singapore curriculum reform creativity

6
5 NIRA Review Essay Education Reform in Singapore: Towards Greater Creativity and Innovation? by Jason Tan and S. Gopinathan T he beginning of the twenty-first century is an exciting time for education in Singapore. There is constant talk of the need to reexamine old ways of thinking and doing things and of the concomitant need for flexibility, creativity and innovation. Although education policy has been a prime instrument for the fostering of socioeconomic development ever since the ruling People’s Action Party came to power in 1959, in the past decade the pace of change has greatly quickened. It is therefore not surprising that education policymakers, schools, principals, teachers and students are being swept along in a literal tide of newly launched policy directives. This article poses questions about several ongoing and future challenges and dilemmas facing Singapore’s education system as it moves into the twenty-first century. It focuses on the ways in which schools are being urged to foster creativity and innovation to enhance national economic competitiveness in the global economy. It examines several key policy initiatives such as Thinking Schools, Learning N a t i o n , the Masterplan for Information Technology in Education , and revisions to university admission criteria. We also discuss the move toward the marketization of education, as manifested for instance in the push for intense interschool competition. CALLS FOR GREATER CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION The growth of the global economy has added urgency to calls to upgrade education and training as prime sources of national economic competitiveness. The Singaporean government can be said to have taken these calls seriously. Such efforts received added impetus in the wake of the 1985-86 economic recession. The Ministry of Trade & Industry’s Economic Committee recommended the education of each individual to his or her maximum potential and the development of

Upload: robin-india

Post on 04-Mar-2015

39 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Singapore Curriculum Reform Creativity

5 NIRA Review

Essay

Education Reform in Singapore: TowardsGreater Creativity and Innovation?

by Jason Tan and S. Gopinathan

The beginning of the twenty-first centuryis an exciting time for education inSingapore. There is constant talk of the

need to reexamine old ways of thinking anddoing things and of the concomitant need forflexibility, creativity and innovation. Althougheducation policy has been a prime instrumentfor the fostering of socioeconomicdevelopment ever since the ruling People’sAction Party came to power in 1959, in the pastdecade the pace of change has greatlyquickened. It is therefore not surprising thateducation policymakers, schools, principals,teachers and students are being swept along ina literal tide of newly launched policydirectives.

This article poses questions about severalongoing and future challenges and dilemmasfacing Singapore’s education system as itmoves into the twenty-first century. It focuseson the ways in which schools are being urgedto foster creativity and innovation to enhancenational economic competitiveness in the

global economy. It examines several key policyinitiatives such as Thinking Schools, LearningN a t i o n , the Masterplan for InformationTechnology in Education , and revisions touniversity admission criteria. We also discussthe move toward the marketization ofeducation, as manifested for instance in thepush for intense interschool competition.

CALLS FOR GREATER CREATIVITY

AND INNOVATION

The growth of the global economy hasadded urgency to calls to upgrade educationand training as prime sources of nationaleconomic competitiveness. The Singaporeangovernment can be said to have taken thesecalls seriously. Such efforts received addedimpetus in the wake of the 1985-86 economicrecession. The Ministry of Trade & Industry’sEconomic Committee recommended theeducation of each individual to his or hermaximum potential and the development of

Page 2: Singapore Curriculum Reform Creativity

creativity and flexible skills to maintainSingapore’s international competitiveness inthe global economy.1

A main thrust in the quest for creativity andinnovation has been the growingmarketization of education since the mid-1980s. The main manifestations of this trendhave been increasedschool autonomy andincreased interschoolcompetition.

Beginning in 1988,several well-establishedschools were allowedto become largelyindependent of theMinistry of Education andwere designated“independent schools.”The inspiration for theseschools arose from anofficial Ministry ofEducation visit in 1986 toindependent schools in theUnited Kingdom and theUnited States. TheEducation Ministry gavethese schools autonomy and flexibility inrecruitment, deployment and reward of staff,finance, management, and the curriculum.They were to serve as role models for otherschools in improving the quality of education.The government stated that these schoolswould also help to set the market value forgood principals and teachers by enabling themto recruit personnel in a competitive market.Parents, teachers and students would be ableto choose good schools with differentmanagement philosophies. Until now, eight (orabout five percent of 163) secondary schools,all of which are well established andprestigious, have become independent.

Right from the introduction of theindependent schools scheme there was strongpublic criticism over its elitist nature and thehigh fees charged by the schools. Thegovernment responded in 1994 by creating a

new category, “autonomous schools.” To date,18 existing nonindependent secondary schools,all with outstanding academic results, havebeen designated as autonomous. These schoolsare being asked to provide a high-qualityeducation while charging more affordable fees(and enjoying a lesser degree of operating

autonomy) than indepen-dent schools. Parents andstudents are therebysupposed to have a widerrange of choices.

A second feature of thegrowing marketization ofeducation is the stress oncompetition amongschools. Besides improv-ing the quality ofeducation, competition issupposed to provideparents and studentswith a wider range ofchoices and to improveaccountability by forcingschools to improve theirprograms. This competi-tion has been fostered in

several ways. For instance, all secondaryschools and junior colleges have been publiclyranked on an annual basis since 1992, and theresults have been published in localnewspapers. The official justification is thatparents and students must be provided withbetter information to make intelligent andinformed choices. Secondary schools have beenranked on three main criteria. The first is acomposite measure of students’ overall resultsin the annual General Certificate of Education(Ordinary) Level examinations. The secondmeasures schools’ “value-addedness” bycomparing students’ examination performancewith their examination scores upon entry totheir respective schools. The third criterion is aweighted index that measures a school’sperformance in the National Physical FitnessTest and the percentage of overweightstudents in the school.

Summer 2000 6

A MAIN THRUST IN THE QUEST

FOR CREATIVITY AND

INNOVATION HAS BEEN THE

GROWING MARKETIZATION OF

EDUCATION SINCE THE MID-

1980S. THE MAIN

MANIFESTATIONS OF THIS TREND

HAVE BEEN INCREASED SCHOOL

AUTONOMY AND INCREASED

INTERSCHOOL COMPETITION.

1 Ministry of Trade & Industry (1986). The Singapore Economy: New Directions. Singapore: Report of the Economic Committee.

Page 3: Singapore Curriculum Reform Creativity

On the curricular front, three majorinitiatives have been launched since 1997 in abid to foster greater creativity and innovationin students. Government statements make itclear that these initiatives are crucial tonational efforts to remain economicallycompetitive amid the transition to aknowledge economy. The first of these,Thinking Schools, Learning Nation, was launchedby the prime minister in June 1997. It focuseson developing all students into active learnerswith critical thinking skills and on developinga creative and critical thinking culture withinschools. Its key strategies include (1) theexplicit teaching of critical and creativethinking skills; (2) the reduction of subjectcontent; (3) the revision of assessment modes;and; (4) a greater emphasis on processesinstead of on outcomes when appraisingschools.2

The second initiative, the Masterplan forInformation Technology in Education, was also

launched in 1997. It is an ambitious attempt toincorporate information technology in teachingand learning in all schools. The governmenthas been generous in its pledges of supportboth for physical infrastructure and for pre-and in-service training. Whole-schoolnetworking is to be installed in all schools: thetarget is one computer to be available for everytwo students and one notebook for every twoteachers. This initiative specifies a target of upto 30 percent for the use of informationtechnology in curriculum time for all subjectsby the year 2002.3

The third and most recent major initiativefocuses on university admission criteria. TheCommittee on University Admission Systemrecommended in its 1999 report that theadmission criteria move beyond consideringonly the results obtained in the GeneralCertificate of Education (Advanced) Levelexamination. Instead, students’ results in theScholastic Assessment Test (I), their results in

7 NIRA Review

2 Ministry of Education (1997). Towards Thinking Schools. Singapore.3 Ministry of Education (1997). Masterplan for IT in Education. Singapore.

Page 4: Singapore Curriculum Reform Creativity

Summer 2000 8

project work at school, and their participationin extracurricular activities will also beconsidered in regard to applicants at theAdvanced Level. Applicants who have apolytechnic diploma will be assessed on theirresults in the Scholastic Assessment Test (I)and in their performance in extracurricularactivities. The committee hoped that therevised criteria would promote “desired”qualities such as curiosity, creativity,enterprise, and teamwork. The revised criteriawere also supposed to complement theThinking Schools, Learning Nation s t r a t e g i e sbeing implemented in primary and secondaryschools.4

WHAT ARE THE PROSPECTS FOR GREATER

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION?

When one considers the various strategiesand initiatives that have been employed by theEducation Ministry in order to foster creativityand innovation, the sheer scale of theseambitious plans is striking. All schools,principals, teachers, and students have beenincluded in these plans, and now that theseplans have been put in place in schools, itmight be worth considering the rationales andimplications for the system of such sweepingreforms. For instance, to what extent will theseambitious strategies and initiatives result in agenuine flowering of creativity and innovationin schools and students? Are there any deep-seated dilemmas that need to be addressed?

Until now, the results of increased schoolautonomy have been mixed. The principals ofindependent schools have indeed enjoyedgreater flexibility in decision making in suchmatters as curriculum and teacher recruitment;demand for places in these schools remainshigh. In some other respects, however, thedegree of choice and diversity is still limited.The government maintains a great deal ofinfluence over the secondary schoolcurriculum. The imposition of nationalcurricular requirements and the pressures

imposed by common national examinations atthe end of the 6 t h, 10 t h, and 12 t h years ofschooling restrict the scope for curricularinnovation. No independent school orautonomous school has moved from a subject-based curriculum. Moreover, the range ofsubjects offered in these schools is largelyidentical to that in nonindependent,nonautonomous schools. Independent schoolsseem to have stuck to offering enrichedcurricular experiences within a nationallymandated curriculum. As long as principalsare held accountable for their schools’performance in national examinations, theycannot afford to stray too far from themainstream curriculum.

The introduction of explicit measures topromote competition among schools hasaroused a great deal of controversy andcriticism, both from within and from outsidethe governing party. It is highly contestablewhether fostering competition does improvethe quality of education for all students andpromote greater choice and diversity. First,competition among schools does not take placeon a level playing field because the terms ofcompetition are to a large extent dictated bythe government. For instance, the number ofindependent schools and autonomous schoolsis determined by the government, andnonindependent schools enjoy less flexibilitythan independent schools do in determiningtheir own enrolment figures or the number ofteachers that they wish to employ.

In other words, nonprestigious, non-academically selective schools are simplyunable to compete effectively with well-established, academically selective schools.The former group is caught in a vicious cycle:because they are unable to attract highacademic achievers, their academic results fallfar below those of the well-established schools.This means that they remain unable to attracthigh academic achievers. An analysis of theranking results for secondary schools over thepast eight years reveals that most of the top 30

4 Committee on University Admission System (1999). Preparing Graduates for a Knowledge Economy: A New University AdmissionSystem for Singapore. Singapore: Ministry of Education.

Page 5: Singapore Curriculum Reform Creativity

9 NIRA Review

secondary schools have remained in thiscategory throughout the eight years. It istherefore questionable to what extent increasedcompetition actually helps to improvestandards in all schools.

The government has claimed that theindependent schools and autonomousschools will serve as role modelsfor other schools in improvingeducational standards. Thisbegs the question of whetherwhat proves effective inthese well-establishedschools can in fact betransplanted to otherschools. The govern-ment’s reasoning alsoignores the part playedby a selective studentintake in schools’academic success. It istherefore not clear towhat extent the experi-ence of independentschools and autonomousschools can be valid lessonsfor the bulk of Singapore’ssecondary schools, strugglingwith less-than-ideal studentabilities and motivational levels.

Another criticism is that competition leadssome schools to focus narrowly on outcomesthat are relevant for public ranking and thatmay be useful for attracting students andparents. This criticism is especially relevant ina society such as Singapore where performancein competitive examinations is still a majordeterminant of educational and social mobility.There has been press coverage of how severalreputable secondary schools have decided tomake the study of English literature optionalrather than compulsory for their graduatingstudents. This is because English literature isperceived to be a subject in which it is difficultto do well during national examinations. Theseschools have been wary of the potential

consequences that students’ performance inEnglish literature might have on their positionsin the annual ranking exercises. It is especiallyironic, then, that these strategies were beingemployed even as the Minister for Information

and the Arts at that time was extolling thevirtues of the subject to students. Even

physical education has not beenexempt from the adverse effects

of ranking exercises. Someschools have overempha-

sized preparation for theNational Physical FitnessTest at the expense of theacquisition of skills insports and games. Thegrowing stress on schoolaccountability and theuse of narrowly defined,easily quantifiable per-formance indicators haveclearly had a detrimental

effect on some schools.Far from promoting choice

and diversity, heightenedinterschool competition and

rivalry may work against thesegoals.

Even though an external reviewteam commissioned by the Education

Ministry has heavily criticized the detrimentalaspects of the practice of school-rankinge x e r c i s e s ,5 the Education Ministry has refusedto consider scrapping them. Its response hasbeen instead to broaden the range of indicatorson which schools are to be assessed throughthe use of its “School Excellence Model.” Itremains to be seen if this model still results insome schools using more of the same covertstrategies they have been using thus far—thistime in a wider spectrum of school processesand activities—to increase their schools’performance in as many as possible of theaspects being assessed.

Amid this climate of continuing risk-aversebehavior, what then are the prospects of wide-

THE GOVERNMENT

HAS CLAIMED THAT THE

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS AND

AUTONOMOUS SCHOOLS WILL

SERVE AS ROLE MODELS FOR

OTHER SCHOOLS IN IMPROVING

EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS. THIS

BEGS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER

WHAT PROVES EFFECTIVE IN

THESE WELL-ESTABLISHED

SCHOOLS CAN IN FACT BE

TRANSPLANTED TO

OTHER SCHOOLS.

5 External Review Team (1997). Learning, Creating, and Communicating: A Curriculum Review . Singapore: Ministry ofEducation.

Page 6: Singapore Curriculum Reform Creativity

Summer 2000 10

ranging and sustained change as far as theteaching of critical and creative thinking skills,the incorporation of information technologyinto teaching and learning, and the promotionof project work as a form of assessment?Government leaders are united in lamentingthe apparent lack of creativity and thinkingskills among students and members of theworkforce. In a sense, it is ironic that thegovernment is aggressively promoting wide-ranging changes in the schools even as it basksin Singapore’s success in the ThirdInternational Mathematics and ScienceStudy—a study that reportedly was “not madeup of typical examination questions that ourpupils are familiar with. [The test items]assessed them on creative problem-solvingskills and their ability to respond to open-ended questions.”6 A cursory glance at thesubject syllabuses published by the Universityof Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate(the body that organizes the bulk of thesecondary and preuniversity examinations forSingapore students) reveals careful attention tothe cultivation of higher-order thinking andanalytical skills. These include selection,organization, and interpretation of data, therecognition of patterns and deduction ofrelationships in data, critical reading, detectinglogical fallacies in arguments, evaluating thereliability and accuracy of material, andapplying knowledge to problems presented ina novel or unfamiliar manner. It would appearthat teachers have become adept in drillingand coaching their students to answer thesehigher-order questions very skillfully.

Policymakers will need to realize that it islikely that new requirements, including theSAT (I), will be viewed by many teachers,parents, and students as yet more hurdles orhoops to be cleared by employing yet more ofthe same strategies that have worked, namely,intensive and repetitive coaching and practice.

These concerns have in fact been raised inParliament. The intense competition amongschools will see to it that a number ofprincipals and teachers try their best,employing educationally suspect means onoccasion, to ensure maximum success for theirstudents even after the revised curricula andassessment modes have been put in place.

A more fundamental issue is whether it willbe possible to bring about changes in teachers’beliefs, values, and attitudes concerning suchmatters as epistemology, the roles of teachers,and the nature of teaching and learning. Suchchanges are crucial to the meaningfulimplementation of initiatives such as T h i n k i n gSchools, Learning Nation . The internationalresearch literature is replete with cautionaryadvice about the difficulty in bringing aboutsustained and fundamental changes.

The larger problem for Singapore’seducational reform initiative is thatSingapore’s nation-building history resulted inan omnipresent state that cherishes stabilityand order. A desire for true innovation,creativity, experimentation, and multipleopportunities in education cannot be realizeduntil the state allows civil society to flourishand avoids politicizing dissent. Singapore is astate that has accomplished a great deal interms of economic development, often againstseemingly overwhelming odds, over the pastfour decades. The reform of education to meetthe perceived needs of the twenty-first centuryposes a new and major hurdle to be overcome.

Jason Tan is an assistant professor in the Policy& Management Studies Academic Group, NationalInstitute of Education, Singapore. Email:[email protected].

S. Gopinathan is Dean, Foundation Programmes,National Institute of Education, Singapore. E-mail:[email protected].

6 Chiang C. F. (1999). “Education: New Directions.” In G. L. Ooi & R. S. Rajan, (eds.) Singapore: The Year in Review 1998.Singapore: Times Academic Press. pp. 65-76.