A Comparative Study of Singapore and Pakistan’s Education System
A Comparative Study of Singapore and
Pakistan’s Education System
By: Ms Kashfia Latafat
Introduction: Education system of any country
serves as a backbone for socio – economic development. Education policy in Pakistan as in other developing countries
faces poor implementation issues. Since 1947 – 2017 we have nine detailed and
well- designed educational policies, but unfortunately none of them were
implemented in true letter and spirit. As suggested by Hope (2002, p. 40)
implementation of a policy is a process of ‘transforming educational policy
into practice’, it indicates the gap between policy making and implementation
of it. In Pakistan every education policy is emphasized on curriculum
development according to the socio economic need and as a continuous process,
which serves as a base line for any education system. As a nation we aren’t able to reach on
consensus on even a single educational framework to implement in the country.
In my opinion it’s the need of time to conduct comparative studies in order to
opt for better options which are inevitable for growth and development of
educational sector. For this very reason I conducted a detailed study of Singapore’s educational system which is present
in same region and faces almost same conditions which are prevailing in this
region, it ables us to identify the issues as well as solutions.
Singapore was a British colony in the 19th century, achieved
self-government in 1959 and became an independent nation in 1965. At the current
moment their education system is internationally recognized and supports the
economy of the country. In understanding the educational system in Singapore,
it is helpful to note that there were three phases in the education developments
in Singapore since its independence (Tan, 2008). These phases are:
‘survival-driven’, ‘efficiency-driven’, and ‘ability-driven’.
At their first stage aim was to produce linguistically and
technically skilled workers for economic development. The emphasis was shifted from academics to
technical education. They introduced Bilingualism policy in 1960 according to
which proficiency is needed in two languages, English declared as first
language and mother tongue as second language, regional languages were also
taught in some areas where it was needed. This smart move gave Singapore
students a head start in employment opportunities in Asia and accessing to the
science and technology of the West.
In late 1970’s government
shifted this phase into efficiency drive in order to maintain the demand of manpower
in different economic development programs. They analyzed the language policy
and realized that not all the children are not capable for learning two
languages at the same time, the report suggested the changes in the system of
one size fits for all, to produce more efficient work force for economic
development .They introduced different boards from primary to second level to
cater the need of every child and to avoid dropouts from schools. The
continuous development at different levels were taken into consideration and
changes were made in the system. Every child is referred to a respective board
after taken primary school leaving certificate according to their performance
in different subject areas. In addition to the Express, Special, and Normal
(Academic) streams, a Normal (Technical) stream was introduced in 1994 to cater
to the weakest students in secondary schools; they would receive a special
curriculum with subjects such as English, mother tongue, mathematics, computer
applications and technical studies taught at their level. After completing
their secondary years, they are referred to Institute of Technical Education to
learn technical skills. These changes meant that all students would have at
least 10 years of education in primary and secondary schools before they
specialise in different areas of study. The government succeeded in having 20%
of the primary 1 cohort receiving technical-vocational education at the ITE,
40% polytechnic education and another 20% university education (Ho &
Gopinathan, 1999).Further changes were taken place in 1980’s when Singapore was
facing economic recession and their labour force was under –educated compared
to those in USA, Taiwan and Japan. In 1987, a report, Towards Excellence in
Schools, called for a number of policy initiatives to produce students who are
educated, creative and innovative. Consequently, some top secondary schools
were selected in 1988 to become ‘independent schools’ where the school leaders
were given greater autonomy in the running of the schools and encouraged to
spearhead innovative and educationally meaningful programmes, activities and pedagogy
(Principals’ Report, 1987)
In 1997 the last and current phase was started which is based
on ability driven. It was launched under the ‘Thinking Schools, Learning
Nation’ (TSLN) vision that aspires to develop creative thinking skills, a
lifelong passion for learning, and nationalistic commitment in the young (Tan,
2011).This phase is running on ideology of holistic education of child and
looking forward to gradually reduce
emphasis on current examination system. The former Minister of Education
Tharman Shanmugaratnam stated that the government seeks to gradually reduce the
emphasis on examinations and focus on a holistic education; give the students
more choice in their studies so that they can shape and enjoy their learning;
and encourage teachers to bring quality and innovative practices into the
classroom and school (Tharman, 2004).
The current education system of Singapore reflects three
salient features.
The first feature is an educational system that offers a
variety of school types and programmes Secondly, the curriculum has been
revised to promote customised and inter-disciplinary study, which is a
departure from the former curriculum that was common, rigid and classified
under different subject-matter disciplines. The third feature concerns the
shift in the role of the teacher under an ability-driven education. Teachers
are no longer just experts and dispensers of content knowledge; they are
expected to be resource persons to facilitate the students’ learning through
creative and student centered activities. A significant policy initiative from
the government is to encourage schools to ‘Teach Less, Learn More’ (TLLM). The
aim is for teachers to teach better by engaging the students and preparing them
for life, rather than merely teaching more for tests and examinations (Tharman,
2004). To support the implementation of TLLM, they reduced the content in the
curriculum so that teachers have more space to make learning more engaging and
effective. This also means that students will have less to study and more time
to explore areas of learning in which they are interested in.
Conclusion: In all the above discussed points
it’s visible that all the Governmental sectors need to work in collaboration to
bring change in system. Political and economic instability and lack of
resources are main issues which creates hurdle in policy implementation. National
education policies could not be implemented properly due to weak planning on
education and change of political scenario. Every educational system at every
level depends heavily on the human resources for execution of its programme.
Nwakaand Ofojebe (2010) stated that teachers are the critical resources for
effective implementation and realization of the educational policies and
objectives at the practical level of classroom. More investment is required in
the area of human resource management for development in educational sector.
In Pakistan we have 72
spoken languages and are in need of a more inclusive language policy. Provision
of more equitable access to learning English. Need to declare the English
language as first language and mother tongue as second language, otherwise our
students will not be able to become confident and efficient in working field.
We need to develop a systematic approach through which curriculum development
should be done and declares it as continuous process. Planning should be done
by taking public and private sector in a loop. Curriculum should be learner
centered and more focus should be on pre- primary education which strengthen
the education system. Government should
take initiatives to bring change in examination system to avoid rote learning,
no national curriculum could be implemented without reforms in examination
system. Another aspect is adequate training of teachers, for which public
–private partnerships are needed. Government should facilitate the low fee
structure private schools by supporting them, provide registration without
charges and exemption from certain regulations and taxes. Intervention form
government sector is required for existing financial assistance programs for
government schools students should be extended to needy students in non-govt.
school. Incentives should be enhanced so that non-govt. schools can thrive.
Instead of setting more universities there should be more vocational training
institutes which are needed to provide skill workers for economic growth. As in
Singapore they sets different boards to cater the children with different
abilities in same manner we need to channelize our youth in different fields of
learning rather than just a university graduate. Government should take
measures to allocate the specific areas through which educational policies can
be altered to develop more effective education system which fulfills the
socio-economic need of country.
Reference by:
·
British
Journal of Education, Vol.2, No.7, pp.26-31, December 2014, Published by
European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
·
http://educationist.com.pk/educational-policies-of-pakistan-where-pakistan-stands/
·
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311992398_The_education_system_in_Singapore
·
Tharman, S. (2004). Speech by Mr. Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Minister for
Education at the MOE Work Plan Seminar 2004. On Wednesday, 29 September 2004 at
9:50 am at the Ngee Ann Polytechnic Convention Centre. Available online at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2004/sp20040929.htm
·
Ho,
W. K. & Gopinathan, S. (1999). Recent developments in education in
Singapore. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(1), pp. 99-117.
·
Tan,
C. (2008). Globalisation, the Singapore state and educational reforms: Towards
Performativity. Education, Knowledge and Economy, 2(2), 111-120
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete