Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has conducted any studies on the effect stacked ranking has on teachers collaborating with each other; (b) if so, what do the results of these studies show; and (c) whether the Ministry will conduct such studies if it has not done so. He also asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has explored alternative performance appraisal models instead of the current stack ranking model for teachers; and (b) if so, what appraisal models has the Ministry considered.

Mr Lawrence Wong (MOE): Mr Speaker, MOE takes guidance from the Civil Service ranking and promotion framework for our staff performance appraisal and ranking processes. So, we adopt a system where a teacher’s performance is not just assessed by his own supervisor, but also cross-ranked with his peers by a ranking panel comprising direct and indirect supervisors. The system allows us to consistently identify and recognise stronger performing officers, while at the same time provide development opportunities to those who need more support to help them improve their performance. In addition, the system also helps to moderate differences in supervisors’ assessments and establish common standards of performance assessment.

We adopt a holistic approach in assessing our teachers. They are expected to be able to deliver effective teaching and pastoral care, support students in their character development, interact well with students and contribute to the learning of fellow teachers. Our teachers are also assessed on their ability to work and collaborate with others.

Apart from feedback from our School Leaders, MOE monitors key staff-related indicators like staff collaboration through our internal staff engagement surveys, and we do not find any particular concerns raised about our teachers not being able to collaborate with one another.

Singapore Secondary school teachers who participated in OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey 2018 said that beyond performance ratings, they receive feedback that has a positive impact on their teaching practices. In fact, they reported that the teaching fraternity here has a strong collaborative and collegial culture, driven by a shared belief in collective improvement of practice. About eight in 10 Singapore teachers reported that their schools have a collaborative school culture characterised by mutual support, shared responsibility, common beliefs about student learning and well-being, and an emphasis on innovation. 92% of our teachers also said that they can rely on one another, which is higher than the OECD average of 89%.

On balance, we find that a system of relative ranking of performance still serves its purpose today. While there are ranking guidelines to adhere to, there is also flexibility for deviations, taking into consideration the performance of individual officers and specific circumstances.

Nevertheless, MOE works with the Public Service Division, or PSD, to review our appraisal system periodically and has made refinements to the system over the years as our operating landscape changes.

We will also continue to work with PSD to study alternative systems of performance management so that we can ensure our system remains relevant and effective. Beyond the ranking guidelines or even the system of performance management that is in place, what is important is for our school leaders to continue motivating and inspiring our teachers to stay true to their calling as educators and help our students reach their full potential.

Louis: I thank the Minister for the reply and giving some of the survey results as well. But I want to make two points. One is that we actually have done away with class ranking because we said that learning is not a competition. Why then do we make teaching a competition? Does the Minister agree with me that by ranking teachers against each other, it might make them compete against each other and collaborate less as well. I know there are some survey results that show that a percentage feels that they can collaborate but I am just wondering whether ranking does help to move the needle towards making them compete against each other.

Two, can I ask whether MOE has studied this issue in terms of whether it benefits the students? So, does ranking the teachers actually benefit the students?

Mr Lawrence Wong (MOE): Mr Speaker, let me start by saying that we appreciate the work that our teachers do. Teaching is a very demanding job; it is a special calling. I know this from first-hand experience because my mother was a teacher for more than 40 years. So, let us make no pretence of it. It is demanding, and I would say it is probably more demanding now than it used to be.

But it is also vitally important in bringing out the best in every child and nurturing the next generation. That is why we spare no effort in building a first-rate teaching force, high quality and dedicated. We also do our very best to support them in their work.

I say this because we have to look at appraisal systems in this context. An appraisal system is meant to enhance teaching quality. Evidence around the world shows that having a good appraisal system can help in enhancing teaching quality. An OECD study said, for example, that "teacher appraisal can be a key lever for increasing the focus on teaching quality".

So, that is what we have been trying to do. It is not about competition amongst the teachers, but it is putting in place an appraisal system where there is focus on quality and where the school leadership teams can continually assess their teachers, and identify the excellent teachers amongst them who can be the next generation of school leaders and master teachers. I think that is important for maintaining that quality of our teaching force and also important in being able to nurture our next generation well.

We have been doing this for many years. We have an appraisal system that works reasonably well and we have, as a result of it, a strong high-quality teaching force. We will continue to review and improve the system, as I have said, based on feedback from all stakeholders and looking at experiences in other countries as well as best practices in other jurisdictions. Our fundamental objective is really to ensure a high quality teaching force and do the best for every child in our schools.

Louis: Thank you, Sir. I just want to reaffirm that I do agree that we should have an appraisal system as well. But could I ask the Minister, he mentioned earlier that MOE is studying alternative appraisal models. So, could the Minister share what some of these models are that MOE is currently studying?

Mr Lawrence Wong (MOE): It is an on-going process, Mr Speaker, because we continue to review this. It is not a specific review that we are doing now. Constantly, we exchange notes with jurisdictions elsewhere. We look at what Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had suggested too, on what is the balance between ranking versus having more absolute measures of performance. And then we also see some of the negative experiences in other jurisdictions where sometimes if you put too much weight on one indicator, then the teachers teach to that or perform to that indicator only, and then you end up with inadvertent consequences.

Like I said, there is no perfect appraisal system anywhere in the world. In the end, you have to keep on improving, reviewing, updating and being mindful of the potential downsides. So, the concerns raised by Members, that ranking and the appraisal systems that have elements of ranking can lead to the ill effects of competition, is something we are very mindful of. That is why in the way we appraise, we also look at how teachers collaborate with one another, in order to encourage that sort of behaviour.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Education with regard to the performance management system of stack ranking, what is the annual number of appeals in the last five years from Education Officers who appeal their performance grade.

Mr Lawrence Wong (MOE): In any appraisal system, there will always be employees who will feel that they have done better than how they have been assessed. Over the last five years, well below 1% of the teachers would appeal against their performance grades annually. Each appeal is taken seriously and looked into carefully by the Ministry. In addition, we have put in place checks and balances to ensure the deserving officers are duly recognised for their work. For instance, to complement individual assessments by the direct supervisors, inputs from the indirect supervisors are also taken into consideration. This helps to ensure that there is sufficient objectivity, fairness, rigour and discipline in the process.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Education with regard to the performance management system of stack ranking, what are the measures taken today to train school leaders and heads of departments on principles of fair and objective ranking.

Mr Lawrence Wong (MOE): Performance appraisal is a common performance management tool that enables us to assess the effectiveness of our staff, provide feedback on their performance and help them to be more effective in their work. It is important that our School Leaders and Key Personnel in schools are equipped with the skills to manage this process well so that they can continue to motivate our teachers to stay true to their calling as educators, recognise good officers and identify those who need more support. 

As part of their leadership development, all our Key Personnel and School Leaders attend leadership milestone programmes at different stages of their leadership appointments. Examples of such programmes are the Leadership and Management Programme (LAMP), the Management and Leadership in Schools (MLS) and the Leaders in Education Programme (LEP). Performance management is a key component in all these leadership milestone programmes. Through these programmes, our School Leaders and Key Personnel learn about the performance management framework, the expected standards of performance, and the follow up actions to help officers improve.  

In addition, the Cluster Superintendents provide close guidance to School Leaders in the performance management process. They are present at the annual school ranking sessions to advise on the performance management process and guidelines. The Ministry HR also regularly updates and engages all School Leaders on the key HR policies and issues which include performance management policies and good practices. We will continue to help our School Leaders and Key Personnel develop and strengthen their performance management skills.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Education with regard to the performance management system of stack ranking (a) what is the quota for each of the grades A, B, C+, C, C-, D and E for teachers respectively; and (b) for each year in the past five years, what is the number of teachers who have gotten an A, B, C+, C, C-, D and E grade respectively.

Mr Lawrence Wong (MOE): A fair performance management system differentiates performance and rewards those who put in more effort and achieve more. Such a system reinforces good performance and also encourages those who are performing less well to improve. This has helped us to maintain a high-quality teaching workforce over time. 

In an organisation like MOE where the workforce is large and deployed over many schools, it is necessary to ensure some consistency in how performance management is implemented across schools. Generally, our guidelines are that the top one-third or so officers in a ranking population will be the stronger performers and can be awarded A and B grades, while a relatively small group of about 5% would be regarded as the weaker performers and are given C-, D and E grades. The broad middle who are steady performers form about 60% and are given C+ and C grades.  

Notwithstanding the ranking guidelines, there is flexibility for deviations from the guidelines, taking into consideration the performance of individual officers and specific circumstances. This ensures that the guidelines are not mechanically applied in a way that demotivates deserving officers who are doing good work.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

How Grades Are Determined In Performance Management and Stack Ranking for Teachers

Louis asked the Minister for Education with regard to the current performance management system of stack ranking (a) how is a C-, D and E ranking grade determined for teachers; and (b) whether the way the grades are determined differs from school to school. He also asked the Minister for Education what are the penalties teachers face when they get C-, D and E ranking grades respectively.

Mr Lawrence Wong (MOE): In alignment with the rest of Civil Service, MOE adopts a system of relative ranking, where a teacher’s performance is not just assessed by his own supervisor, but also cross-ranked with his peers by a ranking panel comprising direct and indirect supervisors. This helps to moderate differences in supervisors’ assessments and establish common standards of performance assessment.

The system allows us to consistently identify and recognise stronger performing officers, while at the same time provide development opportunities to weaker performers who are given C-, D and E grades, to help them improve their performance.

We have also put in place a number of measures to help our schools and School Leaders implement the performance management guidelines to strike an appropriate balance between consistency and still allowing for some flexibility and discretionary judgement to cater to specific circumstances in each school. MOE HR regularly updates and engages all School Leaders on the key HR policies and issues which include performance management policies, good practices and expected standards of performance assessment. These sessions ensure common understanding and useful sharing of good practices. They also allow better understanding of the intent behind the performance management guidelines and the typical situations where flexibility would be accorded. In addition, Cluster Superintendents are present at the school annual ranking exercises to provide close guidance to the School Leaders on the performance management process and guidelines.

The performance of teachers has an impact on their remuneration and career development. Teachers with at least a C- grade will be eligible for Performance Bonuses. Promotion would naturally require a higher performance requirement, especially for the more senior grades.

As part of performance management, supervisors are required to counsel underperforming teachers to help them improve their performance. Teachers who fail to improve despite the support given are placed under the Performance Review Process framework for further guidance and counselling. Officers who continue to underperform, despite the additional counselling and guidance given, will have their services terminated. This is broadly similar to how it is done for other underperforming officers in the Civil Service. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Statistics of Schools without Teachers Receiving C-, D and E Grades in Past Five Years

Louis asked the Minister for Education for each year in the past five years, how many and what percentage of schools do not have any teachers receiving the C-, D and E grades.

Mr Lawrence Wong: Over the last five years, virtually all our schools have teachers with C-, D, E grades. The only exceptions are a few new schools in their first year with relatively few teachers.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) for each year in the past five years, what is the median age of teachers and the median number of years of service of teachers who obtained a C-grade, D-grade and E-grade respectively; (b) whether a 360-degree feedback mechanism is used in the performance management system of stack ranking and will directly affect the grade of a teacher and key personnel; and (c) whether a teacher who receives a C-performance grade will not be considered for promotion for three years and will also not qualify him for professional development leave.

Mr Lawrence Wong (MOE): MOE, like the rest of the Civil Service, adopts a system of relative ranking. Depending on how well the teachers have performed in relation to their peers in the same substantive grade, they can be given C-, D, E grade at any stage in their career and across all age bands. We are unable to provide more details as these are employer-sensitive information.

The Ministry closely monitors teachers who are weaker performers. Their supervisors will follow up with these teachers to guide them on their areas for improvements and help them with their professional growth and development.

Teachers who have shown consistently good performance and are assessed to be ready to take on a higher level job may be considered for promotion. Hence, weaker performers with C- grades would typically not be considered for promotion until they demonstrate consistently good performance, in line with the Civil Service’s practice. This is to ensure that they are able to contribute at the promoted substantive grade. However, if there are exceptional cases, special consideration will be given on a case-by-case basis.

Teachers can apply for Professional Development Leave to facilitate their continuous learning and deepen their knowledge and skills relevant to teaching. Professional Development Leave is typically taken by teachers to pursue undergraduate or postgraduate studies, or short-term professional development activities. Although teachers with C- grade are not eligible for Professional Development Leave, they continue to have access to relevant in-service training programmes, such as those courses to improve on their content mastery and pedagogy, which they would need to carry out their professional duties.

MOE currently uses the 360-degree feedback tool more as a developmental tool for leaders to gather feedback from people in their working circles on their leadership qualities and working styles rather than an appraisal tool. The feedback helps them to understand their strengths and developmental areas and motivates them to improve.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis: Madam, my daughter Ella started her Primary 1 journey last month. It has not been an easy transition for her. In her first week, she entered school every morning in tears. It was difficult saying goodbye to her at the gate.  

But it was comforting for us to know that the teachers were there. I was peeping through the fence, as we, parents, often do, and I saw the teachers holding Ella's hand, offering her a tissue to wipe her tears and showering her with love during this difficult period. 

I saw how this was not just about teaching, but it was a labour of love. Every morning, the principal and teachers were at the gate cheerfully saying good morning to the students as they arrived. We received phone calls from teachers updating us on Ella and we had Zoom calls with the teachers and other parents too. I thank the teachers for being there for our children, for providing much needed care and for their dedication. I thank them for being teachers. 

Madam, many people have asked me why my eyes are so red and about my eye bags. In fact, Minister Indranee was asking me about this during our break earlier and she said that I now look like a mad dinosaur. I have been called many things, but the first time, a mad dinosaur. But it has been a difficult Primary 1 journey for me too – waking up so early every morning to send Ella to school. Sometimes, it feels like I have just fallen asleep and it is time to wake up.

I guess I had a glimpse of what it is like being a teacher, waking up so early every morning. But a glimpse also because I am sure teachers wake up much earlier than me. 

It has been said before, but it is not said enough: teachers have a tough job; and I thank them again for their loving role in nurturing our next generation.

We have emerged stronger from this pandemic also because of our teachers. During the pandemic and the circuit breaker, they work doubly hard, teaching physically in classrooms and virtually. They were out there while we kept ourselves safe at home. There are things we can and should do to make their job a little better and this is what I would discuss today.

So, Madam, let me also start by thanking MOE for its reforms in recent years, which have made education a more nurturing experience.

We have stopped reminding students of how they are ranked in both class and level. We have stopped grouping them into classes based on academic abilities. We have stopped comparing students to their peers when grading the PSLE.

The message to students has been clear: focus on your own learning; do not be distracted by how others are doing. 

As then Education Minister Ong Ye Kung put it, I quote, "Learning is not a competition, but a self-discipline you need to master for life."

I agree. And indeed, we have done a lot to help our students get rid of the distractions and focus on their own learning. But I feel we have not done enough for our teachers. It seems contradictory to me that teachers tell their students that students are no longer ranked and compared relative to their peers while they themselves are ranked and compared relative to other teachers. 

Madam, in the past six months, I have spent time listening to what teachers have to say.

The Singapore Teachers' Union surveyed about 1,200 teachers and organised a series of closed-door dialogues with teachers of all levels who spoke candidly about their experiences. I had the privilege to hear some of their conversations and experiences. 

I left with a renewed appreciation for the genuine passion our teachers have for teaching. The feedback that the teachers raised at these sessions were ultimately because they wanted to be better teachers for their students.

But I also left with some worry. Large numbers of them expressed concerns about their appraisal system. Over 80% of teachers and 70% of Reporting Officers, or ROs, agreed that ranking is not the best way to appraise all job holders. 

Today, I will share four proposals to tweak and refine the appraisal system. These proposals reflect concerns on the ground, based on survey data by the union and personal anecdotes. I am not proposing to throw the baby out with the bath water. I am suggesting that we make the appraisal system more standardised, transparent, fair and formative. This will better support our teachers to do their best work. 

Let me take this opportunity to thank all civil servants for their essential work. My speech is about teachers because each of them influences tens and hundreds and thousands of young minds in their daily work. But it does not stop here. Starting from teachers, my hope is that the change in the appraisal system would flow through to the rest of the Public Service. 

My first proposal is to standardise the appraisal process and require schools to follow it. While about half of the teachers surveyed felt there was some objectivity in the system, about three quarters of teachers surveyed agreed that appraisals should be based on standardised criteria.

Currently, teachers go through a two-step appraisal process. First, the teacher's RO assesses the teacher. Second, the RO takes this assessment to a Ranking Panel of senior staff members. The Ranking Panel then decides on the rank and grades of teachers in the school. How do all these people decide on what a teacher really deserves? As MOE has shared, it provides guidelines and conducts training to advise on best practices.

But the stories shared by teachers reveal that current guidelines and training are not robust enough to ensure that the appraisal is standardised. 

At the first stage of assessment by a RO, teachers report that subjective and irrelevant considerations are sometimes taken into account in the assessment. One teacher said that some ROs prefer yes-men, I quote, "If you are one who asks questions and give alternate suggestions, you are deemed to be uncooperative and calculating". Another teacher said that their RO favours staff who are his friends or used to work with him in other schools. It should worry us that some teachers feel this way.

Madam, even if the RO thinks that a teacher is good and the teacher meets or exceeds his or her targets, this does not mean that the teacher will get a good grade. They have to fight for the teacher at the Ranking Panel.

Many ROs, themselves, feel frustrated by the Ranking Panel. More than half of the ROs said that members of the Ranking Panel have an unequal say. They flag the roles of personalities and politics.

One RO said that those on the panel tend to play up their own teachers while criticising others so that they themselves are ranked as being effective. Another RO fretted about retaliation, saying that to speak up for unfairly ranked teachers means to risk, I quote, "suffering the same fate". Again, we should be concerned that some ROs feel this way. 

Our teachers are doing their best for the students and many do want to receive constructive feedback so that they can take steps to improve.

However, the current process means that the outcome may not simply be a reflection of a teacher's performance and irrelevant considerations come into the picture. 

I understand the challenges of evaluating a teacher's work. I also understand that MOE has frameworks in place, such as Key Result Areas for each job level describing key competencies and qualities to achieve.

But there is more that we can do to standardise the process. First, MOE can provide greater clarity to its guidelines and provide more granularity. For example, Key Result Areas currently tell teachers what "good" looks like.

Just like the detailed marking rubrics used for students, these Key Result Areas should be broken down by grade so that teachers know what specific standards are required to achieve an A, B, C and so on. Clearer appraisal standards given to ROs and Ranking Panels make it harder for subjective and irrelevant considerations to enter into decision-making.

Second, MOE should formalise its guidelines on teacher appraisal as requirements. Good guidelines are not so useful if they can be ignored or circumvented. Teachers and ROs alike said that the appraisal process varies sharply from school to school. 

Some schools have robust and objective processes in place. Other schools may have weaker processes which allow for more subjectivity. 

MOE has said that its policy on teacher appraisal seeks to balance between consistency across schools and discretionary judgement by the schools. The balance is currently tilted towards discretionary judgement. These stricter standards will move us towards consistency, limit biases and emphasise the performance of teachers.

This is not just about what I think is right. It is what the vast majority of teachers think is right. Again, about three quarters of teachers surveyed agreed that appraisals should be based on standardised criteria. 

My second proposal is that MOE enforces a clearer and more consistent feedback policy for performance appraisals. Almost 80% of teachers surveyed did not feel that the process of ranking has been made transparent them. Teachers do not know how to improve if they do not understand how and why they got their grade. Transparency is crucial.

Currently, the feedback policy that schools must follow when conducting their annual appraisal exercise are merely guidelines. These guidelines may not have been successful in helping teachers understand the ranking process. 

When we spoke to teachers to understand why they see the process as opaque, two main reasons cropped up.

The first reason is because information was not proactively offered to some of them. One teacher said, I quote, "The grades were never explained to me for the years I joined service".

The second reason is that even when some teachers asked about the process, they are given no explanation. One teacher sought to understand why they received that grade, but their RO said that there was no way to discuss the performance grade.

There are many more stories like these. How can anyone do better if they do not know what they are doing wrong? I think we can all empathise with how frustrating it must be to be in a situation like this.

Again, there is more we can do. MOE can implement a standard procedure for how schools respond when teachers request feedback and clarifications about their grade. 

Second, this standard procedure needs to be enforced. As the data shows, a large majority of teachers currently see the appraisal exercise as lacking in transparency. We must make proper communication mandatory and enforce this. 

Third and finally, we can work with the teachers to strengthen MOE's communication policies. We can implement a whistleblowing mechanism for teachers to use when their schools are failing to abide by MOE's communication policies on appraisal. Of course, this mechanism must include measures to protect teachers from retaliation within their schools.

Together, these measures will foster a more transparent system where our teachers will always know how to do better, and this means a better education system for our children.

Third, I propose that we remove the quota for each grade. This means a teacher's grade will no longer be affected by the limited number of As, Bs, Cs and Ds.

Close to 80% of teachers surveyed strongly agreed with this proposal. We can see how the quota system can distort incentives. Let me explain this from two directions.

At the very top, each school can only give out a very small percentage of As and Bs every year. Let us call this the "good quota". This means it is not enough to be a terrific teacher; you have to be more terrific than everyone else.

The good quota rewards you for being a big fish in a small pond. However, it is a disincentive for being in a school where there are people better than you, whom you can learn from. 

The quota also hurts those at the bottom. Five percent of each school’s teachers must be graded C-, D or E. Let us call this the "bad quota". This means that even if you are a good teacher in a school over-populated with super good teachers, the quota may still force you to receive a terrible grade. Again, the system discourages you from surrounding yourself with the best of the best.

The quota system may also be applied in ways unrelated to a teacher’s performance. One teacher said that some department heads agreed to spread out the bad quota across departments by "pre-selecting" a few teachers from each department to get bad grades and then fulfilling the prophecy by assigning unimportant tasks to these teachers.

The bad quota would not be so painful if the bad grades were, in fact, not that bad. Indeed, MOE has said the C- grade is not an adverse grade. But the reality is that those receiving C- grades and below, face a host of punitive measures, including ineligibility for promotion for three years and ineligibility for Professional Development Leave.

Minister Lawrence Wong has said that schools have flexibility for assigning grades. However, in practice, virtually all schools had teachers with C-, D or E grades, as Minister later shared. This may be because of the additional paperwork, scrutiny and justifications needed to exercise that flexibility. 

I propose we remove the quotas. Let schools assign grades based on a standardised process, as I proposed earlier.

Over 80% of teachers surveyed supported the removal of the quota. The risk of fiscal imprudence is limited, as each school is given a fixed quantum of monies for performance bonuses.

Standardising the process as well as the existing practice of having a Cluster Superintendent advise each Ranking Panel are both powerful checks to guard against grade inflation. 

MOE would not be alone in this shift. Some of the most successful companies in the world have dropped relative ranking and moved towards more flexible performance management systems. Amazon announced in 2016 that it would drop its stack ranking system. Even General Electric, the American conglomerate where stack ranking was popularised in the 1980s, has dropped it. Its current CEO said he prefers "reviews that candidly tell an employee where they are not measuring up and what they need to do to improve, without rigidly adhering to certain percentages". General Electric has shifted to a system that emphasises continuous dialogue and shared accountability. 

I also propose that we remove the punitive measures for the C- grade. Seventy-five percent of teachers surveyed agreed with this. 

Performance management should be formative, not punitive. Teachers who have struggled should not be denied the full resources to grow or the full prospect of being rewarded. Three years with 0% chance of promotion is enough to make anyone lose interest in their profession. Why would we disincentivise hard work like that?

What I hope for is that our teachers spend more time improving their own performance and aspire to become better teachers, instead of spending time worrying about how they are compared to others.

Madam, I am not the first Member of Parliment to speak on this. This has been a long fight by Member of Parliament Denise Phua and former Members of Parliament Zainal Sapari and Intan Mokhtar. Dr Intan said previously that our "appraisal system is quite summative" and spoke about the need for a more formative approach to the appraisal. Member of Parliament Denise spoke about the negative aspects of forced ranking, speaking of instances when employees get pushed up in terms of their ranking because of very vocal supervisors who were able to speak up for them at ranking sessions. 

In the last few months, I have heard these exact concerns surfaced repeatedly by our teachers.

Mr Sapari, a veteran in the education service, first as a teacher, then a school principal, then a cluster superintendent. He asked for the forced ranking system to be abolished, and instead adopt a criteria-based approach for ranking. 

Mr Sapari, Dr Intan and Ms Phua have been speaking about this since 2018. In a previous debate, Ms Phua said, "to run a race whereby only a few win the trophy might be a race that, I think, the Minister has been asking for us not to run. We should run races where as many as possible can make it to the finish line, and as many as possible can meet a good or great performance standard”. We all want what Ms Denise Phua is calling for but it is simply not possible under our current appraisal system. 

Let me end with a quote as always, "A teacher plants the seeds of knowledge, sprinkles them with love, and patiently nurtures their growth to produce tomorrow's dreams". Sir, as teachers work hard to create a nurturing environment for our children, let us also create a nurturing environment for them. 

Let us make our appraisal system more standardised, transparent, fair and formative. The surveys show that majority of teachers support this call. 

But Madam, I know our performance management system of stack ranking is a sacred cow. We have used this system for decades. But for once, I am not asking for a scared cow to be slaughtered. As a vegetarian, I very much prefer that. I am asking for us to look after this sacred cow better and for our appraisal system again to be more standardised, transparent, fair and formative. With a strong, engaged and empowered teaching workforce, we will continue to emerge stronger. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered the following 3 Budget Cuts at Community of Supply 2021.

Reviewing Teachers' Appraisal

Louis: Sir, in my Budget debate speech, I proposed to make our performance management system of stacked ranking more standardised, transparent, fair and formative for teachers.   

There is strong feedback from the ground that ranking is not the best way to appraise all job holders. There are differences in implementation across schools and there is a need for a more standardised system. There is also a need for more transparency. Many share that they do not feel the process of ranking has been made transparent to all teachers.  

We can also make the system more fair by removing the quotas for C-, D and E grades. 

Lastly, the appraisal system should be more formative than punitive. We should remove the punitive implications of getting the lower grades. We should create a more nurturing environment for our teachers.

I look forward to working with MOE and the unions to improve the performance management system of stacked ranking.

Giving Teachers Mid-term Feedback

Louis: We all grow and learn from feedback. Our teachers are no different.  

School leaders must give teachers who receive the C- or D grade feedback to improve their performance. However, some teachers shared that this feedback only comes after the actual grade has been issued. Some say that little is done to help teachers improve in the course of the school year.  

Similar to how students have a mid-year exam to gauge whether they are on the right track, our teachers must also be given feedback prior to receiving their actual grade. There are guidelines in place for ROs to give intermittent feedback. We should ensure these are strictly followed. Will MOE strengthen processes for teachers to seek feedback on their performance?

360-degree Feedback for All Teachers

MOE currently uses the 360-degree feedback tool more as a developmental tool for leaders to gather feedback rather than as an appraisal tool. To further strengthen this process, can MOE consider incorporating this into the appraisal process and specifically linked to performance grade? There is strong support for implementing a 360-degree feedback to assess the effectiveness of Reporting Officers at all substantive grades. 

Mr Lawrence Wong (MOE): I thank Mr Louis Ng for his appreciation of the difficult and important work that our teachers do, and his suggestions to improve the appraisal framework for our teachers. MOE shares his desire for a more effective performance management system, and we will refine and calibrate how to do this better over time. We will continue to use our regular dialogue sessions with the Public Service Division and the teachers’ unions, to ensure that our appraisal framework is relevant, fair and motivates performance and development.

Louis: Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister for sharing that MOE will review the appraisal system. But could I ask specifically whether as part of the review, we can look into removing the quotas and the punitive implications of the lower grades? I also thank the Minister for changing "sacred cows" into "sacred stones". That is much better because we do not need to slay the cows anymore.

Mr Lawrence Wong (MOE): Mr Chairman, we have had this discussion with the Member Mr Louis Ng before, where he filed some questions on the appraisal system. I have explained that we do have an appraisal system for our teachers. It is part of performance management.

In fact, if you look at the literature or if you look at education systems around the world, the quality of teachers, as I said before, matters a lot in outcomes. We are fortunate in Singapore to have capable, motivated, high quality teachers. 

The performance management system we have in place supports this. We will continue to review how the appraisal system can be more effective and can be more supportive of our teachers.

The system is aligned with the rest of the Civil Service, so we will have to do this together with the Civil Service. But where it comes to some of what Mr Ng talked about – punitive consequences of getting a lower performance grade – that is certainly something that MOE can look at. As I said just now, we have been in discussion with the our teachers' unions on this matter. We will continue to engage them and work with them, taking in their feedback and suggestions to see how the system can be further improved. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered his budget cut on Improve Teachers' Ranking System at Committee of Supply 2022 as follow:

Louis: Sir, We should be fair to our teachers when reviewing their performance. In my Budget speech last year, I called for a performance management system or stack-ranking to be more standardised, transparent, fair and informative for teachers. We have done a lot for our students, we stopped ranking them and comparing them to their peers during PSLE, we tell them learning is not a competition. Why then do we make teaching a competition?

It seems contradictory that teachers are the ones telling students that students are no longer ranked and compared with their peers when they themselves are ranked and compared with other teachers. MOE has bee engaging teachers on improving the performance management systems. After one year of further engagement, I hope MOE will remove the quota for grades, provide objective criteria for certain performance grades, starting with A, C and E; remove punitive implications of getting lower grades and allow for professional development leaves for those who get C- grades.

Like our students, our teachers deserve a nurturing environment.

Mr Chan Chun Sing (The Minister for Education): Mr Louis Ng also asked about teachers’ appraisal. We appreciate his concern for their well-being. Our teachers are driven by a strong sense of mission and responsibility for our students, and it shows in their work and attitude. Therefore, it is important for us to recognise and affirm deserving teachers, especially those who have gone beyond their call of duty, those who have excelled, and those who have set the pace for the fraternity. 

At the same time, we need to identify teachers who require more support, so that we can build and sustain an excellent workforce. Our appraisal system must, therefore, ensure consistency and fairness in the ranking of our educators. Mr Louis Ng can be assured that we are constantly updating our policies so that all our teachers can continue to have access to our training programmes and be guided to improve, to better nurture our students. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)