ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR - 1ST APRIL, 1999 TO 31ST MARCH 2000
Sir, thank you for allowing me to respond at this point in time. Members have raised quite a number of different issues. Allow me to deal with some of them before we proceed any further. How do we draw all these different strands together? Last year, if Members will recall, the Ministry of Education published this document called The Desired Outcomes of Education. Some Members, last year, had seen it for the first time. So I will request the Clerk to distribute this document once again so that Members can see it again and be reminded of it. [Copies of document distributed to hon. Members.] This document spells out the end-objectives of formal education as well as the intermediate objectives of primary, secondary and JC education. There was widespread support for the Desired Outcomes of Education from Members of this House, the public, parents, principals, teachers and students. The concern then, as it is now, was on how we are going to achieve these outcomes. In the last two years, the Ministry of Education has initiated several programmes that will bring us closer to achieving these Desired Outcomes - the IT Masterplan, National Education, the Community Involvement Programme, COMPASS and the reduction in curriculum content by up to 30% that was announced last year which will help us shift the focus of our education system from merely acquiring ever more content knowledge to creativity and thinking skills. These programmes are all desirable in themselves but, more importantly, they all form part of a whole. The end objective is re-aligning our education system more closely to achieving the Desired Outcomes. Today, I would like to draw Members' attention to another aspect of the changes that we are making to the education system - the re-alignment of the way we assess students and appraise schools. We can introduce new programmes. We have heard many exhortations today for teachers and students to work towards achieving the Desired Outcomes. But unless we change what counts, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to change the orientation and the focus of our education system. Our assessment systems for schools and for students must be brought more closely into alignment with the Desired Outcomes of Education. The way we assess students affects their motivations and what they and perhaps, more importantly, their parents will emphasise and devote their time and effort to. Similarly, schools have a tendency to focus their efforts primarily on what is being measured. The Ministry of Education has never assessed schools purely on the basis of their academic results in the national examinations, but there is overwhelming interest from schools themselves, parents, teachers, the press and the general public on the academic performance of schools and students, because, in their eyes, that is practically the only thing that counts. To change behaviour, we have to change what counts - both for students, and for schools. Hence, over the last year, we have reviewed the university admission system, and we have also looked again at the way that we appraise our schools. First, let me begin with the university admissions. We want our potential graduates not just to excel academically, but also to demonstrate character, creativity and commitment to the nation. It is both timely and necessary to move the university admission system away from a sole reliance on 'A' levels towards a more holistic evaluation of a person's potential to benefit from university education. This change is not merely about selecting students to go to the university. This change will send a clear signal throughout the whole education system - I dare say from kindergarten all the way through to 'O' levels and 'A' levels - regarding the qualities we desire in our students. The Committee on University Admissions chaired by Prof Shih released its draft report in January this year. We will have an opportunity to debate the recommendations later on. I know some Members are still waiting to speak on it and we can discuss this later. But my point here is that the change in university admission system should not be seen in isolation. It should be seen in the context of realigning the whole education system to achieving the Desired Outcomes. In parallel, we are broadening the scope of the way schools are appraised. We will move beyond academic grades to school achievements in other areas that contribute to the Desired Outcomes. When the Desired Outcomes were published, many wondered how we were going to achieve the outcomes, how we are going to measure them, since many of them are intangible and unquantifiable. How can schools ascertain if they have achieved the Desired Outcomes? How would schools know what they are capable of, and whether they have done their best? Without a system of measurement, principals and teachers will be left wondering just how much they have achieved, and will have no means of deciding how far they have to go, what are their weaknesses, and where they have to improve. May I request the Clerk to distribute the other two pieces of paper that I have with me. [Copies of paper distributed to hon. Members.] The Ministry of Education and the educational professionals have been thinking this issue through in the past year. After several rounds of discussions and consultations together with principals and other professionals, we have decided to adopt a quality assurance approach to school appraisal based on self appraisal. The new approach looks at both results and processes. The ultimate goal is not merely good results, but sustainability of good results. Sound processes are what will assure sustainability of results. And the notion of results themselves has also been broadened to include not just academic results, but results in other activities that contribute to the Desired Outcomes. Self-appraisal is itself a powerful process that will drive improvement in our schools. Self-appraisal emphasises self-evaluation and self-knowledge. When using this model, the principal and his staff will ask themselves some fundamental questions about what is going on in the school and what the outcomes are. This self questioning will prompt them to reflect on the schools' efforts in addressing their concerns and work towards improvement. The appraisal process will require schools to continually question current practices and move them to be the best they can be. This framework of self-assessment is known as the School Excellence Model. In the diagram that Members have in front of them, there are nine criteria there in the model, and they fall broadly into two categories: Enablers and Results, each with a weightage of 50%. We can adjust this later on with experience. Enablers are concerned with processes - how the school is led and managed, how resources are deployed; while Results look at outcomes - key performance results, staff competence and morale, impact of programmes on students and on others. It is worthwhile to note that under key performance results, we are still looking for academic achievement, ECA achievement as well and physical fitness levels. But academic achievement is only one of the many criteria in the appraisal model, just as cognitive outcomes are only one aspect of the holistic outcomes desired of education. In fact, most of the Desired Outcomes will have to be achieved through non-academic school programmes, and this is reflected in the appraisal model. Linked to the School Excellence Model is an award system for schools. There are three levels in this pyramid system of awards. The base of the awards is a broad one, and comprises different Achievement Awards given to schools for achievements in various fields in the current year. The next higher level consists of the Sustained Achievement Awards and Best Practices Awards which reflect the school's ability to sustain good processes and outcomes over a number of years. At the apex will be the School Excellence Award, which recognises schools for overall excellence in education processes and outcomes, sustained over many years. 3.45 pm There is no limit to the number of schools that can qualify for these awards. This would give the schools, the students and the parents an indication of where they stand and how they can improve. The Value-Added Awards that are presently given to schools, a point raised by Mr Hawazi, have been most effective in achieving improvement in the performance of students and this will continue. It will be one of the Achievement Awards and Sustained Achievement Awards. School ranking, as it is done now, will also remain, as it is a useful indicator for schools. However, ranking by academic results will henceforth have to be seen in the context of a number of other indicators, and not as the be-all and end-all. This is certainly the way that the Ministry of Education will look at it, and we hope that the public and parents will also look at it that way. The School Excellence Model will be field tested in mid 1999. All schools will be using the model for self-appraisal in the year 2000. The Ministry of Education will conduct external appraisal of schools based on this approach from 2001. Schools will, on average, be validated once every five years or so, but they can ask to be validated more often than this if they feel they are ready to progress on to the next level of the pyramid. The Desired Outcomes define our goals in education. We aim to achieve these outcomes through various initiatives. I have listed them before - IT Masterplan, National Education, the Curriculum Review, a review of the university admission system and a quality assurance approach to school appraisal. That is what we do and how we measure it. All these aim to develop our young for life, not just for their schooling days; and to develop their potential to the full, not just in academic areas. This requires our education system to shift from an efficiency-driven to an ability-driven paradigm. Ability-driven education has two thrusts - maximal development of the talents and abilities of our young, and maximal harnessing of the talents and abilities of all Singaporeans for the good of the nation and the community. In our present system, education is driven by the needs of the economy. We project manpower demands in various sectors of the economy and train people to fit into jobs in those sectors. Our economic agencies attract the investments that create jobs; our educational institutions train Singaporeans to fill these jobs. However, the paradigm for a knowledge economy will be different. There are no pre-determined sets of jobs, waiting, like holes to be filled by students coming out of our education system. Instead, it is the collective talents and abilities of all Singaporeans that will define the economy and what jobs and opportunities are available. Students leaving our school system will increasingly have to create their own opportunities. Life-long learning becomes a necessary part of opening up opportunities for the future. We are working hand-in-hand with the Ministry of Manpower in this sector. Hence education itself becomes a competitive advantage in the economy. And to maximise that advantage we must consciously draw out individual talents and develop them to the full. To achieve this, the Ministry of Education will be shifting towards an approach of mass customisation. I know this sounds like a contradiction, but let me bring you an example from the car industry, although cars and people are not comparable. Nowadays, when you buy a car, you choose the brand and the model. You can further decide the colour of the exterior, the veneer of the interior, whether you want power windows, air-conditioning, what kinds of seats and so on, and all within that same model. The car is still mass produced because that is an efficient way of doing it, but it is customised to what can best match the buyer's needs. In Education, the mass provision of educational resources and opportunities should not stop us from looking at the possibility of customising to individual student's aptitudes and abilities wherever possible. I am not here proposing that we give each child individual attention by providing him dedicated tutors for each subject who will coach him alone, designing syllabuses just for him and so on. This is clearly not practical. This is individualised customisation, not mass customisation. But within the limits of mass production of education services, we should move some way towards meeting individual needs. If I may be allowed to use another analogy, it is like a set-lunch menu. We used to have only one set-lunch menu which every one, regardless of his appetite or taste, was obliged to eat. Understandably, some found the food unappetising and unpalatable and decided to leave the restaurant. With streaming, which is also a rudimentary form of mass customisation, we have a number of set menus to cater to different needs. Streaming has been very successful in increasing the proportion of our students who move on to higher levels of education. That enables us to meet the needs of different groups of students better, and that is where we are today. The next challenge for the Ministry is to allow some variations in the courses in the set menus, and to gradually expand the variations allowed within the resources that we have available. The Chinese Language Review is a case in point. It is a recognition that students are different and have different linguistic abilities and strengths in different areas, and the system should try to cater to them. We are now studying how we can adapt the system to meet the needs of students better, at a systems level, at the school level, and even in the classroom. We will move in that direction over the coming year. As with everything else in education, it will take some years and many steps to get there. But an ability-driven system is also about maximal harnessing of the talents and abilities of our young. If we were to focus solely on developing our young without grounding moral and social values nor sinking their cultural roots, we will be producing a generation of Singaporeans with no obligation or commitment to serve the community, no concept of social identity and no sense of belonging to the nation. We must inculcate in our young a strong social conscience and a mindset that sees Singapore as a home to live in, to strive to improve, and to defend if necessary. Sir, I agree with Members who have expressed the view that no child should be seen as a failure, and every child should be seen as a success. But each child's success can be in different areas. Everyone has his strengths; and talents and abilities in different areas can be pooled together for the overall success of the nation. We in the Ministry will continue to apply our minds to see how we can maximally develop and harness the talents and abilities of our students. The Ministry will do its best with the resources allocated to us. We will maximise education outcomes given our resources. Sir, I appreciate the many suggestions and comments from Members. Bringing about change in the education system is the work of many years. We will not see the fruits of our labour for another five, perhaps ten years. It requires a clear idea of where we are going, and this is encapsulated in the Desired Outcomes of Education. And it requires purposeful change to align our programmes, processes, and assessment systems with the Desired Outcomes, so that what we do in education and in the education system is focused on achieving these goals. I continue to look forward to support from Members of this House, parents and the public as we strive to do our best for our young. Sir, allow me to address some of the specific points that have been raised by Members. Mr Loh brought our attention to the cost of educating an individual student. If Mr Loh were to look at page 218 of the Budget book, he will see that the latest numbers are there. The earlier set of figures that he quoted was from the FY98 Budget book which has since been revised. The main reason for the lower cost per student is the 10% cut in the Government's share of CPF and the further salary cut. 86% of the schools' budget comprises manpower cost and that is why the cost has come down. For secondary schools, the cost has gone up, however, because the number of secondary school students has come down. It is the Tiger Year effect for the secondary one students this year. But this lower spending in the operations budget has been more than offset by the increase in the spending in the development budget, which will also go towards the students. For example, all the spending on the IT Masterplan is now counted out of the development budget. That is a very large number. I think it is about $150 million. This year we have some 39 schools under construction compared to 19 last year and 11 the year before. All these will eventually have a direct benefit to the students. If I may move on, Sir, to what time school should start. Frankly, Sir, if the schools are operating single session as the secondary schools will be from next year onwards, it is up to the schools to decide what time they want to start. But from a practical point of view, I think that most schools will still want to start relatively early in the day for transport and other reasons. But it is a matter which the schools can decide for themselves. If I may move on to some specific issues on the IT Masterplan. We are now into our third year of implementation and student access to computers, levelling the playing field is really the main motivation why we have undertaken this IT Masterplan. Because if we did not do this, then only students, children who come from better off homes will have computers at home, and they would have no access to computers at home and if the schools do not provide them access to computers, they would have no access to computers. One of the main motivations for going into the IT Masterplan in a major way is to provide a level playing field and access to all students. More than 130 schools have come under the Masterplan so far, Phases 1 and 2, and we are now onto Phase 3 where the remaining 230 schools will be coming on in the next two years. Phase 1 and Phase 2 schools are now electronically networked school wide. There are still some lumps, as to be expected, but we are working this through. The ratio of computers to students is now about 1:5 in the schools that have completed the Masterplan. We have enough resources to move to 1:2. But we want to do so only when the schools are ready. I am confident that the schools know what to do with the computers at the ratio of 1:5 but I am not so confident that they are ready to deal with computers at the ratio of 1:2. When schools are ready, we will move ahead with them and will have some flexibility as to what to do with the resources that are available. 4.00 pm For teachers, we are providing the schools with a ratio of one computer to every two teachers, ie, notebooks. And we also have a very generous computer loan scheme for teachers so that we expect that all our teachers should be very well equipped with computers. As for training of teachers, 9,500 teachers have already been trained under the IT Masterplan, each receiving something like 30 to 50 hours of workshop training. In the next phase, some 13,500 teachers will be trained over the next two years. We have about 60 senior IT instructors in the Educational Technology Division doing this training school by school. A common misunderstanding is that these teachers have been trained merely to use technology, word processing, or PowerPoint, connecting wires, and so on. In fact, the IT Masterplan's main focus in training of teachers is to train them to use IT as a tool to empower sound pedagogy, and time-honoured principles of teaching children to think, conceptualise and so on, are emphasised, and re-emphasised, during these IT training programmes. Apart from that, all schools also now have broadband access to Singapore One. There are probably one or two Singapore One access points. I would like to move on now to home economics. Home economics incidentally is a compulsory subject for both boys and girls at the lower secondary level. Independent schools are independent, and I leave it to them to decide whether they want to do so or not. I would now like to address a point raised by Mr Loh Meng See and Mr Simon Tay with regard to non-classroom activities. Sir, I view what has happened, the unfortunate event at Pulau Ubin, with concern. And we deeply regret that this unfortunate incident occurred. The Ministry is now looking into what actually happened and we will learn the lessons and take appropriate measures to prevent such incidents from recurring. We have also looked into the recent episode at Jin Tai Secondary School. I think clearly there should have been better planning and closer supervision. The Ministry will take stock of the lessons learned, share these lessons with the schools and advise them accordingly. And we will continue to remind them of the importance of exercising appropriate precautions when planning and conducting such activities. But I completely share Mr Simon Tay's viewpoint that to over-regulate the activities that schools can organise would stifle initiative and diminish significantly the learning value of these activities. So, Sir, the approach that the Ministry will take is to continue to encourage schools to be innovative and to plan activities that are meaningful and relevant, enriching and challenging. However, safety is a primary concern and must be a key principle in the conduct of such activities. May I move on now to the subject of SAP schools which several Members have spoken quite strongly about. Sir, it is not surprising that in a multi-racial and multi-lingual society like Singapore, with the kind of colonial history that we have, there is such a wide range of views expressed in this House and by members of the public with regard to the issues of language, SAP schools, and so on. But we must understand, as Deputy Prime Minister Lee explained the other day, where our start point was. Our start point was a very diverse education system in which there were very small numbers of very elite English language stream schools. But most of the population were educated apart from each other, separately, different languages, different syllabi, different curriculum, their own activities, different languages. The question which we have to ask ourselves is, compared to that time, are we closer as a society? Is our education system bringing the people closer together than what was before? And I think the answer has to be a resounding yes. When we were faced with an education system which was as diverse as it was, there were several ways in which the Government could have proceeded in those days. We could have continued with the education system in all its diversity - Chinese schools, Malay schools, Tamil schools, and so on. We could have had a bilingual education system, which was a different one, in which each person learns his own mother tongue at first language, and English as a second language, or perhaps Malay as a second language, and hope to bind the society that way. Some countries have decided to go that way in the design of their education system and the selection of their language policy. For us, we could have done that. But I think we would be a different kind of society, a society which has got much deeper separations and cleavages than we have today. What we have decided to do is to unify our education system, to have one common system standard, and standard curriculum, for all the schools. And we decided on a common language. And, again, deciding on a common language is not a simple matter. Different countries have decided in different ways. We settled on English for a number of practical reasons and, again, because we are a multi-racial and multi-lingual society. What other language could we have settled on which would not have raised even more serious concerns among the different communities that we have in Singapore? Other countries have decided in different ways. Malaysia, for example, has decided on Malay as national language, and they have unified their education system around that. But even then there are outliers such as the independent Chinese schools in Malaysia which teach in a different language and quite a different curriculum. Other countries have decided in different ways. Hong Kong, for example, as a territory, as a SAR, has decided to go with Cantonese as a common language in their schools, with a small number of schools allowed to continue to teach in English. We have decided on our way. And I think for us, this is a pragmatic and a better way of proceeding with our education system, and we unify different languages and races in Singapore. I wish to reaffirm that our policy objective in the teaching of the mother tongue languages is to have every Singaporean study his mother tongue for as long as possible and to as high a level as possible. This fundamental bilingual policy in our education system, which has served us well, which has enabled us to unify the country, while at the same time allowing each community to feel that it has the room and the space to develop itself and to retain its own unique identity and characteristics, will remain.