HEAD K - MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

Head K - Ministry of Education

The Chairman: Head K - Ministry of Education. Dr Lily Neo.

Future Students

Dr Lily Neo: Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head K of the Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, it is imperative that our greatest resource, our people, is well-equipped to meet the demands of a rapidly evolving and globalised world. The essential task of MOE is to ensure that our citizens are equipped with the knowledge, skills and qualifications they need to participate in this new economy. Creativity, flexibility and innovation are key tools we need to survive and compete in this new knowledge-based economy.

Education can no longer stop after one leaves school or even college. Individuals must take it upon themselves to constantly improve and upgrade. It is not MOE's role to do so, but it can help prepare students to be lifelong learners and steer Singapore to be a learning society. The vision is to build a new culture of learning that will underpin national competitiveness and personal prosperity,

encourage creativity and innovation and help build a cohesive society.

12.45 pm

MOE could encourage and make it conducive, rewarding, and non-disadvantageous for citizens to continue learning throughout their lives, not just in the years of compulsory schooling. As a start, MOE could begin at the primary level, and prepare our students to cultivate the habit of lifelong learning. MOE could, in its teaching guidance, help nurture the following perceptions in children, to continue the evolution towards a more fully realised embrace of motivation to learn.

MOE could, for example, adopt the recommendations of the UNESCO Delors Report which highlighted four pillars of education:

(1) Learning to know. This involves the mastery of learning tools rather than the acquisition of structured knowledge. It includes developing concentration, memory skills and the ability to think.

(2) Learning to do. This involves equipping people to do the types of work needed in the future, including innovation and adaptation of learning to future work environments.

(3) Learning to live together and with others. This involves educating our students to avoid conflict or peacefully resolve it, through the discovery of other people and their cultures, and involvement in common projects. As Singapore becomes more cosmopolitan in nature, understanding international cultures is an important component in social cohesion, as well as in relating to our friends globally. Current curriculum may be revised to include a broader understanding and appreciation of cultures and nationalities world wide.

(4) Learning to be. This involves education that contributes to a person's complete development - mind and body, intelligence, sensitivity, aesthetic appreciation and spirituality. More could be done to emphasise these values rather than treat them as merely part of the mandatory curriculum.

Niklas Zennstrom, founder of the VoIP telephony company, Skype, was able to be an international success because of his unquenchable desire to constantly learn - learn from his failures, innovate and create. After the failures of KaZaA, he regrouped, rethought and innovated - Skype was the result, and he had left the giant telecommunications firm sweating.

Dr Tony Tan and the IAAP panel have already taken positive steps to look into the establishment of liberal arts colleges in Singapore, to provide a "creative learning environment". Apart from this, we should also look into providing funding facility and even scholarships to adults to pursue advanced degrees and to encourage and reward their achievements and desire to continue learning.

Sir, lifelong learning calls for a broad concept of education which is pursued throughout life - flexible, diverse and available at different times and different places. A key priority must be to provide the facility for second chance education for citizens. Existing educational institutions should be encouraged to transform themselves into establishments of lifelong learning. A new concept should be that all our tertiary institutions should be accessible to all qualified students irrespective of age. I hope MOE will pursue this concept to achieve "Lifelong Learning and Lifelong Learners in a Learning Society".

Dr Ong Seh Hong: ( In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Mr Chairman, the world in this 21st century is a flat one. Thomas Friedman, in his work, The World is Flat , mentioned 10 of the major forces that changed the world today, such as the demolition of the Berlin Wall, the Internet proliferation, outsourcing and the open source code, supply chain, search engine technology, etc, that pushed the trend of globalisation and flattened the work. They would change the balance of power and the economic and commercial models. They have great impact on all the countries and their people.

I think we are faced with a lot of opportunities and a lot of challenges. Can our children find a footing in this new world and make further contributions to our country? When our schools and teachers are educating our students, they should also train and prepare them to face the challenges in future, so that they will be able to shoulder this heavy responsibility.

What are the characteristics required to succeed in the future in this 21st century? I think we could illustrate by using the ancient theory of balance between the ying and the yang and the complementarity among the five elements. On the balance of the ying and yang , we have to find a balance between being strong and gentle. In good times, we should not be arrogant or complacent. We should remain humble and alert. In an adverse situation, we must be unyielding and not succumb to pressure, and be resilient, so that we can turn adversity into our favour.

To achieve the balance of ying and yang , we must have the full complement of five elements. The five elements are metal, water, wood, fire and earth. For metal, it means that we must have the will and determination, that is, to be as strong as steel. We must be able to endure hardships so that we can absorb all the impact from outside and persevere to fight on until we prevail.

However, we cannot be hard on everything. So water arises from metal, we must learn to be like water. Water may be soft and gentle, yet it can penetrate everything. It cannot be cut into pieces. Water can accommodate others and can change its shape according to the container that holds it. We can learn from its softness, gentleness, inclusiveness and flexibility. But to be gentle like water does not mean that we want our children to succumb to pressure. We must be soft outside and strong inside.

Water gives rise to wood. We must learn to be upright like the trees and noble like the bamboo. We must be objective and fair, so that we would not be corrupted by the environment around us. We will therefore uphold our integrity, and not to fall into corruption.

However, we should not be too rigid and inflexible like the wood. Wood gives rise to fire. Fire represents our passion and our will to continuously upgrade ourselves. Our students must have this passion to learn and to adopt lifelong learning so that they can keep on upgrading themselves and benefit for the whole life. In this book entitled The World is Flat , the author put it as PQ + CQ - passion quotient plus curiosity quotient.

Even with passion, we are reminded to be down to earth. This is why fire gives rise to earth. We have to stand firmly on the earth and be pragmatic in the way we do things. We should not just idle away day-dreaming and engage in empty talk all the time. We have to work hard and put in every effort to realise our aspiration.

How do we then train our students in the inter-complementarity of these five elements? Perhaps our teachers should practise what the kung fu masters do to help "open up" the meridien of our students to effect the circulation of the vital energies as to regulate their bodily functions. We target right brain, eyes, mouths, hands, legs and heart. We must stimulate them to learn and be versatile.

Stimulation of right brain. In the past, our education emphasised on science, technology and engineering, and these disciplines call for the function of the left side of our brain, ie, to be logical and analytical. According to Daniel Pink, we need "high concept" and "high touch" to supplement "high technology". In the 21st century, machines can work faster than men, and can replace the human being in many functions. As such, we should now seek the development of the right side of our brain. "High concept" includes the ability to create and appreciate beauty while "high touch" towards includes abilities to think out of the box and to emphasise. We have to train our students with more humanity studies and some non-examination subjects to stimulate our students to learn about the arts.

Next, we have to open our students' eyes to see the world, open their mouth to communicate and open their heart to accept others. As a global citizen, one has to correct word new. One has to be more inclusive and more sensitive to the diversity of cultures, languages and religions.

Language is the window to the culture. As a global society, Singapore is blessed with the advantage of exposure to people from all parts of the world. Opportunities are available to them to learn many other languages. The Ministry of Education should encourage our students to learn the third language and even the fourth language, and not restrict them to our four official languages. They should be allowed to learn other languages, such as Russian, Arabic and even the African languages.

I would also suggest that our MOE contact some of the expatriates who are resident here and invite them to speak to our students on their cultures and traditions so as to open the field of vision of our students.

Moving hands, legs and brains. By this, I mean we should provide hands-on learning for our students. In our everyday life, everywhere is a learning arena for us. We can bring our students to the museums, art galleries, factories and even bring them overseas. We should also have more projects and more hands-on learning. A lot of the students are now doing their projects by going into the Internet, and just "copy, cut and paste." I think we should stimulate our students to cultivate critical thinking and have an analytical mind.

Retaining their hearts. Finally, we must cultivate our students to leave our hearts here. As a small nation, we are constantly bombarded by cultures from all over the world. We have maintained our great tradition of a multi-lingual and multi-racial society while trying to absorb and integrate the cultures of our new immigrants. This will increase the diversity of our culture. Therefore, whenever our young people go overseas to study or to work, they would have the urge and will to come back and serve our nation. We should be more flexible in the teaching of our National Education programme. Our community involvement project should be more self-initiated by our students. This will make our students more self-motivated in wanting to learn about our own country, our history and our culture.

I hope that the Ministry of Education will accept my suggestions. We could train our students so that they would be more rugged, more self-confident, and be flexible in all their dealings. This will ensure continued prosperity of our nation.

• Cols.3231-3236.

Education Policy

Dr Lily Neo: ( In Malay ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Sir, globalisation is here to stay, and our people must embrace it as best as they can in order to succeed in their endeavours. Our students today are the Singapore's future resource. How we nurture them today will determine how the country will progress in the future. May I ask the Minister whether MOE prepares our students for a globalised world?

In today's economy, the world is our market. Singaporeans are especially attracted to emerging markets, such as China and India. Our people will have the added advantage to do business in these countries if they are fluent in the languages used by the people in these countries. Will MOE, riding on the advantage of our multi-ethnic student composition, prepare these students in the various Asian languages, and other languages for those who can cope?

• Cols. 3237-3238.

The Minister for Education (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam): Sir, first, let me thank Dr Lily Neo and Dr Ong Seh Hong for their very useful comments. I agree with the thrust of their remarks.

1.00 pm

My first response is focused on the broad question that they have asked - how are we preparing our young for the future,

a globalised future or, as Dr Ong put it, a flat world, but also a future in which the greatest advantage for Singapore will come from our being a global city connected to the region and beyond?

Some of the challenges we face are no different from those of any other developed society. We know we have to work smarter, not work cheaper, in order to thrive, despite the competition from China and India, and before too long from new players like Vietnam. What does working smart mean? We ask employers regularly and we also keep our eyes out on what the other leading cities are doing to prepare for the future. Working smart means that we have to prepare our young to think for themselves, so that they can kick start new ideas and solve problems as they come up, including problems they have not seen before. Working smart also means working in smart teams, first-class teams - teams that use every talent and strength to come up with new solutions, and teams which stay resilient in the face of challenges, upright like bamboo. And working smart means being able to communicate clearly and to be totally comfortable with IT skills.

These are the key skills for the future in any industry and at every level of the organisation. It is what employers everywhere from the US to India to Europe are saying. They need more people who can think for themselves, play in a team and communicate effectively with each other, real time.

There is no single solution in education for developing these skills for the future. As both Dr Lily Neo and Dr Ong have said, it is also not something that ends when students leave school. We need more second chances and need the whole plethora of opportunities for lifelong learning. But the foundations we set in school are critical. It also does not mean doing many more new things in school, new subjects and new programmes. A good part of what we want to do is already there in our schools and just needs to be done better or given sharper focus. But it helps to have a more holistic and well-rounded education. That is why we have been taking meaningful steps in that direction, towards a broader and more flexible approach in the way our students go about their academic learning and also a better balance between training the academic and non-academic skills. MOS Lui Tuck Yew will say more on this later.

We are also investing in ICT for learning - first, to make the whole learning experience more innovative and engaging, but also because essential ICT skills have to be second nature to our young and future Singaporeans.

There is a further, critical dimension to educating our young for the future and which matters more to us than to other developed countries. For Singapore to be a global city, we need to have a global outlook in our people. The whole tenor of our society has to be about looking outward and welcoming new people into Singapore to live and work. It will give us a big advantage in Asia if we do this well. That is why we have to groom young Singaporeans who feel quite comfortable working and collaborating with people who come from all over the place, looking for opportunities and new markets outside Singapore, and working in places quite different from Singapore. A good understanding of Asia, in particular, where opportunities are the largest, will also give them an advantage. Developing a global outlook in our students is therefore an important strategy for MOE. We want to nurture Singaporeans who are culturally versatile but confident of their own identity.

The first way we are doing this is by providing more overseas opportunities for our students, so that from young, they get a sense of the complexities and opportunities in the region. As Dr Ong has noted, these opportunities will also give them a better understanding of different cultures. Last year, about 22,600 students and 4,000 teachers from our schools and junior colleges went overseas, either on school twinning programmes, overseas community involvement programmes or study trips of one form or another. This year, we will see many more. In fact, next week alone, the March school holidays, we have about 3,300 students from 60 schools going abroad, more than six times the number a year ago. The March school holidays - amongst the four school holidays - the numbers are in fact the lowest. This year, we have already seen a six-fold increase compared to a year ago. So the schools are keen and the momentum is building up.

We are also exploring opportunities for a few of our schools to establish satellite campuses in overseas cities so that our students can spend a longer time immersing themselves and interacting with their counterparts there while continuing to benefit from the Singapore curriculum. Hwa Chong Institution already plans to establish a satellite campus in Beijing this year so that students in the Bi-cultural Studies Programme and other interested students can have more sustained exposure to contemporary China. So not just a one or two-week study trip but you spend a few months there.

Our tertiary institutions are also linking up with partners abroad through school-student exchanges and internships, and in the case of our universities also through collaborative research as well as joint degree programmes. This is the way to go for our universities. Overall, we aim to provide opportunities for up to 50% of our tertiary students to have an overseas stint during the course of their studies in a Singapore institution.

We will continue to expand on these initiatives in the schools, JCs and in the tertiary institutions. No other Asian city is making as determined a move to nurture in its citizens a sense of the world out there, a sense of the opportunities. We have to do more of it than others because our future lies in being a global city. Because we can only succeed by being a global city, and if we do it well, it will give us advantage over time.

The second way we are preparing our young for the future as a global city is by training them in the languages. I agree with both Dr Ong Seh Hong and Dr Lily Neo about the importance we have to place on this area. Our bilingual language competency and our diverse range of languages are together a key strength for Singapore. Competence in English and the mother tongue language, amongst the majority of young Singaporeans, will give us competitive edge over any other Asian city for years to come. It also gives us our distinctive identity as a people, sharing a common cultural heritage with many other Asian cities but unique in the openness and vibrance of our multi-cultural society.

MOE is taking steps to consolidate and add to Singapore's language advantage in three areas. First, by improving the effectiveness of bilingual language learning including providing greater support for the small minority mother tongues as second language options. Second, we will introduce more third language options like Bahasa Indonesia and Arabic, so that we can reach out to emerging areas outside Singapore. As the Prime Minister mentioned at last year's National Day Rally, we have to do more to keep our immigrant cultures alive and also make it easy for Singaporeans to learn third languages, new foreign languages, that will help them to link up with opportunities outside. Third, we will provide opportunities for more students to learn languages other than their own mother tongue at a conversational level so as to enhance interaction among Singaporeans of different races and strengthen our social cohesion even as we embrace the world.

Over the past three years, as Members know, MOE has conducted comprehensive reviews of each of the four official languages - English and the three main mother tongue languages (Chinese, Malay, Tamil). The implementation of the changes arising from these reviews will be a key focus for MOE and our schools over the next few years. We have already seen some results in the mother tongue languages, with language learning coming alive through a more flexible curriculum, creative teaching methods and an increased emphasis on oral skills so that students keep using their mother tongues after they leave school. More of our students are pursuing a high level of excellence in their mother tongues. We have seen from this year, the full effects of the progressive relaxation in the eligibility criteria for students wishing to offer Higher Mother Tongue Languages which we started a few years ago. Today, 34% of Secondary One students are taking Higher Chinese compared to 21% in 2003. For Higher Malay, the proportion has risen from 11% to 19%, and for Higher Tamil, it is an increase from 17% to 36%, or more than double.

We will take further steps to help students in learning their mother tongues. To broaden access to Tamil instruction,eight more secondary schools will offer Tamil Language within curriculum time from next year. This will bring the total number of such secondary schools from 81 to 89, well distributed around the island. It will enable over 90% of all our Tamil Language students to attend lessons in their own schools, within regular curriculum time. In the remaining secondary schools, there are very few Tamil Language students, making it impractical to conduct Tamil Language classes within the school. Students at these remaining schools will be able to take their Tamil Language classes in the afternoons, at one of the 12 centres around the island.

MOE will also work with our primary schools to provide pro-active advice to parents of their graduating classes, the P6 classes, to send their children to secondary schools which offer Tamil Language during curriculum time, so that they do not need to travel in the afternoon to classes elsewhere. With more students enrolled in these schools which offer Tamil Language during regular curriculum time, they can practise the language with their peers, and benefit from a richer learning environment for the language.

I will now touch on the non-Tamil Indian languages, which are the mother tongues for the smaller Indian minority groups. These languages are not new to Singapore. In fact, they go as far back as Stamford Raffles and in some cases, much earlier, to the old trading routes for which Singapore was a port of call. We must keep them alive so that they remain a vibrant part of Singapore’s cultural landscape. Like Tamil, they allow our communities to link up to different parts of South Asia. The number of students learning Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu as their second language has grown by about 20% over the past five years, to about 4,800 students today. The communities have done a commendable job in organising instruction for their children. The Board for Teaching and Testing of South Asian Languages currently oversees the delivery of non-Tamil Indian language instruction by the different community bodies, as well as overseeing the standardisation of the examinations they conduct.

MOE has provided for the five non-Tamil Indian languages to be part of our national examinations at the PSLE, "N" and "O" levels, and at the "AO" levels as well. We have provided for this since the first half of 1990s. To help the communities keep their mother tongues alive, we have decided to provide funding support for the non-Tamil Indian languages. MOE will now provide a grant of about $1.5 million each year to enable the Board for Teaching and Testing of South Asian Languages and the community groups to provide subsidies for students taking these classes. In addition, MOE will work with the Board to effect the necessary processes to facilitate the recognition of grades in these languages for students' level-to-level progression within their schools before they get to the milestone years where they take the national examinations which MOE conducts. We will also allow them to use their language grades to count towards their eligibility for Edusave awards such as the Good Progress Award and Edusave scholarships. I hope this encourages them to excel in their mother tongues.

Our third languages currently include Chinese (Special Programme), Malay (Special Programme), French, German and Japanese. We have five of them. We will add new third languages to broaden our offerings at the MOE Language Centre. Bahasa Indonesia is one of them. As Dr Lily Neo and Dr Ong Seh Hong both highlighted, having a pool of young Singaporeans who are well versed in the culture and languages of the region is crucial for our long term engagement with our closest neighbours. We will also introduce Arabic. The Middle East is a fast-growing region, with opportunities for Singaporeans. According to recent news reports, in fact, in the last week, a growing number of Singaporeans are already taking up Arabic. 200 people have signed up for Arabic classes at Jamiyah Business School, four times the enrolment two years ago, and at least half are non-Muslims. At PERGAS, enrolment in Arabic 101 for non-native speakers is expected to double this year, from the 100 students enrolled last year.

From 2008, MOE will offer Bahasa Indonesia and Arabic at the MOE Language Centre, bringing the number of third languages that MOE offers from five to seven. Greater emphasis will be placed on oral proficiency and reading skills, so that students emerge from the programme with working knowledge of the languages and a basic understanding of Arab and Indonesian society and culture.

Finally, let me come to the question of conversational mother tongue languages. Our third language options which I was just talking about extend to the Chinese and Malay (Special Programmes). These are full examinable subjects for students who do not take Chinese or Malay as their second language. Since last year, we relaxed the eligibility criteria for these two programmes. We are building on a small base of student enrolment, but the response has been encouraging. About 350 students take each of these two third language subjects - Chinese and Malay (Special Programmes).

But the number of students who take Chinese or Malay (Special Programmes), full examinable subjects, will not be significant. We will therefore do more to promote conversational Chinese and Malay as enrichment programmes for students who are not native speakers of these languages. As Minister Mentor observed two years ago, few of our non-Malays now understand Bahasa. He felt we should get 10%-15% of our non-Malay population conversant in Bahasa over time.

1.15 pm

There is also growing interest amongst our non-Chinese students to learn Chinese for conversational purposes. It is a useful skill for the future.

The conversational Chinese and Malay programmes have taken off well in our schools. Last year, about 58 primary schools and 47 secondary schools conducted conversational Malay or Chinese classes or enrichment lessons. They do so in a variety of ways - in many schools, the mother tongue teachers conduct the lessons when they are free; other schools choose to engage external vendors or rely on parental volunteers or even student coaches. For instance, in Lianhua Primary, interested Primary 4 Malay students have the opportunity to learn conversational Chinese from the Chinese language teachers and the Chinese students help out as peer tutors.

We will encourage as many schools as possible to offer conversational Chinese and Malay. MOE will provide them with additional resources to do so. Besides their own teachers, schools can work with the private sector, parents and the community or outsource these programmes. MOE will also set up a scheme to engage instructors to teach conversational Malay and Chinese, somewhat like how we engage instructors for the arts, which the schools can then tap on. These are the people who need not be recruited for full training at NIE. There is a pool of instructors with the requisite qualifications whose schools can then tap on and use in a flexible manner. We do not want to bog this down too much with the formal curriculum that every school should follow, but keep it flexible, have a variety of methods at play and have a variety of instructors coming into the schools to help.

Teachers too can benefit from these enrichment programmes if they are interested. There are some examples. Tampines JC, for example, includes teachers in the conversational language workshops which it conducts for students. And some teachers, on their own accord, have gone through the trouble of taking conversational Chinese or Malay outside the schools. Miss Fa'izah Bte Osman, a Physics teacher at Bedok North Secondary, I think she has two or three years of experience, started her Chinese Language lessons while she was at NUS. She completed Level 1 of Basic Chinese at NUS. When she started teaching, she felt the need to continue because she thought it would help to improve her communication with parents. So she completed Level 2 and Level 3 of Basic Chinese at NUS Extension last year. She is a good example.

The additional resources that MOE will provide schools will allow students also to sustain their exposure to these conversational languages while they are at school, instead of taking classes for just one year, which is typically the case at present. We envisage that within five years, all primary schools will offer conversational Chinese and Malay as enrichment programmes. We hope that two thirds of our secondary schools would also be able to do likewise within five years.

We will also provide our students with opportunities for continuing exposure to these conversational languages as they move up through the school system as well as when they move into the tertiary institutions. They can start with the beginning modules in primary school or basic modules in secondary school, which would help them with everyday phrases, such as greetings or asking for the right price or directions and, depending on their interest in aptitude, they move on to intermediate and higher modules at upper secondary or at the tertiary level, which would allow them to have a short conversation, for example. We will make it easy for students to come on board at any point and to progress as much as they are interested at any point.

Over the next three years, all our tertiary institutions will also offer conversational Chinese and Malay as enrichment options for interested students. Some do. For instance, ITE already does so, and last year, about 300 students signed up for conversational Chinese and 100 students for conversational Malay.

To help students to track their progress in these conversational languages, MOE will also introduce an optional oral proficiency test. Purely optional. It is a bit like the piano grades. You take the trouble to learn how to play the piano, you look forward to see what grades you can clear. Nothing more than that. Those who have completed the conversational Chinese or Malay programme in secondary school may opt to take the proficiency certification test. We expect some students will in fact be keen on this. MOE will be working with the reputable partners, such as the Regional Language Centre (RELC), to conduct this proficiency certification. And you would be able to accumulate over time - you do something in secondary school, you can continue with it in the tertiary level, and your grades get stacked up on top of each other.

Let me conclude. Our education strategies are a key part of how we secure Singapore's future as a vibrant global city. We are providing Singaporeans with opportunities from young to develop a global outlook and to get a flavour of the opportunities that are emerging in Asia. We are doing more to keep our mother tongue languages alive. We are also helping interested students to learn new third languages that will help us to reach out and engage with emerging Asia. And we are providing more opportunities for students to pick up conversational Chinese and Malay. Together, these initiatives add up to something. They will strengthen our identity as an open, diverse and multi-cultural society, unique in Asia.

School Education

Mr Alvin Yeo (Hong Kah): Mr Chairman, this Government has rightfully placed education at the forefront of its agenda. With proper education, every segment of the population, including the less well-off, will acquire the skills to be employable and avoid the poverty trap. With the right training, every Singaporean at every level can be productive in their different occupations, which is necessary to keep our economy growing.

The Ministry has taken the right steps in doing away with, just to mention a few, primary school streaming, in introducing niche schools, by encouraging sports and in accommodating, not just those who are better able to study mother tongue at the higher level, but also those who are weaker in their mother tongue. And I am certainly cheered by what the Minister has just spoken about, in terms of making our students more global citizens, or more global in their outlook, and increasing the range of languages they can seek instruction on.

Sir, while I applaud the direction in which the Ministry is moving, there is still more to be done in enhancing the quality of our educational process. I would like to highlight the size of our classes and the teacher-student ratio as a key area in which we can improve on. This was also something I touched on in my speech during the Budget debate. The size of a class bears a direct relationship with the amount of attention that a teacher can devote to each student. Simply put, a teacher looking after a class of 30 pupils would be able, on average, to spend one-third more time on each student than a teacher who is looking after 40 pupils. The greater amount of attention a teacher can spend, the greater the stimulation of a student's development. This seems a matter of intuition and common sense and would be supported, I feel, by most parents' experience with their own children. It is also borne out by the experience of other well-established and respected educational systems.

I note we are not shy to learn from other respected cities and leaders in this field. So, for instance, statistical studies showed that the average class size in England in 2002 was 26.4 for primary schools, while that for secondary schools was 22. In the United States, studies revealed that in 2000, the average class size for public schools was in the low 20s while the corresponding figure for private schools was below 20. Class sizes for our Singapore schools compared unfavourably with those numbers. In 2005, the average class size for primary schools was 36.1 and that average was already lowered by the fact that smaller classes had by then been introduced for Primary 1 students. The average class size for secondary schools was 36.5. Yet, in our gifted education programme, or GEP, that enjoyed an average class size of 25. Obviously, the Ministry recognises the benefits of smaller sizes. But should this be restricted only to our gifted students?

The introduction of smaller class sizes in 2005 for Primary 1 and later Primary 2 students is welcomed. But what are the plans to implement this for all primary levels and for secondary schools as well? After all, it is not just gifted students that benefit for more teacher attention. Indeed, it could be argued that such students have greater capacity for self-learning than others. I believe that the lower teacher-student ratio would help the less able students to cope better and the above average students to flourish. That is the goal of education to make each student the best that he can be, not just to help the brilliant although they obviously do not need any encouragement, but to enable each young person to reach his full potential regardless of what level of education he finally attains.

And if an economic argument is required, it is this. Singapore needs all its people to be capable and competent at whatever they do in order for our economy to be competitive with other lower cost countries, and, as the Minister puts it, to work smarter, not cheaper. Our small population means that there is very little room for wastage. As I have mentioned in my speech during the Budget debate, we do not just need the brain surgeons and investment bankers, but good performers at every level and strata of society for us to succeed in this brave new world.

Sir, while I recognise the extremely heavy investment that would be needed to reduce class sizes for all students, and the fact that this would take some years to achieve, I would invite and encourage the Minister to state what the plans are to introduce smaller class sizes for all our students.

Another aspect of our education policy I would like to touch on concerns the current buzz phrase of "holistic education". The merits of holistic education, I think, are well accepted by all. The idea is that an educated person should be well-rounded in the sense of not just book learning, but also exposed to some degree of art and culture, and this includes different cultures - sports and physical activity, be able to interact with others and to express oneself in a confident manner. This is relevant because in today's fast paced world, typically the technologies and practices of tomorrow have not been invented yet. So the chief value of academic study is to train oneself to assimilate, organise and analyse information, as the Minister puts it, to come out with a solution to a problem that is new and has not been seen before, not just to memorise the information for its own sake, but what is equally important or what is popularly known as emotional intelligence, or EQ, people and communication skills. These skills are typically not learned in the classroom, but outside it, in CCA and non-school based activities.

All these take time from the student. If students continue to be subject to heavy content based syllabus, if teachers are under pressure to complete that syllabus at all costs, something has got to give, and that something are those other aspects for holistic education which form our stated objective. If we are serious about pursuing this goal to produce well-rounded students, and I think we should, we do need to review the school's syllabus carefully so as not to overload our students and take away their time from learning in other ways.

I am not suggesting that we take away all hard content from academic study and indulge our students in some warm fuzzy, philosophical experience that passes for education. But beyond foundation knowledge and analytical skills, we do need to allow our students to develop their talents and abilities in other ways. In that way, we will become true global citizens.

Stress

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Marine Parade): Mr Chairman, Sir, it is a well-known fact that Singapore has a strong education system where our students perform exceedingly well both locally and internationally.

We have good schools with capable school leaders and teachers and facilities that are amongst the best in the world.

With such a reputation for excellence, I am concerned about the amount of stress that is being placed on the school system as well as on the students and teachers to continually perform and excel beyond expectation. The stress comes from the heavy workload for both teachers and students, the cramming required for students to do well in their examinations, the higher expectation that is placed on the principals to deliver good results for the school and the ranking of the schools. Frequently, parents complain about the stress faced by their children in having to cram for their examinations, continual tests, project work and to attend CCA.

Teachers, too, complain about the unforgiving pace at which they have to run to teach, to mark examination scripts, to plan curriculum and to conduct CCA, just to name a few. Many a time, they are also expected to counsel the students in their class.

1.30 pm

In a recent GCE "O" levels, there were 25 students who scored nine distinctions, ie, A1s, for their examinations. This is excluding the many other bright students who did not take their GCE "O" levels this year because they are in the Integrated Programme.

In the recent GCE "A" levels, we have schools where the students scored nine distinctions each. The Straits Times quoted: "It is rare for Arts students to take three "S" papers because the study workload is too demanding." But if the student is very bright and doing well and examinations come easily to them, good for them and congratulations. But when the average student takes five to six subjects for their "A" level examinations, I am dumbfounded as to why the school encouraged or even allow students to take nine subjects. Is the message to these students that the more scores you have, the better you will do in life, so better to cram like mad now?

I would submit that a school's role is to develop the student and to teach the students skills which would enable them to be educated citizens who have skills which will enable them to be forever learners and not just "A" students in a subject. If a student has to do so many "O" and "A" level subjects, plus excel in their CCA, where do they have time to do anything else?

I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any monitoring of the schools to make sure that the school administrators do not unnecessarily stress their students or teachers to produce excellent academic results for their schools. Whilst I agree that some degree of stress is useful to strengthen a person's constitution, I am concerned that too much stress would cause a breakdown in the psychological make-up of either the student or the teacher.

Sir, I am also worried about the pressure of wanting to be selected for the IP programme in certain prestigious and premium schools. I understand that some of these schools offering the IP are also competing for students. Is this practice healthy, as it leads to unnecessary stress of competing for students so as to improve the schools' standing?

Sir, I am also asking the Minister, in view of the "Teach Less, Learn More" policy, has the workload and curricula for the students and teachers come down?

Family Values

Mr Chan Soo Sen (Joo Chiat): Mr Chairman, Sir, a few years ago, when I was still in Government, I attended a pro-family seminar and I gave a very, very moving speech, talking about the virtue of family values. At the end of it, one particular young person came to me and said, "The problem with you Government is that you want to interfere in all these things, including how many children we have." I said, "So do you plan to get married and have children?" He said, "Certainly not. Your speech will not change me." I said, "All right. May I ask you this question? Who are in your family?" He says, "My family comprises my father, mother, sister and my dog." I said, "So, imagine, if you were to stay single and not have any children, what would be your family 60 years later?" Goodness gracious, he was stunned! The sister probably will still be around. Parents, 60 years later, probably would not be around. The dog, well, I know, it probably would not be around. Then I said, "Look, if you were to be married and have children and encourage them to have family values, they also get married and have children, who will be family 60 years later?" Then he understood.

Sir, the point is this. Family is a very, very important component that will be required when we are down. When we are old, poor, when we have problems, we need our family. When we are successful and making a lot of money, family does not seem very important. But the problem is that a family is not instant coffee. You do not just put something into the hot water, stir and there comes a family. It has to be planned and executed deliberately. You have to invest the time, energy and emotion in order to have a good family. So where does family education feature as a priority in education? I submit it is not very high.

In fact, we heard just now that we want our students to learn to think, to learn languages, to balance between ying and yang , to have IQ and EQ, to be loyal citizens and God knows what else. But how about to be a family person, to start a family, to bring up a good family so that our next generation will be fine and Singapore's success will be sustained? So far, no hon. Members have mentioned this as yet. I would like to submit that in education priority, family value education is important. I would like to propose to the Minister to include some form of family education or family value programmes in the KPI of our principals and teachers so that this thing called family can be put into sharper focus before we start pursuing all those important things that we want our students to have, because we ignore building up our family at our peril. It is about Singapore's sustainability and long-term success.

Character Building

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Mr Chairman, Sir, I submit that the current character development initiative in Singapore schools is insufficient to make any major impact on our students. Today's Singapore is marked by families with working parents, leaving the upbringing of many children mostly to domestic helpers and schools. Schools may have to take a lead to foster a process of inculcating values in our young.

Character development is now conducted primarily through the Community Involvement Programme (CIP) which specifies a minimum of six hours per year, ie, half an hour a month. I would like to ask the Ministry to consider making three changes in this regard:

(1) Identify and communicate more extensively a set of common core values that the majority of people can agree on, eg, kindness, respect, learning, consideration, responsibility;

(2) Develop a resource database of how these values might be translated to practices and outcomes in three settings, ie, school, home and community; and

(3) Increase the number of minimum hours of CIP service hours to at least one day a month per student. This can be a combination of service contribution within the school, home and community settings. They need not be big projects, but could be tasks done on a daily basis, eg, peer tutoring, be a buddy for a disabled classmate, serving at a neighbourhood home, join a friendship club to help somebody else, take one's disabled grandparent out for a walk each day, etc.

Gandhi said this before: "A person cannot do right in one department whilst attempting to do wrong in another department. Life is one indivisible whole."

Sir, character development is the same - one indivisible whole. It cannot just happen in school. We must ensure the same rigour at home and in the community, and I urge the MOE to take the lead in this matter.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Sir, I understand that every primary and secondary school has Civics and Moral Education as part of its syllabus. In addition, we have National Education, which is part of the total education which is infused across all subjects within the curricula.

For Civics and Moral Education, may I ask the Minister how many hours per week are being spent on this subject? Are there schools which sacrificed time spent on this subject in order to catch up on academic school curriculum?

Sir, I raise this concern as I receive various feedback about the self-centred behaviour amongst the younger people. Complaints about students being unwilling to give up their seats to elderly or pregnant women seem to suggest that lessons on graciousness have not sunk in. There is also feedback about students not behaving properly in MRT stations and on buses. They sit on the floor, talk loudly and smooch in public. Even when the students are collecting their Edusave Merit Bursary or scholarship, there was feedback from various parents that some of these students do not come prepared. They come improperly attired. They come late. They do not wish to wait for the collection of their awards and they do not respect their fellow students who have been waiting for their turn.

Sir, I do understand that this is a minority and sometimes there are various reasons why the conduct of the students may be found wanting. I do also accept that many a time the behaviour of adults too is not exemplary. However, we should not stop trying to inculcate proper values to the younger generation when they are in school. The lack of certain basic values for our future generation should not be for want of effort by our schools.

May I know whether the Ministry of Education is satisfied whether the students who have completed their 10 years of basic education have had a basic knowledge of basic values like humility, loyalty, patriotism, compassion, respect for others, and filial piety? These are some of the values which would make Singapore a gracious society which the hon. Member of Jalan Besar GRC, Ms Denise Phua, has mentioned, too. Since it is not an examinable subject, how does MOE assess the efficacy of what the schools have taught? Here I wish to stress that I am not asking for these subjects to become examinable.

The National Education programme was launched in September 1996. Since then, 10 years have passed. May I know whether the Ministry has assessed the success of the National Education programme? Is the Ministry satisfied with the level of involvement for the six key messages that the National Education programme seeks to promote?

I also understand that the school principals are reluctant to take on students who are perceived to be weak academically, as these students may pull down their ranking in the schools' assessment. If this is true, I would like to ask the Minister whether the mission of our schools is to educate the students to be super-achievers or is it to help build and develop the character and value of each and every student.

Co-curricular Activities

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Sir, I applaud MOE's move to give schools better facilities to help them organise sports and games with greater flexibility. Schools should, therefore, be able to provide more opportunities for students to take up CCAs for which they have an interest but may not necessarily excel in.

Sir, in this regard, I would like to ask the Minister what is the percentage of CCAs for all schools which are not subject to audition or selection trials and which students can join purely out of interest without any pressure to participate in competitions. As CCA is primarily for character development and physical well-being, students ought not to be demoralised by being required to go for audition after audition just to find a CCA to participate in and which may not be what he or she is interested in. I understand that this is still happening in a number of schools.

Another point I would like to highlight is the announcement by MOE that it will be building indoor sports halls and synthetic fields to guard against inclement weather. I read the letter with some amazement and dismay. I hope that MOE would only do this sparingly as we certainly do not want to nurture a generation of our young who are unaccustomed to what the real thing, real grass looks, smells and feels like and are averse to the sun and rain. It is analogous to asking some children to draw a chicken and the result is a headless naked fowl without feathers because this is what they see at the supermarket.

Already, because of the Internet, many of our children are spending far too much time cooped up indoors with their computers. We certainly do want them to have more fresh air and sunshine. While I appreciate the Government's objective to provide the best educational environment for our students in schools, we must always be careful not to go overboard in our zealousness and deprive them of a see-smell-and-touch experience, as well as helping them to become resilient and rugged individuals ready for life in a tough competitive world.

The Chairman: Your time is up, Dr Khor. Mr Hri Kumar. Take your two cuts together. Total six minutes.

Student Leadership Training

Parents' Role in Education

Mr Hri Kumar (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Sir, I would like to ask whether the extent to which the Ministry emphasises and facilitates the role parents play in the education of their children. When I went to school, the extent of my parents' involvement in my education was largely confined to reminding me to study and the two times a year when I had to show my report card to them. And if there was any red ink in my book, then involvement took a more painful dimension.

Studies show that when parents are more actively involved in the child's education, the child is more likely to earn better grades, be more motivated in school, do their homework, have better self-esteem, and demonstrate fewer behavioural problems, in other words, a better all-round student and person. Countries around the world place great emphasis on parental involvement in their children's education. The Scandinavian countries, for example, take the matter very seriously. For example, in Finland, parents participate in setting their children's school curriculum. In Iceland, every compulsory school must have a parents' council made up of three representatives for parents. In Denmark, parents sit on policy-making committees at local and national levels. Perhaps, it is no coincidence that Scandinavian countries enjoy the highest literacy rates in the world. Other countries are also starting to look into this matter seriously.

In Singapore, we have come some way since Members of this House last went to school. Schools now have parent-teacher meetings to update parents on their child's performance. Teachers give out their email addresses and even mobile numbers so that parents can reach them directly. But I would like to offer some observations.

Based on my conversations with teachers in different schools, it would appear that the practice between schools varies. Some have parent-teacher meetings regularly, some only once a year. The impression one gets is that the better schools in Singapore probably place greater emphasis on and enjoy greater participation from parents.

1.45 pm

Second, the involvement is generally limited to informing parents of their child's performance and little else. Here again, the better schools have more detailed programmes, including involving parents in farm trips and projects. Most importantly, the programme favours parents who take an active interest in the child's education. That is usually the case that the children most at-risk are those whose parents do not take an interest. For example, I understand that attendance of parent-teacher conferences varies from school to school, with some being quite poor. In some cases, there is no or little follow-up if parents fail to attend meetings with teachers. Teachers do make the effort to visit the parents of kids who miss school regularly, but truancy is not the indicator of this.

Sir, I know that there is great pressure on our teachers and principals, but I wonder if this aspect of a child's development should not be given more emphasis. During the debate on the President's Address, I spoke of a growing indifference of our youth. I believe that this indifference takes root at home with an ever-growing disconnect between the parent and child. How can we expect our youth to feel connected to their country and community if they do not feel connected to their family? Anecdotal evidence also suggests that children who do poorly and/or drop out of school usually have poor family relationships. The sooner such children are identified, the quicker we can help them.

It may seem that I am asking for much, but over and above, improving the child's academic performance, I think that schools can help bridge the connection between parents and child by having more comprehensive parent-child projects and programmes and getting parents to take greater ownership of the child's education. While principals and teachers should be given the flexibility to develop and manage their own programmes, I would like to ask the Ministry if some minimal standards should be set in our schools and whether assistance can be given to lower performing schools to help them bridge the gap.

Student Leadership Training

Sir, the second aspect, I would like to touch on leadership training in our schools. I would like to ask the Ministry if our schools are doing enough to develop leadership and decision-making skills in our students. Our schools are the ideal place for our young to learn lifeskills, take on responsibilities, such as leading their peers and develop their EQ. As the Minister earlier said, give them the opportunity to kickstart new ideas. But more importantly, this is the time when they can most afford to make mistakes. We have prefects, monitors, student counsellors, but I think our students can be challenged more. I would like to see our students have a greater say in actually running the school. This could include a number of things, for example, their involvement in drafting the school rules. This could be done with inputs from the elected representatives from each class. It involves school debates, and therefore, be an introduction to law and policy-making. I spoke to a college student last night who told me that in their school, they conduct "mock" parliamentary debates. What on? On constitutional issues. So there is really no connect between what they are going through and what they are debating on and, ultimately, the "mock" parliamentary debate just becomes any other debate. So there is no real life context for them.

Second, they should be given the power to deal with disciplinary matters including deciding on punishment for their peers. And a third suggestion is for them to run their CCAs with minimal involvement from their teachers-in-charge. These are all just suggestions.

Again, based on anecdotal evidence, the practice is not consistent between schools and some schools still employ a very top-down approach. Again, without taking away flexibility from principals and administrators, I would like the Ministry to consider setting some guidelines or best practices for schools to develop leadership in schools.

Teaching Money Management

Mr Michael Palmer (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Sir, this being a debate on our Budget, it is appropriate that I raise for consideration, the issue of teaching financial management in schools.

The whole thrust of the Budget, and especially the Workfare scheme, is aimed at making as many Singaporeans as possible, completely financially self-sufficient and able to provide for themselves during their working life and into their retirement. This drive towards self-sufficiency is part of our holistic effort to help Singaporeans from all segments of society deal with the challenges of globalisation. The Budget measures are from a long-term perspective aimed in part at raising our level of education and skill and, hence, on employability. This, we hope, will ultimately translate into higher paying jobs down the road.

Yet, no matter how much our salary increases, we might not be able to ensure that we have financial freedom and self-sufficiency unless we know how to manage our finances. The truth is, Singaporeans generally have an upgrade mentality. A bigger pay cheque often means that your expectations are higher - you want a better car, better house, nicer holidays, more material possessions and your expenses go up along with your increased salary. Thus, no matter which income bracket you fall into, you might find yourself hard hit when there is an economic downturn or a financial crisis.

Currently, in our schools, apart from the academic subjects, our children learn certain practical lifeskills such as Home Economics and technical skills. These form part of their compulsory curriculum. Learning to manage one's finances is no less crucial lifeskills - teach them how to create a budget, how to balance their earnings and expenses and live within their means. Beyond learning the basics about the importance of saving, are our children taught about debt and how to manage debt? Our children ought to be armed with basic knowledge about the mechanics of loans and the effect of interest rates and compound interest. The significance of this becomes clear when we consider the fact that in Singapore, most working adults will eventually end up with at least a housing loan. Some will also have car loans or credit lines and credit cards. Are our young people aware of the dangers of being too highly geared or over-stretching themselves? Are our students taught how to avoid getting trapped in a downward debt spiral? For example, do they understand the impact of rolling over debt?

In school, a typical lesson about the importance of savings might include something about the wonder of compound interest in helping to increase one's savings. But equally, we need to teach them that the magic of compound interest also works the opposite way against them, for instance, when it comes to credit card debt. Teach them that while a housing loan may be necessary, to live on borrowed money for non-essential things may allow them some transient pleasures, but would shackle them in the long run. Ideally, parents should be teaching these lessons to their children, but I believe many do not. Many people may equate money management skill with commonsense or assume that it would automatically come with a certain level of education. Yet, the sheer number of well-educated young adults who find themselves mired in debt despite having stable jobs and good incomes, would refute this assumption. Many do not realise that after a certain point in the debt spiral, you are working for the bank and not for yourself.

Let us aim even higher. By the time our students reach secondary school, should they not be taught the basics of how to invest and grow their money? Teach them what constitute risky, moderate and safe investments. Could the Minister update us on this?

The Minister of State for Education (RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew): Mr Chairman, I want to thank Members for their comments and questions. They have spoken with deep conviction as ought to be the case whenever we have a debate on education in this House, because educating our young well is of utmost importance in preparing Singaporeans and Singapore well for the future. They have expressed views and suggestions on a broad number of topics covering different aspects of education, the embraced dimensions which I agree to be important and consider that as part of holistic education and I would attempt with them in my reply.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan made a point on National Education and I would like to defer that to my second reply. Mr Alvin Yeo talked about class sizes. I would like to defer that to the third reply.

Many consider academic achievement as the key outcome of education. Holistic education takes us beyond this preoccupation with academics to include character education and skills development, both hard and soft skills, to help our young meet the challenges of the future. In the academic area, the robust curriculum, capable and motivated teachers, students who aim high, the rigorous and transparent assessment system are among the key features of a system that is well-regarded by many, all over the world. Strength of character makes a difference in how we respond to trials and tribulations and in how well we ride out the storms of life that buffet us, while values, like respect and care for others, add value to who we are and what we do. Hard skills position us well for employment. Soft skills, like how we can better communicate ideas or connect with a broad spectrum of people, the ability to persuade and motivate those we work with, will give Singaporeans the edge when they are thrust into positions of leadership at home and abroad. Making sure that we achieve the right balance between these three aspects, the academics, character and skills, is an on-going effort and no easy task.

Holistic education has been at the heart of our education philosophy and is encapsulated and articulated in the desired outcomes for education. In recent years, we have been making gradual shifts to move people away from too narrow a definition of success, defined mainly in academic terms. We have given greater recognition to achievements in other fields. There is now a more flexible admission system into secondary schools, JCs, polytechnic and universities. Through the Direct School Admission, we give schools greater flexibility to select students based on their own merit-based criteria and we give recognition to students with special skills and talents aside from academic qualifications.

Schools are also developing niches of excellence to cater for a wide range of diverse talents, including areas such as the arts, sports, character and leadership development. Similarly, the setting up of the Sports School and the upcoming Arts School allow students additional possibilities to find a new equilibrium between academic and non-academic excellence. The holistic report card which we have introduced to schools will also give greater recognition to the all-round development of a child.

We have also refined aspects of the system which tended to throw the spotlight primarily on academic performance. We have blurred the precision of the school ranking system and replaced it with school banding, recognising that there is little benefit to compare schools based on minute differences in academic performance.

Another change has been to find ways to give a broader picture of the overall performance for schools. Achievement tables now reflect the performance in aesthetics, sports and physical health, character development, staff development and in academic value-added. All these changes give a more comprehensive depiction of a school and what it is doing to bring up the best in every child.

Let me touch on Mr Lim Biow Chuan's comment on stress. We have broadened our measures of success and we are less examination-focused compared to other East Asian countries and India. But our education system, and indeed, our society, is nonetheless competitive and achievement oriented. Our students work very hard and schools strive to ensure that students do their best. This strong work ethic and the robust foundation that results from their hard work are important attributes that help them progress in life.

In contrast, the system which allows students to just coast along in the hope that they will discover their strengths and talents without subjecting them to the rigour and discipline of competitive examinations have done badly for their own children. And indeed, Mr Alvin Yeo has reminded us of the dangers of moving in this direction. This is especially so, and especially difficult, for those who come from less advantaged backgrounds who only have the school to help them level out.

Some stress is not a bad thing as our young learn to handle challenges, cope with pressure and develop resilience. But we have to find the right balance. Both schools and parents must work together on this. We want the best for our children, but yet, we must be mindful not to push them beyond their limits and give them outlets to express frustrations and worries. Teachers are taught to look out for students who exhibit signs of undue stress and all schools will have at least one full-time counsellor by 2008.

Mr Lim also asked about "teach less, learn more". This initiative is really about teaching better and not doing less on the part of the curriculum. Indeed, we have taken a review of the curriculum. We have trimmed the syllabus and the content that is required, both for teachers to teach as well as for our students to learn. But, at the end of it all, the whole initiative is about teaching better and sometimes, it means doing more, particularly by the teachers - more thought put into lesson preparation, more creative and inspired delivery, and certainly, better connection with students.

2.00 pm

Moving on to character development, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Ms Denise Phua gave some very pointed comments and asked if we are giving this sufficient priority in our schools. Over the years, we have placed even more emphasis on this aspect.

We have the Character Development Award introduced in 2006 as the framework to give further recognition and encouragement to schools that have made consistent and effective efforts in this area. To date, 87 schools have obtained the Character Development Award. These schools were recognised for their effective strategies to integrate character education into their total school culture. For example, in Gongshang Primary, pupils reflect on and give feedback about discipline in the school. Parent volunteers reach out to other parents through workshops and talks, as part of the "Values for Life" Programme. In fact, all parents are involved in assessing their children's behaviour and attitudes at home. Emphasis is placed on role modelling, as the school believes that values are caught, not taught.

The example of Gongshang Primary illustrates the importance of family and community support in sharing the effort to impart values and shape young lives, points that were also alluded to by Mr Chan Soo Sen and Mr Hri Kumar. Some schools have also meaningfully targeted fathers in their outreach and involvement. ACS (Junior) conducts an annual "Father and Son" camp, while in Montfort Junior, the fathers join their sons in an Amazing Race to deliver groceries to the needy.

Other than the Character Development Award Framework, MOE provides the structure and resources for character development through the Civics and Moral Education (CME) Programme, which is allocated between 2-3 periods per week in all primary and secondary schools. As Mr Lim had pointed out, we are mindful that some schools may be tempted to use some of these periods for other purposes instead, just like some may choose to use Physical Education for other purposes, and this is something that we are paying close attention to.

The CME syllabuses provide a comprehensive coverage of six core values, namely, respect, responsibility, resilience, integrity, care and harmony. The syllabus also covers sexuality education, building healthy relationships with members of the opposite sex, marriage and parenting, although I do not think it goes to the extent that has been suggested by Mr Chan.

But it is outside the classroom environment and the classroom that sometimes these values are best internalised, and virtues such as humility, loyalty, compassion and filial piety are most meaningfully practised and understood. So we encourage more of our schools to have such ventures outside of the school, and I will be speaking on National Education a little bit later on.

CCAs also play an important part in character building. Uniformed groups, clubs and societies provide varied opportunities to develop skills and qualities of leadership and enterprise. Rugged activities like adventure camps, expeditions and sports are especially relevant. Team spirit, a sense of adventure and self-confidence are some of the qualities we hope to see in our young through their involvement in these pursuits.

Let me assure Dr Amy Khor that, despite artificial turf in our schools, there are ample opportunities for our children to be out in nature, and to be in touch with the real ground. If I may just say, artificial turf allows our school fields to be used under all conditions. Rather than shielding from the actual environment, it actually allows students more time to be out in the open, and this is complemented by the Indoor Sports Hall, which I will touch a little bit on this later on.

We want to see our children actively involved in rugged activities because of the benefits that they bring. Let me cite an example. During the December holidays last year, a team of eight boys and four teachers from Loyang Secondary braved sub-zero temperatures, tough terrain, rugged living conditions and made it to an Everest Base Camp, 5,400m above sea level. It was a tough and toughening experience. One of the students, Thiagu Somashoordaram said, "The trek gave us inspiration and confidence because we achieved something we thought was impossible." No doubt a watershed experience for Thiagu and seven others and one which strengthened their bonds, self worth and self belief.

I agree with Dr Amy Khor's point that CCAs should go beyond competitions, and nurture students as the primary objective. Hence, we have given more resources to the schools so that they can bring in additional support, run more CCA programmes that students can participate without being concerned whether they are selected for the school team and whether they are good enough to take part in competitions. This is just to give them the opportunities and the avenues to take part in more activities.

But competitions can do a lot to instil discipline, resilience and give a sense of purpose and accomplishment for individuals and teams, especially those whose talents may not be in the academic fields. They are also good opportunities to build team work and strong friendships. But we must be mindful that we do not fall into the trap of participating and winning competitions as an end in itself.

CCAs help develop champions. The heart of a champion is an important attribute and perhaps one of those most indefinable of qualities. He has that rare combination of fighting spirit and tenacity in abundance. He needs physical and mental resilience; the willingness to accept challenges as the norm and the self belief to challenge the norms. He is generous in victory, gracious in defeat. Not every victor is a champion nor is every champion a victor. We are accustomed to thinking that the opposite of losing is winning - in CCAs, in life, in our workplace.

But I want to say that the opposite of losing is also finding. There are some things we find out when we lose - more about ourselves and what we are made of, the strength and cohesiveness of the team, the loyalty of supporters and friends. And these are valuable lessons that we need to learn.

More flexibility and choice of CCA - continuing this subject which Dr Amy Khor has asked for - it is important to give our students a greater ownership of their school experience and allows them to pursue their interests. Based on data from schools, about 75% of their Secondary One students are given CCAs of their first choice. 63% of schools also allow students to participate in CCAs that are not offered by the schools such as weightlifting, windsurfing, archery, fencing, equestrian and tenpin bowling. We went one step further in 2004, by allowing students to initiate activities that they were passionate about. Since then, more than half the secondary schools have Student Initiated Activities, like soccer for girls, video gaming, hip hop dancing which, for some strange reason, has certainly risen to the top of the chart this year, lion dance, jamming and gym fiesta. Fifty-eight of such activities have evolved into formal school CCAs. The provision of the indoor sports hall in schools will actually allow a wider range of CCAs and more students to be involved.

Besides CCAs, I come back to CIP and other student-related projects. These expose students to real life situations at home and abroad - the needs of the under-privileged, the loneliness of those at the fringes of society, the plight of those who are less unfortunate. CIP and such student-related projects to reach out to society allows them to be proactive in contributing to and improving their community. They learn what it takes to serve as they lead, and to lead as they serve. As suggested by Mr Hri Kumar, schools have started to include students in decision-making to varying degrees depending on their readiness and maturity. This is certainly more prevalent in the Junior Colleges and tertiary institutions, but it is also taking root in the secondary and primary schools.

Let me give an example of what happened in Sengkang Primary. In Sengkang Primary, they have tweaked the curriculum such that there is PE every day, unlike once or twice in almost all other primary schools. It happens every day because the students gave feedback to the principal and the teachers that this was something that they felt was really most crucial for them, that they wanted to be out there to play, build team work, and also to enjoy themselves. So the principal took this into account in designing the curriculum which has been implemented.

At Cedar Girls' School, suggestions from the student body are discussed at assemblies regularly. The school management explains the rationale for why certain suggestions are turned down, and they recognise students whose suggestions are implemented. All this contributes to a school culture which is empowering and supports student leadership and initiative. And we would like to find ways to give students more opportunities where they can take the lead, make decisions and be responsible for the outcomes and consequences of their actions.

I should add a few words about Social and Emotional Learning, what is known as SEL, which strives to develop qualities in the personal and social domain and which augments the Character Development Programme. Students need competencies for effective living. The SEL framework, which was recently rolled out to schools, make learning about responsible decision-making, self-awareness, social awareness, self management and relationship management, an integral part of the school curriculum from primary school all the way to Junior College.

Mr Michael Palmer talked about the importance of money management. This is relevant as financial prudence and financial acumen are essential life skills. Mindful that we already have a demanding curriculum, we have sought ways to impart financial literacy by embedding it in Social Studies and CME lessons since 2004.

MOE has also worked with external organisations to deliver the MoneySENSE programme to schools. As of January 2007, a financial literacy education performance "SAVING - the Sensible Habit" has been made available to all primary schools. Secondary schools and polytechnics have conducted financial literacy workshops, competitions, talks and other enrichment activities for their students. So I believe that this topic is receiving the attention it deserves in our educational institutions.

Mr Chairman, let me conclude. Our education system is built on strong foundations. We are especially strong in the academics. Going forward, those aspects of education, like character, values and soft skills, which are more difficult to measure and which academic qualifications alone cannot fully capture, will continue to be emphasised as MOE is committed to developing the whole child. In so doing, we will need the cooperation and whole-hearted support of parents, society and the entire community.

National Education

Dr Lily Neo: Sir, National Education should be prioritised in order to strengthen the sense of belonging or the rootedness of Singaporeans to Singapore. This is even more relevant in today's globalised world where more and more Singaporeans will live away from home either for business or for work. Therefore, could MOE enhance National Education in schools? Could there be more emphasis given to the area of rootedness or the sense of belonging of Singaporeans to Singapore? Could MOE also ensure that National Education, as a subject, is engaging and interesting to students? Could MOE ensure that National Education is implemented evenly in all our schools?

Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim (Marine Parade): Sir, I would like to applaud the Ministry of Education's effort in promoting National Education among the young, as I truly believe that it is an important process in nation building. I am happy to note that the Ministry has taken steps to review it since August 2006. However, as reported in the media, Channel NewsAsia, on 17th January this year, a Singapore Polytechnic survey of 800 youths aged between 15 and 29 years old found that, despite having gone through National Education in school, 37% of Singaporean youth feel that they are not patriotic to the nation, and more than half would want to migrate overseas if given a chance. I would like to ask the Minister on the measures that the Ministry has in place to address these issues. Is there a national study conducted by the Ministry on the level of patriotism among our young?

Sir, recently, I had the opportunity to conduct a session on youth involvement in community service and politics with more than 60 students. In the session, all the youths were given air time to share their views and experiences regarding their involvement and experiences

in community service and politics.

2.15 pm

I received consistent feedback from the majority of the students that there needs to be more effort to get students to internalise the learning points from the Ministry of Education community involvement programme. They shared with me all the different tricks they did to quickly complete their CIP tasks. These includes the famous coin changing trick where students would go to the bank to withdraw coins from their accounts, some in denomination of one cent to be inserted into the tin to complete their duty in the fund-raising effort as part of their CIP requirements. In fact, one of them mentioned to me that he used the time saved to watch a movie.

The students also feed back that they could not appreciate the objectives or purpose of the community service activities that they participated in. Nevertheless, few of the students shared their invaluable experiences in the CIP, particularly those who were exposed to the suffering of others. There seems to be some inconsistency in the DVD of learning points experienced by these students.

I am pleased however to share that one of the schools in my constituency, Bedok Town Secondary School, has recently reviewed its CIP to enhance efforts to facilitate students' learning and enrich their CIP experiences. I am privileged to be able to work with them in two of their new projects, namely, "Bringing total defence to the community" and "We care!" at Kaki Bukit.

During both events I had a conversation session with the students after the programme. They candidly shared with me their learning experiences. One of the students, Ms Juliet Tan Shee Ling, a Secondary Three student, related her learning points from the programme as follows:-

"We have learnt to express love and care through different methods and this is one of them. After seeing there with the residents' smiles on their faces, I realised that all our hard work was indeed worthwhile. We want to be loved and do not expect anything in return."

Another student, Ms Saranjit Kaur mentioned the following:-

"I've learnt that there are people in worse conditions compared to me. I feel that they need help, such as more health benefits and better housing."

May I ask the Ministry on its plan to ensure that our students internalise the learning points of the CIP. How does the Ministry ensure that each school achieves the desired outcome of the CIP?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, national education is the focus of our efforts to ensure that our young grow up with an understanding of the constraints that Singapore overcame in its attainment of nationhood, as well as the challenges it now faces as a nation. It also builds a sense of shared history and destiny to root our young. This is especially important as Singaporeans become more mobile and display a higher propensity to study, live and work abroad and, in the face of increasing immigration, that could strain our social cohesion. It plays a crucial role in helping the children of our immigrants better integrate into the community, and helping our own children accept these immigrants into their world. Therefore, its role is vital to the future we are trying to build.

But from the perspective of the students, National Education, which at secondary schools is currently taught under the subject "Social Studies", is perceived as dry and uninteresting, often studied merely because it is one of the compulsory subjects whose grades count for entry into junior college.

As National Education is a compulsory subject required for entry into junior college, the teaching focus is on examination techniques and not on whether the students really truly appreciate the significance of the topics being taught.

Sir, I would like to ask the Ministry to look into how National Education can be made to come alive and more enjoyable. In fact, I feel that our National Education syllabus, in typical Singaporean kiasu style, is simply too ambitious. The subjects covered are too diverse, historically, geographically and thematically - from macro issues such as the birth of Singapore, Japan's industrial development and a case study of Switzerland, to the micro issues such as health and education services in Singapore, to what makes good governance in Singapore and even a chapter on the rise and fall of Venice!

I know all these because I have to tutor my kids. I think this is really against MOE's very own "Teach less, learn more" spirit. It would be far better to trim down the syllabus to the essentials and to what students can more easily relate to, such as the challenges that Singapore currently confronts. This would allow more in-depth study of the topics from different perspectives and alternative viewpoints. This will avoid students' perceptions that a particular view is being shoved down their throats and, hence, their conclusion that National Education is propaganda.

Sir, hands-on practical learning can add interest to the subject, as educationists would confirm. Perhaps, teachers who teach National Education should be trained in generating a creative learning environment. They could, if they are not doing it already, use a variety of teaching methods - project work, group assignments, policy simulation exercise, mock Parliament, community projects and so on. Schools could work more closely with the community organisations to identify projects that students can meaningfully engage in, as part of their National Education curriculum.

Central to this is also the issue of whether the National Education teachers are themselves convinced of the value of what they do and the substance of what they teach, without regarding the subject matter as propaganda. If they do, instead of being ambassadors and evangelists of the message to the students, their scepticism will rub off onto the students and it will be a great setback for the entire National Education policy.

I, therefore, urge the Ministry to study this issue carefully in relation to National Education teacher selection and training as well as what is taught in National Education and how it is being taught.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo (West Coast): Sir, National Education plays a critical role in moulding our young to become active, responsible citizens of the future. Has National Education achieved its lofty goal? How is MOE measuring the success of the National Education curriculum? If we assess our students on other subjects through examinations, how do we assess them on National Education? Are these measures adequate?

Sir, our national challenges today and in the future can be most daunting. We have to prepare our people to face the forces of globalisation, manage an ageing population, show care and compassion for those less fortunate than us, live with increasing foreigners in our midst as well as culture and nurture a mindset for emergency preparedness. I would like to ask MOE whether they will be considering incorporating into the National Education curriculum a subject on nursing and care and first-aid for female students and also a subject on living with foreigners in our midst. Sir, these subjects could perhaps be brought alive through community bonding programmes as well as mass drills.

Student Integration

Dr Lily Neo: Sir, Singapore is trying to attract more foreign talents to increase its population. Those foreign students in our schools may be the children of new immigrants. Could MOE design schemes to enable the better integration of these children into our society for better harmony from an early age?

Many of our foreign students in schools are good candidates for foreign talents here, especially those that are in universities. It will be helpful to provide some avenues to look into their social needs and to engage them with opportunities to integrate with locals. Can we be gracious hosts to foreign students in order to persuade some of them to settle down in Singapore after their graduation? In the very least, these will go a long a way in leaving them with good impressions for them to serve as our goodwill ambassadors back home.

RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew: Mr Chairman, as we prepare our students for a future of opportunity, we are also mindful that we need to work on strengthening their heartware and emotional rootedness to Singapore so that they will continue to regard this place as home, and will be committed to contributing towards making this a better home for future generations.

Let me thank Dr Lily Neo, Dr Faishal, Dr Amy Khor and Mdm Ho Geok Choo for their interest in and questions on how National Education (NE) will be enhanced. Dr Faishal asked how we can deepen the sense of rootedness in our young to Singapore - their patriotism. Dr Amy Khor had questions on the teaching of NE, the syllabus, making NE come alive, the relevance of teacher training. These are aspects which the review of NE has covered and which I will touch on in my reply.

When NE was introduced in 1997, the objectives of National Education then were to develop national cohesion, the instincts for survival and confidence in our future. The concern was that our younger generation, who had not gone through the struggles of nation-building, would not appreciate or value what it was that we have in Singapore and how it was painfully wrought by the efforts of so many over the years.

We infused NE in various subjects, particularly Civics and Moral Education, and introduced Social Studies. Through these, we sought to develop a greater understanding of and appreciation for Singapore' s challenges and achievements, heritage and way of life. We also introduced some common NE experiences for all students, through the Community Involvement Programme (or CIP), Learning Journeys and the commemoration of four core events, such as the Total Defence Day or the Racial Harmony Day, to help them internalise important values.

Over the past decade, some key events have shocked us out of our comfort zone. The Asian economic crisis, the September 11 attack on the World Trade Centre and our own subsequent concerns over domestic and regional terrorism, and SARs come prominently to mind. We were tested and we stayed united and cohesive; we responded decisively and we emerged stronger. We must imbue in successive generations these same instinctive responses to crises. Our young will need to be resilient, have a robust sense of nationhood and the determination to stay united as one people.

Over the past 10 years, we have had more opportunities for more Singaporeans to study, work and live abroad. We expect this trend to continue, going forward. So, it is vital that as we prepare our young well with the skills and confidence to engage in a globalised world, we also grow their emotional attachment to Singapore, so that they continue to regard this place as home no matter how far they journey and how long they are away. It is in this context that prompted PM Lee to speak about developing "heartware and rootedness" in his National Day Rally last year and which is also the reason why there must be greater emphasis on 'emotional rootedness' as an NE objective.

The Committee on National Education was set up in August last year to look into how we can enhance NE in our schools and post-secondary educational institutes (or PSEIs). The Committee was asked to look into how we can better engage our young and encourage them to shape the character and life of our society. We were mindful that the objective was not to do more NE but to make it felt more.

We consulted a wide range of stakeholders - students, school and PSEI leaders, teachers, parents and community groups - close to 1,200 people in all. We asked them to share with us what worked and what did not work. Let me briefly share some of our findings.

Our educational leaders, teachers, parents, students and organisations agree that NE is important and the core programmes are sound. They understand the context and necessity of NE. Over the years, these programmes have created better awareness among students of the key messages and some appreciation of the attributes that make Singapore special as a country. Students, especially those older, would like to be engaged in thinking through national issues through open and candid discussions and be empowered to give back to the community in their own meaningful ways.

Feedback also shows that implementation of NE programmes has been uneven, resulting in differing student experiences. Students shared that while they enjoyed NE at primary school, they become somewhat sceptical of NE at the secondary school level and beyond. A good number found Social Studies, which they equated most with NE, as burdensome, boring or, worse, relegated it to 'propaganda'. This affirms the comments that Dr Amy Khor had made, calling it 'dry' and 'uninteresting', which was, I think, somewhat kinder and milder. A small minority felt that CIP was more about meeting the required number of hours than about helping others. But I would stress that this was only a minority.

But where the approach has been holistic, where school leaders have thoughtfully structured programmes, where teachers have skilfully and openly engaged students, NE was well received. For these students, Learning Journeys and Social Studies opened their minds and caused them to re-examine their assumptions and deepen their understanding of the challenges we face, while CIP, they felt, empowered them to care for others and caused them to reflect on how their efforts can make a significant

difference.

2.30 pm

Based on the feedback also, one of the conclusions the Committee made is that the present articulation of "love, know and lead Singapore" as the respective NE outcomes for the primary, secondary, and post-secondary levels may have unwittingly led to an over-emphasis on one particular outcome at each stage to the exclusion of others. So, as students progressed from 'love' in primary school to 'know' in secondary school, the intellectual component took precedence.

As students grow, we have to engage their minds in ways that do not lose touch with their hearts. For us in the Committee, our realisation is that for some of the older students, NE has engaged the mind sufficiently but has not warmed the heart adequately. I note the feedback that has been given that we need to do more and we recognise the need to be done to touch the heart. They are but 12 inches apart and yet the most challenging terrain to navigate and the longest distance to traverse may be that which separates the head from the heart, even though they are really only 12 inches apart. So we are mindful that, going forward, we must do more, not so much for the intellectual component but to find ways to engage them so that they feel deeply about the country, about the community and about ways in which they can contribute and give back to society. So we are in agreement that this aspect deserves more attention.

Going forward, our refinements seek to give greater focus on emotional rootedness as an objective of NE. We need to refine, and not increase, our NE programmes; we have to customise them to suit our students' age, interests and inclinations. As always, we believe that the educator is the fulcrum on which our efforts and outcomes rest.

To guide us in the next phase of NE, the Committee recommends the "Head, Heart and Hands" framework. You will find a copy of the framework among your handouts. It looks something like this. [ Indicating ]. This framework essentially builds on the current desired outcomes of "Love, Know and Lead Singapore" but stresses that there is a continuum in the engagement of Head, Heart and Hands across different educational levels, building on the affections formed and knowledge imparted at each of the earlier stages.

In addition, the new framework expands on the outcomes of "Love, Know and Lead Singapore". If I may draw your attention to the words which describe "Head, Heart and Hands", you will see the words Love, Appreciate and Belong describe the concept of 'Heart', Know, Think and Understand describe the concept of 'Head' and, Contribute, Create and Lead the concept of 'Hands'.

These expanded outcomes are important to capture the essence of what it means to engage Head, Heart and Hands. In engaging the "Head", we want students to be actively involved in their own learning; we want them not only to know the facts but to think through issues and arrive at a deeper understanding of the challenges facing Singapore and what it means to be Singaporean. In engaging the "Heart", we want students to connect emotionally with the Singapore story; we want them to love, appreciate and feel a deeper sense of belonging to this place we call home. In engaging the "Hands", we want students to give back to society and to do their part to contribute to and create Singapore’s future and, where possible, to lead in different fields of society.

The middle ring in the framework articulates the principles that underline all these recommendations - and they are ownership by all, quality and a customised approach for students. Let me give an example. A customised approach is such that as students progress from primary to secondary level, they should advance from just knowing about the basic facts about our nation's history to understanding how Singapore is evolving in the present and the current challenges confronting us, something that Members had also brought up. But as they moved beyond secondary into the post-secondary levels, into tertiary institutions, it is worthwhile also for them to ponder the possible future for Singapore and the trade-offs that we need to make in each of them. Mr Khaw Boon Wan talked about health and the different balances that we need to make, and these are issues that we need to do, going forward, for our students, for our young to think about them that if you want more support for those who are elderly, for the lower income, how are we going to make sure that we are able to do that and yet have a viable economy for Singapore that will ensure that we remain competitive. So there are trade-offs, there are dilemmas that we have to allow our students to ponder, confront and to think about so that they can arrive at their reasoned conclusions as to the future they want for Singapore.

The outermost ring, in the case of the three main stakeholders in the NE effort, again, we will need the commitment and contributions of students, educators and the community for NE to succeed.

The Committee has made 16 recommendations grouped under three key thrusts, addressing educators, students and the community, and then we highlight some of the recommendations.

The first thrust is Equipping and Enabling our Educators. Our teachers and education leaders are vital because they directly determine the quality of NE our students receive and influence their values and attitudes. Emphasis must be given to deepen our educators' own convictions and ownership of NE and equip them with the skills, knowledge and resources to make the subject more engaging, again, a point that has been raised by several Members, and we acknowledge that this is important.

So MOE and NIE will together enhance teachers' knowledge and skills through professional development, starting from pre-service training. We will help them develop the art of storytelling to bring lessons to life and the art of facilitating discussions on current issues. Dr Amy Khor raised the point on the relevance of teacher training and we agree on its importance. We need to also help them access a richer variety of resources. To this end, the Committee has recommended that MOE create a one-stop online repository as part of the effort to develop and provide access to quality NE resources. And this is an online repository where all our educators will be encouraged to contribute their ideas, lessons and things that have worked for them so that we build up this database which is accessible by all our educators. To facilitate classroom discussion on current affairs at home and around the world, MOE will develop timely resource packages with think-tanks, news and Government agencies. In such discussions, we hope to emphasise that NE is relevant and develop students' interest in the world beyond the classroom.

Collaboration, innovation and sharing can unlock great potential in the teaching community. There are many good ideas and practices on the ground about how to make NE more effective. Across schools, there is great scope for sharing lessons and collaborating on new and better ways to deliver NE to their students. Within schools, principals work with their teachers to foster the right school environment for new ideas to flourish. At Bendemeer Secondary School, all students who receive their NRICs go through a simple but meaningful ceremony to highlight the significance and responsibilities of being full-fledged Singapore citizens. This was actually an idea that was thrown up by a member of the staff and which the principal enthusiastically took up and implemented school wide.

The second key thrust is to engage and empower students to make NE "come alive for our young", to use Dr Amy Khor's words, and give them a greater sense of ownership and responsibility for the future of Singapore.

One of the recommendations involves reviewing Social Studies. Done well, this subject is useful for students to explore differing perspectives on issues which we face and come to their own reasoned conclusions under the guidance of their teachers. We note students’ feedback and also Members' comments that Social Studies are sometimes too focused on the examinations. So MOE will review the Social Studies curriculum to look into how it can be better taught and assessed as part of the regular syllabus review cycle.

Another recommendation is for schools to provide more opportunities for greater student action. Students consulted shared that they would like a greater say in what they do and how they can best contribute. MOE will work with schools to make student-initiated CIP more pervasive at the secondary levels, as it presently is at the post-secondary levels. We have actually, in response to Ms Denise Phua's earlier point, removed the number of hours that students in post-secondary institutions have to perform for CIP. We found quite encouraging responses. As a result, a vast majority of them, well above three-quarters, have actually continued with CIP. They do so when they find it especially meaningful, and what they do makes a difference. We have no plans at this moment to increase the number of hours in secondary schools beyond the present six at the moment. But we are mindful that we need to find ways to make it more interesting and meaningful and we want to do so by spending more time actually on the pre- and post-CIP activities - pre-activity to help them understand the purpose of what it is that they do, and post-activity, so that they will be able to follow up and continue and find that it really leads to some real difference.

I note the point from Dr Faishal about students who - I do not think they use 1-cent coin because that is not in circulation anymore but I know what he means - have been stuffing the cans, so to speak, in order to spend time doing something else. I have seen that taking place myself, and I had asked them what they did. And they did not understand the significance of what it was and why they were doing it, standing at the corner of the streets, trying to collect money for a cause they knew nothing about. I think it is important for them to understand that there are certain benefits of doing something like this, even a simple action like this of spending a few hours, standing there, trying to convince people to give some money to a good cause. It is for the students, I think, a humbling experience. And we need to continue post-activity of just collecting the coins to bring them to see how recipients can directly benefit from their efforts. I think if we spend more time doing that, it will make a difference in the attitudes that our people have with regard to some of these activities. So we will give this greater emphasis going forward.

Besides CIP, student action is also about shaping school life. We had talked about what happened at Sengkang and Cedar Girls. Let me share also about Pasir Ris Secondary. The Student Council embarked on the Blue Ribbon Project, which aimed to give students a second chance to regain certain privileges they had lost through careless behaviour. It is something that they decided they wanted to do, something that they managed to convince the school authorities. So they felt that, by working together with the authorities and by being the bridge between the authority and student body, they could do something that was meaningful and acceptable to the school population at large. Beyond the school, our student action could also involve setting up project teams to explore issues of national interest and propose ideas for improvements. One such example is the National Education (NE) Student Taskforce. It was formed by a group of JC and Polytechnic students, entirely of their own accord. They met each other through the national youth forum, they kept in touch, and when they found out that they were doing a review of National Education, they decided that they would form a group on their own to look into this issue and give us their suggestions and proposals. We listened to them. We found that they had good ideas to offer. And we co-organised two National Education symposia with them so that they could share their findings with and receive feedback and suggestions from close to 600 students from the secondary and post-secondary institutions. I believe what they have done will inspire other students to take a more active interest in national issues and find ways in which they can contribute and make their voices and views heard.

The third thrust is for schools and PSEIs to enhance National Education through strengthening the school-community linkages. Through encounters and interactions with people from all walks of life and backgrounds, young and old, at home and abroad, students learn about themselves and about life as Singaporeans. The Committee thus recommends bringing the community more into schools for NE activities, and bringing more of our students out into the local community and abroad, something which Minister Tharman also touched on in his earlier reply.

The family and alumni can play an important part in National Education. I spoke about the parents' role in giving our children a holistic education. Our NE Perception Study shows that where the influence of teachers declined with age, the influence of parents remained fairly constant throughout the students' schooling years.

We encourage more structured and continued efforts by schools to involve parents in holistic education and NE. These are long-term investments that will yield good fruit over time. In Bedok Green Secondary, members of the Parent Support Group introduced students to dining etiquette for the different races, as part of Racial Harmony Day Celebrations. Through their efforts and involvement, students are now better able to appreciate Malay, Indian and Chinese etiquettes. So they contribute towards social cohesion and at the same time it demonstrates the role that parents can play in furthering this effort.

2.45 pm

Contributions by the alumni are no less important, as they are wonderful examples of how former students can return, give back to the school and demonstrate their affection and loyalty. Top school bands like Tanjong Katong and Bukit Panjang owe much of their success to the untiring efforts of their alumni. But more than skills, alumni members are important role models for our students and contribute to shaping their values and attitudes towards the school and nation.

Beyond the family, the wider community, non-government organisations, community agencies and the private sector can play a part in reinforcing values and attitudes in our young towards Singapore. Interactions with the community can take numerous forms, such as dialogues with leaders from different walks of life, interviews with grandparents, sharing by veterans about their war experiences, or nurses about experience during SARS. The community can provide meaningful opportunities for our young to participate in and contribute through community work and internships.

Beyond Singapore and interactions with Singaporeans, cross-cultural exchange and international exposure allow students to reflect on the differences between different cultures and countries, so that they can come to a greater appreciation of why Singapore is special. Students have shared about how going overseas on exchange programmes or community service projects have made them feel "more Singaporean". Their overseas experiences will be complemented by the increasing cultural diversity in our schools and PSEI campuses as more foreign students come to Singapore.

This brings me to Dr Lily Neo's point about the integration of new immigrants. Local and foreign students interact and bond as a natural part of school life - within the classroom, through discussions and project work, and outside of the classroom, through camps and CCAs. They offer fresh perspectives on issues in classroom discussions as foreigners, and they help us understand others and ourselves better. We should keep it this way and adopt an inclusive approach as we learn what it means to be gracious hosts to our overseas friends. Through our school and NE programmes, our foreign students learn more about and come to appreciate Singapore's diversity and values. One such experience is the NE show, the preview of the National Day parade attended by all Primary 5 pupils. We heard of one pupil from India who was so excited and impressed by what he saw that he kept the goodie bag long after he had returned home when his family relocated.

In the years ahead, there will be more opportunities both for our students to be enriched, through their interactions with people from other countries, as well as for us to enrich foreign students with happy memories of Singapore. We hope that in all cross-cultural exchanges, our students will be good ambassadors and emissaries for Singapore.

Mr Chairman, let me conclude. We have a good base of practices and programmes that we can build upon. But the success of NE will depend on how well we implement the recommendations in the coming years. It will require the collective and sustained effort of all educators and the active support of parents and community networks to make the critical difference in this important endeavour to nurture young citizens who are proud to be Singaporeans, and who will rally as one people, to bring our nation forward.

Special Needs Education

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng: Mr Chairman, Sir, the character of a society is reflected in the way it treats members who are different or disadvantaged. In 1999, when I first took my autistic son to enrol in a special school, my Filipino helper exclaimed: "Madame, so this is where Singapore hides all its disabled children!" It did not take long for me to find out that while Singapore boasts of excellence in many things, educating the special needs child was not one of them, whether in the mainstream or special school.

But in the last three years, something changed. The MOE has come of age and is now openly taking ownership of some important aspects of educating these children who are different, and I applaud the Minister and his team for this.

As the Chairperson of the education component of the Enabling Masterplan for the Disabled, together with my volunteers, I identified six strategic thrusts to achieve excellence in educating special needs children. The thrusts were:

(1) The call for leadership revamp in the special education scene. Many people could not fathom why the National Council of Social Service (NCSS), with its core competence in social service, was tasked with setting performance standards and auditing special schools;

(2) To ask for a planned and purposeful integration with mainstream students for all special needs children, and other critical success factors identified;

(3) To have quality curriculum, quality professional staff;

(4) To empower family caregivers;

(5) To have a smooth transition management; and

(6) To provide adequate funding in educating these children.

We spoke to close to 300 parents and professionals and they were mostly concerned about two primary issues, namely, the inconsistency in quality of curriculum, pedagogy and teachers; and governance, ie, why MOE did not take any active leading role in educating those who are placed in special schools run by charity.

Sir, I am confident that the Ministry has studied the recommendations closely in the Enabling Master Plan and I know they will do something about them. I have three points to make to the Ministry as they consider the next steps to level up educating these children, whether in mainstream or special schools.

First, I hope MOE will one day be technically ready and morally strong enough to take its rightful place in the leadership of special schools. There is no reason why it needs NCSS to co-fund special schools and why it needs to still hang on to NCSS in supervising special schools. There is a dearth of adult services that are required for NCSS to look into and for them to lead in those areas. Let NCSS be one of the many-helping-hands in a configuration with MOE taking 100% lead.

Second, I hope MOE will not compromise in assembling the right execution team members to make things happen as they consider implementing some of the recommendations in the Enabling Master Plan. Draw the best available from the Special Education Department (SPED) in MOE, the Curriculum Department, the Mainstream School Operations, VWO specialists with supporting members from MCYS and even MOH. Be careful that we do not fall into the proverbial "old wine in new wine skin" syndrome where only the packaging looks different but same people, same mindsets and same methodology remain. I pray that that would not happen and I know that it would not happen under the leadership of Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam and MOS Mr Gan Kim Yong. As Jim Collins says in his "Good to Great" management classic, first, get the right people on the bus. I hope we will be able to do that.

Third, I also ask the Ministry not to let up and to develop a good execution blueprint with agreed upon Key Performance Indicators and milestone reviews by the Minister. As they say, one does not gain a reputation by just declaring what one wishes to do.

Many children with special needs grow up to become adults with special needs underperforming in life because they did not receive intervention early enough nor have a quality education that could help them.

From the bottom of my heart, I thank the Ministry for beginning to take leadership and ownership of educating students with special needs in mainstream and special schools. As they say, leadership is a choice, and I thank you for making that choice.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, it is heartening to note that the MOE has in recent years given more attention to special needs pupils. It has committed more money to upgrade and redevelop SPED schools, recruited better qualified teachers, provided better professional development for the staff, as well as improved the curriculum design.

This is in line with the Government's pledge to build a more inclusive society. Nonetheless, I believe that, to unequivocally signal a truly inclusive society, special needs education should, like mainstream education, come under the purview of the Ministry of Education. Special needs education should not be put under the charge of the MCYS. I would like to assure Minister Balakrishnan that I have full confidence in him doing a good job. The issues boil down to this. Placing special needs education under MCYS implies, whether we like it or not, that looking after the educational needs of children with special needs is mere charitable work and is not MOE's priority.

Sir, the special needs child has as much right to education as those in mainstream schools and should not be treated any differently or given the impression that he or she is of less worth, regardless of how much the Government actually spends on each special needs child. MOE can and should work hand-in-hand with the VWOs to provide for the educational, physical and emotional needs of these children. But MOE should take charge, manage and control SPED schools, since the key function of these schools is to provide education. The quality of the SPED school teachers and their career development would then be under the direct charge of MOE rather than a VWO. This would help to assure parents that their special needs child will have equal opportunity to the best education possible and be allowed to maximise his or her potential. It will also allay the worries of some who fear that should they have a child with special needs, they would be left very much on their own to ensure that their child has access to quality education. In fact, I personally know of two families, one a friend and another the son of a grassroots volunteer who moved to New Zealand and Australia respectively because they feel that the educational system here does not give their special needs children equal opportunity to develop their potential to the fullest. SPED schools should not be treated as second-class and should be given every chance to excel and achieve excellence by developing quality curriculum for the students. MOE has the expertise and resources to provide proper training to SPED school teachers and ensure that SPED schools are not run like charities with few, if any, KPIs for the learning outcome of their students.

Sir, I accept that disability straddles a wide spectrum, from learning disabilities like dyslexia to severe cases like multiple sclerosis. Hence, compulsory education may be difficult to implement. But there is really no big hurdle to putting SPED schools directly under MOE's wings. This would clearly underline MOE's commitment to the education of our special needs children so that they have as much opportunity to make good as any other.

Education of Disabled Children

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to take a leaf out of the two preceding speeches, that of Dr Amy Khor and Ms Denise Phua. Augmenting their points, I would like to begin with a fundamental question about the status of a Singaporean child. The question is: is every child equal in the eyes of the State? The answer must be yes. Time and again, the Government has pledged that it will, to the best of its ability, support and nurture each child to the highest of his or her potential. For this purpose, we have the various Ministries working together with our families to take care of the various aspects of a child's development, ie, the Ministry of Education for his education, the Ministry of Health for his health, and so on.

So, when does a child's education end up being the responsibility of a VWO, a voluntary welfare organisation, which falls under the purview of the MCYS? That happens when a child has a disability. Every child is different. Each is born with different physical traits, personalities and abilities. We accept this. We recognise that a child does not have a choice in these matters. And we work with what we have. After all, our objective is to develop each child to his highest potential.

The education of children, regardless of their abilities and disabilities, should be under the direct purview of MOE. Why? Simply because MOE is the provider of public education in this country. As my fellow MP, Ms Denise Phua, had said before this Budget debate, "Education is not social service and is the business of educators." The VWOs and NCSS should only play supportive roles in this respect, providing specialised services and resources, additional funding, and so on. Thus, I request that the Ministry of Education brings the education of children with disabilities fully under its purview. Presently, MOE shares this responsibility with the NCSS and VWOs. This, I respectfully submit, is far from a satisfactory arrangement. In fact, it may not be in the best interest of the children. The recent furore at the Singapore School for the Deaf over the sacking of the principal, a teacher and social worker highlights the severe weaknesses of such a cumbersome arrangement. It was disruptive and stressful for the parents and children involved, particularly for the seven pupils who were left without their regular teachers just two weeks prior to their PSLE.

It would have been better if MOE were in charge of the management of the school. Many other stakeholders, ie, the parents, teachers, volunteers and sponsors have reiterated this call over the years. I believe that, with MOE taking charge, the standards and quality of education for these children would be greatly improved.

I would also like to request that we integrate children with disabilities into the mainstream schools whenever possible and appropriate. When it is not possible or appropriate, as former Nominated Member of Parliament, Ms Braema Mathi had suggested, we can put the special schools next to mainstream schools so that they can share certain facilities. I hope the Ministry would consider giving more support and incentives to our public institutions, particularly our primary and secondary schools, to improve their infrastructure and facilities to be accessible by the disabled and to increase the number of schools already existing in mutual co-existence.

3.00 pm

I do realise that it is not feasible from the financial perspective and teaching delivery to integrate all students with disabilities into our mainstream schools. But where it can be done, it should be done because the pay-offs are enormous. Take a leaf out of what Dr Amy Khor had said earlier. I recently attended a wedding where I spoke with a disabled young person who had been educated overseas, actually in Perth, Australia. His education was integrated into a mainstream programme. My wife and I were both impressed at his level of confidence and independence.

Children with disabilities will benefit from interacting with other kids and the positive stimuli of his environment. He would adjust better to life and a wider community - the real world. The children who interact with the disabled child learn empathy, compassion, understanding and inclusiveness. They learn to express these values through daily interaction by helping and integrating this child into their group. In addition, they will see with their own eyes the resilience and perseverance exhibited by the child with disabilities and learn to appreciate what they have taken for granted.

In short, Singapore can become a more caring, compassionate and inclusive society. Any changes made to improve the lives of our disabled students will have ramifications through our entire community. We are moulding the attitude and spirit of a nation. We are shaping the mindsets and behaviour of our future generations. We are, without a doubt, one of the best countries in the world for public education and the Ministry of Education can be very proud of that. I believe that we can do a better job, providing public education to children with disabilities. They too are our children and they deserve the same support given to other children. With a higher level of commitment from MOE, these children will have a much better chance of integrating into our community, living independently and working productively when they grow up. People are our most important resource. Every child is capable of contributing to Singapore, but we must provide the child with the training and education necessary to unleash his potential. This is a job best done by the best and the most able specialist in the field - the Ministry of Education.

The Minister of State for Education (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Chairman, our education system aims to help develop individuals to realise their potential to the fullest, equip them with the necessary skills for employment and to imbue in them the right values to become good and active citizens. This applies not just to children in the mainstream schools, but also children with disabilities and special educational needs. I thank Ms Denise Phua, Dr Amy Khor and Mr Christopher de Souza for their comments and questions about special education, and most of all, for their passion and support for children with special needs.

The Special Education sector has a very diverse landscape. It covers a wide spectrum of disabilities including learning difficulties, intellectual disability, sensory and physical disabilities. It also has a wide range of varying degrees of disabilities. Currently, there are about 4,000 children with mild to moderate special learning needs in our mainstream schools, and approximately 4,800 children with more severe special needs in 21 SPED schools. Of these 4,800 children, about 500 of them currently take the mainstream curriculum in SPED schools. These schools provide additional specialist and para-medical support to help the children access the mainstream curriculum. The other schools cater to children with more severe disabilities, and focus more on programmes to help them develop skills for independent living as well as vocational skills where possible.

Ms Denise Phua, Dr Amy Khor and Mr Christopher de Souza have asked MOE to play a more proactive role in the education of children with disabilities. MOE already oversees the overall educational policy, direction and operation of SPED schools. We provide the majority share of development and recurrent funding. We also provide professional support to SPED schools, including advice on mainstream curriculum and pedagogy, as well as some training courses.

In September 2004, MOE announced a series of measures to enhance education support for children with special needs, both in SPED as well as mainstream schools. Through these measures, we now have enough places in SPED schools to cater to all children with special needs, compared to a waiting list of 230 children in 2004. The construction of customised school buildings for 19 SPED schools is largely on track. A Steering Committee on Teaching and Learning was set up jointly by MOE and NCSS in 2005 to look into improving the quality of teaching and learning in SPED schools. MOE has deployed 81 Special Needs Officers (SNOs) to 70 primary and secondary schools since 2005, and the number of SNOs is expected to grow to close to 240 by 2010. These initiatives are being rolled out and their full effects will be seen in the years to come.

A SPED school requires a range of professional skills, some of which reside within the relevant voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) who specialise in different disability areas. There is also considerable diversity of needs across the SPED sector. Therefore, as Mr de Souza recognised, no single agency, whether MOE or other agencies, is able to provide the holistic support needed by children with disabilities. The needs of the children will be better served through a "Many Helping Hands" approach, involving partnership among various stakeholders in education, health and social services. MOE has partnered some 13 VWOs to operate special schools that offer customised services catering to children with different disabilities. Indeed, SPED schools like Pathlight School and Metta School are good examples of the success of this partnership approach, where the expertise, professionalism and commitment of the VWOs have made a real difference to the SPED schools.

We have significantly improved the Special Needs sector over the last few years. But I agree more can be done, and MOE is constantly looking at ways to further improve the quality of education for children with special needs. The Steering Committee of the Enabling Masterplan 2007-2011 has released its report on 12th February which proposed many recommendations relating to education for children with special needs.

MOE agrees with the broad direction for education taken in the Enabling Masterplan report. In line with the "Many Helping Hands" approach endorsed by the Steering Committee, MOE has consulted the special schools and our VWO partners. We will adopt a three-pronged approach to further improve the quality of education for children with special needs.

Broadly, MOE will provide:

Firstly, greater involvement in overseeing and supporting the management of SPED schools, especially on educational matters. Secondly, we will provide a diverse range of educational opportunities for children with special educational needs. And thirdly, greater training and professional support for SPED schools to achieve excellence.

I will elaborate on each of these thrusts in turn.

Let me start with the first thrust, greater involvement in overseeing and supporting the management of SPED schools, especially on educational matters. MOE intends to play a more active role within the current framework, but we will focus on areas where we have core competence in.

One such area is school leadership. Leadership is crucial in the management of the school. Some VWOs have indicated to us that they face significant challenges in attracting quality leaders to head their SPED schools. Going forward, MOE will work more closely with the VWOs in the appointments of principals and school supervisors for SPED schools. MOE may also recommend mainstream Education Officers as potential candidates for SPED school leaders to enhance the professionalism in school leadership.

Another area is in learning outcomes. We want to encourage SPED schools and parents to set high but realistic expectations and help these children to realise their potential. MOE will engage the SPED schools to help develop targets for the learning outcomes of their students. Depending on the students, these could include 'O' or 'N' level passes, or pre-vocational certification or other measurable outcomes.

Dr Amy Khor was concerned about the quality of special education. In addition to defining learning outcomes, SPED schools will also need to show greater accountability for the quality of their education programmes. MOE will work with NCSS to develop a quality assurance framework, and carry out management audits of SPED schools periodically.

I will now move on to the second thrust of providing a diverse range of educational opportunities for children with special needs.

Just as MOE is offering diversity and choice in our mainstream education system, we also recognise that a differentiated set of approaches is the best way to meet the wide range of special needs. We should avoid a binary approach of either placing all children with special needs in mainstream schools, or segregating them entirely in SPED schools. Ms Denise Phua, Dr Amy Khor and Mr Christopher de Souza talked about integrating some children with special needs in the mainstream education environment, where such interactions would be beneficial to the learning outcomes of these children.

I would like to reiterate that there are some 4,000 students with mild to moderate levels of special learning needs who are already in our mainstream schools. Close to 60 mainstream schools have been retrofitted to facilitate access for children with physical disabilities. There are also two designated schools for the hearing impaired and four for the visually impaired, catering to students who need specialised support.

MOE is planning for four more designated schools to cater to the hearing impaired and visually impaired at both primary and secondary levels. In addition, to help children with special educational needs in mainstream schools, more SNOs will be recruited and trained to support children with other types of learning disabilities beyond the mild to moderate dyslexia and autism, to include disabilities such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

At the same time, some children with special needs who are currently pursuing the mainstream curriculum in SPED schools can benefit from greater interaction with other children in a mainstream school environment. Since 2006, Pathlight School has piloted a satellite SPED class for its autistic students at Chong Boon Secondary School. The Canossian School is housed in the same Eduplex as Canossa Convent Primary School. It has also piloted a programme to send a small group of its hearing-impaired students to neighbouring MacPherson Primary School to attend some lessons there.

These experiments have worked well, especially in helping these students transit to a mainstream school eventually. MOE plans to implement more satellite SPED classes in mainstream partner schools. This arrangement will allow the SPED children to interact with children in the mainstream school during some lessons, as well as other activities outside of the classroom. At the same time, they continue to enjoy the benefits of specialised instructions for most subjects in the SPED classes. Mainstream students would also benefit from interaction with people with disabilities from a young age, in line with our efforts to build a more inclusive society.

To increase opportunities for interaction and socialisation, five SPED schools are currently located adjacent to mainstream schools. Another five will be located next to mainstream schools when their purpose-built school buildings are ready.

For children in SPED schools who can benefit more from pre-vocational training, MOE will be exploring with training agencies like ITE and NTUC to make available to them pre-vocational courses which could be aligned to the Employability Skills System established by the Workforce Development Agency. This will help enhance their employability, so that they can be integrated into society and be more independent when they grow up.

3.15 pm

Let me now touch on the third thrust - that of providing more training and professional support for SPED schools to achieve excellence. This is an area that the Steering Committee has highlighted in its recommendations, and which Dr Amy Khor also asked about.

Currently, about 50% of the special education school teachers teaching the mainstream curriculum are not trained in the delivery of the curriculum. MOE will provide training for these teachers through the National Institute of Education and cross-train more mainstream teachers to teach in a SPED school environment.

In addition, MOE will work closely with the special education schools to actively facilitate interaction between mainstream and special education teachers. For example, we will encourage work attachments by mainstream teachers in special education schools, and for SPED teachers to be attached to mainstream schools. MOE will also enhance the existing framework to facilitate the secondment of more mainstream teachers to SPED schools.

To allow SPED schools to ride on the developmental opportunities provided by the school cluster system and to strengthen the network of collaboration, they will be invited to join cluster activities in relevant areas such as capacity building and professional enhancement, pupil development and support, and community linkages and networking.

Sir, beyond the sharing of professional expertise, additional funding support will also be provided to the Special Education sector. Currently, all schools receive funding based on the capitation grant for primary education. However, some of the SPED schools have some secondary age students or older, eg, Pathlight School where there are students who are taking secondary level mainstream curriculum, or Delta Senior School where students are in pre-vocational programmes. Funding for these students will be increased, based on the capitation grant for secondary education. The additional funding support amounts to about $8,000 per student per year.

MOE recognises that some children with special educational needs may learn at a slower pace and thus need more time to achieve their learning outcomes. Going forward, children who have been assessed as being able to follow a curriculum leading to the 'O or 'N' levels or pre-vocational certification may have their education funded up to 21 years of age, up from the current 18 years of age.

Sir, to sum up, let me emphasise that MOE’s vision is to allow every child in Singapore to develop his potential, including those with special educational needs. There is a Chinese saying which says, you jiao wu lei 有教无类, meaning we support opportunity to all children. We support the broad vision set out by the Steering Committee on the Enabling Masterplan. On our part, MOE will provide greater involvement in overseeing and supporting the management of SPED schools, a more diverse range of opportunities for children with special needs, as well as more training and professional support for SPED schools to achieve excellence.

MOE will work in close collaboration with MOH, NCSS and other partner organisations to realise this vision. I am confident that with the collective efforts of Government, the community and the people, we can better reach out to children with special needs. Together, we can make a difference in their lives, and create a more inclusive society.

The Chairman: Order. I propose to take the break now.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.35 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at

3.15 pm until 3.35 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.35 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]:

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]: **** Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

**** Head K (cont.) -

School Attrition

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman): Sir, every year, during the Committee of Supply debate on MOE, we hear of the competitiveness of our education system, and Members' constant call for the system to be a little less competitive.

We know that over the past few years, MOE had introduced significant changes to the education system to cater to the different levels of students' abilities. I can appreciate the difficult position MOE is in trying to establish a system that fits everyone. No matter how well we tweak the system, there will always be casualties. This is even so with the introduction of compulsory education. I think we can agree that no student starts school with the intention of dropping out. Every parent wants his or her child to succeed in the education system. Every parent knows that education is the ticket to a better and bright future for his child.

The Post-Secondary Education Account announced during this year's Budget is testimony of the Government's commitment to ensure that every child receives education up to at least post-secondary level. As much as each child tries, there will always be those who will fall through the cracks. Every child that does so is one too many, for the path that he or she has to travel subsequently will be more challenging and to a future that is less certain.

Sir, in social science literature, there is a theory known as the ecological perspective. It argues that effective social functioning is a result of the extent of fit between the person and his environment. In the context of a child in a school, the ecological theory will argue that attrition is a result of the lack of fit between the child and the school system.

My first question to the Minister is whether MOE has conducted systematic studies on the impact of our current school system on student attrition. Does MOE accept the extent of fit between these students and the school system?

I am now talking about the education system in general. So I acknowledge that it has to be well designed. However, within each school system, there are variations in terms of operationalising the education system. We know that MOE has given much autonomy to the schools. As such, if it has not already done so or has not been done, I would urge MOE to study the impact of the school system on attrition of students at all levels.

Sir, with compulsory education, MOE tracks each child and ensures that he or she is registered and remains in the school system for at least six years. I would like to ask the Minister what is the rate of attrition at the primary and secondary levels. What are the measures that are taken to help these students to re-enter the education system? Can the Minister also share, since the implementation of compulsory education, how many students have dropped out at the primary level? What percentage has been successfully reschooled? What happens to those who are not reschooled? With compulsory education, who will be responsible for these students' inability to complete the six years of compulsory education?

School Drop-outs

Dr Lily Neo: Sir, could the MOE improve the drop-out rate of our students from our schools, many of them from lower-income families? Drop-outs are more likely to experience negative outcomes, such as under-employment and unemployment as well as negative consequences to society. Has there been a study done to find out the reasons of our school drop-outs? For this group, I feel that we need to take a more integrated approach to help them.

In order to prevent drop-outs, are our schools equipped with the ability to identify at-risk students early? Are there programmes in place to provide extra help for at risk students? We should have comprehensive assistance to target factors, not just the schools but also families and communities, that contribute to the drop-out process. Do we have school social workers that can have the time and the ability to intervene, assist and follow up each case?

The social worker assigned may also need to assess the family's needs, such as financial, social and employment, and refer them to the relevant agencies to match them with our existing available assistance schemes. This is to facilitate a more conducive home environment for these students, as well as better parental motivation to encourage their own children to stay in schools. Continued monitoring and follow-up over time are necessary to ensure success. Do we have counsellors that can provide formal counselling in personal issues along with career counselling?

Could MOE also involve the community and adult mentors to assist at-risk students to achieve better success?

3.45 pm

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, the few reports I have read about Northlight School, its dedicated teachers and the students that have joined the school have warmed my heart. I am not exaggerating nor embarrassed to say that my eyes became wet when I read from a Straits Times' article in November 2006 of how the school has brought hope to some 150 pupils who had failed their PSLE again and had been invited to Northlight School. Previously, many of these pupils, who were unable to cope with academic studies, would have likely felt very frustrated and demoralised and would have low self-esteem. To quote 13-year-old Ang Zheng Yaun: "The Maths class has games and it is fun and exciting. I hope to learn more new skills here. I don't want to repeat PSLE because it is boring. I rather learn something new at Northlight." Indeed, Northlight has brought new beginnings to the less academically inclined students who would otherwise have to be forced to repeat their PSLE and might join the ranks of school drop-outs. It is good that the Government now recognises that more attention should be paid to children who do poorly in school. Without education or acquiring some skills as an income leveller, they may remain stuck in the poverty trap.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to provide an update on the progress of Northlight School, future plans for the school as well as whether there are other similar schools set up to cater to not just those who have failed their PSLE twice but to a wider spectrum of less academically inclined students who would likely benefit from a more hands-on educational approach.

Additionally, I would like to urge the Ministry to adopt an early intervention approach - identify students at schools who are potentially at risk of dropping out and give them appropriate help. You can do this by having more counsellors to work with teachers to identify such at-risk children at the primary and secondary schools. It should also enhance its Learning Support Programme, extending it beyond Primary One and Two as many of these pupils remain unable to cope with their studies in the upper primaries due to family circumstance and lack of support.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo: Sir, I applaud MOE's commitment to expand the available choices in our education system. This strategy of more customised education will ensure our children will receive the most appropriate education that suits their talents and abilities and make them to be the best they can be.

I would like to ask the Minister how he would rate the success of his Ministry in combating drop-outs in view of much attention that has been given to customise education according to the profile of its students, and students prone to dropping out of schools.

How are teachers trained to deal with these at-risk students prone to dropping out of school? Are there special programmes dedicated to these at-risk students? How do we monitor the progress of these students that are put into these special programmes. What is the number of drop-outs as it stands today? What are the main reasons for students dropping out of schools and what measures is the Ministry considering to address these reasons?

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Chairman, various MPs have asked about how we can further reduce the attrition rate in schools.

Let me first set the context. The number of students who drop out of our schools is actually very small. Based on the latest figures, this is around 2.5% of the cohort. To Dr Maliki Osman's question, around 0.2% of the cohort drops out during primary school, 1.6% drops out during secondary school, and 0.7% drops out during the transition from primary to secondary school. The attrition rate has also fallen over the years, from 3.6% three years ago to 2.5% today.

With compulsory education for primary school since 2003, the number of students dropping out should be further reduced. So far, one child under compulsory education has dropped out. In this particular case, the family was untraceable even with the help of the police. That there will always be a few cases like these, despite compulsory education, is not surprising. Compulsory education does not in itself solve the root problems of non-attendance. And in deciding to impose compulsory education, the Government has always been clear that the responsibility for sending children to school and ensuring that they stay in school should still be with the parents.

By any international comparison, this group of children that drops out is very small, but every child matters to us. We want to help every child to stay in school for as long as possible to develop his potential to the fullest, as mentioned by many Members in the House, and have the best chance of doing well in life. I also mentioned in the Budget speech that a post-secondary education is a basic requirement to meet the challenges of a globalised economy and is critical today.

Statistics from MOM also show that among the workers retrenched in 2005, those who did not have or did not complete secondary school are the most affected and have the lowest re-employment rate. Given the importance of further education, the Government would be providing a post-secondary account to every Singaporean. And our post-secondary institutions are world-class in every area - ITE, polytechnics and universities. But in order for Singaporeans to be able to access this, we must first get them to the starting line and ensure that they stay in school and have at least 10 years of education.

Mr Chairman, in Malay, please.

( In Malay ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] The Malay community should seize the opportunities arising from Government's policies which support educational enhancement of our children. We have to ensure that our children get to the starting line of education as early as possible, stay in the race, and compete for places in the post-secondary institutions.

With the collaboration of Yayasan Mendaki and other Malay-Muslim organisations, we have made significant progress in education over the years. The percentage of Malay students who completed their secondary school education has increased from 80% in 1996 to 90% in 2005. What is important is that the percentage of Malay students who pursued their education at post-secondary institutions has increased from 50% in 1996 to 82% in 2005. Perhaps, the percentage of them achieving university education is still below the national average and we have to continue to escalate this progress. However, the post-secondary, even in ITE, is very beneficial and important as this allows our students to pursue further education in the future. What more with the top-ups into the PSEA of every Singapore citizen child and a fee subsidy to pursue education at the post-graduate level. The top-ups and fee subsidy will certainly facilitate further the attainment of that level of education.

Education is the best platform for us to enhance the standing of the community and gives the future generation ways and means through which they can improve the standard of living. With the appropriate level of education, we are more confident that our children would be able to face the globalisation wave which continues to bring about significant changes to all economies. This is in tandem with Dr Lily Neo's call in her opening speech earlier. I would like to urge, especially the Malay community, to give their support to the close collaboration of the Government and the Malay-Muslim organisations. Without adequate level of attainment in education, we will not be able to realise our vision of becoming a community of excellence.

• Cols. 3239-3240.

( In English ): As mentioned last year, MOE is therefore studying how we can reduce the attrition rate to 1.5% in five years. Our solutions will also benefit the group of students who may not eventually drop out but are still potentially at risk. Based on our research and experience, we have found that students drop out of schools because of multiple factors. Hence, our solutions will similarly need to be multi-pronged. In addition, as the causes for students dropping out emanate from outside the schools, MOE alone cannot address this issue satisfactorily. We will therefore explore three broad strategies.

First, we will take a more integrated approach that would address issues upstream long before the child drops out. This will involve early identification of children who are likely to be at risk and early intervention for them. I will elaborate on this in a later speech.

Second, this issue necessitates a "many helping hands" approach. While MOE can help to address learning difficulties, the family and the community must come in so that we can have a wide reach and ensure that the child does not fall through any cracks. The community has been doing good work in this regard thus far. We want to tap on their expertise and that of other agencies to develop a coordinated multi-agency framework to support these children.

Third, MOE will continue to refine our strategies to help at-risk children while they are in school. For this, our study is still work-in-progress and we do not want to rush into new recommendations. But I would like to update the House on what our schools have been doing to address this issue thus far. Before I go into the specific measures, I would like to address Dr Maliki Osman's query on the fit between our students and the school system. We have moved towards measures in recent years that would allow our schools to even better customise and tailor their programmes to fit the needs of each child, so that all our children may find something meaningful and engaging in school.

I would like to point out one example. Tampines Secondary School makes a point for all staff, teachers, counsellors and the principal himself to reach out to pupils, especially those who are missing at the assembly or in classes, through any means: by phone, by email, even home visits. When back in school, they focus on building relationship with these children, first, to strengthen the human ties rather than focus on their bearing or even their studies. The boys are also sent to OBS to build their resilience. I may have over-simplified the efforts done by the school, but last year, in 2006, they had zero drop-out. It will be difficult to maintain this. I wish them well in the hope that they maintain this standard.

Turning to specific measures, in the context of dealing with issues as upstream as possible, our schools already help students potentially at risk through the Learning Support Programme (or LSP) for P1 and P2 students. Students who are not school-ready when they enter P1 are given dedicated assistance and taught in small groups. The LSP for English has been implemented in all schools since 1998. Building on more than 10 years of experience, we have recently decided to enhance the programme. Within this group of students, there are different learning needs, and we will now group these students accordingly so that they can receive differentiated instruction. Our pilot showed a positive impact and we rolled out the enhanced LSP in English to all schools this year. We have also introduced a new Learning Support for Mathematics for all schools starting from this year. To Dr Amy Khor's query on extending the LSP beyond P2, schools will continue to give these students focused attention even after they leave the programme while allowing them the opportunity to interact with a larger group of their peers after P2.

At the secondary level, the majority of students drop out during Secondary Three are from the Normal (Academic) course. Dr Neo and Dr Khor will be happy to know that we provide targeted support for these students since introducing full-time school counsellors. To date, there are 306 such counsellors either deployed or slated to be deployed in our schools. They are on-site and always present. This allows them to identify potentially at-risk students early and provide a familiar face to deal with personal issues. We have already seen positive results. Ms Michelle Lee of Tanglin Secondary School convinced five students to return to school in just two months. Her efforts included picking up a student from his home in the morning and accompanying him to school by bus. The student ended up coming to school regularly, developed great interest in his studies and was promoted to the top Secondary Three NA class in his school subsequently.

At the primary school level, the majority of students drop out during Primary Six and are from EM3. Northlight School, as mentioned by Dr Khor, was set up to address this group as well as the group that drops out during the transition from primary to secondary school. It gives them another chance and places them in a different setting. The school opened its doors in January, taking 224 students, including students who have failed their PSLE twice and students who have dropped out of school. Feedback from the students has been positive thus far.

What is important is that Northlight has also struck a chord with the wider community in helping students at risk. Many have come forward to lend their services to this school. For instance, many volunteers give their time to interact with Northlight students at the school students centre. The example of Northlight reinforces what we already know - that the community has a critical role to play in helping to engage students at risk and must be involved to provide sustainable support to these students. The progress at Northlight has been encouraging so far. MOE is exploring admitting students who have failed their PSLE once in the long term. MOE will also continue to study whether we would need to create more platforms along the broad objectives of Northlight so as to reach out to more students.

Dr Maliki also asked about the admission of school drop-outs. Despite our best efforts, some students still leave the system early. We, therefore, need to put in place a responsive process to facilitate the re-admission.

In 2006, we enhanced the Student Re-admission Policy for this objective. Among other changes, schools now have more discretion to re-admit students, and develop a Re-integration Programme for them. Hence, we saw an improvement in 2006 when 107 students who had previously dropped out successfully re-entered our schools, which is about 80% of the students who had applied to re-enter our schools that year. The percentage in 2005 in comparison was 65%.

In conclusion, Sir, while globalisation will bring tremendous opportunities for many Singaporeans, it will also bring challenges for those without the right skills. The Government's strategy to help these Singaporeans is by investing in them through education. Hence, MOE will focus our efforts on helping these children to stay in school, so that they have the opportunity to escalate to post-secondary education. In this, our schools have been doing good work thus far. In the next phase of our study, we will look at bringing in other relevant stakeholders. The community, families, MOE and other agencies can work together to get these children to the starting line.

The Chairman: Mr Siew Kum Hong, you can take your two cuts together.

Enhanced Performance Management System

Teachers

Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, Sir, the enhanced performance management system, or EPMS, is MOE's method for assessing teacher's performance. It has been a subject of repeated criticism by present and former teachers and blamed for many teacher resignations. But MOE has consistently endorsed it.

These are some of the criticisms. Firstly, some see it as simply an administrative chore to get out of the way as quickly as possible. Secondly, there is no transparency in the rankings as teachers are not told what they have been ranked, and teachers have to guesstimate their rankings based on their performance bonuses, if any. Thirdly, and perhaps most crucially, it does not adequately recognise good classroom teachers. In fact, teachers believe that the way to a good EPMS evaluation is to simply cite a long list of projects and then play them up as much as possible. Actual merit does not seem particularly relevant.

Sir, the teachers themselves said it better than I can. From a friend, "How I have seen it used is, either not at all, people ignore it, see it as a nuisance thing to be filled up and done with, or by superiors as a way of forcing more work out of people. So, what did you do this past half a year? If you do not tell me the next five minutes, you are going to get a "C" grade." From Wong Siong Yan, in a letter to the Today newspaper last March, "Supervisors usually rely on work review discussions, during which teachers are encouraged to showcase what they have. Those who can produce photographs, video clips and reflective journals often steal the show. Good but modest teachers who do not blow their own trumpets get sidelined." Finally, retired teacher, Ho Kong Loon, who had won an MOE Caring Teacher Award in 2000, wrote in the Today newspaper last October, that EPMS currently marginalises outstanding classroom teaching and that many good classroom teachers get poor EPMS gradings.

Sir, I think the amount of unhappiness with and criticisms of EPMS shows that there is a problem, and we need to remember that a lot of the criticisms have come from ex-teachers who are far more likely to give honest feedback than serving teachers. So I would like to ask how does the Ministry explain the discrepancy between its official stand on EPMS and teachers' perception of it. And in the light of these criticisms, does the Ministry have objective evidence that EPMS does work? Also, given the view that more projects equal a better EPMS ranking, teachers are compelled to pile on extra duties, that means, long hours in school. A teacher in the morning session will have classes from 7.30 am until 12.30 pm or 1.00 pm. This is followed by CCAs, projects, workshops, meetings and other commitments that can last till 5.00 pm or later. So when does the teacher do things, like marking and lesson preparation? At night? Sir, that is not tenable. I would therefore also like to ask the Minister what institutionalised measures and safeguards are in place to ensure that teachers are not overtaxed so that they are able to devote sufficient time to their students and through lessons and teaching while not burning out. If there are no such measures and safeguards, will the Ministry consider doing so?

Sir, Minister Tharman emphasised last week in the Budget debate that education is the starting point in ensuring equality of opportunity in Singapore. But for education to remain the great leveller that it has been, we need a strong and healthy teaching profession. We need to resolve these problems with EPMS so that we will have one.

The Chairman: Ms Eunice Olsen is not here. RAdm Lui.

RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew: Let me thank Mr Siew and, earlier, Mr Alvin Yeo, for their comments and questions about teachers.

Teachers are critical and special in our system: critical because they have the important responsibility of nurturing our young with the skills and attitudes that they will need to face the future with confidence; special because their role is not just about imparting knowledge but also about engaging hearts and minds - encouraging every student on, and helping them find their unique strengths and talents.

Over the past five years, we have grown the strength of our teaching force from 25,000 in 2002 to about 28,000 today. We have maintained the high standards that we expect of new entrants and we have also been able to retain good teachers. This is despite the competition from other attractive sectors in a robust economy. The major improvements in the "Grow" Package for teachers have also helped to keep the teaching profession an attractive one. The overall attrition rate due to retirement and resignation has remained steady at a low rate of about 2.4% over the years, and we intend to watch this very carefully.

Before I address Mr Siew's points on the EPMS, let me talk about managing the workload for teachers. To achieve a high quality holistic education for our students, we expect our teachers to play many different roles: mentors, facilitators, coaches and counsellors. As professionals, they want to excel, give of their best and make a difference in the lives of their students. Many take it upon themselves to upgrade their skills and knowledge by tapping on the wide range of training courses available. We recognise the demands and challenges of being teachers and are keenly aware of their workload. Let me share with you three areas in which we are working on to give them greater support.

Firstly, we are recruiting and deploying more teachers to schools. With the additional teachers recruited over the past five years, we have, on average, been able to give each school an additional five teachers. By about 2010, provided we can sustain our pace of recruitment and keep attrition low, we target to deploy another five teachers to each school.

These additional teachers have resulted in a significant improvement in the pupil to teacher (PTR) ratio over the past few years. The pupil to teacher ratio for primary schools was reduced from 24 in 2004 to 22 in 2006 and for secondary schools from 19 to 18 over the same period. By 2010, our target is to reduce PTR further to below 20 for the primary schools. I note Mr Alvin Yeo's earlier comment about reducing class sizes. But we think it is best for schools to decide how to use these additional teachers - sometimes a smaller class for a particular subject or assignment or give teachers more time to meet the other needs of their students.

To prescribe smaller class sizes for all schools across all levels, we will have to trade off quality for quantity, lowering the high standards that we expect of our teachers. Alternatively, it is to assign more classroom periods to each teacher. So recruiting new teachers of lower quality or assigning more classroom periods to each teacher, I think neither is a desirable outcome.

Beyond the allocation of additional teachers, schools can also leverage on the Adjunct Teaching (AJT) scheme, introduced in 2004, to appoint trained teachers who had left service. The adjunct teachers can support schools when their teachers go on the Part-Time Teaching Scheme, or pursue professional development opportunities. On average, each school managed to engage about four to five adjunct teachers last year.

With these additional teachers, schools have greater flexibility in terms of staff deployment. Many have introduced new programmes, or allowed greater diversity in the school curriculum to better respond to their students' learning needs. At Guangyang Primary School, they have creatively tapped on their adjunct teachers to conduct differentiated teaching. During these lessons in Mathematics, Mother Tongue and English, small groups of students who are weaker in these subjects are taught separately by the adjunct teachers, giving them the special and dedicated attention that they need. The teachers focus on using strategies and activities that best suit the needs of these students. Such flexibility and enhanced learning have been made possible because of the availability of additional teacher resources that have been judiciously used to meet specific needs.

To further support teachers and meet the needs of the students, we have deployed para-educators like the Co-Curricular Programme Executives (CCPEs), the Full-Time School Counsellors (FTSCs) and Special Needs Officers (SNOs). These para-educators have enabled teachers to concentrate more on lesson preparation and classroom teaching duties.

Secondly, MOE has also provided schools with more financial resources to purchase manpower or other services to take over some of the duties previously done by teachers, for example, in running CCAs, training the school choir, and so on, where an external agency may be better equipped with the skill set to do so. This has helped to further ease teachers' workload. The manpower grant had been increased over the years. For a primary school with 1,500 pupils, it has increased from about $50,000 in 2004 to $126,000 today, a 160% increase. Likewise, the grant disbursed to a secondary school with the same number of pupils has increased from $115,500 in 2004 to about $150,000 today.

Thirdly, within the school itself, there are systems in place to support teachers. To ease the transition of the beginner teachers to the demands of the job, they are given 80% of the standard teaching load. They are also mentored by Senior Teachers to help them better manage their workload and meet the challenges of the profession. By leveraging on IT, teachers are able to access databases of lesson materials and customise them to meet their students' needs. Schools are also creating more opportunities for teachers to collaborate and plan together. By 2010, each teacher will have one hour of 'timetabled time' per week for this particular purpose.

We will endeavour to refine the ways where we can better support our teachers as they continue the important mission to nurture and develop our students.

Mr Siew Kum Hong also raised the issue of teacher appraisal. In particular, he asked about the value of the Enhanced Performance Management System (EPMS). In any organisation, there is a need for an appraisal and performance management system to help the organisation identify its talent, develop its people and reward their performance. The teaching profession is no exception. We need an appraisal process that is consistent, transparent and trusted. In this way, teachers who have done well are fully recognised and rewarded while others who need to improve on their performance are coached by their supervisors.

The EPMS is a new system fully implemented in 2005, and it was in response to feedback from the ground and designed with their inputs. We believe it is an improvement to the previous system. And I will talk more about this later. As professionals, our teachers have no issue with being held to high standards of performance; indeed, they expect it of themselves. Their request was for the appraisal process to provide a clearer idea of what competencies they were expected to show, and what areas they had to focus on to improve further. They wanted a more explicit discussion of their performance in specific areas, and clear identification of their training and development path.

The EPMS was developed after extensive consultation with education officers at all levels, phasing gradually from 2003 - first to the school leaders, then to Heads of Departments and other key appointment holders, and finally, school wide, to all teachers in 2005.

We believe the EPMS allows a holistic assessment on our educators' performance based on competencies, and follows a more structured process to help them identify areas for further development and improvement. The system spells out the knowledge and skills required as well as the professional characteristics and behaviour patterns appropriate for each of the three different career tracks, namely, Teaching, Senior Specialist and Leadership. Let me say that there is no disadvantage in any of our teachers pursuing one of these tracks. They are not discriminated against in any way in the performance appraisal process. With this differentiation, teachers have the greater clarity of the expectations and behaviour that are essential for success in each particular field of excellence.

No assessment system is perfect, not least because there will always be some degree of subjectivity involved. Neither is the EPMS perfect nor has it been implemented evenly across all schools. We are committed to making it work even better. We are putting new teachers through EPMS workshops to help them better use and understand the tool, and we are putting also the new evaluators through the new supervisors through the system so that they can better understand their responsibilities in assessing teachers under their charge.

The Ministry will continue to take in feedback and suggestions from our teachers and school leaders on how to improve the system. For example, we have refined the EPMS work review form to include a training and development section that will encourage a more in-depth discussion of the officers’ career aspirations and developmental needs.

4.15 pm

Mr Siew has given anecdotal evidence and extrapolated that to show that our teachers are very unhappy with EPMS. I am not sure that that is true nor does it do credit to the system and to the assessment appraisal process that we have today. Feedback from teachers that we have gathered shows that they recognise the benefits of the EPMS. Those who have been in service longer and were able to make a comparison between the past and present system, feel that the EPMS is a better tool compared to that used earlier. While it might still seem to some an additional administrative procedure to fill up the form, teachers acknowledged that the system has provided them with greater clarity in terms of expectations and how they can further develop themselves professionally. That is what the system was designed to achieve.

Mr Siew talked about teachers being given additional recognition if they were to work on projects, have more attractive means of delivering their lessons. I would say that finding ways to further and better engage the students is important. If you have two classroom teachers, one merely teaching from the textbook and the other finding new ways through projects and engaging methods to bring the lessons to life and engage the students, I think I would have to give a greater recognition to the latter. Let me say that EPMS attempts to capture the key essence of teaching in its many facets and challenges but, at the end of it all, it requires astute and perceptive school leaders to recognise and reward the many intangible but important aspects of teaching. They include care, concern and counsel that teachers give to their students, the values teachers impart through their interactions and through effective role modelling; and the encouragement and inspiration to students so that they will further believe in themselves and pursue their dreams. And this is what we are trying to ensure our school leaders take into account when they assess holistically the performance of the teachers.

But beyond formal recognition and reward, what motivates a teacher must be a calling, a deep sense of mission to shape young lives, knowing that what they do is a noble endeavour and a sacred responsibility. The gestation period is long and the results of their labour may not be immediately apparent. But it is the joy of seeing students do well in school and in life, sometimes seemingly against all odds, that have been and will be their best reward and lasting legacy. The recognition and appreciation by students, parents and the community are also important morale boosters for our teachers. I am happy that their dedication and commitment have not gone unnoticed. The public in 2004 ranked the teaching profession first in importance, ahead of doctors and lawyers in a public perception survey. Let us all continue to give teachers the support they need and deserve on their meaningful and important mission.

Private Schools

Dr Lily Neo: Sir, there are 1,100 private schools here that cater to about 420,000 local students and 72,000 foreign students. It is important that we ensure the quality of our private schools so that both local and foreign students receive quality education. The private schools are registered with MOE but, according to MOE, registration with MOE is not tantamount to accreditation or endorsement of quality of the private schools or their teaching staff. Some private education organisations have abused the "MOE-certified" tag to oversell their credibility. It is vital for our Government to set up a national accreditation body to assess and monitor the quality of private schools here to ensure the reliability and sustainability of private education institutions.

Sir, we must be cognisant of the challenges ahead in making Singapore an education hub. It is counter-productive in trying to raise the capabilities, capacities and profiles of our universities and introduce new colleges, such as a liberal arts college, as recommended by the International Academy Advisory Panel, if we do not address the credibility issues of private education institutions.

Could MOE also look into the need for an accreditation scheme for student agents in order to safeguard foreign students' interests, especially from rogue agencies? There must be some standardisation of student agents to ensure reliability and credibility in school placing, visa getting and accommodation.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to echo what Dr Lily Neo has said. I think that more efforts have to be made by the Ministry to ensure that our reputation as a global school house or education hub will not be affected by the malpractices of increasing numbers of errant private education organisations. In 2005, CASE received about 800 complaints concerning PEOs. The numbers went up to 1,100 in the year 2006.

Sir, the Case Trust Scheme at the moment is very basic, and the Student Protection Scheme currently in place only serves to protect the students' fees in the event a PEO closes down. The Government has to quickly come up with a measure to ensure that PEOs are able to deliver quality education.

Currently, PEOs only need to apply for a licence from the Ministry of Education to operate in Singapore. To the students, they assume that the PEO granted approval to provide education services by MOE is proof of its academic credentials, and they think that MOE will be responsible for the performance of the registered PEO. Most foreign students also have the impression that the courses and education programmes conducted by the private schools are vetted and approved by the Ministry of Education since they are granted their licence by the Government to operate.

Sir, to safeguard our reputation as a centre of learning, we need to address this issue and introduce measures and regulations to ensure that PEOs are able to deliver on what they promise. MOE should introduce stricter regulations on PEOs. It is the responsibility of the Government agency that grants the licences to all the PEOs to ensure good service and educational standards. Objective and credible assessments with regard to the curriculum offerings by the PEOs should be carried by the licencing authority before these PEOs are allowed to operate in Singapore.

Edusave

Mr Ong Kian Min (Tampines): Sir, recently, Mr Philip Yeo, Chairman of A*STAR, said that parents should diversify their children's educational experiences to create a greater diversity of backgrounds and talents so that our youths will be in a better position to respond to new technologies and industries as they arise. I would like to ask the Minister for Education whether he agrees with this view and what are his Ministry's plans to achieve this diversity of educational experiences and whether these plans include having more privately-funded educational institutions here.

In this year's Budget Statement, the Government also announced the creation of Post-secondary Education Accounts for every Singaporean aged seven to 20 which could be used at publicly-funded universities, polytechnics and arts institutions and ITE as well as UniSIM and WDA-accredited lead training providers. Does this mean that Singaporeans studying at other institutions, such as the privately-funded UNSW (Asia) and UNLV (Singapore) will not be able to benefit even though the rationale behind the Post-secondary Education Account is to enable as many Singaporeans as possible to obtain a post-secondary education?

Sir, also at present, not a small number of Singaporean students are attending privately-funded schools, such as ACS International, SJI International and Hwa Chong International. Three of my children are in such privately-funded schools. And I think the number will increase with time as we allow greater diversity in education. But Singaporean students studying in these schools in Singapore are excluded from the benefits of Edusave. This is because the present Edusave is only available to a child who is a Singapore citizen studying full-time in a Government, Government-aided or independent school, junior college, centralised institute, Institute of Technical Education or special education school. I would like to urge the Ministry of Education to extend Edusave to all Singaporean students studying full-time in any institution, whether publicly or privately funded, that adheres to our bilingual policy, incorporate National Education into their curriculum and meet the criteria of common educational experience, national identity and social education.

Tuition Centres

Mdm Cynthia Phua (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, Sir, why are many still dependent on private tuition? Over the years, despite the many revisions and changes to improve our education system, our students are still very reliant on tuition in order to keep up with the pace of what is taught in the school. So high is the demand and so high is the price, at $100 per hour that some tutors fetch, that more and more tuition centres are being set up in Singapore. On the online service directory eguide.com.sg there are 419 listings of tuition companies in Singapore with many multiple centres islandwide.

A Straits Times' report recently told the story of an undergraduate in NUS who started a small tuition centre out of his university hostel in 2004. As at the end of 2006, he was grossing $100,000 in business turnover. He reportedly received over 50 new students each month. This is a testament to the high demand for tuition centres. Though I applaud the entrepreneurial efforts of the undergraduate, I am at the same time concerned by this phenomenon, as it says something about our schools' education system. Is this because our schools are not doing enough to cater to the students' needs or is it because the schools are doing a good job, except that the parents are over-feeding their children?

Another worry is whether this is an indication that our students are just average in their studies and it is the help from the tutors that gives them a boost in their studies? If the tutors can give them this boost, why can the teachers in our schools not fill this gap? Is there something missing in the teaching techniques and that the Ministry should re-examine the teachers' training programme? It bothers me because, from one generation of students to another, I find that they are heavily reliant on assessment books and tuition teachers. How can we give the needy students a level playing field to excel in school? One taxi driver told me that his savings are spent on his children's tuition fees monthly of about $300 as he wants them to do well in school.

Mdm Cynthia Phua (Aljunied): 4.25 pm

Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Chairman, Sir, Dr Lily Neo and Mr Yeo Guat Kwang have both asked about the regulation of private education institutions in Singapore. MOE shares their concern about the uneven quality amongst private schools here.

The private education scene in Singapore has evolved over the years. Up to the 1990s, the majority of qualifications offered by private schools were Distance Learning Programmes from overseas institutions. The Singapore agents' role was primarily to facilitate correspondence courses. They were appointed by the foreign institutions to handle administrative functions like collecting fees, distributing assignments and conducting examinations. They did not have campuses for regular classes.

However, the role of these providers has changed over time and new private education organisations have emerged. Some have established physical campuses and hired lecturers to conduct full-time classes. Some have even developed their own course content and modules. They have built up expertise in delivering diploma programmes as well as degree programmes validated by overseas universities. The number of private schools has also grown from 267 in 1996 to 1,125 in 2006.

At the same time, Singapore has acquired a strong global reputation in education due to the quality of the education programmes in our publicly-funded schools and tertiary institutions. Many foreign students are attracted to study here. It is important for us to preserve the reputation of our education system.

Therefore, there is a need to enhance the regulatory framework for the private education organisations to ensure quality in this fast-growing sector. Education service providers should compete on quality, rather than on course fees or shorter time to graduation. To this end, MOE is exploring the feasibility of introducing a licensing system to ensure that private schools meet certain standards in terms of academic rigour, financial stability and student welfare before they are allowed to operate. We will also be looking into an accreditation system to recognise high-quality private education providers, and to help students in selecting the right school that suits them. This point was also raised by Dr Teo Ho Pin during the Budget debate.

Currently, all private schools are required to attain the CaseTrust for Education status before they can offer placement for international students. In addition, SPRING also certifies private schools for the Singapore Quality Class (SQC), which helps private schools put in place sound management systems and processes to improve their performance and attain business excellence. MOE will consult with industry to work out the regulatory framework, to support Singapore's development as a quality Education Hub.

Mr Ong Kian Min asked whether MOE plans to have more privately-funded institutions to provide diversity in our education landscape. We started with two privately-funded schools in 2005 (Hwa Chong International and ACS International), and a third school in 2007 (SJI International).

Currently, these three privately-funded schools have not yet reached full capacity. We will monitor the situation before deciding whether to allow more privately-funded schools to open up.

4.30 pm

Mr Ong also asked whether we can extend Edusave and the Post-Secondary Education Account to Singaporean students studying full-time in private institutions approved by MOE.

The Edusave Scheme was intended to support Singaporean students in Government-funded schools, and motivate them to excel academically as well as in non-academic areas. It is a form of Government subsidy to students in publicly-funded schools. As such, we do not plan to extend Edusave to Singaporean students who choose to study in private institutions, including privately-funded schools.

Besides, Mr Ong, Dr Loo Choon Yong and Ms Lee Bee Wah had also asked about extending the Post Secondary Education Account (or PSEA) for use in private education institutions, during the Budget debate. For now, we are starting cautiously with a small group of institutions, given that our post-secondary education landscape is very diverse. As we gain more experience with time, we will review whether to include more quality institutions in the scope of use of the PSEA.

Let me now move on to Mdm Cynthia Phua's questions about tuition centres. There are approximately 400 registered tuition centres in Singapore. MOE does not keep track of their turnover.

From MOE's perspective, our school system already provides holistic education as well as a wide range of enrichment and remedial programmes to meet the educational needs of our students. However, we do understand that parents, wanting the best for their children, may choose to engage private tutors to provide additional support for their children's learning needs. It is not practical for MOE to intervene in such cases. Parents should allow their children some time to rest and reflect on their learning. They should avoid cramming too much in a day or during the weekends.

Children from financially disadvantaged backgrounds who require additional learning support, or a more conducive environment for self-study or revision, can seek subsidised tuition from self-help groups like the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC), Yayasan MENDAKI, and the Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA), or the Special Tuition and Enrichment Programme run by the Singapore Teachers' Union.

Pre-school Education

Dr Lily Neo: There is greater challenge for children from lower-income families to participate in their education process and to level up in society. Greater effort must be put in to identify and to assist them so that they can be given a chance to compete on equal terms.

Community involvement and collaboration, especially with grassroots organisations, are useful. Can MOE take a more holistic approach by considering other assistance required by these families in order to get a more conducive environment for the children? Do we have social workers that can follow up and refer these families to the relevant agencies for help? Can these children be given other assistance tutoring and mentoring to level up? Could MOE monitor these students and provide them with assistance to keep them in their right path in their primary and secondary education?

The Chairman: Ms Josephine Teo is not here. Dr Amy Khor.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, formal and compulsory education for our children starts at the age of seven. However, given the increasing recognition of the importance of pre-school, most Singaporeans send their children to kindergarten before they enter primary one. For some, starting from as early as two-and-a-half to three years old, their children are sent to play school and then nursery, even before kindergarten.

Perhaps, due to the prevalence of such extensive preparation at the pre-school level, primary one is no longer the place for a child to start learning his alphabets and numbers. In fact, primary one students are now expected to have some level of numeracy and literacy skills. Hence, students who enter primary one without any form of pre-school education usually find themselves highly disadvantaged and unable to cope.

Every year, there is a handful of such children, estimated at 5%, who do not attend pre-school. The reasons are varied, but chiefly because of financial difficulties which might also be coupled with lack of support as a result of a broken or dysfunctional family.

Even though the numbers may be small, it is imperative that we seek out these children and help place them in some pre-school or bridging programme, so that they are able to have the same headstart as other children and are not disadvantaged. Otherwise, this could lead to the child eventually dropping out of school as he finds himself unable to cope, especially if he has little family support.

Such cases will add to the number of students who drop out of school each year, though they may not be that large a number, with no relevant job skills, thus perpetuating our low skilled, low-income worker problem. At the very least, such students could be identified by the schools at the point of primary one registration each year and be encouraged to attend some bridging programme for the six months prior to formal schooling.

The MOE and MCYS could enlist the help of the community, such as the grassroots organisations to identify these children early. However, as the families of such children usually have a host of problems that prevent them from sending their children to pre-school, the grassroots volunteers alone will not be equipped to deal with such cases. Hence, it would be more effective if the MOE, together with the MCYS, looks into employing full-time social workers to counsel and advise these families, show them ways to resolve their problems and motivate them to send their children to pre-school.

Given the importance of pre-school as foundational learning for all children, the MOE should look at different ways to reach out to those children who fall out of the pre-school net every year and also ensure that the quality of pre-school education - their teachers, curriculum and resources are of some minimum standards.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Teo Ser Luck): My younger daughter goes to pre-school. Recently, we sent her to a different kindergarten. Like many young parents, I could tell the difference in the curriculum, but I cannot assess the quality. We have one of the best education systems, but I am not sure the same can be said of our pre-school education. I would like to ask how would the Ministry ensure the quality of pre-school education, and would the Ministry consider a standardised system of approach for pre-school education?

Mdm Ho Geok Choo: Sir, it is worrying to hear that there are many parents who do not send their children for pre-school education.

( In Malay ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Sir, preliminary surveys indicate that a large proportion of families not sending their children to kindergarten are of the Malay families. Can the Minister please enlighten the House why this is so? Are there any particular reasons? What is the next step to help the Malay families in providing pre-school education to their children?

• Cols. 3241-3242.

( In English ): For any exercise to reach out to these families, it is important that we must not take half-hearted measures. How will MOE provide further funding to ensure that it is not just engaged in empty talk when it embarks on reaching out to this group?

Sir, how would MOE also engage other agencies to reach out to this target group?

The Chairman: We will go back to Mrs Josephine Teo.

Mrs Josephine Teo (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, our education system provides consistently high quality at the primary, secondary, post-secondary and tertiary levels. And just as important, fees remain affordable for most Singaporeans. I think our system is also precious because entry to school is mostly by merit. It does not matter whether your parents are CEOs or hawker assistants. If your results are good, the best schools will accept you.

However, I am afraid that, like Mr Teo, I believe the same cannot yet be said of pre-school education. There is great diversity in the type of pre-school providers but quality is inconsistent. The affordability of pre-school education is debatable because the price range is very wide, from around $50 to over $1,000 per month. The correlation between price and quality is not guaranteed. So parents just take a leap of faith.

Sir, first, on the issue of quality: MOE has put in place standards for kindergartens. There is even a set of FAQs on the website to guide parents on how to select a kindergarten. This is well-intentioned but most working parents may not know that the standards exist or even if the standards are good enough. Even if they do, is it realistic to expect them to be able to assess pre-school providers according to those standards? Sir quality assurance must be done by people who have the knowledge, expertise and credibility. That knowledge, expertise and credibility lie with the MOE.

Second, on pricing. MCYS recently extended KiFAS to cover 90% of fees instead of the 75% previously. But we must remember that KiFAS applies only to families earning less than $1,500 per month. For middle-income families earning up to $2,500 per month, having to pay at least $50 per month for a kindergarten is still quite costly, several times that of primary school fees. I understand that parents can tap the Children Development Account (CDA) to pay the fees at approved institutions, including kindergartens. To what extent has CDA been used for pre-school education? Has it been useful in ensuring that pre-school education remains affordable for most Singaporeans?

Last week, Minister Tharman talked about the need for continued investment in education to provide social mobility. He noted rightly that in developed countries where incomes are stretched out, it is harder for children in the lower strata to achieve upward social mobility. Singaporean parents are increasingly feeling the heat, especially when they see foreign-born students garnering top honours in our national examinations.

Sir, having spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get Singaporeans to have babies, would it not be a shame if we did not ensure that Singaporean children got the best start in life, beginning with pre-school education? We can certainly research and study the impact of pre-school education, but we should not wait to act. The children soon grow up and we would have lost the opportunity to make a difference to them. I think we owe it to ourselves to move more boldly and quickly on this.

Pre-school Outreach

Mr Wee Siew Kim (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Chairman, Sir, a chance sighting of a headline of an UNICEF study, "Britain's children are unhappiest in the Western World" set me thinking. If this study were extended to our part of the world, how will Singapore's children fare? Clearly, this is one list that Singapore does not wish to talk.

Today, I want to focus on the emotional care of the latch key children, especially the ones that are below six years old, what we call the "pre-schoolers". The Singapore Children's Society's website states that a pervasive issue which it is still grappling with is the growing loneliness of children. We are thus concerned today not with the quality of physical care of children, the alternative childcare arrangements or institutions, but the inner health and state of a child. Loneliness is the cause of many vices and how can we provide a level of support through education to ensure that our children grow up motivated and well-adjusted in life, emotionally and morally?

It is more than just providing academic assistance to a child's school work. It is about reaching out to the child's innermost self, getting in touch with strengths, weaknesses, thoughts, questions, fears, wishes and beliefs, and coaching the child to deal and manage with growing up issues the right way. The teachers have to be trained to cope.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Sir, I thank the hon. Members for their thoughtful questions on pre-school education.

The vast majority of our parents recognise the value of pre-school education and an estimated 95% of children are already attending formal pre-school education. The reasons why the remaining 5% of parents do not send their children to pre-school are not straightforward.

Dr Amy Khor, Mdm Ho Geok Choo and Dr Lily Neo have asked about measures to help lower-income families to send their children to pre-school and to reach out to them. Our own data indicates that pre-school education is particularly helpful in allowing children from low income families and non-English speaking families to catch up with their peers.

To help these children, I am therefore glad to announce that the grassroots organisations have embarked on an effort to reach out to their families. Starting from February this year, grassroots leaders have started conducting visits to families with children not attending pre-school, to share the benefits of pre-school and encourage them to send their children there. For more straightforward cases where the parents need financial assistance or a place in a pre-school, the grassroots will assist accordingly. For more complex cases, more customised solutions will be required, including directing the families to seek help from social service agencies. The grassroots are also bringing in other members of the community to encourage these families, including the self-help groups. MOE and MCYS will work closely with the community to support them in this effort directed at all children of all races and backgrounds.

This exercise is primarily intended to reach out to five-year-old children, to provide them with one-and-a-half years of pre-school at least. For children that the community is not able to successfully reach out to through this effort, we will provide another net to catch them just before P1. In 2006, the self-help groups had collaborated with MOE on a pilot project in 12 primary schools to identify six-year-olds who were not attending pre-school during the P1 registration exercise.

The Self-Help Groups reached out to their families and encouraged them to send their children to pre-school for the remaining part of the year.

4.45 pm

One of these children, Wan Ni, had been identified during the P1 registration exercise and subsequently enrolled in a kindergarten in August before starting P1. While Wan Ni had initially not been comfortable speaking English when she first joined the kindergarten, by the time she entered P1 a few months later, she was able to follow her lessons. Wan Ni was able to communicate with her teacher in simple English. While it will be beneficial to have the children placed in pre-school much earlier, this exercise to encourage the remaining children to attend pre-school even at the point of the P1 registration is still valuable. MOE will, therefore, be extending this to all primary schools this year.

The effort by the community to persuade parents to send their children to pre-school will be difficult. Some of these families may not be contactable. It may be even unpleasant to have to convince some parents to send their children to pre-school. Some families may have problems so deep-rooted that it will require a long process to work through solutions with them. Hence, it will not be immediately possible to convince every parent to place his child in pre-school. Through the efforts of the community, we will aim to reduce the number of children not attending pre-school by at least half in the next five years.

Sir, once we get these children into pre-school, we must then ensure that pre-school is affordable and of good quality. I would like to update the House on the Government's continuing efforts to ensure this.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang had previously asked if pre-school education can come under MOE. Parents currently can choose from a wide variety of pre-schools. This diversity is actually healthy. It allows for innovation and different types of programmes to develop from these pre-schools for children with different needs. Instead of taking over the whole pre-school sector and taking away this diversity, what the Government has chosen is to play an active role to ensure its accessibility, affordability and quality.

The Government provides development funding to eligible kindergartens and childcare centres. MOE also provides recurrent funding to eligible kindergartens to improve their quality and has so far provided around $62 million. This injection of funding from the Government helps to keep pre-school fees affordable.

Specifically and in addition for children from lower income families, there are Government financial assistance schemes, including the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme (KiFAS) and the Centre-based Financial Assistance Scheme for Childcare (CFAC). Each year, around 16,000 children benefit from around $16 million worth of funding or financial assistance and the Government has just announced further increases in subsidies under both schemes. Families can also tap on community-based financial assistance schemes, such as the Education Trust Fund (ETF) that was established by Mendaki.

To Mrs Josephine Teo's question, there is also Government funding to help middle-income families. All families receive a subsidy of up to $150 per month a child for childcare. Parents can also use the Baby Bonus Scheme. The Government's cash gift of between $3,000 to $6,000 per child is more than sufficient to pay for two years of kindergarten fees. Parents can also use their Children Development Account, or CDA. In fact, for $100 monthly, middle-income parents, who top up $25 a month for the first four years after the child is born, will benefit from the 50% subsidy from the Government through the CDA. Based on what parents contribute to the CDA, the Government contributes a matching grant. To date, the Government has contributed $270 million, which, in turn, translates to 69% of the activated CDAs that have already been used for kindergarten or childcare fees.

The Government also plays an active role in helping to improve the quality of pre-school. The Government has set minimum requirements for the qualifications of pre-school principals and teachers to ensure that they are trained for the job. To Mr Teo Ser Luck's question, MOE has also formulated a kindergarten curriculum framework and almost 90% of kindergartens have adopted this framework. Since 2003, more than 7,000 teachers have attended workshops conducted by MOE to help with the drawing up of the curriculum.

Mr Wee Siew Kim would be glad to know that one of the developmental areas emphasised in MOE's framework is helping children to acquire self and social awareness. Self awareness includes teaching children to be aware of their feelings, and being able to communicate these feelings to adults. Social awareness includes learning how to work and play in a group. Pre-school teachers, therefore, also receive training in these areas through MOE's workshops.

Through these efforts, the pre-school sector has been making significant strides in quality over the years. In 2000, an estimated 31% of pre-school teachers were certificate or diploma-trained, and 14% of principals were diploma-trained. Since minimum requirements were introduced by MOE, 82% of pre-school teachers are now certificate or diploma-trained, and 70% of principals diploma-trained. Pre-school centres are also adopting innovative new curricula and programmes. To quote a recent article from the Straits Times , "there is a real buzz in the pre-school scene here".

Sir, MOE is continuously reviewing how we can further improve the quality of pre-school education. I am pleased to inform Mrs Josephine Teo that we have started to place more relevant information about kindergartens on our website, which would be important to parents in deciding which kindergarten to send their children to. We currently indicate the kindergartens that have trained principals. Starting from April this year, we will also indicate the kindergartens that have met our requirements for trained teachers. We are further exploring additional types of information that we can include, such as the pupil-teacher ratio.

Another initiative that MOE has been working on is to assist kindergarten pupils with English. In August last year, MOE introduced a project called the Focused Language Assistance in Reading, or FLAiR, in 10 neighbourhood kindergartens. This was to provide intensive assistance in the English Language to selected K2 children, to address a difficulty faced by children from lower-income families, who may not have sufficient exposure to the English language.

At these kindergartens, trained personnel, or whom we call Pro-FLAiRs, worked with these children on a daily basis. The children received intensive attention from these teachers to help them to develop their confidence in using English. 82 children benefited from this pilot project and we found that these children demonstrated significant improvement. MOE will, therefore, be extending FLAiR to more kindergartens starting from July, and we hope to be able to reach out to around 1,000 children each year. We will focus on extending FLAiR to children from lower-income families as these are the children that need the most help.

Both the outreach effort and FLAiR programme reflect part of the intervention programmes that we have implemented more upstream during the pre-school years, with an aim to reduce the risk of attrition in school later.

To uplift the quality of spoken English also, especially for pre-school teachers, MOE will also be implementing an English Language proficiency course for them. This will help to strengthen the foundation in English Language received by our children during their pre-school years. As you know, they are very impressionable at that age. The course aims to train about 2,000 teachers over three years.

In conclusion, Sir, the quality of the pre-school sector has steadily improved over the years. The vast majority of children also receive pre-school education. MOE will continue to review our efforts. In particular, pre-school education can play a role in helping to level up children from lower-income backgrounds. MOE will, therefore, pay even greater attention to ensure that children from lower-income backgrounds are able to access high quality pre-school education. I hope that the community will rally around these efforts, and all do our part to encourage these families to send their children to pre-school as a first step.

Dr Lily Neo: Mr Chairman, earlier in my opening speech, I suggested this concept of lifelong learning and lifelong learners in a learning society. Could I seek the Minister's view on this? Does he think that this concept is appropriate in today's world and also in future context? And will he look at it with the view of maybe incorporating it in our education system?

Mr Gan Kim Yong: At the moment, we are looking at our Post-Secondary Education Account which will provide support for students who want to continue beyond secondary school education.

For lifelong learning, at the moment, we are working with WDA on the Lifelong Learning Fund to support adults who are interested to pursue education after they have gone into working life. At the moment, we want to ensure that our Post-Secondary Education Account focuses on selected institutions that provide quality education because many of these courses are very expensive and, therefore, we want to make sure that they are very targeted.

Dr Lily Neo's suggestion of a personal lifelong learning account is something that we will study carefully. But until we are able to find a system to accreditate and ensure the quality of the training institutions, it is a system that is not easy to implement and we have to ensure that money is well spent. If we were to introduce this hastily, we will find that a lot of the resources will go to waste and it will open to a lot of abuse. It will not be effective in providing quality education to our children. Therefore, we will study this proposal carefully and once we put in place a proper accreditation system, we will consider expanding it.

Mdm Cynthia Phua: We have seen in MPS the anguish of parents seeking help to put their children back to the school system after being pushed out by some principals. Can the Minister clarify if these principals are required to justify their action of pushing these students out of their schools? Are they at liberty to do so? I have just heard of a plight of two twin students. The principal, who had accepted them after his teachers' assessment of them - after two weeks of private tuition for two topics for two subjects - told them that they are equivalent to two Mercedes 350 that are not properly tuned.

RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew: Principals asked their students to leave the school for a variety of reasons, although I would assure Mdm Cynthia Phua that the numbers are small. In discipline cases, they are a last resort. Because I think principals, teachers and educators recognise their responsibilities and do want to give students a second chance, a third chance if necessary, to reform and improve themselves. I did not quite get the Member's point about "Mercedes that are not properly tuned". I believe she was referring to the IP programme.

Mdm Cynthia Phua: No. These are the two twin students who have been asked by the principal to leave the school. The principal, who had accepted these two children, after giving them private tuition, assessed them and called them "Mercedes 350 that are not properly tuned".

RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew: I think it depends on when that is taking place. Obviously, the through train programme could start from Secondary 1 or, in some instances, under the Integrated Programme, it could start from Secondary 3, all the way to the "A" levels, and they skip the "O" levels in between.

I do not have the details of the case that she mentioned and exactly when they were asked to leave the school. But, sometimes, it is kinder to ask them to leave earlier rather than later. Because if you were to ask them to leave school only after a year in the school system - for example, if they come in at Secondary 3 and at the end of Secondary 3 in, say, one of the Junior Colleges (eg, Victoria Junior College, National Junior College or Temasek Junior College), they were asked to leave the school - the problem is that the curriculum that they had gone through in their first year of the Integrated Programme in the Junior College is very different from the curriculum that will prepare them for the "O" levels. So, you are actually kinder to tell them right upfront that maybe it is not quite a good fit, and ask them to go back to a secondary school, go through the "O" level route, and then come back to a Junior College or Polytechnic, based on the results that they get in their "O" levels. Maybe if the Member could give me more details of the case she mentioned, we can look at it in greater detail.

5.00 pm

Mdm Cynthia Phua: Mr Chairman, I think the Minister of State has not answered my question. My question is: are the principals required to justify their action to the Ministry or are they at liberty just to push the children out of the school system if they are deemed not proper by the school?

RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew: We have given a certain amount of flexibility to the principals. Yes, they are able to make such a move. But what the Ministry does is that we collate data and we look at this to make sure that there are no abuses in the system. The concern is this: you bring in a student, utilise him or her based on talent in sports, or in the arts, and then you find that maybe he or she is not quite suited to boost the academic performance of the Junior College when it is time to take the "A" levels, for instance. So we do watch this carefully but we also do not want to prescribe to the school and the principals as to exactly the kind of students that they can take in or the kind of students that they should retain or when they are allowed to, in a sense, send their children off. Because the whole idea about the Discretionary School Admission (DSA) system is to give greater flexibility to the school to admit students based on their own merit-based criteria.

Mr Michael Palmer: Sir, I wanted to thank MOS Lui for his reply on the subject of teaching financial management. I clarify that I was not advocating introducing another examinable subject to overburden the curriculum. But simply teaching our primary school students how to save money: is that enough? I note that he mentioned that some financial management talks were held in secondary schools - I think he mentioned MoneySENSE. Could he provide the details of these talks, particularly how often the talks were held and in how many schools? Could he also advise whether a programme on teaching financial management is in place and whether MOE is looking at implementing one and, if not, why not? And does he consider what is being offered now to our students enough?

RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew: As I mentioned earlier, we have in the Civics and Moral Education (CME) as well as Social Studies lessons, some element of financial acumen as well as financial prudence, particularly more of financial prudence in the primary school level and then moving on to more of financial acumen in the secondary schools and beyond.

Let me just give an example of what is being done at the primary and secondary school levels. In Primary 5, for instance, we run our students through a scenario where they can then discuss what is it that they should do, and what are the considerations to take. For example, on a girl's request to buy a new pair of roller blades, the students discuss together, under the guidance of the teacher, issues like how this will affect family expenses, the trade-offs that need to be made, whether it is something value for money, whether it is something that is needed or wanted. They go through scenario like this in order to get them to understand that if they were to spend money unwisely, there could be consequences not only on themselves but also on the family, and the family may have to make sacrifices in other areas in order for that purchase to take place. So that is happening at the primary school level.

At the secondary school level, they learn how to invest their personal savings and later when they are working, their CPF savings, so that they will have sufficient savings, returns and resources to see them through old age after retirement. And using situational studies, they go through what happens if they were to make wrong or unwise decisions, get to know the ill consequences of credit card indebtedness when they are unable to pay their debts due to unforeseen circumstances. So, that is part of Social Studies. And then if it is within certain schools, they will have so-called other possibilities where they will infuse financial literacy skills as part of the curriculum.

Let me cite an example here which I did not have time to mention earlier. Clementi Town Secondary School introduced financial literacy to all its Secondary One and Two students through project work in Mathematics in 2006. They use arithmetic fractions, percentages and all that and apply these to common daily financial transactions. Some of the scenarios that they are put through include planning for future tertiary education, budgeting, planning for backpacking trips, tour groups, and so on. Students examine their own saving plans and other financial instruments, like fixed deposits, and how they are able to utilise the returns from all these in order to make some of the purchases that they would like to make or trips that they would like to partake in.

He talked about MoneySENSE - that programme was introduced in March 2006 - the figure that I have is that about 8,000 students from 50 schools have participated in it so far. I hope that answers the query that Mr Palmer has.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: I thank the Minister of State for the positive answer on regulating the private education organisations. But I would like to know how long it would take and whether there is a definitive timeframe to be set and, in the interim, what will MOE do?

Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Chairman, we will definitely work very hard and quickly on this licensing framework that we are considering. But the private education sector is a very big sector and many organisations are involved. The quality of this sector is also rather uneven. So, it is important for us to consult the industry extensively to understand the problems and the concerns and to evolve a system that is credible and can withstand the test of time. Therefore, it is important for us to do this very carefully. I would not want to rush into it and find that we have a system that is weak. I think rather than setting ourselves a timeframe, I will prefer to work at it carefully, but we will certainly do it as soon as possible.

Dr Lam Pin Min: Mr Chairman, I would like to raise a point of clarification on the learning of Chinese dialects in Singapore. Recently, I watched a local play entitled: " Ti Tou Dao ". More than 50% of the conversation was actually spoken in Hokkien or Teochew - I cannot really tell the difference. But the essence of the play is best portrayed through the use of the dialect and much of it will be lost through the translation. I would like to ask the Minister if the learning and the use of Chinese dialect are still pertinent in modern day Singapore and whether with time, it will lose a very rich part of our Chinese culture. I believe my generation still can understand a little bit of dialect but my children's generation probably will not understand it at all. Can we revive the learning of Chinese dialects, maybe just the conversational language, like what the Ministry has allowed the learning of other Indian languages such as Bengali or Gujerati.

Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Chairman, our cultural heritage plays an important part in our lives. It defines who we are, and what we are. It is therefore important for us to remember our culture and languages. But it is also important for us to ensure there is common space because we live in a multi-racial society. And, therefore, from the Ministry of Education's point of view, we focus on the teaching of the mother tongue, and the English language which is the common language for us to communicate among different races. As regards dialects, in fact, we encourage and allow our clan associations to continue to provide courses for our children, and students who might want to learn these languages. Many of them do pick up these languages. Many of our clan associations do run these courses and some of them even have projects with schools like bringing some of these students to their ancestry homes in China to do a project study as part of their immersion or project course. Some of these courses will enrich their experience and also remind them of their culture or their own heritage. But, at the same time, we provide common space within our mainstream schools.

Mr Teo Ser Luck: I am very happy to know that we are taking a balanced approach towards education which is more than just academic. Looking at the CCAs, we are encouraging more of our students to take up CCAs. But my question is with regard to the streaming system. We are streaming the students according to their academic results. Is it time to review the whole streaming system again and see how we can evaluate the students not just based purely on academic results? Can the Ministry let us know whether there is going to be a review of the streaming system or the setting up of a different set of criteria?

RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew: Mr Teo covered two different areas and I will try and answer both. One is on streaming and what we are doing about streaming, and the other area is really how do we look at attributes, talents and skills beyond academic qualifications. I think, if I am not wrong, that is really the thrust of his question and clarification.

For streaming, the philosophy is this - and that is what we have been adopting recently - we should try and maximise the strengths of each individual. So, even if we have streamed somebody into the EM3 stream, if I use the primary school system as an example, he or she may not be uniformally weak in all the subjects. Indeed, that was the reason why we moved into subject-based banding for primary schools and we did away with streaming. Recognising that an individual could be strong in the mother tongue and Mathematics, we take that at the standard level; and weak in Science and English, we take that at the foundational level.

We have adopted the same philosophy for secondary schools but we have not done away with streaming. In secondary schools, what happens is that an Normal (Academic) student would be able to offer up to two "O" level subjects in the fourth year and then move on to the fifth year to take the rest of his subjects at the "O" levels. We have also encouraged schools to identify students who are particularly strong and allow them to skip the "N" levels altogether, and they move straight into the "O' levels and take that after five years in the school system. For the "Normal" type, we have done essentially the same thing by allowing them the possibility and the space to take up to two subjects at the end of the Normal (Academic) level. What we have also done is actually to allow schools the flexibility to transfer students across streams from Normal (Academic) to Express stream as well as from Normal (Technical) to the Normal (Academic) stream. That is what is taking place so far. We will look further to see whether there is more scope for us to move more in this direction.

Mr Teo's other point is whether we have a system where we allow the strengths and skills beyond the academic fields to be recognised. Let me cover that in two aspects. First, at the systemic level. We have refined aspects of the system which tend to throw the spotlight primarily on academic performance. What we have done over the years is that we have blurred the precision of the ranking system where schools are placed in their absolute position and we have replaced it with school banding, recognising that there is little benefit to do a comparison of schools based on very minute differences in academic performance. But we have gone beyond that. We have also found ways to recognise the strengths of the schools in other areas like aesthetics, character development, sports and physical health, staff development, so on. And together with the academic ranking of the schools, which incidentally now also includes academic value-add that we look at, I think we will give the community a more comprehensive depiction of the strengths of the schools and what each school is doing to, in a sense, develop its own niches of excellence.

The Chairman: We have quite a few more Members wishing to clarify. But if both the clarifications and answers can be kept short, everyone will have a chance.

Mr Chan Soo Sen: I just wonder whether the Minister would want to respond to my earlier proposal to include, as part of the KPIs for the principals, activities and programmes to promote family values.

RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew: I note his point. Mr Chairman, it is something that we would consider. But let me say also that there are already quite a number of steps that the schools have taken, particularly in the formation of parental support groups and the involvement of the parents and families in the life of the school. His point was with regard to inculcating family values. That is something that is already being done as part of their CME and Social Studies. It is something we would consider, although I am reluctant to really add even more measures, more KPIs and, therefore, more pressure onto the school principals and the leadership.

Mr Chan Soo Sen: Sir, what I have mentioned about family values is we should try to put values like setting up of a family and having children as a priority in life. And I have argued in my speech that we need to start when the children are young - to inculcate this kind of values. I also believe that if we do not put this into the KPI of the people, this will be just taken as one of the many priorities. So, the question is whether we consider this as an important priority in our educational objective for our children. And as I have concluded at the end of my speech, this is about sustaining Singapore and sustaining our long-term growth.

5.15 pm

RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew: The Member knows that we conduct sexuality education in schools where we talk about relationships, parenting, marriage, and so on. I think the difficulty is that the results of what he has talked about - marriage, procreation - come years later. While the schools have sexuality education where they emphasise filial piety and the different aspects of trying to remain strong as a family, what he has mentioned, it is rather hard to measure principals and the schools against that particular outcome. Hence, the difficulty in that dilemma as a result of what he has talked about.

Mrs Josephine Teo (Bishan-Toa Payoh): I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for responding to my comments. If indeed there is $150 million in pre-school subsidy, I would be the first to have my fourth child. As it turns out, I have already got three children and they are all out of pre-school. While I applaud what the MOE is going to do to help parents better understand the kind of pre-school providers that we have, I do think that it is still not enough. For example, by publishing information on the teacher-student ratio on the website, how is the parent to assess whether a ratio of 10:1 is better than 20:1, or if 30:1 is acceptable? How would a parent, who is not trained in education, know whether we can have four trained teachers in order to have a good pre-school curriculum and one trained teacher is not good enough? So I think that the job of quality assurance is really something that has to be taken up by a body with the knowledge, expertise and credibility, and that would be the MOE. So, as has been done for special schools under SPED, could the MOE also consider putting in place a quality assurance framework for pre-school providers and in fact conducting management audits, as it intends to do for SPED schools? If the providers ---

The Chairman: Mrs Teo, please make your point.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Thank you. And if the providers are not willing to have a mandatory quality assurance system, then let those who are quality certified to come forward voluntarily.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Sir, I think I made a clarification that it was $150, not $150 million. The Member will find it in the Hansard afterwards. The issue of publishing information on the web must also be taken in the context of establishing standards that the kindergartens or pre-schools have to follow. So this must be read with the standards that MOE is setting, and these standards will evolve over time, and we will increase the standards and quality as we move over time. Whether the kindergartens will meet these standards or not, we will be transparent about it. At this point of time, we have not yet decided what these key performance indicators will be. As I have mentioned just now, among them would be the qualifications of principals and teachers or the number of teachers that they have compared to the teachers who are qualified to teach in the kindergartens. These key indicators will also evolve over time and, hopefully, together with the standards that we have set, will become valuable information for our parents to know which kindergartens or pre-schools to send their children to.

Mr Hri Kumar: Sir, on the issue of parental involvement, the Minister of State has cited the example of Fengshan Primary School as a school with a good programme. My question is really whether there is a consistent standard for all schools and whether the Ministry should set a minimum expectation for all schools and, if not, why not.

RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew: I think for parent support groups, we have got to remember that, first of all, they are volunteers and, therefore, sometimes, the commitment, the amount of time that they can give to the school and even the skill sets that they bring may differ from school to school. So it is difficult to really prescribe and say that this is what we expect of every parent support group. I think it is up to the educational leaders in the school, the school advisory committee to go and work with the parent support groups and try and find their different strengths, different networks and connections that they bring and use these to their best advantage. What we have tried to do so far really is to make sure that there is such a facility in as many schools as possible where parents can come forward, volunteer their time in very meaningful ways and make a difference in the lives of the students of that school. If he wants some data, I can share that with him, in terms of how successful we have been in that regard. But we have not tried to prescribe exactly what they ought to do in each of the parent support groups.

Mr Alvin Yeo: Two points of clarification on the point of class sizes. The first point is, if class sizes are just something for the schools to prescribe, what is the rationale for having smaller classes in GEP and Primary 1 and 2 students and do the same reasons not apply for other not so gifted students? The second point of clarification: while I agree that increasing the number of teachers overnight would be trading quality for quantity, could not this be done progressively over a period of years, provided of course the Ministry considers this a worthwhile objective?

RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew: As you know, the class sizes now are 30 per class, and that really is to ease the transition from kindergarten to primary school. When you are in kindergarten, you may be having a class size of 10, 15 or 20. If you were to jump straight into a class size of 40, I think that is going to be quite a significant transition for young children of that age. For GEP, I think it is a very, very small group of people that we are talking about, that is 1%, and therefore we are able in that sense to have class sizes of 25. Let me also say that they are not unique in having small class sizes because for the learning support programme, it is also in very small groups. In fact, it is in even smaller numbers, eight to 12, across the levels, in primary schools and secondary schools. Schools have the flexibility to pull students out and give them added attention and the class sizes may well be 10, 20, and so on. So rather than say, let us prescribe a certain number, we have given that flexibility to the school.

The point is this. The options are not whether you have a class of 40 taught by one good teacher or two classes of 20 taught by two equally good teachers. We do not have that today. It will be, if you want smaller class sizes, a class of 20 taught by a good teacher and a class of 20 that may be taught by somebody whom we would otherwise not recruit today because we are already recruiting quite a significant number of university graduates. We recruit from the top 30% of the Primary 1 cohort that goes through. We are taking in 2,500 and I believe we are taking in about one in every eight graduates. So there is, in a sense, an impact on the rest of the economy if you were to grow the numbers of teachers very significantly.

Mr Alvin Yeo: Just to follow up on that. If this is something that cannot be achieved now, is this not a worthwhile enough goal to invest in for the future because with good teachers, we are already enhancing the productivity of our future economically productive citizens?

RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew: What we are trying to do in the meantime is to be able to recruit as many teachers as possible who qualify and meet our standards. I think I mentioned earlier we have grown the size of the teaching population by about 3,000 over the last few years. We hope to do as well by 2010 so that we can put yet another five teachers into the school system, and we are encouraging schools to bring back the adjunct teachers, those who have left service and as many of them as possible, up to a quota of 10 per school. So that is what we are trying to do - put more numbers into the schools that meet the standards that we expect of teachers. Perhaps, the day will come when eventually, we have so many or the student population in the school diminishes to some extent that we are able then to relook at the class size. But, as an intermediate step, by 2010, it is really to put another five teachers into all schools.

Mrs Jessie Phua (Nominated Member): I would like to seek the Ministry's clarification on what assistance plans are there in place to help students who wish to repeat the 'A' levels but have been called up for National Service, especially in the area of nationally carded athletes. We have the case of one of our sportsmen, an exceptionally outstanding athlete, a very strong medal contender at the Asian Games, who devoted a good part of last year to training and travelling overseas in preparation for the Asian Games. Unfortunately, he failed his 'A' levels and having been called up for National Service, he has no opportunity to repeat his 'A' levels. I am also given to understand that the private candidate option is also out as its syllabus has been changed. Sir, this would have a grave impact on sports, as parents would now be less hesitant to give their blessings to their child for training and competition commitment. Of equal importance is that we may have athletes who would at the beginning of the year work very hard to be selected and, having been selected, might slack in their training because, unfortunately, the major game meets are always at the second part or at end of the year.

The Chairman: Mrs Phua, I think your point is understood. RAdm Lui.

RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew: For students who failed their 'A' levels, we do allow them to repeat their 'A' levels in one of our schools. So I would like to have more information from her so that we can take a closer look at this. Yes, we actually allow the student to do and ask for deferment of National Service in order to be able to repeat their 'A' levels. I would like to ask for more information from her so that we can check this up and perhaps clarify with the Ministry of Defence as well.

Ms Lee Bee Wah (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, I would like to hear from the Minister what is his view on my previous call of allowing CPF to be used by working adults to do part-time degree or Diploma courses.

The Chairman: That is the question for MOM on the next cut. Mr Gautam.

Mr Gautam Banerjee (Nominated Member): My question relates to the proposed licensing framework for private schools. Could I ask the Minister, when he comes up with this new framework, to consider, in addition to the educational standards and quality, also the governance and internal controls in these institutions because we had a string of problems and financial scandals relating to private schools? I think we need a holistic approach to the licensing framework because when students come to these schools, they do not envisage this. They think that in Singapore, they are well taken care of. We do not want the collapse of these schools to damage our brand name.

Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Chairman, I think I mentioned in my reply earlier that, as we work on the licensing framework, we will include factors such as academic rigour , governance, as well as student welfare to make sure that all these areas are covered under the licensing framework. At the moment, CaseTrust for education does provide some form of governance certification for private education organisations that are certified by CaseTrust.

Mdm Cynthia Phua: Although MOS Lui has mentioned about the five areas of assessment, schools with academic excellence is only one of the five areas. However, there are still principals who are asking students to drop subjects that they are taking for 'O' levels and 'A' levels that they cannot achieve 'B4' and above so as to score the perfect marks for the school banding and also for the teacher's promotion prospect. Can the Minister clarify whether these statements are true?

RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew: I think the way it is being done now is that, in the earlier years, it is to expose them to as many subjects as they can possibly take within a certain limit. Let them find their respective areas of interest and then subsequently to scope it a little bit narrow, depending on their aptitude and abilities. So, yes, I do know of situations when students, for example, in the junior colleges, are asked to drop a fourth subject in order to concentrate on doing three 'A' level subjects. But it is not necessarily a bad thing,

if they are to spend more time and focus on certain areas that are perhaps in their best interest and meet the interest of what they want to do going forward. So the schools will have the flexibility to advise their students on the appropriate steps to take in this particular area.

5.30 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Teo Ser Luck): Sir, we have seen many good projects out of National Education. But my concern is whether the students are taking just another subject and only learning to work together on a project, being creative and honing their presentation skills and then lose the larger value of what National Education is all about. I would like to ask the Ministry whether they have a system to measure the effectiveness of National Education since its implementation in 1997.

RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew: Sir, National Education, like character development, these are not easy things to measure. Surveys - we do them quite regularly - only show certain aspects of the NE outcomes. For character in NE, we do measure the processes that the school takes, but that is yet only another specific indicator, not necessarily giving us a comprehensive picture of how hearts have been touched and how behaviours are going to be changed. But they are indicators that we also look at. For example, after we dropped this requirement for eight hours' CIP in the junior colleges, what we have found out is that over 99% of the students are still active in CIP. About half of the junior colleges have more than 60% of their students taking greater ownership of such learning through their own student-initiated CIP projects. Those are encouraging signs. For us, measurement is difficult because sometimes the changes in behaviour may very well take many years before we see them in their entirety, before they are fully manifested. But what we are really looking for are activities that are meaningful and will allow our students to fully contribute, participate and give back something to society and, in doing so, if they were to see the value of what they do, then I think we are moving in the right direction.

The Chairman: I think every one has been given a chance already for clarifications. Dr Lily Neo.

Dr Lily Neo: Mr Chairman, Sir, I can see that MOE has challenges ahead and bold changes to be made to better hone our only resources, ie, our human resource, for a better Singapore. Therefore, I would like to wish Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam and his team here, MOS and SPS, as well as his team in MOE - I can see the Permanent Secretary here - all the best and success in their endeavours.

On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $6,352,253,240 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $681,257,200 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.