Chairman, I beg to move, “That the total sum to be allocated for the Ministry of Education be reduced by $1.”
Class sizes remain unacceptably large
Singapore’s class sizes remain large. As of 2024, classrooms average 34 pupils at the primary level, and 33 in secondary schools. This is significantly larger than the average in advanced, industrialized countries—where the numbers are 21 and 23, respectively—and speak to the disparity that still exists in the amount of attention our kids receive from their teachers in our public schools, relative to other countries.
Smaller class sizes translate into more customized education
To be clear, this is not an argument that smaller class sizes automatically translate into superior outcomes. That evidence is indeed mixed, although there is indication that the greatest benefits come in the earlier grades, and when egregiously large classes of 40 are moderated to something closer to 30. However, there is far stronger evidence that smaller sizes improves classroom management, strengthens student learning, and reduces teacher stress. This is eminently commonsensical, and is also abundantly clear when one actually speaks to teachers.
Notably, however, the Ministry has conceded that smaller class sizes have clear benefits in certain specific circumstances. For instance, in recognition of the challenges faced by younger learners adapting to a new educational setting, Primary 1 and 2 classes are capped at 30 students. Children in the former gifted education program—who may require more customized learning to fully unlock their intellectual potential—enjoy classrooms closer to 20-plus, and foundation classes—which focus on building fundamentals for students who require additional support—range between 10 and 20 students.
Small class sizes also allow teachers to focus on teaching
The most recent edition of the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) points to another clear problem of large classes: it taxes our already-overworked teachers. Our teachers spend more than 47 hours a week working, 6 hours more than their OECD counterparts. Paradoxically, these added hours come at the expense of classroom hours; teachers in the OECD manage to squeeze in almost 23 hours teaching, compared to only 18 here.
Disappointingly, however, the news that Singapore will increase teacher recruitment from 700 to 1,000 annually was followed by a sucker punch, that allied educators in teaching and learning would be scaled back. This is the opposite direction of what we would want.
Reducing class sizes is less infeasible than often portrayed
Taken together, it is clear that the debate isn’t so much about whether we should reduce our class sizes, but about how.
The straightforward solution is, of course, to hire more teachers. The Ministry’s standard response has been that this would compromise the quality of teachers we hire, while robbing other sectors of talent. MOE also says that there is a dearth of teaching talent.
I have always found these arguments disingenuous. After all, are we implicitly suggesting that teachers from two decades ago—where there were more of them, as a share of the workforce—were somehow not of the same quality as those we could recruit today? Or that investments in our future workforce are somehow a lower priority than those that drive our economy today?
In any case, economics tells us that the solution, should we worry about our ability to attract talent into teaching, is simple: we should pay our teachers more, or reduce their workload. This will solve the chicken-and-egg problem of teachers—who otherwise wish to remain in the profession—leaving due to burnout. As any HR professional knows, retention is more than half the battle, compared to recruitment.
Reducing the effective class size during the transition
Now, even if we believe that the transition to smaller class sizes will take time, there is a more immediate solution: we can reduce the effective size by adding a teaching aide or assistant (TAs) for every classroom. Such TAs can guide students that lag behind during breakout sessions, or handle disruptive students so that the teacher can carry on with the curriculum.
Another upshot of such personnel is that they can also take on administrative and planning tasks (or at least, do so in collaboration with the teacher). This burden is clearly something that teachers struggle with, as it occupies the majority of their time, distracts them from what they were primarily hired to do, and adds unduly to their stress levels.
Even if we accept that learning journeys and cocurricular supervision are valuable parts of holistic education, they are undeniably secondary to instruction. Redirecting the workload of teachers away from non-teaching tasks can only improve lesson delivery.
I therefore reiterate the call to cap class sizes closer to the OECD average—currently at 21—especially at the primary level, failing which, to complement every classroom with a teaching and learning allied educator that will serve as teaching assistants.
