The Social Development Unit is working with the polytechnics and universities to introduce relationship programmes as an elective. The aim is to teach appropriate relationship and family values, and equip them with skills in relating to others. The programme has been generally well-received and students have found this helpful in their personal development. As announced in the Marriage and Parenthood Package, SDU will be exploring with MOE to extend this to JCs and the Institute of Technical Education. If introduced there, students are free to opt out should they wish to.
We thank Mr Selby for his feedback. If Mr Selby has further concerns or need for clarification on the above, he may wish to write to SDU via email at mcys_sdu@mcys.gov.sg.
I THANK Ms Wong Kuan Ying of the Social Development Unit (SDU) for her reply on Tuesday, ‘Keep physical contact minimal’, to my letter about the SDU’s life skills programme for JC and ITE students (‘Parent’s four concerns about love courses in school’, Aug 23). However, two questions were not answered and several more are raised by her response.
First, my earlier questions on whether this programme is linked to the Government’s policy to increase the birth rate in Singapore and the costs for such programmes (direct and indirect) to the taxpayer remain unanswered.
Second, on what basis did the SDU extrapolate its survey of 2,000 poly and university students to reach its conclusion that JCs and the ITE should now be included in this programme?
Similarly, what additional data or analysis was used by the Ministry of Education (MOE) and SDU to conclude that JC and ITE students ‘are at a suitable age for such programmes’ and to specifically exclude secondary students?
Third, I ask MOE to clarify when the SDU was authorised to facilitate the introduction of ‘life skills’ programmes in JC and ITE curricula and whether parent feedback was sought in this decision.
Finally, with regard to supplementing my parental responsibilities in providing ’opportunities for social interaction, equip singles with relevant social skills, and encourage a positive mindset towards marriage’, I believe I speak for most parents in saying that, when I need the Government’s help imparting these skills to my kids, I will ask for it.
]]>Meritocracy is one of Singapore’s fundamental values and critical success factors. Every Singaporean, regardless of family background and circumstances, should have full opportunities to realise his potential. But we should not confuse meritocracy where each succeeds based on his abilities with affirmative action which seeks to equalise outcomes.
All government scholarships, including those from the Public Service Commission (PSC), are awarded strictly on merit. We encourage students from all family backgrounds to apply. There is no quota, so when two candidates are equally deserving, we never have to discriminate in favour of the student from a poorer background—we give the award to both.
About half of PSC scholars live in private property, but this is not because the system is unfair or un-meritocratic. One major reason is because they are likely to have able parents who have benefited from our meritocratic system. Successful parents then have children who are also likely to be able. This happens in every society, whether because of nature or nurture.
We will do our utmost to give students from less privileged backgrounds as equal a start in life as possible. That is why we invest so much in education, not just in the top schools and universities, but also in all our neighbourhood schools, the ITE and Polytechnics. We want every child to have the maximum chance of succeeding.
We have many bursaries and financial assistance schemes, from kindergarten all the way to university. Needy students also receive help to buy computers, attend enrichment programmes and go on overseas exchange programmes.
These schemes have helped many students to move up and do well. No deserving student is denied entry into a top school for lack of money. In short, we seek to level up everyone, not to pull down the successful. In this, we have done far better than many developing or developed countries.
One of Singapore’s strengths is that a good number of our most able students, including those from well-off families, see purpose in public service and take up government scholarships. Our challenge is ensuring that outstanding students continue to do so in spite of the many attractive alternatives open to young people today. It would be Singapore’s loss, and contrary to our fundamental values, to penalise students for their parents’ success, and deny capable students scholarships simply because they come from well-off families.
AS APPLICATIONS open for next year’s Public Service Commission (PSC) scholarships, the widening income gap is prompting questions about the merit criterion by which the PSC awards them. Spring Singapore chairman Philip Yeo may have put more than just scholarships up for a rethink when he said that, all things being equal, applicants from poorer families should get preference. Meritocracy has served many aspects of public life too well for the debate to focus only on scholarships. Diluting the principle in one area may erode perceptions and practices in others. Far better than avoiding the subject, however, a full and open discussion will help get to the root of the issue: Has meritocracy gone from promoting social mobility to hampering it? Does the playing field need to be made more level so as not to disadvantage otherwise deserving Singaporeans who for one reason or other might have fallen behind in the competitive scholarship race?
There is no clear answer. It pays to be alert to trends that PSC and other scholarship selection data may indicate. The PSC disclosure that 47 per cent of this year’s scholarship recipients lived in Housing Board flats and 53 per cent were in private housing is a statistical snapshot of a near-even divide. The disparity becomes obvious when those numbers are viewed against the fact that 85 per cent of Singaporeans live in HDB estates. In response to Mr Yeo’s comments, the PSC has said that if there are two equally deserving candidates from different backgrounds, it will award the scholarship to both. But even taking this into account, it is not impossible that richer successful applicants will in future predominate by a larger margin.
When that happens, there will be increasing pressure to change the way scholarships are awarded. What will happen if, for example, the day arrives when 80 per cent of scholarship holders come from families living in private housing?
It will become increasingly difficult to ignore the advantages students from higher income families have: more effective mentoring at home, better schools and tutors and—something the PSC also takes into account besides academic grades—an edge in co-curricular activities.
Rather than fixing the problem at selection time and risk eroding the merit principle, attention needs to focus on what changes in the education system or elsewhere may have resulted in the trend of poorer applicants trailing the richer ones in the scholarship shareout. Merit should remain the main consideration but flexibility can be shown when circumstances demand it.
]]>Our publicly-funded universities have steadily increased the number of places available from 21% in 2000, to 25% of each cohort this year. By 2015, with the new University established, 30% of each cohort will be able to study for degrees. This will create more opportunities for both polytechnic diploma and ‘A’ level holders.
Even as we expand places, we must maintain the standards of our publicUniversities. Tertiary institutions in other countries that have lowered admission criteria totake in more students are worse off. Many have experienced a higher failure rate among their undergraduates or a drop in overall standards of their University graduates. We should not go down this route as NUS, NTU and SMU have gained international recognition for their high quality.
While our public Universities can assure a place for eligible students, it is notpossible to promise a place in the course of his choice. No system provides this. Popular disciplines like medicine and law in good Universities worldwide are highly competitive and admission is strictly by merit.
Mr Chen asked about opportunities for late-bloomers. Starting this year, MOE will provide subsidies for part-time degree programmes offered by UniSIM, NUS and NTU. In addition, students’ Post-Secondary Education Accounts (PSEAs) can also be used to fund these part-time degree programmes.
I read Mr Ng Li Wei’s letter last Friday, ‘Varsity place not an entitlement’. I could not disagree more. Yes, Singapore has a meritocratic education system. But that does not mean we cannot cater to all who qualify for university entry in a cohort. In fact, it is irresponsible not to do so.
We are educating people who will in turn contribute to national growth. So, we should encourage and not dissuade.
Education is a right, not a privilege to only the smartest. The reason parents are voicing their unhappiness over the unforgiving selectiveness of the current system is that they care about education and its importance.
I was an average student and was rejected by all the local universities. My parents paid a hefty sum to send me to Britain and I returned with an honours degree. Then, I gained admission to Nanyang Technological University to pursue my master’s degree.
Does that mean I don’t work hard enough, as Mr Ng suggests, or I am not as smart as the rest? I come from a low-income family. I managed to obtain a foreign degree because of careful financial planning by my parents since I was a child.
There are many students who, like me, are late bloomers.
Interest plays an important role in a successful educational journey. By saying one should just take up any available course and get a degree is irresponsible as everyone has a right to decide his interest. Isn’t it a contradiction to say one has to work hard, yet settle for any course one is given?
I am not complaining about the fact that Singapore did not give me a chance to pursue an undergraduate degree locally.
The question is, if local universities do not provide a chance for Singaporeans who qualify to study at home, how will we retain our talent when other prestigious foreign universities are ever obliging in admitting Singapore students?
]]>The Ministry of Education provides adequate resources to all our schools and institutions of higher learning to enable every Singaporean child to achieve his full potential. For each level, we spend what is needed to achieve a high quality education for all. No eligible student is deprived from entering our top schools, institutions or gifted programmes just because his family is poor. Admission is strictly based on merit and we have a wide range of bursaries and financial assistance schemes to assist students in need. For example, while there is a merit-based scholarship for top students entering Independent schools, MOE also provides the Independent Schools Bursary to students from families in the bottom 80% of household income.
Our schools go the extra mile to help students level up academically and develop holistically. All students can develop themselves in music, sports or the arts through school-based co-curricular programmes; participation in community service is part and parcel of school life for all students. Additional funding has also been provided to help students, especially those from less well-off families, to go on overseas exchange programmes and visits, buy computers and access enrichment programmes.
The article points out that “the student’s environment plays a large part in whether they make it into scholar ranks”. It is true that in all societies, successful parents tend to produce successful children and Singapore is not unique here. Many scholars do come from lower income households, but even then we should not narrowly define success only in terms of getting a scholarship. Thousands of students who graduate from ITE, Polytechnics and our Universities every year do not feel less of themselves or of their achievements because they have not received a government scholarship. Many go on to have successful careers in a variety of ways and through their own efforts. This is the broad-based meritocracy that has served all Singaporeans well.
With a laudable eight in 10 of students who made it to university last year coming from public housing roots, why are heartlanders under-represented in the top ranks of scholar elites — at least, going by the statistical profiles of A*Star and Public Service Commission scholars?
The answer, local observers believe, lie in the edge that tuition, enrichment classes and other extra-curricular opportunities provide, and which the well-off are likelier to afford.
And it leads some to ask if — while the education system with its plethora of subsidies and opportunities has succeeded widely in levelling up young Singaporeans across the board — more can be done to give the less well-off an extra boost, to rise to the very top.
The current busy scholarship season, with various Government scholarships being handed, was prefaced late last month by some intriguing figures from the Public Service Department, revealing that just 47 per cent of its scholars stay in HDB flats.
The figure was in response to SPRING Singapore chairman Philip Yeo’s comment that “a majority” of PSC scholars live in landed property.
Some 57 per cent of recipients of the prestigious A*Star scholarships, meanwhile, lived in public housing. About 84 per cent of Singaporeans are flat-dwellers.
Even if housing type is far from the most accurate indicator of household earning power, it is interesting that of this year’s five President’s Scholars, two used to live HDB flats; none, currently, live in public housing.
Of the latest four Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) Overseas Scholars, one grew up in an HDB flat but all now live in private homes.
Since the scholarships are all given out strictly on merit, it begs the question: Why are students from public housing less likely to make the cut?
A recent study by campus recruitment specialist JobsFactory underlines this trend.
Out of 1,509 junior college respondents who did well enough to qualify for a scholarship this year, about 57 per cent are HDB dwellers.
Most analysts Today spoke believe the student’s environment “plays a large part”, as Dr Terence Chong of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies put it, in whether they make it into the scholar ranks.
Dr Chong said richer parents can “afford better tutors”, along with being able to afford home computers. Assistant Professor Eugene Tan of the Singapore Management University pointed to the enrichment classes and travel opportunities that well-off parents can provide.
“These higher income students may also have less pressure to work part-time to supplement family incomes,” said Prof Tan, adding that such things translates to them having “the academic and competitive edge”.
Current Lee Kuan Yew Scholar Perry Lim, 36, grew up in a two-room flat supported by his father’s earnings as a taxi driver.
Now an SAF colonel, he pointed out that winning a President’s Scholarship has gotten far more competitive than back in 1991, when he earned his.
“Now you’re not only judged on grades, but your accomplishments in CCAs and voluntary work as well,” he said. Those from affluent backgrounds are more likely to be “exposed to community work, sports and the world”.
How to help more bright young people from lower-income HDB backgrounds qualify for scholarships today, then?
“Schools should continue to give more support to these kids in their CCAs and encourage them to do social or voluntary work,” said Col Lim, the former director for higher education in the Education Ministry, who stressed he was a believer in meritocracy.
JobsFactory director, Mr Lim Der Shing, however, thinks the issue goes beyond the resume, to the soft skills. Having dealt for years with JC and polytechnic students, he said wealthier students are more exposed “to what is happening in the world and in business”.
“Such students are also more comfortable dealing with, specifically, senior level people. All this translates to a better interview performance and also better overall maturity when dealing with scholarship boards.”
One thing, in all this, has been stressed: There has been no lack of effort in the education system to level the playing field.
South-west District Mayor, Dr Amy Khor, a member of the Government Parliamentary Committee on Education, cited the $48-million Opportunity Fund introduced two years ago to provide “out of the ordinary” chances, such as overseas learning trips, especially for needy students.
Nonetheless, Dr Khor believes, things “could always be improved”.
The Government is aware that their top scholars come mainly from more privileged backgrounds, she said, and it should look at how it could give potential scholars from other backgrounds a leg up.
Such early intervention is best done in schools: One way is to offer bursaries — aimed at helping bright needy students — with the same monetary value as scholarships, suggested Dr Khor. She did not, however, specify if the cost should be borne by the Government, voluntary welfare organisations and self-help groups, or the private sector.
JobsFactory’s Mr Lim supports the notion of a needs-based scholarship — a norm overseas — because “life is not always about maximising returns and profit”.
The private sector should lead the charge as a form of corporate social responsibility (CSR), he argued.
“Many scholarship givers do give back to society via other ways, like outright donations, foundations and other CSR activities.”
Still, he admitted, it might not be fair to expect this of companies which — like the Government — see scholarships as a way of recruiting talent and less a social mission.
Nominated MP Kalyani Mehta thinks the Government could consider implementing what Mr Yeo did at A*Star when he was helming it — add income level as a scholarship criteria alongside merit.
“In view of the fast-expanding income gap, it will be an excellent way to level up,” she explained.
As for addressing the soft-skills gap, Mr Lim Der Shing suggested this be addressed at the JC level where students should be offered “more career, social, business related information”, to help them “ better to handle the scholarship application process”.
In March, Education Minister Ng Eng Hen revealed that eight in 10 of university students last year — from the Primary 1 cohorts of 1990 to 1992 — came from HDB flats; one in eight were from poorer families in 1- to 3-room flats.
Noting that students whose parents were more successful were more likely to make it to university, Dr Ng — in a written reply to a question tabled in Parliament about social mobility — said this trend was seen in most stable, developed countries, and hence was “not surprising”.
“Able students from poor households have done well in their studies, risen in life, and now have children of their own who also tend to do well,” he said, stressing the financial help and subsidies given to all promising students at all levels.
Last year, former Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam pointed out that students from the bottom one-third of home backgrounds have a 50-per-cent chance of being among the top two-thirds of performers at the PSLE and O levels.
]]>MOE provides adequate resources to all our schools and institutions of higher learning to enable every Singaporean child to achieve his full potential. For each level, we spend what is needed to achieve a high quality education for all. For example, we spend annually about $11,300 for each student in junior college and about $10,300 for each student in ITE. All students can develop themselves in music, sports or the arts through school-based co-curricular programmes.
Students regardless of their family background have done well in this system. The top 5% of students in the 2007 Primary School Leaving Examination did not come only from a few schools with rich parents. In fact, they came from 98% of our primary schools’from all socio-economic groups.
Mr Osman noted that about half of PSC scholarship recipients lived in private property. But to conclude from this narrow and single observation that our education system is therefore less meritocratic is neither sensible nor fair. It is true that in all societies, successful parents tend to produce successful children and Singapore is not unique here. However, thousands of students who graduate from ITE, Polytechnics and our Universities every year do not feel less of themselves or of their achievements because they have not received a PSC scholarship. All of them have succeeded by their own efforts and no eligible student is deprived from entering our top schools, institutions or gifted programmes just because his family is poor. Admission is strictly based on merit and we have a wide range of bursaries and financial assistance schemes to assist students in need.
Our education system should motivate and provide opportunities for all students to go as far as each can. We have targeted programs to assist those from poorer families and many are moving up. One of every 8 undergraduates in our public Universities come from households who live in 1- to 3-room flats. We should celebrate when any student excels, regardless of his background. When that student comes from a lower income household, we applaud his efforts because he has succeeded despite difficult circumstances. But we should not cavil or be envious when students from higher income households do well in our education system. Both have earned rewards based on personal effort and merit. And we hope that both will feel a duty to contribute back to this society to maintain our system that provides opportunities for all.
I read with interest Mr Zakir Hussain‘s article last Friday, ‘Meritocracy’s hidden danger’ which gives a revealing insight into Singapore’s brand of meritocracy. The article states that about 53 per cent of Public Service Commission scholarships go to those who live in private property.
While there is general acquiescence that these scholarships are indeed awarded on the basis of academic performance and individual achievement alone, the preponderance of the socially privileged among them merits scrutiny.
These students largely hail from the crème de la crème of schools and have benefited from the various schemes that cater to the academically talented, such as the Education Ministry’s Gifted Education Programme.
Their dominant social status arising from higher household incomes suggests that they possess the cultural capital required to ‘make it’ in life, as nurtured by their parents who are likely to have attained qualifications at the tertiary level. In their scholastic journey, this group of students are likely to be enrolled in the Integrated Programme where, since 2004, they have been allowed to bypass the O-level examinations, in favour of taking the A Levels at the end of a six-year course.
This is a manifestation of greater elitism being built into the education system, where the same elite minority continue to receive value-added education throughout their schooling years at the expense of vast amounts of public funds.
As a result, Singapore’s education system, which has always been held up as a model of social mobility for all, is attenuated because one group benefits from a distinct advantage over the others. The public perception that there is an inherent link between students from wealthier households and high academic achievement is pervasive.
Over the years, there have also been concerns about the attitudes of these students who are among the best and brightest and who are likely to secure positions of pre-eminence in society in the future. The raison d’être for this stems from the fact that there have been several scholars who are known to have broken their government bonds in favour of more lucrative job offers, which smacks of individualistic competition and selfishness, among other factors.
There is the danger of a dichotomy developing in an increasingly stratified Singapore society, exacerbated by widening income gaps where the mentality of ‘us versus them’ prevails.
By then, the people’s faith in our so-called meritocratic system would have shattered.
MOE agrees that proximity to school is an important consideration for most parents. Therefore, it ensures that there are sufficient school places on a regional basis so that primary school students do not have to travel far to attend school.
Proximity to school is not the sole deciding factor in Primary 1 admission as it would inevitably favour those with the financial means and hence have more flexibility in choosing where they live. Instead, the current Primary 1 Registration framework seeks to balance various considerations, including convenience for the family, parents’ ties to the school, community involvement and proximity to the school. It ensures that available school places are allotted fairly, according to a set of transparent criteria.
Phase 1 of the Primary 1 Registration exercise gives priority to parents who already have a child studying at the school of choice. Phase 2 of the exercise recognises the contributions and ties that parents have with various schools and communities. For schools to thrive, the support of key partners like parents and the community is critical, as they help to build up and strengthen the school’s tradition and ethos, and support its students.
Proximity to the school is a consideration in all phases if the number of applications exceeds the number of vacancies. In such an event, the vacancies will be balloted in the following order of priority:
We agree with Mr Lin on the importance of clear learning objectives and the need to evaluate and record the children’s learning in pre-school. To lay a sound foundation for learning, MOE launched a pre-school curriculum framework in 2003 which outlined the core principles of early childhood education. The framework is accompanied by a resource package which includes learning goals and suggestions on how teachers could observe, record and assess children’s learning.
To support pre-schools in implementing the curriculum framework, MOE has conducted in-service workshops and briefings which focus on helping teachers plan lessons with clear learning objectives, and assess children’s learning. We are also producing a curriculum planning guide which spells out a set of key knowledge, skills and dispositions to guide teachers in the development of appropriate curriculum and assessment that will support and promote children’s learning and development.
MOE encourages kindergartens to constantly review the quality of their programmes by conducting yearly self-appraisals. The self-appraisal instrument that MOE has provided for use by kindergartens highlights areas such as the setting of learning goals for children as well as the documentation and evaluation of children’s development and learning.
As part of efforts to raise the overall quality of pre-school education, MOE will introduce more measures to enhance teacher quality and further uplift the standards of pre-school providers. As announced in Mar 08, the minimum academic qualifications of pre-school teachers will be raised from January 2009. A voluntary quality assurance and accreditation framework for pre-schools will also be introduced in 2011.
We would like to thank Mr Lin for his views.
Pre-school educators play an important role in laying the early years’ foundation for the holistic development of young children. Pre-school teachers have to design curriculum and activities that are appropriate for young children, and also nurture children into active learners while developing their emotional and social competencies. To do these well, pre-school educators will need to acquire the necessary educational and professional knowledge and skills.
To ensure that our children can benefit from a high quality of pre-school education, the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) have raised the academic and professional qualification requirements for pre-school educators progressively over the years. The current minimum qualifications of pre-school teachers are 3 GCE ‘O’ level credits including English Language (or a band score of 5.5 in the International English Language Testing System). Mother tongue language teachers need to have the equivalent scores in the relevant mother tongue language, instead of English.
Ms Chen, with 5 ‘N’ level credits, has expressed interest in continuing with her career as a pre-school teacher. She may wish to attend preparatory classes organised by the Institute for Technical Education (ITE) to help in preparing for the O-level examinations. O-level credits combined from more than one O-level examination may be counted in the registration as a pre-school teacher.
Ms Chen may also wish to consider alternative career paths and training opportunities in pre-school education such as seeking employment as an assistant teacher in nursery or pre-nursery classes in a pre-school, or in enrichment centres offering pre-school programmes, or in playgroups. She may also wish to pursue the Fundamentals Certificate in Early Childhood Care and Education and the Certificate in Infant / Toddler Care & Development so that she can qualify to work as a Child Care Assistant or as staff in an infant care centre.
We appreciate Ms Chen’s efforts to upgrade her skills and encourage her to consider the various training opportunities and career pathways that are available.
I have already been in the pre-school childhood education profession for 20 years. Initially, I joined the profession as I enjoyed playing and having fun with children. Even though I only had the education level of 5 ‘N’ levels passes back then, the education centre still employed me.
Back then, MOE’s expectations of us were not as high. My employer sent me on the “Fundamentals Certificate In Early Childhood Care & Education” course in 1993 but I did not take up the course as I had no ‘O’ Level qualifications.
I realised that today’s examination papers are vastly different from those in the past when I re-entered the examination centre in 2004. I merely obtained one ‘O’ level pass in CL that year.
I am Chinese-educated, yet I had to answer the questions in English for all examination papers except for the CL paper.
I could not fulfil my wish of passing the ‘O’ Level examinations in both 2005 and 2006 and still did not meet the requirements for taking up the Certificate in Pre-school teaching (CPT) course.
At that time, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) announced that it was planning to roll out a special course for pre-school teachers who were without 3 O-level passes but were experienced in teaching. I waited for news regarding the plan for half a year. I was only told upon calling the relevant authorities that the plan had been aborted.
I had completed the “Certificate In Infant & Toddler Care & Development” course in August 2007 and registered for the examination again this year but I have no confidence of succeeding.
I have registered for the ‘O’ Level examination again this year but I have no confidence of obtaining 3 O-level passes. What does it matter even if I am successful in obtaining the passes since MOE and MCYS is set to raise the standards again to 5 O-level passes? I wonder how many more experienced teachers would be affected by this decision.
Our experiences are not accumulated over night. However, we would be downgraded to be teaching assistants if we do not have 5 O-level passes. Our salaries would definitely be reduced. The current salary that workers in this profession are drawing is already meagre; most of us are reaching our fifties and have also left school for 20 to 30 years. Poring over our textbooks again in preparation for O-level exams for the sake of this profession which we have always been passionate about is easier said than done. Besides, all the textbooks are written in the English Language. We do not know what course to follow or take next. Could the relevant authorities show kindness to teachers like us, who have put in many years of hard work but have been treated unfairly?
Hasn’t the government always been encouraging elder workers like us to upgrade ourselves? In this case, it is not that we do not want to upgrade ourselves but that we do not have the opportunity to do so.
]]>MOE agrees with Mr Louis Tan that we should do more to retain teachers who want to upgrade their professional qualifications abroad and encourage them to return to Singapore. We recognise that the requirement for schools to hold a vacant post for teachers who are away on study leave may inadvertently discourage schools from granting such leave. We have taken steps to correct this. Under the GROW 2.0 package which was announced in 28 Dec 2007, MOE will be setting aside an additional 140 teacher posts to support schools which need to release their teachers for postgraduate studies. MOE is exploring ways to do more.
We have also approached Miss Tan to let her know that we would be happy to to allow her to take no pay leave while she is pursuing her PhD studies. The school can draw on the additional teacher posts that MOE will be setting aside while she is away for her studies.
We thank Mr Tan for his feedback.
I REFER to last Tuesday’s article, ‘MOE promotes over 7,500, including its director-general’, and note Education Minister Ng Eng Hen’s main priorities. I would like to comment on the education system and hope to improve it and reduce possible brain drain by giving my daughter’s experience in education.
My daughter, Miss Hazel Tan, resigned from the education service (Innova Junior College) in January after more than 10 years. She had applied for no-pay leave to pursue further studies. This was allowed but no replacement would be sent to fill her position as head of department (maths). However, if she resigned, there would be a replacement.
As she is devoted to education, she could not accept no-pay leave at the expense of her students who would be short of one maths teacher. Hence she resigned and went to Melbourne to pursue a PhD in education on a scholarship fully funded by Monash University.
I feel the education system here is not conducive to those who want to enhance their careers as teachers. Two suggestions:
Under the Professional Development Scheme, allow replacements for teachers, heads of department or even principals who pursue further studies under no-pay leave approved by the Ministry of Education (MOE).
When teachers go on approved no-pay leave, where appropriate, reserve their place in MOE and keep their length of service intact. This is to assure them they have a place in Singapore and can contribute to the education system on their return.
My daughter has said she may stay in Australia after she completes her studies. I feel it is a loss to the education system and, more widely, a brain drain. This is one area where the brain drain can be prevented if MOE adopts a policy to retain teachers and reduce migration.
In my daughter’s case, as her PhD will be fully paid for by her university, she is now inclined to stay in Australia as she has no obligation to MOE.
MOE values the contributions and experience of former teachers and encourages those who continue to have the passion for education, to rejoin the teaching fraternity. All candidates who apply for teaching positions are evaluated based on a set of criteria, including the candidate’s qualifications, experience, personal qualities and past service track record.
In Mdm Lian’s daughter’s case, we had considered her for a position as a foreign language teacher due to her specialised training and prior experience. While we welcome applications by former teachers, they are also subject to the same criteria explained above, and not every applicant can be successful in being re-appointed into the service.
We thank Mdm Lian for her letter and invite Mdm Lian and her daughter to contact our recruitment unit if further clarification is required.
Recently, I noted MOE’s tremendous efforts in recruiting teachers. Hence, I immediately encouraged my daughter who was studying overseas to return home to serve the nation. My daughter subsequently applied for a teaching position in a primary school but was told by MOE that her academic qualifications were rather high for the position. Arrangements were made for her to go for an interview at the MOELC Bishan (My daughter had previously taught at MOELC Bishan before she quit to further her studies overseas).
My daughter turned down an offer by an international school and bought an air ticket to return to Singapore for the interview as MOE had only given her a timeline of three days for the interview.
However, my daughter subsequently received a letter from MOE, informing her that “there was no suitable position” for her. Given her teaching experience and the current shortage of teachers, can’t MOE arrange for my daughter to teach at a secondary school? If my daughter cannot put her knowledge of a foreign language into use after returning from further studies, is it not a pity?
The Ministry of Education (MOE) would like to take this opportunity to clarify that there are 4 local universities (Nanyang Technological University, National University of Singapore, Singapore Management University and UniSIM). In addition, 7 foreign universities have been established here as part of EDB’s Global Schoolhouse programme and they are: Chicago Graduate School of Business, DigiPen Institute of Technology, ESSEC Business School, INSEAD, New York University’s Tisch School of the Arts, S P Jain Center of Management and University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Together, these institutions provide a wide range of high quality programmes at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels.
Many foreign universities are also offering degree programmes through local agents which are considered by MOE to be private education organisations (PEOs). However, these PEOs do not have university status in Singapore.
Members of the public are welcome to check the type of establishment regime of educational institutions, at MOE’s web-page under the heading “Education System”. Local universities as well as those foreign universities established as part of EDB’s Global Schoolhouse programme are listed under the “Post-Secondary” sub-heading, while external degree programmes are listed under the “Private Schools” sub-heading.
The cohort of students who are eligible to apply to the universities in 2008 is significantly smaller than last year. Although the 1988 Dragon Year birth cohort is graduating from the polytechnics and hence more polytechnic graduates are applying for universities, this has been more than offset by a smaller number of graduating JC students this year.
It was misleading to compare the number of applications to the universities with the number of places available in order to paint of picture an increasing squeeze in university admissions. The increased number of applications to the three universities does not mean that more students are applying. With each university now having separate admission exercises, each student can choose to apply to all three universities, and many indeed do.
The bottom line is that there will be significantly more university places this year than any previous year, compared to the size of the cohort from our polytechnics and JCs. Although the cohort is much smaller in 2008, the universities will offer the same number of places as in 2007. This will mean that places will be available for at least 25% of the cohort this year, up from 23.5% in 2007 and 21% in 2000. Put another way, it means an additional 1,350 university places in 2008 compared to 2007 if the cohort size were unchanged.
This is also why there is no reason to think that admissions standards will be more stringent and that this will be “a tough year to get in”. Besides the fact that more places will be available for the JC and polytechnic cohort, the general performance of the A-level and polytechnic cohorts has been stable over the last few years.
The report was correct to point out that some courses will be “oversubscribed” based on student demand. Applicants know that there is keen competition for some courses and should weigh their choices carefully.
While we provide publicly-subsidised university places to a quarter of the cohort, we cannot assure every student a place in the course of his choice. No system does, and it would not be wise for us to do so. The universities will continue to spread places across various disciplines and courses, taking into account students’ interests and aptitudes as well as the needs of the employment market. This will allow us to ensure that Singapore graduates continue to enjoy high employment rates even as we increase the intake into our universities.
Both the S-Paper in the previous A-Level curriculum and the H3 programmes in the new curriculum are optional subjects meant to allow students to pursue subject areas in which they have interest and exceptional aptitude. H3 subjects provide students with a variety of learning opportunities, including advanced content and research. They are not intended to be used as a distinguishing criterion for considering university applications.
For admission, the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) consider an applicant’s grades for three H2 subjects, one H1 subject, General Paper, and Project Work. This allows fair assessment of all applications as most students offer this combination at the A-Levels examinations under the new curriculum. Singapore Management University (SMU) has the flexibility to assess their applicants on a broader basis since its inception in 2000.
NUS and NTU do consider H3 subjects in assessing students applying under their discretionary admissions scheme, along with their achievements in Co-Curricular Activities, Community Involvement Projects, and other pursuits independent of their examination grades. Currently, up to 10% of students in each intake may be admitted to NUS and NTU under this scheme. This allows achievements, talents and skills not reflected in the A-Level grades to be recognised.
I HAVE a child who plans to apply to the local universities soon. I am told that only three A-level or ‘H2’ subjects will be taken into consideration and that the grades for S or ‘H3’ papers won’t be considered.
I wonder why. Aren’t the S papers offered only to the more able students and aren’t superior grades an indication of better academic ability or even prowess? Isn’t competition for a place in a course based on exam results in the main?
By not taking into consideration the S-paper results (in the name of fairness to the other applicants?), it is tantamount to cutting down to size the better students in the competition for places.
I believe a huge amount of time is spent by the teachers and students who attempt the S papers. If they are of no value in applying for places in the local public universities, I really wonder what the scheme is for. I hope the Ministry of Education (MOE) will clarify.
The MOE has schemes to encourage and reward students for reaching higher levels of achievement. For example, there is a system of ‘bonus points’ for good results in O-level Higher Mother Tongue that a student can use when applying for junior college.
A similar scheme can easily be set up for the S papers.
TLLM aims to strengthen the quality of learning by engaging students and motivating them to learn better. It is not about teaching less per se, but teaching differently. It is also not prescriptive. Schools and teachers are encouraged to adopt their own teaching approaches to students to inquire and become active learners.
MOE has been providing schools with more teachers, as well as reviewing the curriculum, so as to create more time and space for teachers to customise their own TLLM approaches.
Schools have been adopting different approaches to make learning more engaging for their students in their efforts to realise the intent of TLLM. In these schools, feedback from students has shown that they are more motivated, enjoy learning more and are able to apply what they have learnt in class better.
In her letter, Ms Wu made reference to remedial lessons being conducted at the start of the year in some schools. Among a class of students, there might be some who may need closer attention or learn at a slower pace. Remedial lessons planned by the schools aim to help such students learn better and consolidate what they have learnt, in order to achieve the desired learning outcomes planned for the class. Based on previous records and analysis of students’ performance, some schools introduce remedial lessons early in the year to address learning gaps from the previous year.
It is our schools’ interest to help each and every student learn better and our schools look forward to working closely with parents to achieve that objective.
Children have been facing the reopening of school with mixed feelings. This is because during the school holidays, they woke up late every day. They did not have to do school assignments, and could watch TV and play computer games daily. They were as carefree as they wished. Of course, when school reopens, they get to meet their classmates. Besides learning, they can have a great time playing together. This is another kind of enjoyment. Hence, the re-opening of school can still be considered a happy matter.
However, after enjoying only for a few days, students received the time-table for remedial lessons from their schools. Many students are required to stay back after school to attend remedial lessons at least twice a week. With the addition of CCAs, some students have to spend the whole day in school practically every day, just like the workers. It is no wonder that when students heard that there are remedial lessons, they all frown and complain that studying is tiring!
Actually, staying back after school for remedial lessons is nothing new. However, in the past, remedial lessons were usually confined to classes taking national examinations and students whose results were very bad. In addition, remedial lessons were generally conducted after the March school holidays. This is because some students did not do well in the first school term tests (majority of them failed in their tests or had a borderline score). Teachers hence conduct remedial lessons for them, hoping to help them catch up with the pace of learning by the mid-year examinations held in May.
It is not known since when remedial lessons have become part of the learning package. Not only are remedial lessons started at the beginning of the year, they are no longer confined to students who fail in their tests. Often, students who did not score above 70 in the previous academic year would most probably be named by their teachers to attend remedial lessons.
Frankly speaking, after more than half a day of lessons, most teachers and students would already be exhausted. If schools are to push for a few more hours of lessons for good results, this would be time and effort consuming, yet inefficient to the teachers and students.
Very often, whether a student has the habit of revising his work daily, put in effort to complete his assignments or even being serious towards correcting the mistakes in his assignments, would probably affect the effectiveness of his learning. As long as parents could cooperate and supervise more, such situations can be improved upon, and remedial lessons might not be necessary.
Teachers are eager to conduct remedial lessons at the beginning of the year simply because they want to seize the time to help students catch up with the subjects that they “did not do well” the previous year, in the hope that they will achieve ideal results in their examinations.
Such intentions are no doubt understandable. However, now that MOE keep reiterating the advantages of TLLM, yet schools have done exactly the opposite by being so enthusiastic about remedial lessons, does this mean that teachers or schools themselves actually do not agree with the effectiveness of TLLM? This shows that TLLM is, after all, still an ideal, and seems to be a different matter when it comes to actual implementation.
In the assessment of principals and teachers, there is no over-emphasis on students’ academic results. Teachers are assessed on several competencies, the most important of which is their critical role in the students’ holistic development. As such, teaching creatively and effectively, going out of the way to look after the students’ needs and partnering parents to meet these needs, as well as contributing to other teachers’ capabilities are all explicitly recognised in the assessment of teachers.
Similarly, principals are assessed on a range of competencies that go far beyond academic results. Good principals show visionary leadership and have the drive to realise the school’s vision. They have personal integrity and inspire others. They also think strategically, developing their students and teachers to reach their full potential. Above all, they have a heart for the students, and work hard with teachers to motivate students to achieve academically and in non-academic fields. Indeed, some of our most well-respected and capable school leaders run schools where the students are not the “best and brightest” according to Mr Singh’s definition.
We agree with Mr Singh that appraisees would be able to gain new insights if they could receive feedback from all levels (i.e. subordinates, peers and supervisors). We have introduced the 360-degree feedback tool as a developmental tool for principals, vice-principals and heads of department, to help them better understand their strengths and the areas they may need to improve on.
MOE’s commitment to building a first class teaching force is multi-faceted. We want to recognise and reward our teachers appropriately while encouraging them to continually improve. Schools are also giving teachers more time and space to do what they believe works best for their students.
A high quality teaching force, committed to excellence and passionate about nurturing their students, is what allows us to do the best possible for every young Singaporean.