Rethinking Conceptualizations of Teacher Quality in Singapore and Hong Kong: A Comparative Analysis

Abstract

Objectives: This paper compares conceptions of teacher quality in two education systems—Singapore and Hong Kong (HK)—that consistently perform well in international assessments. Both systems recently revised their teacher competencies, offering a just-in-time opportunity to learn from how they now conceptualize quality teaching. Perspectives: Traditionally, what defined teacher quality was the acquisition of a teaching license (U.S. Department of Education, 2004); and subject/content, curriculum, and pedagogical knowledge and skills (Shulman, 1987). However, equating teacher quality to a teaching certificate, subject knowledge, or technical skill has been criticized (Humphrey, Weschsler, & Hough, 2008). Increasingly, other attributes are being employed to define teacher quality, including passion (Day, 2004), and personal moral values (Osguthorpe, 2008). Similarly, in Singapore and HK, traditional conceptualizations of teacher quality emphasized academic qualifications and professional knowledge. Yet both systems now embrace a holistic view of learning with a shift towards student- and values-centered education and teachers as caring, ethical professionals. As two systems admired for teacher quality, and where students consistently outperform their global peers, it might be tempting to maintain norms and practices that have ensured high rankings in the recent past. Yet, as high-achieving jurisdictions, HK and Singapore are actually well-positioned to risk change and to take the lead in re-conceptualizing teaching for learning (OECD. 2018). That backdrop forms the context for our study. Modes of inquiry and data sources: Data for this comparative analysis consisted of the HK T-Standards, and The Singapore Teaching Practice. Analysis occurred in two stages. We first independently analyzed each set of standards/competencies to inductively determine how each defines teacher quality. Then we reviewed both data sets to identify similarities or departures across the two jurisdictions. We used OECD’s Learning Framework 2030 to assess if and how these standards address student learning, and to what extent they address “a vision and some underpinning principles for the future of education systems” (OECD, 2018, p. 3). Conclusions and significance: Findings indicate that Singapore and HK both describe good teachers leading from behind, using terms such as “cultivators” or “enablers” who facilitate, activate, and empower. Both systems highlight subject matter knowledge, but only as one among several core competencies. One difference that emerged is how Singapore’s bilingual policy is emphasized in teacher competencies, whereas HK is fairly silent about language, raising the question of context in relation to teacher quality. Both systems are stepping away from quality strictly correlated with test scores and high performance using traditional assessments. Instead, their new focus is on teachers shaping the future by educating citizens who are globally minded and locally rooted. A final key factor that supported change in both systems was the intentional involvement of multiple stakeholders in local communities and a tripartite relationship between schools, universities, and government. As benchmarks for international peers seeking to improve educational outcomes, our paper analyzing how Singapore and HK now define teacher/teaching quality can point the way for other systems aiming to climb up the league tables by prioritizing teaching that is focused on learning, not test scores.