Independent Schools in Singapore: Implications for Social and Educational Inequalities
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
h,r 1. Edrrcorronal Dewlopn,rr,r. Vol. 13. No. 3. pp. 239-251. 1993 0738-0593193 WOO+ .oO Printed in Great Britam Pcrgamon Press Ltd INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS IN SINGAPORE: IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL INEQUALITIES JASON TAN Department of Education, University of Hong Kong Abstract-The independent schools scheme which was introduced in Singapore in 1987 represents a new phase in private schooling there. The government has relaxed its control of all schools and has allowed certain schools to turn independent. These schools enjoy autonomy in staff deployment and salaries, finance, management and curriculum, while continuing to enjoy substantial government financial support. This article examines the background to the establishment of the independent schools, and their organizational framework. It argues that the scheme reinforces social and educational inequalities. The discussion adds to the existing literature on the role of government in initiating school privatization policies, and on the relationship between private schools and social and educational inequalities. INTRODUCTION efforts in Singapore are taking place against the backdrop of steady government surpluses. Private schooling in Singapore has entered a new phase with the introduction of inde- SCHOOL PRIVATIZATION - A pendent schools. This article’ examines the COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE development of the independent schools scheme, and the implications of this scheme for Education has come to be viewed in many educational inequalities. Firstly, the issue of nations as an economically and socially produc- privatization of schools is viewed in a tive investment in human capital (Fagerlind comparative perspective. A brief description of and Saha, 1989; Psacharopoulos et al., 1986). the nature of educational inequalities in Consequently, public educational budgets Singapore is then given. Next, the background increased dramatically from 1960 to 1975 in of events leading up to the introduction of the both the industrially advanced and developing independent schools scheme is described, nations (Coombs, 1985). However, adverse followed by an examination of some key economic conditions and competition from features of the operational set-up in inde- other sectors for public funds have caused a pendent schools that impinge directly on global slow-down in the rate of growth of educational inequalities. government expenditure on education. This It is argued that the independent schools has been aggravated by the tendency for scheme exacerbates disparities between schools educational costs per student to keep rising, in terms of educational outcomes. It also without any concomitant improvements in reinforces disparities in educational outcomes productivity or educational quality. between students from different socio-eco- One way to tackle this problem is to shift nomic backgrounds. The discussion adds to the more of the cost of educational provision to the existing literature on governmental involve- users by increasing the privatization of educa- ment in, and the underlying philosophy of tion (Edwards er al., 1985; Psacharopoulos ef school privatization efforts, and the relation- al., 1986; Jimenez, 1987; Lewin, 1987). The ship between private schooling and social and meaning of privatization in the current educational inequalities. Specially interesting literature is not always clear. For instance, in the Singapore case is that while educational James (1984, p. 605) sees privatization as ‘a privatization efforts in such countries as the government policy . which combines public U.S.A. and the U.K. have been largely financing with private production of the motivated by economic recession, similar service’. However, she later (1988, p. 98) notes 239 240 JASON TAN that: the more prestigious private schools, which the definition of ‘private’ is by no means clear-cut in a have access to private sources of funding; but situation where many ‘private’ schools are heavily reductions in government funding of private funded and regulated by the state. ‘Source of funding’ schools can be seen as an erosion of parental and ‘degree of decision-making authority’ may then choice (Edwards et al., 1985; Foon, 1988). yield different public-private categories, and many mixed rather than polar cases. Arguments that private schools enjoy better pupil attainment and retention rates have Among the forms of privatization are greater painted a picture of government schools as private contribution to public schools and ‘relatively uniform and drab’ (Edwards et al., government encouragement of the establish- 1985, p. 40). However, critics have attributed ment of private schools. the superior academic record of private schools Advocates of privatization suggest that to the social background of their student benefits include greater variety and consumer intakes. There has also been controversy in choice, improved school efficiency and mana- Australia and Britain over the creaming off of gerial accountability as a result of increased able students from, and a decline in numbers. competition among schools, and increased resources and confidence in the public sector. mobilization of resources from families and Government-run schools are increasingly being other community sources. However, oppo- seen as inferior to private schools. Referring to nents fear that increased privatization of Great Britain, for example, Campbell et al. education will lead to a deterioration of the (1987, pp. 376-387) state that: public school system and increased social It cannot be entirely fanciful for us to see three curricula inequities, with the private schools becoming emerging from the system. The national standardized the preserve of the wealthy elite (James, 1984). curriculum for the mass of the population, in poorly This concern with social inequalities is funded schools transmitting powerful messages of limited expectations through their shabby buildings and present in various societies. For instance, learning resources; a technically and vocationally studies in Australia and Britain have found a oriented curriculum in the city technology colleges : strong preponderance of upper-class students and a free floating academically challenging and often in private schools (Edwards et al., 1985). Even innovative curriculum in the independent and grant the now defunct Direct Grant schools in maintained schools. These would be apt curricula for a system designed to reproduce the increasingly divided Britain, which were supposed to provide a society towards which we seem to be heading. bridge between state-maintained and indepen- dent schools, have been as socially selective as Bondi (1991) sees four interlinked themes the independent schools (Griggs, 1985; Salter emerging in school education in Britain and the and Tapper, 1985; Whitty et al., 1989). The United States: an examination of the appro- Direct Subsidy Scheme in Hong Kong, aimed priate boundary between state provision and at encouraging the growth of a strong private individual responsibility; a challenging of school sector, has been attacked as a move bureaucratic decision-making methods and towards elitism and social segregation (Lee and resource allocation, and the championing of Cheung, 1992). Samoff (1991) shows that the market or quasi-market mechanisms; the privatization of schooling in Tanzania rein- displacing of equity considerations by notions forces existing socio-economic and regional of excellence; and the replacement of the inequalities. This has occurred despite the principle of uniform provision with a commit- Tanzanian government’s ideological commit- ment to diversity in education. ment to schooling as a means of social mobility. Of course, private schools are not SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL necessarily elite, prestigious institutions (Foon, INEQUALITIES IN SINGAPORE 1988; Bray, 1988). However, this article will focus on private schools that fall into the above The scope of discussion on inequalities will category. be limited here to two aspects: the disparities Governments face a constant dilemma in in educational outcomes between (a) different trying to control both public and private schools; and (b) students from different socio- education while maintaining equity between the economic backgrounds. Although there has two. Government subsidy of private schools is been a tremendous amount of social mobility seen as reinforcing the advantages enjoyed by through educational attainment over the last INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS IN SINGAPORE 241 few decades, there are signs of a re-emerging language streams, and the institution of relationship between educational attainment common terminal examinations (Yip et al., and socio-economic background in Singapore 1990). (see, for instance, Li, 1989; Action Committee A major boost to the idea of freeing schools on Indian Education, 1991). Students from from centralized control was given by the then higher socio-economic backgrounds enjoy, First Deputy Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong, among other things, better financial resources in 1985. He spoke of the need to allow more and exposure to the official school languages autonomy within schools, and of giving (Gupta, 1990; Kwan-Terry, 1991). Pang (1982) principals the right to appoint staff, devise found that students whose fathers were school curricula and choose textbooks, while university-educated and/or professionals were conforming to national education policies such over-represented in the University of Singapore. as bilingualism and common examinations. Socio-economic