Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The evolution and nature of school accountability in the Singapore education system

  • Published:
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, T. (2005). Atkinson Review: Final report. Measurement of government output and productivity for the national accounts. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, M. (2006). Beyond technocracy: the culture of elite governance in Lee Hsien Loong’s Singapore. Asian Studies Review, 30(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., & Hesketh, A. (2004). The mismanagement of talent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee, E. (1986). The Singapore economy: New directions. Singapore: Ministry of Trade and Industry.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, J. (1991). A model of professionalism and its implication for teacher education. British Educational Research Journal, 17(4), 309–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida, R. (2005). The flight of the creative class. New York: Harper Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goh, K. S., & Education Study Team. (1979). Report on the ministry of education 1978. Singapore: Singapore National Printers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and Teaching, 6(2), 151–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, H. M. (1974). A conceptual framework for accountability in education. The School Review, 82(3), 363–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, R. L. (2003). Accountability: responsibility and reasonable expectations. Educational Researcher, 32(7), 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marion, R. (1999). The edge of organization: Chaos and complexity theories of formal social systems. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (2000). The school excellence model: A guide. Singapore: The School Appraisal Branch, Schools Division, Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education (2004). A broader picture of school’s performances in academic and non-academic domains. Ministry of Education Press Release, 26 September.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukhopadhaya, P. (2003). Trends in total and subgroup income inequality in the Singaporean workforce. Asian Economic Journal, 17(3), 243–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neo, B. S., & Chen, G. (2007). Dynamic governance. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, P. T. (2003). The Singapore school and the School Excellence Model. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 2(1), 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, P. T. (2005a). Students’ perception of change in the Singapore education system. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 3(1), 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, P. T. (2005b). Innovation and Enterprise in Singapore schools. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 3(3), 183–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, P. T. (2008a). Quality assurance in the Singapore education system: phases and paradoxes. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(2), 112–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, P. T. (2008b). Educational reform in Singapore: from quantity to quality. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 7(1), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, P. T., & Tan, C. (2009). Community of practice for teachers: sensemaking or critical reflective learning? Reflective Practice, 10(1), 41–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Normore, A. H. (2004). The edge of chaos: school administrators and accountability. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(1), 55–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 293–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, F. E. (1996). Educational accountability: Current practices and theories in use. Cambridge: Harvard University, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perryman, J. (2009). Inspection and the fabrication of professional and performative processes. Journal of Education Policy, 24(5), 611–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stecher, B. M., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other sectors. Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyack & Tobin. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tye, B. B. (2000). Hard truth: Uncovering the deep structure of schooling. New York: Teachers College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Grift, W. (2009). Reliability and validity in measuring the value added of schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20(2), 269–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, P. (1993). Centralized decentralization: sloanism, marketing quality and higher education. Australian Universities Review, 36(2), 9–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1, Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616, Republic of Singapore

    Pak Tee Ng

Authors
  1. Pak Tee Ng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pak Tee Ng.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ng, P.T. The evolution and nature of school accountability in the Singapore education system. Educ Asse Eval Acc 22, 275–292 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-010-9105-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-010-9105-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation