TASK 2: Research Article Review on Policy-Making Implementation in School

Governance and Control

1. Title of the Research Article Review

How a top-performing Asian school system formulates and implements policy: The
case of Singapore

2. Source

Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 2014, v.42 n. 5, p. 743-763

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274971750_How_a_'top-
performing'_Asian_school_system_formulates_and_implements_policy_The_case_of_
Singapore

3. Purpose/Objectives of the author

To analyze the paradox behind the Top-Performing yet, a tightly controlled school
system of Singapore. The paper aims to illustrate the complexities of the policy-making
process in Singapore with its highly performing Asian school system. Moreover, the
authors liked to have a better understanding of the context of their policy-making
process and how it is different from what was perceived as superior “Western-style”
notions of democracy.

4. Methodology

First, the authors cited the background of the Singapore school system from its origin
in 1965 when it sought independence from Malaysia. Due to the island’s densely
concentrated population, the school number is relatively small and has an average of
1300 to 1500 students for secondary and primary schools.

Next, the authors described the political system of Singapore. Their power structure is
highly centralized, observes top-down command and control, and with tight constraints
when it comes to civil liberties. The country only has one political party, the PAP, and
is administered by bureaucrats in a meritocracy. According to Sharpe and Gopinathan,
2002, meritocracy means power is gained through skills, performance, and loyalty to
the nation and its policies.

They also described the system divided into four zones - North, South, East, and West.
Each zone is governed by a deputy director and schools are grouped into clusters of
primaries, secondaries, and tertiary schools. There are 12-14 schools per cluster and
are under the supervision of a cluster superintendent. They work closely with the
individual principals of each school and their staff. Hence, clusters are sharing their
resources and good practices.

Third, the paper presented how Singaporean students excel for many years on
international achievement tests such as PISA and TIMSS. The efficiency and
effectiveness of the school system are explicable through its tri-partite structure which
includes the Ministry of Education (MOE), 360 schools, and the National Institute of
Education (NIE). Teachers were trained with programs under MOE’s policies. It also
funds the educational research agenda of NIE.

The authors also included the Singaporean government’s total expenditure on its
education system. About 2% of their annual gross Domestic Product (GDP) in FY2009-
2010 was allocated to education. although this is relatively low compared to Nordic
countries, it was offset by its efficient use of financial resources.

Lastly, the paper discussed the educational policy landscape of Singapore. They
underwent three phases of educational development: the survival-driven (1965-1978),
efficiency-driven (1978-1997), and ability-driven (1997-present) phases. The ability-
driven phase was designed with a less direct top-down approach compared to the first
two phases. It increased the flexibility of their educational system. For an instance, the
MOE allowed some schools to practice school-based decision-making and gave them
autonomy depending on their performance.

As schools are enjoying their autonomy in terms of decision-making, the launch of the
School Excellence Model (SEM) in 2000 and Master-Plan Awards bore them with
greater responsibility for accountability on student performance. Schools were
expected to focus on their annual progress to the MOE. They are subjected to external
validation once every five to six years. Their innovative processes and achievements
were recognized yearly in the Master-Plan Award.

5. Findings and Conclusions

The development phases of education have introduced various neo-liberalist ideas and
practices in the Singapore educational system and influence the tactical operations of
the school. The increase of school autonomy degree has subtly strengthened the grip
of MOE on schools. While others may believe that by doing so, MOE has loosened the
control of the state, Lingard (1993, 1996) thought otherwise. It became more complex,
contradictory, and competitive.

The Ministry of Education has exerted its influence and control over schools in
Singapore through their centralized, top-down policymaking in the early stages of
development. Singapore leaders also did the same, however, despite their consistency
in implementing a centralized structure, their educational system evolved into a highly
effective one. These qualities also benefited the students and provided them a different
way of making policies compared to their western counterparts.

The authors also contend that the paternalistic model of leadership is a useful device
to better understand the MOE (center) and periphery (schools)’ relationship in
Singapore education. Western critics of Asian education systems claim that Chinese
teachers exhibit heavy reliance on didactic teaching and students demonstrate rote
learning. However, Biggs and Watkins’ (1996) also argued that such a culturally-based
approach where Chinese teachers and learners consider rote learning as the initial
step to a higher level of cognitive skills.

The Ministry of Education of Singapore is keen on promoting creativity among the

learners as future workforce members. Lim, 2012 reported that while Singapore has
become a global role model in terms of top achievement results, the MOE wants to
move beyond this recognition and cultivate creative and holistic education. Hence,
schools were given more freedom in teaching the syllabus and directed schools to
focus more on teacher and school-based initiatives.

6. Learning Synthesis

It helps that Singapore has been under the control of a single political party since its
independence. Western democracies have multi-parties. The general elections lead to
changes in the governing party hence, changes in educational values and ideology. On
the other hand, Singaporean leadership and policymaking are known for their
consistency. They are also known for being sensitive to the social and economic needs
and interests of their people. The bureaucrat is also aware of their dominant role in the
entire policymaking process.

Singapore has transformed from an island with a mostly illiterate population, no natural
resources, and impoverished to a country where living standards are at par with highly
developed nations. Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew who led Singapore to its status
today, knew that an educated workforce is significant in achieving their economic
ambitions and goals.

Their support and focus on the education system are evident. When they first
participated in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2009,
Singaporean students were among the top performers. In 2015, they claim the top spot
all around the world and continues to outperform other participating countries.

7. Research Gap
The researchers have some questions that can further help the studies: Can the
Singapore government continue to attract competent and motivated people to fill its
ranks in leadership renewal? Can it bridge the gradually increasing social inequality
between the “haves” and “have-nots” (Apple, 2004)? Lastly, how will the social compact
between the leadership elite and citizens be contested in the face of growing
Democratic calls from an educated citizenry for their voices to be heard?

Submitted by: Ariane Avon G. del Rosario

MaEd Educational Management
EDM-204