Comparative Analysis of Stakeholder Integration in Education Policy Making: Case Studies of Singapore and Finland

Abstract

This paper analyzes stakeholder engagement in educational policymaking in Singapore and Finland, two countries renowned for successful education systems. While both countries achieve high academic standards, they employ distinct approaches to engage stakeholders in shaping educational policies. Singapore adopts a centralized model where policymaking is primarily directed by the Ministry of Education (MOE), with limited participation from external stakeholders. In contrast, Finland adopts a decentralized approach, empowering local authorities and schools with significant autonomy and actively involving stakeholders in policymaking. Key stakeholders, including teachers, parents, students and the private sector, play different roles in each country’s education governance. In Singapore, stakeholders are consulted through formal channels but have limited influence on decision-making, whereas, in Finland, stakeholders actively steer fundamental policy directions through extensive participation and consensus-building. The paper highlights the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and their impacts on education outcomes. Despite differences in governance models, both countries prioritize inclusive education, social cohesion, and holistic development. The analysis underscores the importance of meaningful stakeholder engagement in crafting effective education policies that align with national values and visions.

1. Introduction

Stakeholder engagement is a cornerstone of effective public education policymaking, ensuring the policies developed are comprehensive, inclusive, and reflective of the community’s diverse needs [1,2,3,4]. This collaborative process is vital as it incorporates the voices of all those impacted by education policies into the decision-making process. Such an inclusive approach not only enriches policy development with a multitude of perspectives, but also fosters a sense of ownership among stakeholders, significantly enhancing the likelihood of successful policy implementation and adherence [5,6]. Furthermore, the 2019 OECD Report on Implementing Education Policies underscores the fundamental importance of stakeholder engagement in policy implementation, stating: “Stakeholder engagement is a fundamental dimension of implementation if only for a very basic fact: people are the ones to implement education policies” [1] (p. 44). This emphasizes that the effectiveness of any policy hinges on the active involvement and commitment of its implementers, who are directly influenced by how well the policy resonates with their needs, expectations, and capacities. Thus, integrating diverse stakeholder inputs becomes crucial for crafting equitable, just education policies that adapt to the evolving landscape of educational needs, national development, and societal expectations [7,8].

Singapore and Finland, both renowned for their exceptional educational attainment and quality, provide a compelling backdrop for examining stakeholder engagement in policymaking in different political contexts. Despite both nations being democratic, their distinct forms of democracy—parliamentary in Singapore and parliamentary republic in Finland—add a layer of complexity to how educational policies are influenced and implemented, making them pertinent models for examining the impacts of different democratic contexts on stakeholder involvement in the education policymaking process. The comparative analysis of these two countries, each with its distinctive governance models, offers an intriguing perspective on how stakeholders are integrated into education policymaking in countries representing contrasting paradigms of educational governance, providing a unique case study to understand the strategies deployed for stakeholder involvement in shaping educational policies. Singapore, with its centralized governance model, offers a lens into how top-down policy decisions can be effectively implemented, with the government playing a pivotal role in shaping educational standards and curricula. On the other hand, Finland’s decentralized governance model offers an alternative view. This illustrates that stakeholder engagement can be successfully managed when decision-making power is distributed more broadly among local governments, schools, and communities.

The objectives of this paper are twofold. First, it aims to demonstrate the crucial role of stakeholder engagement in education policymaking across different governance contexts, highlighting the experiences of Singapore and Finland as models. This comparison demonstrates that effective stakeholder engagement is adaptable to local contexts and can be a successful approach to policymaking, regardless of governance structures. Second, the paper intends to provide actionable models for other countries looking to enhance stakeholder engagement in their education policymaking processes, drawing lessons from the successes and strategies employed by Singapore and Finland.

2. Understanding Stakeholder Integration in Educational Policymaking

In the evolving and complex context of educational policymaking, the integration of diverse stakeholder perspectives is crucial for developing and implementing effective and inclusive educational strategies. Originally conceptualized within business and organizational management, stakeholder theory provides a robust framework for understanding the intricate interplay of influences that characterize the education sector. This theory, particularly Freeman’s [9] stakeholder theory, a foundational pillar in this area, asserts that organizations should account for the interests of all stakeholders—including employees, customers, suppliers, and the broader community—rather than solely focusing on maximizing shareholder value. Building on Freeman’s foundational ideas, scholars like Clarkson [10] and Mitchell, Agle, and Wood [11] have further refined stakeholder theory, distinguishing between primary and secondary stakeholders and introducing the ‘Stakeholder Salience’ model. This model categorizes stakeholders based on power, legitimacy, and urgency, guiding policymakers to prioritize those who hold significant influence over policy outcomes. In educational policymaking, this theoretical approach helps map the roles, relationships, and influence capacities of diverse groups such as parents, teachers, students, and government bodies, ensuring that all voices are considered in policy development.

Decentralization in education, which involves redistributing decision-making powers to more localized levels, aligns closely with stakeholder theory by enhancing stakeholder engagement and making systems more responsive to local needs [12]. Within the education system, decentralization encompasses four levels: deconcentration, redistributing authority within the government hierarchy; delegation, transferring responsibilities to semi-autonomous bodies; devolution, granting full autonomy to local governments; and privatization, shifting control from public to private sectors [13,14,15]. This process not only increases the involvement of key stakeholders, such as teachers and parents, but also improves accountability and performance by enhancing local participation across different political systems, thereby broadening the scope for decentralized practices. Scholars argue that when decision-making powers are devoted to local levels, they can lead to more responsive and context-specific educational practices, potentially resulting in improved student outcomes [16]. Decentralization also increases engagement with key education stakeholders, such as teachers, students, parents, and the community, which increases the accountability of educational institutions and improves their performance [14,17].

The literature concurs that the substantive engagement of diverse stakeholders leads to better-informed, more widely accepted education policies with built-in support for effective implementation [18,19]. However, despite its advantages, decentralization presents challenges in balancing power dynamics and managing diverse perspectives, underscoring the need for the ongoing analysis of stakeholder interactions in a decentralized governance structure [20,21,22].

From a theoretical perspective, decentralization can be viewed as an application of stakeholder theory adapted to the educational sector [23]. It promotes wider stakeholder participation and takes into account various interests, supporting the theory’s call for inclusive decision-making [24]. However, stakeholder engagement is fundamentally a managerial practice that can be implemented effectively in both centralized and decentralized political systems [25,26]. Centralized systems can employ practices of decentralization such as deconcentration and delegation to engage stakeholders through structured, national-level mechanisms, demonstrating the versatility and universal applicability of stakeholder theory in enhancing policy effectiveness across different governance models.

3. Methods

The methodology of this comparative analysis involves a detailed framework for selecting and analyzing documents based on explicit, predefined criteria, characteristic of a systematic literature review. This approach is designed to ensure comprehensive coverage of the dynamics of stakeholder engagement within the distinct governance frameworks of Singapore and Finland, focusing on their influence on educational outcomes and broader societal objectives, such as social cohesion and inclusivity. The review began with the development of a set of key search terms aimed at capturing relevant aspects of stakeholder engagement and educational policy. These terms included “stakeholder engagement”, “education policies”, “centralization”, “decentralization”, “stakeholder integration”, “participatory governance”, “policy co-creation”, “educational equity”, “equity and inclusion in education policy”, “community involvement in education”, “policy impact assessment”, and “education initiatives”.

The selection of these terms was informed by preliminary scans of the literature and existing frameworks in educational policy research, ensuring relevance and breadth in our document retrieval process. The initial search involved a thorough exploration of stakeholder engagement and educational policy themes and frameworks in general. This was followed by an analysis and comparison specifically focused on the governance frameworks and educational policies of Singapore and Finland, given their distinctive approaches and contexts. This methodological choice aimed to provide insights into how different governance structures influence stakeholder engagement and the resulting educational outcomes in these two countries.

The databases and sources were strategically selected based on their relevance and authority in the field of education policy. These included governmental reports, official publications from the Ministry of Education in Singapore and the Ministry of Education and Culture in Finland, and data from UN-affiliated organizations like the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The inclusion of documents from UN-affiliated organizations was based on their global perspective and authoritative data on educational practices and outcomes, which are crucial for understanding the international context and benchmarks in education policy. Additionally, the academic literature was accessed via Google Scholar to incorporate scholarly perspectives and empirical studies into our analysis. Documents were included based on their relevance to the search terms, their contribution to understanding stakeholder engagement in education, and their empirical or theoretical depth. Documents that did not directly relate to the governance frameworks of Singapore or Finland’s education systems, or those that did not specifically address the themes of stakeholder integration or impact on educational policies, were excluded.

Once the relevant documents were collected, they were subjected to a coding process using qualitative content analysis. The coding scheme was designed to identify and categorize mentions of stakeholder engagement strategies, policy initiatives, and outcomes related to our thematic focuses. The coding process allowed us to systematically extract and compare data from Singapore and Finland, highlighting similarities and differences in policy implementation and stakeholder integration. Finally, to ensure the rigor and reliability of the analysis, a triangulation method was employed, cross-verifying information across different types of sources and data. This method strengthens the validity of our findings by providing a multi-faceted view of stakeholder engagement practices in the educational sectors of the two countries.

4. The Singapore and Finland Models of Education Governance

4.1. The Singapore Model: Centralized Governance System

The Singapore model is acknowledged for having one of the most exceptional education systems globally, and it is a pioneering model in educational innovation and effectiveness. Its holistic approach toward education sets it apart from other nations and is inextricably linked to the country’s economic and development strategies. Singapore’s education system operates in a coherent and stable policy environment enabled by the country’s developmental state model. As a developmental state, the Singaporean government plays an active role in steering the economy and strategically investing in education, which is a crucial driver of growth. The Ministry of Education (MOE) spearheads a centralized national framework that aligns curricula, assessments, teacher policies, and resources to ensure consistency and high school standards [27]. A long-term roadmap and planning for education is anchored by the philosophy of ‘Teach Less, Learn More’ and ‘Thinking Schools’, representing a holistic approach to education emphasizing quality over quantity in teaching, well-being, and fostering critical thinking skills [28,29]. Meritocracy and academic excellence are emphasized from early childhood in relation to the development of globally competitive human capital. The government works closely with industry and universities to cater to education and training to meet economic demands. This alignment between the education strategy and the country’s national development, social cohesion, and economic strategies is a result of Singapore’s centralized policymaking system.

Several factors of the policy environment directly impact educational policy reform and its success in Singapore. The most significant feature has been political stability in Singapore since its independence in 1965 under the leadership of the People’s Action Party (PAP), the main political party in Singapore. Political stability enables policies to be planned and implemented coherently and at a national strategic level with the support of parliament and citizens [30,31]. Singapore’s political stability under long-term one-party dominance has forged greater cohesion between key education bodies, allowing responsive policy implementation. With the Ministry of Education exercising significant control over all education levels, it can seamlessly partner with teacher training institutions, the National Institute of Education (NIE), and schools nationwide to swiftly enact curriculum changes. For instance, the MOE undertakes regular reviews of curriculum and frameworks with inputs from the National Institute of Education (NIE) and school leaders to update pedagogical approaches, learning needs, and skill demands. Teachers are quickly retrained in new methods through NIE outreach. The institutional partnership also aids the development of national initiatives such as ICT integration and STEM education by aligning objectives, resources, and implementation across agencies [32,33]. Furthermore, the PAP government’s ability to channel substantial budgets toward education, unchecked by opposition critics, provides sustained funding to maintain high-quality education and implement new programs responsive to economic strategies. Thus, a coordinated policy environment facilitates education quality and agility [31].

While Singapore’s education system reflects a high degree of centralization at the national level, it also incorporates efforts toward increased school-based decentralization. This balance, often called ‘centralized decentralization’, is a crucial aspect of Singapore’s developmental state model [34,35]. The system is designed for synergy and alignment at a system-wide level, with schools functioning as closely-knit communities to meet the broader objectives of the nation. At the same time, the system allows decentralization at the individual school level to encourage diversity, innovation, and customization. School leaders are given autonomy to manage their schools, albeit within the framework of national agendas. This blend of central direction and local flexibility, as shown in Figure 1, ensures that the Singaporean education system caters to national and regional needs, fostering a sense of inclusivity and adaptability [36].

Singapore’s MOE places special emphasis on stakeholder engagement in the education policymaking process. The Communications and Engagement Group is the primary division at the MOE, which is responsible for engaging and informing all MOE’s key stakeholders for consultation, engagement, and seeking support for the development and shifts in education [37]. The National Advisory Council COMPASS is the primary advisory body for policymakers at the MOE to strengthen and enhance school–home–community collaboration, including different community members. A review of existing MOE initiatives, councils, and stakeholder reports has identified key stakeholders in the Singaporean education system. Stakeholder mapping, as shown in

Table 1. Stakeholder mapping in Singapore’s educational system.

Sector	Stakeholder
School Level	Educators
	School leaders
Community Level	Parents
	Students
	Community members
	Unions
	NGOs
	Media and news agencies
	Community bloggers
Government Level	Parliament members
	Representatives of other ministries
	Government agencies
Private Sector	Employers
	Industry associations
	Training providers

, demonstrates an inclusive and holistic approach to the decision-making process in Singapore’s educational system.

Stakeholder Engagement Strategies

Although the MOE engages different stakeholders on different occasions, there are four groups of key stakeholders that the ministry systematically engages with on a regular basis for nearly all its initiatives: school leaders, teachers, students, and parents [38]. School–stakeholder partnership in Singapore became mandatory after the launching of the “Thinking Schools-Learning Nations” vision in 1997, advocating for a collaborative engagement between education institutions and the community. Engagement strategies vary from regular meetings and activities to networks and associations. Parents, for example, are encouraged to be involved in simple day-to-day school matters through education reform strategies. The Parent Support Group (PSG) is a formal group that actively engages parents in the education system through schools. Through these groups, parents can organize social activities, receive feedback from other parents, share it with school admirations, and consult on educational changes and reforms [39]. Teachers and school leaders are also actively involved as primary stakeholders in the education system. The MOE continuously seeks feedback and consultation from school leaders and teachers on nearly all matters concerning the education system and student performance and well-being. The outcome of formal stakeholder engagement through consultative groups, discussions, or roundtables is publicly shared on the MOE website, demonstrating transparency and accountability.

One primary example of stakeholder engagement in the education system is exemplified in the approach taken by the School Excellence Model (SEM). The model was developed to promote excellence in schools by providing a framework for self-assessment and continuous improvement [35,40]. It assesses schools in various areas, including leadership, planning processes, staff and student management, and partnerships with external stakeholders, and it promotes a whole-school approach to education, considering the needs and interests of all stakeholders, namely, students, teachers, parents, and the broader community. Through this national competitive model, school excellence can only be achieved through the comprehension and correct interpretation of the national agenda, ensuring that all essential groups within the school are well-informed and inspired, as well as fostering positive relationships with internal and external stakeholders. While the criteria for school excellence are set by the Ministry of Education, education stakeholders such as school principals and teachers can determine ways of achieving these standards [41]. The SEM, for instance, encourages teachers to assume leadership roles and fosters a collaborative culture by integrating various stakeholders, including parents and the community. By providing opportunities for professional growth and recognizing excellence, SEM enhances teacher engagement, contributing to the overall success and continuous improvement of schools. This approach demonstrates how empowering teachers as key stakeholders can significantly influence educational outcomes.

4.2. The Finland Model: Decentralized Governance System

Finland’s education system serves as a global benchmark for excellence, a model that is intricately tied to the country’s egalitarian culture and social policies. Home to around 5.5 million people, Finland has crafted a society that places immense value on equality, personal freedom, and community welfare [42]. This ethos is anchored by a robust social security system that narrows the inequality gap more effectively than most Western nations. Finland’s present economic and political stability level has resulted from prudent policymaking and far-sighted leadership over the decades. The country has a parliamentary system of governance with proportional representation that allows inclusive policy formulation [43]. Power is distributed between the Prime Minister, who heads the cabinet; the president, who heads the state; and the independent judiciary, a system that ensures a high level of transparency and accountability. Finland has a mixed capitalist economy with the characteristics of both a free market and a socialist welfare policy. The presence of large public and cooperative enterprises, alongside private corporations, reflects this mixed model.

Several key features of Finland’s national policy context have enabled a successful Finnish education model to shape the country’s educational practices and outcomes. The government places great emphasis on national policy coherence based on a whole-government strategic framework led and monitored by the prime minister’s office. The National 2030 Agenda is an implementation framework that guides policy initiatives, implementation, and evaluation at the national level. The framework focuses on two key areas: (1) Finland, which is both carbon-neutral and resource-efficient, and (2) Finland, which is inclusive, equitable, and skilled [44]. The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) regularly monitors the framework to ensure coherence, consistency, and sustainability in policymaking across different sectors and institutions. Coordination across and within the government is a critical strategy in Finland’s policy. A defining feature of Finland’s national policy context is its emphasis on stakeholder participation and engagement across all sectors. Finland has extensively fostered multi-stakeholder involvement and engagement in achieving development goals [45,46]. The government encourages organizations and individual citizens to make operational commitments that align with national priorities. The Finnish government, through the Prime Minister’s Office, initiated a national mapping exercise to align existing policies, measures, activities, and budgets with the 17 SDGs and their 169 targets [47]. This effort aimed to familiarize all line ministries with the entire Agenda 2030 and encourage a departure from operating in silos. Finland’s educational policy context reflects its democratic and cooperative values. The education system is systematically decentralized, with local authorities and schools having considerable autonomy in educational provision [48,49]. At the national level, the government’s strategic plan outlines high-level educational goals over a 4-year timeline. The Finnish parliament passes educational legislation, while the Ministry of Education and Culture (OKM) describes and administers policies across all sectors, from early childhood to adult learning. National policies provide guiding principles and frameworks while allowing regional and local customization flexibility based on specific needs [48,50].

Therefore, stakeholder engagement is a significant characteristic of Finnish education policy. In 2017, Finland stood out as the only country where all decisions about lower secondary schools were made collaboratively across multiple governance levels rather than concentrated at a single national or local level, as shown in Figure 2. Equality and equity are the guiding principles of Finland’s education system, which operates within national curriculum frameworks to promote fair and high-quality education for all students.

Finland’s educational policy context reflects the country’s intensely cooperative values, emphasizing multi-stakeholder participation, decentralized governance, and localized decision-making. While the national government sets high-level strategies and frameworks, considerable autonomy is given to local authorities and schools to tailor policies to meet community needs. The robust engagement of diverse stakeholders, including teacher associations, academia, industry, and parents, ensures that inclusive perspectives inform education reforms and initiatives. The breadth of stakeholders described by the Finnish National Agency for Education is shown in Figure 3, which shows the interest from a broad societal perspective in terms of educational provision and outcomes.

Stakeholder Engagement Strategies

Ustun and Eryilmaz [53] suggest that the Finnish education system is characterized by a culture of trust, which means that local authorities treat all stakeholders, including teachers, in a highly trusting way. This means that while national curricula are applicable nationwide, teachers can implement their teaching methods to achieve high outcomes for all their pupils. The curriculum design, school budgets, teacher hiring, and daily school activities are managed by local education authorities (municipalities) and individual schools. Parents and students actively participate in school activity planning through boards and councils. Teacher and principal associations and workgroups provide input on education reforms, curriculum development, and national education initiatives. Universities and teacher-training colleges collaborate with policymakers to improve teacher education. Employers and industry groups offer perspectives on the skills and knowledge required for the future workforce [54,55].

In Finland, stakeholders’ engagement in educational policymaking is notably inclusive and systematic, exemplified by the practices of the Finnish Education Evaluation Center (FINEEC). FINEEC actively involves a wide array of stakeholders from across the educational spectrum to ensure that evaluations and reforms are comprehensive and reflective of the community’s needs [56,57]. FINEEC conducts evaluations that are integral to the development and reform of educational policies and practices. Stakeholders involved typically include teachers, principals, students, parents, and representatives from local businesses and universities. The method for recruiting stakeholders for these evaluations is characterized by an open invitation approach, allowing anyone with relevant insights or interests to participate. This is facilitated through announcements on FINEEC’s website, social media channels, and direct communications through educational institutions [51,56,58].

Furthermore, FINEEC organizes workshops and public consultations where these stakeholders can provide their feedback on various aspects of the educational system, from curriculum development to teacher education practices, and publishes a stakeholder survey every two years showcasing how different stakeholders perceive their participation in the education system [59]. This participatory approach ensures that the evaluation processes are not only transparent but also enriched with diverse perspectives, fostering a culture of trust and collaborative improvement. Such strategies exemplify how Finland’s educational system integrates stakeholder input into its core operational philosophy, ensuring that policies are not only responsive but also aligned with the needs and expectations of the entire educational community.

5. Comparing Stakeholder Roles in the Singaporean and Finnish Educational Systems

Singapore and Finland’s education governance models differ significantly, making them interesting cases for comparative analysis. Each country’s unique approach to stakeholder engagement in education policymaking reflects its national and cultural values and is a testament to the innovative strategies that have propelled it to the forefront of global education excellence.

Table 2. Overview of stakeholder engagement approaches in Singapore and Finland.

Criteria	Singapore	Finland
Policy Context
Governance Structure	Centralised	Decentralised
Key Education Policies and Initiatives	‘Teach Less, Think More’ and ‘Thinking Schools’	‘Lifelong Learning’
National Education Priority	Economic development and social cohesion	Equality, quality, efficiency and well-being
Stakeholder Engagement Strategies
Teachers	Limited formal representation but active in school-level decisions	Teachers involved in policy formation at multiple levels
Parents and Students	Active in school activities, indirectly engaged in policy development and implementation through school-level discussion groups	Actively involved, often through advisory boards
Private Sector and NGOs	Actively involved in lifelong learning initiatives ‘SkillsFuture’	Actively involved in lifelong learning initiatives and vocational education and training programs
Challenges
Representation in Policymaking	The limited representation of teachers in formal councils. Teachers, parents and students are more enablers than agents of policy initiatives.	A consensus-driven model may slow down policy decisions
Inclusivity and Diversity	Focusing on high achievement could marginalise certain groups.	Balancing equality with excellence
Adaptability	Rigidity due to the centralised structure	May struggle with rapid policy changes due to multiple stakeholder inputs

provides an overview of the two approaches, showing how each country prioritizes and involves specific stakeholders.

Although both nations are widely recognized for their high educational standards, as evidenced by the student achievement indicators compared in

Table 3. Singapore and Finland students’ performances in the PISA tests (2018) [60].

Country	Global Ranking	PISA (2018)
		Reading	Mathematics	Science
Singapore	2	549	569	551
Finland	7	520	507	522
OECD Average		487	489	489

, the mechanisms through which key stakeholders, such as government bodies, teachers, parents, students, and the private sector, participate in shaping these policies differ substantially. Singapore has implemented a highly centralized, ministerially directed model with limited participatory structures to involve external stakeholders. Teachers, parents, and students are formally represented on advisory bodies that allow guided input with limited influence on decision-making, and the private sector plays a supplementary and collaborative role, especially in continuing education initiatives. However, it needs to be deeply embedded in policy processes. By contrast, Finland’s approach is extensively participatory and consensus-focused, with the state apparatus facilitating policymaking, while stakeholders directly steer fundamental policy directions. Nevertheless, both countries present positive stakeholder engagement models that are a part of the education policy process.

Although Singapore and Finland are considered positive examples of stakeholder engagement in education policymaking, they present unique engagement models. The Ministry of Education (MOE) employs a ‘Centralized–Decentralized’ model for educational policymaking in Singapore. While the MOE centrally dictates overarching guidelines and standards, individual schools retain some autonomy in implementing these directives, particularly in curriculum development, extracurricular activities, and pedagogical practices. This approach is known as the ‘Centralized–Decentralized’ model [36,61,62]. This hybrid governance approach incorporates elements of deconcentration and delegation. Deconcentration is evident as the MOE maintains central control over key policies while redistributing authority within the government hierarchy to ensure consistent policy implementation. The MOE conducts regular assessments, audits, and evaluations of educational institutions to ensure compliance with national directives. Delegation is reflected in the autonomy granted to schools in curricular and pedagogical decisions. This decentralized framework aims to increase stakeholder involvement, particularly from teachers and parents, and enhance accountability and performance by fostering local participation. Singapore’s hybrid governance approach allows for rapid, uniform policy implementation across the sector, thus facilitating a focus on academic excellence and resource allocation, particularly in STEM subjects. However, stakeholder engagement in Singapore is predominantly orchestrated by the MOEH, with approaches varying significantly depending on the context and level of engagement. For instance, in policy development at the MOE level, engagement is more structured: the MOE selects and invites stakeholders, predominantly setting the agenda itself. This controlled environment reflects the centralized–decentralized model of Singapore [34,63] that ensures discussions are focused and aligned with national educational objectives. Conversely, engagement at the school level is notably more flexible and inclusive. Stakeholders such as parents, students, and teachers are actively encouraged to participate. This engagement often occurs in informal settings, and is integral to addressing specific local needs, such as enhancing student learning or tackling challenges faced by students. This dual approach—formal at the national level and informal at the school level—reflects the adaptability of Singapore’s educational system to engage stakeholders effectively across different settings.

By contrast, Finland adopts a decentralized approach that empowers local authorities and individual schools with significant autonomy. Reflecting the concepts of devolution as a decentralized model [15], the primary driver for adopting a decentralized approach is to endow local institutions as agents of welfare policies, thereby facilitating decision-making at the community level attuned to specific local characteristics and national priorities [48,60]. The Finnish National Agency for Education establishes a broad national framework within which local education boards and schools tailor curricula, teaching methods, and assessment strategies. This allows for strategically incorporating the local culture, language, and social context into the educational experience. Stakeholders, such as teachers, parents, and even students, are actively involved in policy formulation and implementation through local advisory boards, working groups, and public consultations [48]. This high level of localized stakeholder engagement also extends to evaluating teacher performance and student well-being. The Finnish model strongly emphasizes inclusivity, equality, and holistic development rather than standardized testing.

Both systems engage different stakeholders in unique ways that serve the system’s and the community’s needs. Teachers are considered highly respected and valued professionals in Singapore and Finland [48,64,65]. However, there are notable differences in how they can participate in shaping educational policies in each country. In Singapore, they have limited formal representation in policymaking through the consultative councils of the Ministry of Education. However, they are encouraged to play a dynamic and critical role in school-level decision-making. In Finland, however, the teaching profession is highly respected and deeply integrated into the educational policymaking framework, facilitated by a decentralized approach. Importantly, teachers are highly qualified, often holding master’s degrees, which equips them with analytical skills and subject expertise to participate meaningfully in shaping educational policies [66]. This contrasts starkly with Singapore, where teachers, although respected, are often limited to consultative roles within more centralized decision-making structures. In Finland, the rigorous academic training that teachers receive prepares them to excel in classroom instruction and makes them eligible and ready to serve on local advisory boards and in public consultations. This is unlike Singapore, where teachers are not necessarily qualified to engage in a higher policy development level [67].

Regarding parents and student engagement, Singapore and Finland’s educational systems aim to achieve more than just academic excellence—they also focus on nurturing social cohesion, inclusivity, and respect for diversity. Parents and students are not merely recipients of education, but are also considered essential stakeholders in fulfilling these broader societal objectives. In Finland’s decentralized system, parents often have considerable influence through local advisory boards and public consultations, where they contribute to shaping an education that embodies social values such as equality and inclusivity. Alternatively, in Singapore’s more centralized model, parents are actively engaged, but they are generally perceived as enablers who support existing policies rather than as agents actively shaping the system. For instance, parents are encouraged to participate in their children’s educational journey through avenues such as orientation events, workshop sessions, and parent support groups that allow them to contribute to the school’s goals and their children’s academic and personal development [38,68,69].

Students in Finland and Singapore are active contributors to creating inclusive learning environments. It is laudable and signifies a paradigm shift from traditional educational models that consider them passive consumers. In Finland, their participation in democratic school councils educates them about governance and fosters a sense of agency. However, it is worth noting that these councils often focus on relatively minor decisions, such as school events, rather than substantial policy issues, thus potentially limiting the scope of genuine student involvement in governance [70]. In Singapore, initiatives such as Co-Curricular Activities (CCAs) and youth excavation projects aim to generate community awareness and life skills, hence reflecting the nation’s emphasis on community cohesion in its multicultural fabric. However, the additional layer of engagement introduced by these activities can place an extra burden on students, potentially causing stress and diminishing the efficacy of these programs in achieving their objectives. Thus, while both countries are pioneering in engaging students as stakeholders, the extent to which these efforts translate into meaningful engagement and skill development remains debatable. Nevertheless, students play an active and important role in the system.

Additionally, in Finland and Singapore, the scope of stakeholder engagement in educational policymaking transcends the immediate actors of teachers, students and parents to include a wider network, notably the private sector, NGOs and unions. This reflects the core concepts of stakeholder theory, which assert that stakeholders include anyone who affects or is affected by the system [9,71]. For instance, in Vocational Education and Training (VET), both countries often prioritize industry stakeholders to guide curriculum development and employment pathways [72,73]. In Finland, where the teaching profession requires high levels of competency, unions and NGOs often have substantive input into professional development policies and curricula [74], which balances conflicting perspectives in policy discussions and ensures that education remains adaptable and holistic. Singapore follows a similar path, albeit within a more centralized framework, in that the government engages with private sector stakeholders for initiatives such as SkillsFuture, pursuing lifelong learning, and industry readiness. What sets these two countries apart is their commitment to active—and not just token—stakeholder involvement, resulting in educational environments that are both effective and adaptive to societal needs. Stakeholder engagement strategies, while differing in form, serve higher national values and visions in both countries, making them an impactful instrument of policy effectiveness rather than a procedural requirement.

6. Conclusions

This paper has demonstrated how two countries with different governance systems, Singapore and Finland, engage stakeholders in education policymaking. These nations employ distinct but equally effective strategies, which serve broader national objectives rather than treating engagement as a mere goal. In Singapore, the centralized system actively engages stakeholders through consultative councils, school-level forums, and joint boards, all aligned with the nation’s focus on economic growth and academic excellence. This centralized model allows for uniform policy implementation and consistent stakeholder involvement, ensuring that national educational objectives are met efficiently. Finland’s decentralized model, on the other hand, features local advisory boards, public consultations, and working groups involving teachers, parents, and students throughout the policy formulation, design, implementation, and evaluation stages. This model promotes a high level of local autonomy and responsiveness, allowing for more context-specific and inclusive educational practices. The findings reveal that both countries excel in managing multiple stakeholders within their education systems, employing strategies that reflect their unique governance structures. Finland and Singapore effectively navigate the complexities of stakeholder engagement by employing a context-sensitive approach. In both countries, stakeholders, particularly teachers, play a pivotal role in areas such as curriculum development, ensuring that educational policies are informed by essential classroom insights.

Both countries excel in the complex yet essential task of managing multiple stakeholders within their education systems. What sets these countries apart is the proactive role stakeholders play in educational policymaking. In Finland, the requirement for teachers to attain a certain level of academic qualification enhances their ability to impact policy meaningfully. This ensures a balanced perspective and maintains equilibrium among various stakeholders’ interests, even when opinions differ. The active participation of stakeholders in both Singapore and Finland not only ensures the relevance and effectiveness of educational policies, but also fosters a sense of ownership and responsibility. These examples highlight successful approaches to genuine stakeholder engagement in educational policymaking, offering valuable lessons for other nations seeking to enhance their own stakeholder engagement practices.

7. Recommendations

This comparative analysis of the Singaporean and Finnish models for stakeholder engagement showcases the remarkable success of these two models, presenting key findings that highlight their best practices, as follows:

-

Variability in engagement—stakeholder engagement is not monolithic and can manifest in various forms influenced by the governance model in place;

-

Impact on education outcomes—the active and intentional engagement of primary stakeholders, namely, teachers, parents, and students, has a direct and significant impact on educational outcomes and student performance;

-

Contextual flexibility—as the two nations demonstrate, successful stakeholder engagement is feasible in centralized and decentralized policy contexts;

-

Preparedness and respect for stakeholders—both nations highly respect their teachers and invest heavily in professional development to prepare stakeholders for meaningful participation in policy formulation and implementation;

-

Linking stakeholder engagement to economic objectives—effective stakeholder engagement with the private sector is crucial for aligning educational objectives with economic needs and creating a workforce to meet current and future challenges.

The findings of this comparative analysis have important practical implications for policymakers and stakeholders in the education system in any context.

Policymakers are advised to maximize stakeholder engagement in order to create policies that are adaptable, inclusive, and reflective of the needs of those affected by them. This will result in better-informed policies, which in turn will increase the likelihood of successful implementation. Policymakers can engage stakeholders in various ways, depending on the governance context, by using different strategies for stakeholder engagement. For stakeholders, it is important to take advantage of any available engagement opportunities and become more active in the policymaking process. Additionally, the paper recommends further research on stakeholder engagement in education policymaking in different contexts, as well as how it impacts the quality of the education system and its outcomes.