Singapore – a model for C21 schooling? (but not how you think!)

(A summary and discussion of some key ideas from Learning from Singapore – The Power of Paradoxes by Pak Tee Ng) 

Singapore Education 

Think of the Singapore Education system. Typically, you will have in your mind a picture of extremely high performing students, driven by tiger parents to succeed at the highest level, especially in maths. You’ll believe that it has a system that is totally focused achieving the outcomes that will ensure that it remains at the top of the PISA and TIMSS table. Well you’d be wrong (that was so 2000s!). Singapore is already ahead of the game – the education department moved on from PISA targets and have put in place a curriculum and approach that they believe will produce a workforce with C21 skills of communication, collaboration, creativity and critical thinking. In so doing it provides a model which all in education which is worthy of discussion, debate and, arguably, adoption. 

The key to understanding the Singapore education system is to understand the nature of Singapore itself. It is a young nation – only 54 years old – it is ambitious and aspirational. Its economy was built on a few basic tenets: fiscal discipline, good governance, rule of law, and a widely accepted social contract. It is meritocratic – one’s position with Singaporean society is determined fundamentally by one’s relative success or otherwise in school examinations aged 9, 11, 16 and 18. Education has always been the key to upward social mobility. The inevitable consequence of these factors is that education is one of the central political issues in Singapore. The Government is invested in education because the nation’s prosperity depends on it; and parents are invested in education because their child’s future prospects will be determined by it. It should also be noted that the Education sector is relatively small (370 schools and 500,000 students) so it is possible to have greater centralised control than in a country such as the UK. 

The stereotypical view of Singapore as having a rote-learning exam-focused curriculum was borne out of the alignment of Government and parents both wanting to drive up academic standards. This played itself out in the Primary School Leaving Examination (PLSE at age 11) and in public examination results at GCE O-level (at age 16), GCE A-level (at 18) and in University degrees. Hothousing, tutoring became the norm. The consequence was that Singapore shot to the top of the PISA rankings. 

Singapore’s lack of any natural resources means that developing intellectual capital is the key to the country’s competitive advantage in the global marketplace (p.23) – education is one of the key drivers of the economy. In this context it is understandable that the Singapore Government sees education as an investment rather than as an expenditure (p.50). They realised that the skills that bring success in PISA will not necessarily ensure the success of Singapore as a nation in the changing economy of the C21. 

As a consequence, over the past fifteen or so years there has developed a divergence between what parents want (traditional examination success) and what the Government wants (C21 skills for the workplace). Singapore, which is held up as the envy of the world for its PISA and other rankings, has already moved on from the rote-learning, that established its global reputation. As Pak Tee Ng argues,

“International rankings are not what we are aiming for. We are more interested in the actual education of our children and young people.” (p.5) 

“Singapore has to kick away the ladder that got it to where it is now, while still standing on that ladder. It has to abandon its obsession with learning for examinations. It is now focusing on learning for life, embracing holistic education, and developing young people to think critically and creatively. Singapore is now jumping to another ladder that can take the country further.” (p.41) 

“Simply acing examinations does not equip one for life!” (p.43) 

Holistic Education: Quality not examination success 

Singapore’s education is now focused on a holistic education that prepares students for the future economies and society. 

Singapore’s revised educational framework (p.44) is based on a set of core values: respect, responsibility, integrity, care, resilience, and harmony. It emphasises the following social and emotional competences: self-awareness, self-management; social awareness, relationship management, and responsible decision-making. It seeks to develop C21 skills to live in a globalised world: 

• Civic literacy, global awareness and cross-cultural skills; 
• Critical and inventive thinking; 
• Communication, collaboration and information skills. 

Meritocracy & Equity: Stretch & Support 

The challenges that Singapore faces on a national level are the same ones faced by every school: How does one provide a model of schooling that strikes a balance between stretching the brightest and bringing on those who need additional support? 

“As a very small country Singapore, has a limited pool of human resources and cannot afford to leave children behind. On the other hand, if policies are designed to achieve equality among children, the students who an ‘fly’ may be held back, and Singapore could be the poorer because of this. Therefore, in the paradox of compassionate meritocracy, Singapore has to leave no child behind without holding back the children in front.” (p.64) 

The result is an approach which “does not set an artificial glass ceiling for the sake of equity”, it encourages those who can ‘fly’ to do so; it provides pathways for the middle; and it ensures that there are direct interventions so that no child is left behind. 

“Such an approach does not promise an equalisation of outcomes, or even pretend to do so.” (p.64) 

Teach Less, Learn More (TLLM) 

One of the most interesting and challenging aspects of Singaporean education is the shift from a teacher-centric to a learner-centric pedagogy for the classroom. This is encapsulated in the assertion that “if teachers teach less but teach better, then students will be able to learn better and be more motivated in their learning” or, put more simply, “teach less, learn more” (p.92). The analogy here is that there needs to be time to digest food (learning) before having the next meal. This is what is behind Singapore Maths which builds on the development theory that students need to understand concrete examples first before they can fully grasp abstract concepts (p.107).
The TLLM approach emphasises quality over quantity, and students are “less dependent on rote learning, repetitive tests and standardised instruction” (p.93). This also created space within the curriculum for schools to introduce their own programmes and to promote intellectual curiosity and a collective enterprising spirit among students.

“It envisaged that teachers and students will be involved in a wide range of learning activities such as brainstorming, problem-solving, undertaking real world tasks and peer teaching using various pedagogical modes such as collaborative learning, problem-based learning and project work.” (p.94)

This approach raised the hardy perennial debate about how to strike the right balance in the curriculum between subject knowledge and these new skills, most notably in the context of a high-stakes examination system. Here Pak Tee Ng provides another useful analogy: 

“Two Chess Grandmasters compete in the finals of the chess competition. Both have studied all the opening moves. Both have studied all the end games. Both have many years of experience. In a way both have acquired all the conventional knowledge about chess. So who wins? The one who is least trapped by conventional knowledge and can make the unexpected and devastating move wins! Therefore, there are two parts to the challenge of TLLM. Students have to learn the conventional knowledge solidly. Then they have to learn not to be trapped by conventional knowledge so that they may be adaptable and innovative.” (p.96) 

This resulted in a new paradigm for schooling where teachers are no longer the (spoon-feeding) provider of information and solutions, rather they are the designers of learning opportunities. Here, teachers are guides and mentors and students need to take ownership of their learning journey. 

TLLM is a vehicle for ‘quality education’ which might be defined as “one that emphasises holistic development, equips students with the knowledge and skills for the future, inculcates students with the right values and imbues students with a positive learning attitude.” (p.103) 

Relationships are at the heart of quality education: “Quality education is quality teaching, quality learning and quality relationship between the teacher and student.” (p.104) 

Squaring the Circle: ‘Every School, a Good School’: ‘Every Parent, a Supportive Parent’ 

‘Parents are important because you are your child’s first and most important teacher in life’ (Minister Heng Swee Keat p.159) 

It has not been easy for the Singapore Government to change the wider (parental) culture which sees additional tuition and rote-learning as the path to examination (and therefore career) success. Indeed, the MOE’s decision to abolish ranking schools on their academic results in 2012 was driven in part by a desire to stop motivated parents gravitating towards the top-performing schools. Instead schools are recognised for best practice in Teaching and Learning, Student All-round Development, Staff Development and Well-being, Character and Citizenship Education, and Partnerships (p.121).
Yet Singapore has a long way to go to change the Kiasu (lit. ‘fear of losing’) parenting approach which drives them to pay for additional tutoring and to put extreme pressure on their children.

A few thoughts 

Singapore – a model? 

Educational debates about Singapore over the past ten years have focused on whether or not it is possible “to scale up” Singapore’s educational success to larger, more traditional and more complex educational systems in Europe and North America. Most conclude that it is not possible. However, as a school leader I am taken by the idea that if it can work at a small nation level, it is clearly possible “to scale down” its leading features to a Schools’ Group or a school. Whereas most people look at Singapore and say ‘That won’t work in the UK for the following reasons’, I find myself asking, ‘Shouldn’t we be doing this at Kellett?’ 

Once the problem of scale is removed, we are left with a number of important educational debates which the Singapore journey can illuminate: 

• Curriculum: What is the right balance between learning knowledge and skills? 
• Assessment: Is there a place for high-stakes assessment in C21? 
• Differentiation: Within finite resources, how do we provide for those who need support without holding back the most able? 
• Quality and Accountability: What makes a good school? What should be the basis for school inspection/ evaluation? Should schools be graded/ appear in League Tables? 
• School and Home: What is the right relationship between school, home and the child/student? How do educationalists carry parents with them when arguing for a different educational journey to the one which parents took 30 years ago? 
• Teachers: What makes a great teacher? 
• Professional Development: How do we foster a professional learning community? 

Formative Education Systems and International Testing 

The UAE is at a formative stage in its educational journey and has had the stated aim of being in the top 20 countries for PISA by 2018 and the top 15 for TIMSS by 2019. This is totally antagonistic to the approach being advocated by Pak Tee Ng. However, it is interesting to reflect whether success in international tests is a distraction, or a necessary staging post that then allows countries to move to the more sophisticated aims to which Singapore now aspires.