See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311992398

The education system in Singapore

Chapter · January 2016

CITATIONS READS
4 15,891

3 authors:

Charlene Tan Kim Koh

Nanyang Technological University The University of Calgary
151 PUBLICATIONS   1,301 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   304 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

William Choy
Institute of Technical Education, Singapore
15 PUBLICATIONS   64 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

TVET pedagogies View project

Building Preservice Teachers' Skills & Conceptions in Authentic Assessment task design in English Language Arts in Canadian Context View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Charlene Tan on 31 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Tan, C., Koh, K. & Choy, W. (2016). The education system in Singapore. In Juszczyk, S.
(Ed.), Asian Education Systems (pp. 129-148). Toruñ: Adam Marszalek Publishing House.

DRAFT

The Education System in Singapore

Abstract

This chapter introduces the education system in Singapore by discussing its educational
developments since its independence, its current educational system, its salient features and the
key challenges it faces in an age of globalisation. The first part delineates the three phases of
educational development in Singapore: ‘survival-driven’, ‘efficiency-driven’, and ‘ability-
driven’. The second part of the chapter describes the current educational system in Singapore,
from pre-school education to university education. It also highlights three salient features of the
current system: an educational system that offers different types of schools and programmes, a
curriculum that fosters customised and inter-disciplinary study, and the changing role of teachers
from just experts and dispensers of content knowledge to resource persons to facilitate the
students’ learning through creative and student-centred activities. The last part of the chapter
highlights two key challenges facing Singapore in an era of globalisation: to manage the
increasing cultural diversity in the educational landscape in Singapore, and to enhance the
professionalism of the pre-school teachers so as to raise the teacher and education quality in the
pre-school sector.

Key Words: education system, Singapore, survival-driven, efficiency-driven, ability-driven,

Thinking School, Learning Nation
Introduction

Among the Asian educational systems, Singapore stands out for its stellar academic performance
in international assessments. For example, the primary 4 and secondary 2 students in Singapore
have consistently outperformed students from other countries in mathematics and science in the
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). In the most recent TIMSS
2011, Singaporean students were ranked in the first two positions for both the subjects and
grades (Martin, Mullis, Foy & Stanco, 2012; Mullis, Martin, Foy & Arora, 2012). Singapore also
emerged among the top performing economies in the 2009 and 2012 Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) for reading, mathematics and science (OECD, 2015).
The latest achievement was its number one position in the global school ranking organised by
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) among 76 countries based
on test scores in mathematics and science (Coughlan, 2015). Singapore’s education system has
been acknowledged as a “sustained improver” and described as “Great” in the McKinsey report
(McKinsey, 2010).

The impressive academic performance of Singapore within a short span of fifty years
signifies 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 instructive to
understand the evolution, success factors and on-going challenges of the educational system in
Singapore. This chapter introduces the education system in Singapore by discussing its
educational developments since its independence, its current educational system, its salient
features and the key challenges it faces in an age of globalisation.

Educational Developments in Singapore

Singapore was a British colony in the 19th century, achieved self-government in 1959 and
became an independent nation in 1965. The early days were difficult as Singapore struggled to
survive. The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) government, under the leadership of the late
Lee Kuan Yew, put in place a series of pragmatic social and economic policies to attract
industrial investments from the international community. Today, Singapore is a vibrant
cosmopolitan city with one of the world’s busiest ports and airports, as well as an educational
system that has been internationally acknowledged as successful.
 In understanding the educational system in Singapore, it is helpful to note that there were
three phases in the education developments in Singapore since its independence (Tan, 2008). The
first phase was ‘survival-driven’ where the aim was to produce trained workers in the early years
of Singapore’s independence and industrialisation (Chen, 2000). Industralisation in late 1960s
demanded that Singapore produce sufficient skilled workers for an export-oriented economy.
Responding to this demand, there was a shift in emphasis from academic to technical education,
characterised by the development of post-secondary technical and vocational education at the
polytechnics (Ho & Gopinathan, 1999).

This reflects the instrumental aim of education to educate students for the workforce
through linguistic and technical skills. Another major reform was the the introduction of
bilingualism and bilingual policy in1966. Bilingualism in Singapore is defined not as proficiency
in any two languages but as proficiency in the English Language (EL) which is recognised as the
first language, and a second language, known as ‘Mother Tongue Language’ (MTL). All students
in Singapore must study two languages in schools: the English Language (EL) and their Mother
Tongue Language (MTL). Three MTLs have been selected by the government for students in
Singapore – Chinese Language (CL) or Mandarin for Chinese students, Malay Language (ML)
for Malay students, and Tamil Language (TL) for Indian students (five more Indian languages
have since been added to cater to the diverse linguistic needs of the Indian students).
Pragmatically, the choice of English as the first language was motivated by pragmatic
considerations since it was and still is the language of commerce, of science, technology and
international intercourse. This smart move gave Singapore students a head start in employment
opportunities in Asia and accessing to the science and technology of the West.

The ‘survival-driven’ phase was replaced by the ‘efficiency-driven’ phase in the late
1970s that aimed to fine-tuned the system in order to produce skilled workers for the economy in
the most efficient way. In other words, the government projected the manpower demands in
various sectors of the economy and train people to fit into jobs in those sectors (Teo, 1999). A
timely report, Report on the Ministry of Education in 1979, highlighted the problem of
inefficiency in the 1970s where about 20-30% of students dropped out of the system because
they could not cope with learning two languages (Ministry of Education, 1979). At the same
time, those who passed both languages were struggling and not effectively bilingual. The
conclusion of the report was that the education system was “one-size-fits-all” and did not cater to
students of different needs and abilities. The report recommended greater efficiency by
introducing ability-based streaming at the end of primary 3 and an additional year of study for
the weakest students in secondary schools. Students were assessed primarily on their level of
languages and mathematics, and streamed into different courses at the primary and secondary
schools.

Further educational changes were introduced in the mid 1980s due to changing economic
circumstances during that decade. Singapore was affected by the recession in mid 1980s that
revealed that the country’s labour force was under-educated compared to those in the US,
Taiwan and Japan (Gopinathan, 2001). In 1987, a report, Towards Excellence in Schools, called
for a number of policy initiatives to produce students who are educated, creative and innovative.
Consequently, some top secondary schools were selected in 1988 to become ‘independent
schools’ where the school leaders were given greater autonomy in the running of the schools and
encouraged to spearhead innovative and educationally meaningful programmes, activities and
pedagogy (Principals’ Report, 1987). The report also suggested improvements in vocational and
industrial training programmes to ensure that Singapore stayed ahead in having skilled workers
for the economy. Again, one can see the pragmatic influence in the priority of training
professionals and technicians with the requisite knowledge and skills.

Another major educational change was to fine-tune the streaming system where students
were placed in different academic tracks based on their exam results obtained at the Primary
School Leaving Examination (PSLE). In addition to the Express, Special, and Normal
(Academic) streams, a Normal (Technical) stream was introduced in 1994 to cater to the weakest
students in secondary schools; they would receive a special curriculum with subjects such as
English, mother tongue, mathematics, computer applications and technical studies taught at their
level. These students will be channelled to the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) after their
secondary years to learn technical skills. These changes meant that all students would have at
least 10 years of education in primary and secondary schools before they specialise in different
areas of study. The government succeded in having 20% of the primary 1 cohort receiving
technical-vocational education at the ITE, 40% polytechnic education and another 20%
university education (Ho & Gopinathan, 1999).
 The last and current phase is ‘ability-driven’ that started in 1997. It was launched under
the ‘Thinking Schools, Learning Nation’ (TSLN) vision that aspires to develop creative thinking
skills, a lifelong passion for learning, and nationalistic commitment in the young (Tan, 2011)
The former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong explained that the goal is to nurture thinking and
committed citizens who actively engage in life-long learning within a national culture of learning
(Goh, 1997). The former Minister of Education Tharman Shanmugaratnam stated that the
government seeks to gradually reduce the emphasis on examinations and focus on a holistic
education; give the students more choice in their studies so that they can shape and enjoy their
learning; and encourage teachers to bring quality and innovative practices into the classroom and
school (Tharman, 2004). Under the TSLN vision, an ‘ability-driven’ education is premised on
the belief that all talents and abilities are equally valuable and will be equally nurtured. This
means that a diversity of talents, be it in the intellect, the arts, sports, or community endeavours,
is treasured and developed in all students based on their interests and potentials.

Current Education System in Singapore

This section gives a brief overview of the current educational system in Singapore. The majority
of the schools from the primary to the pre-university levels are state schools (known locally as
‘national schools’) under the Ministry of Education (MOE). This means that these schools are
administratively controlled and funded by the MOE. Prior to primary school, children may be
enrolled in a pre-school institution that is for children aged 4 to 6 years. Parents could choose to
enroll their children in a private or government-run kindergarten. Pre-school children in
Singapore generally learn basic literacy and numeracy skills as well as bilingualism: English as
the first language and a second language such as Chinese, Malay and Tamil.

The MOE acknowledges that the early years are crucial for children’s holistic
development, and that a quality pre-school education will provide children with opportunities to
build their self-confidence, learn social skills and develop learning dispositions. The Ministry
has therefore raised the quality of kindergarten education by implementing the following
measures: developed curriculum resources to support educators in designing quality learning
experiences for children aged 4 to 6 years; provided quality and affordable pre-school education
through the MOE Kindergartens; and shared curriculum resources and other good practices with
the pre-school sector (Ministry of Education, 2015b). Since 1999, the MOE has also improved
pre-school education by focusing on high leverage areas. These leverage areas include:
delineating desired outcomes for pre-school education; developing a curriculum framework;
conducting research to study the benefits of quality pre-school education; raising the standards of
teacher training and qualifications; and reviewing the regulatory framework of kindergartens
(Ministry of Education, 2003).

The Singapore govenment plans to increase the MOE’s investment in pre-school

education over the next five years to S$290 million so as to continue to enhance the quality of
the pre-school sector (Singapore Government, 2011, 2012). To encourage pre-school providers
to further improve their standards and strive for greater excellence in pre-school education, the
Ministry of Education and Ministry of Social and Family have developed a voluntary quality
assurance and accreditation framework for implementation since January 2011. Based on the
framework, pre-school providers would be able to benchmark their education outcomes through
self-appraisal and external assessment. Pre-school providers that meet specified standards would
then apply to receive accreditation status (Ministry of Education, 2008b). And to support pre-
schools in their efforts, the MOE has also provided all pre-schools with curriculum resources,
such as a curriculum planning guide with sample lesson plans. The MOE and the Ministry of
Social and Family have also provided grants to non-profit pre-schools to purchase teaching and
learning resources such as books and educational software. All pre-school providers may also
apply for innovation grants to innovate and experiment so as to enhance their quality of teaching
and learning (Ministry of Education, 2008b).

Children in pre-school institutions would proceed to study in a primary school in

Singapore. Education is compulsory for all Singaporeans at the primary education level. This
means that all children above the age of six years must be enrolled in a national primary school
where they receive six years of schooling and sit for a terminal examination, Primary School
Leaving Examination (PSLE). Exceptions, however, are given to a child with special needs, a
child attending a designated school such as an Islamic religious school, and a child receiving
home-schooling (Ministry of Education, 2015a). For children with special needs, they may be
enrolled in one of the around 20 ‘Special Education’ (SPED) schools in Singapore. Students with
sensory impairment such as hearing- or visual-impairment who are able to access mainstream
curriculum would sit for the PSLE and, if successful, would continue their education in one of
the eight designated secondary schools for sensory impaired students who need specialised
support. Students with intellectual disability, on the other hand, would receive appropriate
vocational training at one of the training centres or worjshops to equip them with the necessary
skills for employment, where possible (Ministry of Education, 2015a).

Primary school students enrolled in national primary schools study core subjects such as
English language, Mother Tongue Language (Chinese, Malay or an approved Indian language),
Mathematics and Science. They are also encouraged to participate in Co-Curricular Activities
(CCAs) such as sports and music, and Community Involvement Programmes (CIP) where they
are involved in service learning projects (for more details on primary education, see Ministry of
Education, 2015a). Based on their performance in the PSLE, students will be placed in either the
Express, Normal (Academic) or Normal (Technical) stream in a secondary school. Depending on
the stream, they would receive four or five years of school and sit for a national examination:
General Certificate of Education ‘Ordinary’ Level (GCE ‘O’ Levels) for Express course) or
General Certificate of Education ‘Normal’ Level (GCE ‘N’ Levels) for Normal course.

Thereafter, depending on the interests and academic performance of the students, they
may proceed to pre-university education where they study in a two-year junior college or three-
year centralised institute course, and sit for the the General Certificate of Education Advanced
Level (GCE ‘A’ Level) examination. Other post-secondary options include being enrolled in a
vocational institution such as a polytechnic or the Institute of Technical Education (ITE), or
specialised arts institutions. In terms of university education, there are currently five publicly-
funded universities in Singapore and a number of private universities and institutions of higher
learning. The curent publicly-funded cohort participation rate (CPR) is 26% which translates into
more than one in four students from each Primary One cohort obtaining a place in one of
Singapore’s publicly-funded universities (Ministry of Education, 2015a).

In analysing the success of the educational system in Singapore, we can identify three
salient features in the current ability-driven education. The first feature is an educational system
that offers a variety of school types and programmes. The shift from an efficiency-driven to an
ability-driven paradigm witnesses a change from the previously unified, rigid and hierarchical
educational system. There are now schools that offer an Integrated Programme (IP) where
students bypass the GCE ‘O’ level exam and head straight for the GCE ‘A’ level exam or the
International Baccalaureate (IB) diploma. There are also specialised schools focusing on
nurturing students talented in sports, the arts, and science and mathematics. An accent is placed
on the holistic development of the students, rather than a fixation with academic performance
under an efficiency-driven education. For example, more weight is given to co-curricular
activities where traits like resilience, team spirit and resourcefulness are inculcated in the
students. Flexibility and autonomy will be given to school principals to admit more students
based on the criteria laid down by the schools. This may include both academic and non-
academic standards such as artistic or sporting talent. Related to this change is the shift from an
exam-oriented approach with a premium placed on languages, mathematics and science, to a
broader and more inclusive view of education.

Secondly, the curriculum has been revised to promote customised and inter-disciplinary
study, which is a departure from the former curriculum that was common, rigid and classified
under different subject-matter disciplines. The MOE has fundamentally reviewed its curriculum
and assessment system to better develop the thinking and learning skills required for the future.
Secondary students are given more choices to decide on their subject combination in schools,
and could even study new subjects such as Economics, Computer Studies and Drama. The post-
secondary curriculum is also revised to develop thinking skills and nurturing the spirit and values
required for Singaporeans to thrive in a more globalised, innovation driven future (Ministry of
Education, 2002; Ministry of Education, 2005a). The goal is to provide a broad-based education
where students are exposed to and be able to excel in different disciplines and ways of learning.
For example, a new subject is Knowledge and Inquiry (KI) which is a subject students in junior
colleges and pre-university centres (17-19 years old) can choose to take (Tan, 2006). It aims to
imbue students with a spirit of learning and exploration by developing the mental capacity to
question and seek answers to observations and phenomena (Ministry of Education, 2005b). It
adopts an inter-disciplinary approach to an investigation of the nature and construction of
knowledge, drawing from various disciplines such as the sciences, arts and humanities. The
students are expected to articulate and define their learning, and be responsible for their own
learning experiences, and KI teachers should create a learner-centred experience by acting as
facilitators, resource persons and models of learning.

The third feature concerns the shift in the role of the teacher under an ability-driven
education. Teachers are no longer just experts and dispensers of content knowledge; they are
expected to be resource persons to facilitate the students’ learning through creative and student-
centred activities. A significant policy initiative from the government is to encourage schools to
‘Teach Less, Learn More’ (TLLM). The aim is for teachers to teach better by engaging the
students and preparing them for life, rather than merely teaching more for tests and examinations
(Tharman, 2004). To support the implementation of TLLM, the MOE has reduced the content in
the curriculum so that teachers have more space to make learning more engaging and effective.
This also means that students will have less to study and more time to explore areas of learning
in which they are interested in. To further encourage teachers to break out of the old mode of
talk-and-chalk pedagogy, schools have set aside time-tabled time, known as ‘white space’ for
teachers to engage in professional planning, reflection and sharing. The MOE explained that
schools can use this space to customise and develop instructional content and materials, and use
effective pedagogy and authentic assessments that best suits their students (Ministry of
Education, 2005c). All these changes promise to enable and empower teachers to identify, adapt
and design appropriate pedagogy to nurture creative and critical thinkers in their students.

In terms of assessment, Singaporean teachers are urged to move beyond the focus on rote
memorisation of content knowledge and low-level thinking skills. The government values
students’ holistic development of competencies such as critical thinking, innovation and
creativity, communication, collaboration, independent learning, lifelong learning, information
and communication technology, and active citizenship. As such, alternative forms of assessment,
such as project work and Science Practical Assessment have been introduced as school-based
assessments into Singaporean classrooms at various key stages of schooling. At the secondary
school level, coursework is also recommended as a school-based assessment. Coursework marks
count toward the final grades in the examination of subject areas including Design and
Technology, Food and Nutrition, Art, and Music.

A recent initiative known as C2015 has been launched by MOE to focus on the
development of students’ dispositions: a confidence individual, a self-directed learner, an active
citizen, and a concerned contributor (MOE, 2008a). In the Primary Education Review and
Implementation (PERI) recommendation (MOE, 2009), the exams at primary 1 and 2 have been
replaced with ‘bite-sized assessment’ or ‘topical tests’, with an eye towards using assessment to
support student learning. Likewise, the Secondary Education Review and Implementation (SERI)
recommendation emphasises the inculcation of learning and life skills, values, character and
citizenship, and socio-emotional competencies among secondary school students (MOE, 2010).
Many of these soft skills involve processes and cannot be assessed by one-shot, traditional
standardised paper-and-pen tests; instead, formative, authentic and school-based assessments
have become viable alternatives (Koh, 2011, 2014; Koh & Luke, 2009).

Key Challenges for Education in Singapore

Despite the success of the educational system in Singapore, the state continues to face some key
educational challenges in an era of globalisation. Globalisation has brought about major effects
that include internationalisation, denationalisation of economies, weakening of the nation state,
and commodification of education (Ohmae 1995; OECD, 1996; Green, 1997, 2007; Gopinathan,
2007). Policymakers have acknowledged that the ability of countries to compete in the globalised
knowledge economy is increasingly dependent upon their capacity to meet the fast-growing
demands for high-level skills. This in turn hinges on how the countries are making significant
progress in improving the quality of education of their people and providing equitable learning
opportunities for all (McKinsey Report, 2007).

This section highlights two main challenges facing education in Singapore against a
backdrop of globalisation. The first challenge is the management of increasing cultural diversity
in the educational landscape in Singapore. Globalisation means that Singapore has seen an
increasing inflow of foreign nationals into the country in search of better work opportunity, a
change of living environment and educational pursuits (National Population and Talent Division,
2008). As such, there are now greater changes in the demography of the Singapore society where
the demographic profile of the people in the general population is no longer characterised by a
Singaporean homogeneity or singular-culturalism. In other words, Singapore students are no
longer easily classified into Chinese, Malay, Indian or Others. Instead, we have new immigrants
such as those from China and India, as well as from others from a host of countries. A major
consideration for schools is the varied and potentially incompatible behaviours, attitudes and
values of the teachers and students across national and socio-cultural boundaries that may affect
school processes and educational outcomes. School leaders and teachers may be less inclined to
be culture-sensitive and may have tendencies towards ‘over-generalising’ students from certain
ethnic group or parochial classroom practices. As such, classroom management, teaching
pedagogies and other the related issues in diversity in schools would become challenging areas
of research and best practices for academics, and school leaders, respectively (Choy, 2011).

Responding to Singapore’s cultural diversity in the educational landscape, there is a need

for schools to adopt a multicultural approach in its organisational strategies, management
structures and practices in teaching and learning. Doing so would help schools to benefit from
the wealth of available knowledge, differing experiences, and global perspectives that students
and teachers from diverse backgrounds bring to the classroom. In fact, the differences in
characters and cultures may prove to be integral to school success, as diversity is considered
important towards enhancing innovation and enriching learning and teaching experiences for the
students, in an environment of school-based multiculturalism. Thus, this would signal a need for
greater sensitivity and empathetic orientations in schools, whereby there ought to be greater
emphasis on acceptance (and even perhaps, adaptability) beyond just tolerance for one another
because of existing differences. Classroom practices should ensure that there is continuous
learning and adaptation in schools (Choy, 2011).

The second challenge for education in Singapore is to enhance the professionalism of the
pre-school teachers so as to raise the teacher and education quality in the pre-school sector.
There are several pressing issues that the MOE needs to address for the pre-school education
sector. First, on the one hand, the educational profile of the population has shifted over the years
that results in many students having at least one parent who has post-secondary education. Thus,
parents are becoming more well-educated and have much higher expectations of the standard of
pre-school education for their children (MOE, 2008b). A better-educated population also means
that there is now a bigger pool of candidates with better qualifications who can become pre-
school teachers. On the other hand, there are lower and middle-income families who may not be
able to afford quality but expensive pre-school education for their children so pre-school
education should remain affordable for these families. Second, the pre-school education sector is
not attracting enough good teachers to join the service. Teaching professionals in the pre-school
education sector are still paid relatively less than similarly qualified people in the other sectors.
This problem is compounded by a third factor which is the insufficient training and continuing
career development, professional support and recognition for the pre-school teachers, which have
led to higher turnovers in the pre-schools (Oon, 2013). Given that the pre-school education is
crucial for giving the young children of Singapore a strong start in their early formative years, it
is important that effective policies are introduced to further enhancie the quality of the pre-school
education.

Conclusions

Singapore offers a good example of a young nation that has successfully transformed itself from
an impoverished and weak country into an economically and educationally advanced country
within 50 years. A large part of Singapore’s success was due to its emphasis on investing in
human capital and building a world-class education system. Education in Singapore is the
vehicle in nation-building by producing a competent, adaptive and productive workforce and
promoting social cohesion among the various ethnic groups. The long-term objective of
education in Singapore is to prepare students to meet the challenges of a knowledge economy
and to enhance the economic competitiveness of Singapore. It is noteworthy that the McKinsey
Report (2007) points out that high-performing school systems such as Singapore excel in
focusing on the following three fundamental success factors: effective mechanism for teacher
selection such that the right people are employed to become teachers (i.e., the quality of the
education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers); effective processes for training and
development with strong emphasis on ensuring teachers are professionally developed to be
effective instructors (i.e., the best way to achieve excellent outcomes is to improve the
instruction); and effective systems and support structures are put in place to ensure that every
student will benefit from the excellent instruction (i.e., the best way for schools to achieve the
best performance is to raise the standard of every student).

Looking ahead, it is expected that the government of Singapore will continue to invest
heavily in education so as to prepare its future citizens to be active and successful contributors in
a knowledge economy. Singapore exemplifies the importance of adopting the best educational
practices for achieving educational excellence in school within the education system. It
demonstrates that substantial improvement in school outcomes is possible in a short period of
time, and that adopting these best practices system-wide can have significant impact in
improving the school system. The case study on Singapore illustrates that education policy
makers and school leaders need to recognise that effective implementation of system-level
structures will affect the quality of practices of school leaders. This would entail an in-depth
examination of the components that are pertinent to the existing structures so as to contribute to
the success of the system (Senge, Cambron-McCabe, Lucas, Smith, & Dutton, 2012).

References

Chen, P. (2000). Ability-driven education in post-secondary institutions. Address at the first

symposium on teaching and learning in higher education on Thursday 6 July at 9:00 am at
the Engineering Auditorium, Faculty of Engineering, National University of Singapore.
Available online at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2000/sp06072000_print.htm
(accessed 7 Feb 2005)

Choy, W. (2011). Globalisation and the dynamic education environment in Singapore. In W.

Choy & C. Tan (Eds). Education reform in Singapore: Critical perspectives (pp 3 - 12).
Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Coughlan, S. (2015). Asia tops biggest global school rankings. BBC News, May 13. Available
online at: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32608772 (accessed 17 May 2015).

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,
Singapore. Available online at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/1997/020697.htm
(accessed 7 July 2005).

Gopinathan, S. (2001). Globalisation, the state and education policy in Singapore. In Tan, J.,
Gopinathan, S. & Ho, W.K. (eds.), Challenges facing the Singapore education system
today (pp. 3-17). Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Gopinathan, S. (2007). Globalisation, the Singapore developmental state and education policy: A
thesis revisited. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 5(1), 53-70.

Green, A. (1999) Education and globalisation in Europe and East Asia: Convergent and
divergent trends. Journal of Education Policy, 14(1), 55-71.

Green, A. (2007) Globalisation and the changing nature of the state in East Asia. Globalisation,
Societies and Education, 5(1), 23-38.
Ho, W. K. & Gopinathan, S. (1999). Recent developments in education in Singapore. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(1), pp. 99-117.

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.

Koh, K. (2011). Improving teachers’ assessment literacy through professional development.

Teaching Education, 22(3), 255-276.

Koh, K. (2014). Authentic assessment, teacher judgment and moderation in a context of high
accountability. In C. Wyatt-Smith, V. Klenowski, & P. Colbert (Eds.), Designing
assessment for quality learning, Vol. 1 (pp. 249-264). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. M. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international
results in science. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

McKinsey & Co. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top.
Available online at: http://www.mckinsey.com/App_Media/Reports/SSO/Worlds _School_
Systems_Final.pdf (accessed 12 May 2015).

McKinsey & Co. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better.
Available online at: http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/How-the-
Worlds-Most-Improved-School-Systems-Keep-Getting-Better_Download-
version_Final.pdf. (accessed 12 May 2015).

Ministry of Education (1979). Report on the Ministry of Education 1978. Singapore: Author.

Ministry of Education (2005a). Breath and flexibility: The new ‘A’ level curriculum 2006.
Available online at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/cpdd/alevel2006/ (accessed 15 May 2006).

Ministry of Education (2005b). Knowledge & Inquiry. Singapore: Author.

Ministry of Education (2005c) Touching hearts, engaging minds: Preparing our learners for life.
Singapore: Author.

Ministry of Education (2008b). Improving the quality of pre-school education. Available online
at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2008/03/improving-the-quality-of-presc.php
(accessed 11 May 2015).
Ministry of Education (2009). Report of the Primary Education Review and Implementation
Committee. Singapore: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education (2010). Report of the Secondary Review and Implementation Committee.
Singapore: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education (2012). Improving quality and affordability of pre-school education.

Singapore: Singapore Government News.

Ministry of Education (2015a). Ministry of education, Singapore. Available online at:

http://www.moe.gov.sg/initiatives/compulsory-education/ (accessed7 May 2015).

Ministry of Education (2015b). Pre-school education. Available online at:

http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/preschool/ (accessed 11 May 2015).

Ministry of Education. (2008a). Recent developments in Singapore’s education system: Gearing

up for 2015. Singapore: International Education Leaders’ Dialogue: Third Conference.

Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in
mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

National Population and Talent Division (NPTD) (2008). State of the population: Media release.
Singapore: Government of Singapore. Available online at https://www.
nptd.gov.sg/content/NPTD/news/_jcr_content/par_content/download_7/file.res/WoGmedia
release_20080925 For NPS.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2011).

OECD (1996). The Knowledge-based economy. Paris: Author.

OECD (2015). Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Available online at:
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/ (accessed 12 May 2013).

Ohmae, K. (1995). The end of the nation-state: The rise of regional economies. New York: The
Free Press.

Oon, C. (2013). What ails the pre-school sector; High turnover and lack of continuing career
development are areas that must be tackled. The Straits Times (Singapore), Singapore:
Singapore Press Holdings Limited.

Principals’ Report (1987). Towards excellence in schools. A report submitted to the Ministry of
Education, Singapore.
 Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., and Dutton, J. (2012). Schools that
learn: A fifth discipline field-book for educators, parents and everyone who cares about
education. New York: Crown Business.

Singapore Government (2011). Financial Year 2011 committee of supply debate on

strengthening education for all. Singapore: Singapore Government News

Singapore Government (2012). Government to form committee to oversee pre-school education.

Singapore: Singapore Government News.

Tan, C. (2006). Creating thinking schools through ‘Knowledge and Inquiry’: The curriculum
challenges for Singapore. The Curriculum Journal, 17(1), 89-105.

Tan, C. (2008). Globalisation, the Singapore state and educational reforms: Towards
performativity. Education, Knowledge and Economy, 2(2), 111-120.

Tan, C. (2011). Framing educational success: A comparative study of Shanghai and Singapore.
Education, Knowledge and Economy, 5(3), 155-166.

Teo, C.H. (1999). The desired outcomes of education. Ministerial statement by Minister for
Education Radm Teo Chee Hean at the Committee of Supply Debate, FY1999 in
Parliament on 17 Mar 99. Available online at:
http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/1999/sp170399.htm (accessed 15 May 2005).

Tharman, S. (2004). Speech by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Minister for Education at the

MOE Work Plan Seminar 2004. On Wednesday, 29 September 2004 at 9:50 am at the
Ngee Ann Polytechnic Convention Centre. Available online at:
http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2004/sp20040929.htm (accessed December 29, 2005).

View publication stats