Pedagogical reforms within a centralised-decentralised system

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the dialectical interplay between centralisation and decentralisation forces so as to understand how schools leverage on its autonomous pedagogical space, influence the diffusion of innovations in the educational landscape of Singapore and how a centralised-decentralised system supports (or impedes) pedagogical reform for twenty-first century learning. Design/methodology/approach The paper first outlines the evolutionary stance of Singapore’s decentralisation from its past to present trajectories, thus providing a broader social-historical interpretation to its tight-loose-tight coupling of the education system; followed by situating the context of reform within the national narrative of Ministry of Education’s (MOE) twenty-first century competencies framework. The authors examine how school autonomy should be accompanied by systemic enabling mechanisms, through two case illustrations of whole-school reforms. Findings There are four carryover effects that the authors have observed: structural, socio-cultural, economic and epistemic. Middle managers from the two schools act as a pedagogical, socio-technological and financial broker outside the formal collaborative structures organised by the MOE. Such a “middle-out” approach, complemented by centralised mechanisms for “coeval sensing mechanism”, has resulted in boundary-spanning linkages and multiplier effects in terms of knowledge spillovers. Research limitations/implications Socio-cultural context matters; and what constitutes as co-learning between policymakers and practitioners in Singapore may be construed as policing that stifles innovations in other contexts. Originality/value In addition to the conceptualisation of how school autonomy may lead to school-based innovations, the paper provided some preliminary empirical evidence of how the co-production of knowledge has been engendered within, across and beyond individual Singapore schools through the mechanism of innovation diffusion. The unit of analysis is innovation ecosystem.

Learning technology as contested terrain: Insights from teaching academics and learning designers in Australian higher education

“…However, from a learning and teaching perspective, the broader issue, as pointed out by some teaching academics, was how the notion of centralising resources could stifle innovation, which can in turn affect learning and teaching processes. This finding is consistent with that of Toh et al (2016) who suggested that such centralisation practice engenders perceptions of policing, which could stifle innovation. This then raises questions about the legitimacy of centralising learning technologies and their support services.…”

Influence of Cultural Values on Singapore School Leadership

“…A third value that underpins Singapore school leadership is the emphasis on systems-level coherence (Dimmock and Tan, 2013;Harris et al, 2014;Raveendaran et al, 2018;Toh, 2016;Toh et al, 2016;Toh et al, 2014). Some scholars credit Singapore's educational effectiveness to the tightlycoupled school system, mutually reinforcing human resource policies, and a distinctive leaderteacher compact premised on paternalistic leadership.…”

Balancing the needs of policy and practice, while remaining authentic: an analysis of leadership and governance in three national school leadership colleges

“…National Institute of Education, Singapore Singapore's educational journey and success in international rankings such as PISA and TIMSS has been studied extensively, sometimes by external observers (Barber et al, 2007;Jensen et al, 2012) and sometimes by Singaporean and Singapore-based researchers (Ng, 2010(Ng, , 2016Dimmock and Tan, 2012;Tan, Low and Hung, 2017;Lee et al, 2014;Toh et al, 2016;Koh and Hung, 2018). It is not the intention to reiterate or discuss the broader findings from those studies in any detail here, but headline considerations include: Singapore's small size (356 schools in total), its tight central bureaucratic control exercised by a single political party, and its pragmatic focus on efficiency and effectiveness in the context of a need for rapid nation-building and economic development through human capital.…”