Debated in Parliament on 6 Mar 2017.
Chairman, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head K of the Estimates be reduced by $100".
Sir, truth be told, many of us have been sufficiently warned about the current volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) age. We heard the mantra: "disruptions are occurring at breakneck pace and if we do not retool, reskill ourselves, the likes of Ubers, Grabs, AirBnB, TripAdvsors, Alibabas will soon be eating our lunch!"
Sir, I urge the Ministry of Education (MOE) to assemble a team of external and internal parties to take a deeper look at how schools for the future ought to look like, how different they are from the schools of today. What kind of future schools will support the future economy and the SG100 nation we want to build? Let me go through some recent observations in this space.
The World Economic Forum (WEF), in a paper on the future of jobs, had called for a rethinking of education systems. The paper cited that most existing education systems provide highly silo-ed training, featured by a number of 20th century mindsets and practices that hinder the progress of today's talent and workforces.
Two such legacy issues burden formal education systems worldwide. One, the traditional dichotomy between Humanities and Sciences and also the dichotomy between applied and pure training; and two, the prestige premium traditionally attached to tertiary-certified forms of education versus, say, skills mastery of other forms.
There is the urgent need also to incentivise lifelong learning. Because of the declining population of the young in countries, simply equipping the young better in schools is not enough. The report says, "Ageing countries would not just need lifelong learning. They will need wholesale reskilling of existing workforces throughout their lifecycle." Schools for the future must surely be Schools FOR Life.
Single-skillset jobs are also on the decline, they say. This means that many jobs that require only mathematical, including computational, skills would be automated. A coder's job, too, can be replaced. Similarly, jobs that require only predominantly generic social skills would not be paid well since the supply of this pool is usually large. Schools for the future must thus try to develop students who can successfully combine mathematical and critical soft skills.
Next, on learn-ability or learn-agility. That is the essence of good future education. This is confirmed by workforce consultants, such as Manpower Inc and the Centre for Creative Leadership. When new skills are identified as fast as other skills become extinct, the ticket to stay relevant is one's learn-ability and, that is, the willingness, capacity and capability to learn. How do schools for the future promote and model learn-ability? One way, as some experts pointed out, is for the student of the future to be constantly exposed to and try new experiences, including unfamiliar subjects in school.
School OF Life. But technical competencies are not the only deliverables of education, now or in the future. More so, the future education system needs to deliver students who are not frustrated or surprised by changes; students who in the face of change and failures, pick themselves up quickly and prepare themselves yet again; students who in the midst of changes retain an anchor and heed a compass that will help them retain their humanity, their loyalty and goodness. We need students with character who will do good even when no one is watching; clean up after themselves and be comfortable in interacting on a daily basis with persons who are of different races, religions and abilities. A School OF Life, so to speak.
I would like to speak about the school that Mr Jack Ma is building. I recently came across the concept of the "East-West Private School" that Mr Jack Ma, billionaire-founder of Alibaba, is intending to build. In the Chinese website describing this school called Yun-Gu, named after Mr Jack Ma himself, Ma Yun, I learnt of the several features advertised to attract top-notch families, local and foreign, to sign up their children. With the mission to raise every child to be the best version of himself, Mr Jack Ma said that the unique features are as follows: that it will be a 15-year school syllabi covering from preschool up to high school. There will be an open, sharing, green smart-campus with a strong foundation in technology, using big data, cloud computing and the works. There will be a curriculum based on bilingualism, porosity amongst schools, society and nature, strong Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) focus, physical wellness and life skills and an appreciation for the arts. And there will be individualised education plans and schedules developed with students and by students as well, based on their learning ability and their areas of passion.
I was initially excited when I read about this school that Mr Jack Ma intends to build until I analysed it more carefully. You see, the school that Mr Jack Ma intends to build is meant for 3,000 young people; a staff-student ratio of one is to five; with a strict entrance assessment. It is not a school built for a nation. But our Singapore Government is different. We are not a company and it is formed for the purpose of meeting the needs of every citizen, not only those who can afford private education. Hence, I am convinced that if Singapore put our heart to it, we will be able to build even stronger schools for the future than Mr Jack Ma.
MOE starts from a position of strength. Our definition of education, for instance, has expanded to more than the traditional limits of age through the SkillsFuture initiative. We are still a long way, of course, to creating a nation of learners who do not just carry an L-plate but we need to cherry Triple L-plates, which stands for Life Long Learners, Triple L.
There is much to reflect and rethink about Schools for the Future for Singapore. What would the future literacy curricula cover? Who would we be educating in the schools for the future? How would content be delivered and by whom? How do we promote innovation and learnability? How do we assess learning outcomes? What are the roles, competencies and contributions of the partners of our schools for the future − the educators, employers and the families?
Sir, education cannot be business as usual. We cannot afford to ignore sacred cows we reared − the high-stakes exams, the direct admission system, the over-reliance on tuition. We cannot tweak it a little here and there. We need to dare, we need to imagine, we need to innovate. We need an Industry Transformation Map (ITM) that includes the MOE professionals and partners. We need to build schools poised for the future. I, therefore, urge MOE again to assemble a team to review, reflect and report on how ready our education institutions are, indeed, for the future.
*Question proposed.*
The Chairman: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
Mr Chairman, the development of values and good character has always been a cornerstone of our education system. We have initiatives, such as Civics and Moral Education, Character and Citizenship Education, and now, Values in Action, in our school curricula.
While we cannot deny that values and moral education are usually caught rather than taught, we cannot overlook the need to instil, nurture and exemplify good values at every opportunity we have, beginning with our schools and educators.
Children learn values and develop character through three ways: understanding, observing and doing. For instance, when children are told to be kind, they need to understand what being kind means. This has to be explained through examples. In addition, children need to see kindness in action − role-modelled by the teacher or the parents, so that the understanding of kindness is entrenched. In order to internalise it, children need to demonstrate kindness to others around them, be it their friends, family members, towards animals and to perfect strangers.
Behavioural psychologists have found that role modelling is the most effective way of helping children internalise values and develop character. Children learn this by observing significant adults in their lives, be it teachers, parents or adult caregivers. Hence, for our children to learn and develop values and good character, they need to have good role models and be actively involved in demonstrating those values which will shape their character.
One way of doing this is for our children to be actively involved in community work where they help others, or in outdoor learning where they learn to engender trust and to care for the environment and for others or participating in team games where they learn about teamwork, cooperating with others and looking beyond self. That, I believe, is the intent of Values in Action in our schools.
Now, with the announcement of NurtureSG, our children also need to learn about taking personal responsibility for their health and extending peer support to their friends to do so.
However, the reality is that many students and even parents still see Civics and Moral Education, Character and Citizenship Education and now, Values in Action and NurtureSG as just another subject or programme to sit through, complete and get a passing grade in.
How can such important programmes be enhanced and intertwined with one another so that the nurturing of values and development of good character are part of a more holistic education for our children in schools? How can parents play a greater role in creating this holistic educational environment for our children?
Mr Chairman, the journey to becoming a sporting nation and achieving sporting glory at the highest level surely must start somewhere. Look at the vibrancy of the sporting scene in the schools in the US. They used to send their college teams to compete at the Olympics. Every young athlete there harbours a dream to compete for sporting glory at the highest level, be it local, national or international.
However, the dream of becoming the next world champion, especially for a young athlete living in a small country like Singapore, should not rest on the individual and his family alone. The nation must share that dream and it must filter down to the schools to begin with.
The fire in the sporting belly of our schools has dimmed. I remember back in the 1970s, competitions among the schools were keen and sporting rivalries were strong, all in good spirit and character building. There was always a lesson to be learnt, in victory or defeat.
The New Nation, the predecessor of The New Paper, gave generous coverage to school sports with large photo spreads. You do not see that anymore. And what you do not see often, you do not think much of it over time as well.
Sir, football is one of the most popular sports here and yet some schools do not even play the sport anymore. How can we dream about competing against the great footballing nations at the World Cup Finals when our youths are not even fired up to compete against one another in schools?
Sports in schools can build camaraderie, character and a sense of belonging in our youths. I urge the Ministry to look into promoting a vibrant sporting culture in schools because the future of our dream for sporting glory is at stake.
Last month, in this House, we heard about the progress of the YES! Schools programme. My colleague, the hon Leon Perera, also suggested at the same Sitting that we should consider a "push" model instead of the current approach. Currently, the YES! Schools and other programmes are open on an opt-in basis.
I would like to ask the Government to consider making all students go through such entrepreneurship programmes and from a young age. The Government should develop such entrepreneurship programmes progressively for different levels from primary school upwards to tertiary levels.
I believe that making such programmes available to every student will bring benefit not just by way of general education and exposure, but from this much larger pool of students exposed to such education, we should be able to inspire many more young Singaporeans to be entrepreneurs and/or to develop a nose for businesses.
Through such programmes, we should let students try their hand at starting a business even when they are still in school. Give them practical experience in thinking out of the box, selling, raising capital, even getting rejected and learning to be resilient.
Ultimately, we need to develop a mindset change in our young students in looking at life and business and how we view risks and possibilities in life. And I believe early exposure to entrepreneurship training and development can help to bring about such a mindset change. I hope we can change the mindset of our young people to consider entrepreneurship as a worthwhile ambition alongside, if not ahead of, working for the Public Service or for a multinational corporation (MNC).
Mr Chairman, streaming has served its purpose in our education system for many years. Most of us have lived through and probably even benefited from academic streaming during our own educational journey. However, with an education landscape that supports different educational pathways, greater diversity in the pursuit of excellence and in fulfilling varied aspirations, many would question the continued purpose and need for academic streaming.
As an educator, I recognise the purpose of academic streaming. It helps teachers in being more focused in their teaching so that they are able to pitch their teaching content and pedagogy that are suitable for the students they teach. This, in turn, helps students to optimise their learning and realise their full potential.
However, this can be done just as well through subject-based banding, without exposing students to the self-limiting structure of academic streaming.
Academic streaming tends to pigeonhole students and inadvertently place expectations about their intelligence or abilities according to the stream they are in.
For students, they ought to be given a wide enough berth to discover their abilities and potential in different subjects and not feel limited by the academic stream they are in.
For parents, academic streaming fuels their worry for their children taking the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), to the extent that the tuition industry and proliferation of assessment books and enrichment courses for personal development have boomed because of the belief by parents that, with these interventions, the academic stream their children are eligible for and, hence, their children's future, can be assured.
For prospective employers and the general public, their perception of individuals and their potential for success in life is largely shaped by the academic stream they were in.
Is now not the time to do away with streaming and instead provide only subject-based banding which has already been implemented in different grade levels across our schools, and which has allowed our students to realise their potential in different subjects at their own pace?
Are we still not ready to cull this sacred cow? With our emphasis on different educational pathways and different peaks of excellence in education, as well as subject-based banding and discretionary admission to schools, I believe it is time we take this leap of faith to abolish academic streaming in our schools and instead continue with just subject-based banding.
Mr Chairman, we have debated the issue of class size in this House before. Class size is distinct from teacher-student ratio, which can be affected by many other factors.
While there are different perspectives in the academic literature on the merits of smaller class sizes, some facts do stand out. Class sizes of international schools in Singapore are smaller than in local schools. Our class sizes are still significantly higher than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average. And our typical class size has not changed very much since I was a child, and I need not remind Members that was a very long time ago.
Our large class sizes are supplemented by remedial classes which can provide weaker students with more focused teaching and engagement. However, remedial classes have their downsides. Students who are required to attend remedial classes may feel stigmatised and become demoralised. Morale and self-esteem can have an effect on academic performance. Moreover, remedial classes extend hours for students and crimp time for other kinds of academic or character development.
I would like to ask whether MOE has conducted any studies or if it has any data that assess the relative merits of smaller class sizes as opposed to maintaining the current system of larger class sizes plus remedial classes.
Parents have shared with me about word problems in primary school mathematics, which can be very complicated. I worry that such word problems are not just a test of numeracy and mathematics, they test English comprehension as well. This could be a double hurdle, maybe even a regressive effect, for children with limited language skills, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Does MOE have any plans to study this further and review this in the curriculum?
Sir, increasingly, we are confronted with incredulous large advertisements, advertorials and media write-ups of Super Tutors who earn a hefty $1 million a year or more.
At the rate they are glorified, celebrity tutors are on their way of reaching stardom, much like their counterparts in Hong Kong where their faces are splashed all over the train station billboards.
The private tuition industry, said to be at least $1.1 billion large, is described as the shadow education industry by some. However, often, it is the elephant in the room that is being ignored, at least by MOE in public.
There is a rightful place for additional education help outside school hours. This is especially so for students who are academically weaker and at risk of not being able to catch up.
In fact, the self-help groups, such as the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC), the Council on Education for Muslim Children (MENDAKI) and the Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA) have done good work supporting students who need the extra help.
It is time that MOE review its position of ignoring the tuition industry, especially publicly. Besides having the tuition industry diminish the good work that MOE has put in, the habit of tuition, regardless of one's real needs, will produce students whose learning habits and styles may run counter to what is required in the future economy, the future economy being one which highly favours self-driven learners with a high learnability quotient, meaning a high degree of willingness and capability of learning new skills quickly.
To this end, I urge the Ministry to adopt the following strategies to counter the further advancement of a "tuition-nation".
One, accelerate the setting up of an e-campus so that students and other MOE staff and stakeholders can help themselves to good quality learning materials with content good enough that the typical students would not require to spend to go for tuition.
Two, further support the not-for-profit organisations, such as self-help groups, the Community Development Councils (CDCs) and anchor preschool operators more strategically. Strengthen their ability to help those who need help. This can come in the form of training tutors, deploying MOE teachers to work in these outfits and investing in additional resources for their charges.
Three, engage families who are willing and able to support their own children, for instance, in regular MOE-organised bootcamps to update them on syllabi, learning outcomes and assessment methodologies.
Four, study ways by which the private tuition industry can be engaged and set up ground rules to ensure quality and affordability.
And lastly, in the longer term, gradually lower the stakes by seriously introducing other forms of assessments so that the focus on academic rat-racing is reduced.
Sir, it is time for MOE to not ignore the tuition phenomenon in our education landscape, lest this elephant in the room grows way out of control.
Mr Chairman, this is the second year in a row that I am raising the issue of equitable funding for schools. The Minister's replies, when I brought up the issue twice last year, were along the lines that MOE resources schools based on the needs of students, programmes offered by the schools and the enrolment of the schools. In other words, MOE does acknowledge that there exists a distinct disparity in funding between the brand name schools and the other schools.
I have highlighted that the per capita funding for schools favours popular schools with high enrolment. Parents can see the disparity for themselves, which manifests in differences in the range of arts, sports and enrichment programmes offered by schools. When this information makes its way through the grapevine, the perception that certain schools offer more and better opportunities for student development will perpetuate. This drives the enrolment numbers for the schools and, consequently, the amount of funding that the Government disburses to them, based on enrolment figures. Even without factoring in the higher fees, greater economies of scale and contributions by well-connected alumni, the brand name schools are already competing in a league of their own.
The per capita funding for students may seem fair at the micro level but, at the macro level, there has to be a baseline funding for schools. If per capita funding is the great leveller in developing our students fully and holistically in all schools, why did MOE need to close down seven neighbourhood schools last year? Falling enrolment numbers should not be a reason for these schools to shut their doors then because the Government is still committed to funding them on a per capita basis.
When some schools are forced to do more or the same with less, while others are spoilt for choice in terms of what they can offer their students, can we say that this model of funding is in the best interest of every student?
Last year, my colleague, Mr Dennis Tan, asked the Minister if the Government takes the higher school fees and contributions from wealthy alumni into account when providing funding to schools. The Minister did not provide a response to that. I hope the Minister can provide an answer to this important question and release details on the funding given to each school to support the notion that every school is a good school.
In July 2016, MOE announced changes to the PSLE system. MOE said, "The current T-score system grades students very finely. It is unnecessary at this young age to make such fine distinctions between children. Some people believe that a student who scores 231 points is better than another student who scores 230, but it is not educationally meaningful to differentiate so finely between the two at this age. Hence, we are moving to wider scoring bands, where students in the same band are similar academically."
MOE wants parents to believe that it is not necessary to chase after the last mark in the PSLE exam and that "Primary school education is a time when students develop foundational language and numeracy skills."
But yet, after PSLE results are released, every school is told that if the student does not meet the cut-off point for the school, there is no scope for appeal.
The contradictory message which MOE is telling the students and the parents is that "every point counts". If you do not make the PSLE score, you do not make the cut-off point, there is no discussion. The principal has absolutely no discretion.
I appeal to MOE to reconsider this policy. You may say every school is a good school. But students do have their aspirations, their dream choices. For various personal reasons, they may not have opted for Direct School Admission (DSA) to be admitted to their choice secondary school. Or they could not make it for their dream school based on DSA. But sometimes, their dreams, the aspirations are just within a finger's grasp away. Because of a bad day due to illness or nervousness, they did not perform to their expectation. MOE should allow these students who are not too far off from the cut-off point of the school, maybe just one or two points away, to demonstrate their ability to the principals through an interview or some form of assessment.
In the past, principals of schools do have some discretion to admit students on a case-by-case basis. They can look for students who had performed well throughout the six years of school but fumbled on PSLE day. It may be that the student has other skills or talents which the school may be able to develop. For example, a school with a tradition for swimming may be a better choice for a budding swimmer. Our school principals are very capable civil servants. Allow them some discretion to admit students based on their assessment or interviews. The universities are already practising this. Please do not send a wrong signal to the students that the PSLE score is everything.
Next, I wish to ask MOE about its policy on schools which deliberately set exams to such high standards so that a majority of students do not do well. I understand that some schools pride themselves on their ability to fail a large percentage of their students during the school exams in the belief that these students will strive to do better during national exams.
By doing so, would not the school be imposing a disproportionate level of stress on the students? Has MOE ever studied the effect of such stress on the students? Surely, there may be some students who are greatly discouraged by their poor results. Some students may suffer a breakdown when they find out that they had failed a few papers despite working very hard through the year. Why do such schools take away the joy of learning by imposing an unrealistic standard for the students?
Could our students learn in a better and more enjoyable manner instead of expecting them to memorise everything and regurgitate them during the national exams? The schools should ensure that the students are tested based on what is expected of them.
Chairman, in 2016, 16,000 students tried to apply to a choice of secondary schools through the DSA scheme. I would like to ask the Minister how many of the 16,000 students applied to schools that offer the Integrated Programme (IP). Of the 2,800 students that were successful in DSA, how many of them ended up in IP schools?
Minister Heng Swee Keat used to profess that every school is a good school. A good school does not necessarily mean a school that offers IP. Rather, it is the best choice based on how closely it can meet and nurture the students' talents, academically and otherwise.
Thus, I would like to know how MOE can help non-IP schools focus on their niche and how it can attract students to apply to non-IP schools through DSA.
At the other extreme, it is an open secret that Gifted Education Programme (GEP) students in primary schools are automatically admitted to IP schools of their choice, even if they scored badly in the PSLE, and they do not need to sit for entrance tests. They move on to IP schools which offer School-Based Gifted Education Programmes (SBEP). This is like a "backdoor" for the gifted students. A Straits Times article dated 23 January 2017 also alluded to this anomaly, when several parents interviewed said that in the most competitive schools, at least half of those admitted via DSA were academically talented, including those from GEP.
I would like to urge MOE to review the DSA scheme. In particular, I would like to ask the Minister to consider closing the "backdoor" so schools will no longer use academic criteria to "pre-select" students under the DSA Academic scheme.
Mr Edwin Tong, you can take both the cuts.
Yes, Sir. Sir, admission to the school of choice is amongst the most challenging of issues facing parents in Singapore. Since 2004, the DSA system has become part of that admission ecosystem. It is, therefore, no surprise that 2016 saw a record number of applications by PSLE students for DSA into a school of their choice. MOE has previously announced that it is relooking the DSA criteria. This, indeed, is timely because there are several areas which, in my view, need an urgent review.
First, I really cannot understand the meaning of DSA Academic. According to the MOE website, the purpose of DSA is to give students, and I quote, "an opportunity to demonstrate a more diverse range of achievements and talents in seeking admission to secondary schools". DSA Academic, however, does absolutely nothing to enhance that diversity because the PSLE is itself based entirely on academic merit. Why then is there a need to have this parallel admission system based on academic merit? Can this be dispensed with?
The parallel system can also be open to abuse, such as offering students DSA Academic on waitlist. Why is there a need for a waitlist? And when does the waitlist become closed? And if a waitlist's student is confirmed only after the PSLE results are released, does that not mean that one can game the system? In such a case, it would then become very important to understand what the criteria for the waitlist are, but that is never published.
Second, can the Minister also review the requirement that a student who gains admission into a school in DSA Sport or Performing Arts is required to stick to that chosen field for the next four to six years and not replace it with any other co-curricular activities (CCAs)? Like anything in life, our CCA system cannot be rigid and unbending. If a student gets a DSA place based on, say, athletics, first, and subsequently discovers his talent in something else, can that student be allowed to pursue that something else at the expense of athletics? A DSA place is for four to six years. We have to remember that a child at 11 or 12 will be very different from one who is 16 or 17, and our system must be flexible enough to take that into account.
Another unintended consequence of a very robust DSA system is that it leaves very little room for a student to try out new sport or experience a new art form in school. One has to be already very good at the CCA to even join it. It is either you are very good at it, get a DSA place or do not join the CCA. There is no more fun in CCA. So, can the Minister please look into this when reviewing the system?
Second, on cut-off points. I heard my colleagues take this point up earlier so I will be very short. The short answer the Ministry previously gave was that it is better to have a simpler system. I can understand the merits of having a simpler system as it is easier to administer.
But we are dealing with the educational pathways of our students and a simpler system runs counter to the belief that each child is special and different. It also cuts across the MOE's own policy of making education much more than just about numbers and grades and to look at the holistic worth of each and every individual. It sends the message that whatever may be the efforts to value holistic education, at the end of the day, only academic merit matters. Can the Minister, therefore, review this policy?
I would also like to join my colleagues in urging the Minister to consider returning the discretion to consider these admissions back to the principals and the teachers. They know the child best. They have dealt with the children. Perhaps, give them the discretion with some parameters and guidelines so that it is not abused. But trust our educators with that discretion because they will consider the merits of each appeal individually.
We have come to accept that every school is a good school. Perhaps, we should also recognise that every child is a good child, albeit in different ways and at different paces, and that having a simpler system is not necessarily doing justice to recognising the individual intrinsic worth of each child.
Sir, last year the Ministry said it would review the current affiliation priority in secondary school when it announced changes to the PSLE scoring system. Many parents are anxious to know if the current advantage given to affiliated pupils would be reduced.
The entry scores for affiliated and non-affiliated pupils at some schools can vary by as much as 40 points. For example, in last year's exercise for entry into the Convent for the Holy Infant Jesus (CHIJ) Secondary (Toa Payoh), affiliated pupils need only a T-score of 200 to get into the Express stream while non-affiliated pupils must score at least 247 and above to get a place in Express stream. Some had questioned whether giving affiliated pupils a 30- to 40-point advantage under the current system was too much.
I suggest MOE gradually do away with the current affiliation priority scheme so that all students can be more accurately placed in schools that best suit them according to their abilities. Perhaps, the Minister can give an update on the review?
Mr Chairman, school affiliation remains a bugbear for many parents and students. Parents whose children are not in primary schools affiliated to popular schools are worried that their children will have little chance of gaining admission to these popular schools. Parents whose children are still in preschools are also getting very worried because they want to ensure their children can enrol in a primary school affiliated to a popular school.
Their worries go back to preschool admission and the planning goes on for more than 10 years ahead. This is very stressful parenting, indeed.
While we recognise the purpose of affiliation and its role in developing values and culture that are aligned to the religious or clan association that the affiliated schools come under, we must also strive to ensure fairness and accessibility to popular schools for all our students.
What assurance can the Ministry provide to parents whose children are not in affiliated schools that their children will not in any way be deprived of equal opportunities to enrol in a popular school of their choice?
How can the Ministry review the school admission process based on affiliation to make it fairer and equally accessible for students who do not come from affiliated schools to gain admission into popular schools that have affiliated feeder schools?
Sir, I am extremely grateful that MOE's support for students with special needs has grown from strength to strength in the last decade. My inputs here are on how to take it to the next level.
First, on mainstream schools. Today, all primary schools and most secondary schools are resourced with at least one Allied Educator. It is a known fact that this current support model is insufficient to effectively help those students to access the academic curriculum, not to mention the other life skills that they require in life.
The small number and the bandwidth of Allied Educators in each school mean that they can do very little to educate these students. In schools where there are students with different types of learning disabilities, the stress on these professionals is even worse. So, we need more innovative and scalable models in this space.
Next, in the Institutions of Higher Learning (IHLs), such as the ITEs, polytechnics and universities, thanks to MOE, most IHLs have now set up one-stop education support services for students and undergraduates with special needs. However, the type and quality of support are largely inconsistent. Handshakes between tertiary level students and the employers are either non-existent or quite weak, making internships and eventual employment dicey and at risk of failing.
There is a strong need to develop a more robust framework of a minimum core set of services, standards and training. We need to strengthen the handshakes between IHL students and their employers, likely in the form of a Train-Place-Train model.
For Special Ed (SPED) schools, the SPED schools of today are in a far better state, thanks to MOE. However, gaps remain.
One, beyond the curriculum framework drawn up by MOE's SPED department, there is a need to populate the framework with common resources. Subjects, such as daily living skills, a domain of learning required for all students, are left to the individual voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) to develop.
Two, inclusion opportunities for many special schools remain low. Many SPED students interact with their peers from mainstream schools only during Community Involvement Programme (CIP) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, and not on a daily basis.
Three, talent identification, talent invitation and development in SPED schools remain challenging for the schools. There is not even a degree in special education offered by the Government-funded IHLs of Singapore. The SPED sector continues to compete unsuccessfully for health professionals, such as occupational therapists and speech therapists.
But, Sir, my biggest concern lies in the dearth of learning opportunities for adults with special needs in our country. The continued education and training for persons with special needs is an area of high priority. Without continued training both in life and job skills, more and more will remain at home or will require external day-care help, all of which are costly options to the families and to the state.
Singapore's local workforce is forecasted to experience zero growth if our population trends remain. The special-needs workforce can be an important strategic asset to take on either blue-collar or white-collar jobs. Today, the number of courses customised for the special needs workforce is miserable. There must be innovative ways by which the thousands of courses in the mainstream can be systematically customised to train others who learn differently.
On the SPED Academy, I believe that the best strategy is to establish a SPED Academy that will cut across all Ministries and led by members with strong passion and relevant networks. A SPED Academy should look into specific learning needs, solutions and across the entire lifespan of persons with special needs in our country, underpinned by the important principles of digitalisation, innovation, scalability and partnership set out by the Committee for Future Economy and analysing how the future economy and ITMs can include persons who learn and contribute differently.
A bus academy, a rail academy, had already been set up. Hence, I hope my call for a SPED Academy will not be ignored.
If done well, I am confident the SPED Academy will be the first of its kind worldwide and can play an important role in the future education landscape and economy of Singapore.
Ms Chia Yong Yong, you have two cuts.
Thank you, Sir. I declare my interest as President of the Society for the Physically Disabled (SPD) and Board Member of SG Enable.
Last year, I requested that the Ministry consider specifically approaching training providers for more efficiency and greater efficacy in outcomes. Can I know if the Ministry has paid consideration to the same?
As more mainstream schools embrace students with disabilities and certain special needs, I request that the Ministry consider a panel of prequalified educators, allied as well as teachers, so that such students can be appropriately cared for and effectively nurtured. The equipping of educators is too important to be left to individual schools to select training providers, as is the case now. Schools, despite their expertise, may not be best equipped to choose appropriate training providers.
On the other hand, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has developed a structured training programme in which preschool teachers trained in assisting children with special needs and disabilities and, together with VWOs, Government agencies, like the Workforce Development Agency (WDA) and ECDA, have developed accredited training programmes for preschool teachers. These teachers who require training and then register to attend courses will be appointed training providers. Perhaps, MOE could consider taking some reference from ECDA's model?
Sir, with increasing efforts to provide inclusive environment in mainstream schools, will the Government consider "introducing disability awareness into the mainstream curriculum, such as making disability information and resources available through the schools learning platforms, including e-learning platforms?
Mr Chairman, for many special needs students, navigating the public transport system on their own may be a daunting task. As a result, SPED schools and parents of special needs students depend on school buses.
As a parent of two primary school children myself, I trudge down to the void deck of my flat to see my two kids off on their school buses on most mornings. Our school buses are a Singaporean institution and special needs students should not be excluded from that.
Sir, I have encountered feedback from some VWOs running special needs schools that it is difficult for them to engage school bus contractors. This is because the bus operators for such routes may need to deploy additional manpower for special processes and equipment that may degrade commercial viability.
What would the VWO do if no operator wants to take up a school bus tender? Not all VWOs have the means to buy and operate their vehicles. Will MOE consider fresh ideas to help special needs schools address this issue?
One suggestion is to require bus operators to support a certain number of special needs school bus routes as part of the contracting requirements under the Bus Contracting Framework. Another idea is to apply a state subsidy to bus contracts for special needs schools to make them commercially attractive.
A one-off financial assistance package could also be applied to help school bus operators retrofit their buses to better cater to transporting special needs children, similar to the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) assistance package rolled out in 2008 to help retrofit seat belts and provide booster seats on small buses. If successful, such schemes can be extended to day activity centres and sheltered workshops for persons with disabilities operated by VWOs.
Sir, it has been reported that globally, 4% of each cohort of students suffer from dyslexia severe enough to require intervention. This would mean that there are about 1,600 children per cohort in Singapore who may have severe dyslexia.
It was reported last year that the Dyslexia Association of Singapore (DAS) has been assessing around 900 students each year, of which two-thirds are diagnosed with dyslexia. This means that there could be hundreds of children per cohort who have the condition but are not diagnosed.
Currently, dyslexia assessment is done voluntarily based on pre-assessments by preschool and primary school teachers who would then make recommendations to parents.
I believe it is timely for MOE to introduce mandatory and subsidised dyslexia screening at the preschool level. An assessment performed when the child is in the second half of the second year of kindergarten would give the parents more time to prepare the child for formal schooling. Studies have shown that early intervention helps the child to better catch up in reading and writing with their peers.
Sir, last month, Minister Tan Chuan-Jin said in an answer to a Parliamentary Question from my colleague, hon Member Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, that persons with disabilities and special needs (PWDs) comprise only 0.55% of the resident labour force.
Despite initiatives like the Open Door Programme, the employment rate of persons with disabilities and special needs remains low. The take-up rate to date is but a small fraction of the $30 million set aside for the programme. Only 1,000 out of an expected number of 4,000 people have been placed under the programme by last month.
If we want to build an inclusive society, we are going to have to work on changing mindsets. I would like to propose that schools should actively look into hiring PWDs for roles that match their abilities. Ministries and Statutory Boards already hire PWDs.
Besides the benefit of having an inclusive employment policy which helps to encourage and boost further employment for PWDs, it will also expose our school children to an environment where they may grow up seeing such persons working alongside other staff.
Together with suitable education programmes, MOE and schools can use such opportunities to help all students understand the needs of PWDs and to learn how to interact and get along respectfully and meaningfully. We have a long way to go in equalising employment opportunities, but if we allow our students to develop respect and empathy from a young age, they are more likely to carry these attitudes with them when they enter the workforce in future or become employers.
Sir, MOE kindergartens hold a strong appeal for many parents as they believe that the Ministry has more resources to develop a high-quality curriculum while keeping the fees affordable.
I would like to ask what parameters MOE is using to measure the success of these kindergartens and how does it assess their performances so far. In addition, how many more MOE kindergartens will be set up in the next two years and whether there are plans to open them in all primary schools in Sengkang, Punggol and Hougang?
MOE seeks to level the playing field for all children through subsidies and additional financial assistance for needy students. May I ask how many children benefited from such assistance last year and what is their percentage of their cohorts?
Would the Minister also share if the teachers are trained to detect students with learning difficulties and assist them?
Sir, I and many Members of this House have spoken on the importance of early childhood education on the overall development of our children previously. We have appealed to the Government to put more resources to enhance early childhood education as it is an important social leveller.
I have also proposed to the Government to build larger early childhood education centres similar to our primary schools instead of tucking them in void decks and to co-locate them with the primary schools as well. I am glad that the Government has responded by opening five larger capacity preschool childcare centres in each district and opened a kindergarten that is co-located within a primary school, that is, North Oaks Primary School in my division. Larger preschools will have economies of scale and also create better career prospects for our early childhood educators.
Currently, there are 15 MOE-run kindergartens and there are 169 run by partner operators. What are the plans in place to expand the MOE network of early childhood education centres? We should continue to invest in the training of early childhood educators and the pedagogy. How can we attract and encourage more talents into this very important sector? I suggest MOE take the lead to ensure that our preschool educators are remunerated attractively and have a programme in place to retain the top talented educators in the public sector, instead of them being poached by the private tuition sector. We are dealing with the foundation years which are very important for our students and for our future.
Sir, would MOE consider establishing more Overseas Singapore Schools in key overseas cities with many Singaporean families working there?
This would make it easier for Singaporean families to go overseas and regionalise and easier to integrate the children back into our school system upon their return. And given our education branding, perhaps non-Singaporeans could even be charged premiums high enough to help cross-subsidise our own overseas Singaporeans students.
Miss Cheng, you can take both your cuts.
Chairman, the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) suggested that in our next phase of internationalisation, Singaporeans need to spend more time in regional markets to understand them at a deeper level. It urged the Government to "ease the concerns of Singaporean parents over their children's education while taking on overseas assignments".
Hence, I would like to ask MOE to consider setting up more Singapore International Schools (SIS) overseas, especially in cities where there are significant Singaporean communities. At the moment, the only overseas school run by MOE is in Hong Kong. It has an excellent reputation and attracts non-Singaporean parents as well, who are drawn to our academic formula, and these schools also provide chances for our teachers to gain overseas exposure.
The education system in Singapore has been focusing on academic grades, sports and the arts. Due to affluence, we understand that dietary habits have become a problem for young children. Will the Ministry share with the House the progress of NurtureSG in inculcating healthy behaviours in our young? What kind of skills are they taught and how is the Ministry working with parents, caregivers, schools and community institutions to create a conducive environment for them to embrace healthy dietary habits and lifestyles?
Teachers I have spoken to report the number of cases where students do not attend school for a long period of time without valid reasons. There have been cases of parents or guardians brought to Court for neglecting to send their children to school, but it is understood that incarcerating the parent or guardian may put the child in further jeopardy. How then would the Ministry ensure that the Compulsory Education Act will be an effective deterrent for neglectful parents? How will the Ministry ensure that children are sent to school?
Sir, a number of studies on the sleep patterns of our teenage students indicate that they are not getting enough sleep. They are getting around five to six hours of the recommended eight hours of sleep. One recent study by the Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School linked sleep deficiency with lowered cognitive performances, deterioration of sustained attention, working memory and alertness. Longer-term issues include high blood pressure, obesity, behavioural problems and impaired growth.
One of the recommendations from the study was to start school later. Currently, most of our schools start at 7.30 am, which means that students would wake up before sunrise, resulting in a disruption to their circadian rhythms. If we can start schools an hour later at 8.30 am, students will no longer need to wake up before sunrise and this could help improve their sleep cycles, thus leading to better health and learning outcomes. Additionally, most schools today function as full-day schools, making it feasible to implement a later start time.
Sir, today, more than 90% of Singaporean children aged between five and six are enrolled in a preschool. About 15,000 Singaporean children, or 45% of the cohort, were enrolled in a full-day preschool programme at Kindergarten (K)2 level in 2016. When these 15,000 children transit from full day preschool to Primary 1 this year, many would require after school care service as well.
From the answer to a Parliamentary Question I filed last year to MOE, around 7,800 Primary 1 students are enrolled in Student Care Centres (SCCs) registered with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF). Among these students, 4,800 are enrolled in school-based SCCs whilst the rest are enrolled in community-based SCCs. This means that only slightly more than half of the 15,000 students who were previously in full day preschool at K2 managed to get a place in an after-school care centre.
Although MOE has increased the number of school-based SCCs from less than 50 five years ago to 147 today, the overall enrolment has risen from 3,000 to more than 18,000. This is obviously still insufficient. I also note that MOE will continue to expand the places in each school-based SCC and expand the number of schools with SCCs.
Many families with both working parents, put their children in full day kindergarten. When the child enrols in a primary school, after-school care services are essential for this group. There seems to be a huge mismatch between childcare and after-school care services. Can the Government do more to make sure that we have an accurate projection of the demand for after-school care services in each estate by the number of children in full-day kindergarten? Most parents prefer to put their children in SCCs that are in the same primary school as the children. When can we see all our 190 primary schools have their student care centres? I hope MOE can ramp up the capacity and the number of SCCs to match MSF's rate of ramping up childcare centres.
Sir, even with the global economic uncertainty and even as our own economy matures, our Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region is full of opportunities.
For our youths to effectively tap on these opportunities, language and cultural understanding is key. Indeed, even basic proficiency in a language opens a window to the culture and mindset of another people. Will MOE consider offering ASEAN languages as a third language option for more students? And would MOE consider working with tertiary institutions, especially their business faculties, to strongly encourage students to learn ASEAN languages, cultures and business cultures?
Sir, the importance to our country and to our economy of regional cooperation and trade, and the importance to our people and our enterprises of internationalisation and regionalisation have been much rehearsed in these COS proceedings for other Ministries. Could we complement these efforts and facilitate these outcomes with an increased focus on regional language proficiency in our school curricula? There are other good reasons, in many ways more important reasons, for doing so.
First, education. Research has found several benefits of multilingual education in children, including cognitive and intellectual skills. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has consistently championed multilingual education in schools.
Second, to protect and preserve our own multiculturalism. We should promote the learning of our own national language and our other official languages. It promotes national integration, and it is our good fortune that our national language and other official languages happen to be among the most widely spoken in Asia and the world.
We currently have third language programmes at the secondary school level like the Malay Special Programme (MSP) for learning Malay, and Chinese Special Programme (CSP) for Chinese; and we have conversational third language programmes for Malay and Chinese at the primary school level as enrichment, but not as part of the regular curriculum.
As learning languages is best done when young, could the Ministry look into making the conversational third language programme part of the syllabus to deepen the conversational language skills of our primary school students, and we do this starting with our national language and our official languages perhaps included as part of the regular curriculum for every student, that is, compulsory and during school hours, but without the pressure of examinations?
Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson) (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Chairman, language encompasses culture. The two are intertwined and cannot be separated. Hence, a good command of Mother Tongue can help students understand their own culture and roots and stimulate their interest and passion to explore and study further. This will also help students to be sensitive towards other countries' culture, strengthening their world view and understanding of their own culture. Cultivating interest in mother tongues and improving the standard cannot rely on textbooks alone. Mother tongues should be used more often and in a lively manner.
I would like to ask the Minister how MOE is going to strengthen cooperation between schools and the community to promote our bilingual culture.
Sir, it has often been said that it takes a village to raise a child. This is, indeed, a universal truth. Parents, grandparents, family members, teachers, neighbours and communities all owe a child varying degrees of duty to protect and nurture him and to guide him in his journey towards adulthood.
Over the years, MOE has been making the effort to strengthen the partnership between parents and schools and communities so that our children will have a better education experience. This is a challenging initiative as our curriculum is quite demanding and we have more families where both parents are working. Can the Ministry provide an update on its efforts to foster stronger parental and community partnership with our schools to enrich our children's educational experiences?
I would like to ask the Ministry if it has plans to further support and strengthen the relationship between schools and parents to better integrate schools within their communities. A positive school-home relationship will improve communication between the school and parents, which can lead to more productive and constructive outcomes for students and for other schools as well.
The nature of parent involvement in schools is evolving. Parents today are better educated and more well-informed. Some would like a bigger involvement in their children's development and care in school. They feel that they have the capacity to volunteer in various areas, to contribute to the overall school experience for their children. Other parents are less able to volunteer in schools because of work and family commitments, but still want to be involved in their child's education journey.
Many schools tap on the Parent Support Groups (PSGs) to support school programmes and activities. How can MOE help schools build strong networks with PSGs which can then be a bridge between the school and other parents? How can PSGs be more effective in the school involvement? A strong integrated network will enable schools and parents to better understand what is in the best interest of the children so that they can work together to develop the children's passions and strengths, both in school and at home.
PAPERCUTS