The Evolution and Nature of School Accountability in the Singapore Education System
Educ Asse Eval Acc (2010) 22:275–292 DOI 10.1007/s11092-010-9105-z
The evolution and nature of school accountability in the Singapore education system
Pak Tee Ng
Received: 10 April 2010 / Accepted: 12 August 2010 / Published online: 19 August 2010 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract This paper describes and examines the nature and evolution of school accountability in the Singapore Education System. In particular, the different facets of school accountability are examined through a theoretical framework comprising four relatively distinct concepts of accountability as performance reporting; as a technical process; as a political process; and as an institutional process. This paper also examines the issues and challenges faced by schools as they respond to the demands of school accountability. Keywords School accountability . Policy . Performance indicators . Quality assurance
1 Introduction: School accountability In many educational systems, different stakeholders of schools demand schools to be accountable, each in their own way. School accountability is therefore a term that seems to have multiple meanings. Indeed, there are different ways in which it can be defined, presented or understood. For example, Stecher and Kirby (2004, p. 22) referred to it as “the practice of holding educational systems responsible for the quality of their products—students’ knowledge, skills, and behaviours”. Wöbmann et al. (2007, p. 24) referred to it as “all devices that attach consequences to measured educational achievement”. Indeed, as Levin (1974, p. 363) opined: Some authors assert that the provision of information on the performance of schools constitutes accountability. Others see accountability as a matter of redesigning the structures by which education is governed. In some cases accountability is defined as a specific approach to education such as performance contracting or educational vouchers, while in others accountability is referred to as
The evolution and nature of school accountability in the Singapore education system
Pak Tee Ng
Received: 10 April 2010 / Accepted: 12 August 2010 / Published online: 19 August 2010 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract This paper describes and examines the nature and evolution of school accountability in the Singapore Education System. In particular, the different facets of school accountability are examined through a theoretical framework comprising four relatively distinct concepts of accountability as performance reporting; as a technical process; as a political process; and as an institutional process. This paper also examines the issues and challenges faced by schools as they respond to the demands of school accountability. Keywords School accountability . Policy . Performance indicators . Quality assurance
1 Introduction: School accountability In many educational systems, different stakeholders of schools demand schools to be accountable, each in their own way. School accountability is therefore a term that seems to have multiple meanings. Indeed, there are different ways in which it can be defined, presented or understood. For example, Stecher and Kirby (2004, p. 22) referred to it as “the practice of holding educational systems responsible for the quality of their products—students’ knowledge, skills, and behaviours”. Wöbmann et al. (2007, p. 24) referred to it as “all devices that attach consequences to measured educational achievement”. Indeed, as Levin (1974, p. 363) opined: Some authors assert that the provision of information on the performance of schools constitutes accountability. Others see accountability as a matter of redesigning the structures by which education is governed. In some cases accountability is defined as a specific approach to education such as performance contracting or educational vouchers, while in others accountability is referred to as
References: Adams, J. E., & Kirst, M. (1999). New demands for educational accountability: Striving for results in an era of excellence. In J. Murphey & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 463–489). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Atkinson, T. (2005). Atkinson Review: Final report. Measurement of government output and productivity for the national accounts. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Barr, M. (2006). Beyond technocracy: the culture of elite governance in Lee Hsien Loong’s Singapore. Asian Studies Review, 30(1), 1–18. Brown, P., & Hesketh, A. (2004). The mismanagement of talent. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carlson, D. (2002). Focusing state educational accountability systems: Four methods of judging school quality and progress. Dover: National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. Darling-Hammond, L., & Ascher, C. (1991). Creating accountability in big city school systems (Urban Diversity Series No. 102). New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. Committee, E. (1986). The Singapore economy: New directions. Singapore: Ministry of Trade and Industry. Ehren, M. C. M., & Visscher, A. J. (2006). Towards a theory on the impact of school inspections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), 51–72. Ehren, M. C. M., Leeuw, F. L., & Scheerens, J. (2005). On the impact of the Dutch Educational Supervision Act. Analyzing assumptions concerning the inspection of primary education. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(1), 60–77. Elliott, J. (1991). A model of professionalism and its implication for teacher education. British Educational Research Journal, 17(4), 309–318. Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with successful educational practices. In S. Fuhrman & J. A. O’Day (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 294–329). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Florida, R. (2005). The flight of the creative class. New York: Harper Business. Goh, K. S., & Education Study Team. (1979). Report on the ministry of education 1978. Singapore: Singapore National Printers. Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and Teaching, 6 (2), 151–182. Hoxby, C. M. (2003). (Ed.). The Economics of School Choice (National Bureau of Economic Research Conference Report). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society. New York: Harper and Row. Levin, H. M. (1974). A conceptual framework for accountability in education. The School Review, 82(3), 363–391. Linn, R. L. (2003). Accountability: responsibility and reasonable expectations. Educational Researcher, 32 (7), 3–13. Maier, U. (2010). Accountability policies and teachers’ acceptance and usage of school performance feedback—a comparative study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(2), 145–165. Mante, B., & O’Brien, G. (2002). Efficiency measurement of Australian public sector organizations: the case of state secondary schools in Victoria. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(3), 274–296. Marion, R. (1999). The edge of organization: Chaos and complexity theories of formal social systems. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 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. Ministry of Education (2004). A broader picture of school’s performances in academic and non-academic domains. Ministry of Education Press Release, 26 September. Educ Asse Eval Acc (2010) 22:275–292 291 Ministry of Education (2009). More help for needy students. Ministry of Education Press Release, 10 February. Mok, K. H. (2003). Decentralization and marketization of education in Singapore: a case study of the school excellence model. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(4), 348–366. Mukhopadhaya, P. (2003). Trends in total and subgroup income inequality in the Singaporean workforce. Asian Economic Journal, 17(3), 243–264. Neo, B. S., & Chen, G. (2007). Dynamic governance. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. 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. (2005a). 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, P. T. (2007). Quality assurance in the Singapore education system in an era of diversity and innovation. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 6(3), 235–247. Ng, P. T. (2008a). Quality assurance in the Singapore education system: phases and paradoxes. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(2), 112–125. Ng, P. T. (2008b). Educational reform in Singapore: from quantity to quality. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 7(1), 5–15. Ng, P. T., & Chan, D. (2008). A comparative study of Singapore’s school excellence model with Hong Kong’s school-based management. International Journal of Educational Management, 22(6), 488–505. Ng, P. T., & Tan, C. (2009). Community of practice for teachers: sensemaking or critical reflective learning? Reflective Practice, 10(1), 41–48. Normore, A. H. (2004). The edge of chaos: school administrators and accountability. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(1), 55–77. O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72 (3), 293–329. O’Day, J., & Smith, M. S. (1993). Systemic school reform and educational opportunity. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 250–312). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. O’Reilly, F. E. (1996). Educational accountability: Current practices and theories in use. Cambridge: Harvard University, Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Perryman, J. (2009). Inspection and the fabrication of professional and performative processes. Journal of Education Policy, 24(5), 611–631. Sharpe, L., & Gopinathan, S. (1996). Effective island, effective schools: repairing and restructuring in the Singapore school system. International Journal of Educational Reform, 5(4), 394–402. Stecher, B. M., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other sectors. Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation. Tan, E. T. J. (2005). The marketization 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 (pp. 95–111). Singapore: Prentice Hall. Teo, C. H. (2000). Dynamic school leaders and schools—making the best use of autonomy. Speech by Rear Admiral Teo Chee Hean, Minister for Education and Second Minister for Defence at the Diploma in Educational Administration Graduation Dinner held at the Mandarin Hotel, Singapore, 12 January. 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. Speech by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Acting Minister for Education, at the Ministry of Education Work Plan Seminar, 2 October. Tharman, S. (2005a). Speech by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Minister for Education, at the opening of the conference on ‘Redesigning Pedagogy: Research, Policy and Practice’ at the National Institute of Education, Singapore, 30 May. Tharman, S. (2005b). Achieving quality: bottom up initiative, top down support. Speech by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Minister for Education, at the MOE Work Plan Seminar 2005 at the Ngee Ann Polytechnic Convention Centre, Singapore, 22 September. Trocki, C. A. (2006). Singapore: Wealth, power and the culture of control. London: Routledge. Tyack & Tobin. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453–480. Tye, B. B. (2000). Hard truth: Uncovering the deep structure of schooling. New York: Teachers College. Van de Grift, W. (2009). Reliability and validity in measuring the value added of schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20(2), 269–285. 292 Educ Asse Eval Acc (2010) 22:275–292 Watkins, P. (1993). Centralized decentralization: sloanism, marketing quality and higher education. Australian Universities Review, 36(2), 9–17. Wee, H. T., & Chong, K. C. (1990). 25 years of school management. In J. Yip & W. K. Sim (Eds.), Evolution of educational excellence: 25 years of education in the Republic of Singapore (pp. 31–58). Singapore: Longman. Wöbmann, L., Lüdemann, E., Schütz, G., & West, M. R. (2007). School accountability, autonomy, choice, and the level of student achievement: International evidence from PISA 2003 (OECD Education Working Papers, Number 13). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): Directorate for Education. Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.