Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a timely and significant case study exploring the role of education in fostering social cohesion within a multiethnic context, focusing on Singapore’s education system. The paper is conceptually well-grounded, methodologically sound, and analytically rich. It makes a strong contribution to the fields of comparative education, policy studies, and diversity management, and is well aligned with the aims and thematic scope of Education Sciences (MDPI).

The paper demonstrates originality in its focus on the long-term role of education in managing postcolonial diversity and building national identity.

The research design is clearly articulated, with appropriate use of qualitative methods (interviews and document analysis).

The use of theoretical frameworks (Hippler, Green et al., Tan) adds depth and rigor to the analysis.

The manuscript engages meaningfully with both classic and recent scholarship and is well referenced.

The narrative is compelling, and the structure supports clarity and logical flow.

Suggestions for Improvement

Double-Blind Compliance: There are visible editorial notes and identifying elements ("Remove for double-blind review") that should be carefully removed to comply with the journal's review policy.

Temporal Context of Data: The interview data was collected in 2012. This is acceptable for a historical or longitudinal policy analysis, but it should be clearly framed as such. A stronger discussion in the Limitations section addressing the time gap and how it affects interpretation would improve transparency.

Visual Enhancement: Consider adding at least one visual element—such as a diagram of the conceptual framework, timeline of reforms, or a summary table of key policies and outcomes—to enhance reader engagement and accessibility.

Policy Tensions and Implementation Gaps: The paper could benefit from further discussion of how policy coherence at the systemic level may sometimes mask fragmentation or contradictions at the implementation level (e.g., meritocracy vs. equity; multilingualism vs. identity homogenization).

Reflexivity and Positionality: While the researcher’s role is briefly noted, expanding on the implications of being an international researcher studying a local context would strengthen the qualitative rigor.

Overall, this is a strong and publishable manuscript that will make a meaningful contribution to the discourse on education, social cohesion, and policy innovation in plural societies. With minor revisions and clarifications as noted above, it would be highly suitable for publication.

Author Response

Comment 1: [Double-Blind Compliance: There are visible editorial notes and identifying elements ("Remove for double-blind review") that should be carefully removed to comply with the journal's review policy.]

Response: [Thank you for pointing this out. All the information related to author identification has been removed in the revised version.]

Comment 2: [Temporal Context of Data: The interview data was collected in 2012. This is acceptable for a historical or longitudinal policy analysis, but it should be clearly framed as such. A stronger discussion in the Limitations section addressing the time gap and how it affects interpretation would improve transparency.]

Response: [Revised the Limitations section to explicitly frame the 2012 data as valuable for historical policy analysis. Clarified that the data captures foundational policy principles and a critical transition period in Singapore’s education reforms (TSLN), rather than serving as a current administrative snapshot. Please see Section 9: Study Limitations (Paragraph 1).]

Comment 3: [Visual Enhancement: Consider adding at least one visual element—such as a diagram of the conceptual framework, timeline of reforms, or a summary table of key policies and outcomes—to enhance reader engagement and accessibility.]

Response: [Added Figure 1 within the Conceptual Framework section. The description synthesizes the theoretical contributions of Hippler (2005), Green et al. (2009), and Tan (2011) as described in the source text. Please see Section 2.4: Conceptual Framework.]

Comment 4: [Policy Tensions and Implementation Gaps: The paper could benefit from further discussion of how policy coherence at the systemic level may sometimes mask fragmentation or contradictions at the implementation level (e.g., meritocracy vs. equity; multilingualism vs. identity homogenization).]

Response: [Expanded the discussion on policy coherence to explicitly address “masking.” Added specific examples drawn from the findings regarding how meritocracy can mask stratification and how bilingual policies can mask the homogenization of dialect groups (e.g., Hokkien/Teochew). Please see Section 5.2: Policy Coherence and Implementation.]

Comment 5: [Reflexivity and Positionality: While the researcher’s role is briefly noted, expanding on the implications of being an international researcher studying a local context would strengthen the qualitative rigor.]

Response: [Expanded the Limitations section to elaborate on the researcher’s positionality. Specifically articulated the trade-off between the “critical distance” afforded to an outsider versus the risk of missing “cultural subtleties” and local nuances. Please see Section 8: Study Limitations (Paragraph 2).]

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The relationship between the research question (how Singapore addressed the challenges of social diversity through its education system and built social cohesion), the four objectives, the five main domains(3.3 Data Collection Methods), and the six major themes of the findings remains unclear. Furthermore, How were the five domains of the interviews determined? What is their internal logical relationship? How do they relate to the research question and objectives? What are the internal connections among the six themes of the findings? And how do these themes respond to the research question and objectives? It is recommended that the authors provide clear explanations in the manuscript.

2.In the Findings section, the headings are not presented at a consistent level of detail. Some headings clearly convey key concepts or specific information, while others do not. For instance, Section 4.2.2 is titled "Educational Reform Principles," but the actual principles are not explicitly stated. It is recommended that such subheadings, like other third-level headings, directly highlight the key concepts.

3.The Discussion section should focus on explaining the results using the conceptual framework outlined in Section 2.4. The findings should be reorganized and further discussed in relation to this framework. For example, the analysis framework of structural, symbolic, instrumental, and normative integration is mentioned, so how is this reflected in the Singapore case? It is suggested to summarize the key concepts from the findings in a table or figure and interpret them using the conceptual framework. This would highlight the study’s key findings and theoretical contribution.

4.The Conclusion should be placed before the sections on Future Directions and Limitations.

Author Response

Comment 1: [The relationship between the research question (how Singapore addressed the challenges of social diversity through its education system and built social cohesion), the four objectives, the five main domains(3.3 Data Collection Methods), and the six major themes of the findings remains unclear. Furthermore, How were the five domains of the interviews determined? What is their internal logical relationship? How do they relate to the research question and objectives? What are the internal connections among the six themes of the findings? And how do these themes respond to the research question and objectives? It is recommended that the authors provide clear explanations in the manuscript.]

Response: [Thank you for your valuable time and comments, which have been instrumental in improving the quality of the work. Added explanatory text in the Methodology section. Explicitly stated that domains were “deductively derived” from the four objectives. Clarified the internal logic: Domain 1 defines the context (history), Domain 2 defines the intervention (policy), and Domains 3-5 evaluate the outcome (efficacy). Explained that Findings themes follow this “Problem-Intervention-Evolution” logic. Please see Section 3.3 (Data Collection Methods).]

Comment 2: [In the Findings section, the headings are not presented at a consistent level of detail. Some headings clearly convey key concepts or specific information, while others do not. For instance, Section 4.2.2 is titled "Educational Reform Principles," but the actual principles are not explicitly stated. It is recommended that such subheadings, like other third-level headings, directly highlight the key concepts.]

Response: [Renamed Section 4.2.2 to “Foundational Principles: Multiculturalism, Multilingualism, and Meritocracy.” This directly highlights the specific concepts discussed in the text (multiculturalism, bilingualism, meritocracy). Please see section 4.2.]

Comment 3: [The Discussion section should focus on explaining the results using the conceptual framework outlined in Section 2.4. The findings should be reorganized and further discussed in relation to this framework. For example, the analysis framework of structural, symbolic, instrumental, and normative integration is mentioned, so how is this reflected in the Singapore case? It is suggested to summarize the key concepts from the findings in a table or figure and interpret them using the conceptual framework. This would highlight the study’s key findings and theoretical contribution.]

Response: [Revised the introduction to Section 5.1 to explicitly cite the frameworks of Hippler (2005) and Tan (2011). Created Table 1 (“Matrix of Educational Integration Strategies in Singapore”), which maps the findings (Unified Schools, Bilingualism, Meritocracy) to the integration dimensions (Structural, Symbolic, Instrumental, Normative) and links them back to the theoretical concepts of State Capacity and Realist-Pragmatism. Please see section 5 (discussion).]

Comment 4: [The Conclusion should be placed before the sections on Future Directions and Limitations.]

Response: [The conclusion section has been moved up and placed before the Future Directions and Limitations section. Please see section 7 (conclusion).]