theonlinecitizen

Nov 21, 2013

Summary of Roy Ngerng’s education statistics: For our children’s future?

“The problem with Roy Ngerng” well received?

My article which began with “The problem as some people have said, arguably, with Roy Ngerng whom I have co-authored several articles, is that he overwhelms the reader with “tons” of charts and statistics.

So, I have gone to his web site to summarise and list the following statistics, which may make you cry!” – was so well received that (by popular demand) I am doing this again for Roy’s education statistics article – “How Is Singapore’s Education System Unequal?” (Nov 21)..

I have added some of my input (“some” relative to Roy’s very long articles or “a lot” relative to my normal shorter narratives) to Roy’s article.

Lowest education expenditure as % of GDP?

… Compared to the other high-income countries, Singapore’s expenditure of 3.1% of GDP on education is actually the lowest, and has been the case for the past few years. Denmark was the highest at about 9% and Hong Kong the second lowest just above Singapore at about 3.2%

Lowest % of GDP per capita on primary education?

… Singapore actually spends the lowest % of GDP per capita on primary education

Lowest % of GDP per capita on secondary education?

… We also spend the lowest % of GDP per capita on secondary education

Relatively higher % of GDP per capita on tertiary education?

… However, when we compare with the other high-income countries, Singapore actually spends a relatively higher % of GDP per capita on tertiary education.

Because of spending on foreign students?

Is this due to some extent to the relatively large amount that we may be spending on foreign students – 20% undergraduate first year admission for foreigners, about 70 to 80% of graduate students being non-citizens?

Low pupil-teacher ratio (PTR) in primary education?

… Singapore has the one of the highest pupil-teacher ratio (PTR) in primary education? This means that if you look at Sweden, for example, there is one teacher for every 9 pupils. However, in Singapore, there is one teacher for every 17 pupils – which means teachers are more stretched in Singapore

Low PTR in secondary education?

… Singapore also has one of the highest PTR in secondary education. In Singapore, there is one teacher to 15 pupils, whereas in some of the other countries, there is one teacher to 10 pupils

PTR vs actual PTR?

… “Most primary and secondary schools have classes of 40 students or fewer, while Primary 1 and 2 classes have 30 students or fewer. We plan on the basis of 30 students per class at primary 1 and 2 and 40 students per class at the other primary and secondary levels.“

You see, what’s the point of saying that we have a PTR of 18 in primary schools when each class doesn’t actually have 18 students? It is very different when each class actually has 30 to 40 students – which is more than twice the PTR of 18. The amount of attention that the teacher can give to each student is thus much reduced.

But what is more glaring is that when you compare our class size of 30 to 40 with the other high-income countries, you will see that none of them have class sizes bigger than 30

Lowest proportion of primary school students who actually progress onto secondary school?

… When you compare our primary school students’ progression to secondary school, what is shocking is that Singapore actually has the lowest proportion of primary school students who actually progress onto secondary school

Inequality of our education system?

… There are other statistics which exposes the inequality of the Singapore’s education system.

“Advantaged schools”?

When compared to the other high-income countries, the “advantaged schools (in Singapore) are more likely to have more or better resources”

… When you look at the difference in standards between the schools, you would see that Singapore actually has one of the largest differences between the schools

40% of students live in HDB vs to 80% live in HDB?

… Indeed, the household sizes of the students from the “advantaged schools” would also give you a very good indication as to the inequality in our education system.

Of the students who had attended Raffles Girls’ Primary School, Methodist Girls Primary School, Henry Park Primary School, Anglo Chinese Primary School, Nanyang Primary School and Tao Nan School (schools which offer GEP), only 40% of these students live in HDB flats. This is compared to the “80% of all primary school students who reside in HDB flats”

… Also, “Among the Secondary 1 students who enrolled in Integrated Programme (IP) schools in 2009, more than half live in HDB flats.” This is similar to in 2002, where, “About 50% of Singaporean students in Independent Schools live in HDB flats in 2002

17% of students live in 4-room or smaller vs 56.5% live in such flats?

… “About 17% live in 4-room HDB flats or smaller.” However, there were about 56.5% of Singapore residents living in 1- to 4-room flats. Yet, only 17% of the students in the Independent Schools live in 1- to 4-room flats

… Only “One in eight undergraduates in our public Universities come from households who live in 1- to 3-room flats“ – which is about 12.5%. However, there are 24.6% of Singapore residents who live in 1- to 3-room flats. Shouldn’t there be more students from the smaller housing type, and from the lower-income group who should be attending university, but are not, or might not actually be able to?

Discrimination against polytechnic graduates in university admissions?

… According to the MOE, “Over the past ten years, about 200 local polytechnic graduates have been admitted to the Architecture, Dentistry, Law and Medicine undergraduate courses in NUS and SMU.” In 2012/2013, there were 741 students who were admitted into these courses at the NUS and around 133 students who were admitted into SMU – a total of 874 students.

So, if 200 local polytechnic graduates were admitted to these courses over ten years, this means that on average, about 20 local polytechnic graduates were admitted every year. Of the 874 students who were admitted, the local polytechnic graduates would thus represent only about 2% of the total enrollment 

Should not breed elitism?

… The Prime Minister said that the PAP government should not breed elitism because, “Outstanding students must always be able to make it to the top to get into these institutions and you cannot have a closed, self-perpetuating elite.”

But, from the statistics that we have seen so far, is what PM Lee saying true? Does the PAP government truly doesn’t believe in promoting a “closed, self-perpetuating elite”?

Education system condemns students from very young age?

More importantly, is the Singapore education system equal and do all our children really have a equal start in school, and most importantly, in life? Are some of our students damned to a certain way of life, precisely because of the education system in Singapore?

… “I think it is also good that we have top schools nationally, schools which are acknowledged as outstanding, so long as we keep our system open. The system has to be open, meaning there cannot be barriers to entry.”

Open or unequal education system?

But what do you think? Is Singapore’s education system open? Or is our education system unequal?

… Of the “93% of each Primary 1 cohort progressing to post-secondary education”, 30% went to the junior colleges, 40% to the polytechnics, 20% to the ITE, and 3 to 4% to the private education organisations?

If 60% of the polytechnics and ITE students can hardly make it to the public universities and the rest have have to enter private education organisations, with only 30% in the junior colleges who have the most likely chance of entering the public universities, how equal or “open” is our education system when it favours only 30% of the students in Singaporeans, while the rest of the 70% would be disadvantaged by the system

… How is every school a “good school” and how equal or “open” is our education system when the education system is already structured to marginalise the large proportion of Singaporeans?

If the PAP government is sincere in creating an education system which is open and ensures that all schools are “good schools”, is this the way to do so? It is one thing to say that they want all schools to be “good schools”, yet say that even if you are in a “good school”, you might not be good enough to enter the local public universities. This is as well as saying these schools are not good enough.

Education system must change?

Quite certainly, the PAP’s pronouncement of all schools being “good schools” cannot be backed up by how unequal and unfair the education system in Singapore evidently is, and only further entrenches the inequality in Singapore. Such a system that baits our students and Singaporeans into discriminated pathways early in life should be treated with abhor and Singaporeans must rise up and stand up against such discrimination and inequality

Anti-selection in childcare centres?

As I was writing this summary, Terry Xu, the Executive Editor of theonlinecitizen asked me is I could write something on PCF and My first skool (NTUC)  childcare centres.

Arguably, most of the criticisms on our education system like a lacking in creativity, over focus on examinations, lacking in enquiring or open minds, logical and critical thinking, elitism, etc, may be due to some extent to the beginning of our children’s learning journey – our childcare system.

http://2x43di7fqtr1359hx1tnjj0te6.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/PAPfoundation.jpg

Whoever decided that the childcare subsidies can only be obtained if children enrolled in PCF or My first skool childcare centres may have condemned, particularly our lower-income families’ children to be deprived of the free market choice of the best centre for each children as perceived by the parents or the market.

Also, with such monopolistic unfair competition, arguably, there may be an inherent bias to not strive as hard as in an open and fair competitive environment had the subsidies been made available to all childcare centres.

Even now with the liberalisation of allowing more anchor schools to apply for the status to be eligible for the subsidies given to parents – it may still leave hundreds of childcare centres in the same state of arbitrary selection of which centres may be better because there is no clear and transparent criteria of how centres are determined as meeting the standards, at least from a “subsidy eligibility” perspective.

How do we explain that the fees at some of the rest of the childcare centres, which are not the two anchor operators, are actually lower despite not being eligible for the subsidies?

Influx of foreign workers in childcare sector too?

In this connection, it did not help the quality of teaching and services in the childcare sector when the liberal influx of foreign workers may have contributed to the median gross wage of preschool teachers to be only $1,800 now, despite all the rhetoric about the need to raise their pay in recent years (“Training and pay rise for pre-school teachers”, Straits Times, Nov 21).

Childcare and related workers’ median gross wage is only $1,200 according to the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) occupational wage benchmarking tool.

Anecdotally, the proportion of non-Singaporeans working in some of these childcare centres appears to be quite high, which may also have contributed to the issue of the quality of instruction.

So, what is the percentage of workers in these childcare centres who are not Singaporeans, excluding the supervisors and the headquarters’ staff?

Leong Sze Hian