MOE's Directive for Schools Not to Take in Transfer Students without Required Cut-off Points

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. The rules for school admissions and transfers must be transparent and objective, in order to be fair to all students.

In fact, we had received feedback in past years from some parents who were unhappy that our transfer process was not sufficiently fair and transparent. Some have also pointed out that the transfer process could be improved.

Our schools receive transfer appeals for a wide range of reasons, including good performance in CCAs, past connections to the school or proximity of home to the school. Many of these appeals are from students who had applied for the school in the Secondary 1 Posting Exercise but did not manage to get a place because they did not meet the cut-off point of the school.

These appeals are understandable. However, unless there are special circumstances, allowing students who had not met the cut-off-point to transfer schools would mean that CCA, connections or proximity to the school will take precedence over the PSLE T-score. This will not be entirely fair or transparent to the many students who have a similar or even higher PSLE T-score but had not been admitted in the Secondary 1 Posting Exercise.

MOE reviewed the feedback and decided that it would be better, overall, to run a simpler system where only appeals by students who met the cut-off point would be considered. The Principal can then consider all such qualified appeals and make an appropriate decision after considering other relevant factors. This new guideline for transfers after the Secondary 1 Posting Exercise is to ensure and assure parents and students that the system for appeals and transfers is transparent, objective and fair to all students.

Our overall system remains flexible. With the change in the transfer guidelines, over 800 students appealed successfully and obtained a school transfer this year according to their school preferences. Most met the school's cut-off point, while some did not, as their appeals were on the basis of medical, special needs or exceptional circumstances.

MOE appreciates the need for an appeals system, to help our students and their families cope with unforeseen circumstances. We will continue to exercise flexibility for appeals while maintaining a fair and transparent system.

Ultimately, any appeals system will rest on the good judgement of experienced professionals, especially our school Principals. MOE is committed to supporting holistic education and providing our students with multiple pathways and opportunities to pursue an education best suited to their needs and strengths. We will continue to carefully study how we can evolve and enhance our school admission and transfer processes to support these goals while remaining consistent with our key principles of meritocracy, fairness and transparency.

Mdm Speaker, let me thank the Acting Minister for his reply. Yes, I do receive many complaints from parents and, this time, it is about the sudden change in the policy or the announcement that no appeal will be entertained at all if they do not meet the minimum cut-off point of that particular school.

My first clarification is: what is the timeframe given for the parents when they announce this? Why was it announced so late? I understand it was after they had made the choice for the schools, after the school listing is out. It caught everyone by surprise. I can understand there is a need for transparency. I am very happy to hear that the Ministry will exercise flexibility. The question is striking a balance between flexibility and transparency.

The Acting Minister mentioned that there were 800 appeals that were successful, and there were some that did not meet the cut-off point and, based on special circumstances, they were accepted into the schools. Could the Acting Minister elaborate on the special circumstances for those who did not meet the cut-off point?

Lastly, will the Ministry consider giving the Principal or the School Advisory Committee (SAC) some form of flexibility to admit certain numbers of students, so that they have some autonomy rather than completely no appeals at all? Some Principals were complaining to me that they had no choice because the Minister said that there are no appeals to be entertained.

Madam, I thank the Member for the follow-up questions. For the first issue of complaints on the communications process, the Ministry, in implementing these new guidelines, could have done better in the communications. We will take that as a lesson learnt and see how we can improve it this year.

For the circumstances of students who were transferred without meeting the cut-off point, let me give the Member one good example. We acceded to an appeal from a student who had a birth defect, a spinal cord problem. The student requires regular cleaning of the bladder, every four hours or so. In the initial posting, she was posted to a school that was a little further away, by about 1 kilometre. But upon appeal and seeing the circumstances, we facilitated a transfer to another school closer to her home, even though she did not meet the cut-off point. We do exercise flexibility as such to ensure that the students' needs are appropriately taken care of.

With regard to the flexibility for the SACs and the Principals, even today, we do allow flexibility. We have about 800 students who were successfully transferred because they had made the wrong choice in the initial selection of schools and they now want to make a change. So long as they have met the cut-off point, the flexibility was given fully to the Principals and schools.

On the way ahead, we will see how we can work on some flexibility without undermining the Principals, as I have stated earlier. We have a fine balance to maintain between the fairness of the system and some flexibility for appeals.

For the Member's information, in our system today, 95% of our students are successfully posted to a school of their choice and 90% are actually in a school that is in their top three choices. So, it is a fair system and we will study how we can see some of the appeals that may require special attention.

Madam, I would like to ask the Acting Minister, in the light of the reply to Dr Lim Wee Kiak, does that mean that MOE will, in future, consult grassroots advisors, Members of Parliament, before they make a change of policy? This is because I came to learn about a lot of feedback from parents who were caught unawares about the change in policy and, because of that, they were quite upset.

The other clarification that I wish to ask the Acting Minister is: does that mean MOE is now going back to the situation where a student's PSLE score is the main factor in deciding where to go for a Secondary school? Because I understand that, previously, MOE did say that PSLE score is not the main thing. So, right now, it seems that if you do not meet the cut-off point, that is it for you. You cannot go to a school of your choice. So, perhaps the Acting Minister for Education can clarify.

I thank the Member for his clarifications. We will consult grassroots leaders, where applicable, in policies where they have an impact on the locality and, in other circumstances, on a case-by-case basis.

For the overall system, we do have the Direct School Admission (DSA) system that recognises talents and other achievements before PSLE. So, there is a good balance between academic emphasis and non-academic achievements. Before PSLE, this exercise is carried through the DSA so that we can afford students to be admitted into the schools. Once, however, the PSLE T-score comes out, it would be better, as we have said earlier, to maintain a system that is seen to be fair, transparent and meritocratic. But overall, the system remains one that recognises different pathways for students to succeed. So, we have not changed the philosophy.