Cabinet B- Education in Singapore Enabling Students To Have An Equal Chance At Succeeding Improving Pre-School Education 1 Table Of Contents ENSURING EQUALITY IN EDUCATION 4 Historical Overview 4 Current situation 7 Previous Solutions 8 Challenges 10 Social Equity Gap 10 Stigmatisation 13 Projecting into the Future 14 Conclusion 16 Questions for Discussion 17 Bibliography 18 IMPROVING PRESCHOOL EDUCATION 23 Background Information 24 Premium 24 Anchor Operators 25 Partner Operators 25 Development of Preschool Education in Singapore 26 The Birth of PAP Kindergartens 26 PCF Kindergartens 26 Nurturing Early Learners Framework 27 Early Childhood Development Agency 27 The Birth of MOE Kindergartens 27 Early Childhood Development Centres Act 2017 28 National Institute of Early Childhood Development 29 Heightened Support for Preschool Education 29 Current challenges 30 Providing the capacity to accommodate diverse needs 31 Resource constraints 31 Standardisation vs. Flexibility 32 2 Conclusion 33 Questions for Discussion 34 Bibliography 35 3 ENSURING EQUALITY IN EDUCATION Singapore has long prided itself on meritocracy. This belief that the brightest perform the best permeates into our world-class education system as well, one that constantly places at the top in overall PISA scores (The Economist, 2018). Singapore's Ministry of Education (MOE) has expressed commitment in ensuring all students get equal opportunities to succeed in the system, from the very start of students’ education journey in kindergarten (MOE, 2017). However, a growing class divide has raised questions on whether all Singaporeans have equal chances to succeed in the current system (Channel NewsAsia (CNA), 2019). Much like the Matthew Principle where the haves will have even more and the have-nots will have even less, the affluent appear to be increasingly going to more ‘elite’ schools, while the less affluent go to so-called regular ‘neighbourhood’ schools, fostering a sense of elitism (CNA, 2019). Historical Overview Singapore’s education system has evolved greatly over the decades under MOE's guidance. From the industralisation-era machine focused on readying the masses for workforce recruitment, to the current learner-centred model centred on inclusivity and individual progression, the education system is constantly adapting based on the nation’s needs. It largely seems that the system has been consistently successful, as reflected in metrics such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’s Programme for 4 International Student Assessment (PISA), or the many editorials written about how to emulate the system. The table below roughly outlines the history of Singapore’s education system from the 1960s to the present day (2020). Survival-driven Phase (1960s-1970s) 1960 Introduction of Primary School Leaving Examination (NLB, 2015) 1969 Junior college stream created (NLB, 2014) Efficiency-driven Phase (1970s-1980s) 1979 Special Assistance Plan created (Ho, 2016) Ability-driven Phase (1980s-1990s) 1980 New Education System created (ST, 2016) 1982 Last vernacular schools close 1984 Gifted Education Programme created (Loo, 2016) Laselle School of the Arts founded 1987 SAP schools use English as a first language Independent schools formed (The Straits Times, 2016) Centralised Institutes formed (Outram Institute, 1989) Thinking Schools, Learning Nation (1990s-2000s) 5 1992 Joint Polytechnic Admissions Exercise introduced (JPAE, n.d.) Institute of Technical Education founded (Kow, 2011) 1993 Edusave system created (MOE, 2007) 1994 Normal Technical stream created (MOE, 2007) Teach Less, Learn More (2000s-2010s) 2004 Direct School Admission programme created (CNA, 2018) EM1 and EM2 streams merged Singapore Sports School opened 2008 EM 3 stream scrapped IP Programme created School of the Arts created Primary school subject-based banding started Every School a Good School (2010s-Present) 2012 MOE stops banding secondary schools (ST, 2016) MOE stops releasing information on PSLE top scorers (ST, 2016) 2014 Secondary school subject-based banding started (Teng, 2019) 2016 Early Admissions Exercise introduced (MOE, 2016) 2019 PSLE to be reformed using AL system by 2021 (ST, 2016) One Secondary Education, Many Subject Bands (Proposed 2020s) (MOE, 2019) 6 2020 MOE plans to remove secondary school streaming by 2024 and stop O’ and N’ Level examinations by 2027 (ST, 2016) Current situation The results of Singapore’s education system appear to speak for themselves, with Singapore ranking at the top internationally for 3 consecutive PISA rankings (which take into account Math, Reading and Science), until the most recent ranking from 2018 (although it still placed second). Other indicators of its international competitiveness includes winning all but one edition of the Angus Ross Prize for top ‘A’ level English Literature students outside the UK (Yang, 2017); as well as overperforming in its IB results by containing over half of the global cohort’s perfect scorers in 2020, alongside a 96.66% pass rate and an average score of 37.99 against the global average of 28.52 (Ang, 2020). Yet, there are signs that not everyone is given the same chance to perform at a similar level. For instance, OECD’s PISA data indicates that Singaporean students from poorer social backgrounds underperform by a greater degree when compared to their equivalents in other countries, which hints that social class is a relatively greater obstacle locally (OECD, 2019). In Raffles Institution, often considered Singapore’s top school, only 53% of its 2018 student cohort lived in public housing (Ng & Toh, 2018), compared to the national average of 81% during the same year (Data.gov.sg, 2019). While the PISA data does also suggest that Singaporean students have a tendency to overperform their predicted performance based on social background (Teng, 2017), 7 a clear gap still seems to exist hindering poorer students’ ability to gain access to the top educational institutions, and hence further their prospects even more. Students who venture outside the standard 6-4-2 system which has been in place since 1961 (MOE, 2007) - 6 years in primary schools, 4 in secondary schools and 2 in tertiary institutions - may find themselves judged or stigmatised. Previous Solutions MOE has implemented various strategies in an attempt to ensure every student has the opportunity to play to their academic strengths and maximise their potential. These include (i) curriculum standardisation, (ii) subject-based banding, (iii) specialised programmes to meet specific learner needs and (iv) social and financial support programmes for the underprivileged. For instance, all students are currently instructed a standardised curriculum with English as the primary language of instruction. This was in contrast to vernacular schools of the past, which divided students along racial lines and caused issues such as ineffective bilingualism and poor literacy (ST, 2016). Streaming, which was intended to let students pursue their education at a pace aligned with their perceived aptitude, has also been eliminated at the primary school level in lieu of ‘subject-based banding’ that allows more flexibility for students in extending their potential for subjects they are strong in, while working to improve their grasp on subjects where they needed more assistance (MOE, n.d.). This move also came after parents were concerned with the labels put on children for entering ‘slower’ streams (especially based on their aptitude at the age of 9), and how that would affect their psychology. Secondary schools will also move towards a similar system from 2020 onwards. 8 Additionally, MOE has introduced a wide range of programmes over the decades to meet both diverse learners’ needs, as well as the demands of an increasingly globalised and modern society. The Gifted Education Programme (GEP) was created in 1984 for students who excelled academically. This special programme was meant to cultivate critical thinking (NLB, 2014). At the secondary school level, this was officially replaced by the Integrated Programme was later created in 2008 (Chang, 2014), allowing academically stronger students to enter a 6-year course at the secondary level, culminating with tertiary credentials (MOE, n.d.). Through bypassing the ‘O’ Levels, students had more time to pursue a more holistic and comprehensive educational experience, particularly non-academic competencies, and might even pursue qualifications such as the IB, which allows student to pursue a more flexible course of personal development, and also covers social and emotional growth (IB, n.d.). Over the past 2 decades, secondary schools dedicated to specific learners’ needs have also been set up. For instance, Specialised Schools for students who learn better under a more technical and practical-oriented curriculum also have higher levels of resources dedicated to supporting special needs students (Teng, 2018). Other specialised independent institutes include the NUS High School of Mathematics and Science, the School of Science and Technology, the School of the Arts and the Singapore Sports School, all of which have programmes tailored specifically to their niche student intake. A similar diversity is reflected at the post-secondary level, which includes polytechnics, junior colleges, centralised institutes and ITE. Last but certainly not least, an array of financial programmes is in place to ensure that every Singaporean child has the means to afford attending school. All Singaporeans are entitled to about