Asia spending billions on tutors: study

[3Boys]

buds:

There are far more hurdles to cross beyond PSLE.

Accept our children for who they are.. for what they can achieve with their own capabilities.
.
.

.
Of course, firstly... the teachers in school must teach... ...which many REALLY are. :grphug: They are just under-exposed.

HULLO buds!

Yes Yes Yes!! Agree with you wholeheartedly!

I really don't understand the obsession with tuition.

The only way that tuition will stop in Singapore, is when every student gets the same score at PSLE. Go figure how to do that. Push the weak students to breaking point, dumb the exams down so that the better ones can't excel.

There is no acceptance for the children for who they are, there is the misconception that with an infinite amount of coaching, that even the weakest of the students can be up there with best of 'em. There is no stomach or desire to even consider the downsides or costs of such an approach, and there is a general unwillingness to face reality. And, it ALWAYS the teacher's/principal's/MOE's fault, it's never the parents (or if it the parents, it is out of our control so we shouldn't bother with it)

But hey, its pitched as class warfare (you won't know if you only mix with people like yourself, same income, same lifestyle).

[3Boys]

limlim:

State intervention for the best interest of the general community.

Say, there is a problem.. the factors are A, B, C, D, E.

Just becoz \"B\" is not within the control, so, the govt shd sit back and do nothing to tackle A, C, D ,E which is within their control? what a irresponsible attitude.

They shd do all they can, including looking at A, C, D, E and try to contain the problem before there are dire consequences.

Has it been clearly established that A, C, D and E are even problems to begin with, or that changing them would fix the major issues caused by B?

If someone has brain tumour, you fix the brain tumour, giving medicines for headache, vomiting and fever may help the symptoms but DO NOTHING for the underlying issue.

[limlim]

Busymom:

First, your suggestion about linking the no. of students who go for enrichment/tuition to the school principal/teachers' KPI. Someone posted the comment that this would not capture the whole picture as there will always be those who have stay-at-home parents/grandparents to help coach or enrich the child. That is a valid point. If this is to be linked to KPI, it has to be fair measure and capture the whole picture, not just a segment of it. If I am a teacher and my KPI is linked to such a criteria, an unfair one in my view (since even if I teach the kids passionately and properly, I can't stop parents who may still want to send their children for more enrichment), I probably wouldn't want to make teaching a career to begin with.

Second, your suggestion that MOE should not allow its teachers to moonlight. While I agree that too much moonlighting may interfere with one's duties in school, isn't there already some restriction imposed by MOE on this as posted by someone earlier (Jedamum I think), like not exceeding a certain no. of hours per week? So is your position one of (i) the restriction is too lax; (ii) there is evidence teachers are flouting the restriction; or (iii) there shouldn't be any moonlighting by school teachers, period? If your position is (iii), what right does MOE have to tell its teachers that they are not suppose to moonlight? It is one's livelihood afterall.

Third, your suggestion about regulating advertisements by the tuition/enrichment centres. That to me should be caveat emptor. Not that it is not good for us consumers for advertisements to be regulated, etc., but have you thought of the consequence of this? This so-called protection for the sonsumer has to be extended to what else and stop at where? Being a nanny state in some aspects does not mean that people ought to be protected to the extreme for everything. Your comparing tuition to gambling is totally off balance, to be blunt about it. One has obvious consequence to the society, the other...? I am still scratching my head and you never reply to that question except for two words, nanny state. Why don't you try to answer this question for once?

1. There has to be some adjustment of course. For example, if 10% of student go for tuition, it should not reflect badly on the teachers. But if 90% go for tuition, isn't it fair to say there is some problem with the school or teachers?

The question is how to fine tune the criteria or KPI parameters, not to dismiss the whole idea of regulation.

2. I don't see why MOE have no right. It is standard industry practice. <conflict of interest>. If they moonlight as waitress, ok, i say, MOE have no right. If there is potential <conflict of interest>, I see MOE has EVERY right, just like standard industry practice. MOE is the one that is not following correct practice. Why should MOE be the exception?

Tuition center operators, do they allow their full time tutors to teach at other centers?

3. The difference here is, some of us see the potential problem and the dire consequences that may follow if excessive tuition and enrichment are allow to continue.

You may laugh at the comparison of gambling to tuition. But, if you read the reports, there is some cases in the line of.. without tutors, the student will die or something along that like.. maybe you do not see it as addiction. That is fine, we may differ in views. But, these student have growth reliance on tutors.. they can't manage on their own.

Again, some talked about discipline and self restraint for tuition.. sure.. the individual has to be responsible for himself. So does leisure gambling, isn't it?

Tuition may not cause one to go bankrupt, but I worry about the type of the young generation that has growth being trained to excel in exams with external help. the consequence are not the same nature as gambling. But the consequence may not be good either.

And, there are other points which I will not repeat here.

[limlim]

3Boys:

Has it been clearly established that A, C, D and E are even problems to begin with, or that changing them would fix the major issues caused by B?

Go and read up on <Conflict of interest>.

[3Boys]

limlim:

3Boys:

Has it been clearly established that A, C, D and E are even problems to begin with, or that changing them would fix the major issues caused by B?

Go and read up on <Conflict of interest>.

And as autumnbronze has replied, it is speculative at best.

[limlim]

Anyway, you see no issue with excessive tuition and enrichment, so be it.


Ya, the MOE should sit back and relax. It’s all the parent’s fault. It is not caused by MOE so MOE is not obligated to fix it.

fine then…

No point for me to rant further.

[limlim]

3Boys:

limlim:

[quote=\"3Boys\"]

Has it been clearly established that A, C, D and E are even problems to begin with, or that changing them would fix the major issues caused by B?

Go and read up on <Conflict of interest>.

And as autumnbronze has replied, it is speculative at best.[/quote]probably speculative in all industries too..

[Lilac66]

limlim:

Busymom:

First, your suggestion about linking the no. of students who go for enrichment/tuition to the school principal/teachers' KPI. Someone posted the comment that this would not capture the whole picture as there will always be those who have stay-at-home parents/grandparents to help coach or enrich the child. That is a valid point. If this is to be linked to KPI, it has to be fair measure and capture the whole picture, not just a segment of it. If I am a teacher and my KPI is linked to such a criteria, an unfair one in my view (since even if I teach the kids passionately and properly, I can't stop parents who may still want to send their children for more enrichment), I probably wouldn't want to make teaching a career to begin with.

Second, your suggestion that MOE should not allow its teachers to moonlight. While I agree that too much moonlighting may interfere with one's duties in school, isn't there already some restriction imposed by MOE on this as posted by someone earlier (Jedamum I think), like not exceeding a certain no. of hours per week? So is your position one of (i) the restriction is too lax; (ii) there is evidence teachers are flouting the restriction; or (iii) there shouldn't be any moonlighting by school teachers, period? If your position is (iii), what right does MOE have to tell its teachers that they are not suppose to moonlight? It is one's livelihood afterall.

Third, your suggestion about regulating advertisements by the tuition/enrichment centres. That to me should be caveat emptor. Not that it is not good for us consumers for advertisements to be regulated, etc., but have you thought of the consequence of this? This so-called protection for the sonsumer has to be extended to what else and stop at where? Being a nanny state in some aspects does not mean that people ought to be protected to the extreme for everything. Your comparing tuition to gambling is totally off balance, to be blunt about it. One has obvious consequence to the society, the other...? I am still scratching my head and you never reply to that question except for two words, nanny state. Why don't you try to answer this question for once?

1. There has to be some adjustment of course. For example, if 10% of student go for tuition, it should not reflect badly on the teachers. But if 90% go for tuition, isn't it fair to say there is some problem with the school or teachers?

The question is how to fine tune the criteria or KPI parameters, not to dismiss the whole idea of regulation.

2. I don't see why MOE have no right. It is standard industry practice. <conflict of interest>. If they moonlight as waitress, ok, i say, MOE have no right. If there is potential <conflict of interest>, I see MOE has EVERY right, just like standard industry practice. MOE is the one that is not following correct practice. Why should MOE be the exception?

Tuition center operators, do they allow their full time tutors to teach at other centers?

3. The difference here is, some of us see the potential problem and the dire consequences that may follow if excessive tuition and enrichment are allow to continue.

You may laugh at the comparison of gambling to tuition. But, if you read the reports, there is some cases in the line of.. without tutors, the student will die or something along that like.. maybe you do not see it as addiction. That is fine, we may differ in views. But, these student have growth reliance on tutors.. they can't manage on their own.

Again, some talked about discipline and self restraint for tuition.. sure.. the individual has to be responsible for himself. So does leisure gambling, isn't it?

Tuition may not cause one to go bankrupt, but I worry about the type of the young generation that has growth being trained to excel in exams with external help. the consequence are not the same nature as gambling. But the consequence may not be good either.

And, there are other points which I will not repeat here.

Support your pts! :goodpost:

[joliemum]

I belong to the 10% who don’t send my kids to tuition. But I may be soon joining the 90%, coz I’ve been hearing friends with kids not being able to cope without tuition… sigh… any good tuition centres to recommend for P1 and P3 next year?

[BlurDad]

Wow! Everyone has his/her own valid/strong views on this hot topic. This is mine:


1. Due to Global Competition and in order to educate/equip our young ones to face tomorrow’s world, MOE is shifting the emphasis from one of rote learning to one of creative learning style which requires higher order thinking like heuristic maths (Honestly speaking, I have a great deal of difficulty to understand/to help my son).
2. Due to late marriages, parents who have primary school going kids with age gaps being 30-40 years, they may not be able to coach their children even though they are graduates .
3. So those who can afford tuition, they can "outsource" it to someone else. This inevitably fuels the demand for tuition centers. Besides creating more stress for everyone ie. children, parents & teachers, it creates an uneven playing field as those parents who have financial resources ,are in better position to help their children.

4. What are the possible / practical solutions? In my opinion:
a) MOE/Schools can leverage on selected external vendors (tuition centers) to complement their supplementary classes for weaker students by subsidizing heavily (according to kids’ household income) the fees - this will help the teachers (who may be overly-stretched by schools’ KPIs, multiple roles demanding of them) and assist those low income kids who genuinely need assistance.

b) In the same manner, MOE/Schools can leverage on selected external vendors to conduct "train-the-trainer" classes for parents who want to coach their children on those new topics which they have not been exposed to when they were in primary school (fees can be lowered because of economy of scale).

c) Retired teachers/Passionate educators/parents can consider to come together to put their knowledge on the websites - sponsored by MOE/Philanthropic individuals something like the Khan Academy website is worth exploring - make Learning (relevant in Singapore’s context) "Free" or "Affordable" for everyone (especially the low-income families - at least they have some venue to turn to). We have Next Generation Network now, the subscription for high speed LAN can be sponsored by Government/Telco (as part of their social causes out reach). This "one-way" video streaming & "one-to-many" delivery via internet can reach out to many students in Singapore & beyond.
Perhaps, some form of charging model can be introduced in this service for those who want more "interactive" learning - with two-way video chats, white boarding, scripting - to assist the explanations. The current technology allows retired teachers/educators/parents to sign up as volunteers and at the comfort of their home to deliver lessons - who knows? This can be one of those Social Enterprise projects that Government have been talking about all these while. IDA can spearhead this initiative.

My 2-cent worth of thought. Cheers!