Nation building initiatives: Impact on school mathematics

curriculum

Lee Ngan Hoe

National Institute of Education, Singapore

Abstract
A curriculum’s timely and appropriate response to a country’s socio-
economic realities is often crucial to the well-being, if not survival, of its
people. To a young, land-scarce country like Singapore, this truth
cannot be overemphasized. With no other natural resources except
human, Singapore has found it necessary to ensure that her people are
educated for the future even as they remain grounded in the cultural
traditions and values of their forefathers. Education is Singapore’s
investment in her human resource. Since independence, she has made it
a top priority in her nation building action plans.
The Ministry of Education’s mission to educate Singapore’s young
for the future has brought major shifts in the orientation of the education
system. In the 1960s and 1970s, when Singapore struggled with the
demands of an independence it had not planned for, the education
system was survival-driven – looking at what Singapore needed
economically and delivering it. The late-1970s and early-1980s
witnessed an effort to hone the efficiency of the system and to reduce
wastage. The system shifted to become an efficiency-driven one –
looking at what the nation wanted to achieve, and determining the best
way of achieving this with optimal use of resources. Moving into the new
millennium, intellectual capital – the application of knowledge and
human ingenuity – has increasingly become the basis for the competitive
advantage of corporations and nations. The Ministry of Education
(MOE) announced in 1999 that Singapore will “move towards an
ability-driven education to help the individual recognize and make use
of his talents and abilities”.
Singapore has been able to flourish as a result of her strategic
geographical location, coupled with the historical developments in the
region. These factors have contributed much to her being one of the
busiest ports in the world. Because of this, Singaporeans cannot escape
the inevitable – of an economy that is closely tied to the rest of the
world. It is thus essential that students are trained and prepared to work
in an environment that is highly susceptible to change, and able to
effectively respond to novel and challenging situations. Therefore, the
curriculum needs to reflect a provision of such experiences in schools.
Furthermore, resource-constrained Singapore has to seek to be a world-
leading financial and communications centre, and concentrate on high
value-added industries, particularly in the area of technology, in the
twenty-first century.
At the same time, while Singapore needs to push herself to ‘go
global’, she also feels the need to temper that push with a pull factor to
encourage the largely migrant society to feel rooted as a nation. Her
then Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, pointed out in his address at

1
 the Teachers’ Day Rally on 8 September 1996, that Singapore needs a
curriculum that engenders “a shared sense of nationhood, an under-
standing of how our past is relevant to our present and future”. So in the
1990s, in response to both economic and social needs in her nation
building efforts, the education system not only shifted to becoming
ability-driven, but it also witnessed the introduction of three major
initiatives, namely the Thinking Initiative, the Information Technology
Initiative, and the National Education Initiative. These set the direction
and emphasis for the national school curriculum at the start of the new
millennium.
Mathematics, a compulsory subject for all school-age children in
Singapore, has naturally been influenced by these nation building efforts
and curriculum shifts. This paper makes an attempt to describe how the
mathematics curriculum in Singapore has responded to such changes.
Evidence will be collected through the examination of curriculum
documents, textbooks, supporting teaching materials and teacher
training provisions. At the same time, the paper will also make an
attempt to examine the lessons learnt and the implications for effecting
curriculum changes in mathematics.

Why examine nation building effort?

Wong, Zaitun and Veloo (2001), in their study of sociocultural impact on mathematics
education, pointed out that “[T]he historical background and cultural mores of a
country determine the milieu in which the present mathematics education has evolved
and now functions”. They proposed the Situated SocioCultural Model (Figure 1) to
summarize the sociocultural factors that affect mathematics education:

2
The Situated SocioCultural Model articulated the direct and indirect influences that
historical background and cultural mores have on mathematics education in general,
and specifically on the organization, curriculum, teaching, learning, and assessment of
school mathematics.

Singapore: Some background information

Singapore is situated in Southeastern Asia, in between Malaysia and Indonesia. Figure
2 provides a regional map of Singapore.
Singapore is a small country, comprising one main island (604.2 square kilo-
metres) and over 60 surrounding islets, making up a total land area of 685.4 square
kilometers. Though void of any natural resources other than her people, Singapore has
been able to flourish as a result of her strategic geographical location, coupled with the
historical developments in the region. In fact, Singapore has been able to establish
itself as one of the busiest ports in the world.

Figure 2. Regional map of Singapore

Singapore is also a young nation. Modern Singapore was founded in 1819 by Sir
Stamford Raffles as a response to the British need for a strategic “halfway house” to
refit, feed and protect the fleet of their growing empire, as well as to forestall Dutch
advances in the region. The policy of free trade attracted merchants from all over Asia
and from as far as the United States and the Middle East. By 1824, the population had
grown from a mere 150 to 10,000.

In 1832, Singapore became the centre of government for the Straits Settlements of
Penang, Malacca and Singapore. The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 and the
advent of the telegraph and the steamship increased Singapore's importance as a centre
for the expanding trade between East and West.
3
Singapore was the site of military action in the 14th century when it became embroiled
in the struggle between Siam (now Thailand) and the Java-based Majapahit Empire for
the Malay Peninsula.
Five centuries later, it was again the scene of significant fighting during World
War II. Singapore was considered an impregnable fortress, but the Japanese overran
the island in 1942. After the war, Singapore became a Crown Colony under the British
Empire. The growth of nationalism led to self-government in 1959 and on 9 August
1965, Singapore became an independent republic.
The original inhabitants on the island were Malay fishermen, but after the arrival
of Sir Stamford Raffles, Singapore became a magnet that drew hundreds of thousands
of migrants and merchants. Seeking a better life for themselves and their families, they
came from the southern provinces of China, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Ceylon (now
Sri Lanka) and the Middle-East. Though inter-marriages have taken place over the
years, each racial group within Singapore has retained its own cultural identity while
developing as an integral part of Singapore’s community.
In 2000, the total population of Singapore was slightly more than 4 million, of
which some 3.3 million were citizens and permanent residents. There are three main
racial groups, with the Chinese numbering 2,505,400 (77 per cent of resident
population), Malays 453,600 (14 per cent) and Indians 257,800 (8 per cent).
There are four official languages in Singapore: Malay, Chinese (Mandarin),
Tamil and English. English is the language of business and administration, and is
widely spoken and understood. Most Singaporeans are bilingual, and speak their
mother tongue as well as English. Malay is the national language.
The general literacy rate of residents aged 15 years and over was 93 per cent in
2000. Among the literate population, 56 per cent were literate in two or more lan-
guages.
Multilingual Singapore is also multi-religious. Singapore's skyline boasts the
distinctive minarets of mosques, the spires of gothic cathedrals, the intricate figurines
of Hindu temple gods and the distinctive roof architecture of Chinese temples. The
main religions are Islam, Buddhism and Taoism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism.
The 2000 census revealed that Buddhism and Taoism, traditional Chinese religions,
jointly accounted for 51 per cent of the resident population aged 15 years and older,
while the proportion of Muslims and Hindus were 15 per cent and 4 per cent
respectively.
Religious freedom and tolerance are practised in Singapore. Many other faiths,
such as Judaism and Zoroastrianism, have followings here.

How has the Singapore education system responded to developments since the
country’s independence?
Singapore’s education system in the ‘60s and the ‘70s was survival-driven – it looked
at what Singapore needed, and delivered it. As the nation developed, the late ‘70s and
early ‘80s witnessed an effort to hone the efficiency of the education system and to
reduce educational wastage. Based on what the nation wanted achieved, this
efficiency-driven system then determined the best ways of achieving it with optimal
use of resources.
As we move into the new millennium, intellectual capital - the application of
knowledge and human ingenuity - has increasingly become the basis for competitive
advantage of companies and nations.

4
It is, therefore, no surprise that the MOE (Singapore) announced in 1999 (The Straits
Times, 10 July 1999) that Singapore would “move towards ability-driven education to
help the individual pupil recognize and make use of his talents and abilities”. In other
words, education must focus on the individual student’s needs, in much the same way
as manufacturing is moving towards customization, and the media producing
personalized information on the Internet.

How has the Singapore mathematics curriculum responded to developments since

the country’s independence?
As pointed out by Wong (1991), a school curriculum can be defined in terms of its
aims, content and resources, teaching and learning strategies, and assessment
practices. Consequently, an analysis of the mathematics curriculum necessitates the
examination of these in the context of school mathematics. In the Singapore context,
the aims of the mathematics curriculum, suggested content and resources, teaching and
learning strategies, and assessment practices are contained in the syllabus documents
issued by the government agency in charge of education, the MOE. The syllabus
documents are accessible to all teachers to facilitate their implementation of the
mathematics curriculum at the school level.
Curriculum reviews in Singapore are carried out in 10-year cycles, with the latest
syllabuses published in 2001. Thus, an examination of the syllabus documents
produced since Singapore’s independence in 1965 would provide an insight into the
changes in the curriculum since the nation’s independence.

The 1960s …
When Singapore achieved self-government in 1959, an attempt was made to develop a
mathematics curriculum that would meet the needs of the multi-racial, multi-religious
people in Singapore. With her Malayan ties, the curriculum was developed with the
help of a committee supported by the Malayan Mathematical Society. Conscious effort
was made to create a mathematics curriculum that transcended racial boundaries. The
syllabus documents made no distinction between English mathematics, Chinese
mathematics and Malay mathematics – a distinction that existed then and divided the
schools along the line drawn by the different languages used as medium of instruction.
There is also an indication of the explicit advocation of the use of manipulatives
popularized in the West, such as the Cuisennaire Rods and Dienes’ Blocks (Figure 4).

5
The other key concern of this syllabus was to stress unity rather than diversity of
mathematical knowledge: Instead of viewing school mathematics as a number of
separate compartments, labelled arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus
and so on, the syllabus stressed the close relationship not only among the various
branches of mathematics but also between mathematics and the other sciences. In
addition, the syllabus documents advocated that “teaching methods are of more
importance than the syllabus itself” (Ministry of Education, 1959). A closer look at the
1960s syllabus document (Figure 5) reveals such an emphasis with a section on
teaching notes and another on books for the teacher, providing a detailed description
of the strategies to be encouraged and making references to books on the teaching of
mathematics.

6
The 1970s…
The suddenness with which independence was thrust on Singapore in 1965 created an
urgent need to examine ways to help the young and resource-scarce nation survive and
establish herself. One key issue is education – the way to train and tap her only natural
resource, namely the people of Singapore. The Revised Primary 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Syl-
labuses for Mathematics (Ministry of Education, 1971a, 1971b, 1971c) for the 1970s
are some of the fruits of such an effort. This is evident in the presence of a “General
Aim and Objectives of the Singapore Mathematics Curriculum” (Figure 6), something
which is absent in the earlier syllabus. The general aim was to develop the mathe-
matical potential of each child to the fullest, while the objectives stated acquisition of
skills generally related to the learning of mathematics.

Secondly, a close examination of the content of the syllabus document reveals that it
adopted an outcome-based approach towards the teaching of mathematics. This is
evident in the presence of the outcome (what children should know) column describe-
ing what was to be attained by the pupils for each topic (Figure 7). The need for a
curriculum that is more explicit about outcomes might have arisen from the com-
bination of two factors: (1) Singapore had to cope with the massive numbers of
children from the 1960s baby boom, who were reaching schooling age, and (2) a lack
of qualified teachers as Singapore sought to build her own teaching force immediately
following independence.

7
The 1980s…
As mentioned earlier, the late ‘70s and early ‘80s witnessed an effort to hone the
efficiency of the education system and to reduce educational wastage as Singapore
settled down from the immediate demands of independence. To ensure that pupils
learnt at their own pace, pupils were streamed on the basis of academic ability. Also,
some pupils were allowed to take more than the normal six years to complete their
primary education. At the end of the first three years in the Common Course,
academically able pupils took another three years in the Normal Course to complete
their primary education. Less academically able pupils took another five years, instead
of three, to complete their primary education either in the Extended Course or the
Monolingual Course. This was aimed at providing academically weaker pupils more
time to acquire the basic knowledge and skills necessary for pursuing vocational
training after they completed their primary school education. Streaming also helped to
alleviate social problems associated with the high drop-out rates at the primary levels.
Consequently, for the first time in the history of Singapore, there existed different
syllabuses at the primary levels, though the objectives, now renamed “General Aims”,
remained largely unchanged (Figure 8 and Figure 9). Furthermore, to better
communicate the subtle yet different expectations of the various streams, the column
“Sample Exercises” (Figure 10) was included in the outcome charts for each topic to
be taught.

8
9
The 1990s…
The 1990s saw further honing of the efficiency of Singapore’s education system and
reduction of educational wastage. Streaming at primary 3 was deferred to primary 4,
with pupils banded into EM1, EM2 and EM3 streams, in descending order of aca-
demic ability, on the basis of their results in the P4 streaming examination. Further-
more, all pupils underwent six years of primary education regardless of stream. This
was in response to concerns over the wide disparity in both age and cognitive
development between lower-primary pupils and the much older upper-primary pupils
in the Extended and Monolingual courses that were introduced the decade before.
One aspect of the 1990s syllabus document that differed significantly from past
syllabus documents was the presence of a mathematics curriculum framework, as
reflected in the Contents page (Figure 11).

Wong (1991) reflected on the conditions that led to the development of the frame-
work:

“After about one year of deliberations on the details of the syllabuses, it

was time for the committee to write the overall aims and specific
objectives. It might seem strange that the details were worked out in
advance of the aims. However, during the meetings, the committee
members had frequently referred to the aims and objectives of the
current syllabuses, and discussions alternated between general aims and
specific content. In many sessions different interpretations of these
widely accepted aims were hotly debated, although these interpretations
and negotiations of meanings are rarely included in official documents.

Besides elaborating the aims and objectives, the committee felt the need
to devise a framework that would describe the philosophy of the revised
curriculum. The framework, according to the committee, must be able to
integrate the (following) aspects about mathematics learning and
teaching”.

The framework (Figure 12) was in the shape of a pentagon. The centre of the frame-
work articulated the primary aim of mathematics education: to enable pupils to
10
develop an ability in mathematical problem solving. The five sides of the pentagon
reflects the dependence of the attainment of problem solving ability on five inter-
related components – concepts, skills, processes, attitudes, and metacognition.

Into the new millennium…

Events around the world in the late ‘80s and ‘90s created three key concerns for the
government of Singapore:

I. Singapore’s small economy was easily affected by global changes. There

was a need to prepare students to become lifelong learners able to meet
the challenges brought about by the rapid changes around the globe.
II. Resource-constrained Singapore had to seek to be a world-leading
financial and communications centre, and concentrate on high value-
added industries, particularly in the area of technology. Consequently,
she needed to prepare her young to be comfortable with new techno-
logies and able to exploit these new technologies to venture beyond
current boundaries and open up new frontiers of knowledge.
III. The push to ‘go global’ must be balanced by a pull factor to encourage
the largely migrant society to feel rooted to a place they could call
“home”. Thus, there was a need for a curriculum that would engender a
shared sense of nationhood.

These three issues gave rise to the introduction of three Initiatives by the Ministry of
Edcuation in 1997:

• The Thinking Programme (Thinking Schools, Learning Nation - TSLN)

Initiative
• The Information Technology (IT) Initiative
• The National Education (NE) Initiative

11
The TSLN Initiative
At the 7th International Conference on Thinking held in Singapore from 1 to 6 June
1997, the then Prime Minister of Singapore Mr Goh Chok Tong presented a vision for
a total learning environment that was encapsulated in four words – Thinking Schools,
Learning Nation (Goh, 1998). The MOE translated this vision for teaching and
learning and subsequently launched the Thinking Programme (TSLN) Initiative.
The Thinking Programme, when it was first introduced, was taught over a two-
year period to lower-secondary pupils. They were taught the core thinking skills
through two approaches that ran concurrently. In the first approach, pupils were taught
the thinking skills explicitly in non-curricular contexts for about an hour fortnightly.
They learnt the skills through teacher modelling and then applied them in everyday
situations and subject-related practice items. They were required to keep thinking logs
to record their reflections on questions which attempted to raise their levels of meta-
cognition and transfer.
In the second approach, the thinking skills were infused into the core subjects of
English, science, mathematics, geography and history. About thirty percent of curri-
culum time for these subjects consisted of such infusion lessons. Thinking skills and
teaching strategies that promoted thinking were integrated into content instruction.
With the implementation of the latest syllabus, explicit provision of curriculum
time for direct teaching of thinking was removed. Instead, project work was intro-
duced as a means for pupils to acquire and integrate thinking skills and content
knowledge. The infusion of thinking into content subjects is articulated in the
respective subject syllabus documents, such as the one for mathematics (Figure 13).

12
With this latest syllabus, the Framework for the Singapore Mathematics Curriculum,
developed with the 1990s syllabuses for mathematics, underwent a slight modification
(Figure 14).
Only the descriptors corresponding to the Processes were changed. Instead of de-
ductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and heuristics, the modified Framework
contains only the general term “thinking skills and heuristics”. The thinking skills are
then further listed in the syllabus document as including – but not limited to –
classifying, comparing, sequencing, analysing parts and whole, identifying patterns
and relationships, induction, deduction and spatial visualisation (Ministry of
Education, 2000a). Examples to illustrates the use of such thinking skills in problem
solving are also provided in Appendix B of the document.

The IT Initiative
The IT for Education Initiative was launched by the then Minister for Education,
RAdm Teo Chee Hean, on 28 April 1997. At the launch, the Minister (Teo, 1997)
rationalized the need to promote the use of IT in education:

“The next century will witness the increasing use of information and
knowledge as engines of productivity and economic growth. We have to
prepare ourselves and our children to be discerning and astute users of
information as well as creators of knowledge.”

In this connection, the IT in Education MasterPlan was conceptualized as a blueprint

for the use of IT in schools and for every child to access to an IT-enriched school
environment. The MasterPlan aimed to achieve the following norms by 2002:

• Students to have hands-on use of computers for 30% of curriculum time.

• Every school to be fully networked, allowing teachers and pupils to access
courseware, the internet, and digitized media resources from every classroom
and all learning areas.
• One computer for every two students.

13
The implementation of the MasterPlan brought about a sea-change in the infrastructure
of schools in Singapore. For example, every classroom in government schools is now
equipped with a LCD projector, and all classrooms and teachers’ work areas are wired
up for access to the internet.
In 2002, the IT in Education MasterPlan II was conceptualized to consolidate and
build on the achievements of the first MasterPlan, and will continue to provide the
overall direction on how schools can harness the possibilities offered by IT for
teaching and learning. Masterplan II emphasises professional development, consul-
tancy, evaluation and research.
The integration of IT into the curriculum is also articulated in the 2000 syllabus
documents. The Mathematics Syllabus (Ministry, 2000a), for example, advocates the
following:

“The integration of IT can help develop in pupils their interest in

mathematics, enrich their learning experience and help fulfill their
potential by becoming independent thinkers and learners. Integrating IT
in the mathematics curriculum should therefore focus on the provision
of opportunities for pupils to:

• consolidate concept and skills;

• enjoys meaningful learning;
• participate in collaborative work and broaden their learning styles;
• bridge the gap between abstract concepts and concrete experiences;
• explore and attempt different approaches to tasks and problems, and
hence observe a variety of consequences;
• shift towards tasks and problems which require higher level compe-
tencies.”

The NE Initiative
At the 1996 Teachers’ Day Rally, the then Prime Minister (Goh, 1996) explained the
purpose of National Education (NE):

“It is an exercise to develop instincts that will become part of the psyche
of every child. It must engender a shared sense of nationhood, an
understanding of how our past is relevant to our present and future. It
must appeal to both heart and mind.”

NE is not a formal subject on its own but is infused across subjects in the curriculum.
However, a core group of subjects, including social studies, history and geography,
has been identified as being especially suited for the infusion of NE values. These
subjects have been revised to focus more on issues pertaining to NE, and the treatment
of issues has been structured in such a way that makes students understand their
relevance to the future.
Though Mathematics does not belong to this core group of subjects, mathematics
teachers are still encouraged to incorporate NE in their teaching (Ministry of Educa-
tion, 2000a):

“National Education is part of Total Education; therefore every teacher

has a role to play. In the context of mathematics, National Education can
be integrated into instruction by drawing examples from the prevailing
national and current issues during mathematics lessons. These examples
14
 can be expressed in the problem context during problem solving or
incorporated into practical work.”

Responding to the three initiatives

Textbooks
In line with the ability-driven education system for the new millennium, the MOE
decided to outsource the publication of primary school mathematics textbooks to
commercial publishers who would have to source for authors. Previously, mathematics
textbooks were written and published by the MOE, resulting in all primary schools
using the same set of textbooks. However, with commercial publishers coming into
play, schools now have a wider choice of textbooks to choose from to better meet their
pupils’ needs.

15
The new textbooks are required to reflect how elements of the three initiatives are
infused into the teaching and learning of mathematics. The textbooks are reviewed by
ministry officials and practising teachers before they are used as approved textbooks.
Figure 15 and Figure 16 are sample pages of the teacher’s resource pack for the
primary mathematics textbook series, Shaping Maths, which reflect how the authors
guide teachers on infusing the three Initiatives into the teaching of primary mathema-
tics.

Supporting teaching materials

Two types of teaching materials have been made available since the implementation of
the three initiatives and the 2000 syllabuses, namely, those produced by the MOE, and
those produced by commercial publishers. These materials provide teachers with
examples of how the Initiatives could be implemented and articulated at the classroom
level, as well as theoretical underpinnings for practice.
The Thinking Programme – Infusing Thinking into Mathematics, Secondary 1
and 2 (Ministry of Education, 1997) is an example of ministry-produced teaching
materials to help teachers implement the TSLN Initiative. The compilation consists of
lesson plans for mathematical topics taught at the lower-secondary level. These lesson
plans demonstrate to teachers how the teaching of thinking could be infused into the
teaching of mathematics. The lesson plans include templates and instructions for
teachers as well as the specific thinking skills to be taught in conjunction with the
teaching of mathematics.
At the same time, professionals in education and commercial publishers were also
quick to respond to the needs of teachers. Many commercial publishers, together with
the help of professionals in education, produced books on specific Initiatives as a
platform for sharing and exchanging ideas on teaching and research. The teachers’
Handbook on Teaching Thinking Skills Across Disciplines (Chang and Cheah, 2002),
Securing Our Future – Sourcebook for Infusing National Education Into the Primary
School Curriculum (Tan and Goh, 2003), Securing Our Future – Sourcebook for
National Education Ideas and Strategies for Secondary Schools and Junior Colleges
(Tan and Goh, 2003), Integrating Technology into Teaching and Learning – Concepts
and Applications: An Asia-Pacific Perspective (Williams, 2000), and Managing
Project Work in Schools – Issues and Innovative Practices (Ho, Netto-Shek, and
Chang, 2004) are examples of publications that contain such ideas for mathematics
teachers.

Teacher training provisions

The National Institute of Education (NIE), an institute within the Nanyang Techno-
logical University, is the sole teacher-training institute in Singapore. As such, the
institute works very closely with the MOE to provide both pre- and in-service training
that meets the needs of teachers.
Pre-service teacher training includes the preparation of student teachers to infuse
the three Initiatives into the teaching of mathematics. Student teachers on the degree
programme, for example, attend lectures on thinking schools, learning nation, informa-
tion technology, and national education as part of their curriculum studies in
mathematics (NIE, January 2004). At the same time, in-service courses have also been
aligned to the needs of practising teachers. Courses, such as workshop on infusing NE
into primary mathematics curriculum, workshop on infusing NE into secondary
mathematics curriculum, creativity in teaching mathematics, mathematical thinking for

16
the upper secondary mathematics curriculum (National Institute of Education, n.d.),
cater to the teachers’ needs in implementing the initiatives in the schools.
In fact, a document, titled MOE’s Initiatives: NIE’s Responses (National Institute
of Education, August 2002), provides a brief account of NIE’s key responses to these
Initiatives.

Implications
The implementation of the three Initiatives in Singapore’s education arena may appear
to be an arduous one, and any assessment of its success or otherwise in achieving
some of the nation-building goals is best much left to historians. However, the three
Initiatives certainly do not mark an end to changes in education policies in Singapore
connected with nation-building efforts. The article, “Getting to Grips with Changes”,
published in the local newspaper The Straits Times (1 November 2004) is an example
of an attempt to help parents keep up with fast and furious changes that continue to
take place to further refine the education system to meet nation-building needs.
At this juncture, it is useful to pause and reflect on some issues that have arisen.

Addition vs integration
One of the concerns of teachers in implementing new initiatives is often related to time
constraints. Although the MOE has made a conscious effort to reduce the content to be
taught in implementing the TSLN Initiative, for example, most teachers still feel they
are struggling against time to complete the set syllabus. The issue at hand is often one
of ‘the additions being more than the subtractions’. However, if teachers could view
the initiatives as integral to what they have already been doing, then the changes could
be regarded more positively and would thus be easier to implement.
In the case of the TSLN Initiative, teachers were initially dismayed when told
they had to teach thinking skills because most of the teachers believed they had
already been doing so. On hindsight, what could have avoided this unpleasantness
might be to send the message that teachers could make the teaching of thinking skills
more explicit to help pupils acquire a common vocabulary in cognition that would
allow for further application and transfer. Such a message would probably have gone
down better with teachers than that which suggested that they had not been teaching
thinking skills. In other words, the teacher should be helped to integrate ideas per-
taining to new initiatives into their current practices, rather than left to regard new
initiatives as resulting in having more content to teach. This would, of course, entail
establishing common agreement on what needs to be taught in a given subject.

Establishment of a sound curricular framework

As pointed out by Wong (1991), a curricular framework provides a description of the
philosophy of the curriculum and helps to establish the important aspects of learning
and teaching. The Framework for the Singapore Mathematics Curriculum, developed
in 1990, for example, survived, with minor modification, the major curriculum review
for the 2000 syllabuses which took into account the three new Initiatives. One of the
key reasons for the Framework’s survival is its rigour and robustness in presenting the
philosophy and principles underlying decisions made about what mathematics
education should equip our students with.

Examples to concretize understanding of the Initiatives

A well-established curricular framework only provides teachers with theoretical ideas.
Such ideas must eventually be translated into classroom practices. The Third Interna-

17
tional Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) revealed that there may be serious
gaps between the preaching and the practice. Therefore, to effectively implement new
initiatives, providing concrete examples of lesson plans could help teachers better
understand and implement the initiatives. The Thinking Programme – Infusing Think-
ing into Mathematics, Secondary 1 and 2 (Ministry of Education, 1997) package, for
example, not only conveys to teachers –through its collection of detailed lesson plans
– the possibility of carrying out a lesson that is closely aligned with the Thinking
Programme Initiative, but also presents a clearer view of how such a lesson could be
structured.

Alignment of pre- and in-service training with Initiatives

Teachers’ awareness of the possibility of incorporating and integrating new initiatives
into teaching, and their understanding of how lessons could be structured to achieve
integration, must also be coupled with an agency to provide feedback on and reas-
surance of the actual practice. Pre- and in-service training could serve as a platform for
reaffirming and, when necessary, realigning the way teachers are attempting to
achieve the goals of new initiatives in their teaching. However, in order for this to take
place, teacher-training institutes should not be isolated from the planning and imple-
mentation of new initiatives. In Singapore’s context, for example, the MOE sought the
views of professionals from the NIE by inviting them to sit on the committees for
major curriculum reviews. Furthermore, communication between the two bodies on
key educational issues was also made possible through frequent sharing sessions
involving representatives from both parties.

Centralised control vs autonomy

From the foregoing discussion, it would seem that a centrally-controlled system, as in
the case of the Singapore experience, should be advocated for efficient implementation
of initiatives. It should be pointed out, however, that with the proposition of an ability-
driven educational system for the new millennium, the MOE in Singapore is encour-
ageing and allowing schools to have more autonomy to experiment and tailor-make a
curriculum that meets their unique needs.
Nevertheless, Singapore’s relatively long history of running a centrally-controlled
education system has left curriculum development in the hands of a few curriculum
specialists at the MOE. As a result, when teachers are given a hand in curriculum
development, many feel a sense of helplessness and turn to available consultancy
agents to run enrichment programmes for their schools. And although the profess-
sionals from the NIE have been quick to provide assistance, the sudden influx of
requests has also led to a strain on limited manpower at the institute. The private sector
has reacted quickly; many private consultancy agents have developed programmes,
such as mathematics trails, to help schools implement the Initiatives. However, as the
primary object of privately-owned consultancy agents is profit-making, it is not
surprising that mass customization of programmes is commonly practiced by such
agents. In other words, the effort to encourage creativity in curriculum development
within an ability-driven system may result in a uniform curriculum ‘larger’ than what
previously existed in an efficiency-driven system.
In short, while a centrally-controlled system may have its advantages – such as
efficiency in implementing initiatives – such a system could also limit the teachers’
experiences in curriculum development. It is crucial to equip teachers with basic
knowledge and skills in curriculum development as well as provide them with some
level of autonomy and experiences in curriculum development in order for them to be

18
able to innovate and develop a curriculum that meets the true needs of the pupils under
their charge.

Alignment of assessment with initiatives

A discussion of curriculum development in an Asian country like Singapore, where
high-stakes national examinations have a significant influence on what is being taught
in the classroom, would not be complete without looking at assessment issues. While
it would be pedagogically sound for curriculum to drive assessment, one cannot deny
the extent to which assessment drives curriculum in an examination-oriented place like
Singapore. Consequently, the reluctance of teachers in aligning their teaching
approach with the Initiatives is often attributed to a lack of alignment of assessment
with the Initiatives.

However, there is a conscious effort by the MOE in Singapore to include questions

that are aligned with the Initiatives in high-stakes national examinations, such as the
Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE) taken by primary six pupils (Figure
17). Such an effort not only heightens public awareness of the Initiatives, it also
increases interest among teachers to deal with such questions in their teaching, and so
addressing the Initiatives in their teaching.

Conclusion
Dr Funabashi, chief diplomatic correspondent and columnist of the Japanese news-
paper Asahi Shimbun, conceded that “while differences in culture and social make-up
might not allow (Iraq) to emulate the (Japanese) model precisely, many lessons in
nation-building were “relevant””(The Straits Times, 20 September 2003). In the same
spirit, this paper does not aim to encourage the emulation of the Singapore system, but
to share the lessons learnt that might bear implications on the planning and
implementation of mathematics education.

19
References
Chang, S.C.A., & Cheah, Y.M. (Eds.) (2002). Teachers’ Handbook On Teaching Thinking Skills
Across Disciplines. Singapore – Prentice Hall.
Goh, C.T. (1996). The Purpose of National Education. Speech delivered at the Teachers’ Day
Rally on 8 Sep 1996, Singapore.
Goh, C.T. (1998). Shaping Our Future: Thinking Schools, Learning Nation. In M.L. Quah, &
W.K. Ho (Eds.), Thinking Processes – Going Beyond the Surface Currciulum, pp. 1-6.
Singapore – Prentice Hall.
Ho, B.T., Netto-Shek, J., & Chang, S.C.A. (Eds.). (2004). Managing Project Work in Schools –
Issues and Innovative Practices. Singapore – Pearson Education
Koay, P.L., & Lee, N.H. (2004). Shaping Maths: Teacher’s Resource Pack. Singapore –
Federal.
Ministry of Education. (1959). Syllabus for Mathematics in Primary and Secondary Schools.
Singapore – Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1971a). Revised Syllabus for Primary 1 and 2, Mathematics (Draft).
Singapore – Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1971b). Revised Syllabus for Primary 3 and 4, Mathematics (Draft).
Singapore – Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1971c). Revised Syllabus for Primary 5 and 6, Mathematics (Draft).
Singapore – Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1980a). Mathematics Syllabus for the New Education System, Part A:
Primary 1 to 3 (Common Course). Singapore – Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1980b). Mathematics Syllabus for the New Education System, Part B:
Primary 4 to 5 (Normal Course). Singapore – Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1981). Mathematics Syllabus for the New Education System, Part D:
Primary 4 to 8 (Monolingual Course). Singapore – Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1982). Mathematics Syllabus for the New Education System, Part C:
Primary 4 to 8 (Extended Course). Singapore – Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1990a). Mathematics Syllabus (Primary). Singapore – Ministry of
Education.
Ministry of Education. (1990b). Mathematics Syllabus, Primary One to Primary Four, Primary
Five and Primary Six (EM1 & EM2 Streams). Singapore – Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1990c). Mathematics Syllabus (Lower Secondary). Singapore – Ministry
of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1994). Mathematics Syllabus, Primary 5 and 6 (EM3 Stream).
Singapore – Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1997). The Thinking Programme – Infusing Thinking into Mathematics
(Secondary 1 & 2). Singapore – Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (2000a). Mathematics Syllabus (Primary). Singapore – Ministry of
Education.
Ministry of Education. (2000b). Mathematics Syllabus (Lower Secondary). Singapore –
Ministry of Education.
National Institute of Education. (n.d.). Graduate Programmes and Research Office, In-Service
Training Courses: Mathematics and Mathematics Education. Retrieved 2 November
2004, http://www.nie.edu.sg/gprica/schedule/ic/ps_ic_mme.htm
Ministry of Education. (2004). PSLE Examination Questions 1999 – 2003: Mathematics.
Singapore: Pacific Communications Pte Ltd.
National Institute of Education. (August 2002). MOE’s Initiatives: NIE’s Responses. Singapore
– National Institute of Education.
National Institute of Education. (January 2004). CCM201: Teaching and Learning of Primary
Mathematics I. Singapore – National Institute of Education.
Tan, K.S.S., & Goh, C.B. (Eds.) (2003a). Securing Our Future – Sourcebook for Infusing
National Education into the Primary School Curriculum. Singapore – Prentice Hall.
Tan, K.S.S., & Goh, C.B. (Eds.) (2003b). Securing Our Future – Sourcebook for National
Education Ideas and Strategies for Secondary Schools and Junior Colleges. Singapore –
Prentice Hall.

20
Teo, C.H. (1997). IT Masterplan. Speech delivered at the Launch of the Masterplan for IT in
Education on 28 April 1997, Singapore.
The Straits Times. (10 July 1999). Preparing people for challenges – Addenda to the
President’s address. Singapore – Singapore Press Holdings.
The Straits Times. (20 September 2003). Nation building? Call S’pore or Japan. Singapore –
Singapore Press Holdings.
The Straits Times. (2 November 2004). Getting to grips with changes. Singapore – Singapore
Press Holdings.
Williams, M.D. (2000). Integrating Technology into Teaching and Learning – Concepts and
Applications: An Asia-Pacific Perspective. Singapore – Prentice Hall.
Wong, K.Y. (1991). Curriculum Development in Singapore. In C. Marsh, & P. Morris (Eds.),
Curriculum Development in East Asia, pp. 129-160. Londen: The Falmer Press.
Wong, K.Y., Zaitun, B.H.M.T., & Veloo, P. (2001). Siutated Sociocultural Mathematics
Education: Vignettes From Southeast Asian Practices. In B. Atweh, H. Forgasz, & B.
Nebres (Eds.), Sociocultural Research On Mathematics Education, pp. 113-134.
London, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

21