Similar Demands, Different Responses: Teacher Evaluation in the United Kingdom and Singapore

Year 2012, Volume: 7 Issue: 1 - Volume 7, Issue 1, 2012, 5 - 23, 19.05.2016

Tracey L. Weinstein Kathryn S. Struthers

Abstract

Using a conceptual framework grounded in globalization and the knowledge economy, this paper addresses teacher evaluation policy reform in the United Kingdom*** and Singapore. Specifically, the authors discuss similar demands faced by both countries: maintaining economic competitiveness in a globalized society, preparing citizens to participate in the knowledge economy, and improving teacher quality to facilitate enhanced student learning. Both the UK and Singapore respond to these demands by developing teacher evaluation policies. However, due to the mediating factors of student demographics, educational priorities, and the structure of education systems in each context, the UK and Singapore have created different teacher evaluation systems. It is argued that despite these varying responses, several essential areas underlie all successful teacher evaluation systems. Considering these foundational elements, implications for teacher evaluation policy reform in the United States are discussed

References

• Bartlett, S. (2000). The development of teacher appraisal: A recent history. British Journal of Educational Studies, 48:1, 24-37.
• Barr, M.D. (2006). Racialised education in Singapore. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 5:1, 15-31.
• Becker, G.S. (1975). Introduction to the first edition in Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education 2nd Ed. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/books/beck75-1
• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (2003). Measuring globalization: Who’s up, who’s down?. Foreign Policy, 134, 60-72.
• Department for Education. (2010). Statistical first release: Schools, pupils, and their characteristics (Provisional). London, UK: Department for Children Schools and Families.
• Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). (1998a). The learning age: A renaissance for http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/greenpaper/ch0001.htm (London, DfEE). Retrieved from:
• Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). (1998b). Teachers: Meeting the challenge http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/_doc/1424/intro.pdf change (London, DfEE). Retrieved from:
• Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2004). Every child matters: Change for children. London, UK. Retrieved from www.everychildmatters.gov.uk
• Department of Statistics (2010a). Census of population 2010: Advance census release. Singapore: Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade & Industry.
• Department of Statistics (2010b). Monthly digest of statistics. Singapore: Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade & Industry.
• Earnshaw, J., Marchington, L., Ritchie, E., & Torrington, D. (2004). Neither fish nor fowl? An assessment of teacher capability procedures. Industrial Relations Journal, 35: 2, 139-152.
• Elliot, J. (2001). Characteristics of performative cultures: Their central paradoxes and limitations as resources for educational reform. In Gleeson, D. & Husbands, C. (Eds.), The performing school: Managing, teaching and learning in a performance culture (194-209). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
• Furlong, J. (2008). Making teaching a 21st century profession: Tony Blair’s big prize. Oxford Review of Education, 34:6, 727-739.
• Gillborn, D. (2005). Education policy as an act of white supremacy: Whiteness, critical race theory and education reform. Journal of Education Policy, 20:4, 485-505.
• Glennerster, H. (2002). United Kingdom education 1997-2001. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 18: 2, 120-136.
• Goh, C.T. (1997). Shaping our future: Thinking schools, learning nation. Singapore Government Press Release. Speech given by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong at the Opening of the 7th International Conference on Thinking, 2 June.
• Gove, M. (2010b). Speech by Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove to Westminster Academy in London, British Government Press Release, 6 September. Retrieved from westminster-academy
• Gove, M. (2010a). Speech by Secretary of State Michael Gove to the National Conference of Directors’ of Children’s and Adult Services in Manchester, British Government Press Release, 4 November. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/speeches/a0066543/michael-gove-to-the- national-conference-of-directors-of-childrens-and-adult-services
• Hanushek, E.A. (1992). The trade-off between child quantity and quality. Journal o Political Economy, 100: 1, 84-117.
• Ingvarson, L. (2002). Strengthening the profession? A comparison of recent reforms in the UK and the USA. Australian Council for Educational Research: Policy Brief. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/teaching_standards/10.
• Instance, D., & Theisens, H. (2008). Trends shaping education 2008 edition. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. OECD.
• Isore, M. (2009) Teacher evaluation: Current practices in OECD countries and a literature review. Working Paper No. 23. OECD.
• Kelly, K.O., Ang, S.Y.A., Chong, W.L, & Hu, W.S. (2008). Teacher appraisal and its outcomes in Singapore primary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(1), 39-54.
• Kingdon, J.W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, 2nd edition. New York: Longman.
• Lui, T.Y. (2007). Teachers workload and assessment of teachers. Singapore Government Press Release. Speech given by MOS Lui Tuck Yew at the 2007 Committee of Supply Debate.
• Machin, S., & Vignoles, A. (2006). Education policy in the UK. London School of Economics: Centre for the Economics of Education. Retrieved from http://cee.lse.ac.uk/cee%20dps/ceedp57.pdf
• McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. London: Routledge.
• Ministry of Education Planning Division (2008). Education in Singapore. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
• Ministry of Education (2009). 2009 Education Statistics Digest. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
• Ministry of Education (2010a). About us. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/about/
• Ministry of Education (2010b). Nurturing our young for the future: Competencies for the 21st century. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
• Ministry of Education (2010c). Nurturing students. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/nurturing-students/
• Mok, K. (2003). Decentralization and marketization of education in Singapore: A case study of the school excellence model. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(4), 348- 366.
• Neubauer, D. (2008) Globalization and education: Characteristics, dynamics, implications. In Hershock, P.D., Mason, M. & Hershock, J.N (Eds.), Changing education: Leadership innovation and development in a globalizing Asia Pacific (29-62). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Center, The University of Hong Kong.
• Ng, P.T. (2004). Innovation and enterprise in Singapore schools. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 3(3), 183-198.
• Ng, P.T. (2007). Quality assurance in the Singapore education system in an era of diversity and innovation. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 6(3), 235-247.
• Ng, P.T. (2008). Educational reform in Singapore: From quantity to quality. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 7(1), 5-15.
• Reynolds, D., Mujils, D., & Treharne, D. (2003). Teacher evaluation and teacher effectiveness in the United Kingdom. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17:1, 83-100.
• Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., & Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73: 2, 417-458.
• Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research http://www.mccsc.edu/~curriculum/cumulative%20and%20residual%20effects%20of %20teachers.pdf Assessment Center. Retrieved from
• Santiago, P. & Benavides, F. (2009). Teacher evaluation: A conceptual framework and examples of country practices. OECD Review on Evaluation and Assessment Frameworks for Improving School Outcomes.
• Skrla, L., Scheurick, J.J. (2004). Educational equity and accountability: Paradigms, policies, and politics. New York: RoutledgeFalmer
• Schultz, T.W. (1961). Investment in human capital. The American Economic Review, 51: 1, 1- 17.
• Spring, J. (2009). Globalization of education: An introduction. New York: Routledge.
• Stewart, V. (2010). Dream, design, deliver: How Singapore developed a high-quality teacher force. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(7), 85-87.
• Teo, C.H. (2001). A high quality teaching force for the future: Good teachers, capable leaders, dedicated specialists. Singapore Government Press Release. Speech by Minister for Education Teo Chee Hean at the Senior Education Officer Promotion Ceremony, 14 April.
• Teo, C.H. (2003). Singapore Government Press Release. Speech by Minister for Education Teo Chee Hean at the Senior Education Officer Promotion Ceremony, 12 April.
• Tharman, S. (2006). Singapore Government Press Release. Speech by Minister for Education Tharman Shanmugaratnam at the Senior Education Officer Promotion Ceremony, 13 April.
• U.S. Department of Education, (2009a). American Recovery and Reinvestment Act report: Summary of programs and state by state data. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/spending/impact.html
• U.S. Department of Education (2009b). Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Race to the top: Program description. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html
• Winkler, D.R., Boon-Ling, Y. (2007). Identifying the impact of education decentralization on the quality of education. USAID: Educational Quality Improvement Program 2.