Thank you for inviting me to speak this morning at the 4th Anniversary Lecture of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.

Sound education for all—strong commitment, mixed outcomes

To entitle a lecture—“Educating the Next Generation”, is to invite a deluge of passionate responses and suggestions; all of which would have some kernel of truth and merit. Universally, there is strong interest and commitment to ensure that the young receive a sound education. But in practice, this yearning has not always resulted in approval when new educational initiatives are introduced. In fact, surveys across countries show the norm to more often reveal dissatisfaction with education systems. For instance, in a 2007 survey by the Fraser Institute, an independent Canadian research organization, 94% of respondents in Ontario, Canada cited disappointment with their public schools as a factor in choosing to send their children to a private school. Despite South Korea’s strong educational achievements in recent years, the International Herald Tribune reported in June that a rapidly expanding number of Korean parents have been “driven by a shared dissatisfaction with South Korea’s rigid educational system” to school their children in English-speaking countries such as New Zealand and the US. We also have some students here in Singapore. Korean parents believe their children have an edge if they become fluent in English, but also want to escape the “stress of South Korea’s notorious educational pressure cooker.”

Stakeholders—parents and children themselves included - obviously have high ideals and reasonably expect good public education as a universal right, as enshrined in many constitutions worldwide.

But delivery of this “right” has been patchy. Spending more does not always guarantee better outcomes. As a percentage of GDP, countries like Chile and Mexico spend more on education compared to the OECD average but are not known for high performing education systems. On the other hand, the cumulative expenditure per student of New Zealand and the Netherlands is below the OECD average . Yet both are among the best-performing countries in OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) survey.

Wealthy countries don’t necessarily have high quality public education. The US is the largest economy in the World. They have the best schools in some areas, but even by their own admission, many lament the state of their general education system. Last year, Bill Gates joined forces with fellow philanthropist Eli Broad to launch a US$60 million campaign called “Strong American Schools” to push for education reforms in public schools. One quip is that the standard of schools in the San Francisco Bay area rises with the altitude, where the more wealthy can afford homes and send their children to schools in that area. For sure, successive US Governments have put in resources to try to improve outcomes. Take for instance the “No Child Left Behind” Act of 2001 in the US to reduce the achievement gap for disadvantaged students. However, seven years later and after more than US$160 billion spent on the initiative, the results are still inconclusive, and the merits are still being hotly debated in the education community up till today.

In the UK, independent schools such as Eton, Winchester, Wycombe Abbey and Wellington have traditionally been bastions where the elite receive their education for generations. A visting Master from one of these independent schools told me that on average about 26,000 pounds was spent each year compared to about less than half of this in state schools. To close this gap, the Labour Government under Blair and Brown put considerable resources to improve education. The Government set a goal for getting 50% of its students into university. But the results again have been mixed. The Straits Times recently reported that one of Britain’s leading universities, Imperial College London, is introducing a new entrance exam for all its applicants because it believes that the grades in the present UK A-level are so inflated that they can no longer provide a viable way to select the best students. So, some elite schools and Universities want to abandon the UK A levels to opt instead for a new more rigorous Pre-U qualification offered by Cambridge University.

Examples of mixed outcomes I have cited are not isolated ones. Unfortunately, for many countries, the quest to educate the masses well through a strong public education system has been akin to going through a maze with inaccurate maps or directions. Many have taken wrong turns or landed up in dead ends. The best intentions and socialist ideals did and could not translate into practical and effective outcomes for students. Why is this so? Have we asked too much of the education system? Does the fact that there are few systems that do well, teach us anything? Pointedly for us, how has the Singapore education system performed and how do we improve it further?

Singapore— Respected for its education system

The Singapore education system is well regarded internationally. I say this with humility and almost with a sigh of relief because we could have easily veered off track, as I will explain later. The International Institute for Management Development (or IMD) World Competitiveness Yearbook for 2008 ranked Singapore first for having an education system that best meets the needs of a competitive economy. At the school level, our 10 and 14-year old students came out tops in both Maths and Science among 49 countries in the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (or TIMSS for short). I show this slide to show our top ranking. But more importantly, note that our lowest quartile is above the median of the world. In other words, students who are academically weaker do better in our system compared to others. Singapore also ranked fourth for reading literacy skills among 40 countries in the 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), the highest among non-native speakers who took their tests in English. Good universities the world over, recognise that our students are well schooled and competent and welcome their admissions. Our top students can easily compete with the best anywhere. Sizeable numbers enter Oxbridge, Imperial College, LSE, Warwick and the Ivy leagues. Raffles Junior College for example sends more students to the top 10 US universities than any other international school, and even topped many prestigious secondary schools within the US.

We have a system that produces high averages and we topped international rankings in Maths and Science. This is a considerable achievement, considering that in 1980, less than 30 years ago, only about 58% of our Primary 1 students completed secondary school. What were the reasons for this dramatic turn around? If we are to chart future directions, we must first understand the reasons for our success, lest we inadvertently weaken the foundations that sustain us as we move forward.

Less than a fortuitous start

Historically, it is important to appreciate that the high quality education system we have in place today was not a given. Singapore did not have the advantage of strong foundations. On the contrary, we inherited disparate systems with different modes of instruction and varying standards. When the first PSLE was inaugurated in four languages in 1960, only 45% passed! A book by Mr Tan Yap Kwang, past Chief Executive of the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board, entitled “Examinations in Singapore—Changes and Continuity (1891-2007)” provides a succinct historical account.

As a trading post with streams of migrant populations, Singapore had a mix of vernacular schools for each of the four large language groups. They were of varying standards, had different curricula and were subject to diverse influences from their countries of origin.

A few English-stream schools were set up, such as Raffles Institution, Gan Eng Seng School, Outram School and Victoria School. These later became government schools, which are still with us today. Others were private schools founded by missionary and community groups such as St Joseph’s Institution and Anglo-Chinese School. These English-stream schools were supported by a systemic organisation of English medium examinations from the UK, and had the most structured system of education. They were also favoured by the government as they promoted the language of the colonial administration. But only a small proportion attended these schools.

The majority of Chinese attended Chinese-stream schools set up by the different dialect groups and clans. They were pro-China in outlook and syllabi, and followed China’s 6-3-3 education system. These Chinese schools proliferated in the early 1900’s, and were fuelled and politicised by exiled reformers and revolutionaries from China. However, graduates from this system had no recognised qualifications and found it hard to find jobs compared to those from English-stream schools. Many became disgruntled and easy targets for the Communists. The Malay-stream schools received more support from the government as it was thought that the learning of Malay language would be useful to the acquisition of English Language. Opportunities were given to Malay students who did well to continue to an English-stream education. Tamils too had their own vernacular schools, but these were generally fewer in numbers due to the small population of Indians in Singapore.

For the better part of Singapore’s history, educational standards were low. The curriculum delivered by most schools under the colonial system was largely designed with the objective of staffing the lower ranks of the civil service. The proliferation of vernacular schools also made it difficult for the government to build a united and loyal citizenry, let alone raise education standards through a national curriculum and modes of assessment.

One entirely plausible scenario with this structure was that Singapore could have evolved into a stratified society based on disparate school systems. It would have created tensions and fault lines as groups were exposed to different influences in their formative years. Other countries have gone that way and suffered damaging consequences. But fortuitously, we did not fall into that trap and from the 70’s and 80’s, fundamental and radical shifts would pull up our system. It would elevate our education system but intrinsic to this process, it would also shape what we became as a nation. As in most things in life, trade-offs and consequences were part and parcel of momentous decisions.

Cornerstones Of Our Education System

Use of English

The first fundamental shift was the decision to use English as the medium of instruction in our schools. Parents given the choice of English saw the practical benefits and opted for it in droves. The concept of globalisation was nascent and we would reap rich harvests as English became the lingua franca of an exploding information age to come. We did not envisage the magnitude of that change, but when it came, it enabled us to leap-frog many nations, and also allowed us to improve the teaching of Maths and Science and technologically based subjects. Ex-post, that the choice of English conferred enormous advantages seems almost a no-brainer of a choice in today’s context. But recall that in the 1950s and 60s, Singapore was a very diverse collection of people. Our citizens had different languages and cultures. We could have done what other countries did, which was to adopt the language of the majority race - Chinese. Or adopt Malay as our official language so that we could assimilate well with our neighbouring countries. We would be a very different Singapore today if we had made other choices.

Take Sri Lanka as a comparison. Its citizens were adept English speakers when Sri Lanka was still a British colony. However, in the 1950s, with nationalism on the rise, the government replaced English with Sinhalese as its official language. Today, English has been relegated to a third language [after Tamil] in schools, and spoken by only about 10% of the population. Successive Governments have thought of re-introducing English but unfortunately, it is not easy to turn back the clock. A Sri Lankan Minister shared with me that even if the government wanted to switch back to using English as a medium of instruction, it would take many years to train enough English-speaking teachers.

Malaysia too offers lessons. Like Singapore, it started out with vernacular schools which adopted each of the four language groups as their medium of instruction. In 1967, Bahasa Melayu was declared the sole national language and subsequently became the medium of instruction in all national schools. However in 2003, the government decided to switch to English in teaching Maths and Science, recognising that this would be useful in preparing young Malaysians for the globalised world. Unfortunately, implementation will not be easy. A whole generation of young people, namely those who are in their mid-forties and younger, have grown up with Malay as their medium of instruction. It will take time for a large enough corps of English teachers to be built up. This challenge is especially acute in the rural areas, where there is a shortage of English teachers. A report published by The Star in January 2007 indicated that many teachers were still hesitant to teach Maths and Science in English, due to a lack of confidence and competency.

East Timor is yet another interesting country that offers lessons in real time. When it gained its independence in 1999, it chose Portuguese, now only widely used in Brazil and Portugal, some parts of Africa, and a declining group in Macau. Text books in that language are not easy to come by. This is of course just a thought exercise, but would the trajectory of East Timor be different if it had chosen to emphasise English?

Singapore chose that path. Not only did we choose English, but we start teaching it to our young as their first language. It has proven to be hugely beneficial for economic progress, but there are of course other consequences. Because the language that one uses to read, think and speak also determines who the person is as an individual. Collectively, the language environment shapes our national psyche and rubric, and in some respects, our core values.

Ensuing trends have become irreversible. Our language environment has changed over the years. In 1996, a third of Primary One students came from homes where English was the main language. Just a decade later, in 2006, slightly more than half speak English at home. Our rigorous teaching and emphasis of English as a common working language has enabled young Singaporeans to be culturally adaptable to Western societies. For instance, many of our young people who set foot into the US for the first time as university students quickly feel at home with the thoughts, surroundings, people, and society at large.

Multinational companies like to headhunt Singaporeans as they can bridge the gap between East and West. With rising affluence and education, inevitably, we will see an increasing number of Singaporeans who work, travel and live in other parts of the world. This easy adaptability to the larger World does obviously impact on their sense of rootedness here.

Values and rootedness are transmitted powerfully through the shared formative rituals and experiences within families and the broader community. Language is a rich medium intricately woven into these processes. The language and cultural milieu in childhood has far reaching consequences that extend into adulthood. Take Denmark as an example, where all children are taught in Danish first in preschool and early primary and only start to learn English from the 3rd grade, 9 years old. So while they are able to speak English competently, the rootedness and the cultural milieu remain distinctively Danish.

Some Asian countries too like Taiwan, Thailand, and Hong Kong start learning English later and as a second language. Observing what goes on in their restaurants or retail outlets reveals insights into the social dynamics facilitated by their native language which results in a higher level of bantering and interaction, across socio-economic class.

We recognise its social consequences but the teaching of English as our first language has gotten us to where we are today, and it would be foolhardy to tinker with this. Our strong English competency will continue to provide us with a competitive edge. At the same time, we must make the effort to evolve social norms and platforms that provide a greater sense of home and Singaporean-ness.

Bilingual Policy

The second cornerstone of our education system is the bilingual policy, where all students learn both English and their Mother tongue. The bilingual policy reconciled the tensions between progressing into modernity through English against the loyalties to native language and customs from deep-seated communal ties. Bilingualism allowed each ethnic group to retain and touch their cultural lodestone. At a national level, it has helped our society embrace diversity and established linkages to the wider World. And travellers here notice it.

Recently, royalty from a large Middle-East country made official visits to this part of the world. He had two days at the end of the official trip for his own leisure. His officials recommended going somewhere else but he insisted on spending his free time in Singapore. What did this wealthy, well-travelled royal, who could choose to be anywhere else, find appealing about Singapore? He put it simply but powerfully when he said that he felt comfortable and welcomed here. No one gave him strange looks, whatever his garb. He also liked our green spaces and our friendly service.

Our bilingual policy has also enabled us to plug into the rest of the world. Our Institutes of Higher Learning have been able to form linkages with ease, not only with other institutions in English speaking countries but also with those in China, India, Malaysia and Indonesia. Such alliances and partnerships are reaching new heights. With rising numbers, NTU has been holding its convocation for its China-based graduates in China for the past 2 years. Even our Primary and Secondary schools have established strong networks with their international counterparts. Last year, more than 50,000 students from over 300 schools were involved in overseas programmes. China and Malaysia were their top two destinations.

But we must also accept that it will be increasingly difficult to maintain mother-tongue language competencies as more speak English as their main language at home. So our teaching and testing of English and Mother Tongue language must evolve to respond to this new trend. Students have a finite capacity, and it is not realistic to assume that they can master all things.

Streaming

The third cornerstone of our education system is streaming. Singapore owes a great debt of gratitude to Dr Goh Keng Swee for his report in 1978, which is commonly referred to as the Goh Report. Where it would have been simpler to avoid hard truths, this report was underpinned by the fundamental belief that students had varying learning ability, and would therefore be better off being grouped together to learn at their appropriate pace. Put simply, streaming allows each child to better fulfil his inherent potential.

Singapore today has reaped the benefits of that difficult transition. I showed how even our weaker students are performing well by international standards earlier. Before streaming, 29% of primary school students did not progress to secondary education either because they dropped out or did not pass the PSLE. These high levels of attrition still occur today in other systems that attempt to wallpaper the differences. For example, many researchers have highlighted the growing concern that up to 1 in 3 high school students in the US do not graduate.

In contrast, in Singapore, with ability-based learning, 98.4% of each cohort stay in school and receive 10 years of education. All graduates, whether from ITE, the polytechnics and universities, receive high quality education and are employable after graduation. This is no mean feat by any yardstick.

But of course, there are important caveats. Streaming must lead to better outcomes and be matched with adequate resources to help stretch each child to his maximum. It must not erode self-confidence or the belief that they cannot go further. We must reduce stigmas and labels. This is why MOE has refined this policy to subject-based banding, as an example in primary schools. We also create many opportunities for late bloomers to move across to more advanced levels. Life teaches us that there are many variables beyond academic ability which determines who succeeds. Our education system should not say or teach otherwise.

Teachers and Testing

English and our bilingual policy and streaming created a stable framework from which we could build a World class education system. They were necessary and vital, but not sufficient. Two other critical components were quality teachers and school leaders, and yes, the proverbially maligned exams or assessments.

A report by McKinsey released last year studied top-performing education systems worldwide and concluded that quality teachers were the most important determinant of a quality education system.

Passionate, competent and caring teachers are at the heart of success of good education systems. Show me a weak education system anywhere, and without exception, you will find as a cause, an equally weak and demoralised teaching force. That our students do well and that our standards are well regarded internationally bear positive testament to the professionalism and commitment that exist in our teaching force.

We hire from the top one-third of each cohort and invest heavily in teacher training. We have 29,000 teachers and believe in supporting all of them along their journey from the time they join us as trainee teachers, and provide them with opportunities to upgrade themselves over time. Teachers can also now apply for Masters and Doctoral Study Leave after their first two years of teaching. We provide grants and loans to support them.

Besides good teachers, instruction counts. Curriculum and pedagogy are nuts and bolts that secure the system and we have a strong centralised system that oversees these essentials. We have achieved enviable outcomes because good teachers teach well in the classroom. More senior and experienced colleagues share best practices while new teachers learn through observation and role models.

Testing works. All top education systems set clear and high expectations for their students. We are no exception. Our strong assessment system has produced students of high calibre. We also want our schools to be accountable for what they do. Thus every school undertakes regular self-evaluation, with external reviews by the Ministry taking place once every five years. Students or schools that have difficulty reaching set standards are given additional support to improve.

A Golden Mean

To summarise, our success can be attributed first to socio-political considerations in the choice of English and the bilingual policy and then putting into place sound educational fundamentals of good teachers, instruction and streaming. These are the factors that maintain us on an even keel. We must keep each of these elements, but at the same time, we must also evolve our system to keep up with new challenges and structural trends in the future. I will just mention three broad directions.

Great Expectations

Because we have progressed, parents today are better educated and have more financial resources. Their expectations for their children, and their children’s education, will be much different, compared to the expectations that their parents had of them. A child born today who will enter Primary 1 in 2014, will be substantially different in his upbringing and exposure compared to one who entered that same grade say, twenty years ago.

For future cohorts, one thing is certain—there will be greater expectations and this in itself is not negative. But it will mean requiring more teachers to have higher qualifications, as well as having more teachers so that more time can be spent to develop each student. Employing enough good teachers to support these expectations with that passion to teach and nurture will be a continuing challenge.

To provide for more individual attention, we must empower principals and teachers to be able to develop each student under their care. This necessarily means more autonomy for our schools and this can only work if there are competent school leaders. Hence our continual focus on attracting, developing and retaining good teachers and school leaders.

Higher aspirations

We also see growing aspirations among Singaporeans. We recently announced the set up of a fourth publicly funded University. But we should explore more effective ways to help polytechnic and ITE graduates upgrade in their working careers. A further three or four years of full-time education beyond their post-secondary education to achieve a degree cannot be the only and even preferred option. For many, there is a high opportunity cost as they are in great demand and eminently employable with their diplomas or ITE certificates. Life long learning will be increasingly necessary as technology cycles shorten and knowledge and skills risk obsolescence quicker. We should find ways and facilitate where possible, more efficient ways to help them upgrade in a shorter period, without them having to stop work altogether for long periods of time.

Beyond grades: values

Our system is one that is admired for having high averages. We must maintain this academic rigour and continue our emphasis on maths and science. For a small country, it makes sense for our survival and continued prosperity, both as a nation and individually. But increasingly, we will have to create space and structure to infuse our education system to impart values and not just grades to students. This has to keep in step as Singapore moves to a higher plane of actualisation. We must respond to a more questioning younger population that may learn better through self discovery and an exchange of views. But at the same time, we must find engaging ways to increase the sense of rootedness. We must help our young understand how Singapore of today has derived our core values. They can test these values, choose to reject them, or create new ones and accept consequences of their own making. At the end of their journey in our education system, they must leave it with a sense of wholeness and preparedness, and a desire to contribute to preserve, maintain and improve themselves and the lives of those around them. They must leave our education system confident of their self worth, and capable of being productive citizens.

How do we move our system forward to place greater emphasis on these values beyond academic achievement? This is a challenge with no quick solutions. But leaders and principals in MOE feel deeply that this is the direction to take our education system forward, to better develop our children. We are mindful that mere wishing will not get us there, so we are carefully reviewing how this can be embedded into each school, how to impart values and maintain academic standards, and how both sets of achievements ought to be monitored.

Conclusion

Our education system has evolved over time, in response to the changing needs of our nation, as well as the external environment. We have a first class education system that is respected internationally. But we can always do better. We want to maintain high educational standards that give every Singaporean student a valuable cachet and recognition worldwide. Moving forward, we want to create more space and focus in our system to impart values to our children. We want to nurture each child, to believe in himself and be self-sufficient, to care for his fellow man, and to be able to contribute to the larger society around him. These are simple goals of any public education system, but few can say that they have delivered. Singapore must aspire to attain these worthy educational goals. MOE will lead the way, but to succeed, we will need all stakeholders to support these initiatives.

Professor Wang Gungwu Chairman, Governing Board of Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy

Professor Kishore Mahbubani Dean, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy

For Singapore with a mere 700 sq km in land and with scant natural resources, we will always need to harness technology to multiply our efforts and extend our global reach, to stay ahead of our competitors. This is our karma and we have gotten good at this fundamental strategy that pervades our thinking. Indeed, some countries, hoping to jump start their progress, copy our systems even wholesale - whether its air or sea ports, town planning, urban greenery etc. They tell us, that they trust that Singapore would have been thorough in our thinking and implementation details, so it would be quite safe to follow our procedures. Imitation is still the best form of flattery.

One key component to harness the powers of technology is the widespread use of Info-comm Technology (ICT) to enhance our productivity many folds. For example, we set up TradeXchange®, to position ourselves better as a global trading hub. This platform allows secure and seamless trade and exchange of information to be conducted online, and provides for more efficient movement of goods.

ICT is also used extensively by the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) to train our soldiers in combat. This allows commanders and men in various units to deal with a broader spectrum of scenarios, otherwise impossible in land scarce Singapore, and also saves costs.

We invest substantially in ICT networks. By 2012, the Next Generation National Broadband Network under the iN2015 Masterplan will be ready to support ultra-high speed connectivity, creating new opportunities for our economy, government and society. Schools, in particular, will be able to tap on the increased bandwidth to enhance teaching and learning in our schools.

Similarly for the Ministry Of Education, we sought too to use ICT to transform our learning environment. The first Masterplan to achieve this was started more than a decade ago. This conference coincides with a significant milestone and is an appropriate occasion to launch MOE’s third masterplan to use ICT for more effective teaching and learning in our schools.

This morning I would like to share with you the challenges faced and lessons gleaned from our past experiences of Masterplan 1 and 2. I will also share how these lessons learnt have helped us formulate strategies for our third ICT Masterplan.

Masterplan for ICT in Education 1, mp1

Investing in ICT is expensive business. How do Ministries and Departments of Education around the world justify such investment? In some countries, ICT is seen as a quick fix, almost a magic potion that will improve test scores. Once invoked, advanced technology is touted to be able to turn things around quickly, to assuage public concerns about academic standards.

Singapore chose a different path. We recognised that ICT indeed could be a powerful tool but it was not a panacea. Like all tools, it had to be employed judiciously if it was to equip our students with the necessary skills and dispositions to stimulate creativity and thinking skills that will prepare them better for the future.

1997 was a watershed year for education, when MOE revamped the curriculum to reduce content and to increase the emphasis on process skills and citizenship education. As part of this transformation, the first ICT Masterplan was launched to bring about a change in mindset in learning.

But the work involved in the first Masterplan was not glamorous, nor was it about quick fixes. It focused on nuts and bolts. It laid the foundation by providing all schools with the basic infrastructure, such as hardware, computer laboratories and essential learning software packages. More importantly, it trained all teachers with basic skills in the use of word processing and presentation software to begin the process of integrating ICT into their lesson plans.

A centralised approach was necessary as prior to this, ICT infrastructure in schools was lacking and a significant proportion of teachers were still not comfortable using ICT. In fact, only a handful of computers were available in schools. Computer networking in schools was almost non-existent. The application of technology in the classrooms was limited to using overhead projectors. Many teachers even perceived computers to be complex machines that would make their life more difficult. We should note that I am describing a situation only 10 years ago - so it shows how far we have progressed.

Of particular mention is how MOE adopted a different approach to the training of teachers. We recruited 60 Senior ICT instructors from our schools, educators who shared our goals of the benefits of ICT and were role models themselves. Rather than train a few teachers from each school at a time, we sent teams of instructors to each school. This way, the entire school moved in tandem, infused with a culture of using ICT, learning from each other, and learning to use ICT in the context of teaching. Each teacher received at least 30 hours of training.

Targets were set for all schools to have ICT-enabled lessons for up to 30% of curriculum time.

By the end of five years of the first Masterplan in 2002, 363 schools had fundamental building blocks in place to use ICT in the curriculum. More importantly, we had achieved a shift in the mindset of teachers and ICT became an accepted tool for teaching and learning.

The Second Information Technology in Education Study (or SITES 2) conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (or IEA) in 1999 reflected this paradigm change. It reported that Singapore stood out favourably in terms of the level of teachers’ knowledge of ICT-based instructional practice. They had more avenues to develop their ICT skills than their counterparts in most other countries. Singapore principals were very positive towards ICT in schools. They had an attitude score of 90 on a scale of 0 to100. Mental barriers of old mindsets had been successfully breached.

Masterplan for ICT in Education 2, mp2

These mundane but important tasks of scaling up ICT competence among the entire teaching force, laid a strong foundation for the second Masterplan which started in 2002 where we sought to deepen the integration of ICT into daily lessons in schools. It went beyond just using Powerpoint presentations to replace the transparencies and the old overhead projectors. We wanted instead to bring about greater interactivity and engagement in the learning process. For example, podcasts can help students practise different language skills, from writing to speaking. The technology allows them to play back their work, so that peers and teachers can help them to make improvements to pronunciation or grammar.

With a basic infrastructure present in all schools, we could also provide more autonomy for school leaders to decide how best to integrate ICT into teaching and learning based on the specific needs of their students. Baseline ICT Standards for students were also introduced in 2007 and spelt out the specific competencies that students should achieve at certain milestones, ranging from basic typing skills by Primary 3 (3rd grade) to application of data for scientific investigation by Secondary 4 (10th grade).

The results of these efforts were indeed satisfying to watch and many here would have witnessed the heightened activities and occasional sparks of brilliance as schools across the island used ICT innovatively in their daily curriculum. Some schools went very far on their own, and were provided with additional resources and support to do so.

Indeed, many schools competed to be in the innovation programmes that provided them additional resources to try out new innovations. Some were recognised as LEAD ICT@Schools or as FutureSchools@Singapore.

Some schools used ICT to take them to a different level and ventured into alternative pedagogies such as inquiry-based learning and problem-based learning. Students were able to expand their learning horizons through exploring virtual worlds such as Second Life and educational games such as Quest Atlantis. They were also able to demonstrate what they have learnt through blogs, wikis, podcasts, e-portfolios, animations and video production. Class outings had been enriched by mobile learning such as the development of e-trails, use of dataloggers, PDAs and mobile phones. You will see examples of how various schools have used ICT innovatively at this conference. It reflected a flourishing of spontaneous activities from many sources.

At the end of our second Masterplan, we can confidently say that, indeed, the use of ICT has transformed our learning environment. It has certainly gone far beyond just the mere use of PowerPoint slides.

The role of our teachers in this success has been critical. Their passion, commitment and willingness to learn new skills and employ ICT to improve learning outcomes were instrumental. Indeed, our teachers and students have been recognized internationally for their creative use of ICT for teaching and learning.

Some examples include Nur Ilyana Binte Mohamed Anwar from Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus who clinched the top Educators Choice Award at the Microsoft Worldwide Innovative Teachers Forums in 2006, and Mr Mathew Ong from Anglo-Chinese School (Junior) who was awarded the 2nd runner up position at the same Forum in 2007 for his innovative use of Microsoft Word and Excel.

This year, teachers from Pei Hwa Presbyterian won the Gold Award at the UNESCO ICT in Education Innovation Awards held in Bangkok. Their Primary Four students produced and directed fairytale movies, which resulted in a better grasp and use of words to describe characters in their stories.

In April this year, students from Singapore Chinese Girls’ School, River Valley High School and Juying Primary School also did Singapore proud by becoming the first non-US team to clinch the prestigious championship at the LEGO® League World Festival in Atlanta.

Our teachers are now expert enough to produce their own digital content and expand the resource base for others to share. The West Zone Sharing of Resources Project, WeSHARE in short, is such an example of a first digital repository project developed for teachers by teachers in 2006. The project has now been expanded to every zone as part of the Inter-cluster Sharing of Resources project, or iSHARE. To date, a total of 12,450 teachers have gone into iSHARE both to upload and use the more than 66,000 resources in the repository. Teachers such as Mr Mohamed Musharraf Bin Yusof of Concord Primary School found that digital resources from iSHARE gave him ideas for planning his lessons. He found useful resources that he could adapt to suit his pupils’ learning needs.

Two Lessons from Two Masterplans

While we have achieved some success since 1997, we also recognised the mistakes and shortcomings. This is part and parcel of any new journey. I would like to share two lessons learnt with you.

The first is acknowledging that a gap continues to exist between familiarity with ICT and translating this into effective teaching. Over 30% of our teaching force is below the age of 30, and ICT-savvy. They own mobile phones and laptops, chat regularly on MSN Messenger and interact with friends on social networking sites such as Facebook. Some even have second and more lives on Second Life. However, it should not be assumed that they are more effective as teachers just because they are familiar with modern technology.

ICT savviness is useful but not enough. Teachers need to still base effective outcomes on sound pedagogical principles when they use ICT tools to bring out a learning point. Let me illustrate: Students who are asked to complete simple worksheet assignments on Tablet PCs could easily have used pen and paper. Similarly, students who are asked to use the Internet to search for information but given only 15 minutes to discuss what they have found before putting up a PowerPoint presentation. This use of ICT neither transforms nor enhances the learning experience. The most important educational value, that could have been derived from synthesizing information, presenting alternative view-points, even arguing with one another, have been subordinated to the mere technical tasks of searching for information using the Internet. In contrast, we have seen well constructed lessons where teachers require their primary level students to use simple technological tools like discussion forums to create and write stories that teachers and their classmates could critique. Or the example of using mp3 players to record and listen so that students can provide and obtain feedback on each other’s reading techniques. These are positive examples where pedagogically strong teachers are able to leverage on simple use of ICT to create powerful impact on students’ learning.

Second, we need to seek a balance between centralisation and autonomy. Autonomy for schools and teachers increased ownership and brought forth a flurry of innovations. We must not diminish the motivation for individual schools to find better teaching methods using ICT but at the same time we should address the unevenness in the quality of execution across schools. Autonomy can also lead to less efficiency. While each school might justifiably customize its learning resources for different groups of students, it may not be necessary for every school to buy its own learning management system or manage its own infrastructure. MOE will therefore look into those areas where economies of scale and standardization are advantageous, like infrastructural provisions and capability building for teachers. But we will still maintain a light touch and schools will still be the main driver of ICT efforts.

We have captured our learning journey through the first and second ICT Masterplans spanning a decade in the book, “On 2 IT”, which you will receive during this conference.

Masterplan for ICT in Education 3

These experiences and learning points serve us well as we launch the Third Masterplan today. Masterplan 3 represents a continuum of the vision of Masterplans 1 and 2; to transform the learning environment for our students. We want greater engagement of students to encourage more self-directed questioning and learning. An interactive environment using all our senses will provide greater clarity and enhance content transmission and retention.

Broadly, Masterplan 3 seeks to fulfil 4 goals to improve learning outcomes.

First, strengthen competencies for self-directed learning. The information age is passé. With powerful search engines, we seldom get pass the first few pages of our search results that run into hundreds of pages. With a surfeit of information, effectiveness is about selecting the right information, and being able to differentiate the important from the common but unrefined. With a single click, you can get reams of information but it may have been the wrong question to begin with. Such competencies to be able to discriminate information require technology literacy, higher-order thinking skills and even life and collaboration skills. The appropriate use of ICT can help develop many of these competencies.

Second, tailor learning experiences according to the way that each student learns best. The stronger the ability of teachers to recognise how each student learns and where he has difficulty in, the more effective they can tailor their teaching for better learning outcomes. A simple example of this is that students studying the same topic could use different learning resources or quizzes and tests that are better customised to that individual student.

Third, encourage students to go deeper and advance their learning. For those who can and want to go further in any subject, ICT is a powerful adjunct to learning. Some examples: Technology allows scientific concepts like atomic structures or protein structures to be better understood using 3-D representation, as compared to traditional 2-D representation. The use of tools like data loggers and probes automates laborious operations such as data collection and graph plotting, thus freeing up time for more important data analysis and design of experiments. Subjects and topics in the humanities, which are currently limited to the use of print sources, can now include video and audio sources. This produces a more authentic reconstruction of events which allows students to better appreciate different perspectives and produce more nuanced analyses.

Fourth, learn anywhere. The use of ICT allows such mobility and flexibility in learning, freeing it from the physical confine of classrooms and the rigidity of structured curriculum time.

These four goals are of course ideals, and will always be work in progress. But Masterplan 3 will bring us closer to achieving that learning nirvana. What are our strategies to achieve these goals?

Strategy 1: First, bring ICT into the core of the education process. To do this, we have to integrate ICT during planning and design of lessons plans and work through implementation details of curriculum and assessment.

Much of the current efforts, all around the world, in the use of ICT in schools are really an add-on to the traditional ways of doing things. There are limits to benefits that can be derived from this approach. In Masterplan 3, we seek a quantum leap by integrating ICT right from the planning and design stage. For example, visualisation and simulation of scientific phenomena that cannot be seen by the naked eye can help enhance learners’ understanding. But to maximise the impact of ICT for this, we will have to think how to integrate this into the daily curriculum in schools. It might even require a change in physical space. On one of my visits to Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), I was shown a specially constructed facility that helped its students visualise electromagnetic fields. The professors there were pleased as Punch about this, because they had sought for some time to better explain this difficult concept, and now finally found an effective way to accomplish this.

Beyond teaching, the use of ICT in testing can bring about many benefits. One simple example: Through the use of individual PDAs, a teacher could ask any question any time during her lesson and get real time feedback of what each student has understood. It is a frightening thought but one that also shows the potential of that technology. MOE will start piloting the use of ICT in assessment in selected subjects and levels. To cite one example, we want to incorporate the use of rich interactive multimedia resources to make the learning of English Language more interesting for students. You could simulate different environments for students with animated and interactive characters - in a restaurant, cinema, a foreign city, even on a date or in a delivery room. The possibilities are endless and this interactive environment will provide more opportunities for students to practice the use of language that approximates daily living in real life. You could also incorporate the same format in examinations. This provides a more authentic way of assessing your students’ language capabilities.

Strategy 2: To accomplish our goals in Masterplan 3, we will as we have done in Masterplans 1 and 2, focus on improving the capabilities and skill sets of our teachers.

Our basic approach of making every teacher a user of ICT is the correct one. We will continue to upgrade the capabilities of all teachers. At the same time, to help schools move further up the ICT value chain, we will need a cadre of teachers with strong pedagogical grounding as “specialist teachers” in schools to lead effective integration and infusion of ICT into the classroom and the curriculum. We have seen this happen successfully in overseas schools.

Strategy 3: Improve the sharing of best practices and successful innovations.

If one teacher in any school has found an excellent way to harness ICT to improve learning outcomes for any particular subject, then the whole community need not re-invent the wheel. It would save much time and effort for all if that practice is spread and adopted by other teachers and schools. We need to build a stronger nexus between innovation and practice, so that we create a virtuous circle of practice being improved through innovations.

To facilitate this process, MOE will support the establishment of a network of educational labs, where innovations can be prototyped and tested. In these labs, educational technologists and curriculum specialists from the Ministry will work alongside other experts and teachers to explore new ways to use ICT. These labs can also serve as training grounds for both the “specialist teachers” and the student teachers. Positive results can then be quickly disseminated to the wider community.

These Labs will complement the existing LEAD ICT@Schools as well as up to 15 FutureSchools by 2015 in spearheading innovative ICT practices.

National Institute of Education should also be part of this network. MOE will act as an interface between all stakeholders. We will set up a dedicated translational unit staffed by specialists who can bring all partners together and facilitate the communication and translation of research and innovative methods into the classroom, where it counts most.

Strategy 4: We will further build up infrastructure where it is needed to upgrade the technology to maximise the potential of ICT. We will do so in phases according to the readiness of the schools and teachers.

Both bandwidth speed and computing power are expected to increase while the costs to decline. MOE will study how to increase the bandwidth speed for schools so that they can engage in anywhere, anytime learning. MOE will also study how to put computing power directly in the hands of every learner, be it a low-cost laptop for every child or a digital PDA in each pair of hands to enable mobile learning.

The Ministry will work with key partners such as the National Institute of Education, the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore and the industry to implement these strategies.

If we succeed, we expect to see, at the end of Masterplan 3, a pervasive culture of innovative ICT practices across all schools and a corps of specialist teachers in every cluster who demonstrate a deep understanding of how ICT can transform teaching and learning both within and outside the classroom.

Conclusion

Today marks a continuation of an exciting journey for educators. Technology today allows us to multiply our efforts and achieve learning outcomes in ways unthinkable before. But it is a journey that will require each teacher to upgrade his own capability and share his experiences. Together, we can transform and enrich the learning environment for our students and equip the next generation with skills and competencies to succeed in a knowledge economy.

On this note, I wish all a fruitful conference and all the best in your endeavour to Lead, Learn and Innovate.

It is now my pleasure to declare iCTLT 2008 open.

2nd Permanent Secretary of Education, Ms Yeoh Chee Yan

Director-General of Education, Miss Seah Jiak Choo

CEO ISTE, Dr Don Knezek

Distinguished guests

Colleagues

Good morning.