Should the compulsory education age be lowered?

PRIMARY education has been compulsory since 2003, with all children having to be enrolled in a primary school in the year they turn seven.

And although kindergarten is not mandatory, the vast majority of Singaporean children are enrolled, with only 870 children missing out last year.

That still means one in every 40 children who entered Primary 1 last year did not go through pre-school, and educators and parents feel it is one too many.

As one who favours mandatory pre-school, PCF's Mr Tay says: 'We can prepare children better and early for primary school and beyond because at that age, children learn best and absorb knowledge well.'

Ms Ho Yin Fong, academic director of NTUC's SEED Institute, which trains early childhood educators, says compulsory pre-school education will give all children an equal head start and footing. It may also provide a better transition to primary school, she adds.

But Education GPC chairman Mrs Teo thinks the problem of children not being enrolled in pre-school is not widespread enough to warrant a change in legislation.

She notes that with the exception of those whose parents choose to home-school, these children are usually in families with a multitude of issues.

'Making it illegal for the parents to not send the children to pre-school addresses a symptom, but not the root cause,' she says, cautioning that enforcement will be a challenge.

Mrs Ng Gim Choo, founder and managing director of EtonHouse, also sounds a word of caution. She believes it is important for young children to have a happy and engaging childhood and be encouraged to explore and inquire as they learn, and also develop holistically.

'They should not be pressured to excel only academically through rote learning and tests and exams. Reducing the compulsory schooling age should not rob children of their childhood,' she says.

Should pre-school education be 'nationalised'?

THE proposals for pre-school education to come under MOE and be made compulsory trigger a more controversial question: Will pre-school education be 'nationalised'?

If MOE assumes the role of lead agency, does it mean it should stipulate a set curriculum at pre-school centres? And if pre-school education is made compulsory, will the ministry take over the running of all centres?

Far from it, observers say.

They do not think that MOE should bog itself down with the operations of pre-school centres and curricular standardisation.

As Mrs Teo sees it: 'There is no test for entry into primary schools which would necessitate standardisation.

'We should therefore allow a broader range of early childhood education philosophies and methods to be available. Diversity is healthy and competition can help raise standards.'

PCF's Mr Tay acknowledges that standards across centres are uneven, 'just as all educational institutions are'. The onus is on parents to be discerning and decide which pre-school to put their children in, he says.

Mr Mohamad Nizam Ahmad Dali, 32, who works as a specialist in a multinational corporation, is concerned that the Reach proposals might pave the way to a nationalisation of pre-school education.

He pays $700 monthly for his three-year-old daughter Malisa to attend half-day nursery classes at Chiltern House's Halifax Road branch. He says: 'As parents, we want only to give the best for our children. Those who can afford better quality should be allowed to access it. As it is, there are affordable pre-school options around.'

Whether MOE is the lead agency or not, most people are of the view that the ministry can make a difference by being more involved in the training of pre-school teachers.

Mrs Teo says: 'Even when the Government is not the employer, it often steps in to develop manpower in industries, whether at the pre-employment stage or in continuing education.

'It is otherwise too costly for businesses, who also worry about losing trained staff to competitors.'

EtonHouse's Mrs Ng feels more can be done to raise awareness of the job so as to attract and retain teachers with a genuine love for the profession.

Money could be the reason why the Government is inclined to keep the sector under the two ministries, say some interviewees. MOE's budget is already the second highest among ministries.

Having MOE take on more, they say, means it has to expand its resources, build new capabilities and run the risk of losing focus.

Reach's Mr Lee acknowledges that his group's recommendations require significant government funding, but points out that professional studies have shown that such investments reap future returns.

For example,a 2006 report of the landmark Perry Pre-school project in the United States showed that benefits over the life of the child stood at more than US$8 (S$11) for every US$1 invested in early childhood education.

Given the sheer diversity of the sector here, any radical reform will be difficult to implement in one go, even if many parties feel changes are needed.

Mr Lee says moves like extending compulsory education need not be rushed and can be done in three to five years.

But it is clear to him, and those who spoke to Insight, that improvements have to be made to the pre-school sector.

As he puts it: 'Making education accessible to all is a key reason for Singapore's progress and social equity, and there is absolutely no reason why this does not apply to early childhood education.'

This article was first published in The Straits Times.