20 March 1998

SPEECH BY THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, RADM TEO CHEE HEAN AT THE BUDGET DEBATE ON 20 MAR 98

The Minister for Education (RAdm Teo Chee Hean): Sir, once again I thank Members for their suggestions and views. They come from a number of very different perspectives. I think I would suggest that some of the Members discuss with each other and try and resolve some of the issues that they have brought up.

First of all, allow me to address the issue of universities which is a subject I left over from yesterday. Mr Loh Meng See, Prof Chin Tet Yung, Dr Toh See Kiat, Mr Ee, Mr Zainul and Dr Teo Ho Pin spoke about this. DPM Dr Tony Tan, has outlined the key changes to university education at a speech at NTU last month. To recap, NUS and NTU are working to double their post-graduate intake by the year 2000. Both are working on broadening undergraduate education. Tertiary education opportunities will be expanded with the establishment of the Singapore Management University whilst Arts education will be boosted by impending changes to LaSalle/SIA College of the Arts and the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts. These changes will be announced sometime next month by Dr Tan Chin Nam.

Will there be enough places for Singaporeans? Has there been an impact from the currency crisis? No, we have not seen any discernible impact from the currency crisis. I wish to assure Mr Loh that there will be enough university places for Singaporeans who, in Mr Loh's words, make the grade. The increase in intake of foreign students will be undertaken as part of the university's overall expansion plans and will not be at the expense of Singaporeans. There is flexibility to enlarge the intake in most courses if there is demand. In fact, for the coming academic year, 1998/1999, there will be increases in intakes in almost all the faculties, ranging from 1% to 11%, except for Dentistry, Law and Business, where the intakes will remain about the same. Members will understand the reasons for Dentistry and Law. For Business, we are making adjustments as well. The total intake will increase by about 4½%. For the academic year 1999-2000, a further 4½% increase in undergraduate intake has been projected. We will refine this number as we go along. So there is no shortage of places for Singaporeans.

Has broadening affected professional disciplines? Prof. Chin asked about this yesterday. For professional degrees, there is a need to strike a balance between broadening and attaining sufficient depth of knowledge to satisfy professional bodies. This can be achieved through changes in the curriculum as well as by other means. For example, in the Law Faculty, as Prof. Chin knows, there are plans to take in a more diverse student body instead of relying on those who have completed their "A" levels. This is good for providing more diverse academic preparation for lawyers who may need to go into specialist areas like patents and trade law.

Let me now turn to the SMU and OUDP which were raised by Mr Loh and Dr Toh. The establishment of the Management University in 2000 will result in an increase in the number of places for students wishing to pursue an undergraduate business course. While NUS will reduce its undergraduate Business Administration intake slightly from the current 600 to 500 in the year 2000, and NTU will stop offering its undergraduate Business programme, there will be more places available in SMU to make up for these changes. So in fact the Business intake will increase overall. The facilities given up by NTU's undergraduate Business programmes will be used for an expansion of NTU's post-graduate Business programmes and increase in the number of engineering students taking Business minors and to house the overall expansion in post-graduate students in all disciplines.

As a private university, SMU will have some flexibility in setting fees and entry requirements. However, as SMU will receive Government funding, we do not expect its fees to be significantly higher than NUS or NTU. We do not expect them to be lower either. As announced by the SIM Governing Council in January, SMU will require both "A" level results and SATs from those applying in 2000 and beyond. SMU will be making other innovations in curriculum, campus design and other areas and I think this will be good for the university sector in Singapore.

Mother tongue requirement for SMU. Bilingualism is a cornerstone of Singapore's education system. SMU has stated that applicants will need to satisfy the minimum grade in the mother tongue, as in the case for admission into NUS and NTU. There is no change to this policy and we do not intend to make any changes. The minimum requirement to apply for NUS and NTU is a grade of D7 in mother tongue, either as a second language taken at the "A" level examination or as a first language taken at the "O" level examination. Currently, candidates who do not satisfy the above requirements for mother tongue may still submit an application for NTU or NUS. If selected, they will be admitted on a provisional basis. During the course of their study, they will be required to meet the requisite minimum language requirements before they are allowed to graduate. I am sure SMU will apply the same flexibility for deserving candidates.

SMU and OUDP serve different purposes. The establishment of SMU expands tertiary education opportunities for school-leavers as well as for some working adults. OUDP was established to provide opportunities mainly for working adults. How successful has OUDP been? The OUDP took in its first batch of students in 1994 and will see its first batch of 332 graduates this year, even though the average time taken to complete the degree programme is six years. I have great admiration for those who have taken the programme. It requires a lot of commitment and effort. Its current enrolment in the five fields of English, Mathematics, Computer Science, Technology and Psychology, stands at 5,100. OUDP started with three degree programmes, English Language and Literature, Mathematics and Computer Science and has since expanded to 15 programmes. It will continue to review its course offerings to meet the needs of working adults.

OUDP's minimum admission requirement was raised by Mr Gerard Ee and Mr Zainul. They are already quite flexible. The academic requirement is 2 GCE "A" level passes or its equivalent or an acceptable local diploma. Other qualifications are considered on a case-by-case basis. These requirements are less stringent than those for applications to NUS or NTU, for example, the two "A" level passes that are required do not have to be at one sitting.

In addition, applicants need to have a minimum work experience, including NS, of two years and to be at least 21 years old. The requirement takes into account the applicant's work experience, life skills and maturity. I think we must all understand that some minimum academic requirement is needed to ensure that those who take up the programme have a reasonable chance of success. This will also give employers more confidence about the quality of OUDP and its graduates.

The accreditation of private educational institutions is a point raised by Mr Loh and Dr Teo Ho Pin. The Ministry of Education does not regulate the offer of distance learning programmes originating from overseas tertiary institutions. It will become even more difficult to do so in the future when you have electronic communication and so on. The local organisations representing the overseas tertiary institutions have to seek the Ministry's authorisation to offer the programmes. The Ministry examines proposals, focusing attention on areas including the standing of the overseas tertiary institution and the programme to be offered. The prerogative of selecting a course of study, however, rests completely with the students. Prospective students would thus need to have a full understanding of what is being offered, including the cost of the programme and match it with his or her capacity, aptitude and resources available to pursue such studies. The best protection would be to conduct a careful and thorough evaluation prior to enrolling in a programme. Students owe themselves this responsibility.

As for the OUDP setting the benchmark standards for distance learning courses set up by private educational institutions, I think it is already playing quite a useful role by providing another avenue for upgrading.

I turn now to the University's admission system. Mr Chew Heng Ching, Mr Sinnakaruppan, Prof. Chin Tet Yung, all have made impassioned appeals for what they consider to be important qualities to be taken into account and hope that this will not distort the motivations of students when they take on all these important qualities in their school life. I just want to make one comment here. What we do in the University's admission system, as correctly pointed out by many Members, does not only have an impact on what type of students enter the universities. What we do in the University's admission system has a big impact on the whole school system because students who aspire to go to University will focus their attention and efforts on this. The Committee that is looking at this is cognizant of this point and will take all these into account. I will forward all the suggestions that Members have raised to Prof. Shih who is chairing this Committee. We do not want to prejudge the conclusions of this Committee. So I will leave it at that.

But in the discussion on University's admission and ranking, I see two interesting trends in the whole discussion. On the one hand, there is a desire to say, "Okay, if you say this is important, then you should count it. If you do not count it, that means you are not giving importance to it." On the other hand, there is another argument raised by many Members here to say that, "Well, if you count it, then you distort the students' motivations in doing this. So you shouldn't count it." So on the one hand, you should count all the things that are important; on the other hand, you should not count it because, if it is important, the person really should be doing it for the love of it, and not because he gets points for it. So this is an interesting dilemma. I think basically we have to be realistic. If it is important, we should try and count it. And that is the approach which I think we have to take.

The same dilemma exists in ranking. This is a subject which has been brought up by a number of people here. They say, "Well, you rank schools, it creates all kinds of distortions in the system." Dr Toh, I think, referred to the question raised at last year's debate. I can also refer him to the answer I gave in last year's debate. Ranking is something which we will not do away with in Singapore. I am open to ideas on how to improve the system but it is something which is valuable. It provides very valuable benchmarking for schools, for the Ministry of Education as a whole and for schools themselves to know where they stand. If the intake of students in School A is roughly the same as the intake of students in School B, and School A does better than School B, remarkably better than School B, I think the principals themselves would want to know why, what is it in School A which is interesting and useful which School B can take on for the benefit of School B's students. I think that is quite a reasonable objective of ranking and comparison. And all over the world, in the UK, in the US, in many states, ranking is now accepted as something useful.

I must say that two days ago, I read an interesting article in the UK. They now rank schools quite avidly in UK, a lot of tests and a lot of ranking. And, in fact, I was very happy to see that they have just started value-added ranking which is something which we have done in our schools for several years already.

I think what Dr Toh See Kiat has proposed with regard to ranking will make things even worse. He suggested putting weights on various kinds of things. In fact, we do not put weights today. What Dr Toh See Kiat is doing is trying to convert a vector into a scalar - a multi-factored description of a school, by assigning weights into a single number. In fact, we do not do that. I have a book here which addresses what Dr Toh was talking about. If you are selecting a school for your child, I have a book here which is produced in four languages, and it describes all kinds of things: ECA highlights, physical fitness level, aggregate range of pupils posted to that school, and a short write-up on the emphasis, achievements and awards which the schools write themselves to tell you what the school is like, what the school believes in. The publication is available. This provides a broader representation of what the school does when parents are selecting secondary schools for their children. It is also not true that the Ministry gives greater weightage to the pure academic performance of a school than its value-added. But the public may give greater weightage. The Ministry provides little cash prizes for value-added schools. We do not provide cash prizes for schools which do well purely by their subject grades. So I think what Dr Toh is proposing, which is to assign little weights to all these things, is, in fact, going to be quite counter-productive.

Franchising and the quality of schools - Dr Michael Lim spoke about taking "good" schools and "replicating" them. This is one method of replicating good schools. But replicating good schools is not just a matter of transferring the brand name. Dr Lim, I think, has some brand names in mind. To produce a school of the same quality will require the right school leadership and mix of teachers. More importantly, this assumes that the student body is the same. A different student body is likely to require different teaching strategies and a different school ethos. A direct clone of a school, like Raffles Institution, for example, which tailors its programmes and methods for the very best of our students is unlikely to be suitable for all the students in Singapore. So we must be quite aware of this.

I would also like to point out to Dr Lim that while he has cited certain schools, we should not be overly enamoured with brand names. These are schools which do extremely well. But there are also other schools which do extremely well which have names that are not instantly recognisable to the public or to Dr Lim. And by this, I do not just mean schools who have scored the best results. But, more importantly, the schools which produce the most value-added. These are schools which parents should be looking for.

But I do agree with Dr Lim that good school practices and management know-how should be replicated so that we can improve our schools. And this is, in fact, one of the main reasons why we have done cluster schools. These are headed by senior principals with a proven track record. Leadership in the schools is important. Principals are important people. If you have a good principal, how do you increase his influence, how do you make better use of him. He can run one very good school, but if he has run it for half a dozen years, he has a very good school there. How do you increase his influence? One way is to have him as a head of a cluster in which the same principal, the same dynamism, his experience, can be extended to several other schools. So this is one of the reasons why we have cluster schools. Clusters will also enable schools to exchange best practices and so forth. And we also have a regular rotation of principals so that there is a steady flow of fresh ideas and energy in our schools.

Dr Teo Ho Pin suggested ISO 9000 for our schools. We do have quality control measures in place in our schools. They are visited by inspectors. First of all, within the school, there is a quality control structure. The teachers are supervised by heads of departments and subject and level heads, and its vice-principal and principal. The inspectors of schools and the senior inspectors of schools, the curriculum specialists will visit the school, and so forth. There are school evaluations. There is ranking. And we also compare ourselves in international mathematics and science studies and so on with educational systems in other countries. So there are a number of quality control structures in place already. I am open to the idea of seeing how we can improve this and we will see whether Dr Teo's suggestion has merit.

Dr Toh See Kiat wondered whether or not the schools and the HQ are in sync, whether the policies that are promulgated in the headquarters actually get executed in the schools. And I think Mr Low Thia Khiang also echoes some of these sentiments: whether or not the things that we do and say in headquarters actually are done in schools, and whether what happens in the schools is actually known in the headquarters. I have been visiting many schools myself and talking to many teachers. But I would just like to let the Members of the House know that the senior officers in my headquarters - it is not something that I asked them to do but something which they decided themselves that they want to do - the Permanent Secretaries, the Director-General of Education, the Deputy Secretaries, and 11 Directors (16 of them in all) visit schools once every two weeks and talk to the teachers to find out what is happening, to explain to them the policies, to get feedback from them directly. They do not go altogether, they go individually. And in this way each of the schools, every one of our schools, will be visited by one of them every year. This is one of the ways in which we try and make sure that the headquarters and the schools have a close link together.

I come now to the subject of miscellaneous fees. Several Members - Mr Loh Meng See, Mr Hawazi and Dr Teo Ho Pin and other MPs - have commented that the cost of education has gone up by something like 30%, that operating budgets are tight and we must not compromise on the quality of education and they ask how the Ministry will handle the situation. Perhaps I can ask the Clerk to distribute a Table that I have. [Copies of Table distributed to hon. Members.]

General education is almost fully subsidised by Government. Although the average annual cost per pupil increased 61% from $2,600 in 1992 to $4,200 in 1997, citizen pupils pay a token sum of school fees at the rate of $5 per month for secondary school and $6 per month for junior colleges. At primary level, no school fees are charged and we have no intention to raise school fees.

However, parents now pay miscellaneous fees. These miscellaneous fees are a contribution towards the cost of materials used by pupils in the schools. In recent years, there had been many innovative ideas, curriculum changes, the availability of more materials and programmes. In order to expose pupils to the myriad of innovative materials available in the market, schools have been making ad-hoc cash collections from pupils. Those of you who have children in schools will know this. And these ad-hoc cash collections add to the amount that parents need to spend for the education of their children. To manage the increase in cost, we need to do two things: first of all, we must make sure that any increase in cost, any extra expenditure is really worthwhile, cost effective and cost efficient. But secondly, we also have to provide a framework for schools to continue to spend on those things which are necessary, particularly enrichment materials.

The present miscellaneous fee is a token sum which comprises two components: a standard component and a second-tier component. The standard component is fixed by my Ministry at $5 a month for primary level, $7 a month for secondary and $9 a month for junior college level. That is the standard component of miscellaneous fees. The second-tier component is currently capped at 30% of the standard component. The School Advisory Committee or School Management Committee (SAC/SMC) decides on the need for the second-tier fees and parents can use their children's Edusave Accounts to pay for the second-tier fee. Most schools already find it necessary to collect close to the full amount for the second-tier fees. As a result, if the schools wish to do more, they often have to make cash collections on an ad-hoc basis from students. This makes it more difficult for parents to budget for such expenditure and these payments are often made in cash rather than from Edusave due to the inconvenience of making Edusave withdrawals on an ad-hoc basis, if parents do want to use Edusave. These cash collections also place an extra administrative burden on teachers and schools because they have to collect the cash and make sure it is all accounted for properly. My Ministry will put in place a framework to give schools the flexibility to reduce the ad-hoc cash collections from their pupils by allowing them to raise the second-tier component of miscellaneous fees.

From 1st January 1999, the Ministry of Education will allow the SAC/SMC to charge second-tier miscellaneous fees up to the same amount as the standard miscellaneous fees instead of the 30% of standard miscellaneous fees. The SAC/SMC will continue to decide on when and how much second-tier miscellaneous fees should be increased for their respective schools depending on the needs of that school and the programmes that the school is undertaking. Parents can continue to use the Edusave Accounts to pay for the full amount of the second-tier fees, so there should be no need for additional cash outlays from parents if they choose to use Edusave. Parents who wish to use the Edusave Accounts to pay the second-tier fees will also be required to pay school fees and the standard miscellaneous fees by GIRO. This again will streamline the fee collection system of schools and reduce the administrative burden on teachers.

With the lifting of the 30% cap, the maximum increase in monthly miscellaneous fees will be $3.50 for primary, $4.90 for secondary and $6.30 for junior college, all of which I stress can be met by using the Edusave Accounts. For the vast majority of parents, there will be no increase in cash outlay therefore if they choose to use Edusave for the second-tier miscellaneous fees. The total maximum miscellaneous fees chargeable, ie, both the standard and the second-tier component, will be $10 for primary, $14 for secondary and $18 for junior college and the schools will decide when they need to make adjustments.

Single session schools. This is a subject raised by Dr Lee Tsao Yuan. There are indeed many benefits from having single session schools. The question really is one of resources. The Ministry of Education is already fully stretched implementing the single session programme to all secondary schools by the year 2000. This is quite a massive building programme because we have to build many new schools as well as build extension blocks in many of the existing secondary schools. Members will probably have noticed this in the secondary schools in their constituencies.

As the secondary school enrolment is projected to increase beyond the year 2000, more new secondary schools will have to be built to sustain the single session programme. So extending single session to primary schools would place further strain on our resources and it is not something which we are able to do right now. And for primary schools, we need to also study carefully the pros and cons of going single session. The pupils are younger. It is not clear that all parents would welcome the idea of them staying in school till about 3.30 pm each day. We must also remember that single session schools should be developed for their educational value and not because it is a convenient means of child care.

I come to the subject of mother tongue. I was very tempted to ask Mr Rai and Mr Peh Chin Hua to have a discussion on the standard that we should achieve in our mother tongue in schools. Mr Peh Chin Hua expressed concern about the 'O' level holders whom we have recruited as teachers for Chinese Language. The introduction of the diploma in mother tongue language education for 'O' level holders in 1997 was one of several measures implemented to augment the supply of Chinese Language teachers for primary schools. Mr Peh has expressed concern that the recruitment of 'O' level holders might lower the standard of Chinese Language teaching in our primary schools.

The Ministry would like to assure Mr Peh that it will not lead to a lowering of standards given the strict selection criteria. Candidates must have good grades in their Chinese at 'O' levels and must meet the minimum criteria for pre-university courses. Short-listed candidates must then go through an interview by Chinese Language specialists from both the Ministry and the National Institute of Education. During the interview, candidates are assessed for their language fluency, knowledge of classical literature and their aptitude and keenness to teach young children. I think this is also very important. Successful applicants would be enrolled in the diploma in Chinese Language education programme conducted by the National Institute of Education and this is a four-year long programme. The trainees would be exposed to classical literature, language and cultural training that will bring the Chinese Language standard and appreciation of Chinese culture to a level comparable to the GCE 'A' level, if not higher. They will also be equipped with pedagogy skills so that they are able to impart their knowledge and inherent passion for the language to their pupils.

The Ministry is therefore confident that the Chinese Language teachers from the diploma in Chinese Language education programme will not lead to any lowering of Chinese Language standards in our primary schools. Like all other Chinese Language teachers, they can attend in-service courses on Chinese Language and Chinese Language teaching conducted regularly by the Ministry. They can also apply to enrol in an ongoing annual teacher attachment programme in the People's Republic of China. The programme is four weeks long during which teachers will undergo a series of classes conducted at the Beijing Normal University as well as attachment in schools in Beijing. This programme helps teachers find new ideas with respect to the teaching of the Chinese Language.

Also on Chinese Language, I will take up the point that Mr Lim Swee Say mentioned yesterday. In fact, the purpose of having such passages in the Chinese Language textbooks is to convey the moral education messages. Perhaps, we can do it better.

On Tamil Language, Mr Rai feels that the standard of Tamil Language is too high. Mr Peh feels that the standard of Chinese Language is too low. Somewhere in between, they should meet and have a discussion. The current Tamil Language syllabuses in our schools have been developed to meet the objectives of transmitting cultural and traditional values and providing pupils with proficiency in their mother tongue. We recognise that pupils who do not come from Tamil speaking homes may have difficulties in learning the language. We will see what adjustments can be made.

We also agree that our bright pupils should be given the opportunity to learn Malay and, in fact, the Ministry conducts lessons in Malay as a third language at its language centre for those pupils who wish to study the language.

Dr Wang asked about foreign talent and mother tongue as second language. In fact, the example that Dr Wang brought up actually illustrates the flexibility with which the Ministry of Education approaches the issue of mother tongue and second language for those foreigners who choose to settle in Singapore. What Dr Wang described was that, in fact, the Ministry has made many adaptations, exercised a lot of flexibility and allowed the children of this particular parent to do quite a number of different things different languages, Malay or French, and several opportunities to take and retake the examination. So we do provide a considerable amount of flexibility already and I think the learning of mother tongue as second language is in fact good for the students in the long term.

Professional training of teachers is a subject that was brought up by Mr Loh yesterday. He suggested a Principals' College. Mr Loh also asked about English Language teachers. We do not see a need for a Principals' College right now. What we would want to do is to make sure that the NIE becomes an excellent place, an institution which is renowned for research in education and for teaching teachers how to teach. This is something which we would like to see NIE become. It is already quite a well-established institution and it also conducts courses in educational administration, and so on. In fact, there is a principals' course and a course for Heads of Department. They go by names which I always find very difficult to remember. But basically, it is a principals' course and a Heads of Department's course.

Mr Loh also asked about English Language teachers and vacancies, and so forth. We had good recruitment in the last two years and the vacancies for English Language teachers are not very significant now. We expect to be able to fill the existing vacancies by May 1998 this year when the freshly trained teachers from NIE come out.

Mr Gerard Ee lamented about the large number of subjects that Primary 1 students take. I am not sure where he got this idea from. In fact, our primary school syllabus is very, very focused. In Primary 1, we concentrate on just three subjects: English, mother tongue and Mathematics. We do not just teach three subjects because the children also do PE, art, moral education, civics, and so forth. But the basic emphasis is on these three subjects. So I am not sure where Mr Ee has got his information from. In fact, we do not teach Science until Primary 3. That is one of the reasons why at the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, when our kids were tested in Science at Primary 4, they came out somewhere in the middle of the table. So we are extremely focused in our primary school curriculum.

He also expressed concern, which is a valid one, about language training and ability at a young age. In fact, my Ministry has a learning support programme for students who have difficulties coping with the first couple of years in school. And this language support programme, which is in a number of our schools, is very well received by parents whose children need a little bit more support to adapt to primary school.

I come to Mr Shriniwas Rai who spoke about history. I agree that history can be enlivened. Information technology and TV provide a lot of opportunities, and we will see how we can make use of Mr Rai's suggestion.

Mr Loh Meng See asked a number of penetrating questions about information technology. We have this IT Masterplan. He asked: what is going to happen after this Masterplan? How are we going to replace the computers and so on? The Minister for Finance is here. It is quite clear. When we provide for this Masterplan, we understand and know that this is not a one-off exercise where we spend $2 billion over five or six years, and put computers in the schools. There are many other things that we need to do. After that, we have to replace the computers once every three or four years and so on. The Ministry of Finance is cognizant of that.

He also asked how information technology would change the way our classrooms would look, how we use IT for teaching. There are three basic things. Firstly, we can use computers for very basic functions, which is drilling. This is fairly well established. It is like doing homework, practising and so forth. But that is very basic. Second, it can be used for teaching and learning in the classroom to enliven classes, like what Mr Rai has suggested, for history. And beyond that, we can do free form sorts of exercises requiring creativity. Students can have interchanges with students in other countries and so on.

Mr Loh also asked about training hours and material production. The reason the numbers have come down is because most of them are multimedia. Instead of producing many, many items in different media, they are all produced in multimedia. And the training hours will go up as the IT Masterplan is implemented.

As regards Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, I agree with all that he has said. I really have nothing to add.

As for Mr Sin Boon Ann, many of the points that he has raised about stress, I have already addressed yesterday in my response. I would just like to reiterate that parents have a lot to do with expectations, which is one of the major causes of stress on their kids.

Mr Low Thia Khiang asked a number of questions about curriculum, restructuring of assessment and so forth. He asked about questions. I think I have addressed most of them yesterday in my response. I can read it to him again or I can refer him to Hansard. But, yesterday, I addressed most of the points that he has raised. If Mr Low has any useful suggestions, other than the questions, I will be happy to hear him, and see how we can implement them.

Sir, I believe that is all that I would like to respond to. I would now like to invite Dr Wong, Mr Peter Chen and Mr Maidin to take up the other points.

Note that the figures in the last two columns represent the maximum that is chargeable by the school for miscellaneous fees. Such fees are used only for materials and consumables which students use in the course of their education.