Value And Ethics For Leaders

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

INTRODUCTION

The landscape of preschool education is set to undergo changes in post General Election 2011 Singapore - as the ruling regime promises to build a more inclusive society whilst creating a level-playing field that provides equal opportunities for all. Amidst these pledges by the government, findings from a global study examining various aspects of preschool education in different countries commissioned by the Lien Foundation, threw up some unexpected results that add to the pressure of accelerating the need to reform the preschool education scene in Singapore.

One of the findings that stood out was how poorly Singapore fared when benchmarked against other countries. The study’s Starting Well index ranked Singapore 29 out of the entire 45 countries that were included in the study. Given Singapore’s reputation for its strong tertiary education, the low ranking of its preschool education is the more startling, exposing the weaknesses in a system that was largely deregulated and one that is increasingly dominated by private players in recent years.

The problem is exacerbated with enrollees in preschool and childcare centres in Singapore set to increase rapidly. It is alarming when quality preschool education is essential to building a strong foundation for the child’s future, tantamount to ensuring that all participants have an equal starting position in the race to compete for success. With the future of the next generation in their hands, the stakeholders of Singapore’s preschool education system, namely educator leaders, policy makers, preschool providers face the daunting challenge of providing quality education with the added social expectation that no child should be allowed to fall through the cracks. Their leadership skills are increasingly put under the spotlight, with strong demands from parents and teachers alike pressing for urgent reforms in a system that is perceived to be long overdue for a major overhaul.

With the widespread prevalence of private players, parents have expressed their concerns about placing the welfare of their preschoolers in their hands. These parents have also raised questions about the accessibility, affordability, and quality of Singapore’s preschool education over the past few years. In a survey done by Lien Foundation, 73% of the parents who participated in the survey have declared they are unsatisfied with the preschool education system. For the categories of affordability, availability, and quality, Singapore was ranked 21st, 25th, and 30th respectively. The dismal performance reflects the gaps in our present system and resonates with the frustrations and anxiety faced by parents on the ground.

In recent years, parents have expressed their desires for a greater involvement of the government to improve our preschool education. According to Lynn Ang of the Lien foundation in her report entitled "Vital voices for vital years: a study of leaders’ perspectives on improving the early childhood sector in Singapore," the Singaporean government should play a greater role in filling in those gaps (2012). They should enforce a minimum standard of quality for every preschool education provider in Singapore. The prevailing perception is that private providers are better equipped to give a more rounded experience for their children, with their lower teacher to student ratio and their more encompassing curriculum that gives children wider exposure – all of which comes at a high cost. The high cost acts as a deterrent to children from lower-income families and even if parents managed to secure the financial means for school fees, they often have to fight for limited places at popular childcare centres or kindergartens.

It is a matter of national concern when our early childhood education is not functioning at its optimal level. It is crucial to devote attention to resolve the issue when it impacts parents’ decisions to have kids. Many young couples have cited early education concerns as one of their major considerations when making the decision to have babies. In an aging society with a low fertility rate, the situation calls for resolute leadership that needs to take a hard look at what ails the current the system and having the moral courage to make changes, even radical ones, to bring our early childhood education to where it should be – one that avails affordable and quality learning to all our young regardless of their economic background.

For the last 20 years, early childhood development has been put under the auspices of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (now renamed Ministry of Social and Family Development). They oversee the development of cumulative measures for the preschool sector, with the goal of increasing the availability and quality of the preschool education. However, the division of work between two ministries may have inadvertently led to confusion in setting clear directions and overlapping of functional areas. More work needs to be done to rationalize directions, decisions and standards. The government will have to exert a stronger political will and increase its commitment to see improvements.

Contrary to primary education where the state takes a direct role, the government adopted a more laissez-faire approach where there is a lot more room for free market mechanics to flourish in preschool education. While this has created diversity and choices for those who can afford to pay, it has also created a division between the haves and have-nots, resulting in a system that seems to favour the young of the rich. There is a growing voice amongst the population that feels strongly that the government should have the moral obligation to provide universal early childhood education, with some even calling for a complete nationalization of early childhood education. When examined in the face of research showing that rewards can be reaped from investments in preschool education in terms of better health and education outcomes, mobility, inclusiveness, and increased global competitiveness, these calls for change need to be given a serious airing.

Quality, availability, and affordability are just some issues that need rethinking. This paper will go into more detail about these issues and others in the later part. Where considering policy changes, the current thinking of weighing every outcome in terms of quantifiable benefits may have to be abandoned. If we want to do right by our next generation, we must be prepared to do so at some opportunity cost. The primary consideration should perhaps be dictated by ethics – doing what is just and for the greatest good. National decision-making with a strong dose of ethics may be the antidote. While we practice meritocracy, we must also ensure that the starting point is at near equilibrium for our young to ensure that we do not create a vicious cycle where the offspring of those at the lower strata are always at the losing end.

Education, as with any public good, needs to be debated thoroughly from different standpoints to ensure that the outcome is robust and sustainable. The challenge is finding the sweet spot. The paper attempts to examine in greater detail the scope and constraints using the idealistic and realistic leadership approaches when tackling changes in early childhood education and the dynamics of incorporating the ethical dimension in policy-making within the greater context of the meritocratic macro environment of Singapore.

PART I

ETHICS FOR THINKING THROUGH EDUCATIONAL ISSUES

HOW IS ETHICS AND EDUCATION CONNECTED?

Ethics and education are intrinsically connected; the bigger question is how to effectively integrate the two. Should ethics be part of the applied education taught to learners?

Young learners retain information faster than adult learners. Their learning is more visual than aural. They observe their surroundings with their eyes and they learn from the people they spend most of their time with - parents and teachers. Young and vulnerable as they are, they look up to these adults as their role models. They do not have the cognitive abilities to discern what is morally or ethically right and wrong. Home is the first institution where children learn their very first lessons. School is the place where they can learn more and apply to their peers in a larger setting. Both parents and teachers will inevitably be the role models exemplifying moral standards for children.

How big a role should a teacher play? Take for example the subjects of sexuality education, business education and other areas that have ethical components. Although these lessons are critical for the character-building, questions arise as to when these lessons should be taught or even whether should they be taught in the first place. These issues can be very potentially controversial and educators should proceed with caution. Sexuality education consists of history lessons that touch on hedonism and homosexuality, a taboo subject in many conservative societies. The AWARE saga on homosexuality demonstrated how divisive this topic could be. (Straits Times, 15 May 2009.) A pro-gay agenda in sex education in schools turned into a deeply polarized and heated debate between the Christian Right and the homosexual and lesbian interest groups (Straits Times, 15 May 2009).

Science education explains metaphysics, which will in turn directly clashes with divinity lessons. Business education places emphasis on political and economical theories that may overshadow other values that are equally important. With all these many diverse considerations, how can ethics be infused in the teachings of these lessons?

The chances of encountering ethical dilemmas are heightened considerably in a globalized world. The importance of infusing ethics in the learning process is therefore imperative. Towards this end, it is essential that educational institutions should define ethics and values in their curriculum properly. Teaching professionals should always strive to incorporate some measure of moral teaching when they impart their lessons. Ethics should preferably be taught as early as possible and preschool centres are appropriate venues. Teachers need to highlight differing views on controversial issues, encourage students to think intelligently, and instill moral values at the end of the day.

There has been much rigorous debate about instilling moral education as part of the national curriculum. Whilst there have been efforts by the Ministry of Education to emphasize character building over academic excellence, it is somewhat ironic that our early childhood education has fallen short of what should be the basic ethical premise of provision of education services – that every child should have an equal right to quality learning.

Due to the entrance of many private players, there is a widespread belief that only the private sector can provide quality education to pre-school learners. This has caused great disparity and raised the question that high quality education is provided only to those who can afford it. The children of the middle-upper income families will inevitably benefit more than the children of the lower class. According to the Committee for Economic Development (CED) in the United States of America in a report entitled "The Economic Promise of Investing in High-Quality Preschool: Using Early Education to Improve Economic Growth and the Fiscal Sustainability of States and the Nation," it has long been regarded by great nations that early education programmes are not only significant because it prepares the child for primary education, it is the most important way to help the economic and fiscal situation of a nation (CED, 2000). According to CED, the money invested in the young learners’ early education helps them develop academic, emotional, and social foundations that will benefit throughout their lives. If state investments make high quality education for preschoolers widely accessible, the nation will benefit in many economical ways such as: increased level of employment, stronger growth of standards of living, and a more employment-ready workforce. The society will also benefit with less crime rates, producing children who can contribute fully to society.

GAPS IN EARLY EDUCATION

The issues facing the preschool educational system in Singapore are as follows:

Affordability of education. According to the same study that conducted the survey, the introduction of private players has created inequality amongst children of different social strata. This in turn deprives young Singaporeans of their access to the quality education that they rightfully should be receiving. Free markets proponents argue that the presence of private providers creates competition, provides choice and diversity and meets the demands of the modern day parent.

As parents become increasingly educated and globalized, their expectations of the preschool education system will naturally be much higher than their predecessors. Catering to the demands of such parents who usually belong to the middle and upper income groups, private operators have introduced smaller group learning with emphasis on comprehensive development for every child at high fees, which are out of reach to a lower income family. Parents with meager income have no choice but to pick affordable kindergarten centres at a location most convenient to them, regardless of the level of quality education that the centre provides.

This has created a somewhat apartheid system among families of different income groups in Singapore. To address this issue, Dr. Koo Kim Choo of the International Consultant and Founder of the Preschool for Multiple Intelligence suggested that the responsibility of providing for Kindergarten 2 education should be shouldered by the Ministry of Education and should be introduced as pre- primary class. According to her, this will not only ensure a smoother transition but it also guarantees a wider accessibility of high quality education programmes to all preschoolers regardless of their parents’ income.

Availability of education. The disparity between those who can afford private preschool education and those who cannot is a fast growing concern. To put it simply, you will have a wide choice of quality preschool education if you have the financial means. In other words, preschool education in Singapore has been made a business by the private sector; whoever has the money gets the best goods. Parents have complained that it is appalling that preschool education is so much more expensive than primary education because stakeholders have made it so expensive. The growing frustration has prompted for many parents and even educators to urge the government to increase its spending on early childcare education or at least, to intervene in the regulation of fees.

Quality of education. The measurement of quality education in preschool education has long been a bugbear in Singapore. Due to a lack of a national curriculum, standards differ from centre to centre. There have been reports that some parents were alarmed to learn that the essence of certain preschool programmes seem to deviate from the social and cultural spirit of the Singapore context. While the introduction of the new Kindergarten Curriculum Framework gave some sense of the developmental milestones that are expected of a Kindergarten 2 child, there is still no guarantee that every centre will follow the framework closely.1 Much is still dependent on the individual parent to do their research to assess the quality of each centre’s programme

Singapore has already garnered an impressive global reputation for its tertiary education and it is time that we should devote the same attention and resources to raising the standards of our preschool education. While providing free universal education for all preschoolers may not be on the cards, the government can do much more to enhance affordability of quality education through the use of subsidies. The premise of any change in policy to guarantee affordability should always be based on the very first principle of education – every child should receive equal and high quality education regardless of their parents’ economic background.

PART II

ETHICS AND KEY CHALLENGES FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERS

THE PRINCIPLE OF MERITOCRACY IN SINGAPORE AND THE APPROPRIATE ETHICAL APPLICATION

Are ethical theories still relevant for leadership in our modern world where economic consideration is usually the primary motivation of most decision-making? This is perhaps the single most important question that Singapore really needs to answer if it is serious about rectifying the problems in the preschool education system. When measuring educational performance, the usual yardstick of using dollars and cents to rationalize every policy move may no longer be feasible. The leadership needs to recognize this and show the populace that it is willing to take a firm stance to make a difference in every child’s life starting from the preschool level even if it means some economic trade-offs. In the new normal of post- GE Singapore, what then is the ethical theory mostly appropriate for the leadership in Singapore in the context of early childhood education?

According to the GuideMeSingapore website, the country of Singapore has a governing philosophy of socialist democracy with a political culture that is partly authoritarian, rational, legalistic, and pragmatic. Being a meritocracy, power is gained through skill, knowledge, and performance enrichments in Singapore. It’s a concept that was first created by Michael Young in the year 1958. It is a social system where power, jobs, status, and wealth can only be distributed with the merits of intelligence and effort. Meritocracy is applied in different capitalists systems and it now includes ability, experience, and training besides efforts and intelligence According to "The Merit of Meritocracy- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology" written by Hing, Bobocel, Zanna, Garcia, Gee, & Orazetti (2011), meritocracy has become an ideal justice principle because it provides equal and adequate opportunities for success to the people of a nation. But just how exactly can meritocracy be merged effectively with ethics? What kind of ethical standard can be used? And, most importantly, how can it be applied in Singapore?

Meritocracy contains inherent contradictions, most notably the conflict between its egalitarian and elitist strands (C. Tan, 2008; J. Tan, 2008a; K.P. Tan, 2008). Despite efforts to ensure that the education system would serve to benefit the lowest common denominator of Singapore’s society as early as 1978 (Report on the Ministry of Education cited in Barr & Skrbis, 2008, p. 84), educational performance has persistently reflected class and ethnic biases. Indeed, as income gaps in Singapore continue to widen conspicuously, it seems inevitable that "the old consensus on meritocracy" would need to be reinforced by new measures "in order to contain an emerging politics of disillusionment and resistance" (K.P. Tan, 2008, p. 7).

What are new measures that can be considered then? According to the paper "Restoring Ethics to Meritocracy: The Contribution of Confucian Values to Business Leadership" written by Li Yuan (n.d.), Confucian meritocracy does not only value knowledge, ability, and skills. Most importantly, ethics is an integral part of it. In Aristotle’s view, ethics is the usage of practical wisdom. Wisdom refers to a person’s mind traits that enable man to live his life in a correct way. In the Confucian tradition, wisdom in practical application is highly appreciated. For the Confucian belief, wisdom demonstrates a form of ethics that is readily available – a set of ethics that a person can use and should use every day.

Policy makers, preschool providers, and the educators facing the dismal preschool education situation should perhaps take a serious look at the principles of Confucian meritocracy. Confucian principles resolve the paradoxes and perplexities of daily life by focusing on the fulfillment of life achieved only when man develops. It already serves as a reminder that man should act properly and morally in accordance with the changing Way or what is called Dao, ("Wisdom in Early Confucian and Israelite Tradition" written by Xinzhong Yao (2006)).

It is not suggested that Singapore should reconstruct the very basis of a national system that has brought phenomenal success for so many decades. Rather, instead on merely following a technical meritocratic system, the system should be upgraded to a Confucian meritocratic one where not only knowledge, ability, and skill are valued. Virtues should be given equal if not more importance than merits based upon intelligence, skill, and abilities - the traditional attributes that have been used as standard measurements in the conventional meritocratic model.

Confucian leadership requires the leadership of the wise, which means, the leader should possess both the virtue and ability in the Confucian sense. This concept believes that the right moral praxis to any leader is not only knowledge and skills but also most importantly, an ethical excellent (Yuan, n.d.). Virtues highly prized in the Confucian worldview are benevolence, compassion, morality, righteousness, loyalty, and moderation to mention a few. These are ethical principles that underlie all human decisions and actions.

Since gaining sovereignty in 1965, the People’s Action Party has ruled the government. PAP governance is largely based on utilitarian principles, making ethical decisions that promote the greater good with least harm to those affected by the decision (Michel Dion in his study "Are ethical theories relevant for ethical leadership?" (2009)). However, in its active pursuit of economic growth and adoption of business practices in the provision of public services (e.g. privatization of transport etc), the promotion of the greater good may have been relegated to second place with economic benefits being the most important factor to consider in policy-making.

If the Singapore government is as dedicated as it should be to the welfare of its people, corporate profitability should not always be the primary consideration. Decisions should always be weighed against a sense of morality and doing what is right even if it means inflicting some pain on national finances. Leaders should always take into consideration the number of people who will be affected by their decisions (Jeremy Bentham in the "Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation" (1982). In the case of Singapore’s preschool education problem, the most affected are not just the parents of the preschoolers, but the preschoolers themselves and the future ahead of them. Too much leeway has been given to private preschool providers to dictate the level of quality, affordability, and availability of education for preschoolers in Singapore and decisive action is urgently needed to address the gaps before the development of our young deteriorates further.

CONCLUSION

Singapore is a functioning meritocracy that is backed by largely utilitarian precepts underlying our governance. In all fairness to the government, it has not remained blind to the needs of its people. It has put in place a sound infrastructure and public goods and services remain largely accessible to the population. There is much room for more direct state involvement in the area of early childhood education and the recent budget announcement of the setting up of a centralized Early Childhood Development Agency and doubling of pre-school spending are policy moves in the right direction. However, caution must still be exercised to ensure that economic concerns are not given more importance than the muted voices of the children. If not abolished, free market mechanics must at least be closely monitored to protect our meritocracy. If children are given a better head-start by virtue of the wealth of their parents, the very ideal of meritocracy that we hold dear to may well cease to exist.

Of late, more parents have clamored for more change to enhance the availability and affordability of preschool education. An artificial divide has arisen in recent years, where wealthy parents can have a wide variety of preschool options to choose from, putting children from low-income families at a clear disadvantage. Adding to the chagrin of parents, the quality of private preschool programmes despite its high cost is not even guaranteed because there is a lack of a mandatory national curriculum that all centres should adhere to.

The problems will escalate if the government continues to adopt its semi laissez-faire approach to early childhood education sector. It affects the future of our children and questions the very basis of meritocratic principles that our society is based upon. Taking a leaf from Confucian principles of applying virtues of compassion and generally doing the right thing rather than just relying on hard number crunching may go a long way in resolving some of the issues we face in preschool education today. The budgetary announcements to boost the preschool sector is a good start in the right direction and as long as the government spares no effort in putting more effort in building the future of our next generation, the practice of ethical leadership at its highest order will no doubt, shine through.

Word count: 3992

Notes:

1 The Kindergarten Curriculum Framework was first published in 2003 that describes how children in preschool should be nurtured and prepared for their future and lifelong learning. After almost ten years, Ms Indranee Rajah, Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Law and Ministry of Education launched the framework, Nurturing Early Learners – A Curriculum Framework for Kindergartens in Singapore (Revised 2012) on 20 February 2013.