Real reason behind Singapore’s obsession with tuition

[verykiasu2010]

ksi:

I agree with you, the category of 'enrichment' kids are the one who do not need but still want to go for other reasons and they have the option to stop any time if they want. Are they being included into this \"tuition\" nation? I hope not, they should be excluded because theirs is a good-to-hv case.

for some, the \"need\" is to pull up from the F grade

for some, the \"need\" is to ensure don't drop below A*, and even for A*, its must be a high A*

one man's meat is another's poison

neither is Singapore unique ..... enrichment and tuitions are prevalent in Malaysia, China, Taiwan, HK, Korea, and isolated cases in France and US generally described in 'hothousing' instead of calling it enrichment

[corneyAmber]

verykiasu2010:

firefly38:

I am very skeptical

Was told by who? If you don't mind sharing, jan..

In my DS' previous school ( a neighbourhood sch) as well as his current school (a GEP sch), teachers return ALL exam papers and go through the answers with the pupils in class. Pupils check through the papers and approach the teachers, should there be any erros in marking (yes, there are errors in marking, sometimes). Pupils then bring the exam papers home for parents to look through and sign. There is a Cover Page (for every subject) to show the breakdown of every single component (eg. Oral, LC, Compo, every section of Paper 2, and Total). After parents look through and sign, pupils bring the exam papers back to class the next day. Teachers collect the exam papers back for final computation of marks. After the marks of all subjects have been finalised and computed in the Report Books, the exam papers are returned to the pupils for filing, and the files are kept at home for revision..

With the exception of DS1's P4-P6 Social Studies GEP exam papers.. I have, in my home now, all the exam papers of all the subjects for both my DSs.

that is what we had. got to sign and acknowledge the marks for every test and assignment, and for compo, there is always a re-write of the whole compo based on the necessary corrections and teachers would still mark it to make sure corrections are correct.

I can also say most of the schools are practising the above as firefly38 has described :evil: (based on those I know)

Ours return all exam papers except compos & LC only but the kids still get to view those papers not returned.

[corneyAmber]

verykiasu2010:

ksi:

I agree with you, the category of 'enrichment' kids are the one who do not need but still want to go for other reasons and they have the option to stop any time if they want. Are they being included into this \"tuition\" nation? I hope not, they should be excluded because theirs is a good-to-hv case.

for some, the \"need\" is to pull up from the F grade

for some, the \"need\" is to ensure don't drop below A*, and even for A*, its must be a high A*

one man's meat is another's poison

neither is Singapore unique ..... enrichment and tuitions are prevalent in Malaysia, China, Taiwan, HK, Korea, and isolated cases in France and US generally described in 'hothousing' instead of calling it enrichment

That is because in France and US they home school the kids on the enrichment which is also found here in SG practised by some families who claimed no enrichment and tuition for their kids. In any case, I have no issue about enrichment, hothousing, whatsoever people want to do to help their children improve their grades from A to A* or maintain A*. As Schweppes put it aptly, people just want to fight for the limited resources to have a better life called survival, enrich all they want but that is not tuition because they can already make the baseline mark to suggest competency in a subject.

So if we mix up needs and wants, how is MOE going to respond to that?

[verykiasu2010]

ksi:

That is because in France and US they home school the kids on the enrichment which is also found here in SG practised by some families who claimed no enrichment and tuition for their kids.

errr, I was actually referring to those who engage professors to specially tutor the kids .... for those US and French people (people I happen to know)

ksi:

In any case, I have no issue about enrichment, hothousing, whatsoever people want to do to help their children improve their grades from A to A* or maintain A*. As Schweppes put it aptly, people just want to fight for the limited resources to have a better life called survival, enrich all they want but that is not tuition because they can already make the baseline mark to suggest competency in a subject.

So if we mix up needs and wants, how is MOE going to respond to that?

that is why it is misleading to just hang on to the unsubstantiated handle \"90% need tuition\"...... and everyone jumping into the band-wagon to bash schools and teachers and MOE as if all the blames are on them.....and people got offended when pointed out that some of the issues have the parents themselves to blame. (note : no specific reference to anyone)

[schweppes]

verykiasu2010:

for some, the \"need\" is to pull up from the F grade

for some, the \"need\" is to ensure don't drop below A*, and even for A*, its must be a high A*

one man's meat is another's poison

if I may just tweak your example slightly, it should be the \"need\" to pull up from an F grade and the \"want\" to ensure that marks don't drop below A*
(vk, :please: please don't throw male cow dung my way, hor :siam: :please: :please: )


Going by Philip Kotler's (Marketing 101 guru), his definition is as such:

Needs - a state of self deprivation
This refers to basic needs, such as physical needs for food, warmth, safety, social needs for belonging and affection and individual needs for knowledge and self-expression.

This is where basic education comes in. When students are failing or getting borderline pass, parents see an urgent need to help the child to pass. Does not matter whether the child is a gifted, bright or a weak student, all parents, including the child himself, knows that he needs to pass his studies. That's the basic requirement.


Wants - the form taken by a human need as shaped by culture and individual personality

Wants are shaped by society. So, in Spore, society, unfortunately doesn't take too kindly to failures. It's also about mian zi (face saving). For some parents, they see the child's success in studies or work as a reflection of their success in life.

The wants come about because society is not satisfied with a borderline pass. It's hard to accept mediocrity in Spore. So, there is this \"want\" to get an A


Demands - human wants that are backed by buying power
Given their wants and resources, some will start to demand for products with benefits that provide the most value and satisfaction.

And this is where the likes of TLL comes in. They have a minimum entry requirement where they take in students who are already amongst the top students. Their \"assurance\" to parents who can afford the fees, is that TLL will provide quality enrichment and mentoring and also to ensure that the grades will not slip.

So, for kids who are already A students, parents will still continue to send their kids to TLL because they want to ensure that (1) grades do not slip (2) kid continues to receive the best educare and best available resources available.

ksi:

So if we mix up needs and wants, how is MOE going to respond to that?

Sometimes, i also wonder how MOE should respond. On one hand, we want them to regulate the industry and on the other hand, we also don't want too much policing. A delicate balance.

Think easier said than done for MOE to proclaim \"ban all tuition\". As long as parents see a need for tuition for their kids, there will be tutors abound. It's a free market out there.

[wonderm]

Reading all the analysis about "needs" and "wants" as well as different mentalities of parents make me think about my own mentality.


For my children, what they had were enrichment and not tuition. That was partly because they were not failing exams, also partly because I was the one providing the necessary 1:1 consultation and monitoring, similar to what tutors do if the parents don’t have the time for that.

So it was "want" and not "need" based on what were discussed. However, we were not so concerned about getting from A to A* or maintaining A* because the grades themselves do not matter very much to me, since they really depend on how difficult are the exam papers. Even relative performance within their class or school weren’t that important. What we really cared about was whether the children were learning (or how much they were really learning). They attended some enrichment classes because they had the potential and interests to learn more. With smaller classes and students of similar abilities, lessons at enrichment centres were very productive and my children benefited from them. Of course, as parents, we had to make sure that they still have time for relaxation and other activities. We also had to make sure they learn to become self-learners as they grow up and not be over-reliant on such external out-of-school lessons.

[schweppes]

wonderm:

Reading all the analysis about \"needs\" and \"wants\" as well as different mentalities of parents make me think about my own mentality.

On more light-hearted note, end of day, does not matter what the definition is. Coz, we need... want... demand.. our kids better do well for exams or else!! :frustrated: :stompfeet: :mad: :rant: :nunchuk:

[limlim]

verykiasu2010:

limlim:

If 90% of their students need tuition.... you say leh..? can they be consider professionals in this case..? :evil: :evil:

the 90% need tuition has no basis

you can disagree with me

No no.... I guess you misunderstood me..

I'm saying, \"IF\" 90% of the students needs tuition.. I would doubt the quality of the teachers..

It is a \"hypothetical\" scenario...

Not attempting to say current situation is 90%.......

[dorisp]

The discussion reminds me of Maslow's hierarchy of needs..........


So this obsession with tution, which level does it belong to?

Education may be a bacis need in today's context and because it is basic, that is a national issue........but if there is a desire to score a minimum B++ and above, is that still a basic need or an individual choice.......

JMHO........pls don't

[oxyleo]

Hmm… Let’s think of it this way:


The starting point unrefutably should be that parents typically want the best to be attained out of their child, meaning if the child of capable of a B, they hope for at least a B. if an A, at least an A. And so on.

So whether folks send their children for tuition/ enrichment, it really is to ensure the child performs optimally. If he is already there, that’s why we say it is to maintain the grades. If he hasn’t reached it but from the parents’ observation, he is bright but for some reason not performing, than it is to improve his grades.

MOE gets mentioned because it does play a pivotal role in helping children attain optimal performance. Why - MOE plans the curriculum, hires the teachers, trains them, compensates them, promotes them etc. MOE also has purview over the schools and the human resources placed in these schools, although of recent years, they like to explain that decision-making matters on how schools run their PV program, decide on textbooks, set their tests, have been decentralized to each school.

Now, decentralization, which brings about empowerment at the local levels, is always originally a good thing. It encourages creativity and inspiration through free rein. Central HQ ie MOE, now steps back, no longer stifles, and let’s schools run free, within broad guidelines. KPIs are now put in place as the check and balance to keep schools performing. Schools get funded and attain accolades based on those KPIs. Teachers get bonuses and promotion based on those KPIs. KPIs should keep everyone on their toes, no? Everything looks in place, doesn’t it? Indeed, MOE thinks so, to the extent that I read in a meeting note put up by a UK Government official following a visit to SG to understand our education system, that Inspectors only now need to inspect our public schools, once every 5 years. In today’s day and age, even 6 months is a very, very, long time.

How KPIs are achieved is a blind spot to us. It’s not how one gets there, rewards come so long as you show that you got there. Meaning that, a school, if they so deem fit, can set difficult papers to scare the heck out of their students so that every resource is subsequently thrown in to ensure the students buck up for the PSLE. Meaning if a teacher is concerned about a child’s performance in school not meeting up to "standards", they can hint at or suggest tuition for the child. I’ve also heard of good schools suggesting for a child to seek placement in another school because he can’t keep up. This is of course do that kids like that don’t pull down the School’s overall academic excellence results - the KPIs. In the above scenarios, it is unlikely that it will not result in the child’s parents seeking tuition. I’ll be careful to balance things here that not all teachers do so. Not all schools do so. Some do, maybe out of good intention for the child, maybe being realistic,… We never really know. The focus on KPIs has resulted in a trend towards goal-oriented CCAs even. We are usually pleasantly surprised to chance upon a school that provides HR to a CCA just because, and not because it is eyeing that Gold award in Choir or badminton or soccer.

Yes, decentralizing is a good thing, which is exactly what the Fed thought when they listed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. When the debt crisis happened, it didn’t matter whose fault it was. It was a bit of everything. Human greed, bank exec greed, consumer ignorance, systemic risk… Each and every possible reason played a part, of course. But everyone who was part of the process, good banks, bad banks, savers, borrowers, everyone hurt. Cos the system almost collapsed. Life savings could have perished just like that. Shares plummeted, some still never quite recovering to Pri Crisis levels.

In the same token, if there are systemic flaws in our education system, not implying that things have completely malfunctioned, or that teachers are terrible, but a system that rewards outcomes regardless of behaviour, I think at the very least, it can do MOE no harm to review the current state of its system. What is at stake is the quality of our graduating children 10-20 years to come. As it is, we have reports saying that employers find our graduates technically competent. Umm. Period. Could this have been a result of all that toil?

Yes parents play a huge role here in deciding whether our children have tuition, mine doesn’t, but I daren’t judge those who do, because the decision to do so or not can produce very different outcomes, depending on the situation.

Meanwhile, we will have to hold out in good faith that the true interests of our children, not just the outcomes, but also the means through which the outcomes are attained, are appropriately watched and guarded by MOE.