Committee of Supply – Head K (Ministry of Education)

The Chairman: Head K, Ministry of Education. Mr Patrick Tay.

Education for Life

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Sir, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head K of the Estimates be reduced by $100".

We are living in a disruptive world where the pace of change is rapid and relentless. Faced with unprecedented technological advancements such as generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and an increasingly complex global order, education must evolve beyond static textbooks and a conventionally didactic model, where there is a one-way transmission of knowledge from teacher to student.

As the Ministry strives towards these goals, I recognise that this work is shared with our educators and school staff, as well as those based in our institutes of continuous learning. It is their dedication that will ensure the success of our endeavours. I thank all of them for their invaluable contributions as architects of our future.

The relevance and resilience of our education system was affirmed when Singapore emerged as the top-performing education system for the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) last December.

I am heartened that our students demonstrated strong ability in applying thinking and reasoning processes to solve complex real-world problems, and we must continue to uplift our students with diverse abilities from diverse backgrounds by building on their 21st century competencies.

To this end for this year's Committee of Supply (COS) debate, I will focus my speech today on what I call the multi-vitamin strategy.

The concept behind the multi-vitamin strategy is simple. We do not rely on a single vitamin for our health needs. Why then should we expect learners to follow a singular academic path based on the same curriculum? Therefore, just as a multivitamin supplement provides an assortment of nutrients for overall health from young to old, supporting the holistic development of all students and learners, allow me to elaborate on the ingredients of the multivitamin strategy from vitamins A to K.

Vitamin A – able, agile and adaptable. Our next generation will need to grapple with existential-level challenges such as climate crisis and Singapore's place in an increasingly fragmented and adversarial global environment. They will need to be highly able, agile and adaptable, driven by passion and purpose, agile with the courage to take risks and innovate responsibly, and adaptable to stay resilient amid changes and curveballs. These are tall orders and will require us to provide a wider range of resources and opportunities to every student to maximise their potential.

In this regard, I urge the Ministry of Education (MOE) to consider expanding the suite of courses and programmes which the $4,000 SkillsFuture Top-Up can be used for, beyond programmes provided by our local Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), to programmes to uplift ability, agility and adaptability, including career design, career coaching and career counselling.

Vitamin B – broadening definitions of success. Vitamin B is to broaden definitions of success by placing greater emphasis on areas such as adaptive and inventive thinking, innovation and civic literacy. This means shifting our educational priorities away from a narrow focus on great performance to valuing the diverse skills and potential of every individual.

This not only honours diversity and strength, and levels the playing field, but is also necessary to meet the demands of tomorrow.

I submit that the academic training and skills acquired should not just lead to jobs, but to marry the passions and interests of our students and learners, so as to maximise each individual's full potential, avoid a mismatch of expectations and minimise involuntarily non-time-based under-employment.

Vitamin C – competencies for the future. The evolving educational landscape demands a focus on cultivating 21st century competencies and skills in today's students and learners across the educational continuum. Emphasising critical thinking, creativity, collaboration and communication prepares learners for the complexities of a rapidly changing world.

By integrating technology, tenacity, empathy and resilience into curricula from early childhood to higher education, students develop a holistic skill set essential for success in the digital age. Nurturing these skills ensures that learners are equipped to navigate challenges, innovate and excel in an ever-evolving global society.

Vitamin D – dream, dare, do. In the realm of education in Singapore, dreaming of innovative pedagogies and andragogy, daring to challenge conventional norms and taking proactive steps to implement change to keep pace with the speed of development are key pillars for enhancing the system.

By encouraging students to dream beyond boundaries, educators can foster creativity and critical thinking. Daring to introduce novel teaching methods and curriculum adaptations promotes adaptability to societal needs. Ultimately, through a collective commitment to dare to dream, dare to dare and dare to do, Singapore can achieve a dynamic and progressive educational landscape for the future.

Vitamin E – empowering all students and learners. Vitamin E aims to empower students from diverse backgrounds with diverse learning needs. It acknowledges that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all to learning. Instead, learning must be customisable, collaborative and with content that is ahead of the curve and speed to market. It also recognises that each student learner experiences different starting points and that there is a need to actively support those with fewer educational resources and differing learning abilities.

6.45 pm

I, therefore, welcome the generous $2 billion top-up of the Edusave Endowment Fund, which will go a long way towards empowering students to achieve their aspirations and contribute to the well-being of others. I also commend the MOE's efforts to uplift and upgrade our Institute of Technical Education (ITE) graduates, something much overdue.

The reduction of fees for Government-supported preschools and schools for children with special needs, as well as the extension of childcare subsidies to children of non-working mothers, are all changes that will encourage fairer opportunities for all students to attain social mobility.

I suggest we should examine how much resources we dedicate to those with special needs vis-à-vis our other students and learners. One lacuna I observe is when many of these students in the special education (SPED) schools hit 18 years of age and start to experience adult life. We can and should do more to help empower them, their families and ensure that those with such needs are able to assimilate into the adult life and the future of work.

Last vitamin, vitamin K – keep learning. Vitamin K is to keep learning for life. We do not stop needing essential and necessary nutrients as we age. On the contrary, we need them more. In the same vein, adult learners need to embrace continual education and training (CET), even after leaving school to diversify their skills portfolio and career paths amidst a fast-changing and competitive job market.

To better attract adult learners who have to balance their work and caregiving commitments, CET must be well-designed to be effective in improving employment outcomes and made accessible. CET modules, just as in mainstream, will therefore also need to diversify.

I am aware that the existing unused one-off SkillsFuture Credit top-up of $500 and additional credit for mid-career support of $500 is expiring in end-2025. With the latest top up announced, will MOE consider extending the validity of this $1,000 for another year to 2026 and allow mature Singaporeans who have yet to utilise the credits an opportunity and more time to combine the $1,000 with the latest tranche to undertake the higher costs programmes.

The Chairman: I will remember to take all my vitamins this weekend.

Question proposed.

Subject-based Banding

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Sir. To continue with the metaphor, I would like to focus on Vitamin F, which is flexibility.

Subject-based Banding (SBB) is an educational framework implemented in Singapore's secondary school system. The establishment of SBB was part of MOE's aim to infuse joy of learning and to allow for multiple pathways to cater to the diverse strengths and interests of our students. I believe that full SBB was conducted in 28 secondary schools from 2020, and progressively, it is being rolled out to more secondary schools each year from 2022 to 2024.

As mentioned, SBB aims at giving students flexibility, for example, to take different subjects at different levels according to their preferences, strengths and interests. For example, students may offer a subject at the Express level while taking other subjects at the Normal (Academic) or Normal (Technical) levels, to use previous older terms.

In addition, it also allows for customised learning, so that schools can curate learning experiences to address the needs of different learners with differing needs. Our educators can also vary the learning support given and provide differentiated instructions. This helps them ensure that learning addresses students' individual learning profiles.

At the same time, the stigma linked previously to streaming can be reduced. Students, realistically, can do well in the subjects they have a deep interest in, regardless of their overall academic stream. SBB also facilitates smoother transitions between different academic levels and is, therefore, far less rigid, allowing for much interaction amongst students of different academic abilities in different subjects.

Overall, Sir, SBB is adaptive and inclusive and puts more emphasis on holistic development. I would like to ask if MOE could please provide an update on SBB and how it could continue in the future?

Funding for Bilingual Education

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Chairman, bilingual education is a cornerstone of our education policy. In the early 1990s, the Government moved to allow Indian students to sit for five non-Tamil Indian languages, or NTILs, at major examinations, such as the "O" levels. Separately, and in recognition of the status of Tamil as an official Indian mother tongue, MOE ensures that funding for the official mother tongues, namely Malay, Mandarin and Tamil, is higher than that of the five NTILs.

Apart from Hindi, the number of students taking the four other non-Tamil mother tongue languages is far smaller. In the main, MOE supports students taking these subjects, namely Bengali, Urdu, Gujarati and Punjabi, by way of grants and making available schools over the weekend, so that students sitting for national examinations in these subjects can receive an education in their mother tongue languages in a conducive environment, with teachers provided by the ethnic community groups.

All in all, MOE's broad approach towards the various NTILs is inclusive, while acknowledging the position of Tamil as the official Indian mother tongue language. Sir, I would like to know when was the last time MOE raised grants for Singaporean students taking the NTILs. I also enquire if the Ministry independently assesses the salaries of NTIL teachers and whether they are remunerated reasonably, in view of the important role they play in the Ministry's bilingual language policy.

Sir, many local schools host parallel programmes where students are taught their NTIL subjects during curriculum hours, when their classmates are sitting for lessons in the official mother tongue languages. However, the parallel programme landscape varies considerably for the NTILs. For example, by virtue of the large number of students taking Hindi, there are in excess of 150 parallel programmes for Hindi in MOE schools, while a smaller NTIL, for example, Punjabi, has one school offering a parallel programme.

The parallel programme saves many students a trip to a centralised school over the weekend to learn their NTIL mother tongue, leaving these children with more time to engage in other academic and non-academic pursuits.

I have two other questions in this regard. Can I confirm what is MOE's policy towards new requests for parallel programmes by ethnic groups in charge of NTILs with a small enrolment, so that more of our students can be served by them? Secondly, and on current policy, I have been made to understand that if a Singaporean student taking an NTIL is enrolled in a school-based parallel programme, he or she will not be allowed to participate in the weekend NTIL class, as MOE currently disburses the grant for both separately.

One result of this policy is that community groups with smaller NTIL enrolment see it far more economical and logistically convenient to hold weekend classes, even if parallel programmes may be the preference of some parents. I ask the Government to undertake a review of the NTIL space, with a view to consider the new challenges of community groups, students and parents.

In theory, a "one-size-fits-all" grant is fair, but the unique challenge of each NTIL, particularly the small ones, should prompt a second look at the grant framework, so that the desired outcomes of the Ministry's bilingual policy are achieved.

Full Subject-based Banding

Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tampines): This year, SBB has been fully implemented for the Secondary 1 cohort in 120 secondary schools across the island. Teaching resources have to be adjusted and devoted to offer students greater flexibility to study more subjects at different levels that suit their interests, aptitudes and learning needs. I thank our school leaders and teachers for their hard work in making this important transition.

For most schools, they are still operating the previous academic streaming system for the older cohorts. I understand that full SBB also means staggered recess periods, and different end times for classes which will make planning after-school activities more complicated.

Over the last two months, when full SBB has been implemented at scale, may I ask the Minister what is the experience so far on how the schools and teachers have been coping and adjusting? It would be useful for students and parents to understand the operational challenges and work with the schools to reap the full, intended benefits of SBB.

From 2027, secondary students will receive the Singapore-Cambridge Secondary Education Certificate (SEC), instead of the "O" or "N" levels. The SEC will reflect the different subject combinations and levels. I would like the MOE to share how the SEC system will affect these national examinations, and how the results will be used for students to choose and be selected for the various post-secondary pathways.

Through-train Pilot

Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, last year, I urged MOE to consider implementing a pilot project of a 10-year through-train programme, giving students an option to bypass the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). I also mentioned the work of EveryChild.sg, whose White Paper advocates for PSLE to be an optional pathway.

The Minister for Education raised a few issues with a through-train programme. I would like to address them today. The Minister said that it is neither realistic nor desirable to shield our children from all stresses. But we are talking about young children below the age of 13 years. Even adults can have trouble managing stress, what more young children? The stress of PSLE is arguably not age-appropriate.

In addition, it does not mean that a child who faces stress from a young age will necessarily grow up to handle stress better as an adult. In fact, the opposite might be true; a child who faces an unhealthy amount of stress at a young age might develop mental health conditions that continue into adulthood.

There is no one school in Singapore that can cater to all learners. Let us open up a new range of schools, small and mid-sized, with some offering non-PSLE routes, helmed by progressive school leaders. I believe MOE already has school leaders who are ready to pilot a through train. Let us also allow flexibility for students to switch schools or programmes if they find themselves in one that is unsuitable.

The Minister also argued that removing PSLE would deny parents and students the ability to choose their schools. My answer to that is that our current system denies parents the choice of not letting their children take PSLE. Parents can make this choice if we pilot the through train. We do not have to choose the popular schools for the through-train pilot. Those who wish to enter these popular schools can continue to do so through the PSLE route.

Next, the issue of social mixing. If a student mixes with 40 other students every year, he or she will get to meet 400 other students over 10 years. Since the average number of students in each school is about 1,200, this is not a limitation. In fact, it is the PSLE system that has contributed to stratification when we group students with similar scores together.

As for academic checkpoints, we can and should trust the quality of internal school examinations. Having a through-train programme does not mean there will be no exams. If a child wants to transfer to another school, MOE can allow them to use their internal school exam results to do so.

Making PSLE optional would be a game changer. Families that want the PSLE to add to their children's portfolio can continue with it. Families which do not, can choose the non-PSLE route and focus their children on other assessments that are benchmarked against real life skills and contexts. The Progress Singapore Party urges the Government to not hesitate with piloting at least one through-train school in Singapore.

Let me end by sharing a quote from a National Institute of Education (NIE) article that Dr Jason Tan, associate professor of Policy, Curriculum and Leadership, wrote last year: "It is interesting to note that MOE's Desired Outcomes of Education, …make no explicit mention of the PSLE. Instead, the primary school outcomes focus on general attributes. These include pupils being able to distinguish right from wrong, knowing their strengths and areas for growth, having a lively curiosity about their surroundings, taking pride in their work and being able to cooperate, as well as share and care for others. There is therefore much more value to primary schooling than preparation for this major exam."

Transforming Education through Tech

Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Chairman, in the digital age, the integration of technology into education emerges not just as a trend but as a fundamental shift in how knowledge is acquired, processed and applied. The importance of leveraging technology to enhance education lies in its unparalleled potential to foster more inclusive, engaging and personalised learning experiences.

7.00 pm

Through digital tools and platforms, educators can tailor instruction to meet the diverse needs of students, accommodating various learning styles and pace. Technology facilitates access to a vast repository of information and resources; breaking down geographical and socio-economic barriers to education; encourages interactive learning – where students are not passive recipients of information but active participants in their educational journey; exploring concepts through multimedia content; virtual simulations and global classrooms.

As such, what is the progress of the Transforming Education through Technology Masterplan 2030 and how are we transforming our education system to effectively meet the needs of the future?

Learning Technologies

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Chairman, Sir, technology has a crucial place in Singapore's education system, as we strive for academic excellence and innovation. In Singapore, the integration of information and communication technology (ICT) in education has been a strategic priority to enhance teaching and learning outcomes. So far, technology including ICT and AI, are critical to education in Singapore and how it can be used to achieve learning objectives.

Technology allows students to access a vast amount of information and resources beyond what is given in textbooks. Technology also allows for customisation and for personalised learning so that learning can be driven by individual needs and preferences.

MOE has been actively promoting the use of technology in through the Masterplan for ICT in Education. Technology is pivotal to these initiatives to catalyse educational innovation, allow for pedagogical transformation and help to achieve continuous improvement in teaching and learning in Singapore schools and institutions. I would like to ask if MOE can share how it intends to continue to use ICT to enhance the learning and development of our students, especially with regard to AI?

Also, Mr Chairman, a key part of learning technology – the devices that will be used to help support learning technology. I would like to surface a point that I had made earlier in my Budget speech, which is the provision of personal learning devices (PLDs) for primary school students. I believe that the Ministry has done a wonderful job by rolling out the PLD programme for the secondary school students. And with that framework already in place and the procurement process already familiar and the scheme to aid those students in secondary school who need financial assistance or PLDs already there, would MOE please consider also providing a dedicated PLD programme for primary school students – similar to the one that it has for secondary school students as well? This will really enhance the learning and development of the younger ones with regard to learning technology.

Artificial Intelligence in Education

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, given the increasing demand for AI skills in the workforce, it is crucial to help our students develop not just good foundations and fundamental skills but also become proficient in using common AI tools. For example, all students need to be taught how to correctly input prompts into GenAI tools like ChatGPT to get their desired output.

They also need to be taught how to check for hallucinations, avoid plagiarism and adhere to ethical and legal boundaries so that they can use these technologies safely and responsibly. I emphasise that this needs to be taught to all students, starting at the primary and early secondary levels and not just those who sign up for AI student outreach programmes or in individual schools on an ad hoc basis.

More well-resourced families often enrol their children in AI enrichment classes to enhance their digital skills, while lower-income families have less access to them, creating a digital divide across socio-economic groups. Unequal access to AI education could exacerbate existing inequalities, leaving some ill-prepared for an AI-driven world. This is why we need to bridge this gap by making dedicated AI education a fundamental component of the national curriculum. We must also invest in more professional development for teachers to equip them with the skills to incorporate AI into the classrooms.

Lastly, while AI tools are important, impassionate machines cannot replace an inspirational and empathetic teacher. Therefore, AI tools should always augment, not replace teachers. By doing so, we can combine technology and traditional learning to build a holistic and comprehensive educational experience for each student.

The Chairman: Ms Rahayu Mahzam, please take your two cuts together.

Support for Students in Special Education (SPED) Schools

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Chairman, the challenges faced by families of children with special needs are multifaceted. There are emotional, financial, logistical and other struggles that families have to deal with on a daily basis. As a parent of a child with special needs who attends a SPED school, I have had the good fortune of meeting and engaging with different families with similar circumstances. They have given some meaningful insights which I wish to share.

It is important to state at the outset that these families care for their special children deeply and find their journey with the children most rewarding and meaningful. They would not have it any other way. However, the difficulties are real and the daily grind can get rather overwhelming. There are certain expenses and considerations that these families have to think about that others do not have to. These may not be the same for all families.

Generally, though, there would be medical expenses, cost for assistive devices, cost of therapies, transportation to get to and from medical appointments or therapies or caregiving arrangements. Increased cost of living and demands at work exacerbates the situation.

I appreciate that there are already subsidies, tax reliefs and other support in place for these families. The funds in the Child Development Account (CDA) could also be used to pay for a wide variety of services, like early intervention programmes.

I would appreciate it though if the Government could review the support given. It would be meaningful if some targeted support could be further extended to alleviate challenges in certain aspects. For the SPED schools, there may be specific areas to look at.

In recent times, I received feedback on the increased cost of school bus services from a parent with a child in a SPED school. Another parent who has a child with cerebral palsy had challenges in placing her children in an after-school student care centre. Some parents also lament about the process and time needed to prepare for the application for SPED schools. Some may not have sufficient information or the bandwidth to sort out the necessary arrangements. These are some examples of pain points shared.

Has there been an assessment of some of the challenges students of SPED schools and their parents face? It may be helpful to identify how significant and prevalent the challenges are and what more could be done to assist the families.

I would like to ask if the Ministry could consider enhancing the support in two aspects: affordability and accessibility? Reduction of the high costs will meaningfully assist the families, to navigate cost-of-living challenges. Accessibility to obtain information or services, like after-school care and therapy programmes that could possibly be placed within the school compounds or vicinity, would go a long way is addressing the families' pain points.

Supporting Professionals in SPED Sector

Mr Chairman, I have met many educators and officers in the special education sector who are deeply committed to their work. They have different challenges from their counterparts in mainstream schools and typically have to work with many more students who may be less compliant or on occasion aggressive or deal with family situations that are more complex because of health or care arrangements.

Regardless of the circumstances, these professionals often take this in their stride and go the extra mile to nurture the students under their care. Because the job can be rather challenging, it would be tough to attract or even retain people in this sector. Therefore, there should be fair and attractive salaries and career pathways for those in this profession. The remuneration needs to be commensurate with the demands of the job and there needs to be a stronger effort to entice good people into the sector.

Last year, the Ministry announced that teachers in SPED schools can expect higher salaries. MOE also shared that key staff and leaders in SPED schools can also look forward to more avenues for professional development, such as opportunities to reinforce teachers' skills in working with students of different disabilities.

This is very welcomed news as it signals an acknowledgement of the importance of the educators in this sector and will certainly go some way in attracting and retaining talent. Hopefully, this will create a larger pool of capable educators who can develop deeper skills on more specific issues and enhance the support for our students with special educational needs.

Currently, there are still disparities between the remuneration and employment benefits for the educators in the SPED schools and those in the mainstream schools. Would the planned salary increments address these issues? May I seek details of the salary increments announced and the timeframe for implementation?

Apart from financial incentives, an integral part of the move is the professional development. As we enhance the pedagogy and curriculum for students in the mainstream schools, we also need to do likewise for students in the SPED schools. As there are different needs and disabilities, this effort can be a massive task. We therefore need to ensure that we have skilled educators in the SPED schools. I am supportive of the Ministry's efforts on this front and I look forward to the updates.

Special Education

Mr Darryl David: Chairman, Sir, I commend MOE for continuing to focus on enhancing its SPED system to better support students with diverse learning needs. Since 2021, I believe MOE has worked with SPED educators and stakeholders to co-construct SPED Teaching and Learning Syllabuses (TLSs) to raise quality of curriculum, teaching and learning.

MOE has been providing additional funding, resources and training opportunities for teachers and staff to better understand and address the needs of students with such challenges. MOE has also recognised the need for clear career progression pathways for educators in this field. To address these needs, it was announced that additional funding for SPED schools would be provided from 2024. This funding is aimed at increasing teacher salaries and expanding professional development opportunities for key staff and leaders with the aim is of attracting and retaining talent as well as optimising the special education system.

Overall, Chairman, Sir, Singapore's recent developments in SPED reflect a commitment to providing inclusive and quality education for students with diverse learning needs – with a focus on supporting their holistic development and preparing them for meaningful participation in society.

With that in mind, while we continue to enhance special education and equip SPED students with academic and life-skills, can MOE also do more to work with perhaps MOM and the private sector, to ensure that SPED students are able to secure meaningful employment when they graduate? Can there also be some continuing education programmes tailored specifically for SPED students to ensure that they stay relevant and employable?

SPED Schools

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Sir, a couple of weeks before the Budget Statement, I received an email from one of my residents, Mr X, who shared his plight of not qualifying for a subsidy for the SPED school fees for his child as he did not meet the per capita income criteria. He mentioned that his per capita income of $1,000 exceeded the qualifying amount by $250. Mr X is the sole breadwinner, supporting his wife and three children. His wife is a homemaker, not by choice, due to the caregiving of their special needs child.

He lamented that middle-income Singaporeans were being deprived of subsidies that are made available to lower-income groups. He felt that with the rising cost of living, a middle-income family like his should be eligible for a fee subsidy.

Therefore, Sir, I am glad that the Government has decided to reduce the upper limit of the SPED school fee from $150 to $90, announced in the Budget Statement as the first step in reducing the financial burden of families with special needs child. Nevertheless, I do feel that more can be done to help middle-income families with a child who has special needs.

In view of this, I agree and fully support the call made by my fellow Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member of Parliament, Mr Gerald Giam, through his Budget speech, asking the Government to set the fees for SPED schools at the same level as mainstream schools – namely $13 – on the basis of creating a more inclusive society.

Sir, I note that under the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC) Programme, a tiered approach is applied to determine the out-of-pocket expenses for qualifying families. While the Government considers the Workers' Party proposal towards equalising the fees between SPED schools and the mainstream ones; can it, in the interim, adopt a similarly tiered approach to ensure more equitable outcomes and provide much-needed relief for middle-income families with a special needs child?

Mainstream School – Disability Awareness

Mr Ong Hua Han (Nominated Member): Chairman, Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) plays a pivotal role in fostering empathy among students. However, MOE must ensure that these lessons go beyond theoretical understanding to meaningful interactions. Polytechnics, ITE colleges and universities only have an average of three to four Special Educational Needs (SEN) officers across the whole institution.

An SEN officer cannot always be there to facilitate integration. It is therefore crucial that all students are aware about disabilities, so they can better support and include their peers.

In my survey, more than a few persons with disabilities (PwDs) also spoke about their hopes for more disability awareness education at mainstream schools. Could MOE study ways to incorporate more of such lessons into the primary and secondary school curricula?

7.15 pm

For example, students can be taught about autism. This will help them better understand challenges faced by their autistic peers, and know about things like autistic burnouts. One point raised in my survey is that teachers can play an active "ice-breaking" role, to help students interact meaningfully with PwDs.

We need to ensure that teachers get all the help that they need, to better perform this role. Lastly, as mentioned in my speech during the Budget debate, I hope MOE can strongly consider proactively including students with disabilities into activities like Physical Education lessons.

Special Educational Needs Students in Mainstream Schools

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Sir, Singapore has made great strides in its support for students with SEN, thanks to Government and citizen support. However, there is a need to further strengthen the educational support for these students. For students with physical and sensory disabilities, such as the blind, the deaf and those hard of hearing, there is little excuse to not do good by and for them – given the well-established best practices available worldwide.

Today, I will focus on the learning support needed by students, now commonly identified as neurodiverse.

I thank experts from Unlocking ADHD, Dyslexia Association of Singapore and charities under the Autism Network of Singapore for their insights. Neurodiversity is an umbrella term used to describe a wide range of differences in the way one thinks and processes information. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia are some common forms of neurodiversity.

Neurodiverse students often struggle with traditional education systems that fail to meet their unique learning and social needs. They may be at higher risk of being victimised in schools by bullies. Those who are from lower-income families often get diagnosed and receive intervention much later, leading to increased vulnerability.

However, with appropriate training and support, neurodiverse students can offer valuable talents and perspectives in education and work settings. Improvements have been made in MOE schools over the past two decades, with the introduction of SEN offices, trained school teachers, learning support programmes and resource packages and a special education fund for tertiary-level students. Nonetheless, there are still gaps.

Calls have been made for better equipping of teachers, SEN officers and parents through more skilling workshops, cluster-based parent support groups, communities of practice and to extend the SEN fund to postgraduate programmes for these students.

I request the MOE to: one, provide updated data on the number of students with SEN, the support structure and SEN support staff strength at all education levels – primary school, secondary, junior college, ITE and other IHL levels; second, for MOE to share insights into the challenges it is facing in this space; and lastly, to share how it might partner key disability training groups, such as Dyslexia Association of Singapore, Unlocking ADHD, SPAS, Autism Resource Centre, Rainbow Centre and others in the Forward SG spirit to build a shared future together for this community.

The Chairman: Minister Chan Chun Seng.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Chair, we thank all Members for your suggestions, comments on our education system and most importantly, we want to thank you all for the support for our educators.

Our education system has done well by most conventional measures. We continue to surpass ourselves in the PISA rankings. Our least-privileged students, on average, do better than the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average. The vast majority of our graduates find employment quickly, with good starting salaries.

But we must be careful not to become victims of our own success – chasing yesterday's metrics of success, instead of building the competencies we need for our future. We should also be keenly aware that others are catching up and aiming to overtake us with new disruptive technologies and new pedagogies.

To stay ahead and prepare our next generation to learn for life, we must evolve our vision of education. We need to work with fellow Singaporeans, parents and industries to redefine success and redesign education in three parts: first, as a continuing journey, where we learn not just in the first 15 years, but throughout the next 50 years of our lives; second, to celebrate the diverse strengths, where we appreciate a diversity of talents for our collective resilience; and third, it must be a collective effort, where students learn not just in schools and from teachers, but from the community, society and even in the virtual world.

Let me first start with education as a continuing journey.

Many of us worry that the system will only allow us one chance. That our futures will somehow, be set in stone if we fail one exam or get into a less popular school or less favoured course. When in fact, we have a lifetime ahead of us. In the decades after formal schooling, there is time to discover new strengths and interests, to find our purpose and calling and to pursue them in different seasons of life.

We will continuously invest in our people to help them to do well not just for the first 15 years in school, but over the next 50 years and beyond. With your permission, Chair, may I display some slides on the LED screens? This chart will illustrate the lifetime investment in our people, today and tomorrow.

The Chairman: Yes, please go ahead. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Let me walk us through. Today, up to the secondary school level, we invest around $200,000 in every student. This establishes the strong academic foundations and values for the rest of their lives. Next, at the post-secondary level, we make another major investment to help our students acquire a work-ready qualification through ITE, polytechnic or university pathways.

Using an ITE student as an example, the subsidy will be around $70,000 for a Nitec and Higher Nitec qualification. So, on average, we would have invested more than a quarter million dollars for every Singaporean child to prepare them for their first career.

As announced in the Budget speech, we will invest more in our ITE graduates through the ITE Progression Award (IPA). Upskilling to a diploma can help ITE graduates secure a better starting pay and a better lifetime earning trajectory through their improved skills and competencies. We will hence top-up $5,000 to the Post-Secondary Education Accounts (PSEA) of ITE graduates when they enroll in a diploma programme.

For example, as shown in the chart, an ITE graduate who upgrades via a part-time polytechnic diploma will not need to pay any fees out-of-pocket after using the $5,000 top-up. When they graduate, they will receive a further $10,000 top-up to their CPF Ordinary Account. This can give them a head-start in buying their first home, or saving for retirement.

Some Members have asked, how we are supporting younger working adults?

For those under 40, they are in the earlier stages of their career and their first work-ready qualifications should still serve them well. But they may need regular, shorter skills top-ups. For this, they can use the SkillsFuture Credit of $500 that they receive at the age 25 to offset their course fees.

For those aged 40 and above – who have left school for a longer period of time – will require a more substantial skills reboot. Many in this group recognise the importance of lifelong learning and want to build career resilience through reskilling and upskilling. However, due to financial and other commitments, the course fees and potential loss of income during full-time training can hold them back.

As announced in the Budget speech, we will introduce the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme to support these Singaporeans. Members have asked for details of the new initiatives.

First, to provide more help with course fees through the additional SkillsFuture Credit top-up of $4,000. How is this different from the existing SkillsFuture Credit of $500? The $500 credit is meant to cultivate a national culture and broad-based interest in continuous learning. It supports bite-sized, just-in-time upskilling and reskilling. It can be used for a wide range of skills-related courses, whether you are at the start of your career, mid-way through, or in your silver years. This will continue to be the case.

This $4,000 credit is geared towards boosting employability. It will not expire, so that you can use it at a juncture that suits you. The top-up can be used for over 7,000 full-time and part-time courses with better employability outcomes and they will cover academic full qualification programmes offered by our IHLs.

These will include diplomas, post-diplomas, undergraduate and postgraduate degrees that are well-recognised in the market; as well as shorter modules that can stack to these full qualifications, to offer more flexible upgrading options. And it will also include industry-specific training, such as SkillsFuture Singapore's (SSG's) SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme (SCTP), which is a train-and-place programme that supports individuals moving into sectors with good hiring opportunities; and it will also cover courses that fulfil the training requirements in the Progressive Wage Model sectors, to support the career and wage progression of lower-wage workers.

Singaporeans aged 40 to 60 in 2020 received a $500 top-up that was similar in intent. We will merge any remaining balance with this new mid-career top-up and the balance will likewise no longer expire at the end of 2025.

For those who wish to pursue another full-time diploma, we will now provide additional subsidies to do so. Currently, Singaporeans can only receive one bout of Government subsidies for a full-time diploma at polytechnics, ITE and the arts institutions. From 2025, we will subsidise Singaporeans aged 40 and above who enroll in a second full-time diploma.

Going back to the ITE-upgrader in the chart as an example, if he wants to pursue a career in a new sector like the digital economy, he can pursue a full-time SkillsFuture Career Transition programme. SSG provides approximately $10,000 in subsidies for the training and the remaining course fees will be fully offset by the $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit. He can also pursue a second full-time diploma in a high-growth area. He will receive subsidies of about $60,000 and his out-of-pocket course fees for the full-time diploma can also be partially offset by the $4,000 credit.

Using the ITE-upgrader in the chart as an example, the lifetime investment in education and skills could go up to as high as $380,000 in total. This is a substantial investment and commitment on the part of the Government. But we know that course fees are not the only constraint when it comes to upskilling. Adult workers may have other financial commitments and concerns. It could be difficult to take time off work to upskill and to lose income during the training period.

Hence, on top of our investment in educational programmes, we will provide a Training Allowance for Singaporeans aged 40 and above who pursue full-time IHL full qualifications or full-time SCTP. Eligible individuals will receive an allowance of 50% of their average monthly income over a year, capped at $3,000 for up to 24 months over their lifetime. In another words, up to $72,000 over a lifetime.

Individuals, including self-employed persons and freelancers will receive the allowance as long as they have earned income based on Government's records in the latest available 12-month period.

Members have asked whether the long-term unemployed and caregivers who have left the workforce for some time will qualify for the training allowance. At this point in time, they will not, as the allowance is meant to provide support for workers who experience income loss when they commit to full-time training. However, they can still make use of the $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit to refresh their skills through industry-relevant training. They can also tap on career facilitation services and placement programmes that offer training allowance offered by Workforce Singapore and the National Trades Union Congress’ (NTUC's) Employment and Employability Institute.

Overall, the training allowance thresholds reflect our carefully considered approach. The supported full-time courses are chosen to facilitate placement and entry into good jobs. The amount of support provides enough coverage for the median mid-career worker, while preserving the incentive to return to work. The duration of support will cover more than one bout of full-time upgrading via SCTP and at least half the duration of a full qualification. In total, our lifetime commitment to help an individual will be around $300,000 or higher, not counting the Training Allowance of up to $72,000.

While the exact amount may differ for different paths, the concept is similar – continuous investments for the next 50 years beyond the school, rather than just the first 15 years in school. We will make available the full slide to all Members after the speech.

The SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme will cost the Government around an additional $100 million each year and more, if there is stronger take-up. This is a significant investment and commitment by the Government and it underscores our commitment to SkillsFuture as a key pillar of our social compact.

Members have asked more broadly, how do we measure the success of SkillsFuture? The spending and course attendance numbers are just input and output indicators respectively. The real outcomes we want to track are employment, wages and the competitiveness of our workers and enterprises.

7.30 pm

This is not always easy to measure. It is neither short term, nor a one-to-one causal relationship. For example, reskilling may have helped workers keep their jobs or transit to new careers, beyond getting a pay rise. Often, it also takes time for workers to cumulate and apply their newly acquired skills and for employers to see the tangible benefits of a higher skills base.

There are also other intangible benefits for our economy and society, which are important but are not easily measured, such as greater confidence for businesses to invest in Singapore, with our highly skilled and adaptable workforce.

Hence, the success of the SkillsFuture movement is about ultimately, whether Singaporeans have the confidence and competence to seize new career opportunities and tackle the future and whether our enterprises are well-positioned to capture new business opportunities because they have the quality of manpower required.

This vision of success cannot be achieved by the Government alone. In the spirit of Forward SG, we must journey together – IHLs, employers and individuals.

Our IHLs are doing their part. They are responding to industry needs to offer relevant courses and developing new programmes in emerging economic sectors. The are refreshing their CET capabilities to meet the wide range of workforce needs. More and more of our IHL capacities are shifting to support CET, beyond the conventional pre-employment training (PET).

Employers, unions and enterprises will need to play their part too, to support workers with flexible working arrangements when they are upgrading, to work with employees to identify the new skills and competencies needed by the market and the companies, to recognise and remunerate employees based on those skills and competencies rather than just credentials and to create a culture of learning in every company, both small and medium enterprises, and large companies alike.

And every individual will need to take ownership of their individual path, to plan their directions and way forward and to have the courage and conviction to take their first step. The Government will do what we can to partner our people and industries to achieve this vision of us for SkillsFuture to be a key pillar of our social compact to keep our people competitive and employable over the long haul.

Next, let me touch on education as a celebration of our students' diverse strengths. We must resist the temptation to "teach to the average" and instead focus on bringing out the best in every child.

We have introduced Full Subject-based Banding, or Full SBB, for the Secondary 1 cohort this year. We are now overcoming the challenges of reorganising the classes and shuffling timetables to match the resources available. But the positive outcomes in learning and social mixing give us confidence that this is the right thing to do, notwithstanding the challenges.

Today, I will touch on what students can expect at the end of their secondary school experience under the new system.

As the culmination of their Full SBB journey, in 2027, this year's Secondary 1 students will sit for a new Singapore-Cambridge Secondary Education Certificate (SEC) examinations. The SEC examinations will replace the current Singapore-Cambridge General Certificate of Education (GCE) "O" and "N" level examinations.

Today, students take different examinations, with different provisions for different streams. For example. students in the previous Normal stream sit for "N" levels in September, while Express students sit for "O" levels in October. "O" level students have two examination sittings for their mother tongue language (MTL), one mid-year, one end-of-year, while "N" level students do not.

Under Full SBB, there will no longer be separate "N" or "O" level examination periods. Instead, there will be one common SEC examination period, with different papers for different subject levels.

We will streamline the multiple examination sittings. This means we will have one written SEC examination sitting for all MTL subject levels. I understand that some may be concerned that they will have one less chance to improve their MTL grades. But we need to strike a careful balance between striving for excellence, chasing the last mark, and allowing our students to learn at a better pace.

When we introduced the mid-year "O" level MTL examination sitting in 1980, less than 40% of our students passed both their First and Second Languages. So, we allowed students to take their MTL examination twice, to meet the Second Language requirement for Pre-University.

Today, almost all our "O" level MTL students already meet the language requirement within their first sitting. Our analysis shows that taking a second sitting only changed the post-secondary posting outcomes for less than 2% of the students taking the examination. But most importantly, the new system will allow our students and teachers to better pace the MTL curriculum, with four more months of learning, rather than to squeeze everything into three-and-a-half years in preparation for the June examination sitting. To spread out the examination load at the end of the year, students will sit for their English and MTL written examinations in the second week of September, one month ahead of other subjects.

After taking their examinations, students will receive a common certificate, the SEC, which will replace the current "O", N(A) and N(T) level certificates. The certificate will reflect each student's subject combinations and levels. Just like the "A" level certificate, which reflects each student's subjects and the level they have completed at – H1, H2 or H3. The certificate will continue to be jointly awarded by MOE and Cambridge, to preserve its standing. The SEC will allow students offering a mix of subject levels to access a wider range of post-secondary pathways.

For students applying to Polytechnic Year 1, admission today is based on an "ELR2B2", otherwise known as English, Relevant to and the Best Two aggregate score comprising five "O" levels, or G3 subjects. From 2028, we will allow one of the "Best" or "B" subjects in the ELR2B2 score to be taken at either G2 or G3. Second Minister Dr Mohamad Maliki Osman will provide more details. From time to time, some call for MOE to remove examinations like the PSLE. Others ask us to bring back mid-year examinations.

First, let me state that if we see our worth as being defined by examination results only, removing PSLE will not remove stress. Neither is removing all stress our goal. Instead, we need to help our students manage and overcome stress. We need to understand that examinations like the PSLE and SEC are not an end in themselves, but they are means to help our children find a suitable learning environment in the next stage of their learning journey.

As I have mentioned before, there are non-trivial issues to overcome for a through-train concept, such as, how will we select students who are suitable for which school at age six? If we cannot select, how will we support diverse learning profiles for the next 10 years for us to be able to stretch the high ability students, while supporting those with higher needs?

We may end up "teaching to the average", which does not bring out the best in any child. And this will make teaching even more challenging for our already stretched teachers to cater to a class with such diverse abilities.

If we allow transfers out of the school, then, the question is: who gets to be posted out and to where? Will the stronger students try to transfer out, leaving the through-train as an option for the weaker students only? Or if it is the weaker students that leave, then school assessments might become the new frontier of stress, as students worry about performing well enough to remain in the said school. And which school will take these students to integrate them back into the mainstream curriculum and at what point in time?

So, MOE is considering it but let us be upfront about these proposals. They are not without merits, but certainly they come with tradeoffs and non-trivial implications. Let us make help our students to understand their strengths in the meantime, approach stress and challenges with the right mindset and use exams to right-site themselves for the next stage of learning, rather than as a competition to beat others.

In fact, we know that good grades are not enough to prepare our students for the future. We also need to equip our students with "21st Century Competencies" (21CC), like civic literacy and adaptive thinking. Hence, we will improve the balance of academic and non-academic Edusave awards. Today, the EAGLES and Edusave Skills Award are given to students who have excelled in non-academic activities or who have demonstrated leadership qualities and served the community. We will increase the number of these awards to recognise 21CC and LifeSkills.

Younger students will receive the award if they demonstrate attributes like creativity in generating ideas to solve problems in their school or outside while older students in polytechnics and ITE might demonstrate interpersonal and collaboration skills by working effectively with their colleagues in an internship.

With this, an additional 21,000 students could receive an award every year, bringing the balance of academic and non-academic awards given out to around 60:40, down from around 70:30 ratio. This signals our commitment to reducing the overemphasis on academic results and balancing that with better preparation more holistically for the future. Our efforts to celebrate diverse strengths must also extend to students with SEN.

One key challenge for the families of children with disabilities are the significant out-of-pocket expenses. As announced at Budget, we will alleviate these pressures by reducing school fees in nine higher-fee SPED schools. But beyond financial support, I also want to share my vision for the SPED sector, which has been close to my heart since my Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) days.

I want our young people to aspire to join SPED fraternity, be inspired by its deep sense of mission, like any mainstream teacher. I want our SPED educators to have promising careers, that will encourage them to stay in the sector, like the mainstream. I want our SPED school leaders to have structured and rigorous leadership development opportunities, like the mainstream. I want our SPED sector to have their own communities of practice, specialising and developing deep authoritative professional body of knowledge for each of the SPED specialisation. I want mainstream and SPED educators to grow together, with porosity of pathways, sharing best practices and supporting each other. I want to see the SPED students having pathways integrated with their post-18 work, life and care arrangements.

Chair, recently, I met the leaders of our 25 SPED schools. I shared this vision with them. I want to say that after the meeting, it is no longer my vision. But, hopefully, it is now our vision.

I want to thank all the SPED school leaders for agreeing to work together, towards our shared vision for the sector. We agreed we are not where we want to be, not yet. But we know where we want to get to and we are determined to get there for the sake of our children. Second Minister Dr Mohamad Maliki Osman will share more details about our efforts.

Now, let me turn to the third point. Education must be a collective effort from all of society. This leads me to how we must fundamentally reshape the way we see education. Education must be a collective effort from all of society.

First, I want to thank two groups of people for their contributions. First, the over 150 industry partners who have come forward through MOE's Partnerships Engagement Office to collaborate with our schools, to create authentic learning opportunities for our students. Second, our Parent Support Groups, which have stepped up to support our students' well-being and development. Minister of State Gan Siow Huang will be sharing an update in her speech of how we have expanded the Parent Support Groups and how we have strengthened their capabilities to partner our school.

But above all, I want to recognise our educators. More than any policy change, it is our teachers who are key to preparing our students for the future. We recognise the challenges that our teachers face and we will continue to support them, through what I call three "T"s.

The first T is technology. Technology must increasingly be the multiplier of our teachers' capacity. We will continue investing in EdTech and adaptive learning systems, to help our teachers support those who need more help, while stretching those who can do more.

For example, our Language Feedback Assistant for English provides feedback for basic language errors in students' writing. This allows our teachers to spend more of their time guiding students on higher-order elements, such as logic and persuasiveness and creates time for teachers to work with students in the same class who require more attention or support.

7.45 pm

What we recognise is that it is not always easy to use new technologies. It takes time for us to feel at ease with them and trust them to complement our work. For example, many of us may have struggled in the early days of COVID-19 in shifting our work online. So, I want to salute our teachers who are challenging themselves to adapt to these new tools, not just because they are new and exciting, but because they will help our students learn better and relieve the load of our teachers.

The second T is linked to technology, but the second T is time. Technology will not replace our teachers, but it will change their roles and responsibilities. Our teachers will spend less time, going forward, delivering information and more time facilitating learning and collaboration.

They will spend less time delivering information as information becomes commoditised, but they will spend more time facilitating learning and collaboration, which are higher order skills. They will play a bigger role as coaches and mentors, guiding students in developing softer skills and navigating complex issues.

We will hence be committed to making time for our teachers' growth professionally to learn new pedagogies and skill sets, but also personally to spend time away from the classroom and gain exposure and new perspectives so that they can broaden their minds, refresh themselves and bring back ideas to share with their students and fellow colleagues.

But the last T is most critical, and that is trust. We must maintain our trust and support in our educators. Our teachers undergo years of rigorous training and professional development. They are experts in their subject areas and pedagogy. They invest their time and energy to nurture our students, often going above and beyond their official responsibilities.

So, we ask that everyone respect and trust our teachers to do their work as professionals and to support them in giving the best opportunities to our students to develop their talents, find their footing and understand their strengths and weaknesses.

Sir, the collective effort of education requires communities to work hand in hand, not just in the classroom but beyond the classroom. Together, we can show our children that their growth matters more than their grades.

But change is not easy, especially if we are to reshape our own perspective and redefine our definitions of success. But change will be impossible if we do not try. But if we can come together to refresh our understanding of education and what it means for all of us, it can underscore Singapore's success for the next 50 years and beyond.

MOE and our partners are committed to delivering this for our children and our nation. [Applause.]

The Chairman: Minister, would you like to report progress?