Parliamentary Replies
Pre-School Education
Name and Constituency of Member of Parliament
Mr Viswa Sadasivan, Nominated Member of Parliament
Ms Audrey Wong, Nominated Member of Parliament
Motion on Pre-school Education
That this House, with a view to better preparing our children for school and life, urges the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of pre-school education in Singapore by rationalising issues of continuity to formal schooling, variance in standards and fees, and equal opportunities.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Education (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, Sir, the NMPs have urged the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of pre-school education in Singapore.
The Government has, in fact, conducted a recent review. In 2008, we presented to this House the recommendations of the joint MOE-MCYS Steering Committee for improving the quality of pre-school education which I chaired. The Steering Committee shared the concerns expressed by NMP Viswa that our education system, including the pre-school sector, continues to provide opportunities for all to reach their full potential and level up. In particular, the Committee focused on two areas to achieve this goal of education as a social leveller: first, we aimed for universal access to pre-school and specifically looked at removing barriers which prevented children from low-income families from doing so, and second, we wanted to raise the overall quality of pre-school education through improving teacher quality and standards.
As the NMPs have pointed out, there is good information from educational experts that the right type of pre-school education can better produce educational outcomes with social and economic benefits in the longer term, especially for children from disadvantaged families. However, the Committee was also careful to note the views of experts who warned against pre-school becoming extensions of formal school systems, where early childhood years become overly structured and focused on preparing children for primary school. Educational approaches must be appropriate for the child’s stage of development. Pre-schools should generally adopt a play-based approach and allow the child to develop in that environment. Experts further warn that an over-emphasis during the pre-school years on academic instruction, uniformity or comparisons of individual performances to narrow the gap, would not benefit a child’s overall development, motivation and interest in learning subsequently. For these reasons, the Committee did not support the approach that NMP Viswa has recommended.
NMP Viswa, in his speech, has pointedly urged all of us to “accept the reality that kindergartens today, unlike in the 1960s and 1970s, play a more significantly critical role in preparing our children for primary school” and for pre-schools to “ensure that our children are adequately prepared for Primary 1”. Even though his intentions are certainly well meaning and may garner support from some parents, developmental and education experts specifically warn against ratcheting up pre-school learning outcomes to be too focused on preparing children to become “ready” for primary school. Such an approach ignores the spectrum of potential and pace of development which exist normally in pre-school children. We should accept the fact that young children have different potentials and develop at different speeds. Attempts to accelerate in pre-school discrete outcomes, like numeracy and literacy, to reduce learning gaps between children through academic focus and structure are therefore not recommended.
A recent comprehensive review of primary education by a group of researchers from Cambridge University in 2010, led by Professor Robin Alexander — and I hold the report in my hand — warned against this specific danger of prematurely formalising pre-school. In fact, to counteract this trend, they recommended that the formal schooling age in England be raised from age five to six years old, in line with other Scandinavian countries which start formal schooling later. The main reason was to give children sufficient time to establish positive attitudes and build their confidence, and develop their social and language skills through active play-based learning as compared to the structured, subject-based curriculum of formal schooling. Allow me to quote from this report which counteracts some of the NMP’s proposals, from page 491, paragraph 24 of the report:
“There is evidence that the well intentioned requirement to narrow the gap in outcomes for the most vulnerable children is leading to pressure to skew an otherwise holistic and balanced curriculum in order to meet goals that are not all appropriate for all children.”
From page 169:
“Nor is there evidence indicating that children from deprived backgrounds — who are presumed to be main beneficiaries — gain from an early start to formal school.”
Let me quote further, from page 172:
“The Report therefore recommended extending the early years phase (ie, pre-school) to age six and seven so as to allow more time for ’curiosity and confidence, social and oral skills (that) would be more likely to flourish in play-based developmentally appropriate education and care’. Such a move would also signal an acceptance of the oft-repeated warnings that too-formal-too-soon may be dangerously counterproductive.’’
For these sound educational reasons, very few countries mandate pre-school education. Unlike primary school education, there is little evidence or consensus to support any specific pre-school programme or that it should be compulsory or be made part of the public education system to better prepare students to be ready for primary school. We certainly cannot say that simply by attending pre-school children will do better later. As experts counsel, the more important element is the supportive environment for growth either at home or in the pre-school.
In Finland and Sweden — countries renowned for high performing primary and secondary students — participation in pre-school education is voluntary and formal schooling starts later at seven years old. Closer to home, Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan also do not mandate compulsory pre-school education. Mr Viswa’s assertion that OECD nations are moving towards a more universalised system is inaccurate. Currently, most of the OECD countries do not mandate compulsory pre-school education. Instead, similar to the approach Singapore is taking, they try to ensure that all children have access to quality pre-schools. Singapore’s targeted approach to ensure accessibility and affordability, and focus on quality, is indeed in line with what these countries are doing.
Guided by these insights and best practices, the Committee did not support the approach for pre-school to be either part of or structured primarily to make students ready for the formal public education sector. Instead, the Committee formulated plans and provided more funds to improve the pre-school sector by focusing on four key thrusts:
- Improving quality through regulatory requirements and setting acceptable standards for all providers;
- Targeted assistance and funding for lower-income families to ensure affordability and access to pre-schools;
- Focusing pre-school on holistic development and not inappropriate formal education at too early an age; and
- Providing more funds and grants to improve teacher quality and overall quality of centres.
Arising from the Committee’s work, we have implemented a number of new initiatives since 2008. Allow me to share with the House the results of these initiatives where MOE and MCYS have been working closely together with kindergarten and childcare providers as well as community groups.
Mr Speaker, let me assure the Members of this House that MOE does take the lead to ensure that pre-school education is of good quality. MOE has not focused its work solely to address the anxiety of parents, on which the hon. Member Ms Wong has premised her support for the motion. I found at least four times she used the word “anxiety” in various forms in her speech, and if we add the word “daunting”, that will be five. Instead, the pre-school going children’s interest is the centre of our focus.
MOE has, therefore, been working on the three key leverage areas identified by the Committee to raise the baseline quality of education across the pre-school sector. First, to require higher qualifications for teachers and principals in the pre-school sector. Second, to provide resources and sharing of best practices to enhance the quality of programmes within the pre-school sector. Third, to develop a quality assurance and accreditation scheme to raise the overall quality of pre-schools as well as to facilitate the decisions of parents when they enrol their children into pre-school. I am happy to update the House that positive outcomes have already been achieved in each of these three areas.
Firstly, for teacher quality, we have raised the minimum academic qualifications of pre-school teachers in both kindergartens and childcare centres since January 2009. All new pre-school teachers must now have a minimum of five “O” level credits, including a credit in English Language, and a Diploma in Early Childhood Care and Education-Teaching (DECCE-T). As a result, the pre-school sector now recruits teachers from the middle one-third of the academic cohort as opposed to the bottom one-third of the academic cohort in the past. MOE has set a target for pre-school centres to have three-quarters of their teachers meet the above-mentioned qualifications by 2013.
The hon. Member Ms Wong asked about the progress of this policy. I am pleased to announce that as at end October 2010, 72.1% of our kindergartens and 68.2% of childcare centres have already met this target. But, mind you, this started from a base of less than 20% when we started out in 2006.
We are raising minimum qualifications steadily by allowing a reasonable time for those already in the sector to upgrade. MOE and MCYS provide scholarships, bursaries and training awards for incumbent teachers, principals and pre-service teachers from not-for-profit childcare centres and kindergartens. Since 2008, MOE and MCYS have disbursed a total of $3.8 million for 302 scholarship, teaching award and bursary holders. I hope this addressed the question that the hon. Member Mrs Teo asked just now.
Further, to develop professional capacity within the pre-school sector, there are also annual professional sharing platforms, such as the Child Care Seminar, Kindergarten Conference and the Kindergarten Learning Forum. In fact, I was at the opening ceremony for the 2010 Kindergarten Learning Forum yesterday morning.
Let me now touch on raising the standards of pre-schools. MOE provides clear guidelines as well as teaching resources to support educational programmes in all kindergartens and childcare centres based on best practices in early childhood education.
In 2000, we delineated the Desired Outcomes of Pre-School Education, in consultation with pre-school practitioners and professionals, to define the skills and dispositions that children should know at the end of their pre-school education.
Mr Viswa had asked for MOE to consider stipulating a core curriculum for all kindergartens. In fact, MOE developed the Kindergarten Curriculum Framework in 2003 outlining the key learning principles and supporting teaching and learning resources for children aged four to six. A more detailed Kindergarten Curriculum Guide was disseminated to all pre-schools in 2008. Most pre-schools in Singapore take reference from the Curriculum Framework and Guide to provide opportunities for children to acquire a set of key knowledge, skills and dispositions in the early years.
To ensure that all kindergartens are adequately resourced to provide quality pre-school education, teaching and learning resources grants are offered by MOE to not-for-profit kindergartens. In 2009, MOE distributed a total of $2.2 million to the 352 kindergartens who applied for the grants.
Together with teacher and programme quality, MOE seeks to improve the way centres are managed. MOE had earlier announced the Quality Assurance and Accreditation Framework in 2008. Since then, we have made progress in developing, testing and validating the Quality Rating Scale (QRS). Yesterday morning, the Singapore Pre-School Accreditation Framework (SPARK) was launched officially at the Kindergarten Learning Forum. This is what the Framework Booklet looks like.
All pre-schools can participate in SPARK by using the QRS for self-assessment to improve the quality of their own programmes. When they are ready, they can also seek external assessment by MOE-accredited assessors. A good SPARK rating or accreditation status is endorsement of the quality of a pre-school programme. Information on pre-schools that participated in SPARK and have attained accreditation will be listed in the MOE website from June 2011, so that parents can make more informed choices in their selection of pre-school programmes for their children.
Using SPARK, each pre-school would be measured in seven key areas:
- leadership,
- planning and administration,
- staff management,
- resources,
- curriculum,
- pedagogy, and
- health, hygiene and safety.
The approach of allowing the providers to sign themselves up for quality improvements and according them recognition is working. Providers know that it is in their own interest to do so, as parents will look for these quality marks before deciding enrolment to their pre-schools. Before the official launch of SPARK, MOE had already distributed the quality assurance instrument to kindergartens in November 2009 and childcare centres in 2010, for them to practise self-assessment. So far, 81% of our kindergartens have already begun using the instrument to guide them to improve their quality. Likewise, childcare centres have also begun using this instrument to raise the quality of educational programmes.
MOE’s target is to have 85% of all kindergartens and childcare centres participate in the external assessment by 2013. The widespread adoption of SPARK over the next few years will further strengthen baseline standard as I am sure that, over time, parents will only want to send their child to pre-schools that have obtained accreditation.
As the sector develops, the accreditation framework can evolve to motivate operators to further improve quality standards. We have observed that the kindergartens that have adopted the instrument are more aware of the gaps in their processes and practices, and are therefore able to put in place more targeted and effective efforts at raising their centre quality.
The principal of the PCF kindergarten at Nee Soon East Block 408 shared that after being trained in the use of the quality assurance instrument, she and her staff are now more aware of the need to plan ahead and set targets for their centre. This year, the kindergarten was awarded the MOE-AECES Kindergarten Best Learning Centre Award for having successfully enhanced their curriculum and designed their learning centres to provide holistic development opportunities for their children which are integrated and focused on play-based activities.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my Committee does not support NMP Viswa’s proposal to limit the choice or options available to parents by imposing more regulations on curriculum and fees for pre-schools. This is unnecessarily prescriptive and stifling for operators. Parents can decide for themselves if the pre-school is worth the money they spend.
We want a good quality pre-school sector but this does not mean that we should force all providers to be uniform. Unlike formal school education, experts agree that there is room for diverse approaches in the pre-school sector.
Indeed, this focus on quality and minimum standards, not uniformity, has encouraged a variety of pre-school programmes with different approaches and models, such as the Project Approach, Reggio Emilia Approach, HighScope Model and Montessori Method. They all provide a curriculum that is appropriate for the stage of development of the child, encompassing child-centredness, holistic development and active learning through purposeful play. Parents with different preferences may choose the pre-school option that best meets the needs of their child.
Here, I would like to add that quality pre-school education can be affordable. MOE, in collaboration with the Association for Early Childhood Educators (Singapore) (AECES), gives Outstanding Kindergarten Awards each year to recognise quality teachers and kindergartens that have implemented impactful and innovative projects. Over 2009 and 2010, 30 kindergartens have won Distinction or Merit Awards for innovations and high quality programmes in their pre-schools. They did not come from those who charged the highest fees. The majority — 21 out of 30 — charge fees at around the average or below. This is testimony that quality pre-school education can be affordable.
The Government will continue to provide generous funding to the pre-school sector to encourage innovation through the Pre-School Innovation Grant which, since 2008, has funded 171 innovative projects.
MOE has also established professional sharing forums to ensure that best practices and successful innovative ideas can be widely spread and adopted by others. The sharing of innovative projects and innovative practices at the relevant professional platforms helps to build up a culture of innovation and encourage other pre-schools to embark on innovative projects of their own.
As the hon. Member Mrs Josephine Teo noted, expenditure by MOE alone in grants tied to the quality of teachers hired has doubled from $17 million in 2008 to $36 million last year, and is expected to reach up to $62 million by 2013. Mrs Teo has also asked whether we could do more for those who have just missed the qualification for KiFAS or CFAC. We will certainly look at that. Both MOE and MCYS spend this in a targeted manner so that while quality is being raised, pre-school remains affordable for all, especially those from the lower-income families. Indeed, no child should be denied the right to education because his parents cannot afford it. My colleague from MCYS will elaborate on this later.
Despite our best efforts to keep pre-school affordable, there are still those who do not attend pre-school. MOE and MCYS have been working closely with community groups to reach out to these families by painstakingly knocking on doors to find them, and to encourage their parents to place them into kindergartens or childcare centres.
Some of these children are based overseas or home-schooled but, more often than not, these students come from two broad categories of families: those who cannot afford pre-school education without assistance, and those who are not aware or do not value it.
For children who cannot afford pre-school, our outreach team has worked closely with pre-school providers and community support groups to emplace these children, and make available financial assistance support, including MCYS’ schemes and support from community groups. This approach has yielded good results.
For parents who are not aware of the value of pre-school education, MOE has launched an awareness campaign to help parents, especially in lower-income families, to understand the importance of pre-school education. However, as Mr Viswa also acknowledges, these families have problems that are often more complex and require a holistic approach. That is why MOE and MCYS have heavily involved grassroots organisations and voluntary welfare organisations to offer a more comprehensive solution.
This approach to achieve universal participation in pre-school has worked. Today, almost all Singaporean children attend pre-school. Our participation rate is among the highest in the world. The percentage of six-year-olds or children of K2-going age in the 2010 cohort who are not attending pre-school has fallen to 1.2%, down from 2.1% in 2009 and 5% from 2006. Of the 1.2% who do not attend pre-school, some of them are residing overseas and are enrolled in a school outside Singapore. Others are attending lessons in enrichment centres, or are enrolled in special education schools, or home-schooled.
Furthermore, the pilot partnership with the Singapore Children Society had successfully reduced the number of uncontactable children and families to 113 this year, a significant improvement from the 350 quoted by Mr Viswa, which is for the cohort in 2009. We intend to continue to enhance our efforts so as to further improve on this number for 2011. But as much as we want to ensure that pre-school education is accessible to all children, we need the support of parents and families, as they too play a large and important role in the education of their children.
Our measures seek to ensure good affordable pre-school education for all, especially the lower socio-economic groups. This is a more targeted approach and requires more effort to work with relevant stakeholders to remove the barriers for those in need. In fact, it is much harder but more productive than simply legislating it to be compulsory. In the process, the society gets involved, it becomes more emphatic, becomes part of the solution; and it contributes to making our society a caring society. Through these efforts, we have ensured that almost all our children, regardless of family background, have access to quality programmes at affordable fees.
Mr Viswa asserts that there are “crash courses in schools at primary one to level up their reading and numeracy skills” to “’pump-prime’ a child in a few months when other children have taken two whole years (of kindergarten) to achieve the same!” This is not the approach of our Learning Support Programme (LSP) and Learning Support for Mathematics (LSM) programmes. It is an unfair characterisation of the efforts that dedicated teachers put in to help children. Under the LSP and LSM, our professionals accept that children learn best at their own pace to reach their inherent full potential. We do not pump-prime them but provide additional support in literacy or numeracy. Some may take longer than others and teachers will customise their teaching according to the needs of each child.
Furthermore, our experiences from these learning intervention programmes suggest that prior pre-school experience is not the key factor influencing a child’s ability to learn within the formal schooling system. Factors such as a good home environment and continued support for learning are equally important. Mr Viswa acknowledged this — his parents played a key role in his success in school despite him not having attended pre-school. This is true when Mr Viswa was young and will be true, even when his grandchildren become parents.
As a supportive home environment does make a difference to pupils’ academic performance in school, children who have families that would engage them in literacy-related activities and those whose parents or care-givers supervise them at home and encourage them to read, progress faster in reading than others who do not have such that support.
I would like to assure Ms Audrey Wong that, besides literacy and numeracy skills, we also aim to develop our children holistically, and to give children who are gifted in non-academic areas the opportunity to shine. Let me share one example with Members. Cheston Tan started playing the violin in Primary 3 at Fuchun Primary after watching a group of violinists perform in the school. He topped the ABRSM Grade 1 examination in 2006 and took the Grade 8 examination in 2008. All in four years at Fuchun! We hear that Cheston is now at the School of The Arts (SOTA) where he is part of the school’s string ensemble.
Cheston was on the MOE’s Financial Assistance Scheme. No head start in music, no Yamaha lessons. He is where he is because he had the opportunity to pursue and demonstrate his talent in school. Cheston is only one of many talents in our school system that was discovered and nurtured in many broad areas; in arts, in sports and even leadership.
MOE shares Mr Viswa’s desire to ensure that Singapore continues to provide equal opportunities for all. We are gratified that our top students in PSLE every year come from a big spread of schools, and not merely from a few primary schools. The top 5% of students in the PSLE come from more than 95% of our primary schools and across all socio-economic groups. Also, one in five of the top one-third of PSLE students come from the lower third of households by home background, ie, lower socio-economic groups and parents with lower educational qualifications. Such trends are also observed in the Higher Education sector — one in eight undergraduates in our public universities come from households who live in 1- to 3-room flats. These statistics show that our education system provides opportunities for every child to advance based on merit, regardless of family background.
In summary, MOE agrees that pre-school education is important. We have invested considerable efforts and provided more funding to improve the quality, accessibility and affordability of pre-school education. We have been making good progress and plan to do more.
The Pre-school Review Committee does not support the approach for pre-school to be part of the formal education sector or made compulsory. It would also be unwise to prescribe for operators uniform curriculum and modes of delivery or introduce inappropriate academic standards, even if it is for 50% of the curriculum. Instead, we must ensure that all our pre-schools meet good minimum standards, and that all children can afford to attend these pre-schools. Government should provide adequate funding to ensure universal access and to progressively improve professional standards and teacher quality. We can work with providers to upgrade the overall quality of their pre-schools and recognise those who have attained high standards. And we should certainly avoid, by regulation, pushing pre-schools to accelerate formal learning to get their students more ready for Primary 1, as this will be at the expense of the other developmental aspects of the child.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the efforts that MOE and MCYS have been putting into improving the quality, accessibility and affordability of the pre-school sector, I would like to conclude by proposing an amendment to the motion on Pre-School Education.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, “That the words after “life” in line 2 to the end be left out, and there to insert the words: supports the Government’s efforts to enhance the quality, accessibility and affordability of pre-school education for all Singaporeans and urges the Government to continue to review, monitor and improve pre-school education in Singapore so as to ensure equal opportunities for all.”
The full amended motion is as follows:
“Pre-School Education: That this House, with a view to better preparing our children for school and life, supports the Government’s efforts to enhance the quality, accessibility and affordability of pre-school education for all Singaporeans and urges the Government to continue to review, monitor and improve pre-school education in Singapore so as to ensure equal opportunities for all.”