FY 2004 Committee of Supply Debate Reply by Minister on Schools Refinments to Primary School Streaming; the Normal Course

1. Several members have spoken on the subject of streaming in primary and secondary schools Let me first address the more general observations that members have made, before informing the House of specific refinements that MOE will be making in primary school streaming, and in the Normal course in secondary schools.

2. Streaming has served us well, and remains an educationally sound policy. It recognises that different students have different abilities, different types of intelligence and different ways of learning, and seeks to provide them with the curriculum and teaching methods that help them develop, and sustain an interest in their studies. It helps every student go as far as he can.

3. Some members have said that streaming results in stress, and a loss of confidence. It is not an irrelevant concern. I do not doubt that there is some loss of confidence when a student is differentiated from his peers and advised to take a less challenging or more extended course of study. No one likes being told that. It’s a human reaction. But the issue is less simple than that.

4. Is a student more stressed by being channelled into an academically slower course, or by staying on in a course that he is unable to cope with, taking exercises home that he is unable to understand and complete, being unable to answer questions in class that his classmates have no difficulty with, and finally being unable to pass his exams? I think we know the answer. The fact of the matter is that confidence, or self-esteem, is much more a question of how well students do, and how far they eventually go, than on whether they get to do the same thing as everyone else at the same time.

5. Outcomes matter. And we are determined to help every student secure the best outcome he can achieve, in school, when he leaves school and goes on to a post-secondary institution, and when he joins the workplace and has to count on his skills to earn a living. That’s our best chance of giving every Singaporean a confident start in life.

6. MOE is fully aware that many other systems do not stream students, or stream them later than we do. It comes at great cost. Large drop-out rates, sometimes disguised by compulsory education until the junior secondary years. And the academically faster students being held back, unchallenged and bored with their studies. Dr Tan Boon Wan just raised the issue of standards having fallen in British universities. This was the result not only of rapid expansion but many years of experimentation with egalitarian policies in schools which have led to a lowering of standards so that more students can pass and obtain the same qualification. So much so that universities are now requiring first year students, even those with ‘A’ grades in the UK ‘A’ levels, to take remedial classes in their first year. And many other students still fail their GCSEs and ‘A’ levels. The British recently released a report by Mike Tomlinson, a former chief inspector of schools, which proposed an overhaul of their GCSE and A level system. As he put it, “too many young people leave learning or fail to progress, [and] too many are left unchallenged and constrained by the curriculum they are offered”. It is not a very different picture from what we had in Singapore before streaming was introduced.

7. So let’s stick to a system that is focused on achieving strong outcomes for all. The most unambiguous result of streaming is that we have helped our weaker students go much further. We are doing our EM3 students well. About 90% of P6 EM3 students, proceed to secondary education. 70% of them complete secondary education. More than 50% of each EM3 cohort proceed on to a post-secondary education at the ITE. I know of no other system that does as much to prepare students at the weakest end of the academic spectrum to go on to post-secondary education.

8. Are we streaming too early in primary schools, as several members [Dr Wang Kai Yuen, Dr Lily Neo, Dr Ong Seh Hong, Mr Low Thia Kiang, Mr Chiam See Tong] have asked? I ask principals and teachers that from time to time. They are kind-hearted souls by nature, like most MPs, and do not like to conclude that a student is unable to cope with his studies and needs a different course. So I can tell the House that I believe teachers when they tell me that we would be doing most of our EM3 students a disservice if we keep them in the regular curriculum in Primary 5 and 6. These are students who lag significantly behind the rest of their cohort, despite remedial teaching.

9. If each of us thinks back to our own primary school days, we would have known pupils who were very weak in class. In our time, there was no streaming. My own best friend in my early primary years had already repeated a year twice and finally dropped out before he reached the PSLE. We did not have a slower course of study then, so those who couldn’t understand their lessons and tests would repeat a year and if they still could not cope they dropped out. It was a bad solution to the problem then, and will be a bad solution now.

10. I should add that the EM3 cohort is not a large group. 12% of students are recommended by the schools to enter EM3 after Primary 4. Because many of their parents choose to keep them in EM2, the final number in EM3 is 7%.

11. The students are by and large happy in EM3. They feel they are able to follow their studies, and have something to show. But parents often do not like the fact that the school has recommended that their child be in EM3, and that is the bigger part of the problem to be overcome. However, parents do come round when they see how their child benefits. I asked for feedback from parents of EM3 students. A sampling may give members a sense of what EM3 really does. One parent said he was disappointed when told that his daughter was to go to EM3. He said he “lost face”. But he recognised that his daughter was weak, and said he could tell that she was happier because the work was simpler and she was coping well. A second parent said all his relatives had been advising him to put his son in EM2 instead of accepting the school’s recommendation. But now that the boy is struggling to pass his EM3 subjects, he feels that his son is much better off in the stream. A third parent said that although her daughter had managed to clear her P5 exams in EM2 and could remain in EM2, she had opted for her to go to EM3 because the child was too stressed with having to cope with EM2 subjects. In EM3 this year, she is happier. She had done very well in her CA1, and had gained confidence. These are not unique accounts, and they are telling.

12. What our schools try to do is to encourage intermingling of students in different streams, so that they build friendships outside their classrooms. CCAs provide avenues for this. Students in the same CCA support each other in common endeavours, they learn to work together and appreciate each other’s strengths in different areas. This is something our schools will continue to encourage. And they will seek out more opportunities for interaction between students in different streams, by looking into different ways of organising school activities.

13. We will also ensure that the system is flexible so that students can go as far as they can in their specific areas of strength. Where a student shows good progress overall and is able to transfer to a faster stream, we will let him do so. We do so each year, especially after Secondary One. Where a student is capable of taking a couple of subjects at a higher level, we will let him do so. This applies to EM3 students as well as our N(A) and N(T) students, which I will elaborate on in a short while.

14. At the primary level, as part of the easing of rules governing Mother Tongue learning, MOE had announced earlier this year that we will allow EM3 students to offer MTL (instead of Basic Mother Tongue) if they obtain Band 2 or better in the subject in their P4 examinations. We will consider whether there are educational merits to extending this to any other subject, for example to let an EM3 student to take Maths at the EM2 level if he has strength in the subject. This was suggested by Mr Inderjit Singh. It would complicate timetabling arrangements, but we will be quite open to letting any school pilot this out if it sees EM3 students with these abilities and can make practical arrangements.

15. Dr Khor and Mr Gan Kim Yong suggested mixing EM1 and EM2 classes since EM1 students only offer one subject, HMTL, that is different. MOE has been reviewing this, following the recent easing of requirements for students to take HMTL. There is an overlap in abilities of students taking EM1 and EM2. 20% of P5 students are in EM1. But almost half of them are students who were first recommended by schools for EM2, but whose parents chose EM1. With the enhanced flexibility for students to take HMTL, there will be an increasing overlap in abilities of EM1 and EM2 students.

16. MOE has therefore decided to remove the distinction between EM1 and EM2 in primary schools. Schools will decide on how to band their pupils, in ways that add the most educational value. They will be given the flexibility to organise the students in this broader programme according to their own criteria. I expect many schools may retain the present system of organising students according to their overall P4 results. Some schools may decide to band students according to their language strengths - EL and MTL respectively - for special attention. The arrangements will vary depending on the type of students in a school and how widely they vary in abilities. How the students should be banded should be best left to the schools.

17. We are able to combine EM1 and EM2 because they follow essentially the same course of study. There will be no change at the primary-level to the Gifted Education Programme, which provides a different curriculum and teaching methods for exceptionally bright students. EM3 will also remain a distinct course, focusing on foundational knowledge, for all the reasons given earlier. Our weakest students benefit from being taught separately, using a different curriculum, classroom management techniques and teaching approach.

18. We have also reviewed the current arrangements for the Primary 4 examinations, which currently serve as a streaming examination. With the merging of EM1 and EM2, we will give schools greater discretion in how they assess their pupils in P4.

19. Schools currently recommend a student’s stream in Primary 5 based on a student’s semestral assessments and an end-of-year examination at Primary 4. Schools select questions from a national item bank maintained by MOE, but are responsible for marking and grading their students. It is in essence, already, a school-based examination, but operating within a common MOE framework.

20. With the removal of the distinction between the EM1 and EM2 streams, we will give schools the flexibility to use their own assessments of students’ performance to identify students who are capable of studying HMTL in Primary 5. They would do likewise in identifying students who should be recommended to take the EM3 course. The P4 examinations would therefore be like any other school-based examinations. Schools can develop their own assessment items, or choose to select questions from the national item bank that MOE will maintain. They can also schedule their exams later in the year, instead of in October currently, along with the school-based exams for other levels.

21. Schools will be given the flexibility to develop their own end-of-year P4 examinations from this year. MOE will work with primary schools to ensure smooth implementation of these changes.

22. At the secondary level, we are also introducing greater flexibility across courses. As announced in 2002, from this year, Normal(Academic) students have been allowed to offer 1-2 ‘O’ level subjects at secondary 4. Mdm Halimah asked about the progress of this initiative. For a start, MTL and Maths have been offered, as N(A) students are more likely to do well in these subjects. Initial estimates from schools indicate that over two thousand N(A) students have been assessed by the schools to have the ability and commitment to offer 1-2 ‘O’ levels, and are currently preparing to take these ‘O’ levels in Sec 4 this year. This is about 15% of the Sec 4 N(A) cohort, not a small number.

23. Ms Braema suggested a 3 year N(A) course. The N(A) course currently leads up to the ‘N’ level examinations at the end of 4 years. Students who are able to take the ‘O’ levels then spend an additional year. This ‘4+1’ system has worked well. 25% of N(A) students do not progress to Sec 5. The four year course provides them a sound foundation for post-secondary education. Further, even amongst the 75% of Sec 4N students who progress to secondary 5, a significant proportion need the full 4 years to cover the Normal curriculum. They will not be well served by a shorter N(A) course. Many of those who make it to Sec 5 find the 'O' levels are a major challenge, and do not do well enough in their ‘O’ levels to go on to pre-university or polytechnic. They are well-served by having gone through a four year Normal Academic course, which allows them to graduate with a useful N level cert that recognises what they achieved.

24. Dr Khor spoke about enhancing the N(T) course. MOE has been reviewing the N(T) course, which is now in its 11^th year. The N(T) course has worked well. The core subjects in the N(T) curriculum, comprising Basic Mother Tongue, Maths and CPA, provide a broad-based foundation that prepares students well for both technical and service-oriented courses at the post-secondary level. We are studying how to build on these fundamentals, and further customise the N(T) curriculum to meet the needs of students with a practical intelligence. This will require a reorientation of the syllabuses and teaching methods to focus more on practice-oriented learning. We are also studying how to introduce alternative assessment modes such as individual and team coursework, instead of pen-and-paper tests alone.

25. This is a major curriculum review, and we will not rush to implement the changes to the N(T) syllabus. MOE will announce details on this review later.

26. We will however introduce some flexibility in the N(T) course, to allow students to offer 1-2 N(A) subjects, if they have the ability to do so. This is similar to N(A) students being allowed to take 1-2 ‘O’ subjects similar to the Express classes. Schools will extend this flexibility to the N(T) students in 2006. This will give the schools the time they need to prepare for the change, to make the necessary adjustments in and teachers and in scheduling. Schools that are ready to do so next year will however be able to proceed first.

27. Dr Ong Seh Hong and Mr Iswaran asked for an update on two major initiatives we announced last year at the primary school level – smaller class size at P1 and P2 and enabling P3 to P6 pupils to study in a single session environment. We have enough teachers to implement the smaller class sizes at P1 and P2, starting with the P1 cohort in 2005. All schools will be given additional teacher resources to support the smaller class initiative. In parallel, MOE is promoting more varied teaching methodologies to improve the learning experiences of P1 and P2 pupils and take the most advantage of smaller classes. 24 schools are currently involved in GAIN (Grade-Appropriate Instruction and Assessment), a project to help schools think through how they can strengthen pupils' learning in the foundation years. The schools are identifying localised issues that need to be tackled and are coming up with strategies to better support early learning, particularly in the context of smaller classes.

28. Progress is also being made in implementing single session for P3-6, and we expect full roll-out within 10 years. Dr Ong Seh Hong spoke of the possible benefits of single session and asked if this could be implemented faster. With partial single session and smaller P1 and P2 classes, schools will have a smaller capacity. Schools that currently operate close to full capacity will therefore have to adjust their P1 intakes, to gradually bring their total enrolment to single session levels. Where physical capacity and the demand for school places allows, schools will transit to partial single session as soon as possible. The ministry estimates that more than 100 schools can implement partial single session by 2007. There are 12 government-aided schools, which are already operating full single session (i.e. for P1-P6 students).

29. Members also raised broader questions of class size. Dr Ong Seh Hong asked if we will extend smaller classes across the board. Ideally we should have small classes, every one of which taught by good teachers. But there is a real trade-off between quality and quantity of teachers when we try to implement smaller class sizes across the entire system. We can double the size of the teaching force to halve class sizes, but we can only do so by lowering the standards we require of our teachers. The choice is between having 40 students taught by a good teacher, and two classes of 20, one of which will be taught by a teacher who may not be fit to teach by today’s standards.

30. Our approach is to recruit as many teachers as we can who meet our standards. We have not limited the numbers that we can recruit. Through EduPac, we have made a career in teaching more attractive and rewarding. We have been able to build up the size of our teaching force gradually over the last 5 years, from 23,500 in 1999 to 26,500 in 2003. However, it is unlikely that we can have a dramatic increase in the size of our teaching force without a significant lowering of quality.

31. Given these constraints, our position on deploying our teacher resources is to do so where the additional teachers can contribute most toward the learning of students. This is why we have focused our teacher resources to reduce class sizes at P1 and P2. That is where most research shows there is greatest benefit in having smaller classes. Another good example is the LSP where Primary 1 and 2 pupils with difficulties in basic literacy skills are taught in small group sizes of 8-12. Using teacher resources in this targeted fashion is more effective than trying to reduce class sizes across the board.

32. Dr Tan Boon Wan, Dr Amy Khor expressed concern about the administrative workload and pressures faced by teachers. Our teachers work hard and have a strong sense of responsibility for their students. As with any of our professions, there is a certain intensity on the job and occasionally a degree of stress involved. We are addressing this. At the macro level, we will continue to recruit more teachers so that each officer’s teaching responsibilities are manageable.

33. We will also continue to ensure that our teachers have the skills and experiences they need to do their job well, and do the job confidently. Mdm Ho asked what improvements we were making to develop our teachers. Our teachers enjoy opportunities for professional development throughout their careers. In fact, I daresay we have one of the strongest and most comprehensive suite of training and development options for teachers. The National Institute of Education has undergone a complete revamp in the last five years and has restructured its courses to ensure they remain relevant to the needs of MOE and the schools. NIE offers good quality teacher training that strike the right balance of emphases on values education, pedagogical approaches and content training. NIE lecturers manage their classes to allow for discussion and participation, so that trainee teachers can transfer these same practices that encourage creativity and critical thinking to the classroom.

34. NIE is constantly looking forward, identifying new challenges and seeing how it can better prepare our teachers for the challenges ahead. It is undertaking a comprehensive review of its initial teacher training programmes. It intends to broaden the range of learning and development opportunities in these programmes. The curriculum will incorporate more experiential learning and more space for teachers to reflect on ideas, and experiment.

35. After their period of formal training at NIE, MOE provides various other development options for our education officers. Mdm Halimah asked about private sector attachments for teachers. MOE started the Teacher Work Attachment (TWA) programme in November/December 2003. Part of the broader range of options under PDL¹, the TWA gives teachers the opportunity to step out of the school environment, broaden their experiences, and gain fresh perspectives on education. Our teachers are a forward-looking lot, and keen on any exposure that helps them develop. We started small so as to ensure the quality of attachments, before we scale up later. The pioneer group of 72 teachers in Nov and Dec last year was attached to 28 organisations for one to four weeks. This included both the public and private sectors, for example, in banking and finance, e-learning, IT, law, media and communications, social enterprise, telecommunications, and tourism and hospitality as well as the IHLs. The teachers who have gone on TWA have found the experience useful. Some have shared their learning with their peers not only in school but also at their clusters. MOE is looking into how we can facilitate more of such attachments by building up linkages with the business chambers and industry and school alumni groups.

36. Much is also being done to help teachers at the school-level. Schools have the flexibility and autonomy to buy support services to assist teachers in their administrative duties by tapping on their manpower grants and school operating fund. Schools can also use the school operating fund to engage people with specialised skills, such as music instructors, to help with CCAs. Our principals can decide on the resources and services that best meet the needs of their schools.

37. Principals play a key role in supporting teachers in their work. Teachers are more likely to sustain their dedication and enthusiasm for the job if school leaders lend a hand, show appreciation and give them a voice in things that affect them directly. This is why the Ministry takes the development of school leaders seriously. We run a 6-month course for principals that is regarded as one of the best in the world. We take the principals through not just the education side of things but how to manage people, how to run an organisation for change. We attach them to companies in the private sector, we take them to visit schools overseas. They go back to the schools with a very different approach and attitude. We also provide opportunities for further professional development through the Academy of Principals and sabbaticals for principals.

38. A/P Ngiam Tee Liang asked how MOE dealt with unethical teachers. The Ministry takes a very serious view on such issues. Teachers are entrusted with a special place in the lives of the pupils who come under their care. They provide not just guidance in the students’ studies but also serve as role models on how they should lead their lives. We will dismiss any teacher we find unsuitable for the profession.

[1] MOE has opened up the range of options for teachers under the Professional Development Leave (PDL) Scheme, to enable them to broaden their experience. Instead of using the PDL solely to pursue academic development, they can now use the PDL for industrial attachments or for working with the community. They may also work on projects that can help enrich the classroom experience.