Sir, I was joyful when MOE first announced the vision to build more peaks of excellence through new education pathways. This vision serves to cater to students with different aptitudes, interests and learning styles. I am still supportive of the vision but would like to ask MOE to reconsider the way it is realised.

On top of special schools, which traditionally are located outside the mainstream system, the landscape now sees a sea of different school models: the Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools which house primarily Chinese students; the Gifted Education Programme; the Sports School; the School of the Arts; the NUS Maths and Science School; NorthLight and Assumption Pathway for those who failed their PSLE; specialist schools for Normal (Technical) students from Secondary 1 for those who passed; and the Integrated Programme (IP) schools, and so on.

Students of all these schools undergo programmes customised to match their profiles but are physically separated from each other on a daily basis. Although some of them meet in specially arranged occasions, the prospect of growing up separately is real.

The development that bucked this trend is the Allied Educators Scheme that supports students with milder learning abilities, for example, dyslexia, autism and ADHD, in many mainstream schools. The other encouraging development is the Pathlight Satellite School Model that integrates its senior students with autism inside two mainstream buddy schools on a daily basis, whilst supported by special educators. Both schemes are, thankfully, well-supported by MOE and, though not perfect yet, are very well appreciated, for MOE is moving in the right direction of building inclusive schools.

What is of grave concern to me is the increasingly dysfunctional application of the "many pathways and peaks" philosophy which has created islands of schools populated by students who hardly mix with each other except in choreographed events.

Sir, we confuse programmes with place, and run the risk of depriving young people from growing up in environments that are more inclusive and reflective of the larger Singapore society. Such segregated environments weaken the foundation of society and by the time the students grow up, the inclusive society which underpins this year's national Budget is too late to be constructed.

I am especially concerned about the Specialist Schools for the Normal (Technical) (NT) students. In typical Secondary schools, students from the Express, Normal (Academic) (NA) and Normal (Technical), share the same physical facilities; they partake in non-academic activities, such as sports, music and other CCAs; and common school events. This will not be the case when the Normal (Technical) students are physically educated elsewhere. NT late bloomers would not be able to move so readily to the NA and Express streams. Not only do they now not study in the same classrooms, they have lesser authentic opportunities to build identities and bonds based on their strengths in non-academic platforms. This view is even affirmed by Mr David Hoe, the top Normal (Technical) student in 2005 and himself an LKY Award recipient.

I have four recommendations for the Minister's consideration:

(1) Do not go ahead with the plan to form the two Specialist Schools for Normal (Technical) students. Do not. That is the path of least resistance – more efficient, perhaps showing more academic results – but, certainly, non-inclusive and box students way too early in their lives.

(2) Pilot the design and implementation of an Inclusive School Education Model that allows for the co-education of students under one roof. Keeping to MOE's base philosophy of "many pathways and peaks", make provisions for customised programmes, education tracks to cater to the different learning styles of the students. Consciously design common physical and social space in non-academic pursuits, such as sports. Learn from best practices in more inclusive school models, such as Darlington Education Village in England and the Finnish education system, but localise, where necessary, to create our uniquely Singapore model.

(3) Next, extend the Satellite School Model, currently practised by Pathlight School for autism, to other special-needs groups, like the Down’s Syndrome and the hearing impaired and the visually impaired. The model which unpacks integration to three levels – physical, social and academic – is flexible enough for many special-needs groups. If academic integration does not meet the education needs of the said students, then just stick to physical and social integration. The "Many Helping Hands" approach can still be deployed; and this Satellite School Model incorporates the best of both mainstream and special education in terms of funding and expertise.

(4) And, lastly, continue to enlarge and fund the Allied Educator Scheme to support milder special-needs students in mainstream schools so that they can learn even more effectively.