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.
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 accompanied by corresponding changes in assessment. Taking into consideration the importance of changing assessment practices for improving teaching and learning, innovative reforms are also being introduced in Singapore with the aim of transforming assessment and the role it plays in education. The change is reflected both in the content and characteristics of assessments, and in how assessment information is being integrated into the learning process. For example, a new A-level curriculum and examination system was introduced in 2006 in JCs that offer grades 11 and 12. A key change introduced by the testing boards comprising the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicated and the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) was the introduction of performance-based assessments. These involve students in designing and conducting science investigations, engaging in collaborative project work, and completing a cross-disciplinary inquiry as part of a new subject called Knowledge and Inquiry, and allow students to draw knowledge and skills from different disciplines they have been exposed to and apply them to solving new problems or issues. Successful implementation of the proposed changes requires a shared understanding of assessment as well as public support. Therefore, to promote public acceptance of the new system, SEAB created a brochure citing positive comments from Ivy League universities in the United States and other top universities in the United Kingdom lauding such new curricular design, which is deemed to better prepare students for life and to become contributing local and global citizens.
These new assessments, like the essay and problem-based examinations they supplement, are designed by the SEAB with the help of teachers—and scored by teachers who engage in moderation processes to ensure consistency of scoring. This professional role allows teachers to better understand the standards embedded in the curriculum and to plan more effective instruction.
The emphasis on holistic education is also reflected in how schools integrate research skills as an important part of a student’s academic journey. In the schools that the research team visited, we were impressed with the strong research culture that is being built—students are acquiring research skills and have become co-constructors of knowledge. Efforts to develop students’ research skills (Link 6) are fairly structured around helping students to be self-directed, critical, creative, and collaborative, as illustrated below.
The current paradigm framing educational practice and innovation in Singapore emphasizes “a student-centric, values-driven education” (Link 7) which rests on the “core belief that every child can learn—not just in school but for the rest of his (sic) life” (Heng, 2012). The shift from identifying specific ability in some, to nurturing and enhancing capacity among all learners, “regardless of background or ability” (Heng, 2012), requires a corresponding shift across the educational enterprise. Teachers, schools, and parents are now being called upon to fully participate in ensuring that “every student [is] an engaged learner” (Heng, 2012). This conception of learning and teaching currently driving educational reform and innovation indicates that Singapore has reached a level of success that now allows her the luxury (and necessity) of thinking beyond basic education to consider the deeper and more complex questions of quality and equality as they are jointly pursued in the Singapore context. Thus, educational reforms sparked by TSLN focused attention on teachers and fueled significant changes in teacher recruitment, preparation, compensation, status, and professional development, changes that have had an indelible impact on teacher quality and the teaching profession in Singapore, an impact that continues to be felt today. This moves us nicely to our second theme to be covered in the next section.