ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF RESEARCH Copyright 2008 by THE PACIFIC

IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH ASSOCIATION

2008, Vol.2, NO.1. pp.55�-81 ISSN 1976-1961

Singapore Preschool Teachers' Responses to the

Introduction of A Framework for a Kindergarten
Curriculum in the Context of 3 Preschool Settings

Lynn Ang Ling-Yin *

University of East London

Abstract
This paper is based on a British Academy funded research proj ect on teachers' re­
sponses to the introduction of the Singapore preschool curriculum titled A Framework
for a Kindergarten Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2003). 1 5 teachers from 3
preschools were interviewed and their views analyzed to identify issues in the imple­
mentation of the new curriculum. The teachers in this pilot study welcomed the
curriculum framework but had reservations about it. For them, the three main issues
were limitations in funding and resources to implement the Framework, a need for
training, and the expectations of parents for a more formal approach to the curri­
culum. The cultural and economic context in which the preschools are located seem
to have some influence on the teachers' ability to implement the Framework and on
how the curriculum is delivered to children.

Keywords: curriculum, national policy, teachers' views, Singap ore kindergarten

* Dr. Lynn Ang is Senior Lecturer of Early Childhood Studies at the Cass School of Education, Univer­
sity of East London. She works with undergraduate and postgraduate students. Her research special­
isms include the early years curriculum, issues of diversity, and early childhood education and care
across cultures. She has worked in Singapore, Scotland and now England. Dr. Ang has been successful
in a number of research grants. She was awarded a British Academy research grant to conduct an
empirical study on the kindergarten curriculum in Singapore. She is currently involved in a collabora­
tive research project on Critical Issues for Preschool Education: towards a research agenda, funded by
the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the UK's leading research and training agency.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Lynn Ang Email: [email protected]

55
I Lynn Ang Ling-Yin

Introduction

This paper is based on a small exploratory study funded by the British Academy
on teachers' responses to the Singapore kindergarten curriculum. Titled A Framework
for a Kindergarten Curriculum in Singapore (the Framework), the curriculum was
launched by the Ministry of Education (MOE) on 29 January 2003 (Ministry of
Education, 2003) . The document provides for the first time in Singapore, an official
statement of what a quality preschool curriculum for children aged three to six years
should entail.
The late 1 980s and 90s were a time of policy developments in the early child­
hood sector in Singapore. The introduction of the Framework was in part the culmi­
nation of a series of initiatives by the government to regulate the provision of Early
Years education in the country. In 1 988, new legislation was introduced in the form
of The Child Care Centres Act and The Child Care Centres Regulations Act, which
set out explicit policies and procedures for childcare providers. In March 2000, the
government introduced the Desired Outcomes (Ministry of Education, 2000) in a
preliminary bid to stipulate the aims of pre-school education, with a focus on the
social, emotional and moral aspects of development. An inter-ministerial task force
was formed in 2000, comprising representatives from MOE, the Ministry of Educa­
tion and Ministry of Community, Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) and pre­
school practitioners. The work of the team was to develop a common training route
for the kindergarten and child care workforce. In 200 1 , a new 'Pre-school Education
Teacher Training and Accreditation Framework' was introduced. The new framework
stipulates that all preschool teachers need to achieve at least a Certificate in preschool
teaching as a minimum level of professional qualification. In 2003 , the Framework
for a Kindergarten Curriculum was introduced by the government and made avail­
able to all kindergartens and childcare centres.
The impetus for the proposal of the new curriculum was revealed in a press
statement published by the Ministry in 2003 . Firstly, the introduction of the new
curriculum was to 'give kindergarten education providers a clear direction for develo­
ping an educational program that meets the needs of their children physically, emo-

56
 Singapore Preschool Teachers' Responses to the Introduction of A Framework for a
Kindergarten Curriculum in the Context of 3 Preschool Settings

tionally, socially and cognitively. ' (Ministry of Education Press Release, 2003).
Secondly, the curriculum was to 'provide a guide to good practices in preschool
education' (Ministry of Education Press Release, 2003) . The development of the new
curriculum and the context in which it was developed therefore raised critical issues
in the early childhood sector: it highlighted the issue of raising the standards of
teacher training and preschool practices. It also revealed the government's concern
with the overall quality of the curriculum and provision of early childhood services in
the country. This was especially the case for children from less advantaged back­
grounds, where the aim of the government was to raise the standards of preschool
education and thereby provide the greatest leverage for these children to access a
quality early years provision and develop a firm foundation in lifelong learning.
The launch of the preschool Framework was therefore in part precipitated by
these intentions and reforms on the part of the government. The new curriculum was
to provide a much needed coherency in introducing a common curriculum framework
that catered for all preschool children aged 3 to 6 years. However, since the publi­
cation of the document, little known research and evaluation have been carried out on
the responses of practitioners to the new curriculum. The aim of this British Academy
study is to therefore gather practitioners' feedback on the document, and to explore
issues that they may or may not have in implementing the curriculum.

The Singapore preschool context

The term 'preschool' in Singapore generally refers to childcare centres and

kindergartens. These include a range of settings, from private childcare centres,
religious-based kindergartens to government funded kindergartens. The compulsory
school age for children in Singapore is seven years, and preschools in Singapore
generally cater for children from three to six years, although most childcare centres
also provide infant care for children aged 2 months and above. Childcare centres and
kindergartens differ mainly in their function and hours of provision. Kindergartens
cater mainly for children aged 3 to 6 years and offer daily sessional educational
programs, ranging from a maximum of 2 to 4 hours per session. Kindergartens are

57
I Lynn Ang Ling-Yin

available in both the private and public sectors. Government funded kindergartens are
commonly known as People's Action Party Community Foundation kindergartens or
PCF kindergartens and account for more than 60% of the country's kindergartens
(UNESCO Policy Brief, 2004) .
Childcare centres provide full or partial day care generally from 7am to 7pm
during the weekdays and 7am to 2pm on Saturdays. All childcare centres are private
establishments. They are registered under the auspices of the Ministry of Community
Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), but are run commercially for profit by the
private sector. Unlike kindergartens, there are no government funded childcare
centres, although state-subsidies are available for parents and families who are in
need of financial support for childcare costs. The main reasons for this are two fold.
Firstly, the primary remit of the MCYS is to support families and the community, and
childcare centres are seen as one such mechanism in their provision of "care" for
working parents and families. Secondly, the running of childcare centres is seen as
costly and for viability, the government has maintained a supporting and admini­
strative role while out-sourcing the provision of care to the private sector. As the
Director of the MCYS, Mr. Lee Kim Hua explains that it would be a more cost effec­
tive option instead for the private sector, a non-public organization to 'be responsible
for the management and operation of services, with the government providing finan­
cial support' (UNESCO Policy Brief, 2007).
The government's role with regards to childcare centres is thus confined to that
of regulating the private childcare market, and providing partial funding to parents
and families where necessary. The centres are ultimately responsible for the opera­
tion, funding and organization of their own provision, from the maintenance of
resources to the training and professional development of staff. While the MCYS
regulates and monitors the overall provision and general physical environment of
settings, the centres are effectively owned and managed by private organizations and
individuals. Kindergartens, on the other hand, are largely perceived as "educational
establishments" , offering a more education-based preschool service and therefore
operate under the auspices of the Ministry of Education (MOE) in terms of their
policies and regulations. However, despite these marked contrasts, in practice, the

58
 Singapore Preschool Teachers' Responses to the Introduction of A Framework for a
Kindergarten Curriculum in the Context of 3 Preschool Settings

differences between childcare centres and kindergartens are not entirely distinct.
It is common for most childcare centres, while registered as such under the
auspices of the MCYS, to also provide educational programs for 4 to 6 year olds.
Conversely, it could also be argued that kindergartens, like childcare centres, provide
a similar provision of care for preschool children, albeit for a more specific age group
and for shorter hours. The distinction between 'care' and 'education' is therefore
arguably ambiguous and this is especially so in discourse, where the distinction
between 'care' and 'education' is virtually inseparable.

The Singapore Preschool Curriculum: A Frameworkfor a Kindergarten Curriculum

in Singapore
Given the preschool context described above, the provision of early child care
and education services in Singapore is extremely diverse. Childcare centres and
kindergartens often vary considerably in terms of their program content, and overall
teaching and learning approaches (Retas & Kwan, 2000). Kindergartens for instance,
have the autonomy to stipulate their own goals and philosophies, and are free to
determine the curriculum offered to children. The effectiveness of each centre or
kindergarten is often dependent on popular impressions, measured arbitrarily by the
number of children enrolled, parental expectations, and the reputation of each setting.
A study conducted by Fan-Eng and Sharpe, for instance, revealed that factors such as
"the centre has a good reputation" , "recommended by someone" and "other siblings
are attending the centre" often influence parents' views of the setting. Perceptions of
what entails a 'quality' curriculum are also mixed, depending largely on the setting's
curricular emphasis, educational philosophy, and general pedagogic beliefs (Fan-Eng
& Sharpe, 2000; Wong & Lim, 2002).
Given the diversity of provision 10 the early childhood sector, the concep­
tualization of the Singapore preschool curriculum became part of a national drive to
regulate the provision of child care and education in the country, in order to provide
some degree of standardization of a curriculum from which teachers were able to
drawn upon and deliver. The introduction of a national preschool curriculum was also
in keeping with a wider international movement by governments across the world to

59
I Lynn Ang Ling-Yin

enhance the quality of early childhood services in their countries. The New Zealand
government for instance, decided in 1 990 that a national early childhood curriculum
was to be developed, which eventually led to the introduction of Te Whariki in 1 996.
In the United Kingdom, the Curriculum Framework for Children 3 to 5 was intro­
duced in Scotland in 200 1 , and the English Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation
Stage in 2000 for children 3 to 5 . The international trend among governments to
develop national pedagogical frameworks in the preschool sector has also been noted
by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in the
report Starting Strong - early childhood education and care (OECD, 200 1 ) . The
development of the Singapore preschool curriculum in 2003 was therefore aligned
with international movements in the early childhood sector to raise the standards of
preschool curriculum and provision in the settings.
The genesis of the Singapore curriculum began in 1 999, when a steering com­
mittee was formed to work with the Ministry to improve the quality of preschool
education (Ministry of Education Press Release, 2003) . With representatives from the
Ministry, the National Institute of Education, preschool and primary practitioners, the
vision of the committee was to improve the quality of preschool education in general
and to delineate outcomes for preschool education (Ministry of Education Press
Release, 2003). From March 200 1 to November 2002, a pilot research study was con­
ducted to evaluate the impact of the new curriculum and its implications on teacher
training (Ministry of Education Press Release, 2003). A total of thirty-two non-profit
preschool centres across the country participated. A report on the findings of the pilot
study indicated that the new curriculum benefited children from low socio-economic
backgrounds by providing them with a more holistic foundation for formal schooling.
It revealed that 'pupils from low SES [socio-economic status] and non-English speak­
ing backgrounds benefited more from the new curriculum' (Ministry of Education
Press Release, 2003) . The title of the curriculum 'A Framework for a Kindergarten
Curriculum' implies that the target users are kindergarten settings. An informal dis­
cussion with one of the committee members confirms this. The Framework was
initiated by the committee first and foremost for government funded PCF kinder­
gartens, in order to improve the provision of preschools where the Ministry have

60
 Singapore Preschool Teachers' Responses to the Introduction of A Framework for a
Kindergarten Curriculum in the Context of 3 Preschool Settings

more jurisdiction over. However, as a guidance document, the Framework provides a

reference for preschool teachers to draw upon and plan their curriculum, and to this
extent, is also applicable for preschool settings in general.
The Framework is structured around six areas of learning: aesthetics and creative
expression, environmental awareness, motor skills development, numeracy, self and
social awareness, and language and literacy. It is accompanied by a compilation of six
booklets, with each booklet focusing on a specific area of learning, learning goals,
and descriptions of practitioners' roles and responsibilities. Alongside these are two
DVDs on Nurturing Early Learners and an additional booklet on Putting Principles
into Practice, which offers guidance for teachers in planning the curriculum, develo­
ping the learning environment, and monitoring children's development. An overview
of the main features of the curriculum is outlined in the table below:

Desired outcomes of preschool education

• Know what is right and what is wrong
• Be willing to share and take turns with others
• Be able to relate to others
• Be curious and able to explore
• Be able to listen and speak with understanding
• Be comfortable and happy with themselves
• Have developed physical co-ordination and healthy habits
• Love their families, friends, teachers and school

Principles
Principle I: Holistic development
Principle 2: Integrated learning
Principle 3: Active Learning
Principle 4: Supporting learning
Principle 5: Learning through interactions
Principle 6: Learning through play

Putting principles into practice

Practice I: Starting from the child
Practice 2: Fostering a positive learning climate
Practice 3: Preparing the learning environment
Practice 4: Planning and structuring learning activities
Practice 5: Setting up resources
Practice 6: Observing children

61
I Lynn Ang Ling-Yin

Areas of Learning

Aesthetics Self& Language

Environmental Motor skills
& creative Numeracy Social &
awareness development
expression awareness literacy

Firstly, a list of eight desired learning outcomes provides the overarching aims of
preschool education. Secondly, a set of six principles underpins the goals and out­
comes for children. These principles provide a guide to developing an educational
program underpinned by a philosophy of play and active learning. Thirdly, a further
set of six principles provides a framework for developing good practice in the
settings. It is evident that the conceptualization of the curriculum has taken a very
different approach to the traditional subj ect based framework of the primary school
curriculum. Instead, the principles and areas of learning highlight the main areas of
interest of preschool children: exploring and making sense of the environment; skills
and understanding for communication through language and literature, active learn­
ing, and contributing to self and social awareness. The Framework as a whole advo­
cates a holistic approach to children's development and learning.
The booklets on each area of learning consist of a detailed inventory of out­
comes, learning goals, and descriptions of practitioners' roles and responsibilities.
The Framework emphasizes the role of the practitioner in preparing the learning
environment and creating "learning centres" around the classroom (Ministry of Edu­
cation 2003 , p.3 1 ), by offering a range of suggested activities such as water play,
sand play, blocks, art and craft, and different forms of play media from which
children can choose. In the section on language and literacy for example, practitioners
are presented with a range of recommended resources, including a list of fiction and
poetry books, and suggested activities for daily practice ('Language and Literacy
Development') . It states explicitly the task of the educator in enhancing children's
language development, and to cultivate in children a "positive disposition for lan­
guage learning" ('Language and Literacy Development', 2003 , pA) .
The learning goals for children range from the broad and genenc such as

62
 Singapore Preschool Teachers' Responses to the Introduction of A Framework for a
Kindergarten Curriculum in the Context of 3 Preschool Settings

"display appropriate reading behavior" to more specific ones such as 'discriminate

between different letter sounds' . Guided by these goals and principles, the Framework
has therefore clear aspirations for children and educators. It is centred on a series of
tasks, activities and goals in helping children develop their literacy skills, and the role
of the educators to help children achieve these goals. The curriculum is prescriptive in
stipulating the types and level of reading and writing skills that children need to
develop, and is didactic in its approach to education, emphasizing that children "need
to know . . . ", and "children also need to . . . " ('Language and Literacy Development',
2003 , p.34). Significantly, the Framework is also underpinned by the pedagogical
philosophy of "play as a medium for learning" and emphasizes the value of play
(Ministry of Education, 2003 , p. 1 4) .

Situating the Framework in the Wider Educational Context of

Singapore

Singapore is a small country of approximately 3 . 6 1 million people (Department

of Statistics, 2007). Education in Singapore is a highly competitive and valued
enterprise. For an island with no natural resources except for its people, the Singapore
government recognizes that an educated workforce is the key to the country's survi­
val. Much emphasis has therefore been placed on education and creating an education
system which produces students who are not only academically driven but possessing
a 'wide range of talents, abilities, aptitudes and skills' (Gopinathan, 200 1 ) . The ideal
student, as the scholar Gopinathan asserts, would be "literate; numerate; IT-enabled;
able to collate, synthesize, analyze and apply knowledge to solve problems"
(Gopinathan, 200 1 ) . This stress on academic and scholastic achievements has brought
about what Gopinathan describes as an "ability driven curriculum" which has influ­
enced the way education across the levels is managed.
Such a competitive and driven education system has inevitably influenced pa­
rental expectations of their children's academic achievements, and indeed, parents'
attitudes towards what it means to excel in the system. This is evident in their

63
I Lynn Ang Ling-Yin

demands for a curriculum that emphasizes academic achievements, even at preschool

level. Studies have shown that the pressures of the education system in Singapore are
such that parents want and expect a formal, teacher-directed education, as they deem
it necessary and desirable for their children's learning (Tan-Niam 2000, Ebbeck &
Gokhale, 2004). It is not unusual for parents in Singapore to prepare their children for
the academic rigors of the primary school system, and provide them with some form
of early education to give them a head start (Sharpe, 2000; Ebbeck & Gokhale, 2004) .
However, this parental demand for a more academic education provision appears to
be at odds with the pedagogical underpinnings of the Framework, which advocates a
curriculum that emphasizes the value and importance of play and stipulates that the
daily schedule of activities for children at preschool age should be flexibly designed
and "starting from the child" (Ministry of Education, 2003 , p.28).
There is a recognition in the Framework of the child as an active learner, where
learning is best supported through opportunities for play and interaction (Ministry of
Education, 2003 , p.ll) . Even though the curriculum, to an extent, is prescriptive in its
specification of activities and goals, the stress is simultaneously on an informal
experience of learning. The principles of the Framework serve as a reminder that the
preschool curriculum is not meant as "j ust a preparation for the next stage" (Ministry
of Education, 2003 , p.ll). The kindergarten stage is to be regarded as important in
itself and "should not be confused with trying to accelerate learning in the kinder­
garten years by providing children with a simplified primary school curriculum"
(Ministry of Education, 2003 , p.ll). This assertion in the Framework about what a
preschool curriculum should entail is the clearest indication yet of the complex
dichotomy and tension that surround the curriculum: where the pedagogic vision is
for a less academic and informal experience of learning but parental and societal
pressures are forcing the curriculum into a more formalized model of learning (Ang,
2006).
Amidst this complexity, the role of the teacher or educator in delivering an
'appropriate' early years curriculum is made all the more problematic and complex.
Researchers have argued for the importance of the role of the teacher or educator in
providing children with a quality care and education provision. A number of studies

64
 Singapore Preschool Teachers' Responses to the Introduction of A Framework for a
Kindergarten Curriculum in the Context of 3 Preschool Settings

have stressed the role of the educator in facilitating children's learning (Brown, 1 998;
Siraj -Blatchford, 1 994; Edwards & Knight 200 1 ; Pugh & Duffy, 2006; Anning &
Edwards, 2006) . Edwards and Knight point out that the role of the educator is vital in
providing an effective early years curriculum, and in making decisions about what the
curriculum should entail and how it can be delivered.
Given that the literature points to the importance of teachers as maj or stakeholders
in early childhood education and as mediators of the success or otherwise of the im­
plementation of new policy requirements, a small scale study funded by the British
Academy was undertaken to investigate teachers' views on the preschool curriculum
document.

The Focus of Study

The focus of this study is to explore preschool teachers' perceptions of the

Framework. The obj ectives were to :
1 . Explore preschool teachers' perceptions of the Framework
2 . Identify the challenges that practitioners face in implementing the Framework
3 . Investigate teachers' perceptions of the benefits of the Framework
4. Explore practitioners' perceptions of possible strategies in helping them better
understand and implement the new curriculum

Sample
The sample and scope of this study were determined by the financial margins and
duration of the grant; in this case it was for a year from January 2007 to January
2008. The study was based on a small sample of fifteen teachers from three preschool
settings, with five teachers drawn from each setting. The settings were chosen to
reflect the diversity of preschool provision in Singapore, in terms of their location,
type and socio-economic stratum of families which they serve. All three settings were
also selected for pragmatic reasons, due to their accessibility and geographic proximi­
ty. The three settings are : a private childcare centre, a government kindergarten, and a
private kindergarten.

65
I Lynn Ang Ling-Yin

Setting one is a privately-owned childcare centre located in the Queensway area,

in the Western part of the island. The centre has been in operation since 2004, cater­
ing full-time care for children aged 1 8 months to 7 years. The centre is opened six
days a week, 7am to 7pm. At the time of the interview, the setting had an enrolment
of 1 20 children for both full and part day care. The centre employs twenty members
of staff, including the manager. The setting's fee structure at S$ 1 3 1 2 . 5 0 per month
for full days and S$829. 5 0 per month for half a day is almost fifty percent more than
the national average cost of childcare. A survey carried out by the MCDYS on
'statistics on childcare services', shows that the average cost for full day care at a
childcare centre in Singapore is $647, with fees ranging from a low S$3 00 to a high
of more than S$800 a month (MCYDS ' Statistics on Childcare Services', 2006). The
high cost of fees marks out the setting's clientele at the higher-end of the market.
Setting two is a private kindergarten attached to a church. It is located in the housing
estate of Serangoon, in the north-eastern part of the island. The kindergarten first
started in 1 953 and offers a 3 year educational program catering for children aged 2 i
to 6 years. The setting operates two sessions daily, an afternoon and morning session,
each lasting 3 hours. Classified as a private business, the kindergarten is not sub­
sidized by the government or eligible for state funding. According to the centre's
records, the maj ority of the families come from the lower to middle income group,
with a proportion of the parents having manual or non-professional occupations. The
average monthly income for families of children who attend the centre ranges from
S$2,000 to S$4,000, with the maj ority of families falling into the lower end of the
spectrum. This is below the national average income per household in Singapore, as
evident from the last survey carried out in 2003 by the Singapore Department of
Statistics which shows that the average monthly income for families is S$4 867
(Singapore Department of Statistics, 'Report on the Household Expenditure Survey
2002/2003 ')1). The manager acknowledges that the setting's fees at $3 00 per month is
kept at a minimum in order to ensure that the cost of childcare remains affordable for

1) The Singapore Department of Statistics conducts the Household Expenditure Survey (NES) once
every 5 years. The latest survey was carried out from October 2002 to September 2003, published in
the 'Report on the Household Expenditure Survey 2002/2003'.

66
 Singapore Preschool Teachers' Responses to the Introduction of A Framework for a
Kindergarten Curriculum in the Context of 3 Preschool Settings

parents and families.

Setting three is a government funded, PCF kindergarten, situated in the south of
the island, in the housing estate of Woodlands. Similar to most kindergarten provi­
sion, the setting offers sessional preschool programs catering for preschool children
aged 2 ! to 6 years. The setting caters for the average income group of families from
the surrounding local neighborhood. As a government funded kindergarten, the
setting is eligible for additional funding and resources from the management com­
mittee of the Woodlands branch. The sample for the study was drawn from a group of
fifteen teachers from across the three settings. The teachers were chosen for prag­
matic reasons, due to their availability and wiliness to participate in the study. All
fifteen were available on the agreed interview dates and were able to allocate some
time away from the routine of their settings to participate in the interview.

Methodology

A qualitative approach, with the use of face-to-face interviews as the mam

method of enquiry, was undertaken. An interview schedule was drawn up containing
mainly open-ended questions to ask all interviewees (see attached appendix). Goodwin
& Goodwin ( 1 996) suggest that the schedule serves as a general interview guide for
the interviewer in outlining the topic for questioning as well as to ensure that the
important areas are covered. This will also ensure that an extent of uniformity from
one interview to another (p. 1 3 5). Based on this methodology, a total of 6 questions
were drawn up. The first 4 questions of the schedule focused on participants' percep­
tion of their setting's curriculum and how this related to their use of the Framework:
1 . What preparation have you had for the Kindergarten Curriculum?
2 . What difference has the Kindergarten Curriculum made to your practice?
3 . What are some of the benefits of having a national early years curriculum such
as the Kindergarten Curriculum?
4. What are some of the challenges that you face in implementing the Kinder­
garten Curriculum?
Interview questions 1 and 2 asked participants to describe their preparation for

67
I Lynn Ang Ling-Yin

the curriculum and the difference it has made to their practice. Questions 3 and 4
were specific in asking participants the benefits and challenges as they perceive when
implementing the curriculum. Question 5 was 'What training or guidance would you
like to have to help you better understand or implement the kindergarten curriculum?',
which explored participants' views on possible strategies or training needs that they
require to facilitate their implementation of the Framework. A final question asked
participants if there was anything they would like to add about the curriculum: 'Is
there anything else that you would like to add about using the Kindergarten Curri­
culum?'. A full interview schedule is provided at the end of this paper.
The interview questions were deliberately semi-structured and open ended, m

order to allow participants flexibility in expressing their opinions and expanding on

them when necessary. Fetterman ( 1 989) coins the terms "semi-structured" and
"informal" to describe the main types of interviews generally used in qualitative
research. Researchers in many studies have espoused the use of semi-structured
interviews as a popular and useful method in eliciting participants' perspectives about
a particular phenomenon (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1 996; Naughton, Rolfe & Siraj­
Blatchford, 2004; Cannold, 2004; Greene & Hogan, 2005).
In order to ensure that the interviews were conducted as ethically and produc­
tively as possible, a pre-interview meeting was arranged with myself as the re­
searcher, and the manager and teachers of all three settings. The purpose of this
meeting was to firstly, build a relationship of trust between myself and the partici­
pants, and secondly, to discuss the nature and purpose of the research. The pre­
interview meeting was also an opportunity to address any questions that the teachers
might have about the interview or research. This initial contact with the participants
proved vital in the subsequent meeting to help put the participants at ease and
facilitate the interview process. During the interviews, prompts were built into the
conversation as necessary and an informal approach allowed me opportunities during
the interview to prompt the participants where appropriate, and to build on their
responses.
The fifteen teachers were interviewed individually. Each interview took approxi­
mately 30 minutes and took place in the staff room at the settings. The interviews

68
 Singapore Preschool Teachers' Responses to the Introduction of A Framework for a
Kindergarten Curriculum in the Context of 3 Preschool Settings

were tape recorded and notes were taken during the interviews. The recorded data
were transcribed in the four months following the interviews. The timing of the
interviews was deliberately chosen to coincide with each setting's schedule, in order
to minimize disruption to the teachers' and children's routines.

Limitations of Study
The scope of this study is consciously limited in the way that it is a small ex­
ploratory study which focuses on three preschool settings with a sample of fifteen
teachers. The study does not purport to present a universal account of all preschool
teachers' responses to the Framework in Singapore, and its findings cannot be
generalized across other preschool services because of the distinct size and context of
the chosen settings. However, what this study will hopefully reveal are the implications
of the Framework for implementation from the perspective of the fifteen teachers,
and the possible benefits and significance of the findings for an extended study.

Ethical Considerations
Prior to the pre-interview meeting, letters were sent to all participants inviting
them to participate in the interviews, with an outline of the proposed research. The
letter also informed the participants that the interviews were strictly voluntary and
confidential. At the pre-interview meeting, all participants were explained the nature
of the research and were encouraged to raise any concerns that they may have. All the
teachers were informed of how the research would be conducted, approximately how
long each interview will take, and ways in which the findings will be used and
disseminated. When seeking informed consent, all participants were also guaranteed
anonymity and confidentiality. The participants were also informed that they could
withdraw from the study at any point without obligation or explanation. On a more
formal level, ethical approval was also sought from the ethics committee of the
researcher's institution. This ensured that the study complied with the ethical regula­
tions set at an institutional level.

69
I Lynn Ang Ling-Yin

Findings and Discussion

At the start of this paper, the main aims of the study were identified, which are
to : 1 ) explore preschool teachers' perceptions of the Framework; 2) identify the
challenges that practitioners face in implementing the Framework; 3) investigate
teachers' perceptions of the benefits of the Framework; and 4) explore practitioners'
perceptions of possible strategies in helping them better implement the new curri­
culum. The results indicate that notwithstanding the diversity of settings in which the
teachers work, all fifteen teachers share a common knowledge of the Framework
which they had gained either through their preschool training or work in the pre­
schools. Question one asked participants what preparation they have had on the
Framework, to which eight teachers said that they had attended seminars on it during
their preschool training. Six teachers said that they had staff development sessions on
it in the workplace. One teacher deviated from the maj ority in that she said she re­
ceived no prior training on the Framework and would like more communication and
training in her current workplace as to how to implement it.
On the second question (Q2) as to what difference, if any, has the Framework
made to the teachers' practice, all fifteen teachers found the curriculum document
useful as a frame of reference. For example, eight teachers found the suggestions it
offered on designing the learning centres or areas of learning to be helpful in their
practice, and two teachers thought that it helped to reinforce their current practice.
Two stated that they found it useful as a benchmark for a preschool curriculum. Two
other teachers said that they were pleased to have a clear statement from the Ministry
on what constituted an appropriate curriculum. These responses were reiterated to
some extent in the answers to question three (Q3), on teachers' perceptions of the
benefits of the Framework.
The following questions, Q3 and Q4, inform the study's core obj ectives in ex­
ploring teachers' perceptions of the benefits and challenges of the Framework. There
was a diversity of answers, which range from highly detailed to sketchy. The re­
sponses to Q3 and Q4 are presented in the tables below in order of the frequency of
each responses.

70
 Singapore Preschool Teachers' Responses to the Introduction of A Framework for a
Kindergarten Curriculum in the Context of 3 Preschool Settings

*Table 1 . Responses to Question 3

Questions Teachers' responses Number

provides a benchmark! standard of preschool
7/15
curriculum
Q3 What are some of the provides a resource of suggested activities-
benefits of having a national assists with curriculum planning 5/15
early years curriculum such
as a guide for practice 4/15
as the Kindergarten Curricu-
reassurance from the Ministry of what con-
lum? 2/15
stitute an appropriate preschool curriculum

emphasis on play and informal learning 6/15

Table 2 . Responses to Question 4

Questions Teachers' responses Number
parental expectations for a more academic
based curriculum, as opposed to a play based, 12/15
informal approach of the Framework
Q4 What are some of the
,

challenges that you face in teachers perception of the aim of preschool

6/15
implementing the Kindergar- education is not the same as parents'
ten Curriculum? as a guide for practice 3/15
Lack of resources to implement suggested
2/15
activities in the Framework

* For both tables above, some teachers gave more than one response

Given the high frequency of teachers' responses to particular issues noted in table
2, a discussion of these issues will provide further details to the study The issues
raised are expressed in broad themes and discussed in the paragraphs below. It is
significant from the results collated that three maj or concerns emerged:
1 . Parental expectations for a more academic approach to the curriculum as
opposed to the less formal approach of the Framework
2 . Lack of funding and resources for teachers implementing the curriculum
3 . More training and guidance

71
I Lynn Ang Ling-Yin

Parental expectations
The issue of parental expectations and the impact this has on the Framework can
be best understood within the country's wider educational context as discussed in
section 2.2. The discussion highlighted a key aspect of Singapore's education system,
which was to prepare children for an ability-driven, knowledge-based economy, and
how this inevitably influenced parental expectations of their children's academic
achievement. This issue of parental expectations and its implications on preschool
education was reiterated in the findings. Twelve out of the fifteen teachers aclmowle­
dged that parental expectations had a significant bearing on the way they delivered
the curriculum.
This was because from the teachers' perspectives, the maj ority of parents expect
a more formal and academic approach to the curriculum, as opposed to the informal
and play based approach espoused by the Framework. Teacher I was quoted as
saying, 'generally they [parents] want their children to be taught, the alphabet, spell­
ing, very academic. I think generally parents who send their children to kindergartens
they expect their children to be able to spell, read and write'. Ten teachers admitted
that part of their challenge as educators was convincing parents of the value of learn­
ing through play. Teacher J said that 'three-quarters of parents still think play is fun
but not useful. Locally and culturally, our people still think play is just for fun But if
you can emphasize the knowledge of play, the thinking skills. . . play can be some­
thing. . . We can exp lain to them. . . ' To manage parental expectations, Teacher C said
that 'it is not just about educating the children but the p arents as well'. Teacher D
commented that it was not just about the parents but the public as well, '[b]asically I
think it is how we educate p arents and the p ublic about the p lay based kind of
curriculum. ' Teacher E reinforced the need for more parental awareness about the
educational value of play, 'parents I think. . . need as much insight into p lay based as
teachers do, because p arents don't understand it, . . . trying to encourage and p ersuade
them [parents] that this is education. ' Teacher N suggested 'providing seminars to
p arents so that they can understand why the curriculum has changed from academic
based to p lay based, because they don't know that when their children p lay they learn
as well. ' Interestingly, teacher H commented that in the parents' defense, their expec-

72
 Singapore Preschool Teachers' Responses to the Introduction of A Framework for a
Kindergarten Curriculum in the Context of 3 Preschool Settings

tations are influenced by downward pressures of the primary school system.

As such, a common perception amongst parents is that their children receiving a
formal, academic based preschool education would mean a higher chance of doing
well later at primary school. As Teacher H says, 'Nowadays parents, there are still
those who can't accept the idea ofplay, they want the children to sit down quietly and
do their homework, a few still can't accept that children learn through play. ...but you
can't blame the parents, at primary one it is a different curriculum, there is no transi­
tion, it is pressurizing. ' All twelve teachers also felt that parents were often anxious
about their children competing in what they perceive to be an increasingly competi­
tive world of school and work.
Closely related to the issue of parental expectations is also the mismatch between
teachers' and parents' expectations of preschool education. When two of the teachers
were probed further about what they meant by 'parental expectations', it became clear
that they viewed a clash between their own perceptions of what preschool education
should entail and parental perceptions. Ideally, as teacher C says, both teachers and
parents should work towards the same goals 'I think it is quite important that since we
are revolving around the child, everyone should have the same idea and same goal.'
The teachers thought that many parents send their children to kindergartens in the
belief that an academic oriented preschool program will put their children on the track
to a successful education. What is apparent therefore, is a disconnect between what
some of the teachers see as the aim of preschool education and what some of the
parents expect of their children's education. The kind of learning that the teachers
perceive as contributing to a successful preschool experience is not always the same
as what parents think they are.
However, despite the overwhelming responses to the issue of parental expec­
tations, three out of the fifteen teachers were simultaneously optimistic that parents'
mindset are changing. Teacher A commented, 'J think, p arents are more op en to the
idea of p lay based.. . they don't ask for worksheets all the time. ' Teacher F said, 'in my
experience, my p arents are actually very open minded, they will accep t my exp lana­
tion and J will exp lain to them in details what actually the children are p laying and
what do they learn through p lay. ' Teacher K thought that parents' views were chang-

73
I Lynn Ang Ling-Yin

ing due to increased communication with them, 'Parents' mindset are changing, they
are changing. In the past, they are asking why no spelling, how come there is not
much spelling, how come there is so much play? We encourage parents to attend
meetings, to help them understand what their children are learning in school. '
Overall, the responses to question four indicate that the maj ority of the teachers
are acutely aware of the expectations from parents to deliver a curriculum that is
academically driven, in order to prepare the children for formal schooling. As dis­
cussed earlier, this demand for more formal and structured learning is in direct
correlation with an education system which is highly competitive and regards
academic attainment as key to the individual's and country's survival. All the teachers
interviewed felt under pressure by parental demands to deliver a content-driven curri­
culum, which focuses on numeracy, literacy and other formal experiences of learning.
As a result, while the new Framework espouses the importance of play and child
initiated learning, all the practitioners admitted that in reality, this was often relegated
to make way for a more formal approach to the curriculum, with the aim of preparing
children for primary school.

Lack of funding and resources

Secondly, the findings highlighted the issue of funding and resources and this, as
we shall soon see, has implications on the type and funding structure of the settings
described in section 3 .1. The lack of funding and resources was brought up by five of
the teachers as being a challenge to implementing the Framework. As teacher N said,
'[rJesources - normally we don't have enough so whatever we have we just imp ro­
vising, esp ecially art and craft areas. ' When prompted as to why the setting is not
able to order more resources, she replied, 'budget - tight budget. ' Teacher 0 said,
'sometimes, we. . . we don't have that much resource, we try to do our best, but we
need more resources. ' Teacher B said that as they had to rely on other resources
which the setting did not possess, she thought that the Framework 'was restrictive' .
I t is significant that all four teachers who raised the issue o f funding and
resources came from setting two, which is a private kindergarten catering for largely
low income families. All four teachers felt that in order to implement the Framework,

74
 Singapore Preschool Teachers' Responses to the Introduction of A Framework for a
Kindergarten Curriculum in the Context of 3 Preschool Settings

they had to have more access to materials and equipment, and therefore more funding
for resourcing the areas of learning as identified in the Framework. When inter­
viewed, the manager of setting two indicated that all equipment and materials were
paid for by income from the setting, and while they strive to allocate a larger budget
for resources, the limited income of the centre meant that this was restrictive.
As a private kindergarten, the setting is not eligible for government funding and
therefore could not rely on the government's support for resources. As Sharpe states,
private programmes are not subsidised, 'unlike those operated by community groups'
or those are run by the government (Sharpe, 2000) . The implication of this is that the
only recourse for the kindergarten to acquire additional funds is to increase its fees.
However, as discussed earlier in 3 . 1 , the setting caters for predominantly low income
families, and any initiative to increase the fees would have a direct impact on
enrolment, and therefore on the overall income and viability of the centre. The
overarching concern for the teachers and manager was that policy makers and those
endorsing the implementation of the curriculum, are not aware of the needs of young
children and of the resources necessary to meet these needs.
It is significant that this issue of funding and resources reinforces the findings of
the pilot study. The setting which participated in the pilot was a private childcare
centre which faced similar issues in implementing the curriculum. Six teachers
participated in the pilot, and all found it a challenge implementing the activities
suggested in the Framework due to a lack of resources in their setting. The impli­
cation of this socio-economic issue appears to be all the more stark when set against
the findings of a Ministry of Education (200 1 ) evaluation of the likely impact of the
Framework prior to its launch in 2003 . The new curriculum was argued on the basis
of the evaluation to hold "more benefits to pupils from low-socio-economic status and
non-English background, giving them a more holistic foundation for formal school"
(Ministry of Education Press Release, 2003). The teachers' comments in the present
study suggest that funding and resources can make a significant difference to the way
they are able to deliver the curriculum. Private non-government funded services
catering for children from low income groups are less likely than other services to be
able to realize the benefits intended by government in the promulgation of the

75
I Lynn Ang Ling-Yin

Framework.
This issue of funding and resources is also embroiled in a much wider debate
over childcare as part of the private/public sector divide, where Early Years provision
are frequently regarded as services and commodities in the private sector for parents
to purchase. This market oriented provision of Early Years services as Colley
suggests, "has come to seem commonplace in a world of privatized services" (Colley,
2006). The implication of such as a system is that childcare is subj ect to the market
forces of demand and supply, with the maj ority of settings being run as for-profit
businesses, offering childcare to working parents with a lowly paid workforce, low
levels of qualifications and often less than desirable working conditions. Amongst
others, Moss and Brannen (2003), Cohen, Petrie and Wallace (2004), have all ques­
tioned the sustainability of such a system and highlighted the damaging consequences
of such an economy on the Early Years workforce, parents and ultimately, children.
As Moss and Brannen assert, as care continues to become a marketized com­
modity, it simply means care work "is transferred from one group of (unpaid) women
to another group of (paid) women" and with the overload of care work, there are
"deleterious implications for the care which these paid carers can provide for their
own children and families and for themselves" (Moss and Brannen , 2003). As the
interviews from this four teachers have revealed, similar issues beset setting two with
regards to its financial viability on one hand and aspirations to enhance the curri­
culum on the other. The problem with the limited resources that the teachers face can
only be resolved with more funding, but the setting's income cannot be supplemented
by increasing fees as most parents will not be able to afford the cost, and this has an
overall impact on the provision and conditions of the setting, not only for staff, but
for the children.

Further training and guidance

The penultimate question (Q5) of the interview schedule explores teachers' per­
ceptions of the kinds of training or guidance that they would like to have to facilitate
their implementation of the Framework. The findings indicate that all fifteen teachers
welcomed further training and guidance on the curriculum. They were keen to find

76
 Singapore Preschool Teachers' Responses to the Introduction of A Framework for a
Kindergarten Curriculum in the Context of 3 Preschool Settings

out more about possible training sessions and were willing to attend these develop­
ment sessions if available. There was a diversity of responses, from requests for
training in specific areas of the curriculum to more general comments. Teacher G
suggested that she would like practical sessions, 'more hands-on training', on design­
ing and setting up the suggested areas of learning in the classroom. Teacher K re­
quested for more training on 'classroom observation'. This was reinforced by teacher
H who commented, 'I've already had some training, but if new training, I would like
more ideas, for the learning centres. I am very happy to attend.' Teacher I was gener­
ally enthusiastic about the possibility of further training, 'it would be wonderful to
have somebody in this area to come and work with us, talk to us.' Teacher E sug­
gested a dialogue or question and answer type session that could address any queries
that teachers may have about the Framework. Teacher A from the private childcare
centre said that rather than training or guidance, she would have preferred to know
more about any evaluations that may have been carried out by the Ministry on the
Framework, on 'whether it has been successful or not', and suggested making links
with other preschools to find out how they were implementing the curriculum.

Conclusion

The findings from this study suggest that there are many competing factors that
influence all fifteen teachers' responses to the Framework for a Kindergarten Curri­
culum. Significantly, a key finding from the study is that of the tensions between the
teachers and parents in providing what they thought would be a more appropriate
curriculum. The teachers interviewed suggested that parental demands were strong
for an academic driven curriculum which emphasizes on literacy achievement and a
more formal experience of learning, and that this was at odds with the expectations of
the Framework which espouses a more play-based curriculum.
The findings also demonstrate that the teachers would like to have training that
provides them with more information as to how to deliver the Framework. More
attention needs to be focused on how the teachers who work with children can receive
support and training that will assist them in their efforts to provide a quality curri-

77
I Lynn Ang Ling-Yin

culum. The research highlighted the legitimate concerns of the teachers in their
efforts at utilizing a document which they paradoxically welcomed yet in some ways,
found delimiting. All fifteen participants indicated that they found the Framework a
valuable document as a national benchmark and framework of provision, but they all
nonetheless felt that unless some of these concerns were addressed, the document will
fall short at their particular settings in fulfilling the needs of the young children and
their families.
As mentioned at the start of this paper, the limitations of the study are such that
the responses collated are representative only of a group of 1 5 teachers in Singapore
and are therefore not generalizable. Nevertheless, this study has raised important
issues for further consideration. What the findings have hopefully revealed are the
implications and significance of the Framework on preschool practice in Singapore,
and thereby provide the impetus for a follow-up study on a larger scope and scale. It
would be interesting to see if the issues that emerged in this small scale proj ect are
reiterated in a larger study.

References
Ang, L. (2006). Steering Debate and Initiating Dialogue : A Critical Analysis of the
Singapore Pre-School Curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood
(CIEC). Vol. 7, No. 3 , 203-2 1 2 .
Anning, A . & Edwards A . (2006). Promoting Children's Learningfrom Birth to Five.
UK: Open University Press.
Cannold, L. (2004). 'Interviewing adults', In Mac Naughton G., Rolfe S .A., & Siraj ­
Blatchford I . , Doing Early Childhood Research. UK: Open University Press.
Cohen, B., Moss P., Petrie P . & Wallace J . (2004). A New Deal/or Children? Bristol:
The Policy Press.
Colley, H. (2006). Learning to Labour with Feeling: class, gender and emotion in
childcare education and training. Contemp orary Issues in Early Childhood,
Vol. 7 , No. I .
Dahlberg, G., Moss, P . , Pence, A., (2002). Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Edu­
cation and Care. London: Routledge.

78
 Singapore Preschool Teachers' Responses to the Introduction of A Framework for a
Kindergarten Curriculum in the Context of 3 Preschool Settings

Department of Statistics Singapore. (2007). Yearbook of Statistics Singapore 2006.

Retrieved from http://www . singstat.gov.sg/pubnlreference/yos/statsT-demography.
pdf
Ebbeck, M., & Gokhale, N. (2004). Child-rearing Practices in a Selected Sample of
Parents with Children in Childcare in Singapore. Contemporary Issues in Early
Childhood, 5 , 1 94-206 .
Edwards A. & Knight P. (200 1 ) Effective Early Years Education. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Fetterman, D . M. ( 1 989). Ethnography: Step by Step. Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage.
Goodwin, W.L. & Goodwin L.D. ( 1 996) . Understanding Quantitative and Qualita­
tive Research in Early Childhood Education. US : Teachers College Press.
Gopinathan, S . (200 1 ) . Globalisation, the State and Education Policy in Singapore. In
J. Tan, S . Gopinathan, & W.K. Ho (Eds.), (200 1 ) Challenges Facing the
Singapore Education System Today (pp. 3 - 1 7). Singapore : Prentice Hall.
Mac Naughton, G., Rolfe S .A., & Siraj -Blatchford 1 . (2004). Doing Early Childhood
Research. United Kingdom: Open University Press.
Ministry of Education (2003). A Framework for a Kindergarten Curriculum in
Singapore. Singapore: Tien Wah Press Pte. Ltd.
Ministry of Education (2003). Launch of Preschool Curriculum Framework. Joint
Press Release by Ministry of Education and National Arts Council. Retrieved 6
January 2006 from http ://www.moe.gov. sg/press/2003/index.htm.
Ministry of Education (2003). Language and Literacy Development. In Ministry of
Education. (2003). A Framework for a Kindergarten Curriculum in Singap ore,
Singapore: Tien Wah Press Pte. Ltd.
Moss, P. & Brannen J. (eds.) (2003). Rethinking Children's Care, Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (200 1 ) . Starting
Strong - early childhood education and care. France: OECD Publications.
Pence, A & Moss, P. (eds.) ( 1 994). Valuing Quality in Early Childhood Services,
London: Paul Chapman Publishing, New York: Teachers College Press.

79
I Lynn Ang Ling-Yin

Pugh, G. and Duffy B . (2006). Contemporary Issues in the Early Years. London:
Sage Publications.
Retas, S. & Kwan, C . (2000). Preschool quality and staff characteristics in Singapore
In C. Tan-Niam & M.L. Quah (Eds.). Investing in Our Future: The Early
Years. (pp. 5 3 -65). Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Sharpe, P. (2000). 'Features of pre-school education in Singapore', In Tan-Niam, C .
& Quah, M. L . (Eds.) Investing in Our Future: The Early Years. Singapore :
McGraw-Hill.
Siraj -Blatchford, 1. ( 1 994). 'Some practical strategies for collaboration between
parents and early years staff'. Multicultural Teaching, 12 (2) : 1 2- 1 7 .
Tan-Niam, C . & Quah, M. L . (Eds.) (2000). Investing in Our Future: The Early
Years. Singapore : McGraw-Hill.
UNESCO Policy Brief on Early Childhood (2004). 'Inter-Ministerial Collaboration in
Early Childhood Training in Singapore', No.24, http ://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/00 1 3/00 1 3 74/ 1 3 74 1 3 e.pdf Accessed 1 May 2006.
Wong L. & Lim A. (2002). Early Childhood Education in Singapore. In Chan L . &
Mellor E. (eds.), International Developments in Early Childhood Services.
New York: Peter Lang.

Acknowledgements: The author would like to thank the British Academy for awarding the research
grant, without which this project would not be viable; the Cass School of Education for granting a
sabbatical during which the study was carried out; and the Early Childhood Studies team for their
support and encouragement. The author would like especially to thank the teachers and principals who
contributed to the study and who offered their time and commitment so enthusiastically to make this
research possible.

80
 Singapore Preschool Teachers' Responses to the Introduction of A Framework for a
Kindergarten Curriculum in the Context of 3 Preschool Settings

Appendix

Interview Schedule

Singapore Pre-school Teachers ' Responses to A Framework for a

Kindergarten Curriculum

Part One. General Information

Date and time of interview:

Type of Setting:

Name of participant:

Job Title:

Qualifications: e.g. CertiDiploma in Preschool Education

Years of experience in practice :

Part Two. Interview Questions

1 . What preparation have you had for the Kindergarten Curriculum (KC )?
2 . What difference has the Kindergarten Curriculum made to your practice?
3. What are some of the benefits of having a national early years curriculum
such as the Kindergarten Curriculum?
4. What are some of the challenges that you face III implementing the Kinder­
garten Curriculum?
5 . What training or guidance would you like to have to help you better under­
stand or implement the kindergarten curriculum?
6. Is there anything else that you would like to add about usmg the Kinder­
garten Curriculum?

Thank you very much for participating in this interview.

81