In last week's Gadfly, I described a bit about modern Singapore and how its world-beating education system is structured. Today I offer ten observations based on what struck me most during a brief visit.
First, ethnicity is indeed powerful, but a country's education culture and standards can trump ethnic differences. Not unlike the U.S., Singapore has a majority population (about 77% Chinese) and two large minorities-Malays and Indians. We know from Harold Stevenson, from TIMSS scores and other sources that Chinese populations (whether on Taiwan, the Chinese mainland or in Hong Kong) tend to take education seriously and to do well in school. In Singapore, however, the Malay and Indian kids do almost as well in education and in life. (To the extent that they don't, those data are downplayed-I couldn't find any-rather than highlighted.) There's no fussing over double standards and little talk of affirmative action, although there's much self-conscious integration of housing and schooling. Separatism is palpably discouraged. Rather, there's a national curriculum, national exams, national standards, and a lot of attention to one-nation-building via curricular emphases on civics, Singapore's history, moral education, etc. Though Singapore has had ethnic discord in the past, the government is bent on avoiding it in the future. (Nearby countries keep illustrating what not to do!) Everyone's cultural traditions are respected-we watched Chinese and Malay policemen guarding Indian "believers" as they walked down busy streets with various blades stuck into their own flesh as part of a religious festival that occurred during our visit-and everyone studies their "mother tongue" as part of the national curriculum, but English is the national language, everyone learns it, and everyone also learns how to be a good Singaporean.
Second, the schools are big. The primary school I visited has 2000 kids, split into morning and afternoon shifts. (The high schools are now all single-session.) Teachers work one shift. The principal and vice-principal are always on duty.
Third, classes are big, too. The national standard is about 40 kids per class.
Fourth, teachers are respected and well paid. Their income is equivalent to that of other university graduates. On the other hand, they have those big classes and do lots of extra work without additional compensation: staying late, coming in on Saturdays, working with kids during vacations, etc. Though their union is said to be powerful, in a very Asian way it has more of a "joint consultation" role with the Ministry on policy issues than a confrontational one.
Fifth, though secondary teachers are all university graduates, many primary teachers are not-and nobody can find any difference in the performance of pupils taught by those who are and those who aren't. There are several pathways into teaching, but almost all of them include study at the National Institute of Education, part of Nanyang Technological University. Once admitted-or recruited-into a teacher preparation program, one becomes a salaried employee of the Ministry of Education. In other words, you're paid to prepare to teach.
Seventh, everyone in the education service (including every teacher) is evaluated annually and given a letter grade from A through E, based on his/her performance, mostly as observed by supervisors. (Principals also rank teachers in their schools from best to worst.) Healthy financial bonuses (two or more months of pay) accompany A and B rankings. Educators with (rare) E grades risk "being sacked."
Eighth, Singapore is cautiously experimenting (only at the secondary school level so far) with granting greater independence to high-performing schools, not unlike U.S. charter schools. This includes considerable leeway in selecting principals and teachers, tailoring the curriculum and deploying resources. Even in regular schools, however, principals have more control over budgets and staffing than in most U.S. public schools. Besides formula funding, they raise grant dollars from the Ministry, from private sources and from parents and community. In the school I visited, for example, money that the school and its dynamic principal raised had paid for a "robotics lab" (this in a primary school, mind you!) plus other technology plus a good bit of air conditioning beyond the country-wide standard.
Ninth, secondary (and higher) institutions are, essentially, schools of choice, though which one you end up in depends greatly on your exam results in addition to your wishes. I was told that 95% of families get one of their top six school choices. At the primary level, preference is given to those who live near a school, to siblings and others with prior ties to the school (e.g. alumni/ae kids) and, interestingly, to the children of parents who volunteer in that school! Beyond those priorities, anyone can apply; if demand exceeds supply, a lottery system determines who goes where.
Tenth, the country isn't resting on its laurels. Though they're proud of their schools-I was told with a straight face that "There are no failing schools in Singapore"-reform is in the air. In what is termed a fundamental philosophic shift, they are moving from an "efficiency driven" system to an "ability driven" system. But that doesn't mean just tracking. It means embracing the view that every Singaporean should be educated to the limit of his/her ability, not only during their initial pass through school but also via adult and "lifelong" learning opportunities, by greater school diversity, lots of technology, and more programs customized to individual interests and talents.
The educators and officials I met struck me as having bought fully into the notion of continuous improvement for the system as a whole, for individual schools, and also for individual Singaporeans. Those I talked with-as with any such visit, I'm sure I was steered away from the duds, bores and bureaucrats-were data-driven, results-oriented, innovative and open-minded. They fret that their system doesn't do enough to nurture individualism and creativity-which is naturally harder to do with 40 kids in a class, a nearly-uniform curriculum and a commitment to building a cohesive nation and down-playing group differences. They approvingly quoted a recent speech by the Prime Minister saying that the country and its education system need to become more experimental, bolder-and willing to take more risks and make some mistakes. Everyone in Singapore knows that their future hinges on their human capital. They are determined to develop that capital well and to insist on a high rate of return from it. They know that means being open to change. Their challenge is to make judicious changes that build on, rather than squander, the extraordinarily high performance level of the education system they already have.
PS: As with all Gadfly editorials, readers' comments and insights-and corrections of the record-are cordially invited.
