Percentage of Students Promoted from Normal Technical to Normal Academic and Express Streams in Past Five Years

Louis asked the Minister for Education in each of the past five years for each cohort of students, what is the percentage of students who are promoted from (i) Normal Technical to Normal Academic and (ii) Normal Academic to Express respectively.

Mr Ong Ye Kung (MOE):  For students who have completed secondary school over the last five years:

• Close to 10% of the Normal (Technical) students transferred to the Normal (Academic) course; and

• About 5% of the Normal (Academic) students transferred to the Express course.

Beyond lateral transfers to another course, many more students selectively offer specific subjects at a higher level, in line with their strengths. This is known as Subject-based Banding, which is part of our efforts to offer multiple pathways and opportunities to students to pursue an education best suited to their needs, interests and strengths.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Educational Levels Attained by Prison Inmates

Louis asked the Minister for Home Affairs for each of the past three years, what is the breakdown of the educational level attained of persons entering the Drug Rehabilitation Centres, the Long-Term Imprisonment 1 and the Long-Term Imprisonment 2 regimes respectively.

Mr K Shanmugam (MHA): The tables below show the breakdown of DRC, LT1 and LT2 inmates by educational level attained, as declared by inmates upon admission.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Education what is the breakdown of the percentage of ITE, polytechnic and university graduates in 2015, 2016 and 2017 who are from the Normal Technical, Normal Academic and Express streams respectively.

Mr Ong Ye Kung (MOE): Over the last three years, among students who graduated from the ITE, close to half were from the Normal (Technical) [N(T)] course, about 45% were from the Normal (Academic) [N(A)] course, and the remaining were from the Express course. For those who graduated from publicly-funded diploma programmes, the figures were about 5% N(T), 35% N(A) and the remaining Express. For publicly-funded degree programmes, the numbers were about 1% N(T), 5% N(A) and the remaining Express.

It should be noted that a good proportion of graduates from ITE and Polytechnics further their studies in publicly-funded institutes. We are also seeing University graduates attending ITE courses to gain hands-on skills. We must bear in mind that there must be different paths catering to the diverse strengths and talents of our people. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Education in 2015, 2016 and 2017, what have been the average and median starting salaries of ITE, polytechnic and university graduates working in (i) the private sector and (ii) the civil service.

Mr Ong Ye Kung (MOE): Based on the annual Graduate Employment Surveys (GES) conducted by the Institutes of Higher Learning, the median reported gross monthly starting salaries of ITE, polytechnic and Autonomous University (AU) respondents in full-time permanent employment in the private and public1 sectors are as shown in Table 1.

¹ The public sector includes the Government, statutory boards and organs of states.  
² Figures are rounded off to the nearest $50.  

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Percentage of Students Living in HDB Flats under Public Rental Scheme

Louis asked the Minister for Education for each year in the past five years (a) what is the percentage of students living in HDB flats under the public rental scheme; and (b) what is the average and median household income of students entering the (i) Normal (Technical) (ii) Normal (Academic) and (iii) Express streams, respectively.

Mr Ong Ye Kung (MOE): Over the last five years, approximately 2-3% of our students were living in HDB flats under the public rental scheme. MOE does not collect data on household income of students.  

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Average and Median Starting Monthly Salaries for ITE, Polytechnic and University Graduates

Louis asked the Minister for Manpower for ITE, polytechnic and university students who graduated in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively (a) what were their average and median starting monthly salaries; (b) what were their average and median monthly salaries five years after their year of graduation; and (c) whether the Ministry will start collecting such data on post-graduation salaries, as requested in (b), if it does not already collect it on a regular basis.

Mrs Josephine Teo (MOM): Based on the annual Graduate Employment Survey (GES) conducted by the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), the reported median gross monthly starting salaries of ITE, Polytechnic and Autonomous University (AU) graduates in full-time permanent employment from 2008 to 2012 are given in Table 1.

The GES does not track graduates’ salaries by cohort five years after their graduation. However, the median gross monthly income of full-time employed residents is available from MOM’s Comprehensive Labour Force Survey (CLFS). The majority of fresh graduates from IHLs would be in their mid- to late-20s five years after leaving school. Table 2 shows the median gross monthly income from 2013 to 2017 of full-time employed residents aged 25 to 29 – those with post-secondary non-tertiary qualifications (i.e. ITE or equivalent), diploma and professional qualifications (i.e. polytechnic or equivalent) and degree qualifications.

To give us more insights into their employment and income, MOM and MOE are exploring tracking graduates’ salaries by cohort over a longer period of time.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Percentages of Students on Financial Assistance Scheme

Louis asked the Minister for Education for each year in the past five years, what are the percentages of students who receive assistance from the Ministry's Financial Assistance Scheme who are from the (i) Normal (Technical) (ii) Normal (Academic) and (iii) Express streams respectively.

Mr Ong Ye Kung (MOE): From 2014 to 2018, 28% of secondary school students who received assistance from the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme were from the Normal (Technical) stream; 41% were from the Normal (Academic) stream; 31% were from the Express stream. The percentages for each of the five years were similar.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Percentages of Students Living in HDB Flats under Public Rental Scheme

Louis asked the Minister for Education for each year in the past five years, what are the percentages of students who live in HDB flats under the Public Rental Scheme who enter the (i) Normal (Technical) (ii) Normal (Academic) and (iii) Express streams respectively.

Mr Ong Ye Kung (MOE): Social economic status has become significantly correlated with PSLE results. This is inevitable as lives improved and lower income families make progress over the years, with children doing better than their parents. So percentage of students in Normal streams living in public rental HDB flats are higher than that in Express stream. This is why MOE is undertaking various measures, including the UPLIFT Taskforce, to help lift the performance of students at the bottom.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Education for each cohort of students in each of the last five years respectively, what is the percentage of students from the Normal Technical stream who have transferred to the Express stream by the end of their Secondary school education.

Mr Ong Ye Kung (MOE): Over the last five years, an average of around 530 students (close to 10%) transfer from Normal (Technical) to the Normal (Academic) course. Of these, about 10 to 20 each year eventually transferred to the Express course. 

In 2018, after Subject-Based Banding was rolled out to all schools, about 60% of Secondary One Normal (Technical) students offered selected subjects at Normal (Academic) and Express levels, in line with their strengths.

Beyond mobility between Secondary school courses, there are also multiple post-secondary pathways to cater to the diverse strengths and talents of our students.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Education for each year in the past five years, what is the number of students entering the (i) Normal (Technical) (ii) Normal (Academic) and (ii) Express streams respectively.

Mr Ong Ye Kung (MOE): Over the last five years, about 5,000 students enter the Normal (Technical) course, 10,000 students enter the Normal (Academic) course and 25,500 students enter the Express course each year. The proportion of students entering each course varies slightly each year depending on student performance at the PSLE as well as choice of course made by the students who are eligible for both courses, for example, Express/Normal (Academic).

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Update on Removal of EM3 Stream in Primary School

Louis asked the Minister for Education with the removal of the EM3 stream in primary schools, what have been the effects on students, teachers and parents respectively.

Mr Ong Ye Kung (MOE): In 2008, MOE introduced Subject-Based Banding in primary schools, in place of streaming by the entire course. This enables the child to focus on and stretch his potential in subjects that he is strong in, while building up the fundamentals in the subjects that he needs more support in.

Today, the great majority of students take up all Standard Subjects, or a combination of Standard and Foundation Subjects. We believe that this has helped raise the confidence and motivation of students, while customising education to their aptitudes and pace of learning.

There are also more opportunities for interaction among students across the different subject combinations, as a form class can have students of several subject combinations. Concerns about labelling and stigmatisation has diminished. Teachers find that students are more engaged and can better pace their lesson to suit students’ learning needs. Parents have been very supportive of Subject Based Banding.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Basis for Admission of Students into Normal (Technical), Normal (Academic) and Express Streams

Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) how does the Ministry decide what percentage of students are streamed into the Normal (Technical), Normal (Academic), and Express streams each year; and (b) whether the streaming system allows for the possibility that no students enter the Normal (Technical) or Normal (Academic) stream in a given year.

Mr Ong Ye Kung (MOE): The Ministry sets qualifying criteria based on PSLE result for the courses to ensure that students accessing each course can cope with its academic rigour and pace of learning. So the proportion of students in Normal (Technical), Normal (Academic), and Express course is dependent on students’ performance at the PSLE and their eligibility for the respective courses, and the students’ choices when they are eligible for two courses.

The table below shows the placement criteria for each course and option band. The proportion of students in each course varies slightly from year to year. It is possible that in a cohort when more students meet the Express and Normal (Academic) criteria, we may end up having very few Normal (Technical) classes. This remains the case when we move to a new PSLE scoring system in 2021. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Pathway for Normal (Technical) Stream Students Who Do Well in GCE N(T) Level Examination to Take GCE "O" Level Examination

Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) beyond just having subject banding as an option, whether the Ministry allows students from the Normal (Technical) stream who do well in their GCE "N(T)" Level examination to do their GCE "O" Level examination if they want to; (b) if so, how many of such students have there been to date; and (c) if not, whether the Ministry has plans to provide this pathway.

Mr One Ye Kung (MOE): Secondary 4 students in the Normal (Technical) [N(T)] course who perform well at the GCE N(T)-Level examination can laterally transfer to the Secondary 4 Normal (Academic) [N(A)] course and take the GCE N(A)-Level examination. Thereafter, they can progress further to Secondary 5 N(A) and sit for the GCE O-Level examination. This allows students to progressively bridge the gap between the academic demands of the N(T), N(A) and O-Level curricula.

Over the last five years, an average of about 530 students per year transferred from the N(T) course to the N(A) course. They are identified early, based on their secondary school performance. Because of these early identification efforts, only a handful of students will transfer to the N(A) course after the GCE N(T)-Level examination every year. Of all the students who transfer from N(T) to N(A) course, 10 to 20 each year transferred further to the Express course. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Study on Effects of Streaming in Secondary Schools on Students’ Self-esteem and Confidence

Louis asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry has studied the effects of streaming in secondary schools on the (i) self-esteem and (ii) confidence levels of students in each stream respectively.

Mr Ong Ye Kung (MOE): MOE introduced streaming in 1980 to systematically customise learning for students of different profiles. It has very successfully lowered student attrition and improved educational outcomes.

Factors impacting self-esteem and confidence are complex and multi-faceted. NIE studies have shown that some Normal Academic students, after spending some years in secondary schools, were similar or more confident academically relative to some Express students. But there is also feedback from teachers that students in Normal Streams may over time also lose confidence and the mindset of growth and development.

The trade-off between customisation and stigmatisation is something we need to recognise. That is why over the years, MOE has taken steps, through measures such as out-of-stream subjects, subject-based banding and the Polytechnic Foundation Programme, to blur the lines between education streams. Our work in this area is on-going.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered the following speech in support of the Annual Budget Statement.

Louis: Sir, I stand in support of the Budget. Inequality has been a buzzword in recent years and it is a positive sign. It shows that, as a society, we are not just concerned about ourselves but we are also concerned about those who have fallen behind, those who need our help.

What is the best way to reduce inequality? The answer is ensuring social mobility and social mixing. In this respect, I agree with what Prime Minister Lee said in October last year: "We must not allow social stratification to harden in Singapore."

We have done well to ensure that there is less social stratification where we live. The Prime Minister gave the example of our HDB towns, which mix rental blocks with owned blocks, and have flats of all sizes within the same building. The Prime Minister said, "We want high- and low-income families to live together side by side, get along with one another, interact with one together. Not live apart and treat each other as aliens from a different world."

But what about social stratification where we study, especially in our Secondary schools? Students spend perhaps half or even more of their time in schools. In these environments, it is surely just as important that high- and low-income children learn together, play together and mix with one another. 

Sir, we have a very well-respected education system that many countries aspire to emulate. The recent OECD report titled “Excellence and Equity in Education” similarly shared many positive aspects of our education system and about how disadvantaged students here do well compared with their peers around the world. But as MOE has acknowledged, the report also showed that more work needs to be done to ensure good social diversity and mixing in schools.

One of the things that might prevent social mixing and harden social stratification in our Secondary schools is the practice of streaming. We introduced streaming in 1980, and I understand the rationale. It caters to the different learning needs and pace of our students and it has helped to lower our attrition rates which is now at less than 1%, compared to 30%-40% at the start of our education journey. Dr Intan also said in 2017 that streaming "helps teachers in being more focused in their teaching so that they are able to pitch their teaching content and pedagogy that are suitable for the students they teach."

But the problem is that we are not just streaming our students based on their academic results. As Minister Ong has stated, "Social economic status has become significantly correlated with PSLE results." The reality is that students in the Normal stream tend to have a lower social economic status, as compared to those from the Express stream. We know that from 2014 to 2018, 69% of Secondary school students who received assistance from the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme were from the Normal stream.

We also know that the percentage of students living in public rental flats is higher in the Normal streams than those in the Express stream. We all know that we hang out with our classmates much more than with our schoolmates. What streaming has possibly done is to reduce social mixing and, again, harden social stratification. 

I spent the last year researching for this speech, filing questions in Parliament and I spoke with parents, students and teachers. Everyone understood why we started streaming. But quite a number of them gave pause and raised concerns when I suggested that streaming could be stratifying our schools and preventing our students from mixing across social economic backgrounds. I am sure streaming was not meant to divide our nation by social economic status, but we now see that streaming does contribute to it. We have tried so hard to prevent social stratification in our homes; we must try just as hard to do so in our schools.

The next logical question is whether students move between streams. After all, if a Normal (Technical) student can move easily to the Express stream, we could all afford to be less worried about social stratification. Unfortunately, we cannot. Each year, 530 Normal (Technical) students transfer to the Normal (Academic) stream. Of these students, only 10 to 20 of them eventually move on to the Express stream.

Here is what it means: If you are a student from the Normal (Technical) stream, you have less than 1% chance to move to the Express stream. What is worse, the stratification continues further up the education ladder. Over the past three years, Normal (Technical) graduates have made up only 5% of those who graduated from our public Polytechnics and only 1% of those who graduated from our autonomous Universities. Most finish their studies in ITE. Data provided by MOE show that ITE graduates earned a starting salary of $1,900 in the private sector in 2017. By contrast, public University graduates earned a starting salary of $3,300.

Why do students from the Normal stream struggle to move to the Express stream? One reason could be the psychological barriers that streaming imposes on Normal stream students. Minister Ng last year acknowledged concerns that streaming could inadvertently discourage students. Dr Intan also said, "Academic streaming tends to pigeon-hole students and inadvertently places expectations about their intelligence or abilities according to the stream they are in."

Indeed, for some students there is a strong stigma associated with being in the Normal stream. One 2006 research paper, titled "Building Teacher Capacity in Curriculum and Pedagogical Design in Normal Technical Classrooms," provided this summary: "Perhaps the most common and injurious perception associated with NT or EM3 students is stupidity. Other negative perceptions of people interviewed on the streets are: "attitude not good", "Ah Beng type", "hopeless", "can't do anything, cant go anywhere", "unmotivated", "lazy" and "ill-disciplined". Some students may have even internalised such negativities. It is not unusual for students in the Normal stream to blame themselves, leading to the worry that such students suffer from low self-esteem."

The impact of this stigma was already raised in this House by Mdm Cynthia Phua nine years ago. She said, "The present streaming of students in Secondary schools have much psychological impact on the youths. The Normal stream is not normal, according to how the students and parents feel. They feel that they are inferior to their academic-better fellow schoolmates. And why do we have a system that makes our youths feel inferior at a young tender age?" 

There are, of course, students from the Normal (Technical) stream who have done well and we have featured them regularly. I met David Hoe and am so inspired by his story. David is the poster child of a successful student from the Normal (Technical) stream who has made it. He scored 110 for his PSLE. Today, he is an economics teacher at a Junior College. David's success was almost not to be. His parents divorced when he was young, and he lived with his mother who was visually impaired. He went around selling tissue paper, together his mother, to make ends meet. His mother passed on when David was 12. He did not do well for his PSLE and went into the Normal (Technical) stream. He fell into bad company and took up drinking and smoking.

As he shared with the media, "I hung out with these people for a few months before I met the right ones." His new group of friends often hung out in the canteen to do their homework. They also helped to coach him in his studies. He had a dream of becoming a teacher, and worked hard for it for his N-levels, in hopes of eventually doing his O-Levels. He did well and was one of the top-scorers for the Normal (Technical) N-levels. But he was still not allowed to do his O-levels.

Desperate, this 16-year-old wrote an email to then Minister for Education, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who intervened on his behalf. It was only through this intervention that he was able to get past the system and eventually did his O-levels. David is a success story and he worked hard to succeed. But, as he shared with me, his story is also about how social mixing made a difference for him. While we share the success stories, we also need to remember that David is not a representative of the majority of Normal (Technical) students. In fact, he is, unfortunately, a minority. While we celebrate the successes, we need to remember those who have been left behind.

Sir, it is time to eliminate streaming in Secondary schools in favour of Subject-Based Banding. I believe the debate we need to have, has already happened. The concerns I raise today are the same ones students, teachers, parents and Members of this House have previously raised about Primary school streaming. 

In 2008, MOE listened to these concerns and replaced Primary school streaming with Subject-Based Banding. Subject-Based Banding kept the good parts of streaming while cutting out the bad parts. As Minister Ong shared this month about the replacement of streaming with Subject-Based banding in Primary schools, "We believe that this has helped raise the confidence and motivation of students while customising education to their aptitudes and pace of learning." He also added, "there are also more opportunities for interaction among students across the different subject combinations, as a form class can have students of several subject combinations. Concerns about labelling and stigmatisation have diminished."

Both teachers and parents have also expressed support for Subject-Based Banding. It would seem strange that we did away with streaming and adopted Subject-Based Banding in Primary schools for very good reasons but somehow these reasons do not apply to Secondary schools.

We have already expanded Subject-Based Banding to all Secondary schools, to benefit more students. So, what is stopping us from abolishing streaming in Secondary schools? What is stopping us from preventing this kind of social stratification?

Sir, there are schools that have made progress on this and I hope that MOE studies what Boon Lay Secondary School is doing, for example. Students there are grouped not based on their streams, but by CCA groups. This means that students of different social economic backgrounds are more likely to mix with one another. In 2018 the school reported that the new system has led to an increase in attendance rates and was met with a positive response by the students, and I hope that MOE can study what this school has done.

Sir, MOE has worked hard to make changes in the right direction over the last few years, trying to steer the focus to aptitude instead of academic achievements and removing ranking. As a parent of young children, I am thankful for these changes and hope that we can do more. We have to do more. Sir, there is a quote which reads, "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." 

There will be inequality in our education system. The fact is that not everybody is the same. But our students are not stupid and should not feel that they are or face that kind of stigma. We need to make sure their future is not decided by one major exam. We need to make sure that like where we live, we do not have social stratification in where we study. 

Every school is a good school and now let us make every class a good class. Like our Primary schools, let us completely replace streaming with Subject-Based Banding in our Secondary schools. 

Sir, I know that streaming is a sacred cow and this practice has existed for many decades. Members of this House will know that I do not like to cull animals but, Sir, it is time to slain this sacred cow.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

On March 5, during the Ministry of Education's (MOE) Committee of Supply (COS) debate, Education Minister Ong Ye Kung announced the expansion of Full Subject-Based Banding (SBB). Old secondary school streaming system to be replaced by 2024, N- & O-Level exams to go as well.

Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) whether primary school students are streamed into different classes for the following year based on their academic results; (b) if so, what is the rationale for doing this; and (c) if they are not streamed into different classes based on academic results, what other criteria are used instead.

Mr Chan Chun Sing (MOE): Primary schools aim to create a rich learning environment for students to learn holistically. Schools strive for diverse form classes, with a good mix of gender, race, nationality and learning ability. Schools also keep these classes together for at least two years. At upper primary levels, because of Subject-Based Banding and students taking different subject combinations, schools may band students in broad teaching groups.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Streaming of Students at Primary 3 or 4

Louis asked the Minister for Education whether primary school students are streamed into different classes when they are in Primary 3 or Primary 4.

Mr Chan Chun Sing (MOE): Primary schools allocate students to Primary 3 classes to ensure a good mix of gender, race and learning ability. This creates a rich learning environment for students to learn holistically, enhance their socio-emotional competencies and broaden their perspectives. Class allocations are maintained from Primary 3 to Primary 4, to provide stability and continuity in teacher-student relationships. This enables teachers to strengthen pastoral care for students and better cater for individual student's development.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Correlation between PSLE Results and Socio-economic Status in Past Two Years

Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) in the past two years, whether it has been found that PSLE results are significantly correlated with social economic status; (b) if yes, how does the Ministry intend to reduce the correlation; and (c) if no analysis has been conducted on this issue, whether the Ministry intends to study this issue further.

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, globally across education systems, students from higher socio-economic backgrounds tend to perform better. This is reflected in OECD’s study of 15-year-olds across more than 70 economies participating in the Programme for International Student Assessment or PISA. In Singapore, there is similarly some correlation between socio-economic background and PSLE results.

This is not unexpected, as parents with more resources are able to support their children’s learning and provide them with a head-start in life. However, we must work hard against the natural tendency of societies to stratify, so as to maintain social cohesion and to give our children a good start in life, regardless of their background. 

In this regard, our education system plays a crucial role in levelling up opportunities and support for students from less advantaged backgrounds to develop their potential. MOE pays close attention to this issue and provides significantly more support to students with higher needs. 

For example, we provide dedicated support for children needing support in basic numeracy and literacy skills through the Learning Support Programme for English and Mathematics in Primary 1 and 2 students. After Primary 2, higher-needs students who require more academic support are helped through programmes such as the Reading Remediation Programme and Improving Confidence and Achievement in Numeracy programme.

Some students also have needs that extend beyond academic support. This is why we have launched the Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce (UPLIFT), which I currently chair, to enhance our upstream wraparound support for such students. Our efforts comprise strengthening after-school engagement and care through school-based Student Care Centres in Primary schools and after-school programmes in Secondary schools, as well as partnering the community to support students’ families through the UPLIFT Community Network. Schools with a higher proportion of students in need also receive more manpower and funds to support whole-school interventions for their students.

Sir, encouragingly, our students from less advantaged backgrounds do well compared to their international counterparts. OECD’s PISA study, for example, has found that compared to other high-performing systems, Singapore’s students from the bottom-25% of socio-economic background not only outperform their international counterparts of similar socio-economic background, but also out-perform the OECD average in all core domains assessed in PISA.

We will continue to press on to further strengthen support for these students, such as with the expansion of UPLIFT initiatives. Through this approach of tilting more resources and help towards students with greater needs, we will lean against the entrenchment of socio-economic advantages and ensure that our education system continues to provide opportunities for Singaporeans in each generation to succeed and realise their potential.

Louis: Thank you, Sir. And I thank the Second Minister for the reply and the good work that UPLIFT has been doing. Could I ask, over the last two years, whether the correlation between PSLE scores and socio-economic status has been increasing or decreasing. And two, are we tracking whether the children involved in the UPLIFT programme are actually doing better as compared to their peers who are not involved in the UPLIFT programme?

So, specifically, whether the Primary school students in the UPLIFT programme are going into Normal (Technical), Normal (Academic) or the Express streams after their PSLE?

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Sir, I thank Mr Louis Ng for his supplementary question. On the correlation, it has been stable over the last five years – it has not been going up, not going down. We will continue to do our best to ensure that we provide the resources to help our students from disadvantaged backgrounds to continue to do well. 

On the outcomes of UPLIFT, I hope Mr Ng will give us some time. We just started in 2018 and the initial outcomes have been quite encouraging. We see more students' attendance improving. We are tracking and monitoring different components of the programme. And I will share a bit more during MOE's Committee of Supply (COS) later this afternoon. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) for each year in the past five years, what is the median household income of primary school students who (i) take one foundation subject (ii) take two or more foundation subjects and (iii) do not take any foundation subjects, respectively; and (b) whether the Ministry intends to collect such data if it currently does not do so.

Mr Chan Chun Sing (MOE): The Ministry of Education (MOE) does not have data on household income of students, except for Singapore citizens who apply for the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS), where the income criterion is set at about the bottom quintile of the national household income. Over the past five years, on average, two in five students who took at least one subject at Foundation level in the PSLE were on MOE FAS.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Education whether Primary school students taking subjects at a foundation level can be placed in the same class as students who are not taking foundation level subjects to ensure social mixing, similar to that in Secondary schools.

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, Primary schools strive for diverse form classes with a good mix of gender, race and learning ability. Thus, form classes at Primary 5 and 6 can have students of several subject combinations, including a mix of students taking subjects at Foundation and Standard levels.

Beyond classes, students also have opportunities to interact with their peers through school-wide platforms such as Co-Curricular Activities (CCAs).

Louis: Thank you, Sir. I thank the Second Minister for the reply. Two clarifications. One, could I ask then how exactly is streaming done at Primary 5 and how do we segregate them into different classes based on their learning abilities or, as the Second Minister said, is it based on their race or their interest? 

Two, Minister Chan shard during the MOE Committee of Supply (COS) debate that we would have mixed form classes in Secondary schools, where students can interact with peers of different strengths and interests. Can I check whether that will be extended to Primary schools as well?

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Yes, as I mentioned, we do group students in form classes at Primary 5, because at Primary 4, they take tests to ascertain their competency level and they are allowed to then decide based on consultation with their parents, too, on the subject level that they are prepared to take – whether it is at Foundation or at the Standard level. Some students do take one or two subjects at the Foundation level, depending on their level of abilities.

Let me give a broad overview as to how we allocate students in their class formation. When allocating students to classes, schools aim to create an inclusive and caring learning environment, so as to nurture and develop students holistically. We provide the foundation for students to shape their attitudes towards learning, build future knowledge and skills, and develop soft skills that are needed for them to navigate in the future world, which is really, very challenging for them. This is better achieved with diverse classrooms within the classroom setting and as diverse as we can, to provide better social mixing. But there are certain considerations, given the class size that we have. 

These considerations include having enough common subjects for the form class to bond but it also depends on the capability of teachers with a wide range of abilities and resource limitations. Schools are given flexibility to manage and operationalise the groupings. 

As I mentioned in my earlier reply, we want to manage better social mixing between gender, ethnicity, abilities. More importantly, Sir, we understand the Member's concern about social mixing. Social mixing is but one of the many considerations in how students are grouped in classes. But, we must be careful that social mixing, if brought to the extreme, may impose more challenges for our teachers and how they can teach. So, we want to strike a balance, in managing what we can do. But beyond the classrooms, we also facilitate social mixing through other platforms, as I mentioned earlier, in CCA activities. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) for each year in the past five years, of the Primary 4 students who (i) fail one subject (ii) fail two or more subjects and (iii) pass all subjects, what percentage of these students live in public rental flats respectively; and (b) whether the Ministry intends to collect this data if such data is not available.

Mr Chan Chun Sing (MOE): At Primary 4, schools report subject performance as Achievement Bands 1 to 4, with Band 4 corresponding to below 50 marks. Over the past five years, on average,

Among Primary 4 students who scored Band 4 in only one subject, 4.5% live in public rental flats. 

Among Primary 4 students who scored Band 4 in two or more subjects, 12.6% live in public rental flats. 

Among Primary 4 students who scored better than Band 4 in all four subjects, 0.8% live in public rental flats. 

Where appropriate, schools support students through subject-specific remediation. Students can also take subjects at Foundation level at Primary 5 and 6 so that they can focus on building strong fundamentals for secondary school.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)