Educ Res Policy Prac (2007) 6:235–247 DOI 10.1007/s10671-007-9018-x O R I G I NA L A RT I C L E

Quality assurance in the Singapore education system in an era of diversity and innovation Pak Tee Ng

Received: 29 December 2006 / Accepted: 2 February 2007 / Published online: 16 March 2007 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract This paper describes how Singapore attempts to balance the need for quality assurance and the need for educational diversity and innovation. The Singapore experience shows that this is a delicate balance. On the one hand, to promote diversity and innovation, the government attempts to decentralise its power to the schools. On the other hand, for quality assurance, the government sets up quality structures that reassert the centrality of government control. This paper examines the implications of such a strategy and the challenges that schools face in navigating a new paradigm of diversity and innovation while satisfying the requirements of quality assurance. Keywords School · Excellence- Self-appraisal · Quality · Innovation · Diversity

1 Introduction Singapore has a short history of nationhood compared to many other countries. Gaining its independence in 1965, its 42-year nationhood journey has been one of strict political and economic discipline. Without natural resources, human resources have been its primary resource pool and therefore shrewd human resource development policies have been necessary to cater to its growth areas. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said: Apart from people, we have no other natural resources, hinterland or agriculture. Our livelihood depends on enterprise and hard work. It depends on our wits too, and our ability to adapt quickly every time the environment changes. . . to compensate for Singapore’s natural resource deficiencies, (the government) emphasised the human factor: policies were designed to affect the behaviour of people and to maximise their individual potential and contribution to the country. (Goh 2005)

P. T. Ng(B) National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, Republic of Singapore e-mail: [email protected]

236

P.T. Ng

According to Goh (2005), investment in education, thereby enhancing human capacity, underpinned Singapore’s economic transformation and growth. Therefore, investment in education was, is and will continue to be a key national strategy for economic competitiveness. Singapore started from a low base in education and skills in 1965. At that time, our literacy rate was 60 per cent. Only three out of 100 of each year’s cohort went to university. Today, 40 years later, our literacy rate has gone up to 94 per cent. And one in five of each cohort makes it to university. We continue to invest heavily in education. Our government budget for education is almost 4 per cent of GDP. I should stress that it is not simply the amount of money poured into education that counts but how the money is channelled and whether it is being used productively. (Goh 2005) However, the current question is how the country, which has been successful in the past, can reposition itself to compete in the 21st century. Increasingly, the survival of nations will depend on how their citizenry can enhance their know-how and market it in the global market (Drucker 1993; Ohmae 1990). While education is still a prime source of economic competitive advantage in an era of globalisation (Porter 1990), the success formula for the future will be different from that of the past. The education system therefore has to change. Education Minister, Tharman Shanmugaratnam said: We have a strong and robust education system. It is a system well recognized for the high levels of achievement of our students, in all the courses we offer. Our students aim high, and do well by most international comparisons. In recent years we have begun repositioning our education system to help our young meet the challenges of a more competitive and rapidly changing future. . . education has to evolve. We have to prepare for the workplace of the future, which will be very different from the past. If we think we are doing all we need to do because it has worked in the past, we will be blindsided by the changes happening around us. (Tharman 2003) Beyond academic achievements, the emphasis is now on innovation and diversity. On innovation, Tharman (2003) said: To stay relevant and thrive in this environment, we have to move up the economic ladder by developing capabilities among all Singaporeans to innovate. We will need people with an inventive spirit. They must be willing to try new, untested routes, without fear of failure. We need people who can venture out to tap new opportunities, and to market their ideas and products anywhere in the world. Every worker has to be prepared to be flexible, to multitask, and to take responsibility. And we will need more Singaporeans with leadership abilities, able to inspire teams and organisations to take leaps of innovation. On diversity, Tharman (2003) continued: On any measure, Singapore’s educational performance averages are among the best in the world. However, too uniform and rigid a structure constrains how far young Singaporeans can go to develop varied talents and abilities. We need more peaks, not just high averages, and peaks in different areas of endeavour. Diversity matters, if we are to build an environment that nurtures creative endeavour.

Quality assurance in the Singapore education system

237

While diversity and innovation appear to be the current flavour, quality assurance is not to be neglected at all. A strong and robust system that delivers quality education is seen as a key source of competitive strength, to be retained and capitalised upon. We do not need to turn the cart over and start again. We have a strong and robust education system that has been a key source of competitive strength for Singapore. It is a key differentiator, something that still gives us an edge today over many other cities. . . We have avoided the large disparities in educational standards seen elsewhere, between schools for the privileged and those for the masses. . . we have therefore achieved high standards across the spectrum of abilities, allowing a large proportion of Singaporeans to proceed to a high quality post-secondary and tertiary education. . . Much of what we have done in the past remains relevant to the future. But it is precisely the strength of our education system, the fact that our fundamentals are in good working order that allows us to look ahead, identify the gaps that we need to close, set new directions, and move forward with confidence. (Tharman 2004) Therefore, quality assurance, with associated concepts of accountability, performance standards and school excellence, is important. Accountability in education is every body’s business and it involves reciprocal obligations. Schools are responsible to parents and the community for providing the best programmes and a high quality of education to their students. . . every parent wants his child’s school to be a good school. . . every child is entitled to a good school. . . outcomes, be they in the academic areas or non-academic areas are useful because they challenge us to pay rigorous attention to what we have achieved and what more we can achieve; where we are and where we want to be. (Ministry of Education 2000) Therefore, the government sees a need to emphasise diversity and innovation, while maintaining quality and high achievement standards. This paper will subsequently describe the efforts by the government to encourage diversity and innovation while concurrently addressing the needs of quality assurance. It will also discuss the inherent tensions and challenges in reconciling these two apparently divergent approaches.

2 Diversity and innovation There have been many initiatives undertaken by the government in its attempt to encourage diversity in the education system, one that has been operating under tight central control in an efficiency-driven paradigm. One key principle is to create diverse pathways for different sorts of students. Tharman (2003) said: We are therefore creating more diverse pathways (for students). . . This re-structuring will loosen up the educational structure at key points to create a less bounded environment for those with talents in different fields to go as far as they can to realise their potential. A few initiatives in recent history will illustrate the government’s efforts in creating new pathways (read Tan and Ng (2005) for a fuller discussion). In 1988, three high-flying schools in Singapore became independent schools. These schools were

238

P.T. Ng

‘freed’ from the central system in the areas of hiring and firing of school leaders and teachers, setting fees, deciding on admission policies, undertaking financial projects and developing curriculum. These schools were meant to serve as role-model schools and their innovations example for the other schools, raising standards for all. Today, there are 12 independent schools. In 1994, Ministry of Education (MOE) established another category of schools called the autonomous schools. These schools usually have outstanding academic results and the achievement of the autonomous school status mean 10% more in annual per capita government grants than the non-autonomous ones. The principals of such schools are given discretion to admit up to 5% of their students based on demonstrated talents in specific niche areas such as arts and sports, a departure from a long tradition of a central student posting system based on national examination results. Today, there are 26 autonomous schools. The introduction of the Integrated Programmes (IPs) in 2002 is another example of customisation for the top-end students and secondary schools in Singapore. The most distinguishing feature of the IP is that students in the programme will no longer need to take the GCE ‘O’ levels examinations. Instead, they are on a “through train” to the GCE ‘A’ level examinations, bypassing the ‘O’ levels. In theory, this gives the students more time to explore other critical areas of learning, without the stress of having to prepare for high-stakes examinations. Another means to diversify the education landscape was the invitation by the MOE to the public to set up two or three privately funded schools in 2003. While these schools receive no government funding, they are still required to conform to the bilingual and National Education policies. Two approvals were awarded and they went to the governing boards of two of the most established schools in Singapore. In 2004, two specialised independent schools, the Sports School and the National University of Singapore High School for Mathematics and Science, were set up to offer even more choices to different types of talents. The various efforts of the government, prior to 1997, were brought into an umbrella vision, Thinking Schools, Learning Nation (TSLN), in 1997. This official vision emerged from a strategic review of education, motivated by a pre-occupation with the future. This vision guided subsequent initiatives in the education system. It is still the central guiding vision for the education system until today. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, then Prime Minster, introduced this national vision at the opening of the 7th International Conference on Thinking. In his speech, Goh (1997) said that “Singapore’s vision for meeting this challenge for the future is encapsulated in four words: Thinking Schools, Learning Nation. It is a vision for a total learning environment, including students, teachers, parents, workers, companies, community organisations and the government.” Thinking Schools is a vision of a school system that can develop creative thinking skills, lifelong learning passion and nationalistic commitment in the young. Learning Nation is a vision of learning as a national culture, where creativity and innovation flourishes at every level of society. To support the achievement of TSLN, the desired outcomes of the education system were re-examined. What the education system is now supposed to develop in a student was summarised in a statement called The Desired Outcomes of Education (Wee 1998). Briefly, the students who have gone through the education system have to be creative, entrepreneurial, and have a lifelong habit of learning, able to think global and yet rooted to Singapore. They have to be morally upright, culturally rooted and yet understanding and respecting differences. They have to be responsible to the

Quality assurance in the Singapore education system

239

family, community and country. They have to believe in the principles of multiracialism and meritocracy, appreciate the national constraints and yet be able to see the opportunities (Ng 2005). Several major educational initiatives followed in the footstep of TSLN. In particular, an ability-driven paradigm was adopted for the education system. Former Minister for Education, Teo Chee Hean, explained, “ADE (Ability-Driven Education) vision is all about how we look at each child, at his potential; and how we can develop it to the fullest” (Teo 1999). National Education (NE), launched in 1997, was another significant initiative. The objective of NE is to develop national cohesion, the instinct for survival and confidence in the future by fostering a sense of identity, pride and self-respect as Singaporeans. It involves students knowing the Singapore story, understanding Singapore’s unique challenges, constraints and vulnerabilities, and embracing the core values of the Singaporean way of life. Another significant education initiative was the emphasis on creativity and entrepreneurship. Syllabi, examinations and University admission criteria were changed to encourage thinking out of the box and risk-taking. Students are now more engaged in project work and higher-order thinking questions. The usage for IT in education was also emphasised. Singapore’s Masterplan for IT in Education, launched also in 1997, laid out a comprehensive strategy for creating an IT-based teaching and learning environment in every school, so that every student becomes literate in IT skills by the time they leave school. In 2004, the focus shifted to ‘Innovation and Enterprise’ (I&E). This is an initiative that aims to develop such an attitude of mind through a system-wide approach (Ng 2005b). The latest MOE initiative is in rethinking the approach to education in response to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s call to ‘teach less and learn more’. We’ve got to teach less to our students so that they will learn more. Grades are important, don’t forget to pass your exams but grades are not the only thing in life and there are other things in life which we want to learn in school. (Lee 2004) Significant changes have been made in the education system in the last 20 years. The pace of change has also quickened significantly since 1997. The changes were meant to bring about diversity and innovation. However diversity and innovation were not to be achieved at the expense of quality assurance.

3 Quality assurance Quality assurance in education has always been a great concern of the government. Currently, the most important tool in this area is the School Excellence Model (SEM), a comprehensive quality management system implemented in 2000. However, it is helpful to appreciate the background that led up to the introduction of the SEM. (read Tan and Ng (2005) for a fuller discussion). All secondary schools and junior colleges have been ranked annually since 1992 and the results made known publicly through local media. Secondary schools have been ranked on three main criteria. The first is the students’ overall results in the national examinations. The second is the ‘value-added-ness’ of the school by comparing the students’ examination performance with the score with which they gained entry to the school. The third is the students’ performance in the National Physical Fitness Test and the percentage of overweight students in the school.

240

P.T. Ng

However, such a ranking exercise did not find favour among all parties in Singapore. An external review team commissioned by the education ministry in 1997 pointed out the negative aspects of school ranking (Ministry of Education 1997). However, despite a number of parliamentary debates about it, ranking continued. Teo Chee Hean, then Minister for Education, explained in Parliament: I think academic ranking is still important, because it is a matter of accountability to you. If we do not have ranking, you would ask for it, which is what happened in the United States, in the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions. The parents, taxpayers and Members of Parliament wanted to know how their schools are doing, in relation to other schools in the world. . . We will be silly to give up ranking, because it is an important tool of accountability for schools. We can rank them on a number of different areas. That I agree. But to stop ranking them, I think it would be to give up a tool of accountability to you, something which our schools and educators owe to you. Of course, in any jurisdiction in the world, I have never been to a school district where the teachers like ranking. Of course, they do not. Why would you want to be held accountable if you can get away without being accountable? I have never met a school district where the teacher said, “Yes, ranking is a wonderful thing.” But I am surprised that Members of this House should say that we should stop ranking. Since, if we stop ranking, we would have no instrument of accountability. (Teo 2002) But the discussions and debates were enough to set up a momentum to re-examine the notion of success in education. It is note-worthy that although ranking continued after the introduction of the SEM in 2000, it was subsequently modified in 2004. Instead of ranking schools based on exact academic scores, schools with similar academic performances are banded together and exact ranking positions are not made known to the public. In fact, the government has gone some way to embrace a broader notion of success and to send signals to the society to encourage the society to do the same, as the following newspaper report on the release of the 2004 national examination results illustrate: The Education Ministry has departed from its usual practice of releasing the list of schools which had 100 per cent of their students scoring five or more O-level passes. Nor is it telling which schools showed significant improvement in percentage passes. It is doing so, its spokesman said, because it wants to make the point that success in education should not be measured by academic results alone. Instead, it wants to focus on ‘system-wide achievements’ which are impressive. (Ng and Davie 2004) The introduction of the SEM in 2000 was a significant part of the move to embrace a broader notion of success, emphasising all round quality. Schools are now required to do self-appraisal using the new model, a break from the traditional school inspections when school inspectors swoop upon schools to vet their operations, using measures that are not entirely clear to the schools. The way that the SEM operates has been discussed by Ng (2003). It is worthwhile here to recapitulate some of the salient features, before describing some challenges to quality assurance in an era of diversity and innovation. The SEM is a self-assessment model for schools, adapted from the various quality models used by business organisations, namely the European Foundation of Quality Management (EFQM),

Quality assurance in the Singapore education system

241

the Singapore Quality Award (SQA) model and the education version of the American Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award model (MBNQA). The SEM aims to provide a means to objectively identify and measure the schools’ strengths and areas for improvement. It also aims to allow benchmarking against similar schools, stimulating improvement activities that can positively impact on the overall quality of the school and ultimately the quality of the education system. Using this model which is aligned with the SQA, schools can in fact pitch themselves against national benchmarks for organisational excellence. The SEM basically describes an excellent school as one in which the leaders lead staff, devise strategies and deploy resources, all of which are systematically fed into clearly identified student-focused processes for which targets are set and performance monitored and managed. These ‘enablers’ then produce results in staff and stakeholder satisfaction, as well as impact on society, all contributing to the achievement of school results and excellence. In the SEM, results go beyond academic achievements. While a school’s academic performance continues to be important, an excellent school is one that provides a quality and holistic education. Excellent results as those which meet target, are sustained over a number of years and show positive trends. The SEM comprises nine quality criteria against which schools can be assessed (Ministry of Education 2000): • • • • • • • • •

Leadership: How school leaders and the school’s leadership system address values and focus on student learning and performance excellence; and how the school addresses its responsibilities towards society. Strategic Planning: How the school sets clear stakeholder-focused strategic directions; develops action plans to support its directions, deploys the plans and tracks performance. Staff Management: How the school develops and utilises the full potential of its staff to create an excellent school. Resources: How the school manages its internal resources and its external partnerships effectively and efficiently in order to support its strategic planning and the operation of its processes. Student-Focused Processes: How the school designs, implements, manages and improves key processes to provide a holistic education and works towards enhancing student well-being. Administrative and Operational Results: What the school is achieving in relation to the efficiency and effectiveness of the school. Staff Results: What the school is achieving in relation to the training and development, and morale of its staff. Partnership and Society Results: What the school is achieving in relation to its partners and the community at large. Key Performance Results: What the school is achieving in the holistic development of its students, in particular, the extent to which the school is able to achieve the Desired Outcomes of Education (Wee 1998).

For each quality criteria, assessment in the SEM requires evidence of (Ministry of Education 2000): • •

a sound and integrated approach for systematic, continuous improvement for all criteria of quality defined by the model; a systematic deployment of the approach and the degree of implementation;

242

• • • • • •

P.T. Ng

a regular assessment and review of the approaches and their deployment, based on monitoring and analysis of the results achieved and on-going activities; an identification, prioritisation, planning and implementation of improvement activities; a set of appropriate and challenging performance targets; a continuous improvement of results over three to five years; a benchmarking of performance against comparable schools; an identification of the causes of good or bad results.

The SEM is a self-assessment system, which serves as a mechanism for school leaders to drive school improvement. An external team from MOE validates the self-assessment results using the same criteria approximately once in 5 years. The assessment process is explicit in requiring evidence to justify a certain score. So, even when a school is thought to perform well against a particular criterion, if there is no evidence of this, the model permits no score beyond that for ad hoc performance. Moreover, to score well, a school, in addition to having explicit evidence relating to a criterion, must also have evidence of continuous improvement through trend analysis. Closely associated with the SEM is the Masterplan of Awards for schools. There are three levels of awards. The first level comprises the Achievement Awards given to schools each year for current year’s achievements. The second level comprises the Best Practices Award (BPA), which recognises schools with good scores in the “Enablers” category and the Sustained Achievement Award (SAA), which recognises schools with sustained good scores in the “Results” category. At the apex of the awards is the School Excellence Award (SEA), which gives recognition to schools for excellence in education processes and outcomes. Schools may also apply for the Singapore Quality Award (SQA) just like any other industrial or commercial sector organisation. Schools may request for additional external validations, other than the once-in-five-years mandatory external validation, to qualify for these awards.

4 Challenges of quality assurance in an era of diversity and innovation 4.1 Inherent tension in a centralised decentralisation approach The government has repeatedly stated its intention to decentralise its power, moving away from a direct interventionist control model to a more remote supervisory steering model. This is to provide the platform for diversity and innovation in the school system. With increased autonomy, school leaders and teachers are empowered to make changes at the school to better serve their students. According to Bray (1999), there are three major forms of decentralisation: • • •

deconcentration typically involves the transfer of tasks and work, but not authority, to other units in the organisation; delegation involves the transfer of decision-making authority from higher to lower hierarchical units, but that authority can be withdrawn at the discretion of the delegating unit; devolution refers to the transfer of authority to an autonomous unit that can act independently, or a unit that can act without first asking permission.

While all three forms of decentralisation have been observed in the Singapore education system, the current efforts of the government in the education system

Quality assurance in the Singapore education system

243

can be much more accurately described as a form of centralised decentralisation. On one hand, the government attempts to decentralise power, give autonomy and devolve responsibilities to the schools. On the other hand, there is a risk of declining educational standards once government controls are lessened, hence the need for a robust quality assurance system. Such a system will insure against the loss of control and facilitate authoritative communication and managerial scrutiny (Watkins 1993). Systems of performance indicators and quality assessment ensure a greater degree of accountability and responsiveness to central control. Therefore, in Singapore, decentralisation is not simply about shifting power and authority. The government still carries a great responsibility for achieving national outcomes and providing high value for public money. Therefore, the diversity that it hopes to develop is the diversity of means, not ends. Given the national economic strategies, the functioning of the schools must be correlated to the goals of national, social and economic development in Singapore, hence the emphasis on accountability and standards. Therefore, what the schools are facing is a trend of centralisation within a decentralisation paradigm. Therein a paradox lies: the more the decentralisation of tactical matters, the more the centralisation of strategic directions. The government wishes to maintain and promote high quality education on the one hand, and to empower schools to be flexible enough to diversify and innovate on the other. This is not simple to achieve for both the government and the schools. In an era of decentralisation, diversity and innovation, students are exhorted to have dreams, to unleash their creativity and to be daring to experiment and take risks. Schools are encouraged to ‘think out of the box’ and find their own paths and break frontiers. But in reality, the centralisation paradigm is still very strong. Quality assurance demands conformance to certain standards and achievement of performance indicators. Certain fundamentals, like high stake examinations, though modified, are not made obsolete. Tharman (2004) said: Our exams serve a key purpose in education. They are an anchor in our meritocratic system. They provide transparency in the system, and give parents and students confidence that access to a school or tertiary institution is based on merit-confidence which is often lacking in other systems. Schools are therefore put in a position of having to think out of the box while doing well within the box. This is no simple feat. The aim is to achieve the best of both worlds. The risk is to end up ‘stuck in the middle’, achieving neither of both worlds. 4.2 Marketisation and competition Though educational marketisation may not be new in Singapore (Tan 2005), it will be made more prominent in an era of centralised decentralisation. Firstly, the role of the state may slowly evolve to a service purchaser instead of a provider, as in the past. Secondly, schools have to function more and more like corporate enterprises, competing for resources, achievement and reputation in the local and even global educational marketplace. Competition, already keen, will be enhanced. While in theory the SEM is for self-assessment and improvement, in a centralised decentralisation paradigm, school leaders may still interpret the model as one for control and scrutiny, which can affect their school’s competitiveness and their own careers, hence the acute need to score well. The same can be said of awards and league tables. Quality assurance in a competitive environment may have its own side effects.

244

P.T. Ng

In recent years, newspapers have reported several incidents of schools dropping certain sports from their co-curricula activity list in order to focus on their niche areas, areas of strength where they were more likely to reap results and win awards (e.g. Ho and Almenoar 2004). Others have written in the newspapers, wondering whether some schools were more interested in competing for the award that came with the achievement of physical fitness and low levels of obesity among their students or the actual physical fitness of their students. Now, the school’s performances in the Co-Curricular Activities (CCA), as well as their physical fitness statistics, are also made public. As are their achievements in other areas such as National Education and best practices for teachers and pupils. The intention, it is understood, is to develop all-rounded students. But in introducing these peripheral awards, has the pressure shifted from the obsession over grades to the obsession with winning all the other awards as well? Are we moving away from a pressure-cooker system into another more complex one? (Bharwani 2006) Tan (2005) wrote: It is arguable that the use of the SEM may result in some schools using more of the same covert strategies that they have been using thus far, this time in a wider spectrum of school processes and activities in order to boost their schools’ performance in as many of the aspects that are being assessed as possible. For example, principals may narrow the range of available co-curricular activities in order to focus the schools’ resources on those activities that are considered more fruitful in terms of winning awards in inter-school competitions. Therefore, the SEM may be turned into yet another form of ‘ranking’ of schools, its original meaning and purpose lost in the rat race. Increasing the number of types of awards may simply increase the number of fields for schools to compete in. Some form of competition and benchmarking is healthy but too much of that will make the SEM an exercise in developing evidences, impeding a real drive for diversity and innovation. 4.3 Awards versus innovation Linked to the SEM is a system of awards to schools based on broad criteria, including value-added-ness, best organisational practices, and achievements in sports and the arts. In theory, the awards are meant to promote quality in different areas and celebrate different forms of excellence. However, in a competitive environment, awards are also powerful marketing tools, as the following incident illustrate. After the release of the achievement tables in 2004, the following newspaper report was published: (This premier secondary) school used to hog the pole positions in previous years’ tables, but was conspicuously absent from this year’s lists of high achievers. Its absence from the list of Top 50 Express stream schools was expected, because the ministry had decided to leave out the schools offering integrated programmes (IPs), as their students will no longer sit for the O levels. But what surprised many parents was the school’s absence from the list of top award winners. (Davie 2004) According to the school’s principal, the school was not featured in the lists of top award winners because it has not, as yet, asked the ministry to validate it (validation

Quality assurance in the Singapore education system

245

is the process by which MOE officials assess the schools based on reports that they have submitted, and through site visits). But what is interesting is that according to the report, some teachers of the school argued that the school could afford to ignore the awards: To press their point, they refer to the parents’ reaction to the absence of the school’s name in the top lists. For them, the MOE’s achievement tables are a powerful way for schools to advertise themselves. And now that their students will skip the O levels, these achievement tables have become the only means by which they can show that their programmes and methods produce tangible results. (Davie 2004) The newspaper report carried a comment by the principal: We are confident of ourselves and what we do. I am sure that once we are validated, we would qualify for some of these awards… Looking at the reactions of some parents, it looks like we can’t afford to postpone the ministry’s validation any more. We will go for it next year. (Davie 2004) A top school in Singapore that has the ‘strength’ to break away from the mainstream system finds itself ‘pulled’ back into the system. In a competitive environment, awards are powerful marketing tools to convince ‘customers’ of quality. Yet, in an era of diversity and innovation, schools such as the above one, will be undertaking ventures beyond those recognised by a fixed quality system. The concentration on breaking new grounds may sometimes be broken by a ‘need’ to win awards on old ones. Therefore, there is tension between the quest for diversity and innovation and the pull of the existing system. 4.4 Signposts versus performance indicators A related source of tension is that while the MOE has stressed that in an I&E paradigm, schools should look out for ‘signposts’ instead of ‘performance indicators’ (Ng 2005b), the SEM requires the achievement of such indicators and the provision of evidences. The SEM is a good diagnostic system for self-appraisal and identifying areas for improvement, and could be coupled with an appropriate quality improvement action framework. But it does not necessarily promote cutting edge innovation. In practice, in order to score well on the SEM, many people may be bogged down by data collection and report writing. The generation of the report may not be matched by an equally enthusiastic follow-up action because people are already exhausted getting the report out. This takes the momentum away from improvement and innovation. The SEM emphasises benchmarking. But in an era of diversity and innovation, different schools will have very different contexts. Benchmarking, if not appropriately done, may be meaningless and can be an impediment to real breakthrough. One ends up trying to imitate another and importing ‘best practices’ that may not be appropriate to the new context. Another related issue is that school leaders are often blinded to the strengths of the school identified through the self-appraisal process, which the school can tap upon to innovate. Driven by a desire to improve SEM scores, the emphasis on addressing areas for improvement sometimes blinds leaders to the strengths of their school and the profitable utilisation of these strengths.

246

P.T. Ng

Therefore, in an era of diversity and innovation, the challenge is to avoid turning ‘signposts’ into ‘performance indicators’ (Ng 2005b), despite the demands of quality assurance. This can be a difficult balancing act. 4.5 School leadership The challenges in navigating the line between quality and innovation are so demanding that the need for reflective school leaders becomes paramount. Many school leaders have to transit very quickly from a paradigm of receiving ‘orders’ from headquarters to one of self-appraisal and innovation, while satisfying quality requirements. Some may adapt quickly enough but others may struggle in the transit. The profitable usage of a quality framework requires a skill that is not often found even in the industrial and commercial sector. Real innovators are also not found in abundance. School leaders now have to be systems thinkers, champions of change and leaders of men. Are school leaders adequately trained in the art and prepared in the heart for such a journey? More importantly, now that school leaders have some autonomy, how will they lead their schools? What are their mental models of an excellent school? What are their education philosophies? What school leaders believe in will shape the development of their schools. With the recent influx of business models and philosophies, school leaders have to determine for themselves what concepts such as ‘excellence, ‘diversity’ and ‘innovation’ really mean in education. For example, can a school be an excellent school without collecting evidence of its excellence? Can a school be doing all the right things but not codify all its excellence for verification? Can a school be an excellent school, just simply known for its caring teachers and values inculcation? Can a neighbourhood school really inspire its staff and students by talks of ‘innovation’? Would a ‘back to basics’ message have been easier to motivate the struggling teachers to go back to their first love for the students and teaching and seek improvement from there? These are worthy questions for educators to reflect upon. If educators are not careful, the need to work to the requirements of the system may actually distract the school from its primary purpose of education. It can also be argued that many of the ‘modern’ management ideas in education cannot take into account the softer and finer aspects of education that is embedded in human relationships rather than in systems and processes. It is difficult to fully quantify or capture evidence of the love, care and role modelling of teachers in their everyday lives. Innovations may not provide such nobility. But it is in this softer and rather tacit aspect that lies the most precious of education. Therefore, instead of ‘diversity’ and ‘innovation’, there is room for ‘more of the same’. Instead of ‘quality’, there is room for ‘nobility’. There are cultural issues unique to the education field that has to be addressed in adapting business models to the management of schools. The school leaders are entrusted with the task of exercising their judgement in this area, and do so in a world that measures their judgement.

5 Conclusion Quality assurance in an era of diversity and innovation is a delicate affair and there is an inherent tension. The case of Singapore demonstrates how a small nation-state, in the absence of natural resources and in the face of keen economic competition, pur-

Quality assurance in the Singapore education system

247

sues a ‘best-of-both-worlds’ strategy. It will be interesting to observe how Singapore can continue to promote diversity and innovation in education while maintaining high quality and commitment to national agenda. It will take a balancing act to rock the boat adequately but not sink it.

References Bharwani, V. (2006). Does new banding system really ease pressure on kids - or make it worse? The New Paper, 26 September Issue. Bray, M. (1999). Control of education: issues and tensions in centralization and decentralization. In R. F. Arnove & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Comparative education: the dialectic of the global and the local. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Davie, S. (2004). School awards: Pragmatism wins over idealism. The Straits Times, 2 October Issue. Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: Harper Business. Goh, C. T. (1997). Shaping our future: Thinking schools, learning nation. Singapore Government Press Release. Speech by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong at the Opening of the 7th International Conference on Thinking, 2 June. Goh, C. T. (2005). Investment in people pays off for the country (speech by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong at the Jeddah Economic Forum, Saudi Arabia). The Straits Times, 22 February Issue. Ho, A. L., & Almenoar, M. (2004). No football team, so they started their own. The Straits Times, 8 November issue. Lee, H. L. (2004). Our future of opportunity and promise. Singapore Government Press Release. Address by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the 2004 National Day Rally at the University Cultural Centre, National University of Singapore, 22 August. Ministry of Education (1997). Learning, creating and communicating: A curriculum review (a report by the External Review Team for the Ministry of Education). Singapore: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education (2000). The school excellence model: A guide. Singapore: The School Appraisal Branch, Schools Division, Ministry of Education. Ng, P. T. (2003). The Singapore school and the School Excellence Model. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 2(1), 27– 39. Ng, P. T. (2005). Students’ perception of change in the Singapore education system. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 3(1), 77–92. Ng, P. T. (2005b). Innovation and enterprise in Singapore schools. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 3(3), 183–198. Ng, J., & Davie, S. (2004). Ministry steps away from focus on grades. The Straits Times, 28 February Issue. Ohmae, K. (1990). The borderless world. New York: Harper Collins. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: The Free Press. Tan, E. T. J. (2005). The marketisation of education in Singapore: What does this mean for thinking schools, learning nation? In E. T. J. Tan & P. T. Ng (Eds.) Shaping Singapore’s future: thinking schools, learning nation. Singapore: Prentice Hall. Tan, E. T. J., & Ng, P. T. (Eds.) (2005). Shaping Singapore’s future: Thinking schools, learning nation. Singapore: Prentice Hall. Teo, C. H. (1999). Towards ability-driven education: Making every Singaporean matter. Singapore Government Press Release. Speech by RAdm Teo Chee Hean, Minister for Education and Second Minister for Defence, at the Ministry of Education Work Plan Seminar, 4 September. Teo, C. H. (2002). Closing Speech by Rear Admiral Teo Chee Hean, Minister for Education, on the Junior College/Upper Secondary Recommendations at Parliament, Singapore, 27 November. Tharman, S. (2003). The next phase in education: Innovation and enterprise. Singapore Government Press Release. Speech by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Acting Minister for Education, at the Ministry of Education Work Plan Seminar, 2 October. Tharman, S. (2004). To light a fire: Enabling teachers, nurturing students. Singapore Government Press Release. Speech by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Minister for Education, at the Ministry of Education Work Plan Seminar, 29 September. Watkins, P. (1993). Centralized decentralization: sloanism, marketing quality and higher education. Australian Universities Review, 36(2), 9–17. Wee, H. T. (1998). The desired outcomes of education. Singapore: Ministry of Education.