1. Chair, we thank Ms Denise Phua and various members for their well-intentioned suggestions.
2. Let me assure you that MOE is open to considering new ideas. In fact, we constantly challenge ourselves to re-look our own assumptions, and come up with and consider new ideas, whether they are from our own fraternity of educators, members of this House, members of the public, or the experiences of other countries.
3. But our approach must be to first correctly define the problem, before we go into solutioning. The through-train proposal from primary to secondary education idea as Ms Denise Phua said, is not new. Other countries have variations of it, with varying outcomes depending on their goals. One can even make the argument that the affiliated schools in Singapore are a variant of this idea.
4. The question is, what goals do we want to achieve in making this change?
- Is it to reduce stress?
- Is it to remove high-stakes exams for young children?
- Is it to free up space and time for our students to pursue other dimensions of growth as Ms Denise Phua mentioned?
- Is it inclusiveness – so that our students experience the richness of the Singaporean community?
- Is it to promote more social mixing in our schools?
5. Or all of the above and more? Then, we should also ask ourselves if a through-train will achieve all these and what are the fundamental issues we have to grapple with?
6. For example, stress. Are we stressed because we cannot meet the standards we set for ourselves or our children, or are we stressed because we want to keep up with others in a rat race? Will the proposal solve this problem?
7. Would we end up shifting the competition for a preferred secondary school earlier to a preferred primary school, through say P1 registration contest or even a pre-school leaving examination?
8. If we continue to see exams as a competition for preferred schools, instead of right-siting our students for the next segment of their learning journey, then will removing PSLE alone solve the problem, or will it concentrate the stakes to an even higher level at the "O" or "A" level stage?
9. If we do not post students to schools appropriate for their learning needs, how will we make the best use of our finite resources, to achieve the best holistic outcomes for different students?
10. If we remove one major exam but our mindsets do not change, will we gain more time and space for the diverse skills sets that we wish for our children?
11. On the other hand, if we can truly change our mindsets to respect and pursue diverse strengths, then do we still need to focus narrowly on having or removing a single exam? In fact, today, we have already assured every of our children that regardless of the outcome in any particular exam, the pathways are porous enough for them to pivot into areas that they find their passion in, subsequently in life. This goes even beyond our school system.
12. If our society recognises and rewards diverse skills sets, will we still pursue a narrow definition of success indicated by a PSLE score?
13. As previously mentioned, the operational issues that we would need to step through are not trivial. Who gets into a through-train programme? Who gets to decide whether a person can stay in a through-train programme. Who gets to go in, who gets to go out?
14. I thank Members for their support for the Ministry's work, but let me say this: No system is perfect in meeting everyone's desires and needs, but we try our best to provide every child with education options that can meet his or her needs.
15. Today, I'd like to share a slogan that is close to my heart – "For Every Child, a Good School; At Every Age, a Good Learner". It means we do not need to go and chase after what other people desire as a popular school, but instead we put our children at the centre of all that we do, and consider our children's need and what is most appropriate for his or her learning needs.
16. This is why we have embarked on multiple pathways of success. This is why we have gone on a porous and continual meritocracy where anyone can pivot and pursue different options as they progress in life without being defined by one high-stake exam. This is why we are reducing exam load with "Learn More, Test Less". This is why we have just announced the change from L1R5 to L1R4.
17. This is also why we group students according to their abilities and interests in different domains, at different stages of their learning journey through Full SBB – so that we do not teach to the child's average ability or a class' average abilities. This is why we continue to have social mixing to bring together children of different backgrounds in the same class, so that they learn to work with people different from them.
18. This is also why we have a more open P1 registration process where we balance the building of school culture and tradition with the egalitarian ethos and culture of being non-exclusive that we so cherish as Singaporeans. This is why we are adopting Edtech to customise teaching and learning, so that we transcend teaching to the average and achieve an effective class size of one – overcoming the conventional public education trilemma of achieving quality, scale and affordability at the same time. I think we can do that because today with the science of learning and the technology and the data that we have, we have the best chance in the history of the education profession to break this trilemma.
19. So Chair, we appreciate that Members have our children's interests at heart, and we will continue we review our policies to better equip our students. I call on Members of this House to join us in this journey, to change our mindsets as we evolve our policies and programmes. I do not believe that we cannot change our mindsets. You read my speech at the MOE, NIE, and IPS Seminar – our society, mindset, our culture has evolved. We can do it, and we need these two to move in tandem – changing structures and processes with the changing of cultures and mindsets.