1979 to 1996: Efficiency-Driven Education
I recently published a book review of the Oxford Handbook of the History of Education in the Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching. It reminded me of my attempt at writing up the history of Singapore’s education system for my dissertation. I will serialise that particular chapter in the blog.
The first instalment delineated the transition from vernacular schools to colonial education system and the ensuing imbalance in accrual of cultural capital. Part Two looks at the early years when Singapore was mired deep in the struggle to survive as a new independent nation-state. The next phase of the development of Singapore's education system is efficiency driven.
1979 to 1996: Efficiency-Driven Education
... many years of one-party rule had transformed political attitudes, group politics, and political behaviour... the primordial sentiments and community involvement which once linked politics with education in Singapore were replaced with an efficiency ethos and elite domination of education - Gopinathan, 1991, p. 280, emphasis not in original
This period of educational development may be characterised by an almost obsessed preoccupation with efficient human resource management. The late Dr Goh Keng Swee led a study team, at the request of the Prime Minister, to undertake an extensive review of the Ministry of Education in 1978. One of the key points of the Report on the Ministry of Education (MOE) was that many pupils were dropping out of school because the course of study ignored differences in academic abilities (Goh, 1979, p 4- 1). Resource-scarce Singapore could ill-afford such an attrition of its only resource, which was the highest compared to France, Taiwan, the United Kingdom and Japan (Goh, 1979, p3-3). The New Education System was consequently instituted and had “as its central aim, the reduction of wastage of pupils caused by failures” (Tay, 1981). Streaming was introduced to siphon those who were faltering in their academic pursuits into vocational training.
Having earlier gained legitimacy for reforming education for economic needs, the PAP government further restructured the education system when the vulnerability of Singapore’s economy was brought to the fore again by the recession of 1985. In its 1986 report, the Economic Committee (EC) acknowledged that whilst external factors were responsible for the unexpected 1.8% contraction of the economy in 1985, it was not solely cyclical. Indeed, the recession uncovered fundamental problems of “rigidities” and slowness to adapt to change. In terms of education level of the workforce as a whole, Singapore also continued to lag behind the developed nations despite major improvements in the preceding decades. The EC called for the broadening of choices in the education system as a way forward so that the population may be “educated and trained to its fullest potential” (1986, p.8). This note was later picked up in the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation reform.
A separate Economic Planning Committee (EPC) followed up with a report in 1991 and identified in it eight strategic thrusts to “help propel Singapore’s economic and social progress to that of a developed country” (p.1); of which “Enhancing Human Resource” was tied closely to education. The themes of efficiency and minimum wastage were still very much dominant; more needed to be done with less.
The other area where there is a need for improving resource efficiency is in domestic services. These services took up about 39 per cent of the workforce in 1989, but accounted for only 9 per cent of GDP. A multi- agency task force will be formed to see what can be done to assist the faster upgrading of this sector. - EPC, 1991, p. 2-3, emphasis not in original
The EPC stated in no uncertain terms that people were “Singapore’s most important resource” and the “single most important factor towards achieving developed country status” (1991, p. 3). To achieve this, the EPC recommended that the population should undergo at least 9-10 years of basic education.
The reforms coming forth from MOE were in good tandem to both economic reports. A study team consisting of twelve school principals submitted the “Towards Excellence in Schools” report on 3 February 1987, upon returning from a study tour of “good schools” in the United States and United Kingdom. The report made claims for greater autonomy for school principals and the setting up of independent schools (MOE, 1987, p. 69). Three schools, The Chinese High School (since renamed Hwa Chong Institution), Saint Joseph Institution and Anglo-Chinese School, consequently went independent in 1988. Six years later, this was extended to top government schools which were accorded autonomous status. These were the beginning steps taken to decentralise so as to break down the “rigidities” that hamper change and stifle the development of pupils to their fullest potential. This was in stark contrast to the earlier policy of centralisation.
The other significant change followed the “Improving Primary School Education” report which was published in 1991 (MOE, 1991). The role of the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) was changed from that of a selection examination to a placement variant. Pupils, who would have otherwise been screened out of secondary schools and “sent as rejects” into vocational training institutes, were now channeled into the newly-created Normal (Technical) course of study (Sharpe & Gopinathan, 2002, p. 155). This four-year course in the secondary schools thus ensured that most pupils go through at least ten years of formal education, and in the process expand the opportunity for basic education as recommended by the EPC, but reversing the earlier decision taken in 1979.
These were significantly drastic changes for a highly-centralised and top-down education system. Even so, MOE was clearly reluctant to do away with policies that it deemed successful previously. This tension is evident in the retaining of streaming of primary pupils, now done at Primary 4 instead of Primary 3, despite advancing just about the entire cohort to secondary schools. Whilst the introduction of independent and autonomous schools seeks to offer variety, MOE subsequently moved to publish league tables, hence reunifying all schools under the familiar measure of examination results. This was a peculiar period of transition in the education system.
Earlier success in providing education earned the PAP government legitimacy. It is then easy, when further changes to the education system were tagged as necessary for the economy. The focus on the economy is a codification that provides an appearance of necessity, hence neutrality and almost common sense. However, this common sense goes misrecognised and is not seen as a means for reproduction and perpetuation of capital and hierarchy in the system. The positions in the hierarchy also disappear in the codification called meritocracy.
... the doxa provides a teleological rationale through which failure is able to be attributed to poor playing, rather than the nature of the game itself. - Thomson, 2005, p. 746
<to be continued>
References:
Economic Committee Singapore. (1986). Report of the Economic Committee. The Singapore Economy: New Directions. Executive Summary. Singapore: Ministry of Trade and Industry. (Online: http://app.mti.gov.sg/data/pages/885/doc/econ.pdf accessed on 07 Oct 2008).
Economic Planning Committee Singapore. (1991). The Strategic Economic Plan: Towards a Developed Nation. Executive Summary. Singapore: Ministry of Trade and Industry. (Online: http://app.mti.gov.sg/data/pages/885/doc/NWS_plan.pdfaccessed on 07 Oct 2008).
Goh, K.S. (1979). Report on the Ministry of Education 1978. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Gopinathan, S. (1991). Education. In E. Chew & E. Lee (eds), A History of Singapore, pp. 268-287. Singapore: Oxford University Press.
Ministry of Education, Singapore. (1987). Towards Excellence in Schools. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education, Singapore. (1991). Improving Primary School Education. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Sharpe, L. & Gopinathan, S. (2002). After Effectiveness: New Directions in the Singapore School System. Journal of Educational Policy, 17 (2), pp. 151-166.
Tay, E.S. (1981). Text of speech at IE 9th Convocation Ceremony 1981 at IE Auditorium, 23 May, Singapore.
Thomson, P. (2005). Bringing Bourdieu to Policy Sociology: Codification, Misrecognition and Exchange Value in the UK Context. Journal of Education Policy, 20(6), pp. 741-758.
Comments