Advertisement

Adaptivity in the Singapore Education System: Policy Developments Relating to Low Achievement

Chapter
  • 871 Downloads
Part of the Education Innovation Series book series (EDIN)

Abstract

This chapter discusses the evolvement of low-achievement policy in Singapore as the education system adapts to changing manpower needs of the times. It argues that the earlier phases of education (survival-driven phase and efficiency-driven phase) were characterised by an approach to level up the low-achieving system as a whole, establishing structural curriculum differentiation in the form of streaming. The later phases (ability-driven phase and student-centric, values-driven phase) saw a shift towards more targeted initiatives for low achievers in the form of focused financial assistance schemes and diversification of pathways. Engaging both international literature and local studies in the discussion, the paper points to some key features observed from low achievers, instructional practices, high-stake examinations, and beliefs about low-achievers that have implications for further efforts and initiatives relating to low-achievement. Further deliberation on streaming, teacher’s attitudes, engaged learning for low-achievers and school–family–community connections suggest that a revisit of long-held assumptions and paradigms are needed for further adaptivity to the education system in challenging times.

Keywords

Education System Normal Technical Bilingual Education Great Diversification Express Stream 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adger, C. T. (2001). School–community-based organization partnerships for language minority students’ school success. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 6(1&2), 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albright, J. (2006, May). Building teacher capacity in curriculum and pedagogical design in normal technical classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Educational Research Association of Singapore, Singapore.Google Scholar
  3. Albright, J., Heng, M. A., & Harris, K. (2008). Pedagogical change in the normal technical classroom (Final research report). Singapore: Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education, NTU.Google Scholar
  4. Albright, J., & Ismail, M. (2006, November). Issues facing teacher curricular and pedagogical capacity in mature and engaging education systems. Paper presented at the AARE Conference, Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
  5. Au, W. W. (2008). Devising inequity: A Bernsteinian analysis of high-stakes testing and social reproduction in education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(6), 639–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). London: Greenwich Press.Google Scholar
  7. Boykin, W. (2000). Foreword. In G. M. Sanders (Ed.), Schooling students placed at risk: Research, policy, and practice in the education of poor and minority adolescents. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Brint, S. (2006). Schools and societies (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice. (2005, July 15). Presentation to Ministry of Education (Internal Publication). Singapore: Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education, NTU.Google Scholar
  10. Chia, S. A., Toh, E., & Li, X. (2005, July 9). Can bottom-rung kids climb up? The Straits Times Insight section, S8–S9.Google Scholar
  11. Comber, B. (1997). Literacy, poverty and schooling: Working against deficit equations. English in Australia, 119–120, 22–34.Google Scholar
  12. Dar, Y., & Resh, N. (1994). Separating and mixing students for learning: Concepts and research. Pedagogisch Tijdschrift, 19, 109–126.Google Scholar
  13. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Fraine, B., Van Damme, J., & Onghena, P. (2002). Accountability of schools and teachers: What should be taken into account? European Educational Research Journal, 1, 403–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gamoran, A. (2004). Classroom organization and instructional quality. In H. J. Walberg, A. J. Reynolds, & M. C. Wang (Eds.), Can unlike students learn together? Grade retention, tracking, and grouping (pp. 141–155). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Gopinath, C. (1999). Alternatives to instructor assessment of class participation. Journal of Education for Business, 75(1), 10–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gopinathan, S. (1997). Education and development in Singapore. In J. Tan, S. Gopinathan, & W. K. Ho (Eds.), Education in Singapore: A book of readings (pp. 33–54). Singapore: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Gopinathan, S. (2001). Globalisation, the state and education policy in Singapore. In J. Tan, S. Gopinathan, & W. K. Ho (Eds.), Challenges facing the Singapore education system today (pp. 74–87). Singapore: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Gopinathan, S. (2009). Educating the next generation. In B. Welsh, J. Chin, & T. H. Tan (Eds.), Impression of the Goh Chok Tong years in Singapore (pp. 240–251). Singapore: NUS Press & the Institute of Policy Studies, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.Google Scholar
  20. Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil & P. B. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Humenick, N. M., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., & Barbosa, P. (2006). Influences of stimulating tasks on reading motivation and comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 232–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hallinan, M. T. (1994). Tracking: From theory to practice. Sociology of Education, 67, 79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heng, S. K. (2011, September). Speech presented at the Ministry of Education Work Plan Seminar, Ngee Ann Polytechnic Convention Centre, Singapore.Google Scholar
  25. Hogan, D., Allen, L., Kramer-Dahl, A., Shun, L., Liau, A., Koh, K. H., et al. (2006). Core research program: Year two progress report (Unpublished technical report). Singapore: Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education, NTU.Google Scholar
  26. Hogan, D., Chan, M., Rahim, R., Kwek, D., Aye, K. M., Loo, S. C., et al. (2013). Assessment and the logic of instructional practice in Secondary 3 English and mathematics classrooms in Singapore. Review of Education, 1(1), 57–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hogan, D., & Kang, T. (2009). Life pathways project /panel 6 (Final research report). Singapore: Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education, NTU.Google Scholar
  28. Ismail, M., & Tan, A. L. (2005). Voices from the normal technical world – A ethnographic study of low-track students in Singapore (Report). Singapore: Office of Educational Research, National Institute of Education, NTU.Google Scholar
  29. Johnstone, T. R., & Hiatt, D. B. (1997). Development of a school-based parent center for low income new immigrants. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Kang, T. (2005). Creating educational dreams: The intersection of ethnicity, families and schools. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish.Google Scholar
  31. Kang, T. (2011). Providing for needy students: Policies and initiatives. In W. Choy & C. Tan (Eds.), Education reform in Singapore: Critical perspectives (pp. 54–65). Singapore: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  32. Kaur, B., & Ghani, M. (Eds.). (2012). Low attainers in primary mathematics. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Khong, L. Y. L. (2004). Family matters: The role of parents in Singapore education. London: Marshall Cavendish Academic.Google Scholar
  34. Kramer-Dahl, A., & Kwek, D. (2011). ‘Reading the home and reading in school’: Framing deficit constructions as learning difficulties in Singapore English classrooms. In C. Wyatt-Smith, J. Elkins, & S. Gunn (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on difficulties in learning literacy and numeracy (pp. 159–178). Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee, R. N. F., & Bathmaker, A. (2007). The use of English textbooks for teaching English to ‘vocational’ students in Singapore secondary schools. Regional Language Centre Journal, 38(3), 350–374.Google Scholar
  36. Lee, S. K., Goh, C. B., Fredriksen, B., & Tan, J. P. (Eds.). (2008). Toward a better future: Education and training for economic development in Singapore since 1965. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Leow, S. W. (2010, August 30). Normal stream pupils to have more options: there will be further opportunities for those who do poorly in PSLE. The Straits Times. Retrieved fromhttp://www.pmo.gov.sg/content/pmosite/mediacentre/inthenews/primeminister/2010/August/normal_stream_pupilstohavemoreoptions.html
  38. Lim, L., & Kwek, K. (2006, June 20). Why the elite envy? The Straits Times, p. 10.Google Scholar
  39. Linn, R. (2000). Assessment and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Linnakylä, P., Väliärvi, L., & Arffman, I. (2011). Finnish basic education: When equity and excellence meet. In K. Van Branden, P. Van Avermaet, & M. Van Houtte (Eds.), Equity and excellence in education (pp. 190–214). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. López, G. R., Scribner, J. D., & Mahitivanichcha, K. (2001). Redefining parental involvement: Lessons from high-performing migrant-impacted schools. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 253–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (1979). Report on the Ministry of Education 1978 (‘The Goh Report’). Singapore: Author.Google Scholar
  43. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (1991). Improving primary school education: Report of the review committee Singapore. Singapore: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  44. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2008). Results of the 2008 SingaporeCambridge general certificate of education Normal (Academic) examination and Normal (Technical) level examination. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2008/12/results-of-the-2008-singapore-cambridge-general-certificate-of-education-normal-academic-examination-and-normal-technical-level-examination.php#footnote-1
  45. Ng, P. T. (2008). Educational reform in Singapore: From quantity to quality. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 7, 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. N. (1992). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  47. Saft, E. W., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Teachers’ perceptions of their relationships with students: Effects of child age, gender, and ethnicity of teachers and children. School Psychology Quarterly, 16(2), 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tan, C. (2008). Tensions in an ability-driven education. In J. Tan & P. T. Ng (Eds.), Thinking schools, learning nation: Contemporary issues and challenges (pp. 7–18). Singapore: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  49. Tan, K. (2010). Reframing alternative assessment in schools: A research-based perspective. Singapore: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  50. Tan, J., & Ng, P. T. (Eds.). (2008). Thinking schools, learning nation: Contemporary issues and challenges. Singapore: Pearson/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  51. Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence, University of California at Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  52. Vaish, V. (2011). Building English competencies in bilingual underachievers: A baseline study of Singapore’s learning support program (Internal half-yearly progress report). Singapore: Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education, NTU. Google Scholar
  53. Valencia, R. R. (1997). Introduction. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.), The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice (pp. ix–xvii). London: Falmer press.Google Scholar
  54. Van Avermaet, P., Van Houtte, M., & Van Branden, K. (2011). Promoting equity and excellence in education: An overview. In K. Van Branden, P. Van Avermaet, & M. Van Houtte (Eds.), Equity and excellence in education (pp. 1–20). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Van Houtte, M. (2004). Tracking effects on school achievement: A quantitative explanation in terms of the academic culture of school staff. American Journal of Education, 110, 354–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Houtte, M. (2011). So where’s the teacher in school effects research? In K. Van Branden, P. Van Avermaet, & M. Van Houtte (Eds.), Equity and excellence in education (pp. 75–95). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Wong, Y. L. R. (2006). Reading and writing in primary school (Technique report). Singapore: Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education, NTU.Google Scholar
  58. Zulkifli, M. (2010). Enhancing opportunities for all access. FY 2010 Committee of Supply Debate, 4th Reply.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations