ST: Tuition too prevalent to ignore

There was widespread incredulity last week when Senior Minister of State for Education Indranee Rajah declared that tuition is unnecessary.

Responding to a question in Parliament on the "shadow education system" and its impact, she said: "Our education system is run on the basis that tuition is not necessary. Some parents believe they can give their children an added advantage by sending them to tuition classes, even though their children are doing reasonably well. We cannot stop them from doing so."

The parents who spend US$680 million (S$848 million) each year (according to a 2012 Asian Development Bank report on tuition) on private tuition for their children here clearly think that tuition isn't unnecessary.

Various polls suggest tuition prevalence here as anything from nearly half of households (a MasterCard survey on spending in April) to over 90 per cent of students (the Asian Development Bank report).

But in a way, Ms Indranee's view is internally consistent: the Ministry of Education (MOE) does not consider tuition necessary, so it designs its curriculum accordingly, and its teachers are expected to teach like there is no such thing as private tuition.

Thinking within the box that says tuition is unnecessary leads to this rather ostrich-like way of tackling the issue: not needed, not an issue, go away.

How different it would be if the ministry could get out of its self-imposed box to contemplate: What is it about the education system that is making so many parents send their children for private tuition?

In fact, this was precisely what Nominated MP Janice Koh asked in Parliament: Whether more should be done to make tuition "less necessary and desirable" in Singapore, and if the ministry had data on tuition.

If the ministry took the issue of tuition seriously, its thinking might go this way: "We think it's unnecessary, but many parents and students clearly think otherwise. Is there something we're missing? In fact, how prevalent is tuition? Maybe we should study this, and see what students have tuition in, how much is spent, and if tutors are qualified.

"Better still, let's study if tuition is effective, for different groups of students: the weak, the average and the academically strong.

"Do some of MOE's existing policies create conditions that fuel demand for tuition? Could large class sizes result in weaker students needing personalised attention from tutors? Could our move to grade exams on raw scores rather than in broad bands compel students to get extra coaching to chase up every extra mark to get ahead of others?

"Could our marking and grading system fuel hyper-competitive behaviour and lead to an arms race in grades and tuition? What can we do to reduce these effects?"

If such thinking goes on in the ministry, the public is none the wiser.

Singapore's policymakers have a tendency to present a closed, united front on an issue and speak within the confines of existing practice, ignoring different realities and views.

There may be reason for such an approach: in this case, it might be to avoid spurring a frenzy for tuition; or to assure parents that schools are doing their job teaching students. But this approach lacks credibility when there is a vast gap between their pronouncements, and the reality on the ground.

As Singapore undergoes significant shifts in policy, and its leaders try to recalibrate a new bond with the people, it is vital that the Government discard the old mode of responding to criticisms - or questioning of its policies - by ignoring them out of existence.

I have interviewed and spoken with many senior civil servants in both formal and informal settings and know most of them for a thoughtful, serious-minded bunch. I would be extremely disappointed if the questions on tuition I can think of, off the top of my head as I write this article, have not occurred to them in the course of their work.

I am sure ministry officials, and educationists, have studied these issues and come to some conclusions. But when the discussion is kept behind closed doors, out of sight and hearing of the public, it might as well not have taken place.

When all the public sees are pronouncements that defend the status quo and ignore the shadow system beneath, it begins to think that either the Government doesn't know what's going on, or doesn't care, or is powerless. It can erode the Government's credibility.

The ministry would be unwise to ignore tuition when it has become part of students' life, and when the excesses of a hyper-competitive tuition culture in countries such as South Korea and Japan are so visible.

I cite the example of tuition not because I believe tuition is a good thing. Indeed, I went through my school days without any. I cite it only as the most recent example of a distressing tendency to gloss over problems in Singapore, rather than look at them candidly and tackle them.

The policy shifts of the last year, on public transport, health care, childcare and housing, among others, should be reminder enough to all policymakers and Singaporeans just how dangerous it is to ignore problems, to close one's eye to troublesome specks of activity and refuse to connect the dots.

If officials who noticed the surge in employment pass, work permit, permanent resident and new citizenship numbers had voiced their concerns, and if the Government had listened to its own MPs' complaints about overcrowding instead of dismissing them, there might have been a faster build-up of housing and transport infrastructure to prepare for the larger population.

In health care, calls to extend the MediShield umbrella to cover people till death, and to include people with pre-existing illnesses, have been made for years. Thinking within the box led policymakers to defend the status quo resolutely and refuse extending coverage.

When you keep within the confines of policy, the refusal is internally consistent: Bringing in the very old and sick will jack premiums up so much, the young and healthy will flee the insurance scheme and scupper it. Ergo, keep the old and sick out.

Then, this year, the Government acquiesced.

What changed? The Government was ready to get out of its self-imposed policy box. Instead of treating MediShield as an opt-in insurance system that healthier people can flee from if the net is broadened to cover the very old and sick, it decided to make it compulsory. With a broader risk pool, the sums will be more manageable.

Singapore faces many choices in the years ahead, on social policy, on education, and certainly in politics. The Government and the intellectual elite in Singapore can choose to debate options within the confines of what is currently agreed on, and within the self-imposed limits of existing policy.

Or it can do the more politically difficult thing and really acknowledge problems, study them and see how the status quo can change to address the problems.

Start with the shadow education system. The best way to remove a shadow is to bring it into the light, not dismiss its utility.

ST: Time to transform Singapore education

RECENTLY, I went to Finland on an education study trip. Much has been said about the Finnish education system, but it is only by being physically present, with all one’s senses and faculties engaged, that the potential lessons strike home.

I visited a full school, with classes from pre-primary to Grade 9, and was struck by many images.

First, the school was an oasis of calm. Teachers spoke in measured tones, while pupils were serenely animated. The joy of learning was evident, unpunctured by frequent graded assessments, which were prohibited for those younger than 12 years old.

A child-centred philosophy permeated the school. In the pre-school class I observed, each child had an individualised six-page development plan, jointly signed by parents and teacher. The first piece of information collected was the child’s comments, with questions like “Do you like to come to pre-school?”, “What things can you decide yourself in pre-school?” and “What would you like to learn?”.

A key emphasis is the parent-teacher partnership. Indeed, the Finnish national curriculum explicitly aims to support families in their parenting tasks, not vice versa.

Inclusivity is widely practised. Resources are directed at those in most need of them, with a high level of support for those with special needs. Children with special needs, accounting for some 10 per cent of the school enrolment, were mostly integrated into every class. Roving teachers work with the more physically and intellectually challenged ones separately, where necessary.

Obviously, Singapore cannot copy the Finnish education system wholesale. We do not currently have its egalitarian culture and its long-standing respect of the teaching profession.

But we can surely learn some things. They include the principle of the unharried child, child-centricity and inclusiveness. Ultimately, what is the purpose of education? What are parents’ aspiration for their children and development?

I can speak as a parent to three boys, aged 11, nine and six. I want my children to be developed holistically as whole persons. I wish for them to witness and practise values every moment, so that values become part of their being. I hope they will become lifelong lovers of learning, motivated to acquire new knowledge to serve and transform society. I desire their school to be a genuine community that reflects a society that I want to live in – warm, collaborative, inclusive and oriented towards the common good.

The need for reform

TODAY, Singapore has an education system that focuses on academic excellence. Singapore students rank among the best in the Programme for International Student Assessment rankings, a worldwide study of the academic performance of 15-year-old students.

Yet good examination results do not necessarily translate into desired life outcomes. It is often said that Singapore’s system, along with those of other Confucian-influenced countries, produces outstanding test-takers. But in the process these students have had their passion, creativity and confidence extinguished.

Education, potentially a great leveller, now risks exacerbating the very inequality it was meant to overcome, as well-educated parents pass on their advantages to their children through tuition and enrichment to the detriment of less-educated ones.

Paper qualifications serve as a major sorting mechanism, crudely signalling quality to employers who fail to use more sophisticated and accurate job assessment tools. The practice permeates the entire system, with the high-stakes Primary School Leaving Examination being the determining factor for entry into preferred secondary schools.

The result is a gross misallocation of resources nationally. Instead of being a tool to help to track the progress of a child relative to what he or she can appropriately achieve, testing becomes a cramming ultramarathon. In Singapore, more than $800 million annually is estimated to be spent on tuition alone, by those who can pay for it.

The sad thing is that in schools every day, many children except the academically brightest are being made to feel constantly inferior, with their weaknesses reinforced.

Those who opt into the value system that academic achievement is paramount, take on a survivalist mentality, aiming to learn the tricks to score for exams, which is antithetical to learning and development.

Some opt out but sometimes at tremendous cost, either by entering a foreign schooling system (if they can afford it), or by dropping and abandoning all thought of educational accomplishment.

The way ahead

HOW can we change this reality?

I think we need radical experimentation, with a prototype full school that is built from scratch and that can provide a genuine alternative.

This school should be a true 3P model – people, private and public – with parents and community volunteers and experienced educators working together to establish and manage it. The state should help with funding and hold the school accountable for broad education outcomes.

The philosophy of the school should be child-centric, process-driven and geared towards holistic learning. Assessments should be focused on tracking progress against a child’s individual potential, not on how he or she compares with others. Since the school will include both primary and secondary levels, no PSLE will be necessary.

Singapore has already experimented with lab schools at the pre-school level. Having a lab school at the primary to secondary school level will allow parents to see for themselves the difference a truly child-centric system can make.

The tension that exists today between the seemingly incompatible goals of equity and excellence can be turned on its head. If excellence in creativity, collaboration and compassion are regarded as more desirable qualities in Singaporeans of the future, then diversity and inclusiveness should be embraced instead of eschewed. Mixing children of different abilities is a strength, not a weakness.

This classroom of the future should bear little resemblance to the teacher-dictated, industrial-age classrooms of today. We need more student-initiated and peer learning, with teachers as facilitators.

A bold experiment

RECENTLY, I witnessed a bold experiment at a local secondary school. The aim was to assist Normal (Technical) class students in coping with mathematics. Students were designated as tutors to teach one another. This peer-learning experiment resulted in a remarkable and sustained improvement in test scores among those purely peer-taught. Suddenly, 40 demotivated students became empowered mini-teachers and enthused learners.

Technology needs to be harnessed. Dr Sugata Mitra, an award-winning education technology visionary, has shown this with his “Hole in the Wall” experiment. This involved groups of children, regardless of background, learning on their own with little more than access to computers and the Internet.

Many Singaporeans will probably agree that there are many strengths in our education system, even though we can do significantly better. But I do not think that all we need are mere policy tweaks. Rather, we must welcome bold and disruptive reforms to truly transform the way we educate our children.

ST: Trust is a many-splendoured thing

Trust enables citizens and the Government to work together to build a cohesive and adaptive society - one with good quality of life for all; where Singaporeans can call home.
So when we examine the issue of public trust in the Government, it is ultimately about citizen well-being, not the survival of a political party.
Trust affects how citizens think, feel and behave. It takes time to build, is easy to lose and once lost, is difficult to restore. Given how critical and complex the concept of trust is, research on trust perceptions may shed light on how and why the public trusts, or distrusts, the Government.
Studies have identified three major dimensions of trust: competence, integrity and benevolence.

• TRUST IN COMPETENCE:

This is about people's confidence in the Government's ability to perform and solve problems. It involves the ability to address issues affecting quality of life and also effectiveness in  managing crises. Efficient delivery of public services, low crime rates and a positive record in tackling economic and public-health crises contribute to trust in competence. On the other hand, issues of infrastructure, such as public transport lagging behind population growth, raise doubts relating to trust in competence.

• TRUST IN INTEGRITY:

This is about people's assessment of the Government's character or the extent to which they think it is not corrupt and is impartial. The focus here is on the integrity of public service officers and political leaders but it also involves the perception of how breaches of integrity are handled. The series of high-profile corruption and sexual impropriety scandals involving politicians and public officers erode trust in integrity. Vigorous action against those caught for corruption, regardless of who they are, may mitigate the erosion of trust to some extent and reinforce the Government's position on zero tolerance for such wrongdoings.

• TRUST IN BENEVOLENCE:

This is about people's belief in the Government's intentions and motivations - in what it says and does and in people's perceptions about the underlying reasons for a policy or government action.

Trust in benevolence increases when people believe that the intention of policy and government action is to serve their interests and is motivated by genuine concern for citizen well-being, as opposed to being influenced by vested private or partisan interests.

It gets eroded when people think that policies are formulated by an elite which is disconnected from ground sentiments, is unable to empathize, or does not care enough for the less fortunate or ordinary folk.

There has been increasing emphasis on citizen well-being, social mobility, quality of public engagement efforts and humility and empathy in public service.

There are also significant  policy shifts in housing, health and education. If these emphases and policy shifts are sustainable and translated into intended outcomes that benefit citizens, trust in benevolence will increase.

When such trust is low, people experience diverse emotions, from anger and anxiety to disappointment and frustration. They become skeptical when reacting to policies too.

They are also more likely to advocate counter-proposals. It is unwise to treat these strong disagreements especially those expressed on social media, as arising from irrational emotions, anti-establishment sentiments or a lack of understanding of the policy's substantive content. 

The good news is that some of the counter-proposals put forward are constructive and lead to real improvements in policies. If the Government engages critics and even skeptics, and adopts their counter-proposals when these are in fact better, it demonstrates principled adaptive leadership. This in turn builds trust in benevolence.

Trust-in-transition

How issues or incidents are managed by the people and the Government can exert lasting influence on trust in Government.

The socio-political changes in the past two years are sometimes interpreted as reflecting a decline in public trust in the Government.

But it is important to not confuse a decline in trust with strong responses from a politically active citizenry that simply reflects disagreements and pluralistic perspectives.

In other words, more disagreement and criticism of government policies does not automatically suggest a decline in trust. It is also worth noting that a fall in trust in the Government is neither a given nor inevitable.

The level of trust in the Government will depend on the relationship between the people and the Government, the actual trustworthiness of the Government and the people's likelihood to trust, given the context, and their previous experiences.

That means it is not pre-determined that trust will decrease or increase in future. It also means it is possible to improve trust levels.

A significant segment of the Singaporean population is undergoing what I call a state of "trust-in-transition". This is a transition period in which the 'trustor' has feelings of doubt and ambivalence towards the 'trustee'. It is a critical period because what occurs during this time can be highly impactful and 'tilt' the trustor towards trust or distrust.

During trust-in-transition, the trustor experiences conflicting thoughts and mixed emotions. This occurs because the trustor has a previously positive perception of the trustee based on evidence but is now undergoing negative experiences related to issues of competence, integrity, benevolence or some combination of these dimensions.

Currently, a segment of the Singapore population is likely undergoing trust-in-transition as they compare the previous positive record of the Government with the ongoing challenges in infrastructure support, management of population issues, procurement lapses and high-profile scandals.

It is important to focus on trust-in-transition. People undergoing trust-in-transition are not indifferent or uninterested fence-sitters. They are people in a committed relationship with the Government but are now experiencing mixed emotions, attempting to sort out conflicting thoughts.

Whether people move out of their transition into trust or distrust will depend on their belief in the Government's competence, integrity and benevolence. They need to feel the Government has the ability to put citizen interests and well-being as the top priority; and have the intention and sincerity to do so.

The future of trust

I suggest people and the Government look at trust from a three-pronged approach.

First, we should discuss trust in the Government by examining competence, integrity and benevolence - both actual and perceived.

Trust in competence increases when the Government solves problems and deliver on its promises.

Trust in integrity increases when the Government is transparent, objective and fair when making decisions, and accountable for its use of resources, its actions and the resulting outcomes.

Trust in benevolence increases when the Government understands and emphasises with Singaporeans' needs and problems and puts Singaporeans' interests and well-being as top priority.

Some approaches will contribute to all three dimensions of trust. For example, public communication can be more strategic and coordinated across agencies. Public engagement can be more inclusive and begin earlier prior to policy formulation.

This means going beyond seeking feedback and explaining policies.

There could be more sharing of relevant information early - to work out collaborative solutions with the public. For Singaporeans to contribute more to the country, they need to be given more information and a greater voice in the decision-making process.

Second, trust could evolve and change over time, either gradually or suddenly. The level of trust in Government is not static. A low level of trust at a point in time must not be taken as a given and a high level must not be taken for granted. This means one needs to adequately assess trust levels and track changes over time.

Finally, there is a need to understand how trust is built and how distrust originates, what factors could predict and influence trust, and what consequences may result from trust and distrust.

One also needs to understand how trust or distrust propagates and spirals into positive or negative effects, and how trust could be repaired, restored and rebuilt.

A good way to start is to revisit assumptions about these issues and check them against research findings and different perspectives.

Trust is critical and complex.

There must be an understanding of the trust process in order to repair trust violations, restore trust erosion and rebuild trust development.