Closing Speech by Second Minister for Education David Neo at 2026 Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) Forum, Building Confidence in Many Paths to Success

1. Good afternoon.

2. Before I begin, let me say that Minister Desmond Lee was looking forward to being here today. Unfortunately, he is unwell and unable to join us. He sends his apologies and has asked me to deliver the remarks on his behalf.

3. To start, let me thank IPS for organising this forum, and to all of you for contributing actively to today's discussions.

4. We have heard many thoughtful views today. They add to what many other Singaporeans have shared with us during our Education Conversations.

5. This afternoon, I would like to share what we have learnt and the difficult questions we must consider before moving on to the next phase of the Conversations.

The Tension at the Heart of Parenting Today

6. Our children are growing up in a rapidly changing world.

1. Technology is transforming how we live, how we learn and how we work.
2. Domain knowledge will remain important, but our children will also need qualities that are deeply human: empathy, judgement, ethical decision-making, curiosity and the ability to work with others.

7. Parents understand this. We want our children to do well academically, but we also want them to develop character, discover their interests, build meaningful relationships and find purpose in what they do.

8. The IPS study shows that parents want their children to have a broader, more holistic education.

9. Yet, parental stress has increased, and families are investing more time and money in tuition and enrichment.

10. This tension surfaces in the choices families make every day.

1. Their children are doing reasonably well in school. But could another tuition class help them gain a few more marks? After a long day, do we fit in another hour of revision, or do we say, "Enough for today. Let's go for a walk, have dinner and let's have a conversation"?
2. Or perhaps our children love playing football with friends, but are not winning trophies or building a portfolio. Do we let them continue playing for the joy, friendship and growth it brings? Or do we look for another activity that might be more useful for DSA?

11. There are no simple answers. And the IPS findings highlight these tensions.

1. Nearly nine in ten parents agreed that children in Singapore spend far too much time on tuition and enrichment.
2. But seven in ten said that, if they had the resources, they would spend more on these activities for their own children.
3. Around half felt pressure because other parents were doing so.

12. Some spoke about education feeling like an arms race. Most parents are not asking for this race. They are saying that they are not sure if their children can afford to sit it out.

13. This distinction is crucial. Parents know that academic success can open doors, but aptitude, character and values enable us to thrive in life. Yet though most want to step back from this race, many still take part, hoping to give our children the best chance of getting through those doors. The result is an unhealthy "arms race" that few want to join, but many feel compelled to be part of.

14. This has real costs. When academic achievement becomes the safest currency, other valuable aspects of holistic development can be crowded out – even though parents recognise their importance.

1. Our children may have less time to explore their interests and nurture the curiosity, creativity and resilience that are equally important for success in life.
2. In some cases, it can also place children under excessive stress, dulling their love for learning, and affecting their overall development and well-being.

The Real Driver: Perceived Stakes of Educational Choices

15. So why do parents feel this tension?

16. Across our conversations, we have heard a familiar chain of assumptions.

1. Doing well in an examination helps a child enter a so-called "good" school.
2. A "good" school is believed to provide a better environment and better opportunities and improve the child's chances of entering a "good" university course.
3. A "good" course is then seen as the route to a "good" job, "good" pay and, ultimately, a "good" life.

17. These narratives are deeply rooted in many parts of society. Our visits to education systems across Europe and Asia show that they exist elsewhere, to varying degrees. If parents believe that every link in this chain could make or break their child's future, then every educational choice will feel momentous.

18. But these narratives rest on a narrow definition of what "good" is –academic achievement in particular subjects, or employment in particular fields. They overlook other outcomes we also want for our children: strength of character, a sense of purpose and the confidence to contribute when they grow into adults.

19. MOE has long worked to broaden this definition – by creating more diverse and porous pathways, and by helping students navigate them according to their strengths, interests and aspirations. These changes reduce the chance that one result, one school or one decision made at a young age will determine a child's future.

20. These narratives extend well beyond education. We cannot end the education "arms race" through changes to the education system alone. We must also consider how our society and economy can help parents strike a healthier balance for their children, without fearing that they will be disadvantaged.

21. We are seeing encouraging signs of change beyond schools.

1. More employers are looking beyond academic credentials, placing greater emphasis on applicants' skills, experiences and dispositions.
2. We are also seeing a gradual shift in mindsets, as people increasingly recognise that, in a world of constant change, no school or degree can equip us with everything we will need for our working life. So, we must keep learning throughout life. The growth of the SkillsFuture movement over the past 11 years reflects this shift towards continual upskilling and lifelong learning.

22. We still have some way to go. As a society, we must define success less by what is achieved in the first 15 years of schooling, and more by how people contribute to their workplaces, communities and our nation over a lifetime.

An Education System that Builds Confidence for Families

23. So, what does this mean for our education system?

24. Within education, we want to build a system that gives parents confidence to place less emphasis on achievement and more on holistic development — knowing that this will prepare their children for long-term success.

25. Let me be clear: We are not against striving. Nor are we talking about dropping standards. Singapore has progressed because generations of Singaporeans worked hard, persevered and aspired to do better. Our children should learn to set goals, meet challenges and recover from setbacks.

26. But healthy striving is different from endlessly chasing the last mark. Healthy striving helps a child grow. Chasing marginal gains from a young age can make every decision seem disproportionately consequential, leaving less room to build strong foundations, curiosity and a lasting love of learning.

27. Therefore, our aim is not to remove all competition, stress or disappointment from education. That would not be realistic, nor would it prepare our children well for life. Other countries that have reduced or removed major examinations have found that pressures do not simply disappear, but instead re-emerge in other ways.

28. Our aim is to ensure that competition does not become the all-consuming thing that crowds out the pursuit of qualities that our children will need to flourish.

29. This direction is not new.

1. In 2021, we replaced PSLE T-scores with Achievement Level bands, reducing the pressure to chase every mark.
2. In 2024, we replaced streaming with Full Subject-Based Banding, allowing students to learn each subject at a pace suited to their needs and move more flexibly between bands.
3. In 2025, we removed mid-year examinations at all levels, freeing time for learning, exploration and growth.
4. We have also expanded aptitude-based admissions and strengthened applied and work-study pathways to better serve students' different strengths, needs and aspirations.

30. But the IPS findings and Education Conversations tell us that we need to go further.

1. Over the past year, Singaporeans from all walks of life have shared their aspirations through the Education Conversations.
2. Views differed on the solutions, but parents shared one aspiration: to raise well-rounded children without having to optimise every decision for the next academic milestone.

31. How, then, can our education system assure parents that holistic development need not come at the expense of success — especially where the stakes feel highest?

32. The next phase of the Education Conversations will focus on the parts of the system that most fuel the "arms race", where thoughtful changes could give children more room to grow.

1. In particular, we will examine the transition from primary to secondary school, where pressure on young students is often most acute.

33. Three topics surfaced most repeatedly: the PSLE, DSA, and the deeper question that is underlying both — how to strengthen schools across the system. Let me take each in turn.

PSLE

34. For many parents, the pressure is felt most sharply at the PSLE. It arose in almost every conversation.

35. The PSLE serves three distinct purposes:

1. Assessing a child's understanding of the primary school curriculum;
2. Second, providing a basis for secondary school placements; and
3. Third, matching our students to the appropriate subject levels in secondary school.

36. Not all contribute equally to the pressure.

1. The IPS study found that more than eight in ten parents see the PSLE as an important milestone that teaches children to set goals and to work hard. A similar proportion valued having a national examination as a fair assessment and preparation for secondary school.
2. Much of the pressure comes from using PSLE results for secondary school posting. When scores determine access to preferred schools, parents understandably feel they cannot afford to ease off.

37. We heard many suggestions to reduce the stakes associated with PSLE.

1. Some proposed removing, postponing, or even making PSLE optional.
2. Others suggested making the scoring bands broader at the top, so that students do not have to chase every mark, but narrower at the bottom, to better reflect the performance of our academically weaker students and to recognise their efforts to improve.
3. Some proposed changing the way students are posted to secondary schools.
4. Many felt that the deeper answer lies in strengthening more schools, so that families do not feel the need to get their children into a handful of perceived "good" schools.

38. Each idea addresses a concern. But each may also create new pressures.

1. For example, if secondary school posting were no longer based mainly on PSLE results, what should replace it – balloting, proximity, or a through-train model?
   1. More balloting could increase uncertainty and anxiety. This could also occur if we blunt PSLE scoring further, as more students will have the same score.
   2. Proximity could worsen social mixing by clustering students according to where they live.
   3. A through-train model could shift competition to Primary 1 admission and reduce students' ability to choose a secondary school that suits the interests and needs they develop later.
   4. It would also raise a difficult question: which primary schools should be linked to the more sought-after secondary schools?

39. These trade-offs are not reasons to avoid change. But they are reasons to be clear-eyed about our aims and about both the intended and unintended effects. For every proposal, we should ask:

1. Will it give our children more room to learn, to explore and to grow?
2. Will it preserve fairness and maintain high standards?
3. Will it help families focus more on a school's fit for their child?
4. Where might it displace competition and stress?

DSA

40. The second major topic is DSA.

41. DSA was introduced to recognise students' talents, aptitude and potential, beyond examination results.

1. This remains valuable.
2. Children have different strengths — academic subjects, sports, music, art, leadership as well as other areas.

42. But parents and students also told us about a difficult tension.

1. For some families, DSA now feels like a second front in the "arms race", adding to the anxiety.
2. Children may prepare for the PSLE while also building a DSA portfolio to secure a place in a preferred school.
3. A genuine interest can then become an admissions strategy. Coaching starts earlier, competitions carry higher stakes, and some students eventually burn out and ask to leave the programme.
4. Some parents worry that better-resourced families can afford specialised training that others cannot.
5. Others have benefitted from a pathway that recognises talents and strengths developed through school, beyond academic grades.

43. How, then, do we preserve DSA as a pathway that broadens our definition of merit while reducing competitive pressure? As with the PSLE, we heard a very good range of ideas:

1. Some felt DSA should be scaled back or even abolished.
2. Others argued that it should be expanded so we can assess students more holistically.
3. Some suggested distributing DSA places or talent areas more widely across schools.
4. Others suggested that DSA should focus more on recognising aptitude and interest, rather than skills that can be intensively coached.

44. The views differ, but they point to the same question: How can DSA recognise different strengths credibly, without turning every interest into an admissions strategy?

1. If we narrow DSA too sharply, we may send the message that examination performance is once again the only form of merit that counts.
2. If we broaden it without care, we may create more areas in which families feel compelled to invest just to compete.
3. If we place greater emphasis on aptitude, the assessment could be more subjective, and therefore seen as unfair.
4. If we remove it entirely, the pressures may simply return to PSLE, and send the wrong signal that only academics matter.

45. So the goal is not more or less DSA. It is to reconnect talent recognition with genuine development.

1. A child should be able to enjoy a sport without being asked whether it will produce medals or whether it will contribute to their DSA portfolio.
2. A child should be able to learn music without every lesson building towards a certificate.
3. Where a child shows deep aptitude and commitment, DSA should help us recognise and develop that talent.

Strengthen Our Schools

46. The third topic is how families view our schools. We must assure parents that strong teaching, rich development opportunities and credible routes to success exist across the system — not just in a few schools.

47. Every school has committed educators, a distinctive culture and areas of strength. Schools serving more disadvantaged students also receive additional manpower and funding.

48. Yet parents still see some schools as "good" schools, and others less so. We want parents to trust that schools across the system can help their children thrive, and to choose more by fit than reputation. We therefore need to ask:

1. How can schools work more closely with one another and with community partners, so that programmes, networks, internships and alumni connections benefit more students?
2. How can we make the strengths of schools across our system better known?
3. How do we help parents look beyond prestige and popularity to ask whether a school is the right fit for their child?

49. If families trust that schools across the system can help their child thrive, then any single posting outcome will carry less weight. Parents will still have preferences, and schools will differ in history, culture and programmes. But choosing one school over another need not feel like choosing a destiny.

Conclusion

50. Let me return to the parents I mentioned at the start: deciding between another hour of revision or a walk with their child; wondering whether football can remain something their child truly enjoys.

51. These conversations show that parents already value holistic development. Our task is to give them greater confidence to act on those values, by addressing features of our education system that can make each choice feel high-stakes.

52. We approach these issues from a position of strength. Our education system has served generations of Singaporeans well and built strong foundations for our children. But as pressures rise and as the world changes, we must build on those strengths, so families can give children room to grow without fearing that our children might lose out.

53. Education changes alone cannot lower the stakes entirely. Lasting change also depends on employers, institutions and society – all of us – recognising multiple pathways, valuing different strengths and experiences, and respecting every worker and every contribution.

54. I therefore invite Singaporeans to share your experiences and ideas in the next phase of the Education Conversations, especially on where the stakes feel highest. There are no easy answers. That is why we are consulting widely, rather than rushing to a single solution.

55. Let us work together to preserve the strengths built by earlier generations, while giving every child the space to discover their strengths and to fulfil their potential — in school and beyond.

56. Last but not least, I would like to thank every single one of you in this room for contributing your ideas, your suggestions, and having the welfare of our children in the middle of all of this. Thank you very much.