English in Singapore: Modernity and Management

9. Problematizing the implementation of innovation in English language education in Singapore

9 Problematizing the implementation of innovation in English language education in Singapore Rani Rubdy Much has been written about Singapore’s successful implementation of its syllabus reforms and carefully monitored innovations in English language education in the course of its 45-year-old history. Yet the history of educational change has shown that in spite of large and expensive campaigns undertaken at the national level, 75% of them fail to survive in the long term or die out (Adam and Chen 1981), that disappointingly few proposed ‘improvements’ catch on (Fullan 1982). Indeed, the success of curriculum innovations is more often than not determined by their contextual validity and the extent to which they are perceived to be relevant, appropriate, empowering and ‘owned’ rather than imposed. In the case of Singapore, one reason for the government’s continued investment in English language education is the critical role it has come to play in building the human and social capital necessary for harnessing the global economy. Education is largely under the control of the government, with a centralized curriculum. The Ministry of Education (MOE) takes the initiative for syllabus design, development, revision and review, usually in response to policies motivated by social, economic and political forces and changing trends in mainstream ELT theory and practice. Changes to the syllabus are centrally mandated for nationwide implementation and teachers are expected to faithfully implement them at the classroom level. Such reform initiatives are generally accompanied not only by changes in textbooks but massive efforts at teacher training. Indeed, the MOE’s emphasis on training and re-training is a recognition of the important role that teachers play in helping to sustain change, and appears to be favourable to curriculum reform and educational change. It also reflects how in Singapore, belief in planning as a guiding ideology leads to proactive government intervention in the domain of education and is met with unanimous acceptance and little overt resistance. However, this chapter argues that despite these well-intentioned attempts at curriculum renewal, 208 Rani Rubdy real change at the level of the classroom has been problematic. It suggests that the reason for this might well be that central government control such as that found in Singapore necessarily stifles innovation and impedes ownership of the reform by its recipients. It contends that while such syllabus renewal initiatives may, to some extent, help achieve the country’s economic targets and nation-building projects through the socialization of a skilled but docile workforce, their full potential is not likely to be realized, given that they fall short of fostering the creativity and criticality necessary for young Singaporeans desiring to integrate into the New World Order. Towards educational excellence: The evolution of English language education in Singapore The English language curriculum that has evolved in Singapore has been revised several times, roughly every ten years or so, mainly in response to a range of educational and pedagogical influences in the West and the changing perceptions of national goals and needs. Three or four distinct stages of innovation have been identified since the first major syllabus revision in the 1960s, much in line with Singapore’s larger educational reform agenda: a survival-driven education system (1965–78); an efficiency-driven education system (1979–90); and an ability-driven education system (1991–2000) (Pakir 2004). The current phase (2001 onwards), driven by a Knowledge-Based Economy, aims to nurture talent and develop individual potential to the fullest in enhancing Singapore’s business competitiveness, and English language education plays a pre-eminent role within it. Indeed, standards of English have remained a continuing concern at the highest levels of decisionmaking , strongly influencing the nature and direction of these reforms. In delineating the ‘what’ of these syllabus reforms, I will briefly review these stages, touching only on the essentials, since much scholarship exists already on the nature and content of these reforms, tracing important developments in the English syllabus from the 1950s to the present (Cheah 1997, 1998, 2004; Gopinathan et al. 1998; Ang 2000; C. Lim 2000, 2003, 2004; Lin 2003; Chew 2005, 2006, 2007a, 2007b; Zhang 2006). This will enable me to focus more on the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of these reforms and to gain a critical understanding of how the structures and practices embodied in the Singapore educational system reflect the values, priorities and ideological assumptions held by the educational authorities. 209 Problematizing the implementation of innovation in English language...