Maximising Every Student's Potential in Classrooms of the Future

ADJOURNMENT MOTION

The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Question proposed.

Maximising Every Student's Potential in Classrooms of the Future

7.00 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, few subjects are as important to the future of our economy and our society as education. The quality of human resources is key to boosting investment, innovation, productivity and entrepreneurship in a developed economy like ours. Effective education is tied to quality of life, and good physical and mental health.

In this speech, I shall argue for smaller form class sizes in Primary and Secondary schools with consequent reductions in the size of all classes conducted. This is not a magic bullet solution. We should push for improvement on other fronts, like reducing the script marking workload for teachers which my colleague Mr Dennis Tan asked about recently.

But smaller class sizes for core subjects have the potential to unlock many other benefits, especially given the need to grow innovation, productivity and entrepreneurship in an era of artificial intelligence and disruption, where growing non-cognitive skills and attributes are so important. This is not a new subject and has been raised multiple times in this House by current and former Workers' Party Members of Parliament and Non-constituency Members of Parliament, such as Mr Yee Jenn Jong, Mr Png Eng Huat and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

Average and median form class sizes in Primary and Secondary schools range from 32 to 36. This is above the norm for other developed countries and also substantially above the norm for the Gifted Education Programme classes, private tuition centre classes and classes for most international schools operating in Singapore. Having said that, subject-based banded classes and remedial classes may be smaller, though I was informed in a reply to an earlier Parliamentary Question that the size of remedial classes is not tracked by MOE.

The overall class size in the OECD fell by 6.8% between 2000 and 2010 to a little over 20. Class size decreased in countries with the largest classes in 2000 whereas it stayed the same or increased slightly in the countries which already had small class sizes in 2000.

Let me first discuss the academic evidence for the benefits of smaller class sizes.

Smaller class sizes allow teachers to focus on obtaining more teacher-student interaction during class time. This achieves several benefits as demonstrated by research.

Firstly, smaller classes allow deeper internalisation of subject matter through more engagement − weaker or less engaged students have less room to stay quiet and not be engaged in the lesson. A literature review by the US Centre for Public Education based on an analysis of 19 studies showed a positive link, even if there are other factors at play. I quote, "Some researchers have not found a connection between smaller classes and higher student achievement, but most of the research shows that when class size reduction programs are well-designed and implemented in the primary grades (K-3), student achievement rises as class size drops."

The famous randomised experiment Project Star in the US State of Tennessee concluded that "students placed in smaller classrooms performed better than their peers in larger classrooms across all grade levels tested and across all geographic regions". And I note that Project Star, while not perfect, meets the basic gold standard for research, namely a controlled, randomised experiment.

A University of Glasgow study by Valerie Wilson for the Institute of Education Sciences, the research arm of the US Department of Education, concluded that class size reduction does increase student achievement, especially among those who most need it. A 2008 British study by Blatchford, Bassett and Brown with the University of London involving close observation of classrooms in 22 primary schools and 27 secondary schools concluded that low attaining students were more than twice as likely to be disengaged in classes of 30 students than they were in classes of 15.

In a 2003 Review of Educational Research article, Finn, Pannozzo and Achilles cited evidence for the visibility principle − students in small classes experienced increased encouragement to participate as they may be called upon more frequently to answer questions or to participate in a class activity. There are many other studies that have arrived at similar conclusions, too numerous to mention here.

Secondly, smaller classes may stimulate non-cognitive skills (NCS) or soft skills among students, such as confidence, curiosity, leadership, communication and social skills through participating in discussion, arguing one's case, debating and encouraging students to pose questions and answers. These skills to do with communication, confidence and self-mastery are needed for competitiveness in the 21st century and may lead to economic benefits that would justify the additional investment.

A scholarly article by John Johnston of Memphis State University using STAR data also found that students in smaller classes were more willing to take risks, less inhibited, less afraid of being wrong, volunteered to answer questions more, felt safe with their ideas; were more curious, enthusiastic and eager to participate versus those in regular sized classes. In a 2015 article in the British Educational Research Journal, Harfitt and Tsui found evidence for smaller class sizes being linked to higher frequency of volunteered responses and greater interactions with teachers via asking questions or clarifications, which relate to communication and confidence.

In a US National Bureau of Economic Research article in 2008, Dee and West found links between smaller classes and non-cognitive skills that are highly predictive of long-term education and labour-market outcomes.

Thirdly, as a result of the factors above, smaller classes may reduce our dependence on Singapore's massive private tuition industry. In the tuition industry, much smaller classes are near-universal. Less tuition and less remedial classes as a result of more effective teaching in smaller classes would free up children's time to explore and develop other aspects of character, learning and skills.

Class size reduction also has an egalitarian dimension. Better-off students can always afford to cultivate soft skills and content mastery through private tuition, enrichment classes or parental coaching. Smaller classes may help level the playing field and enhance equality of opportunity for students from disadvantaged backgrounds − which, in turn, may crucially unleash talent from disadvantaged families, the kind of talent that our economy needs.

An analysis of multiple studies by David Zyngier of Monash University, drawing on data from several countries and reviewing 112 papers over 35 years, concluded that "smaller class sizes in the first four years of school can have an important and lasting impact on student achievement, especially for children from culturally, linguistically and economically disenfranchised communities".

In a previous exchange I had in this House with Minister Ng Chee Meng relating to class size, the Minister cited that smaller class sizes could be found in subject-based banded classes and remedial classes and classes under the Learning Support Programme, though it was revealed in reply to my previous written Parliamentary Question that the size of remedial classes is not tracked by MOE. However, remedial classes with smaller class sizes do not fully address the arguments I have shared here for two reasons.

Firstly, being sent to remedial classes or special pull-out classes may stigmatise students and erode their self-confidence. There is evidence that self-confidence or self-esteem affects academic performance, potentially creating a vicious cycle, for example, a 2011 study by Booth and Gerard.

Secondly, having to attend remedial classes on top of regular classes, as with tuition, erodes available free time, which has other adverse effects on weaker students, such as less free time to explore and develop other aspects of character and learning.

There is also some evidence that smaller class sizes may increase teacher retention. This a worthy goal to pursue. Continuity matters to learning outcomes because a teacher who knows his or her students deeply and builds rapport with them will be a more effective teacher.

A 2008 paper by Price and Terry of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration in the USA found evidence of a link between smaller classes and a higher level of teacher satisfaction because smaller classes allowed for more and better enrichment activities. The same study also found evidence that smaller classes may reduce teacher attrition. Using data from the SAGE study, Molnar, Smith and Zahorik, in a 1999 paper, found evidence for a link between smaller classes and fewer discipline problems.

The 2015 Harfitt study found that teachers linked smaller class size to having more freedom to plan and interact, less trial-and-error, less worry over deadlines for marking and homework preparation, improved classroom management and the ability to know their pupils better.

Opponents of class size as a driver of outcomes often cite the work of John Hattie, an Australian researcher, which some have cited as disproving that class size makes a difference. This work has been criticised by other researchers, notably Ivan Snook from Massey University.

The criticism centres on the problems associated with Hattie's methodology of synthesising a whole range of meta-studies on a simple quantitative scale. No control separates good research from bad and more robust gold standard research, like the Tennessee STAR study, from other kinds of studies. Also, Hattie's work focuses on quantifiable academic performance, not attributes like non-cognitive skills and attitudes where evidence suggests smaller classes are of significant benefit.

The same objection applies to the work of Wormann and West in 2002 which, while it claims zero class size effect in Singapore, relies mainly on historical data from the TIMSS database on maths scores, is not a randomised experiment nor measures other subjects, let alone non-cognitive skills.

It should also be noted that class size is not the same as student-teacher ratio (STR). In terms of STR, the gap between Singapore and other countries may not be as large. However, favourable STRs may be consistent with unfavourable class sizes, depending on how much of a teacher's time is spent teaching, how many classes are held and so on.

If the issue is that academic evidence is divided, we suggest there should be a large randomised trial in Singapore, along similar lines to the massive, seminal Tennessee STAR project that is still being referred to by educators today, to study the impact of reducing average and median form class sizes to the 20-25 range. If the trial is positive, we should move towards a universal form class size of 20-25 as a goal. Twenty to 25 seems a good balance point between what is desirable and what is feasible in respect of cost and availability of teachers. It is a little above the 2010 OECD average.

Cost is never irrelevant. However, the cost implications of this suggestion should be less of an issue with current declining enrolments, which give us an opportunity to redeploy teachers to smaller classes. And I can think of few other more important national priorities in long-term spending than getting our education right.

Education is really one of the key, if not the key competitive success factor for our economy going forward because it potentially creates pathways to innovation, productivity and entrepreneurship. If incremental cost is an issue, let us debate this with the benefit of the numbers so that potential trade-offs can be explored in a concrete manner. And the speed at which we move towards this goal can thus be calibrated accordingly.

In summary, I urge the Government to conduct a large, randomised trial for smaller classes to determine the effects on academic achievement, levelling up poorer students in non-cognitive skills and attributes, such as confidence.

Such a trial should be designed and supervised by an independent academic panel of recognised professionals and the results published for scrutiny. If the results are positive, we should target a form class size of 20-25 as a mid-term goal and use falling enrolments while keeping the number of teachers stable to make the changes necessary, so as to minimise cost increases.

The reduction in form class size should have a cascading effect to reduce the size of most classes as they currently exist, be they remedial or banded. The change should be used as a pivot to revamp our pedagogy in schools, to shift it towards more classroom participation designed to engender non-cognitive skills and attributes, as well as to level up across students from different socio-economic and family backgrounds. The speed at which we can move towards this goal will depend on fiscal resources. But such a change should reduce the need for remedial classes, which may generate cost savings. This change may also produce benefits in terms of teacher satisfaction, which may be linked to productivity, effectiveness and reduced attrition of teachers, which has cost benefits, too.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, effective teaching − teaching that levels up and that instils non-cognitive and non-academic skills − is a critical goal for Singapore. Our economy's competitiveness as a developed country in the 21st century, amidst all the disruption from artificial intelligence and other factors that will unfold, hinges on the quality of our human resources. We need to churn out future entrepreneurs and disruptors.

MOE has reduced average class sizes before: for Primary 1 in 2005 and Primary 2 in 2006. In Parliament in 2007, the outcome of this class size reduction change was described by the Government as positive.

Let us not shirk from giving all students the kind of benefits of small class sizes that Gifted Education Programme students now enjoy and that established academic research has demonstrated. And not by way of remedial classes that have their own down-sides and side effects. Let us not shirk from making the changes needed to turn Singapore's future classrooms into incubators of innovation and catalysts for equality of opportunity.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Ng Chee Meng.

7.14 pm

The Minister for Education (Schools) (Mr Ng Chee Meng): Mr Deputy Speaker, my Ministry is committed to bringing out the best in every child by providing the opportunities and learning environment to enable every child to do so. We stay abreast of good educational practices and developments in other countries, and constantly review how we can take ideas and adapt them to our context, including ideas that have been discussed in this House by my esteemed colleagues, including Ms Denise Phua.

My Ministry has already embarked on this journey to nurture future-ready and responsible learners, bringing the future classroom into reality today. I will share briefly about our holistic approach in three areas: Learners; Learning Spaces, in which technologies are embedded; and Teachers. It is teachers and how they teach that make the critical difference, not class sizes.

First, maximising the potential of every child starts with the Learner. Our curriculum has shifted to focus more on 21st Century Competencies, such as Critical and Inventive Thinking, that enable our students to solve real-world problems creatively; and Collaboration and Communication skills that enable them to work effectively in teams.

Earlier this year, I spoke about the importance of nurturing the joy of learning in our children. This is so that they can discover their interests and passions. This intrinsic motivation is key to lifelong learning and success. I stressed the importance of developing an entrepreneurial dare so that our children will have the resilience, adaptability and enterprising spirit to apply their learning to real-world contexts and pursue their passions.

These are key aspects of a holistic education, not just simply class sizes. Taken together, these fundamental dispositions, attitudes and skills will help our students thrive in an uncertain and complex world. We will continue to enhance our focus on nurturing these dispositions, while moving away from an over-emphasis on academic grades.

This brings me to my second point. We are already evolving our Learning Spaces beyond the classroom to provide for a more authentic learning experience. To prepare our children for the future, it is not just about class sizes, but how we get them to apply their learning; because Applied Learning connects what they learn in the classroom with real-world contexts, be it in the STEM arena, the Arts or the Humanities domain. It combines content mastery with a more applied and practice-oriented approach to learning. Using their knowledge and skills, students can experiment, investigate and develop innovative ideas and solutions to real-world problems. Through hands-on experience and exposure, they can better discover their strengths and interests, as well as their future education and career pathways.

How is Applied Learning implemented in schools? We worked with different agencies. In the area of coding and technology, we worked with IMDA to expose students to basic coding and technology through various activities. "Code for Fun", for example, is an enrichment programme that has benefited 73,000 students in both Primary and Secondary schools since 2014. The "Lab on Wheels", a bus that travels from school to school, allows students to tinker with modern technologies, such as 3D printers, drones and other fun stuff. How do you calibrate class sizes in such activities? We should not fixate on a single dimension of success in education.

The Applied Learning Programme (ALP) is offered in all Secondary schools from this year. Coding and technology are just two examples of ALPs that are offered in our schools. Many of the ALPs in STEM areas, such as Health Science, Transport and Communication, and Robotics are very welcome. There are also non-STEM areas, such as in the Languages, Humanities, Business and Entrepreneurship.

In line with the chosen ALP focus, schools design and deliver activities to expose students to these new areas and fuel their passion for learning, in and outside the classroom. Many of the ALPs have been developed with relevant industry partners, Government agencies and even Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs).

Students with keen STEM interest can develop their interests through these programmes or relevant Co-Curricular Activities (CCAs). Again, how do we measure these programmes through class sizes?

Upper Secondary students can go one step further. They can take up Advanced Elective Modules or Applied Subjects. Examples of these include Computing and Electronics for the Express and Normal (Academic) courses and Mobile Robotics and Smart Electrical Technology for the Normal (Technical) courses. These are electives. Again, this is not in the era where Mr Perera and I grew up where they are all standardised – 40 in a class. These are all in different class sizes. Feedback from students who took these modules or subjects have been very positive. They enjoyed seeing their learning come alive and were engaged in the process, regardless of which course they are from.

In addition, we are also redesigning the education experience for students to provide a more customised learning space to help every child realise his potential. What I mentioned in ALPs are just one way we do so, to cater to learners with different interests and aptitudes.

A major change we are making this year is to allow Secondary school students to offer subjects at differentiated levels, based on their strengths. Lower Secondary students in the Normal (Academic) and Normal (Technical) courses will be able to take their stronger subject(s) at a higher academic level.

This, as the Member has mentioned, could be in class sizes of 10, 15 or 20. We are flexible. This flexibility allows students to stretch themselves in their areas of strength and build a strong academic foundation. Such a foundation will position them well to harness future technologies and future learning so that they can thrive. For example, many of the skills needed are already developed today in our classrooms, regardless of class sizes.

We are also making more learning resources available to students on the online space to enable them to pursue their interests in a self-directed manner. When we look at the classrooms of the future, on the online space, how do we define class size?

From next year, all students will be able to access quality learning resources through our Student Learning Space, which is a new online portal. Riding on this technology and with these resources, students can access additional material according to their interest, and at their own pace anytime, anywhere. This is learning in the future classroom, beyond class sizes.

Third, competent and dedicated teachers remain key to our students' learning. We invest in our teachers because teacher quality is critical to improving student outcomes. This is most decisive, backed by OECD research. In spite of the different research that the Member has quoted, these researches are not conclusive.

For example, John Hattie's work on the effects of class sizes says that these early advantages are not necessarily sustained. In fact, they can be short-term. But what I can say is having grown our teaching force by 20% over the last decade, our current pupil-teacher ratios at 16 and 12 for Primary and Secondary school levels respectively are already comparable to OECD standards. Instead of reducing class sizes across the board, schools deploy teachers flexibly to keep the class sizes smaller for students who need that extra support. Pull-out classes, as I informed the Member previously, for levelling-up, can be in smaller classes of six to eight. And, as I have said before, too, the form class size is not indicative of the learning support or attention that our students are receiving. The future classroom does not look like what it was yesteryear.

Schools already band students into smaller teaching groups based on their learning needs, for example, in the levelling-up programmes and Subject-Based Banding classes that I have mentioned.

For our teachers, we also invest in their continual professional development, because they are key. This year, we launched the Singapore Teaching Practice (STP), our very own model of teaching and learning that is backed by research evidence and this will be adopted by NIE and in our schools. It brings together the shared beliefs of Singapore educators − past and present − and effective practices that lead to engaged and joyful learning across our schools.

Mr Deputy Speaker : Minister, you have five more minutes.

Mr Ng Chee Meng:Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. With this common reference point, teachers can innovate their teaching practices to better meet the evolving needs of students today.

Our teachers also continue to keep themselves current with the latest pedagogy, as well as suitable education technologies. Within their schools, they are supported by trained mentors. And beyond their schools, they are committed to a range of in-service professional development courses, as well as networked learning communities.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have laid out in brief what MOE has developed to prepare our students for the future, whether in the classrooms today or tomorrow, and certainly beyond a single dimension of defining what are the best tools we can use to ensure their success.

MOE is embarking on many exciting changes, but in all the things that we are doing, we are guided by values and character education that will always remain at the core of our children's education. With sound values, the right learning dispositions and the deep knowledge and skills, I am confident that our students can rise up to the opportunities and challenges of the future economy and Singaporean society. Thank you. [Applause.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at 7.28 pm.