Skip to main content

Developing Singapore school leaders to handle complexity in times of uncertainty

Asia Pacific Education Review volume 14, pages 67–73 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

In times of uncertainty, university faculties have a duty to prepare school leaders to handle complexity, as the number of variables in the educational system and the interactivity of variables increase exponentially. The Leaders in Education Program (LEP) is a 6-month full-time program at the Singapore National Institute of Education (NIE, which is a part of Nanyang Technological University). The LEP aims to prepare especially selected vice-principals and ministry officers in Singapore for school leadership. The LEP is a collaborative effort between the NIE and the Ministry of Education, an example of a university–government partnership in program development. This article describes the efforts of the LEP in developing the ability of school leaders to deal with complexity. It also examines in detail one particular component of the LEP, the Creative Action Project, to illustrate how this is done in practice, and analyzes the views of participants on their learning through the project.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Albrecht, K. (1994). The power of bifocal vision. Management Review, 83(4), 42–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, P. M. (2001). Knowledge, ignorance and learning. Emergence, 2(4), 78–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, E. (2000). The promise of uncertainty: Education, postmodernism and the politics of possibility. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 10(1), 81–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chenail, R. J. (1995). Presenting qualitative data. The Qualitative Report, 2(3), December 1995. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-3/presenting.html.

  • Constas, M. A. (1992). Qualitative analysis as a public event: The documentation of category development procedures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 253–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, F. M. (2003). Dancing on ice: Navigating change to create whole-district school improvement. Organization Development Journal, 21(1), 36–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duignan, P. (2003). Formation of capable, influential and authentic leaders for times of uncertainty. Paper presented at the Australian Primary Principals Association National Conference, September 21–24, 2003, Adelaide, Australia.

  • Fuch, C. (2003). Structuration theory and social self-organization. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 16(2), 133–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (1998). Leadership for the 21st century: Breaking the bonds of dependency. Educational Leadership, 55(7), 6–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, H. (2007). The five minds for the future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handy, C. (1994). The empty raincoat: Making sense of the future. London: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidder, C. (1995). How good people make tough choices: Resolving the dilemmas in ethical living. New York: William Morrow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, T. Y., & Ng, P. T. (2005). Human resource management and development of highly intelligent interacting agents: A paradigm shift in Singapore. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 5(2), 180–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, K. (2008). Educational philosophy and the challenge of complexity theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Education. (2012). LEP 2012 handbook for participants. Singapore: National Institute of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, P. T. (2008a). Educational reform in Singapore: From quantity to quality. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 7(1), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, P. T. (2008b). Developing forward-looking and innovative school leaders: The Singapore leaders in education programme. Professional Development in Education, 34(2), 237–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, P. T. (2009). Examining the use of new science metaphors in learning organisation. The Learning Organization, 16(2), 168–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, P. T. (2011). How participants understand complexity theory through a school leadership programme in Singapore. International Journal on Complexity in Leadership and Management, 1(3), 301–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, P. T., & Liang, T. Y. (2010). Educational institution reform: Insights from the complexity-intelligence strategy. Human Systems Management, 29(1), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sergiovanni, T. J. (2009). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. D. (2001). Complex responsive processes in organizations: Learning and knowledge creation. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Education, Singapore, Republic of Singapore

    Pak Tee Ng

Authors
  1. Pak Tee Ng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pak Tee Ng.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ng, P.T. Developing Singapore school leaders to handle complexity in times of uncertainty. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 14, 67–73 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-013-9253-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-013-9253-1

Keywords

  • Uncertainty
  • Complexity
  • School leadership
  • Principals
  • University–government partnership
  • Program development