The Ministry of Education (MOE) reviews the EL syllabus regularly to ensure that it remains relevant to the changing environment and the profile of our learners. The revised GCE ‘O’ and ‘N’ Level examination syllabi are in alignment with the latest teaching syllabus, EL Syllabus 2010, for secondary schools. The language skills and knowledge to be assessed in the revised GCE examinations from 2013 are already in the EL Syllabus 2010, which was phased in at Secondary 1 in 2010.
To support teachers in implementing the new syllabus, MOE has since November 2008 conducted a number of workshops on instructional planning, as well as organised sharing sessions on pedagogy and resources, school visits and other activities.
MOE has also designed teaching and learning resources to show both students and teachers what should be taught and learnt. These materials prepare teachers and students for the range in the types of texts and application of all the language skills, and grammar and vocabulary that will be assessed (including listening, viewing, use of language for impact, speaking and writing with purpose, audience and context in mind).
Parents can support their children’s learning by seeking out opportunities for meaningful interactions with them. For instance, in developing a strong foundation in learning and using the English language, children benefit from reading extensively a wide range of fiction and non-fiction books. They also learn through interaction with others, including talking about what they have just heard, seen or read. Parents could read with their children and engage them in conversations afterwards. They could also use opportunities at home, or during outings with their children, to have conversations where they and their children could exchange views on what they have seen or heard together, and on how they are learning.
MOE will continue to resource and support our English language teachers in delivering the outcomes of the EL Syllabus 2010. We will also continue to work with schools in engaging parents to support their children’s learning.
I APPLAUD the Ministry of Education’s (MOE) motives and courage in changing the English Language O- and N-level examination formats, reported in “MOE revises English Language O and N-level exam formats” (April 19).
I hope the deplorable state of teaching, learning and assessment of the subject in our schools will improve significantly.
Since the changes are significant and will apply from next year, MOE should clarify some critical matters concerning the implementation.
Firstly, to what extent have our teachers been trained to execute the syllabus for the revised exam formats?
They may be unfamiliar with the different genres of the English Language, for example, editing texts for grammatical accuracy, interpreting visual texts in situational writing and note-taking from listening comprehension.
Some teachers do not even seem to possess the rudiments of grammar, such as the eight parts of speech.
I assume that the training programmes to equip teachers ahead of the revised exams would be workshop-styled rather than mere briefings.
The summary writing segment has also been changed significantly from 150 to a mere 80 words.
How has MOE undertaken the phased revision of exam formats?
Secondly, one of the English-language department heads said in the report that “parents play a vital role … by being role models in the use of Standard English”.
So, how are schools reaching out to parents with respect to the revised exams?
And is it fair to expect parents to be role models when some English-language teachers regress into a smattering of Singlish under the guise of being more effective communicators with their students?
Thirdly, as there are changes to the oral communication segment, how are students being prepared to undertake the tasks with confidence, coherence, imagination and insight?
Are they being given experiential opportunities to enhance their competence in this?
The current situation makes it necessary to monitor and track the performance of our teachers in effectively executing the revised exam formats, in keeping with MOE’s intended motive.
There is also a need to ensure a transformation in the mindsets of our teachers, students and parents, to contribute to the overall effectiveness and success of the revised exams.
Only teachers with the passion for and commitment to the English Language would make the enterprise worthwhile.
]]>The Ministry of Education (MOE) aims to develop all our students holistically, whether they are enrolled in the O-Level programme or the IP.
Contrary to Mr Khong’s assertion, not everyone prefers the IP. In 2012, about one-sixth of those who could have qualified for the IP based on their PSLE score eventually chose the O-Level programme instead.
While most students join the IP after the PSLE, every IP school also sets aside places at Secondary 3 for students who are later identified to be suitable for the IP. With the IP expansion, there will be more places across a greater variety of schools to cater to those who wish to enrol in the IP later on.
As we have previously explained, the offer of the IP by traditionally-popular JCs also did not reduce the access of O-Level students. The 5 JCs offering the IP still take in around half of their students at O-Level from secondary schools not offering the IP.
The IP is not a guaranteed ticket to university. A small proportion of students withdraw from the IP each year to pursue other education options for which they are better suited, with support provided by their school.
The vast majority of the students will still continue to progress to our universities through the O-Levels. The O-Level programme provides an excellent foundation for a variety of post-secondary education options, including the Polytechnics. MOE will continue to improve the O-Level programmes across all our schools.
The Ministry of Education’s aim is to provide a holistic education to all our students, centred on the inculcation of values and character. We are glad that many parents and members of the community agree with us about the importance of character and values.
Currently, there is a range of Edusave Awards that recognise outstanding students in each school, such as the Edusave Scholarship. However, these are primarily based on academic achievements. This is why we introduced the Edusave Character Award, and pegged it at the same level as the Edusave Scholarship. The objective is to send a clear and strong signal of the importance that MOE places on character and values, on par with achievements in the academic domain.
The Edusave Character Award will recognise a small number of students in each school who are exemplary in character, and who can inspire others as role models. For instance, these may be students who have shown resilience and have done well despite their difficult circumstances. The monetary award can be used by students for their educational needs, such as books and stationery.
Our school leaders and teachers are very mindful of the need to foster the intrinsic motivation of their students to do good deeds. Indeed, the building of character and inculcation of sound values are part of the important work that our schools do on a daily basis. Many schools have already devised their own ways of recognising good character and exemplary values in their students.
Taken together with other initiatives, such as the reframing of the Community Involvement Programme as “Values in Action” and the integration of Character and Citizenship Education in all aspects of the curriculum, the Edusave Character Award is part of MOE’s on-going effort to provide a more holistic educational experience for all our students.
We will continue to work closely with parents and the community on this journey.
EDUCATION Minister Heng Swee Keat announced a new Edusave award last Thursday – one that he hopes will encourage character building in young Singaporeans. Teachers will nominate students for the annual Edusave Character Awards to be given to those who demonstrate exemplary values and civic responsibility through their behaviour and actions.
Each year, up to 10,000 students are expected to win the award which comes with a cash sum of $200 to $500.
Mr Heng announced that the ministry will also increase the value and double the number of Eagles awards. These are given to those who display leadership or excel in non–academic work, such as in co–curricular activities. About 17,000 students receive the award now. The sums will be raised: from $150 and $200 to sums between $250 and $500, for primary pupils all the way to Institute of Technical Education students.
Like most people who have commented on the initiatives, I welcome the Eagles award for recognising students who excel in the non–academic areas.
I also welcome the principle behind the new character education awards, as this allows schools to recognise exemplary behaviour and hold up role models. As an Education Ministry spokesman said: ‘Similar to the other Edusave awards, the monetary award serves as encouragement but is not meant to reduce character and values to a dollar figure.’
But having a cash amount for such an award may inadvertently end up doing exactly that – raising a citizen who expects cash for good behaviour. It sends all the wrong signals.
First, cash rewards turn good behaviour into work. It sends the message that if they are paid for it, then it must be work. Students may also conclude that showing kindness must be difficult or noteworthy, as they are rewarded for it.
A school principal related the instances of good behaviour for which some of her students were rewarded with book vouchers. One student was rewarded for helping an old lady cross the road. Another, for helping a classmate on crutches.
‘Aren’t these acts of kindness something that should come naturally to all your students? Why the need to reward them with vouchers?’ I asked her.
I hope the character education awards given out to students will not be for acts such as returning money found in the school field or helping a disabled classmate. I was brought up to believe that helping others was my duty – and would be loath to have a new generation taught that helping others deserves a cash award.
Giving money to students for character and good behaviour also creates in students a sense of entitlement: They may come to expect to be paid for doing something they should already be doing. It could lead them to expect rewards and recognition when they follow school rules or don’t talk in class.
Worst of all, cash rewards cheapen the intrinsic motivation to do good. Good behaviour carries its own reward because it offers students self–respect, confidence, and the feeling of being part of a class grouping or school body that needs and appreciates them.
Rather than resort to giving money, schools and parents can be a little more creative in coming up with ways to reward exemplary behaviour.
Most psychologists and parenting experts would agree that giving recognition encourages desirable behaviour.
Schools and parents can capitalise on young people’s natural desire to be praised and get recognition, by highlighting exemplary deeds in class or in the community, and holding up such students as role models to their peers.
A very simple device for teachers is to write a note home, as my primary school teacher used to do. If I performed a good deed, my teacher would note my good behaviour in a ‘character report card’, to take home to my parents. The teacher would write down in detail what I did and attach a gold star to it.
I still remember how thrilled I was to receive one of these notes for helping a classmate in composition writing.
There was the initial presentation of the note in class, which brought applause and appreciation from my classmates. Psychologists will say that the use of such group rituals is a very good way of recognising and rewarding desirable behaviour.
A second round of positive stroking came when I went home and showed my parents the note. And because it was displayed on the dining table, I received further praise and reinforcement when friends and relatives visited my home.
Buoyed by that experience, I started offering free English tuition to my classmate and her two siblings regularly.
It was a simple note, but one that had real value that lasted. I suspect the feeling would have been different if I had been given money or a book voucher.
Cash is not always the best way to recognise students for their efforts.
As it is, many schools already have simple, effective ways to promote good, kindly behaviour – such as awarding students collar pins and certificates.
Some school heads have said they intend to keep their school–based awards that recognise character and good behaviour, and make the Edusave cash awards the pinnacle awards. This is wise.
I would go even further. I would prefer the ministry to keep its cash awards and come up with other more meaningful ways to recognise good values. For a start, they can encourage schools to come up with school–level awards and fund programmes that do this.
And for the Ministry of Education (MOE)–level Edusave Character Awards, a trophy or medal might suffice. It could be presented at an annual ceremony, perhaps with a video or a booklet that documents some noteworthy acts of character or that shares inspiring stories of students’ good or brave deeds.
There is no shortage of creative ways to recognise character and promote the inculcation of good values in schools.
A cash cheque is not the best option.
]]>Sexuality Education is taught through the formal curriculum in schools viz Science, Health Education, Civics and Moral Education and the Character and Citizenship Education modules, and the Growing Years (GY) and Breaking Down Barriers (BDB) programmes. It focuses on the development of adolescents’ values, social and emotional competencies required to make responsible decisions regarding sexual behaviours and to build rewarding relationships based on love and respect which are the foundation for strong families. The curriculum aims to meet students’ total developmental needs and spans Lower Primary to Junior College (JC)/ Centralised Institute (CI) levels.
At the Primary level, topics include managing changes due to puberty, differentiating between love and infatuation, and exercising safety when using the Internet. In particular, topics on building a healthy body image and self-esteem, and protection against sexual abuse are introduced at the Lower Primary level through Health Education. At the Secondary/JC/CI/ level, the topic of building healthy relationships based on love and respect is further explored with topics such as dating and marriage, consequences of pre-marital sex and influences of the media.
MOE promotes abstinence as the best option for teens. Students are also taught skills such as decision-making, assertiveness and negotiation to say no. However teens are now exposed to and have increased access to a myriad of information though the mass media. Therefore, beyond teaching skills on how to say no, it is important for them to receive accurate information on STIs/HIV, their repercussions, and how to protect themselves from a health perspective.
MOE recognises that issues of sexuality involve value judgments and that parents are ultimately responsible for the health and moral values of their children. The sexuality education programme in schools is meant to complement the primary role that parents play in the character building and fostering of values for their children. Thus, parents have the choice to opt their children out of the school’s sexuality education programme.
MOE and HPB will continue to monitor the Sexuality Education programme to ensure that it remains relevant and addresses emerging trends.
I SUPPORT the call to start sexuality education in schools earlier (‘Counsellors call for sex education revamp’; Wednesday).
The current conservative view that ‘promotes abstinence as the best option for teens’ is untenable and unrealistic.
The article cited the recent Bayer HealthCare survey here that ‘a third of Singaporeans polled said that they had been given the wrong information on contraception’.
There is a pressing need to arrest the alarming number of molestation cases, the increasing rate of unwanted teenage pregnancies and the rising trend of dangerous HIV infections.
A revamp of sex education towards comprehensive sexuality education is the remedy as promoted in other countries.
Sexuality education includes the teaching of abstinence and that is obvious. But abstinence alone is not enough.
If one does not drive, one cannot cause road accidents. People do drive and people do engage in sex. So, we impose the legal age of consent and teach young people of the risks and consequences of sexual activity.
As abstinence has thus far failed to achieve satisfactory results, there is an urgent need to communicate proper contraceptive methods.
Teaching abstinence must be complemented by the teaching of contraception. It calls for greater understanding of sex and a responsible attitude towards sexual activity.
While parents have the primary responsibility to provide information about sex, not many of them are comfortable with teaching their own children; parents tend to harbour traditional views of sex.
It is within our schools that we can hope for sound sexuality education at this time. I hope the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health will employ the best practices of comprehensive sexuality education, benefiting from the study of other societies around the world.
WE SHOULD not give teenagers the impression that as they may end up having sex, they should be provided with information on contraception to protect themselves better (‘Start sex education earlier’ by Mr Yap Kim Hao; last Saturday).
We should tell them to restrain themselves and avoid situations which tempt them to do so.
Otherwise, the high incidence of sex crimes, sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies will continue.
Abstinence remains the best protection against the consequences of premarital sex which has spiked not because of a lack of information on contraception, which is easily accessible online.
Our teens should not have to end up with sex-related diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
They do because the message these days is that they are wired for sex and contraception will help them solve the problem.
Premarital sex is not shunned as it used to be and any advocate of abstinence is seen as intolerant, old-school or ignorant of biology.
We should focus our efforts on intensifying the fight against premarital sex and we should have faith in the ability of teenagers.
We should not opt for arguably practical answers rather than permanent solutions.
Contraceptive information is useful for family planning but the point of any sex education programme ought to be abstinence and responsible sex within marriage.
MOE’s Sexuality Education programme aims to help our young understand the physiological, social and emotional changes they experience as they mature, develop healthy relationships with the opposite sex and to teach them how to make responsible choices. It is taught in the context of values which our mainstream society believes—the importance of the heterosexual married family as the basic unit of society, and respect for the values and beliefs of the different ethnic and religious communities on sexuality issues.
MOE promotes abstinence as the best option for teens but recognises that beyond knowing how to say no, students must also be taught the consequences of contracting STIs/HIV and various ways to prevent them. In addition, skills such as decision-making, assertiveness and negotiation are also taught to Secondary 3 and JC/CI1 students.
MOE undertakes periodic reviews of all its programmes. It is currently reviewing its Sexuality Education (SEd) programme. This is to ensure that the programme remains relevant and addresses emerging trends. The review is done in consultation with various stakeholders such as parents, school personnel, students, health professionals and religious leaders, and takes into consideration the sensitivities of our multi-racial and multi-religious society. While the presentation of information will be fine-tuned, the core messages remain relevant and will be retained. Schools will be briefed on the revised programme in 2012.
MOE recognises that issues of sexuality involve value judgments and that parents are ultimately responsible for the health and moral values of their children. The sexuality education programme in schools is meant to complement the primary role that parents play in the character building and fostering of values for their children. Thus, parents have the choice to opt their children out of the school’s sexuality education programme.
MOE and the Health Promotion Board will continue to monitor and evaluate the programme after it has been rolled out to schools.
I refer to your article, “Abstinence over contraception?” (The New Paper, Dec 26).
I wish to express my disappointment over the Ministry of Education’s decision to emphasise abstinence over contraception in their sex education classes in view of criticism from members of the Catholic community.
It’s naive to think that preaching abstinence is the way to keep the number of teenage pregnancies down.
A 2011 study by researchers at the University of Georgia—of teen pregnancy and birth data from 48 US states—bears this out.
The study, the first large-scale one of its kind, found that the states that prescribe abstinence-only sex education programmes in public schools have “significantly higher teenage pregnancy and birth rates than states with more comprehensive sex education programmes.”
Science Daily online reported the study on Nov 29.
Although I’m single, I would want my younger siblings and cousins to have a sex-positive sex education.
My vague memories of sex education in secondary school involved lots of horrifying pictures of sexually transmitted diseases and scary-looking contraceptives.
We certainly weren’t taught about consent, masturbation, the different types of sexual expression, and other aspects of sex, which form a well-rounded sex education.
My peers and I had to turn to the Internet and each other for advice and guidance—certainly not the most accurate channels of information.
I’m not against abstinence—that’s a lifestyle choice for some to make. But I’m strongly against placing one lifestyle choice over another in what’s supposed to be a secular education system.
We should give equal weightage to the different options, present the students with the pros and cons, and allow them to make their own decisions.
Singapore is a secular state, and to preserve harmony between the different races and religions, it should remain so, even in sexuality education programmes.
I refer to the letter by Miss Vanessa Tai, “Abstinence isn’t the only option” (The New Paper, Dec 30), a response to the article, “Abstinence over contraception?” (The New Paper, Dec 26).
Miss Tai’s letter was quite well-thought.
Unfortunately, she decided to end her letter by bringing in religious beliefs: “Singapore is a secular state, and to preserve harmony between the different races and religions, it should remain so, even in sexuality education programmes.”
While it is true many religions preach abstinence, I doubt this is the direction tha the Ministry of Education is working towards.
I prefer to see it this way: Abstinence is the proven method to assure a person will not conceive or become infected by a sexually transmitted disease (STD).
There is no other fail-safe way to guarantee against pregnancy or STDs with other forms of contraception.
Abstinence should not be linked as a religion-based solution.
ACCORDING to a recent news report, the Ministry of Education has drafted a revised Sexuality Education Programme to boost emphasis on abstinence relative to contraception.
While the MOE said the revision is to “ensure that it is updated and relevant” to students, I worry if, in effect, the programme will be diluted to make it more palatable for some.
I speak as the only sexuality educator in Singapore certified by the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists and the American College of Sexologists.
I have worked with many individuals and couples who lamented that their sexual lives would have been more positive if they had received comprehensive sexuality education, that is, accurate, fact-based and non-judgmental information.
While it is true that abstinence is the only foolproof way to avoid pregnancy or a sexually transmitted infection (STI), how likely is it that our youth who are delaying marriage for their studies and career advancement will all abstain until marriage?
At what point are they entitled to receive comprehensive sexuality education and from where?
Contrary to what the public seems to believe, sexuality education is not just about the physical act or safer sex practices.
A big part of it constitutes relationship with self and others: Love and commitment, marriage and partnership, the importance of self-esteem and communication skills in a relationship, relevant laws as well as the religious and cultural views on the issue.
There is also sexual development and reproduction, HIV/STIs and safer sex practices as well as contraception and birth control. Hence, comprehensive sexuality education, in effect, equips our future generation for a successful adult life.
There must be a differentiation between our personal values and religious beliefs, which form our individual choices, and what the State ought to do right by its people.
National educational programmes should not be dictated by which communities are the most vocal. Sexuality education does not promote promiscuous sexual behaviour but, rather, teaches youth to make better choices for themselves.
We are doing our future generation a great disservice if we do not equip them to navigate the complexities of an adult world.
Popular schools and junior colleges have always seen more applicants than places, resulting in higher cut-off points (COP). For example, before the IP started in 2004, the COP for Raffles Institution (RI) was around 260, similar to what it is currently.
MOE has expanded the enrolment of the JCs offering IP. The number of students entering these JCs from secondary schools not offering IP has increased from some 2,100 previously to over 2,300 today. These students make up around 50 per cent of the cohort in the JCs offering IP, comparable to the proportion before IP started.
The commentary, ‘The runaway IP train’ (14 Dec), noted that only some 500 places were set aside for O-level students entering Hwa Chong Institution (HCI) and RI at JC1. We would like to point out that prior to IP, only 400 of HCI and RI’s students (at JC1) hailed from schools not offering the IP today.
There is now greater diversity in the JCs offering IP, as they are accepting O-level students from more secondary schools. Their students used to come from some 50 schools but now almost 70 schools are represented. This is partly because students from other IP schools no longer compete for admission at JC1.
Ultimately, we strive to maximise each child’s potential, regardless of which school he or she attends. The IP should not be seen as the only pathway to success. For the majority of our students, the O-level pathway will continue to be the most suitable preparation for post-secondary education.
It is time to pull back on Integrated Programme and restore O levels for majority of students.
NINE-YEAR-OLD Ian Lim spends three evenings a week with a private tutor on mathematics, English and Chinese. Next year, when he enters Primary 4, he will spend four evenings a week, including his Saturdays, on tuition.
His manager father and housewife mum admit that their son is stressed out from all the studying. They know the $1,100 spent on providing tuition for him is a lot of money.
Not that Ian is at risk of failing. He is already top of his class. His parents just want him to score good enough grades at the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) to get into an Integrated Programme (IP), preferably at Raffles Institution, where the cut-off point for admission is above 260. If he does not get into an IP school, where he is assured of a place in a junior college, they fear he would have scant chance of getting into a good junior college for his A levels.
The Lims are typical of an increasing number of parents piling the pressure on their young children early, in the hopes of getting them into the elite IP programme.
Their concern is that their children cannot get a place in a premier secondary school or junior college because many top institutions now reserve the bulk of their places for students in the IP.
The IP started in 2004 at eight schools, including the Raffles and Hwa Chong family of schools. It was targeted at the top 10 per cent of the PSLE cohort, who were clearly university-bound.
The idea was to allow these students to skip the O levels and go straight to the A levels or International Baccalaureate (IB). This way, their learning would not be stifled by having to prepare for two major examinations in six years. Instead, the seamless secondary and junior college education would develop their intellectual curiosity and other talents.
The IP — called the ‘through-train’ programme for skipping the O levels — became so popular that pupils and parents clamoured to get on board. More schools responded by offering the IP.
By 2013, 18 — or just about all the premier secondary schools and junior colleges — will be offering the programme.
This has created a fear among parents that there will be even fewer places in top junior colleges for those not in the IP, who hope to get in after the O levels.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) has assured parents repeatedly that the IP junior colleges are offering just as many places as before to those coming in via the O-level route. But in the absence of hard numbers, parents have resorted to doing their own checks, and cite figures to explain why they worry.
Hwa Chong Institution and Raffles Institution, for example, each give out only 250 places a year to those from the non-IP track. The remainder of the 1,200 places at each of these two colleges go to the IP students from their own institutions.
The through-train that started out as a niche programme for a small elite group risks becoming a runaway train. Some fixes are needed to reduce undue pressure on students racing to be admitted to the IP at Secondary 1.
Right now, students can be admitted into the IP at Secondary 1, Secondary 3 and JC1 after the O levels. MOE can ensure that there are multiple entry points into IP schools, and that a good number of places are given out at each level.
Another simple fix is for schools and MOE to release admission figures.
Schools should make public their admission figures to the IP, giving the number of students who enter at Secondary 1, Secondary 3 and at JC1 after the O levels. This gives parents the assurance that their students can get another chance if they fail to do so at Secondary 1.
Schools should also publish data comparing the performance of their IP students to those who join them after the O levels. The two top junior colleges, Raffles Institution and Hwa Chong Institution, say the performance of students who joined them at JC1 is on a par with those who were on their IP track earlier.
On a more macro level, MOE should consider whether it is good for the education system as a whole if so many top secondary schools should convert to the IP. Some parents and alumni of IP schools have already questioned this.
One of them is an old girl of the popular Singapore Chinese Girls’ School (SCGS). She remembers that the school principal then, Ms Rosalind Heng, steadfastly stood by the tried and tested O-level route. When other top schools were debating whether to offer the IP through-train, Ms Heng said that SCGS prepared its students well for the O levels, and it was going to continue that tradition.
But SCGS is among the latest list of schools to announce that it will offer the IP. Laments the SCGS alumna, a mother of two who went on to the elite Raffles JC: ‘What is wrong with the O levels? Is there no value in it anymore? It prepared me well for the A levels.’
Another issue to consider is whether more schools which offer the IP can do so in parallel with the O levels. After all, some students even at top schools benefit from the more structured O-level track. And there is a small number who fail to get an A-level certificate or IB diploma after six years in the IP.
Without O levels, their highest formal qualification is only their PSLE certificate. There may thus be benefits for schools to retain the O levels and allow students to switch tracks from the IP to the O levels.
Students who entered the IP schools with their O levels and aced the A levels do not regret having sat for the O levels. They say the examination was good practice for the A levels.
The Integrated Programme began as a niche programme for very bright children expected to make it to university, who thus do not have to sit for the O-level sorting examination. But with so many schools jumping on board, is it becoming a default programme, resulting in parents pushing their average kids to get in?
Seven years on, it is time to review the IP experiment and consider the effects it is having on students and parents’ behaviour. It might be time to put the brakes on the IP and return it to its original purpose — a programme for a very small minority — and restore the place of the O levels for the rest.
]]>While more can always be done, there are in fact a number of initiatives put in place in recent years. A good partnership exists between government agencies, voluntary welfare organisations and the community to support students with special needs. This is essential as the special needs go beyond educational provisions. Today, a multi-pronged approach is in place to support students with physical impairments and sensory disabilities in mainstream schools and post-secondary education institutions (PSEIs).
MOE partners Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) to provide specialised educational services for these children. For example, MOE provides grants to the Asian Women Welfare Association and Singapore Association for the Deaf (SADeaf) for school-based itinerant support for students with physical and sensory disabilities in the mainstream schools. The support provided through these VWOs include conducting training for teachers and school staff, conducting awareness talks for peers and providing advice on accessibility issues in schools. In consultation with schools and MOE psychologists, VWOs also assess students’ learning needs and recommend appropriate provisions for the student.
The PSEIs have a variety of teaching and learning provisions to support students with special needs, including formal assignment of seats for students, bigger computer monitors, student buddy and personal mentor systems. Academic staff are informed of their special needs beforehand so that they can provide additional teaching support, such as providing extra notes, remedial lessons and extra time for assignments. Provisions are also made during examinations, including making larger prints and allowing extra candidature time. Learning technologies are also deployed at the PSEIs where practical and viable.
In terms of access facilities, the PSEIs have embarked on such efforts. All ITE Colleges are wheelchair-bound friendly, with easy access to facilities via ramps and handicapped-friendly lifts. In line with Mrs Chang’s suggestion, ITE will also develop mobility maps by the end of this year. Newer PSEIs, such as Republic Polytechnic and Singapore Management University, are barrier-free, while older polytechnics and universities are improving barrier-free access with refurbishments and directional signages.
All primary and secondary schools are also equipped with basic handicapped facilities, which include handicap toilets and ramps for the wheel-chair bound at the first level. There are 38 primary schools and 30 secondary schools with full handicapped facilities. These schools are spread out across the island so that students with physical disabilities are able to access them easily.
We agree that teachers play an important role in providing appropriate support to students with special needs. Since 2005, the Ministry of Education (MOE) requires all beginning teachers in mainstream schools to undergo a pre-service Special Needs module at the National Institute of Education (NIE). This enables them to develop a basic understanding of students with special needs. NIE also offers a training programme to equip teachers with more advanced skills in supporting students with special needs. All primary and secondary schools have teachers who have undergone this programme.
Eight secondary schools have been provided with specially-trained teachers to support students with visual or hearing impairment. In addition, all primary schools and 51 secondary schools are supported by Allied Educators (AEDs) trained in Learning and Behavioural Support. They work closely with the teachers to provide learning support to students with mild special needs.
At the PSEIs, students with special needs may approach the student care or service centres which provide additional interventions and counselling services, for assistance.
We thank Mrs Chang and Mr Bohan for their feedback. MOE will continue to work with our educational institutions and partners to provide a conducive learning environment and educational support to students with special needs.
THE Disabled People’s Association supports Member of Parliament Denise Phua in her advocacy of the cause of people with disabilities and her proposal for free signing/interpreting services in tertiary institutes.
The Education Ministry’s response was that “Assistance for hearing-impaired students not lacking” (Nov 23).
As a former chairperson of a support group for parents with hearing-impaired children, I propose that better systems be put in place to help these students, beyond relying on peer support.
While trying to enrol my own son in a primary school close to home, I was rebuffed by its principal, who cited a lack of resources.
As commonly experienced by hearing-impaired pupils in mainstream schools, my son had to contend later with classmates pulling off his hearing aids and with acoustically poor classrooms and auditoriums.
There was little peer support, although there was a particular teacher (his Primary 1 form teacher) who cared enough to ensure the safekeeping of his hearing aids before swimming lessons.
Current systems are insufficient to alleviate the struggles of pupils with hearing loss and/or other disabilities, who are further stigmatised by the annotations on their certificates for extra time given during national school examinations.
Some teachers are unwilling to use the frequency modulation (FM) system, which transmits directly to the hearing aids, even when it is supplied by the pupils.
Hearing-impaired pupils get punished unreasonably when they do not follow instructions that they did not hear.
Visually-handicapped pupils have to rely not only on compassionate peers to be their readers or guides to get around but also on teachers’ goodwill to allow recording of lectures.
Wheelchair users must plan their route in advance to get around the undulating terrains of local universities.
Beyond the few teaching staff who walk the second mile for students with disabilities, it would be better to have a formalised support system.
For hearing-impaired students, for example, teachers should use the FM system if provided, assign them seats that maximise visual cues, issue them lesson handouts prior to class, etc.
All educational institutions should provide mobility maps with routes for wheelchair access, if they have yet to retrofit their premises with ramps or elevators.
As a former tutor at a local university, I tried in vain to get it to close a gap across a small drain for a student wheelchair user, for seamless access to a lecture theatre.
Without a disability office to oversee the welfare of students with disabilities, there will be lapses, such as having no accessible toilet at the biggest campus eatery in a local polytechnic, whose only accessible toilet at its alumni premises is also locked up as a storeroom.
The Code on Barrier-Free Accessibility in Buildings 1990 did not help in these instances.
In the absence of a disability legislation like the Americans have (which provides hearing-impaired students with note-taking or interpretation services), students with disabilities can indeed do with greater systemic support beyond the current structures.
I support the suggestions in the letter “Do more to help the disabled” (Nov 26). It is time that the Education Ministry reviews its systems to better support the learning needs of less able pupils in mainstream schools.
To have a sensory impairment while attending mainstream school is to be in a unique, yet empowering position. As a clinician providing vision rehabilitation to the visually-impaired, I would suggest some ways to structure the current systems.
First, the systems need to establish seamless communication between healthcare professionals, educators, support workers and other service providers, within an inter-disciplinary setting.
By gaining professional opinions from various experts, additional gaps could be identified and more focused support could be provided to less able pupils, to maximise their learning experience.
Further, the identification of less able pupils needs to be followed-up with comprehensive educational and functional assessments to determine their abilities.
This would allow schools to acquire and provide resources and specific interventions to support their day-to-day learning.
For instance, an assessment could be conducted for a visually-impaired pupil to ascertain his or her optimal learning modality, that is, either through Braille (tactile) or large prints (visual).
Second, the systems need to support schools. Teachers and pupils in schools with less able students need to be educated on the various sensory disabilities.
This would provide them with a better understanding of specific conditions, their effects and limitations, and how to provide help when required.
For instance, teachers and pupils could be trained in sighted guide techniques if there is a visually-impaired student in the school.
Allied educators could be trained to provide more focussed support to pupils with a specific disability, such as vision or hearing impairment.
This support could include facilitating the use of assistive devices during classroom learning and establishing frequent communication between teachers and parents on the children’s performance.
Last, the systems need to look into the socio-emotional aspects of less able pupils. This would allow them to develop effective interpersonal skills, confidence and self-efficacy when they enter adulthood and working life.
They need to feel comfortable and confident when discussing their conditions and abilities with others. This could be achieved through separate classroom activities with structured experiential learning.
Such activities would also allow other pupils to acquire empathic, helping skills when attending to someone who is less able.
These are some ways that could make the learning experience of less able pupils in mainstream schools less stressful, more enriching and socio-emotionally rewarding.
MOE is committed to providing multiple pathways in our education system to cater to the varied strengths of our students.
The IP is one such pathway that caters to academically strong students, with the aim of exposing them to broader learning experiences beyond the academic curriculum. Likewise, the ‘O’ Level pathway caters to students who would benefit from a more structured learning environment, providing a strong foundation for a variety of post-secondary education options.
Mr Lee had concerns about the increased pressure on students to do well at the PSLE in order to be admitted into the IP, or be denied entry into the top JCs. We would like to assure Mr Lee and all parents that even as the number of IP places is being expanded, every IP school sets aside places for students from other secondary schools to join the IP at Secondary 3.
MOE has also expanded the total enrolment for JCs offering IP so that O’ Level students from other secondary schools have access to these JCs. JCs offering the IP now have more students from secondary schools not offering the IP than before the IP was introduced. Their students are also coming from a larger number of secondary schools than before.
MOE strives to provide more options for our students at different stages of education. In making a choice between different pathways, parents should take cognisance of their child’s academic ability, interests and learning style, and choose what is most appropriate. Bridges and ladders are available, so that there are no dead ends. Our universities admit students from the IP schools, JCs not offering the IP, Millennia Institute and the polytechnics.
THE Integrated Programme (IP) does have the benefit of allowing students to spend more time in other areas of study for a more holistic and all-rounded education (‘More schools to offer Integrated Programme’; last Saturday).
But such a trend has implications which I hope the Ministry of Education (MOE) has considered.
First, it creates different classes of schools — the mainstream and the IP schools. The trend of better schools adopting the through-train programme is worrying because it creates an elite society in the education system.
With streaming into IP schools beginning as early as Primary 6, it will only exacerbate the problem of our children being put through tuition lessons and supplementary classes at a young age as parents seek to push their children into the IP, which would almost guarantee them a place in the university.
Second, there is the larger question of mobility in the education system, given the increase in competition for places in junior colleges.This might further motivate students from mainstream schools to work harder to gain admission into better junior colleges.
On the other hand, such increased ‘barriers of entry’ into a JC could also discourage students in neighbourhood schools from striving to enter a junior college, given the higher odds they now face and with the bulk of the spots taken up by IP students.
The benefits of the Integrated Programme are many. But in grooming this select group, we should not ignore the implications on the broader group of students and late bloomers who might be equally talented but are discouraged by the trend.
]]>When a TB case is detected in a school, the TBCU will work with the school to inform teachers, students and parents of students who were in close contact with the affected student to carry out contact investigations.
This process identifies close contacts who might have been exposed to TB and offers them preventive treatment. It is important to note that TB is spread via close and prolonged contact.
We would like to assure Mr See and parents that the health authorities and schools have established effective procedures to manage TB cases. An affected school would work closely with TBCU and MOH on the contact tracing and screening procedures, as well as preventive measures. The school would also step up its vigilance and encourage students to seek medical attention if they are unwell.
Despite our proximity and open borders with countries with high incidence of TB, Singapore has one of the lowest TB incidence rates in Asia. However, as TB is in the community, TB cases will surface in schools and other institutions from time to time. Incidentally, only a very small proportion of TB cases occur in children — the incidence rate of TB among children in schools (aged 15 and below) is also much lower than the overall incidence rate. Last year, the TB incidence rate for children aged 5 to 9 years was 2.3 per 100,000 and for children aged 10 to 14 years was 2.0 per 100,000 compared to the overall rate of 39.2 per 100,000 population.
TB is a curable disease. Early detection and full compliance to treatment remain the key to a successful TB control programme. Patients generally become non-infectious after the first two weeks of treatment and there is thus no risk to the community when they return to work/school after this period. However, for complete cure, patients will need to adhere to the full treatment course, which involves taking several anti-TB drugs for at least six months. The support and encouragement from family members and employers will go a long way in ensuring that patients adhere to treatment.
The national TB control programme was strengthened in 1997 with the launch of the Singapore TB Elimination Programme to better control and manage the disease. The MOH regularly reviews the effectiveness of our TB control programme and will implement enhancements from time to time.
No room for complacency in fight against tuberculosis (See Leong Kit, Today, 3/11, p20)
Be fully transparent in fight against TB (David L K See, TNP, 9/11, p21)
PARENTS whose children study in Bedok Town Secondary School may understandably be angry to learn recently of three pupils being diagnosed with tuberculosis (TB) from a newspaper report and not through an official Ministry of Health announcement.
The performance of both the infected pupils and other anxious pupils at their O-Level examinations may be adversely affected.
This is just the tip of the iceberg for a disease once thought eradicated. Multidrug-Resistant TB and Extensively Drug-Resistant TB are worryingly on the rise worldwide. Both are difficult to treat.
The World Health Organization has indicated that China, India, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam are hotbeds of TB infection.
Many of our immigrants, migrant workers and domestic maids come from these countries.
Over the past 20 years, an annual average of 1,500 new cases of TB have been detected among Singaporeans and permanent residents. Foreigners accounted for 550 cases last year.
Even more worrying is the increase in the number of TB patients here who fail to complete their treatment, reported in 2009. This could lead to a further spread of TB and the rise of drug-resistant strains.
TB is a highly contagious, airborne disease that can be easily contracted in crowded places. While the bacteria infects mostly the lungs, it can spread to other organs. TB has now afflicted younger Singaporeans and not just the elderly.
MOH statistics last year showed that there were 153 Singapore-born TB victims under the age of 30, of which 12 were under the age of 10. The writing is on the wall.
In 2005, the public were mostly unaware of two TB incidents in schools. In one case, a primary school teacher with a persistent cough was diagnosed with TB. Of the 38 pupils and 12 teachers sent for screening, five pupils and three teachers were found to have picked up the TB bacteria.
In the other case, a Chinese national secondary student was found to have TB. Of the 70 students and 10 teachers screened, five were found to be infected.
Singapore, as a tiny, densely-populated island with a hot, humid climate, is particularly vulnerable to the spread of infectious diseases, such as TB, SARS, H1N1 and avian flu.
Our fight against public health threats must lie in constant vigilance, pro-active preventive measures and a fully transparent approach to pre-empt panic in any outbreak.
Concerned Singaporeans expect the MOH to issue an overdue and credible public assurance, backed by full facts and figures, on the latest school incidents.
]]>We have a stringent selection process, which includes screening against criminal records and a panel interview with experienced senior educators.
This helps to ensure that candidates who possess the right character, aptitude and abilities to teach and develop our students are recruited as teachers.
While MOE takes steps to screen out unsuitable applicants at every stage of the recruitment and training process, no system can be completely foolproof.
We continually refine the selection process to ensure that only suitable candidates with the desired values, qualities and competencies are selected to be teachers. For example, we recently tightened our scholar selection process by seeking additional input from each candidate’s school on whether there are concerns which may affect their suitability as a teacher.
Once teachers enter the service, we have in place several platforms to share with them the values and beliefs that define the profession, and to emphasise the teaching fraternity’s high expectations of teachers’ conduct.
The teaching fraternity recently crystallised these expectations into the Teachers’ Creed, to better induct new teachers and reinforce the professional ethos of the service.
Our selection and training processes reinforce a professional ethos, which ensures that the vast majority of teachers uphold professional standards.
The small minority of teachers who fail to comply with standards of professional conduct and discipline are subject to disciplinary action. In serious cases, they may be dismissed from the service.
WHILE I am heartened by the Ministry of Education’s (MOE) plan to introduce character building in school (’Schools to stress values and character-building’; Sept 23), I am concerned by recent reports about errant teachers caught in relationships with their charges and for unethical behaviour.
As a father of two daughters, I am perturbed by the seeming increase of teachers, principals and students on MOE scholarships caught for sex offences or child pornography.
It appears that there are teachers with questionable values in our midst, who themselves require character building.
Does MOE screen potential scholars and teachers psychologically and have a programme to instil values and character in teachers, underscoring the nobility of their jobs?
More importantly, does MOE have a screening system that allows candidates to declare voluntarily whether they have fulfilled the fundamental expectations of their profession—along the lines of the annual declaration by civil servants that they are not in debt?
The declaration will serve as a reminder, allow the rehabilitation of offenders and prevent further abuse of impressionable young minds under their charges.
Building character in children requires good teachers who must serve as—and deserve to be—role models.
I was aghast and disappointed to read of yet another teacher being accused of inappropriate conduct (‘Ex-teacher faces 18 charges of having sex with student’; last Saturday). There should not be any excuse for inappropriate behaviour by teachers. All students must be protected in school and it starts with having trusted and respectable teachers. What are the steps taken by the Ministry of Education to ensure the integrity of the teaching profession? Is there an established code of conduct and ethics? As part of their training, is there emphasis on the appropriate behaviour expected of teachers? How are teachers reminded of their commitment to the integrity of the profession?
MOE values all teachers for their service and contributions. We appreciate and recognise Mr Tang’s many dedicated years of service in the teaching service. Mr Tang retired from the permanent teaching service with effect from 1 Jul 2000 and was re-employed on contract service from 3 Jul 2000 to 31 Dec 2001. We acknowledge that there was indeed a delay in the payment of his pro-rated year-end bonus for his permanent service for the period of Jan to Jun 2000 prior to his retirement. While this should have been paid in Dec 2000, it was only paid to him in May 2001. We apologise to Mr Tang for the delay.
With regards to Mr Tang’s year-end bonus due to his contract service from Jul to Dec 2000, we regret that we were unable to grant him this bonus as he had resigned before fulfilling the qualifying period for receiving the year-end bonus. We note his feedback that he was advised incorrectly. As this case happened 10 years ago, we would like to meet up with Mr Tang personally to review the case as our available records do not provide adequate evidence for us to grant him the year-end bonus for his contract service. We seek Mr Tang’s understanding that as this case concerns the disbursement of public monies, we must be careful to ensure that an officer is eligible before any payment can be made.
We are making the necessary arrangements to meet Mr Tang personally to review his appeal.
Good grammar is a cornerstone of English language proficiency and we have always emphasised the teaching of grammar in schools. Since 2001 and in the current 2010 English Language Syllabus, the explicit and structured teaching of grammar has been given renewed emphasis in the curriculum.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) provides teaching resources and in-service courses to support English language teachers in the teaching of grammar. Last year, MOE launched a grammar book, About Grammar, which was co-developed by MOE and the National Institute of Education for our primary school students. It is the first in a series to be published over the next few years to help our students learn grammar in a structured and engaging way.
MOE has also set up the English Language Institute of Singapore (ELIS) to support the wider strategic objective of raising our students’ competency in spoken and written English language. ELIS will build capability in English language instruction through its professional development programmes for teachers. In addition, ELIS will engage experts at home and abroad as partners, to further enhance capability in English language instruction in Singapore. Since 2010, a whole-school approach has been adopted in 40 schools to provide an immersive environment where good English is modelled by all teachers in the school. This approach will be systematically implemented in schools over the next few years.
Our students have made good progress over the years in the learning of English, as shown in their performance in international comparisons of reading literacy. Nevertheless, we agree with Mr Sng that we must continue to improve, so that we can collectively help our children become effective communicators in English. This will serve them well in the global workplace.
]]>The letter “Good English starts at home” (Sept 5) mentions ways in which Singaporeans can better their English. In reality, it will be far from easy.
As children here attend school for at least 40 weeks in a year, it is natural to expect them to pick up good English there. Sadly, many appear to have learnt very little.
If you mingle with school-going children, you may be aware that a grammar item is now taught for a day or two, with few repetitive lessons. In most schools, reliable English textbooks are not used, and only countless teacher-prepared worksheets are given.
In the past, one grammar item was taught for one or two weeks, and each item was systematically scheduled (from the simple to the complex) to be covered in every primary and secondary school level.
Now, anything and everything, regardless of the difficulty level, can be taught quickly every day, according to the whims and fancies of school heads and teachers. For pupils who are weak in English, this fast-paced teaching method is of no use.
In addition, it does not help if such pupils have family members or tutors who do not speak and write good English.
To get everyone to have good English, it is very important that teachers themselves speak and write standard English and that they are able to teach good grammar consistently and correct pupils’ errors religiously.
I have personally seen startling examples of school teachers’ mistakes and misconceptions. Once such mistakes are “taught”, they stick like glue in pupils’ minds for a long time.
I hope the Speak Good English Movement can help teachers with dubious skills in English, for the benefit of the many hapless children they teach.
]]>We recognise that the situation is not ideal for the Hindu candidates and their families. We seek your understanding that the GCE O-Level examination timetable is scheduled with careful considerations, taking into account the challenges and constraints we face.
With more choices and options in our education landscape, our 45,000 O-Level candidates offer some 2,000 subject combinations. With more than 100 examination papers to be scheduled in 18 days, we have tried our best to minimise scheduling conflicts and inconvenience for candidates as far as possible. We also schedule papers with a large number of candidates earlier during the examination period, to give markers sufficient time to complete their task. In this way, the O-Level results can be made known to candidates in late January of the following year. Students can then select their post-secondary options and get themselves ready for the next stage of their education journey.
This year, Deepavali falls on the Wednesday of the week when the papers with large candidatures have to be scheduled. In recognition of the importance of this day to our Hindu students, we chose not to schedule any papers on the eve of Deepavali but were unable to do so for the day after. We have scheduled the Mathematics paper in the afternoon on the day after Deepavali, taking into consideration that Mathematics is comparatively a less content-intensive subject and candidates would have acquired sufficient mastery and practice before the examinations.
The papers scheduled in the first week of the examination timetable are as follows:
Going forward, we will continue to refine our processes and also seek the inputs of the community when we plan the examination timetable.
]]>I would like to draw the attention of the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) to the fact that a core subject in the O-level examination is scheduled for the day after a festive holiday.
The Mathematics paper is on Oct 27 and Deepavali falls on Oct 26.
All students who are celebrating the festival are at a disadvantage, as they will not be able to concentrate fully when preparing for the paper.
Although the paper starts at 2.30pm, it may not be enough to substantiate the rationale of “providing extra time” for preparation. After all, it is a festive season.
Ironically, those who do not celebrate the festival get 1.5 days more preparation time, including the public holiday.
In fact, the same thing happened three years ago. I understand that the SEAB had discussions with the Tamils Representative Council with regard to the concerns raised back then in the newspapers, and assurances were given that this will not be repeated.
Previously, it was the Combined Humanities Paper, which is an elective subject. This year, it is a core subject and affects all who celebrate Deepavali.
I understand that the examination dates are planned jointly between the SEAB and the University of Cambridge International Examinations.
So why is this happening again?
]]>The Government will provide 2,000 more publicly-funded university places by 2015. Mr Law assumed that some of these places would go to foreign students. In fact, all 2,000 places are meant for Singaporeans.
Mr Law asked for the spread of the additional university places across institutions and disciplines. Based on current plans, the Singapore Institute of Technology will increase its annual intake by another 1,000. This caters largely to polytechnic students seeking to upgrade themselves. SIT currently offers a balance of both engineering and non-engineering programmes, and will continue to evolve its mix of offerings to facilitate graduates in their employment.
The other 1,000 places will be spread across the four Autonomous Universities (the National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Management University and Singapore University of Technology and Design), including new institutions within these Universities like the Yale-NUS College and the Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine at NTU. The Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts and the LASALLE College of the Arts will also offer, in partnership with overseas institutions, degree programmes.
MOE has set up a Committee to Review University Education Pathways Beyond 2015 and is studying ways to expand university education pathways to meet the aspirations of students and the evolving needs of the economy.
The Government should elaborate on the promise made by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to increase the number of University places offered to Singaporeans by 2,000, by 2015 (‘2,000 more uni places for local students’; Aug 15).
According to an Aug 16 report, the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) has taken in 1,000 students this year (‘Expand varSITy places, but not at expense of quality’). Also, the Singapore University of Technology and Design will have 500 students in its first batch next year (‘SUTD: Full steam ahead for new uni’; Aug 11).
Does the increase in 2,000 places for citizens include the 1,000 places offered by SIT this year and 500 by SUTD next year? Or would they be in addition to that?
This will determine whether there would actually be a significant increase in the number of University places offered to students by 2015.
Assuming a current foreign student proportion of approximately 20 per cent, 800 and 400 places from SIT and SUTD respectively would be reserved for Singaporeans. These add up to a total of 1,200 places - that is, 60 per cent of the promised increase in University places will already be offered to Singaporeans by next year.
About half of the courses offered by SIT are engineering degrees; moreover, SUTD too has a strong engineering focus.
Therefore, distributing the remaining 800 places evenly among the courses offered by the National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University and Singapore Management University translates into only a slight increase in intake per course. This is not significant and is unlikely to cater to the rising aspirations of students seeking tertiary education in the future. The significant increase in engineering places may also not be in line with the aspirations of today‘s students.
]]>MOE and the Teachers’ Unions have a shared interest in the welfare of our teachers. We value our experienced teachers and their continued contributions upon re-employment. We had discussions and agreed to use the tripartite guidelines on re-employment when implementing the Public Service-wide terms of re-employment in July. We have continued our dialogue on how best to implement the terms of re-employment, to meet the needs of our teachers and schools, while supporting a fair and sustainable approach to re-employment at the national level.
The Teachers’ Unions and MOE agree that re-employment should provide flexibility in terms of job arrangements and salary to meet the needs of our schools as well as the needs of our retiring teachers. In line with the tripartite guidelines on re-employment, wage adjustments can be expected, taking into account reasonable factors such as the job duties of re-employed teachers.
School leaders will meet every retiring teacher to discuss their plans and to identify the most suitable arrangements that meet the need of both the school and the teacher. In cases where retiring teachers assume the same duties upon re-employment and their expertise and contributions match the needs of the school, the tripartite guidelines provide flexibility for MOE to adapt its offers to suit its circumstances, including offering teachers their last drawn salaries where appropriate. Going ahead, MOE, with assistance from the Unions, will be drawing up guidelines for schools regarding the job duties and responsibilities of re-employed teachers. In this way, the basis for a teacher’s job scope during re-employment and the appropriate compensation will be clearer for all parties concerned. Based on the more typical experience of retired teachers, workloads have generally been reduced by 15-20%, due to several re-employed teachers choosing to focus on classroom duties only.
The Teachers’ Unions will continue to work closely with MOE to reflect feedback from our teachers and provide inputs to MOE on how to refine the implementation of the re-employment scheme to better serve teachers and schools.