Let me first touch on the recruitment, retention and staffing situation, which Mr Hawazi Daipi and Dr Tan Boon Wan have raised.

The annual resignation rate among trained teachers has also remained quite stable in the last few years, averaging about 2% (400-500 resignations). This figure may look large, but is very reasonable given the size of the teaching force, and when compared to the rest of the Civil Service, as well as the private sector. It is unrealistic to expect no resignations.

Dr Jennifer Lee has expressed concern at the few thousand vacant teaching posts in MOE.

Sir, the vacant teacher posts which Dr Lee was referring to includes posts held in the Ministry HQ for officers on No Pay Leave, study leave, scholarships and training awards, and secondment. It also includes posts which are provided for the recruitment of trainee teachers to undergo training at the National Institute of Education (NIE).

We have also been creating new teaching posts in schools in anticipation of being able to fill them. In the last two years, we have increased the establishment in schools by 1,500 posts, and not all of this increase has been filled yet. The actual number of trained teachers has gone up by 1,000 from 22,500 in 1998 to 23,500 at the end of 1999. We have about 380 schools. So, put in another way, every school in Singapore has on average three more teachers than they had two years ago, but because we have increased the establishment, there are still additional posts yet to be filled. The situation will improve in May this year, when about 1,700 NIE graduands will be posted to schools upon completion of their pre-service training.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen has asked whether a better pupil-teacher ratio at the lower primary level will be beneficial to children’s education.

Sir, smaller class size is only one of many factors which influence the quality of education. The quality of our teachers, the curriculum, and the school environment, all play a part in determining their level of educational achievement. We need to take a total perspective of all these factors. Of all these factors, teacher quality is perhaps the most important. In the end, whatever we may say in the MOE HQ, or for that matter in this House, as pointed out by a number of Members, what actually goes on in the classrooms, is what determines the quality of education that is received. The delivery of education is, at its heart, a completely human enterprise.

To maintain quality in the teaching profession, MOE aims to recruit those with teaching aptitude from the top one-third of each cohort. Based on a cohort of 40,000, this works out to about 13,000 people. As it stands, to meet our annual recruitment target of 2,000 teachers, we would have to recruit one out of every six-and-a-half persons in the top one-third of each cohort. It is unrealistic to target to recruit much more than that. Any significant reduction in the PTR, even at the lower primary level, is likely to lead to a sharp drop in the quality of our teachers. Are our children necessarily better off in smaller classes, taught by teachers of lower quality?

MOE’s philosophy, therefore, is not to adopt a "one-size-fits-all" approach of stipulating a smaller class size for our schools. Instead, our approach is to build up and maintain a high quality teaching force by recruiting and retaining as many teachers as possible – with the right qualities - in order that schools can be given the additional resources. Principals have the flexibility to decide on how best to organise and deploy their teacher resources, according to the needs of their students and the nature of the activities.

With the larger number of teachers recruited in recent years, and stable retention, we have been able to give schools more teacher resources. In particular, there has been a net increase of almost 2000 primary school teachers since 1996. This has enabled us to lower the Pupil-Teacher Ratio in the primary schools from 26.5 to 25 during this period, even though pupil enrolment in the primary schools has increased by about 37,000 or 13.6%.

Sir, Dr Tan Boon Wan and Dr Jennifer Lee have raised the issue of teacher workload.

MOE recognises that new initiatives mean greater demands on the schools and teachers. Our teachers support these new initiatives as they feel these are good for the students. Being dedicated teachers, they want to do more for their students. Their efforts are commendable. However, while they have students’ interest at heart, school leadership and teachers need to prioritise in order to focus on the key essentials, so that both students and teachers are not overburdened.

I move on to the selection and training of our teachers.

Mr Hawazi Daipi has asked about MOE’s policies on the selection of trainee teachers, particularly those who obtained their degrees overseas.

MOE sets stringent criteria for the selection of teachers, regardless of whether they have obtained their qualifications from local or overseas institutions. Candidates for teaching are assessed based on their total academic records and on their other achievements, interests and personal qualities, including their interest and passion for teaching.

Mr Peh Chin Hua has suggested allowing students to pick and choose their teachers. Teaching quality is not necessarily a function of popularity. And I can see a number of serious implementation problems. Nevertheless, I am prepared to let any school which wishes to do so, try out this idea. But I would not encourage it.

Sir, with large numbers of new teachers joining the Education Service, teacher training takes on even greater significance.

Over the past two years, MOE, together with the NIE, have made important changes to the teacher training system to ensure that it remains aligned to the needs of our education system.

One aspect of this is the framework for continual teacher training which NIE will be implementing from next year to encourage serving teachers to continually update and upgrade themselves. To complement this framework, MOE will continue to expand the scope of opportunities for serving teachers to pursue upgrading courses through its various study leave and professional development schemes.

One group of teachers whom we will be providing greater upgrading opportunities to, are the Mother Tongue Language teachers.

I am pleased to inform Members that, with effect from Academic Year 2000/2001, MOE will be introducing a new award to sponsor Mother Tongue Language teachers for full-time undergraduate studies in the Mother Tongue Languages. Under the Award, teachers will be paid salaries for up to two years while undergoing the full-time programme. The Award, which is tenable both locally and overseas, will complement other improvements made to the teaching and learning of the Mother Tongue Languages announced over the past year.

On a related issue, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang has asked whether there will be a shortage of Chinese Language (CL) teachers in future.

Sir, MOE has been able to recruit about 60-70 CL teachers per year for the secondary schools. This is sufficient to meet the needs in the secondary schools. We also do recruit a limited number of teachers from overseas. These teachers are recruited under stringent selection criteria and are deployed to secondary schools. They go through an induction programme before they are posted to schools, which includes modules on National Education and the Singapore education system.

The situation in the primary schools is slightly different as there are many older CL teachers. As these older CL teachers retire, the need to fill vacancies in the primary schools will be greater. Besides the regular direct recruitment exercises, MOE has implemented several measures to recruit as many Singaporean CL teachers as possible to teach in the primary schools: first, we introduced the 4-year Mother Tongue Language Diploma in Education programme in NIE in 1997 to allow ‘O’ level school leavers, who have done well in CL and are interested to become Mother Tongue Language teachers, to develop their talent in the Mother Tongue Languages; second, NIE launched a Postgraduate Diploma in Education last year to provide "conversion training" for graduates who did not specialise in CL at University, but who have good grades in CL and are interested in teaching CL; and third, the Ministry has put in place a scheme for retired CL teachers to be re-employed to teach CL. This scheme has been quite well-received. As at end-January this year, about 100 retired CL teachers have been re-employed under the Scheme. This will help to smooth out the retirement pattern.

We hope to meet the demand for CL primary school teachers using this multi-prong approach. If there is a need, we will recruit from overseas. However, we would prefer Singaporean CL teachers in the primary schools. The teaching of Mother Tongue Language at the primary level has a significant element of values transmission which requires familiarity with our local social environment.

As for upgrading opportunities for serving non-graduate CL teachers, there are many avenues available to them to pursue a degree programme, either on a part-time or full-time basis. Only qualifications that meet our stringent requirements will be recognised. One example is the BA degree in Chinese Language and Literature offered by SIM-OUDP in collaboration with the Beijing Normal University. Since its inception in 1999, a total of 155 serving teachers have enrolled.

Let me now turn to the teaching and learning of languages in school.

Mr Inderjit Singh has questioned the need to accord so much emphasis to the Mother Tongue Language subjects, in deciding the streaming and aggregate computation of PSLE and other examinations.

Sir, bilingualism is a cornerstone of our education system. We want our young to learn English, to plug into the world and to communicate with one another; and their Mother Tongue Language, for values transmission and to understand and appreciate their cultural heritage.

Given this strategic intent, our education policies must reflect the importance that we accord to performance in both English and the Mother Tongue Language. The weighting of the 4 subjects (English, Mother Tongue Language, Mathematics and Science) at the PSLE has been adjusted over time and currently strikes a good balance between our various objectives. There is no need to change this.

The Mother Tongue Language requirements for admission to JCs and universities are set at a reasonable level for the vast majority of students – only about 2% of students who sit for the Mother Tongue Language papers at ‘O’ and ‘AO’ level fail to meet the requirement of grade D7 or better. However, we do recognise that not all students have the same language ability, motivation, and home language environment. We have thus introduced a Syllabus ‘B’ for students facing exceptional difficulties in their Mother Tongue Language.

Sir, I would like to thank Mr Iswaran for his comments on the various Mother Tongue Language reviews. In line with the recommendations from these reviews, MOE is currently revising the syllabuses, instructional materials, as well as examination formats for the Mother Tongue Languages. Mother Tongue Language teachers in all schools have been briefed on the changes. Workshops and group discussions will also be organised to help them use the new teaching materials effectively, before they are rolled out.

With regard to Mr Ibrahim Othman’s query, students who are eligible for the ML Elective Programme at the secondary level are those who are eligible to take Higher ML. They are either within the top 10% in PSLE, or in the top 11-30% and have scored either an ‘A*’ in ML or a ‘Distinction’ in Higher ML, and at least an ‘A’ in EL. Likewise, those who qualify for the ML Elective Programme at the JC level, must have scored at least a B3 in Higher ML or an A2 in ML in their ‘O’ level examinations. As these students perform well in ML, and have the interest for the subject, they are likely to be able to cope with the elective programmes.

Mr Ibrahim has also asked whether the standard for A1 in ML in the ‘O’ level examinations is set too high. Sir, the standards of the papers and the marking are subject to careful control of difficulty level and to ensure consistency in marking. I can confirm that it is not any more difficult for Malay students to score an ‘A1’ in ML in the ‘O’ level examinations, than for Chinese students taking CL and Indian students taking TL. Our statistics bear this out.

Finally, Mr Tay Beng Chuan and Mdm Claire Chiang have suggested that MOE conduct non-examination courses on ethnic languages in the primary and secondary schools.

Sir, as I said in this House last week, I would leave it to schools to decide whether to offer it as an optional enrichment subject, based on the demand for it and the resources available. However, community organisations which want to do their part in promoting the learning of a third language, are most welcome to do so. I must caution though that learning a third language will pose a heavy additional load on students.