Real reason behind Singapore’s obsession with tuition

[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.

[schweppes]

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

i know, it's very subjective. depends from which perspective one is looking at or the scenario one is in. but if going by kotler's definition, then i wd say that the above scenario is a \"want\".

the \"need\" is straightforward. The need to pass, otherwise cannot be promoted to the next level.

but the indiv choice becomes a want because the student wants to attain a mark better than \"just pass\". So, the \"want\" to do better - be it scoring a B, A or A*.

[dorisp]

schweppes:

i know, it's very subjective. depends from which perspective one is looking at or the scenario one is in. but if going by kotler's definition, then i wd say that the above scenario is a \"want\".

the \"need\" is straightforward. The need to pass, otherwise cannot be promoted to the next level.

but the indiv choice becomes a want because the student wants to attain a mark better than \"just pass\". So, the \"want\" to do better - be it scoring a B, A or A*.

Agree with you.

MHO is that policies at national level should solve the \"need\" problem whereby individual decisions to cater to the \"want\" issue.....

[janet88]

A good friend of mine told me…if there is no tutor and self-coach, then a pass is considered not bad. But if there is a tutor, then a pass is definitely insufficient. Even if there is no A, at least very close to one.

[limlim]

schweppes:

i know, it's very subjective. depends from which perspective one is looking at or the scenario one is in. but if going by kotler's definition, then i wd say that the above scenario is a \"want\".

It started with a \"need\".. those students who cannot catch up go for tuition..

Then.. someone tries to be kiasu and ask their kids to go for tuition so as to have an \"edge\" over the other one.. advertising and marketing by profit driven centers plays a large part cultivating this social ill.

As more parents send their kids for tuition/enrichment, they learn stuff before their peers, and may not pay attention in class (Note that these students are not playing catch-up). As the teachers take notice of these situation, they can go faster or skip certain parts or spend less time and they deemed that majority of the students already \"got it\", and proceed to other section prematurely..

As a result, those kids w/o external help may not be able to catch up and lag behind.. and as a result..

They Need tuition..

And the evil cycle repeats.. \"some\" school began to expect students to have tuition.. they cannot wait for these student to play catch up.. leading to more students attending tuition.. leading to more schools expecting students to have external help.......

Tuition is also a means for the more well-to-do to gain advantage over the less well to do and keep their social status..

IMO.. it is Not healthy to our national education program.. and warrant some intervention by the MOE.

You may produce pple that excel academically.. But they may Not be real talents.. And real potential talents who may not be financially well off to began with, might be marginalised.. and may not get to shine and contribute in a significant way..

[janet88]

Hi limlim,

You have a good point there.
I feel the same way too. Some teachers assume students have tuition, so there is no need to teach in-depth…just give the class worksheets. Maybe most kids do have tuition but again, teachers are presuming. Do all the kids in the class have this luxury? If not, this is literally ‘forcing’ parents to seek external help.

[Strparent]

limlim:

schweppes:

i know, it's very subjective. depends from which perspective one is looking at or the scenario one is in. but if going by kotler's definition, then i wd say that the above scenario is a \"want\".

It started with a \"need\".. those students who cannot catch up go for tuition..

Then.. someone tries to be kiasu and ask their kids to go for tuition so as to have an \"edge\" over the other one.. advertising and marketing by profit driven centers plays a large part cultivating this social ill.

As more parents send their kids for tuition/enrichment, they learn stuff before their peers, and may not pay attention in class (Note that these students are not playing catch-up). As the teachers take notice of these situation, they can go faster or skip certain parts or spend less time and they deemed that majority of the students already \"got it\", and proceed to other section prematurely..

As a result, those kids w/o external help may not be able to catch up and lag behind.. and as a result..

They Need tuition..

And the evil cycle repeats.. \"some\" school began to expect students to have tuition.. they cannot wait for these student to play catch up.. leading to more students attending tuition.. leading to more schools expecting students to have external help.......

Tuition is also a means for the more well-to-do to gain advantage over the less well to do and keep their social status..

IMO.. it is Not healthy to our national education program.. and warrant some intervention by the MOE.

You may produce pple that excel academically.. But they may Not be real talents.. And real potential talents who may not be financially well off to began with, might be marginalised.. and may not get to shine and contribute in a significant way..

:goodpost:

my sentiments exactly.