Review of Practice to Rank Teachers for Performance

Mr Deputy Speaker, performance differentiation is widely practised in both the public and private sectors. It recognises individuals who do well in fulfilling the missions and objectives of the organisations.

As performance evaluation involves qualitative judgement by supervisors, the Singapore Civil Service, like many large organisations, practises cross-department ranking. A teacher's performance is assessed by his or her own supervisor, and then cross-ranked against his or her peers by a ranking panel comprising direct and indirect supervisors. This way, stronger performing officers are identified and recognised, while weaker ones are provided developmental opportunities to improve. In addition, it also helps to moderate differences in the supervisors' assessments and establish common standards of performance.

Besides their individual performances, teachers are assessed holistically across many different areas, like how they work and collaborate with others and contribute to the learning of their peers. In addition, teachers are also expected to be able to deliver effective teaching and pastoral care, support students in their character development and interact well with them.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) seeks to develop a culture of professionalism and a strong sense of mission in our teachers. The appraisal system is but one of the many tools used to achieve this. We encourage teachers to pursue various professional development opportunities, from formal programmes to informal support through networked learning communities and mentoring arrangements.

To spur teamwork, our schools give out Outstanding Contribution Awards every year in recognition of school staff who collaborate successfully to make outstanding contributions to the school community. The President's Award for Teachers brings out excellence in teaching and is the highest honour bestowed on teachers for professionalism. We will continue to develop and improve our teachers' skills and expertise to deliver a student-centric and value-driven education and, in so doing, enhance our students' learning and growth.

Mr Deputy Speaker, there has been a lot of debate on the merits of forced ranking. Jack Welch started forced ranking in his company, General Electric, and it would be good to know that General Electric has done away with forced ranking.

Given the debate on the merit of performance ranking, would MOE consider doing away with forced ranking and, instead, raise education officers' salaries to ensure their substantive grades commensurate with their official appointments and also adopt a criteria-based appraisal for performance?

I want to thank the Member Mr Zainal Sapari for his passionate plea and also his supplementary questions. Allow me to reassure him that MOE will continue to finetune our appraisal system with the focus on supporting the development opportunities and potential of our teachers.

While there are debates about the pros and cons of ranking, I think it has proven that ranking imposes objectivity, fairness, rigour and discipline in the appraisal system. It also differentiates officers' performance relative to their peers and helps to establish common standards of performance amongst supervisors. And I just want to give an example. In recent years, the majority of, and, in fact, more than 80% of our principals are being remunerated according to their substantive grades.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. One, appraisal, as in any form of assessment, should be both formative and summative. At the moment, our appraisal system is quite summative. Are there plans to get teachers to have teacher mentors or buddies so that a more formative approach to their appraisal can be done throughout the year before the final assessment for performance bonus or promotion?

The second supplementary question is this: would the Ministry consider also getting feedback from students as well as parents on how teachers perform rather than just based on peer assessment among teachers and their reporting supervisors?

I want to thank Dr Intan Mokhtar for her supplementary questions. I want to assure her that the annual appraisal is not a static one. In fact, the development of our teachers, 30,000 of them, is really key to achieving our goals in education for our students' development. In order to help our 30,000-plus educators improve their skills, we, indeed, use several avenues for our educators to receive feedback. Just to give an example. Rather than for appraisal, the 360-degree feedback mechanism is used as a development tool to gather all-round feedback. In so doing, we seek to help our teachers and supervisors learn to give one another feedback and also learn to receive feedback in a very constructive manner through daily interactions and not only at the point of appraisal. A lot of the Members in the House are parents and we have different apps, whether it is ClassDojo, Snapp and so on, for us to give inputs and feedback to teachers and also to the school leaders. So, actually that avenue is open to the parents as well.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I would like to ask for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's help to ask the Public Service human resource (HR) function to consider doing away with the forced ranking system for several reasons.

One, as my colleague Mr Zainal Sapari has mentioned that a lot of progressive companies have actually done away with such performance evaluation systems. Two, we know the consequences of forced ranking. There are some negative aspects of forced ranking in that there are instances when employees get pushed up in terms of their ranking because of very vocal supervisors who are able to speak up for them at ranking sessions. And then there are some jobs where some staff who are actually more visible due to the nature of their work and the way some of them carry out their work. I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to seek counsel and advise the Public Service HR function to consider other ways by which performance evaluations can be done and rewards can be distributed.

I also want to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to consider asking the Minister of Education and the Ministry if they could do away with such award schemes like the Outstanding Teacher Award. Because out of the many thousands of educators, there are many who actually do very well. And it is really quite difficult to finalise a list of educators who should be honoured. In fact, to run a race whereby only a few win the trophy might be a race that, I think, the Minister has been asking for us not to run. We should run races where as many as possible can make it to the finish line, and as many as possible can meet a good or great performance standard. For your consideration, please.

I want to thank our Government Parliamentary Committee Chair Ms Denise Phua for her supplementary questions and also her suggestions. I want to assure all the Members that MOE continues to look at the performance appraisal systems that are practised by other organisations. And we do know that each appraisal system comes with the pros and cons.

In relation to the original Parliamentary Question, the question is whether we can do away with ranking and do an assessment based on the job type. And we have looked at that. Currently, MOE follows the Civil Service, which is, to conduct performance ranking for officers of the same substantive grade. We have 30,000-plus educators. We certainly want to do so in a manner that is fair and just and that recognises efforts of our passionate teachers.

So, just allow me to explain why, currently, this appraisal system is deemed as a fair assessment. I will give Members a quick example. For example, if it is simply ranked by job function, job scope. And a newly appointed principal who has been promoted upwards from a vice principal to a principal based on job scope but not yet moved up in substantive grade. If he or she is then compared, in terms of performance, to the rest of the principals, and some of whom will be very senior principals in higher grades, actually, in so doing, the showing for the newly appointed principal may well pale in comparison with the senior principals. When this happens, obviously then, it is not a very good and fair way for us to measure the performance of the newly appointed principal. And this is really why, in this case, using this example, the newly appointed principal should actually be compared with his or her peers in the same substantive grade which is why we are doing such cross rankings.

Earlier on, Ms Denise Phua said it also depends on whether the immediate supervisor is more vocal and whether or not the educator is doing certain projects that are more visible. And this is why, other than taking the inputs of the direct supervisor, we complement the individual assessment by the direct supervisor with also the views of the ranking panel which will comprise direct and also indirect supervisors who have worked with a broad base of educators, to ensure that we arrive at a fair and just assessment for our educators.

As for the Member's second suggestion about doing away with awards, in the last few years, MOE has reviewed many of these awards and we try to strike a good balance to ensure that it does not inadvertently create unnecessary competition and pressure. At the same time, we also want to make sure there are also avenues for us to express gratitude and recognise the efforts of our teachers.