I think that you attributing the success of Singapore far too much to teaching factors (like having educational academics do non-educational related research), and not cultural factors (like general attitudes to science and mathematics, and general attitudes to education).

For example, Hong Kong is culturally similar to Singapore, and is also far above Australia on the list. However, the academics in the teaching programs are clearly not as involved in research as their Singaporean counterparts. Check out the rather aweful HKIED as an example.

In addition, the reason that countries like Singapore and Hong Kong can use continuous testing (from kindergarden!) is that it is culturally acceptable (to both parents and teachers -- it is in fact far more time consuming than the type of testing done in Australia), which is unlikely to be the case in Australia.

Or to look at it from the opposite direction, it seems unlikely that the standard of mathematics would drop in Singapore even if they could somehow convince the parents that things like report cards and continual testing were not neccesary.

I agree I also think it is at best foolish to think that we could have a setup like they have. Maybe the author doesn't remeber that Singapore is a much smaller place then Oz. Is he putting his hand up to teach maths and science to the children in Ceduna?

interesting links
http://announce.curtin.edu.au/release2001/c61b01.htm
http://www.in-cites.com/countries/2002allfields.html

some more links

http://www.moe.gov.sg/esd/Factsheet2004.pdf
http://www.educationnext.org/unabridged/20033/woessmann.pdf

At a tertiary level, I have administered or lecturered in two educational institutions in Singapore and also two educational institutions in Hong Kong over a period of seven years. Herein, I wish to make some counter-balancing comments.

Firstly, in those two Asian countries curricula documents are produced - for show, but are not necessarily taught. Mupltiple learning outcomes might appear on a course policy document, but only a few are assessed.

Secondly, "parroting" rather than understanding can be evident. Expatriate friends of mine first sent their young son to a Singapore system school for a few years and then switched to an international school. In his new school, when the boy was asked by the teach to draw a picture, he paused, for further instruction, while his classmates proceeded to apply their imaginations to the task. He could not proceed without being controlled and instructed on what to draw.

Relatedly, I have found compared with US, Oz and UK universities, Asian university students have difficulty with philosophy, "what if would have happened, if history was different" scenarios and strategic management requiring an answer that cannot be learned beforehand.

Having stated the above, I would not be surprised were Australian now under performing in many areas in higher education, as, Dawkins and Nelson, between them, have pretty much trashed Australia's post-secondary education systems. If anyone can make into it unversity buying their way and entry requirements are dropped, we can no longer produce the same outputs as countries that stream students based on merit.

Lastly, to address practical issues, such as, the application of mathematics in real world situations; there needs to be a greater interaction between Academia and Industry. Pick-up a "Who's Who in Australia" and you will see the biographies of full professors rarely indicate senior academics having held truly executive positions in major companies. Also, the Australian Vice Chancellors Committee is a club and should be dissolved and broaden, to include industry and public presentation. The AVCC wont rock the boat with the Minister, there own reputations are on the line and OAMs are in the balance.