Journal of Educational AdministrationDecentralization and marketization of education in Singapore: A case study of theschool excellence modelKa-ho Mok

Article information:To cite this document:Ka-ho Mok, (2003),"Decentralization and marketization of education in Singapore", Journal of EducationalAdministration, Vol. 41 Iss 4 pp. 348 - 366Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230310481621

Downloaded on: 11 September 2016, At: 02:05 (PT)References: this document contains references to 69 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2769 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:(2008),"The phases and paradoxes of educational quality assurance: The case of theSingapore education system", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 16 Iss 2 pp. 112-125 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684880810868402(2008),"A comparative study of Singapore's school excellence model with Hong Kong's school-basedmanagement", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 22 Iss 6 pp. 488-505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513540810895426(2008),"Singapore's global education hub ambitions: University governance change and transnationalhigher education", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 22 Iss 6 pp. 527-546 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513540810895444

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:270633 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

Decentralization andmarketization of education in

SingaporeA case study of the

school excellence modelKa-ho Mok

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, City University of Hong Kong,Kowloon, Hong Kong

Keywords Globalization, Markets, Education, Governance, Singapore

Abstract Globalization and the evolution of a knowledge-based economy have caused dramaticchanges to the character and functions of education in most countries around the world. In orderto enhance the overall competitiveness of individual nation-states in the global marketenvironment, comprehensive education reforms have been launched in different parts of the globeto strengthen manpower training. Realizing the fact that there is only one resource in Singapore –human capital – the Singapore government therefore has tried to maximize the potential of itscitizens in the further advancement of its economic modernization. In order to make its citizensmore creative and innovative, the Singapore government openly acknowledges the importance ofallowing more autonomy for schools in charting their own courses of development. By introducinga policy of decentralization, the Singapore government hopes that schools could have moreautonomy and flexibility to develop their strengths and thereby individual schools can evolve withtheir own unique features. One way to promote quality education is the introduction of the “schoolexcellence model” (SEM) to engage schools in self-improvement and self-assessment exercises. Thispaper sets out in this policy context to examine and study the newly proposed SEM, with particularreference to examining and studying the philosophy and principles, major features and detailedprocedures of this quality assurance model. More specifically, this paper will also analyze this modelin light of the global trends of educational decentralization and marketization, reflecting upon thechanging role of the Singapore government in educational governance.

IntroductionPreparing for the new century, the Singapore government openlyacknowledges the importance to reform its education systems in order tomake its citizens more competitive and competent in the open global marketplace. The introduction of “Thinking schools, learning nation” (TSLN), whichwas first introduced by the Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in July1997, came on to be the central theme for the current tidal wave of educationreform in Singapore. While the notion of “thinking schools” deals with theschool education on infusing students with independent and creative thinkingskills, that of “learning nation” aims at cultivating habits of continuouslearning so as to apt for changes in the era of globalization and the information

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

JEA41,4

348

Received May 2002Accepted October 2002

Journal of EducationalAdministrationVol. 41 No. 4, 2003pp. 348-366q MCB UP Limited0957-8234DOI 10.1108/09578230310481621

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

age. This paper sets out in this policy context to examine and study the newlyproposed (SEM), with particular reference to examining and studying thephilosophy and principles, major features and detailed procedures of thisquality assurance model. More specifically, this paper will also analyze thismodel in light of the global trends of educational decentralization andmarketization, reflecting upon the changing role of the Singapore governmentin educational governance.

Globalization, state competitiveness and educational restructuringOver the last decade, people have begun to talk about the impact of globalizationon economic, social, political and cultural fronts (see, for example, Giddens,1990; Sklair, 1991; Held, 1991; Fukuyama, 1992; Robertson, 1995; Waters, 2001).As Morrow and Torres (2000) have rightly suggested, different scholars mayhave had different interpretations of the phenomena of globalization. Despitethe difficulty in getting a consensual view of when did globalization originate,there is no doubt that the globalization discourse has become increasinglypopular after the end of the Cold War in 1989. When talking about“globalization”, sociologists generally refer to the complex set of processeswhich “result from social interaction on a world scale, such as the developmentof an increasingly integrated global economy and the explosion of worldwidetelecommunications” (Sklair, 1999; Giddens, 1999). Malcolm Waters, the authorof Globalization, sees globalization as “a social process in which the constraintsof geography on social and cultural arrangements recede and in which peoplebecome increasingly aware that they are receding” (Waters, 1995, p. 3). Moreimportantly, “globalization also influences our everyday life as much as it doesevents happening on a world scale” and “globalization is restructuring the waysin which we live, and in a very profound manner” (Giddens, 1999, p. 4). As theprocesses of globalization are so complicated, developments in economics,politics and culture are not immune from such restructuring processes.

The growing impact of globalization has unquestionably drawn a number ofpeople to believe that there are many aspects of globalization that go beyondthe control of nation-states. It is also argued that the newly-risen globalcapitalism has inevitably forced individual nation states to change both theirroles and their constitutions in order to creatively adapt to the demands andpressures generated from changing external environments. In addition,globalization and the evolution of a knowledge-based economy have generatedadditional pressures for nation states to improve/maintain their“competitiveness” in the global market environment. In order to enhancetheir national capacity, education reforms have become common agendasamong nation states of advanced industrialized countries since the 1980s(OECD, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001). Striving for what Cerny calls “competitivestate”, an increasing number of countries/societies have been engaging incomprehensive reviews of their education systems and introduced fundamental

School excellencemodel

349

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

reforms in education (Cheng and Townsend, 2001; Mok and Chan, 2002; Mokand Welch, 2002). It is within such a wider socio-historical and socio-economiccontext that dramatic changes have been caused to the characters andfunctions of education in most countries around the world. However, theimpacts of globalization on schools and universities are not uniform thoughbusiness-like practices have been adopted to cope with competitions in theglobal marketplace (Green, 1997; Mok, 2001a; Mok and Welch, 2002).

In face of financial constraints and weakened state capacity in socialservice/policy provisions, the pressure for restructuring and reformingeducation is increasingly driven by growing expectations and demands ofdifferent stakeholders in society. In recent years, widespread concerns overwidened access, funding, accountability, quality, and managerial efficiency areperceived as the prominent global trends related to education (Currie andNewson, 1998; Mok and Welch, 2002). Because of the divergent political, social,economic, cultural and historical backgrounds, national/local governmentsmay adopt similar strategies in response to pressures generated fromglobalization. Some popular public policy measures commonly adopted bymodern states is the policies of decentralization and marketization, even thoughthere is no consensus on whether a policy of centralization or decentralization ismore effective to improve the organization and management of the publicsector (Fiske, 1996; Dill and Sporn, 1995).

Decentralization and educational governanceThe discernible trend of restructuring of the role of the state in running thepublic sector has undoubtedly affected the governance of education, andeventually led to a fundamental change in state-education relationships. One ofthe changes is the adoption of the policy of decentralization. Based upon thework of Rondinelli and his associates (Rondinelli and Nellis, 1986), Hyden(1983) and others, Turner and Hulme (1997, p. 153) identify at least six majortypes of decentralization, namely, devolution, deconcentralization,privatization of devolved functions, interest group representation,establishment of quangos and privatization of national functions.

In reality, the nature of decentralization is far more complicated sincehybrids and “mixed authorities” can occur, and hence all systems ofgovernment involve a combination of centralized and decentralized authority(Turner and Hulme, 1997). Similarly, Bray (1999) believes the processes ofcentralization and decentralization are dynamic since they are “-zations” ratherthan static situations. During such processes, we may easily observe theco-existence of both decentralizing and centralizing trends in which “controlwas centralized but is then made less centralized, and to systems which werealready decentralized but become even more decentralized” (Bray, 1999, p. 208).It must be noted that policies/practices of decentralization have long beenadopted as strategies by different nation states to reform and to improve their

JEA41,4

350

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

administrative systems, and three major forms of decentralization are hereinidentified:

(1) deconcentration typically involves the transfer of tasks and work, butnot authority, to other units in the organization;

(2) delegation involves the transfer of decision-making authority fromhigher to lower hierarchical units, but that authority can be withdrawnat the discretion of the delegating unit; and

(3) devolution refers to the transfer of authority to an autonomous unit thatcan act independently, or a unit that can act without first askingpermission (Hanson, 1998, p. 112; Bray, 1999).

We may also conceptualize the three major types of decentralization discussedabove into two main categories, namely functional decentralization andterritorial decentralization. Functional decentralization refers to “a shift in thedistribution of powers between various authorities that operate in parallel”while territorial decentralization refers to “a redistribution of control among thedifferent geographical tiers of government, such as nation, states/provinces,districts, and schools” (Bray, 1999, pp. 208-9), with the public/statutorycorporations being a good example of this type of decentralization. We mustalso note that the range of models for educational decentralization can be verywide. During the processes of centralization and decentralization, it is veryoften that a process of re-centralization may take place for the fear of losingcontrol (Tatto, 1999). In some occasions, we can easily identify the process of“centralized decentralization” in the education sector, which is particularly truewhen the state/government does not impose detailed controls over educationalinstitutions. In introducing various regulatory frameworks, mechanisms orassessment/quality assurance systems, the state/government could easilysteer/control the developments of educational institutions at a distance (Massenand van Vught, 1994; Neave, 1995).

Therefore, operational decentralization is combined with the centralizationof strategic command in educational governance, whereby the academicautonomy becomes a regulated one (Hoggett, 1991; Mok and Lee, 2000). Hence,we may find the co-existence of trends that are centralizing, decentralizing andre-centralizing in the governance of education in some countries, since theseprocesses are fluid and in motion, and can thus change over time (Bray, 1999).Therefore, a better understanding of the models for governing educationadopted by any countries/places must be analyzed in the wider contexts ofpolitical ideologies, historical legacies, and other factors such as linguisticplurality, geographic size, and ease of communications (Bray, 1999). In additionto the global trend of decentralization, policies and strategies of marketizationand privatization have become increasingly popular in educational governance,especially under the impact of globalization.

School excellencemodel

351

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

Marketization and educational governanceClosely related to the globalization discourse is the notion of “competitiveness”.In order to make individual nation-states more competitive, schools anduniversities in different parts of the globe have been under tremendouspressures from government and the general public to restructure/reinventthemselves in order to adapt to the ever-changing socio-economic andsocio-political environments. As Martin Carnoy has pointed out, “globalizationenters the education sector on an ideological horse, and its effects in educationare largely a product of that financially driven, free-market ideology, not a clearconception for improving education” (Carnoy, 2000, p. 50). According to Carnoy(2000), the ideological horse in the context of globalization could becharacterized by a finance-driven reform emphasizing decentralization,privatization and better performance. In order to promote competitiveness,discourse of economicism, ideological stance as performativity (Lingard, 2000;Ball, 1998) and notions of neo-liberalism (Apple, 2000; Morrow and Torres,2000) have become increasingly popular in governing education reforms andeducational developments across the globe.

Realizing the fact that modern states have to run their businesses withlimited resources in the present social and economic context, coupled with theintensified pressures to improve their competitiveness, different governancestrategies such as decentralization, privatization, marketization,commodification, etc. are adopted. It is within this wider policy context ofmarketization and privatization that educational governance has beensignificantly affected by a number of higher education institutions whichintend and attempt to follow the example of business by adopting corporatedecision-making and planning strategies, as well as in the using of economicmeasures of productivity. The impact of business management techniques andmanagerial culture can be reflected from the changing organizational culture inschools and higher education institutions.

At the same time, with a major shift from elite to mass education systems,schools are under increasing pressure to improve both the quality and themarket value of their courses and programs, as a kind of commodity andservice provided to customers or students, in a customer-oriented andmarket-driven environment. The notions of vocationalism and pragmatismhave applied to the latest development of school/university education in mostcountries around the world. It is note-worthy that similar developments can beeasily identified in East Asia (Mok and Welch, 2002). In his recent studies, Mokhas contrasted and compared the changing higher education governancemodels in the “four little dragons” of Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea andTaiwan, and has discovered that similar ideas and practices along the line ofdecentralization, marketization and corporatization are adopted in thesesocieties, in order to make their education systems more competitive in theglobal market (Mok, 2000a, b, 2001b, c). This paper sets out in such a wider

JEA41,4

352

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

public context to examine when and how SEM has been introduced by theSingapore government to reform its school quality assurance system from anexternally driven inspection to an internal self-assessment exercise.

The role of education in Singapore’s economic and socialdevelopmentsA better understanding of the most recent reforms and new initiatives that theSingapore government has adopted to restructuring/reforming its educationsystem could be obtained by linking the analysis of educational reforms withthe wider public policy orientation and the unique governance philosophy thatthe Singapore government has adhered to since the founding of the city state.The Singapore’s governance philosophy is to ensure a good life for allSingaporeans through the maximization of political stability and economicgrowth (Quah, 2001). Openly recognizing the growing impact of globalization,the Singapore government is well aware of two developmental challenges in theearly years of the twenty-first century, namely, enhancing national economiccompetitiveness in the global market place and fostering social cohesion in thecity state (Tan, 2001). Low nicely describes the role of Singapore government ineducation, suggesting that “the role of education and human resourcedevelopment in economic growth and development is unequivocal and, in theSingapore context, public policies and strategies in education, training andmanpower development as a leading edge have paid off handsomely in theeconomic and socio-political success it enjoys today” (Low, 2001, p. 305).

As the survival of Singapore closely relates to its economic development andracial harmony, education is placed at the paramount position in its publicpolicy agendas. Taken the calls to upgrade education and training as primesources of national economic competitiveness seriously, the Singaporegovernment has consciously attempted to tailor the education system toperceived economic needs. Such efforts received added impetus in the wake ofthe 1985-1986 economic recession. An Economic Committee recommended theeducation of each individual to his maximum potential, and the development ofcreativity and flexible skills in order to maintain Singapore’s internationalcompetitiveness in the global economy (Ministry of Trade and Industry,Singapore, 1986). The need for creativity and innovation was repeated in areport by the Economic Planning Committee in 1991 (Ministry of Trade andIndustry, Singapore, 1991). Once again, schools and universities have beencalled upon to play a major role in bringing about this change (Lee, 1996). Themost recent proposed reforms in the education system and the introduction ofTSLN vision, coupled with the implementation of SEM, can be understood aspart and parcel of the larger “social reengineering” project initiated by thegovernment to strengthen its socio-economic position in the regional, and eventhe global, market context (Tan, 1999a).

School excellencemodel

353

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

SEM in the context of TSLNIn order to have a better understanding of the origin of the SEM vision, wemust trace it back to the developments and reforms in Singapore’s educationsystems in the 1980s. As the government has been very keen to developeducation with the intention to make its citizens more competitive andinnovative, various reform measures have been initiated by the Singaporegovernment since the past decade or so. As Gopinathan (1999) suggested, theintroduction of the SEM is closely related to the education reforms in the past15 years. By the closing years of the twentieth century, in a bid to foster greatercreativity and innovation in students, the Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr GohChok Tong, openly recognized the challenge brought by the strong tide ofglobalization (Goh, 1997, p. 1).

Well aware that globalization poses challenges to the future development ofSingapore, the government has attempted to equip people with creative andcritical thinking skills, making them to become change-adaptive individualswell-equipped with entrepreneurial skills (Tan, 1998). To fulfill this mission,Mr Goh therefore introduced the idea of TSLN to set a climate for continuallearning among students and teachers. He told the audience at the ThinkingConference held in July 1997 that:

We cannot assume that what has worked well in the past will work for the future. The oldformulae for success are unlikely to prepare our young for the new circumstances and newproblems they will face. We do not even know what these problems will be, let alone be ableto provide the answers and solutions to them. But we must ensure that our young can thinkfor themselves, so that the next generation can find their own solutions to whatever newproblems they may face. Singapore’s vision for meeting this challenge is encapsulated in fourwords THINKING SCHOOLS, LEARNING NATION (TSLN). It is a vision for a total learningenvironment, including students, teachers, parents, workers, companies, communityorganizations and government” (Goh, 1997, cited in Tan, 1998, p. 3, italics added by theauthor).

The TSLN vision can be seen as the overall descriptor of an entire educationsystem geared to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century ahead. AsSingapore, like Hong Kong, is too small to exert its influence in shaping “globalagenda” of the future world, therefore the quality of its people is extremelyimportant to prepare for the future challenges that are externally imposed. Onthe whole, the introduction of TSLN education reform in the recent years is torespond to the changes derived from the global economy, on the one hand, andto prepare the nation and its people for the realization of a knowledge-basedeconomy, which is transformed from a manufactured-based economy with thecompletion of the industrialization process, on the other hand.

Central to the TSLN scheme is to develop all students into active learnerswith critical thinking skills, and on developing a creative and critical thinkingculture within schools. Its key strategies include: the explicit teaching of criticaland creative thinking skills; the reduction of subject syllabi content; therevision of assessment modes; and a greater emphasis on processes instead of

JEA41,4

354

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

on outcomes when appraising schools (Ministry of Education, 1997). A starthas been made in the implementation of these strategies in all schools. Forinstance, the SEM is currently being tested on a pilot basis in some schoolsbefore being launched in all schools in the year 2000. This model is meant forschools to utilize when conducting self-appraisal exercises (Ministry ofEducation, 1999).

Policy of decentralization and SEMAllowing greater autonomy to schools had dated back to early 1985 when thethen Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, already spoke of the need toallow more autonomy within schools. Goh believed that by devolving moreresponsibilities for schools to appoint staff, devise their own school curriculaand choose their own textbooks, schools would then be able to develop theirown unique characters and individuality. Having a comprehensive review ofthe system in the mid-1980s, the government began to allow more autonomy toschools by diversifying its school systems. Believing that TSLN is not just aslogan for the Ministry of Education, but rather a formula to enable Singaporeto compete and stay ahead, it is hoped that the ideal students, under theframework of TSLN, would be “literate, numerate, IT-enabled, able to collate,synthesise, analyse and apply knowledge to solve problems, capable of beingcreative and innovative, not risk-averse, be able to work both independentlyand in groups and be a lifelong learner” (cited in Gopinathan, 2001a, pp. 11-12).In order to make students to become the ideal type for Singapore, thegovernment has adopted a policy of decentralization to increase schoolautonomy to run their own businesses.

Under the policy framework of decentralization, different types of schoolshave been set up since then, namely: independent schools, autonomous schoolsand ordinary government schools. To date, there are eight independent,well-established and prestigious secondary schools in Singapore; while moreschools are now being turned into autonomous schools. “Autonomous schools”are supposed to provide a high quality of education while charging moreaffordable fees than independent schools. In order to foster greater autonomy toschool principals, the government also set up the Education EndowmentScheme in 1993 to offer additional grants for individual schools in supportingdevelopment plans and enriching students’ co-curricular activities organizedby schools (Tan, 2001; Gopinathan, 2001b). All the initiatives outlined abovehave already suggested that the Singapore government has long been wellconscious about the importance of making its citizens more innovative andcreative in thinking, and thus prepare them for intensified globalizationchallenges.

In positioning the SEM in the larger education reform project, as started bythe Singapore government in the past decade, it is clear that the SEM is a tool toturn schools into creative and innovative learning organizations, and hopefully,

School excellencemodel

355

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

students would eventually be nurtured as creative thinkers. After examiningthe policy background for the SEM, let us now turn to the origins, core valuesand central features of the SEM.

SEM: origins, core values and featuresOrigins and core valuesSince schooling provision in Singapore has long been driven by “economicinstrumentalism”, and that economic competitiveness has been the majornational project, the introduction of the SEM is intended to replace theexternal-driven school inspection model with an internal assessmentapproach. In line with the “TSLN” vision, the Ministry of Education ofSingapore (MOE) sees the SEM as a “systematic framework for helpingschools become excellence organizations as they drive towards theachievement of the Desired Outcomes of Education” (Ministry ofEducation, 2000). Seeing continual improvement and the drive forexcellence as the cornerstone of success for education, the MOE thereforeinstructs individual schools to identify their strengths, weaknesses and areasfor improvement in order that schools can “reengineer” themselves forexcellence (Ministry of Education, 2000).

Since the Singapore government has long attached weigh to high servicequality not only in the private sector but also in the public sector, thegovernment has deliberately promoted high quality service image both in thedomestic context and in the global context for the past decade or so. Morespecifically, the Singapore Productivity and Standards Board assists privateand public organizations to engage in continual quality improvement projectsby certifying their quality performance. Adopting principles and practices fromthe business sector to run public services, the Singapore government stronglybelieves that the newly proposed SEM can be a way to promote quality servicein the education sector (field interview with Prof. Gopinathan, March 2001).The importance of quality and continual upgrading is reinforced by the officialdocument of the SEM which states clearly that:

The framework and scoring method are adapted from the business excellence modeldeveloped by the European Foundation of Quality Management (EFQM). The adaptedframework offers schools a clear framework of reference with which school leaders can easilycommunicate and motivate staff to superior performance . . . The use of indicators and areasto address are adapted from the Singapore Quality Award (SQA) model and the educationversion of the American Malcome Baldrige National Quality Award model (MBNQA).Business and technical terms are changed wherever necessary, to educational ones. Aconscious effort is made to align the SEM to the SQA. This alignment is important as it willenable schools to pitch themselves against national benchmarks for organizational excellence(http://intranet.moe.sg/schdiv/part_1_content.htm p. 1).

In addition to the adoption of business principles and practices as organizingtool in school management and governance, there are seven fundamentalvalues and principles underpinning the SEM framework, namely, student first,

JEA41,4

356

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

teachers – the key, leading with purpose, systems support, working withpartners, management by knowledge, and continuous improvement andinnovation. All these core values have taken into consideration the attributesthat make a school successful, and together they define the purpose of SEM,that is, to enable schools to seek continuous improvement and innovation.Primarily, the seven core values underscore the tenet that, above all else, “thedevelopment of students is at the heart of all education processes”. The MOEbelieves that once people in the school setting are motivated and sensitized tothe drive for excellence, and if the quality assurance systems are sound, thenorganizational excellence will be eventually achieved, thereby schools willbecome agents for continuous improvement and innovation (Ministry ofEducation, 2001).

Central features and the frameworkCentral to SEM is “self-assessment and analysis” and it is an organizing tool topromote school excellence. Turning from an external inspection to an internalappraisal exercise, individual schools are given more flexibility and autonomyto decide and chart their own development plans. Four major features of theSEM are discussed in the following sub-sections.

Self-assessment. The self-assessment approach requires schools to beself-questioning and self-initiative in reviewing their own current practices.Schools are required to look at their results and outcomes beyond academicperformance. They can benchmark processes against all appropriateorganizations (including schools, educational or public sector organizationsand commercial organization) in drawing up their improvement programmes.

Since 2000, all schools have used the SEM to do their own self-assessments.The SEM enables schools to assess themselves in a coherent manner at boththe macro and micro levels. It also provides a common language and frame ofreference within the school sector to learn more about themselves and becomparable with others. Then good practices within the school can beidentified and shared. Progress and outstanding achievements can also berecognized.

In the self-assessment process, school members have a chance to view theschool’s strengths and weaknesses. Such an involvement of staff promotes theownership of school’s improvement and shared vision. The SEM also allowsschools to determine their status of growth. Based on the findings, schools canprioritize the areas for improvement and draw up action plans. Then schoolscan focus their resources, integrate improvement strategies into the normalschool operations and monitor the progress of plans. Furthermore, schoolslearn how to develop their growth plan and strategy by going through the cycleof evaluating and taking action repeatedly. In the long run, schools can raisetheir professional level and education management capabilities by sustainingtheir self-assessment processes.

School excellencemodel

357

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

Integration. The SEM provides a systemic framework for schools to examinetheir practices comprehensively but not discretely. Under such a framework,schools can anchor the different initiatives undertaken in recent years.Principals can use SEM to link and communicate the initiatives so that theinitiatives complement each other instead of competing against each other.

Dynamism. The SEM is not a “one-size-fits-all” instrument. It realizes thatdifferent approaches are relevant in achieving the desired outcomes ofeducation. Indeed, the ability-driven education paradigm encourages adiversity of approaches in order to enrich education system in Singapore. Asthe schools keep on using the SEM to assess themselves, the SEM detailsshould be updated in the process. Therefore, the framework can continue to bedynamic and relevant in alignment with current expectations and thinking.

External validation. The SEM requires schools to be externally validatedonce every five years by the School Appraisal Branch. The main purpose of thevalidation is to introduce an external perspective to a school’s assessment. Byapplying for the external validation, schools can reap benefits as follows:

. The validation process will enable schools to sharpen the focus of theirinternal self-assessment procedures and calibrate the process.

. The feedback report will provide an external view of the strengths thatschools could build upon and the improvements that will carry themforward in the provision of better quality education.

. The preparation will give the staff a clear and tangible objective to worktowards. Good teamwork can be fostered.

. The site-visit will heighten staff awareness of the importance ofinvolvement and commitment to excellence.

. The process also raises staff’s pride in themselves, their work and theirschool and lead to improved overall performance (quoted from Ministry ofEducation, 1999).

Furthermore, the MOE can ensure the consistency of the application of theSEM across the board through this external validation process. Moreimportantly, based on the information and knowledge from the reviews ofschools, the MOE can assist the schools in accordance with their status andspecific needs. Having discussed the core values and central features of theSEM, let us now turn to the framework for assessing schools, with particularreference to the concrete criteria in schools’ self-assessment exercise.

The SEM framework has two broad categories, namely “enablers” and“results”. The enablers category is concerned with how results are achieved,while the results category is related to what the schools have achieved or areachieving. More importantly, the framework requires schools to examine thedesign, delivery and output of education in light of the processes and resultsinvolved. The enablers focus on how the school leadership leads people and

JEA41,4

358

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

manages systems to produce the desired results. Detailed criteria are presentedin Figure 1.

The first aspect of assessment focuses on how school leaders and theschool’s leadership system address values and focus on student learning andperformance excellence; and how the school addresses its responsibilitiestowards society. Further attention will be given to strategic planning ofindividual schools by examining the question of how the school sets clearstakeholders-focused strategic directions; develops action plans to support itsdirections, deploys the plans and tracks performance. In addition, thevalidation team will examine staff management issues by reviewing how theschool develops and utilizes the full potential of its staff to create an excellentschool. How the school manages its internal resources and its externalpartnerships effectively and efficiently in order to support its strategicplanning and the operation of its processes is another major area for appraisal.Student-focused processes, administrative and operational results are otherareas for examination by exploring how the school designs, implements,manages and improves key processes to provide a holistic education and worktowards enhancing student well-being and what the school is achieving inrelation to the efficiency and effectiveness of the school. Additionally, thevalidation team will look for areas related to: staff results, i.e. what the school isachieving in relation to the training and development, morale of its staff; andpartnership and society results such as what the school is achieving in relationto its partners and the community at large. Last but not least, key performanceresults will be examined in reviewing what the school is achieving in theholistic development of its students, in particular, the extent to which the

Figure 1.The framework and

detailed criteria

School excellencemodel

359

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

school is able to achieve the desired outcomes of education (quoted fromMinistry of Education, 1999).

Decentralization and marketization of education in SingaporeThe above discussion has indicated that the Singapore government has beenaware of the importance to allow schools to have more autonomy in order thatthey can have more room and flexibility to decide their own development plans.The adoption of decentralization policy has undoubtedly affected thegovernance of education, and has eventually led to a fundamental change instate-education relationships. In order to make its schools and its citizens morecompetitive and competent to face the future challenges, the government hastherefore taken a proactive approach to reform its education system. Byproviding more autonomy and flexibility to the school sector, together withprinciples and strategies adopted from the business and commercial sectors,the Singapore government believes schools can be turned into learningorganizations and students will become more creative and innovative in theirthinking.

Conceptualizing the recent developments in school management andgovernance change in light of the theoretical framework discussed at thebeginning of the paper, we may find that various kinds of decentralizationco-exist in Singapore’s school sector, namely, deconcentration, devolution anddelegation. More important of all, educational decentralization in Singaporeshould not be understood as the entire withdrawal of the state in educationalgovernance. Once power is decentralized to the school sector, the government isvery concerned about whether education standards and qualities could bemaintained and upheld. Therefore, different quality assurance mechanismsand exercises are introduced in education, and internal competition has beenencouraged, to promote efficiency, effectiveness and economy in running theschool sector (Mok, 2000a, b; Mok and Lee, 2000, 2001). A shift fromcentralization towards decentralization means that restrictions on schools havenow been reduced as to how they can achieve their missions and objectives.However, the decision-making power devolved from the government has begunto re-centralize by the institutionalization of quality assurance mechanisms inschool governance and management, because a “centralized decentralization”strategy is needed to avoid the loss of control on quality, authoritativecommunication and managerial scrutiny, as Watkins (1993) has rightlysuggested in terms of educational governance.

Like the school sector, the promotion of quality control in the universitysector is definitely putting pressure on its faculty staff for a higher level ofperformance as well. The adoption of the decentralization policy in Singaporeuniversities has indeed strengthened the state’s role because it has beenaccompanied by performance reviews and regular inspections. To make itsuniversity system more competitive in the pursuit of the world class university

JEA41,4

360

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

status, the Singapore government now grants more autonomy to individualuniversities in order to cultivate the spirit of entrepreneurialism and creativityamong universities, academics and students alike. Such measures are meant topromote the skills and attitudes required for competitiveness in the globaleconomy (Tan, 1999b). Nonetheless, the “autonomization” process does notnecessarily mean that state control and regulation have reduced. On thecontrary, the introduction of stringent measures have held universitiesaccountable to the public, and the implementation of various kinds of qualityassurance activities in Singapore’s universities can be seen as clear indicatorsof re-centralization, although by different means (Mok, 2000c; Mok and Lee,2001). Hence, it is not surprising that many university academics may considerthe policy of decentralization as another process of re-regulation or “centralizeddecentralization” (Lee and Gopinathan, 2001), instead of a genuine policy ofdecentralization and deregulation (Tan, 1999b). In this regard, we can see theco-existence of the dual processes of “decentralization” and “re-centralization”taking place in Singapore’s education sector at the same time, which are thereto strengthen the government’s control, instead of marking a genuine processof devolution in educational governance. Such developments could beconceptualized by the notion of “centralized decentralization” in educationalgovernance.

In addition to the trend of educational decentralization, educationdevelopment in Singapore has been affected by the strong tide ofmarketization and privatization. Schools and universities nowadaysexperience pressures from the government, the main provider of education,to demonstrate maximum outputs from the financial inputs they are given. At atime of economic constraint, people begin to ask for better use of limited publicmoney, thus more attention is given to the issue of “value for money” and howthe investment in education can best facilitate social and economicdevelopments (Mok and Lo, 2001; Lee, 2000; Law, 2003). In order to makethe delivery of education more efficient and effective, there has been anideologically driven and increasingly popular trend of marketization andprivatization in education sector in the region (Kwong, 2000; Bray, 2000).According to Tan, Singapore’s school system has been experiencing“marketization” since the mid-1980s. “The main manifestations ofmarketization have been increased school autonomy as well as increasedinter-school competition” (Tan, 2001, p. 135). Nonetheless, one major aspectthat the marketization project that is taking place in Singapore’s educationdiffers substantially from that in most other countries is related to financialaspect. “While financial stringency is a key motivating factor in many cases,the developments in Singapore are taking place against the backdrop ofhealthy budgetary surpluses and increased government expenditure oneducation” (Mok and Tan, in press, pp. 18-19).

School excellencemodel

361

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

What really characterizes the marketization project in Singapore is theadherence to “economic instrumentalism”, whereby market principles andpractices are adopted to improve governance and management of the educationsector. In general, scholars in Singapore have observed that what the Singaporegovernment really intends to do is to stress competition between schools.“Besides improving the quality of education, competition is supposed toprovide parents and students with a wider range of choices and to improveaccountability by forcing schools to improve their performance” (Goh, 1992,cited in Tan, 1999b, p. 6). The belief that marketization will increase efficiencyand will automatically achieve the universally desired outcomes is wellconnected with the neo-liberal ideology. In order to make the school systemmore responsive to the needs of the knowledge-based economy, the Singaporegovernment therefore adopts market principles and practices to manage theschool sector. Diversified education systems, i.e. the establishment ofautonomous schools, independent schools, government schools and thepossible emergence of private schools in Singapore have already confirmed onemajor element of marketization, whereby parents and students may have morechoices in education services (field interviews, February 2002, Singapore). Inshort, the new education reform initiatives, including the introduction of theSEM, have provided us with concrete evidence that the Singapore governmenthas responded to the urgency of globalization seriously by employingmarketization and decentralization strategies. By means of such reformmeasures, the government hopes to enhance the competitiveness of Singaporein the global market place.

ConclusionOur above discussion has suggested that the Singapore government hasinitiated a policy of decentralization in the education sector in recent years toallow individual schools to have more autonomy and to be responsible for theirown development plans but we should not reach the conclusion that the statehas retreated entirely from the education domain. Instead, the government hastaken a rather proactive approach to reviewing their education systems andhas started reforms to nurture more creative and innovative citizens for futuredevelopment. As the case of Singapore, the recent reform measures introducedto the education sector in general, and the introduction of new managementinitiatives (such as quality assurance mechanisms) in particular, can beunderstood as part and parcel of the nation-building project in the city state.The Singapore government has been very aware of the important role ofeducation, since it regards education reform as a way to maintain its owncompetitiveness and to uphold its reputation as a city state of “high quality”.By means of education, the Singapore government has attempted to inculcateits people a strong sense of belonging to its society. “Survival urges” have longbeen embedded in the Singapore leaders’ minds. The government, therefore,

JEA41,4

362

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

has consistently and continuously attached weight to education in Singapore asa nation-building strategy, and as the way to facilitate the competitiveness ofthe city state in the regional and global market contexts (Gopinathan, 2001b).

Most interesting of all, the case of Singapore demonstrates how a fragilestate can become strong because it gets its developmental priorities andpolicies right, and its education is well resourced, credible, productive andsignificant (Mok and Lee, 2001). The Singapore government has gainedlegitimacy through its ability to foster rapid economic growth by putting stresson meritocracy, high academic achievement and the relevance of education tomanpower planning (Quah, 1998). The reforms in Singapore’s education are toserve its political agenda so as to make the city state a cultural and academiccentre in the region, or the so-called “Boston of the East”. The Singaporegovernment does possess important tools for influencing economic, political,social and technological changes in the city state. In a government-madesociety (Low, 1998), the Singapore government has managed to manipulateforces generated from globalization to justify its own local political agenda bypushing education reforms to make Singapore a more competitive andeconomically vibrant society in the global market place (Mok and Lee, 2001).

References

Apple, M.W. (2000), “Between neoliberalism and neoconservatism: education and conservatismin a global context”, in Burbules, N.C. and Torres, C.A. (Eds), Globalization and Education:Critical Perspective, Routledge, New York, NY.

Ball, S.J. (1998), “Performativity and fragmentation in ‘postmodern schooling’”, in Carter, J. (Ed.),Postmodernity and Fragmentation of Welfare, Routledge, London.

Bray, M. (1999), “Control of education: issues and tensions in centralization and decentralization”,in Arnove, R.F. and Torres, C.A. (Eds), Comparative Education: The Dialectic of the Globaland the Local, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD.

Bray, M. (2000), “Financing higher education: patterns, trends and options”, Prospects, Vol. XXXNo. 3, pp. 331-48.

Carnoy, M. (2000), Sustaining the New Economy: Work, Family and Community in theInformation Age, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Cheng, Y.C. and Townsend, T. (2001), “Educational change and development in the Asia-Pacificregion: trends and issues”, in Cheng, Y.C. and Townsend, T. (Eds), Educational Changeand Development in the Asia-Pacific Region: Challenges for the Future, Swets & ZeitlingerPublishers, Exton.

Currie, J. and Newson, J. (1998), Universities and Globalisation: Critical Perspectives, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Dill, D.D. and Sporn, B. (1995), “The implications of a postindustrial environment for theuniversity: an introduction”, in Dill, D.D. and Sporn, B. (Eds), Emerging Patterns of SocialDemand and University Reform: Through a Glass Darkly, IAU Press, Oxford.

Fiske, E.B. (1996), Decentralization of Education: Politics and Consensus, The World Bank,Washington, DC.

Fukuyama, F. (1992), The End of History and the Last Man, Free Press, New York, NY.

Giddens, A. (1990), The Consequences of Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge.

School excellencemodel

363

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

Giddens, A. (1999), Runaway World, Profile Books, London.

Goh, C.T. (1997), “Shaping our futures: thinking schools, learning nation”, speech by PrimeMinister Goh Chok Tong at the opening of the 7th International Conference on Thinking,2 June, Suntec City Convention Centre Ballroom, Singapore.

Gopinathan, S. (1999), “Thinking schools and learning nation in Singapore”, paper presented tothe MERA-ERA Joint Conference 1999, Educational Challenges in the New Millennium,1-3 December, Malacca.

Gopinathan, S. (2001a), “Education reforms and policy change in Singapore”, paper presented atthe Seminar on Education Reforms and Policy Change in Singapore and Shanghai,co-organized by Comparative Education Policy Research Unit, City University of HongKong and Education Department, HKSAR Government, 22 June, City University of HongKong.

Gopinathan, S. (2001b), “Globalization, the state and education policy in Singapore”, in Tan, J.(Ed.), Challenges Facing the Singapore Education System Today, Prentice-Hall, Singapore.

Green, A. (1997), Education, Globalization and the Nation State, Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Hanson, E.M. (1998), “Strategies of educational decentralization: Key questions and core issues”,Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 111-28.

Held, D. (1991), “Democracy, the nation-state and the global system”, in Held, D. (Ed.), PoliticalTheory Today, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CT.

Hoggett, P. (1991), “A new management in the public sector?”, Policy and Politics, Vol. 19 No. 4,pp. 243-56.

Hyden, G. (1983), No Shortcuts to Progress: African Development Management in Perspective,Heinemann, London.

Kwong, J. (2000), “Introduction”, International Journal of Educational Development, No. 20,pp. 1-10.

Law, W.W. (2003), “Globalization, localization and education reform in a new democracy:Taiwan’s experience”, in Mok, K.H. and Welch, A. (Eds), Globalization and EducationalRestructuring in the Asia Pacific Region, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Lee, H.H. (2000), “Higher education in Hong Kong and Singapore: an optimistic or pessimisticfuture?”, paper presented at the Australian Association for Research and Education(AARE), 4-7 December, The University of Sydney, Sydney.

Lee, H.H. and Gopinathan, G. (2002), “Centralized decentralization of higher education inSingapore”, Education & Society, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 79-96.

Lee, H.L. (1996), “Our future depends on creative minds”, Speeches, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 34-41.

Lingard, B. (2000), “It is and it isn’t: vernacular globalization, education policy, andrestructuring”, in Burbules, N.C. and Torres, C.A. (Eds), Globalization and Education:Critical Perpsective, Routledge, New York, NY and London.

Low, L. (1998), The Political Economy of a City-state: Government-made Singapore, OxfordUniversity Press, Singapore.

Low, L. (2001), “Competitive education and human resource development: overseas education”, inLow, L. and Johnston, D.M. (Eds), Singapore Inc., Asia Pacific Press, Singapore.

Massen, P. and van Vught, F. (1994), “Alternative models of governmental steering in highereducation: an analysis of steering models and policy-instruments in five countries”, inGoedegebuure, L. and van Vught, F. (Eds), Comparative Policy Studies in HigherEducation, Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, Lemma.

Ministry of Education (1997), Masterplan for IT in Education, Ministry of Education, Singapore.

JEA41,4

364

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

Ministry of Education (1999), The School Excellence Model, Ministry of Education, Singapore.

Ministry of Education (2000), School Excellence Model, Ministry of Education, Singapore.

Ministry of Education (2001), Overview: School Excellence Model, Ministry of Education,Singapore.

Ministry of Trade and Industry, Singapore (1986), Report of the Economic Committee: TheSingapore Economy: New Directions, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Singapore.

Ministry of Trade and Industry, Singapore (1991), The Strategic Economic Plan: Towards aDeveloped Nation, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Singapore.

Mok, K.H. (2000a), “Marketizing higher education in post-Mao China”, International Journal ofEducational Development, 20, pp. 109-26.

Mok, K.H. (2000b), “Reflecting globalization effects on local policy: higher education reform inTaiwan”, Journal of Education Policy, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 637-60.

Mok, K.H. (2000c), “Impact of globalization: a study of quality assurance systems of highereducation in Hong Kong and Singapore”, Comparative Education Review, Vol. 44 No. 2,pp. 148-74.

Mok, K.H. (2001a), “Globalization and educational restructuring in the four East Asian Tigereconomies”, paper presented at the Comparative Education Society of Asia Year 2001Conference, National Taiwan Normal University, 13-15 November, Taipei.

Mok, K.H. (2001b), “Policy of decentralization and changing governance of higher education inpost-Mao China”, Public Administration and Development.

Mok, K.H. (2001c), “Academic capitalization in the new millennium: the marketization andcorporatization of higher education in Hong Kong”, Policy & Politics, Vol. 29 No. 3,pp. 299-316.

Mok, K.H. and Chan, D. (Eds) (2002), Globalization and Education: The Quest for QualityEducation in Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong.

Mok, K.H. and Lee, H.H. (2000), “Globalization or recolonization: higher education reforms inHong Kong”, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 13, pp. 361-77.

Mok, K.H. and Lee, H.H. (2001), “Globalization or glocalization? Higher education reforms inSingapore”, paper presented at the International Conference of Cultures of Learning: Risk,Uncertainty and Education, 19-22 April, University of Bristol, Bristol.

Mok, K.H. and Lo, H.C. (2001), “Marketization and the changing governance in higher education:a comparative studies of Hong Kong and Taiwan”, paper presented at the InternationalConference on Marketization and Higher Education in East Asia, 7-8 April, Shanghai.

Mok, K.H. and Tan, J. (in press), “Marketization and school education in Singapore”, in Mok, K.H.and Tan, J. (Eds), Globalization and Educational Restructuring in the Asia Pacific Region,Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Mok, K.H. and Welch, A. (2002), “Globalization, managerialism and structural reform ineducation”, in Mok, K.H. and Chan, D. (Eds), Globalization and Education: The Quest forQuality Education in Hong Kong,, Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong.

Morrow, R.A. and Torres, C.A. (2000), “The state, globalization, and education policy”, inBurbules, N.C. and Torres, C.A. (Eds), Globalization and Education: Critical Perspective,Routledge, New York, NY.

Neave, G. (1995), “The stirring of the prince and the silence of the lambs: the changingassumptions beneath higher education policy reform and society”, in David, D.D. andSporn, B. (Eds), Emerging Patterns of Social Demand and University Reform: Through aGlass Darkly, IAU Press, Oxford.

School excellencemodel

365

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

OECD (1997), Policy Analysis, OECD, Paris.

OECD (1998), Policy Analysis, OECD, Paris.

OECD (1999), Policy Analysis, OECD, Paris.

OECD (2001), Policy Analysis, OECD, Paris.

Quah, S.T. (1998), “Singapore’s model of development: is it transferable?”, in Rowen, H.S. (Ed.),Behind East Asian Growth: The Political and Social Foundations of Prosperity, Routledge,London and New York, NY.

Quah, S.T. (2001), “Singapore meritocratic city-state”, in Funston, J. (Ed.), Government andPolitics in Southeast Asia, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.

Robertson, R. (1995), Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, Sage Publications, London.

Rondinelli, D. and Nellis, J.R. (1986), “Assessing decentralization policies in developing countries:a case for cautious optimism”, Development Policy Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 3-23.

Sklair, L. (1991), Sociology of the Global System, Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York, NY.

Sklair, L. (1999), “Globalization”, in Taylor, S. (Ed.), Sociology: Issues and Debates, Macmillan,London.

Tan, J. (1999), “Education in Singapore in the early 21st century: challenges and dilemmas”,paper presented at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies Conference on Singapore in theNew Millennium: Challenges Facing the City-State, 25 August.

Tan, J. (2001), “Education in the early 21st century challenges and dilemmas”, in da Cunha, D.(Ed.), Singapore in the New Millennium, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.

Tan, W.H. (1998), “Shaping the education of the future – Singapore’s experience”, paperpresented at the International Conference on Restructuring the Knowledge Base ofEducation in Asia, 12-15 February, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Tan, W.H. (1999), “Shaping the education of the future – Singapore’s expectations”, EducationalJournal, Vol. 26 No. 2/Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 121-34.

Tatto, M.T. (1999), “Education reform and state power in Mexico: the paradoxes ofdecentralization”, Comparative Education Review, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 251-82.

Turner, M. and Hulme, D. (1997), Governance, Administration and Development, Palgrave,Basingstoke.

Waters, M. (1995), Globalization, Routledge, London.

Waters, M. (2001), Globalization, Routledge, London.

Watkins, P. (1993), “Centralized decentralization: Sloanism, marketing quality and highereducation”, Australian Universities Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 9-17.

JEA41,4

366

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

This article has been cited by:

1. Matthew Atencio, Yuen Sze Michelle Tan. 2016. Teacher deliberation within the context of Singaporeancurricular change: pre- and in-service PE teachers’ perceptions of outdoor education. The CurriculumJournal 27:3, 368-386. [CrossRef]

2. Joe Tin-Yau LoTextbook and Identity 263-294. [CrossRef]3. Matthew Atencio, Yuen Sze Michelle Tan, Susanna Ho, Chew Ting Ching. 2015. The place and approach

of outdoor learning within a holistic curricular agenda: development of Singaporean outdoor educationpractice. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 15:3, 181-192. [CrossRef]

4. Silvia Bacci, Michela Gnaldi. 2015. A classification of university courses based on students’ satisfaction:an application of a two-level mixture item response model. Quality & Quantity 49:3, 927-940. [CrossRef]

5. Naomi Aoki. 2015. Institutionalization of New Public Management: The case of Singapore’s educationsystem. Public Management Review 17:2, 165-186. [CrossRef]

6. Emerson Wagner Mainardes, Mário Raposo, Helena Alves. 2014. Universities Need a Market Orientationto Attract Non-Traditional Stakeholders as New Financing Sources. Public Organization Review 14:2,159-171. [CrossRef]

7. Eisuke Saito, Matthew Atencio. 2014. Group learning as relational economic activity. Educational Review66:1, 96-107. [CrossRef]

8. Philip Hallinger, Tai Hoi Theodore Lee, Elson Szeto. 2013. Review of Research on EducationalLeadership and Management in Hong Kong, 1995–2012: Topographical Analysis of an EmergentKnowledge Base. Leadership and Policy in Schools 12:3, 256-281. [CrossRef]

9. Kala S. Retna. 2011. The relevance of ‘personal mastery’ to leadership: the case of school principals inSingapore. School Leadership & Management 31:5, 451-470. [CrossRef]

10. Alan C.K. CheungJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA Timothy W.W. YuenHongKong Institute of Education, Taipo, Hong Kong Celeste Y.M. YuenHong Kong Institute of Education,Taipo, Hong Kong Yin Cheong ChengHong Kong Institute of Education, Taipo, Hong Kong. 2011.Strategies and policies for Hong Kong's higher education in Asian markets. International Journal ofEducational Management 25:2, 144-163. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

11. Heather SkinnerUniversity of Glamorgan Haydn BlackeyUniversity of Glamorgan. 2010. Globalisationof business education – a British course or a British educational experience? Comparisons from a UKuniversity. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education 2:2, 22-32. [Abstract] [PDF]

12. Emerson Wagner Mainardes, Maria José Silva, Maria José Carvalho de Souza Domingues. 2010. Thedevelopment of new higher education courses. Service Business 4:3-4, 271-288. [CrossRef]

13. Pak Tee Ng. 2010. The evolution and nature of school accountability in the Singapore education system.Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 22:4, 275-292. [CrossRef]

14. Johan de Jager, Gbolahan Gbadamosi. 2010. Specific remedy for specific problem: measuring servicequality in South African higher education. Higher Education 60:3, 251-267. [CrossRef]

15. Jeanne M. Wolf, Wendy Bokhorst-Heng. 2008. Polices of promise and practices of limit: Singapore’sliteracy education policy landscape and its impact on one school programme. Educational Research forPolicy and Practice 7:3, 151-164. [CrossRef]

16. Professor Ka Ho Mok and Dr Pak Tee NgKa Ho MokFaculty of Social Sciences, The University of HongKong, Hong Kong. 2008. Singapore's global education hub ambitions. International Journal of EducationalManagement 22:6, 527-546. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)

17. ELIZA W. Y. LEE, M. SHAMSUL HAQUE. 2006. The New Public Management Reform andGovernance in Asian NICs: A Comparison of Hong Kong and Singapore. Governance 19:4, 605-626.[CrossRef]

18. Juan José TaríDepartment of Business Management, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain. 2006. AnEFQM model self‐assessment exercise at a Spanish university. Journal of Educational Administration 44:2,170-188. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

19. Ka Ho Mok. 2005. Pro-competition Policy Tools and State Capacity: Corporatisation of PublicUniversities in Hong Kong and Singapore. Policy and Society 24:3, 1-26. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

anya

ng T

echn

olog

ical

Uni

vers

ity A

t 02:

05 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2016

(PT

)