Report on the Ministry of Education [Goh Keng Swee Report]

Table of contents :
Changes over the last two decades (1-1)......Page 4
Bilingual Education (1-3)......Page 6
Nanyang University (1-4)......Page 7
Attrition Rates (1-5)......Page 8
Fast and Slow Learners (1-6)......Page 9
Problems of Streaming (1-9)......Page 12
Moral Education (1-10)......Page 13
Ministry Administration (1-11)......Page 14
Conclusion (1-14)......Page 17
2.1 Education System in the 60s and early 70s (2-1)......Page 18
3.1 Equal Treatment for All Streams (2-2)......Page 19
3.2 Emphasis on Bilingualism (2-3)......Page 20
3.3 Emphasis on Technical Education (2-5)......Page 22
3.4 Retention and Promotion Policies (2-6)......Page 23
3.5 Proficiency in the English Language (2-8)......Page 25
3.6 Conclusion (2-9)......Page 26
2.2 Statistics on the Flow of Pupils in the Singapore Education System (3-1)......Page 27
2.3.2 Common Examinations for Elementary Education and Junior Secondary Education (3-2)......Page 28
Table 3.1 Attrition Rates at Various Stages of Education in the Five Countries (3-3)......Page 29
2.3.3 Senior Secondary Education (3-4)......Page 30
2.5 Conclusion (3-5)......Page 31
3.2 Literacy Levels of English-educated National Servicemen (3-6)......Page 32
4. Ineffective Bilingualism (3-7)......Page 33
4.3 Effects of Language Exposure Time (LET) On Pupils (3-8)......Page 34
4.4 Conclusion (3-9)......Page 35
5.1 Pupils' Home Background (3-10)......Page 36
5.3.3 Pupil/Teacher Ratio (3-11)......Page 37
6.1 Sample Survey (3-12)......Page 38
6.3 Major Factors Affecting Morale of Teachers (3-13)......Page 39
Promotion Prospects (3-14)......Page 40
6.4 Conclusion (3-16)......Page 42
2.1 A Rigid System (4-1)......Page 43
2.2 Increased Workload for Pupils (4-2)......Page 44
2.3 Promotion and Retention Policy (4-7)......Page 49
2.4 Poor Reading Habits of Pupils (4-8)......Page 50
3.2 Weak and Confusing Directives from the Ministry (4-9)......Page 51
3.4 Emphasis on the English Language (4-10)......Page 52
3.5 Lack Of A Conducive Environment For Learning of Languages (4-11)......Page 53
4. Conclusion (4-12)......Page 54
2. Overall Planning and Leadership (5-1)......Page 55
3.1 Management by Consensus (5-3)......Page 57
3.2 The Committee System (5-4)......Page 58
3.2.2 Dual Loyalties of and Secondary Commitment from Committee Members (5-5)......Page 59
3.2.5 Implementing Decisions Made at Committee Meetings (5-6)......Page 60
3.3 Coordination and Cooperation among the Branches (5-7)......Page 61
4.1 Initiation of Projects (5-8)......Page 62
4.2 Definition of Objectives (5-9)......Page 63
4.5 Criteria for Decision Making (5-10)......Page 64
5.1 Understanding of Objectives of Policies (5-11)......Page 65
5.4 In-depth study of the Implications and Prediction of possible outcomes (5-12)......Page 66
6.1 Informal Feedback (5-13)......Page 67
6.4 Response to Feedback (5-14)......Page 68
6.6 Monitoring and Recognition of Successful Projects (5-15)......Page 69
7.2 Control and Supervision of Schools (5-16)......Page 70
7.3 Basic Course (5-17)......Page 71
Annex 5A. Organisation Chart of the Ministry of Education HQ (as at 29 Aug 78)......Page 72
Annex 5B. Organization Chart of the Ministry of Education HQ (January 1979)......Page 73
Annex 5C. Curriculum Development (5C-1)......Page 74
Appendix A. Curriculum and Textbook Development (5C-A-1)......Page 83
2.1 Language Proficiency (6-1)......Page 86
3.1.1 Primary Schools (6-2)......Page 87
3.1.2 Secondary Schools (6-5)......Page 90
3.1.4 Summary (6-8)......Page 93
Table 6.1 Breakdown of the Suggested Education System by Group (6-9)......Page 94
3.2.2 Accuracy in Streaming (6-10)......Page 95
3.3 Implementation (6-11)......Page 96
4.2 Overall Planning and Feedback (6-12)......Page 97
4.3.2 Project Development and Decision Making (6-13)......Page 98
4.4.1 Roles of the Education Study Team (6-14)......Page 99
4.4.2.1 Expanding the Scope of Resource Planning Branch (6-15)......Page 100
4.4.2.2 Improving Feedback and Monitoring Branch (6-17)......Page 102
4.4.2.3 Improving Research and Evaluation Branch (6-18)......Page 103
4.4.2.4 Assisting Schools Division (6-19)......Page 104
a. Qualifications of Teachers (6-20)......Page 105
d. Briefing Sessions (^-21)......Page 106
Annex 6A. Summary of the Suggested Education System (6A-1)......Page 107
Annex 6B (6B-1)......Page 108
Annex 6C. Suggested Levels of Language Attainment (6C-1)......Page 110
2.2 Normal Bilingual Stream (6C-2)......Page 111
2.3 Ordinary Stream (6C-3)......Page 112

Citation preview

10 Feb 7'I

. * ** * REPORT ON'THE : f* * MINISTRY OF EDUCATION **: : ** ** * ** 1978 ***�*************H-**ff--lH+-**i!-!!-**** �-lr!E-*-H*�*il--lE-�XKKKKKKKKMKKKKM

[P@

Prepared By: Dr Goh Ke� Swee and 'lho Education Study Torun

_\

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF DFFENCE SINGAPORE . 9th FebruQ.I'y, 1979 Prime Minister, In August, 1978, we were asked by you to study problems in the Ministry of Eliuoation. We were appointed. without a:ny terms of reference; nor was any dead.line set for the submission of a report. Even the members�ip of the team remained flexible. Af3 we proceeded with our studies, we acquired new members who we thought could make a contribution. We are therefore not a formal Commission of Inquiry� Nevertheless, :tic·wing completed our studies, we conside� it necessary.to report to you. We construed our mission in the widest terms possible - to iq.entify ·bhe more important problems in the Ministry of Eiucation, and recommend possible solutions. AJ3 none of us possess much knowledge nor any expertise in education we found it necessary to acquire knowledge a.a we proceeded with our stud.y o .we interviewed 18 senior officials of the Ministry of Eliucation and 20 school_principals. In addition we also consulted. or interviewed 225 other officials and teachers. The list of persons who gave, evidence before us is given at Reference List t. In ad.dition, we had access to about 120 s·budies, reports and papers produced by the Ministry of Eliucation. These are listed in Reference

ad hoe studies on various subjects. Fifty-eight such studies were conducted and they are listed in Reference List 3. The approach we take is that of the generalist, and not of the specialist. While we were abl9 to identify most of the major weaknesses of the education system, we are less certain about the solutions in detail. We are theref'ore only able to offer these in broad outline. The implementation of these solutions w ill involve the setting up of a wide range of new curricula and syllabi for the new education structure we are reccmmending. Putting flesh ·to .the bones of the structure is a job for specialists. We believe that

11

..

ant

management system will be able to do the job. Howover, it is a task that will take several years to aocomplisho Sgd Dr Goh Keng Swee (Chairman)

Sgd ••••••••••••••••••••••••• Goh Kim Leong (Secretary)

Sgd Chow Kok Kee*

Sgd ••••••••••••

·······················••&•

o••••••••••••

Low Sin Leng

Sgd

e•••••••••••

Sgd Low Siok Ching

Sgd ••••o ••••o••• Lau Wah Ming*

Sgd •••••••••••••

Sgd Lim Siong Guan*

::igd ............. Tao Yeah Chi

• e ·• • • • • e.e • • • • •

Kang Kok Hin

Tan Song Huat

•••o••••••• .. o:te

[r

[mo

[r@

@ Sgd Wee Hia.n King ••o•o•••••••"

*

Origi:.al Members ·

CHAPTER 1

1\.N OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM

Changes over tho last two decades It has not occurred to r.1nny Singaporeans how unnntural the

present school system is�

Most sohool children are taught in two

langw:ges - English nnd Mandarin.

Eighty-five per cent of them do

not spenk either of these languages at homo. Our system is largely modelled on the British pattern but the sooiru. and

demographic back�round could hnrdly be more dissimilar.

If as a

result of a �orld calamity, children in England were taught Russinn n.nd Mandarin, while they continue to speak English at home, the

British education system would run into some of the problems which

have been plaguing the schools in Singcporo nnd the Ministry of Educntion.

The problem hc.s been made worse in the last. two deot1.des by the gradual but inexorable switch in primary school registrations from Chineso�strenm schools to English-stream schools.

Tho following

fieu,res show the trend:

Chinese Stream

Year

English Stream

1959

28,113

27,223

1962

31, 580

22,669

Chinese as � of Total*

. .

17,735

*

1971

37,505

15,731

29.o%

1974 1975 1976 1977 1978

36,834 35,086 35,035 40,622 41,995

10,263

21.7% 20 • .'jfa 17.1/4,

.

. .

·•

9,112 7,478 6,590 5,289

Total includes Malay and Tamil streams.

l .- l

I

13.9/v

11.2%

,...

The first was the

This switch crented severe problems.

construction of large numbers of new Enelish-stream primnry schools, and lnter secondary schools. Then there wns the need to recruit and train lo.rge numbers of teachers nnd to send them to the new schools with little teaching experience. The drift from the Chinese-stream schools to English-stream schools hns crented some delicate political problems for the government. Parents send their children to English-stream schools in the belief that an English.education would give them bette� career prospects. In general, this belief is valid. However, for parents from dialect-speaking homes.and in lower paid occupations this does not necessarily hold true, as we shnll explain later.

:But the drift to the Enclish-stream schools had made it necessary for the government to pay special attention to bi-lingual educatione It is olearly undesirable that Sinenp9ronns should lose all connoctiono witl). their cultural roots 1 w hether thoir nncostors come from China, I.ndie. or the Mnley world. At the same time it is necessary to raise standards of Enelish in the Chinese-stream.

As early as 1966-67, the first steps were to.ken in, this direction. The policy was introduced requiring mathematics and science subjects in Chinese primnry sctools to be taught in the English ln.ngunge. In subsequent years, the policy was refined by defining guidelines nnd areas of discretion allowed to school principals. introduction of

laneu,:ige schools,

primary three classes. Subsequently, a great deal of attention was given to the number of hours in which instruction wns carried out in that ln.ncuage •. A distinction was made between language instruction time (LIT) and language exposure time (LET). The offcct of all these efforts on school children has been assessed in a number cf studios made by the Ministry of Education and the MI!IDEF team of systems engineers. The results are not encouraging. The MilIDEF team studied examination results of 23 Chinese primary schools in which science and mathematics were taught in Enelish. They concluded 0

l ... 2

th�t �here was no improvement in English as a second language, but

there was a decline in science examination results. �ilin@al Educati.9E.

· How far has bi-lingual education succeeded?

One meo.silre

is provided.by results of primary school leaving examinations (PSLD) and GCE ' 0 1 Level examinationso k:-uninations may not be the best

indicator .of language competenceo But the PSLE and 'O' level examinations have the merit of uniform applicatio� throughout all

schools. On the b�sis of both these axaminatio�s, the sreat majority of school cl'tj.ldren ,- more than 60 per cent of those who sat for these examinations, faiied in one or both lanGl,laees.

If we tnke the

s,ystem as a whole, tracinB S'tl.Gcessive cohorts of children who �ntcr primary schools and eventually take GCE 'O' level exruninations, only

19 per cent o� primary school cohorts passed both languages at GCE

101

level.,

The Ministry of Defence conducted a study in

1975 to assess

the working knowledge of Enelish possessed by recruits from the . English laneucge st'ream.,_ The study was limited to those who did not pass 'O' level examinations. Only 11 per cent of them wore found to have an adequate working knowledge of Enelish•. There is some evidence that regression had tnken place after the recruits left schoolso

J3y

1976: the Ministry of Education, to which. the fyime

Minister had devoted a eood deGl

problem.

Examination oven after three trieso. It wns recoenised_ thnt one contributins factor was virtually automatic promotion in all grades of school other thari Primary Six whose pupils had to sit for the

PSLE. Although the.Ministry of Education in 1959 allowed a 10 per cent retention rate 1 in practice this was not observed. The retention being between 2 -

5 per cent in most cases.

In

1976,

the revised primary education syntom (RPES) was introduced and in 1978 the revised secondary education (RSES) syst�o The RPES put an end to automatic promotion in primary school, parlicul�rly after primary two. After the third fa.iluro in primary school 1

pupils would be channelled to a specially prepared basic course 1 - 3

where the emphasis would be on simple literacy and numeracy