the Singapore-Cambridge General Certificate of Education Advanced-Level Examination (GCE A-Level), are conducted at the end of Grades 6, 10 (or 11) and 12, respectively. Chinese language papers are offered in these national examinations. Students are allocated to one of four main streams at the secondary level based on their PSLE results (refer to MOE, 2020, p. v which provides a diagrammatic outline of Singapore’s education and examination system). These four streams, namely the Integrated Programme, Express Course, Normal (Academic) Course and Normal (Technical) Course are designed to match the students’ learning abilities and interests. The first of these, the six-year Integrated Programme, provides a seamless secondary school and junior college education in which students can proceed to junior college without taking the GCE O-Level Examination (with the exception of the higher mother tongue paper; a proportion of students also sit the mother tongue paper). Implemented in 2004, currently, 18 out of 154 secondary schools offer this prestigious programme. The programme takes in high-performing students (approximately the top 10% of each cohort) most of whom study both English and mother tongue as their first languages. The Integrated Programme culminates in the GCE A-Level Certificate or other diplomas such as the International Baccalaureate. The second stream of the education system is the Express Course. This is a four-year course leading to the GCE O-Level Examination. In this course, mother tongue is taken as a second language. Approximately 53% of the cohort is streamed into the Express Course (MOE, 2020). The third stream is the Normal (Academic) Course. This four-year course leads to the GCE N-Level Examination. Students who perform well at the N-Level will be eligible to sit the O-Level Examination in the following year (Grade 11). Selected students may also sit certain O-Level subjects at Secondary Four (Grade 10). In the Normal (Academic) Course, students learn a range of subjects similar to those in the Express Course. Approximately 24% of the total cohort of Singapore’s students is streamed into this Normal (Academic) Course (MOE, 2020). The fourth stream is the Normal (Technical) Course. Students following this course study a maximum of seven subjects that have a more technical or practical emphasis, preparing them for post-secondary education at the Institute of Technical Education. Unlike students in the first three courses, Normal (Technical) Course students are only required to sit the basic mother tongue examination. Students in this course make up approximately 13% of the cohort (MOE, 2020). English is taught as a first language in all streams and is also the medium of instruction for most subjects. Under Singapore’s bilingual policy introduced in 1966, mother tongue is a mandatory subject. Students learn either Chinese, Malay or Tamil, depending on their father’s ethnicity. The streaming of students into one of the four courses is based on performance at each national examination milestone. This system aims to achieve an accurate match between merit and qualification routes, as well as appropriate resource allocation. National examinations are powerful gatekeepers of the system. Success in these examinations is rewarded by attractive scholarships and places at local and overseas tertiary institutions. Ultimately, students who excel

264

Y.-Y. Cheong

academically gain better access to prestigious positions in the labour market. Singapore’s survival and economic development needs have given the national education system a very pragmatic bent. Singapore’s differentiated education system, a result of the Goh Keng Swee reforms, is not without its critics, some of whom feel that the obsession with highstakes national examinations not only leads to an increased level of anxiety for students, but also stifles their creativity and passion for learning. Others regard streaming as elitist and point out the stigmatizing effect of labelling students. Responding to these concerns, MOE has in recent years expended efforts “to soften the harshness and rigidity of the system’s tracking mechanism” (Lim, 2013, p. 5). Alternative modes of assessment are encouraged and there has been a gradual move away from the overly strong emphasis on major summative examinations (Ong, 2018). Avenues of lateral transfer from lower to higher-prestige academic tracks have also been introduced to facilitate upward mobility. It comes as no surprise that Mr. Heng Swee Keat, former Minister for Education (2011–2015), has repeatedly called for multiple pathways for success (Heng, 2011, 2015). National examinations and qualifications, though critical, are not the be-all and end-all (Ong, 2016) of formal education. More importantly, Singapore’s education system has to nurture students with character and integrity and equip them with twenty-first century competencies such as critical and inventive thinking, global awareness, cross-cultural skills and a zest for life-long learning (Heng, 2012; Ong, 2018). In other words, one of the fundamental objectives of education is to prepare our students for life, rather than to teach for tests and examinations (Tharman, 2005). Arguably, the most major overhaul of the Singaporean examination system was announced in 2019 by the former Minister for Education (2018–2020), Mr. Ong Ye Kung (2019). Approximately four decades following its introduction, MOE will be abolishing the streaming system in 2024 and replacing it with subject-based banding. It was also revealed that from 2027, students will no longer sit the GCE O-Level or N-Level Examinations, but take a certificated common national examination. In light of these initiatives, current issues in the national Chinese language examinations have to be contextualized and examined within Singapore’s education system.

2 Chinese Language and Assessment Policy in Singapore An exploration of issues in Singapore’s current Chinese language education and assessment policy cannot afford to ignore the changing relationship of Chinese with the state’s other official languages. Since independence, the Singaporean government has adopted a clearly interventionist stance when it comes to the management of societal multilingualism (Gopinathan, 2003). English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil were designated as official languages (All-Party Committee of the Singapore Legislative Assembly, 1956) and given equal status. In a bid to balance the sociocultural sensitivities of the different ethnic groups, English was chosen as the common language to facilitate communicative integration and to forge a new national

Chinese Language Education and Assessment …

265

identity. Bilingualism was set as a target for the younger generations and Chinese (also known as Mandarin, Standard Chinese or the Putonghua equivalent in mainland China) was actively promoted among the majority Chinese community to replace the various Chinese dialects, such as Hokkien, Teochew, Hakka and Cantonese. These language policies manifest themselves in education and work their influence through the agency of national examinations. The Singaporean government’s language policies have had a considerable effect across all levels and sectors of society in the last 55 years. In the area of Chinese language education, these policies have dictated to a very large extent how the language is taught, used and eventually assessed.

2.1 History of Chinese Language Education in Singapore Historically, Chinese language teaching in Singapore first started in the old-style private Chinese school known as sishu (私塾). When Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles arrived in 1819, Singapore had only about one thousand inhabitants living in small fishing communities, of whom a few dozens were Chinese (Chew & Lee, 1991). Under British colonial rule, Singapore rapidly emerged as an important trading post, and with trade came a huge influx of Chinese immigrants from Southern China. As the Chinese population grew, many sishus were set up to cater to the educational needs of immigrant children. Textbooks were written in classical Chinese (wenyanwen 文 言文) and Chinese dialects were used as the medium of instruction (Ang, 2003). Following the Xinhai Revolution in 1911, many modern Chinese schools were established in Singapore and other parts of Southeast Asia under the influence of Chinese revolutionaries such as Dr. Sun Yat Sen (Tan, 2013). Chinese was taught as a first language in these schools, using textbooks and materials from mainland China; and Chinese culture, Chinese nationalism and patriotism were inculcated and fostered. Students also learned various subjects, such as history, geography, mathematics and science, in Chinese. The structure of these schools followed the education system in mainland China: six years of primary schooling, three years of junior middle schooling and three years of senior middle schooling (the 6-3-3 system). Common examinations for students in Chinese stream schools were initiated by the Hokkien Association in 1931. Senior Middle III examinations were conducted for students upon completion of senior middle schooling until 1961 when the government implemented the Government Secondary IV School Certificate (Chinese) examination.2 Students who performed well in the examinations had the opportunity to further their studies when Nanyang University, Singapore’s only Chinese language post-secondary institution, was established in 1955.3 2

As mentioned earlier, the Government Secondary IV School Certificate (Chinese) examination was replaced by the Singapore-Cambridge GCE O-Level examination in 1971. 3 Nanyang University was established in Singapore in 1955. During its existence, it was Singapore’s only Chinese language post-secondary institution. In 1980, Nanyang University merged with the University of Singapore to form the National University of Singapore.

266

Y.-Y. Cheong

Although the British government felt that its own interests would be best served by the English elite, little was actually done to further these ideals other than to provide free or subsidized education for students in English stream schools (Gopinathan, 1974). The fundamental reason for this provision is that, as Bokhorst-Heng (1998a) aptly sums up, “access to English needed to be managed in close tandem with the administrative needs of the colony. Anything more than that would certainly result in social instability” (p. 136). As the British government believed that mass English education might not be beneficial for colonial order and sovereignty, they adopted a generally neutral attitude towards Chinese stream schools, as with other vernacular schools (Bokhorst-Heng, 1998b).4 The Chinese stream schools existed alongside English stream schools and were largely managed and funded by the Chinese community itself. Even though students in Chinese stream schools were exposed to English, and Chinese as a second language was introduced as an optional subject in English stream secondary schools in 1938, most students remained monolingual. At the societal level, the Chinese community became segmented into the Chinese and Chinese dialect-speaking majority and an English-speaking elite minority. Perhaps even more worrying was the mounting interracial tensions due to the lack of a common language and identity.

2.2 Bilingual Policy Rationale In 1965, when Singapore became a sovereign state after separating from the rest of Malaysia, its political leaders were immediately “faced with the unenviable task of ensuring the political and economic survival of the small city state” (Goh & Gopinathan, 2008, p. 12). The Singaporean government readily harnessed the usefulness of the English language. First, English in principle is a “neutral” language, giving no ethnic group an advantage. Although the Chinese formed the vast majority of the population, “making Chinese the official language was out of the question as the 25% who were non-Chinese would revolt” (Lee, 2011). Similarly, it would have been unlikely that the predominantly Chinese society would have accepted Malay or Tamil as a substitution for Chinese and Chinese dialects. At the outset, designating English as the official working language and the main medium of instruction in schools would have been seen to favour those who already had an education in English (Lee, 2008), but the government contested that in the long term the choice of English would create an open level playing field and equal opportunities for all (Singaporeans), whatever their race (Goh, 1999). Second, the last half of the twentieth century saw English fast becoming the lingua franca of the world. British political imperialism had spread English around the globe during the nineteenth century and after the Second World War. The widespread use of English was further reinforced by the economic supremacy of the new American superpower (Crystal, 2012). The 4

The British colonial government, however, took more interest in Malay stream schools as Malays were recognised as indigenous (Chia, 2015).

Chinese Language Education and Assessment …

267

Singaporean leaders viewed English as the up and coming language of international commerce and industry and the key for guaranteeing access to Western science and technology. The use of English has been fervently defended for its utilitarian value since the early years of Singapore’s independence. The late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew argued strongly for the necessity of English, warning that “the deliberate stifling of a language which gives access to superior technology can be damaging beyond repair” (Josey, 2013, p. 589). Ironically, while English was seen as a necessity for Singapore’s survival, it was also perceived as a significant threat to the nation. Since Singapore’s independence, various political leaders of Singapore have expressed deep concern over the excesses of westernization that the English language indirectly propagated. Such westernization, if left unchecked, they argued, could lead to an erosion of moral and personal values, which in turn would weaken the fabric of society. This fear of “deculturalization” was clearly articulated by the late President Wee Kim Wee (1985–1993), who feared that “traditional Asian ideas of morality, duty and society which have sustained and guided us in the past are giving way to a more Westernized, individualistic, and self-centred outlook on life… We cannot tell what dangers lie ahead, as we rapidly grow more Westernized” (Wee, 1989, p. 2). To counter Westernization, the post-independence government reasoned that the identity of Singaporeans must be anchored in their ethnic and cultural origins. The cultural role of the ethnic languages, or mother tongues was given prominence; and the learning of mother tongue, either as a first or second language, was made compulsory for all Singaporean students with the introduction of the bilingual policy in 1966. The three chosen “mother tongues” (Chinese, Malay and Tamil), together with English, fitted neatly with the nation’s four major ethnic blocs of Chinese, Malay, Indian and “Others”. By granting the “corresponding language” of each ethnic bloc equal official status and legitimacy, the government was seen, in a broad sense, to grant cultural recognition to the multi-ethnic population (Tan, 2003). In the years following the implementation of the bilingual policy, the enrolment of children in Chinese, Malay and Tamil stream schools fell sharply. Yip et al. (1997) pointed out that, between 1968 and 1978, the number of students enrolled in Chinese stream schools declined rapidly from 18,927 to 5,289 students. The same decade witnessed an increase in enrolment in English stream schools, from 34,090 to 41,995 students. The national stream was thus introduced in 1983 as a result of the overwhelming preference of parents for an English-medium education. English was taught as a first language in all national schools and the mother tongue was relegated to a second language for the majority of students. Singapore’s bilingual policy, with English as the dominant language and the mother tongues as transmitters of traditional values and culture, remains the bedrock of the state’s education system and ideology. A discourse of national survival was repeatedly drawn upon to reinforce the narrative of a young nation in crisis and conflict. It is no coincidence that education in the two decades following self-government has also been dubbed the “survivaldriven phase” (OECD, 2011, p. 161). According to the late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (1965), “for (Singapore), survival has always been hazardous…We are on our own…in the centre of an extremely tumultuous arena of conflict” (p. 44).

268

Y.-Y. Cheong

The people of Singapore were, therefore, called upon by political leaders to exercise self-restraint and self-sacrifice (Lim, 1965) for the sake of the nation’s survival. This official discourse provided justification for the policies that the ruling party implemented, which in turn legitimized its authority. It is interesting to point out that Singapore’s bilingual policy has attracted criticism, especially from academics abroad, who argued that the eventual disappearance of Chinese stream schools and the relegation of Chinese to a second language was a strategic move to keep the Chinese-educated, who were deemed more sympathetic to communist-aligned political activities, in check (Tremewan, 1996; Trocki, 2006). These critical academics postulated that the PAP, through government policies, had strengthened the social and economic forces that favoured the dominance of the English language; and that the bilingual policy, while quelling potential revolts of the Chinese-educated, had left them and the Chinese language marginalized. Such marginalization, along with the generally lower socio-economic status of the Chinese-educated, became even more pronounced with the demise of Chinese stream schools in the early 1980s. In 1991, Lianhe Zaobao 《联合早报》 ( ), a local Chinese daily newspaper, published a series of articles that documented the “resignation and agony” felt by Chinese intellectuals in Singapore.5 These sentiments continued to be echoed by opposition parties in an attempt to appeal to the Chinese masses, even in the recent 2011 general election (Gopinathan, 2003; Koh, 2011). While the recurring theme of political and language marginalization needs to be addressed with regard to Chinese language assessment in the Singaporean context, it is beyond the scope of this chapter. In conclusion, unlike the British colonial government which adopted a laissezfaire attitude towards education in Singapore, the newly-elected PAP government views education as a powerful tool of state control and regulation. Using Foucault’s concept of discipline and punishment makes it possible to see the bilingual policy, streaming system, standardized curriculum and national examinations as mechanisms for amassing and wielding power (Foucault, 1995). It is not uncommon in modern societies for the government to instil discipline in the individual through the intersection of hierarchical observation, social definitions of normality, material institutions and rituals of examination. In fact, humble modalities introduced after Singapore’s independence, such as the everyday flag-raising and pledge-taking ceremony in all schools, the display of portraits of the president and their spouse in school halls, to more major moves, such as the compulsory study of civics and the establishment of the Institute of Education in 1973 to provide centralized training for

5

These articles were penned by the former Director of the Institute of Education, Singapore, Dr Lau Wai Har, who documented the low morale and frustrations of Chinese intellectuals and argued strongly against the labelling of Chinese intellectuals as “chauvinists”. For a more thorough discussion, see Gopinathan (2003).

Chinese Language Education and Assessment …

269

teachers,6 could all be seen in this light. By controlling education, the government is shaping official discourse.

2.3 Limitations and Implications of the Bilingual Policy As outlined above, discussion of the national Chinese language examinations in Singapore is problematic because of the country’s complex ethnic–linguistic composition. To further complicate matters, the linguistic legacy in Singapore, derived from its historical development, has been tempered by a policy of bilingual education implemented since 1966. Bilingualism in Singapore has taken on a meaning peculiar to the needs of the country. It is defined as proficiency in English plus one of the officially recognized mother tongues, namely, Chinese, Malay or Tamil, which is automatically assigned according to ethnicity. The policy clearly compartmentalizes the role of English and mother tongues in Singapore’s society—English functions as the “elaborated code” being the language of education, government and commerce; while mother tongues function as “restricted codes”, used in informal intra-ethnic community interactions, acting mainly as “cultural ballast” against undesirable Western influences (Bernstein, 1971). In practice, what exists in Singapore is an “English-knowing bilingualism” (Kachru, 1992), a term that acknowledges the primacy of the English language in defining what it means to be a bilingual person (Pakir, 1997). The goal, as specified by Dr. Tony Tan Keng Yam, former Minister of Education (1985–1991), is to educate an entire population so that everyone is literate in English, and at the same time, has a reasonable knowledge of his mother tongue (Tan, 1986). While the bilingual policy has helped in ameliorating the problem of illiteracy in the post-independence years and increased the proportion of Singaporeans with a minimum standard of proficiency in both English and their mother tongue, it is not without flaws. It has been pointed out that decisions about the bilingual policy are primarily made by political leaders and then communicated to subordinate levels which are then charged with the technical, managerial and administrative tasks of putting policy into practice (Kuo and Jernudd, 1994; Ng, 2011). Given the highly centralized and regulated nature of the bilingual policy, there are bound to be gaps between the intended, enacted and experienced policy. The top-down approach in decision-making and implementation may also mean a delayed response to changes at ground level. In what follows, the scope of discussion on the inherent limitations of the bilingual policy is limited to four aspects that are of direct relevance to Chinese language education and assessment. First, the bilingual policy entails a reconceptualization of the internally heterogeneous Chinese population into one community with one mother tongue paired 6

In 1991, the Institute of Education merged with the College of Physical Education, which had been set up in 1984 to train specialist teachers in Physical Education, to form the National Institute of Education. The National Institute of Education is the sole teacher education institute for teachers in Singapore.

270

Y.-Y. Cheong

with one set of cultures and values. The Chinese population of Singapore of various descendants and backgrounds were cast in a fixed over-simplified ethnic category and a homogenous notion of Chineseness was socially engineered to foster intraethnic cohesion (Chua, 2003; Guo, 2011). At the time of independence, the Chinese community remained divided into the English-educated and the Chinese-educated. Various Chinese dialects, or vernacular Chinese, were spoken as the predominant home language by the majority of Chinese although Chinese was well established as the language of Chinese education (Chua, 1964). In the span of a decade following the Speak Mandarin Campaign launched in 1979, the government successfully curtailed the use of dialects—the proportion of Chinese families who spoke mainly dialects at home declined steeply from approximately 62% in 1980 to below 10% in 1989, a downward trend which continued.7 Since 2001, fewer than 2% of Chinese students in each primary cohort have come from dialect-speaking homes. Chinese, however, did not become the unifying thread within the Chinese communities as envisioned. Despite the shift away from Chinese dialects, a significant and growing proportion of Chinese speak English in the private informal sphere of family and friends (Ng, 2014). This changing language landscape suggests that the Chinese community is now segregated into English and Chinese speakers, as argued by several academics (Goh, 2010). In reality, available data from Singapore’s national census reports, international comparison studies and small-scale studies reveal a structure more complex than a rigid dichotomy (Beardsmore, 2003). The relationship between language and culture has been an area of concern for researchers but has not been given due attention in the discussion of bilingual policies by policymakers (Tan, 2004). Second, the concept of mother tongue in the Singaporean context is hugely problematic as it undermines the legitimacy of the bilingual policy. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (1953) defines mother tongue as “the language which a person acquires in early years and which normally becomes its natural instrument of thought and communication” (p. 46). Mother tongue is generally accepted as a language that the child first listens to and speaks and is often used at home (UNESCO, 2001). While this language is perceived to frame thinking, as a child is essentially learning how to think through the initial acquisition of their mother tongue (Simpson & Wigglesworth, 2008), in Singapore, mother tongue is automatically ascribed based on ethnicity, irrespective of home language. Hence, a “mother tongue” and a “mother’s tongue” are not always the same, and “mother tongue” should not be confused with “first language”, “native language” or “dominant language”. Bearing in mind that mother tongues are state-assigned in Singapore, it comes as no surprise that there is a group of Chinese students who neither feel comfortable using the Chinese language nor identify themselves readily with the Chinese culture. For this group of students whose dominant language is often Standard English (or its 7

The Speak Mandarin Campaign (讲华语运动) is a government initiative to promote the use of Chinese (i.e. Mandarin). The campaign was launched in 1979 by the late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew with the objective of persuading all speakers of Chinese dialects to switch to Chinese. The campaign continues to be an annual event, although its focus now encourages English-speaking Singaporean Chinese to use the Chinese language more frequently.

Chinese Language Education and Assessment …

271

vernacular form, Singlish), Chinese is more of a “step-tongue” (继母语) rather than mother tongue (Zhou, 2007). Even though the national Chinese language curriculum and examination are pitched at the second language level, many of these students struggle with the learning of the Chinese language. While most acquire a minimum level of oral proficiency owing to the presence of a sizeable community of Chinese speakers in Singapore, few find the opportunity and motivation to read and write in the language. This situation necessarily raises questions about the objectives and authenticity of the Chinese language curriculum and examination. Ensuring that this group of predominantly English-speaking Chinese students remains driven by the need to learn the Chinese language and eventually pass the national Chinese language examinations has also become a constant concern among parents, educators and policymakers (Loke, 1994). Third, another term that warrants discussion is “bilingualism”. Singapore’s bilingual policy has come to be accepted by the general public without critical engagement with the key issue of bilingualism itself. What is bilingualism? What are the dimensions of bilinguality? What level of proficiency in both languages must a student achieve to be legitimately called bilingual? The answers to these questions remain unclear and the key terms are undefined in the Singaporean context. Increasingly, academics have voiced their concerns about the efficacy of Singapore’s bilingual policy in producing effectively bilingual students. In the rhetoric of the policy, English is taught at the first language level and Chinese at the second language level for approximately 90% of ethnic Chinese students. Furthermore, English is used as the primary medium of instruction and assessment in schools, and Chinese is mainly taught and learned as a single language subject. With an average of only 4.75 h and 3.75 h of instruction time per week at primary and secondary school levels, respectively, many students grow up to function predominantly in English. James (2003) observes that bilingualism in Singapore is in actual fact highly selective. Students who offer both English and Chinese as first language at secondary school come from the top 10% of the PSLE candidates, although provisions have been made in recent years to expand this group of students (MOE, 2018).8 Even fewer sit Chinese language or literature papers at the end of their post-secondary education, with only a handful of academically-inclined students being hand-picked for the Chinese Language Elective Programme (CLEP) and Bicultural Studies Programme (BSP) (Chinese) in junior colleges. Effective bilingualism is therefore seen to be reserved for a group of elite students. For the majority of students, Chinese is in essence a single subject that discontinues after secondary school. Loke (1994) presents a foreboding scenario where Singapore becomes a functionally monolingual English-speaking country, not very different from other predominantly English-speaking countries such as Britain, America, 8

Students in the top 11–30% of the cohort who meet the language criteria (i.e. an A+ grade in Chinese or at least a Merit in Higher Chinese at primary school) may also be offered Higher Chinese (Chinese as a first language) at secondary level. Schools may also allow students who do not meet the above criteria to opt for Higher Chinese if they are assessed as having exceptional ability in Chinese and are able to study Chinese at a higher level without affecting their performance in other subjects.

272

Y.-Y. Cheong

Australia and New Zealand. Whether this prognostication is accurate is, of course, debatable; however, we must acknowledge the hegemony of English in Singapore’s education system. As a result of half a century of conscious language planning, most Singaporean Chinese have at least a rudimentary level of spoken Chinese. Yet, the number of Chinese who demonstrate high levels of competency in all four language skills has shrunk noticeably. Kirkpatrick (2010) notes that producing students who are truly effective in the Chinese language is an uphill task as there is simply not enough curriculum time to read and write Chinese under the current “English + 1” bilingual policy. As early as the 1980s, some parliamentarians lamented that “standards in Chinese had declined to such a degree that students could neither write a simple essay nor read Chinese newspapers with comprehension” (Gopinathan, 2003, p. 28). The problem persists. There is increasing evidence, as cited by the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee (2004), to show that the Chinese language proficiency level of the average Chinese student in Singapore is still in decline and Chinese language teachers in Singapore are facing greater challenges in motivating students to learn the language. The ruling political party asserts that it is unrealistic to expect standards in Chinese as a second language to be comparable to those achieved when students used Chinese as a medium of instruction. Such a trade-off, it argues, is inevitable. The learning of two non-cognate languages simultaneously is deemed highly demanding and the government will not allow the curriculum to be overloaded by requiring higher standards in Chinese from all Chinese students. It seems unlikely, therefore, that the government’s stand on bilingual education and Chinese language will change significantly in the near future. Given their limited room to manoeuvre, the Chinese language curriculum and its assessment in Singapore might be unable to respond quickly to the demands necessitated by new global trends. A growing literature emphasizes that language is best taught and learned when it is put to work in the service of other purposes, activities and learning efforts (English Language Institute of Singapore, 2014; Pearson, 2009). Language instruction in the English language can be achieved through the teaching of other subjects (or disciplines) in Singapore. The same cannot be said of the Chinese language. The single-subject status of the Chinese language in most Singaporean primary and secondary schools makes it almost impossible to cultivate and assess the disciplinary literacy much sought after by students today. Fourth, the underlying premise of Singapore’s bilingual policy, namely that English and Chinese assume sharply different roles in society, has broken down rapidly in the last decade, with English infiltrating into social spheres and Chinese being increasingly promoted as an economically valuable language. As evident in the discussions above, English is now very much the language of education in Singapore. As a result of the younger generations being educated mainly in English, English has penetrated beyond formal domains, progressively becoming a language of personal communication, informal interaction and cultural expression (Ng, 2014). The government’s dichotomized view of English as having economic utility and Chinese as having cultural functions has generated different attitudes towards these languages (Zhao & Liu, 2007, 2010), especially because English language proficiency to a large

Chinese Language Education and Assessment …

273

extent determines career progression and socio-economic status (Silver, 2005). More Chinese parents are choosing English as the preferred language of communication with their children (Department of Statistics, 2016; MOE, 2011), speeding up the rate at which English infiltrates the social sphere. Even the initiator of the bilingual policy, the late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, expressed concern that the pendulum had swung too much in the direction of English (Toh & Ong, 2011). Yet, at the same time, new elements in favour of learning Chinese have also entered the policy frame. China’s remarkable economic growth and emergence as a political and technological powerhouse have strengthened the currency of the Chinese language. Since initiating market reforms in 1978, China has rapidly changed from a centrally planned system that was largely closed to international trade to a marketbased economy with a growing private sector (The World Bank, 2015). In 2010, China surpassed Japan to become the second largest economy in the world after the United States of America. Many countries are recognizing the study of Chinese language and culture as a strategy to ensure the global competitiveness of their citizens in the future. Former British Prime Minister, David Cameron (2010–2016) during his official visit to China in 2013 urged students to look beyond the traditional focus on French and German and instead learn Chinese, the language that will seal tomorrow’s business deals (The Guardian Editorial, 2013). In the United States of America, Chinese as a foreign language is also growing in popularity. The Modern Language Association (2015, 2019) reported that in fall 2013, over 61,000 students are studying the language in colleges and universities in the United States of America, a number that has more than tripled since the mid-1980s. Reports such as the Expanding Chinese Language Capacity in the United States (Stewart & Wang, 2005) called for a national commitment to new investments in teaching Chinese language and culture. The learning of Chinese has become a growing global phenomenon, with the estimated number of non-native learners in the world exceeding 150 million at present (Ethnologue, 2019). Being a small nation committed to a pragmatic ethic, Singapore’s education and examination system is invariably shaped by global trends and imperatives. National survival necessitated a fundamental restructuring of the education and examination system very early in the life of the nation and today the expanding influence of the Chinese language undoubtedly calls for a review on how it is taught and assessed. With China set to be the world’s largest economy in the near future, it can be asked whether Singaporean students are ready to take full advantage of their language skills to engage with China. As more people around the world learn Chinese as a second language, Singaporean Chinese will have to increase their competence in the language to retain their competitive edge. That is to say, it may no longer suffice to have conversational fluency in informal and casual settings. To take full advantage of the rise of China and its attractive market of 1.3 billion consumers, Singaporean Chinese will have to be adept users of the language even in formal settings. In view of China’s growing global influence, Singapore’s government has since the 1990s promoted the learning of Chinese as a doorway to trade and business dealings with China. Such linguistic instrumentalism has been repeatedly reinforced through various government initiatives such as the Speak Mandarin Campaign and

274

Y.-Y. Cheong

Business China (通商中国). As encapsulated in the MOE’s directives on mother tongue education, Chinese students are encouraged to study the Chinese language for as long as possible and to as high a level as they are capable of in order to ride the wave of growth in China (Chinese Language Curriculum & Pedagogy Review Committee, 2004). The Chinese language is no longer constrained to the singular purpose of maintaining traditional values and providing a sense of Chinese identity. It has stepped into the sphere of economy, a domain traditionally reserved for the English language in Singapore. The blurring of the dividing line between the functions of English and Chinese has exposed conflicts and tensions underlying Singapore’s bilingual policy. On the one hand, the government affirms the legitimacy of the Chinese as a powerful resource for opportunities in China; on the other hand, the Chinese remains a single subject in government schools, with far less prestige afforded to it in comparison with English. In particular, the Chinese language curriculum and examination reforms in the past decade have arguably further lowered the common standards for the subject. In the paper Planning for Development or Decline? Education Policy for Chinese Language in Singapore, Curdt-Christiansen (2014) wrote of the educational uncertainty and cultural confusion that stem from the conflicting ideologies behind the nation’s language planning and use. While the promotion of the Chinese language for its richness and commercial benefits was underway, Curdt-Christiansen (2014) noticed that the educational discourse took a different turn. In 2004, MOE introduced the Chinese Language “B” Syllabus at the secondary school level. This simplified syllabus which gives higher weighting to practical communication skills is “designed for students who, despite additional support in school and beyond, have exceptional difficulties coping with the Chinese language” (MOE, 2004). Students who obtain a pass in Chinese Language “B” will be deemed to have met the mother tongue requirement for admission to junior college. In other words, students are no longer required to include their grade for the GCE O-Level Chinese language paper in their overall score for academic progression. In the same year, the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee (2004) proposed that for the majority of students, the emphasis should be on effective oral communication, followed by reading and then, writing ( 先听说、再读、后写), as “in adult life, most Singaporeans will more often hear and speak Chinese than read Chinese, and more often read than write Chinese” (p. 5). To solve the problem of increasing learning-language difficulties and to enthuse students in learning Chinese, the content of the secondary syllabus was reduced while the curriculum and assessment no longer emphasized full command of literacy skills. In 2009, the Chinese curriculum underwent a further change to allow teachers the flexibility to use English to facilitate the teaching of Chinese. All these changes have done little to elevate the status of the Chinese language in Singapore. On the contrary, Curdt-Christiansen (2014) argues that they run counter to the government’s efforts to promote Chinese as a language in vogue. The government’s “mixed messages” may make it difficult for students to “appreciate the value, be it economic, cultural or educational, of the Chinese language” (p. 23).

Chinese Language Education and Assessment …

275

3 Conclusion In 2019, Singapore commemorated the bicentennial of the founding of modern Singapore. It seems appropriate to end this paper by reflecting on “the hard truths” articulated by the late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (Rose, 2009): You cannot maintain your relevance by just staying put. The world changes. There are shifts in the geopolitics and the economics of the world. We have to watch it and ride it. You surf with them. As the surf comes this way you ride the surf.

As a young nation, Singapore did not merely survive, it thrived. In the words of the late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore was able to stay ahead of the game because of its ability and willingness to reinvent itself and to stay relevant. Such thinking remains integral in today’s competitive world. In the field of education and assessment, the late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s “hard truths” challenge policymakers, specialists and education practitioners to re-think and re-examine why and how the Chinese language is being taught, learned and examined in light of the changing local and global linguistic landscapes. To a small and vulnerable state like Singapore, the major impetus for any revamp and restructuring is undoubtedly economic. At the same time, any policy refinements will have to ensure that the nation’s founding principle of racial equality is not compromised. A balance must, therefore, be struck between promoting the Chinese language and accommodating the sensitivities of non-Chinese ethnic groups. In this chapter, I have traced briefly the historical trajectory leading to the implementation of Singapore’s bilingual policy. I have also highlighted some of the inherent limitations of the bilingual policy and their implications for Chinese language education and assessment. It is clear that there are many factors at play simultaneously in the design and operation of a national language curriculum and examination. This raises the fundamental question of who or what factors are able to define the standards and constructs of Chinese language proficiency in Singapore. Specifically, it needs to be asked whether institutions such as MOE and the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB)9 exercise direct control over the determining of the standards and constructs or whether the needs of the Singaporean Chinese community and demands of a global workplace provide the major influences. Questions should also be raised regarding the extent to which exonormative standards and new developments in the field of education and assessment are determinants. Policies on Chinese language education and assessment in Singapore have been reshaped and will continue to be altered, as the power dynamics between Chinese and other languages in Singapore change. Thus, it is all the more important for each actor involved in Singapore’s Chinese language education and assessment processes to remain resolutely receptive to 9

SEAB was established on 1 April 2004 as a statutory board under the MOE. Formerly the Examinations Division of MOE, SEAB was formed to develop and provide quality assessment services, with its core business being national examinations (SEAB, 2013). SEAB also provides other assessment services and conducts relevant research (Cheong, 2018; SEAB, 2019).

276

Y.-Y. Cheong

recommendations and current influences. It is also desirable that more opportunities for regular dialogues among policymakers, ground-level personnel and the public are made available so that new ideas and solutions can be generated. As academics Sharpe and Gopinathan (1997) so aptly put it more than two decades ago, “it is precisely the effectiveness of the established system in terms of conventional measures that opens up the possibility in Singapore of a redefinition of effectiveness” (p. 370). More recently, Senior Minister of Singapore Tharman Shanmugaratnam (Khamid, 2015) has also called for “more debate and peer review within civil society itself, with participants evaluating each other’s analyses and proposals, and pointing to the trade-offs thoroughly and dispassionately” so as to help Singapore mature and advance as a society. To sum up, to stay relevant and effective, we must not be afraid to abandon tried and tested methods that have produced enviable results in the past. With this challenge in mind, this chapter has endeavoured to offer insights into the Singaporean context necessary for meaningful discourse on Chinese language education and assessment in Singapore.

References All-Party Committee of the Singapore Legislative Assembly. (1956). Report of the All-Party Committee of the Singapore Legislative Assembly on Chinese education. Singapore: Government Printer. Ang, B. C. (2003). The teaching of the Chinese language in Singapore. In S. Gopinathan, A. Pakir, W. K. Ho, & V. Saravanan (Eds.), Language, society and education in Singapore: Issues and trends (2nd ed., pp. 335–352). Eastern Universities Press. Beardsmore, H. B. (2003). Language shift and cultural implications in Singapore. In S. Gopinathan, A. Pakir, W. K. Ho, & V. Saravanan (Eds.), Language, society and education in Singapore: Issues and trends (2nd ed., pp. 85–98). Eastern Universities Press. Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. Routledge & Kegan. Bokhorst-Heng, W. (1998a). Language and imagining the nation in Singapore. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Toronto: University of Toronto. Bokhorst-Heng, W. (1998). Language planning and management in Singapore. In J. A. Foley (Ed.), English in new cultural contexts: Reflections from Singapore (pp. 287–309). Oxford University Press. Cheong, Y. Y. (2018). Assessment in Singapore: Perspectives for classroom practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 678–682. Chew, E. C. T., & Lee, E. (1991). A history of Singapore. Oxford University Press. Chia, Y. T. (2015). Education, culture and the Singapore developmental state: “World-soul” lost and regained? Palgrave Macmillan. Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee. (2004). Report of the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Chua, B. H. (2003). Multiculturalism in Singapore: An instrument of social control. Race and Class, 44(3), 58–77. Chua, S. C. (1964). Report on the census of population 1957. Singapore: State of Singapore Department of Statistics. Crystal, D. (2012). English as a global language. Cambridge University Press. Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2014). Planning for development or decline? Education policy for Chinese language in Singapore. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 11(1), 1–26.

Chinese Language Education and Assessment …

277

Department of Statistics. (2016). General household survey 2015.Retrieved from https://www.sin gstat.gov.sg/publications/ghs/ghs2015 English Language Institute of Singapore. (2014). Frameworks for disciplinary literacy. ELIS Research Digest, 1(6), 72–86. Retrieved from http://fliphtml5.com/vscu/onxv Ethnologue (2019). Chinese, Mandarin. Retrieved from https://www.ethnologue.com/langua ge/cmn Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books. Goh, C. B., & Gopinathan, S. (2008). The development of education in Singapore since 1965. In S. K. Lee, C. B. Goh, B. Fredriksen, & J. P. Tan (Eds.), Toward a better future: Education and training for economic development in Singapore since 1965 (pp. 12–38). The World Bank. Goh, C. T. (1999, May 5). Speech by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong on Singapore 21 debate in parliament. National Archives of Singapore Online Archives. Retrieved from http://www.nas.gov. sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/1999050503/gct19990505d.pdf Goh, K. S. (1979). Report on the Ministry of Education 1978. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Goh, Y. S. (2010). The globalization of Chinese: A Singapore perspective. The Commercial Press. Gopinathan, S. (1974). Towards a national system of education in Singapore 1945–1973. Oxford University Press. Gopinathan, S. (2003). Language policy changes 1979–1997: Politics and pedagogy. In S. Gopinathan, A. Pakir, W. K. Ho, & V. Saravanan (Eds.), Language, society and education in Singapore: Issues and trends (2nd ed., pp. 19–44). Eastern Universities Press. Guo, X. 郭熙 (2011) Huawen jiaoxue zai xinjiapo 华文教学在新加坡——层次和目标的讨论 (Chinese language teaching in Singapore: Variations and objectives), Huawen Xuekan《华文学 刊》(Journal of Chinese Language Education), 9 (1), 1–16. Heng, S. K. (2011, February 8). Opening address by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, at the Ministry of Education Work Plan Seminar 2011. MOE Speeches. Retrieved from https:// www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/opening-address-by-mr-heng-swee-keat--minister-for-educat ion--at-the-ministry-of-education-moe-work-plan-seminar--on-thursday--22-september-2011at-1000-am-at-ngee-ann-polytechnic-convention-centre Heng, S. K. (2012, February 8). Prepared remarks for Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, on “education for competitiveness and growth” at the Singapore Conference in Washington D.C., USA. MOE Speeches. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/doc ument/media/archive/speech-by-mr-heng-swee-keat-at-the-singapore-conference-washingtondc-usa.pdf Heng, S. K. (2015, September 22). Keynote address by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, at the Ministry of Education Work Plan Seminar 2015. MOE Speeches. Retrieved from https:// www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/keynote-address-by-mr-heng-swee-keat--minister-for-educat ion--at-the-ministry-of-education-work-plan-seminar-2015--on-tuesday--22-september-2015at-9-15am-at-ngee-ann-polytechnic-convention-centre James, J. (2003). Linguistic realities and pedagogical practices in Singapore: Another perspective. In S. Gopinathan, A. Pakir, W. K. Ho, & V. Saravanan (Eds.), Language, society and education in Singapore: Issues and trends (2nd ed., pp. 99–116). Eastern Universities Press. Josey, A. (2013). Lee Kuan Yew: The crucial years. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish. Kachru, B. B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures. University of Illinois Press. Khamid, H. M. A. (2015, August 3). Public debate to advance with civil society’s participation: DPM Tharman. Channel NewsAsia. Retrieved from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/sin gapore/public-debate-to-advance/2025098.html Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. Hong Kong University Press. Koh, G. (2011, April 28). Singapore General Election 2011: What moves the voters? Institute of Policy Speeches. Retrieved from http://lkyspp2.nus.edu.sg/ips/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/ 08/GK_CAB-GE2011_280411.pdf Kuo, E. C. Y., & Jernudd, B. H. (1994). Balancing macro and micro-sociolinguistic perspectives in language management: The case of Singapore. In T. Kandiah, & J. Kwan-Terry (Eds.), English

278

Y.-Y. Cheong

and language planning: A Southeast Asian contribution (pp. 70–89). Singapore: Times Academic Press. Lee, E. (2008). Singapore: The unexpected nation. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Lee, K. Y. (1965, December 14). Speech by the Prime Minister Mr. Lee Kuan Yew when he moved the motion of thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, for his policy speech on the opening of Parliament. National Archives of Singapore Online Archives. Retrieved from http://www.nas. gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/lky19651214a.pdf Lee, K. Y. (1978, March 4). Two speeches (combined & edited) by the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, at Istana Chap Goh Mei Reception and Tanjong Pagar Community Centre scholarships presentation. National Archives of Singapore Online Archives. Retrieved from http://www.nas. gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/lky19780304.pdf Lee, K. Y. (2000). From third world to first: The Singapore story (1965–2000). Singapore: Times Media. Lee, K. Y. (2011, September 6). Speech by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, former Minister Mentor and current Senior Advisor to Government of Singapore Investment Corporation at the launch of the English Language Institute of Singapore (ELIS) at the Marina Bay Sands Expo and Convention Centre. MOE Speeches. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/media/ archive/speech-by-mr-lee-kuan-yew-at-elis-launch.pdf Lim, K. S. (1965, November 19). Speech by the Minister for Finance, Mr Lim Kim San, at the Singapore Manufacturer’s Association luncheon at Imperial room. National Archives of Singapore Online Archives. Retrieved from http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/PressR196 51119.pdf Lim, L. (2013). Meritocracy, elitism and egalitarianism: A preliminary and provisional assessment of Singapore’s primary education review. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33(1), 1–14. Loke, K. K. (1994). Policy intentions and policy outcomes: A comparative perspective on the Singapore bilingual education system. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 24(1), 53–65. Mackey, W. F. (1987). Bilingualism and multilingualism. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, & K. Mattheier (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society (pp. 699–713). Walter de Gruyter. Mauzy, D. K., & Milne, R. S. (2002). Singapore politics under the People’s Action Party. Routledge. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2004, July 23). Chinese language “B” syllabus for students with exceptional difficulties in learning Chinese language, bonus points scheme for students strong in mother tongue languages for admission to selected courses in NUS and NTU, extension of bonus points scheme for students eligible to apply to SAP schools. MOE Press Releases. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/media/archive/chineselanguage-39-b-39-syllabus-for-students-press-release.pdf Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2010). Building a national education system for the 21st century: The Singapore experience. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/bb4e/SingaporeCaseStudy 2010.pdf Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2011). Nurturing active learners and proficient users: 2010 Mother Tongue Languages Review Committee report. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2014). Student drop-out rate for primary, secondary and ITE levels. MOE Parliamentary Replies. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/parliamen tary-replies/student-drop-out-rate-for-primary--secondary-and-ite-levels Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2018). Secondary school education: Shaping the next phase of your child’s learning journey. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/secondary/lan guage-programmes/ Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2019). About us. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/about/ Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2020). Education statistics digest 2020. Retrieved from https:// www.moe.gov.sg/-/media/files/about-us/education-statistics-digest-2020.pdf?la=en&hash=C5E 45EEA6E424D9749F617A4D88A171F6E20AB9A

Chinese Language Education and Assessment …

279

Modern Language Association. (2015). New MLA survey report shows advanced language study grows for several languages despite lower overall language enrolments in US colleges and universities. Retrieved from http://www.mla.org/pdf/2013_enrollment_survey_pr.pdf Modern Language Association. (2019). Language enrolment database, 1958–2016. Retrieved from https://apps.mla.org/flsurvey_search Ng, P. C. L. (2011). Language planning in action: Singapore’s multilingual and bilingual policy. Ritsumeikan Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, 30, 1–12. Ng, P. C. L. (2014). Mother tongue education in Singapore: Concerns, issues and controversies. Current Issues in Language Planning, 15(4), 361–375. Ong, Y. K. (2016, April 21). What SkillsFuture is about. The Straits Times. Retrieved from https:// www.straitstimes.com/opinion/what-skillsfuture-is-about Ong, Y. K. (2018, September 28). Opening address by Mr Ong Ye Kung, Minister for Education, at the Schools Work Plan Seminar. MOE Speeches. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/ speeches/opening-address-by-mr-ong-ye-kung--minister-for-education--at-the-schools-workplan-seminar Ong, Y. K. (2019, March 5). Learn for life –Remaking pathways: Greater flexibility with full subject-based banding. MOE Press Releases. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/ press-releases/20190305-learn-for-life-remaking-pathways-greater-flexibility-with-full-subjectbased-banding Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2011). Strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46623978.pdf Pakir, A. (1997). Education and invisible language planning: The case of the English language in Singapore. In J. Tan, S. Gopinathan, & W. K. Ho (Eds.), Education in Singapore: A book of readings (pp. 57–74). Prentice Hall. Pearson, P. D. (2009). The roots of reading comprehension instruction. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 3–31). Routledge. Rose, C. (Producer). (2009, October 22). Former Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew discusses globalization, immigration, and Singapore’s relevance in the world. Charlie Rose (Television broadcast). Retrieved from https://charlierose.com/videos/15567 Sharpe, L., & Gopinathan, S. (1997). Effective island, effective schools: Repair and restructuring in the Singapore school system. In J. Tan, S. Gopinathan, & W. K. Ho (Eds.), Education in Singapore: A book of readings (pp. 369–384). Prentice Hall. Silver, R. E. (2005). The discourse of linguistic capital: Language and economic policy planning in Singapore. Language Policy, 4(1), 47–66. Simpson, J. H., & Wigglesworth, G. (2008). Children’s language and multilingualism: Indigenous language use at home and school. Continuum. Sin, D. (1998). Saints, sinners and Singaporeans: A collection of poems. Angsana Books. Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB). (2013). SEAB annual report 2012/2013. Retrieved from https://www.seab.gov.sg/pages/media/Publications/annualReport/annualReport_ 12_13/page3.html Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB). (2019). What we do. Retrieved from https://www.seab.gov.sg/home/about-us/what-we-do Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge University Press. Stewart, V., & Wang, S. H. (2005). Expanding Chinese language capacity in the United States. Asia Society. Tan, C. B. (2013). Routledge handbook of the Chinese diaspora. Routledge. Tan, G. P. A. (2004). A sociolinguistic analysis of the “bilingual approach to the teaching of Chinese language” in Singapore. Retrieved from https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/bitstream/10635/14560/ 1/TanGPA.pdf Tan, J. (2012). Education in Singapore: Taking stock, looking forward. Singapore: Pearson.

280

Y.-Y. Cheong

Tan, S. H. (2003). Theoretical ideals and ideologized reality in language planning. In S. Gopinathan, A. Pakir, W. K. Ho, & V. Saravanan (Eds.), Language, society and education in Singapore: Issues and trends (2nd ed., pp. 45–64). Eastern Universities Press. Tan, T. K. Y. (1986, March 21). Main and development estimates of Singapore for the financial year 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1987. Singapore Parliament Reports. Retrieved from http://sprs. parl.gov.sg/search/topic?reportid=012_19860321_S0002_T0002 Tan, Y. K., Chow, H. K., & Goh, C. (2008). Examinations in Singapore: Change and continuity (1891–2007). World Scientific. Tharman, S. (2005, September 22). Speech by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Minister for Education, at the MOE Work Plan Seminar 2005. MOE Speeches. Retrieved from https://www. moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/media/archive/speech-by-mr-tharman-shanmugar atnam-minister-for-education-at-the-moe-work-plan-seminar-2005.pdf The Guardian Editorial. (2013, December 5). David Cameron urges British students to ditch French and learn Mandarin. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/ dec/05/david-cameron-ditch-french-learn-mandarin-china The World Bank. (2015). Overview of China. The World Bank. Retrieved from http://www.worldb ank.org/en/country/china/overview Toh, E., & Ong, A. (2011). English in school, mandarin at home: Mr Lee urges parents to ensure the young do not lose grasp of language. The Straits Times. Retrieved from http://eresources.nlb. gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Issue/straitstimes20111008-1 Tremewan, C. (1996). The political economy of social control in Singapore. Palgrave Macmillan. Trocki, C. A. (2006). Singapore: Wealth, power and the culture of control. Routledge. United Nations Educational, & Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1953). The use of vernacular languages in education. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2001). International conference on education 46th session: Final report. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Wee, K. W. (1989, January 9). President’s address. Singapore Parliament Reports. Retrieved from http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic?reportid=007_19890109_S0004_T0017 Yip, J. S. K., Eng, S. P., & Yap, J. Y. C. (1997). 25 years of educational reform. In J. Tan, S. Gopinathan, & W. K. Ho (Eds.), Education in Singapore: A book of readings (pp. 3–32). Prentice Hall. Zhao, S. H., & Liu, Y. B. (2007). Home language shift and its implications for language planning in Singapore: From the perspective of prestige planning. The Asia Pacific-Education Researcher, 16(2), 111–126. Zhao, S. H., & Liu, Y. B. (2010). Chinese education in Singapore: Constraints of bilingual policy from the perspectives of status and prestige planning. Language Problems and Language Planning, 34(3), 236–258. Zhou, Q. H. 周清海 (2007) Quanqiuhua huanjingxia de huayuwen yu huayuwen jiaoyu 全球化环 境下的华语文与华语文教育 (Singapore’s Chinese language education: A global perspective), Singapore 新加坡: Youth Book Company 新加坡青年书局.

Key Developments in English Education in Singapore from the Post-independence Period to the Present Suzanne S. Choo, Alexius Chia, and Caroline Chan

Abstract English education has played a key role in the modernization and globalization of Singapore. Following the institution of the Bilingual policy in the year following the nation’s independence in 1965, the English Language attained a privileged status among other languages taught in Singapore schools. To this day, it is viewed as a vital catalyst to securing Singapore’s continued economic growth and to maintaining its image as a cosmopolitan hub conducive to foreign businesses and investments. In this chapter, we chart developments in English education in Singapore from the country’s independence in 1965 to the present. We focus on key changes to English Language syllabuses across Singapore’s history which we contextualize alongside four major phases of education in Singapore: Survival-driven education (1950s to 1960s), Efficiency-driven education (1970s to 1980s), Ability-driven education (1990s to 2000s), and Student-centric, Values-driven education (2010 to the present). The chapter concludes with observations about future developments of English education in Singapore. Keywords English education · English Language Teaching · Global education · Singapore

1 Introduction Unlike other nations in Asia, Singapore is the only country where the English language is accorded a privileged status as an official and first language for all citizens. Given that language is so closely tied to an individual and community’s sense of S. S. Choo (B) · A. Chia National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] A. Chia e-mail: [email protected] C. Chan Ministry of Education, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_16

281

282

S. S. Choo et al.

identity, the continued dominance of English would appear an anomaly given Singapore’s “non-native” English populace comprising mainly Chinese (74%), Malays (13%), Indians (9%) and others (3%) (Department of Statistics, 2019) and especially given that she had endured 140 years of British colonization that ended in 1963. Unlike countries such as Malaysia and Hong Kong that reverted to Malay and Chinese as the main medium of instruction in schools following the end of colonization (Evans, 2002; Low and Ao, 2018), the Singapore government conversely bolstered the spread of English-medium as opposed to vernacular schools. By 1987, English was the main medium of instruction and first language in all schools in Singapore. Today, among residents aged 5 years old and over, English is the main language spoken at home (37%) compared to Mandarin (35%), Chinese dialects (12%), Malay (11%) and Indian languages (4%) (Department of Statistics, 2015). In key international reading assessments, Singapore students have taken these in English and outperformed pupils from other English-speaking countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. In OECD’s 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), 15-year-old Singapore students were ranked second for reading (Schleicher, 2019) and in the 2016 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) assessment, fourth grade Singapore students had the second highest reading achievement on average (IEA, 2016). There are a few reasons for the prominence accorded to English in Singapore. First, English has been positioned as a key strategic instrument to establish Singapore’s image as a global city. In 1972, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, S. Rajaratnam, explained in a speech titled “Singapore: Global city” that the vulnerabilities of the country—its small size, its lack of natural resources and large domestic market suggest that she cannot be a self-contained city but must be transformed into a global city, an “Ecumenopolis—the world embracing city” (p. 3). A global city requires its populace to be well-versed in a global language and by the twentieth century, English had undoubtedly attained the status of a global language given its spread as a consequence of British and American imperialism (Crystal, 2003). English was positioned as a language of global communication that “at the global level, allows Singaporeans to participate in a knowledge-based economy” (Curriculum Planning and Development Division, 2008, p. 6). Additionally, it functioned as a bridge language (lingua franca) that would allow diverse ethnic groups in the city-state to communicate and bond with one another. In this chapter, we chart developments in English education in Singapore from the country’s independence in 1965 to the present. We focus on key changes to English Language syllabuses across Singapore’s history which we contextualize along alongside four major phases of education in Singapore1 : Survival-driven education (1950s to 1960s), Efficiency-driven education (1970s to 1980s), Ability-driven education (1990s to 2000s), and Student-centric, Values-driven education (2010 to the present). The chapter concludes with observations about future developments of English education in Singapore.

Key Developments in English Education in Singapore …

283

2 Survival-Driven Education (1950s to 1960s) There were many challenges following Singapore’s independence ranging from the need to create a cohesive society given previous instances of racial riots to the urgency of tackling unemployment and providing adequate housing. In this survival phase, the government sought to restructure education to strengthen national cohesion. Major investments were made to improve education which included providing six years of free primary education, developing a common syllabus for all subjects in the four language streams, teaching selected subjects in English, rewriting school textbooks to ensure a common curriculum, etc. (Wilson, 1978). A few years earlier, an important report of the All-Party Committee on Chinese education (1956) proposed a unified education with equal treatment given to four language streams—English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil. The report further proposed promoting bilingualism or trilingualism based on these four official languages. This was again reiterated later in the Commission of Inquiry into Education: Final Report (1963). In 1964, the annual report of the Ministry of Education (MOE) reiterated that the government accorded parity of treatment to the four official languages and parents were free to choose any of these languages as the medium of instruction for their children. Local schools would still need to conform to a unified education structure including the use of syllabuses with common content and present candidates for common examinations. The report also highlighted that “Malay, the national language receives due emphasis in the school curriculum” (p. 2). However, Singapore’s tumultuous separation from Malaysia in 1965 led to the gradual shelving of references to Malay as the national language and English became the common language—what many scholars came to regard as the de facto national language (Shotam, 1989). The privileging of English was reinforced by the fact that enrolment in non-English medium schools had consistently declined through the 1960s and 1970s (Lee, 2012). All these developments culminated in one of the most crucial education policies that continue till this day—the bilingual policy—which came into effect in 1966 and which was made compulsory for all students. While the learning of a second language was still optional, this was made compulsory in primary schools in 1960 and in secondary schools in 1966 (Ho, 2016). Over the years, the bilingual policy has come to mean “English plus one other language” (Silver, 2005). Essentially, the policy stipulated that all students had to learn English as the first language and a mother tongue language either as another first language or second language. The rationale was that English is a necessary tool to enhance Singapore’s competitiveness in the global marketplace, while mother tongue languages would ensure students remain attuned to their own cultures. In 1983, the government announced that content in schools would be taught in English with the exception of mother tongue languages (Lee, 2012). In 1958 and 1959, four English Language (EL) syllabuses were published for primary and secondary English medium and non-English medium schools (MOE, 1958, 1959a, 1959b, 1959c). These were the first published EL syllabuses by the

284

S. S. Choo et al.

MOE (Lim, 2002). The syllabuses for primary schools began with the assumption that “no child has any knowledge of English on entering Primary One” (MOE, 1959a, p. 1). The syllabuses’ general aims were to “enable [pupils] to speak, read, and write the English language with sufficient fluency” so that they would progress in English at the Secondary level with minimum difficulty (1959a, p. 1). Broadly, the primary syllabuses in English medium and non-English medium schools showed a good balance between emphasizing proficiency and accuracy alongside enjoyment in the learning of English. Both primary syllabuses suggested similar strategies for language practice and teaching vocabulary, reading, writing, speech training, spelling and oracy (these tend to focus on proficiency and accuracy) alongside poetry, drama and storytelling (these tend to focus on enjoyment and exploration). For example, in sections on poetry, the syllabus (1959a) stated, “[e]njoyment being the aim of the poetry lesson, the teacher should explore all possibilities to ensure as far as he can that each lesson is enjoyed” (pp. 8–9) and that the “pupils should feel that they are sharing the experience with the teacher” (p. 8). Strategies such as choral verse-speaking, sketching and painting from the imagination after children have listened to poetry readings, allowing pupils to read their favourite poems and create their own anthologies were all suggested strategies. Similar creative strategies were proposed for drama where the use of action songs and games, rhythmic and expression work, and exposure to a wide variety of plays and exploration of dramatic work were all encouraged. Likewise, the syllabus stated, “storytelling is an art” (1959a, p. 79) and encouraged the use of stories to inform as well as develop the imagination. The syllabuses also contained two appendices focussing on puppetry and mime. In 1961, another four new syllabuses were published. These were for primary and secondary English medium and non-English medium schools (MOE, 1961a, 1961b, 1961c). Like the previous syllabuses, the Secondary syllabus for English schools showed a good balance in ensuring proficiency and enjoyment. The three emphases in the 1958 Secondary syllabus were reiterated: 1. 2. 3.

Language structure (Grammar, Syntax); Appreciation (Comprehension, enjoyment, detailed analysis and criticism); Communication (written composition, oral composition) (1958, p. 2; 1961b, p. 1)

In the area of language structure, the concern was with grammatical correctness and the syllabus encouraged drill in the sentence and phrase patterns particularly for weaker pupils, while the study of style was deemed more suited to pupils who were stronger in English. In the area of appreciation, there was an emphasis on cultivating “intelligent reading and listening” as well as enjoyment of literature (1961b, p 1). In relation to literature, the study of the short story, romance, the novel, drama and poetry were encouraged and should involve detailed analysis and criticism of the choice of words, figures of speech, prosody, etc. In several passages, the syllabus highlighted the importance of making literature relevant to the lives of pupils. For example, the syllabus (1961b) suggested that “only modern books should be chosen and any story

Key Developments in English Education in Singapore …

285

written in obsolete, archaic or dialect phraseology should be avoided” (p. 17). It further warned teachers against selecting or assessing literature in a way that would kill students’ interests. Finally, in the area of communication, the syllabus stated that developing craftsmanship of writing was key along with encouraging imaginative and inventive writing. Similarly, the syllabus advocated that the teaching of oral communication should have a good balance between emphasizing clarity of speech alongside creative expression of thoughts and emotions through speech, gesture and movement. The syllabus suggested a range of student-centric activities involving mime, dramatic expressions, debates, oratorical competitions, and drama festivals. For non-English schools, the syllabus (1961c) placed more emphasis on linguistic proficiency so that one of its key aims was to enable students to “master the four language skills i.e. understanding, speaking, reading and writing” (p. 1). While the syllabus detailed suggestions for teaching language structure and communication, the aspect of appreciation (including enjoyment of literature) was absent. This was perhaps due to the perception that “for non-English schools, where English is taught as a second language… pupils have not the command of the expressive tools” (1961c, p. 2). Thus, the focus was on the functional uses of English and the syllabus began with an entire section on grammar stating that “grammar is the soul of language” (1961c, p. 1). Teachers were advised to conduct drills in sentence patterns and teach grammatical rules.

3 Efficiency-Driven Education (1970s to 1980s) By the 1970s, social and economic policies were bearing fruit and indicators pointed to a rich and progressive Singapore as compared to neighbouring countries that continued to struggle with poverty and social unrest (Goh & Gopinathan, 2008). The government turned its focus from fulfilment of quantitative demands in education to providing quality education which involved the recognition that education had to cater to pupils with different language and academic abilities. One of the most influential reports of the period, known as the Goh report, led to significant changes in the education system. Then Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee was tasked to lead a study on the problems of Singapore’s education system. His report to the Ministry of Education in 1979 highlighted “ineffective bilingualism” (§3, p. 7) since “less than 40% of the pupil population pass[ed] both first and second languages” (§3, p. 8). Essentially, the report recommended that the basic objective of the education system should be to produce school-leavers who are literate in at least one language according to three kinds of differentiation—ablest pupils could be given the opportunity to do two first languages; average and above-average students would do a first language and a second language; and those who cannot cope with two languages would learn only one (§6, p. 1). Along these lines, the Goh report proposed the streaming of pupils based on language and academic abilities and three streams were later categorized as special, express and normal, respectively.

286

S. S. Choo et al.

The decline of vernacular schools meant that a centralized Syllabus for English was sufficient without the need for another syllabus for English targeted at nonEnglish medium schools. A new Syllabus for English was published in 1971 for lower primary pupils (MOE, 1971) and in 1973 for upper primary pupils (MOE, 1973). The 1971 lower primary syllabus assumed that “most pupils in English-medium Primary Schools are learners of English as a second language” and “the fact that English is not the mother tongue of the majority of our pupils demands that the teacher should follow a programme in which the core of the language is systematically presented to and mastered by the pupils” (p. 1). Unlike the 1959 EL syllabuses, there was now a recognition that students had greater exposure to English as a second language but that a structured approach to language learning was necessary. Essentially, the 1971 and 1973 EL syllabuses continued the emphasis on a prescriptive approach to language learning with particular attention to grammatical structures. Teachers were encouraged to employ repetition and drilling to ensure mastery of grammar and syntax (Lim, 2002). Language was perceived to be about the reinforcement of a set of habits through repeated practice. Although explicit grammatical patterns and structures were taught in the 1960s, what changed in the 1970s was to teach them in a graded sequence at both word and sentence levels alongside the establishment of language laboratories in schools (Chew, 2005). At the same time, there was also recognition of the value of literature and the syllabus stipulated that “enrichment” was a required component entailing drama, poetry and storytelling (Cheah, 2002). At both lower and upper primary levels, the 1971 and 1973 EL syllabuses covered four areas: Language (oral), reading, written expression and enrichment: Educational drama.1 In each of these areas, there was attention to systematic-functional and creative-expressive approaches to learning. In the area of oracy, the emphasis was on getting students to consider word order, word forms, structure of words, while highlighting that teaching should not be formulaic and that children should be encouraged to ask questions and express opinions actively. In relation to reading, the focus was on extending students’ knowledge through reading widely as well as to “awaken response to verbal sonorities and rhythms, and evoke feeling and thought through vivid imagery and presentation” (1973, p. 8). Reading was not merely limited to basic skills of decoding, but also connected to lifelong habits and the syllabus described a good teacher as one who can “infect his pupils with a love for reading that they will want to read on their own outside the Classroom” (1973, p. 8). Teachers were encouraged to promote both intensive and extensive reading including informational materials, fiction, biography and poetry. Suggested activities to teaching poetry included such constructivist activities as choral speaking, encouraging co-operation as children work together on poems, recording and playing back pupils’ reading of poetry. In relation to written expression, there was a systematic approach to teaching various text types such as story, descriptive, letter, and instructional writing. This was coupled with an emphasis on creative writing which was meant to encourage accurate use of language as well as originality, to stimulate children’s creative powers, provide greater incentive to read and examine the literary effects of other writers.

Key Developments in English Education in Singapore …

287

Finally, in the area of enrichment, the EL syllabus at lower primary levels emphasized storytelling, poetry and educational drama, while the syllabus at the upper primary level focussed on educational drama. Drama was seen as “an educational medium which allows the child freedom within a controlled situation to explore and experiment and, through searching and coming to terms with his experiences, make decisions and moral choices in the framework of play of a dramatic kind” (MOE, 1973, p. 29). The suggested programme incorporated relaxation and movement activities, speech work, group improvisation (story-making), children’s theatre and teachers were encouraged to make links to other aspects of language skills including noticing, recall, comprehension, appreciation of style, development of character and action. The balance between prescriptive teaching and literary enrichment did not continue in the 1980s. With streaming in full-swing, new EL syllabuses were published in 1981 targeting pupils in Normal and Monolingual courses and Special/Express courses. The aims of teaching English in primary schools were to enable pupils to acquire basic skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing to achieve functional literacy (MOE, 1980). Pupils were to use English more effectively for social communication, acquisition of knowledge and personal development. The most capable pupils were to use English creatively. According to MOE (1981a), at the most fundamental level, English consists of sounds. The sounds are represented by the letters of the alphabet and form meaningful units which are commonly referred to as words. For communication to have an impact, users should recognize the sounds and understand the words which are voiced. In short, English Language education served a utilitarian function to ensure that students were given a strong foundation during the first three years of primary education (MOE, 1981a). It was believed that the development of linguistic competency and dexterity would enable citizens to survive and interact on a world stage. The EL primary syllabus in this decade was divided into Language items, reading, handwriting (Primary 1 to 3) and written expression (MOE, 1980, 1981a). The language core was specified in the form of language items. These were listed in grammatical items such as, verbs, nouns, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, articles, conjunctions and concord. There were 134 language items and they represented the minimum language core. These language items were divided across the six years of English education in primary school. The language items were supplemented by the teaching of vocabulary. It was deemed important that pupils build a stock of useful words in the early years of schooling which would enable them to communicate orally and in written form (MOE, 1980). Like the 1970s EL syllabus, the implication was that words alone were not sufficient for communication, there was a need to consider how they could be put together to form meaningful sentences (MOE, 1981a). That is, in the process of communicating, well-structured sentences and words were to be accurately laid out. Thus, students should have a good mastery of language items before they could proceed to apply them in reading and writing. In enacting the communicative approach to the teaching of a new item of language, a broad distinction between presentation and practice was made (MOE, 1980, 1981a). During the initial presentation of the item, the teacher would talk and demonstrate

288

S. S. Choo et al.

to students the particular item that could be used. Students would listen to and understand the language item before they were expected to produce it. The more interesting the presentation, the more likely students would absorb the new areas of language use. Next, students were taught to use the new item of language. At this stage, learning a language for young learners was centred on acquiring a set of habits through intensive practice. It was believed that good language teaching should provide learners with opportunities for repetition and consolidation of language items learned. The teaching of writing to young learners would follow after oral work had been completed. It could begin with simple copying exercises and then, proceed to more complex written exercises. Students were to be given a variety of supportive language activities to support such tasks as guided composition, free composition and dictation. One of the major drawbacks of the 1981 EL syllabus compared to the previous syllabuses was the absence of literary enrichment. Lim (2002) has described the 1981 EL syllabus as “a reductive syllabus” given that it “was the first English syllabus since 1959 which did not integrate language learning with components such as reading literature for enjoyment, storytelling, poetry recitation, speech and drama” (p. 86). Reading, writing, listening, speaking were reduced to instrumental skills with little room in the curriculum for active, effective and aesthetic engagements with language and literature.

4 Ability-Driven Education (1990s to 2000s) In the 1990s, English education remained focused on perceiving language as a vehicle of communication. The essential skills involved listening, speaking, reading and writing. This was also known as Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) (Richards, 2006). Admittedly, there are semblances of CLT in the 1980s curricular documents. However, this became more obvious in the 1990s. CLT constitutes a set of principles where the focus is on meaningful communication, not structure. It is noted that acquiring competence in these language skills does not ensure effective communication with others. To attain this, there is a need to have more than mere linguistic competence. In effective communication, there is a need to take into account the social setting, the topic, the cultural differences and sensitivities of people that one is interacting with, and the degree of formality of the occasion (Brumfit, 1984). In the enactment of this approach, students are given tasks to accomplish using English instead of studying the language. This implies that learning a language entails not only using it accurately, but also appropriately. This reinforces the point that the learning of English is skills-driven and the nature and approach to teaching and learning would differ from content-driven disciplines. In the local context, CLT, as interpreted in curricular documents, encouraged collaboration and interaction in the teaching and learning process and emphasized the view that reading would develop familiarity and confidence in language use

Key Developments in English Education in Singapore …

289

(Curriculum Planning Division, 1991a, 1991b). Thus, the 1990 EL syllabus highlighted that learners should be exposed to a wide range of texts. The rationale for this change is that exposure would help pupils extend ideas and at the same time encourage the cultivation of values and empathy. The 1990 EL syllabus went on to promote the incorporation of thinking skills to foster intellectual growth and critical thinking (Curriculum Planning Division, 1991a, 1991b). Furthermore, in the teaching of grammar, it should be undertaken in context and to learners’ needs. Unlike, the more rules-driven approaches to teaching grammar (Myles et al., 1998), in CLT, the learning process results from and through errors committed when the language is used in communication (Ellis, 2002). That is, making errors is natural but students will be helped to develop self-monitoring techniques to achieve greater linguistic accuracy (Ellis, 1984). Finally, the syllabus highlighted that the foundation stones of English education are organic. That is, language competence develops in unexpected ways when students are provided with a rich language environment and are taught to manage their own learning (Bamford & Day, 2004). This has shifted English education from mere utilitarian intentions towards a more customized approach to meeting the learning needs of students. In 1997, MOE initiated a move towards an ability-driven paradigm with the launch of the Thinking Schools Learning Nation (TSLN) vision (Goh, 1997). TSLN describes an education system that is geared to preparing students to meet the challenges of a globalized world where thinking and communication skills are key priorities (MOE, 2005). To ensure Singapore’s continual growth and development, local schools required a much higher threshold for experimentation, innovation and uncertainty (Teo, 2001). In light of these needs, MOE realized that it had to, and continues to, identify and harness the talents and abilities of every child to the maximum be it in intellect, arts, sports or community services (Shanmugaratnam, 2004; Teo, 2001, 2002). The proposed changes to curriculum and pedagogy entailed a shift from a mainly teacher-centred approach to a pupil-centred approach to teaching and learning. Under an ability-driven education, students were encouraged to question ideas, beliefs and norms, and teachers were expected to help clarify, define and shape these thoughts (Ng, 2005). This presupposes a mindset change on the part of teachers who traditionally viewed themselves as experts and dispensers of knowledge. With this shift, there must now be an openness and willingness to accept feedback and critique from pupils on all types of issues given teachers’ new roles as facilitators and questioners. The introduction of reforms to curriculum design and implementation had a great impact on the local assessment structure and practice, which had been mainly dominated by the Primary School Leaving Examination, GCE ‘O’ level Examination and GCE ‘A’ level Examination. Curriculum evaluation had been examination-oriented, product-based and summative in nature. However, there was now a push to assess pupils qualitatively through a variety of authentic modes and over a period of time in order to meet a variety of learning outcomes. According to Tan (2006), there was a need for a wide range of assessment modes to cater to the diverse forms of learning that were being advocated. Teachers needed to design assessments to meet the purposes of such assessment and have an understanding of the distinct

290

S. S. Choo et al.

characteristics and mastery over the limitations of different assessment forms and modes. The 2001 EL syllabus underwent further changes with the introduction of text types. While the shifts proposed in the 1980s and 1990s remained, the introduction of text types at both the primary and secondary levels and their impact on the teaching of grammar further refined the approaches to English education (Derewianka, 1990; MOE, 1981b). The introduction of text types into the EL syllabus meant that a variety of text types from print, non-print and electronic sources that students listened to, read and viewed helped them to speak and write effectively through different modes of language use (CPDD, 2001). Furthermore, since the study of grammatical features and lexis is closely related to the study of text types, knowledge of grammar and how it contributes to effective language use and to the meaning of a text became important (Hammond and Derewianka, 2001). In short, the 2001 EL syllabus proposed that language has grammar and linguistic structures and patterns, which can be used to create various text types depending on the linguistic choices made (Hyland, 2002). Thus, this meant that teachers should teach students how to make linguistic choices to suit the purpose, audience, context and culture while learning the language. Although the 2001 EL syllabus suggested the incorporation of a wide range of text types, there was little mention of multimodal texts. Those indicated in the syllabus tended to focus on narratives, personal recounts, expositions, instructions, factual recounts, information reports, etc. However, the growing popularity of multiliteracies and multimodal research led to a more concerted effort to equip students to critically and creatively engage in multimodal texts and meaning-making practices in future syllabuses.

5 Student-Centric, Values-Driven Education (2010 to the Present) The shift to a student-centric, values-driven education was only explicitly articulated from 2011 and infused in the 2020 EL syllabus. However, the precursor to this was the 2010 EL syllabus. While the English curriculum continued to be reviewed and tweaked through the years, since the Goh report, there has not been a review exercise that has been as comprehensive and far-reaching till 2005. Many features of the 2010 EL syllabus were the result of the findings from the review of the English Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee (ELCPRC). The committee was set up in 2005 comprising members from various divisions of the MOE, Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board, principals, vice principals, heads of department, master teachers from the Academy of Singapore teachers and academics from the National Institute of Education and National University of Singapore. As outlined in the ELCRPC Report (2006), the committee undertook a comprehensive exercise to review “syllabus structure and content, pedagogical approaches, instructional materials, assessment, and teacher training and development” (p. 3). The data included 30

Key Developments in English Education in Singapore …

291

Table 1 2006 Primary One cohort home language backgrounds (ELCPRC, 2006, p. 4) 1

Speak English only

8%

2

Speak mostly English and some Mother Tongue or Other Language

42%

3

Speak mostly Mother Tongue or Other Language and some English

37%

4

Hardly or do not use English

12%

focus group discussions and dialogue sessions with a wide range of stakeholders. It also undertook a survey of 1000 English teachers and 3600 students. To gain a deeper understanding of “language policies, English curriculum, pedagogy and assessment practices” in other jurisdictions, the committee also went for study trips to Hong Kong, India and New Zealand (p.3). While English was now more widely used within the community, the ELCPRC noted that there were still “four distinct groups of learners with different predominant home language backgrounds” (p. 4). This was based on data taken from the 2006 Primary One cohort (Table 1). Understanding this complex sociolinguistic environment in Singapore was crucial in moving ahead to design a curriculum that catered to learners that came from a wide range of family backgrounds with a broad range of English competencies. One of the ELCPRC’s (2006) main recommendations was “to raise the general command of the language among all students, while achieving the best international standards among the most able” (p. 5). In a bold move, the EL syllabus 2010 took the recommendation of “adopting not just a first or second language approach, but a principled blend of both” (ELCPRC, 2006, p. 6) acknowledging that the adoption of a one-size-fits-all approach would not suffice. To achieve this, EL syllabus 2010 outlined a two-pronged approach: (1) explicit instruction, which is systematic in order “to build a strong foundation” and, (2) a “contextualised and holistic approach to learning” enabling a “rich language environment” for literacy development (CPDD, 2008, p.8). To ensure continuity and build on the strength of the previous curriculum, the 2010 EL syllabus retained several features of 2001 EL syllabus —the most obvious being that the 2010 EL syllabus continued to be a “Language Use Syllabus” (CPDD, 2008, p.7) with a strong emphasis on the link between form and function, i.e. through the use of “Learning Outcomes,” teachers would be able to assess their students’ proficiency in the use of English and students would learn to communicate through the lens of PACC (Purpose, Audience, Context and Culture). Grammar would also be taught in context through the use of various text types. While grammar continued to be taught through the various type of texts, the 2010 EL syllabus took on the ELCPRC (2006) recommendation of “structured, systematic and explicit grammar instruction” (p. 6). The result was an 18-page series of scope-and-sequence charts which detailed all the grammatical items, structures and strategies from primary one through secondary four/five (CPDD, 2008, pp. 85–102). Not only should grammar be taught at the word, phrase and sentence levels, but teachers were also encouraged to systematically and explicitly teach it at the text level as well. This was aligned

292

S. S. Choo et al.

with research that encouraged the contextualised teaching and learning of grammar (Derewianka, 1990; Nunan, 1998; Weaver, 1996). Acknowledging the prevalence of digital technology as well as “the changing profile of our learners and the globalisation of language in an increasingly complex world” (CPDD, 2008, p. 4), the 2010 EL syllabus encouraged teachers to “use a variety of print and non-print resources that provide authentic contexts for incorporating the development of information on the media and visual literacy skills in the teaching of listening, reading, viewing, speaking, writing, and representing” (p. 9). For the first time, the syllabus included the skill of viewing and representing. At the primary level, listening and viewing included critical skills such as determining the credibility of the speaker and the psychological appeal of the message as well as extensive listening and viewing of a variety of spoken, audio and visual texts including poetry, personal recounts, narratives, expositions, etc. (p. 25). There was also more attention paid to the aesthetics of texts and not merely what the text was communicating. For example, at the secondary level, students were encouraged to appreciate “elements of style in a variety of texts” and how “a writer’s style can impact the readers’/viewers’ interpretation of a text” (p. 43). This included analyzing the choice of words, writing techniques, literary language and use of sentences. The area of reading and viewing also included literary texts, namely prose, poetry and drama with the focus on exposing students to “the nuances of language and the play with words in texts; a wide array of styles and literary language they can reproduce in their writing for different purposes, audiences, contexts and cultures; and opportunities to apply higher-order thinking skills” (p. 44). In this sense, the 2010 EL syllabus promoted a more holistic approach to engagement with English which included the acquisition of functional skills of communication alongside critical and aesthetic engagements with a wide range of texts including literary and multimodal texts. This continued in the 2020 EL syllabus. The year 2011 marked an important turning point in Singapore’s education landscape. The then Minister for Education, Heng Swee Kiat announced at the annual MOE Workplan Seminar a forward-looking and inclusive vision for education. Coined the “student-centric, values-driven education,” this new vision would in the years that followed trigger off a slew of initiatives and programmes that would cater to learners’ twenty-first century needs. Fundamental to this vision was a reminder to educators and curriculum planners to emphasize the “total development” of students rather than the sole focus on their academic achievement. That values, character development and social emotional competencies now occupy a “central place” in the Singapore education system (Heng, 2011, §54, p. 7), came as a welcome surprise to many. This vision provided the springboard to several initiatives that would change the education milieu significantly. For example, the phased abolishment of streaming with the introduction of full subject-based banding; the removal of weighted assessment and mid-year examinations to signal a de-emphasizing on academic performance; and the introduction of the Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) framework which eventually led to a new and comprehensive CCE curriculum in 2014. Of particular significance to the direction in which teaching and learning

Key Developments in English Education in Singapore …

293

would take was the introduction of the Framework for twenty-first Century Competencies and Student Outcomes in 2010 and the Singapore Teaching Practice (STP) in 2017. Jointly developed by MOE and NIE, the STP was a bold effort to “codify our practices, and document the perspectives and practices that support our educators in facilitating learning within and outside the classroom” (Liu and Lim, 2018, p.6) with the aim to develop Singapore teachers. The STP is a consolidated effort on the part of the major stakeholders in Singapore’s education landscape to articulate teachers ‘core beliefs about teaching and learning, and what it means to be “student-centric” (Liu & Lim, 2018, p.7). Positioned as a continuation of the 2010 syllabus, the 2020 EL Syllabus has attempted to incorporate the slew of initiatives that resulted from the 2011 vision of an education system, that is, student-centred and values-based. Given the impact of change on literacy and literate practices, language learning and use in the 21st century must thus go beyond the basic notion of literacy to include multiple competencies. The development of multiple competencies will enable our young to capitalise on the rich opportunities of the digital age, while maintaining a strong foundation in the language. It will allow our students to engage meaningfully and confidently with the wider and more diverse communities both in and out of Singapore. (CPDD, 2020b, p. 7).

However, a number of important tweaks and changes were made to incorporate the frameworks and initiatives mentioned in the previous section. The 2020 EL syllabus’ choice of competencies was aligned with the broader national theme of building a “Student-centric, Values-driven” education so that learners become empathetic listeners, discerning readers and creative inquirers (CPDD, 2020a, 2020b, p. 8). In line with the twenty-first century competencies, the 2020 EL syllabus sought to also develop learners with the following core values: respect, responsibility, resilience, integrity, care and harmony (CPDD, 2020a, 2020b, p. 8). Acknowledging global shifts and ever-increasing importance of communication, locally and internationally, as a twenty-first century skill, the 2020 EL syllabus was a broader and more inclusive one—“the increasingly competitive international environment calls for an even greater need for linguistic and communicative competence, adaptability and flexibility, to make sense of the massive rate of disruptions in every sphere of life as a consequence of globalisation and the spread of English as an international language” (CPDD, 2020a, 2020b, p.6). Introduced in the 2010 EL syllabus, the 2020 EL syllabus addressed the impact of multiliteracies in teaching and learning a step further: The rapid development in information technology has shaped our understanding of literacy and linguistic skills in English to include multiliteracies. The inclusion of multiliteracies is particularly important given the context of future workplace readiness with the rising emphasis on interpersonal skills, higher order cognitive skills and information systems skills systems. (CPDD, 2020b, p. 6)

Instead of just focussing on just the linguistic semiotic mode (using the newly adopted metalanguage of the 2020 EL syllabus) as one would do in traditional reading and writing pedagogy, teachers were now expected to explore other semiotic modes— visual, gestural, audio and spatial—in their teaching of multimodal texts (Anstey and

294

S. S. Choo et al.

Bull, 2018; Chan and Chia, 2014; Chia and Chan, 2017). There were also changes to the ways texts were labelled in the syllabus: • • • • • • •

Texts that entertain and/or reflect on life (narratives, poetry in 2010) Texts that recount what happened (personal and factual recounts in 2010) Texts that instruct (procedures in 2010) Texts that describe, inform and/or investigate (information reports in 2010) Text that explain (explanations in 2010) Texts that respond, argue, evaluate and/or persuade (expositions in 2010) Texts that contain more than one type or form of texts (hybrid texts) (CPDD, 2020b, p. 18)

This demonstrated a significant shift in emphasis from one that was product-driven to one that was purpose-driven. This was consistent with education jurisdictions with English curricula that adopted a socio-cultural view of language (see Derewianka and Jones, 2016).

6 Conclusion English as a global language continues to play a key role in equipping students in Singapore with the requisite knowledge, skills and values to thrive in a globalized age. As stated in the 2010 EL syllabus, a “proficient command of the language will enable pupils to access, process and keep abreast of information, and to engage with the wider and more diverse communities outside of Singapore” (CPDD, 2008, p. 6). The bilingual policy has been foundational not only in signalling the priority to be given to English in contrast to other languages, but also in kick-starting a systematic approach to ensure that Singapore children are able to communicate effectively and critically in English. While the first EL syllabuses in the 1950s presumed students had little knowledge of English, the EL syllabus in 2010 now presumed the “majority of pupils will attain a good level of competence in English” (p. 6) and that teachers should adopt “a principled blend of first language (L1) and second language (L2) teaching methods” (p. 8). Not only have English language standards been enhanced, but there has also been a clear shift away from a functional and instrumental approach to language learning to a more holistic approach, one that recognizes how language can serve to develop critical and discerning thinkers. Table 2 provides a summary of key shifts in the EL syllabus and how these are in part contextualized by broader forces. The focus on thinking skills, communication, multimodality, and empathy in the last 20 years signals a clear recognition of the role of the English language in preparing students to thrive in an age of diversity, uncertainty and complexity brought upon by globalization. The interconnectedness of the world means that students are exposed to knowledge and values instantaneously shared via social and mass media. The rise of hate speech, intolerance and xenophobia in physical and virtual public spheres highlights how language plays a fundamental mediating role across diverse groups

Key Developments in English Education in Singapore …

295

Table 2 Features of EL syllabus in relation to phases of education in Singapore Period

Links to EL syllabus

Survival-driven education (1950s to 1960s)

• 1958 and 1959 EL • Concern with grammatical correctness, Syllabuses (primary proficiency and accuracy and secondary, English • Balanced with an emphasis on enjoyment in the learning of English medium and • Inclusion of poetry, drama, storytelling, non-English medium creative writing schools) • 1961 EL Syllabuses (primary and secondary, English medium and non-English medium schools)

Notable features

Efficiency-driven education (1970s to 1980s)

• 1971 and 1973 EL Syllabuses (primary schools) • 1981 EL syllabuses (primary and secondary schools)

• Structured and prescriptive approach to language learning • Emphasis on repetition and drilling in teaching grammar • Absence of literary enrichment

Ability-driven education • 1990 EL Syllabus (1990s to 2000s) (primary and secondary schools) • 2001 EL Syllabus (primary and secondary schools)

• Communicative Language Teaching with a focus on focus is on meaningful communication • Incorporation of thinking skills to foster critical thinking • Introduction of text types focussing on grammatical features related to text types and how this contributes to effective language use • Teaching students to understand communication through the lens of PACC (Purpose, Audience, Context and Culture)

Student-centric, • 2010 EL Syllabus Values-driven education (primary and (2010 to the present) secondary schools) • 2020 EL Syllabus (primary and secondary schools)

• Emphasis on exposure to a variety of text types including print and non-print sources and exploration of wider range of semiotic modes (visual, gestural, audio and spatial) in teaching multimodal texts • More attention paid to the aesthetics of texts (e.g. style) along with the inclusion of literary (poetry, prose, drama) and multimodal texts • Competencies tied to twenty-first century competencies and particularly the development of empathetic listeners, discerning readers and creative inquirers • Shift from a product driven to purpose driven approach towards text types

296

S. S. Choo et al.

and cultures in the world. As a global bridge language, English is that catalyst to not only allowing speakers to share, contribute and participate in multiple affinity groups all over the world, but it also opens doors to allowing speakers to engage with and advocate for others. Today, research in literacy studies has undergone a global turn, in which, scholars, educators and policymakers have affirmed the need to empower students with a plurality of literacies—critical, digital, multimodal and global literacies—to prepare them for future workplaces and societies that are characterized by glocalization, in which the global intersects in and through the local (Roudometof, 2016). The two most recent syllabuses have sought to encourage a holistic approach to English language learning encompassing four areas—functional (emphasizing fluency, proficiency, accuracy), critical (emphasizing such skills as deep reading, inference, analysis, evaluation of texts for credibility and intentionality), aesthetic (appreciation of stylistic elements in texts and creative meaning-making), and ethical (characterized by empathy and respect in communication). Looking ahead, the ethical dimension of the English language will become more significant. This is not only because of the current emphasis on values education, it is also because increasingly, government’s all over the world have recognized that globalization has contributed to widening gaps between the rich and poor and contributed to forms of discrimination and injustice. The ethical dimension of language, explored by philosophers such as Habermas, Derrida and Levinas, returns to the essential notion that human beings are innately relational, that communicative action is otheroriented and premised on understanding others (Habermas, 1984), and that language provides the bridge between self and other for “the essence of language is friendship and hospitality” (Levinas, 1969, p. 305). The development of ethical sensitivities involves empathetic communication along with critical discernment. At the same time, it would also involve pedagogical approaches that promote a culture of dialogue and negotiation as well as performative tasks where students learn to step into the role of others. A future syllabus would expand the notion of empathetic communication and articulate more explicitly the skills and dispositions needed to foster critical-ethical cosmopolitan-mindedness (Choo, 2018, 2021). Part of this could also involve encouraging active bridge-building, meaning-making projects that empower students to use language to effect positive changes on behalf of others hurt by the excesses of globalization. Notes 1.

2.

We connect EL syllabus changes to the broad phases of Singapore’s education system which has typically been described along three main phases— Survival-driven (1959 to 1978), Efficiency-driven (1979 to 1996), and Abilitybased, aspiration-driven (1997 to 2010) (Goh and Gopinathan, 2008). We have defined the current phase from 2010 to the present as student-centric, valuesdriven based on the new emphasis given to the building of character and values described by the then Minister of Education (Heng, 2011). The 1971 Syllabus for English for lower primary levels included the addition of one area—Penmanship.

Key Developments in English Education in Singapore …

297

References English Language Syllabuses (Organized Chronologically) Ministry of Education. (1958). Secondary English syllabus. Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1959a). Syllabus for English in primary English schools. Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1959b). Syllabus for the teaching of English in Chinese, Malay and Tamil primary schools in Singapore. Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1959c). Syllabus for English for Chinese, Malay and Tamil secondary schools. Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1961a). Syllabus for English in Malay, Chinese and Tamil primary schools. Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1961b). Syllabus for English in English secondary schools. Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1961c). Syllabus for English in Malay, Chinese and Tamil secondary schools. Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1971). Syllabus for English: Primary 1 and 2. Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1973). Syllabus for English: Primary 5 and 6. Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1980). English syllabus for the new education system: Primary 1 (Common Course). Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1981a). English syllabus for the new education system: Primary 1 - 8. Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1981b). English syllabus for the new education system: Secondary 1 – 4 (Express/Special Course). Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1983). New education system secondary English language: Secondary 1–4 normal course. Ministry of Education. Curriculum Planning Division (1991a). English language syllabus (primary). Ministry of Education. Curriculum Planning Division. (1991b). English language syllabus (secondary). Ministry of Education. Curriculum Planning and Development Division (CPDD). (2001). English language syllabus 2001 for primary and secondary schools. Ministry of Education. Curriculum Planning and Development Division (CPDD). (2008). English language syllabus 2010: Primary and secondary (Express/Normal [Academic]). Ministry of Education. Curriculum Planning and Development Division (CPDD). (2020a). English language syllabus: Primary. Ministry of Education. Curriculum Planning and Development Division (CPDD). (2020b). English language syllabus: Secondary (Express/Normal [Academic]). Ministry of Education.

Other Works Cited All-Party Committee on Chinese Education. (1956). Report of the All-Party Committee of the Singapore Legislative Assembly on Chinese education. Government Printers. Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2018). Foundations of multiliteracies reading, writing and talking in the 21st century. Routledge. Bamford, J., & Day, R. R. (Eds.). (2004). Extensive reading activities for teaching language. Cambridge University Press. Brumfit, C. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.

298

S. S. Choo et al.

Chan, C., & Chia, A. (2014). Reading in the 21st century: Understanding multimodal texts & developing multiliteracy skills. McGraw-Hill. Cheah, Y. M. (2002). English language teaching in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22(2), 65–80. Chew, P.G.-L. (2005). Change and continuity: English language teaching in Singapore. Asian EFL Journal, 7(1), 1–21. Chia, A., & Chan, C. (2017). Re-defining ‘reading’ in the 21st century. Beyond Words: A Journal on Applied Linguistics and Language Education, 5(2), 98–105. Choo, S. S. (2018). The need for cosmopolitan literacy in a global age: Implications for teaching Literature. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 62(1), 7–12. Choo, S. S. (2021). Teaching ethics through literature: The significance of ethical criticism in a global age. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Commission of Inquiry into Education. (1963). Commission of inquiry into education Singapore: Final report. Government Printers. Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Department of Statistics. (2015). General household survey, 2015. Ministry of Trade & Industry. Department of Statistics. (2019). Population trends, 2019. Ministry of Trade & Industry. Derewianka, D. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Primary English Teaching Association. Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching language in context (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development. Pergamon. Ellis, R. (2002). Grammar teaching—Practice or consciousness-raising? In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 167–174). Cambridge University Press. Evans, S. (2002). The medium of instruction in Hong Kong: Policy and practice in the new English and Chinese streams. Research Papers in Education, 17(1), 97–120. English Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee (ELCPRC). (2006). Report on the English language curriculum and pedagogy review. Ministry of Education. Goh, C. B., & Gopinathan, S. (2008). The development of education in Singapore since 1965. In S.K. Lee, C. B. Goh, B. Fredriksen & J. P. Tan (Eds.), Toward a better future: Education and training for economic development in Singapore since 1965. National Institute of Education. Goh, C. T. (1997). Shaping our future: Thinking schools, learning nation. Speech for the 7th International Conference on Thinking. Retrieved 1 September 2020 from http://app.sprinter.gov. sg/data/pr/1997060209.htm. Goh, K. S. (1979). Report on the ministry of education 1978. Ministry of Education. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Beacon Press. Hammond, J., & Derewianka, B. (2001). Genre. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 186–193). Cambridge University Press. Heng, S. K. (2011). Opening address at MOE Work Plan Seminar. Retrieved 1 September 2020 from https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/20110929001/wps_opening_addr ess_(media)(checked).pdf. Ho, S. (2016). Singapore Infopedia: Vernacular education. Retrieved 1 September 2020 from https:// eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_2016-10-03_094744.html. Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. Longman. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). (2016). Progress in international reading literacy study. Institute of Education Sciences. Lee, K. Y. (2012). My lifelong challenge: Singapore’s bilingual journey. Straits Times Press. Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority (A. Lingis, Trans.). Duquesne University Press. Lim, S. C. (2002). Developments in the English Language syllabuses in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22(2), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/0218879020220208

Key Developments in English Education in Singapore …

299

Liu, W. C., & Lim, Y. C. (2018). Understanding teaching, learning and learners: The Singapore teaching practice. In W. C. Liu, C. Koh, D. Choy, & J. Tay-Lim (Eds.), Understanding teaching, learning and learners: A guide for Singapore teachers (pp. 1–23). Cengage Learning Asia. Low, E. L., & Ao, R. (2018). The spread of English in ASEAN: Policies and issues. RELC Journal, 49(2), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688218782513 Myles, F., Mitchell, R., & Hooper, J. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning, 48, 323–363. Ministry of Education (1964). Annual report. Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2005). Greater support for teachers and school leaders. Retrieved 1 September 2020 from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2005/pr20050922b_print.htm. Ng, P. T. (2005). The learning school: Innovation and enterprise. Prentice Hall. Nunan, D. (1998). Teaching grammar in context. ELT Journal, 52(2), 101–109. Rajaratnam, S. (1972, February 6). Singapore: Global city. Speech given at the Singapore Press Club, Singapore. Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Retrieved 1 September 2020 from https://www.professorjackrichards.com/wp-content/uploads/Richards-Communica tive-Language.pdf. Roudometof, V. (2016). Theorizing glocalization: Three interpretations. European Journal of Social Theory, 19(3), 391–408. Schleicher, A. (2019). PISA 2018: Insights and interpretations. OECD. Shanmugaratnam, T. (2004). Speech at the academy of principals global education conference. Ministry of Information and the Arts. Shotam, N. P. (1989). Language and linguistic policies. In K. S. Sandhu & P. Wheatley (Eds.), Management of success: The moulding of modern Singapore (pp. 503–522). Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Silver, R. E. (2005). The discourse of linguistic capital: Language and economic policy planning in Singapore. Language Policy, 4(1), 47–66. Tan, J. (2006). Key educational policy initiatives and trends in Singapore. In C. Tan, B. Wong, J. Chua, & T. Kang, (eds). Critical perspectives on education: An introduction. Pearson. Teo, C. H. (2001). Making an ability-driven education happen. FY2001 Committee of Supply Debate. Minister’s First Reply on Schools. Retrieved 1 September 2020 from http://www.oe.gov. sg/speeches/2001/sp15032001_print.htm. Teo, C. H. (2002). Leading the future. Speech at the launch of the Academy of Principals. Retrieved 1 September 2020 from http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2002/sp11012002_print.htm. Weaver, C. (1996). Teaching grammar in context. Boynton/Cook Publisher. Wilson, H. E. (1978). Social engineering in Singapore: Educational policies and social change, 1819–1972. Singapore University Press.

Innovating Towards Reading Excellence in the Singapore English Language Curriculum Chin Ee Loh and Elizabeth Pang

Abstract A key emphasis of the Singapore education system has been on ensuring English language competency and fluency for communication and work. This chapter examines reading innovation in the Singapore education system, focusing specifically on strategies related to extensive reading to promote reading enjoyment alongside growing reading proficiency. Rather than adopting a broad historical overview, three case studies that are substantiated by published research have been selected for discussion in this chapter: (i) the implementation of the Reading and English Acquisition Programme (REAP) from 1985 to 1989 for students from Primary One to Three; (ii) the development of the Strategies for English Language Learning and Reading (STELLAR) programme for primary schools from 2006 to 2015; and (iii) the focus on reading and school libraries in the Building a Reading Culture (BRC) and library redesign projects at the secondary level from 2017 to 2020. The chapter documents how reading innovations have taken place at the levels of curriculum, pedagogy and learning environments, in response to sociocultural and economic changes, global and local demands and the educational needs of the times. Challenges to improve students’ educational outcomes for their reading futures are discussed in the conclusion. Keywords Reading curriculum · English language · Innovation · Extensive reading · Literacy

1 Introduction In 1965, the year of Singapore’s independence, the adult literacy rate of Singapore was 52.6%. The literacy rate rose to 82.3% in 1980, 89.1% in 1990, 92.55% in C. E. Loh (B) National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] E. Pang Ministry of Education, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_17

301

302

C. E. Loh and E. Pang

2000 and 97.5% in 2019 (Department of Statistics Singapore, 2020). Singapore has consistently excelled as one of the top-performing countries in the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) since it first participated in 2001 (Mullis et al., 2017) and in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) since 2009 (OECD, 2010). Singapore’s high-performance is a recent phenomenon (Schleicher, 2018). What factors contributed to the rapid advancement in Singapore’s literacy rates over half a century of nation-building? How did the literacy rate improve so much that Singapore is now one of the top-performing countries in large-scale international assessments? How will the education system respond to the need for higher standards of literacy required in a technological, multimodal and information-saturated age? Instead of resting on its laurels, what issues and challenges will Singapore’s education system have to address in a globalised and technological post-pandemic age? This chapter focuses on one factor contributing to Singapore’s strong literacy development—innovations in the development of reading approaches and strategies that fostered the development of English language competency, specifically in relation to the integration of extensive reading practices in the English language classroom. With constant changes required to upgrade one’s skills, reading today is no longer just a skill to be learnt in early childhood. Rather, individuals are required to continually improve on their reading as a way to access information, knowledge and skills for lifelong learning and participation in civic society (Alexander & Fox, 2019; Alexander & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory, 2012; Kirsch et al., 2002; UNESCO, 2017). In this context, the capacity to access reading materials as well as the desire to read to learn is a necessary twenty-first century disposition. This means that future-ready students should be engaged learners, who are confident readers who “strive to understand”, and “gain pleasure from reading and learning” (Afflerbach & Harrison, 2017, p. 217). Practices of extensive reading (often used interchangeably with independent reading, sustained silent reading and leisure reading), where students have a chance to engage in constant practice and enjoyment, provide opportunities for the development of such skills and dispositions (Gambrell et al., 2011; Krashen, 2004; Renandya, 2007). While the concept of extensive reading has been present in English language teaching for some time, the focus of this chapter on educational reform zooms in on how “new ideas, new knowledge and new operations” (Wu & Lin, 2019, p. 43) generated about the implementation of principles and practices of extensive reading contribute to the reading improvement, whether measured by proficiency or enjoyment. Furthermore, this chapter explains how these innovations were scaled up (Looi & Teh, 2015), offering insight into the ecology of sustaining educational innovation as habitual practice in the Singapore context.

2 English Language Learning in Singapore The development of education in Singapore is very much tied to the economic needs of the country. From its independence in 1965, human resource has been viewed and

Innovating Towards Reading Excellence in the Singapore …

303

continus to be viewed as Singapore’s key resource, given its lack of hinterland and small size (OECD, 2010). Moreover, despite Singapore’s vulnerability, Singapore has always seen itself as a global city plugged into the global economy (Velayutham, 2007). As far back as 1972, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, S. Rajaratnam, had positioned Singapore as a global city. Quoting Arnold Toynbee, Rajaratnam (1972) terms Singapore a “world embracing” (p. 3) city, global in its embrace of technology and urban living, connected to other global urban centres. Within this context, English was viewed in a utilitarian manner as a global lingua franca that would allow Singapore to achieve economic growth (Wee, 2010). English was also considered a “neutral language” that would allow for inter-ethnic communication in multicultural and multilingual Singapore (Gopinathan, 1980; Silver, 2005). In 1987, the government announced that English would be taught as the first language and used as the main medium of instruction in schools (Gopinathan, 1998). As part of the bilingual policy, students would be required to study one of three official Mother Tongue languages (Malay, Chinese and Tamil) (Pakir, 2004). By then, the dominant view was that English was the language of economics and social advancement. The number of students enrolling in vernacular schools had declined in the early 1980s. By 1983, only one per cent of those eligible for starting primary schooling enrolled in Chinese-medium primary schools and none applied for Malayand Tamil-medium schools. The role of English as the first language in the national school curriculum was reflected in its expanded scope in the 1991 MOE syllabus (Cheah, 2002). English language proficiency and fluency remains a key target of the education system. The Speak Good English Movement was launched in 2000 to encourage the use of Standard English among Singaporeans (Sim, 2015) and the English Language Institute of Singapore (ELIS) was launched in 2011 to “enhance the communicative effectiveness” of Singapore students by supporting English language and Englishmedium teachers (Academy of Singapore Teachers, n.d.). At the launch of ELIS, founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew highlighted that “English-speaking Singaporeans are sought after by MNCs, international organisations and NGOs because we can connect comfortably with the English-speaking world, and can operate comfortably in multicultural environments” (Lee, 2011). This overview highlights the significance of English in Singapore as a national and global language, and explains the attention given to reading in English in Singapore. It is within the shifting global and national contexts of English language learning that we situate our examination of innovations in reading literacy in the Singapore education system.

3 Innovations in Reading Curriculum and Practice The first English Language (EL) syllabus post independence was published in 1971, and there were subsequent revisions in 1981, 1991, 2001 and 2010, with the most

304

C. E. Loh and E. Pang

recent syllabus launched in 2020.1 In this chapter, we focus on three evidence-based reading innovations in Singapore schools: (i) the implementation of the Reading and English Acquisition Programme (REAP) from 1985 to 1989 for students from Primary One to Three; (ii) the development of the Strategies for English Language Learning and Reading (STELLAR) programme for primary schools from 2006 to 2015; and (iii) the focus on reading and school libraries in the Building a Reading Culture (BRC) and library redesign projects at the secondary level from 2017 to 2020. At the heart of these innovations is the desire to cultivate engaged readers through extensive reading practices. Extensive reading, or the self-motivated reading of large quantities of reading material, is known to correlate with students’ reading enjoyment and achievement (Krashen, 2004; Ng, Renandya & Chong, 2019; Renandya, 2007). Students who read a lot and read widely also build up their linguistic and world knowledge, which bootstraps reading proficiency and further learning (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998). Ultimately, these reforms aim to cultivate engaged readers who continue to read to learn throughout their lives.

4 Reading and English Acquisition Programme (REAP): Integrating Extensive Reading into the English Language Curriculum Prior to independence, the 1959 Syllabus for English in Primary English Schools and 1961 Syllabus for English in Secondary English Schools placed strong emphasis on grammar and literary appreciation. Students were given opportunities to read extended literary texts, though most texts were imported from Britain. The first post-independence syllabus, the 1971 Syllabus for English (Primary), emphasised grammar and oral language development (Lim, 2002). However, by the 1981 English Syllabus, there was a movement towards a functional approach in English. The New Education System instituted in 1979 following the Goh report (1979) introduced streaming and changes in the school curriculum as ways to deal with low levels of literacy, high levels of attrition and the need to ensure greater efficiency in training the Singapore workforce for a global market. Among the many changes, greater emphasis was placed on the language curriculum, and the Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore (CDIS) was established to produce local teaching materials such as textbooks, multi-media materials and educational television programmes for schools (Ho & Gopinathan, 1999). In 1983, the Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE) commissioned an Institute of Education multidisciplinary team of ten comprising teacher-educators and three primary school teachers to study primary school children’s progress and skills in

1

There have been several broad overviews of the Ministry of Education EL syllabus development. We refer readers to articles and book chapters by Cheah (2002), Lim (2002) and Loh (2018) for these overviews.

Innovating Towards Reading Excellence in the Singapore …

305

reading in the Reading Skills Project (Ng & Sullivan, 2001). This MOE-researcheducator collaboration was to become a key feature of curriculum development, with researchers from the teacher training institute working closely with MOE and educators to evaluate school programmes to improve the education system. One of the main findings of the study was that English language teachers faced time and curriculum constraints when teaching large classes of 40. Instructional methods were often worksheet and examination-oriented, as a result of a combination of parents’ expectations, school competitiveness and time pressures. Based on the findings, the research team developed the Reading and English Acquisition Programme (REAP), an integrated book programme to improve literacy performance and encourage positive reading attitudes. REAP was based on principles and selected features of the Language Experience and Shared Book approaches and included the Book Flood approach. The “Book Flood” was a popular approach then, originating from the South Pacific. It encouraged the “flooding” of schools and classrooms with high quality children’s literature to encourage wide reading (Elley, 2000). The Shared Book approach (Holdaway, 1982), which originated in New Zealand and was new to Singapore in the 1980s, required the teacher to share a good book with the students over several days, until they became familiar with the language of the book. The Language Experience approach, which was an integrated approach to the studying of language, was originally developed in majority Englishspeaking contexts (Ashton-Warner, 1963), but was adapted for the Singapore context, where most Singapore children did not use English as the dominant home language in the 1980s. The Language Experience and Shared Book approaches complemented the Book Flood approach by ensuring student engagement with authentic reading materials in the classroom, especially children’s literature, while building up their knowledge of the language. The developers of REAP modified these approaches for the Singaporean learner and classroom context by integrating activities (such as folding paper hats), as well as explicit or direct instruction in language structures to allow students to practise the target language learnt from the Shared Book approach. The study was first piloted with Primary One students in 30 schools (Ng & Sullivan, 2001). Evaluation studies conducted showed that REAP children did better than non-REAP children across different domains: they were better at reading isolated words and continuous texts, had better reading and listening comprehension, had better syntactic control of the language, had better knowledge of story structures or story grammars and wrote better compositions (Ng & Sullivan, 2001). The demonstrated success led to the extension of the project to more schools. By 1989, REAP had been implemented from Primary One to Three in most Singapore schools (Elley, 2000). The REAP project was innovative in introducing a new way of teaching into the Singapore context. Using the language of innovation, REAP could be seen as a form of market innovation, where particular ideas were innovatively executed to achieve the educational aims of English language reading. The REAP experience demonstrated how innovative ideas from elsewhere were reworked to suit the local context and is reflective of Singapore’s evidence-based approach to improve curriculum and pedagogical practices.

306

C. E. Loh and E. Pang

5 Strategies for English Language Learning and Reading (STELLAR): Sustaining Extensive Reading Through Pedagogical Reform The success of REAP informed the development of another national literacy reform programme, Strategies for English Language Learning and Reading (STELLAR), for Singapore primary schools, officially implemented with the 2010 English language syllabus. Between the late 1990s and 2000s, the learning context of Singapore had moved from a focus on functionality towards an emphasis on critical and creative thinking to meet the needs of a competitive twenty-first century. The “Thinking Schools Learning Nation” (TSLN) vision was launched in 1997 by then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, and a series of reviews were initiated to revise or enhance the curriculum to ensure schooling was geared towards the cultivation of twenty-first century skills and dispositions for lifelong learning. The English Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee (ELCPRC) was set up in 2005 to “undertake a comprehensive review of the teaching and learning of the English language in Singapore” (Ministry of Education [MOE], 2006, p. 3), following on the heels of a major review of the teaching and learning of Chinese, Malay and Tamil language. In the same vein as the MOE-commissioned Reading Skills Project, the ELCPRC comprised a large, multidisciplinary team from MOE, the National Institute of Education (NIE) and principals and Heads of Departments from schools (MOE, 2006). The former Institute of Education had, by 1991, merged with the College of Physical Education, under Nanyang Technological University, and was renamed the National Institute of Education (NIE). The ELCPRC was a large committee, with a main committee of 20 headed by the Director of Curriculum Planning and Development Division (CPDD), Ms Ho Peng, an Academic Advisory Panel headed by Associate Professor Anne Pakir from the National University of Singapore and three resource panels. The sociocultural and linguistic context within which the ELCPRC was conducting its review was very different from the language environment and social context of the Reading Skills Project. By 2006, 50% of Primary One children came from predominantly English-speaking homes, compared to 35% in 1996. Many young Singaporeans could be considered what Anne Pakir (1991) termed “Englishknowing bilinguals” who were familiar with English as the dominant language across different ethnic groups. However, there remained a concern with raising the “general command of the language among all students, while achieving the best international standards among the most able” (MOE, 2006, p. 5), particularly amidst a climate of increasing economic competitiveness with the growth of the global knowledge economy. The emphasis was on lifelong learning, with the need to upgrade one’s skills for work in a global marketplace. Among the various recommendations made by the ELCPRC was a focus on developing a “love for reading” (MOE, 2006, p. 4). It was recommended that rich and engaging materials be used in primary school classrooms, including a wide range of fiction and non-fiction texts, and extensive reading be encouraged at the secondary

Innovating Towards Reading Excellence in the Singapore …

307

school level. Community partnerships were strongly supported by MOE, including a collaboration with the National Library Board (NLB) to engage parents and schools in reading through curated book lists and the organisation of Book Clubs and Buddy Reading programmes such as KidsRead, a volunteer programme for reading with underprivileged children. Customisation of curriculum materials to suit Singapore’s specific educational needs was recommended. To act on the recommendations, the STELLAR programme was launched and a new curriculum team was formed to develop and coordinate a pilot run of the project, which was based on many pedagogical principles from REAP (Pang et al., 2015). Developing a love of reading was central to the STELLAR programme. Strategies to develop a love of reading included the Shared Book Approach, Modified Language Experience Approach and the provision of class libraries and reading corners in Learning Centres from Primary One to Three. From the middle of Primary Three to Primary Six, the developmental shift to silent reading was reflected by a curricular shift in the provision of Sustained Silent Reading time during English lessons and extensive teacher professional development and in-class mentoring support in research-based instructional strategies such as Supported Reading (based on Guided Reading techniques), Know-Want to Know-Learnt (KWL) and Retelling. The effectiveness of the STELLAR programme on student outcomes was evaluated through a six-year (2007–2012) longitudinal, quasi-experimental study in 20 schools conducted by MOE, which found that students in the STELLAR programme performed significantly better than a control group on a number of language and reading skills as they progressed through each grade level from Primary One to Primary Six (Pang et al., 2015). Additional analyses using the English language scores from the Primary School Leaving Examination showed a smaller spread and relatively fewer students in the lowest bands of achievement for the students in the STELLAR programme compared to the control group. The STELLAR programme is an example of innovation through the creation of new operations (Wu & Lin, 2019), exemplifying Singapore’s systematic, evidencebased approach to curriculum planning, development and implementation (Ng et al., 2020). Rather than coming up with a new programme, the curriculum team from MOE chose to update a programme that had been rigorously evaluated and proven successful in Singapore classrooms. To ensure project sustainability, the programme was scaled up in stages with constant feedback from the ground, ongoing mentoring of teachers, and thoughtful design of authentic and engaging instructional materials. Implementation support was a key feature of the systematic scaling up of the STELLAR programme, from 30, then to 60, 90, 120 and nationally to more than 180 primary schools over a period of 5 years. The implementation support was developed and coordinated by the same curriculum team, and it comprised what was called the 4 M approach: Materials, Methodology, Mentoring and Monitoring. The STELLAR emphasis on reading seems to have been relatively successful with the trend data from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 2016 (PIRLS 2016) showing an uptick in primary school children’s reading habits. For example, data indicated that the proportion of Singaporean grade 4 students reading silently on their own in school every day or almost every day had increased from

308

C. E. Loh and E. Pang

56% in 2011 to 62% in 2016. This was set against a decline in reading habits outside of school, with the proportion of students reading outside of school for at least 30 min on a school day falling from 68% in 2011 to 56% in 2016. This decline in reading habits outside of school was also observed in more than two-thirds of the education systems with trend data that participated in PIRLS 2016. For the STELLAR curriculum team, the increase in silent reading in school, set against a declining reading culture outside of school, affirmed the importance of school reading programmes in promoting extensive reading. Considerable challenges remain in encouraging reading for pleasure. Although STELLAR has integrated silent reading into schools, how well schools prioritise reading may be uneven, given conflicting demands of schooling. With pandemic acceleration towards blended learning, another consideration is whether students’ increased access to technology will distract from or increase access to reading (Sun et al., 2021).

6 The Building a Reading Culture (BRC) Study: From Extensive Reading in Classrooms to Library Transformations Alongside the REAP initiative at primary school levels in the 1980s, the Project to Assist Selected Schools in English Skills (PASSES) was implemented from 1983 to 1989 in 40 secondary schools. It was designed to enable secondary schools with the lowest national “O” level pass rates in English to meet the national average and extensive reading supported the programme. Reading collections placed in the classroom allowed students easier access to a wide variety of reading materials beyond the textbook. The project was successful in raising schools’ English language pass rates by as much as ten per cent (Varghese, 1998). Lim (2000) suggests that the focus on extensive reading of children’s literature in the REAP and PASSES programmes was “a tacit recognition that the reading of literature helps students to acquire a rich language output and to learn extended language patterns” (p. 87). Thus, despite a functional focus prioritised by the 1981 and 1991 English language syllabuses, the focus on extensive reading that began in the 1980s continued to be practised in schools thereafter. However, although there had been a focus on extensive reading across primary and secondary schools since the 1980s, execution was uneven across schools. In a study of uninterrupted sustained silent reading (USSR) carried out in one primary school, Jason Loh (2009) observed the teachers over 10 weeks, conducted surveys and interviews and concluded that while teachers affirmed the importance of reading and modelling, they did not model reading for their students. In another case study of extensive reading in one secondary school, Wolf and Bokhorst-Heng (2008) found that multiple policies and tensions, and competing versions of literacy expectations, might limit the actual practice of extensive reading in schools. Teachers felt bound

Innovating Towards Reading Excellence in the Singapore …

309

to complete the syllabus and prepare students for the high-stakes examinations, even though they might be aware of the need to promote reading or design other innovative learning experiences (Albright & Kramer-Dahl, 2009; Kramer-Dahl & Kwek, 2011; Loh & Liew, 2016). This problem might be compounded in secondary schools which, unlike primary schools, did not explicitly have extensive reading or Shared Book reading practices built into the curriculum. More recently, a study that surveyed teachers completing their Masters in Education degree at the National Institute of Education found that a majority of the teacher participants were not devoted readers though they had a good grounding in pedagogical strategies for the teaching of reading (Garces-Bascal et al., 2017). Thus, teachers themselves may not be able to role model what they encourage students to practise. By the 2010s, the rhetoric of twenty-first century competencies was wellunderstood by Singapore policymakers, educators and education researchers. A framework for twenty-first century competencies and student outcomes was presented diagrammatically, stating the various dispositions of a future-ready learner (MOE, 2015). SkillsFuture Singapore, a national initiative, was launched in 2015 to help workers upskill in the spirit of lifelong learning and career upgrading. Rather than focusing on a core skillset for life, individuals had to recognise the need to learn over the lifetime to adjust to a continually fast-changing world (Government of Singapore, 2016). Following the launch of SkillsFuture, the National Reading Movement was launched in 2016 to encourage Singaporeans to “read more, read widely and read together” (National Library Board, 2015, About Us section). While primarily targeted at working adults, the campaign also aimed to encourage reading among children and within schools. The National Library Board and Ministry of Education collaborated to co-organise the inaugural Reading Excellence Award to recognise primary and secondary schools with exemplary reading programmes that promoted a love of reading (Toh, 2017). In 2016, the English Language and Literature Branch at CPDD MOE launched the inaugural annual Reading Symposium, which brought together library coordinators across primary schools, secondary schools and junior colleges to build a network of teachers with a shared passion for passing on a love of reading. The sociocultural and linguistic context of Singapore had once again changed. By 2019, it was reported that about 70% of Primary 1 households used English as their main language (Zhou, 2019). In 1965, Singapore’s nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita was around US$500. It rose to US$13,000 in 1990 and by 2015, the GDP per capita was around US$56,000 (Menon, 2015). Singapore’s literacy rate had risen exponentially, from 60% in 1965, the year of independence (Rajaratnam, 1972), to 97.3% in 2018 (Department of Statistics Singapore, 2019). Within Singapore, there was rising worry that the needs of the underprivileged were not sufficiently met (Lien Centre for Social Innovation, 2015; Ng, 2013; Teo, 2018). While the PISA and PIRLS data showed that Singapore students performed well on international reading assessments, the lack of improvement among low proficiency students was a concern (Loh, 2017b; Ng, 2013). The uneven access to reading resources between students of different home backgrounds is not unique to Singapore. In developed countries, middle-class parents are able to invest more in their children’s education and provide

310

C. E. Loh and E. Pang

home resources in the form of materials and role modelling, thus ensuring educational advantage for their children (Chiu & Chow, 2010; Currid-Halkett, 2017; Horowitz & Samuels, 2017; Loh & Sun, 2020; Neuman & Celano, 2012; Reardon, 2013; Smith et al., 1997). The Building a Reading Culture study (BRC) was initiated by a research team at NIE in 2016, in collaboration with the MOE and NLB, to develop a baseline study of reading and school libraries in Singapore secondary schools (Loh, 2020b). Although all Singapore schools are resourced with school libraries, not all school libraries were optimally designed and resourced to motivate students to visit and use the space for reading (Loh, 2015). In a contrastive study of two school libraries prior to the BRC study, Loh (2016) had found that the design and organisation of space, as well as the programming and perceived use of the library could encourage particular kinds of reading and learning behaviours. The revitalisation of the school library was seen as a possible entry point to encourage students’ love of reading, particularly for students from underprivileged homes with less access to home resources for reading (Loh & Sun, 2020). This revelation about the role of the school library to support reading and encourage a love of reading among students in poverty is also borne out in international research (Pribesh et al., 2011; Wood et al., 2020). The emphasis of the BRC study on equitable distribution and access provided a new way to understand the needs of Singapore students, and resulted in new ways of thinking about the design of reading environments. As part of the BRC study, a twenty-first century School Library Framework was developed from a thorough literature review of current research (Loh, 2018a, 2018b) and used to ground the study. The study revealed uneven home resources between students on Financial Assistance and those not on Financial Assistance,2 and suggested that the school or teacher could play a central role in motivating adolescent reading (Loh, 2017a; Loh & Sun, 2018). The study also highlighted the need to examine the role of both print and technology in supporting adolescent reading (Loh & Sun, 2019). Parallel to the BRC study, the School Library Perspectives Survey was administered in 13 schools, and it was found that schools with professionally trained librarians were more likely to foster twenty-first century skills of reading, research and collaboration, compared to schools without professionally trained librarians (Loh & Sundaray, 2019), leading to new understandings about the kinds of training important for English teachers and library coordinators. Innovation for the BRC study lay in the bringing of new knowledge or insights (Wu & Lin, 2019) to then current ways of thinking about reading. A key BRC innovation lay in bringing learning environments into the conversation about how to encourage engaged reading for pleasure and learning in Singapore secondary schools (Loh, 2020a). Beyond the classroom and the English teacher, the BRC study suggests that informal learning spaces such as the school library and other professional experts 2

At the time of the study, the Gross Household Income of a student must not exceed $2,500 per month or the Per Capita Income must not exceed $625 per month to qualify for financial assistance. FAS students receive help in the form of waiver of school fees, free textbooks and school attire, and bus and food subsidies.

Innovating Towards Reading Excellence in the Singapore …

311

such as the school librarian are central to the task of personalised learning. Alexander and Fox (2019) posit in their historical overview of reading instruction that personalised learning is a key feature from 2016 to present times. Information saturation leads to a greater need for students to learn how to manage and interpret information and transform the information into usable knowledge. Focusing on learning environments in the context of the ecology of school curriculum and programming provided a new way to understand and evaluate how students of differing profiles access reading resources. Another key innovation of the study was the way in which research communication was prioritised as central to transforming policy and practice from top-down and bottom-up perspectives (Looi & Teh, 2015). Continued conversations between stakeholders throughout the project in the form of roundtables, professional development workshops for teachers and librarians, keynotes and public-friendly reports ensured a wide reach for the project findings. Providing new knowledge to schools encouraged school-based innovation. Various schools initiated their own ground-up (Dearing et al., 2015) school-based innovations where they made use of project documentation and findings, as well as school-initiated school-level surveys and investigations to rework their reading programmes or redesign their library space, collection and programming, to make the school library a central place for reading. A follow-up library redesign project was jointly initiated by MOE and NIE to redesign the space, collection and programming of future-ready secondary school libraries and to track the impact of these changes on students’ reading enjoyment and practice, using design-based methodology as an iterative and collaborative way of generating more complex understandings of the ecology of learning (Brown, 1992; Cobb et al., 2003). This method recognises the uniqueness of each school context, prioritising the use of local evidence to customise and integrate sustainable schoollevel transformations. At the time of the writing of this chapter, NIE and MOE were working together with NLB and schools to further their understanding and knowledge of how the school library as an informal space for learning can further engender reading enjoyment and proficiency. Being a ground-up project, investment and sustainability are very much dependent on stakeholder convictions, commitment as well as continual investment in constant re-evaluation of the improved school library in order to meet the changing needs of students. Informal observations thus far suggest that schools who see the problem as a systemic rather than a “space-only” issue are more likely to continue to commit resources by appointing a committee to oversee school library improvements in the area of collection, programming and technology. Furthermore, all secondary school students have been allocated personal learning devices (PLD) since July 2021 (MOE, 2020) and schools need to explore how the school library can utilise technology to support reading in these uncertain times. Ensuring continued emphasis on local research to understand local school contexts can provide some concrete ideas for how better to prepare Singapore students for future-readiness.

312

C. E. Loh and E. Pang

7 Moving into the Future: Challenges and Opportunities The three case studies presented in this chapter show how the Singapore education system innovated to respond sensitively and dynamically to changes in global and local contexts over time. Reading proficiency and fluency as a core literacy skill was recognised from the early stages of Singapore’s educational development. The focus on practices of extensive reading from REAP through to STELLAR to the BRC and library redesign projects show MOE’s commitment to creating conducive environments to encourage student reading. REAP and STELLAR focused on curricular and pedagogical reform in the primary school classrooms, as did the PASSES project in the 1980s, and the more recent BRC and library redesign projects emphasised schoolwide reading, with a focus on the school library as a central hub for encouraging school-wide practices of reading for pleasure. While the innovation in STELLAR lies in the systematic, evidence-based scaling up of instructional and reading practices at the national level, the library redesign innovation lies in redirecting the reading focus from the classroom and the teacher to school-wide reading and the positioning of the library as an informal learning space. These projects provide new insights, knowledge and operations (Wu & Lin, 2019) to support schools in evaluating their needs and considering their approaches to building a holistic reading environment that emphasises pleasure alongside reading proficiency. The Singapore education system continues to build on its earlier successes and improve policies and practices through a systematic and evidence-based approach. A key factor for successful development and innovation of reading curriculum, pedagogy and learning environment across the years is the strong partnership between NIE, MOE, NLB, schools and educators, drawn together by the common goal to improve reading enjoyment and proficiency. Another factor for success is the evidence-based approach where researchers, policymakers and educators draw on cutting-edge research and best practices to constantly re-evaluate what works, building on what has worked and generating new insights to improve policies and practices. Integration of policy goals with teacher training at pre-service and inservice levels allows for constant upskilling of teachers (OECD, 2010; Schleicher, 2018), as the education system will have to remain nimble to cope with the demands of the twenty-first century as well as new ways of teaching and learning accelerated by the coronavirus pandemic. More crucially, as Singapore moves towards the future, new challenges and issues will have to be addressed. Rather than evaluating the country’s success in reading only by its efficiency in training literate workers, success may be additionally measured in other ways. For example, how have the education system and schools encouraged reading enjoyment, a matter of much concern in Singapore and other countries (Schleicher, 2018)? How is the education system more equitable in providing additional resources for underprivileged children and adolescents who might have to struggle against the odds to excel? How do we utilise students’ funds of knowledge (González, Moll & Amanti, 2005) to help them engage in the myriad forms of reading(s) they will encounter and require for daily work, living and participation

Innovating Towards Reading Excellence in the Singapore …

313

in civic engagement? How can Singapore educators harness technology, both old and new, to help students to read better and enjoy reading, both in print and digital formats? Beyond English, how can the Singapore education system nurture truly bilingual readers proficient in both English and their Mother Tongue languages? As new demands are made on how we read, learn and engage with texts, our education system will have to evolve and keep pace to enable all learners to thrive in a post-typographic, multimodal world.

References Academy of Singapore Teachers. (n.d.) English Language Institute of Singapore. https://academ yofsingaporeteachers.moe.edu.sg/elis Afflerbach, P., Harrison, C., & Alvermann, D. E. (2017). What is engagement, how is it different from motivation, and how can I promote it? Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 61(2), 217–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.679 Albright, J., & Kramer-Dahl, A. (2009). The legacy of instrumentality in policy and pedagogy in teaching of English: The case of Singapore. Research Papers in Education, 24(2), 201–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520902867200 Alexander, P. A., & Fox, E. (2019). Reading research and practice over the decades: A historical analysis. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, M. Sailors, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of literacy (7th ed., pp. 35–64). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/978131 5110592-3 Alexander, P. A., & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory. (2012). Reading into the future: Competence for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 259–280.https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722511 Ashton-Warner, S. (1963). Teacher. Simon & Schuster. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2 Cheah, Y. M. (2002). English language teaching in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22(2), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/0218879020220207 Chiu, M. M., & Chow, B. W. Y. (2010). Culture, motivation, and reading achievement: High school students in 41 countries. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(6), 579–592. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.03.007 Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X0320 01009 Cunningham, A., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–945. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.934 Currid-Halkett, E. (2017). The sum of small things: A theory of the aspirational class. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc77hb4 Dearing, J. W., Dede, C., Boisvert, D., Carrese, J., Clement, L., Craft, E., Gardner, P., Hyder, J., Johnson, E., McNeel, D., Phiri, J., & Pleil, M. (2015). How educational innovators apply diffusion and scale-up concepts. In C.-K. Looi & L. W. Teh (Eds.), Scaling educational innovations (pp. 81– 104). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-537-2_5 Department of Statistics Singapore. (2020). Education, language spoken and literacy. https://www. singstat.gov.sg/find-data/search-by-theme/population/education-language-spoken-and-literacy/ latest-data

314

C. E. Loh and E. Pang

Elley, W. B. (2000). The potential of book floods for raising literacy levels. International Review of Education, 46(3/4), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004086618679 Gambrell, L. B., Marinak, B. A., Brooker, H. R., & McCrea-Andrews, H. J. (2011). The importance of independent reading. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 143–158). International Reading Association. Garces-Bascal, R. M., Tupas, R., Kaur, S., Paculdar, A. M., & Baja, E. S. (2017). Reading for pleasure: Whose job is it to build lifelong readers in the classroom? Literacy, 52(2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12151 Goh, K. S., & The Education Study Team. (1979). Report on the Ministry of Education. https:// www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/956--1979-02-10.pdf González, N., Moll, L. C. & Amanti, C. (2005) Funds of knowledge: theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Gopinathan, S. (1980). Language policy in education: A Singapore perspective. In E. A. Afendras & E. L. Y. Kuo (Eds.), Language and society in Singapore (pp. 175–202). Singapore University Press. Gopinathan, S. (1998). Language policy changes 1979–1997: Politics and pedagogy. In S. Gopinathan, A. Pakir, W. K. Ho, & V. Saravanan (Eds.), Language, society and education in Singapore: Issues and trends (pp. 19–44). Times Academic Press. Government of Singapore. (2016). What is Skills Future? http://www.skillsfuture.sg Ho, W. K., & Gopinathan, S. (1999). Recent developments in education in Singapore. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(1), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1076/sesi.10.1.99.3512 Holdaway, D. (1982). Shared book experience: Teaching reading using favorite books. Theory into Practice, 21(4), 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405848209543021 Horowitz, R., & Samuels, S. J. (Eds.). (2017). The achievement gap in reading: Complex causes, persistent issues, possible solutions. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315779522 Kirsch, I., de Jong, J., Lafontaine, D., McQueen, J., Mendelovits, J., & Monseur, C. (2002). Reading for change: Performance and engagement across countries—Results from PISA 2000. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/pro grammeforinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/33690904.pdf Kramer-Dahl, A., & Kwek, D. (2011). ‘Reading’ the home and reading in school: Framing deficit constructions as learning difficulties in Singapore English classrooms. In C. Wyatt-Smith, J. Elkins, & S. Gunn (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on difficulties in learning literacy and numeracy (pp. 159–178). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8864-3_7 Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from research (2nd ed.). Heinemann. Lee, K. Y. (2011). Speech by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Former Minister Mentor and current Senior Advisor to Government of Singapore Investment Corporation at the Launch of the English Language Institute of Singapore (ELIS) on Tuesday, 6 September 2011, at the Marina Bay Sands Expo and Convention Centre. http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2011/09/06/speech-by-mr-leekuan-yew-at-elis-launch.php. Retrieved March 14, 2015. Lien Centre for Social Innovation. (2015). A handbook on inequality, poverty and unmet social needs in Singapore. Singapore Management University. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lien_repo rts/10/ Lim, S. C. (2000). The English language syllabus 2001: Change and continuity. Teaching of English Language and Literature, 16(2), 9–14. Lim, S. C. (2002). Developments in the English language syllabuses in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22(2), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/0218879020220208 Loh, J. (2009). Teacher modeling: Its impact on an extensive reading program. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21(2), 93–118. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/66832 Loh, C. E. (2015). Building a reading culture in a Singapore school: Identifying spaces for change through a socio-spatial approach. Changing English, 22(2), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1358684X.2015.1022509 Loh, C. E. (2016). Levelling the reading gap: A socio-spatial study of school libraries and reading in Singapore. Literacy, 50(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12067

Innovating Towards Reading Excellence in the Singapore …

315

Loh, C. E. (2017a, October 17). Schools hold key to improve needy students’ reading skills. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/schools-hold-key-to-improve-needy-stu dents-reading-skills Loh, C. E. (2017). The space and practice of reading: A case study of reading and social class in Singapore. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315688459 Loh, C. E. (2018a). Envisioning the school library of the future: A 21st century framework. National Institute of Education, Office of Education Research. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fOB-g5y 8HQQSVeJvCVxjEhS5ngRGBEfh/view Loh, J. (2018b). Implementing and sustaining language curriculum reform in Singapore primary schools. In G. E. Hall, L. F. Quinn, & D. M. Gollnick (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of teaching and learning (pp. 151–172). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118955901.ch6 Loh, C. E. (2020a). Design patterns for school libraries: A preliminary report of the Building a Reading Culture study 2019. National Institute of Education, Office of Education Research. https://www.dropbox.com/s/1x0945fsg4yh6lt/2020Loh_2020_BRC%20Report_ Design%20Patterns%20for%20School%20Libraries.pdf?dl=0 Loh, C. E. (2020b). Building a reading culture—A nationwide study of reading and school libraries in six secondary schools. Research Brief Series, 20–017. National Institute of Education, Office of Education Research. http://hdl.handle.net/10497/22194 Loh, C. E., & Liew, W. M. (2016). Voices from the ground: The emotional labour of English teachers’ work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.01.016 Loh, C. E., & Sun, B. (2018). Report on the reading habits of Singapore teenagers 2017. National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technical University. http://hdl.handle.net/10497/20182 Loh, C. E., & Sun, B. (2020). Cultural capital, habitus and reading futures: Middle-class adolescent students’ cultivation of reading dispositions in Singapore. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41(2), 234–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2019.1690426 Loh, C. E., & Sun, B. (2019). “I’d still prefer to read the hard copy”: Adolescents’ print and digital reading habits. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62(6), 663–672. https://doi.org/10.1002/ jaal.904 Loh, C. E., & Sundaray, S. (2019). School library perspectives survey report 2018. National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. https://www.dropbox.com/s/dwsdgt7livpzp87/ Loh%20%26%20Sundaray_2019_School-Library-Perspectives-Report-2018.pdf?dl=0 Looi, C.-K., & Teh, L. W. (2015). Towards critical discussions of scaling up educational innovations. In C.-K. Looi & L. W. Teh (Eds.), Scaling educational innovations (pp. 1–10). Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-537-2_1 Menon, R. (Aug 5, 2015) An economic history of Singapore - 1965–2065 [Keynote Address]. Singapore Economic Review Conference 2015, Singapore. https://www.bis.org/review/r150807b. htm. Ministry of Education. (2006). Executive summary: Report of the English language curriculum and pedagogy review. https://www.caic.com.sg/pdf/MOE%20English%20Review.pdf Ministry of Education. (2015). 21st century competencies. https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/edu cation-system/21st-century-competencies Ministry of Education. (2020) Blended learning to enhance schooling experience and futher develop students into self-directed learners. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/press-releases/202 01229-blended-learning-to-enhance-schooling-experience-and-further-develop-students-intoself-directed-learners Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2017). PIRLS 2016 International Results in Reading. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. http://timssandpirls.bc. edu/pirls2016/international-results/ National Library Board. (2015). National reading movement. http://www.nationalreadingmoveme nt.sg/ Neuman, S. B., & Celano, D. (2012). Giving our children a fighting chance: Poverty, literacy, and the development of information capital. Teachers College Press.

316

C. E. Loh and E. Pang

Ng, H. L., Poon, C. L., & Pang, E. (2020). Using IEA Studies to Inform Policymaking and Programme Development: The Case of Singapore. In H. Wagemaker (Ed.), Reliability and validity of international large-scale assessment: Understanding IEA’s comparative studies of student achievement. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53081-5_14 Ng, I. Y. H. (2013). Education and intergenerational mobility in Singapore. Educational Review, 66(3), 362–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.780008 Ng, S. M., & Sullivan, C. (2001). The Singapore reading and English acquisition program. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(2), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-035 5(01)00013-1 Ng, Q. R., Renandya, W. A. & Chong, M. Y. C. (2019). Extensive reading: Theory, research and implementation. TEFLIN Journal, 30(2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v30i2/ 171-186 OECD. (2010). Singapore: Rapid improvement followed by strong performance. In OECD (Ed.), Strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States (pp. 159–176). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264096660-en Pakir, A. (1991). The range and depth of English-knowing bilinguals in Singapore. World Englishes, 10(2), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1991.tb00149.x Pakir, A. (2004). Medium-of-instruction policy in Singapore. In J. W. Tollefson & A. B. M. Tsui (Eds.), Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda? (pp. 117–131). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pang, E. S., Lim, F. V., Choe, K. C., Peters, C., & Chua, L. C. (2015). System scaling in Singapore: The STELLAR story. In C.-K. Looi & L. W. Teh (Eds.), Scaling educational innovations (pp. 81– 104). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-537-2_6 Pribesh, S., Gavigan, K., & Dickinson, G. (2011) The access gap: poverty and characteristics of school library media centres. The Library Quarterly 81(2), 143–160. https://www.journals.uch icago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/658868 Rajaratnam, S. (1972, February 6). Singapore: Global city (Text address to the Singapore Press Club). National Archives of Singapore. https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/Pre ssR19720206a.pdf. Reardon, S. F. (2013). The widening income achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 70(8), 10–16. Renandya, W. A. (2007). The power of extensive reading. RELC Journal, 38(2), 133–149. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0033688207079578 Schleicher, A. (2018). PISA 2018: Insights and interpretations. OECD Publishing. https://www. oecd.org/pisa/PISA%202018%20Insights%20and%20Interpretations%0FINAL%20PDF.pdf Silver, R. E. (2005). The discourse of linguistic capital: Language and economic policy planning in Singapore. Language Policy, 4(1), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-004-6564-4 Sim, C. (2015). Speak Good English Movement. Singapore Infopedia. National Library Board Singapore. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_575_2004-12-23.html Smith, C., Constantino, R., & Krashen, S. D. (1997). Differences in print environment for children in Beverly Hills. Compton and Watts. Emergency Librarian, 24(4), 8–9. Sun, B., Loh, C. E. & Nie, Y. (2021). The COVID-19 school closure effect on students’ print and digital leisure reading. Computers and Education Open. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S2666557321000045 Teo, Y. Y. (2018). This is what inequality looks like. Ethos Books. Toh, R. Y. K. (2017, March 21). Schools’ reading programmes lauded. The Straits Times. http://str. sg/477p UNESCO. (2017). Reading the past, writing the future: Fifty years of promoting literacy. https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247563 Varghese, S. A. (1998). Reading and writing instruction in Singapore secondary schools. In S. Gopinathan, A. Pakir, W. K. Ho, & V. Saravanan (Eds.), Language, society and education in Singapore: Issues and trends. Times Academic Press.

Innovating Towards Reading Excellence in the Singapore …

317

Velayutham, S. (2007). Responding to globalization: Nation, culture, and identity in Singapore. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Wee, C. J. W. L. (2010). Culture, the arts and the global city. In T. Chong (Ed.), Management of success: Singapore revisited (pp. 489–503). Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Wolf, J. M., & Bokhorst-Heng, W. (2008). Policies of promise and practices of limit: Singapore’s literacy education policy landscape and its impact on one school programme. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 7(3), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-008-9048-z Wood, C., Clark, C., Teravainen-Goff, A., Rudkin, G. & Vardy, E. (2020). Exploring the literacyrelated feelings of pupils eligible for free school meals in relation to their use of and access to school libraries. School Library Research 23, https://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/con tent/pubs/slr/vol23/SLR_ExploringLiteracyRelatedBehaviors_V23.pdf. Wu, S., & Lin, C. Y. Y. (2019). Innovation and entrepreneurship in an educational ecosystem: Cases from Taiwan. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9445-5 Zhou, T. (2019, October 22). Speak Mandarin Campaign marks 40 years: Singapore must guard against losing its bilingual age, says PM Lee Hsien Loong. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/speak-mandarin-campaign-marks40-years-with-local-lexicon-pm-lee-hsien-loong-says

Paths to a Whole: Placing Music Education in Singapore E. I. Dairianathan

Abstract In their concluding paragraph, Stead and Lum make the observation of Music’s importance in the development of an education system appropriate for the needs of the twenty-first century (2014; 249) in a/ny learner’s desired narratives towards a career or to gain life-enhancing benefits through their involvement in musical activities. These observations are consonant with attendant outcomes for a/ny learner as articulated in the Ministry’s Desired Outcomes of Education (MOE), implying the sense of arriving at holistic development of a/ny learner in the Singapore Education system, in and through Music towards civic, ethical and societal citizenship. This chapter attempts an overview of the teaching and learning in and through Music and Education in Singapore, which led to the Ministry of Education’s ideals. The chapter will also raise questions about the multiple connections concomitant with state-run, public-funded education in and for Music, which speak to and of the role of Music in a g/location like Singapore and intends to lead learners and learning into and beyond the twenty-first century. Keywords Music · Education · Education policy · Classroom practice · Curriculum · Connectivity · Inclusivity · Diversity · Elitism · Assessment

1 Introduction The thought that Music and Education could co-exist in consonance in a/ny given context—as if accessibility, assessability, g/locality, relatability and relevance were bespoke—is simultaneously a prospect and a problem. A study of the valence and value of music for its users cannot ignore a beginning with live/d experiences and encounters. If music emerges as demonstrable evidence of behaviours of human groups, one needs to understand the nature and means by which ‘music’ (Blacking) is at root, sounds—gestures and patterns that are formally or informally identified with the human condition, and are, as Blacking (1995: 56–57) puts it, humanly E. I. Dairianathan (B) National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_18

319

320

E. I. Dairianathan

organized. In fact, Blacking goes one step further to assert that one needs to ask whether and how music represents or re-presents the consensus of the community making meaning in their encounters and experiences. One also needs to ask how these sound gestures and patterns are performed in, for and through a community as demonstrable evidence of human individuation, reinterpretation and translation by every individual and every generation. Given that sounds emerge from human behaviour, then one must also recognize that these sounds depend upon context and are practice-specific. Sounds as they appear within a certain g/locality resound and resonate with the intentions behind them and how behaviours are constructed and construed through them. Phan Ming Yen’s brief overview of Singapore in his 2004 dissertation ‘Music in Empire’ informs us of the ways in which the East India Company had a political and financial overview and interest in the fortunes of the island; anything to do with Singapore came under the direct purview of a satellite British Empire in India. Logically, and logistically, the experience gained from colonizing India would have been most helpful towards administering Singapore. In the domain of Western classical music, for instance, for the European community of Singapore in the nineteenth century, to practice, to perform and to listen to the music of its own culture was the act of shutting out local music or a preferred definition in its time—‘hideous noises’ (Phan, 2004, 171). It will not escape notice that in Music Education in Singapore into the twentieth century (a/ny study of Music Education during the Japanese Occupation from 1942 to 1945 would be worth a separate research study but may be out of scope at this point) until Singapore’s independence in 1965, musical repertoire and exemplars for classroom teaching seemed predominantly that of a European (predominantly British colonial) art-music educational model, not just inherited, but further reinforced by such behavioural infra/structure. Stead and Lum (2014; 236) observe how the Cambridge O-level and A-level Examination syndicate, emphasis on British English, etc., continued and continue into the present as academic legacies that determine the fate of Singaporeans, as well as those studying in the Singapore Schools Education system. Stead and Lum (2014; 237) note that a general music curriculum was established in 1950 based on a British model of teaching music through singing, largely influenced by a British-based instrumental music examination syndicate known as the Associated Board of the Royals Schools of Music (ABRSM hereafter) who had introduced their graded examinations (private music instrumental-skill enterprise) into Singapore in 1948. Considering the prior social context in 1959 when Singapore left British rule and was beset by a period of unrest, strikes, demonstrations, communist activity to undermine this nascent government and serious unemployment, government policies were designed, in Chong’s (1995) view, towards a supplying of skilled human resource, “a system of education designed to maintain peace and promote the well-being of all…groups in Singapore. These recommendations and implementations were based on the principle of parity of treatment for the four official languages…” (Chong, 1995: 100). Citing a MOE document, Chong (1995) echoed the exhortation that in a self-governing country “which must give equal treatment to its citizens, equal

Paths to a Whole: Placing Music Education in Singapore

321

opportunities means freedom of choice of medium of instruction for the citizens’ children…the parent is assured that the desired standards are the same in all schools…with common curriculum and syllabi, with teachers trained in the Government Teachers Training College [TTC, IE, NIE, NTU today] and the same degree of supervision exercised by the Inspectorate of the Ministry” (Ministry of Education, 1961: 32, in Chong, 1995: 100). It is not surprising that an examination syndicated system like ABRSM and the hitherto unquestioned reliability and validity of the British Cambridge examination syndicate for high-stakes examination subjects would have been co-opted as default mechanisms for parity for all Singapore citizens in an era towards political independence. Still, the challenge remained in terms of the implementation of such ideals. Stead and Lum (2014) also note that in the years following the coming into power of the People’s Action Party in Singapore from 1959 onwards into the 1970s, music and singing were assigned extramusical roles in contributing to attributes such as national pride, social consciousness and civic-mindedness.

2 Primary Music Education Music classes in Singapore school were in-curriculum time classes, an hour set aside for Primary One to Primary Four learners and 35 minutes for Primary Five and Primary Six learners, even as this practice has evolved into schools exercising autonomy in the allocation of time given to Music teaching and learning (Stead & Lum, 2014; 237–238). While Stead and Lum note on the place of Music in a nascent independent nation such as Singapore, given its initial and intense emphasis on industrial and technical education to serve economic imperatives, the point not missed is the place of Music, in a MOE document, as “a strong binding force among children of the various communities, so that they can grow up respecting each other’s cultural traits” (MOE, 1967: 12, in Stead & Lum, 2014: 239). What is clear from Stead and Lum (2014: 239) is a seismic shift from 1965 onwards, from a predominantly British-colony agenda in the school-going curriculum from the nineteenth through twentieth centuries, to ensure inclusion of Malay, Chinese and Indian (Tamil) songs with British music repertoire. Initially in 1959, “music did not occupy a central place in the school curriculum. It was…an ‘outer subject’…an extra-curricular activity on Saturday mornings or outside school hours. Ministry documents referred to music as…an alternative to art and handwork” Chong (1995: 101). What altered the place of music in schools was a 1960s educational policy which focused on what is now the Chinese (Mandarin), Malay, Indian (Tamil) and English language streams, bilingualism and civics, which ‘affected the direction of the general music program’ (Chong, 1995: 101). It was not surprising therefore to read the exhortation that Music “…like other art forms, should be considered a strong binding force among children of the various communities, so

322

E. I. Dairianathan

that they can grow up respecting each other’s cultural traits” (Ministry of Education, 1967: 12, in Chong, 1995: 101). A three-pronged approach (in-curricular, extracurricular and the largely understated but not underestimated Ministry of Culture) and curricular strengthening in the inclusivity of all citizens across communities in Singapore notwithstanding, Stead and Lum highlight the upstream problem of resourcing, notably in this situation, teacher resourcing: “a shortage of suitably trained and qualified music teachers…threatened to stand in the way of further developments in music education” (Stead & Lum, 2014: 240). Even with policies put in place to address this upstream shortfall, “the problem of insufficient and inadequately trained music teachers to deliver the best intentions of the Ministry of Education (MOE hereafter) would continue to inhibit developments in music education to the end of the century” (Stead & Lum, 2014: 240). Nevertheless, efforts were made from the 1960s onwards for teachers to be trained at the then Teachers Training College (later Institute of Education and presently National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University). That NIE remained and remains the only teacher preparation institution for all teachers in the Singapore Education service meant that a/ny Music programme would have to involve both non-graduates (but musically qualified) and another for graduates (with or without a first Music degree). The course for the former cohort meant teaching music was one of three subject options that was only introduced in the second year of a three-year teaching programme (Stead & Lum, 2014: 240). The syllabus for trainee music teachers at the Teachers Training College in the 1960s “followed a general course in music. Tonic sol-fa was studied…illustrated by…the recorder. Students learned to sing folk music, in particular Malay songs and listened to records. From the second term onwards, after passing a selection test, trainees could specialize in the teaching of music…had to learn the piano…able to read music…play accompaniments…learned the rudiments of harmony…trained in music theory, including the ability to transpose…followed a course on the history of music…pedagogic training included a study of singing techniques and methods of teaching tonic sol-fa” (Stead & Lum, 2014: 240). The outcome was that teachers graduating from this course could teach in a primary school. Having spent sufficient time in schools, scholarships were made available to some teachers to pursue further specialized studies in the UK, Australia or the US. Upon their successful graduation, “these teachers taught in secondary schools and set up children’s choirs and orchestras” (Mialaret, 1970: 61–62, in Stead & Lum, 2014: 241). The question of shortage of music teachers in the Education service (and that music was one of three subject options) meant that when the bilingual policy was adopted in 1966, second language teachers (Mother tongue teachers today) were encouraged to teach music, questionings of training, qualifications and subject and classroom practice competence notwithstanding. On balance in hindsight, the intention to encourage teachers of Malay, Chinese and Tamil languages would have had in their possession, the very musical resources in song and music repertoire that would have potentially made stronger contributions towards inclusivity in curatorial practices in classroom music-making, teaching and learning. The balancing of intention

Paths to a Whole: Placing Music Education in Singapore

323

and implementation was, at that time, somewhat mismatched and did not resolve the “considerable shortfall in the number of teachers properly equipped to teach music in both primary and secondary schools.” (Stead & Lum, 2014: 241). Again while the intention to be inclusive in intention was made explicit and implicit in policy and directives in the 1960s into the 1970s, the syllabus emerged as “similar to those taught in Europe…the basis of instruction is singing: in the early years in primary education, mimed songs…some attempt [sic] to learn Malay songs…but English songs…the most frequently taught” (Mialaret, 1970: 61, in Stead & Lum, 2014: 241). As Mialaret noted, “the desired cultural co-existence is not, as yet, reflected in the teaching of music, as Western music, in particular English music, predominates” (Mialaret, 1970: 61, in Stead & Lum, 2014: 241). Whatever might have been prevalent and pervasive at classroot level, Music’s role in nascent independent society in Singapore was made prominent given its status as a compulsory non-examination subject in the Singapore Education system from 1968 onwards (Yeo, 1990, in Stead & Lum, 2014: 241). To this effect, Samuel Leong (1984) noted the efforts by MOE from 1981, “to undertake ‘measures to upgrade the standard of teaching general music’ with new music syllabi, inclusion of music with extra-curricular activities, setting up of more specialist-driven music elective programmes alongside introductions to concert and the largest national competitive stage, the Singapore Youth Festival with accompanying national music competitions and music camps” (Leong. 1984: 48, in Stead & Lum, 2014: 242). Yet Chong’s, 1991 dissertation, in tracing the primary music education programme in Singapore from 1959 to 1990, revealed behaviours that gravitated towards singing rather than instrumental playing/performance and while there were ‘attempts’ to include repertoire from Mandarin, Malay, Tamil and English communities, there was an inevitably privileged gravitation towards eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Euro-American Art Music as ‘core’ curriculum (Chong, 1991: 121). Stead and Lum (2014: 242) highlight the “lack of trained primary music teachers” as a recurring theme in relation to an appropriate bridge among theory, practice and pedagogy which had yet to contend between policy document/ation, director/ial and at the other end, democratic/ally but dialogical discourses in classrooms and practices. A Straits Times article in 1980 indicated an interest in a European-based pedagogical methodology (Orff Schulwerk) for which 60 teachers were sent, curiously, to the Philippines, to study the ‘basics’. This was later followed up with composer, conductor and Music Education faculty, Leong Yoon Pin, presenting “‘ideas of Carl Orff on music and education and their application in the Singapore context’” (Tan 1990 in Stead & Lum, 2014: 243). It is instructive that these 60 teachers were not sent to an Orff Schulwerk location in Germany but a secondary location in the Philippines. On the other hand, Leong Yoon Pin, as a pioneering local composer in Singapore (who received a Cultural Medallion in Music in 1982), would have been most well-placed to have considered the use/r value of an Orff methodology and pedagogy of creative endeavour from a secondary location. Much of Leong’s life as a composer avoided as much mention of his studying composition in the Guildhall School of Music and Drama (UK) as well as with French composer Nadia Boulanger during 1966–1967 (https://www.

324

E. I. Dairianathan

sso.org.sg/leong-yoon-pin) than his greater struggle to locate and establish his own signature in a Singapore context. Leong would have been considered—perhaps more persuasively from a creative point of view—adoption and adaptation of Carl Orff’s position and position-taking on vital attributes needed for impressionable young learners in a primary school and with it, lessons of learning Orff ideas, methodology and practice, authenticity of location notwithstanding. Again, this represents a wellknown local Singaporean composer and Music Educator who would have been most suitably placed to understand a Philippine interpretation of Carl Orff as a lesson (both creatively and pedagogically) for someone like Leong to be most suitably placed to advocate and attempt Carl Orff’s ideas of creativity and contextualization for Singapore classrooms. For the first time in Singapore’s attempts at Arts (Music) education, creativity could have been put on a classroom stage for consideration when all else up to that point had been about performing covers from a Euro-American tradition and practice. It is therefore difficult to comprehend why the Orff pedagogical methodology (training programme for 60 teachers in the Philippines) in 1980 was very quickly supplanted in 1982 by a Kodaly-based pedagogical methodology espoused and implemented by Music specialists within MOE better known as Active Approach to Music-Making (AAMM hereafter) which would be better known for a re-privileging of Euro-American Art music (Hungarian Composer/Music Educator Zoltan Kodaly specifically) in all Singapore primary schools to ‘provide music literacy to students’ (Yeo: 4, in Stead and Lum: 243) and we are informed, programmed in consultation with a Kodaly expert in Australia (ironically from a Secondary location!). The most outstanding criticism, not surprisingly, was its ‘tendency to over-emphasise psychomotor and cognitive domains in music education’ (Yeo, 1990: 4) to the cost of stifling ‘to a certain extent’… ‘the creativity of our music teachers and students alike’ (Yeo, 1990: 4 in Stead & Lum, 2014: 243). On the other hand, Tan (1997) pointed out how there was general acceptance and favourable responses to AAMM in terms of skills acquisition and development, reporting no comparable differences between AAMM (Kodaly-Singapore) approaches and traditional approaches in Music Education. In Tan’s (1997) perspective, deploying and implementing strategies in Kodaly methodology and pedagogy— via AAMM—were reportedly more successful in achieving towards performative aspects of music-making. Perhaps the irony in this declaration of success was a function of the way AAMM/Kodaly approaches were accorded greater privilege than the more challenging t/ask of encouraging creative activity and endeavour in Orff Schulwerk methodology and pedagogy which, less than 2 years before, were experimented with and advocated by a well-known local composer who was also then Music faculty at the Institute of Education (NIE, NTU today). The double irony, as Stead and Lum point out, was that the goal of AAMM was pupil orientation and that “learning through enjoyment should be the uppermost in the teacher’s mind during a lesson” (MOE, 1987, in Stead & Lum, 2014: 244). The Kodaly-Singapore MOE-reinterpreted AAMM version was being privileged over the Orff creativity model.

Paths to a Whole: Placing Music Education in Singapore

325

By 1992, the primary music syllabus had for its aims “‘developing pupils’ musical skills, music literacy, understanding and creativity through direct experience in singing, moving, reading and notating, instrumental playing, listening, improvising and composing’” alongside the intentions to “provide pupils with the basic knowledge of Singapore’s rich and diverse cultural heritage as a means to nurture pupils’ interest, attitude and sensitivity towards an appreciation and understanding of local ethnic [sic] music” (MOE, 1992, in Stead & Lum, 2014: 244). This MOE document made further elaborations that “pupils need to have the opportunity to create and compose….sing, play, listen and learn to organize and notate the sounds as they hear and from improvising simple answers to questions, both rhythmic and melodic…progress to creating their own little phrases and melody” (MOE, 1992, in Stead & Lum, 2014: 244). MOE was able, in 1998, to furnish supplementary teaching aids such as the “AAMM modules and music textbooks… ‘My Music Book’ which was developed by the Curriculum and Planning Division (CPDD hereafter) with the aim to guide teachers systematically in achieving the objectives set out in the music syllabus” (Stead & Lum, 2014: 244). What emerges from the 1992 primary music syllabus and the 1998 teaching aids therefore is a curiously un/balanced privileging of musical literacies (of a repertoire not stated but Euro-American Art music implied) but providing basic knowledge of ‘local ethnic music’. What would constitute local ethnic music? Musical traditions of an indigenous nature or local/ized practices of an immigrant community? Secondly, how would practices of the local Chinese orchestra, dikir barat, hadrah and kompang, Hindustani and Carnatic traditions—assuming this to be local ethnic music—be provided for as basic knowledge? Or as ‘direct experience in singing, moving, reading and notating, instrumental playing, listening, improvising and composing’ or as ‘basic knowledge’? Or both? The concomitant question would have been whether music teachers were sufficiently equipped and prepared for direct experiential (read musical) engagement with local musical practices as well as the Euro-American folk and art music practices? Moreover, what would have been the function of notation in local Chinese orchestra, dikir barat, hadrah and kompang, Hindustani and Carnatic practices and traditions, communication of notational guides for performance or compliant regurgitation of notation for performance? In Stead and Lum’s reading of the MOE 1992 and 1998 exhortations for primary school music teaching and learning, there seemed to be missing in the curriculum, world music, jazz and popular music which would have invariably relied on aural and oral transmission for their music-making through informal and non-formal strategies with a qualified reliance on different forms of notation—cipher notation, chords and fakebook, to name a few—not based on a system of compliant reading of musical notes from five lines and four spaces. There seems to have been little expressed, of ways of guiding teachers in different and differing approaches to the practices of creating, performing and responding. Ensuring parity in educating primary music school classroom learners from diverse communities and cultural practices seems to have been met with an equalizing discourse derived from Euro-American art music tradition and practice, with little cognizance of expectations of different and differing learning outcomes in and among diverse musical practices, not to mention differing

326

E. I. Dairianathan

and different learning outcomes. Should/n’t there have been an awareness of the reality by the 1990s that learners were more than en/able/d and em/power/ed to author their own/ed musical learnings, on their own terms? Would these developments in the primary music syllabus have resulted in questionings of learning ‘despite the curriculum’, or even more paradoxically, learning ‘despite the intentions of policy’ or even learning ‘despite the teacher’? Perhaps the motivation for the 1992 ‘decided’ declarations in a policy (read publicfunded National) document may have been derived from an evaluation undertaken in 1986 on the efficacy of learning in the face of a methodology called ‘Bentley Measures of Musical Abilities’, where it was found that learners following the AAMM scored better than those who had not followed AAMM. But as Stead and Lum point out, “the Bentley tests examine only what is easily measurable, not what is musical, or arguably important in the primary school music classroom, and they certainly do not address issues of creativity, performing ability, attitude to music, understanding of the structure of music, or any aspect of non-Western styles…they address very few of the stated aims of the AAMM” (Stead & Lum, 2014: 245). Consider therefore the gap between advocacies for the 1992 MOE syllabus document (with AAMM in the main) and challenges posed by Goh Chok Tong, then Singapore’s Prime Minister, in the 1990s for Singapore schools: “..to produce students who are well rounded individuals with artistic and social skills, not just good at examinations. Singapore schools, he said, have done well in teaching basic subjects and should move beyond aiming to produce students who perform well in examinations. The Singapore student should also be socially confident, well-read, interested in art and music, play at least one sport and be interesting as a person” (Goh, Straits Times, 4 June 1990, p.1 in Chong, 1995: 107).

3 Secondary Music Education Given much of what has been discussed in cultivating and nurturing the lives of young learners through the primary music classroom years, one might expect further diverse development into the teenage secondary school years, which bring about different and differing priorities in expectations of these developing learners in and through music. In a commissioned report (1971) on the development of music in the then University of Singapore (NUS today), its authors Frank Callaway and Lucretia Kasilag made known their recommendations: “At all educational levels music should be regarded as an important ingredient in general education as well as a pursuit for those with special musical aptitude and inclination. The musical life of any community will always tend to reflect the status given music by its educational authorities who must recognize that the function of music teaching is to build on the spontaneous response of all young children to music and to provide for its continuous development as a means of expression and source of enjoyment throughout life” (Callaway & Kasilag, 1971: 7, in Stead & Lum, 2014, 245–246).

Paths to a Whole: Placing Music Education in Singapore

327

According to Stead and Lum, the inclusion of music in the secondary school curriculum in 1969 and into the 1970s seemed to garner two outcomes, that of music for its intrinsic value and as a means for promoting social cohesion. The importance of music was seen to serve “‘elevating aesthetic sentiments, cultivating creative ability and instilling social discipline in the development of a well-rounded individual’” (MOE 1979, in Stead & Lum, 2014: 246). Consequently, an “outline of the GMP [General Music Programme] for secondary schools was sent to all schools on 29 December 1969…divided into two stages. Stage 1 was for pupils of Secondary 1 and 2 and Stage 2 for pupils of Secondary 3 and 4” (Stead & Lum, 2014: 246). Objectives in Stage 1 were to provide learners participatory experience through class singing and playing a musical instrument, providing them with rudimentary knowledge to achieve such tasks. Stage 2 was designed to “arouse and develop an interest in music appreciation. The courses of study included a general outline of the history of Western music, a study of the instruments of the orchestra, both Western and Eastern, and form (structure) in music.” (Stead & Lum, 2014: 246). In a review conducted on the GMP secondary school syllabus in 1979, while an overwhelming majority of schools had implemented the first stage, Stage 2 was found to be too ambitious for Secondary 3 and 4 learners since it represented a quantum leap of expectations of learners (and teachers). Again, not surprisingly, Stage 2 was either modified or not delivered. The 1979 syllabus therefore put more emphasis on singing rather than musical literacy and instrumental playing which was part of the 1969 syllabus. General education in the 1980s had more qualitative aims and need “to develop a creative thinking and innovative Singapore society through a broad-based education aimed at the development of the whole person” (Chong, 1995: 101, in Stead & Lum, 2014: 246–247). Given the emphasis on the Kodaly-based AAMM syllabus (rather than the Orff Schulwerk) in primary schools and concomitant innovations from 1982 onwards, a new music syllabus was devised in 1993 (MOE, 1993, in Stead & Lum, 2014: 247): “i. To develop in pupils a perceptive, sensitive appreciation of music; ii. To develop the ability to express ideas and feelings through the medium of sound; iii. To develop practical skills in music-making; iv. To develop the desire to participate in musicmaking for self-expression, satisfaction and enjoyment; v. to develop social skills and discipline through making music together; and, vi. To develop an awareness of the variety of traditions in different cultures and countries” (MOE, 1993: 9, in Stead & Lum, 2014: 247). Five activities were recommended in this revised syllabus: singing, listening, instrumental playing, music reading and writing, creative music-making and a ‘music project’ (Stead & Lum, 2014: 247) which seemed to align with curriculum thinking in music education internationally (Swanwick, 1979, in Stead & Lum, 2014: 247). By the end of the twentieth century, the Music syllabus “had also evolved to include world music in education and creative work. Initiatives to include IT in schools were underway…in the 1990s and the early years of the twenty-first century” (Stead & Lum, 2014: 247). What remained not quite resolved was the shortage of adequately

328

E. I. Dairianathan

trained and qualified teachers for secondary (if not primary as well) schools which “would have to wait until the next decade” (Stead & Lum, 2014: 247). Given that this General Music Programme syllabus, since 1968, has not been an examinable subject and therefore outside the purview of high-stakes assessment (Leong & Tan, 2019: 362 https://books.google.com.sg/books?hl=en&lr=&id= 1R2DDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT9&dq=Leong+and+Tan+and+Music+assess ment+policy&ots=r-cpFwOvJE&sig=WyrSDV5auLU9w5EQaKFRk8hZMLg& redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Leong%20and%20Tan%20and%20Music%20assessm ent%20policy&f=false), a parallel development in developing musical skills for non-specialist music students was the emergence of a stream to accommodate and prepare learners, through scholarships, to pursue the study of music to a level of graduate, even post-graduate, specialism. This initiative was introduced in the early 1980s through a Music Elective Programme (MEP hereafter) in three secondary schools, to offer a dedicated four-year course in music for students (Secondary 1 through 4) culminating with their offering Music as a GCE O-level examination subject under the Cambridge Examination syndicate. Scholarship recipients with Music degrees (or in some cases Master’s degrees) would return, serving their bond, as school music specialists for music specialism classrooms. In so doing, MOE was seen to initiate and implement a programme of “recruiting highly trained and skilled musicians as performers, teachers, or future academics” (Stead & Lum, 2014: 247). The three secondary schools were equipped with the necessary instruments, academic resources, sound reproduction equipment and allocation of two music graduates for each MEP school (Chong, 1995, in Stead & Lum, 2014: 247–248). Selection of students was, reportedly, on the basis of musical aptitude and academic achievement. This, however, was succeeded by an implementation of an ABRSM grade 3 practical examination certification as a prerequisite (Stead & Lum, 2014: 247–248). What was also telling was that these “MEP students were exempted from the [non-specialist] GMP music programme” (Stead & Lum, 2014: 248). Assessment for the MEP programme comprised i. unprepared and prepared analysis of set works chosen from the Western classical tradition; ii. Aural tests; iii. Harmony; iv. General Musical knowledge; and v. a practical test. MEP students also sat for a ‘higher music’ paper for which they had to answer short questions based on listening to four extracts of music, to test students’ aural perception abilities and application of musical skills (Stead & Lum, 2014, 247–248). As Leong and Tan (2019) point out, satisfying the ABRSM prerequisites was somehow justified by the ‘curriculum and assessment requirements’ which assume/d “advanced knowledge and skills in music that are not likely to be addressed in GMP lessons” (2019: 363). A further corollary of such an observation could not have ignored the teaching resource/s that “qualified music teachers, typically with a degree in music, or its equivalent are deployed by the Ministry to teach in schools as part of such a program” (2019: 363). Admittedly, there have been more recent attempts to enhance the GMP programme by offering possibilities for conversion of music learning as an examinable option. Beyond Secondary two, Leong and Tan (2019) make reference to an “examinationbased Normal Technical (NT) music syllabus with an emphasis on music technology

Paths to a Whole: Placing Music Education in Singapore

329

and its applications developed for students bound for vocational studies in postsecondary schools” (Leong & Tan, 2019: 363). While there is little currently available on the historical motivation and initiation of this Music N(T) Level programme, students on the Normal Technical stream in Singapore Secondary schools who wish to offer Music as an alternative examinable option to the O-level/MEP stream are now en/abled to rely on the GMP as infrastructural re/source. While much of the syllabus does take into consideration content and curriculum as espoused in the General Music Programme (assuming the programme is well taught and sustained from Primary One through Secondary Two), and many of the idea/l/s are drawn from the local GMP, it is curious as to why the high-stakes assessable components are still reliant on a Singapore-Cambridge Examination syndicate.

4 Post-secondary Even less historical information seems available at this point in time on a syllabus and curricular document by MOE on post-secondary music teaching and learning. Music, however, appears under the purview of a GCE A-level general curricular structure (https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/pre-university/gce-a-level-curriculum) coexisting with the Humanities and the Arts segment of a visual PIE chart serving concomitant objectives of Co-Curricular (CCA), Character and Citizenship (CCE which includes Education and Career Guidance as well as Cyber Wellness), Physical Education, General Paper, Project work, Knowledge and Inquiry and Values in Action (VIA). Also included in the post-secondary education pathways (Music in this instance) is the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts and the Yong Siew Toh Conservatory of Music (YST-NUS), both of whom have external collaborators NAFA with the Royal College of Music, UK, and YST with the Peabody Institute, John Hopkins University, USA, respectively (Dairianathan, 2019: 22). As Leong and Tan (2019) point out, the pursuit of Music beyond the O-level programme assumes sufficient grounding to “ensure that students are competitively prepared for even higher levels of music studies at post-secondary and tertiary institutes” (2019: 363). However, source/s of information relevant to an understanding of the expectations of meeting higher levels of music studies can be gleaned from details posted on web pages of the national examinations board of MOE, the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board https://www.seab.gov.sg/ (SEAB hereafter). Formed in April 2004, SEAB was t/asked “to develop and conduct national examinations in Singapore….other assessment services and products locally as well as overseas” https://www.seab.gov.sg/home/about-us/what-we-do). Details from the various syllabi, GCE O-level, T N(T), A-level, etc., bear out Leong & Tan’s, 2019) observations of demands of musical skilling highly unlikely to be located in the GMP programme in Singapore. Since the millennium, Stead and Lum observe changes in the music education syllabus with “increasing emphasis on world music in education”, further developments on ICT, Music technology and New Media in education, an N-level syllabus

330

E. I. Dairianathan

for Secondary 3 and 4 students in the Normal Technical stream with “emphasis on popular music and music technology” and a decided preference for the role of music in society more than a curriculum based on historical and theoretical perspectives in a study of Euro-American art music repertoire (Stead & Lum, 2014: 248). There has also been the addition of the International Baccalaureate Examination system and the opportunity for secondary students in Singapore to offer their subjects on an integrated programme leading to the IB qualifications (https://beta.moe.gov.sg/sec ondary/courses/express/integrated-programme/). That the role of music in society had become one key element in the GMP programme was signalled in the MOE 2008 iteration of the General Music Programme which articulated six learning outcomes for engaging in music creating, performing and responding: i. Sing and Play Melodic and Rhythmic Instruments Individually and in Groups; ii. Create and Improvise Music; iii. Describe and Evaluate Music through listening; iv. Develop Understanding of Music Elements/Concepts; v. Discern and understand Music from and of various cultures and genres; and vi. Understand the role of Music in Daily Living (MOE, 2008: 3). The significance of this sixth learning outcome cannot avoid the connection with the opening of the inaugural School of the Arts (https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/his tory/events/a9ed544a-cdfc-4764-889b-18b65b29b15f) in 2008 (plans were already underway as early as 2004 to house SOTA in the city) with a teaching philosophy pertaining to the academic and artistic development of each individual from 13 to 18 (being prepared for the IB curriculum). Therefore, every individual learner could imbibe and immerse himself or herself in a curriculum involving the arts yet be able to pursue other subject options at the tertiary level (https://www.sota.edu.sg/aboutus/about-sota). The National University of Singapore (NUS hereafter) initiated a Bachelor of Music programme in collaboration with the Peabody Institute of the John Hopkins University in the United States (https://www.yourpianolessons.com/blog/ 54-yong-siew-toh-established-a-joint-bachelor-with-peabody-institute-of-us). This was conducted through an originally designated Singapore Conservatory of Music, but later renamed the Yong Siew Toh Conservatory of Music emanating from a S$25 million gift by the Yong Loo Lin Trust to honour the late Yong Siew Toh (https:// www.ystmusic.nus.edu.sg/about-identity/). The Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts has at the present extended their Diploma in Music programmes (originally with the University of Wales, UK, in the millenium), towards a degree in Music with the Royal College of Music (https://www.nafa.edu.sg/ courses/degree/bachelor-of-music-honours/). LASALLE College has currently also a Music degree programme collaboration with Goldsmiths College, London, (originally with Kingston University, UK, in the 1990s) but with a more diverse offering of five specialist areas of practice including Classical Performance, Jazz Performance, Popular Music Performance, Composition and Arranging and Electronic Music (https://www.lasalle.edu.sg/programmes/ba-hons/music). In 2008, the government took a review of Primary Education in Singapore and made the following recommendations:

Paths to a Whole: Placing Music Education in Singapore

331

• Greater emphasis be placed on non-academic programmes within the curriculum in two broad areas of Sports and Outdoor Education, and Performing and Visual Arts. All Primary 3–6 pupils should either continue with PAL and/or opt for a main Co-Curricular Activity (CCA) where they can specialize in a particular area of interest. • MOE enhance the quality of instruction in Physical Education (PE), Art and Music. All schools should have qualified teachers who are optimally deployed to teach these subjects. To ensure that schools are able to put in place good PAL activities, schools should be given funds to engage trained coaches, instructors and service providers approved by MOE. Given the increased demand for instructors among primary schools, MOE should work with the relevant agencies to build up the pool of instructors in the long run. Additional funding should also be provided to schools to invest in equipment for PE, Art, Music and other PAL activities (https://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/en/2009/report-primary-educat ion-review-and-implementation-peri-committee-5141, 2009: 4). Interestingly, the Committee for Secondary Education review (SERI) made only one recommendation in Music a year later for additional “resources for…Enhanced Music Programme (EMP); and more schools to offer Art and Music Elective Programmes” (https://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/sites/planipolis/files/ressources/sin gapore_seri_2010.pdf—2010: 51). The long-held concern of shortage of suitably qualified and trained Music teachers for Singapore schools was directly addressed with the establishment of the Singapore Teachers’ Academy for the aRts (STAR), launched by the Minister for Education, Mr Heng Swee Keat at the Art and Music Education Conference (AMEC) on 27 July 2011 to enhance the professional excellence, practice and growth of art and music teachers to strengthen and raise the quality of art and music education in schools (https://www.mynewsdesk.com/sg/ministry-of-education/pressreleases/lau nch-of-the-singapore-teachers-academy-for-the-arts-665160). Under such auspices, whatever preparation that seem/ed inadequate at the point in time of a teacher in preparation for the Education service in and through Music could now rely on STAR for further professional (and musical) development of aspiring teachers in service. This initiative also offered teachers, who had not been prepared for Music teaching, the opportunity to become Primary School Music teachers through a specially curated full-time Advanced In-service Diploma in Primary Music Teaching programme with the Visual and Performing Arts Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Singapore. It remains to be seen if Secondary specialization routes might be a parallel opportunity but given that many of the Secondary Music School teachers have been both locally and internationally minted Music graduates, there continues to remain an opportunity to develop a similar Advanced Diploma In-service programme that would be accessible, contemporary, local and relevant to the needs of a Secondary school Music teacher. That again is a function of priority: whether such preparation is seen to serve N(T) level Music high-stakes assessment OR O-level/IB level/A-level Music examination preparation. Much of the latter would constitute a continuation

332

E. I. Dairianathan

of the initiative in the 1980s to prepare aspiring students towards a Music specialist degree.

5 GMP: Recent Developments The GMP programme in its current frame (GMP 2015) is still offered to all primary and secondary school-going students in Singapore schools as an in curriulum time programme. The programme …is a key platform upon which every child is provided a basic music education, giving them opportunities to develop a connection to music. This contributes to the future development and preservation of Singapore’s cultural heritage. Music, being an integral part of many cultures, also provides a means to raise global awareness amongst students. The processes involved in music performing and creating develop skills such as listening skills, fine motor skills, creative thinking skills and social skills. Music enables students to express their thoughts and ideas. The aims of the GMP are stated as follows: develop awareness and appreciation of music in local and global cultures; develop ability for creative expression and communication through music, and provide the basis to develop an informed and life-long involvement in music. (MOE, 2015, p.2)

This instance of the GMP recognizes that specialist knowledge in a specified professional career in and through instrumental proficiency may or may not be the aim nor objective of a generalist or aspiring learner in and through Music (or the Arts). Non-professional music-making is more commonly located in music-making in popular culture compared with those involved in Euro-American art music practices, a not-too-dissimilar parallel which may be observed in leisure and competitive marathon running and football. Therefore, the document informs us of the ways these aims are organized around five learning outcomes (MOE, 2015, pp. 3–7): “i. Perform Music in both instrumental and vocal settings, individually and in groups; ii. Create Music in both instrumental and vocal settings, individually and in groups; iii. Listen and Respond to Music; iv. Appreciate Music in local and global cultures; and v. Understand musical elements and concepts” (MOE, 2015, pp. 3–7). What is curiously absent in the 2015 document for Learning Outcomes is the sixth outcome from the 2008 iteration, “understand the role of music in daily living.” This is paradoxical considering how the GMP document not only raises the values attached to participation in and through musical activities but also how these musical learnings serve in character-development and human-citizenship in and among student learners: The music classroom is a natural platform to nurture core values, develop social and emotional competencies…which will better prepare our students to thrive in a fast-changing and highly-connected world….and….represent the skills necessary for children to effectively manage their emotions and relationships, make responsible decisions and handle challenging situations…..different competencies our children need to thrive in the globalised world. Together, these competencies will enable our students to tap into the opportunities of the digital age while staying committed to Singapore. The desired outcomes are attributes for Singaporeans upon completion of their formal education in Singapore. (MOE, 2015, p.9)

Paths to a Whole: Placing Music Education in Singapore

333

The different competencies are identified with competencies in and for the twentyfirst century (21CC) with attendant outcomes for such a learner as articulated in the Ministry’s Desired Outcomes of Education (https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/edu cation-system/desired-outcomes-of-education—accessed 17 July 2018): The person who is schooled in the Singapore Education system has a good sense of selfawareness, a sound moral compass, and the necessary skills and knowledge to take on challenges of the future:

• A confident person who has a strong sense of right and wrong, is adaptable and resilient, knows himself, is discerning in judgement, thinks independently and critically, and communicates effectively. • A self-directed learner who questions, reflects, perseveres and takes responsibility for his own learning. • An active contributor who is able to work effectively in teams, is innovative, exercises initiative, takes calculated risks and strives for excellence. • A concerned citizen who is rooted in Singapore, has a strong sense of civic responsibility, is informed about Singapore and the world, and takes an active part in bettering the lives of others around him. The Ministry of Education has also articulated twenty-first-century competencies (21CC hereafter) (https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/education-system/21stcentury-competencies—accessed 17 July 2018) while the currency of 21CC makes its own connections with a global agenda (http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/ P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf-). That the music classroom is seen as an apposite venue and avenue for collective humanistic purposes has its prior roots in a Primary Education Review and Implementation (PERI) report that sought primarily to “emphasize non-academic subjects” [read as non-high-stakes-examinable subjects], …engaging pedagogy to teach skills and values, strengthen training of teachers in content mastery and in using a repertoire of generic and subject-specific teaching methods, [e]nhance the quality of…Music…instruction through optimal deployment of qualified teachers, [p]rovide schools with funds to engage trained…instructors and service providers approved by MOE to conduct quality…activities, as well as to procure equipment for…Music….activities, and [w]ork closely with the…National Arts Council and other relevant agencies to build up the pool of instructors…in the long run (http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/ sites/planipolis/files/ressources/singapore_peri_2009.pdf—with specific reference made to pp. 10–11 of the Summary of Recommendations).

6 Beyond the In-curriculum Classroom: ECA and CCA Leong and Tan (2019) note the introduction of extracurricular activities (ECA) evolving from its points of origin in 1967, towards co-curricular activities (CCA today). All school-going students were required to participate in out-of-schoolcurriculum-time activities, “to enhance social interaction, character development and leadership and healthy recreation” (Leong & Tan, 2019: 363). Activities associated

334

E. I. Dairianathan

with Music “included band, choir, string ensemble and ethnic [sic] music” (Leong & Tan, 2019: 363). The activities in this programme were and are “led and directed by private music instructors hired by schools, albeit supported by the music teachers in schools” (Leong & Tan, 2019: 363). Accessibility and opportunity for students to participate in such musical ensembles culminated in a biennial Singapore Youth Festival (SYF) the first of which emerged in “July 18, 1967 by (then) President Yusof Ishak…a festival that involved 24 000 students from primary and secondary schools in a 2-week celebration…to showcase both the achievements of initial nation building and the vibrancy of Singaporean youths” (Leong & Tan, 2019: 363). In addition to the in-curriculum time provision for all school learners, further social and emotional competencies are made possible through opportunities in music-making beyond the classroom are available for music ensembles through co-curricular programmes which take place out of curriculum time (https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/pro grammes/co-curricular-activities—accessed 17 July 2018.). The annual competitive performance-based framework is called the Singapore Youth Festival (SYF) with the same underlying aim and objectives and outcomes articulated in 21CC. In respect of private providers of education, the Ministry of Education furnishes the following information and terms of reference: Current regulations require private schools conducting educational courses such as those stated above to be registered with the Ministry of Education (MOE). The state is the principal provider of education at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. In the case of non-formal education, the private sector plays the complementary role of running continuing/supplementary education classes in commercial/business studies, computers, languages, fine arts, tuition, etc. (https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/private-education— Accessed 23 July 2018).

The Ministry of Education has also made provision for external providers in the domain of Art and Music instruction through what is called the AMIS scheme (https://www.moe.gov.sg/careers/teach/how-to-apply/teaching-sch emes/arts-music-instructors-scheme—accessed 23 July 2018) to support cocurricular programmes, namely instrumental coaching and provide enrichment programmes in schools. According to the website, “the role of AMIS instructors is to deliver the teaching and learning of the Art and Music subjects during curriculum hours which is different from the roles of PAL, CCA and Enrichment instructors.” (https://www.moe.gov.sg/coaches-instructors—Accessed 23 July 2018).

7 Curious Question/ing/s Assessment Since the 1980s, examinable methodologies, assessment objectives and outcomes at these Cambridge-based O-level examinations have been geared towards preparing students for “further studies in Western music at A-level, and then Western (i.e., British, Australian or North American) universities” (Stead & Lum, 2014: 248). While the practice continues into the present with the inclusion of selected world

Paths to a Whole: Placing Music Education in Singapore

335

music exemplars and very recently, jazz and popular music, much of the assessment methodologies and tasks seem to be transposed from the Euro-American Art Music traditions and practices. Even where popular music and jazz are present/ed as a keyword in the Singapore Cambridge O-level Music Examination syllabus (https://www.seab.gov.sg/docs/default-source/national-examinations/ syllabus/olevel/2020syllabus/6085_y20_sy.pdf), assessment of either popular music or jazz as musical practices seems cast in three columns, knowledge outcomes, skills outcomes and musical elements and concepts (pp. 4–5). The question here is whether such modes of knowledge acquisition are sufficiently authentic to be commensurate with student learning of performing practice as creating and skillset acquisition. What is clear in the document is that in the encounters with jazz and popular music, there is a premium and it is currency placed on knowledge and skills outcomes together with the acquisition of musical elements and concepts. What seems less clear in the syllabus document is how learners creating, performing and responding through academic discourse are authentically assessed in terms of their practical intuitive knowledge of jazz or popular music. Even in the performing component, the indications are for two contrasting works where a solo/ensemble recital includes ‘quality of improvisation’ as an assessable component (p. 20); there are still aspects of performance modes which seem more reliant on EuroAmerican art music tradition and practice. For instance, in the final page of the Music Examination syllabus document (p. 28), while there is specific mention of orchestral instruments and solo instruments and even a minimum number of three in an ensemble, little is indicated as to the breadth and scope for a soloist performing in tandem with instruments from varying practices, such as a double-bass, electric bass, drum-kit and saxophone, to mention a few. While there is space to accommodate different and differing musical instruments and instrumentation in the assessment guidelines, there seems to be much less clarity on how a soloist’s role in a jazz ensemble is evaluated in a high-stakes assessable performance component when in live/d reality, a soloist’s efficacy and effectiveness is as much a revelation of symbiotic and dynamic relationships with the ensemble as a whole. A cursory observation of the assessment descriptors reveals a stark contrast between a five-line descriptor for performing ‘Euro-American Art Music covers’ and barely two-liner descriptor in ensemble and accompanying assessable components where one evaluates “a well-structured and consistent quality of improvisation showing a good level of musical inventiveness” ((https://www.seab.gov.sg/docs/default-source/nationalexaminations/syllabus/olevel/2020syllabus/6085_y20_sy.pdf), 6085 MUSIC GCE ORDINARY LEVEL SYLLABUS 2020, pp 23 and 25). A common theme seems to have emerged in relation to musical proclivity, vis-àvis tangible outcomes. First, Leong and Tan note that since the 1980s “assessment policies of these examination-based music curricula, contrary to the GMP, have been highly prescriptive in accordance, standards, and practices set on collaboratively by the University of Cambridge Examinations Syndicate (UCLES) and the Singapore Examination and Assessment Board (SEAB)” (Leong & Tan, 2019: 362, emphasis mine), including even the Music N(T) level syllabus, which has been seen as graduated from the GMP. If the GMP has been the only feed/er for the Music N (T)

336

E. I. Dairianathan

syllabus, where will the prior preparation for learners in a public-funded Education system in Singapore have come from or through for them to meet the demands of the MEP programme for high/er stakes assessment? Leong and Tan (2019) echo observations by Stead and Lum (2014) of selection of students—initially through musical aptitude and academic achievement—being replaced by an implementation of an ABRSM grade 3 practical examination certification as a prerequisite (Stead & Lum, 2014: 247–248). Moreover, these “MEP students were exempted from the [non-specialist] GMP music programme” (Stead & Lum, 2014: 248). If the school was not the a/venue for specialist music learnings, where and how were Primary school learners en/abled towards achieving the necessary prerequisites? This raises the spectre of infrastructural support that Shengli Zhan’s (2014) studies which while focusing on a study in Taiwan with non-Arts subjects are nonetheless relevant to the current discussion. Zhan identifies three possible positions of private tutoring: supplementary, complementary and/or competitive with mainstream schooling. How do these three positions bear out in an/y understanding of teaching and learning of music here in Singapore? The GMP syllabus is part of a public-funded educational endeavour to offer all school-going learners in Singapore schools equal access and opportunity to creating, performing and responding to the diverse worldwide musical practices, including local music. The skills and skillsets which act as a prerequisite for high-stakes assessment and curricula seem not to be located in in-curriculum time in Singapore schools. Leong and Tan make the observation, as do Stead and Lum (2014: 247), that “the MOE has recommended that a student must satisfy the prerequisites of passing external private music examinations, such as the….(ABRSM) or its equivalent before being admitted to these examination-based music elective programs” (Leong & Tan, 2019: 363). Should/n’t there be a question as to why an examination syndicate like ABRSM—among other equivalent systems—has currency as a prerequisite for a public-funded high-stakes assessment programme like MEP, Olevel, A-level, etc., especially if the common pool of learners in Singapore schools will need to seek out-of-curriculum private tutoring for these prerequisite skills? Secondly, and especially in the Singapore context where Asian Music, what happens to the eligibility of the same common pool of learners who might aspire to offer Music as a high-stakes examination subject, but who do not possess ABRSM (or equivalent) qualifications but have had instrumental skills developed across other domains, such as Chinese traditional, Malay and Indian classical traditions and practices or even wind ensemble, choir, popular music and jazz, beatboxing, turntabling to name but a few? Shengli Zhan’s three positions supplementary, complementary and competitive seem to be instructive keywords in relation to public-funded Music education in Singapore. That individual instrumental skill acquisition is not the purview or objective of a GMP programme no longer lends a competitive edge to those who can and those who can’t acquire such skills, although it does become germane to subject selection in the secondary through tertiary phase of these learners. It would be difficult to avoid the complementariness of privately tutored instrumental skill acquisition which could only enhance and enrich a general classroom experience if the

Paths to a Whole: Placing Music Education in Singapore

337

skills acquired are accessible and relevant to the general classroom experience. That which is supplementary works equally well with the complementary, since privately tutored instrumental skill acquisition is not available (or affordable on all counts) to all learners in a generalist music classroom setting. However, what stands out in these settings is that privately tutored instrumental skill acquisition feeds into a predilection for high-stakes assessment which is precisely what the MEP, O-level, A-level and IB structures hold in prominence, especially since certain skillsets like the ability to perform on an instrument are valorized in these high-stakes assessment situations, even into tertiary-level studies and into a professional endeavour. It is instructive that Leong and Tan (2019: 363) note how “a means to showcase both the achievements of the initial nation-building and the vibrancy of Singaporean youths” in 1967 evolved into an “‘examination syndrome’” which “crept into the psyche…as early as the 1970s” whose “results can have high-stakes consequences for students, teachers, and schools” (Leong & Tan, 2019: 363–364). One cannot avoid an uncomfortable juxtaposition of commonality of predilection of assessment anxiety and with it an/y ingrained disposition of highstakes assessment as an achievement with the concomitant discursive practices that seem to intersect with such dispositions. Here is where habit and habitat become seamless, and it would be difficult to easily locate sources of this discomfort. Into the twenty-first century and beyond, what are the consequences of these established high-stakes predilections for lifelong, life-wide, life-deep and life-wise engagement for individuals, first as a musically enabled creator or performer or reader (audience), and second, as human beings engaged in Music as a/vocation?

8 Accessibility What emerges through Chong (1995) and Stead and Lum (2014), on the initiation and implementation of music through a curricular programme in Singapore schools, is the relative lack of mention of the nature, historical significance and role of music repertoire in classroom teaching not only for a diverse community of learners but also diverse community-base/d schooling structures in the early years of the education system in Singapore prior to a national based school system. Chong (1995, in Stead & Lum, 2014: 237) informs us that in the early years of a music-curricular development in Singapore schools, [Anglo- and Euro-centric] religious-mission schools relied on prayers, hymns and religious songs as part of their own/ed religious curricula. However, the choice and curation of musical repertoire in schools based on religious affiliation may have had differing objectives for differing outcomes. For instance, St. Margaret’s School, reportedly the first among the only girls school in Singapore from the nineteenth century (https://stm argaretssec.moe.edu.sg/about-us/our-history), arguably provided for (and protected) young girls in precarious circumstances, and prepared a curriculum which included household skills besides literacy and numeracy. Might we have had more detail on the curation of musical repertoire and curricula that might have supported music

338

E. I. Dairianathan

teaching and learning in such a context? What then do we know of a/ny music curriculum in the Buddhist mission Maha Bodhi School (https://www.mahabodhi. moe.edu.sg/about-mbs/history/) or of the place of Music in religious and spiritual settings in the development of their learners? We are also informed of the establishment of the first madrasah in Singapore, Madrasah As-Sibyan, in 1905 on Bussorah Street in Kampong Glam (https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/ SIP_1661_2010-04-07.html?s=Education) which included both aspects of religious and secular education for its learners. Do we know if songs were relied upon and were they wholly of a religious nature or did they include secular songs and musical instruments? While acknowledging the nicheness of Malay- and Tamil-medium schools largely due to the ‘medium-of-instruction’ modus operandi of schooling for each particular ethnolinguistic community, Gopinathan (2017: 65) points out that difference rather than similarity made for inequitable access and opportunity to higher education and employability. His second observation was that education as a system “was much more diversified and decentralized…with a wider variety of schools, school-types and sponsors” (Gopinathan, 2017: 66). This provides the context that Chong (1995) observed, as to the use of hymns, prayers and religious songs as part of the curriculum in Christian denomination-led schools, while there were English-medium schools run by the government. Gopinathan also pointed out that “Chinese schools had a range of sponsors—some government aided, others run by clan associations, yet others by philantrophists” (Gopinathan, 2017: 66). “The indigenous education institutions, like madrasahs, catered to specific religious communities” (Gopinathan, 2017: 66). Sa’eda binte Buang’s doctoral dissertation on the Madrasah in Singapore reveals that madrasah students are very much connected to the contemporaneity of events and media (Buang 2009; 272). For instance, two keywords, music and songs, as part of the majority of madrasah students are connected to national and popular mass media and are familiar with Malay, English and Chinese programmes (Buang 2009; 273. This is further explained in footnote 31, p.348 where madrasah students consume Drama serials and American Idol, are avid listeners of English and Malay programmes, from religious ‘syarahan’ to pop music charts). She also notes how religious and academic teachers were seen to rely on, among other aspects, “songs (English language and Islamic Social Studies)” (Buang 2009: 304). The essential point here is that students in a madrasah in the present are sufficiently aware of musical developments that a GMP programme would be most ideally placed. While it is not in my intention to advocate an introduction of a GMP in madrasahs, there is sufficient evidence in Buang’s dissertation to suggest sufficient awareness among madrasah students to contemporary life and media at inter/national levels. Might there be access and opportunity to accommodate madrasah students should they opt to transfer to mainstream secondary schools or even desire to participate in offering Music at N(T) or O-level? The critical question would be the extent to which music teachers in such situations might be willing and able to assess student proclivity—despite the lack of ABRSM—towards including madrasah students.

Paths to a Whole: Placing Music Education in Singapore

339

9 Music, Culture and School/ing 1959 marked the year of full internal self-government which let emerge a new Ministry of Culture: “The Ministry was to channel popular thinking and feeling along national lines and to reorganise the Information Services and the administration of mass media for the dissemination of information. It was required “to develop and nurture a common Malayan culture [sic], to create a sense of national identity, to win the minds of people for the Democratic ideal and to keep the people informed of the broad aims and objectives of the Government.” (https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/govern ment_records/agency-details/17—accessed 3 October 2020). This ministry, while generally concerned with cultural developments, also acted as licensing authority for public exhibitions of films, printing presses, publications and newspapers. This Ministry of Culture was dissolved in 1985: When the Ministry of Community Development (MCD) was established on 2 Jan 1985, it took over most of the functions of the former Ministry of Culture. The Information Division of the Ministry of Culture came under the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI)also on 2 Jan 1985. The Information Division of the MCI and the Culture Affairs Division of MCD, with other associated departments and statutory boards, returned to form the Ministry of Information and the Arts (MITA)on 28 November 1990. On 23 November 2001, the Infocomm Technology (ICT) function (under then Ministry of Communications and Information Technology) came under MITA. The expanded Ministry was renamed Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, but retained the acronym MITA. The Ministry’s acronym is changed from MITA to MICA in 2004. The Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) was renamed Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) on 1 November 2012. A new ministry—the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth [MCCY] was established on 1 November 2012 to focus on building a cohesive and vibrant society, and deepening the sense of identity and belonging to the nation. MCCY also assumed MICA’s arts, heritage and national resilience functions. (https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/government_records/agency-detail s/17—accessed 3 October 2020).

Why should this component have made a/ny impact on a school-going population? The Ministry of Community, Culture and Youth (MCCY) network works with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) vis-à-vis more equitable employment ambience and support in their self-employed status. [This was in view of their observation resulting from an] …Arts and Culture Employment Survey 2016, approximately 47% respondents work primarily on a freelance basis. We recognise that more can be done to enhance sector-wide support for arts and culture freelancers so that they can focus on honing their talent and practice, to sustain a meaningful career” (https://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/parliament-questions-and-replies/2016/0229written-answer-by-mr-lim-swee-say-pq-on-freelancers-and-self-employed-workers).

MCCY’s identity, nature and role are drawn from previous initiatives to recognize the Arts as part of Singapore’s cultural ballast. In a publication by the National Arts Council, the Arts Development Plan which traces a brief history of the Arts in the lives of Singaporeans from 1965 onwards:

340

E. I. Dairianathan

Grassroots bodies organised numerous activities to showcase the cultures of different ethnic groups. Songs by Singapore composers were promoted to help inculcate “Singaporean values” and develop a sense of national identity. A National Theatre Company comprising the Singapore National Orchestra, Chinese Orchestra, Choir and Dance Company was established….in the 1970s and 1980s, attention turned to nurturing the fine arts and an arts community. The Singapore Festival of Arts was launched; the Singapore Symphony Orchestra was formed; and the Cultural Medallion was instituted to recognise artistic achievements….The economic recession in 1985-86 was a timely warning for Singapore to diversify its growth engines. The Advisory Council on Culture and the Arts (ACCA) was formed to study the role that the arts could play in a maturing nation. In 1989, the seminal Report of the Advisory Council on Culture and the Arts highlighted the indispensable contribution of the arts to the quality of life, a gracious society and economic development. The report recommended that greater investments be made in infrastructure such as arts centres and performing venues. It also called for a dedicated agency to be set up to promote the arts. In 1991, the National Arts Council (NAC) was formed. Key national festivals such as the Singapore Writers Festival and the Singapore Arts Festival were launched. An arts education programme was also initiated to cultivate an interest in the arts from the community at large. (https://www.nac.gov. sg/dam/jcr:18cf2883-7907-4938-9931-384333e210ce).

It will not be surprising that an overwhelming proportion of the 47% of the respondents in the Arts and Culture Employment Survey 2016 working primarily on a freelance basis would likely have been vendoring their specialist skillset services in the Co-Curricular Activities that schools have had. It might also be worth considering how many of these vendors in a MOE-based population contributing to the Singapore Youth Festival have actually had validation of their musical skills in and through the very school system they were an inevitable part of and participation in. Could the MOE policies in their broadest outreach have conceived graduating school-going students considering Arts activities as economic a/venue? If so, what is the relationship between MOE policy for school-learners and the employment market, not as salaried participants but as gig-economy participants in a post-COVID-19 situation? Given that these ‘vendors’ competing to act as ensemble directors in primary and secondary schools are being paid for their assignment by preparing school ensembles for the National SYF competitions, what is the relationship between in-curriculum school-going provision for musical learnings and specialist learnings (Band, Choir, Angklung, Gamelan, Chinese Orchestra, String Orchestra, Gamelan, etc.) which seem not to be taking place in in-curriculum school time? Are MOE policy directions and initiatives accessible, assessable, contemporary, relatable and relevant to what is clearly now an MCCY concern (employability and employment) as an outcome of a school-going and school-leaving journey—outcomes-based teaching and learning? Or are current policies primarily concerned with school-leavers as potential education officers and school leadership roles within the employ/ability schema in MOE? An interesting dilemma emerged in 2019 when then Education Minister Ong Ye Kung mooted the inclusion of Jazz in the 2020 O-level examination curriculum (https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/jazz-popularmusic-and-music-in-multimedia-added-to-o-level-syllabus). Consider that almost all MOE scholarship recipients have pursued their initial and graduate degrees in

Paths to a Whole: Placing Music Education in Singapore

341

sub/disciplines primarily in the Euro-American Art music. Where will the critical mass for teacher-resources come from to prepare O-level candidates for their examinations? Might there be a case for vendors participating in this instance? Leong and Tan (2019) raise four overarching questions which challenge the historical frame of reference and challenge policy because of changing classroom practices and economic circumstances: 1. 2. 3. 4.

What knowledge is assessed and deemed as achievement and learning? Is the range of knowledge well reflected in definitions of appropriate achievement and learning? Are the form, content and mode of assessment appropriate for different groups and individuals? and How does specific cultural knowledge mediate individuals’ responses to assessment in ways that need to customize how certain knowledge and skills are assessed within a local context? (Leong & Tan, 2019: 361)

The paragraph from Stead and Lum (2014; 249) is now even more prescient, given the nature, identity and function of music in the live/d realities of an/y individual learner in and through public-funded music education. If Music’s importance p/resides in the development of an education system appropriate for the needs of the twenty-first century, public-funded policy and practice in music and education need to bear relevance for a/ny learner’s desired narratives, from a career through to gaining life-enhancing benefits through their involvement in musical activities.

References Blacking, J., & Nettl, B. (1995). Music, culture, and experience: Selected papers of John Blacking. University of Chicago Press. Chong, S. N. Y. (1991). General music education in the primary schools in Singapore, 1959–1990, EdD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Campaign. Chong S. N. Y. (1995). Singapore. In L. Lepherd (Ed.), Music education in international perspective: National systems. University of Southern Queensland Press, in association with Faculty of Arts, University of Southern Queensland, Australia, (pp. 99–108). Dairianathan, E. (2019). Arts policy, practice and education: Questions of use/r values. In: P. CostesOnishi (Ed.), Artistic thinking in the Schools. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-899 3-1_2 Gopinathan, S. (2017) Modernising madrasah education; the Singapore ‘national’and the global. In M. A. Bakar (Ed.), Rethinking madrasah education in a globalised world. (pp. 65–75). Routledge. Lehmann, A. C. (1997). The acquisition of expertise in music: Efficiency of deliberate practice as a moderating variable in accounting for sub-expert performance. Perception and cognition of music, 161–187. Leong, W. S., & Tan, J. (2019). Policy and practice of assessment in music education: The case of Singapore. In T. S. Brophy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of assessment policy and practice in music education, Volume 1. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190248093.013.16 Ministry of Education. (2018). Singapore, Desired Outcomes of Education. https://www.moe.gov. sg/education/education-system/desired-outcomes-of-education. Accessed 17 July 2018.

342

E. I. Dairianathan

Phan, M. Y. (2004). Music in empire: Western music in 19th century Singapore through a study of selected texts. MA Dissertation, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Sa’eda binte Buang. (2009). The Evolution of Madrasah School System in Singapore: With Special Emphasis on Its Curriculum Development (Doctoral dissertation, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University). Stead, E. P., & Lum, C. H. (2014). The development of the general music programme in primary and secondary schools. In J. Zubillaga-Pow & H. C. Kong (Eds.), Singapore soundscape: Musical renaissance of a global city (pp. 235–250). Tan, S. L. (1980). How to make a child really enjoy music. The Straits Times, 18 April 1980, 3. Zhan, S. (2014). The private tutoring industry in Taiwan: Government policies and their implementation. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(4), 492–504.

The Coherence Between Policy Initiatives and Physical Education Developments in Nation-Building Steven Kwang San Tan, Shern Meng Tan, Connie Huat Neo Yeo, and Liang Han Wong

Abstract This chapter examines the changing socio-cultural and political salience of physical education since independence in Singapore’s schools. A brief history of physical education with developmental changes based on policy orientations across key educational milestones will be presented. Specifically, the chapter will describe significant impetus and policy synergies relevant to the direction and progress of physical education with emphasis on individual’s holistic development, drive towards thinking citizens and lifelong learners, strive for community partnership and collaboration, and enhancement of teachers’ transformative pedagogies. Keywords Physical education · Educational policies Singapore’s education system aims to help our students discover and make the best of their own talents, to help them realise their full potential, and develop a passion for lifelong learning. We seek to nurture the whole child, and help them develop an enduring core of competencies, values and character, to ensure that they have the capabilities and dispositions to thrive in the twenty-first century. ... we also cater to their educational needs in physical, aesthetic, moral, social and emotional aspects and develop them holistically. Besides the academic curriculum, our students can develop their interest and talent in music, arts and sports through co-curricular programmes and outdoor education. These activities also give them opportunities to hone their leadership skills as well as social and emotional competencies. –Ministry of Education, 2020

1 Introduction The history of Singapore’s physical education (PE) has always been closely intertwined with the cultural and sporting heritage of the early European and Asian S. K. S. Tan (B) · S. M. Tan National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] C. H. N. Yeo · L. H. Wong Ministry of Education, Singapore, Singapore © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_19

343

344

S. K. S. Tan et al.

immigrants. To better understand the foundation of school-based PE in Singapore, it will be imperative to have a broad understanding of the origin and development of PE classes offered in schools from late 1700s to the mid-1800s. Specifically, schoolbased PE in modern history, also sometimes referred to as physical training or gym, was influenced primarily by the ideas and initiatives of a few influential European individuals. The prominent German Johann Friedrich Simon, credited as the first modern teacher of PE, taught in Johann Basedow’s experimental school (called the Philanthropinum). The school was instrumental in recognising the significance of physical activities to the child, and helped influentially to spread PE throughout Europe. As part of the daily, 3-h PE programme, the boys were introduced to Greek Gymnastics (i.e., wrestling, throwing, jumping, and running), and received sport instruction and engaged in recreation activities like swimming, fencing dancing, and horseback riding. Another prominent proponent of the ‘new’ PE as a school subject was German educator Johann Christoph Friedrich GutsMuths, generally recognised as the ‘Grandfather of PE.’ GutsMuths taught PE at the Schnepfenthal Educational Institute, where he introduced systematic, outdoor gymnastics and exercises, with specific curricular components focusing on the use of apparatus (e.g., rope ladders, horizontal bar, and wooden horse) that incorporated climbing, jumping vaulting, and tumbling (Cazers & Miller, 2000; Freeman, 2013; Lumpkin, 2016; Wuest & Fisette, 2015). Subsequently, a Prussian doctor and educator, Friedrich Ludwig Jahn (considered as the ‘Father of Gymnastics’) was recognised for his role in popularising PE. Influenced greatly by the work of GutsMuths, Jahn thereafter established a gymnastics school and developed the first outdoor (open-air) gymnastics arena (called the Turnplatz). His system of gymnastics promoted the use of physical training and exercises (similarly, using heavy apparatus like climbing ropes and poles, balance beam, parallel bars, pommel horse, and horizontal bar), and traditional games (e.g., running, wrestling, climbing, lifting, and jumping) among the youths of Germany, from all social classes as preparation for military discipline and boosting nationalistic values. These popular, specific set of gymnastic activities and exercises within PE formed the cornerstone for developing physical strength, and functions in strengthening character and national identity for future citizens (Horlacher, 2017; Pfister, 2003). Interestingly, a Swedish physical educator, Pehr Henrik Ling, working independently at about the same time as GutsMuths, not only pioneered the teaching of PE using a system of gymnastics, based on simple, prescribed movement patterns and free exercises for improving medical benefits in individuals but also, more importantly, developed Calisthenics that was regarded helpful to promote better health and advance one’s physical conditioning in many situations. Calisthenics, which consists of large muscle group movements, is performed rhythmically with no equipment, and relies mostly on the use of one’s body weight as resistance (e.g., jumping jacks, pushups, burpees, sit-ups, and running in place). Schools across many parts of Europe and the world were quick to adopt this form of synchronised physical training and thus,

The Coherence Between Policy Initiatives and Physical Education …

345

Calisthenics became popular in facilitating general fitness such as aerobic conditioning, strength, balance, coordination, and flexibility among the schoolchildren (Ling, 1853; Melnick, 2015). Besides these individuals, the social context of Great Britain in the mid-nineteenth century enabled key progress on the development of PE in schools. In particular, organised games and athletic sports as an important feature of life in British culture was recognised as critical in the moral development and character-building process for young men, particularly for cultivating discipline, selflessness, and teamwork. The ideological orientations of muscular Christianity and athleticism propose that sport could inculcate and strengthen moral values and virtues towards character development and help ensure that engaging in physical activities becomes an essential part of the physical culture in the school’s curriculum. Therefore, by the early twentieth century, many public schools around the world had started to develop PE curricula around elements of gymnastics, Calisthenics, physical training and exercises, and organised sports (Horton, 2013; Wuest & Fisette, 2015). Even though the aforementioned individuals and the English socio-cultural sporting landscape made immense contributions to the PE curriculum, one man, more than any other, had left a lasting legacy on both the development and institutionalisation of PE as an integral part of compulsory school life. Adolph Spiess was regarded as one of the ‘founders’ of PE as a compulsory and distinct subject in the school curriculum. First, he argued that PE should not be an optional part of the curriculum, but be considered equally as a legitimate school subject alongside other academic subjects like Languages and mathematics. Spiess was determined to promote the idea of education of the ‘whole body’ through PE, treating the body and mind as a unified whole (Wuest & Fisette, 2015). Second, Spiess refined much of the earlier German gymnastic exercises, and devised a gymnastics system of ‘Free Exercises’ that require no apparatus use, thereby easing female students’ participation in the activities that benefited them greatly because these free exercises required less strength to perform. The free exercise for the younger children included different ways of moving to rhythm and songs (e.g., marching, running, hopping, and jumping), balancing, climbing, marching, and games, while for the older boys, it was oriented towards ‘military drills,’ while girls focused on activities that developed body control and graceful movements. Third, the systematic introduction of structured PE for different grades meant that ‘gym’ teachers needed to be adequately prepared in PE, thus mooting the ides for qualified specialists instructing the PE classes. Furthermore, he emphasised the need for PE to have dedicated facilities and spaces like playgrounds (Freeman, 2013; Horlacher, 2017). Many of Spiess’s ideas surrounding the organisation and teaching of PE are still relevant and practiced today in many school systems. Unfortunately, over the years due to different political, social, and cultural influences, countries had downplayed the importance of PE for their young children and youths. Numerous scholars (see Fry & McNeil, 2011; McNeill & Fry, 2010; McNeill et al., 2009; Tan, 2005; Tan & Tan, 2001) had highlighted the status and focus of Singapore PE against international comparisons, primarily describing the many constraints and shortcomings. It is not the intention of this chapter to scrutinise PE in Singapore in

346

S. K. S. Tan et al.

light of these perennial issues and challenges per se. More importantly, this chapter seeks to present significant policy shifts and how historical orientations had shaped PE developments and national progress positively over the past 5 decades or more. The relevant sections will be represented within the perspectives of three strategic phases of Singapore’s nation-building, economic growth, and educational developments, as outlined by Goh and Gopinathan (2008): (a) survival (1965–1878), (b) efficiency-driven (1978–1997), and (c) ability-driven (1997–2010). Another section, covering the period from 2010 and beyond, has been included to examine the possibilities for PE in the next decade, in anticipation of global trends and developments.

2 1965–1978: Physical Education and the Whole Child Prior to political independence in 1965, and due to the legacy of colonial rule, Singapore had a pluralistic society with unequal school systems emphasising divisions rather than uniformity. Except for the government schools where there was oversight in the overall development of PE, the management of PE was generally quite laissez faire. The different English medium and other vernacular schools (i.e., schools where students were instructed in the Malay, Chinese, or Tamil languages) implemented a disparate array of PE programmes and activities. As such, formal PE in schools were generally not uniform, where different schools left it to the schools’ administrators to determine their own curriculum. Even though there were a syllabus and lesson plans available for use in 1933, there was no compulsion for the vernacular schools to utilise them, resulting in uneven implementation. Furthermore, many schools faced the problems of insufficient trained teachers to teach PE properly, inadequate or unsatisfactory spaces and rooms to support the games and sports, and indoor exercise, and scarcity of appropriate equipment for carrying out specific lessons and activities, to make implementation worth the while (Wee, 2010a). However, all these changed in 1965 when Singapore separated from the Federation of Malaysia and became a sovereign, small city-state, thus ushering in winds of change during this survival phase of nation-building. In the process, the People’s Action Party (PAP) government sought to metamorphosise the old Singapore that was reliant on entrepot activities, into a new, forward-looking, and self-reliant nation, based on a successful industrialised economic strategy. As Singapore was an impoverished country with limited natural resources, plagued with mostly illiterate or lowly educated workforce, and coupled with a diverse, disunited, multiracial populace, the new education thrust had to focus on addressing these challenges. In order to achieve this goal speedily, Singapore needed to upskill its human capital, resulting in the introduction and implementation of coherent educational policies (Chia, 2011; Goh & Gopinathan, 2008). As stated by the Minister of Education, Ong Pang Boon (MOE, 1966):

The Coherence Between Policy Initiatives and Physical Education …

347

Our young Republic faces a number of problems, one of which is our long-term survival as an independent nation. . . . Our country needs people who are physically robust and mentally alert, people who are well disciplined collectively as well as individually. (p. 25)

For this reason, the one major education policy enacted during this period by the PAP government was the implementation of a unified national education system with standardised curricula and syllabuses. Critical to the nation-building effort, a national curriculum for PE was envisioned and became the key agenda structured for creating a robust nation (Fry & McNeil, 2011; Chia, 2011; Wee, 2010b). In a 1966 address to school principals talking about the education system and ideal school, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew further implied the importance in developing the whole child: What is the ideal product? The ideal product is the student, the university graduate, who is strong, robust, rugged, with tremendous qualities of stamina, endurance and at the same time, with great intellectual discipline and, most important of all, humility and love for his community; a readiness to serve whether God or king or country or, if you like, just his community. (Lee, 1966, p. 11)

It is important to note that besides the desire for cognitive development, the other attributes of the physical and psychosocial domains were also considered as important educational outcomes. Consistently, during the early years, the equal focus of the physicality has been stressed repeatedly by the government on numerous occasions. At a school’s anniversary celebration in 1966, Ong Pang Boon (cited in Ministry of Education, 1966, p. 3) commented, “... our educational policy must lay equal emphasis on moral values, civic consciousness, intellectual development and physical prowess.” In another speech, he articulated, “Activities which promote physical vigour and foster discipline, initiative and teamwork are just as important as academic pursuits. It is with this view that our school curricula are being reappraised” (Ong, 1966, p. 2). In adopting a holistic ‘education for the whole child’ philosophical orientation in curriculum design from day one, the nation’s education legacy ensured the emergence of PE, as a school subject in the national system, be given prominence. It was clearly articulated that PE, and sports extra-curricular activities can “help to cultivate qualities of character, discipline and leadership... and promote their physical development” (MOE, 1966, p. 14). From the socio-cultural perspective, PE had also been recognised aptly as an important avenue for fostering social cohesion among different ethnic groups in schools. Every effort had been made with mass physical training and activities (e.g., like Calisthenics, free exercises) and organised sports to enhance multi-racial integration and to break down language barriers (Kunalan et al., 2009; Wee, 2010a). To this end, PE’s focus on physical development and growth and social interactions was generally promoted as a suitable medium for unifying and reinforcing national identify.

348

S. K. S. Tan et al.

3 1978–1997: Physical Education for Fitness Development In the 1980s, Singapore’s economy started to prosper, and the focus of Singapore’s education system shifted from quantity to quality. The primary objective was to reduce education wastage and to increase the education system efficiency. One critical social public enterprise, which had subsequent impact on PE, was the introduction of the National Physical Fitness Award (NAPFA) scheme, as part of the Singapore’s Sport for Life Programme, to Singaporeans in 1982 (Tan, 1982). The government wanted to provide more opportunities for every citizen to develop their physical fitness and health. It was deemed essential that Singaporeans be fit to lead a healthy life without disability, so as to be more productive at work. It was reasoned that adequate physical fitness would enhance the effectiveness of individuals, particularly in important areas like security and defence. To help adults achieve their desire to keep fit, which required a committed process of self-discipline and regular monitoring, the government needed to encourage them with appropriate levels of support and incentive (Goh, 1994). In a similar vein, in order to encourage children and adolescents to attain allround physical development during their schooling years, a standardised measure of students’ health- and performance-related fitness was also necessary as part of their PE school experiences. In 1982, the MOE implemented the NAPFA test at the secondary and pre-university levels, and subsequently in 1992 for the primary schools. Participation in the yearly NAPFA test was mandatory for all students (except those with medical conditions) from Primary Four onwards. However, failing to achieve a passing grade did not carry any academic consequences for the students (MOE, 2014). The NAPFA score provided schools with an important fitness index, with additional information regarding the percentage of overweight students. This was important because these data provided a useful indicator of fitness level and childhood obesity rates of the student population. Besides being a comprehensive indicator of the students’ overall fitness and obesity levels, the NAPFA was also used for consideration of the MOE’s Trim and Fit (TAF) Award starting in 1993. The TAF programme’s aims were to • improve students’ physical fitness levels with innovative strategies to reduce obesity; • encourage students to maintain their physical fitness with incentives. To successfully implement both the NAPFA and TAF programmes, schools had to implement the PE programme in a more challenging, achievable, enjoyable, and fun way to encourage the different ability groups to acquire habits of regular participation in physical activity and exercise. PE teachers were instrumental in designing and implementing varied physical education sessions that included brisk walking, circuit training, stair-stepping, skipping, aerobics, modified sports and games, weight and resistance training, and swimming (Chia, 1998; Lee, 2003).

The Coherence Between Policy Initiatives and Physical Education …

349

The TAF scheme, in conjunction with the National Healthy Lifestyle Campaign, sought to improve students’ fitness level and reduce obesity rates among the student population. This TAF programme adopted a multidisciplinary approach, working with school PE teachers, parents, students, including the school environment, and had been rather successful in reducing the prevalence of obesity among primary and secondary school students (Cheong et al., 2002). One of the most unique feature of the NAPFA implementation was the incentive offered to male youths, primarily in pre-university education, who were able to maintain a basic standard of physical fitness. These individuals, who had scored a minimum of a silver grade in the school’s NAPFA test, were only required to complete 9 weeks of their Basic Military Training (BMT) in their National Service, as compared to the usual 17 weeks, if the silver grade was not attained. This is indeed a very attractive incentive for the male students, as it effectively rewards these ‘fit’ individuals without requiring them to complete the additional eight-week Physical training Phase prior to their nine-week BMT. Overall, during this education-for-efficiency phase, this social and educational policy provided the necessary impetus for schools, PE teachers, and parents to pay attention to students’ regular participation in physical activity and exercise, develop their overall fitness, and help reduce obesity-related disease among Singaporeans for the long term.

4 1997–2010: Physical Education for Critical Thinking and Collaborative Learning Moving into the Second Millennium, Singapore was greatly challenged to brace its people for an uncertain future, where intense globalisation and technological advances were key drivers. It was clear for Singapore to survive and prosper in this new economic environment; the intellectual capital of its people must become the basis of Singapore’s competitive edge. Therefore, the impetus to educate students for the twenty-first century began in 1997 with the introduction of the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation (TSLN) vision. The TSLN concept emphasised the developing of thinking skills, and the accompanying mindset of continual learning (Goh, 1997). Up to this point, PE had focused primarily on imparting an extensive amount of knowledge and skills related to different physical activities and fitness to students. To achieve the goal of content mastery and thinking skills acquisition, the following four improvements were adopted for both PE’s curricular reform and innovative teaching in schools (MOE, 1998; Wee, 1997): • Reducing of non-core content with emphasis on foundational, broad-based learning, and greater specialisation at the higher stages; • Emphasising the joy of learning and promotion of habits for continual learning; • Developing skill for higher order thinking, effective communication, and teamwork;

350

S. K. S. Tan et al.

• Incorporating Information Technology into the curriculum. Subsequently, the most significant impact of the curriculum review masterplan (MOE, 1998) on the PE was the introduction of a revised games syllabus (MOE, 1999), reinforced in subsequent editions (MOE, 2005; 2016), and the implementation of a new approach to games teaching for all grade levels (Tan et al., 2002). Specifically, this innovative ‘games teaching’ pedagogy in Singapore was termed the Games Concept Approach (GCA) (Tan & Wong, 2001). In 2014, after a review of the games teaching literature (Butler, 1997; Mitchell et al., 2005, 2012; Ward & Grigg, 2011), the MOE decided to revamp comprehensively the games curriculum, and to make more explicit the games pedagogical strategy, in order to facilitate the development of students’ learning from the primary to the pre-university levels. The following sections will discuss what were the critical curriculum changes, and how pedagogical implementation of the curriculum also shifted for the necessary alignment with the four imperatives: (a) early broad-based learning with later specialisation, (b) joy of continual learning, (c) strategic thinking, communicative, and collaborative skills, and (d) creative use of information technology. Furthermore, the Programme for Rebuilding and IMproving Existing Schools (PRIME) played a huge role in the success of the PE reforms, and this will be addressed at the beginning to the next section. Programme for Rebuilding and IMproving Existing Schools The Programme for Rebuilding and IMproving Existing schools (PRIME) was an important infrastructure development and improvement project launched by MOE (1999) for the upgrading of school facilities. PE, in part, benefitted from PRIME as all schools were furnished with an indoor sports hall (MOE, 2006a, 2006b), thus greatly extending the capability of schools to implement the PE curriculum reforms starting 2000. As Singapore is a tropical nation, the inclement weather (i.e., high humidity and strong sunshine throughout most of the day, sudden and heavy showers and seasonal rainstorms) tended to limit PE teaching and use of schools’ outdoor facilities and spaces to certain periods of the day. Generally, schools were provided with standardised facilities that would support the teaching of the different games and sports in the curriculum, and other learning areas (e.g., athletics, dance, and gymnastics). With the upgraded infrastructure and with efficient timetabling, schools would be able to maximise the use of the different facilities to supported PE teaching without sacrificing achievement of learning objectives. Early Broad-Based Learning with Later Specialisation Prior to the revised curriculum, games and sports were presented as separate entities without any reference to similarities or differences between them. However, related games and sports do share important characteristics that govern both offensive and defensive game-related intentions and concepts. Table 1, Games Categorisation Framework, reflects three categories of net-barrier, striking-fielding, and territorialinvasion with the intentions and associated games-related concepts. Students’ understanding of these concepts across similar classifications allowed for the transferability

The Coherence Between Policy Initiatives and Physical Education …

351

Table 1 The main intention and games-related concepts across the 3 game categories Main intention of the game

Net-barrier

Striking-fielding

Territorial-invasion

To send the object (e.g. a ball or shuttle) back to the opponent so that he/she is not able to return it or is forced to make an error. The play area is separated by a barrier such as a net that is placed at a pre-determined height. Serving is the only time the object is held in hand

To place the ball away from the fielder and score runs by advancing bases safely

To attack the opponent’s defending area and score a goal while protecting own goal at the same time. Scoring is achieved through sending and/or shooting an object (e.g. a ball) to a specific or target area accurately, or moving the object across an open-ended target (e.g. across a line)

Games-related Offence Defence Offence Defence Offence concept • • • Sending • • Keeping Winning Defending into space Defending possesthe against an • space sion of Advancing • point attack the ball bases to Defending • Using • Setting • Defending score bases up an space to space attack invade • Creating space to invade • Attacking the goal

Defence • Regaining possession of the ball • Delaying the invasion • Denying space to invade • Denying scoring opportunity

Source Physical Education Teaching & Learning Syllabus: Primary, Secondary & Pre-University (2016). Singapore: Ministry of Education

of knowledge and understanding across similar categorised game forms (e.g., football and floorball; badminton and volleyball). The adoption of the games categorisation framework and descriptions signalled a critical paradigm shift for practitioners. The framework (see Table 2) helped the teachers to identify and select a well-balanced sample of game activities and experiences to teach the students, and avoided missing out on one particular game category. Furthermore, it impacted significantly on how PE teachers thought about games teaching for student learning (Tan & Tan, 2001). Joy of Continual Learning Rather than learning and playing, generally, the adult version of the different games and sports, simplified versions, using small groups, could be adopted by students and schools for learning and skill development. This involves students designing games based on adapting the rules, number of players, playing area, and equipment or

352

S. K. S. Tan et al.

Table 2 Sample games based on the different categories

Net/wall games

Territorial/invasion games

Striking/fielding games

Badminton

Basket ball

Rounders

Mini-Tennis

Floorball ball

Softball

Volleyball

Football

Tee-ball

Frisbee Source Adapted from Revised physical education syllabus for primary, secondary & pre-university levels (1999). Singapore: Ministry of Education

Table 3 Five-stage lesson structure for the games concept approach Stage

Pedagogical focus

1. Situational game 1

A small-sided game designed to highlight the technical, conceptual, or tactical problem associated with the game

2. Questioning

A question-and-answer session led by the teacher

3. Developmental focus

Student experiences activities designed by the teacher to explore resolutions to the problem in Stage 1. The teacher facilitates the learning process

4. Situational game 2

A small-sided game designed by the teacher so that students apply the resolutions to the problem identified

5. Closure

Teacher facilitates the comparison of the first and second situational game; highlights the application of the resolution to other situations

implements. These adaptations allowed the teacher to better meet the learning needs and abilities of different children to facilitate content mastery, thus promoting their motivation and desire for continual learning. Strategic Thinking, Communicative, and Collaborative Skills Besides adopting the Games Categorisation Framework, another key aspect of the revised curriculum relates to the adoption of a pedagogy termed the Games Concept Approach (GCA).1 The GCA focuses primarily on teaching the underlying concepts, tactics, or principles of games and the necessary performance skills for effective game play. The GCA was essentially a hybrid model of the teaching games for understanding (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982) and the tactical games approach (Griffin et al., 1997; Mitchell et al., 2005, 2012) created to develop students’ decision-making processes in becoming better games players (Fry et al., 2010). The GCA’s five-stage lesson structure, based on conceptual problem-solving, is illustrated in Table 3 (Fry et al., 2010). Based on Vygotsky’s argument that language is an important tool through which cognition and understanding is made of experience, teacher-questioning (Stage 2) is critical to promoting students’ knowledge 1

The Games Concept Approach (GCA) is akin to the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU).

The Coherence Between Policy Initiatives and Physical Education …

353

construction, specific to the learning outcomes and skill execution (Stage 3), in the GCA’s small-group situational game learning context (Stages 1 and 4). During the question-and-answer sessions (Stage 2) through multiple lesson cycles, groups of students could collaborate and analyse their playing performances (during Stages 1 and 4), discuss strengths and weaknesses, practise on deficient skill and conceptual areas (Stage 3), and finally attempt to implement the new learning to effect successful game performance. Therefore, this curriculum and teaching approach helped develop students’ thinking and collaborative processes by structuring consciously occasions in the lesson that invited students to think critically and respond cooperatively as a group during their learning, thus supporting the national purpose during this (Tan & Tan, 2001). Creative Use of Information Technology Many schools had attempted to experiment with a variety of digital technologies to record students’ performance, both at the skill and game performance levels, to facilitate collaborative work and social interactions among themselves during the GCA lessons. These activities involved peer analyses and performance assessments for the younger children. At the higher grades, students also referred to publicly available videos (e.g., YouTube) of skill techniques for structuring appropriate learning experiences during skill practice, and they were also involved actively in video-enabled team critiques and discussions of game concepts and strategies. The effective use of digital technologies by teachers enabled students to be actively thinking about the content, making informed decisions and choices, and executing skills relevant to each individual.

5 2010 and Beyond: Physical Education and Holistic Development In a recent report by OECD (2019) on the future of physical education and health (PE/HE), impending challenges and directions were analysed, with exemplary curriculum reforms discussed where the PE (and health education) curriculum is “fit for purpose in the twenty-first century” (p. 74). Similarly, Singapore is very cognisant of the rapidly changing global trends, and is consciously involved in adapting and conceptualising future-ready PE policy that will be responsive to “nuanced local circumstances, priorities and expectations rooted in social, cultural and historical contexts” (p. 74). For the many practitioners, the present and future of PE are and will be both demanding and exciting, especially for developing the overall physical, cognitive, emotional, and inter-personal well-being of students. PE must be more learnercentred with increasing multiple stakeholders coming to bear on school-based PE to champion increased student engagement. Therefore, the PE content needs to move towards an integrated model of a “concept-driven, competency-based curriculum”

354

S. K. S. Tan et al.

(OECD, 2019, p.80). Therefore, the following sections will present priorities and strategies for the development of PE that MOE could considered as pertinent for students, within a broader and longer term perspective that includes (a) PE teachers’ single-subject specialisation, (b) recreation games for life, (c) physical health for active living, and (d) collaboration and partners for sustainable practice. Teachers’ Single-Subject Specialisation Historically, most PE teachers in the school system (except those in postsecondary education) would generally teach two subjects. However, a significant change was inaugurated in 2017 to offer prospective PE teachers dual-level (i.e., primary-secondary/pre-university) teacher preparation, and eventually, deployment to teaching just PE. Such an initiative is consistent with Spiess’s envisioning for more qualified specialist teaching PE lessons. The dual-level training provides teachers with a greater breadth of learning, deepen their content mastery, and strengthen teachers’ pedagogical skills. During teacher preparation, they will learn to play and teach the modified and recreation-version games appropriate for the younger children and youths, respectively. Furthermore, teaching one’s specialisation allows these teachers to dedicate more time to planning richer and more engaging lessons for students. Recreation Games for Life Historically, organised sports were the model for PE in schools. This means that students generally learn to play the adult-versions of the various games and sports (MOE, 1990; 1999; 2006a, 2006b). Due to complexity of tactical and technical difficulties of these adult-versions, most students were still unable (despite increase in curriculum time at all grade levels) to attain adequate skill mastery to sustain continual participation and enjoyment over a 10-week learning period (or at least 16 h of curriculum time). This was simply due to the extensive hours required to practice such knowledge and high-level skills sufficiently for effective game play. Even though schools and teachers were allowed to make modifications to the adult-versions, the ad hoc approach meant that students, across the system, generally had varied experiences with these activities. Therefore, the MOE (2016) initiated a series of new, recreation-version games and sports (e.g., 4 v 4 volleyball, 6 v 6 softball, 4 v 4 half-court netball) for youths who were more appropriate and representative of the activities the students generally participated in during their leisure time. The revised PE and Sports Developmental Framework took into consideration the number of required players, availability of public spaces and facilities, costs of equipment, and minimum skill requirements. Table 4 presents an exemplar of the 3 v 3 half-court basketball game for the Secondary school PE syllabus, incorporating the relevant game-related concepts, technical skills, and performance outcomes. More importantly, students were required to participate in intra-school recreation-games carnival at the end of the academic year to celebrate their learning and development of the strategies and game skills over the school year (MOE, 2016). At the primary school levels, even though children were exposed to games and sports through a quality and rigorous PE curriculum, there is still the need to give

The Coherence Between Policy Initiatives and Physical Education …

355

Table 4 Sample of 3 v 3 half-court recreation basketball game Description of the Game Students play a 3v3 half-court basketball game, with appropriate rules During game play, students execute skills of passing, dribbling, and shooting, as well as a combination of skills with good form to achieve the intended outcomes. They also apply good footwork to change speed and direction, stop in balance, and pivot when enacting offensive and defensive strategies. Passing accurately to teammates is key to advancing the ball while maintaining possession. In attacking the basket, students make use of available space to penetrate the defence and support teammate to score, or create space to set up attacking opportunities if none is obvious. In defending the basket, the team works together to slow down an attack by guarding the attackers, denying attacking space, preventing scoring and attempting to regain possession of the ball Games-related Concepts

Learning Outcomes (LO)

Skills

Offence

Keeping possession of the ball

1. Pass the ball when guarded to a teammate who is free, dodge the defender and move into open space to receive the ball 2. (Dodge the defender and move into open space), receive the ball with a jump or stride stop and pivot to a ready position to shoot, pass or dribble

• Footwork – 1-foot landing – 2-foot landing – Pivoting • Dodging – Body feint – L-cut – V-cut • Passing – Chest pass – Bounce pass – Overhead pass • Receiving

Using space to invade

3. (Receive the ball in a ready position to shoot, pass or dribble) and dribble when there is an open lane towards the basket

• Dribbling – Dominant hand – Non-dominant hand – Crossover dribble

Creating space to invade 4. Dodge the defender and move into open space to create options for teammate to shoot, pass or dribble

• Dodging – Body feint – L-cut – V-cut

Attacking the goal

• Dribbling – Dominant hand – Non-dominant hand – Crossover dribble • Shooting – 1-handed set shot – 1-handed jump shot from under the basket

5. (Receive the ball in a ready position to shoot, pass or dribble), shoot when there is space and within range and ability, and follow through to rebound the ball 6. Dribble when there is an open lane towards the basket, shoot in a continuous action when within range and ability, and follow through to rebound the ball

(continued)

356

S. K. S. Tan et al.

Table 4 (continued) Description of the Game Defence

Regaining possession of the ball

7. Intercept the pass when it is within the defender’s reach 8. Rebound the ball after a shot

• Intercepting • Rebounding

Delaying the invasion

9. Guard the attacker to prevent the attacker from dribbling towards the basket

• Guarding – Defensive stance – Positioning – Slide step – Drop step

Denying space to invade

10. Guard the attacker to • Guarding prevent the attacker from – Defensive stance receiving the ball – Positioning – Slide step – Drop step

Denying scoring opportunity

11. Guard the attacker to • Guarding prevent the attacker from Defensive stance shooting – Positioning

Source Physical Education Teaching & Learning Syllabus: Primary, Secondary & Pre-University (2016). Singapore: Ministry of Education

students increased opportunity to acquire fundamental motor skills, gain exposure to a variety of sporting experiences, and to participate recreationally in physical activities. Therefore, besides increase in PE curriculum time of between 30 and 60 min per week for the primary schoolchildren,2 work for the development of the recreationversion games to strengthen the children’s joy of learning, and motivation for lifelong participation in physical activity would be essential. Furthermore, through participation in the intra-school organised games and sports events (similar to the secondary school carnival), children will also have more opportunity to apply and reinforce the fundamental skills acquired in their PE lessons (De Cotta, 2015; MOE, 2010). Physical Health for Active Living. From the early days of the NAPFA campaign and the TAF physical activity initiative, a more holistic health promotion framework had evolved over the past two decades, to cater to all schoolchildren, instead of focusing on some overweight and obese students (Gupta et al., 2010; McNeil & Fry, 2010). Furthermore, health-enhancing fitness that was introduced in 2016 should also be broadened to focus on health-promoting, active living, and the enactment of desired physical health behaviours, applicable to relevant, real-life contexts. Specifically, the future of PE should have pragmatic health-related foci (e.g., bodyweight exercises, nutrition, sleep, personal hygiene, safety practices, and outdoor physical activity) and be emphasised to help students 2

The secondary level curriculum time has also increased to 60 min. Currently, the PE curriculum time is 2–2.5 h a week, and 2 h per week for primary and secondary/pre-university, respectively.

The Coherence Between Policy Initiatives and Physical Education …

357

develop a holistic perspective of physical health and muscular fitness geared towards active living. This will include enhancing students’ goal-setting and action planning knowledge and skills to empower them to take informed and responsible actions for health benefits at different life stages. Furthermore, students will also develop their self-assessment and self-monitoring capacity to track exercise intensity, physical fitness, and other health-promoting decisions and habits (e.g., outdoor participation in recreation sports, sleep patterns, and dietary intake) to achieve personal commitment according to their profile and needs (MOE, 2016). Collaboration and Partnership for Sustainable Practice An important initiative to foster partnership between the government and the community was launched in 2015. To encourage the public to pursue a healthy, active life, the MOE permitted the public to make use of schools’ sports facilities, especially over the weekends, for physical activity (de Cotta, 2015).This initiative helped to support older students’ desire for social interaction and interest to play with peers and friends, outside of school hours, in order to continue being involved in the recreation-version games that they had experienced together. For the young children, the PE curriculum will give greater emphasis on engaging parents to act out the healthy behaviours and form good habits by participating in activities together. To fulfil this goal, other government agencies and organisations had been identified for collaborative endeavours. The National Parks Board’s (NParks) extensive socio-ecological networks of parks, park connectors, nature reserves, and islands provide unique opportunities for schools, teachers, and families to leverage the natural environment to reinforce the learning in PE. For example, brisk walking, running, and cycling along park connectors and parks not only develop physical health but also foster greater appreciation of Singapore’s greenery and nature. As individuals interact and learn with others consciously within relevant and authentic settings, personal meaning is enhanced, where they could learn to act responsibly in both the social and physical environments. We envisioned that PE for the future needs to foster active citizenship and a personal desire to contribute towards a sustainable world. It is important that the PE syllabus for the next decade seeks to harness synergistic relationships to bring about a nation of physically competent individuals who are self-directed in leading active and healthy lifestyle. The past ten years had provided opportunities for PE to support the national policy in helping students acquire critical psychological mindset, social and emotional attributes, character, and moral values that were deemed important to successful and productive living during the first decade of the new millennium.

6 Conclusion Even though Singapore is a young nation state, the evolution and prominence of the status and relevance of PE had made significant progress since its independence in

358

S. K. S. Tan et al.

1965, due to the tight coupling between directed social unification policy orientations and educational trends. This is considered remarkable by any educational expectations and standards. For over five decades, many relevant outcomes could only be achieved simply because the government had always promoted rational educational policy reforms related to PE consistent with nation-building agenda. Most importantly, PE remained as a mandatory subject at all school levels, and even managed to increase instructional hours for all grades, as other countries fight to either retain PE as a legitimate subject in the national curriculum, or struggle to maintain the required curriculum hours (Harman, 2008; Hardman & Marshall, 2000; Houlihan & Green, 2006; Kirk & Tinning, 1990; Puhse & Gerber, 2005). Concomitantly, unprecedented infrastructure development had also been prioritised to help raise PE status as an educational endeavour (Fry & McNeil, 2011). Through all these years, the government had consciously made use of Movement, as a central core of PE, to reach and teach the whole child through the following keys dimensions of (Arnold, 1979; MOE, 2016): • Learning in Movement; • Learning about Movement; • Learning through movement. All the three dimensions might not have received equal emphasis or weighting during the different phases of Singapore’s nation-building process, due to different and immediate priorities. Since the first survival phase, learning in movement provided school-going children the opportunity to acquire the necessary physical skills in their regular and varied PE experiences. This was essential as the skills established the necessary foundation for ongoing skill learning, and facilitated future successful involvement in physical activity from ever-changing life patterns. Furthermore, learning about movement specific to an individual’s optimal health and desirable health-related fitness goals gained added notoriety, as part of the drive towards educational excellence, during this critical juncture of the technocratic efficiencylearning era. The dual themes of physical fitness assessment and youth obesity management, thus, became important indicators of schools’ performance. Few school systems in the world have attempted to improve the physical health status and also reduce obesity rates of their schoolchildren, on such a scale, with remarkable results (Low et al., 2009; Toh et al., 2002). In the third ability-driven phase and present stage, the government attempted to propel learning through movement to the forefront, while constantly keeping pace with the other two learning dimensions, for achieving its social and cultural transformation. The next decade will provide PE with ever new challenges for us to translate the three learning dimensions, as articulated by Arnold (1979), in concurrence with Singapore’s ever-changing political, and socio-economic development and progress. Broadly speaking, the relevance of PE, as an important teaching and learning subject in schools, can be assured as an important mechanism for attaining the goal of a more cultivated individual and society, maintaining and improving a citizenry’s national health and physique, and necessitating people to act in a responsible and sustainable way. To this end, the prospect for PE future in Singapore looks promising indeed.

The Coherence Between Policy Initiatives and Physical Education …

359

References Arnold, P. J. (1979). Meaning in movement, sport and physical education. Heinemann. Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), 5–8. Butler, J. (1997). How would Socrates teach games? A constructivist approach. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68(9), 42–47. Cazers, G., & Miller, G. A. (2000). The German contribution to american physical education: A historical perspective. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 71(6), 44–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2000.10605162 Cheong, M. T., Cutter, J., & Suok, K. C. (2002). School based intervention has reduced obesity in Singapore. The BMJ, 324(7334), 427. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7334.427/a Chia, M. (1998). Rethinking trim and fit (TAF) programme strategies . . . weighing the scientific evidence. REACT, 2, 37–42. Retrieved from https://repository.nie.edu.sg/bitstream/10497/3798/ 1/REACT-1998-2-37.pdf Chia, Y. T. (2011). The loss of the ‘World-Soul’? Education, Culture and the making of Singapore developmental state, 1955–2004 [Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada]. De Cotta, I. (2015, January 20). Sports facilities in every school to be opened to the public: Lawrence Wong. TODAY, Retrieved from https://www.todayonline.com/sports/sports-facilities-every-sch ool-be-opened-public-lawrence-wong Freeman, W. H. (2013). Physical education, exercise and sport science in a changing society (8th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Fry, J. M., & McNeil, M. C. (2011). ‘In the Nation’s good’: Physical education and school sport in Singapore. European Physical Education Review, 17(3), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/135 6336X11416730 Fry, J. M., Tan, W. K. C., McNeill, & M. Wright, S. (2010). Children’s perspectives on conceptual games teaching: A value-adding experience. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 15(2), 139158. Goh, C. B., & Gopinathan, S. (2008). The development of education in Singapore since 1965. In S. K. Lee, C. B. Goh., B. Fredriksen, & J. P. Tan (Eds.), Toward a better future: Education and training in Singapore since 1965 (pp. 12–28). Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank. Goh, C. T. (1994). Speech by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong at the Singapore Sports Council’s 21st Anniversary Dinner at the Island Ballroom, Shangri-La Hotel on 9 December 1994. Retrieved from https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/gct19941209.pdf Goh, C. T. (1997). Shaping our future: Thinking schools, learning nation. Speech by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong at the opening of the 7th International Conference on Thinking on 2 June 1997. Retrieved from https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/19970602_0001.pdf Griffin, K., Mitchell, S. A., & Oslin, J. L. (1997). Teaching sports concepts and skills: A tactical games approach. Human Kinetics. Gupta, N., Chin, M. K., Yang, J., Balasekaran, G., Chia, Girandola, R. N., … & Ching, M. M. C. (2010). Obesity prevention in Singapore: Collaborative efforts among government, health professionals and the community. Asian Journal of Exercise and Sports Science, 7(1), 61–70. Hardman, K. (2008). The situation of physical education in schools: A European perspective. Human Movement, 9(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10038-008-0001-z Hardman, K., & Marshall, J. (2000). The state and status of physical education in schools in international context. European Physical Education Review, 6(3), 203–229. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1356336X000063001 Horlacher, R. (2017). The emergence of physical education as a subject for compulsory schooling in the first half of the nineteenth century: The case of phokion Heinrich Clias and Adolph Spiess. Nordic Journal of Educational History, 4(2), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.36368/njedh.v412.93

360

S. K. S. Tan et al.

Horton, P. (2013). Singapore: Imperialism and post-imperialism, athleticism, sport, nationhood and nation-building. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 30(11), 1221–1234. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2013.794414 Houlihan, B., & Green, M. (2006). The changing status of school sport and physical education: Explaining policy change. Sport, Education and Society, 11(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13573320500453495 Kirk, D., & Tinning, R. (Eds.). (1990). Physical Education, curriculum and culture: Critical issues in the contemporary crisis. Falmer. Kunalan, C., Aplin, N., & Quek, J. J. (2009). Creating a collective memory: Pioneers of physical education in Singapore. In N. Aplin (Ed.), Perspectives on physical education and sports science in Singapore. Lee, K. Y. (1966). Speech by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew at a meeting with Principals of schools at the Victoria Theatre on 29 August 1966. Retrieved from https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/ data/pdfdoc/lky19660829.pdf Lee, W. (2003). Fighting fat with TAF in Singapore. Diabetes Voice, 48 (Special Issue), 49–50. Retrieved from https://unicefeaproinasactoolkit.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/singaporetrim-and-fit.pdf Ling, P. H. (1853). The gymnastic free exercises of P.H. Ling : a systemized course of gymnastics without apparatus, for the developing and strengthening of the body and improvement of the figure: adapted to the use of medical men, teachers, military men, and parents. Translated by M. Roth. Ticknor, Reed and Fields. Lumpkin, A. (2016). Introduction to physical education, exercise science, and sport (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. Low, S., Chin, M. C., & Deurenberg, M. (2009). Review in epidemic of obesity. Annuals Academy of Med Singapore, 38, 57–65. McNeill, M. C., & Fry, J. M. (2010). Physical education and health in Singapore schools. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 1(1), 13–18. McNeill, M., Lim, B. S. C., Wang, C. K. J., Tan, W. K. C., & MacPhail, A. (2009). Moving towards quality physical education: Physical education provision in Singapore. European Physical Education Review, 15(2), 201–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X09345224 McNeil, M., Sproule, J., & Horton, P. (2003). The changing face of sport and physical education in post-colonial Singapore. Sport, Education and Society, 8(1), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/135 7332032000050051 Melnick, S. (2015). Per henrik ling–Pioneer of physiotherapy and gymnastics. European Journal of Physical Education and Sports Science, 1(1), 13–18. Ministry of Education. (1966). Progress in Education. A brief review of Education in Singapore from 1959 to 1965. Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1990). Physical education syllabus (primary, secondary & pre-university). Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1998). Curriculum review report. Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1999). Revised physical education syllabus for primary, secondary and pre-university levels. Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2006, October 12). Indoor Sports Hall for all Schools to further promote holistic education [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/ pdfdoc/20061012989.pdf Ministry of Education. (2006). Physical education syllabus (primary, secondary & pre-university). Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2010). MOE to enhance learning of 21st century competencies and strengthen art, music and physical education [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.moe. gov.sg/news/press-releases/moe-to-enhance-learning-of-21st-century-competencies-and-streng then-art--music-and-physical-education Ministry of Education. (2014). Modified NAPFA Test for Pre-National Service Students from 2015 [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/press-releases/modified-napfa-

The Coherence Between Policy Initiatives and Physical Education …

361

test-for-pre-national-service-students-from-2015#:~:text=The%20National%20Physical%20F itness%20Award,different%20components%20of%20overall%20fitness. Ministry of Education. (2016). Physical Education Teaching and Learning Syllabus: Primary, Secondary and Pre-University. Student Development Curriculum Division, Ministry of Education. Mitchell, S. A., Oslin, J. L., & Griffin, L. L. (2005). Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach (2nd ed.). Human Kinetics. Mitchell, S. A., Oslin, J. L., & Griffin, L. L. (2012). Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach for ages 7 to 18 (3rd ed.). Human Kinetics. OECD. (2019). OECD Future of Education 2030. Making Physical Education Dynamic and Inclusive for 2030. International Curriculum Analysis. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/ education/2030-project/contact/OECD_FUTURE_OF_EDUCATION_2030_MAKING_PHY SICAL_DYNAMIC_AND_INCLUSIVE_FOR_2030.pdf Ong, P. B. (1966). Speech by Mr Ong Pang Boon, Minister for Education at the opening of Kim Seng Technical School on 8 July 1966. Retrieved from https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/ data/pdfdoc/PressR19660708b.pdf Pfister, G. (2003). Cultural confrontations, German Turnen, Swedish gymnastics and english sport— European diversity in physical activities from a historical perspective. Culture, Sport, Society, 6(1), 61–91. Puhse, U., & Gerber, M. (Eds.). (2005). International comparison of physical education: Concepts, problems, prospects. Meyer & Meyer Sport. Tan, E. L. (1982). Speech by Dr Tan Eng Liang, Chairman, Singapore Sports Council at the cheque presentation and official launching of the National Physical Fitness (NAPFA) scheme at the National Stadium on 30 January 1982. Retrieved from https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/ data/pdfdoc/19760821_0004.pdf Tan, S. (2005). Implementing teaching games for understanding: Stories of change. In L. L. Griffin & J. I. Butler (Eds.), Teaching games for understanding: Theory, research and practice (pp. 107– 124). Human Kinetics. Tan, K. S. S., & Tan, E. K. H. (2001). Managing change within the physical education curriculum: Issues, opportunities and challenges. In J. Tan, S. Gopinathan, & W. K. Ho (Eds.), Challenges facing the Singapore education system today (pp. 50–70). Prentice Hall. Tan, S., & Wong, L. H. (2001). The games concept approach: Reflections on an innovation. Physical Education, 12, 2–3. Tan, S., Wright, S., McNeill, M., Fry, J., & Tan, C. (2002). Implementing the games concept approach in Singapore schools: A preliminary report. REACT, 21(1), 77–84. Toh, C. M., Cutter, J., & Chew, S. K. (2002). School based intervention has reduced obesity in Singapore. British Medical Journal (BMJ), 324(7334), 427. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324. 7334.427/a Ward, G., & Griggs, G. (2011). Principles of play: A proposed framework towards a holistic overview of games in primary physical education. Education, 39(5), 1–18. Wee, H. T. (1997, December). Toward thinking school, learning nation: An open letter from the Director-General of Education to principals and teachers. Ministry of Education. Wee, T. B. (2010). Physical education and sports in Singapore schools through the last millennium (part I). BiblioAsia, 6(2), 13–18. Wee, T. B. (2010). Physical education and sports in Singapore schools developing national sports talents (part II). BiblioAsia, 6(3), 15–21. Wuest, D. A., & Fisette, J. L. (2015). Foundations of physical education, exercise science, and sport (18th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Geography Education in Singapore Geok Chin Ivy Tan

Abstract Geography has been one of the core humanities subjects in schools in Singapore. It has undergone several national curriculum reviews through over six decades. School geography started with the regional approach in the 1960s where the curriculum focused on pure description of the physical and human geographies within specific countries. This lead to much rote memorization of facts in the examinations. Regional geography was then replaced by the systematic approach in the 1980s which placed great emphasis on conceptual teaching and learning. Teaching became less of dissemination of facts and more of connecting concepts and generalizations. In 2013, there was yet another significant geography curriculum change which puts emphasis on the inquiry-based approach to the teaching and learning in order to provide students with deeper and critical understanding of the changing world and help prepare them for the complexities of the world. Geographical inquiry even extends beyond the classrooms into the field and students are required to collect data and investigate authentic geographical issues. This chapter will provide a discussion on these critical changes to the geography curriculum particularly in terms of the geography content, pedagogy and assessment. Keywords Secondary geography · Geography syllabus · Regional and systematic geography · Geography assessment · Geographical inquiry

1 Introduction Geography has been one of the core humanities subjects in schools for secondary (grades 7–10) and pre-university (grades 11–12) in Singapore. It has undergone several national curriculum reviews and changes over the decades. This chapter provides a discussion on the critical changes to the geography curriculum, reflecting on the changing paradigms of geography education, curriculum content, pedagogy and assessment of secondary school geography in Singapore. G. C. I. Tan (B) National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_20

363

364

G. C. I. Tan

Presently, at the primary level (grades 1 to 6), geography and history are subsumed within the subject of primary Social Studies. At the lower secondary (grades 7– 8), geography is still a compulsory subject. At the upper secondary (grades 9–10), Combined Humanities is the core and compulsory humanities subject. Combined Humanities consists of 50% Social Studies and for the other 50%, the students can choose either Elective Geography, History or Literature. Pure Geography is also offered as an elective humanities subject for students who would like to take double humanities subjects. At the pre-university (grades 11–12) level, geography is offered as an elective subject. Geography as a subject has undergone several significant changes through the years responding to the changing educational scenes in Singapore and within the discipline itself. The scope of the present paper is to review the critical periods of change in the secondary school geography syllabuses only, in terms of the geography content, pedagogy and assessments in Singapore schools. In terms of methodology for this paper, secondary data primarily from secondary geography syllabus documents, school geography textbooks, published papers and journal articles were collected and analysed. The author’s personal experiences and insights as a geography student in secondary school (1973–1977), junior college (1978–1979), geography teacher (1985–1991), Gifted Education Specialist (1992– 1996), Head of Department (Humanities) (1997–1998) and geography educator at the National Institute of Singapore (1999- present) have been included in the discussion.

2 Regional Geography in School Geography, 1960s School geography started with the regional approach in the 1960s where the curriculum focused on pure description of the physical and human geographies within specific countries (Ang, 2012; Chang, 2016). In most part of the 1900s, regional geography was the dominant paradigm in school geography (Kent, 2002; Lambert & Balderstone, 2000). A region can be defined as an area of land having certain unifying and common physical or human characteristics. Hence, it easily becomes a basic unit for study in geography as it is a space that usually will share more than one common characteristic or feature. Regional geography is the study of the unified geographical areas and their common characteristics or features. This is one of the oldest frameworks or approaches to study patterns and differentiation over space on the earth’s surface. Likewise, in Singapore, the traditional regional approach was adopted in the secondary school geography syllabuses. The geography syllabuses with the regional approach focus on locational and descriptive information about physical and human activities in different countries and regions. The lower secondary syllabuses covered regional geography of Australia, New Zealand, Americas, Europe and Africa. The upper secondary syllabuses covered regions which were closer to Singapore (Ang, 2012). The two textbooks used by the author during her upper secondary were Goh Cheng Leong’s New Progressive Geography: Certificate Regional Geography, Monsoon Asia and South-east Asia (Goh, 1971, 1972) Countries in Monsoon Asia

Geography Education in Singapore

365

were: Pakistan, India and Ceylon; China, Japan and Korea, and countries for Southeast Asia were Indo-China and Thailand; Indonesia and Borneo; and the Philippines; Singapore and Malaya. Additionally, Goh’s (1975) was also used as the textbook for preparing for the multiple-choice question paper of Cambridge Ordinary Level examination. The content for physical geography component then included several geomorphological topics such as work of river, coast, wind and glaciers and their related landforms, weather studies, climatic types and natural vegetation. The content coverage within each region was conventional and organized in a predicable sequence. For each region, it would start with the description of the natural environment such as the relief and drainage, climate, natural vegetation of the country or region followed by description of the human activities from agriculture, mining, industry, population, settlement and communication. It can be argued that the regional approach was a useful approach then as it provided a strategy to enable one to simplify and structure the complexity of the world along the lines of regional entities (Lambert & Bladerstone, 2000). The pedagogy within the regional paradigm and framework was, however, purely didactic, and most of the time involving reading and underlining the textbooks. There was a sole and heavy dependence on the textbooks for facts and information. Occasionally, teachers would use the wall maps and globes. Hence, the major criticism of the regional approach was the lack of intellectual challenge. The didactic way geography was taught then tended ‘to degenerate into the repetitive learning of factual information’ (Boardman & McPartland, 1993, p. 5). It is highly descriptive, lacking explanatory and predictive potential and lacking in interests in theories (Lambert & Balderstone, 2000). Another criticism was that the examination questions asked during this period were purely descriptive. This led to much rote memorization and eventually regurgitation of facts during the examinations. In 1976, 30% of the examination component comprised of 40 multiple-choice questions in paper 1 and 70% regional geography in paper 2 (Ang, 2012). Such was the structure of the geography papers when the author did her Cambridge ‘O’ Level examination. The tests and examination questions would require students to be able to draw country maps to describe or explain the location and distribution of, for example, rice cultivation in Japan or location of coal and industrial areas in India.

3 Systematic Geography, 1980s Regional geography with all its limitations was eventually replaced by the systematic approach in the 1980s. Systematic geography strongly contrasted with regional geography. While regional geography presents the physical characteristics followed by the human characteristics region by region, systematic geography deals with the distribution of physical and human characteristics over the surface of the earth (Lambert & Bladerstone, 2000). Epistemologically, systematic geography is interested describing and explaining patterns of characteristics or phenomena which are

366

G. C. I. Tan

displayed over the entire earth and in attempting to come up with general rules behind the patterns. This differs much from the traditional regional geography that is interested in the specificity of each region but not in general rules. The systematic geography provides much more opportunities to place greater emphasis on conceptual teaching and learning. Teaching became less of dissemination of facts and more of connecting concepts and generalizations (Lambert & Morgan, 2010). Learning became less of memorization of facts and information and more into understanding of concepts and how concepts can be interrelated. In 1980, the Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore (CDIS) was established within the Ministry of Education and the CDIS Geography Team was tasked to develop the instructional materials for school geography. In 1982, the Secondary School Geography 1 geography textbook which was published by CDIS. The CDIS actually developed an integrated curriculum package consisting of not only textbooks but the complemented students’ workbooks, teachers’ guides and audio visual materials. In the preface of the Secondary School Geography 1 (CDIS, 1982), it was stated: In recent years it has become apparent that the traditional way of teaching and learning geography through a fact-centered approach is no longer relevant or desirable. With the introduction of the new Geography Syllabus for Secondary One and Two, the learning of geography will take on a more purposeful direction, with the emphasis on the development and application of geographical concepts and skills rather than the acquisition of unrelated geographical facts. The materials in this package reflects the new approach to the learning geography which emphasizes thinking process skills rather than the mastery of facts; the ability to manipulate data rather than to store them. Relevant and stimulating activities, purposeful questions, useful photographs, statistics, maps and diagrams are included to encourage pupils to participate more fully in the learning process.

The Secondary Geography 1 textbook (CDIS, 1982) had a total of 24 teaching units. Six units were on map reading and skills, seven units on physical geography (rocks, landforms and earth movements, weathering and erosion, weather studies, natural vegetation) and nine units of human geography focusing on primarily on Singapore (CBD, urban renewal, port and air centre, industrial landscape, residential landscape, new towns, fishing and aquaculture, reservoir and recreation). The Secondary School Geography 2 textbook (CDIS, 1983) was organized according to broader concepts such as the environment, interaction, growth and change, hierarchy, unity and diversity. In general, one salient feature about these syllabuses that was different from the previous regional geography syllabuses was the emphasis on learning of concepts and not loads of facts. In fact, a summary of main concepts was deliberately included at the end of each unit to help students consolidate their learning conceptually. The new focus on concepts was very much influenced by the conceptual revolution in school geography in the United Kingdom (Chiang, 2016). During this period, the publications on geography education were available from the United Kingdom (Graves, 1980, 2001; Kent, 2001, 2006). In fact, Norman Graves who was the Head of the Geography Department in the Institute of Education, University of

Geography Education in Singapore

367

London, was engaged by CDIS as the consultant for the school geography textbooks (CDIS, 1982). As for the upper secondary textbooks (CDIS 1984, 1985), the geography contents were organized based on the system approach. A general system is a group of fundamental elements bound together by specific linkages. For example, the earth is an open system in which there are inputs, outputs and flow-through mechanisms. The linkages, or connections, that bind entities together into a system are paths through which matter, energy, ideas and people pass from one element to another. The system approach exemplifies the interrelationships between human ecosystem and the natural ecosystem and students would be able to appreciate the intricacy of the relationships and the world they live in. Within the upper secondary geography syllabus, the environmental system was divided into two ecosystems: the natural ecosystem and the human ecosystem. The natural ecosystem which comprised of physical geography content was further divided into climatic, geomorphic and biotic systems with their linkages and interactions. The human ecosystem was sub-divided which comprised of human geography content was further divided into the agricultural, settlement and manufacturing and service systems with their linkages and interactions (see Fig. 1). The topics under the natural ecosystem were crustal movement and landforms, weathering and river processes, meteorology and climate and biogeography. The topics under the human ecosystem were classified under the agricultural systems (land development and irrigation, small scale rice farming in Kedah in Peninsular Malaysia and intensive horticultural farming in Singapore), manufacturing and

Fig. 1 Interactions between the natural and human ecosystems (CDIS, 1984)

368

G. C. I. Tan

service systems (industrial location, extraction of raw materials, types of industries). A new topic on the service system particularly tourism was feature as a single topic as it was highly relevant in Singapore then. Under the settlement system, it covered rural and urban settlements, and population. Reference and case examples for agricultural would be made to the ‘home’ region Singapore and Peninsular Malaysia and ‘wider’ region of Monsoon Asia (Java, Brunei, Sarawak, Sabah, India, China and Japan), and for settlement and population to Singapore, China, India, Japan. The author started her teaching career in 1985. The Cambridge Ordinary Level examination format for geography syllabus 2231 then still comprised of papers 1 and 2. Paper 1 which is 30% of total marks consisted of 40 multiple-choice questions. Of the multiple-choice questions, 14 were for topographical map reading and basic techniques and skills, 10 for physical geography, 8 for settlements and 8 for population. Paper 2 which is 70% of the total marks comprised of 10 structured questions of both physical and human geographies. In general, there were still some issues and concern with the syllabuses and examinations. Although physical geography was now included into the structured questions, there was still an imbalance in terms of number questions devoted to physical geography. There were only two questions on physical geography while the other eight were from human geography. Additionally, students could choose any four structured questions out of ten questions. Hence, some candidates might select all four human geography questions and neglect physical geography entirely in order to ‘specialize’ and study for the examination. Another criticism of this syllabus was the lack of smooth transition and link from the conceptual lower secondary syllabuses with the ecosystem approach for the upper secondary syllabuses. Yet another concern was that the case examples used at the lower secondary geography were very much on Singapore (Singapore’s CBD, urban renewal in the CBD, industrial landscape, residential landscape, new town, agriculture, fishing and aquaculture and reservoir and recreation). The regional and international case studies were lacking. Finally, even though physical geography was included in the syllabuses, there was still an imbalance of physical and human geographies with more emphasis and class time devoted to human geography. Interest in fieldwork has grown during this period of geography teaching in secondary schools (Goh & Wong, 2000). Geography without fieldwork is like science without experiments. The field becomes the natural geographic laboratory where students can have first-hand experience of the landscapes, places, people and issues, and in addition, where they can also learn and practice geographical skills in a real environment (Bland et al., 1996). The effectiveness of fieldwork in geography education has been documented by several authors (Boyle et al., 2007; Lai, 1999; Oost et al., 2011). However, conducting fieldwork in geography was not compulsory during this period. Those teachers who took their students to the field commonly used the ‘Cook’s Tour’ type of fieldwork (Kent, 2002). At the field site, students would passively listen to the description and explanation of the geographical content and complete a field worksheet. To facilitate learning in such fieldtrips, educators at Institute of Education together with the Ministry of Education published several fieldwork guidebooks (Ang

Geography Education in Singapore

369

et al., 1985, 1986). These publications provided the overview of the field sites and questions which could be used in the fieldtrip worksheets. The author had personally conducted both local and fieldtrips for her students. The local fieldtrips included doing land-use transects within the financial centre of Shenton Way, retail centre of Orchard Road, and Chinatown and visiting local farms in Singapore. Overseas fieldtrips to Peninsular Malaysia and Indonesia were organized.

4 Geography for Environmental Education, 1990s To address some of the above-mentioned concerns, the lower and upper secondary syllabuses were revised in 1995 and 1997, respectively. The two ‘experts’ invited by CDIS to provide input on academic geography and links to school geography were Goh Kim Chuan from the National Institute of Education, Singapore and Rod Gerber from Queensland University of Technology, Australia (CDIS, 1995). The conceptual approach was adopted consistently for both lower and secondary geographies with the revision. Another feature of the refinement was to include aspects of peopleenvironment linkages and interrelationships within each topic to highlight how the physical elements will affect people and how people will affect them. For example, for the topic on water, how people use rivers, seas and oceans and how they affect people negatively were discussed. An even more important component that was woven into the syllabuses during this period was environment education. The 1990s marked a significant beginning of environmental management for Singapore. The Singapore Green Plan—Towards a Model Green City (1992) and the Singapore Green Plan—Action Programmes (1993) were published by the Ministry of Environment. The vision for Singapore was to be a ‘Model Green City by the year 2000’ in the Singapore Green Plan was presented at the first international Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro in 1992. In the Green Plan, Environment Education was identified as crucial to develop an environmentally pro-active society. ‘It is through knowledge and awareness that positive values and attitudes emerge; values and attitudes that will prompt action to make the adjustments to lifestyles and consumption habits that will reduce the burden we place on the environment’ (Ministry of Environment, 1993). The schools have been given the responsibility to lay the foundation for the building of environmental consciousness in the school children. Environment education is not taught as a separate subject but infused into the relevant subjects of the existing formal curricula at the primary, secondary and junior college level (Curriculum Planning Division, Ministry of Education 1993 and 1994). This is further reinforced through the various activity-oriented programmes of the informal curriculum. The improvement in quality of life and the environment is dependent on the reconciliation between human activities, economic development and environmental conservation (Tilbury, 1997) and geography is an important subject for environmental education. Consequently, the word ‘environment’ was introduced and used in the lower secondary syllabuses. The secondary one syllabus was divided into

370

G. C. I. Tan

four themes: introduction to geography, understanding our environment, components of the physical environment (weather studies, natural vegetation, landforms and rocks, water) and components of the human environment (agriculture, settlement, population). The secondary two syllabus, in particular, dealt directly with topics such as natural resources; increasing arable land through irrigation, terracing and use of fertilizers; creating new land through empoldering from the Netherlands; floods and flood control; desertification and fighting desertification with Sahel in Africa; causes, consequences and controlling pollution with Acid Rain in Europe as case study; ozone depletion. Changing global climate first mentioned in the syllabus. The ‘increased’ greenhouse effect, ozone depletion and global climatic changes and consequences with sea-level rising were discussed. Most critically is the addition of a topic on environmental conservation for the future. Strategies like reducing greenhouse gases, using green technology, enforcing laws and changing lifestyles were incorporated. Case study for environmental conservation efforts in the textbook was taken from The Singapore Green Plan. The ultimate message was that conservation is a shared responsibility and requires concerted efforts at individual, national and international levels to protect the environment. The upper secondary level syllabuses were revised to address the concern of the physical-human geographies imbalance of the previous syllabuses. The revised syllabuses had a good balance of six physical geography topics (weather and climate; natural vegetation, plate tectonics, rocks and weathering, rivers, coasts) and six human topics (population, settlement, agriculture, natural resources, manufacturing and service industries, development). Rocks and coasts were two new physical geography topics included while development was a new topic for human geography. In order to ensure that students would not forgo the studying of physical geography, a new feature was included in paper 2 of the Cambridge Ordinary level geography paper. The students would still answer four structured questions, however, with at least one question from Section A (Physical Geography) and one from Section B (Human Geography).

5 Geography for National Education, 2000s By the turn of the century, the vision to transform Singapore into a nation with thinking and committed citizens who are dedicated to lifelong learning was introduced. ‘Thinking Schools, Learning Nation’ (TSLN) was the slogan which encapsulates the need for a change in the total learning environment for not only the students and teachers but also for parents, workers, companies, community organizations and the government (Goh, 1997). At the micro-level, the aims of TSLN were to develop critical and creative thinking, instil lifelong learning passion and promote nationalistic commitment in our youths. In order to support the TSLN vision, the Ministry

Geography Education in Singapore

371

of Education launched three initiatives to promote thinking skills (Ng, 2008), information and communication technologies (ICT) (Cheah & Koh, 2001) and National Education in schools (Tan, 2008). In schools, teachers are encouraged to infuse whenever possible the six key National Education messages in their lessons. The six key National Education messages are: • Singapore is our homeland; this is where we belong. We treasure our heritage and take pride in shaping our own unique way of life. • We must preserve racial and religious harmony. We value our diversity and are determined to stay a united people. • We must uphold meritocracy and incorruptibility. We provide opportunities for all, according to their ability and effort. • No one owes Singapore a living. We find our own way to survive and prosper, turning challenge into opportunity. • We must ourselves defend Singapore. We are proud to defend Singapore ourselves, no one else is responsible for our security and well-being. • We have confidence in our future. United, determined and well-prepared, we have what it takes to build a bright future for ourselves, and to progress together as one nation. The National Education initiative aimed at developing national cohesion through fostering the Singapore identity and instilling core values such as meritocracy and multiracialism, and developing confidence in the nation by teaching about Singapore’s developmental challenges, constraints and vulnerabilities (Sim & Adler, 2004; Tan, 2008; Tan & Lee, 1999). Geography education gained significant importance for the infusion of National Education in schools. ‘National Education issues dealing with national building, Singapore’s vulnerabilities as a result of limited resources and space, globalization and the importance of a strong sense of place and citizenship, can well be discussed within geography, thus making it an equally valid and relevant subject in schools. In fact, with this recent emphasis on National Education, geography in Singapore has gained in importance’ (Goh & Wong, 2000, p. 102). One of the recommendations, cutting across all subjects, was to reduce the content knowledge that students are required to learn so as to free up curriculum time for teachers to incorporate the three MOE initiatives. Teachers were encouraged to infuse the use of thinking skills into their subjects. The Ministry of Education provided examples of lessons for the teaching of different types of thinking skills explicitly and for infusing thinking skills implicitly within the different subject areas. Hence, there was another revision on the school geography syllabuses. The curriculum review process was highly consultative involving not just the curriculum planners in MOE and teachers but local geography academics from the National Institute of Education and National University of Singapore. The author who joined the National Institute of Education as a geography educator in 1999 has been serving in such curriculum review committees. The geography syllabus content was reduced, for example, from the 12 topics for upper secondary to 10 (syllabus for 2001). Less relevant topics like Rocks and Coral

372

G. C. I. Tan

Reefs were removed. The syllabuses were also revised to incorporate teaching of thinking skills, use of technology and most importantly to promote understanding of Singapore’s strategic vulnerabilities and constraints as a city-state and the strategies used to overcome them. The lower secondary geography syllabuses included relevant case studies on how the nation overcome problems despite our constraints within the topics of: our local tropical rainforest, ageing population, water supply, land reclamation and conservation of resources. For the upper secondary syllabuses, topics on coastal protection, internal structure of Singapore City, high-tech farming, planned industrialization and tourism were included. These areas provided opportunities for the understanding of Singapore’s vulnerabilities and physical constraints as well as the strategies used to overcome them. There was another content reduction for the upper secondary syllabuses for 2006, from 10 topics to 8 (syllabus for 2006). One physical geography topic on Weathering and one human geography topic on Population were removed. Both these topics would be covered at the junior college level. A new topic called Geography of Food replaced the traditional topic on Agriculture while Tourism replaced to topic of Resources and Industries. Assessment is still an integral part that was subjected to review and change. During this period, there were new assessment practices introduced to cater to the pedagogical changes for TSLN (Tan, 2011). For geography, in particular, the structure of the upper secondary examination paper was changed with the removal of the multiple-choice questions in 2008. Students would have to select and answer only four structured questions: two from paper 1 (Physical Geography) and two from paper 2 (Human Geography). The new structure ensured a good balance in both physical and human geographies. The assessment questions themselves were revised to promote thinking and reasoning by using more maps, diagrams, graphs and photos within each structured question. Another significant change was the adoption of level descriptors marking approach for one of the structured open-ended questions. Such a question would be marked based on three levels, capped at a maximum of eight marks, as opposed to the regular point marking (Singapore School Examinations and Assessment Board, 2018). The question would require the candidates to evaluate a given statement and justify their stand. Critically, a significant impact of the National Education initiative was the introduction of the compulsory Combined Humanities as a core humanities subject for all upper secondary students. The younger generation of youths were perceived to lack a knowledge of and interest in Singapore’s history of nation-building, constraints and struggles. These youths might take peace and prosperity for granted. Hence, there is a need to develop in the youths a sense of national consciousness and belonging (Sim & Adler, 2004; Tan, 2008). The most direct response to address this problem was the introduction of the compulsory Social Studies component within the new Combined Humanities subject. For the other component of the subject, the students can choose either Elective Geography or History or Literature. Elective Geography is half the curricular time and content of the regular Full Geography. The most visible and direct implication of the introduction of the compulsory Combined Humanities subject was the decline in number of students taking up full geography at secondary

Geography Education in Singapore

373

and pre-university levels. This would have subsequent impact on the enrolment of geography at the tertiary levels and even downstream, the quantity and quality of geography teachers (Chang, 2014). Fieldwork became an important pedagogy to impart National Education messages and to bring about a greater appreciation of how Singapore overcome constraints with creative solutions. During that period, the author was the Humanities Head of Department in one of the secondary schools in Singapore (1997–1998). Together with her teachers, they organized local fieldtrips to the high-tech vegetable farms in Singapore, learning journeys to key installations in Singapore like the power plants and incinerators. As a geography teacher educator at the National Institute of Education, the author was part of the team to revise the initial teacher preparation programme to prepare the young per-service teachers to teach the changed syllabuses with new emphasis in the early 2000s. The geography curriculum study courses were redesigned to engage student teachers into reflecting on the what, why and how of curriculum planning and instruction (Tan & Lian, 2007). The pre-service teachers were giving opportunities to develop a good conceptual understanding of the topics to be taught and address the essential questions and enduring understanding of each teaching unit. They were given opportunities to try out more student-centred pedagogies and fieldwork.

6 Geography and Inquiry-Based Learning, 2013 In 2013, there was yet another significant geography syllabus change which put emphasis on the inquiry-based approach in order to provide students with deeper and critical understanding of the changing world and help prepare them for the complexities of the world. The inquiry method adopted in the current syllabuses is derived from Roberts (2003, 2010). She identified four important aspects of geographical inquiry process which can be seen as a cycle of four stages: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Sparking Curiosity (to ask guiding geographical questions). Gathering Data (to identify and locate relevant data). Exercising Reasoning (to interpret and analyse geographical data; present findings and analysis). Reflective Thinking (to evaluate reliability of data; improve on data collection and analysis).

Within this current syllabuses (syllabus 2236), teaching using geographical inquiry would require teachers to spark curiosity on the topic they are teaching as well as to bring in ‘data’ in the form of maps, diagrams, graphs, photos and other resources for students to make sense of them and learn from their analysis and interpretation. Geographical inquiry extends beyond teaching in the classrooms into the field where students themselves are required to come up with hypotheses, collect data and investigate authentic geographical issues.

374

G. C. I. Tan

To facilitate the adoption and use of the inquiry-based pedagogy, several features of changes were made to the syllabuses. The geography syllabuses are now organized based on issues. The theme for secondary 1 geography is on issues related to the environment and resources. It involves the studies of human impact on the environment and environmental influences on human life. Specifically, students will learn about the values of natural resources (forests, water and energy resources) and how human activities will affect their continual supply. They will learn about the opportunities and constraints that these resources pose for human and how they can be managed sustainably. The theme for secondary 2 geography revolves around issues on urban living and how people organize space and understand spaces we live in. Students would learn how different cities adopt different strategies to manage issues related to housing shortage, traffic congestion and urban flooding. They will learn how changes in the urban landscape will impact the quality of life and will come to appreciate the importance of planning. Each issue is systematically organized according to four guiding questions which are based on key geographical concept of place, space, environment and scale: • • • •

What is the issue? Which parts of the world are affected by the issue? Why is the issue located there? How should it be managed?

The syllabus content for upper secondary has once again been reduced further from eight topics to six (syllabus for 2013) so that curriculum time would be set aside for teachers to use the inquiry method in the classroom teaching as well as to conduct geographical inquiry in the field. The three remaining physical geography topics are Coasts, Living with Tectonic Hazards, and Variable Weather and Climate. The three Human Geography topics are Global Tourism, Food Resources, and Health and Diseases. These topics are deemed the most relevant and pertinent in the Singapore and global context. The assessments modes for both lower secondary and upper secondary have been drastically changed. In line with promoting more inquiry-based learning, two new components of assessment have been included in the lower secondary geography syllabuses. Firstly, there is a new performance-based task which constitutes 15% of the summative mark. Students are required to write a personal response to a selected geographical issue reported in the news. Secondly, there is a geographical field inquiry called geographical investigation which constitutes 30% of the summative mark. Here, students are required to participate collaboratively in an investigation into an authentic geographical issue. They will use the geographical inquiry process of asking questions, gathering data, exercising reasoning and reflective thinking to complete their investigation. Grades are given to both the processes (individual contribution and group investigation log) and the product (group). The following are guiding questions for the lower secondary geographical investigations (Table 1). Students have to complete one geographical investigation each year.

Geography Education in Singapore Table 1 Guiding questions for geographical investigation for lower secondary geography

375

Level

Guiding questions for Geographical Investigation

Secondary 1

How do we protect Singapore’s tropical rainforest? How clean is our waterway? What is my school’s carbon footprint?

Secondary 2

Does the neighbourhood meet residents’ needs? Are we satisfied with our public transport How do we cope with floods?

For the upper secondary Cambridge Ordinary Level examination since 2014, the two papers are entirely different from the one previous ones. Paper 1 focuses on the topics of Coasts and Global Tourism. Section A consists of a compulsory question based on geographical field investigation and Section B consists of 2 structure-based questions of which the students will select one. Paper 2 focuses on the remaining four topics with Section A on Living with Tectonic Hazards and Variable Weather and Climate and Section B on Food Resources and Health and Diseases. Students will select one question from each section. Hence, the physical-human geography balance is still maintained. With the change in the both the syllabuses and the examinational format, fieldwork becomes compulsory and teachers must bring their students out into the field. The approach to fieldwork departs from the traditional fieldtrips teachers are familiar with. Now, students are required to be setting hypotheses; collecting and analysing data and presenting their findings; and reflecting on the whole fieldwork process. They have to deal with primary data collected and make sense of them by looking out for patterns in the real environment. They have to link their textbook knowledge to help them understand and explain their observations and findings in the real environment.

7 Concluding Thoughts Singapore secondary school geography syllabuses have gone through several levels of changes over six decades. These periodic changes are not only timely but necessary to have forward-looking syllabuses which are relevant to the demands of the different periods of time. One drastic change was moving away from regional geography to systematic geography so as to reduce rote learning and memorization of facts. The geography contents within secondary school have also organically evolved in terms of reducing the number topics. This is essential in order for teachers to effectively transit to more student-centred pedagogies such as inquiry-based learning to allow their students acquire skills to seek answers to issues affecting the physical and human environments.

376

G. C. I. Tan

There is also a constant need to replace outdated topics with more relevant and current topics over the years. The traditional topics such as types of agriculture and agricultural production have evolved to issues on Food Resources. New sets of questions are now asked such as: How and why have food consumption patterns changed since the 1960s? What are the trends and challenges in the production of food crops? How can the problem of food shortage be addressed? A totally new but relevant topic on Health and Diseases was included. What are the global patterns of health and diseases? What influences the spread and impact of infectious diseases? How can we manage the current and future spread of infectious diseases? Although the current syllabus focuses on just malaria and HIV/AIDS, the discussions are equally applicable to diseases like SARS, bird flu, dengue haemorrhagic fever and even the recent COVID-19 pandemic. The modes of assessments have also changed to include performance-based tasks and fieldwork inquiry. The weightage of the written examinations especially for the lower secondary has been reduced. As for the upper secondary, the examination format has changed from the days where there were multiple-choice questions to structured questions which require students to not only analyse and make sense of data from maps, figures, graphs, photos or diagrams, but to evaluate and consider different perspectives and points of views (Chang & Seow, 2018). With a 5- or 6-year cycle of syllabus review and change, support must always be given to teachers to enable them to adapt to changes. One main support is from the preservice programmes and professional development courses at the National Institute of Education. Additional and continual support must also be given to teachers through the Geography Chapter at the Academy of Singapore Teachers and the Curriculum Planning and Development Division at the Ministry of Education. In essence, geography is the study of earth and its natural and human environments, the way people organize and use the environment (Fien et al., 1989). Through geography, students are able to understand the interrelationships and interactions of human activities with the environments from local to global scales. Geography as a discipline deals with spatial variability of landforms, processes, phenomena or events and is an essential part of the education for students in all societies (International Geographical Union–Commission on Geographical Education 2016). Geography education in Singapore is indispensable to the development of responsible and active citizens in the present and future world. Moving forward, within the current global situation and significance of climate change, economic trade-offs and sustainable development, Geography education has to assume an enormous responsibility for the teaching of sustainability in schools (Lambert & Bladerstone, 2000) and contributes to the teaching of values for sustainable living (Tilbury, 1997).

References Ang, S. H. (2012). Developments in the geography syllabuses in Singapore. Northstar, 2(3), 1–14. Ang, S. H., Yee, S. O. & Loh, C. (1985). Geography through fieldwork. Book 1. Curriculum Branch.

Geography Education in Singapore

377

Ang, S. H., Yee, S. O. & Loh, C. (1986). Geography through fieldwork. Book 3. Curriculum Branch. Bland, K., Chambers, B., Donert, K., & Thomas, T. (1996). Fieldwork, geography teachers’ handbook. In P. Bailey & P. Fox, (Eds.), Geographical association. (pp. 165–176). Boardman, D., & McPartland, M. (1993). From regions to models: 1944–69. Teaching Geography, 18(2), 65–69. Boyle, A., Maguire, S., Martin, A., Milsom, C., Nash, R., Rawlison, S., Turner, A., Wurthman, S., & Conchie, S. (2007). Fieldwork is good: The student perception and the affective domain. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 31(2), 299–317. Chang, C.-H. (2014). Is Singapore’s school geography becoming too responsive to the changing needs of society? International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 23(1), 25–39. Chang, C.-H. & Seow, T. (2018). The importance of assessing how geography is learnt beyond the classroom. In C-H. Chang, B. S. Wu, T. Seow & K. Irvine (Eds.) Learning geography beyond the traditional classroom: Examples from Peninsular Southeast Asia (pp. 49–60). Springer. Chang, X. P. J. (2016). Changing subject(ivitie)s: Negotiating the changing terrain of academic and school geography in Singapore. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. (pp. 145). National University of Singapore. Cheah, H. M., & Koh, T. S. (2001). Singapore: Integration of ICT into education. Journal of Southeast Asian Education, 2(1), 147–164. Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore (CDIS) (1982). Secondary school geography 1. Pan Pacific Book Distributors. Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore (CDIS) (1984). Secondary school geography 3 normal course. Pan Pacific Book Distributors. Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore (CDIS) (1985). Secondary school geography 3 express course. Pan Pacific Book Distributors. Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore (CDIS). (1995). Understanding geography 1. Longman Singapore Publishers. Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore (CDIS). (1997). Understanding geography 3. Longman Singapore Publishers. Curriculum Planning Division, Ministry of Education (1993). Greening our young minds: A sourcebook on environmental education in primary schools. Author. Curriculum Planning Division, Ministry of Education (1994). The environment: From concern to commitment. Author. Fien, J., Cox, B., & Fossey, W. (1989). Geography: A medium of education. In J. Fien, R. Gerber & P. Wilson (Eds.) The geography teacher’s guide to the classroom. Brian Pieper and Macmillan India Ltd. Goh, C. L. (1971). New oxford progressive geography certificate regional geography: South-East Asia. Oxford University Press. Goh, C. L. (1972). New oxford progressive geography certificate regional geography: Monsoon Asia. Oxford University Press. Goh, C. L. (1975). Certificate of human and physical geography. Oxford University Press. Goh, C. T. (1997): Shaping our future: Thinking schools, learning nations. Speech presented by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong at the opening of the 7th International Conference on Thinking. Goh, K. C., & Wong, P. P. (2000). Status of fieldwork in the geography curriculum in Southeast Asia. In R. Gerber & K. C. Goh (Eds.), Fieldwork in geography: Reflections, perspectives and actions (pp. 99–117). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Graves, N. J. (1980). Geography in education. Heinemann Educational. Graves, N. J. (2001). School textbook research: The case of geography 1800–2000. University of London, London. International Geographical Union—Commission on Geographical Education. (1992). International Charter on Geographical Education. Author. Kent, A. (2002). Geography: Changes and challenges. In M. Smith (Ed.), Teaching geography in secondary schools: A reader (pp. 3–20). Foutledge Falmer.

378

G. C. I. Tan

Kent, A. (2006). Histories of geographical education. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 15(4), 307–323. Lai, K. C. (1999). Freedom to learn: A study of the experiences of secondary school teachers and students in a geography field trip. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 8(3), 239–255. Lambert, D., & Bladerstone, D. (2000). Learning to teach geography in the secondary school. Routledge Falmer. Lambert, D., & Morgan, J. (2010). Teaching geography 11–18: A conceptual approach: A conceptual approach. Open University Press. Ministry of Environment. (1992). The Singapore green plan: Towards a model green city. Author. Ministry of Environment. (1993). The Singapore green plan: Action programmes. Author. Ng, P. T. (2008). Thinking schools, learning nation. In J. Tan & P.T. Ng (Eds.), Thinking schools, learning nation: Contemporary issues and challenges (pp. 1–6). Pearson Prentice Hall. Oost, K., De Vries, B., & Van der Schee, J. A. (2011). Enquiry-driven fieldwork as a rich and powerful teaching strategy—School practices in secondary geography education in the Netherlands. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 20(4), 309–325. Roberts, M. (2003). Learning through enquiry: Making sense of geography in the key stage 3 classroom. Sheffield: Geographical Association. Roberts, M. (2010). Geographical enquiry. Teaching Geography, 35(1), 6–9. Sim, J. B. Y., & Adler, S. A. (2004). The role of secondary social studies in educating Singapore’s citizens. Teaching and Learning, 25(2), 161–169. Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) (2018). Geography Singapore-cambridge general certificate of education ordinary level syllabus 2236. Retrieved 11 Jan 2021 from Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board: https://www.seab.gov.sg/content/syllabus/olevel/201 8Syllabus/2236_2018.pdf. Tan, G. C. I. & Lian, L. C. (2007). Teaching for understanding: Designing curriculum for instruction using the understanding by design framework for geography teachers’ pre-service education. In S. Reinfried, Y. Schleicher, & A. Rempfler (Eds.) Geographical views on education for sustainable development: proceedings lucerne-symposium, Switzerland (pp. 94–101). International Geographical Union. Tan, I., & Lee, C. (1999). Infusion of national education in the teaching of geography in Singapore. Geographical Education, 12, 24–27. Tan, J. (2008). Whither national education? In J. Tan and P.T. Ng (Eds.), Thinking schools, learning nation: Contemporary issues and challenges, (pp. 72–86). Pearson Prentice Hall. Tan, K. (2011). Assessment for learning in Singapore: Unpacking its meanings and identifying some areas for improvement. Educational Research Policy Practice, 10, 91–103. Tilbury, D. (1997). Environmental education and development education: Teaching geography for a sustainable world. In D. Tilbury & M. Williams (Eds.), Teaching and learning geography (pp. 105–116). Routledge.

History Education in Singapore: Development and Transformation Suhaimi Afandi and Ivy Maria Lim

Abstract This chapter examines how the teaching and learning of history in Singapore have evolved since colonial times and throughout Singapore’s transformation into a modern, internationally connected, and cosmopolitan city-state. In the decades following the achievement of political independence in 1965, Singapore’s approach to history education has been carefully managed to meet the challenges and the shifting needs of a newly independent nation-state. National survival, economic imperatives, and social cohesiveness were overriding priorities. These foundational notions continue to wield significant influence in subsequent formulations of the history curriculum. Over the years, the dynamics of global change, concerns over economic functionality, and challenges to national cohesion have guided further iterations of the national history curriculum. These have subsequently led to changes in the way history education is conceived and how the subject is taught in the classroom. Since 2001, the introduction of disciplinary-focused aspects of historical study such as source-work methodology, inquiry-based learning, and concept-based teaching has transformed pedagogical and professional practice in many history classrooms in Singapore. By drawing on relevant scholarship and research in history education, the paper traces the evolution of history education in Singapore and highlights significant developments that have contributed to the way the subject is currently taught and learnt in schools. Keywords History education · History curriculum in Singapore · Inquiry-based learning

S. Afandi (B) · I. M. Lim National Institute of Education, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] I. M. Lim e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_21

379

380

S. Afandi and I. M. Lim

1 Introduction The education system that developed over the years since Singapore, a former British colony, became independent in 1965 was essentially designed to achieve nationbuilding goals. Investment in human resource development “to meet the country’s imperative for an educated and skilled workforce” (Ministry of Information and the Arts, 1998, p. 206) and to educate and prepare its people to meet the rapidly changing social and economic needs of the country have been key and consistent priorities for the post-independence Singapore government. In addition, education also was seen as crucial in forging a national identity and cultivating communitarian reflexes that could unite a highly diverse state (Gopinathan, 2007) and build a nation “out of a disparate collection of immigrants from China, British India, and the Dutch East Indies” (Lee, K. Y., 2000, p. 19). Evidently, a colonial-centric history would not be appropriate to build the common identity that the then newly independent Singapore needed (Sharpe & Gopinathan, 1996). The construction of a “national history”, seeded in 1819 and that incorporated the contributions of the various communities and ethnic groups was deemed imperative to achieve the urgent needs of nation-building and identity goals. Since its introduction in 1984, the Singapore history syllabus—taught as a compulsory subject for 13- and 14-year olds at the lower secondary level—has maintained a consistent aim, that is, the cultivation of a coherent national identity, done (at times) through the inclusion of overt nation-building ideas and the fostering of personal affinities and collective association to the nation state. The learning of The Singapore Story (Lee, H. L., 1997), which included content such as how modern Singapore came into being, the coming together of different ethnic communities and cultures under British rule, the social and economic adversities faced by early immigrants, the struggle for political independence, and the challenges to national survival, remained a necessary and crucial element of history education for Singapore youths. Knowing this official history of Singapore—conceptualized as collective memories and shared aspirations for the future (Tan, T.K.Y., 2002) meant to nurture a common identity that can bind the nation together—has become requisite knowledge for young Singaporeans. It also has served as a touchstone by which students’ knowledge of the nation’s past has typically been judged or recognized (Afandi & Baildon, 2015). While knowing about the nation’s past and its cultural heritage has acquired an increasingly important place in Singapore society, history appears to still struggle to assert its relevance in the minds of many young Singaporeans (Afandi & Baildon, 2010; Goh & Gopinathan, 2005; Han, 2000). This may be partly because history, as a school subject in Singapore, has suffered from an “image problem”. For too long, the learning of history in schools has mostly required students to simply remember “the key facts” or “particular stories” to be reproduced in examinations or when asked. Learning history, however, goes beyond mere content accumulation and aggregation. Many history educators have argued that simply giving students the stories they ought to know may not be the best way to get them to learn “history” (see Shemilt, 1980; Seixas, 1996, Lee & Ashby, 2000; Wineburg, 2001; VanSledright, 2004; Barton &

History Education in Singapore: Development and Transformation

381

Levstik, 2003; Levstik & Barton, 2015; Lee, P. J., 2011; Seixas & Morton, 2013). These scholars agreed that such methods of learning were insufficient in helping schoolchildren develop deep understandings of history—both as a discipline and as legacies of a human past. Developments in Singapore’s education system since the late 1990s, however, have led to major changes in the way curriculum planners, teacher educators, and classroom practitioners have approached the teaching and learning of history. Broader policy initiatives that had changed the educational landscape in Singapore also had a significant impact on the way the history curriculum had been subsequently shaped. The introduction of source-work methodology, the emphasis on inquirybased learning, and the focus on developing disciplinary literacy had called for new methods of learning and placed new demands on classroom pedagogy and professional practice. These have consequently led to changes in the way history education is conceived and how the curriculum should continuously evolve to better prepare students for the future. These changes, however, remained situated within wider developments taking place in Singapore’s education system—one that continues to remain characteristically responsive to global trends and dynamics, and highly receptive to the directives of the MOE and the nation’s political leaders (Afandi & Baildon, 2010). This chapter examines how the teaching and learning of history in Singapore have evolved since colonial times and throughout Singapore’s transformation into a modern, globalized city-state. It explores how the dynamics of global change, concerns over economic functionality, and challenges to national cohesion have led to important shifts in Singapore’s approach to education, and how these had important implications for the design and direction of the national history curriculum since its post-independence years.

2 Education, the State, and the Construction of a National Identity Education is widely acknowledged as an important tool at the state’s disposal to not only enhance national competitive advantages through the development of human resources, but also to disseminate social values, promote social harmony, and construct a national identity (Lee, M. H., 2012). In the context of Singapore, the tight link between education and the economy, within the context of a development state, has only served to increase the importance of education (Ashton & Sung, 1997; Castells, 1988; Gopinathan, 2013). As a society created primarily through immigration, colonial Singapore’s population, up until the Second World War, was largely male and transient, with the thencolony characterized as a “coolie town” made up of “rickshaw pullers, coal heavers, boatmen, stevedores, water carriers, fishermen, and market gardeners” (Trocki, 2006, p. 33). Chinese coolies and, to a smaller extent, Indian immigrants were, thus, in Singapore only with the express aim of making money and then returning home

382

S. Afandi and I. M. Lim

(Turnbull, 2009). In such a society, education was not the top priority for most. There was also, on the part of the East India Company, a lack of interest in education which led to the decision, based on the recommendation of Dr. John Crawfurd, the second Resident of Singapore, to confine education to mainly elementary instruction for the Malay community (which was comparatively more settled and also recognized by the British as indigenous to Singapore). For most of the nineteenth century then, education in Singapore remained largely basic, functional, and decentralized among the various ethnic communities and missionary groups (Lee, S. B., 2017; Blackburn, 2016). In allowing such decentralization in education, the EIC and its successors, the India Office (till 1867), and subsequently the Colonial Office (till 1963) in effect created what H.E. Wilson (1978) described as a fragmented and complex educational scene in the early twentieth century: As the centenary of the founding of Singapore [1919] approached, educational facilities in the island might be characterised as complex, in the sense that there was no single guiding policy. Schools had evolved largely as the result of private initiative, and as such they reflected a broad spectrum of educational philosophies. Government support, at first quite minimal, came to be applied increasingly to the provision of free elementary education of a specific kind for the Malays, and to the encouragement of instruction through the medium of English for a minority drawn principally from the other ethnic groups. Higher education was available only to those who could afford to travel abroad, with admission to this elite being further restricted to those who achieved success in English-medium schools. The majority of the school-age population received no formal education; and such schools as existed tended to make permanent the fragmentation of society along ethno-linguistic lines. (p. 28).

This complex and fragmented system would carry over into post-war Singapore where hardened ethnic fault-lines and the purpose of education in general became issues that would occupy post-war colonial and local administrators alike. For most of the post-war period up till 1959, much of the attention focused on education by the British administrators, and the two Labour Front governments led by David Marshall and Lim Yew Hock were taken up with the issue of equity within the system for the Chinese-medium schools (Wilson, 1978). With the future of Singapore as a stand-alone polity still a vague prospect and any form of closer association with the Federation of Malaya uncertain throughout most of the 1950s, the Labour Front government was consequently unable to formulate clear ideas of the kind of national identity needed by Singapore. However, the role and potential of education in not only breaking down existing ethno-linguistic divisions within the society but also in developing the human resource capacity to support the industrialization drive was articulated by the People’s Action Party (PAP) which went on to form Singapore’s government in 1959. In its 1959 Five Year Plan, the PAP was unequivocal about education’s instrumentality in nation-building and in the economy: “It must be the foremost aim of our education policy to train the children in our schools so that they can become useful citizens who can adapt themselves into the construction work of re-orientating our economic policy and so form the vanguard in laying down the basis for a future socialist society. If our industrial potential is weak it is because our education system has been backward. Because our education system is backward, our industry and economy cannot develop” (PAP, 1959, Part 2, pp.5-6).

History Education in Singapore: Development and Transformation

383

In the same document, the importance of education in the promotion of social harmony and the construction of a national identity among citizens (Green, 1997) was also acknowledged. Noting the “cosmopolitan nature” of Singapore’s population and the “urgent necessity of breaking down walls which segregate one community from the other” (PAP, 1959, Part 2, pp. 2, 3), the PAP pinpointed education as “the principal media through which the values of the nation and of society are imparted to the young child” (PAP, 1959, p. 4). Singapore’s subsequent experience of merger with the Federation of Malaya from 1963 to 1965, as well as her abrupt thrust into independence in August 1965, served to reinforce the importance of education to the economy as well as the need to build social cohesion out of diversity through a process of identity construction. Driven by the shift from import substitution industrialization to export-oriented industrialization in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Singapore government embarked upon the creation of “an education system that would support the development of a literate and technically trained workforce” while not forgetting “the role of education in socialization and the nation-building process, especially in terms of developing a Singapore identity” (Goh & Gopinathan, 2008, p.14). School buildings were rapidly constructed; teacher education programmes of varying lengths and intensities were established; and, for the first time since the first schools were established in Singapore in the 1820s, the medium of instruction, curriculum, and assessments were unified in ways that earlier attempts at educational reforms were not able to achieve (Lee, M. H., 2012; Wilson, 1978). Within the new standardized national curriculum which was overtly geared towards making education “economically relevant” through emphasizing science, mathematics, and technical subjects and with vocational schools offering “usable skills” (Gopinathan, 2013, p. 9), history as a subject came to be viewed through contradictory lenses of being a subject with “least market value” and yet considered by policymakers as a “core component” within the curriculum (Lee, M. H., 2012, p. 44). Efforts were made from the 1960s to the 1980s to have a more Singaporecentric history syllabus with corresponding shifts in pedagogical approaches from didactic teaching to conceptual, inquiry-based approaches, but history’s role in constructing national identity seemed to be undermined by efforts focusing on first moral and religious education in the 1980s and then on civics and moral education in the 1990s (Lee, M. H., 2017, 2012; Tan, 1997). However, concerns grew in the late 1990s over the discernible lack of knowledge of Singapore’s history among the young. In a speech at the Democratic Socialist Club Kent Ridge Forum in 1996, then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, in making a case for a cohesive and committed population, noted a “serious gap in the education” of Singaporeans who are ignorant of the nation’s history (Lee, H. L., 1996). This speech, perhaps a harbinger of what was to come, was followed in 1997 by the launch of the National Education (NE) programme. By seeking to develop “national cohesion” through integrating NE into the formal curriculum (namely history, geography, CME, and the new Social Studies subject), young Singaporeans would be equipped with “the basic attitudes, values, and instincts which make them Singaporeans” (Lee, H. L., 1997). Taken together with the other major educational initiatives of 1997—the Thinking

384

S. Afandi and I. M. Lim

Schools Learning Nation (TSLN) and the IT Masterplan—and the shift towards content reduction through the Teach Less Learn More policy of 2004 and a skillsbased curriculum to prepare students and equip them for the twenty-first century, the teaching of history as a subject also underwent an evolutionary transformation.

3 History Education in the Pre-independence Decades As a subject offered in the English-medium schools in pre-war Singapore, history initially served the purpose of being an additional subject to improve the English of the pupils.1 However, in the 1920s, as discussions of citizenship came to be linked with history education in Britain (Madeley, 1920), the ideas were likewise propagated in the Straits Settlements and British Malaya. History, at the urging of Ernest Wolff, then Director of Education in the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States, became a subject to encourage imperial citizenship, which in turn necessitated curriculum changes to provide knowledge of the British Empire and its institutions to the pupils (Blackburn & Wu, 2019). This idea of history as citizenship education underwent further refinements in the post-war period when moves towards self-government changed the rhetoric from one of training imperial citizens to that of creating a Malayan identity. Encouraged by the recommendations of the Barnes and Fenn-Wu committees in 1951 on Malay and Chinese education in Malaya, respectively, there began a push, in both Singapore and Malaya, towards creating “Malayan-centric” textbooks, especially for history, as part of the process of creating Malayan citizens. While the initial project fell through, what emerged was the conviction that transforming the extant history syllabus to create a “shared Malayan history in Malaya and Singapore” with a “Malayan outlook” was the way forward (See Blackburn & Wu, 2019, Chap. 3). As the process of decolonization picked up pace in Malaya and Singapore in the late 1950s, the history syllabuses then in use in the primary and secondary schools underwent a process of “Malayanization” or localization. Instead of great European historical figures and British imperial history and culture, children in Singapore learnt about Asian heroes, local kingdoms, and cultures. The use of history as the subject to create the “Malayan outlook” not only speaks to the process of decolonization in the 1950s, but it also was a recognition of the value of history in shaping social representations and in evoking feelings and knowledge about the past that makes one identify with events and values. As part of the public education curriculum, history is “one of the key resources of the nation-states, to secure a loyal citizenry sharing a sense of belonging to the same imagined community” (Anderson, 1983) and providing “a basis for identity formation” (Carretero et al, 1

It should be noted here that history was introduced as a subject into Singapore schools as early as 1856. It was taught and examined in primary schools from 1856 to 1972 when it was removed as an examinable subject at the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) which had been instituted in 1960. Hence, the discussion on the development and evolution of the history curriculum in Singapore prior to 1972 would include the primary history curriculum as well.

History Education in Singapore: Development and Transformation

385

2014, page 2). In the 1956 White Paper on Education Policy tabled by the Labour Front government in Singapore, it was explicitly noted that the government’s main aim in education was to create a Malayan nation, and, to this end, new standardized “Malayanized” history syllabuses for primary and secondary schools were created (See Blackburn & Wu, 2019, Chap. 4). With the gaining of self-government in 1959 under the People’s Action Party, an Educational Advisory Council was established, which in turn appointed Subject Committees to review the existing curriculum. The work of the History subject committee, while initially tasked to review the curriculum to ensure fostering of national pride, took on added significance with the gaining of independence in 1965. The curriculum now had to be Singapore-centric rather than Malayanized.

4 History Education After 1965: Educational Priorities Amidst the Search for Identity With the gaining of independence in 1965, the attention of the state abruptly changed from one focused on Malayanizing the curriculum to one that placed economic survival and racial harmony above all other needs. Singapore’s status as a newly independent country meant that, by the late 1960s, history education was seen as essential to nation-building. This was the opinion expressed by Wong Lin Ken, the Raffles Professor of History at the University of Singapore, who argued that history was key to promoting “common ideals of citizenship, …[developing] a sense of national identity and loyalty to the state, and [instilling] a sense of ownership of a piece of territory called country” (Lee, S. B., 2017, p. 86). It was this sense of mission that pushed the History Department at the university to draft a new Singapore-centric history syllabus that was later implemented in the primary schools in 1970 (Blackburn & Wu, 2019). However, the announcement, in January 1972, that geography and history would be dropped from the Primary School Leaving Examinations only portend the eventual removal of history from the primary curriculum in 1975, despite assurances to the contrary by then Parliamentary Secretary (Education) Ahmad Mattar.2 (The Straits Times, 5 January 1972; New Nation, 19 March 1975). The initial years of independence were seen as the survival-driven phase (circa. 1959–78), and with the early focus on expanding basic education to build up a literate and skilled workforce, there was little attempt to change the secondary history curriculum. Students continued to study Singapore history as “a brief appendage to the history of Malaya” in the upper secondary years while their initial introduction 2

Ahmad Mattar’s assurance was made on the grounds that history was no longer a stand-alone subject in the primary curriculum but had been incorporated into the Education for Living (EFL) syllabus which was implemented in primary schools from 1975 onwards. The argument was that by incorporating history into EFL, it was made “more alive and meaningful” and relevant to pupils’ individual lived experiences and in so doing, avoid the “traditional way of teaching history which consists of mere memorization … for no other reason than passing an examination.” See “History not scrapped: Mattar”, New Nation, 19 March 1975, 2.

386

S. Afandi and I. M. Lim

to history in lower secondary covered ancient world civilizations. Yet, government ministers and politicians continue to highlight the importance of history at various opportunities. For instance, Chai Chong Yii, the Senior Minister of State (Education), used his opening speech at the History of Southeast Asian Man exhibition at the National Museum to urge history teachers to help their students “appreciate the spirit and courage of their forefathers in the struggle for survival and freedom” (The Straits Times, 1978). The rapid expansion of the education system, in order to provide schooling for all, and the inherited issues of language education led to a system that saw high attrition rates at the primary level (Goh & Gopinathan, 2008). Coupled with a rapidly changing economic environment, a “high-powered team of system engineers” led by Dr. Goh Keng Swee was put together to “work out a more flexible implementation of policies to cater to the needs of the fast, the average, and the slow learners” (Raman, 1978). The resulting landmark Goh Report, submitted in 1979, resulted in the efficiency-driven New Education System (NES) characterized by “a national curriculum with a stress on bilingualism, moral education and civics, science, mathematics, and technical education”, tracking of student attainment levels and the tightening of control over curriculum and textbooks by the Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore (CDIS) established in 1980 (Goh & Gopinathan, 2008, p.23). Against this background, the study of history at the secondary level became a matter of concern. Since history was compulsory only at the lower secondary levels and with the existing syllabus focused on world history, many came to the realization that a student could in fact go through secondary education without coming into contact with Singapore history at all. Calls began to be made by political leaders, not least Lee Kuan Yew himself, for a Singapore-centric history syllabus (Blackburn & Wu, 2019). A review of the history curriculum and the pedagogical approaches carried out by the Ministry of Education in 1982 recommended the study of the history of Singapore as a compulsory subject in Secondary One and Two (Lee, S. B., 2017). At the launch of the new lower secondary history curriculum in December 1983, then Minister of State for Education, Dr. Tay Eng Soon, noted that the existing “traditional comprehensive type of history syllabus has not been revised since 1960” and therefore “a change in the history syllabus is …long overdue” (Tay, 1983). In his view, the new syllabus was “a completely new departure”, focusing on “the growth of Singapore from a tiny trading port to a modern metropolis” and, in line with the declared aim of history education in fostering a sense of nationhood, would provide the “post-independence generation” with “historical perspective” and “a much better appreciation of the present” (Tay, 1983). Tay’s views were reiterated by Dr. Tony Tan, then Minister of Education, a couple of years later in his opening address at the 10th Conference of the International Association of Historians of Asia. Noting how the study of history has evolved from mere chronicles to requiring “a critical and inter-disciplinary approach”, Tan (1986) also notes that it is important that our children should have a good and sound knowledge of the history of Singapore so that they can develop a sense of belonging to the nation. Our aim must be to develop in our children a sense of Singapore identity to bring about an understanding of

History Education in Singapore: Development and Transformation

387

and to instil pride in Singapore’s progress and the achievements of our people. This is why historical studies are of great importance to a young nation like Singapore (1986).

With the increased attention on the value of history to help young Singaporeans develop a sense of belonging, of natural pride, and be equipped with cultural ballast, the teaching of history, as noted by Tay Eng Soon in 1983, began to move towards a more applied, skills-based approach from the traditional didactic and rote memorization methods. The subsequent review of the lower secondary history syllabus in 1992 saw not only the refinement of the content covered in the syllabus but also in the suggestion of pedagogical approaches as well. In addition to the suggestions (provided in 1982) of using relevant and instructive examples and applying a variety of teaching methods to bring lessons beyond “chalk and talk” such as the use of visual aids, field trips, and project work, teachers were encouraged to use the conceptual approach and consider the efficacy of field trips within and outside Singapore in the 1992 revision. This first mention of the conceptual approach to the teaching of history marked a “substantial departure” as history education began to make its shift from knowledge acquisition to conceptual understanding of big ideas (Lee, S. B., 2017). The introduction of NE in 1997 marked the next shift for history education in Singapore. Identified as one of the key subjects via which the key NE messages, infused through the curriculum, would be disseminated to the students, the lower secondary syllabus, which continued to be focused on Singapore history, came to be framed around the Singapore Story. In launching the new initiative, Lee Hsien Loong defined the Singapore Story as “objective history, seen from a Singapore standpoint” (Lee, H. L., 1997). However, this very definition of history has led to constraints in the way the national history has been presented and can be understood in the classroom. Critics have argued that this would, in effect, lead to a biased historical account of Singapore’s past which provided no room for alternative interpretations or even the exercise of historical imagination (Lee, S. B., 2017; Loh, 1998; Loh & Lee, 2010). NE, as framed in this manner, thus also seemed to be in contradiction to the aims of the other key initiative, namely Thinking Schools, Learning Nation (TSLN), which was positioned as encouraging students to develop critical thinking competencies. Despite the incongruities and plausible contradictions between NE and TSLN, the history curriculum underwent another review in the late 1990s, taking into account input from an External Review Team, led by Professor Hang Chang Chieh, Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the National University of Singapore, which recommended the creation of opportunities for self-directed learning, a shift in focus towards critical thinking, and a reduction of syllabus content by up to 30 percent (Lee, S. B., 2017). Accordingly, non-essential concepts or skills and overlapping content were removed from the history syllabus in 1999. This was followed by a revised lower secondary history curriculum in 2000. Yet, the main objective for teaching history, especially with the implementation of NE, was still citizenship education. While the lower secondary curriculum in 1992 was made up of the history of Singapore (1819–1965) and an overview of Southeast Asian, Indian, and Chinese civilizations in Secondary One and Two, respectively, the revised curriculum launched in 2013 focused solely

388

S. Afandi and I. M. Lim

on the history of Singapore, with the timeline pushed back in time to the fourteenth century and forward to the 1970s. This change not only underscores the continued importance of history as a subject with the objective of instilling in students “a sense of national identity” (MOE, 2013, p. 3) but also sent a clear signal on the need to know one’s own country before understanding others.

5 Inquiry-Based Learning for Twenty-First Century History Education On the heels of the TSLN initiative, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong’s warned that “what has worked well in the past” for Singapore will no longer “work for the future”. Adjustments needed to be made to the education system to ensure that young Singaporeans were sufficiently prepared for “the new circumstances and new problems they will face” (Goh, 1997). Mr. Goh would again reiterate the importance of these educational changes at the Teachers’ Day Rally in 2001 when he stressed that “education” remained vital for Singapore’s economic success and was “the key to our national survival” (Goh, 2001). As MOE continued its drive towards an ability-driven education system, further emphasis was placed on the acquisition of higher-order thinking skills deemed essential to help young Singaporeans cope with the demands of the twenty-first-century economy. Qualitative changes within the larger system also led to concomitant changes in the way the history curriculum was designed and enacted. This period saw a major shake-up in the way history was taught, particularly in the pedagogical shift away from direct knowledge transmission towards developing an appreciation for the subject as an academic discipline and using historical inquiry as the main pedagogical approach. This shift towards inquiry-based learning and a more learner-centric instruction in history was very much a consequence of the government’s Teach Less, Learn More (TLLM) initiative3 to further improve the education system. In his 2004 National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong insisted that learning in school should not just be about “preparing for a job, but learning to live a life, learning to deal with the world, learning to be a full person”. He urged educators “to teach less to our students so that they can learn more” (Lee, H. L., 2004). A key feature of this initiative was the reduction of curriculum content to provide teachers with more scope for innovation in their teaching, and for students to take part in learning activities that interest them or that can help them to think more critically and creatively. Historical inquiry, with its characteristic focus on student-initiated and self-directed learning, was seen as an ideal pedagogical approach that can appropriately facilitate the growth of students’ intellectual curiosities and cognitive faculties. 3

The “Teach Less, Learn More” (TLLM) movement started in 2005 to help teachers and schools focus on the fundamentals of effective and quality teaching. The aim was to make learning engaging for students and to get them to learn with understanding, while moving learning beyond mere preparation for tests and examinations.

History Education in Singapore: Development and Transformation

389

Moves to augment a more disciplined-based approach to the teaching and learning of history took place from 2012 onwards with the inclusion of historical thinking frameworks and historical inquiry.4 The construction of the revised history syllabuses across all school levels (lower secondary, upper secondary, and junior college) was guided by a statement of philosophy that “seeks to develop in students a critical appreciation of past human experiences and connections between past and present” (Curriculum Planning and Development Division [CPDD], Ministry of Education [MOE], 2012, p. 6). Inquiry-based learning was seen as critical in transforming the teaching of school history: from transmission of knowledge onto passive learners to an active approach that encouraged learners to purposefully seek answers to intriguing historical questions. In achieving the aim of developing “reasoned, inquiring, methodical” learners, “capable of demonstrating a balanced perspective and having a disposition for empathetic understanding in history” (CPDD, 2012, p. 6), curriculum planners crafted a history curriculum that sought to engage students in understanding the nature of the historical discipline. An explicit objective was for students to learn to “appreciate the underpinnings of the discipline” through processes involved in “doing history” (p. 12). Across all educational levels where history was taught (either as an independent subject or a hybrid “Humanities” course), the revised history syllabus emphasized historical processes, the teaching of historical concepts, and an enhanced focus on source-work methodology. Syllabus documents demonstrated an overt intention towards deepening students’ historical thinking (through an understanding of second-order historical concepts such as change, cause, significance, and evidence) and in cultivating specific dispositions (such as empathy, sensitivity to historical context, and respect for diverse perspectives) that can support the development of proper historical understandings. Since the launch of the revised history syllabuses from 2013 onwards, students in Singapore have been encouraged to undertake self-initiated and teacher-proposed inquiries as part of getting them to think independently and to take ownership of their own learning. Lessons designed for inquiry-based instruction offered history students greater flexibility on how they wished to conduct their investigations— from opportunities to explore questions of significant interest to making decisions on the selection of historical evidence to be used and to the ways in which their interpretations and evidence-based conclusions may be presented. Guidance for teachers, in the form of capacity-building initiatives and professional development (PD) opportunities (through pre- and in-service courses, symposiums, and participation in professional learning communities), has focused not only on deepening their disciplinary knowledge but also on developing expert knowledge about historical inquiry. These courses—provided by MOE’s Curriculum Planning Development Division and conducted by teacher educators at the National Institute of Education (NIE) and expert practitioners at the Academy of Singapore Teachers (AST)—have 4

The change to an inquiry-based and discipline-focused curriculum in the teaching of humanities subjects (namely, history, geography, and social studies) in Singapore had been in place since 2012. For history, new syllabus changes were initiated at the launches of the Upper Secondary History Syllabus in 2013, the Lower Secondary History Syllabus in 2014, and the A-Level History Syllabus in 2015.

390

S. Afandi and I. M. Lim

become important avenues where history teachers can strengthen their expertise in designing inquiry-based learning experiences for their students. The positive outcomes that can be derived from inquiry-based learning were reinforced in recent times when former Minister of Education Mr. Ong Ye Kung, speaking in an interview with Bloomberg, emphasized that Singapore needed “to use an inquiry-based approach to teach students how to exercise critical thinking” (Bloomberg, 2018). At the 2018 MOE Workplan Seminar, he repeated the call for teachers to “leverage on effective inquiry-based pedagogies to enhance students’ learning experiences” (Ong, 2018). Today, schools and MOE-partnered institutions are supported in developing pedagogical initiatives and innovations aimed at providing teachers and students the space to engage in authentic inquiry and cognitive experimentation both in the classroom and through online learning platforms such as the Student Learning Space (SLS).5 The focus on inquiry-based learning and historical investigation has markedly shifted the way history is taught and learnt in the classroom, allowing for changes in how students’ learning experience in history is conceived, articulated, and experienced. This had the effect of steadily shifting mindsets especially among history teachers and for educators to place value on educational outcomes but without having to compromise too much on assessment expectations. Nonetheless, enacting an inquiry-based history curriculum in Singapore classrooms has remained fraught with challenges. Limited empirical research exists to highlight—with confidence—the efficacy of implementing an inquiry-oriented curriculum, and its impact on student learning outcomes. The latter is especially significant in Singapore’s context where students, teachers, parents, school administrators, employers, stakeholders, and society as a whole have placed a premium on high-stakes examinations and academic success. Unsurprisingly, some teachers have suggested that full, authentic inquiry-based learning may seem “unrealistic” given a crowded curriculum driven mostly by concerns with assessment objectives. Accountability and pragmatic concerns over academic performance remained important considerations in determining pedagogical decisions history teachers make in their classrooms. Despite laudable efforts to reduce assessment loads, concerns over examination results and related indicators of students’ academic performance remain a major source of anxiety and stress for many history teachers. More constructive arrangements may need to be worked out to help history teachers better manage the competing purposes that may impede the quality of their professional endeavour, specifically: between enacting inquiry in authentic and innovative ways in the classroom, and also ensuring that students do well on high-stakes examinations. Furthermore, inquiry-based lessons can be challenging for teachers to plan and implement. By its very nature, historical inquiry requires an investment in curriculum time and for teachers to be adventurous in devising ways to present students with cognitive challenges aimed at developing proper historical understandings. Such lessons can be exceptionally difficult for teachers who lack disciplinary expertise and 5

The Student Learning Space (SLS) is a key MOE initiative that seeks to transform students’ educational experiences through the purposeful use of technology and giving them the opportunity to engage in different learning modes, such as self-directed and collaborative learning.

History Education in Singapore: Development and Transformation

391

firm pedagogical knowledge, particularly on ways to progressively develop students’ ideas about history. This challenge, however, may not be peculiar only to history education. Research evidence from Science classrooms in Singapore, for example, indicated similar reluctance on the part of local teachers to devote an appropriate amount of time to design inquiry-based lessons (Lee, Y.-J., 2014). These teachers also were found to be inadequately prepared or ready to undertake high-level scientific inquiry with their students—not unlike their history counterparts in schools. When such a time-consuming pedagogical strategy is not seen to improve students’ understandings in any distinct or recognizable ways, teachers may end up setting learning tasks that would enable students to simply achieve pre-determined levels and not ones that can stretch their thinking in history. Despite the challenges that exist, the move towards an inquiry-driven history curriculum has largely changed the way educators in Singapore viewed and approached the teaching and learning of history in the classroom. Getting students to develop an understanding and appreciation of human actions in the past by “doing history” and engaging in historical inquiries—in the classroom, through online platforms, and at field-sites—have left a deep pedagogical imprint on teachers’ professional practice. Inquiry-based learning also had reinforced the fundamental objective, purpose, and trajectory of history education in Singapore, at least for the foreseeable future. The social and educative outcomes of an inquiry-based curriculum, for example in creating critical and inventive thinkers who are self-directed learners but also active collaborators in knowledge-building capacities, hold the potential to better prepare our students to live in ever-changing global contexts and an increasingly complex world. As Walter Parker noted, these “are among the most valued cognitive goals that we have for students’ learning, but also among the most valued democratic citizenship goals” (Parker, 2012, p. 6).

6 Transformation and Continuities in History Teaching and Learning Over the decades and across several curriculum iterations and many syllabus revisions, the direction and framework of history teaching and learning in Singapore have substantially shifted: from one that was traditionally content-focused and ostensibly designed to simply provide knowledge about past events to one that is focused on developing disciplinary understandings and the application of historical thinking skills. There exists a recognition that the conventional form of acquiring historical knowledge may be insufficient and inadequate in supporting the growth of historical literacy among students and in cultivating relevant twenty-first-century skills and competencies. While the change may have occurred as a gradual transition or as an evolution, it nonetheless transformed the way history education is approached in schools. In many Singapore classrooms today, much of the instructional moves revolve around having students use and evaluate historical sources as part of historical

392

S. Afandi and I. M. Lim

inquiries. These include having students explain causes of events, take on multiple perspectives, identify changes and continuities, and construct narratives and arguments on the basis of historical significance. The idea of historical knowledge as “fixed” and “given” or exists as unproblematic representations of singular realities no longer seem tenable; in its stead is the notion of historical knowledge that is constructed, provisional, and open to question and scrutiny. In the same way, simply learning about “the correct facts” and “the right story”, committing these “facts” or “the story” to memory, and then reproducing it or parts of the story for the purpose of tests and examinations may no longer seem adequate as demonstrations of historical understandings. History has developed into a “thinking subject”—one that not only offers its learners with opportunities to hone historical reasoning skills but also enables them to achieve one of its earlier goals, that is, to acquire a “sense of history and a historical perspective” (Tay, 1983). Perceptible transformations in history education and practice, however, are not limited only to the way the subject is conceived and understood. These also can be seen in pedagogical innovations meant to engage student learning, such as the active and intuitive use of technology and online learning platforms such as the SLS, the design and use of research-derived instructional tools and learning scaffolds, and the adoption of thinking routines and concept-focused teaching. Students’ learning in history is further augmented through the use of formative assessment strategies to monitor progress in learning, learner-centric teaching methodologies that support differentiated instruction, and the use of inquiry-based frameworks to support investigational approaches to learning and knowledge-making processes. Comparing the kind of learning experiences in history prior to the 1990s, history education today may be seen to have advanced significantly—both in terms of instructional range and pedagogical quality. Despite these advances and improvements, however, several “continuities” exist. Some of these continuities may be argued in the context of broad foundational principles critical to the needs of a young independent nation, where state-formation and nation-building processes existed as important priorities. For much of Singapore’s post-independence development (and history), government decisions and policy actions have been guided by overriding political and economic imperatives. These continue to serve as important reference points to meet existing challenges and envisage future trajectories. Recent curricular shifts, such as efforts to prepare students for the new knowledge-based economy (Goh, 2001), to equip them with twenty-first-century skills and competencies (Heng, 2011), and to provide them with digital and technological expertise to meet the demands of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Ong, 2018), were informed by these foundational principles. These shifts point to an education system still moored to notions of national survival, economic competitiveness, social affiliation, and civic responsibility. The changes in the history curriculum since the turn of the twenty-first century also may be seen in the context of wider educational reforms designed to meet the challenges brought about by globalization and the need for a “future-ready” education system. These typically stressed

History Education in Singapore: Development and Transformation

393

“the need for greater attention to processes, higher-order thinking skills, better utilization of technology in education, and changes to assessment” (Gopinathan, 2007, p. 56). Other “continuities” may be seen as more enduring—and perhaps even intractable—challenges that have hampered the achievement of stated history education aims and objectives in Singapore. Despite the push towards inquiry-based learning, conceptual thinking, and constructivist learning practices, instruction in history classrooms remained content-focused and reliant on worksheet-based, drillsand-practice approaches. Few are seen to be engaged in learning experiences designed to build thinking dispositions or cultivate historical habits of mind. Findings of limited small-scale research and classroom observations suggest that while Singaporean students were adept at doing well when tested on factual information, they remained largely unacquainted with modes of inquiry associated with historical thinking. The focus on content acquisition also has reinforced (mis-)perceptions of history as “a dead subject” and one that mainly required the transfer of factual knowledge to be uncritically absorbed and reproduced. Many students in Singapore often questioned the relevance of history to present-day living. Some have developed scepticism on the need to learn history in school especially when they know they could easily find the information on the Internet or via their smartphones—much like their counterparts in the United States (Wineburg, 2018). For many in Singapore, history is not widely regarded as a subject that fosters the high-level thinking that is necessary to function or compete in a knowledge-based economy. While scientific and technical knowledge is recognized as both critical and necessary for continued economic development and progress, historical knowledge has never been able to lay claim to such acknowledgement (Afandi & Baildon, 2010). For a long time, the challenge facing school history has been to show how it can remain relevant amidst changing contexts, and this continued to be so despite apparent pedagogical achievements and curricular transformation. A final “continuity” may be found in the recognition that despite the progress made in the way the curriculum is revised, upgraded, and effected, understanding history remains a challenging endeavour for many students in schools. Contemplating issues, events, and people who lived in the distant and unfamiliar past can be a daunting undertaking especially when this involves having students take on perspectives, beliefs, and values that are not necessarily their own (Ashby & Lee, 1987). Evidently, there will be some distance between the lives students currently lead and the experiences of those whose lives are the object of historical study. Yet, acquiring proper understandings about historical contexts and developing profound awareness about the variety, the difference, and the strangeness of past lives and events (Shemilt, 1980) may not be conveniently achieved simply by aggregating and accumulating factual knowledge. More than knowing what happened and who were the people involved, understanding history requires that students also demonstrate the ability to establish and explain causal factors that may have led to these events happening and how succeeding developments may have had important repercussions on the course of history. Demonstrating the ability to navigate through the present and the past in order to understand the interplay of continuity and change and achieve

394

S. Afandi and I. M. Lim

deeper awareness of contexts or the social and political forces at work are skills and dispositions that require complex logical thought processes. If students in Singapore are to acquire the kind of knowledge that is deemed historical, they must be equipped with more “powerful ways” of understanding the past (Lee & Ashby, 2000, p.216) and develop a better awareness of the processes involved in knowledge-making and (re-)construction in history.

7 History Education in Singapore: Future Directions The changes in the history curriculum in recent years have indeed been significant in supporting the growth in historical literacy and have been instrumental in raising the standard of history teaching and learning in schools. Yet, the inordinate attention spent on developing methods to train and prepare students to answer examination questions remains a challenging “continuity” that has reduced historical thinking and reasoning to sets of somewhat rigid, algorithmically devised skills-related procedures (Afandi & Baildon, 2010). Preparing students for examinations, however, need not be done at the expense of students’ understandings of the past and about the nature of historical knowledge; these goals are not exclusive but mutually reinforcing in many ways. Research has found that history instruction that provides students with an opportunity to work intensively with historical sources and in ways that open up historical knowledge to debate and conjecture can, in positive ways, affect the growth of adolescents’ historical reasoning and the quality of historical learning (Lee, P. J., 2005; Shemilt, 1980). These attributes become even more urgent in an era of information culture where students are continually exposed to various forms of audio-visual and textual representations of past events—through movies, television, the Internet, fictional novels, etc. If they are not to be left helpless in the face of diverse interpretations or apparent fragmentation, shrugging their shoulders at a multiplicity of opinions or claims about the past, history education must equip students with an “intellectual toolkit” (Lee & Ashby, 2000) that can help them become discerning and critical readers of historical sources. In charting future directions and “the way forward” to maintaining standards, rigour, and the relevance of history education among students in Singapore, the following proposals for the strengthening of curriculum features may be pertinent: 1.

A curriculum that supports the development of sound historical dispositions As a subject, history may be viewed by lay persons as common sense tempered by very extensive knowledge and some practical wisdom. Research, however, suggests that history is not just common sense; it is “counter-intuitive” (Lee, P. J., 1998) and actually goes “against the grain of how we ordinarily think” (Wineburg, 2001, p. 7). A form of thinking that is rarely seen as a natural process or regarded as an automatic progression of psychological development will pose challenges for younger learners. Studies across several national contexts (see Barca, 1997; Boix-Mansilla, 2000; Cercadillo, 2000; Lee & Ashby, 2000;

History Education in Singapore: Development and Transformation

2.

395

Chapman, 2009; Hsiao, 2008; Afandi, 2012) found that many students often see the past as something that is “given”, “known”, and “fixed” and are frequently predisposed to “a way of thinking that requires little effort” (Wineburg, 2001, p. 19). In fact, presentism—the act of viewing the past through the lens of the present—largely influences the way many students look at the past. When explaining human actions and behaviour in the past, for example, it is common for students “to judge past actions by present-day contexts” (VanSledright, 1996, p. 136), or to be predisposed to view people in the past as fundamentally similar to (or more commonly worse than) people today in values and beliefs (Lee & Ashby, 2001). The history syllabuses that were introduced in Singapore from 2013 onwards were notable for their emphasis on having students develop the ability to see and understand events from the points of view of historical actors and in light of their circumstances. The intentional focus on historical agency—rooted in an understanding of historical life and context—offered much scope in potentially cultivating sound historical values and dispositions (such as empathy and respect for diverse perspectives). This can help develop students’ awareness and understanding of how living in the past was like—for example, being aware and appreciating the sacrifices of Singapore’s pioneer generation, recognizing the tough living and working conditions people in Singapore experienced at various phases of the country’s history, developing a sense of the appalling standards of sanitation and hygiene in the immediate post-war years, etc. A curriculum that focuses on developing historical empathy and historical diversity not only as processes of historical study (Foster & Yeager, 1998) but also as outcomes of historical understanding (Ashby & Lee, 1987) can help promote students’ affinity for those who came before them, diminish parochialist tendencies among Singapore’s youths, and foster genuine respect for the cultural and ethnic diversity of people living in our community. These goals do not challenge sacrosanct ideas and foundational principles of the state but can in fact enrich and augment national identity and social cohesion. Nevertheless, nurturing these values and dispositions would require longer-term commitment and for history teachers themselves to recognize that these are worth pursuing. A curriculum that sustains its focus on developing students’ historical understandings Recent initiatives to raise standards in history education through a history curriculum that encourages inquiry-based learning and a focus on developing students’ understandings of historical concepts such as accounts, evidence, significance, causation, empathy, and diversity (MOE, 2012) represented significant developments in history education in Singapore. Discipline-inspired pedagogical approaches and inquiry-based teaching methods have begun to transform the way historical instruction is carried out in history classrooms. Inquirybased learning, for example, has opened up historical knowledge for investigation and enabled teachers to engage students in historically grounded tasks that are designed to track the development of students’ disciplinary understandings.

396

3.

S. Afandi and I. M. Lim

Designing a framework for curriculum development with the progression of students’ ideas in mind (Lee & Ashby, 2000) would serve not only as a focal point for thinking about ways to improve students’ competency in history, but also offer opportunities for formative assessment strategies aimed at moving students’ ideas forward. For students to develop proper historical understandings, however, they must be taught to think about aspects of history in criterial or disciplinary terms, where the acquisition of more powerful ideas may initiate qualitative shifts in the kinds of ideas students hold about the nature of historical study. This is not to say that the objective is for students to be inducted in the apprenticeship of the professional craft; school history, by its very nature, is limited in terms of what it can achieve. As some history educators emphasized, an education in history is not so much for the purpose of creating “miniature professional historians” (Lee & Ashby, 2000, p. 204) or for getting students to engage in a “mimicry of academic discourse” (Barton & Levstik, 2004, p. 5). Rather, it is to acquaint students with an understanding of a discipline that is rooted in the practice of historians and to understand what is involved when historians engage with the past. A robust history curriculum, for example, would allow students to view history (and the historian’s craft) in a serious way and be given ample opportunities to understand why or how historians use evidence in the way they do, such as to support claims, to build arguments, to develop interpretations, to draw conclusions, and so on. A sustained focus on historical inquiry in the classroom will strengthen students’ proficiency in approaching historical sources and historians’ claims in a more tentative but critical way—without the need to impose mechanical or algorithmic templates to source analysis that may inadvertently end up confining students’ intellectual responses. Rather than impeding the achievement of goals related to citizenship and national identity, more than anything, a focus on historical understanding will equip students with a mental apparatus to detect bias and prejudice, to sift truth from falsity, and to put forward views that are tempered by both respect for diverse perspectives and reliable evidence. A curriculum that is conceptualized around progressions in historical understanding One of the ways students can demonstrate a proper understanding of history is through their ability to construct valid accounts of the past and the level at which they are able to use evidence to support their arguments and conclusions. A number of students in the UK (Lee & Ashby, 2000; Chapman, 2009), Canada (Seixas & Morton, 2013), Taiwan (Hsiao, 2008), Portugal (Barca, 1997; Gago, 2005), Spain (Cercadillo, 2000), South Korea (Park, 2008), and Singapore (Afandi, 2012) have been found to already work with sophisticated notions of historical accounts that would allow them to distinguish criterial differences between competing or rival versions of the past. Research findings on students’ progression in historical understanding in these national contexts also have suggested that with good teaching, even students who are working with

History Education in Singapore: Development and Transformation

4.

397

simplistic notions will be able to progressively build a framework for making critical sense out of legitimate stories. Yet, the existing history curriculum framework has not adequately explored notions of “progression”, particularly in the ways students’ historical understandings can be systematically developed. There is also limited use of conceptual frameworks and models of progression (based on robust empirical studies) that could be used for analytical purposes or demonstrated for professional application. A history curriculum that is framed on the basis of progression in student learning not only offers a developmental map that can chart the progress of students’ historical ideas and understandings (across age-groups, academic bands, or level of study), but also informs teachers on ways to identify the range of ideas/understandings their students are likely to hold when making sense of historical knowledge. Yet, available research evidence suggests that history teachers in Singapore are not naturally predisposed to think about classroom instruction and student learning in terms of drawing out and addressing students’ pre-existing ideas (Afandi, 2012). For the most part, students’ prior ideas are viewed in deficient terms or as impediments to understanding rather than as useful resources that could be used to build workable and better conceptions. The use of progression models, conceptualized in a developmental manner and demonstrating the progress of students’ ideas in history, may be seen as useful constructs that can assist practitioners to predict the range of ideas they can expect to encounter in the classroom. They can help teachers recognize students’ different “starting points”, identify significant gaps in understanding, and plan teaching and assessment activities that are designed to build on (or, where appropriate, undermine) these preconceptions. A curriculum that emphasizes formative assessment practices in history

Recent international research on history education has focused not only on developing models of historical thinking but also on devising assessment frameworks that can more accurately describe progress in students’ learning of history. Designing a framework for curriculum development based on stages of progress in student thinking offers opportunities for formative assessment strategies that are targeted at improving students’ knowledge, skills, and understanding in history. A case for strengthening the practice and use of formative assessment (Black & Wiliam, 1998) in the teaching and learning of history may be imperative if students in Singapore are to achieve significant or substantial learning gains. Shifts in the way teachers, schools, educational institutions, and examination bodies view the intent and purpose of educational assessment, however, may be necessary if progress in students’ learning is to be viewed or “measured” in terms of their increasing competency as historical thinkers. Current moves to reduce the over-emphasis on grades through changes made to school-based assessment and an increased focus on improving teachers’ assessment literacy offer enormous potential in re-shaping the way history teachers view assessment designs and how these can be effectively used to improve teaching and learning. A more deliberate use of formative modes of assessments—with its requirements for

398

S. Afandi and I. M. Lim

ongoing monitoring of students’ understandings and task-designs that are responsive to students’ developing ideas—may initiate a move away from formulaic methods in the way historical skills are taught and adopted and possibly challenge algorithmic tendencies in classroom instruction. The existing focus placed on summative assessments may have to be tempered with an equal emphasis on formative assessment structures that are purposefully designed to adapt teaching to meet learners’ needs in the classroom. Teachers could then begin to see teaching and learning activities also as ongoing assessments where they could identify and address students’ learning gaps and blockers to understanding and to use the data collected to help students confront weaker ideas they may hold about history.

8 Conclusion In the decades following the achievement of independence in 1965, Singapore’s approach to education has been carefully managed to meet urgent economic challenges and the shifting needs of a new nation-state. The colonial legacy, however, had left Singapore with an ineffective education system with schools operating in various languages, each with different curricula and standards that were largely irrelevant to the emerging needs of an industrial economy. For the country to survive, educational reforms—and the provision of educational opportunities—were seen as critical to achieve national cohesion and the economic restructuring of the society (Yip et al., 1997). Education, as an instrument for nation-building, remains a key focus of succeeding governments in Singapore and is recognized as crucial for continued economic growth and essential to active participation in the goals of national development among its population (Green, 1997). History education, in particular, has sought to promote national identity and civic values to maintain national affiliation while emphasizing key thinking skills deemed necessary for new forms of labour in the global knowledge-based economy (Afandi & Baildon, 2010). Significant developments in history education over the last thirty years may not have achieved their current and intended trajectories without institutional changes and “structural shifts” in Singapore’s educational landscape (Tan et al., 2017). The evolution of the national history curriculum—and the progress achieved in transforming the way history is taught in Singapore schools—is very much tied to these broader educational initiatives, launched partly to improve the quality of the Singapore education system but also in response to changing national contexts and priorities. In the face of emerging global challenges, changing demographics, and the evolving demands of modern education, Singapore made the strategic decision to develop an education system that is well-placed to meet the needs of twenty-firstcentury learners. These have subsequently led to changes in the way history education is conceived, how the subject is taught in the classroom, and greater clarity in the attributes history learners in Singapore are expected to develop throughout their study of the subject (see Qualities of a History Learner, MOE, 2012). Today, there is recognition that history education, as a compulsory subject in students’ lower secondary

History Education in Singapore: Development and Transformation

399

years, is essential not only as a means to develop human capital, but also critical in achieving the social and political goals of enhanced national cohesion and solidarity in changing contexts. The Singapore Bicentennial (commemorating 200 years of Singapore history since its “founding” by Sir Stamford Raffles in 1819) had been called “an important milestone” in the country’s journey as a nation. In commemorating an event that was “a turning point that brought Singapore to where it is today”, PM Lee Hsien Loong shared that the bicentennial presented an occasion for Singaporeans “to reflect on how our nation came into being, how we have come this far since, and how we can go forward together” (Lee, H. L., 2017). His subsequent call for Singaporeans to “discover more about ourselves and our past” (Lee, H. L., 2019) led to renewed popular interest in the nation’s history and closer attention on how this past had been recorded and interpreted. It also gave students ample opportunities to participate in forms of historical inquiry that allowed them to explore multiple histories, uncover hidden voices from the past, take on perspectives of marginalized or overlooked communities, and construct their own narratives to intriguing questions about aspects of Singapore’s past. Good historical inquiries are empowering for students—they can facilitate the development of firm understandings of diverse perspectives and how the past, present, and future are collectively constructed through interpretive practices and careful consideration of multiple viewpoints and experiences (Afandi & Baildon, 2010). Numerous activities carried out in schools and by heritage and educational institutions6 made knowing about the national past more relevant and real and opened up opportunities for a more engaged and involved study of Singapore’s past. These opportunities enabled students to develop empathy for their predecessors and to learn to “care” about them—their struggles, their aspirations, their contributions, and the lives they led—regardless of their social backgrounds, political beliefs, and economic stations in life. Students began to demonstrate deep respect for those people upon whose shoulders our current society is built and the permanent places accorded to them in the larger tapestry of Singapore’s past. Nevertheless, history education in Singapore cannot simply depend on such occasions or milestone events to assert its relevance or to underscore its importance to society; these opportunities do not present themselves too often in the context of the country’s relatively brief history. The history curriculum must continuously evolve— as it had done so over the past four decades—and keep itself updated to ever-changing global contexts, contemporary trends of thinking, and innovative methods in educational instruction, while at the same time preserving sacrosanct goals that have guided the aim and purpose of history education in Singapore. The existing inquiry-based approach to teaching and learning has made the history curriculum more aligned to 6

The Humanities and Social Studies Education Academic Group at the National Institute of Education, for example, organized the Singapore History Day 2019, a nation-wide history competition for schools in conjunction with Singapore’s bicentennial year. Students were encouraged to submit their history projects across four competition categories: historical documentary, mini-museum exhibit, interactive website, and academic paper. Representatives from educational bodies, media groups, and heritage institutions highlighted a common desire to support greater student interest and awareness of local history.

400

S. Afandi and I. M. Lim

its disciplinary underpinnings and made the study of the past more interesting and appealing for students. By having students involved in the process of investigating key events and personalities, examining historical sources, developing evidencebased interpretations, and exercising historical judgements, they can begin to have a stake in the knowledge they construct at the end of their historical inquiries. While it remains to be seen as to how far these methods or approaches could effectively counteract and dissuade history departments from pursuing a strategy of contentbuilding and didactic methods of instruction, the developments thus far marked a significant shift (in both intent as well as emphasis) and a perceptible departure in terms of how the architects of the history curriculum in Singapore positioned the teaching and learning of history. Ultimately, if we (policymakers, curriculum planners, academics, teacher educators, and classroom practitioners) are convinced that history education can help transform the ways students look at the past and the world around them, our approach to historical instruction must be one that supports the growth of adolescents’ historical reasoning and thinking in history. Such educative experiences can offer our students with the opportunity to make better sense of the past in its complexity and a way to open up their understandings about the world.

References Afandi, S. (2012). Conceptions about the nature of accounts in history: An exploratory study of students’ ideas and teachers’ assumptions about students’ understandings in Singapore. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Institute of Education, University of London. Afandi, S., & Baildon, M. (2010). History education in Singapore. In I. Nakou, & I. Barca (Eds.), International review of history education: Trends in contemporary public debates on history education (pp. 223–242). Information Age. Afandi, S., & Baildon, M. (2015). Anxieties over Singapore students’ conceptions about history and the past. HSSE Online, 4(2), 36–47. Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism. Reprint. Verso Books. Ashby, R. & Lee, P.J. (1987). Children’s concepts of empathy and understanding in history. In C. Portal (Ed.), The history curriculum for teachers (pp. 62–88). Falmer Press. Ashton, D. N., & Sung, J. (1997). Education, skill formation and economic development: The Singapore approach. In A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, & A. S. Well (Eds.), Education: Culture, economy, society (pp. 207–218). Oxford University Press. Barca, I. (1997). Adolescent students’ ideas about provisional historical explanation. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Institute of Education, University of London. Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2003). Why don’t more history teachers engage students in interpretation? Social Education, 67, 358–361. Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Lawrence Erlbaum. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–73. Blackburn, K. (2016). Education, industrialisation and end of empire. Routledge. Blackburn, K., & Wu, Z. L. (2019). Decolonizing the history curriculum in Malaysia and Singapore. Routledge.

History Education in Singapore: Development and Transformation

401

Bloomberg.com (2018, September 21). Singapore says it needs foreign tech talent. https://www. bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-20/singapore-says-it-needs-foreign-tech-talent-and-funeducation. Last accessed on 23.12.20 Boix-Mansilla, V. (2000). Historical understanding: Beyond the past and into the present. In P. Stearns, P. Seixas & S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching and learning history: National and international perspectives (pp. 390–418). New York University Press. Carretero, M., Rodríguez-Moneo, M., & Asensio, M. (2014). History education and the construction of a national identity. In M. Carretero, M. Asensio, & M. Rodríguez-Moneo (Eds.), History education and the construction of national identities (pp. 1–14). Information Age Publishing. Castells, M. (1988). The developmental city state in an open world economy: The Singapore experience. Roundtable on the International Economy Working Paper. Cercadillo, L. (2000). Significance in history: Students’ ideas in England and Spain. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Institute of Education, University of London. Chapman, A. (2009). An exploration of 16–19 year old students’ ideas about historical accounts. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Institute of Education, University of London. Curriculum Planning and Development Division. (2013). Lower secondary history teaching syllabuses (Express/Normal Academic Course). Ministry of Education, Singapore. Curriculum Planning and Development Division. (2012). Upper secondary history and history elective teaching and learning guide. Ministry of Education, Singapore. Foster, S. J., & Yeager, E. A. (1998). The role of empathy in the development of historical understanding. International Journal of Social Education, 13(1), 1–24. Gago, M. (2005). Children’s understanding of historical narrative in Portugal. In R. Ashby, P. Gordon & P. Lee (Eds.), Understanding history, recent research in history education, international review of history education, Vol. 4 (pp. 83–97). Routledge Falmer. Goh, C. B., & Gopinathan, S. (2005). History education and the construction of national identity in Singapore, 1945–2000. In E. Vickers & A. Jones (Eds.), History education and national identity in East Asia (pp. 203–225). Routledge. Goh, C. B., & Gopinathan, S. (2008). The development of education in Singapore since 1965. In S. K. Lee, C. B. Goh, B. Fredriksen, & J. P. Tan (Eds.), Toward a better future: Education and training for economic development in Singapore since 1965 (pp. 12–38). The World Bank. Goh, C. T. (1997, June 2). Shaping our future: Thinking schools, learning nation. Speech by the Prime Minister at the opening of the 7th International Conference on Thinking. https://www.nas. gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/19970602_0001.pdf. Last accessed on 23.12.20 Goh, C.T. (2001, August 31). Shaping lives, moulding nation. Speech by the Prime Minister at the Teachers’ Day Rally 2021. https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/2001083103. htm. Last accessed on 23.12.20 Gopinathan, S. (2007). Globalization, the Singapore developmental state and education policy: A thesis revisited. Globalization, Societies and Education, 5, 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/147 67720601133405 Gopinathan, S. (2013). Education and the nation state: The selected works of S. Gopinathan. Routledge. Green, A. (1997). Education, globalization and the nation state. Macmillan. Han, C. (2000). National education and “active citizenship”: The implications for citizenship and citizenship education in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 20(1), 63–72. Heng, S. K. (2011, September 22). Opening address by the minister of education at schools work plan seminar 2011. https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/20110929001/wps_ope ning_address_(media)(checked).pdf. Last accessed on 23.12.2020. Hsiao, Y. M. (2008). Taiwanese students’ ideas about historical accounts with special reference to their perceptions of history textbooks. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Institute of Education, University of London. Lee, H. L. (1996). Speech by BG (NS) Lee Hsien Loong, Deputy Prime Minister, at the Democratic Socialist Club Kent Ridge Forum 96/97 held at the National University of

402

S. Afandi and I. M. Lim

Singapore (NUS). https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/lhl19960717s.pdf. Last accessed: 23.12.2020. Lee, H. L. (1997, May 17). Speech by the Deputy Prime Minister at the launch of National Education. https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/1997051607/lhl199705 17s.pdf. Last accessed on 23.12.2020. Lee, H. L. (2004, August 22). Our future of opportunity and promise. Speech by the Prime Minister at the National Day Rally 2004. https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/2004083101. htm. Last accessed on 23.12.2020. Lee, H. L. (2017, December 31). A strong foundation for the future. The Prime Minister’s 2018 New Year Message.https://www.pmo.gov.sg/Newsroom/2018-new-year-message-pm-lee-hsienloong . Last accessed on 23.12.2020. Lee, H. L. (2019, January 28). Speech by PM Lee Hsien Loong at the launch of the Singapore bicentennial on 28 January 2019. https://www.pmo.gov.sg/Newsroom/PM-Lee-Hsien-Loong-atthe-launch-of-the-Singapore-Bicentennial-Jan-2019. Last accessed on 23.12.2020. Lee, K. Y. (2000). From third world to first: The Singapore story 1965–2000. HarperCollins. Lee, M.H. (2012). The politics of history education in Singapore since 1965. Educational Practice and Theory, 34(1), 41–64. https://doi.org/10.7459/ept/34.1.04 Lee, P. J. (1998). “A lot of guess work goes on”: Children’s understandings of historical accounts. Teaching History, 92, 29–35. Lee, P. J. (2005). Putting principles into practice: Understanding history. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: History in the classroom (pp. 31–78). The National Academies Press. Lee, P.J. (2011). History education and historical literacy. In I. Davies, Debates in History Teaching (pp. 63–72). Routledge. Lee, P. J., & Ashby, R. (2000). Progression in historical understanding ages 7–14. In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching and learning history: National and international perspectives (pp. 199–222). New York University Press. Lee, P. J. & Ashby, R. (2001). Empathy, perspective taking and rational understanding. In O. L. Davis, E. A. Yeager & S. J. Foster (Eds.), Historical empathy and perspective taking in the social studies (pp. 21–50). Rowman & Littlefield. Lee, S. B. (2017). The history curriculum in singaporean secondary schools: An interpretative study of background, developments and issues”. Unpublished EdD dissertation. Graduate School of Education, University of Western Australia. Lee, Y.-J. (2014). Science education in a Straightjacket: The interplay of people, policies, and place in an east asian developmental state. In A.-L. Tan, C.-L. Poon, & S. S. L. Lim (Eds.), Inquiry into the Singapore science classroom. Springer Link. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4585-78-1_9 Levstik, L. S., & Barton, K. C. (2015). Doing history: Investigating with children in elementary and middle schools (5th ed.). Routledge. Loh, K. S. (1998). Within the Singapore story: The use and narrative of history in Singapore. Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 12(2), 1–21. Loh, K. S., & Lee, S. W. (2010). From living under Attap to Residing in the sky: Imagination and empathy in source-based history in Singapore. The History Teacher, 43(4), 513–533. Madeley, H. M. (1920). History as a school of citizenship. Oxford University Press. Ministry of Information & the Arts. (1998). Singapore 1998: Facts and pictures. Singapore. New Nation. (1975, 19 March). History not scrapped: Mattar. New Nation, 2. Ong, Y. K. (2018, September 24). Learn for life. Opening address by the Minister of Education at Schools Work Plan Seminar 2018. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/opening-address-bymr-ong-ye-kung--minister-for-education--at-the-schools-work-plan-seminar. Last accessed on 23.12.2020. Park, J. (2008). Students’ ideas about different representations of the past: South Korean adolescents interpret historical film. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Institute of Education, University of London.

History Education in Singapore: Development and Transformation

403

Parker, W. (2012). Their minds must me improved to a certain degree: A learning cycles approach to inquiry. HSSE Online, 5(1), 1–13. People’s Action Party. (1959). The tasks ahead: PAP’s five-year plan 1959–1964. In two parts. Petir. Raman, P. M. (1978, 17 August). "New team to study education: Group to be led by Dr. Goh”. The Straits Times, 1. Seixas, P. (1996). Conceptualizing the growth of historical understanding. In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Handbook of education and human development: New models of learning, teaching and schooling (pp. 765–783). Blackwell. Seixas, P., & Morton. T. (2013). The big six: Historical thinking concepts. Nelson Education. Sharpe, L., & Gopinathan, S. (1996). Effective island, effective schools: Repairing and restructuring in the Singapore school system. International Journal of Educational Reform, 5, 394–402. Shemilt, D. (1980). History 13–16: evaluation study. Holmes McDougall. The Straits Times. (1972, 5 January). “Two subjects dropped. The Straits Times, 19. The Straits Times. (1978, 24 September). “‘Use history to teach young about life’”. The Straits Times, 7. Tan, J. (1997). The rise and fall of religious knowledge in Singapore secondary schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(5), 603–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/002202797183937 Tan, J. P.-L., Koh, E., Chan, M., Costes-Onishi, P., & Hung, D. (2017). Advancing 21st century competencies in Singapore. Asia Society, Centre for Global Education. http://asiasociety.org/ files/uploads/522files/advancing-21st-century-competencies-in-singapore-education.pdf. Last accessed on 23.12.20. Tan, T. K. Y. (1986). Speech by Dr. Tony Tan Keng Yam, Minister for Education, at the Opening of the 10th Conference of the International Association of Historians of Asia at the Novotel Orchid Inn. Retrieved from: https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/tkyt19861027s. pdf. Last accessed on 23.12.2020. Tan, T.K.Y. (2002, August 30). Speech by the deputy prime minister and minister for defence at the national day parade 2002 appreciation dinner. https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/ pdfdoc/MINDEF_20020830002.pdf. Last accessed on 23.12.2020. Tay, E. S. (1983). Speech by Dr. Tay Eng Soon, Minister of State for Education at the Launching of the Seminar-cum-Briefing Session on the New Lower Secondary History Curriculum at Temasek Junior College. https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/tes19831223as.pdf. Last accessed on 23.12.2020. Trocki, C. A. (2006). Singapore: Wealth, power and the culture of control. Routledge. Turnbull, C. M. (2009). A history of modern Singapore, 1819–2005. NUS Press. VanSledright, B. A. (1996). Studying colonization in eighth grade: What can it teach us about the learning context of current reforms? Theory and Research in Social Education, 24(2), 107–145. VanSledright, B. A. (2004). What does it mean to think historically... and how do you teach it? Social Education, 68(3), 230–233. Wilson, H. E. (1978). Social engineering in Singapore: Educational policies and social change, 1819–1972. Singapore University Press. Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Temple University Press. Wineburg, S. (2018). Why learn history (when it’s already on your phone)? The University of Chicago Press. Yip, J. S. K., Eng, S. P., & Yap, J. Y. C. (1997). Twenty-five years of education reform. In J. Tan, S. Gopinathan, & W. K. Ho (Eds.), Education in Singapore: A book of readings (pp. 4–32). Prentice Hall.

Singapore School Mathematics Curriculum Lu Pien Cheng and Kai Kow Joseph Yeo

Abstract In Singapore, education is regarded as an investment instead of a social service. Singapore’s Education System has evolved over time and so have school mathematics curricula in Singapore. Mathematics education in Singapore schools in the twenty-first century is still going through a period of change. Mathematics is a compulsory subject up to Grade 10 in Singapore schools. The present-day School Mathematics Curriculum is based on a pentagonal framework with mathematical problem solving as its central focus. In this chapter, we review the developments of Singapore school mathematics curriculum for the past sixty years and describe some of the important features of the intended, attained and implemented aspects of the mathematics curriculum in Singapore. The implementation of the 2019 secondary mathematics syllabus and the 2020 primary mathematics syllabus began in 2020 and 2021, respectively. This chapter also examines the implications and issues related to the implementation of these two syllabuses. Keywords Mathematical problem solving · Mathematics curriculum · Intended · Attained and implemented · Mathematics syllabus

1 Introduction Singapore has received noticeable attention internationally in the mathematics education community, having performed consistently well in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Singapore ranks consistently amongst the top few countries for Reading, Mathematics and Science (OECD, 2014). Whilst some might have previously attributed the good results to rote learning and memorisation, the results of PISA 2018 have presented a different consequence to the issue. When students L. P. Cheng (B) · K. K. J. Yeo National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] K. K. J. Yeo e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_22

405

406

L. P. Cheng and K. K. J. Yeo

were assessed on twenty-first-century skills such as problem solving, reasoning and flexibility in thinking, Singapore once again achieved well (Ministry of Education, 2019b). Although the national syllabus and curriculum materials may have contributed somewhat to this success, the Singapore education system is changing to help prepare its students for the more multifaceted and demanding socio-economic environment of the twenty-first century. The impressive mathematical performance of Singapore within a short span of sixty years (1959 to 2019) suggests that it has achieved educational success, with the support of an effective school system, well-run schools, highly qualified teachers and resilient students. It is therefore educational to understand the evolution, success factors and on-going challenges of the mathematics education in Singapore. The purpose of this chapter is to review the developments of school mathematics curriculum for the past sixty years. It draws on the official curriculum, instructional materials (textbooks, syllabus document, etc.), a few research studies related to mathematics curriculum in Singapore schools and the tacit knowledge of the authors. Further, the chapter describes some of the important features of the intended, attained and implemented aspects of the mathematics curriculum in Singapore. Finally, the chapter examines the implications and issues related to the implementation of the 2012 mathematics syllabus document as well as possible challenges of the 2020 secondary mathematics syllabus and 2021 primary mathematics syllabus.

2 Developments of School Mathematics Curriculum Since 1950s 2.1 First Local Syllabus Singapore was a British colony for more than 150 years before it became independent in 1965. An examination of the syllabus documents produced since Singapore’s independence in 1965 would provide an insight into the changes in the curriculum since the nation’s independence. Over more than fifty years since independence, the government has dynamically sought to maximise Singapore’s economic potential by investing heavily in building a first-class formal education system so as to meet the needs of all students from the age of seven. In the late 1950s, Mathematics at that time was taught in vernacular language (such as Hokkien, Malay, Tamil, and Mandarin) alongside English with several mathematics syllabuses being in use, each school adopting its own. “The first local set of syllabuses for mathematics was drafted in 1957 and published in 1959” (Lee, 2008, p. 88). The set of syllabuses for primary and secondary schools could be found in a single booklet. Lee and Fan (2002) claimed that the first Singapore local secondary mathematics syllabus published in 1959 was named as Syllabus B. The syllabuses adopted a spiral approach and were for all schools irrespective of their language streams. This set of syllabuses manifest the

Singapore School Mathematics Curriculum

407

first step towards the localisation of mathematics education in Singapore (Lee, 2008, 2017).

2.2 Math Reforms 1970–1980 In response to the Math Reform of the 1960s (a world trend which started in Europe and North America in the 60 s before arriving in Singapore in the 70 s), this set of syllabuses was revised in the late 1960s (Lee, 2017). The revised secondary mathematics syllabus known as Syllabus C was implemented in the early 1970s from Grade 7 to Grade 10 level (Lee, 2017). Some students were taught Mathematics Syllabus B, which embraces traditional mathematics, whilst others Mathematics Syllabus C with its emphasis on modern mathematics. Both courses are based on the “Ordinary” level syllabuses of the University of Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate (UCLES). For many years in the 70 s, mathematics teachers in various institutions receiving students from the schools had not only to resolve the problem of the varying levels of mathematical achievement amongst the students but they also had to cope with the diversity of the mathematical background of the students. In 1971, the primary school mathematics syllabus was revised “with emphasis on an outcomes-based approach to the teaching of mathematics in the primary schools” (Cited in Kaur, 2014, p. 28). It was again revised in 1979 to include algebra for Grades 5 and 6 (Kaur, 2014).

2.3 Back to Basics 1980–1995 The math reforms led to the falling of mathematics standards and mathematics community worldwide called for back to basics in which Singapore followed suit (Lee, 2008). Syllabus C underwent another revision which resulted in Syllabus D towards the end of the 1970s. It is heartening to note in Dr. Kho’s article on “Mathematics Curricula in Schools” that a uniform syllabus was being introduced in all secondary schools (Kho, 1980). This syllabus was the GCE “O” level Mathematics Syllabus D, and its implementation began with Secondary One in 1981. Singapore secondary pupils have been doing the Syllabus D since the 1980s (Kaur, 2014). With the introduction of Syllabus D in the 1980s, students are allowed to use calculators in the GCE “O” level examinations. However, students are not allowed to use calculators in the first paper to ensure mastery of the basic computational skills. At the secondary level, at Grade 9 and Grade 10, the more mathematically inclined students could also pursue the additional mathematics course. Since 1978, mathematics has been taught as a school subject, beginning in primary school. There were no independent subjects like arithmetic, algebra or geometry. Arithmetic, algebra, geometry, mensuration, functions, probability, statistics, and other mathematics content areas are all part of the integrated mathematics school curriculum.

408

L. P. Cheng and K. K. J. Yeo

In the late 1980s, the Model Method (Kho, 1987) was introduced in the curriculum for Primary 5 and 6 students to aid students in solving word problems. The model method provides a visual tool for students to process and analyse information and develop a sequence of logical steps to solve word problems. The model method is also used with algebra to help students formulate algebraic equations to solve problems in lower secondary mathematics. This facilitates the transition from a dominantly arithmetic approach at the primary level to an algebraic one at the secondary level. A Mathematics Syllabus Review Committee was set up by the Curriculum Development Division of the Ministry of Education in 1988 to review and revise the mathematics syllabuses in use since 1981 (Kaur, 2014). The committee’s goal was to examine if the syllabuses met the needs of the students and to revise the syllabuses to reflect relevant recent trends in mathematics education (Wong, 1991). To align with changes taking place in mathematics education around the world, the Singapore Mathematics Curriculum Framework (SMCF) was born in the early 1990s. The focus is on developing students’ mathematical problem solving abilities through five interrelated components namely, concepts, skills, processes, attitudes, and metacognition. The SMCF was created and implemented by the Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE). Specifically, within MOE, the Curriculum Planning and Development Division (CPDD) is responsible for designing, developing, and monitoring the implementation of syllabi. Within the CPDD there is a Mathematics Unit which works exclusively on the mathematics syllabi. The coherent SMCF “connects the ‘product’ conception of mathematics and the ‘process’ aspect of it and links both of them to the five factors that facilitate the development of mathematical problem solving” (As cited in Kaur, 2014, p. 29). For a comprehensive discussion to the changes to the intended Singapore School Mathematics curriculum since 1990, see the chapter by Lee et al., (2019). Singapore students have the opportunity to acquire ten years of general education, including mathematics, a compulsory subject from primary to upper secondary levels. Beyond these ten years is pre-university, polytechnic, and vocational education or the young people will join the workforce. In 1994, the Normal (Technical) stream was first introduced in the Singapore education system. As such, MOE produced the mathematics syllabus for students in the Normal (Technical) stream in 1992 (MOE, 1992) and implemented this syllabus in 1994.

2.4 New Initiatives 1995–2005 In 1997, the MOE introduced several initiatives to realise the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation (TSLN) vision. The then Prime Minister, Mr. Goh Chok Tong, explained that it was a vision for a total learning environment, including students, teachers, parents, workers, companies, community organisations and the government (Goh, 1997). Under the umbrella vision of TSLN, various initiatives were launched, each addressing a different aspect of the education system such as Critical and Creative Thinking (CCT), Information and Communication Technology

Singapore School Mathematics Curriculum

409

(ICT) and National Education (NE). “These 3 initiatives have a major and significant impact on the school curriculum as they were nation-building initiatives based on the concerns that plagued the nation then” (Lee et al., 2019, p. 43). To ensure the alignment of the curriculum to these initiatives, a two-stage review of the curriculum was carried out—the reduction of curricular content by up to 30% wherever possible to give teachers the time they needed to effect the changes (Kaur, 2014; Lee, 2017).

2.5 Twenty-First Century School Mathematics Curriculum In the face of a more globalized world in the twenty-first century, MOE introduced the 21CC framework in 2010 (MOE n.d.a.) where CCT initiative, NE initiative and ICT initiative are encapsulated (Lee et al., 2019). Therefore, over the years till now, the official curriculum for school mathematics in Singapore is becoming more and more comprehensive. The official curriculum also includes very detailed descriptions of what to teach at every grade level, the background, goals and aims as well as the syllabus design which is spiral and connected. A spiral approach is used in the design of the mathematics syllabuses from primary to pre-university. At every level, the syllabuses comprise a few content strands (e.g. number and algebra, geometry and measurement, statistics and probability), facilitating connections and interrelationships across strands. The content in each strand is revisited and taught with increasing depth across levels. There is differentiation in the content, pace and focus amongst syllabuses within the same levels to cater to different student profiles. The primary 2020 mathematics syllabus document and the secondary 2019 mathematics syllabus document also comprise a framework that underpins the teaching and learning of mathematics in the classrooms, the role of learning experiences, teaching processes, phases of learning and assessment in the classroom. Emphasis is placed on the learning experiences that teachers must facilitate for students’ learning (Ministry of Education, 2019a, 2020). Learning experiences are carefully “designed to ensure that the mathematics classrooms are rich with opportunities to provide the platform for students to develop these twenty first century competencies ... including values related to the NE initiative and skills related to the CCT initiative (and ICT initiative)” as well as to address the affective aspect of learning (Lee et al.,2019, p. 45). The dominant pedagogical approach stated at the primary and lower secondary levels syllabus document is the Concrete-Pictorial-Abstract (C-P-A) approach, whereby teachers lead students through activities that help build an understanding of abstract mathematical concepts from everyday experiences and meaningful contexts, using concrete and pictorial representations (MOE, 2006, 2012a, 2020). In the most recent curriculum revision of the Singapore mathematics curriculum, MOE highlights three key focus areas. One of the three key emphases of this review is to “develop a greater awareness of the nature of mathematics and the big ideas that are central to the discipline” (MOE, 2019a, p. 3) so as to achieve coherence across different topics. In other words, this is similar to Charles’ (2005) notion of a Big Idea as one linking various understandings into a coherent whole. To support the

410

L. P. Cheng and K. K. J. Yeo

effort of MOE in her implementation of big ideas in the mathematics curriculum, the mathematics educators from National Institute of Education, Singapore, also conduct numerous professional development courses related to big ideas in mathematics for the teaching fraternity in Singapore. The other two focus areas are the continual development of “critical mathematical processes that support the development of 21st century competencies” and “greater emphasis to the development of metacognition to promote self-directed learning and reflection” (MOE, 2020, p. 3). This development of the school mathematics curriculum was supported by the new series of textbooks.

3 Implemented Mathematics Curriculum in the Singapore Classrooms The Singapore 2012 mathematics curriculum suggested three phases of mathematics learning in the classrooms comprising readiness, engagement and mastery. Engagement phase is “the main phase of learning” where teachers “engage students in learning new concepts and skills” using “a repertoire of pedagogies” such as activitybased learning, teacher-directed inquiry and direct instruction (MOE, 2012a, 2012b p. 23). The descriptions for some of the suggested pedagogies in the curriculum can be rather broad. These pedagogies, as stated in the curriculum documents, “are not mutually exclusive and could be used in different parts of a lesson or unit” (MOE, 2012a, 2012b, p. 23). These 3 pedagogies are not new in the Singapore classrooms from the authors’ classroom observations but are only stated explicitly in the 2012 Singapore mathematics syllabus. For the rest of this section, we state our definitions of the three pedagogies drawing upon the literature before discussing the implementation of these pedagogies in the Singapore primary and secondary classrooms over a period from 2009 to 2019. In this chapter, we examined primarily research conducted in Singapore related to the enacted curriculum and observations by the authors. For the teaching and learning of mathematics in Singapore secondary schools, we referred mainly to the findings reported in Kaur et al. (2019) on the programmatic research project A Study of the Enacted School Mathematics Curriculum at the National Institute of Education (NIE) funded by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Singapore through the Office of Education Research (OER) at NIE. The research project examined the enacted secondary school mathematics curriculum in Singapore in the period 2016 to 2018 (Kaur et al., 2019). Video-segments of 211 mathematics lessons and online survey results based on 677 secondary school mathematics teachers in Singapore—collected in this research will be referenced in this chapter to illuminate the enacted secondary school mathematics curriculum in Singapore. There is, however, a dearth of research on the enacted primary school mathematics curriculum in Singapore although the authors observed that action research on the enacted primary school mathematics curriculum have been conducted by schools. The findings of these investigations are usually unpublished. As such, in this chapter, we report our observations of the

Singapore School Mathematics Curriculum

411

pedagogies advocated in the teaching of primary mathematics from the Singapore primary schools’ websites (in July 2020), syllabus documents, local research studies, newspaper articles and drew from our work involving primary school mathematics education in Singapore.

3.1 Activity-Based Learning Activity-based learning (ABL) “is about learning by doing” (MOE, 2012a, 2012b p. 23). It is particularly effective for teaching mathematical concepts and skills at primary and lower secondary levels, but is also effective at higher levels” (MOE, 2012a, 2012b p. 23). Students engagement in activities that involved exploration and learning of mathematical concepts and skills are suggested and the use of manipulatives or other resources was also encouraged in ABL for students “to construct meanings and understandings” (p. 23). This definition suggests the student-centred model of teaching reported in the literature and aligns with our observations of how educators in Singapore conceptualised ABL in general. According to Nudzor, Oduro and Addy, ABL is built on student-centred model of teaching and learning and conceptualised as an “innovative, student-centred model of teaching and learning that encourages the use of multiple, small group activities that engage students in discovery learning or problem solving, and promotes frequent questions and discussion from students” (2018, p. 42). It is associated with active learning (or student-centred) pedagogies where Ginsburg (2010) contrasted active learning with direct instruction approaches. Different philosophical and theoretical notions that contributed to active learning pedagogies were identified (Ginsburg, 2010). • The behavioural dimension: The degree to which instructional practices enable students to engage in verbal or physical behaviour and can be traced back to several educators/philosophers, e.g. Dewey (1938) “progressive or experiential education, and promoted learning by experimentation and practice, that is, learning by doing” (Ginsburg, 2010, p. 64). • Cognitive dimension: The degree to which teaching strategies enable students to engage in various forms/levels of thinking and can also be traced back to several educators/philosophers, e.g. Jean Piaget’s (1896–1980) processes of accommodation and assimilation, Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934), writings on the relationship between language and thinking, etc. In this chapter, we refer ABL to student-centred model of teaching and learning thus stressing on activities that are student-centred, require active learning and for students’ construction of knowledge and mathematical abstraction. Students have the control over the learning in the activities planned, that is, students take more autonomy during the implementation of the activities.

412

3.1.1

L. P. Cheng and K. K. J. Yeo

Activity-Based Learning in the Secondary Mathematics Classrooms

The analysis of 211 lessons in the programmatic research project showed that 40% of the teacher respondent teachers “assign tasks for students to discover the concept/formula/property” (Kaur et al., 2019, p. 34). For example, one of the teachers assigned students to discover the Cosine Rule by using the Geometer Sketchpad (GSP). An accompanying worksheet was designed for students to actively engage in the activity and to draw their conclusions based on observations using GSP. The students took control of their learning as they decided on the dimensions of different types of triangles to investigate before making conclusions of their observations. The project also reported that slightly more than 75% of the experienced and competent secondary school mathematics teachers in the study harnessed the affordances of technology in numerous ways - the use of ICT as a tool for students to learn mathematics through investigation being the most common mode. In this case, the use of ICT as a tool for students to construct their own knowledge through interactive investigative activities is an example of how students can deepen learning to prepare them to be future ready and responsible digital learners in the twenty-first century (Yeo, 2021).

3.1.2

Activity-Based Learning in the Primary Mathematics Classrooms

From our meetings and conversations with some Heads of Department for Mathematics in Singapore primary schools as well as a look at their mathematics department websites, activity-based learning (ABL) is commonly used together with concrete-pictorial-abstract (C-P-A) approach, hands-on activities, experiential learning, manipulatives, ICT tools, real-life situations and other resources. Schools also use ABL as part of learning experiences and refers it to learning by doing. ABL is carried out individually or in groups, in learner-centred environment and in innovative learning space such as mathematics corner, game play area, differentiated activity tasks. Additionally, MOE provides manipulatives such as base ten blocks and fraction strips to all primary schools to “support teachers in the C-P-A approach in mathematics teaching” (Seto et al., 2020, p. 36). This support from MOE to the primary schools could be one of the reasons for the prevalent use of manipulatives in our observations. Low Attainers in Primary Mathematics (LAPM) a research project conducted on low attainers in mathematics at the primary level (project duration 2009 to 2012), was a research initiated by researchers in the Singapore NIE, supported by the MOE (Toh & Kaur, 2019). The result of LAPM shows that primary school mathematics teachers used a variety of strategies to motivate low-attainers in mathematics at the primary level. For example, LAPM teachers were observed to use “various forms of activity-based learnings” (Toh & Kaur, 2019, p. 293) where the use of pictures, games, songs and manipulatives were used. The challenges in carrying out activitybased and interactive lessons in the Singapore mathematics classrooms was reported

Singapore School Mathematics Curriculum

413

by Lim in 2002. The authors think that some of these challenges are still relevant at the time of writing this chapter. For example, large class size at some grade levels, “perpetual struggle for teachers to plan lessons which will develop the concepts in the students’ minds when it takes much less time simply to tell them the rule” (Lim, 2002, p. 6).

3.2 Teacher-Directed Inquiry “Teacher-directed inquiry is about learning through guided inquiry. Instead of giving the answers, teachers lead students to explore, investigate and find answers on their own.” (MOE, 2012a, p. 24; MOE, 2012b p. 23). However, the definitions for inquiry can be contradictory depending on how much autonomy students have during investigations (Hull et al., 2018) e.g. requiring minimal guidance during instruction, inquiry across a continuum of teacher/student direction. Different terms are used in the literature to represent the different variations of inquiry such as “learner guided, student-guided, student-led, student-directed, teacher-led, teacher-guided, teacher-directed, open inquiry, guided inquiry, full inquiry” (Biggers, 2018, p. 2). Learning is perceived to be teacher-directed when the teacher maintains control over the curriculum, authority and the learners (Tan, 2016). Biggers refers teacher-directed forms of inquiry as cookbook investigations (Clark et al., 2000) whereby students are guided to carry out prescribed steps. The teacher or another source supplies the question for students’ investigation in teacher-directed inquiry whereas in studentdirected forms on inquiry, questions are developed by the students (Biggers, 2018). In this chapter, we adopt Biggers (2018) definition of teacher-directed inquiry for the purpose of enhancing “the development of mathematical processes and 21st century competencies” (MOE, 2012a, 2012b p. 24).

3.2.1

Teacher-Directed Inquiry in the Secondary Mathematics Classrooms

The analysis of 211 lessons in the programmatic research project (Kaur et al., 2019, p. 34), showed that • 80.0% of the teachers explain the concept or formula or property to the whole class whilst asking students questions along the way. • 46.7% of the teachers guide the whole class to discover the concept or formula or property. For example, one of the teachers brought students’ attention to derive the formula for the distance between two points (x 1 , y1 ) and (x 2 , y2 ) in a Cartesian plane by leading the whole class to discover the formula based on the Pythagorean Theorem (Kaur et al., 2019). The teacher led the inquiry through a sequence of teacher questions, helped students to identify the right-angled triangle, came up with the mathematical

414

L. P. Cheng and K. K. J. Yeo

expression for the length (x2 –x1 ) and height (y2 –y1 ) of the right-angled triangle, and expressed the length of hypotenuse using Pythagoras theorem. The distance formula in the Cartesian plane was derived by the students together with the teachers’ questioning.

3.2.2

Teacher-Directed Inquiry in the Primary Mathematics Classrooms

Chan (2010) reported how 80 Primary 6 students in two classes and their respective mathematics teachers managed a mathematical modelling task situated in a problem-based setting. The teacher facilitates instead of giving direct instructions, in a problem-based setting, i.e. “the teacher functions as a facilitative [cognitive] coach to provide scaffolding at certain junctures of the modelling process” (Chan, 2010, p. 42) to keep the cognitive engagement high as students work in small collaborative groups. The task can have a variety of solutions. Students can manage the tasks differently and they need to express, develop, test, refine their mathematical thinking to develop models. Students were also provided a template to aid their discussion. This appears to show that the teachers relinquish a fair amount of control in the classroom. Other model-eliciting activities with Primary school students were reported in Chan (2008) and Chan et al. (2007). In a local newspaper, The Straits Times, Teng (2016) reported a class of Primary 5 pupils at a primary school in Singapore trying to solve a mathematical puzzle. The puzzle reads “Take any two-digit number, reverse the digits and subtract the smaller number from the larger number—what can you say about the results?”. The teacher asked the students to “Try as many numbers as you like on a piece of paper,” and prompted her students to test their hypotheses and explain their guesses. These openended activities afforded opportunities for teacher-directed inquiry and can be woven into mathematics lessons to equip pupils with higher order thinking skills. The authors also observed problem solving lessons conducted using teacherdirected inquiry approach in their work with primary school teachers. The descriptions of how classroom processes are actually played out in the reports above shows classroom environment for students to experience the process of problem solving. Indeed, “problem solving has been the central theme in Singapore mathematics curriculum for both primary and secondary levels since 1990” (Fan & Zhu, 2007, p. 495). This aligns with the national vision of Thinking Schools, Learning Nation since the late 1990s where the development of students’ higher order thinking, independent, critical and creative thinking were emphasised. Some schools also listed mathematical modelling and problem-based learning in their mathematics programmes. The authors also observe similarities in the activities involved in teacher-directed inquiry at both the secondary and primary level from their work with mathematics teachers in Singapore. However, as mentioned earlier, there is a lack of large-scale rigorous research projects to substantiate this claim.

Singapore School Mathematics Curriculum

415

3.3 Direct Instruction Direct instruction is an instructional model that has evolved over the years with key components comprising “modelling, reinforcement, feedback, and successive approximations (Joyce et al., 2000, p. 337)” (As cited in Magliaro et al., 2005, p. 41). An overview of direct instruction was described by Wong (2015) in his book Effective Mathematics Lessons Through an Eclectic Singapore Approach in which he listed the different labels for direct instruction from the literature. Some of the labels are explicit instruction, expository teaching, direct teaching, teacher-directed learning, scripted lessons. He described direct instruction as “deceptively straightforward: explain ideas and worked examples clearly, let students practise the rules, correct their work, and test them on similar problems” (Wong, 2015, p. 65). Direct instruction approach emphasising direct transmission of knowledge together with recitation and drill can be contrasted with active learning pedagogies (Ginsburg, 2010). Ziegler and Stern’s (2016) description of direct instruction centred on the teachers’ role in directing students’ attention to critical features of the material in which explicit explanations and even demonstrations of concepts are provided by the teacher. In both the primary and secondary schools in Singapore, MOE embarked Improving Confidence And Numeracy (ICAN) project in 2013 to assist the low attainers in mathematics (Toh & Kaur, 2019). Direct and explicit instruction is one of the eight pedagogical principles identified for the teacher building capacity of ICAN (Toh & Kaur, 2019). Direct instruction is defined as “a method of instruction that involves an explicit step-by-step strategy, often teacher-centred, with checks for mastery of procedural or conceptual knowledge (Hogan et al., 2013; Good & Brophy, 2003; Hattie, 2003; Hogan et al., 2013; Hogan et al., 2013)” (As cited in Kaur et al., 2019, p. 18). Examples of actions that belong to this model of instruction include “I do, We do, You do” strategy and using exposition (Kaur et al., 2019). Frameworks of direct instruction were also designed to guide the design of instructional events in mathematics lessons, e.g. Gagne Nine Events of Instruction (Gagné et al., 1992). The direct instruction instructional strategy is strongly supported by behaviourist theories and research by Thorndike, Skinner, Gagné and others (Wong, 2015). In this chapter, we refer direct instruction to explicit teaching, where the teacher “introduce, explain and demonstrate new concepts and skills” (MOE, 2012a, 2012b p. 24).

3.3.1

Direct Instruction in the Secondary Mathematics Classrooms

The analysis of 211 lessons in the programmatic research project showed that 16.7% of the teacher respondents “focus on telling the concept/formula/property directly” (Kaur, 2019, p. 34). For example, one of the teachers focused on the explanation on a property of quadratic equation.

416

3.3.2

L. P. Cheng and K. K. J. Yeo

Direct Instruction in the Primary Mathematics Classrooms

Direct instruction, explicit teaching or the “I do, We do, You do” approach were listed in some of the Singapore primary school mathematics department websites. Explicit teaching of problem solving using heuristics and word problem, explicit teaching of heuristics to develop problem solving abilities and to develop confidence in problem solving were also observed from those websites. Explicit teaching was also used to introduce, explain and demonstrate new concepts and skills. Direct instruction may have been “derided as rote, mindless and drill and kill, by advocates of the child-centred and discovery approach based on constructivism”, however, in recent years, “there is greater acceptance of DI [direct instruction] based on new research, meta-analysis, and a less rigid adherence to dichotomous views about learning” (Wong, 2015, p. 66). In fact, direct instruction is more effective than unassisted discovery, especially for struggling mathematics students (Hattie, 2012). This supports the direct and explicit instruction pedagogical principle identified for the teacher building capacity of ICAN (Toh & Kaur, 2019).

4 Discussions of Singapore Mathematics Education 4.1 Central Mathematics Curriculum The conceptualisation of the Singapore mathematics curriculum is concisely represented by the “pentagonal framework” (MOE, 2019a, 2020). Presented as a pentagon, it puts emphasis on mathematical problem solving as central to mathematics learning and the development of this ability is dependent on five supporting components, namely, skills, concepts, processes, attitudes and metacognition. Moreover, the pentagonal framework “presents a balanced, integrated vision that connects and describes the skills, concepts, processes, attitudes and metacognition” (Leinwand & Ginsburg, 2007, p.32). The most explicit evidence that mathematical problem solving remains a priority within Singapore Mathematics education was that it continues to be stated in the 2020 Secondary Mathematics teaching and learning syllabus and 2021 Primary Mathematics teaching and learning syllabus (MOE, 2019a, 2020). In fact, the pentagonal framework guides the implementation of an effective mathematics programme and articulates the guiding principles in setting the direction for teaching, learning and assessment of mathematics (Soh, 2008). This is evident from the various sentences used in describing the pentagonal framework’s components such as “students must have the opportunities to solve non-routine and unfamiliar problems” (MOE, 2020, p. 28); “there must be opportunities for them to apply the concepts in a wide variety of problems” (MOE, 2020, p. 29); “besides developing conceptual understanding, the learning experiences provide opportunities for students to communicate their reasoning and connections and be engaged in exploratory and metacognitive activities” (MOE, 2020, p. 44). Learning experiences are clearly stated

Singapore School Mathematics Curriculum

417

in the mathematics syllabuses to influence the ways teachers teach and students learn so that the curriculum objectives can be attained. These are markers which indicate that provision of the types of opportunities and learning experiences are deemed important and if done appropriately, we could move a step towards the goals of the pentagonal framework. Singapore has a centralised system of education and as such it has a national curriculum for mathematics. Moreover, the national mathematics curriculum in the schools is centrally determined by the Singapore MOE. All grade levels in the primary and secondary schools adhere to this common national curriculum. Each slice of the Singapore’s mathematics education, e.g. the framework, a common set of aims, textbook and workbook, assessment and preservice mathematics teachers’ programme is carefully aligned to clear and common goals. As pointed out by Wong (1991), a curricular framework provides a description of the philosophy of the curriculum and helps to establish the important aspects of teaching and learning. The national curriculum for mathematics in Singapore schools is very comprehensive. It not only spells out the content coverage but also the assessment standards required at each grade level (MOE, 2019a, 2020). One may also claim that it is prescriptive in some ways; for example, the syllabus documents outline in detail the learning trajectories by grade level, stating clearly the learning experiences that are necessary for students to engage with (MOE, 2019a, 2020). In addition, the reference materials that had the most influence on teachers were the textbooks (Cheng et al., 2021). The authors of the school textbooks are closely guided by the curriculum specialists at the Curriculum Planning and Development Division of the Ministry of Education during the conceptualisation and writing phases of the books. The purpose of this is to ensure that the quality of the books meets the standards set by the Ministry of Education. Accordingly, the Scheme of Work (SOW) in any Singapore school strongly reflects a substantial part of the intended mathematics curriculum and a strong commitment from the school to implement it. This allows close monitoring of the mathematics curriculum. However, the implemented mathematics curriculum in Singapore is greatly influenced by numerous factors such as the school assessment and high stakes national examinations.

4.1.1

Enactment of Curriculum

It appears from Section 3 of this chapter that there is a dearth of published research on the enactment of the primary mathematics curriculum, though the authors are aware of unpublished, not so rigorous, research that takes the form of action research at the primary school level to guide school teachers in their choice of classroom pedagogies for improved student learning. From the authors’ attendance at the professional dialogue with curriculum specialists at the Ministry of Education and at the Mathematics chapter of the Academy of Singapore Teachers, the curriculum enactment is a key issue of discussion. In schools, enactment of the curriculum is often discussed during weekly professional learning meetings (Ng et al., 2019). However, during these discussions, primary mathematics teachers draw more often on their

418

L. P. Cheng and K. K. J. Yeo

tacit knowledge than evidence-based research studies because the element of time often plays an enormous part in the situation. For research studies to be conducted with rigorous method of both collecting and analysing data often requires a great amount of time. At professional level meetings in the schools, the shared teaching experiences of beginning and senior teachers often provide immediate anecdotal classroom success pedagogies that guide new teaching approaches which are again verified in the same manner. So, this quick cycle often overshadows the discussion for conducting evidence-based research studies to address issues faced when enacting the curriculum.

4.1.2

The Way Forward for Singapore Mathematics Education

We see that the next leap in mathematics education in Singapore is the teaching towards big ideas in the school mathematics curriculum, the continual development of critical mathematical processes and greater attention to the development of metacognition. The implementation of teaching towards big ideas in Singapore’s mathematics education arena may appear to be a demanding one. At this juncture, it is useful to pause and reflect on some issues that have arisen. Several challenges for teachers to teach towards big ideas were identified by Choy (2019). For example, the concept of big ideas may not be straight-forward and how big ideas can be brought across to students need to be thought more deeply. Another challenge is to transform one’s understanding of big ideas into tasks or lessons (Choy, 2019). The issue at hand is often one of “the additions being more than the subtractions”. Teaching towards big ideas is a step in the right direction although the path ahead may not be easy. However, if teachers could view the big ideas in mathematics as integral to what they have already been doing, then the changes could be regarded more positively and would thus be easier to implement.

5 Concluding Remarks Singapore’s mathematics education system has evolved over time, in response to the changing needs of our nation, as well as the external environment. School mathematics curriculum, at present, emphasises a balance between mastery over basic skills and concepts in Mathematics and the application of higher order thinking skills to solve mathematical problems. Today every child in school does mathematics that is suited to his or her ability. As people are the only resource of Singapore, education is the key to the success of its economy and in turn survival (Goh, 2001). The case of Singapore mathematics education demonstrates how a small nation-state, in the absence of natural resources and in the face of keen economic competition, has attracted so much attention internationally. However, it should not be taken as a model of mathematics curriculum in other countries. We can always do better. There are many exciting opportunities ahead in the arena of mathematics education. Students

Singapore School Mathematics Curriculum

419

must be given the chance to engage themselves in exploring the possibilities and the “wings” to pursue their dreams. Disclaimer The ideas expressed in this chapter are of the authors and do not represent the official positions of the National Institute of Education or the Ministry of Education, Singapore.

References Biggers, M. (2018). Questioning questions: Elementary teachers’ adaptations of investigation questions across the inquiry continuum. Research in Science Education, 48, 1–28. Chan, C. M. E. (2010). Tracing primary 6 pupils’ model development within the mathematical modelling process. Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Application, 1(3), 40–57. Chan, C. M. E., Neo, A. S., & Ng, L. S. (2007). Mathematical problem solving in a PBL setting: Making mathematical thinking visible. Paper presented at the Educational Research Association of Singapore Symposium. Singapore Polytechnic. Chan, C. M. E. (2008). Using model-eliciting activities for primary mathematics classrooms. The Mathematics Educator, 11(1), 47–66. Charles, R. I. (2005). Big ideas and understandings as the foundation for early and middle school mathematics. NCSM Journal of Educational Leadership, 8(1), 9–24. Cheng, L. P., Leong, Y. H., & Toh, W. Y. K. (2021). Singapore secondary school mathematics teachers’ selection and modification of instructional materials for classroom use. In Kaur, B., & Leong, Y. H. (Eds.), Mathematics instructional practices in Singapore secondary schools (pp. 205–230). Springer. Choy, B. H. (2019). Teaching towards big ideas: Challenges and opportunities. In T. L. Toh & J. B. W. Yeo (Eds.), Big ideas in mathematics: Yearbook 2019, association of mathematics educators. World Scientific. Clark, R. L., Clough, M. P., & Berg, C. A. (2000). Modifying cookbook labs to mentally engage students. The Science Teacher, 67(7), 40–43. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan. Fan, L., & Zhu, Y. (2007). From convergence to divergence: The development of mathematical problem solving research, curriculum, and classroom practice in Singapore. ZDM, 39(5–6), 491– 501. Gagné, R. N., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Wadsworth. Ginsburg, M. B. (2010). Improving educational quality through active-learning pedagogies: A comparison of five case studies. Educational Research, 1(3), 62–74. Goh, C. T. (1997). Shaping our future: Thinking schools, learning nation. Singapore Government Press Release. Speech by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong at the Opening of the 7th International Conference on Thinking, 2 June. Goh, C. T. (2001). Shaping lives, moulding nation. speech at the teachers’ Day Rally, Friday 31st August 2001. Ministry of Education. Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2003). Looking in classrooms. Allyn & Bacon. Hattie, J. (2003, October). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Distinguishing expert teachers from novice and experienced teachers. Paper presented at the Building Teacher Quality: What does the research tell us ACER Research Conference, Melbourne, Australia. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.

420

L. P. Cheng and K. K. J. Yeo

Hogan, D., Kwek, D., Towndrow, P., Rahim, R. A., Tan, T. K., Yang, H. J., & Chan, M., et al. (2013). Visible learning and the enacted curriculum in Singapore. In Z. Deng (Ed.), Globalization and the Singapore curriculum (pp. 121–149). Springer. Hogan, D., Chan, M., Rahim, R., Kwek, D., Aye, K. M., Loo, S. C., Sheng, Y. Z., & Luo, W. (2013). Assessment and the logic of instructional practice in secondary 3 english and mathematics classrooms in Singapore. Review of Education, 1, 57–106. Hull, D. M., Hinerman, K. M., Ferguson, S. L., Chen, Q., & Näslund-Hadley, E. I. (2018). Teacherled math inquiry: A cluster randomized trial in Belize. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(3), 336–358. Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2000). Models of teaching (6th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. Kaur, B. (2014). Evolution of Singapore’s school mathematics curriculum. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh, & A. Prescott (Eds.), Curriculum in focus: Research guided practice (Proceedings of the 37th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 1– 13). MERGA. Kaur, et al. (2019). Twelve questions on mathematics teaching. National Institute of Education. Nanyang Technological University. Kho, T. H. (1980). Mathematics curricula in schools. Mathematical Medley, 8(2). 41–46. Kho, T. H. (1987). Mathematical models for solving arithmetic problems. In Proceedings of the fourth South East Asia conference on mathematics (ICMI-SEAMS) (pp. 345–351). Institute of Education. Lee N. H., Ng W. L., & Lim L. G. P. (2019). The intended school mathematics curriculum. In T. Toh, B. Kaur, & E. Tay (Eds.), Mathematics education in Singapore. Mathematics education—An Asian perspective (pp. 35–53). Springer. Lee, P. Y. (2008). Sixty years of mathematics syllabus and textbooks in Singapore (1949–2005). In Z. Usiskin & E. Willmore (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum in pacific rim countries—China, Japan, Korea and Singapore (pp. 85–94). Information Age Publishing. Lee, P. Y., & Fan, L. (2002). The development of Singapore mathematics curriculum—Understanding the changes in syllabus, textbooks and approaches. A talk given at the Chonqing conference 17–20 August 2002. Unpublished. Lee, P. Y. (2017). Mathematics education in Singapore (1965–2015). In B. Tan, H. Lim, & K. Phua (Eds.), 50 years of science in Singapore (pp. 453–469). World Scientific. Leinwand, S., & Ginsburg, A. (2007). Learning from Singapore math. Educational Leadership, 65(3), 32–36. Lim, S. K. (2002). Mathematics education in Singapore: Looking back and moving on. The Mathematics Educator, 6(2), 1–14. Magliaro, S., Lockee, B., & Burton, J. (2005). Direct instruction revisited: A key model for instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 41–55. Ministry of Education. (1992). Mathematics syllabus—Secondary 1 and 2 normal (Technical) course. Curriculum Planning Division, Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2006). Primary mathematics syllabus. Author. Ministry of Education. (2012a). In Primary mathematics teaching and learning syllabus. Curriculum Planning and Development Division. Ministry of Education. (2012b). In Ordinary-level and normal (Academic)-level mathematics teaching and learning syllabus. Curriculum Planning and Development Division Ministry of Education. (2020). Mathematics: Teaching and learning syllabus primary. Curriculum Planning and Development Division. Ministry of Education. (2019a). In 2020 secondary mathematics syllabuses. Curriculum Planning and Development Division. Ministry of Education. (2019b). Singapore students show well-developed thinking and reasoning skills: OECD PISA 2018 study. Retrieved June 21, 2020, from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/ press-releases/singapore-students-show-well-developed-thinking-and-reasoning-skills--oecdpisa-2018-study

Singapore School Mathematics Curriculum

421

Ng, K. E. D., Yeo, K. K. J., Chua, B. L., & Ng, S. F. (2019). Continuing from pre-service: Towards a professional development framework for mathematics teachers in the 21st century. In T. L. Toh, B. Kaur, & E. G. Tay (Eds.), Mathematics education in Singapore (pp. 405–427). Springer. Nudzor, H. P., Oduro, G. K. T., & Addy, N. (2018). International programmes and research on effective activity-based learning (ABL): What can Ghana learn from international best practices? The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 17(2), 40–59. OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 results in focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-ove rview.pdf Seto, C., Goh, Y. Y., Teh, W., & Chang, S. H. (2020). Concrete-pictorial-Abstract approach: Fostering understanding in mathematics. In N. H., Lee, Seto, C., A. R. Ridzuan & L. S. Tan (Eds.), Mathematics Teaching in Singapore (pp. 35–51). World Scientific. Soh, C. K. (2008). An overview of mathematics education in Singapore. In Z. Usiskin & E. Willmore (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum in pacific rim countries–China, Japan, Korea, and Singapore (pp. 23–36). Information Age Publishing. Tan, C. (2016). Teacher-directed and learner-engaged: Exploring a confucian conception of education. Ethics and Education, 10(3), 302–312. Teng, A. (2016, Dec 25). How Singapore’s students rose to No. 1. The Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/how-spores-students-rose-to-no-1 The Straits Times. (2019). Subject-based banding to replace streaming in schools. The Straits Times. Toh, T. L., & Kaur, B. (2019). Low attainers and learning of mathematics. In T. L. Toh, B. Kaur, & E. G. Tay (Eds.), Mathematics education in Singapore (pp. 287–311). Springer. Wong, K. Y. (1991). Curriculum development in Singapore. In C. Marsh & P. Morris (Eds.), Curriculum development in East Asia (pp. 129–160). The Falmer Press. Wong, K. Y. (2015). Effective mathematics lessons through an eclectic Singapore approach. World Scientific. Yeo, J. B. W. (2021). Use of technology by experienced and competent mathematics teachers in Singapore secondary schools. In Kaur, B, & Leong, Y.H. (Eds.), Mathematics instructional practices in Singapore secondary schools (pp. 303–316). Springer. Ziegler, E., & Stern, E. (2016). Consistent advantages of contrasted comparisons: Algebra learning under direct instruction. Learning and Instruction, 41, 41–51.

A Journey Begins: Singapore Design and Technology Education, an Education in STEM Jason Seng Chong Tan and Soo Chin Chia

Abstract Design and Technology as a subject in the secondary school curriculum is a natural cradle for STEM education given the common educational goals. Both require students to create solutions to solve real-world problems via a design process. While doing so, students develop skills like critical thinking, problem solving and creativity that will put them in good stead for the future world. This chapter discusses the nature of D&T education, D&T vis-à-vis STEM and elaborates on developing a creative-self. Keywords Design process · STEM · Real-world problems · Creative-self · Sketching

1 Introduction Design and Technology (D&T) is a compulsory subject in the Singapore secondary school curriculum for Grades 7 and 8 students. For Grades 9 and 10 students, it is an elective (optional) subject. This subject was first offered in 1986 to Grade 7 students in place of technical subjects like Woodwork and Metalwork. It was part of the education reform for secondary schools to focus on general education, with technical subjects for vocational training becoming the sole responsibility of post-secondary education institutes. As part of the holistic secondary school curriculum, D&T engages students in designing and prototyping ideas through the mind and hands. The designing and making process offers opportunities to understand human needs and to create possibilities to make life better. Educationally, it offers opportunities for students to J. S. C. Tan (B) Natural Sciences and Science Education Academic Group/Design and Technology Discipline, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore S. C. Chia Curriculum Planning and Development Division/Sciences Branch/Design and Technology Unit, Ministry of Education, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Y. -J. Lee (ed.), Education in Singapore, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9982-5_23

423

424

J. S. C. Tan and S. C. Chia

develop skills that turn ideas into reality and values like mindfulness, empathy and sensitivity in the areas of social, culture and environment. To prepare for implementation, teachers who taught Woodwork and Metalwork were re-trained to teach D&T. In addition, engineers were recruited for the first time and trained to also teach D&T. Today, the D&T teaching fraternity is formed mainly by engineers as almost all the retrained teachers have retired from the service. In retrospect, the move to fill D&T teaching positions with engineers would be served well if this group of teachers were to drive STEM education.

2 Developments in D&T Practice The teaching of D&T has gone through a series of developments since the subject was first taught in 1986. It started with a craft-oriented vocational practice carried over from the era of technical subject offerings like Technical Drawing, Metalwork, Woodwork and Electricity & Electronics. From 1997 onwards, conscious efforts were made towards a collective teaching practice to grow in students a way of thinking and doing through designing and making that is guided by the design process vis-à-vis design thinking to solve realworld ill-defined problems (Chia & Tan, 2010). The development of D&T practice in the last three decades is summarised below based on what is to be taught, why is it taught and how should it be taught. What is to be taught? D&T was designed in the early 80s by looking closely at similar subjects offered in UK schools. This apparently was the approach of different countries looking at including D&T as a subject in their school curriculum. The first D&T program in schools had a strong flavour of craft and vocational emphasis akin to Woodwork and Metalwork. It comprised three distinct areas, namely, theory (content knowledge), design process, and practical skills training. The design process was then taught as content knowledge and deployed as a tool for project opportunities for problem-solving design activities. With a teaching force seeking to understand the new subject matter and to teach it at the same time, treatment of the design process in a linear fashion then was understandable. Teaching of D&T in the first decade was content-focused, despite being a project-based subject. Why is it taught? Moving into the second decade of D&T implementation, a 2-year part-time Advanced Diploma in D&T was developed for in-service training by the Product and Industrial Design Department at the Temasek Polytechnic. The objective was for teachers to further develop design skills and to gain exposure to design work. As teachers sought to better understand design and gain design related knowledge and skills, they also turned to events like design graduate shows, design forums and conferences for additional exposure to industrial design practice. Some keen teachers also began to make reference from academic research on design and design-related education for their classroom practice. Such exposure to industry practices and research led a group of teachers to think deeply into the value of design for general education, i.e. the education of children

A Journey Begins: Singapore Design and Technology Education…

425

16 years and below. The belief that D&T offers opportunities to shape the students’ values and attitudes and develop skills that are crucial to their development is shared by many teachers. This was expounded by Archer (1974) in his paper Design in General Education and encapsulated in a subsequent paper (Archer, 1975, p. 8) thus: There exists an area of human experience, knowledge and action, centred on man’s desire and ability to mould his physical environment to meet his material and spiritual needs, which is as important to his well-being as such well-recognised areas of learning as literacy and numeracy. We call this area of experience, knowledge and action, design.

How should it be taught? As teachers gain deeper understanding of design practices and sharpen design skills, they grapple with mediating the demands of the multi-faceted and complex nature of the design process for the D&T classroom. Design process knowledge and skills, materials, technology, values and attitudes inherent in the fields of designing guide and drive the teaching and learning of D&T. Content from these various domains are largely organised for projects in a just-intime manner. The integrative approach, a shift from the early approach of distinct areas of learning, offers experiences for students to make better meaning of their learning. In recent years, D&T practice has grown more vibrant. Relating to real life becomes an impetus for more meaningful learning. For example, students experienced the ritual of tea drinking and then discussed the design of related products to surface design needs. Folding bicycles featured in one programme in which students tried various models to understand the design features and to surface design opportunities. Establishments like furniture companies, marine centres, child care centres, senior citizen corners, and health care centres also provided real situations and real users for students to work on their projects. This is in contrast with the usually fictitious contexts and design needs that were formulated for projects in the initial years. The real-life setting gives added meaning to classroom learning and heightens sensitivity in the areas of social, culture and environment.

3 Solving Real-World Problems Learning in D&T is through designing and making proposed design solutions to solve real-world problems. Some solutions work, some might be probable, and some do not work. One project from the D&T early days has etched in the authors’ thoughts. It was a much scaled-down model of a lift made out of wood and twines for a two-storey house. The student attempted to solve his mother’s problem of having to carry wet laundry to the roof terrace for drying. The problem surfaced by the student was set in his family’s real world. He applied knowledge in science (mechanisms), technology (materials and practical processes), engineering (design process) and mathematics (scale). It is akin to a STEM project. Did the solution work? The answer is an obvious

426

J. S. C. Tan and S. C. Chia

no, albeit conceptually. Such a project needs to be scoped to ensure rich learning for the student. A lift in this case is definitely beyond the teacher’s capability not to mention the student’s. Another student worked on a project that used a dynamo to slow down a trolley while moving down ramps. He learnt about dynamos in his physics class and applied the new knowledge in his D&T project. The objective was to resolve a problem that was centred on his very own real world—to move things on a trolley between floors connected by ramps as part of his school co-curricular duties. This project again is akin to a STEM project. In this case, the solution worked. This is an example of a project scope that is within students’ reach to arrive at workable solutions for real-world problems. It allows for rich learning to take place. Both projects described above are about solving real-world problems that concerned self or family, and both involved STEM elements. For the lift-model project to arrive at a solution to actually work, the scope of the project will be improbable and the demands unrealistic on the student. There is a tension between real-world problems and workable solutions that students can arrive at. It requires a teacher’s artful mediation and facilitation to lead them to work on projects that are within their reach and yet educationally challenging enough to motivate them to learn. Over in Malawi, William Kamkwamba invented an electricity-producing windmill in 2001 when he was age 14. Despite his circumstances—there was no electricity in his village, severe famine and stopped schooling as his family could no longer pay the fees—he grew an interest in reading Science books that he had access to. After reading a school textbook Using Energy, William’s curiosity and inventive nature led him to build that first windmill from materials he managed to source (The Malawi Daily News, 2006). Fast forward to 2020. Stephen Wamukota, a 9-year-old from Kenya, built a wooden handwashing machine to help curb the spread of coronavirus. He applied the skills he learnt in school and had some help from his father. Stephen conceptualised the idea after learning on TV about ways to prevent catching the virus (BBC News, 2020). Stephen’s wooden handwashing machine is an unlikely solution among Singapore students to address problems arising from the pandemic as the make-up of their real world is unlike that of his. Both William and Stephen’s projects are based on real-world problems in their very own community that affected them directly. Without argument, both are STEM projects requiring tinkering and making, testing and refinements, in order to derive a workable solution. The four isolated projects are driven by authentic problem set in the individual’s respective real world. The immersive process of arriving at solutions to self-identified problems inevitably gives meaning and purpose to learning; self-directed learning indeed. Questions typical in a classroom like ‘What is the right answer? Why are we learning this? Is it going to be tested?’ are unlikely asked, in particular when students undertake projects that allow them to solve problems they identified as they learn. Key to this learning are projects that are within their reach to motivate them to push the boundaries to derive at an appropriate solution to resolve the problems

A Journey Begins: Singapore Design and Technology Education…

427

they identified, and underlying this learning are skills, values and dispositions that are valuable for the future.

4 Educating for the Future Educating students for the future through D&T is specifically about them developing a way of thinking and doing to visualise and concretise design solutions for real-world contexts. It involves the manipulation of non-verbal codes (e.g. sketches, diagrams, objects) in the material culture to translate between abstract requirements (e.g. pleasurable use, appeals to children) and concrete objects; facilitating the constructive, solution-focused mindset in designing and making. Non-verbal codes are aids to imagining, creating, internal thinking and communicating ideas. They help students to think, see, create and take action. The use of such codes, among others, is essential and effective for tackling the characteristically ill-defined or ill-structured problems that people face in everyday life. Broadly, educating students for the future through D&T is about students developing designerly dispositions as follows: • • • • •

embracing uncertainties and complexities cognization of and resolve real-world, ill-defined problems relentless drive to seek out how things work doodling and sketching as a language 3D manipulation.

This does not include equipping students with technological skills in the areas of coding, 3D printing and laser cutting. On coding, students will learn how to do it if it is needed for their project. If 3D printing and laser cutting are included in a school’s D&T programme, the focus would be for awareness. This approach to these technological skills and the like in general education is guided by the fact that such skills will likely become obsolete when students enter the workforce given the increasing rate of advancement in the technology field. It resonates with the quotation of Mr Anthony Salcito, Vice President of Worldwide Education, Microsoft in Worldwide Educating For the Future Index 2019: From Policy to Practice (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2019): There’s a misunderstanding that what we need to do is get students technology skills. Whereas what we need are students who understand how to unleash their human skills in a world of technology.

So what are human skills? They are critical thinking, creativity, empathy and comfort with ambiguity among others (Jameel World Education Lab, 2017). STEM education aspires these skills for students. D&T education also offers opportunities for students to develop these human skills. To do so, both STEM and D&T engage students in the design process or design engineering process to solve real-world problems.

428

J. S. C. Tan and S. C. Chia

5 Process for Solving Real-World Problems The process for solving real-world problems in D&T comprises five interconnected areas, namely, needs analysis, idea conceptualisation, development, prototyping and research (Fig. 1). In STEM, the process may comprise five or more steps, which are detailed based on the targeted age groups. It is called the engineering design process. Figure 2 shows a generalisation of the process. In the numerous descriptions of the STEM engineering design process, the problem is the starting point. Terms that are often used include problem-based learning, project-based learning, interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, integration and the list goes on. The authors opine that teachers need to guide students in real-world problem solving be it design process or engineering design process, or the specific details in the steps. For effective learning through projects, the key lies in the skills and competencies needed of teachers to facilitate and guide the students. The role that D&T teachers adopt to engage students in solving real-world problems is multifaceted and it is well described by Adams (1991, p. 170): The teacher’s task is a complex and demanding one. It requires them to create opportunities for learning, to manipulate situations to stretch able pupils and support weaker ones; to introduce unfamiliar concepts and new ways of working appropriate for their pupils. It involves them in a variety of roles: organiser, mentor, devil’s advocate, information source, guide, supervisor, instructor, commentator, demonstrator, facilitator, referee, critic, interpreter, counsellor and fellow traveller.

To be a fellow traveller, D&T teachers learn to take on the role of co-designers and co-learners alongside their students (Tan, 1996). This pedagogical stance has led to

Fig. 1 Representation of D&T design process

A Journey Begins: Singapore Design and Technology Education…

429

Fig. 2 Generalisation of STEM engineering design process

the insight that design cannot be taught as content but is to be experienced, coached and learned via the design process. In recent years, professional development has focused on D&T teachers becoming D&T practitioners. It requires D&T teachers to work on design-and-make projects (pitched at students’ level) under the trainers’ facilitation. In doing so, D&T teachers experience the learning process of D&T students—surface design needs from ill-defined situations to emerge ideas that are worked through from concepts to physical prototypes—and learn from the trainers’ pedagogical stances. One important learning, among many others, is the need to sketch quantitatively in order to derive several quality ideas from which one would be worked further for realisation. Through practice, the authors believe that this quantity-for-quality sketching approach is a start to developing a creative-self—key to creativity in designing—first in D&T teachers and then in D&T students through a co-designers-co-learners relationship.

430

J. S. C. Tan and S. C. Chia

6 Developing a Creative-Self The underlying intent of D&T education is to develop in students critical, creative and inventive thinking skills and to work towards a culture of creative-self in both the teachers and students. To this end, the instructional approach for learning can no longer be the dominant structural approach in classroom practice (Mioduser & Dagan, 2007). The practice of teaching huge amounts of content knowledge and guiding students’ mechanistically through the design process irrespective of their individual nuances and self-crafted design briefs must come to end. Instead, D&T teachers should role-model designerly dispositions for students to emulate while working on projects. Designerly dispositions include qualities like being adept in sketching to visualise ideas and solve problems, experimenting and making skills, as well as making explicit the thinking behind designing to students. This demands of D&T teachers a practice of mastery and artistry to exude a certain creative-self in order to better teach and guide students in a subject that is a natural cradle for creativity to be cultured and nurtured. This is a tall order but not insurmountable; such practice is starting to show in some classrooms. It marks a milestone in D&T education where the fraternity works towards practising creativity so as to nurture creativity in the students. The emergence of the develop-creative-self practice anchors on the authors’ belief that D&T teachers need to: (a) (b) (c)

design objects habitually as a teacher-designer facilitate students’ design work with a purposeful creative direction be interested in creative works in the design industry.

It is also a result of the search for a ‘good idea’ in Linus Pauling’s famous quote ‘the best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas’. This belief is built on the designerly ways of knowing for general education (Cross, 2007), and it shapes the authors’ understanding of the conditions for the act of creativity in D&T education and by D&T teachers as teacher-designer. The three conditions are: (a) (b) (c)

how this act is understood and executed by D&T teachers and then taught to students how this act is looked upon from the three-dimensional object design perspective how this act is a way of building artistry in a culture of a creative-self in the teacher for developing in students critical and inventive thinking.

Over the years, the authors have worked on numerous design projects for pre- and in-service training of D&T student teachers and D&T teachers, respectively. The thoughts behind the framing of a design project are primarily based on, how to: • deliver an integrative project whereby students do to learn • integrate ‘sketching & drawing’ into a project (2D to 3D exercise) • integrate ‘design appreciation’ into a project

A Journey Begins: Singapore Design and Technology Education…

431

• demonstrate a design method • support idea generation and • be in control whilst being creative. The Pencil Holder project from pre-service training at the National Institute of Education is used to illustrate fully the ideation process to achieve creative outcomes. Exhibit 1 shows an overview of the idea generation (or ideation) process.

Exhibit 1: Overview of ideation process for pencil holder

Doodling, sketching and drawing are introduced progressively during ideation for student teachers to develop related skill set while engaged in the creative process. This integrative approach to learning through application is deliberate as opposed to learning to sketch and draw for technical competency. The latter has been proven by classroom practices to stop short of a generative process necessary for creative outcomes. Through the Pencil Holder project, two techniques to generate creative outcomes are taught to the student teachers. They are random line and 3D manipulation. Both techniques require the use of templates. Exhibits 2–24 show the full ideation process using the random line technique to generate ideas (creative outcomes) for a pencil holder. Exhibit 2 is a template for use as an underlay (Exhibit 3) to draw permutations of random lines (Exhibits 4–7; a sampling of numerous design sheets). Note that the number of random lines drawn increases from three to six progressively. For each number of random lines, one would stop drawing when the permutations run out. This is intentional as a practice

432

J. S. C. Tan and S. C. Chia

to develop a good feel of drawing straight lines confidently for all; pre and in-service teachers, and students in the classroom.

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

Exhibit 4

Exhibit 5

Exhibit 6

Exhibit 7

The random lines are then extruded into three-dimensional sketches with the help of an underlay in the form of a crating template. See Exhibits 8–11.

Exhibit 8

Exhibit 9

Exhibit 10

Exhibit 11

The process is repeated for the remaining random line sketches. The outcomes are presented in collages in Exhibits 12–14.

A Journey Begins: Singapore Design and Technology Education…

Exhibit 12

Exhibit 13

433

Exhibit 14

Next is to add material thickness to the ideas and refine the form for aesthetic appeal. Pencils are then included for a sense of product realism. An example of this process is shown in Exhibits 15–23.

Exhibit 15

Exhibit 16

Exhibit 17

Exhibit 18

Exhibit 19

Exhibit 20

Exhibit 21

Exhibit 22

Exhibit 23

Exhibit 24 shows a collage of the sketches from the ideation process to arrive at one creative outcome based on the random line technique. The outcome is rendered in two different colours.

434

J. S. C. Tan and S. C. Chia

Exhibit 24: Collage of sketches from ideation process to arrive at one creative outcome

Besides the seemingly instructional approach to arrive at creative outcomes via the random line technique, the authors also recognise that images of ideas can just pop in one’s mind. Such ideas should be put on paper to evolve them into possible ideas. This can be carried out using the other ideation technique—3D manipulation. Examples of two creative outcomes from this technique are shown in Exhibits 25 and 26.

Exhibit 25

Exhibit 26

Exhibit 27 shows a collage of the sketches from this ideation technique to arrive at the two creative outcomes.

A Journey Begins: Singapore Design and Technology Education…

435

Exhibit 27: 3D manipulation ideation technique to generative tentative ideas

The number of creative outcomes from both the ideation techniques is limited only by the amount of time given for the task. With time, a huge number of ideas can be generated for a good idea to emerge, a necessary process to emerge a creative one. The process demands quantitative sketches through intensive sketching. This is deliberate as the authors believe that, in doing so, it contributes to cognitive development in terms of visual thinking. It also develops confidence and competence for sketching to design. It is about forming a habit of sketching to design for a creative-self in the making.

7 Conclusion It feels good flipping through my design sheets. I have this sense of satisfaction. I see ideas in the endless lines and circles that I draw. I no longer worry about not having ideas.

Above are two anecdotal feedbacks from students of D&T teachers who are early adopters of the two and more generative techniques taught during professional development training by the authors. This starts to cultivate a habit of sketching towards developing a creative-self using pencil and paper is accessible to all in general education. It is just a tip of the creative iceberg learning that Sir James Dyson’s invention of

436

J. S. C. Tan and S. C. Chia

the bagless vacuum cleaner emerged from more than 5000 tweaks and modifications over 6 years (BBC Future, 2013). Creativity has an important place now and in the future. It is a goal in general education. It is one aim in D&T education and STEM education too; to be achieved through solving real-world problems via the design or design engineering process. On this note, one needs to be mindful that the T and E in STEM are not taught as subjects in the school curriculum. Teachers involved in STEM programmes are not trained in STEM but in different subjects like Science, Mathematics or D&T. Support for these teachers from the STEM education sector will need to be carefully curated for the original goals of pure creativity (Catterall, 2017). Nonetheless, D&T teachers are considered well placed given their engineering training at the universities. What real-world problems can students solve in the D&T and STEM classrooms? Would the teachers be able to truly solve those problems? What is the expected fidelity of the solutions to the problems? These are real questions that need to be asked. Teachers also need to be cognizant of the fact that they are no longer the sageon-stage, especially in this Internet world. There will be times when students know more than the teachers and vice versa (Tan, 1996). Having such a mindset will put a teacher at ease when having to so-call guide students in solving real-world problems that requires out-of-discipline knowledge. This form of teacher-student collaborative learning should be embraced. A D&T student who was into beatboxing wanted to design a contraption that would amplify the music he makes. His D&T teacher encouraged him and facilitated the project. Together they learnt about sound amplification which is not in the D&T subject matter. The outcome does amplify his beatboxing music though not fantastic. It won a D&T Awards conferred by a panel of design lecturers and practitioners (D&T Educators Society, 2008). Today, this student is in the music industry. This reminded the authors of what Dewey wrote in 1938: In what I have said I have taken for granted the soundness of the principle that education in order to accommodate its end both for the individual learner and for society must be based upon experience—which is always the actual life-experience of some individual.

The actual life experience for the beatboxing student then was his music. It allows him to take ownership of his own learning as it is meaningful and authentic to him. No teacher can change that but should seize the opportunity for an enduring educational experience for the student. Education is about the child being, in his community; especially so in an increasingly connected disconnected world. The child as the focus in general education must not dissipate when designing programmes be it discipline- and future-centric, for D&T or STEM. D&T teachers are growing into a practice of design in-action for students to see and hear their design actions and thoughts. Knowing what it looks and feels like when designing is critical to enabling students to design. The D&T practice is moving beyond the indoctrination of a method, knowledge and skills. D&T is an area of learning that is interdisciplinary in nature and allows for applications to real-world situations. With teaching and learning via a design process,

A Journey Begins: Singapore Design and Technology Education…

437

it adds a practice-oriented dimension to the main academic curriculum, widening the educational experience of students. It also provides a platform to self-manage projects; learn new technologies, knowledge and skills; and to create and innovate— skills and values relevant for the future. On a good number of counts, D&T education is a form of STEM education.

References Adams, E. (1991). Environmental design education in schools. Temis De Disseny, 1991(6), 165–171. Archer, L. B. (1974). Design in general education, paper 4, presented at the design in general education summer school. Royal College of Art. Archer, L. B. (1975). A closer look at the relationship between the broad concept of design in general education and its component parts. In S. Sayers, J. Morley, & B. Barnes (Eds.), Issues in design and technology teaching (pp. 3–12). Routledge/Falmer. BBC Future. (2013). Frustration and failure fuel Dyson’s success. Retrieved from https://www.bbc. com/future/article/20130312-failure-is-the-best-medicine BBC News. (2020). Coronavirus: Kenyan boy who made hand-washing machine awarded. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-52898797 Catterall, L. G. (2017). A brief history of STEM and STEAM from an inadvertent insider. The STEAM Journal. Retrieved from http://scholarship.claremont.edu/steam/vol3/iss1/5 Chia, S. C., & Tan, S. C. (2010). Teaching design and technology to develop students as persons: A Singapore vision. North Star, 2(2), 99–107. Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. In N. Cross (Ed.), Designerly ways of knowing (pp. 17–31). D&T Educators Society. (2008). D&T awards 2008. Retrieved from http://www.dtes.org.sg/awa rd2008.htm Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan. Jameel World Education Lab. (2017). Human skills defined. Retrieved from https://jwel.mit.edu/ human-skills-defined Mioduser, D., & Dagan, O. (2007). The effect of alternative approaches to design instruction (structural or functional) on students’ mental models of technological design processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(2), 135–148. Tan, S. C. (1996). A case study on the teaching of design and technology in a secondary school. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Nanyang Technological University. The Daily Times, Malawi. (2006). School dropout with a streak genius. Retrieved from http://web.arc hive.org/web/20061128040746/http://www.dailytimes.bppmw.com/article.asp?ArticleID=3312 The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2019). The worldwide educating for the future index 2019: From policy to practice. Retrieved from https://educatingforthefuture.economist.com/the-worldwideeducating-for-the-future-index-2019/