School Context

In Chapter Two, I discussed the micropolitics literature, highlighting that relationships within schools are complex and that teachers negotiate discourse in a multiplicity of ways in their work. Ball (1993) and Hall and Noyes (2009) pointed to an increasing trend of giving schools purportedly more autonomy and power through systems of self- evaluation, while at the same time tightening controls over what schools did through these very systems of ‘quality outcome assessments’ (Hall and Noyes, 2009: 111). This is certainly the case in Singapore with the use of the School Excellence Model (SEM) framework (see Appendix 3.3 for the SEM template). At the point of doing research, schools appraised themselves using the SEM template and justified their scores with evidence (school documents, academic and non-academic achievements, survey results etc.). ‘Excellent’ schools were deemed to have met their targets over a sustained period of time. Linked to the SEM were corresponding validation and awards systems for schools conducted within the MOE itself. Figure 3.3 below provides an overview of these awards.

The SEM has important implications for school contexts in Singapore. Existing research on Singapore schools suggested that school Principals played a large part in ensuring teachers’ motivation and efficacy (Cheong, 1986; Yong, 1986; Chen, 1989; Ho, 1997; Lee, 1998; Lee, C.M., 2001). Under the SEM, this dependence on the Principal intensified. Principals are expected to function like Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and provide the vision and direction for the school to become ‘excellent’.

82

Figure 3.3 MOE Master Plan of Awards for Schools

This has raised the concern, however, that school leaders are under great pressure to score well at all costs. Research has noted that schools launched more and more elaborate projects and expended a lot of energy collecting evidence - all aimed at satisfying the criteria spelled out in the SEM, and to qualify for the awards that went in tandem with high scores (Ng, 2005; Hogan and Gopinathan, 2008). This CEO mentality also led to schools spending more of their time and resources marketing their schools to the academically gifted or otherwise talented pupils (Tan, J., 2005), who could help raise the school profile and contribute to school ‘excellence’.

This orientation towards high SEM scores, awards and marketing has effects on intra- school relationships, as well as teachers’ work. Researchers working in the UK context

83

noted that teacher isolation and individualism, and increased monitoring and competition, resulted from a system of bureaucratic rationality (Section 2.3). This is also the case for Singapore teachers. For example, Liew (2008) documented how the stricter accountability requirements added administrative pressures on those with headship positions in schools, and increased the need for surveillance and control of the teachers under them. This finds credence in Kok’s (1999) study that reported that department heads were often caught up in managing the ever-changing curriculum and monitoring teachers at the cost of facilitating improvement in their departments. This is especially problematic given research showing that teachers relied on their department heads to bolster their confidence and ability to implement the MOE’s initiatives (Wee, 1999). Liew (2008) also observed the effects of SEM and institutional accountability on teacher stress and workloads, with teachers spending more of their time on activities outside classroom teaching since these yielded ‘more visible dividends in the form of trophies, medals and titles than those won from the daily invisible grind of classroom teaching’ (Liew, 2008: 117). This effect was compounded by the annual ranking exercise of teachers within schools noted in Section 3.2 leading to ‘insidious effects on collegial relations’ (Liew, 2008: 122).

Not all the research however, pointed to competition within the school context. Research into teacher collegiality and collaboration in Singapore also found that teachers were generally willing to collaborate and learn from one another (Seet, 2003). Klassen et al. (2008) found in a comparative study of teachers in Singapore and Canada that in Singapore people relied more heavily on group-oriented motivation beliefs like

84

collective efficacy to do their work well. Tan (2003) argued that collaborative projects among teachers exposed them to a diversity of perspectives and skills that benefited them in problem solving. Yeoh (1999) noted that peer coaching of new teachers benefited both experienced teachers (through helping them to question established habits) and new teachers (by socialising them into the educational environment of the school). Wong (2002) found that the beginning teachers valued more experienced teachers for their help with instructional skills, information on school practices and advice on classroom and pupil management.

The contradiction above regarding teacher collegiality is not surprising considering that school micropolitics vary, depending on a complex web of relationships between school leaders, teachers, students and other stakeholders. Discursive pressures therefore may interact in different ways depending on the school context. However, it must be remembered that almost all schools in Singapore operate against a national backdrop of intense competition and accountability at both inter- and intra-school levels, and that this competition stems in large part from institutional structures like appraisal and awards systems and the discourses that surround them. The extent to which pre-service teachers are drawn into school micropolitics and how the culture of the schools they conduct their Teaching Practice in affects their notions and performance of ‘good’ teaching, and the decisions they can make about whether to draw upon their subject conceptions in their work, will be investigated in my research. In addition, I also explore how practising in the school context might affect the ways in which pre-service teachers think about geography.

85