Real reason behind Singapore’s obsession with tuition

[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.

[verykiasu2010]

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.

Thanks, no dung !

from an objective point of view, need and want are nicely distinguished apart.

in the real world where kiasuness is a way of life to many people, what is a want to some people is deemed a need by others, from kiasu point of view

here are some anecdotes from real people :-

student B : how did you do for HCL?
student A : my HCL sucks, 我的华文很烂!
student B : I got 95. what is yours ?
student A : I got 98 only (the person ended up among the top in the cohort )

student B : how is you math score ?
student C : threw the test paper away oredi lah.
student B : why ?
student C : only 92

[verykiasu2010]

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..

history of tuition and enrichment industry in Singapore over a period of 30 years.

[Dreamaurora]

I think let me share my perspective on this tuition thing from an Indonesian Chinese point of view. I spent my childhood in Jakarta and similar to Singapore, there was this obssessive culture of trying to outdo each other in academic results among the Indonesian Chinese. Parents sent their kids to tuition not to attempt to pass exams, but to ensure stellar results in their schools. Students’ rankings matter a lot and parents liked to brag about their children’s results as well. My mom likewise pushed me to be the best in the academic study and would scold me if I did not get the best result she expect. At least I had it better, the top student in my class shared to me her mom caned her because she scored 89/100 for math exam (her mom said she’s not allowed to score below 90 for ANY tests).


My mom would non stop compared me to her friends’ kids. Said that wah, my friend’s kids did not watch TV or played SEGA at all and spent entire week studying; they got the top in class. Then keep quoting examples of very smart kids who went on to become doctors or lawyers or engineers etc. My parents also basically laid out my career path and I was expected to do the family proud by becoming a very accomplished millionaire engineer. Suffice to say, I was result obssessed and often suffered depression if my results were lower than my classmates. As a result I was also extremely socially inept and unable to converse well with other children my age.

So somewhere along the line I decided to make a switch to be a musician in despite starting piano extremely late at 17 years old. My parents were very furious and we were not in talking terms for at least a few years. They eventually relented and let me finish my BA in music because they didn’t want to lose face as the only parents without a degree holding son. Then lately these few years my parents noticeably support me more and accept my choice of career and life. My mom said to me that she regretted her approach in my childhood. She confided that many of these star kids her friends have ended with terrible adult lives. One particular stellar child who ended up to be a famous doctor had a terrible divorce and suffering depression now. Many also ended in unhappy jobs and decided to make mid-life career switch, so apparently I was not the only one.

So I hope this can provide some perspective in this discussion on how obsession with results might have impact further down in your children’s lives.