Neihart, M., & Tan, L. S. (2016). Gifted Education in Singapore. In D. Dai & C. K. Ching (Eds.

), A
critical assessment of gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects. (p.77-96). Bloomington, Il:
Chinese American Educational Research and Development Association.
Abstract
Singapore, a tiny, multicultural island nation of five million people in Southeast Asia, is recognized
globally for its high-performing educational system. Education for gifted children has a long history
in Singapore. Efforts in recent years have attempted to broaden and diversify talent development
opportunities for more students across many domains. These provisions have their strengths and
weaknesses. Strengths include the provision of high ability grouping, challenging enrichment, well-
resourced schools and well-trained teachers. Weaknesses include little provision before grade 4, a
strong reliance in the system overall on high stakes testing and a weakly coordinated research effort.
Specialized schools have been developed to address the needs of students with high potential in
academic as well as nonacademic domains. All schools are supported to develop niche areas among a
wide array of domains and to differentiate instruction in mainstream classrooms for high ability
students. Provisions for gifted or talented students do not end at the secondary level. Singapore
universities have also developed differentiated programs and supports designed to meet the needs of
high ability students. Challenges to meeting the diverse needs of high ability students across domains
in the future include building teacher capacity nationally, increasing flexibility across streams and
maintaining quality in curriculum and instruction.
Introduction
As gifted education has evolved in Singapore over the past thirty years, it has followed several
positive trends while at the same time been hampered by several limitations. The past ten years in
particular have seen a thrust to broaden concepts of giftedness and talent and to Critical assessment
diversify provisions for high ability students. Strengths of provisions continue to include the
components of high ability grouping and challenging enrichment tied to the central core curriculum.
Teachers throughout the system are well trained and all schools are well resourced with the latest
technologies. In addition, very recently there has been considerable investment in programs for
nonacademic domains of talent as Singapore aims to become an Asian center for the arts and for
sport. Specialized schools have been developed to address the needs of students with high potential
in these areas. There is also a trend for individual schools to develop niche areas among a wide array
of domains and to differentiate instruction in mainstream classrooms for high ability learners.
Finally, targeted efforts are underway to customize programming within the official Gifted Education
Program (GEP) for twice exceptional students and highly gifted students.
Although provisions for gifted and talented children in Singapore are strong and steadily improving,
limitations and areas of concern also exist. These include a virtual lack of provision for gifted
children before grade 4, a strong reliance in the system on high stakes testing, which many teachers
say inhibits them from differentiating curriculum in the classroom (Yeo, Chong, Neihart & Huan,
2014) a growing trend to reduce quality management at the classroom level and a weakly coordinated
research effort. In this chapter, we describe the context, values and components of gifted education in
Singapore and discuss what we believe to be the positive trends and potential pitfalls of provisions
for high ability students in our context.
Background
Singapore is a tiny island nation of 5 million people located at the southern tip of the Malaysian
Peninsula in South-East Asia. It is a recently developed, affluent country with a per capita GDP
greater than that of many western European countries (Singapore Department of Critical assessment
Statistics, 2013). It is a multi-racial nation with a population estimated to be about 74.2% Chinese;
13.3 % Malay, 9.1% Indian and 3.3% Others (Department of Statistics, 2013). English Language is
the main medium of instruction and business. Singapore has often been lauded around the world for
its successful transition from third world to first world nation in just three decades from 1965 to 1995
(Lee, 1998).
Education has been at the core of the nation’s development, with the overarching aim of developing a
cohesive society and preparing citizens to thrive in an increasingly globalized and competitive
landscape (Goh & Gopinathan, 2008). Education has always been a national priority (McKinsey &
Co., 2007; Ministry of Education, 2010) and the country is recognized globally for its excellent
educational system. Singaporean students ranked among the top 3 in the world in the 2010 Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (International Association for Evaluation of
Educational Achievement, 2011) and in the top 5 worldwide in reading, mathematics and science in
the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) (OECD, 2010). Singapore was also
one of three countries identified as a center of high school performance in East Asia in a study
conducted by the Grattan Institute, an Australian public policy think tank (Jensen, 2012).
Singapore’s overall education system has been characterized by four main thrusts over the past 4
decades (McKinsey & Co., 2010). First was the survival thrust during the period of nation building
(1959-1978), followed by efficiency (1979-1996) and ability driven thrusts (1997 to 2012). In 2012,
a values driven thrust was initiated by the current education Minister (Heng, 2012). The survival
driven era focused on ensuring that every child had a place in school. Near universal primary
education was achieved by the end of this period. The efficiency thrust that followed focused on
reducing dropout rates, increasing secondary enrolment and improving Critical assessment efficiency
in teaching. Streaming was launched during this era and a centralized curriculum and teaching
resources were developed. The floor of performance across students was raised significantly.
The centrally-managed Gifted Education Program (GEP) was one of the outcomes of the efficiency-
driven era when Singapore restructured its economy in response to globalization and technological
advances and the demand for a well-educated labor force grew. Streaming was put in place to address
individual differences among learners, reduce dropout rates and increase educational efficiency (Teo,
1999b).
The national initiative, “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation” (C. T. Goh, 1997) marked the start of
the ability driven era in education when the emphasis shifted to enabling every student to make the
best of his or her abilities. Schools were given more freedom and responsibility in how they managed
students. During this era, Singapore worked intensively to strengthen the quality of teachers and
school leaders.
Assumptions, Values, and Theory Supporting Gifted Education in Singapore
Singapore is a unique and sometimes confusing blend of eastern and western values, beliefs and
practices. Parents and teachers in traditionally Asian societies tend to hold a view of ability which
sees environmental forces as dominant in the development of talent, for example (Freeman, 2005;
Neihart & Teo, 2013). They perceive children as relatively equal in potential but different in their
rates of development and in their motivation. Singaporeans commonly believe that many talents can
be developed to high levels through hard work and persistence and that nearly anything is possible
with enough effort. These underlying assumptions may explain why there is little emphasis on early
identification of giftedness and why the floor in the curriculum is quite high, even for young
children. Even first graders are expected to work hard on academics and an expected outcome for
kindergarten is that all children will read. It is widely believed that all parents and teachers have a
moral obligation to develop the capability of every child to the utmost. Many countries would envy
the parental support and cooperation for learning that schools enjoy in Singapore.
The high value Singaporeans place on education as the means to achieve personal and national
economic goals is reflected in the education budget. Singapore has been steadily spending about 3%
to 4% of its gross domestic product on education in the past decades from SGD4.9 billion in financial
years 1998 to SGD10.5 billion in 2012, accounting for more than 20% of government expenditure
(Heng, 2013; E. H. Ng, 2009). These financial resources are considered money well spent as the
nation has made progress (E.H. Ng, 2009).
Students in Singapore are taught by well-trained teachers in schools equipped with the latest
technologies. Education is centralized, monitored and developed by the Ministry of Education
(MOE) with the purpose of helping children and youth "discover their own talents, to make the best
of these talents," "to realize their potential, and to develop a passion for learning" (Ministry of
Education, 2012, p. 1). All third graders are invited to take a selection test for the Gifted Education
Programme (GEP). It includes 3 papers in English Language, Mathematics and General Ability
designed locally for this purpose. Each year, about 500 students or 1% of the age cohort is selected
for the formal Gifted Education Program (Ng, 2012; Ministry of Education, Singapore, 2004).
Gifted education was officially launched in Singapore in 1984 for two important reasons (Ministry of
Education, 2012b). First, it was believed that intellectually and academically gifted children needed a
level of challenge that would be difficult to provide in the mainstream classroom. Second, since the
country is very small and vulnerable, without natural resources and with only human capital to rely
on, gifted education was seen as essential for advancement and success. A stated purpose of gifted
education in Singapore continues to be “to prepare talented youth for responsible leadership and
service to country and society” (Ministry of Education Singapore, 2013, p. 1). Thus, Singaporeans
hold a transactional or outcome oriented view of gifted education and expect to see a return for their
investment for social good.
Technological advancements and globalization have pressed Singapore to develop an economy and
work force that is more reliant on knowledge generation and innovation. 21 st century economic
demands require new skills and talents that can be nurtured. As a result, provisions for talent
development are being adjusted to address these rapidly growing needs. For example, while
streaming is the cornerstone of the Singapore education system, the government recognizes that there
are individual differences among the learners and that the system needs to be differentiated to
enhance their learning (K. S. Goh, 1978; Teo, 1999).
Undergirding the framework for the GEP are Gagne’s Differentiated +Model for Gifts and Talents
(DMGT; Gagne, 2010) and June Maker’s Model of Differentiation (Maker, 2010). Gagne’s DMGT
was officially adopted in 2008 as the conceptual framework for Singapore’s GEP because it included
most of the principles and processes that were in place in the program. It helps people understand the
components and processes currently in place. June Maker’s (2010) Model of Differentiation has long
been the framework for differentiated instruction for gifted students in Singapore. It was adopted at
its early stage of development because instruction and curriculum is the core business of the GEP and
the framework was useful in helping teachers develop units of instruction.
Broaden and Diversify
A key strength of the provisions for gifted and talented children has been the strong impetus in recent
years to broaden conceptions of giftedness and to diversify provisions for high ability students. There
have been four specific developments observed in the past decade. These are the implementation of
the six year Integrated Program (IP), the provision of GEP-like programming at Primary 4 to 6 in the
mainstream schools, the opening of 4 special schools for domain-specific talents and differentiated
provisions for twice exceptional children and for highly exceptional children.
The Integrated Program (IP).
The IP is a program of self-contained classes with challenging curriculum within a school. It was
developed on the recommendation of an international panel convened in 2003 to review’s
Singapore’s upper secondary and junior college (JC) education. The panel stressed the need for the
system to shift from efficiency to diversity and recommended “freeing up the system to allow new
pathways in education” (Report of the junior college/upper secondary review committee 2003, p. 1).
The panel specifically recommended “allowing Integrated Programs that combine Upper Secondary
and JC education seamlessly; specialized schools for special talents in the arts, sports and
mathematics and science; alternative, internationally-recognized curricula; and a few privately run
schools” (p. 1). The implementation of the IP scheme and the establishment of specialized schools
resulted in the official closure of the centrally managed gifted education program at the secondary
school level in 2008. The GEP remains in 9 primary schools today while the IP is in place in 18
secondary schools (Neihart & Teo, 2013). IP students may take university qualifying exams or the IB
Diploma without taking the intermediary O Level examinations. The IP includes students who were
formally identified for the GEP at the primary level as well as high ability students selected by the
school.
GEP-Like Programming.
The Ministry of Education announced the extension of GEP-like programming to beyond the top 1%
of the national cohort in 2006. Schools are encouraged to both design and implement enrichment
programs for high ability students, or to collaborate with other schools in their cluster to nurture
domain-specific talents such as language arts, math and science. The Gifted Education Branch
collaborated with the National Institute of Education (NIE) from 2007-2010 to deliver training
toward certification to support teachers who were tasked to deliver GEP-like curriculum and
programs in their respective schools.
Specialized Schools.
Singapore’s effort to broaden conceptions of giftedness and develop national talent in non-academic
domains is illustrated in the 2004 initiative to develop specialized schools to serve the top 5% of
students in specific domains of talent. The Singapore Sports School opened in 2004 with the aim of
developing world class sports talent. It is a boarding school that offers a strong academic program
along with intensive training in ten sports (Low, 2012). The National University High School of
Math and Science followed in 2005 (NUS High), the School of the Arts opened in 2008 and the
School of Science and Technology in 2010. Noteworthy is that the School of the Arts and the Sports
School fall under the authority of the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, and not the
Ministry of Education. The School of Science and Technology is closely associated with the
polytechnics. These variations allow the schools some freedoms not possible in other schools. For
example, they can hire professional coaches, practicing artists and technologists to support their
programs. Provisions for high ability students continue to expand and diversify rapidly, presenting
several challenges that we discuss in the next section.
Greater Autonomy, Diversity and Increased Flexibility
MOE has made a concerted effort to increase autonomy, diversity and flexibility in teaching and
learning across the larger education system, as well as within the GEP over the years. This effort is
evident in several initiatives, such as the implementation of the independent school scheme in 1988
and the autonomous schools in 1994 (Ministry of Education, 2002). Under these initiatives, schools
customize their curriculum and enrichment programs based on students’ learning needs. School-
based curriculum customization ranges from a simple unit of instruction to a full differentiated
curriculum for gifted students in various educational settings.
Assessment practices are also being diversified. IP schools and some specialized schools may now
choose alternative exam schemes such as the International Baccalaureate (IB) or their own diploma
(e.g. the NUS High School Diploma) to replace the General Certificate of Education (GCE)
Advanced Level Examination.
Autonomy and flexibility in differentiating curriculum and programs for diverse learners do not stop
at the primary and secondary school levels. The multiple pathways educational landscape at the
secondary level has begun to diversify the types of high school graduates admitted to tertiary
institutions. At government funded universities, there are a variety of initiatives to stretch those who
are ready to take up more challenges in niche areas. Though it is more the exception than the norm,
there are a small number of gifted and talented students who sought early admission to these
universities and completed their degree programs ahead of others (Q. Tan, 2012). Within a
university, each faculty is given the liberty to nurture gifts and talents deemed appropriate to the
discipline. For instance, at National University of Singapore (NUS), the Mathematics Faculty
nurtures mathematically talented students by conducting advanced mathematics for small pull-out
classes while the Science Faculty implements advanced placement credits. It assesses the knowledge
and ability of students and grants credits to those Critical assessment GE Singapore
Page 10 of 28
who do well and allows them to be exempted from lower level courses. At Nanyang Technological
University, within the Faculty of Engineering, the Renaissance Engineering Program admits the top
3% of engineering students into an integrated program that awards a Bachelor of Engineering
Science degree and a Master of Science in Technology Management in 4.5 years. The CN Yang
Scholars Program develops passions in Science and Engineering by providing a platform to interact
with outstanding scientists and inventors. Opportunities are provided to become immersed in the
research culture by linking theory and practice in solving science, math and engineering problems. In
addition, the NUS started a holistic program known as the University Scholar Program in 2001.
Students are provided enrichment modules over and above the required coursework 1. Similar
programs are now also conducted at NTU and the Singapore Management University. the
abovementioned spectrum of autonomy is Singapore’s efforts to facilitate greater diversity in
teaching and learning. The rationale for these changes is that schools know their students best; they
are in a better position than headquarters to customize provisions for these students. However, with
no standards for practice and programming, it remains to be seen whether this move toward greater
autonomy and flexibility will improve services for gifted and talented students in Singapore.
As the GEP has been devolved to the IP schools at the secondary level and extended to beyond the
top 1% of the national cohort, GEP-like curriculum and programs have also been expanded beyond
the top 1%. If this is the first step towards Borland’s (2005) call for gifted education without gifted
programs, then the transition from a centrally-managed standalone GEP to diverse provisions for
school-based talent development with ground-up initiatives in IP schools is surely a complex process.
In an interview with Newsweek journalist, Zakaria (2006) Mr. Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Minister
for Education and Second Minister for Finance, highlighted that Singapore is an exam meritocracy
system and America has a talent-meritocracy system. In the next section we describe the
complexities and predicaments of the decentralization process of an exam meritocracy system. We
argue that crafting a framework that builds teacher capacity and access to expert knowledge is
essential to support increasingly diverse and autonomous provisions for the education and talent
development of gifted students.
Building Teacher Capacity.
It takes time for differentiated curriculum and instruction to permeate these new flexible structures.
Effective teacher development for lasting change requires (a) acceptance of new ideas; (b)
understanding of new practice integration; (c) sharing complex, tacit knowledge; (d) external support
for change, and (e) a sustaining community to facilitate change (Baker-Doyle & Yoon, 2011). Day
and Gu (2007) found that commitment and resilience were fundamental to teachers’ effectiveness,
and that variations in professional, personal and workplace conditions in different professional life
phases affected teacher’s level of commitment and resilience. Teachers need guidance to learn these
new strategies and how to integrate them into their teaching. They also need supportive internal and
external communities to facilitate and sustain this change. For instance, instructional strategies such
as Hilda Taba’s (Taba, Durkin, Fraenkel, & McNaughton, 1971) Concept Development and Jerome
Bruner’s (Bruner, Goodnow, & Austin, 1956) Concept Attainment are frequently used to build
conceptual understanding, promote critical and creative thinking, and challenge intellectually gifted
students. Although these strategies were originally intended for all students, they are seldom
practised in regular classrooms in Singapore. The GE branch has accumulated a wealth of knowledge
and resources to build capacity throughout the system over the last thirty years. It seems logical, then,
that as programming for gifted students is increasingly decentralized and managed by individual
schools, that schools would access this capital to develop effective programming. It seems likely that
differentiated curriculum and instruction in the regular classroom will deviate from what is provided
within the GEP and IP since there are more diverse learners in the same classroom. At this time it
remains to be seen whether enrichment around the core curriculum will take root in regular
classrooms.
Since teachers account for about 30% of the variance in student achievement (Hattie, 2003), the
MOE initiated curriculum change in both the mainstream as well as within gifted education.
Differentiating curriculum and instruction is not exclusive to the gifted education classrooms for the
nation’s top 1.2%, but a necessity to all classrooms. For example, about the same time when the IP
scheme was put in place, the MOE introduced PETALS TM2 under the Teach Less Learn More
(TLLM) framework in the effort to support school-based curriculum innovations. In addition, the GE
Branch was re-organized under the Curriculum Planning and Development Division at the MOE, so
that the expertise on differentiation could be diffused throughout the existing networks of curriculum
specialists at MOE headquarters (Ministry of Education, 2014a). All these are the signposts for the
significance of building teacher capacity in embracing the changing educational landscape in
Singapore. Increasingly, all teachers are expected to differentiate instruction for learners. Recent
research in Singapore mainstream schools has highlighted that “existing structures (e.g., high-stakes
examinations) sometimes countered newer initiatives (e.g., for student engagement through more
group work or greater use
2 PETALSTM is the abbreviation of the five dimensions of Pedagogy, Experience of learning, Tone of environment,
Assessment, and Learning content. This framework seeks to support teachers in understanding the dynamics
between what a teacher does and what a student experiences, and to provide a common language and professional
vocabulary across all schools (Ministry of Education, 2008). Critical assessment GE Singapore
Page 13 of 28
of learning centers)” (Silver, 2011, p. 2). Given the emphasis on high-stakes examinations, the
question is whether teachers are prepared for such an instructional paradigm shift.
A systemic professional development is imperative to the development of quality education for all.
One direct way to involve teachers in differentiating curriculum and pedagogies is to build teacher
capacity to practice differentiated instructions among IP teachers and primary school teachers who
are teaching the high ability students to practice these strategies in the classrooms. Schools may
choose to enroll teachers in professional development courses offered by the GE Branch. For
example, a new series of professional development courses such as those in curriculum design and
curriculum and program evaluation have been conceptualized and organized according to the needs
of IP schools. Between 2007-2010, the GE Branch collaborated with the National Institute of
Education to put in place a certification program- Certificate for Teaching High Ability Students
(CeTPHA) - for primary teachers who are teaching high ability learners in regular classrooms. The
GE Branch continued to implement the Foundation Course in Teaching High-ability learners
(FCTHAL) after the commissioned period for the CeTPHA ended.
To date, the scope of teacher learning has widened and involves a wider target audience served by
the Branch. However, the onus is on the School Staff Developers and school leaders to build teacher
capacity to manage the demands of designing, implementing and monitoring the differentiated
curriculum and pedagogies.
Fidelity of Programming. The fidelity of implementing curriculum and programs can be
compromised unless there is coaching and mentoring of newly recruited teachers to help them
differentiate curriculum and pedagogies. A study comparing the effectiveness of instructional
practice of Singapore and American GEP teachers concluded that Singapore teachers performed
Critical assessment GE Singapore
Page 14 of 28
better at engaging their students in problem solving and creative and critical thinking, even though
American teachers hold better teaching qualifications as a group. The investigators identified two
factors accounting for the differences. One was completion of professional development programs
and the other was effective monitoring of curriculum implementation by subject curriculum
specialists (VanTassel-Baska et al., 2008). At the time of the study, GEP teachers in Singapore
participated in two years of individualized mentoring and instructional coaching to ensure that they
delivered the instruction appropriately. They were also required to attend many hours of training
annually. Thus, evidence suggests there is a need to formalize and establish effective mentoring and
monitoring system within the schools to ensure fidelity of the IP scheme and other programs for
high-ability students in Singapore.
Following the announcement that the centrally run secondary GEP program would be phased out by
the end of 2008, the GE Branch relinquished its central role in managing the gifted education
curriculum and programs at the secondary level. It recast its organizational position as the key driver
for implementing quality gifted education programming to providing leadership in the education of
the intellectually gifted. It assumed the role of consultant to provide professional expertise and
exemplary resources to support schools. The Branch provides consultation on early admission and
recommendations for exceptionally gifted young children, on provisions for specific enrichment and
research programs with tertiary institutions, and on provisions for teacher professional development
as well as on evaluation of the school-based curriculum designed by IP schools.
While the centrally run primary GEP schools remains status quo, the ways in which fidelity to the
implementation of gifted education programming at the secondary level was ensured has shifted from
the GE Branch to the NUS Math and Science High School and the IP Critical assessment GE
Singapore
Page 15 of 28
schools. Teachers in these schools took over the instructional leadership from the GE Branch
officers. The devolvement of instructional leadership from the GE Branch to the abovementioned
schools afforded greater autonomy to the schools to design, deliver and monitor a differentiated
curricular for students enrolled in the IP. As such, the development and implementation of an
enriched IP curricular required teachers not only to design school-based curriculum and re-orientate
pedagogical practices, but also to coach and mentor teachers to differentiate curriculum and
pedagogies. Although the process of crafting curriculum entails opportunities for teacher learning
(Clandinin & Connelly, 1992; L. S. Tan & Ponnusamy, 2014b; Y. S. M. Tan & Nashon, 2014), IP
teachers are contending with issues pertaining to designing, planning and implementing
differentiated curriculum. Quality assurance has to be managed and enforced by the school’s
commitment to professional development of IP teachers and effective monitoring of at the school
level. We believe this should be a priority for attention as gifted education advances in Singapore.
Research and Development Efforts in Gifted Education Initiatives
Research and development is another supporting pillar in sustaining quality gifted education in
Singapore. Conducting research to inform practice has been one of the key roles of the GE Branch
for decades. There are pressing needs to conduct research to understand and inform the structures,
processes and outcomes of IP programs, especially after the GE Branch has relinquished its
implementing and monitoring roles.
Gifted education research in Singapore is conducted through three avenues through several structures
and provisions. First, many gifted education professionals conduct research as part of their graduate
studies. The National Institute of Education offers higher degrees (Masters and PhD) that provide
specific training in research skills in gifted education. Second, academics Critical assessment GE
Singapore
Page 16 of 28
at local universities also research gifted education, especially those at the National Institute of
Education. Third, research is also conducted by MOE officers, but it is usually not published nor
made available to the public.
Excellent resources for R & D are available to teachers as well. For example, there is a Teacher-
Research Network (TRN) to support and encourage practitioner inquiry and action research among
all mainstream teachers and separate, additional funding to support similar research by Master
Teachers. Further, the strong relationship between Ministry, schools and the National Institute of
Education means that practice, policy and research are tightly linked in Singapore, supporting
efficiency in translational research in particular.
Since there is a tightly aligned, tripartite relationship in Singapore between educational research,
practice and policy, it is not surprising that the focus of research in gifted education is broadening
and diversifying along with conceptions of giftedness. Research over the past decade has expanded to
nonacademic domains of talent and affective issues. The focus of studies has included instructional
practices (Tan, 2001; Tan, 2005; VanTassel-Baska, Feng, MacFarlane, Heng, Teo, Wong, Quek, &
Khong, 2008), social and emotional characteristics (Pramathevan, 2010; Tan, 2005; Tan, 2010; Tan,
2011a); twice exceptional students (Wang, 2011; Wong, Neihart & Tan, 2008) and talent
development processes in nonacademic domains (Garces-Bacsal, Cohen & Tan, 2011; Keun & Hunt,
2006; Wang, Sproule, McNeill, Martindale & Lee, 2011). Limited research has been done on
creativity, parenting or family issues. Also, race, religion and ethnicity are considered to be very
sensitive topics in Singapore so research exploring these issues is generally not conducted.
Areas of Concern and Opportunities Critical assessment GE Singapore
Page 17 of 28
While there is much to praise in provisions for gifted and talented students in Singapore, there are
also several areas of concern and a few exciting opportunities ahead. One concern is that despite
efforts to expand provisions for gifted students, the number of such students formally identified for
the GEP remains quite low at 1.2%. The position of the MOE is that it has the resources to provide
programming for the top 1.2% and the schools are encouraged to accommodate the others. Since
there is little monitoring of provisions beyond the GEP, it is not known what differentiation takes
place for gifted children not placed in the formal program. We think it is important to collect
empirical evidence to clarify how such programs are or are not taking place in schools, to assess the
quality of the curriculum and programs that have been implemented and to verify how high ability
students are benefiting from these learning opportunities.
A second concern is the system’s heavy reliance on high stakes testing to determine educational
placements. Students in Singapore take high stakes national exams at grades 6, 10 and 12. There is
increasing tension between trying to prepare students for national exam exams and providing
instruction and support that meets students’ cognitive and affective needs. There is a strong sense of
competition across schools and within society for good test results and many teachers report feeling
pressured to meet perceived expectations to deliver (Yeo, Chong, Neihart & Huan, 2014). A common
perception is that such emphasis on high stakes test results drives the system and inhibits teachers
from deviating from didactic instruction aimed at preparing students to achieve high test scores.
Related to assessment concerns is the policy of streaming (i.e., tracking), a foundation of the
Singapore educational system. Students are streamed into one of four tracks beginning the first year
of secondary school. Streams are determined on the basis of a student’s performance on Critical
assessment GE Singapore
Page 18 of 28
a national exam in grade 6. There is pressure in the system to eliminate streaming but there is also
support to maintain streaming because it is efficient. The MOE points to Singapore’s high graduation
rates (Ng, 2008) as evidence that streaming is a good way to address students’ differentiated needs.
The competition grounded in streaming is viewed by many as stressful and a possible deterrence to
social harmony. In the last decade, streaming has been blamed as a potential cause of social cracks
that threaten social cohesion and national identity. However, the streaming system has been adjusted
in recent years to blur the boundaries of different streams in the system while grouping of students
with special needs and the gifted and talented are kept intact. This flexible grouping is being
practiced in several ways. For example, students are being promoted from lower to higher ability
level streams based on their annual academic results. Close monitoring of the performance among
those who move from one stream to another builds confidence in the practice of flexible grouping.
Another example is the recent move to ability group by subject rather than by grade at the primary
level to accommodate the varying readiness in learning for different subjects.
A recent analysis in Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) revealed a long tail in
the achievement distribution for Singapore, despite the very high mean achievement scores in
mathematics and science. The OECD (2011) commented that this suggested a more equitable
performance of students across the system is needed. Among many measures recommended to
address public concerns, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong pledged his vision to build an inclusive
society with many peaks of excellence (Lee, 2006). Since then inclusivity has become the rhetoric in
Singapore’s educational landscape as well as the larger social context (Lee, 2004, 2014). This
inclusive education is being built upon an ability-driven education Critical assessment GE Singapore
Page 19 of 28
system that strives to nurture students according to their strengths and talents within every academic
stream.
Recent policy changes to ability group primary students by subject rather than grade level will
improve access to opportunities for enrichment and challenge for many more children. Also, recent
provisions to allow children to move up into more advanced streams when they demonstrate the
readiness for such work will further increase access to appropriate levels of challenge in the
classroom (Neihart & Teo, 2013). As the system continues to grow its capacity for differentiated
instruction and the nation’s need for greater inclusivity and diversification increases, we hope that the
day will come when there is little perceived need for streaming.
Related to the practice of streaming is the challenge of building capacity to increase diversity and
inclusivity within the program to meet the differential needs of gifted students. Given the long
history of streaming in Singapore, teachers are not trained to teach in mixed ability classrooms and
will need time to learn the classroom management skills and pedagogies needed for the mixed ability
instruction that will support greater inclusivity. The needs of twice exceptional and exceptionally
gifted (i.e. highly gifted) students are a particular concern.
Twice Exceptional. Singapore has a long history of special education but the practice of inclusive
education is very new and there is no national mandate for it. Most children with moderate to severe
disabilities attend segregated special schools. These realities impact schools’ capacity to meet the
needs of twice exceptional students. However, the government began to invest significant resources
for children with special needs in mainstream schools in 2004 to support its vision of Singapore
becoming a more inclusive society. The Ministry worked with the National Institute of Education to
train teachers and para educators to provide support and intervention for children with special needs
in mainstream schools (Lim & Tan, 2004; Poon Critical assessment GE Singapore
Page 20 of 28
Poon, Musti-Rao & Wettasinghe, in press). Today, there is at least one resource teacher to support
students with special needs in all primary schools and in one third of secondary schools and there are
plans to recruit more (Ministry of Education, 2012). Parallel to this growing interest in improving
provisions for children with special needs in the mainstream classroom, local empirical research into
the needs and characteristics of twice exceptional children is emerging (Wang, 2011; Wang &
Neihart, 2012; Wong, Neihart, & Tan, 2008).
Wang & Neihart (2012) recently investigated the self-perceived emotional and behavioral strengths
high-achieving twice exceptional students attributed to their academic success. Results of interviews
with adolescents formally identified as twice exceptional revealed similarities and contrasts with
related research conducted in Western contexts. For example, similar to work done by Reis and her
colleagues (Reis, McGuire & Neu, 2000; Reis, Neu & McGuire, 1995), Wang and Neihart concluded
that the strongest enablers of academic performance for these students were relationships, effort and
coping strategies. However, unlike twice exceptional students reported on in Western contexts, the
students in this local study reported strong academic self-concept and self-efficacy. Wang and
Neihart’s work highlights the significant influence culture and context can have on student
characteristics and learning outcomes and the need to evaluate the needs and characteristics of gifted
children in their sociopolitical contexts.
The increased awareness of the needs of children with learning challenges among all teachers
generally has influenced GEP teachers as well. Although there has always been an awareness that
some identified gifted children have specific learning disabilities, ADHD, or an autism spectrum
disorder, etc., it is only in recent years that MOE has begun systematic efforts to monitor the
performance and adjustment of these students. Efforts to provide appropriate accommodations or
interventions to twice exceptional students are usually school or classroom Critical assessment GE
Singapore
Page 21 of 28
based. As inclusive practices increase throughout the education system and more local research is
conducted, we are confident that information about identifying and developing gifts and talents
among students with special needs will be included in the training teachers received to meet the
needs of students with special needs.
A final concern is there is almost no provision for gifted children prior to fourth grade, hence the
majority of gifted children learn in mixed ability classrooms with undifferentiated instruction until
the age of about 9. Formal identification of gifted students takes place only once at the end of third
grade. Similarly, while there is provision for early entrance to first grade, it is rarely permitted except
in cases of profoundly gifted children who demonstrate readiness for it. Hence, gifted children are
generally without any special provisions for learning prior to grade 4 and at grade 4, only the top 1%
is being selected for the formal program. The MOE acknowledges that the selection is very strict and
that limited resources prevent it from doing otherwise. But this practice is congruent with a
traditional Asian belief that high achievement is mostly the result of environmental factors and effort.
However, although there is only one selection test, there are multiple points in the system where
students can access challenging enrichment opportunities. For example, the top 10% of the grade 6
cohort qualifies for attendance at independent schools which cater to high ability students. The top
10-15% is eligible for IP schools at the secondary level and subject-based ability grouping from
grades 4-6.
Finally, one of the strengths of the GEP is also a major challenge. This is the expectation of results,
or demonstrated impact. Although performance outcomes are not the only indicator, there is evidence
that Singaporeans expect a quantifiable return for their investment in gifted education and talent
development. The Sports School must develop world class athletes; the Critical assessment GE
Singapore
Page 22 of 28
School of the Arts must develop recognized musicians, dancers and actors; the GEP must produce
national leaders, etc. Sometimes it seems that expectations are still stuck in the nation’s survival era
of education. While we think it is wise that the government require evidence be provided to
demonstrate the relevance of the GEP and talent development programs, we hope that it will not be
too long before “relevance” can be defined less in terms of performance outcomes but also in ways
that acknowledge the individual’s need for meaning and purpose in life.
Conclusion
All countries are pressed to modify their educational structures and processes in order to stay relevant
in the rapidly changing pace of the 21st century. Singapore is no exception. The provisions of the IP,
specialized schools, GEP-like programming and greater movement across academic streams are all
designed to increase diversity in the education system (Shanmugaratnam, 2002, 2004). These
initiatives attempt to promote flexibility and fluidity in a school system accustomed to a high-stakes
exam paradigm. In this centralized decentralized governance approach (P. T. Ng, 2010), the “ground-
up initiatives and top-down support” principle aims to stimulate and support teacher agency by
allowing teachers and students to make choices within a flexible structure. Instead of limiting or
sharply influencing individual opportunities, it generates connections and affordances that promote
an innovative teaching and learning culture (Tan & Ponnusamy, 2014). However, these bold attempts
do not suggest a laissez-faire approach to education, nor have they down- played the pivotal role of
achieving exam results. Rather, the recalibration of Singapore’s educational structure is challenging
stakeholders to consider how multiple pathways can be leveraged to achieve excellence. Critical
assessment GE Singapore
Page 23 of 28
Beliefs and values about ability and talent development are shaped by culture, context, and political,
social and economic realities. The aims, models, strengths and weaknesses of gifted education in
Singapore have been molded by its short history and rapid transition from third world to first world.
Gifted education continues to serve its original aims, which are to provide gifted children with the
level of challenge and complexity they need in their education and to develop the future leaders of
the nation. The success of educational restructuring has reinforced the belief that education is one of
the key pillars in growing the diversified economy in an increasingly complex global system.
Strengths of the programming and supports for gifted and talented students in Singapore
include its strong provision for full time ability grouping with an appropriately challenging
curriculum delivered by well trained teachers; the excellent funding provided to support the
programs, the high quality training available to teachers who wish to access it and the requirement
to deliver results. The nation has been striving to increase autonomy, diversity and inclusivity in its
provisions to students with high potential during the past decade. High ability children now have
access to a greater number of enrichment and talent development opportunities than ever before.
Maintaining quality will be the challenge in the years to come.