By Kor Kian Beng & Zakir Hussain

NESTLED in a tranquil spot off downtown Newton Road, 15 six-year-olds are huddled in an air-conditioned room listening to their teacher explain the ecological system.

They are among 225 pre-schoolers aged two to six at EtonHouse's Newton branch, one of the 10 that the upmarket pre-school operator runs in Singapore.

Housed in a two-storey building sitting on a 2,710 sq m area, the branch boasts 16 classrooms, a music room, a kitchen that provides local and international food and a grass lawn well stocked with playground equipment.

The price tag for each child is a monthly fee of more than $1,000.

At another childcare centre in the void deck of an HDB block in Sembawang, some pre-schoolers are also attending kindergarten classes.

They are among some 100 pupils at the My First Skool branch, one of the 55 run islandwide by First Campus Group, the childcare arm of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC).

Facilities here are more basic compared to those at EtonHouse. Classes are held in a non-air-conditioned centre. During their free time, the children troop off to a nearby public playground. But their parents pay a lower fee of about $520 monthly.

The two scenarios depict the current landscape in the pre-school education sector, one that is marked by a wide spectrum of private operators and providers.

Parents picking pre-school centres to prepare their children between the ages of three and six for formal primary education have many factors to consider such as class size, facilities, curricula and the quality of teachers.

The vastly differing standards have triggered concerns among educationists, politicians and parents that free-market forces with insufficient regulatory supervision may allow some pre-school operators to compromise on standards and charge overly high fees.

It has also led to questions on social equity, with some asking if children are entering formal education on an unequal footing, depending on whether their parents can afford to pay for premium pre-school education.

It is these factors that led an expert workgroup - comprising educators, parents and academics - to focus on ways to improve the pre-school sector, which caters to at least 60,000 children yearly.

The workgroup - which was commissioned by Reach, the Government's feedback unit - made five recommendations last month, following the completion of a two-year study.

Among them were two key ones that have sparked the debate: make the Ministry of Education (MOE) the lead agency over the sector, which it now supervises with the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS).

Another called for the compulsory education age to be lowered from seven years old to five years old, thus making kindergarten education compulsory.

The recommendations have become a talking point, if not a bone of contention, among educators, pre-school operators, politicians and parents. They weigh the pros and cons with Insight.

Should MOE be the lead agency in the pre-education sector?

SOME 500 kindergartens come under MOE while nearly 800 childcare centres that provide kindergarten and nursery programmes are under MCYS.

The kindergartens are run by a host of operators - ranging from the People's Action Party Community Foundation (PCF) and religious outfits, to clan and grassroots associations. The childcare sector comprises a wide range - from established chains like EtonHouse to one-centre operations at HDB void decks.

The monthly school fees for kindergartens and childcare centres could range from as low as $100 to more than $1,000.

The first Reach proposal calls for childcare centres to be moved from the purview of MCYS to that of the MOE, but leaving room for MCYS to continue with its involvement.

As the chairman of the Reach group, Mr Lee Kwok Cheong, explains, the fundamental principle is that early childhood education should be an integral part of the education system and fit seamlessly into primary education.

'Since MOE - not MCYS - looks after our education, then MOE should also look after early childhood education.'

MCYS can still play a role in providing support to families in need, adds Mr Lee, who is the chief executive of the Singapore Institute of Management group.

He says: 'The role of the lead agency is to set and enforce higher standards in teachers, teaching and operations. It does not need to run the centres.'

Ms Fiona Walker, principal director of Chiltern House, which runs four childcare centres in Singapore with 800 children, is all for it. She says: 'We're happy under MCYS, but it makes sense to have one lead agency in ensuring standards in the pre-school education sector.'

Her views are echoed by Dr Christine Chen, a member of the Reach group and president of the Association for Early Childhood Educators Singapore. It has 500 pre-school educators as members.

Dr Chen says there is a greater need for one ministry to take charge and align practices in childcare centres and kindergartens, given the Government's announcement to set up 200 more childcare centres over the next five years.

She believes that if one ministry takes charge, it will ensure better governance and efficient planning, and reduce duplication of services.

Dr Sam Yap, chairman of the Association of Private Childcare Organisations comprising more than 200 operators, observes that the childcare sector under the MCYS has been improving, but having MOE take charge would be a strategically sound move.

MP Josephine Teo, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Education, notes that when two or more agencies are involved, role clarity and coordination are a challenge.

She feels that if MCYS becomes the lead agency, the tendency is to view early childhood education as a social service, whereas if MOE is the lead agency, the emphasis is more likely to be pupil outcomes and professional standards.

'Speaking as a parent, I think the vast majority of parents want to think of early childhood education as being beneficial to child development, as opposed to just helping us with our child-minding duties. Hence the preference for MOE to be the lead agency,' says Mrs Teo.

She is among a group of MPs in recent years calling on the Government to play a more active role in pre-school education.

To be fair, more has indeed been done since 2000 by both MOE and MCYS to raise the standards of operators and teachers in pre-school education and also to give parents more help in picking suitable centres. (See 'Reach proposals under study: MOE')

But are existing efforts enough?

Not to Dr Sirene Lim, an academic specialising in early childhood education.

She tells Insight that it is about time the Government thinks about taking over the sector, instead of putting stop-gap solutions to raise quality.

She suggests a systemic review that looks across pre-school to primary and secondary education.

The Reach workgroup also stresses the need to raise the image, standing and pay of pre-school educators, especially those at childcare centres who are sometimes viewed as nannies by parents.

The poor image, coupled with low pay and the lack of a clear career path, has led to a high turnover of pre-school teachers at some centres and the industry's failure to attract new blood.

Teachers with diplomas in pre-school education are paid about $1,500 to $1,800 a month. Those with certificates command about $1,400 to $1,650.

An Education Services Union (ESU) survey of 5,000 pre-school teachers in 2007 showed that 34 per cent wanted to leave their jobs within 12 months. Some 56 per cent of those cited low pay as the key reason.

The solution? Get MOE to train pre-school teachers by relying on its current expertise in training government school teachers, argues Reach's Mr Lee.

Adds MP Zainudin Nordin, ESU's executive secretary: 'Early childhood educators often compare themselves with their counterparts in the other education institutions and would look forward to additional support.'

Not all, however, want the system to be revamped. Mr Tay Swee Yee - group chief executive of PCF, the largest kindergarten operator with 246 centres islandwide and 33 Sparkletots childcare centres - has no problem with the current arrangement.

Having worked with MOE and MCYS, Mr Tay observes that both ministries are aware of the need to elevate the standards and quality of pre-school operators and educators, and constantly seek feedback on educational standards.

Likewise, Dr T. Chandroo, chairman and chief executive of Modern Montessori International (MMI) with more than 30 pre-school centres here, sees enough room for both agencies to be involved.

Noting that MMI's centres come under both ministries, he says: 'MOE should be the best governing body in terms of setting and maintaining standards of curriculum, as well as qualifications of pre-school teachers. MCYS should continue to oversee the running of pre-school centres as this generally still falls under the area of social service.'

Lawyer Priya Ramachandra, 35, expresses reservations about having MOE train pre-school teachers the way it does with government school teachers.

Her concerns stem from her positive experience with the Chiltern House childcare centre in East Coast Park.

Says Ms Priya, who sent her two sons Rohin and Sharad, seven and five, there: 'What I like about the centre is that they have quite a good number of overseas-trained teachers who have a different approach towards education compared to the locally trained.

'If MOE takes over and trains new pre-school teachers, would we see more bearing the traits of Singaporeans, which might be too rigid and structured?'

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.