Asia spending billions on tutors: study
-
oxyleo:
:goodpost: I share the same view and glad that somebody can put it down in words.
I agree with wonderm that it is not possible to ban tuition altogether, but I do not see why we cannot regulate the industry. Not to stamp it out, but to ensure good/ ethical business practices in line with what is expected of educators, both public and private perhaps?ksi:
I too do not believe in regulating the tuition industry. It is all about demand and supply. The demand will diminish significantly if the majority of the children are not finding it hard to keep up with the standards and enjoy learning. However, if majority of the parents are rich and want to put their children to enrichment or tuition just to push them to a grade that they expect, then that is their call and their self-imposed stress.
The words in bold is a problem statement, if the demand persists due to majority finding it hard to cope.
If we do want MOE to do anything, it should be something within their span of control such as the teachers and the school, not the tuition industry nor the parents' aspirations.
I also believe in us keeping our education standards high but how high is high? In today's context, some of the accelerated learning could be stretching the children too much until they are lack in sleep and often falling ill. The schools and teachers have expectations as well so streaming kind of limit the stress to the high ability classes. We need to look out for such symptoms. My personal guide is my child must have at least 9-10 hours of sleep, no dark rings, no eye bags, running about cheerfully daily with a stress less face and fall ill at most 5 times a year. Then I know the rigours of academic is not taking a toll on her.
So if we really want to understand if the children are coping in Singapore, just walk around and look at their faces and observe what you see in the majority.
I also agree that if anything, the place to start should be with what is within MOE's control. Just so I don't reignite the flames again, starting with MOE does not mean MOE is to blame for the current situation. Perhaps MOE should look at it this way. As a hirer of teachers that it painstakingly invests in, remunerates and trains, would it not be a concerning trend when it sees teachers making a beeline for the tuition industry? Whosoever/ whatsoever fault it may be due to, it would make sense to evaluate, and ask some tough questions as to why people are leaving the profession? If there are problems retaining staff, how can MOE ever meet the desired student-teacher ratio it hopes to arrive at? Also, are resources allocated to schools through KpIs really the most equitable way?
I am also of the view that standards being kept high is supposed to be a good thing if the school environment is sufficient in doing so.
For one thing, it has become more and more attractive for an NIE-trained teacher/ex-HOD/ex-GEP teacher/ex-Award winning teacher to get out of the public schools and start his/her own tuition centre. Look at the hourly rate he/she can command outside, it can be $40-$100 per pax (can be a student or a parent). If the teacher is taking a class of 10, the earning is multiplied 10x and he/she can earn $400-$1000 per hour! These excellent teachers/trainers are highly sought after, they know it. And with the high demand of such expertise, they can increase their hourly rates, work less hours, and still get a very high income at the end of each month.
The rest of the tutors are not stupid. When they know that the top guys in the market are priced so highly, they will also start to increase their own hourly rate. This phenomenon is not new. Remember how years ago BreadTalk set the benchmark for pork-floss buns and soon all the neighbourhood bakeries started to set prices lower-than-BreadTalk but big jump from what they used to charge?
The demand and supply thingy has been going on for too long. We are already seeing the problems of not monitoring the situation earlier. It doesn't help that there are many parents in Singapore who have lots of money to spare. It also doesn't help that many have made a pile from the property market.
If all our policemen can find alternative related jobs such as highly paid personal investigators/ body guards (let's say lah), and then we have less policemen to fight crimes, and we have to live in constant fear of day-light robberies, would you still say that \"it's demand and supply lor, too bad for us\"?
I also do not have a solution. I just hope that MOE recognises that somewhere in the equations, there are areas they can control and do better. I think many teachers (especially good ones who can afford to throw in the towels) are frustrated with the piling of workloads and stress on them by the school management to produce good PSLE showings. I know many good teachers who cannot have work-life balance (esp. those who reach the stage of setting up a family of their own). Giving tuitions can offer them that. -
Picolo:
:goodpost: I share the same view and glad that somebody can put it down in words.
I agree with wonderm that it is not possible to ban tuition altogether, but I do not see why we cannot regulate the industry. Not to stamp it out, but to ensure good/ ethical business practices in line with what is expected of educators, both public and private perhaps?oxyleo:
[quote=\"ksi\"]I too do not believe in regulating the tuition industry. It is all about demand and supply. The demand will diminish significantly if the majority of the children are not finding it hard to keep up with the standards and enjoy learning. However, if majority of the parents are rich and want to put their children to enrichment or tuition just to push them to a grade that they expect, then that is their call and their self-imposed stress.
The words in bold is a problem statement, if the demand persists due to majority finding it hard to cope.
If we do want MOE to do anything, it should be something within their span of control such as the teachers and the school, not the tuition industry nor the parents' aspirations.
I also believe in us keeping our education standards high but how high is high? In today's context, some of the accelerated learning could be stretching the children too much until they are lack in sleep and often falling ill. The schools and teachers have expectations as well so streaming kind of limit the stress to the high ability classes. We need to look out for such symptoms. My personal guide is my child must have at least 9-10 hours of sleep, no dark rings, no eye bags, running about cheerfully daily with a stress less face and fall ill at most 5 times a year. Then I know the rigours of academic is not taking a toll on her.
So if we really want to understand if the children are coping in Singapore, just walk around and look at their faces and observe what you see in the majority.
I also agree that if anything, the place to start should be with what is within MOE's control. Just so I don't reignite the flames again, starting with MOE does not mean MOE is to blame for the current situation. Perhaps MOE should look at it this way. As a hirer of teachers that it painstakingly invests in, remunerates and trains, would it not be a concerning trend when it sees teachers making a beeline for the tuition industry? Whosoever/ whatsoever fault it may be due to, it would make sense to evaluate, and ask some tough questions as to why people are leaving the profession? If there are problems retaining staff, how can MOE ever meet the desired student-teacher ratio it hopes to arrive at? Also, are resources allocated to schools through KpIs really the most equitable way?
I am also of the view that standards being kept high is supposed to be a good thing if the school environment is sufficient in doing so.
For one thing, it has become more and more attractive for an NIE-trained teacher/ex-HOD/ex-GEP teacher/ex-Award winning teacher to get out of the public schools and start his/her own tuition centre. Look at the hourly rate he/she can command outside, it can be $40-$100 per pax (can be a student or a parent). If the teacher is taking a class of 10, the earning is multiplied 10x and he/she can earn $400-$1000 per hour! These excellent teachers/trainers are highly sought after, they know it. And with the high demand of such expertise, they can increase their hourly rates, work less hours, and still get a very high income at the end of each month.
The rest of the tutors are not stupid. When they know that the top guys in the market are priced so highly, they will also start to increase their own hourly rate. This phenomenon is not new. Remember how years ago BreadTalk set the benchmark for pork-floss buns and soon all the neighbourhood bakeries started to set prices lower-than-BreadTalk but big jump from what they used to charge?
The demand and supply thingy has been going on for too long. We are already seeing the problems of not monitoring the situation earlier. It doesn't help that there are many parents in Singapore who have lots of money to spare. It also doesn't help that many have made a pile from the property market.
If all our policemen can find alternative related jobs such as highly paid personal investigators/ body guards (let's say lah), and then we have less policemen to fight crimes, and we have to live in constant fear of day-light robberies, would you still say that \"it's demand and supply lor, too bad for us\"?
I also do not have a solution. I just hope that MOE recognises that somewhere in the equations, there are areas they can control and do better. I think many teachers (especially good ones who can afford to throw in the towels) are frustrated with the piling of workloads and stress on them by the school management to produce good PSLE showings. I know many good teachers who cannot have work-life balance (esp. those who reach the stage of setting up a family of their own). Giving tuitions can offer them that.[/quote]In summary, you want a control on the supply of MOE teachers to the tuition industry? And that is within MOE's control without having to regulate the tuition industry. -
autumnbronze:
Just started reading from pg1.
Surely, the \"kiasu\" parents have a hand in it.......limlim:
[quote=\"verykiasu2010\"]
blame MOE ? blame the parents' kiasu mentality is more like it
ouch, the truth hurts
:siam: :siam:
However, shd the state stand by and do nothing..?
it's not whether the truth hurts.. but what can be done to alleviate the problem..
Instead of just declaring that \"oh, it is cause by parents.. end of story..\"
When there is a social problem, the state have an obligation to deal with it..
So what should the state do then, since it's a social problem?? Come up with YET another 'fine' :evil: :evil:[/quote]You read from pg one and did not see any suggestions?
Apparently, you only read what you want to read. -
3Boys:
When they remove the casino entrance levy and all the restrictions on heartland shuttle bus services, then we talk about not being a nanny state.
I honestly find it very befuddling why in this era when people are railing AGAINST a nanny state, that the same people are asking for even MORE government intervention. Shed those apron strings, for heaven's sake.autumnbronze:
Just started reading from pg1.
So what should the state do then, since it's a social problem?? Come up with YET another 'fine' :evil: :evil: -
wonderm:
BECAUSE it can have a detrimental effect on the quality of education delivered to other kids.
For those who believe tuition is harmful, just don't send the kids. Yes, some teachers' own children attend tuition. Yes, some centres claim that the top PSLE scorers attended their classes. Why should any of these bother you if you think tuition is harmful for your own kids and you don't believe these tuition centres are of much use?
THAT, is the main PROBLEM.
If there is no effect, I wouldn't be bothered.
Like I say, those kiasu parent who want their kids to top the class at all cost, let them be. Why be bother with them?
But, the effect of the tuition and enrichment industry on the overall quality of education delivered by MOE, is WHAT we are concerned about. -
ksi:
I have already touch on things that is within MOE's control that can raise the quality of education at the schools.
If we do want MOE to do anything, it should be something within their span of control such as the teachers and the school, not the tuition industry nor the parents' aspirations. -
ksi:
1. Advertisement guidelines. Excessive advertisement can make parent's \"worry\" that everyone's kids is having tuition and their kids may fall behind if they do not (something along that line). worst is false claim and some advertisement content that can mislead parents, that tuition is essential and necessary.
Maybe I am not seeing what you can see. Can you share what is to be regulated?
for e.g. if cigarettes manufacturer can advertise, they may project a glamorous image with smoking, and lead misguided individuals to the wrong path.
2. Regulating means maybe require license to operation enrichment/tuition centers. And a requirement is to submit the particulars of students and their schools. This data can then correlate to the % of student of each school attending tuition as a KPI for schools and teachers. This data would also be useful to parents when they decide on a primary school.
Some parents may have the mistaken belief that a particular school is good becoz the teachers are good, when the truth is that the students all attended external lessons.
Isn't this enlightening for the parent and help them make an informed choice? -
limlim:
And do you ANY data to show that the quality of education in our schools have been eroded by the presence of tuition centres?
But, the effect of the tuition and enrichment industry on the overall quality of education delivered by MOE, is WHAT we are concerned about.
Don't talk about parents who keep asking for more and more, and the teachers then asking them to go for tuition on that basis, it is not the role of schools to substitute for high intensity hot-housing. -
limlim:
Makes not one whit of difference to me.
1. Advertisement guidelines. Excessive advertisement can make parent's \"worry\" that everyone's kids is having tuition and their kids may fall behind if they do not (something along that line). worst is false claim and some advertisement content that can mislead parents, that tuition is essential and necessary.ksi:
Maybe I am not seeing what you can see. Can you share what is to be regulated?
for e.g. if cigarettes manufacturer can advertise, they may project a glamorous image with smoking, and lead misguided individuals to the wrong path.
2. Regulating means maybe require license to operation enrichment/tuition centers. And a requirement is to submit the particulars of students and their schools. This data can then correlate to the % of student of each school attending tuition as a KPI for schools and teachers. This data would also be useful to parents when they decide on a primary school.
Some parents may have the mistaken belief that a particular school is good becoz the teachers are good, when the truth is that the students all attended external lessons.
Isn't this enlightening for the parent and help them make an informed choice? -
ksi:
Maybe I am not seeing what you can see. Can you share what is to be regulated?[/quote]Hi ksi,
I agree with wonderm that it is not possible to ban tuition altogether, but I do not see why we cannot regulate the industry. Not to stamp it out, but to ensure good/ ethical business practices in line with what is expected of educators, both public and private perhaps?oxyleo:
[quote=\"ksi\"]I too do not believe in regulating the tuition industry. It is all about demand and supply. The demand will diminish significantly if the majority of the children are not finding it hard to keep up with the standards and enjoy learning. However, if majority of the parents are rich and want to put their children to enrichment or tuition just to push them to a grade that they expect, then that is their call and their self-imposed stress.
The words in bold is a problem statement, if the demand persists due to majority finding it hard to cope.
If we do want MOE to do anything, it should be something within their span of control such as the teachers and the school, not the tuition industry nor the parents' aspirations.
I also believe in us keeping our education standards high but how high is high? In today's context, some of the accelerated learning could be stretching the children too much until they are lack in sleep and often falling ill. The schools and teachers have expectations as well so streaming kind of limit the stress to the high ability classes. We need to look out for such symptoms. My personal guide is my child must have at least 9-10 hours of sleep, no dark rings, no eye bags, running about cheerfully daily with a stress less face and fall ill at most 5 times a year. Then I know the rigours of academic is not taking a toll on her.
So if we really want to understand if the children are coping in Singapore, just walk around and look at their faces and observe what you see in the majority.
Yes \"regulation\" is a very broad word, so perhaps we can narrow it down to something softer, lighter, and along the principle of self-regulation, so to speak. I'm thinking more along the lines of an association, with members made up by the tuition centres and individual tutors. The association gets some funding, if deemed appropriate, by MOE, which then co-assists the association's lead members in sharing and encouraging best practices, offers certification etc
Take a look at the role/mission/ code of practice adopted by these two associations for banks and retailers respectively, in Singapore:
http://www.abs.org.sg/aboutus_management.php
http://www.retail.org.sg/
What we have then is a promotion of best practices across members- the tuition agencies and tutors, and a soft approach towards encouraging a code of practices. Some good practices, like not Misrepresenting/ falsifying claims, with slightly more definition, can be applied to Tuition centres.
In fact, the tuition industry may also mirror what is carried out in the broader business world. Businesses get recognized for doing their part in the area of Corporate Social responsibility , and are awarded by business associations. The aim of this is to remind organizations to not just focus on profit and numbers, but also to contribute to the greater good. In education, a good educator embraces ęęę ē±», which means the willingness to teach anyone who is willing to learn. This tuition association could certainly recognize and give awards/ accolades to tutors/ tuition centres who teach not just high achieving/ gep kids, but also the needy for free/ at subsidized rates, and teach all categories of children, vs those that only want to teach the creme ala creme. (Ahem)
Let's remember that the users of the tuition centres are mere children, some starting as young as 2-3 years of age and upwards. If there is any other place that requires service providers to be exemplary in good practices, the tuition industry ought to be one of them.
Swim/ sports coaches themselves join the Singapore Sports Council for certification, I believe. Not sure if it's mandatory though. I recall years back when a swim coach was tried in court for something along the lines of molestation/indecency, some parents, who had children learning under this coach, queried as to why he was allowed to continue teaching when he was already under investigation. It was then discovered that he was not certified unde SSC, which would otherwise have flagged him out (assuming no admin hiccups).
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better š
Register Login