Police data indicate that from 1 Oct 2008 to 30 Sep 2009, 136 youths were arrested for loanshark and related harassment activities, of which almost half were students.

Ultimately, parents are primary caregivers of their children. They must take responsibility to monitor the after-school activities of their children and know who their children are interacting with so as to provide timely guidance to their children.

The reasons for school children being lured into working for such activities are complex. Even as we reiterate the responsibility of parents to mould their children’s character, schools can play a complementary reinforcing role in this respect.

Schools raise awareness of their students to illegal activities through the formal curriculum and a variety of character development and life-skills programmes, in order to teach them to discern right from wrong. The actions taken by schools include counselling and support, and as a last resort, disciplinary actions.

Schools also engage the parents and community to work in partnership in nurturing our young holistically. Schools have adopted a variety of strategies to facilitate communication with parents and keep them informed about the needs of their children.

Schools also collaborate with relevant agencies or authorities to guide students back on the right track. For example, MOE works with the Police to raise awareness at the school level through roadshows in schools and the provision of advisories.

Permanent Residents (PRs) comprised about 13% of the children admitted during the 2009 Primary One (P1) Registration Exercise. This is similar to the proportion of PRs in Singapore’s resident population. The majority of PRs were registered at or after Phase 2C, which is for children with no existing ties to the school.

MOE regularly reviews the P1 Registration Exercise framework to ensure that all Singaporean children continue to have access to a primary school near their home. The enrolment of PRs adds diversity to our schools and there is educational value for Singaporean children to be exposed to children from different cultures from a young age.

Singapore citizens enjoy privileges within the education system that PRs and international students do not. For instance, only Singapore citizens are eligible for Edusave Accounts, Edusave scholarships and awards, Post Secondary Education Accounts, Government top-ups, and other forms of government financial assistance such as the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme, the Independent School Bursary and Short-term Study Assistance Scheme. PRs currently pay 20% more in school fees than Singapore citizens. MOE revises school fees for PRs and international students from time to time, to reflect larger subsidies for SCs.

To address this trend, MOE provides sexuality education in schools to complement the primary role that parents play in this area of their children’s behaviour and development. Age appropriate sexuality education is delivered through the formal curriculum on Health Education, Civic and Moral Education and Science as well as through the co-curricular programme “Growing Years”, which seeks to equip students with the essential knowledge and skills to form healthy relationships with the opposite sex, while making responsible, values-based decisions on matters of sexuality. It advocates abstinence as the best option for teens and helps them to understand the risks and consequences of pre-marital sex. Teenagers are also educated about Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs), including HIV, and protection against these diseases from a health perspective, through the Health Promotion Board’s (HPB) programme, “Breaking Down Barriers”. Students, who are likely to be sexually active, are given one-on-one counselling sessions by their Full Time School Counsellors or referred to other health services with parental consent.

As parents are a child’s first educators, MOE has been working with HPB and MCYS to better equip parents to play their role through a programme called “Love Them. Talk About Sex”. This programme seeks to raise parents’ awareness about the importance of sexuality education and give them tips on how to talk to their children about sexuality matters.

The rise in teenage sexual activity is a trend seen in many countries. While MOE itself has not conducted specific research into the causes behind this trend, existing research and feedback from school counsellors suggest that the causes are multi-factorial.

The Director-General for Education chairs a committee of education, health and social service professionals, which has been set up to regularly review the curricula on sexuality education and its effectiveness.

MOE pays careful attention to the mental well-being of our students and closely monitors the state of mental health in our students, including depression. Clinical depression can affect people across social spectrum and age groups, but it is far less common among children and adolescents.

Suicidal acts are a symptom of a complex problem for which there is no one single cause. The main contributory factors among student suicides are relationship problems with family and peers, failure to meet self and parental expectations, dysfunctional family patterns, as well as the occurrence of mental illness, including clinical depression.

MOE actively works with the Health Promotion Board (HPB) and mental health professionals, including psychiatrists and clinical psychologists from the Child Guidance Clinic (CGC) of the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), to implement a comprehensive approach to build resilience against stress and prevent suicides. Our approach comprises three key elements: (i) building protective factors in our students, (ii) identifying at-risk students for early support, and (iii) channelling students with depressive disorders and/or suicidal tendencies to the appropriate psychological, medical and other necessary resources for intervention.

Our schools help students build protective factors through the provision of social and emotional learning (SEL). SEL helps students acquire a set of social and emotional competencies, which will enable them to better understand themselves, interact effectively with others and cope with life’s challenges, thereby inoculating them against depressive and suicidal thoughts and behaviours. This is further augmented by the Mind Your Mind (MYM) programme, a school-based mental health education package, targeted at primary and secondary school students. The package, jointly developed by HPB and MOE, covers topics such as stress and anger management, building positive self-esteem and depression.

To help students in need of support, every school has a tiered-referral system to facilitate the early identification and extension of help to them. At the first tier are our teachers who are trained to identify students who show signs that they are troubled and provide the necessary basic support, including referring students to the second tier of support formed by the school counsellors. Complex cases are referred to the third tier of support, which can involve guidance specialists from MOE, mental health professionals at the CGC, or the relevant social service agencies. Pertinent information about students, including support rendered to them by counsellors, is handed over from the primary to secondary school.

While schools can support and educate our youths, the support from the home is also paramount. Parents and family members can help their youths set realistic expectations for themselves and develop the resilience and strength of character which will enable them to ride the challenges of life.

Our secondary schools are not ranked as the Member has asked but receive different awards for various achievements. MOE will therefore provide information requested based on the top 10% of students based on PSLE scores where more than 60% live in HDB flats. Among the Secondary 1 students who enrolled in Integrated Programme (IP)¹ schools in 2009, more than half live in HDB flats.

Our education system aims to provide opportunities for all students to go as far as possible, regardless of their home background.

Footnote

1. Schools that offer IP to Secondary 1 students in 2009 are Anglo-Chinese (Independent), Dunman High, Hwa Chong Institution, Nanyang Girls’ High, National Junior College, NUS High School Of Mathematics And Science, Raffles Girls’ (Secondary), Raffles Institution and River Valley High. ↵

When National Education (NE) in schools was launched in 1997, the stated objectives were to develop national cohesion, cultivate the instinct for survival and instil confidence in our future. These goals continue to be relevant but following the 2007 Report of the Committee on National Education, MOE has placed a greater emphasis on these goals, in addition to fostering a sense of belonging to Singapore.

Programs and outcomes related to NE are reviewed annually in all schools as part of the School Excellence Model where schools systematically assess enablers and processes in relation to key performance results linked to the Desired Outcomes of Education. Schools with consistently good NE programs and outcomes are recognised in the yearly NE Awards. In the last 9 years, there were 144 such schools which effectively infused NE into the school’s formal and informal curriculum. In addition, these schools engaged key stakeholders and built sustained partnerships with community partners in relation to NE.

For example, Evergreen Secondary School has a program to teach students storytelling skills, leveraging on diverse media tools to convey the Singapore Story. The school also has a comprehensive emergency preparedness programme organised in conjunction with the local community.

To ensure that students have basic knowledge about Singapore, an NE quiz is administered for Primary 6 and Secondary 4 students. MOE also surveys student perceptions and attitudes to obtain feedback on the effectiveness of our NE programs. Our latest survey in 2008 showed that students had a sense of belonging to Singapore, with 9 out of 10 students being proud to be Singaporean. 82% of students said they were comfortable with friends from a different religious background. They also expressed increasing confidence in Singapore’s future. 74% of students expressed the belief that Singapore will remain prosperous over the next five years, and that we will remain a leading economic centre in Asia.

While these survey results are encouraging, MOE will continue to review its NE programs and content periodically to ensure that they engage students and serve our overall objectives. MOE is also mindful that we will have to engage other stakeholders, including parents and the community on this collective task to instil among our students a sense of rootedness to Singapore.

Cyber wellness is an integral component of the Ministry of Education’s third ICT masterplan for education (mp3) which was launched in August 2008. This included a framework to guide all schools in planning and developing cyber wellness programmes.

The framework defines the principles to guide the actions of students, and processes to explore issues as well as partner parents in promoting cyber wellness among the students. Schools were also given a starter kit of resources in the form of lesson plans on topics, such as, netiquette and cyberbullying.

As parents play a critical role in managing their children’s behaviours, MOE distributed a handbook containing parenting tips and warning signs to detect and deal with cyber-related issues of their children. This handbook was given to all primary and secondary schools, junior colleges and centralised institute in 2008.

Starting in 2009, MOE will be monitoring the implementation of cyber wellness programmes in schools through mid- and end-of-year reviews of the implementation of ICT programmes by schools. The recent mid-year review indicated that all schools had put in place cyber wellness programmes. These included talks and seminars for parents to equip them with skills to manage cyber-related issues. MOE is also developing assessment tools, which will be piloted in 2011, to evaluate the effectiveness of cyber wellness programmes.

Let me first address the more general questions about the role of ICT in education, before addressing the more specific questions relating to FutureSchools.

ICT is an investment that we need to make to prepare our students for the 21st century. Through the use of ICT, our students develop competencies for self-directed and collaborative learning to succeed in a knowledge-based economy. ICT also allows learning experiences to be better customised according to the way each student learns best.

Singapore is now into its third ICT masterplan in schools. We have equipped all our schools, trained teachers, and ICT is now part and parcel of the teaching and learning process.

As part of the implementation of the third ICT masterplan, schools will integrate ICT into 50% of the curriculum time by 2014. Students learn critical ICT skills through different subjects, e.g., keyboarding during lower primary English and use of spreadsheets during upper primary and secondary Mathematics. Apart from productivity tools and the Internet, students also participate in web2.0 collaborative learning environments with the use of mobile technologies and data collection tools. Schools use a self-evaluation tool to ascertain the proficiency of their students across the different core ICT skills.

The ICT-enriched environment in our schools has brought about a shift in the way students learn. They are now more actively engaged in learning through interacting with not only text but interactive ICT tools such as dataloggers to deepen their understanding of concepts. With multimedia tools such as video cameras and web2.0 technologies such as wikis, students now collaboratively review and create knowledge with peers within and beyond their classrooms. Many students have also excelled in international competitions like the International Olympiad in Informatics. Students who are confident about the use of ICT also make for a more e-ready citizenry, paving the way for more innovative e-services to be implemented in Singapore.

MOE will continue to take a balanced and judicious approach in its investment, paying due attention to ICT infrastructure, learning resources and capacity-building for educators. The use of ICT needs to move in tandem with changes in curriculum, assessment and pedagogy.

FutureSchools are to push the frontiers of learning and teaching at a school-wide level to fully harness ICT to engage students in learning. To-date, six schools have been selected as FutureSchools. The next batch of FutureSchools will be selected in 2011. Our intent is to develop up to a total of 15 FutureSchools by 2015. This phased approach will ensure that the technologies proposed and employed can be the most up-to-date during the different phases and thus allow greater benefits. It will allow us to derive learning points from the first-phase to inform the implementation of later phases. It is thus a cost effective way for MOE to sustain innovations in our schools given the rapid rate of ICT change.

The Gifted Education Programme is one of many ways we have to discover talent and take it as far as possible. At the primary level, GEP pupils are placed in separate classes in designated schools and stretched and challenged through a differentiated curriculum. Although the programme was working well, the intermingling initiative was introduced in 2007 to achieve a better balance between stretching the potential of the pupils and integrating them with other pupils. Apart from partiCIPation in CCAs and joint Community Involvement Projects, GEP and other pupils also attend the same classes in subjects like PE, Music and Art. This will enable GEP pupils and their non-GEP peers to maintain regular contact and develop closer bonds with their schoolmates through meaningful shared experiences.

All 9 GEP schools have provided positive feedback on the intermingling initiative. Both pupils and parents have found intermingling beneficial.

With GEP and mainstream pupils spending more curriculum time together, engaging in hands-on activities as well as exchange of ideas and personal experiences, pupils have developed meaningful friendships. For example, as pupils are in mixed PE classes, they had to form mixed teams to represent the classes in competitions at the School Sports Day, and this has been invaluable in building team work.

Schools have also made it a point to organize pupils in mixed groups for school camps, outings and Community Involvement Programme (CIP) projects. This also provides opportunities for both groups to have a better understanding of their strengths and weaknesses, and learn to appreciate each other’s talents.

We are encouraged by the positive feedback, and will continue with our efforts to promote intermingling of GEP and mainstream pupils.

At the secondary level, GEP classes used to be organised by MOE. These were hosted in selected schools. Since the introduction of Integrated Programmes (IP) schools in 2004 and the establishment of NUS High School of Math and Science in 2005, MOE-organised GEP has ceased as such schools could cater to the learning needs of GEP and other high-ability students through school-based programmes.

The small number of GEP pupils who prefer the ’O’ Level track may enrol in schools like Anglo-Chinese School (Independent), Catholic High School, Methodist Girls’ School, Singapore Chinese Girls’ School, and St Joseph’s Institution, which offer school-based talent development programmes.

MOE, with its rich experience of running the GEP, now plays a major role in providing training for IP and specialised school teachers and the sharing of resources and expertise in educating the intellectually able.

Gifted education remains an integral part of Singapore’s education system, and will continue to evolve to cater to students who are intellectually gifted and talented to ensure they reach their maximum potential. MOE will continue to play a key role in supporting schools to deliver school-based gifted education programmes. What we aim to achieve is a diversity of such programmes.

Background

Sir, allow me to first set the context for the Private Education Bill.

The regulatory regime for the private education (or PE) sector started with a “light-touch”. This was because the industry was nascent in the 70’s and 80’s with little demand and few players. Schools were registered if they met basic requirements such as approval for usage of premises and fire safety clearance and some rudimentary checks on school management and teachers. Registration did not represent endorsement or assessment of the quality of the academic programmes. Students were reminded to do their own due diligence when enrolling in these programmes.

Between 1987 and 1997, the number of private schools registered with MOE doubled from 150 to 305. Consequently, measures were taken to provide a level of quality assurance. The Ministry of Trade and Industry facilitated the establishment of quality assurance schemes which the better private schools could aim to attain. These are the CaseTrust for Education certification, administered by the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE), and the Singapore Quality Class for Private Education Organisations (SQC-PEO), administered by SPRING Singapore.

Moving forward, even these measures are no longer adequate. The private education sector now attracts a large number of local as well as international students who are drawn by the Singapore brand. The number of private schools quadrupled between 1997 and 2007, from 305 to 1,200. The number of full-time international students enrolled in the private schools also grew in tandem from 9,000 in 1997 to 37,000 in 2007. In 2008, there were about 120,000 students enrolled in these private schools of which 45,000 were from overseas.

The exponential growth of the sector has resulted in a highly uneven spread of academic and governance standards amongst the private education institutions (or PEIs). Some were found to have engaged in dubious or unscrupulous practices, which have adversely affected Singapore’s reputation. In the last few years, the closures of a few PEIs have also left their students stranded. It is, therefore, in the interest of all stakeholders that we tighten up standards and accountability under a New Regulatory Framework which will stand for quality and reliability.

Sir, my Ministry will adopt a three-pronged strategy to strengthen and uplift the private education sector. First, we will put in place a more robust regulatory framework through the enactment of the Private Education Bill. Second, we will step up efforts in consumer education. Third, we will work with industry associations and PEIs to develop the private education sector so as to raise the quality of provision and student welfare over time. Given the diversity of the private education landscape, MOE cannot do this alone and we will need support from industry, consumers, the general public as well as Members of this House.

I will first touch on the new regulatory framework which has three key components:

1. The Council for Private Education (CPE) to be established as the sectoral regulator and developer;

2. The mandatory Enhanced Registration Framework (ERF); and

3. The voluntary EduTrust Certification Scheme.

Let me now elaborate on each of these three components.

Council for Private Education

Hitherto, MOE’s primary mission over the last 40 odd years since our independence has been focused on delivering a world class public education system. MOE’s expertise is largely in this public education domain where the mandate, goals and constraints are substantially different from those within the private education sector. Part II of the Bill, therefore, provides for the establishment of the CPE as a new statutory board, which will allow it to build up the requisite capabilities for a different operating environment in the private sector.

The Council for Private Education will comprise a Chairman and between 5 to 17 members to be appointed by the Minister for Education. The CPE will be supported by a pool of full-time staff to fulfil the regulatory and developmental functions. As the sectoral regulator, the CPE will have authority over matters such as registration; quality assurance certification; and investigations and enforcement action against errant PEIs. The CPE will also have the powers to develop codes of practice relating to private education matters, enter into contracts, form partnerships and companies, and charge fees in the course of its work.

Beyond the regulatory role, the CPE will promote consumer awareness; provide student services; and facilitate industry development. The CPE will drive public education initiatives and enhance the channels that prospective and current students at PEIs can turn to for assistance. The CPE will collaborate with other government agencies to develop the sector and its capabilities.

Mandatory Enhanced Registration Framework

Sir, Part III of the Bill provides for aspects related to the regulation of Private Education Institutions. The regulatory scope of the PE Bill as defined in the First Schedule primarily covers PEIs which offer degree, diploma or full-time certification programmes at the post-secondary level, and those which offer full-time preparatory courses for entrance to our mainstream schools, or for external examinations. Such PEIs have a significant impact on the Singapore education brand and involve major investments by the students, Singaporean and foreign, in terms of course fees and time. About 1,000 of such PEIs will be covered under the new regime.

Online and virtual PEIs operating in and from Singapore and offering the types of courses mentioned above will also be required to be registered with the CPE. This is to guard against Singapore becoming a staging point for online degree mills and other similar virtual setups. Singapore-based private operators who offer accreditation services and examination certification services overseas will also come under the scope of the PE Bill.

Sir, the aim of the Enhanced Registration Framework is fourfold:

1. Raise corporate and academic governance standards;

2. Enhance student protection measures;

3. Compel disclosure of key information by PEIs; and

4. Require PEIs to seek, on a regular basis, fresh approval to renew their registration.

I would now like to highlight key provisions in the Bill that will enable us to achieve these objectives.

Raise Corporate and Academic Governance

Clause 37 of the Bill aims to ensure that sound academic and corporate governance systems are in place for PEIs. The PEI is required to be a registered company or society; must ensure that its teachers have the relevant qualifications and experience; and that its managers are fit and proper persons.

A key enhancement under the Bill is that the line of accountability for the conduct and practices of PEIs is made clearer in the new regulatory regime. In this regard, Part I of the Bill defines a manager of a PEI as any director, partner or member of its committee of management, and includes any person who has management of the PEI. In line with good corporate governance, this provision in the Bill ensures that accountability for any misconduct by the PEI can be traced back to the actual persons who exert management influence over the PEI.

The managers are responsible for a set of prescribed responsibilities, as spelt out in Clause 41 of the Bill. These include the keeping of proper records; providing for students affected by the PEI’s closure to complete their enrolled course or a similar one in another PEI; and furnishing information requested by the CPE within the stipulated duration. The failure of a manager to fulfil his responsibilities without any justifiable reason will constitute a criminal offence. The CPE will also have the power to direct any PEI to suspend or remove any of its managers if they are found to be inadequate in carrying out the responsibilities of managing the school or are unable to discharge their prescribed duties, as provided for in Clause 42 of the Bill.

Academic governance will also be tightened under the new regulatory regime. Clause 43 requires PEIs to seek CPE’s permission to offer courses; failure to do so will constitute a criminal offence. In processing these applications, the CPE will verify the authenticity of the qualifications offered and the standing of the institutions issuing them. Additionally, Clauses 46 and 47 protect the public from false or misleading advertisements. Clause 43(12) makes it an offence for PEIs or any persons to advertise courses not permitted by the CPE, or solicit or receive any fee from any student in respect of such courses. PEIs found to be committing any of these offences would be liable to be de-registered.

For the purposes of Clause 43, regulations will be made for the CPE to also tighten the requirements for any PEIs applying to offer external degree programmes (or EDPs). For example, CPE will examine the track record and standing of the foreign institutions issuing the degrees. In addition, these foreign universities will have to commit that the degree programmes offered at the local PEIs are recognised by their home country authorities; are subject to the same academic approval and assurance processes as the programmes offered at their home campuses, and that the graduates here receive equivalent recognition, treatment and privileges as those enrolled in their home campuses.

With these more stringent requirements coming into effect, some PEIs may have to cease offering certain EDPs which do not meet the new criteria. PEIs will be required to provide the CPE with clear plans to address the needs of students currently enrolled in such EDPs, including the possibility of switching to an alternative programme.

Enhanced Student Protection Measures

The Enhanced Registration Framework will also provide for stronger student protection measures. Clause 60 of the Bill empowers the CPE to direct PEIs to issue refund of the fees paid by students should the PEIs fail to deliver the courses which the students have enrolled in. The CPE may also make regulations to stipulate the maximum amount of fees a PEI may collect upfront from the students so as to mitigate the financial impact of sudden school closures.

To ensure that PEIs do not misrepresent themselves or the courses that they offer, Clauses 37 and 39 of the Bill restrict any PEI from using names and terms which are false or misleading, while Clause 46 of the Bill prohibits any person or PEI from publishing false or misleading advertisements. Clauses 40 and 47 of the Bill also empower the CPE to direct the PEIs to take remedial action.

Under Clause 64 of the Bill, the CPE may prescribe dispute resolution schemes and make regulations to require registered PEIs to participate in such schemes. In doing so, the CPE aims to provide aggrieved students with ready access to cost-efficient and expeditious means of seeking redress in resolving disputes with PEIs. Disclosure of Key Information by PEIs

The Enhanced Registration Framework will also compel PEIs to disclose key information on its premises, courses and teachers to enable students to make informed choices. The CPE will have the authority under Clause 63 of the Bill to publish relevant information on the PEIs on the CPE’s website. This includes the list of PEIs which have been de-registered or have had their EduTrust certifications withdrawn owing to the contravention of terms and conditions that were imposed.

In addition, Clause 62 of the Bill empowers the CPE to obtain information from the PEIs when the need arises. System of Renewable Registration for PEIs

Under the current Education Act, registration for PEIs is a one-off exercise. Under the new regulatory regime, PEIs will need to be approved by the CPE before they can be registered to operate. Registration status will have a specified validity period to be determined by the CPE as provided for under Clause 36 of the Bill. The validity period of a PEI’s registration status may vary based on how well the PEI measures up to the registration criteria. This will incentivise PEIs to improve their standards in order to attain a longer period of registration. In addition, the CPE has the power to suspend or cancel the registration status of PEIs under Clause 38 of the Bill.

Enforcement, Offences and Penalties

Sir, even as we place the onus on the PEIs and their managers under the new regulatory regime to internalise their obligations as responsible education service providers, the CPE will be stepping up its efforts to monitor the PEIs and, where necessary, undertake enforcement action. In this regard, provisions have been made under Clauses 57 and 58 of the Bill for CPE inspectors to have the necessary investigative and enforcement powers to conduct regular audit checks and to investigate any complaints against PEIs. Clauses 48 and 61 of the Bill also provide for a full range of actions and penalties to allow the CPE to calibrate its enforcement actions.

Some contraventions by the PEIs would constitute a criminal offence with deterrent penalties. For example, a PEI or manager who intentionally makes false statements to the CPE; obstructs or impedes the CPE’s inspection or investigation work; or refuses to comply with the remedial action directed by the CPE, shall be liable for a conviction with a fine or jail term or both.

The Bill also ensures that there is an effective redress mechanism for parties aggrieved by the regulatory decisions or directions of the CPE. Such aggrieved parties can appeal to an Appeals Board which will be appointed by the Minister and administered independent of the CPE. Part V of the Bill provides for the establishment of the Appeals Board by MOE.

Transitional Arrangements

Sir, this Bill will certainly raise the standards of governance and accountability of PEIs, and the protection they accord to students. However, it is in the interest of all stakeholders to ensure a smooth transition from the prevailing regulatory framework. To minimise disruption to students as well as to the operators in the transition to the new regime, Clause 74 of the Bill provides for the CPE to make the necessary transitional arrangements for PEIs crossing over to the new mandatory enhanced registration framework. Upon the commencement of the Private Education Act, PEIs which are currently registered under the Education Act will be accorded “deemed registered” status for a period of 18 months. These PEIs will have to attain registration in compliance with the enhanced criteria of the new regulatory regime, if they wish to continue to operate beyond this 18-month window period.

There is another segment of PEIs which are currently not required to register under the Education Act but will fall under the regulatory scope of the new Bill. These are private schools set up by registered societies, and privately-funded vocational schools offering full-time education leading to various forms of certification. Upon the commencement of the new regulatory regime, Clause 74 requires these PEIs to come forward within 2 months to submit their applications for registration, if they wish to be able to continue to operate until either they attain their registration under Part III, or their application is rejected or withdrawn.

Our aim in this transition is to give PEIs a reasonable period to upgrade and meet the required standards. PEIs who do not meet standards despite this grace period risk non-renewal of registration. Notwithstanding this grace period, the CPE will not hesitate to act against any errant PEIs. This is necessary to maintain high standards for our private education sector.

Voluntary EduTrust Certification Scheme

Sir, I will now move on to the EduTrust Certification Scheme, to be established under Clause 49 of the Bill. The EduTrust scheme is a quality mark. It differs from CaseTrust in two important ways. First, it sets higher standards. Second, its coverage is wider. For example:

1. EduTrust imposes additional requirements on PEIs with respect to their academic, financial and administration processes; student welfare matters; and partnerships with external recruitment agents.

2. In the area of student welfare, PEIs will be required to have clear policy on fees and refunds, effective complaint resolution procedures, and appropriate student counselling and support services. While CaseTrust mandates fee protection for only international students, the EduTrust scheme mandates fee protection for both international and local students.

3. PEIs will also need to have qualified academic supervisors and teachers, and well-defined structures for programme development, assessment, progression and performance review.

Therefore, not all PEIs who currently have CaseTrust certification will obtain EduTrust certification. However, the CPE will provide a grace period for such PEIs to upgrade themselves, and provide information to prospective students in the meantime.

Given the higher standards under the EduTrust scheme, making it mandatory will lead to PEIs incurring significant additional costs to attain such certification. Inevitably, these costs will be passed on to the students when the market may not require such additional measures. For example, there are currently several hundred small non-CaseTrust-certified PEIs, offering short skills-based courses of less than 6 months catering to specific industry needs. Instead, a voluntary EduTrust scheme allows better PEIs a mechanism to differentiate themselves based on quality if they so desire.

The market will recognise the EduTrust mark as a signal of confidence and quality. As such, it is in the interest of genuine education services providers to be EduTrust-certified so as to distinguish themselves as the better players in the sector.

Stepping Up Consumer Education

In tandem with the implementation of the enhanced regulatory framework, CPE will step up efforts to cultivate consumer sophistication through the provision of accessible and transparent information on the private education sector for students. The setting up of a Student Services Centre will be key to this effort. The Centre will convey student advisory information and facilitate student support and protection services. The Centre will be the first stop to handle complaints from students. For disputes that require professional services in mediation and arbitration, the aggrieved students and PEIs will be directed by the CPE to resolve their disputes in a formal and responsible manner through CPE-appointed dispute resolution centres.

Developing the Private Sector

In addition to its regulatory role, the CPE will also facilitate the development of the industry. The immediate focus of the CPE in this regard will be to work with industry partners to assist PEIs to prepare for the higher standards of the Enhanced Registration Framework and EduTrust Certification Scheme through workshops and forums. Partnering other government agencies, the CPE will also help PEIs enhance their system and manpower capabilities through capability development initiatives. The CPE will also look into strengthening the industry association so that it can serve as a key partner in mobilising support amongst industry players.

With the levelling up of the private education sector’s standards over the next few years, the CPE aims to work with industry leaders and associations to create a stronger culture of accountability and responsibility among the PEIs. While legislation will still be employed where necessary, in the long run, this culture of accountability together with a higher level of consumer sophistication will be the foundation of the industry’s development and growth.

Industry and Public Consultation

Sir, in formulating this Bill, my Ministry has conducted two public consultation exercises to seek feedback on the new regulatory framework from the public and key stakeholders of the sector so as to further refine the regulatory requirements. The first public consultation exercise, conducted over a period of 8 weeks from March to May this year, focused on the key principles and requirements of the proposed Enhanced Registration Framework and the EduTrust certification scheme. In this period, my Ministry also conducted industry briefings and focus group discussions with PEIs to facilitate their understanding of the new regime as well as to obtain feedback. This was followed by a second public consultation exercise on the actual draft of the Private Education Bill in July.

Overall, there is broadbased support for the government’s move towards tighter regulation of the private education sector. We have also received unequivocal support from private education providers who welcome the move to preserve and enhance the industry’s integrity and reputation. My Ministry has received useful comments and suggestions from the two public consultation exercises and, consequently, has made a number of modifications to the new regulatory framework and Bill.

Even as we recognise the public support for enhancing the regulatory regime, we are mindful that the transition to a new system with higher standards and expectations will have varying effects on industry players and students. The public should expect and be prepared for some changes in the industry, including closures and consolidation. Our ultimate goal is a strong private education industry that can deliver quality education to students.

Conclusion

Sir, I would like to conclude by emphasising that a strong regulatory framework, while necessary, is not a panacea. Regulatory systems in all countries aim to assure consumers of certain quality standards. While risk can be mitigated, it can never be completely eliminated. The new system cannot by itself guarantee student satisfaction, avert school closures or prevent regulatory infringements. We need the support and collective ownership of all stakeholders, including the private education providers and the students, to make the learning experience in Singapore an attractive and enriching one. PEIs must realise the need to constantly upgrade themselves to meet the challenges of an increasingly competitive international education landscape and the rising expectations of students. Students themselves must be more discerning and deliberate in their choice of education pathways and institutions.

Singapore has forged a reputation for excellence in its public education system. Students from all over the world are attracted to Singapore on the strength of our mainstream schools and world-class tertiary institutions. MOE will continue to invest in the public education sector and uphold these standards.

The private education sector will need to level up its standards and be developed further to compete on academic rigour and credibility, rather than on price or expediency. Over time, as the new measures take effect and as students gravitate towards higher-quality institutions, the overall standards in the industry will improve. The Private Education Bill is timely in providing for the necessary legislative framework to guide the private education sector in that direction.

Sir, I beg to move.

MOE will be moving a new Private Education Bill in Parliament in the later half of this year. As part of the new regulatory regime, a voluntary quality assurance scheme for private education institutions (PEIs) called EduTrust will be introduced. The EduTrust Certification Scheme will complement the enhanced set of mandatory requirements stipulated under new registration framework.

A public consultation on the new registration framework and EduTrust Scheme was carried out from 11 Mar to 6 May 2009. Respondents of the public consultation were generally supportive of the move towards tighter regulation of the PEIs and welcomed EduTrust as a framework to uplift standards in the industry. The Pro-tem Council for Private Education (CPE) has carefully studied all the feedback received and changes were made to the enhanced registration regime and EduTrust requirements. More details will be provided when the Bill is moved in Parliament.

The Pro-tem CPE Secretariat also recently completed a trial assessment of the draft Quality Assurance framework for EduTrust with 17 PEIs of varying profiles. This exercise was done to gather empirical data for calibrating the EduTrust assessment mechanism and processes and to iron out any kinks in the system. With the insights and data obtained from the trial, the assessment criteria are currently being fine-tuned and the document detailing the finalised EduTrust requirements will be made available to interested PEIs by the end of this quarter.

Let me now provide an update on the development of the QA framework for Special Education (SPED) schools. Since 2005, SPED Schools have been conducting self- appraisal using an evaluation tool, AXIS (Aspiration towards eXcellence In Special education) which was developed by a team of SPED school principals and MOE officers.

A workgroup comprising SPED school principals and officers from MOE and NCSS, was formed in Aug 2007, to develop a QA Framework for SPED schools. Based on their study of local and overseas systems, and inputs from Members of SPED School Management Committees, Principals and school staff, they have drafted a framework and a QA instrument. Field testing of the draft QA instrument was conducted in April this year. The QA instrument is currently being refined taking into consideration feedback from this field test.

By the end of 2009, SPED school principals would be trained on the use of the draft QA instrument which schools would use, on a pilot basis, to replace the AXIS. By the end of 2010, the QA instrument will be rolled out to the SPED schools which are funded by MOE and the National Council for Social Services. For the private full-time special education schools, they will come under the scope of the PE Act and may apply for EduTrust certification to meet their QA needs.

When it is ready, the QA framework and instrument will enable SPED schools to embark on a systematic school improvement process that will be based on a 4-year cycle i.e. annual self-evaluation exercises for three years, followed by an external review on the fourth year.

The current practice is that a child’s race generally follows that of the father. If the father is a Eurasian, the child’s race will be recorded as Eurasian. Where one parent is European and the other is Asian, the child’s race will by default be recorded following the race of the father. However, in such a case, the race of the child can also be recorded as “Eurasian” if both parents so desire.

While the Ministry of Education is not the authority for the registration of citizens, our schools can facilitate such requests for change of race. This can happen at key points including when such information is being verified for school admission formalities. For example, parents are asked to verify their child’s personal particulars, including race, prior to starting Primary One, or when students enter our school system mid-stream. Both parents need to indicate consent and show the necessary supporting documentation. The schools will then update the records accordingly and also convey the changes to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA).

To clarify the second point raised by Mr De Souza, “Others” is not a race classification. The term “Others” is used by the Department of Statistics and other agencies in the presentation of statistical data by race, usually to denote all other races apart from Chinese, Malay and Indian.

(a) As of 15 Jun 2009, MOE has recruited 717 Allied Educators, exceeding our 2009 recruitment target of 680. These Allied Educators will work in partnership with teachers to provide support for our students in the areas of counselling, special needs, as well as teaching and learning.

(b) As of 15 Jun 2009, we have recruited 3,041 Education Officers, more than the target of 3,000.

Although we have stepped up hiring this year, selection has remained as stringent as before to ensure that we continue to hire quality teachers and Allied Educators with the right aptitude and attitude.

The establishment of two more tertiary institutions—the New University and the Singapore Institute of Applied Technology (SIAT) cater to students with different aptitudes and will provide more choices to both A-Level and polytechnic students to obtain their degrees.

The New University will have longer, mainly four-year Science and Engineering-based programmes with research components which will suit those who are more inclined towards academic pursuits. The SIAT will tie-up with reputable foreign universities to offer applied degree programmes obtainable within two years and would cater to mainly polytechnic graduates with some working experience.

The member has asked if more Singaporeans would benefit from the education partnership with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology by having a higher enrolment. MIT will develop an academically rigorous curriculum in partnership with the New University. Students will benefit from such an environment but must have sufficient academic grounding to be able to perform to expectations. Thus, the decision to cater to an intake of about 1,000 students a year is a realistic one, given the size of our birth cohorts and the existing capacity in the other three autonomous Universities.

The Annual Graduate Employment Survey is conducted 6 months after the Polytechnic and University graduations which take place in April and July respectively. As such, we do not have data from the survey for the latest batch of graduates. However, in light of the economic situation, our universities and polytechnics have geared up their efforts to help their graduates find employment, explore further education opportunities, or start businesses. These include organising more career fairs, more counselling activities and introducing innovative means to help their graduates find employment.

DPM Teo Chee Hean had reported in July that the Public Service and related agencies had hired more than 13,000 fresh graduates and mid-career officers from January to May this year . The Public Service will continue hiring and take the opportunity to build up capability in the public sector. Within the education sector, MOE has stepped up our recruitment efforts and has surpassed our targets with more than 3,000 teachers and 680 allied educators recruited this year. In addition, we have also encouraged the Institutes of Higher Learning to offer jobs within their institutions to their graduates to help them weather the downturn.

Mrs Teo also asked about government-funded schemes to help graduates. The economic agencies have put in place several schemes to help our fresh graduates gain employment. For example, the Professional Skills Programme Traineeships scheme, administered by the various economic agencies, offers fresh graduates as well as retrenched professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), the opportunities to enhance their skills and employment prospects. As at end June 2009, around 180 companies have committed to offering about 1,500 traineeship places over the next 2 years.

Scholarships are also offered in specialised fields by agencies such as MAS’ Finance Scholarship Programme and EDB’s Joint Industry Postgraduate Programme. Fresh graduates can consider participating in these programmes to better prepare themselves for the job market when the economy improves.