singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school...

22
This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University] On: 06 October 2013, At: 13:52 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Educational Review Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedr20 Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system Salleh Hairon a & Clive Dimmock b a Policy and Leadership Studies, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore b Centre for Research in Pedagogy & Practice (CRPP), National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Published online: 16 Nov 2011. To cite this article: Salleh Hairon & Clive Dimmock (2012) Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system, Educational Review, 64:4, 405-424, DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2011.625111 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.625111 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Upload: clive

Post on 15-Dec-2016

219 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University]On: 06 October 2013, At: 13:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedr20

Singapore schools and professionallearning communities: teacherprofessional development and schoolleadership in an Asian hierarchicalsystemSalleh Hairon a & Clive Dimmock ba Policy and Leadership Studies, National Institute of Education,Nanyang Technological University, Singaporeb Centre for Research in Pedagogy & Practice (CRPP), NationalInstitute of Education, Nanyang Technological University,SingaporePublished online: 16 Nov 2011.

To cite this article: Salleh Hairon & Clive Dimmock (2012) Singapore schools and professionallearning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asianhierarchical system, Educational Review, 64:4, 405-424, DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2011.625111

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.625111

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Page 2: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

52 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

013

Page 3: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacherprofessional development and school leadership in an Asianhierarchical system

Salleh Hairona* and Clive Dimmockb

aPolicy and Leadership Studies, National Institute of Education, Nanyang TechnologicalUniversity, Singapore; bCentre for Research in Pedagogy & Practice (CRPP), NationalInstitute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

While the literature on professional learning communities (PLCs) has prolifer-ated, much of it derived from and contextualised in Anglo-American settings, theconcept and practice of PLCs in Asian contexts of strong hierarchies have largelybeen ignored. Based on literature and documentary analysis, this paper investi-gates the systemic implementation of PLCs in Singapore schools. The authorsseek to show first how policy developments have in effect been laying the seed-bed for PLCs for some 13 years, and yet evidence suggests that teacher peda-gogy has been slow to change. Secondly, Singapore educational cultural andinstitutional contexts are reviewed to reveal how they mediate and filter “Wes-tern” notions of PLCs. Three potential implementation difficulties are identified –high teacher workloads, ambiguity of PLC processes and their efficacy, and hier-archical system and workplaces. Conclusions and implications emphasise theimportance of effective school leadership in developing PLC practices, and howsocietal culture and context fundamentally shape the form that PLCs take.

Keywords: professional learning communities (PLCs); curricular developmentand innovation; Asian context; leadership

Introduction

In an effort to remain competitive in the global economy, governments around theworld – including the Singapore government – are endeavouring to reform theireducation systems (Carnoy 1999; Gopinathan 2007). Indeed, for the Singapore gov-ernment, the economic–education nexus has been direct and explicit ever since Sin-gapore’s inauguration as an independent state in 1965. A small island without anyresources except its human capital, and separated from its former British colonialgovernment and following a brief period as part of Malaysia, Singapore was forcedto develop its economy as rapidly as possible for survival. Consequently the impor-tance of the economic–education nexus and an instrumentalist view of the purposeof education – as perceived by Singapore policy-makers, educators and society atlarge to its survival, growth and competitiveness in the global market – cannot beoverestimated. Education is seen as crucial to building national identity in Singa-pore’s multi-ethnic society, providing a labour force with the appropriate knowledgeand skills at each phase of economic development, and a citizenry with desirable

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Educational ReviewVol. 64, No. 4, November 2012, 405–424

ISSN 0013-1911 print/ISSN 1465-3397 online� 2012 Educational Reviewhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.625111http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

52 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

013

Page 4: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

attributes necessary to underpin the social and economic development that has takenSingapore from a Third World to a First World state in little more than 40 years(Gopinathan, Wong, and Tang 2008).

A suitably educated and skilled workforce is considered imperative in the pur-suit of economic growth and transformation to twenty-first century knowledge-basedeconomies (KBEs) (Levy and Murnane 2004; Dimmock and Goh 2011). Whileschool reforms target student learning outcomes, it is increasingly accepted that thekey to achieving such outcomes is improvement in teaching quality (McKinsey &Company 2007). The concept of professional learning communities (PLCs) has –over the last decade and more – attracted the attention of an increasing number ofschools, education systems and governments as a promising vehicle to secureimprovements in teaching quality and thereby in student learning outcomes (Hord1997a).

The idea of PLC, especially the term “learning community”, has evolved fromthe corporate business sector, and can be tracked to Senge’s work on the learningorganisation (Senge 1990). According to Senge (1990), “learning organisations” arethose organisations where people continually expand their capacity to create theresults they desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured,where collective aspiration is explored, and where people are continually learningto see the whole together. About the same time as Senge was developing the con-cept of the “learning organisation”, two anthropologists, namely Lave and Wenger(1991), began using the term, “community of practice”. Their focus was on learningas social participation – that is, the individual as an active participant in the prac-tices of social communities, and in the construction of their identities through suchcommunities (Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder 2002).

Senge’s ideas together with those of Lave and Wenger evolved firstly into thepresent popularised term “professional learning communities”, and secondly, to theschool and education context specifically, through the work of teacher developerssuch as Richard and Rebecca Dufour (DuFour and Eaker 1998; Dufour 2004) andscholars such as Hord (1997b), Feger and Arruda (2008) and Hamos et al. (2009).Central to the idea of PLC is collaborative learning with peers; and it is this aspectwhich has been universally identified as a common mode of practice (Hamos et al.2009), although the term PLC itself is distinctly Anglo-American.

The literature on PLCs emanating from the Anglo-American discourse has pre-dominantly been advocacy in nature with relatively limited empirical research tosupport its claims. The absence of empirical research on PLCs is particularly acutein Asian settings (for example, see Sargent and Hannum 2009; Wong 2010a,2010b).

Consequently, a key question is – How well do the ideas and practices associ-ated with schools as PLCs transfer to other cultures, such as those of Asia? Thealgorithmic arguments earlier are central to an understanding of the growing interestin PLCs in Singapore, especially as the government has recently committed to see-ing all 360 schools adopt a PLC model as the main means of teacher professionaldevelopment (MOE 2009a, 2009b).

This paper maps the policy evolution of PLCs in the Asian context of Singa-pore, raising issues of match or fit with its societal culture in adopting and adaptinga hitherto Western concept, structure and set of practices. The arguments raised andevidence provided in this paper relied mainly on literature review and documentaryanalysis of relevant documents. The paper first explores how PLCs have emerged

406 S. Hairon and C. Dimmock

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

52 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

013

Page 5: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

in the Singapore policy reform agenda over the past decade. Second, it describesthe methodology employed to support the central arguments in the paper. Third, itcritiques the problems and issues that are likely to arise in embedding PLCs inschools, given that many of the key tenets assume teacher and school-based initia-tives, when Singapore schools are part of a centralised “command and control” sys-tem. Finally, in raising challenges to the acceptance of PLCs and theirsustainability, it draws implications highlighting the centrality of effective schoolleadership as a sine qua non in successful implementation, and the need to adaptthe Anglo-American model of PLCs and possibly leadership to suit the Singaporecontext.

The Singapore context

Singapore is a small island state with a population of about five million, and 360schools. Most of these are government schools. Less than 20 schools are indepen-dent and specialist schools – but even they must abide by government regulationsconcerning curricula and assessment. The Island’s schools are divided into fourzones – East, West, North and South – within which schools are grouped into clus-ters of about 12 to 14, each with a superintendent in charge. Each cluster comprisesa mixture of primary and secondary schools, and among its functions is mediationbetween individual principals and schools and the Ministry of Education (MOE)headquarters. The cluster also has designated functions to promote network profes-sional development and school improvement activities across the schools in itsgroup. As Singapore enters the second decade of the twenty-first century, thedemands and expectations of the KBE weigh ever greater as drivers for transform-ing Singapore schools and pedagogy in particular.

In Singapore, and other Asian school systems, the phenomenon of PLCsremains in its infancy both in concept and in application. Interest in PLCs in Singa-pore education was first made public by the government in 2009 when the newlyappointed Minister of Education and Director-General for Education identified themas the means to raise the level of teacher quality and professionalism. Given Singa-pore’s renowned student achievements, evidenced in outstanding performance ininternational tests such as TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and ScienceStudy) and PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), this commit-ment to invest in teacher professional development through the development ofPLCs may seem rather puzzling. Policy-makers, however, are increasingly awarethat a pre-occupation with preparing students to do well in examinations is nolonger sufficient to meet the demands of Singapore’s rapidly emerging twenty-firstcentury KBE (Dimmock and Goh 2011). KBEs place a premium on new workskills such as creativity, innovation, critical thinking, problem-solving and collabora-tion.

Singapore’s educational policy-makers are also aware that providing studentswith a curriculum that develops twenty-first century work skills, yet maintains highstandards in traditional examination results – a requirement on which parents aswell as government are uncompromising – will require curricular and pedagogicalpractices that are quite unlike existing or previous models. The MOE’s commitmentto search for new curricular and pedagogical models is evident in its willingness toprovide research funding to investigate current pedagogical and assessment practicesand map them against those required for a twenty-first century economy (Luke

Educational Review 407

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

52 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

013

Page 6: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

et al. 2005; Hogan 2009). In brief, new models of curriculum that balance andintegrate the learning outcomes of both achievements in academic grades, and stu-dents’ holistic development including so-called “soft skills”, are now important aimsof Singapore educational policy-making.

Such reconstructed curricular models, however, require teaching professionalswho are not only actively and continuously engaged in curriculum development andinnovation, but also receptive to innovatory practices. It is here that Singapore’seducation policy-makers see the value of PLCs (MOE 2009a, 2009b), the aims andprocesses of which are seen as capable of enabling teachers to learn collaborativelyin order to progressively reconstruct the curriculum to meet the twin objectives ofacademic grades and students’ holistic development. Furthermore, PLCs are seen asthe means of building capacity for school leaders and teachers to initiate school-based curricular changes. Balancing and integrating the twin goals of improvingacademic grades and students’ holistic development must be sensitive to a systemof increasingly diversified school and classroom contexts. Even in the small coher-ent centralised school system of Singapore, it is realised that a single curricularmodel transplanted into every school classroom, is inappropriate. Consequently, pol-icy-makers are increasingly and subtly shifting the onus onto school leaders andteachers to take their own initiatives, as change agents, in leading curricular andpedagogical innovations. For a strongly centralised system to place such confidencein PLCs as the appropriate vehicle for the achievement of systemic policy aims inregard to teacher development and enhancement of student learning outcomes isitself of major significance.

The international context and PLCs

The Singapore government’s endorsement of PLCs as a vehicle for curricular andpedagogical change to achieve desired student learning outcomes is generally con-sistent with international interest in and expectations of PLCs (DuFour and Eaker1998; Thompson, Gregg, and Niska 2004; Bolam et al. 2005; Hord and Sommers2008; Vescio, Ross, and Adams 2008; Nelson 2009). Scholars in Anglo-Americancontexts claim that PLCs can lead to teacher professional learning which in turncan improve instructional practice and student learning outcomes. Moreover, PLCsare associated with broader benefits such as positive teacher performance, healthyschool culture, and holistic school improvement (Hord 1997a, 1997b, 2004; Sengeet al. 2000; Fullan 2001; McLaughlin and Talbert 2001, 2006; Bolam et al. 2005).The popularity of PLCs is also consistent with broader developments in the field ofteacher professional development including the importance of lifelong and continu-ous learning, community learning, job-embedded learning, reflective practice andinquiry-based and evidence-informed practice (Dimmock 2000; Hairon 2008;Villegas-Reimers 2003).

Notwithstanding the international claims for the positive effects of PLCs on tea-cher professional development, instructional practices, student learning outcomesand school improvement in general, much of the relevant literature also highlightsambiguities in the ways in which PLCs are established, developed, sustained andinstitutionalised (Bolam et al. 2005). Although several writers on PLCs specify sev-eral essential or generic characteristics (Newmann 1996; Bolam et al. 2005), far lessattention has been devoted to how PLCs are conceptualised and implemented at thenational, district and school levels within different societal cultures and school

408 S. Hairon and C. Dimmock

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

52 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

013

Page 7: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

systems (Bolam et al. 2005; Vescio, Ross, and Adams 2008; Wells 2008). Besidesthe relative lack of in-depth research on the roles of teachers and others at differentsystemic levels in enabling PLCs to function successfully (Hipp et al. 2008), wehave yet to understand how PLCs transfer to other cultures, such as Asian hierarchi-cal, large power-distance (Hofstede 2001) societies.

Furthermore, claims for the effectiveness of PLCs in delivering improved stu-dent learning outcomes are frequently made on the basis of “outlier” or atypicalcase school contexts which often receive disproportionate resources – includingconsultancy – beyond those available to mainstream government schools (Lambert2003). Schools in most systems have therefore yet to fully embrace the notion ofPLCs, let alone engage with issues of their sustainability, continuous improvementand scalability. Besides the general omission of societal cultural context as a medi-ating or filtering aspect of the nature and form of PLCs, relatively little attentionhas been given to the role and importance of leadership, especially of the principal,in their formation, sustainability and scalability – both within and across schools.

In summary, there is a strong case for strengthening the present knowledge basein regard to establishing and sustaining PLCs in different social and cultural con-texts, and to how teachers, school leaders and policy-makers translate and transferthe concept to practice within their own social settings. This need arises becausethe advocacy discourse originates from a relatively narrow range of societal culturesand school systems (Bolam et al. 2005; Fullan 2006; Robinson and Timperley2007; Hord 2008; Vescio, Ross, and Adams 2008; Nelson 2009). Consequently,there is a need to embrace understandings and implementation strategies from morevaried cultural contexts and across different levels within those societies – schools,school districts, regions and countries (see Pankake 2004; Hipp and Huffman2010). Investigating PLC processes and their impact on instructional practices andstudent learning outcomes across different contexts will inform the knowledge baseon their successful inception, development and sustainability.

Methodology

The key arguments discussed in this paper are primarily based on literature reviewand documentary analysis pertaining to PLCs in Singapore. Other secondary sourcesof information used to support the discussions in this paper included informal con-versations between the authors and school leaders and teachers during school visitsand post-graduate courses. The primary reliance on document analysis was apparentas the implementation of PLCs in Singapore schools at the time of writing is in itsinitial and exploratory stages. Furthermore, collecting primary data through inter-views and questionnaires was difficult, bearing in mind the high stakes involved forgovernment and schools in ensuring that PLCs are successfully implemented.Although documents can be considered as only written expressions of culture, theyare products of and are embedded in “internal” experience (Hodder 2000). Theauthors respected the original purposes of the documents when interpreting themfor this study (Atkinson and Coffrey 1997). Among the relevant documents identi-fied and analysed were four Singapore government policy documents pertaining toPLCs, a PLC Starter Kit (a handbook providing guidelines on PLC implementationin schools) produced by the MOE, Singapore (TDD 2010), and a feedback evalua-tion report of 51 Singapore schools that piloted PLCs in 2009. Analysis particularlyfocused on these four government policy documents since they were considered

Educational Review 409

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

52 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

013

Page 8: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

fundamental to understanding the policy justifications that underpin the PLC policyinitiative – specifically, the key theme on teachers taking ownership of theirprofessional development through learning communities to enhance curricular andpedagogical developments. The four policy documents not only track the historicalpath to the evolution of teacher professional development initiatives since the late1990s, but also the details of processes and structures expected to be put in placeby schools. Other documents consulted but not fore-grounded in the analysis weremore descriptive of the school environment and policy context.

Content analysis was subsequently undertaken of the four policy documents,PLC Starter Kit and feedback evaluation report – all of which were seen as artefactsof social communication (Berg 1998). These documents became the sources for datacollection and units of analysis in the macro sense – correspondingly focusing onthree aims: rationale for the PLC policy initiative; configurations of the SingaporePLC model; and possible impact and implications for school leaders and teachers.An analytic induction process was followed to scrutinise the above documents. Thisinvolved seeking explanations of the phenomenon (the establishing/implementing ofPLCs) by eliciting pertinent data, then testing the data against tentative categories/themes, before modifying the categories/themes, and then repeating the process untilthe data were consistent with the firmed up thematic framework. Specifically, dataanalysis involved, firstly, the reading of each of the documents in entirety to get aholistic impression; secondly, the structuring of document content into meaningfulmicro units of analysis – which in this case were sentences, or groups of sentences,the elicitation of codes to capture the meanings of the sentence(s), and finally, thegeneration of categories based on these codes. These categories provided explana-tions to the rationale of the PLC policy initiative which included “curricular devel-opment and innovation”, “school autonomy”, and “teacher competency”; theconfigurations of the PLC model in Singapore which included “characteristics ofPLCs”, “school organisational structure of PLCs” and “leadership support forPLCs”; and the possible impact and implications for school leaders and teacherswhich included “time workload”, “ambiguities of PLC processes and effectiveness”,“hierarchical work structure” and “leadership transformation”. These categories/themes formed the conceptual framework and structure for the reporting of findingsand the discussion in subsequent sections of this paper. Internal coherence duringthe data analysis was also sought in order to strengthen the findings (Hodder 2000).Notwithstanding the need to justify a clearly defined approach for content analysisof relevant documents (Silverman 2000), the authors were cognisant of the lack ofinterview data to support the explanations generated from the documentary analysis,which has potential for further follow-up in-depth study, especially bearing in mindthat the PLC policy initiative is still at its nascent stage.

The evolving Singapore policy context from 1997 shaping the introduction ofPLCs

PLCs are seen by the Singapore MOE as conducive to promoting greater teacherownership of their professional development, enabling them to initiate collaborativeand community learning in order to impact curricular innovation (MOE 2009a,2009b). Although MOE policy on PLCs is a recent initiative, its inception is evolu-tionary rather than capricious. The policy context that has influenced the introduc-tion of PLCs began in 1997 with the introduction of the TSLN (Thinking Schools,

410 S. Hairon and C. Dimmock

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

52 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

013

Page 9: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

Learning Nation) policy initiative – a watershed period in the history of Singaporeeducation. In particular, TSLN, along with other policies that support it, had threekey aims: first, curricular development and innovation; second, more school auton-omy over pedagogic processes; and third, enhancement of teacher competency. Allthree developments were designed to give greater scope for both school leaders andteachers to initiate school-based curricular and pedagogic development and innova-tion.

The centrepiece in the TSLN policy initiative was a systemic curriculum review,leading to a reduction of subject content in order to fulfil broader learning outcomessuch as national education, information and communication technology (ICT) andthinking skills. With regard to school autonomy, emphasis was placed on self-evalu-ation and external validation using a quality management framework – termed the“School Excellence Model” (SEM). Schools were also encouraged to establish theirown curricular niches along with the provision of additional funding for sustainedsuccess in those niche areas – a process that gained a small number of them the sta-tus of “Autonomous Schools”, and the majority of schools “niche” status. Withrespect to teacher competency, a major revision took place in staff appraisal withthe implementation of the EPMS (Enhanced Performance Management System) in2001, the key features of which were the creation of three career tracks (teaching,leadership, and specialist); key competencies and areas of responsibilities for eachtrack; and a detailed framework for performance, promotion and pay.

Three contextual forces – curricular development and innovation, school auton-omy, and teacher competency – took further shape with the TLLM (Teach Less,Learn More) policy initiative begun seven years later in 2004. In regard to curricu-lar development and innovation, focus was placed on both academic achievementand holistic development, especially character development and citizenship educa-tion. In addition to the 1997 reforms (national education, ICT and thinking skills)the following were also introduced: major reviews and revisions of the curriculumfor primary and secondary schools and junior colleges; further curricular contentreduction; encouragement of school-based curricular development; promotion ofpedagogical innovations; greater flexibility in the management of curricular contentand use of curricular time; provision of greater educational flexibility and choice forstudents and parents; and refinement of the assessment and streaming framework.

More successful schools specialising in particular curriculum areas were givenautonomous status and extra funding. The MOE made explicit its desire for school-based curriculum initiatives along with its commitment to its slogan of “Bottom-UpInitiative, with Top-Down Support”. Greater recognition was given to the centralimportance of the teacher in making an impact on classroom learning, as the teachercame to be seen as the ultimate implementer of educational policy. Increases in tea-cher numbers, teacher quality (for example, revising pay to attract graduates) andadjunct teachers were also legislated. However, the main thrust of measures to raiseteacher competency since 1997 has rested with teacher professional development,thereby explaining the MOE’s investment and commitment to improving teachingquality. Teacher professional development policy has thus been aimed at increasingteacher competency and autonomy, and enabling school-based curricular develop-ment and innovation – all with the support of school leaders. MOE policy has con-tinuously stressed the importance of school leadership to the take-up of PLCs inschools.

Educational Review 411

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

52 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

013

Page 10: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

A landmark in professional development was the establishment of the TeachersNetwork (TN) in 1998 – a unit within the Training and Development Division(TDD) of the MOE (Tang 2000; Tripp 2004). Both the TN and the TDD have nowbeen collapsed together and renamed as the Academy of Singapore Teachers (AST).The aim of the TN was to develop teacher professional development policy and tobuild a fraternity of reflective teachers dedicated to excellent practice through a net-work of support, professional exchange and learning; and to serve as a catalyst andsupport for teacher-initiated development through sharing, collaboration and reflec-tion leading to self-mastery, excellent practice and fulfilment. The TN is seen as alandmark distinction in Singapore in advocating a bottom-up approach to change,as evidenced in its slogan “For Teachers, By Teachers” (MOE 2005). The value ofteacher-initiated professional development through sharing, collaboration, reflectionand inquiry is embodied in its key platform for teacher learning – namely, the TNLearning Circles (LCs). TNLCs are groups of self-directed teachers engaging inaction research to solve problems that have been collectively identified in relationto the curriculum and classroom pedagogy. In general, the aims and activities areconsistent with earlier initiatives in so far as they help to increase teachers’ compe-tency through collaboration, reflection and inquiry, enabling teachers to initiateschool-based curricular development and innovation with the support of schoolleaders. TNLCs have also encouraged collaborative reflective practice, collaborativeaction research and lesson study. The MOE made it a requirement in 2005 for eachschool to provide one hour of curricular time weekly for teachers to engage in pro-fessional dialogue to impact on school-based curricular development and innovation(MOE 2005).

In summary, policy evolution in teacher professional development has focusedon raising teacher competency in order to bring about teacher-initiated curriculardevelopment and innovation with the support of school leaders for the purpose ofmeeting the twin objectives of academic achievement and students’ holistic devel-opment. The latter is closely tied to the skills required for the twenty-first centuryKBE.

Accordingly, five main trends in teacher development policy in centralised Sin-gapore can be recognised since 1997. First, policy direction has been steadily plac-ing responsibility for professional development on teachers. Second, professionaldevelopment has been directly tied to curriculum development and student learning.Third, there has been a desire to integrate teacher professional development intoteachers’ professional practice, thereby linking it to curricular development andstudent learning. Fourth, although a diverse range of professional developmentplatforms have gained recognition, emphasis is placed on collaborative and commu-nity-oriented forms of professional development. Collaborative forms of learningare deemed to bring about not only the development of content and pedagogicalcontent knowledge, but also camaraderie and solidarity among teachers. Fifth, pref-erence is emerging for the use of reflection and inquiry, and action research in orderto interrogate and develop subject content and pedagogical knowledge.

Such policy trends since 1997 in Singapore appear entirely consistent with theinternational discourse on PLCs. Internationally, PLCs are defined as a group ofpeople sharing and critically interrogating their practice in an ongoing, reflective,collaborative, inclusive, learning-oriented, growth-promoting way in order to pro-mote student learning (DuFour and Eaker 1998; Bolam et al. 2005). The MOE’scommitment to making all Singapore schools PLCs over the next few years sits

412 S. Hairon and C. Dimmock

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

52 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

013

Page 11: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

squarely on the idea that every school is a “thinking school” as first envisioned inthe TSLN policy initiative back in 1997. And the alternative different forms ormethods of professional development that have emerged over time as milestonesalong the way, such as TNLCs, collaborative action research and lesson study, areconceptualised as tools from which schools can choose in order to attain PLC statusand processes (TDD 2010).

The PLC model as conceived by the Singapore MOE and rolled out system-wide

In its model, the Singapore MOE encourages and endorses every school to be aPLC with the following characteristics (TDD 2010): shared and supportive leader-ship; school vision, mission, values and goals; action orientation and experimenta-tion; a strong learning and inquiring culture; a community based on trust andcommitment; and supportive conditions. The PLC framework focuses on threeaims - improving student learning; building a culture of teacher collaboration; andaddressing four critical aspects of outcomes couched in terms of the collectiveresponsibility: What is it we expect students to learn? How will we know whenthey have learned? How will we respond when they do not learn? How will werespond when they already know it?

In 2010, the MOE circulated to all schools its PLC framework and a Starter Kitfor schools (TDD 2010). Schools that adopt the PLC model form groups of teacherscalled Learning Teams, with the purpose of improving instructional practice throughdevelopment in subject content knowledge and pedagogy. Learning Teams have thechoice of adopting a range of collaborative methods/tools, such as Learning Circles,Action Research and Lesson Study. Schools and teachers are also to adopt a “cycli-cal process of continuous improvement” which includes the following: use of datato identify student needs; study and analysis of teachers’ own and peer research;engagement in rigorous reflection; use of research and professional wisdom to makegood choices; collaborative experiment with new teaching practices; monitoring andassessment of implementation; and communication of information to other stake-holders. Learning Teams are directed and supported by a Coalition Team compris-ing the school principal and four middle managers, whose role is to provide boththe direction of the Learning Teams in tandem with the school’s vision, missionand values, and the appropriate structures, processes and resources for the buildingof a learning culture in the school. The overall objectives are improved student out-comes and achievement of the school’s overall goals. The MOE document outliningthe model ends with the conclusion that the success of schools as PLCs is depen-dent on three factors derived from Michael Fullan’s “Triangle of Success” namely –school leadership, “system-ness”, and deep pedagogy (TDD 2010). In 2009, theMOE piloted the implementation of its PLC model in 51 schools, a process thatculminated in 2010 with a formal feedback session (TDD, October 11, 2010, per-sonal communication). Hereafter, all schools and school leaders are encouraged andexpected to develop their schools to become PLCs – that is, PLC policy is nowadopted system-wide with schools expected to buy-in as soon as they are ready. Todate, about two-thirds of the 360 schools have opted to embrace the MOE PLCmodel.

Educational Review 413

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

52 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

013

Page 12: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

School preparedness for the implementation of PLCs in Singapore

The degree to which the PLC initiative is successful in practice is likely to hingeon two aspects in particular: first, teacher preparedness for the change (Hairon2004, 2006; Tripp 2004), and second, the explicit onus on school leadership andorganisation to oversee and support the development of PLCs. While it has beenargued that the policy platform preparing schools for more school- and teacher-based initiatives and changed classroom practices has been developing for some 13years, teacher and leader practices and beliefs at school level have still not changedsignificantly, despite the system being strongly top-down “command and control”.According to a major research study (Hogan 2009), pedagogic practices in Singa-pore schools still remain strongly reliant on formal didactic teaching, rote learning,and summative testing. Traditional school leader practices also persist, with leadersunsure and insecure about the interface of the boundary between top-down controland principal licence to initiate change (Dimmock and Goh 2011).

In presenting its PLC model for system-wide implementation, the MOE hasfocused on key structural and outcome elements, including the major justification ofimproved student learning outcomes. It has, for example, provided extra funding,created an additional hour each week of protected professional development timeand the position of School Staff Developer (SSD) in every school, and disseminateda framework of tools and templates to enable the establishment of PLCs at schoollevel. Importantly, MOE sees the means of achieving effective PLCs and their out-comes to be through improvement in instructional practices and the building of alearning culture in schools – both of which are the prime responsibility of schoolleaders and teachers. Consequently, charged with responsibilities of implementation,principals and teachers must overcome cultural and workplace realities, deeplyembedded ways of working, and the complexities of teachers’ professional lives ina hitherto centralised top-down system. School leaders themselves will need profes-sional development to enable them to meet these major new challenges if they areto realise MOE policy of leaders playing an integral role in establishing and sustain-ing PLCs. According to evidence from the feedback evaluations of 51 pilot schools,time and resource constraints at teacher and school level will prove major impedi-ments to overcome. In the following sections we elaborate on this and two otherchallenges confronting schools in implementation.

Teachers’ workload

A major constraint on Singapore teachers’ commitment to PLCs is their high work-load brought about by the increasing demands placed on schools by various stake-holders and the sheer pace of educational change in Singapore education (Hairon2003; Liew 2005). Singapore teachers, as elsewhere, are already overburdened withteaching and non-teaching (administrative) tasks. Hence, the introduction of PLCprocesses (as opposed to a more flexible take-up policy) in schools may be seen byteachers as yet another burden, another “add-on”. Feedback evaluation from thepilot trial of PLCs highlights the expectations and demands on teachers to engagein “research activities” and group meetings. Such activities will occupy considerabletime; for example, peer classroom observations, reading and consolidating appropri-ate literature, research instrument construction, data collection, data analysis, presen-tation of findings within and outside of schools, together with administration of

414 S. Hairon and C. Dimmock

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

52 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

013

Page 13: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

such activities. Many teachers, aware of the opportunity cost of time spent on PLCresearch rather than on lesson preparation, teaching, marking and preparing for testsand examinations, may be less than sanguine. The weekly one hour for professionaldialogue is insufficient for teachers to engage in meaningful PLC activities.

In addition, teachers’ past experiences are of weak translation and transfer fromprofessional development activity to improved classroom teaching practices, andfurther lack of clarity in transferring from teaching practices to better student learn-ing outcomes. Although claims are made for the positive relationship between PLCsand student achievement (DuFour and Eaker 1998; Thompson, Gregg, and Niska2004; Bolam et al. 2005; Hord and Sommers 2008; Vescio, Ross, and Adams2008), research evidence and tacit knowledge have still to clarify how PLC profes-sional practices translate into improved student learning outcomes (Bolam et al.2005; Robinson and Timperley 2007). Most importantly, teachers’ reluctance to sac-rifice core teaching activities and established teaching methods stems from theirmain pre-occupation of achieving high student academic test results, since this isstill the top priority for most teachers, school leaders, students, parents and policy-makers. Stakeholders hold a consistent and deep-rooted regard for the exam-basedmeritocratic system in Singapore society and the “brand” of education that hasgiven it international acclaim.

Ambiguity of PLC processes and effectiveness

A second issue raised in the formal feedback pilot scheme session concerns thelinking of PLC activities with student outcomes, referred to earlier. Although thePLC framework provided by TDD is comprehensive, the details of how CoalitionTeams support and work in synchrony with Learning Teams in different school con-texts are not clear. Both Coalition and Learning Teams are meant to engage in PLCactivities to impact pedagogy and school culture, and eventually student outcomes,but precisely how they are to do that remains largely implicit and apparently foreach school to decide. According to Hord (2008, 12), although there are “significantstudy results that inform us about what and how professional learning communitiesfunction”, detailed documentation of what people do in PLCs (Hipp et al. 2008) –is largely absent. Between the MOE and teachers and leaders in Singapore schools,there appears a “no-man’s land” – with the MOE keen to foster school-based initia-tives of implementation, and the schools’ reluctance to depart from a dependencyculture – with expectations of top-down guidance on implementation.

Moreover, the absence of an evidence-informed knowledge base and lack ofexperience of school-based initiatives that would otherwise build leader and teacherknowledge (both academic and tacit), results in teachers and leaders feeling theyare charting new territory. To this could be added the dearth of experience of PLCsin societal cultures outside Anglo-America (Bolam et al. 2005; Hord 2008; Wells2008). As the PLC concept per se is new to Singapore, both teachers and schoolleaders are challenged to engage new ways of collaborating to ensure that they aresuccessfully embedded in their schools. Lessons learnt from the 51 pilot school tri-als, may prove of limited use in view of the short-time duration between trial andadoption by many schools and possible validity problems in scaling up across otherschools.

Concerned with issues of implementation and ambiguity over PLC processes,principals and teachers might well ask: “How much flexibility actually exists for

Educational Review 415

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

52 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

013

Page 14: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

schools to shape their PLCs within government framework and policy guidelines?”“Is there an optimal size for a PLC?”, “To what extent are the characteristics ofeffective PLCs captured in generic literature that applies across different culturalcontexts?”, “How do teachers learn in such communities?” And most difficult ofall, “How do PLCs bring about change or improvement in student learning out-comes?” The link from PLC activities to student learning outcomes is mediated bymany “variables” within and outside school – school culture, instructional time andengagement, teacher learning and the effectiveness of teaching and student learningpractices and materials, home–school relations, private tutoring and socio-economicstatus.

Ambiguity in the links between PLC activities and improvement in teacherclassroom practices and student learning outcomes – a core agenda for teachers –may undermine teacher enthusiasm for PLC activities. Concomitantly, the ambiguitymay lead school leaders – unless they are bold and innovative – to relegate PLCsin their agenda for school reform and resource allocation. School leaders may optinstead for easier more transparent reforms that promise to deliver speedier, moretangible learning outcomes.

Hierarchical work structure

A third challenge is the hierarchical “command and control” Singapore school sys-tem – from the MOE down to the cluster (or district) superintendent, school princi-pals, department heads and teachers. This hierarchical top-down structure –characteristic of Asian high power-distance cultures (Hofstede 2001) – traditionallyensures strong, direct alignment between the stages of policy conception to imple-mentation. Thus policies conceptualised by the MOE are normally efficiently cas-caded down through the layers of the education system to the teachers. Thishierarchical work structure is a mirror of the hierarchical and efficient public admin-istration established in all public sectors since Singapore’s independence, a centralfeature of which is the formation of a “pyramidal structure” of society, where the“elites” lead the nation, a “middle strata of executives” coordinate the ideas ofelites, and the “broad masses” put into practice policies conceptualised by the elites(Lee 1966). A hierarchical and efficient public administration system is centrallymotivated by economic pragmatism, breeding a culture of “taking directives fromthe top” and “productive efficiency” (Hairon 2006). Furthermore, it is reinforced bythe Asian value of “respect for authority”.

While a hierarchical work structure has traditionally seen a top-down implemen-tation of policy, questions remain as to whether this will now help or hinder theimplementation of PLCs and innovative teacher practices in schools. The essenceand success of PLCs rests on teacher initiative to engage in communities of learn-ing. Education policy-makers have attested to the importance of teacher-initiatedlearning as evidenced in phrases such as “teachers individually and collectivelysteering the course to enhance professional development”, “top-down support forground-up initiatives”, “teachers driving professionalism”, and “teachers leadingtheir own professional development” (MOE 2008, 2009a, 2009b). The PLC initia-tive differs fundamentally from previous policy innovations in the notion of tea-cher-initiated learning, and teachers as agents taking responsibility for developingtheir professional practice. Yet the degree of MOE encouragement to schools toimplement a favoured PLC model seems incongruous with the spirit of PLCs as

416 S. Hairon and C. Dimmock

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

52 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

013

Page 15: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

understood in Anglo-American systems. Singapore teachers are encouraged to takethe initiative to engage in PLC activities, and school leaders are to ensure thatteachers engage in PLC activities and to provide the necessary support and resourc-ing. In essence, the hierarchical work structure remains the modus operandi.

The importance of school leadership

A culture of “taking directive from the top” and “productive efficiency” (Hairon2006) in a hierarchical and efficient public administration system has been deeplyentrenched for more than 40 years since Singapore’s independence. A dependencyculture has become firmly embedded and permeates both school leaders’ and teach-ers’ relationships and professional work.

The PLC Starter Kit (TDD 2010) provided by the MOE to every school detailsseveral roles for school leaders including – prioritising staff professional develop-ment; developing and communicating a shared vision on PLCs; building staff com-mitment (fostering trust, collaboration and ownership; building a learning culture;handling resistance; balancing creativity and autonomy within parameters andboundaries); role modelling commitment to PLCs; optimising organisational struc-tures and processes; leveraging existing structures; providing training, resources,tools and templates; mentoring; recognising, affirming and celebrating PLC activi-ties; and leveraging on the notion of PLC to enhance professional development as awhole.

While the MOE list of leadership and organisation functions appears exhaustive,in one respect it is only partially consistent with international literature that atteststo the importance of school leadership supporting PLCs (Louis and Kruse 1995;Huffman and Jacobson 2003; Thompson et al. 2004; Bolam et al. 2005). Signifi-cantly, the Singapore PLC Starter Kit mentions leveraging existing structures andoptimising structures and processes, rather than transforming them. Furthermore, amajor challenge for leaders will be the “building of staff commitment” since in thepresent work environment of schools in Singapore, leaders are pre-occupied withoperational aspects rather than culture building and relationships. A re-orientation inthe work patterns, values and priorities of school principals is thus foreshadowed.

The PLC policy initiative places new challenges on Singapore school leaders toexpand their leadership skills and tasks beyond operational, managerial and evenstrategic leadership practices in at least three ways. First, they are challenged tobuild a strong relationship with teachers so as enable genuine change in how teach-ers aspire and commit to a collective vision. Second, they are expected to directlyor indirectly exert positive impact on improvements in classroom teaching and stu-dents’ learning outcomes through mentoring, coaching and providing broad policydirections on the curriculum. Third, school leaders are expected to empower teach-ers and middle level teachers to make decisions pertaining to curriculum andinstruction. These leadership practices – supported by the education ministry – arebroadly in line with contemporary leadership perspectives espoused and promotedin the United States and the United Kingdom – namely, transformational, instruc-tional and distributed leadership.

However, like the PLC concept itself, these models of leadership can be seen asproblematic and contestable. They are contestable on several grounds. First, defini-tions of their meaning are often ambiguous. Second, operational processes involvedin applying these leadership perspectives in school settings are not supported by a

Educational Review 417

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

52 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

013

Page 16: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

robust empirical knowledge base – a point of particular relevance to their applica-tion in an Asian hierarchical context such as Singapore. Third, there are alternativesocially critical perspectives of these models that shed a different interpretation ontheir justification and purpose. In the latter regard, it is perhaps understandable whyinternational scholars such as Ball (2003) and Hargreaves and Fink (2008) arecritical of how aspects of school leadership can be seen as a “tool” or strategy usedby governments (with or without the assistance of school leaders) to push teachersinto a cycle of ever-increasing performativity and managerial cultures, emphasisingoutput, standards and accountability, while threatening to undermine the profession-alism of teachers (Deem 1998).

It is instructive to elaborate on the three grounds for contestability mentionedbeforehand. Earlier in this paper, teachers’ workload was mentioned as a majorissue as to how the implementation of PLCs would be received by teachers. Addi-tionally, the issue of ambiguity as to what the concept of PLC means in practicewas also recognised. Moreover, a lack of clarity and understanding also embracesthe enactment of instructional, distributed and transformational leadership (for a dis-cussion of these, see Dimmock, forthcoming). For example, we have at best aflimsy empirical knowledge base as to exactly which leadership behaviours andpractices best support teachers in improving their teaching and students in improv-ing their learning. Likewise, few empirical studies exist to provide clear guidanceon when and how to distribute leadership to department heads and teachers,let alone what form it should take and what its limits should be. Little is known asto how distributing or sharing leadership changes the leadership dynamics in theschool and impacts on the principal’s leadership. Even less is known about howinstructional, distributed and transformational leadership practices vary cross-cultur-ally (Dimmock and Walker 2005). Above all, the alternative and socially criticalperspective of leadership invites the question as to how some teachers and princi-pals might perceive the formal adoption of PLCs in the school system. Conceivably,some teachers might not simply see it as increasing their workload. For these teach-ers, the prospect of PLCs and the leadership involved in their implementation – farfrom being seen as a means of professional empowerment, might instead be seen asa restriction and curb on their professionalism; in other words a disempowerment.Likewise, while some principals might perceive the PLC policy initiative as anopportunity for their empowerment and that of their teachers, others may view iteither as their empowerment relative to teachers, and/or, as an endorsement of theirrole as agents carrying out government policy. In other words, at stake is how prin-cipals and teachers interpret and make sense of the PLC policy and their roles inrelation to it, not just in terms of pedagogy and curriculum innovation, but also inrelation to the interplay of politics, and the distribution and enactment of power andinfluence between the key stakeholders in the system.

It is likely that the hierarchical system of Singapore education will ensure thatschool leaders oversee the “implementation” of PLC processes and practices in theirschools. But how authentic will the PLC practices actually be, and what degree offidelity to the Anglo-American concept of PLC will be achieved? And what will bethe unintended consequences? A number of scenarios are possible ranging fromnegative to positive. First, some school leaders may simply instruct teachers to carryout PLC activities, using control and monitoring devices rather than winning genu-ine teacher commitment and consensus. This strategy may bring about teachers’overt or covert resistance and contrived compliance through “showcasing”, which

418 S. Hairon and C. Dimmock

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

52 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

013

Page 17: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

in turn may germinate seeds of resentment towards PLCs in general. A secondgroup of school leaders may endorse PLCs in name only, encouraging teachers tobe involved in PLC activities but only with minimal resources and effort in order tomitigate distractions from the primary task of students’ academic achievement.Being the path of least resistance, the depth of teacher learning would be compro-mised. A third group of school leaders may create the structures for PLCs butneglect the building of a genuine learning culture of shared values necessary forcollective teacher learning. Technically, they would “install” a system of PLC pro-cesses believing it is sufficient in itself to produce the shared values of collaborationand learning. The crucial importance of the need to question and change the natureof the professional relationships between school leaders and teachers, and betweenteachers themselves and students, may be underplayed. Teachers may be present forLearning Team meetings, but without having the shared values of collaboration andconstructive reflection, critique and improved practice. A fourth group of schoolleaders may delegate all of the tasks and responsibilities to middle managers tocope with the increased work needed to implement the PLC policy initiative. This,however, will only add further to the work of middle managers, be seen by them as“buck passing”, and cause ill-feeling toward the idea of PLCs. Moreover, if princi-pals fail to role model and actively participate in PLC activities, then the culturalchange necessary to develop and sustain PLCs is likely to be further undermined.Most positively, a fifth group of leaders will be pro-active and committed to theauthentic implementation and sustainability of PLCs in their schools by addressingthe problems and issues neglected by leaders of groups one to four earlier. Unques-tionably, leadership and leader competence will play a large part in the success orotherwise with which PLCs are accepted, implemented, sustained and scaled upacross the school system.

Implications and conclusions

This discussion has foregrounded the influence of societal culture and context andleadership in shaping the inception, development and sustainability of PLCs. Singa-pore has forged a unique centrally-driven culture since its independence in 1965 –with economic survival and prosperity being the main drivers of its social, cultural,political and educational evolution. Education is the key vehicle for providing andequipping human capital – the main resource of Singapore – with the knowledge andskills to sustain Singapore’s outstanding economic performance well into thetwenty-first century. Changes in pedagogy are seen by governments as fundamental toachieving educated twenty-first century populations and workforces – with academic,technical, personal and interpersonal, as well as citizenship skills. In achieving theselearning goals, improvements in teaching quality are seen as instrumental to betterstudent learning outcomes. PLCs – a concept and set of practices originating inAnglo-American culture – are seen by the Singapore government as an appropriatetwenty-first century teacher professional development platform to enhance teachercompetency, school-based initiatives and curricular development and innovation.

However, as this paper has argued, the societal culture of “command and con-trol”, hierarchical dependency, and strong respect for authority in Singapore poseparticular challenges for teachers and school leaders charged with implementation atschool level. School-initiated teacher professional development leading to innova-tive changes in teaching practices in the Singapore context will at the very least,

Educational Review 419

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

52 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

013

Page 18: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

require a shift in the pattern of power and influence relations – both within schoolsand between schools and the centre – and this will take time. In addition, teacherworkloads, and the challenges to teachers of making sense of PLCs given the ambi-guities involved in their processes and effectiveness, and stakeholders’ continuedprioritising of exam and test success – all seem likely to test teachers’ resolve incommitting to forming and practising PLCs.

In the context of Singapore and other strong hierarchical social and work struc-tures in Asian countries, the notion of PLCs and their influence is likely to be con-fined to pedagogical practices, subject expertise and student learning. This appearsto be a more restricted connotation of teacher professionalism and PLC than thatwhich pervades Anglo-American schools systems, where discourse centres on tea-cher agency, empowerment and autonomy (see for example, Ingvarson 2000; Sachs2003; Day and Smethem 2009). PLCs in Asia may thus develop in more culture-sensitive ways, with each adapting to the boundaries of acceptability within existingsystemic power and influence relationships.

Central to the present argument is that cultural context plays a significant part inpromoting, impeding and shaping the particular form that PLCs take. To whatextent will teachers be allowed to be agents in determining their own professionallearning? To what extent will they and their leaders be able to establish and sustainstrong PLCs? To what extent may government and other stakeholders’ policies andpriorities lead to compromise of teachers’ own initiated professional development incontexts where many of the most important decisions are already taken by govern-ment? To what extent will the present work-life conditions and priorities of teachersin schools preclude them from playing meaningful roles in and establishing PLCs?How, if at all, will PLCs involve changes in power and authority relationshipswithin schools, and between schools and system centre? And finally, to what extentwill school leaders and teachers be allowed to re-design the supportive conditionsto PLCs, such as flexible structures, in their schools?

Embedding PLCs in schools can mistakenly be seen as a process of boltingon yet more duties and tasks for teachers to perform. Policy-makers and schoolleaders need clear justifications for PLC processes and practices – which canthen be subsequently conveyed to teachers – of the contribution, shape and ben-efits that can potentially flow in transforming teacher practices and learning out-comes. Leadership knowledge and skills are crucial in convincing andmotivating teachers that PLCs are key fulcrums around which their professionalpractices and their teaching lives can be made more efficacious and rewarding;that PLCs can replace and reform existing practices rather than be seen simplyas additional work.

It is clear that as far as the Singapore government model is concerned, and sup-ported by the work of many PLC researchers (see Bolam et al. 2005; Stoll andLouis 2007; Hipp and Huffman 2010), the quality of school leadership especially atprincipal and middle level assumes major importance in establishing and sustainingPLCs across school systems – whether they are more devolved systems of school-based management or more centrally controlled schools, as in Singapore. In schoolsand systems characterised by greater devolution to school-based management,schools are more likely to become PLCs. For such schools, PLCs are more transfor-mations than innovations, with holistic school re-design changing values, relation-ships, patterns of power and influence, school organisation, and professionalpractices – and school leadership playing a central part as change agent. However,

420 S. Hairon and C. Dimmock

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

52 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

013

Page 19: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

in centralised systems where school-based leadership is less expansive, a morerestricted model of PLCs may prevail, where professional development is confinedto innovations in classroom teaching practices and subject knowledge. In suchcases, PLCs are less likely to be seen as transformative and holistic in their ramifi-cations, and change is largely confined to innovations in teaching and learningpractices.

In both devolved and centralised systems, the quality of school leadership istested by the challenge of implementing and sustaining PLCs. Changing teachers’pedagogical practices in the “black box” of the classroom (impenetrable as it hasproved to be) while also ensuring teaching practices engage student learning – andto do so without changing supporting structures – presents just as great a challengeto leadership as whole school re-design associated with more comprehensive andtransformational notions of PLCs in more devolved systems (Dimmock 2000). Inboth scenarios, leaders build community around professional practice, and “finesse”the boundaries between government control and school-based initiatives. The impor-tance of site-based leadership in motivating teachers, managing hierarchies, adopt-ing creative ways to combat teacher work overload, and clarifying understandings,goals and benefits of PLCs – assumes major significance in both centralised anddevolved systems.

ReferencesAtkinson, P.A., and A. Coffrey. 1997. Analysing documentary analysis. In Qualoitative

research: Theory, method and practice, ed. D. Silverman, 45–62. London: Sage.Ball, S. 2003. The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Pol-

icy 18, no. 2: 215–28.Berg, B.L. 1998. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston, MA: Allyn

and Bacon.Bolam, R., A. McMahon, L. Stoll, S. Thomas, M. Wallace, A. Greenwood, K. Hawkey, M.

Ingram, A. Atkinson, and M. Smith. 2005. Creating and sustaining effective professionallearning communities, Research Report No. 637. London: Department for Education andSkills.

Carnoy, M. 1999. Globalization and educational reform: What planners need to know. Paris:International Institute of Educational Planning, UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001202/120274e.pdf (accessed September 23, 2011).

Day, C., and L. Smethem. 2009. The effects of reform: Have teachers really lost their senseof professionalism? Journal of Educational Change 10, nos. 2–3: 141–57.

Deem, R. 1998. “New managerialism” and higher education: The management of perfor-mances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom. International Studies in Soci-ology of Education 8, no. 1: 47–70.

Dimmock, C. 2000. Designing the learning-centred school: A cross-cultural perspective.London: Falmer Press.

Dimmock, C. Forthcoming. Leadership, capacity building and school improvement: con-cepts, themes and impact. London: Routledge.

Dimmock, C., and J.W.P. Goh. 2011. Transformative pedagogy, leadership and school orga-nisation for the 21st century knowledge-based economy: the case of Singapore. SchoolLeadership and Management 31, no. 3: 215–34.

Dimmock, C., and A. Walker. 2005. Educational leadership: a cross-cultural perspective.London: Sage.

DuFour, R. 2004. What is a “Professional Learning Community”? Educational Leadership61, no. 8: 6–11.

DuFour, R., and R. Eaker. 1998. Professional learning communities at work. Bloomington,IN: Solution Tress Press.

Educational Review 421

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

52 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

013

Page 20: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

Feger, S., and E. Arruda. 2008. Professional learning communities: Key themes from the lit-erature. Providence, RI: Education Alliance, Brown University.

Fullan, M. 2001. Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Fullan, M. 2006. Leading professional learning: Think ‘system’ and not ‘individual school’

if the goal is to fundamentally change the culture of schools. School Administrator 63,no. 10: 10–4.

Gopinathan, S. 2007. Globalisation, the Singapore developmental state and education policy:A thesis revisited. Globalisation, Societies and Education 5, no. 1: 53–70.

Gopinathan, S., B. Wong, and N. Tang. 2008. The evolution of school leadership policy andpractice in Singapore: Responses to changing socio-economic and political contexts.Journal of Educational Administration and History 40, no. 3: 235–49.

Hairon, S. 2003. A qualitative study of Singapore primary school teachers’ conceptions ofeducational change. Teaching and Learning 24, no. 2: 105–15.

Hairon, S. 2004. Remaking Singapore schools: A learning teacher to a learning organisationthrough action research. In Innovation and diversity in education, ed. A. Khoo, M.A.Heng, L. Lim, and R.P. Ang, 189–206. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

Hairon, S. 2006. Action research in Singapore education – constraints and sustainability.Educational Action Research 14, no. 4: 513–23.

Hairon, S. 2008. Teacher professional development in the TSLN era: Current challenges andfuture direction. In Thinking Schools, Learning Nation: Meeting the challenges of glob-alisation, ed. J. Tan and P.T. Ng, 87–103. Singapore: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Hamos, J.E., K.B. Hergin, D.P. Maki, L.C. Perez, J.T. Prival, D.Y. Rainey, G.H. Rowell, andE. VanderPutten. 2009. Opening the classroom door: Professional learning communitiesin the Math and Science partnership program. Science Educator 18, no. 2: 14–24.

Hargreaves, A., and D. Fink. 2008. Distributed leadership: Democracy or delivery? Journalof Educational Administration 46: 229–40.

Hipp, K.K., and J.B. Huffman. 2010. Demystifying professional learning communities:School leadership at its best. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Educational.

Hipp, K.K., J.B. Huffman, A.M. Pankake, and D.F. Olivier. 2008. Sustaining professionallearning communities: Case studies. Journal of Educational Change 9: 173–95.

Hodder, I. 2000. The interpretation of documents and material culture. In Handbook of qual-itative research, 2nd ed., ed. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, 703–15. London: Sage.

Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, andorganizations across nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hogan, D. 2009. MOE Research Seminar: OER/NIE PowerPoint Presentation to MOE. Sin-gapore: Ministry of Education.

Hord, S.M. 1997a. Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiryand improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Hord, S.M. 1997b. Professional learning communities: What are they and why are they impor-tant? Issues about Change 6, no. 1. http://www.sedl.org/change/issues/issues61.html(accessed May 4, 2009).

Hord, S.M. 2004. Professional learning communities: An overview. In Learning together,leading together: Changing schools through PLCs, ed. Shirley M. Hord, 5–19. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Hord, S.M. 2008. Evolution of the professional learning community. Journal of Staff Devel-opment 29, no. 3: 10–3.

Hord, S.M., and W.A. Sommers. 2008. Leading professional learning communities: Voicesfrom research and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Huffman, J.B., and A.L. Jacobson. 2003. Perceptions of professional learning communities.International Journal of Leadership in Education 6, no. 3: 239–50.

Ingvarson, L. 2000. Teacher control and the reform of professional development. In Imagesof educational change, ed. H. Altrichter and J. Elliot, 159–72. Buckingham: Open Uni-versity Press.

Lambert, L. 2003. Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

422 S. Hairon and C. Dimmock

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

52 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

013

Page 21: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

Lee, K.Y. 1966. New bearings in our education system: An address by the Prime Minister,Mr Lee Kuan Yew, to principals of schools in Singapore on August 29. Singapore: Min-istry of Culture.

Levy, F., and R.J. Murnane. 2004. The new division of labor: How computers are creatingthe new job market. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Liew, W.M. 2005. Teachers’ professional lives in the age of educational reform. In ShapingSingapore future: Thinking Schools Learning Nation, ed. J. Tan and P.T. Ng, 137–66.Singapore: Perason/Prentice Hall.

Louis, K.S., and S.D. Kruse. 1995. Professionalism and community: Perspectives from urbanschools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Luke, A., P. Freebody, L. Shun, and S. Gopinathan. 2005. Towards research-based innova-tion and reform: Singapore schooling in transition. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 25,no. 1: 5–28.

McKinsey & Company. 2007. How the world’s best-performing school systems comeout on top. http://www.mckinsey.com/App_Media/Reports/SSO/Worlds_School_Systems_Final.pdf (accessed December 10, 2009).

McLaughlin, M.W., and J.E. Talbert. 2001. Professional communities and the work of highschool teaching. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

McLaughlin, M.W., and J.E. Talbert. 2006. Building school-based learning communities:Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Ministry of Education (MOE). 2005. Speech by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Minister forEducation, at the MOE Work Plan Seminar 2004, Ngee Ann Polytechnic ConventionCentre, Thursday 22 September, 10:00 a.m. http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2005/sp20050922.htm (accessed September 30, 2006).

Ministry of Education (MOE). 2008. Opening Address by Dr Ng Eng Hen, Minister for Edu-cation and Second Minister for Defence, at the Teachers’ Conference 2008, Suntec CityBallroom, Wednesday 28 May, 10:10 a.m. http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2008/05/28/opening-address-by-dr-ng-eng-h.php (accessed June 29, 2008).

Ministry of Education (MOE). 2009a. Address by Ms Ho Peng, Director-General of Educa-tion, at the Teachers’ Mass Lecture, Singapore Expo Hall 2, Wednesday 26 August, 2:30p.m. http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/ speeches/2009/08/26/address-by-ms-ho-peng-at-the-t.php (accessed September 30, 2009).

Ministry of Education (MOE). 2009b. Speech by Dr Ng Eng Hen, Minister for Educationand Second Minister for Defence, at the MOE Work Plan Seminar 2009, Ngee AnnPolytechnic Convention Centre, Thursday 17 September, 9:30 a.m. http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2009/09/17/work-plan-seminar.php (accessed September 23, 2009).

Nelson, T.H. 2009. Teachers’ collaborative inquiry and professional growth: Should we beoptimistic? Science Education 93, no. 3: 548–80.

Newmann, F.M. 1996. Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Pankake, A.M. 2004. The superintendent’s influence on the creation of a professional learn-ing community. In Learning together, leading together: Changing schools through PLCs,ed. S.M. Hord, 127–39. New York: Teachers College Press.

Robinson, V.M.J., and H.S. Timperley. 2007. The leadership of the improvement of teachingand learning: Lessons from initiatives with positive outcomes for students. AustralianJournal of Education 51, no. 3: 247–62.

Sachs, J. 2003. The activist teaching profession. Buckingham: Open University Press.Sargent, T.C., and E. Hannum. 2009. Doing more with less: Teacher professional learning

communities in resource-constrained primary schools in rural China. Journal of TeacherEducation 60, no. 3: 258–76.

Senge, P.M. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.New York: Doubleday.

Senge, P.M., N.H. Cambron-McCabe, T. Lucas, B. Smith, J. Dutton, and A. Kleiner. 2000.Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents and everyone whocares about education. New York: Doubleday.

Silverman, D. 2000. Analyzing talk and text. In Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd ed.,ed. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, 821–34. London: Sage.

Educational Review 423

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

52 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

013

Page 22: Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system

Stoll, L., and K.S. Louis. 2007. Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth anddilemmas. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw Hill.

Tang, N. 2000. Teachers’ Network: A new approach in the professional development ofteachers. ASCD Review 9, no. 3: 48–55.

Thompson, S.C., L. Gregg, and J.M. Niska. 2004. Professional learning communities leader-ship, and student learning. Research in Middle Level Education Online 28, no. 1: 1–15.

Training and Development Division (TDD). 2010. Schools as professional learning commu-nities. Singapore: Training and Development Division, Ministry of Education.

Tripp, D. 2004. Teachers’ Network: A new approach to the professional development ofteachers in Singapore. In International handbook on the continuing professional develop-ment of teachers, ed. Christopher Day and Judyth Sachs, 191–214. Maidenhead: OpenUniversity Press.

Vescio, V., D. Ross, and A. Adams. 2008. A review of research on the impact of profes-sional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching andTeacher Education 24, no. 1: 80–91.

Villegas-Reimers, E. 2003. Teacher professional development: An international review of theliterature. Paris: International Institute of Educational Planning, UNESCO.

Wells, C. 2008. A conceptual design for understanding professional learning communityimplementation. Catalyst for Change 35, no. 2: 25–37.

Wenger, E., R. McDermott, and W.M. Snyder. 2002. Cultivating communities of practice.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Wong, J.L.N. 2010a. Searching for good practice in teaching: A comparison of two subject-based professional learning communities in a secondary school in Shanghai. Compare: AJournal of Comparative and International Education 40, no. 5: 623–39.

Wong, J.L.N. 2010b. What makes professional learning community possible? A case studyof a Mathematics department in a junior secondary school of China. Asia Pacific Educa-tion Review 11, no. 2: 131–9.

424 S. Hairon and C. Dimmock

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

52 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

013