MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE - FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1975 TO 31ST MARCH, 1976
Sir, the few Members who have spoken have covered a very wide spectrum on the issue of education. Generally, the points raised fall into several categories and I propose to deal with them under these categories - changes in the education system and restructuring, professional matters concerning teachers, school management, and others. First of all, on the restructuring of the education system, may I compliment those Members who have spoken for their in-depth knowledge of what is being done, in particular, the Member for Moulmein who spoke very eloquently in defence of the changes. Let mc assure all Members of this House that this proposed change is not an exercise on paper and it will not, as the Member for Katong has said, start with a bang and end with a whimper. I agree that superficially there appears to have been a lot of changes and at times confusing, as the Member for Jalan Kayu has said. All these changes over the recent years are actually the logical development of our education system over the last one and a half decades. Our education policy has been spelt out very clearly in our 1959 documents. All these changes are no other than logical developments of this policy. Why does there appear to be more changes than before? Well, it is because we have been able to consolidate and build up the base which enables these changes to take place. With respect to the implementation of the restructuring of the education system, as all Members know, the Ministry is in close consultation with the teachers' unions, professional bodies and those in the field, like principals and teachers, on how best to implement it. For example, most teachers' unions have already set up their own committees to do an in-depth study of the implications, and some have already made their recommendations to the Ministry. Recently, we had a series of workshops and seminars organised by principals with exactly the same purpose. It is also the intention of the Ministry to carry out a series of in-service courses to prepare the principals and teachers for the proper implementation of these changes. I agree that many teething problems will be faced on the introduction of the new system at the end of this year. Many of these problems, in fact, have been envisaged by the unions and the principals, and recommendations are being made. The Ministry is presently studying them and adjustments will be made where necessary. Sir, I will now deal with the more specific issues of the restructuring of the education system, which have been raised by various Members. The Member for Paya Lebar mentioned the difficulties that will be faced by schools with a small enrolment. He suggested that the Government should assist the merging of such small schools, particularly those in the rural areas. I could not agree with him more. In fact, a couple of years ago the former Minister of State for Education, now the Minister of State for Communications, announced that the Ministry encourages such moves. 4.00 p.m. Wherever possible, the Ministry will make available land and financial assistance to effect such a merger. In fact, merging of such small schools will also solve the problem, as cited by the Member for Serangoon Gardens, of small schools having only two classes of students. With a fair-sized school, this problem will be minimised. Various questions have been asked on how assessment will be done. First of all, may I reiterate what I have said in public. The Ministry has recently done a very detailed analysis of the last PSLE results. There appears to be a very good correlation between the predicted results by schools and the actual PSLE. We are sending this assessment to individual schools so as to assist them in making their assessment as to which students should do the remaining upper primary in either three or four years. I think the Member for Serangoon Gardens as well as the Member for Potong Pasir mentioned the stigma on the three or four-year upper primary. Let me say this. Whether a child completes his upper primary in three years or four years has absolutely no impact whatsoever on the secondary education he will receive. He will have to cover the same syllabus. He will have to take the same Primary Schools Leaving Examination, and the sort of secondary education and training that he receives will depend on his performance then. The Member for Serangoon Gardens also asked about the restructuring of the secondary level. The Ministry is now finalising the broad framework for the secondary level, and this will be sent to the various teachers' unions and professional bodies for comments. When finalised, it will then be made public. The Member for Jurong raised the point about those students who could not be effectively bilingual. In my statement in November I did admit that those who were genuinely incapable of being effectively bilingual would be given less exposure time. Since then I have given much thought on this and recently I have made certain clarifications on that point. First of all, I say that less exposure time will be allowed for those who are genuinely incapable, and I expect the number to be very small. They are likely to be put in special classes. Perhaps they will not be given reduced exposure time as originally intended. And as suggested by the Member for Jurong, they may be given more intensive coaching; hence they have to be put in special classes. We have to recognise the fact that we have to assist those people who cannot be effectively bilingual. The standardisation of performance and method of assessment is one of the topics discussed at the Principals' seminar, and certain recommendations have been made. We are studying the recommendations, which are very similar to what has been put up by the teachers' unions. This will be made known to all the principals and teachers concerned. The channelling of students into either three or four years' upper primary education will only take place in December this year. Therefore, those students who will be going to Primary IV in July this year will not be affected by this change. Those in Primary 11 now and going on to Primary III in July will be affected in June 1976. I hope that clarifies the point raised by the Member for Jurong. The Member for Potong Pasir also raised the question that there will be more private tuition. I am one who is not in favour of private tuition. But I also realise the parents' anxiety to encourage their children to take private tuition because of the restructuring. At the beginning of this year the Ministry conducted a very brief survey on one well established mission school and one typical Government-integrated school on the trend on private tuition last year, and again this year. The survey is not conclusive, but the results indicate that there is no rush for private tuition for the Primary III pupils. I cannot say also if this is an island-wide phenomenon, as this survey was conducted only on two typical schools. The Member for Paya Lebar suggested that we should not make public the GCE "O" and "A" levels results in the press. He has a good point there -- that it would produce a certain stigma on parents whose children did not pass. I promise that I will look into this matter to see whether we should really scrap the publication of these results in the press. The Member also raised the point of admission to Pre-U classes and the different systems adopted for the English and non-English streams. The position is this. Schools in the English stream usually have their "O" level results known sometime at the end of March, while those in the non-English stream have their results known by the end of January. In the past we had a preliminary admission exercise for the English stream but not for the non-English stream. This year I am afraid it was a freak year - there was a delay in the non-English stream and for some strange reason the English stream results were advanced by two weeks so that the results for both streams were announced simultaneously. We are looking into the possibility of having a preliminary admission exercise for all streams when all the Pre-U classes are confined to the junior colleges. When this is done, I think it would be possible for us to adopt a similar system for all the streams. The Member for Thomson raised the question about the teaching of civics and moral education. I could not agree with him more. That is a very important aspect of education. This is not only being taught in the subject of "Education for Living" or "Civics", but we try to incorporate it in other subjects as well. The reason why we do not make it an examination subject is that, as of now, our education system is already too examination-orientated. By adding another subject, we could make matters worse. They might learn it by heart without really wanting to know why certain things ought to be done. The Member for Anson raised a series of questions. Why do we not extend the `A' level Commerce examination to private candidates as well? The GCE `A' level examination in Commerce was introduced in 1970 as a pilot project. Over the last five years we have been able to monitor its development, and we are fairly satisfied that we can run it quite competently. It will be open to the private candidates in the near future; unfortunately not this year but most probably next year. He also mentioned something about private schools doing better than Government or Government-aided schools. I am afraid I have to dispute that statement. For example, if you look at the results last year, 57% of the `A' level candidates from Government and Government-aided schools obtained 2 `A's, 2 `0's plus the General Paper, whereas only 14% from the private colleges obtained the same grades. Out of this 14%, only 1% managed to get into the University. In other words, although they get the same grade, they are of a lower quality. The Member also enquired about the posting of students nearest their homes. It is the intention of the Ministry to post students to schools as near to their homes as possible. But we have also to recognise that parents want to send their children to schools of their own choice. Over the last few years, about 95% of the Primary I students have been able to find places in the schools of their own choice. Of the remaining 5%, most of them were posted to schools within three kilometres from their homes. The Member for Telok Blangah raised a few questions regarding the teaching of second language. With 40% of the curriculum time being devoted to second languages, it will be extremely difficult to put students taking different second languages in the same class. It is not just a question of administrative convenience by putting them in the same class. In fact, it is educationally unwise to have students with different second languages in the same class because 60% of their time spent in one language will create one lot of classmates and 40% of their time will have a different lot of classmates. Moreover, the mingling-integration does not begin really in the classrooms. Students arc not supposed to fool and mingle around in the classrooms. They are supposed to mingle in the field or in activities where they can socialise together. Therefore, we should really consider progress in the school as a whole rather than by classes. Principals have been advised to integrate children taking different second languages as far as possible in activities such as extra-curricular activities, so as to achieve the objective which the Member mentioned. The Member also asked what happened to the second languages, especial- ly Tamil as a second language in mission schools. Unfortunately the number of students taking Tamil as a second language is small. Therefore, it is not possible to have a second language Tamil (TL2) class in every mission school. However, we have a centre for Tamil as a second language. Students from mission schools are sent to this centre to learn Tamil as a second language. He also asked why the three established Tamil centres - Bartley, Beatty and Gan Eng Seng - were closed down. With the exception of Beatty, both Bartley and Gan Eng Seng, I believe, were closed more than eight years ago. It is not the result of a change in policy on bilingualism or of the recent changes. Beatty Secondary School was changed this year. The reason is this: as it stands, Beatty Secondary School does not have enough classrooms to cater for its own pupils. In attending these classes those TL2 pupils had to float from one classroom to another. This was rather unsatisfactory, and as a result we moved the centre to a school where sufficient classrooms for TL2 are available for this purpose. 4.15 pm. The Member for Anson asked a few questions about the Institute of Education. He wants me to give a very simple answer to the question on who wants to be a teacher? May I assure him that in our present day context teaching is still a very noble profession. There are many bright young men and women who aspire to be teachers when they finish their schooling. During the last admission exercise carried out a couple of months ago by the Institute of Education there were about 550 applicants for the Certificate in Education course. Due to the staffing position, we have only been able to take in about 60. The ratio is about 1 : 10. Similarly, for the Diploma in Education course for graduates, there were about 450 applicants for 90 places. The ratio is 1 : 5. Despite what has been said, the teaching profession still has its attractions. The Member mentioned that there are some restrictions on teachers who wish to pursue a course of study, for example, academic teachers studying for a non-academic course. Let me assure him that no restriction is imposed by the Ministry on teachers who wish to pursue a course of study in his own time provided it does not interfere with his work as a teacher. However, if he wishes to apply for study leave, then the course of study must be relevant to the requirement of the service. If a teacher chooses to study accountancy, for example, there is great doubt whether he will return to enrich the education service. The Member also inquired about the posting of teachers to schools nearest their homes. It is more difficult than posting pupils nearest their homes for the simple reason that most teachers are concentrated in a few housing estates, such as Marine Parade, Thomson and Toa Payoh. There are also many schools in the rural areas where there are no housing estates, and we have to post teachers to man these schools. It is not possible to accede to the request of every teacher for posting to a school nearest his home. About the promotion exercise, I am pleased to say that only this morning I received confirmation from the Public Service Commission that the exercise has been finalised and the results will be announced shortly.