Empowered Educators in Singapore

How High-Performing Systems Shape Teaching Quality

A. Lin Goodwin, Ee-Ling Low, Linda Darling-Hammond

• Publisher: Jossey-Bass
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9781119369721
• eBook ISBN:
  9781119369745
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education Administration

BEST PRACTICES FROM SINGAPORE'S HIGH-PERFORMING SCHOOL SYSTEM

Empowered Educators in Singapore is one volume in a series that explores how high-performing educational systems from around the world achieve strong results. The anchor book, Empowered Educators: How High-Performing Systems Shape Teaching Quality Around the World, is written by Linda Darling-Hammond and colleagues, with contributions from the authors of this volume.

Empowered Educators in Singapore delves into the country's rapid rise to educational excellence on a global scale and the national effort that drives it. Singaporean students routinely outperform their peers from around the world, placing first or second in international assessments, particularly in math and science.

In 2015, Singaporean students topped the league table for both the Programme in International Student Achievement (PISA) and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). With educators around the world clamoring for the "Singapore secret," the reality is that Singapore's excellence is the result of a 25-year drive to improve education through systemic, long-term and ongoing, consistent, and deliberative reform with an emphasis on teacher quality.

This book describes the interwoven strategies that merge context, quality, governance, and continual evolution into a consistently high-achieving student population.

THEME 1: A CLEAR VISION AND BELIEF IN THE CENTRALITY OF EDUCATION FOR EVERY INDIVIDUAL, THE ECONOMY, AND NATION BUILDING

Education is viewed as being central to the survival and progress of the economy and seen to be tied integrally to the larger overall goal of nation building. As a nation, Singapore is committed to helping every individual to maximize his/her full potential through education. Consequently, there is strong investment in education in terms of overall GDP spending in order to realize the vision and belief of the centrality of education for the city-state. Leaders and policymakers set the education system on future-oriented, long-term goals and effects of education. This is made possible through a very stable central government, which also believes in continuity of its policies even if specific personnel have shifted or moved on. There are also clearly articulated goals of education which are sign-posted to all within the system, from the policymakers, to the school leaders, teachers, parents and the students. A good example is the articulation of the 21st-century competencies (21CC) (Link 3) and the accompanying DOE. The framework for 21CC articulates student learning and development toward the skills and competencies they would require to live and work in the 21st century.

Visitors to Singapore today would be hard-pressed to believe that just 50 years ago, Singapore was a “struggling postcolonial society plagued with problems of survival,” a stark contrast to the “vibrant . . . economy with a competitive edge in the world market” (Yip, Eng, & Yap, 1997, p. 4), often touted as an example for other nations. “Simply, as a small economy with little primary industry and natural resources, [Singapore] has defined its future as an information/service/digital economy driven by educational investment and development” (Luke et al., 2005, p. 8).

During the critical early years of Singapore’s independence, from the mid-1960s through the mid-1970s, the constant refrain of the nation was—and remains—that her people are Singapore’s “most precious resource” and that “through education every individual can realise his [sic] full potential, use his talents and abilities to benefit his community and nation, and lead a full and satisfying life” (MOE, n.d.a). In the immediate post-independent era, there was a severe shortage of skilled workers as very few Singaporeans had completed high school, let alone graduated from university. Fifty years later, things are quite different. In 2012, the publicly funded university cohort participation rate is 27% and the government aims to increase the rate to 40% by 2020 (MOE, 2012a). Clearly, Singapore “has skillfully used education policy to both transform society and in that process to make education a valued social institution” (Gopinathan, 2007, p. 68), thereby cementing a national belief in education as the “prime engine of economy, nation and identity” (Luke et al., 2005, p. 8).

While education has remained a bedrock value in Singapore, the focus of educational initiatives and reforms has shifted according to national imperatives and goals. Thus, the emphasis after independence from Malaysia in 1965 was “survival-driven education” (Goh & Gopinathan, 2008), aimed at achieving “universal primary education . . . and mass recruitment of teachers . . . to staff the rising number of schools” (Goh & Lee, 2008, p. 97). Teacher quality was much less a concern than recruiting sufficient numbers of teachers. The years from 1978 to 1997 saw a shift to “an efficiency-driven education,” in response to Singapore’s need to compete for multinational dollars and “produce skilled workers for the economy in the most efficient way” (Tan, 2005, p. 2). Quantity—enough schools with enough teachers—was now inadequate; attention was now on raising quality—upgrading schools, streaming (i.e., tracking) students according to their identified talents, designing curricula geared to students’ skill levels and perceived capacities, and expanding tertiary education. “Reducing educational wastage” meant “teachers and children alike were mechanically fed by a bureaucratically designated and rigid curriculum” (Goh & Lee, 2008, p. 25).

All this changed in 1997 when then-Prime Minister (PM) Goh Chok Tong announced Thinking Schools, Learning Nation (TSLN) (Link 4), a new national vision for developing “the creative thinking skills and learning skills required for the . . . intensely global future” and making “learning a national culture” (Goh, 1997). This ushered in a focus on “ability-driven education [which] aims to identify and develop the talents and abilities of every child to the maximum” (Tan, 2005, p. 5). Definitions of teaching and learning became more inclusive, expansive, and flexible in order to embrace diverse ways of knowing and thinking, multiple pathways and options for learning, and innovative pedagogies and technologies (Hogan & Gopinathan, 2008; Luke et al., 2005; E.H. Ng, 2008). Then-PM Mr. Goh explained in his speech:

[Thinking Schools, Learning Nation] will redefine the role of teachers . . . Every school must be a model learning organisation. Teachers and principals will constantly look out for new ideas and practices, and continuously refresh their own knowledge. Teaching will itself be a learning profession, like any other knowledge-based profession of the future.

This impulse was further reinforced by the current PM Mr. Lee Hsien Loong in his 2004 National Day Rally speech when he urged, “We have got to teach less to our students so that they will learn more” (Lee, 2004). He emphasized the need to move away from rote learning and move toward quality/engaged learning.

The Teach Less, Learn More (TLLM) (Link 5) initiative officially introduced by MOE in 2005 was accompanied by the cultivation of a spirit of “innovation and enterprise” system-wide. This was done, in part, via the integration of technology throughout the curriculum. The paradoxical “teach less, learn more” has now become a well-known Singaporean slogan. The underpinning philosophy is to move away from the focus on content quantity to raising content quality and depth through enhancing teacher quality via providing “curriculum white space” for teachers to engage in meaningful professional development activities or professional learning communities. Then Minister of Education (in 2004) Tharman Shanmugaratnam explained the initiative from the perspective of empowering students in the learning process by allowing them to exercise their initiative to shape their own learning goals and outcomes and in so doing, to become active participants in the learning process rather than mere passive recipients of knowledge. He also urged the de-emphasis on rote-learning and emphasized the importance of teaching that caters to differences among learners and thus embraces a more holistic approach aimed at building character and life skills that can help students lead successful lives not defined merely by academic performance, but by excellence in overall character and values.

Based on the vision of TSLN and TLLM, MOE set up the Primary/Secondary/Junior College Education Review and Implementation Committee in 2008/2009 to study ways to improve the education system. In 2010, the various committees started to report their findings and recommendations for improvement.

One important recommendation was to reduce the influence exerted by examinations on teaching and the curriculum. Toward this end, the ministry began to open up admissions at all levels of the system to a wider range of indicators of student ability and talent beyond test scores, and to focus more on critical thinking and problem-solving abilities in the students.

Syllabi, examinations and university admission criteria were changed to encourage thinking out of the box and risk-taking. Students are now more engaged in project work and higher order thinking questions to encourage creativity, independent, and inter-dependent learning. (P.T. Ng, 2008, p. 6)

For example, collaborative learning is used to enable students to work in groups and use mathematical concepts to solve scenarios drawn from real-world situations. The exchange of ideas involves students supported to engage with each other using the disciplinary discourse needed for mathematics. Students further co-create knowledge and are often asked to derive their own formulas and word problems in discussion with their classmates, after being introduced to a particular mathematical concept. As part of the quest for holistic assessments for the 21st century, Singapore has been moving toward more open-ended assessments that require critical thinking and reasoning. Upper secondary school (or high school) tests are also accompanied by tasks that can be carried out in schools via research projects, experiments, and laboratory investigations. Such school-based components, which are designed by teachers, constitute up to 20% of the examination grade. Selected projects are submitted to the university as part of the application process as well.

As stated earlier, IP schools have exempted students from the O-level examinations to reduce test-based influences on the curriculum; particularly high-achieving students may move directly to junior college without taking these tests. The goal is to “free up more time for students to experience a broader and integrated curriculum that will engage them in critical and creative thinking” (Tsuneyoshi, 2005, as cited in Darling-Hammond, 2010, p. 188).

Nice reform rhetoric, one might say, but what about the reality? When visiting schools in Singapore, research team members were able to see just how much of this vision has been actualized through the highly connected work of the ministry, its major partner for professional preparation, NIE, and the school sites. At every school visited, an emphasis on holistic education to develop well-rounded human beings was apparent. Explicit efforts to develop students cognitively, aesthetically, spiritually, morally, and socially were obvious throughout the curriculum. In addition to project work visible in many classrooms, children were extensively involved in music, arts, calligraphy, physical education, sports, and a large variety of clubs and self-initiated activities aimed at building creativity and entrepreneurship.

---

Portrait of Practice

At the entrance to Ngee Ann Secondary School, which is located in the center of the Tampines housing estate (one of many publicly subsidized housing developments), there is a grand piano frequently used by students and a beautiful exhibit of professional quality student art in the open air area for all to view. Students are given opportunities to start their own little businesses in schools where any funds earned are returned to the school. In order to be granted licenses to run such businesses, they must first write a proposal and a plan. Only those whose plans have been selected are allowed to operate stalls along the school’s corridors and their business licenses can be revoked, either temporarily or permanently, if they fail to adhere to the agreed rules and regulations. This novel concept thus allows students to have a foretaste of what it is like to be a mini-entrepreneur and to learn about the processes of running a business.

Principal Chua Chor Huat notes, “We try to build values and leadership in everything we do.” In addition to sponsoring a student leadership group, all cocurricular activities, from the Green Movement to the debate and robotics clubs, also have student leaders. The drama club had just participated in a competition debuting a play the students wrote called “Internet Addiction,” a sign of the technologyintensive lives of the students. Innovation is another theme apparent throughout the school. During physical education classes, students are asked to design innovative games and to teach them to fellow students. In Design and Technology—a course required for seventh and eighth graders that can be continued through exam-level work in ninth and tenth grades—students design and execute a range of products. A design folio for students of this school explores a theme assigned by the exam board and a wide range of design and technology issues associated with it. It includes a design for a new product with options and alternatives explored, drawings to scale, rationales for design decisions, and finally, a constructed artifact—an outdoor barbecue, a cell phone holder, or whatever meets the design challenge expectations.

Science classes also support inquiry and invention. For example, a set of students from one biology class undertook a project to create an insect repellent that is 100% organic, environmentally friendly and safe, and yet effective. They discovered that common spices such as cinnamon, cloves, and star anise have insect repellent properties and extracted oils to create an effective product in paper, liquid, and solid forms. They were among the finalists in one of the many competitions that seem to be common in every domain of life and learning in Singapore.

The TLLM initiative was accompanied by a plan for infusing technology in every school and for cultivating innovation and enterprise throughout the system in order to develop intellectual curiosity and a spirit of collective initiative. At Ngee Ann Secondary, technology infusion and collaborative learning are visible throughout the school. In a science class we observed, students worked in pairs using their laptop computers to draw a concept map of the three states of matter and the properties of each. Those who were ready moved on to map the features of kinetic particle theory, while the teacher circulated round the class to ask questions and assist. He planned to review the work that evening to identify misconceptions and understandings as the basis for the next day’s lesson.

Another class of much younger students shared an inquiry they had conducted to find out, using a tachometer, what shapes of blades produce the most revolutions per minute. Their action research, presented by PowerPoint, featured careful questions and controls, and students were able to answer additional questions about how to go further in their investigation to sort out whether weight or shape was the key variable. They also explored applications of wind power for a greener approach to energy. Their teacher explained, “Action research is concerned with changing situations, not just interpreting them. . . The aim is not only to make students learn why the world works in a certain way, but rather what they can do to improve it.”

Addressing the explicit effort to change the culture of right answers that has dominated in the past, the teacher also emphasized that her goal was to teach students to be comfortable in asking good questions: “Creativity and innovation may surface when there may be no clear answers, and students have to be OK working with unanswered questions.”

---

To realize the visions of TSLN and TLLM, there is also an increasing need for assessment reform. The literature suggests that curriculum change would hardly take effect if it is not accomp...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title page
• Copyright
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• About the Sponsoring Organizations
• About the Authors
• Online Documents and Videos
• Singapore: From “Who?” to “Who’s Who!”
• Theme 1: A Clear Vision and Belief in the Centrality of Education For Every Individual, the Economy, and Nation Building
• Theme 2: A Systemic Approach to Innovation, Reform, and Change
• Theme 3: Investing in a High- Quality Teaching Force
• Theme 4: Developmental and Educative Appraisal for Ongoing Learning
• Theme 5: Learning System and Learning Profession
• Discussion
• Appendix Methodology
• References
• EULA