PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND SPECIAL SCHOOLS

PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND SPECIAL SCHOOLS:

(Quality assurance frameworks): 9.

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Education if he will provide an update on the Quality Assurance Frameworks for private schools and special schools.

Mr Iswaran (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Education will be introducing at this sitting a new Private Education Bill. As part of the new regulatory regime envisaged under this Bill, a voluntary quality assurance scheme for private education institutions called EduTrust will be introduced. The EduTrust Certification Scheme will complement the enhanced set of mandatory requirements stipulated under new registration framework.

A public consultation on the new registration framework and EduTrust Scheme was carried out between March and May 2009. And respondents of the public consultation were generally supportive of the move towards tighter regulation of the private education institutions (PEIs) and they welcomed EduTrust as a framework to uplift standards in the industry. The Pro-tem Council for Private Education (CPE) has carefully studied the feedback received and changes were made to the enhanced registration regime and EduTrust requirements in response. More details will be provided when the Bill is moved in Parliament for Second Reading.

Column: 952

The Pro-tem CPE Secretariat also recently completed a trial assessment of the draft Quality Assurance framework for EduTrust with 17 PEIs of varying profiles. This exercise was done to gather more empirical data for calibrating the EduTrust assessment mechanism and processes and to iron out any possible kinks in the system. With the insights and data obtained from the trial, the assessment criteria are currently being fine-tuned and the document detailing the finalised EduTrust requirements will be made available to interested PEIs by the end of this quarter.

Let me now provide an update on the development of the quality assurance framework for Special Education (SPED) schools. Since 2005, SPED schools have been conducting self-appraisal using an evaluation tool called AXIS (Aspiration towards eXcellence In Special education) which was developed by a team of SPED school principals and MOE officers.

A workgroup, comprising SPED school principals and officers from MOE and NCSS, was formed in August 2007 to develop a quality assurance framework for SPED schools. Based on their study of local and overseas systems, and inputs from members of the SPED School Management Committees, principals and school staff, they have drafted a framework and a quality assurance instrument. Field testing of the draft quality assurance instrument was conducted in April this year and this quality assurance instrument is currently being refined taking into consideration feedback from this field test.

By the end of 2009, SPED school principals would be trained on the use of the draft quality assurance instrument which schools would use and it should be done on a pilot basis to replace AXIS. By the end of 2010, the quality assurance instrument will be rolled out to the SPED schools which are funded by MOE and the

Column: 953

National Council for Social Services. For the private full-time special education schools, they will come under the scope of the Private Education Act and they may apply for EduTrust certification to meet their quality assurance needs.

When it is ready, the quality assurance framework and instrument will enable SPED schools to embark on a systematic school improvement process that will be based on a four-year cycle, comprising three years of annual self-evaluation exercises, followed by an external review on the fourth year.

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Senior Minister of State, for the comprehensive reply. I have two supplementary questions. First, on private education schools, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State for his comment on a Forum letter of 22nd July 2009 that "credible private schools are not MOE's job and MOE in registering private schools is merely playing the Registrar of Companies' role". Indeed, if MOE feels that it is just the Registrar of Companies, then why dilute the precious equity of the MOE brand name? Why not just divorce MOE totally from private schools so that they cannot be known to market using the "MOE-registered" claim. And if MOE is not merely a registrar, then, may I ask the Senior Minister of State why the quality assurance framework is voluntary and what steps can MOE take to make sure it can ringfence its positive brand equity and remove any potential misunderstanding that MOE is running it and responsible for its quality?

Second supplementary question: on quality assurance framework for special schools, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, if the quality assurance framework has been piloted since 2005, what is the outcome of all these pilot programmes? In fact, what is the impact

Column: 954

on quality since all these quality assurance frameworks have been piloted? Would MOE consider expediting some of these frameworks so that there is more consistency in quality among all the different charity special schools and also to ensure that school principals and educators can report to and be accountable for one integrated framework and not have to report to so many agencies, sometimes up to four – MOE, NCSS, School Board and VW Board?

Mr Iswaran: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will endeavour to answer the questions. On private education schools, I think we have already crossed that Rubicon. This notion of MOE being a mere registrar, I think, was more accurately reflective of, perhaps, the previous regime, not one that is being contemplated under the new Private Education Bill. There are many factors for this, and I do not propose to go into them at length now – because we will have the Second reading where we can thoroughly debate this – other than to make the point that it is an industry that has grown quite explosively in the last five to 10 years, and it is one that merits greater attention, principally and primarily because of the point that the Member herself has made, which is that we need to ensure that the brand equity of Singapore and the Ministry, in turn, is not diluted. Having said that, the question that the Member has asked is, why is the quality assurance framework – I think by this she meant the intended EduTrust process - voluntary?

I want to emphasise that under the new Bill, there is a higher threshold in the first instance even for registration, quite apart from quality assurance. So, how I would draw the analogy for the Member's reference and, again, I think we can go into this in more detail later, is that the private education institutions will have to meet a higher threshold, much higher than what is currently the case, even to get registration in place. And secondly, it is

Column: 955

then up to them, rather like ISO certification and so on, if they wish to aspire, as a signal of quality, to go for a level beyond that and seek EduTrust certification.

On the quality assurance framework for Special Education (SPED) schools, I understand where the Member is coming from. I think her primary concern is to ensure that the standards are as far as possible of a uniform level, so that parents and students can know what to expect. And, indeed, that is the objective of the exercise. The reason why MOE has approached this in a cautious and consultative manner is because of the many stakeholders who are involved in this sector. You have the VWOs, you have the various principals and teachers and the Ministry has an interest and so does the National Council for Social Services. So, the intent has been to develop a robust framework in a consultative manner and the intention is to have it through a series of trials and focus group discussions finalised and implemented by the end of next year. And I think, in the meantime, there is already a salutary effect on the schools which have gone through the process. So, I would say that that is the key thing. The Member made the point about reporting being streamlined, so that the schools do not have to report to multiple agencies, and, indeed, that is the objective. As a result of this new framework, the entire accountability process will be streamlined, with the exception of the financial accountability to NCSS which indeed has to be separate because funds are being raised for the explicit purpose of helping VWOs. Other than that, in general, the accountability will be streamlined, so that both requirements are met through the one process.