▲ 新加坡眼，點選卡片關注，加星標，以防失聯
以下內容為新加坡眼根據國會英文資料翻譯整理：
文佳禮博士（惹蘭勿剎集選區議員）詢問教育部長：根據最新政府家庭支出調查，2023年新加坡家庭私人教育支出達18億新元且持續增長，教育部將採取何種措施應對補習支出攀升對教育公平的衝擊，尤其關注低收入家庭學生？
葉漢榮（楊厝港單選區議員）詢問教育部長：
（a）鑑於不同收入階層家庭補習支出差異顯著，教育部是否預見高收入家庭透過教育資源優勢加劇社會不平等？
（b）是否評估此趨勢對社會流動性的長期影響？
（c）擬出臺哪些政策緩解負面影響？
顏曉芳（教育部兼人力部政務部長，代表教育部長）：議長先生，請允許我合併答覆第7、8題。
統計局《2023年家庭支出調查》顯示，全國家庭補習支出增速與家庭總收入增幅及補習類消費價格指數（CPI）漲幅基本一致。教育部（MOE）注意到家長選擇補習動機各異：部分學生確需學業支援，亦有學業達標者跟風補習。過度補習可能削弱學習樂趣、擠佔全面發展時間。如果學生難以承受補習帶來的額外要求，補習甚至可能是有害的。
教育部已對政策進行了調整，不再過分強調學業成績，並拓寬了成功的定義。但是，如果不轉變觀念，這些舉措就不會奏效。我們必須將重點從讓孩子們僅憑學習成績與他人進行過度競爭，轉移到給予孩子們更多的時間和空間進行全面發展，同時幫助他們最大限度地發揮個人才能和優勢，使他們成為最好的自己。
正如文佳禮博士和葉漢榮先生所強調的，監督事務司的資料還顯示，不同收入五分位數的家庭在學費支出方面存在差距。這與全球趨勢一致，即條件較好的父母會利用他們的資源和網路支援子女的發展。他們為子女報名參加更多或更昂貴的補習和學費，希望以此幫助子女完成學業。教育部無法干預這些個人決定。
但是，無論學生的社會經濟背景如何，教育部都將一如既往地確保我們的教育體系為所有學生提供充分的機會，充分發揮他們的潛能，無論他們的背景如何。
為此，教育部投入了大量資源，為有更高需求的學生提供支援。例如，我們的學校透過學習輔助計劃（Learning Support Programme） 和 數學學習計劃（Learning Support for Mathematics），為需要更多支 持的中小學生提供專門的學業輔導，幫助他們打好識字和算術基礎。[請參閱 “教育部政務部長的澄清”，《官方報告》，2025 年 2 月 5 日，第 95 卷，第 151 期，透過書面宣告更正部分。］
學校還與志願者和自助團體合作，提供負擔得起的學術支援。其中一個例子是 “協作補習計劃” （Collaborative Tuition Programme），該計劃為學生，尤其是來自低收入家庭的學生提供學費補貼。
經濟合作與發展組織（OECD）2022 年國際學生評估專案（PISA）肯定了我們的努力。我們來自低收入家庭的學生在閱讀、數學和科學等核心領域以及創造性思維方面的表現均優於經合組織的平均水平。
議長先生，僅憑教育部一己之力是無法提高社會流動性的。我們需要全社會的努力，與那些條件較差的人分享我們的資源和網路，拓寬我們對成功的定義，減輕學業壓力，並承認那些擁有不同技能和天賦的人所做的貢獻。
議長：有請文佳禮博士發言。
文佳禮博士（惹蘭勿剎集選區議員）：謝謝議長先生。感謝政務部長的答覆。我很高興聽到我們正在努力改變這種認為必須補習的觀念。除了經濟方面的考慮外，教育部是否正在研究這種補習文化對學生身心健康和壓力水平的影響？這些資訊將有助於我們進一步推動這種觀念的轉變。
我的下一個問題實際上是關於我如何聽說對低收入家庭的經濟支援，但我也注意到有些中等收入的家庭認為他們的孩子需要支援。請問教育部是否有措施解決這些家庭的問題和關切？
顏曉芳（教育部兼人力部政務部長，代表教育部長）：教育部當然也關注過度依賴補習可能給學生帶來的壓力，特別是如果補習不能幫助學生提高對所學科目的學習和理解，反而剝奪了他們全面成長和發展的寶貴時間。因此，我們肯定會積極開展研究，並與合作伙伴在這一領域開展研究。
至於支援來自中等收入家庭的學生方面，我們的確有廣泛的支援。事實上，我們已經增加了向學生提供的助學金，即使是中等收入家庭的學生。總體而言，我們的教育體系為學生提供支援，即使是來自中等收入家庭的學生。
我想說的是，對我們來說，更重要的是瞭解學生及其家長對學費的需求。我認為，解決這個問題才是問題的關鍵所在，為此，我們尋求家長和社會各界的支援，幫助我們塑造過於強調學業成績的觀念，並拓寬學生成功的定義。
議長：有請葉漢榮先生。
葉漢榮（楊厝港單選區議員）：謝謝議長。謝謝政務部長的答覆。我有兩個補充問題。教育部是否進行或考慮進行縱向研究，以追蹤不同收入背景的學生的長遠成績，特別是他們接受私㆟補習的機會及隨後的社會流動性？
其次，有沒有努力建立信心，使人們相信我們的公共教育系統有能力滿足不同的學習需求，而不需要外部的求助，如私人補習？
顏曉芳（教育部兼人力部政務部長，代表教育部長）：為配合政府保持社會流動性和減少不平等的主要優先事項，教育部對來自各收入階層的學生在人生各主要階段的教育進展情況進行監測。與其他國家類似，我們觀察到社會經濟地位與教育成果之間存在相關性。不過，在某些領域，差距已隨著時間的推移而縮小，例如，在社會經濟地位較低的學生中，如今每10名學生中就有9名升入大專院校，而在20年前，這一比例僅為5%。
關於這位議員提出的第㆓個問題，即提高家長對本國教育制度的信心，我認為家長普遍相信本國的學校正為學生提供優勢教育。但與此同時，我認為正在發生的是競爭的概念，即進入好學校和好課程的概念，這也許低估了個別學生的獨特才能和興趣。我認為這是我們要繼續努力的方向，在這方面，我們尋求家長和社會的支援。
議長:有請連榮華先生提問。
連榮華（武吉班讓單選區議員）：議長先生，上個月（1月2日）是小一學生開學的日子，當時我在選區內的一間小學門外，遇到一些家長。當我和一些家長聊天時，我看到一對夫婦在我們周圍散發傳單，我很好奇他們在散發什麼。很快，我就發現他們在散發補習傳單。
我對此感到非常不安，並向那對散發補習傳單的夫婦提出了自己的看法，認為他們不應該在小學生開學第一天就這樣做。我們不希望在小一開學第一天給家長和學生造成不必要的競爭和壓力。我告訴他們，也許以後，如果學生確實有一些較弱的科目和需要改進的地方，也許他們可能需要一些補習，但我仍然相信學校有能力幫助較弱的學生。我說完這些話後，那對夫婦就離開了。
請問政務部長，是否有任何常規指示，或教育部會不會發出常規指示，勸諭補習機構不要在校外進行這類補習銷售活動，尤其是在小一學生開學的第一天？
議長：非常好，連先生。有請政務部長顏曉芳答覆。
顏曉芳（教育部兼人力部政務部長，代表教育部長）：感謝連榮華先生的補充提問。我們注意到一些補習中心採用不良的廣告手法，迎合家長的焦慮和害怕錯過的心理。我們並不支援這些做法。我們認為這會誘使家長為子女報讀補習班，對健康不利。我們的學校當然也不支援這種做法。我們正在研究如何阻止補習中心這樣做。我們現正檢討有關程式。
雖然我理解教育部正試圖更早地為學生提供更多的支援，但我想請問政務部長，我們急於在學生小學階段的這麼早的階段就找出他們的弱項或強項，教育部在向家長和孩子們發出什麼樣的訊號？前提是我們要努力讓學生表現得更好或迎頭趕上，而這一前提的背後是一種競爭意識。
教育部是否有計劃檢討其課程進度，看看我們是否有必要在孩子這麼小的時候就把這麼多的資訊和知識塞進他們的生活，並檢討我們為什麼要逼迫我們的學生完成學業並達到某種期望，即他們必須具備什麼樣的數學或文學技能水平，以及我們是如何為此制定基準的？新加坡這種強化學習步伐的最終目的是什麼？
顏曉芳（教育部兼人力部政務部長，代表教育部長）：我感謝陳澮敏女士的補充提問。我認為，重要的是，我們要認識到學習是終身的事，如果我們只在兒童生命的頭幾年匆匆忙忙地學習，那是無濟於事的。學習必須是一個持續的過程。其次，我們還認識到，即使在學前階段，我們的孩子也必須有一個良好的開端，在閱讀、溝通和生活技能方面打下一定的基礎，這一點非常重要。
這就是為什麼在我們的學校裡，如果我們發現某些孩子在基本的讀寫或計算技能方面似乎比較薄弱和落後，出於關心和關注，教師會希望讓家長意識到這一點，並與他們一起支援學生的學習。我們明白，有時一些家庭可能沒有資源或能力，因此，我們為需要更多基礎技能支援的小學生制定了專門的學業干預計劃。
這些計劃包括 “閱讀輔導計劃 ” (Reading Remediation Programme )和 “數學學習支援計劃”(Learning Support for Mathematics)，並取得了良好的效果。更重要的是，我們的學生，尤其是那些來自低收入家庭的學生，透過這些課程的學習，樹立了信心。這些計劃通常學生人數較少，並有特殊的額外資源，而且是在徵得家長同意並與家長合作的情況下實施的。這絕不是要求家長送孩子去上更多的學。如果說有什麼目的的話，那就是為了提高家長的認識，以便及早為孩子的學習提供更多的支援，為孩子的長遠發展打下良好的基礎。
Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education with reference to the latest Government survey on household expenditure which found that families in Singapore spent $1.8 billion on private tuition in 2023, an increase from previous years, what measures are being taken to address the potential impact that rising tuition expenditure has on educational equity, particularly for students from lower-income households.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education in view of the disparity in spending on private tuition between households of different income quintiles (a) whether the Ministry foresees a widening of social inequality as higher-income families gain disproportionate access to educational advantages; (b) whether the Ministry can share its assessment of the long-term implication of this trend, particularly on social mobility; and (c) whether any policies are being considered to mitigate these effects.
The Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 7 and 8 together?
Mr Speaker: Please go ahead.
Ms Gan Siow Huang: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Based on findings from the Household Expenditure Survey 2023 conducted by the Department of Statistics (DOS), the overall growth in tuition expenditure across all households was similar to the growth in overall household income from all sources. It was also similar to the increase in the Consumer Price Index for enrichment and supplementary courses.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) recognises that the reasons for taking up tuition are varied. While there are some students who genuinely need more dedicated help in coping with their studies, there are others who take tuition even though they are coping well. Excessive reliance on tuition can diminish students’ joy of learning and take time away from their holistic development. It can even be detrimental when students struggle to cope with the additional demands of tuition.
MOE has introduced policy changes to shift away from an over-emphasis on academic results and broaden the definition of success. But these moves will not be as effective if mindsets do not shift. We must shift our focus from putting our children through excessive competition against others based solely on academic results, to giving more time and space for holistic development of our children and also helping them to maximise their individual talents and strengths, so that they can be the best versions of themselves.
As Dr Wan Rizal and Mr Yip Hon Weng highlighted, the data from DOS also shows a disparity in tuition expenditure between households of different income quintiles. This is consistent with global trends, where parents who are better endowed will use their resources and networks to support their children’s development. They sign their children up for more, or more expensive enrichment and tuition, hoping that this will help their children in their studies. MOE is not in a position to intervene in such personal decisions.
But regardless of a student’s socio-economic background, MOE will continue to make sure that our education system provides sufficient opportunities for all students to reach their fullest potential, regardless of their background and this is even more important for students from lower-income households.
To this end, MOE has devoted significant resources to support students with higher needs. For instance, our schools provide specialised academic intervention for primary and secondary school students who need more support to build their literacy and numeracy foundation through the Learning Support Programme and the Learning Support for Mathematics. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister of State for Education", Official Report, 5 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 151, Correction By Written Statement section.]
Schools also have partnerships with volunteers and self-help groups that provide affordable academic support. One example is the Collaborative Tuition Programme, which provides students, particularly those from lower-income households, with subsidised tuition.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022 has affirmed our efforts. Our students from lower-income families out-performed the OECD average in the core domains of reading, mathematics and science, as well as in creative thinking.
Mr Speaker, MOE cannot advance social mobility on our own. A whole-of-society effort is needed to share our resources and networks with those who are less well-endowed, broaden our definitions of success, reduce academic stress and recognise the contributions of those with different skills and talents.
Mr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I am glad to hear that we are doing things to change the mindset of this perceived idea of the necessity of tuition. Beyond financial concerns, is MOE studying the impact of this tuition culture on students' well-being and stress levels? Such information could be helpful for us to push further a change in this mindset.
My next question is really on how I have heard about the financial support for the lower-income families, but I do also note that there are families who are in the middle-income who feel that they need support for their children. Are there measures by MOE to address these issues and concerns by such families?
Ms Gan Siow Huang: MOE is certainly concerned as well about stress that can be brought onto students because of excessive reliance on tuition, especially if the tuition does not help students in improving their learning and understanding of the subjects that they are studying but instead, take away precious time for them to grow and develop themselves holistically. So, certainly, we will be keen to undertake studies and also research with partners in this field.
On the subject of support for students from middle-income families, we do have broad-based support. In fact, we have increased the amount of bursary that is provided to our students, even for those from middle-income households. And our education system, in general, provides support for students, even for those from middle-income households.
I would like to say that actually the more important thing for us is to understand why there is demand for tuition from students and their parents. I think, tackling that is the crux of the matter and for that, we seek the support of parents and the community in helping shape the mindsets about over-emphasis on academic results and broadening the definition of success for our students.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I have two supplementary questions. Has the Ministry conducted or considered conducting longitudinal studies to track the long-term outcomes of students of various income backgrounds, particularly in relation to their access to private tuition and subsequently social mobility?
Secondly, are there efforts to build confidence in our public education system's ability to meet diverse learning needs without external supplications, such as private tuition?
Ms Gan Siow Huang: In line with the Government's key priority of sustaining social mobility and mitigating inequality, MOE monitors the education progress of students from all income brackets across the key life stages. Similar to other countries, we have observed a correlation between socio-economic status and educational outcomes. Nonetheless, in some areas, the gaps have narrowed over time – for instance, among students from lower socio-economic status backgrounds, nine in 10 students progress to post-secondary education today, compared to five in 10 around two decades earlier.
On the hon Member's second question on improving confidence in our education system, I think parents generally believe that our schools are providing quality education to our students. But what I think is happening, at the same time, is the notion of competition, of getting into good schools and good courses, and it is perhaps undervaluing the unique talents and interests of individual students. And I think that is something that we want to continue to work on and we seek the support of parents and the community in this.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Sir, last month on the first day of school for Primary 1 students, it was 2 January, I was outside a primary school at my constituency and got to meet some parents there. As I was chatting with some of the parents, I saw a couple distributing flyers around us and I was curious to find out what they were distributing. And I soon found out that they are distributing tuition flyers.
I was very troubled with that and I offered my views to the couple who were distributing the tuition flyers and said that they should not be doing this on the first day of school for Primary 1 students. We do not want to create such unnecessary competition and stresses to our parents and the students on the first day for Primary 1 students. I told them that, perhaps later, if the students do have some weaker subjects and areas they need to improve on, well, perhaps they may need some tuition, but I still believe the school is capable of helping the weaker students. The couple left after I said all those things.
Can I ask the Minister of State whether there are any standing instructions or would MOE come out with some standing instructions to advise tuition centres not to do such tuition sales outside schools, especially on the first day of school for Primary 1 students?
Mr Speaker: Well done, Mr Liang. Minister of State Gan Siow Huang.
Ms Gan Siow Huang: I thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for his supplementary question. We have observed some tuition centres employing undesirable advertising practices that appeal to parents' anxieties and fear of missing out. We do not support such practices. We think that it unduly induces parents to sign their children up for tuition and that is not healthy. Our schools certainly do not support such practices. We are studying how we could discourage tuition centres from doing this. We are reviewing our processes.
Mr Speaker: Last supplementary question. Ms Carrie Tan.
Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wanted to address Minister of State Gan and thank her for her clarification. I have also encountered, just in January, a couple of instances where parents have shared that they have observed that their Primary 1 child, in the third week of school, has been identified to be weaker in a particular subject and hence, been designated to a smaller group with the additional support for the particular subject.
And while I understand that MOE is trying to give more support to students at an earlier age, I would like to ask the Minister of State, what kind of signal is MOE sending to parents and children, where we are rushing to identify their weaknesses or strengths at such an early stage in their primary school journey? The premise is that we are trying to get the students to perform better or to catch up and underlying that premise is a sense of competition.
Does MOE have plans to review its pace of curriculum to see whether it is necessary that we need to cram so much information and knowledge into a young child's life at such an early stage, and to review the whole entire premise of why it is that we are pushing our students to perform and to meet certain expectations of what kind of level of mathematics or literary skills they must have, and how we are benchmarking this? What is the ultimate purpose for this intensified learning pace in Singapore?
Ms Gan Siow Huang: I thank Ms Carrie Tan for the supplementary question. I think it is important that we recognise that learning is for life and that it does not help if we rush through the learning only in the first few years of a child's life. It has to be a continuous journey. Secondly, we also recognise that it is important for our children to start well, even in preschool, to have some foundations in reading, communication and life skills, importantly.
That is why in our schools, if we identify that certain children seem to be weaker and falling behind in basic literacy or numeracy skills, teachers, out of care and concern, will want to bring this to the awareness of parents and work together with them to support the learning of our students. We understand that, sometimes, some households may not have the resources or abilities, and that is why we have specialised academic intervention programmes for primary school students who need more support in foundational skills.
These programmes include the Reading Remediation Programme and Learning Support for Mathematics, and we have seen good outcomes. More importantly, in building confidence of our students especially those from lower-income households when they go through these programmes. These programmes typically have fewer students and special additional resources, and they are done with consent from and also in partnership with the parents. It is not in any way intended to ask the parents to send their children for more tuition. If anything, it is to raise awareness of the parents, so that more can be done early to support the learning and to set our children up well for the longer term.
相關閱讀
-
新加坡人力部：補習費津貼透過各種計劃服務了近9萬名社群成員
-
新加坡的雙語教育政策：學生的母語要從娃娃抓起
-
新加坡教育福利升級，這類家庭將受益
CF丨翻譯
Alex丨編審
新加坡國會丨來源丨圖源
免責宣告：
1.凡本公眾號註明文章型別為“原創”的所有作品，版權屬於看南洋和新加坡眼所有。其他媒體、網站或個人轉載使用時必須註明：“文章來源：新加坡眼”。
2.凡本公眾號註明文章型別為“轉載”、“編譯”的所有作品，均轉載或編譯自其他媒體，目的在於傳遞更多有價值資訊，並不代表本公眾號贊同其觀點和對其真實性負責。
想第一時間瞭解新加坡的熱點/突發新聞，可關注新加坡眼旗下“看南洋”微信公眾號，同步下載新加坡眼APP，不失聯。