NEW RESTRUCTURED EDUCATION SYSTEM (Report on progress)

Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education if he will respond to the call by Government backbenchers to present to Parliament a report on the progress and problems of the New Restructured Education System and whether there has been any shift in policy since its implementation in 1979.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, when I addressed Parliament on the introduction of the New Education System, I promised to present a progress report. I have not kept this promise. It is not that there is nothing to report. The reason is that with the establishment of the Schools Council in February 1981 detailed progress reports have been made every month to the teaching profession, the newspapers and the public.

Members of Parliament can receive copies of studies, progress reports and policy papers on application to the Ministry. In view of the continuous flow of a large volume of information available to MPs, I did not think it necessary to make a special report to Parliament. However, if sufficient numbers of MPs want a special report, I shall be happy to oblige. As regards the second part of the quesion, there has been no shift in policy since 1979, though various attempts have been made to improve the system.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, supplementary questions. Obviously the Minister is very comfortable with his reply. But I am sure Members of his House are not comfortable with his reply. Is the Minister happy that his Ministry has brought remarkable changes to our Education system and has added more anxiety and uncertainty to many students, teachers and parents? Is he aware that his now education system has put labels on our society - Monolingual, Normal, Express, Special, and now Gifted? Is he aware of the consequences of labelling our population in future? Is he aware that Normal course students are unhappy that their chances of doing the GCE are very slim, and that the parents are even more worried when they learn of this fine-tuning of the streaming of the Normal course? Is he worried that the double-weightage given to Languages distorts streaming? Are there only slow-learners in the Normal stream? How many are there because of the double-weightage given to Languages? What has the Minister done to ensure that the child who does badly in Second Language but has good results in other subjects are not wrongly streamed? Is he aware that Monolingual classes are facing a disciplinary problem? Is he also aware that some schools are bogged down with too many pilot projects, that teachers are busy sorting out these pilot projects rather than sorting out the problems of students?

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, would you let the Minister reply instead of going on?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Yes, I have given him a mouthful.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I am aware of all these problems. However, the Member has grossly exaggerated the extent to which these matters have caused difficulties and problems either to the children or their parents. Slow-learners there will always be under any system. Under the old system, the slow-learner has to learn at the same pace as the fast learner. The result is thousands of school children drop out. Enormous wastage we had then. We have reduced this substantially.

As regards the double-weightage at PSLE both for passing and streaming purposes, we have carried out computer simulation tests to see what difference there would be if there were no double-weightage for languages; the difference is extremely minute.

As for the Normal stream students at secondary schools not being able to do the GCE 'O' level, I would like to remind the Member that a fair proportion of Normal stream students, after they have finished Secondary 1, are able to join the Express stream. For the others, the better top, maybe 40%, maybe 50%, after doing their GCE 'O' level Normal, can go on to the 'O' level as we have now. The others will probably have the 'O' level Normal as their terminal examinations. Compare this with the situation where it is quite common for large numbers, thousands each year, to drop out of secondary schools. If a parent has a child that is below average in learning capacity, it does not matter whether the child is in the Normal stream in the present policy or whether he is in the same class as the bright boys, because in the end that child will do badly. However, we are giving him a better chance to do 'O' level in five years what he is expected to do in four.

As for schools being deluged with work, with pilot projects, with workshops, the hon. Member has a very light ear to complaints from school principals and teachers. Schools must always be on the look-out for new methods of teaching, for innovation, for improvement. If they are not willing to improve on their professional standards, then they have no right to be in the profession. So I must ask him, when he listens to such complaints, to have not only a light ear but a discriminating mind.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: The Minister mentioned about Normal course. Is he aware that his Ministry is trying to think for those parents whose children are in the Normal course, and whether it is wise to interfere too much with the aspirations of these people? And is he aware (i) that his perception of the expectations of the students and of the parents is not what the students and parents perceive, (ii) that their expectation is to do the GCE in five years, and (iii) that the Ministry just prepares them for the examination? And that is what is provided in the Report in 1979. Would the Minister like to comment on this?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, when it comes to streaming at PSLE into the Express and Normal courses, special attention is paid to pupils in the margin, say, 21/2% below the cut-off point. The parents are asked whether they want their child to go to the Normal stream as the examination results indicate, or whether they want to go to the Express stream, and the Ministry complies with the parents' wishes. Where it is below the margin of doubt, the child still has a chance by performing well in Secondary 1 - and there are cases where for various reasons children who are below the band of doubt perform better than expected at Secondary 1 and they go to the Express stream. For the others, it is for their own benefit that if they have the capacity to do GCE at all, it is best that they do it in five years. I know there are ambitious parents in professional families who want to pressure their children, who think it is a loss of face that their child is in Normal course whereas the neighbour's child is in the Express stream. Which is more important? The parent's ego or the child's welfare? Think about it.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Speaker, Sir, in his 1979 Report, the Deputy Prime Minister definitely gave parents the impression that all Normal course students would at least do the GCE in five years' time. But somewhere along the line the Ministry did some fine tuning to this particular course. I learned that about 65% to 70% of students in the Normal course would ultimately not do the GCE. Why is the Minister so impatient?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, this is a very long and complicated subject. I suggest that we go to the next Question. If the Member wants a proper and detailed explanation, he can raise it during the Budget debate in the Committee of supply.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: I will not be around. That is why I am asking all the questions today. Well, I can take it up at the next Budget. Is the Minister also aware that principals are unhappy because the salary of a principal is the same in many instances as a senior staff? And is he aware that some teachers do not want to become principals or vice-principals because of this salary structure?

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, are you going on with the second Question, or are you going to the third Question now?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: All these supplementaries are related to the second Question.

Mr Speaker: I thought you said you would take it up at the next Budget.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: No. That is on the particular aspect of the Normal course.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, can I ask you, on a point of order, whether the questions on details are relevant to the original Question which the Member raised?

Mr Speaker: Only to your answer.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: It is relevant. It is related to the Minister's report. Of course, he did not give a very good and satisfactory report. So I am trying to dig it out from him.

Mr Speaker: Maybe on another occasion, Dr Tan.