Periodic Relocation of Popular Schools to Better Align School Access with Principles of Meritocracy and Social Mixing

15 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider periodically relocating popular schools to neighbourhoods with different housing and socioeconomic status (SES) mixes to better align school access with the principles of meritocracy and social mixing.

The Minister for Education (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, in planning for schools across Singapore, the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) main objective is to ensure that national as well as localised demand for school places are met. We take into account several factors, including current and projected school-going populations in each residential area, as well as the supply of places provided by the schools in the vicinity.

When the demand for school places falls or is projected to fall in a particular area, we will consider relocating schools in that area, including popular schools, to areas with higher demand. These are usually areas where significant new housing is being developed and the schools will then serve the new residents moving into those areas.

MOE will continue to review our school admissions policies so that our schools continue to remain accessible to children from all backgrounds.

Mr Speaker: Mr Hoe.

Mr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): I thank the Minister for his response and I do agree that the principle of relocation of school is sound.

Most recently, a video circulated on social media featuring an individual sharing her primary school experience. She shared that she was the only one in her class living in a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat and the rest were private property dwellers. In such context, there is a need to consider how social mixing can expand world views and develop empathy for others different from ourselves.

Against this backdrop, I have three supplementary questions. First, what is MOE's view on enabling social mixing in our schools? Second, beyond the Outward Bound Singapore (OBS) experience in Secondary 3, where students from different schools get to interact with each other, what other opportunities are there for students to socially mix with one another from different schools? And lastly, I know of parents who shift house because of the Primary 1 application, and Phase 2C of Primary 1 registration can amplify house-based clustering. Would MOE consider tapping on the admin data of primary school intake profile by housing types, as well as identify schools, within two-kilometre radius, have little, or very low, or no public housing, and prioritise social mixing measures for such schools?

Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for his three very thoughtful questions. Indeed, social mixing in our schools creates the environment as well as the opportunity with the diversity of students' backgrounds, to enable holistic development of our children. It helps with the social emotional learning. It also supports our students in terms of picking up important 21st century competencies, for example, compassion, understanding, cross-cultural communication skills, collaboration and so on and so forth, and it prepares them not just for the real world in Singapore, but for the world out there after school.

At the same time, in as much as we want diversity and social mixing to help open up our children's horizons, our schools are also not just mirrors that reflect the state of society or of the neighbourhoods in which our schools are located, but also active platforms to enable inclusion, community building, national identity building and in that regard, nation building as well.

The Member spoke about the, I believe, the MOE-OBS Challenge. So, Secondary 3 students across different schools, living together, coming together over a period of time to explore the outdoors, out of their comfort zone, a great opportunity for them to mix, to mingle, to make friends and to build connections, but also for them to overcome challenges together. And I think that is one opportunity for mixing in the great outdoors.

But there are also other ways in which our schools seek to bring children, from different schools and different backgrounds, together. For instance, we have a combined school co-curricular activities (CCAs). The Member may have heard of BMW. It is not a car. It is a girls' football team. It solves a practical challenge, so we have these three schools, on their own, not able to form a team, but coming together, they form a formidable team. So, Boon Lay Secondary School, Methodist Girls' School, as well as Westwood Secondary School. And so, they come together on a regular basis, and they form a team, same identity, same sports gear, same competitor – and I think that creates opportunities.

We also have other school programmes. For example, Raffles Institution (RI) has a RI boarding programme and I have a list here. It is an opportunity for RI students, together with students from Guangyang Secondary School, Pierce Secondary, Whitley Secondary School, Deyi Secondary School, Kuo Chuan Presbyterian Secondary School, Sengkang Secondary School, Bowen Secondary School, and a few others – students will come together, spend a period of time together, mixing, mingling, learning from one another, doing things together.

And of course, there are other CCAs as well, where you see different schools coming together, forming mixed teams, forming mixed CCAs, not just in sports, but also in the performing arts. You have the Singapore Youth Festival, where students come together to put up their best in terms of the performing arts, and they mix and mingle as a result of that process.

We also have cluster-based CCAs, so not mixed schools, but in a cluster, they come together and they are not school-based, but at the cluster, they come together and pursue their interests together. We have competitions and other opportunities where students mix and mingle.

Of course, the Member spoke about Phase 2C. Schools' admissions, both in the primary and secondary school level are efforts to achieve a number of purposes when it comes to school admissions. So, take primary school, for instance, from practicality, so Phase 1, you have a sibling, so you go in, makes it easier for the family, more practical. Phase 2A, to recognise long-standing ties and links, for an "old boy", "old girl" to see their own child go into their old school, I think, strengthens school identity and also strengthens parent-child bonding, in terms of saying, "Well, my child has gone to my old school." And I do not just say this for the popular schools, so to speak, but also all schools where there is an affinity and affiliation link.

There is also the element of distance, because when it comes to schools, particularly primary schools, we would like to also support proximity, convenience, easy for the children to go to school and come back home. And so, that is where Phase 2C comes in, where a certain number of places is ring-fenced for children, regardless of whether they have any links or affiliation to the school or not, premise on the basis of proximity.

But I recognise the Member's concern that in some places where the neighbourhood's constitution of housing is of a particular nature, that may not necessarily result in Phase 2C conducing to the diversity that we aspire to in Singapore, in our schools. But we, as I have said, we continue to study our policies and see how we can further improve those policies and improve our processes to enable our children to have that holistic exposure to the diversity of Singapore.