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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Throughout this chapter, the term low-achieving (LA) students is used to describe those who perform least well at standardised examinations or are anticipated to do so in Singapore. They include children at risk of dropping out of schools, Primary 1 and 2 pupils who are low attainers of English and Mathematics and attend Learning Support Programmes, and the lowest performing students at the Primary School Leaving Examination (approximately 11–12 % or 5,000–6,000 students of each year’s cohort students) who are streamed into the Normal Technical stream.
- 2.
In primary schools, students were streamed at Primary 3 based on examination performance and intelligence tests and the results determined the level the Mother Tongue language would be studied. In secondary schools, students were streamed into Express, Special, Normal Academic, and Normal Technical programmes, according to students’ Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE) results.
- 3.
About 60 % of students from Primary 6 each year who do relatively well in PSLE enter Special and Express streams, which are 4-year courses leading to the ‘O’-level examination.
- 4.
A more practice-oriented curriculum that ended with the ‘N’-level examination at the end of 4 years. The curriculum also prepares them for technical-vocational education and training with the Institute of Technical Education. Also, this further established a vocational route for low-achieving students.
- 5.
ITE successfully improved its image and even won the Singapore Quality Assurance award in 2005.
- 6.
These schools aim to prepare as many of its students as possible to progress to ITE, which offers National ITE Certificate and Higher National ITE Certificate courses for post-secondary students.
- 7.
In Singapore, where land is scarce, the type of housing a person resides in is commonly taken as an indicator of his or her socioeconomic status in Singapore.
References
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Brint, S. (2006). Schools and societies (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
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.
Chia, S. A., Toh, E., & Li, X. (2005, July 9). Can bottom-rung kids climb up? The Straits Times Insight section, S8–S9.
Comber, B. (1997). Literacy, poverty and schooling: Working against deficit equations. English in Australia, 119–120, 22–34.
Dar, Y., & Resh, N. (1994). Separating and mixing students for learning: Concepts and research. Pedagogisch Tijdschrift, 19, 109–126.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166–173.
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.
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.
Gopinath, C. (1999). Alternatives to instructor assessment of class participation. Journal of Education for Business, 75(1), 10–14.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hallinan, M. T. (1994). Tracking: From theory to practice. Sociology of Education, 67, 79–84.
Heng, S. K. (2011, September). Speech presented at the Ministry of Education Work Plan Seminar, Ngee Ann Polytechnic Convention Centre, Singapore.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kang, T. (2005). Creating educational dreams: The intersection of ethnicity, families and schools. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish.
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.
Kaur, B., & Ghani, M. (Eds.). (2012). Low attainers in primary mathematics. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
Khong, L. Y. L. (2004). Family matters: The role of parents in Singapore education. London: Marshall Cavendish Academic.
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.
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.
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.
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
Lim, L., & Kwek, K. (2006, June 20). Why the elite envy? The Straits Times, p. 10.
Linn, R. (2000). Assessment and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4–16.
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.
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.
Ministry of Education [MOE]. (1979). Report on the Ministry of Education 1978 (‘The Goh Report’). Singapore: Author.
Ministry of Education [MOE]. (1991). Improving primary school education: Report of the review committee Singapore. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2008). Results of the 2008 Singapore–Cambridge 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
Ng, P. T. (2008). Educational reform in Singapore: From quantity to quality. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 7, 5–15.
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.
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.
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.
Tan, K. (2010). Reframing alternative assessment in schools: A research-based perspective. Singapore: Pearson Education.
Tan, J., & Ng, P. T. (Eds.). (2008). Thinking schools, learning nation: Contemporary issues and challenges. Singapore: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Zulkifli, M. (2010). Enhancing opportunities for all access. FY 2010 Committee of Supply Debate, 4th Reply.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Teng, S.S., Wang, LY., Chiam, C.L. (2014). Adaptivity in the Singapore Education System: Policy Developments Relating to Low Achievement. In: Hung, D., Lim, K., Lee, SS. (eds) Adaptivity as a Transformative Disposition. Education Innovation Series. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-17-7_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-17-7_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-4560-16-0
Online ISBN: 978-981-4560-17-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)