Policy on Optimal Class Sizes Given Increasingly Complex Challenges Faced by Teachers

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her question. The Ministry of Education's (MOE's) approach for class sizes is guided by the learning needs of our students. More teaching resources are deployed for students with greater needs and hence, smaller class sizes for such students because they need more support and scaffolding.

Let me give you a few examples.

Primary 1 and 2 students learn in class sizes of around 30. Why? Because they have just started their educational journey and we want to be able to better support in that transition.

TRANsition Support for InTegration (TRANSIT) classes, conducted in even smaller class sizes of up to 10. Why? Because TRANSIT classes help our Primary 1 students who are identified with social and behavioural needs to develop foundational self-management skills when they start schools. In fact, recently, I sat in one of these TRANSIT classes to see how they carry out the approach, pedagogical as well as socio-emotional learning.

Another example is the Learning Support Programme, conducted in pull-out classes of around eight to 10. Why? Because this is a specialised early intervention programme in our schools for lower primary students who need additional help with the English language.

School-based Dyslexia Remediation Programme, conducted in classes of four to six students. Why? Because with these special education needs, we want to better support them, because overcoming some of these challenges or managing these challenges, like dyslexia, allows them to access support for many other subjects.

With Full Subject-Based Banding, our secondary school students attend different subject classes of between 20 and 40 students, depending on their learning needs and the nature of the subject.

Additionally, schools may deploy two form teachers for classes on a needs basis where school resourcing allows.

Sir, class sizes are not the only way we support students with diverse learning needs. Schools also have school counsellors to strengthen the social-emotional skills of our students and the special education needs officers to provide learning and behavioural support for our students who need it. We have grown the number of trained school counsellors and special education needs officers in schools from around 800 to 1,300 over the past decade. We will continue to study the effectiveness of our approach, including on class sizes and are prepared to adjust our strategies where necessary to create conducive learning environments for our students.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his response. It is heartening to know that MOE is already taking good steps in this direction. I wanted to ask the Minister, does the Minister agree that in a world with artificial intelligence (AI) disrupting the learning of content in a nation of smaller family sizes, it is even more important that children learn the soft skills which no machine can teach, and develop emotional and psychological strengths which only humans can nurture? And given that human mentoring and the learning of soft skills cannot scale so easily with technology, will MOE relook class sizes?

I thank the Member for recognising that social-emotional skills and competencies are important, not just now, but for a future, such as one where AI presents both opportunity, as well as uncertainty and disruption. Indeed, in our AI in education framework, we want to teach our children what is AI, how to use AI, how to learn with AI and most importantly, how to learn beyond AI.

And so, through the 21st Century Competencies Framework, which was recently enhanced, we seek to provide support and strengthen our children's learning of these important values and skills through a combination of weaving through academic subjects through co-curricular activities (CCA), Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) and other forms of support in school. And this means that teaching is not just academic teaching of subjects, but also more holistic teaching of a child and empowering them with 21st century competencies and social-emotional learning through activities like CCA.

So, with this in mind, we continue to see how best to support our children, and by putting more resources for students with greater needs, we ensure that they get more holistic support – not just through teaching support, but also support of Special Educational Needs Officers and counselling support.

Sir, there has been recent research in the cognitive sciences that suggest that the biology of learning is such that humans tend to retain information and understand best when they are interacting with another human. I understand, as the Minister has shared, that advances in learning technology, especially AI, now afford customised education. But based on this research, it seems like such customised education is not a justifiable substitute.

To this end, I wonder if the Ministry will therefore look at alternatives other than purely reducing class sizes, such as the possibility of increasing allied teachers or teaching assistants within the classroom? And if so, what the Minister has to share with regard to the decision by the Ministry to scale back on allied educators when it comes to teaching and learning?

I think the Member makes a very good observation. I thank him for supporting the move to augment our teaching force with allied educators, particularly in the form of school counsellors, special educational needs officers, as well as the outdoor education allied educators. The shift from the existing scheme to one where we focus on these allied educator professions, enables us to specialise the support that we give to our children.

The Member is also absolutely right that edtech is important. Edtech allows for some degree of customisation. Edtech, including AI in the Singapore Student Learning Space (SLS), for instance, allows our children to get extra scaffolding and support in class and outside the class; in school and outside the school. But there is no substitute for human-based teaching, for the human touch, for the teacher in the classroom to be able to coach a child, to be able to teach the class; not just subject matter, but also demonstrate values and social-emotional skills that are very important in day-to-day life. In that regard, edtech is never a substitute for the human touch, and I would like to thank the Member for being so supportive.

Thank you, Speaker. And I thank the Minister for his responses to the questions. I have a question about the resourcing of schools. I think the Minister mentioned that the class size, the teacher-student ratio will be dependent on whether the school has resources. And my question is, is there some sort of a threshold or target that helps school leaders or MOE determine when there is enough resources to support their students in this regard?

Indeed, this is a continuous conversation between our school leaders, who are in touch with the ground, in close contact with their teachers in the classroom, as well as their MOE headquarters (HQ) leadership – our superintendent, zonal directors, director of schools and the HQ in general – to better understand the specific needs of different schools and to be able to allocate resources accordingly.

Of course, there is baseline support in terms of teaching, allied resources and admin staff for each school. But there may be needs in particular schools that require us to deploy, say, more counsellors or more student welfare officers or more special educational needs officers. And some of these resources are not just school-based, but also cluster-based, giving flexibility to school leaders to be able to ask and get more resources.

But ultimately, whether it is class sizes or other forms of resources, basically, our mission in MOE is this: we have our resources; we also have to operate within constraints, because MOE does not operate our budget independently of other Ministries' needs and Singapore's needs, as well as the opportunities that are presented to us, such as new studies, new pedagogical methods, new methods to impart social-emotional learning. How do we optimise between our resources, operate within constraints and the opportunities we seize? How do we optimise between these three in order to achieve the goal of holistic development of our children and helping the most instrumental group – our teachers and our allied educators – to be able to manage their workload to work with meaning and impact, so that they can again help us to achieve holistic development of the next generation?

And so, it is this combination that makes us focus the resources that we have now on students with greater needs; whether because of their youth, Primary 1, Primary 2; or because they have special education needs, like dyslexia; or because they may have other challenges, for example, they learn at different levels. So, Full Subject-Based Banding does require more resources to help students who may need more support for certain subjects.

And to talk about class sizes, if we were to increase the number of teachers, then we need to operate within the constraint of the impact on other important sectors that serve society. We also need to make sure that in hiring many more teachers, our profession reminds us that we must uphold standards and quality of the whole profession. And if we were to increase the number of classes that teachers teach, then, in managing overall workload and impact, we will then have to recalibrate and reimagine what teachers do on a day-to-day basis.

In some countries teachers teach many more classes, partially because of workload and resourcing. But if in Singapore, if we were to do that, it would probably have to be a combination of three things: one, increasing recruitment; two, increasing the number of classes that teachers teach; and then, recalibrating the other things that teachers do – CCA, CCE, admin, class preparation, marking and so on. And lastly, of course, harnessing technology tools, including AI, to empower teacher to do so much more.

The classroom of today is very different from the classroom of our time. We can continue to see progress and changes; and I would say three things are on the horizon that will allow us to try to transform education to make Singapore ready for a very uncertain future, one that is still full of opportunity and hope.

One, would be the review that we announced recently, the education conversations that we hold across Singapore to allow us to relook at the academic race, the "arms race", so that we focus on deep learning and not academic pursuits through high stakes exams. And in the same vein, we look at holistic education through a review of CCE and CCA, so we see it in totality. That is a major exercise.

The other, of course, is the AI in education framework that I mentioned. And it is not just about edtech and tools, but how do we reimagine teaching in an era where AI can do certain things, do more things and how can people remain on top as masters of technology? So, these are the areas that we are looking at.

And, of course, more holistic support for children coming from families with greater challenges; how do we better support and integrate with the social services around us?

So, these are three of the many ongoing, as well as impending, reviews, including the 2024 Reimagining the Teaching Profession Taskforce recommendations that are still ongoing, in terms of application and implementation, that will require us to relook at how the classroom is like for the future and the kinds of needs that we will have to support our children.