Asia spending billions on tutors: study

[limlim]

autumnbronze:

If that is the case, then we should 'police' ALL civil servants perhaps, not only teachers, so we won't have to read yet another prostitution or corruption episode .....

All Civil servants need to abide by certain code of conduct and practices isn't it?

I doubt any agency allow possible \"corruption-in-kind\" such as use of public funded resources for private profit? I see all civil servants are already \"policed\" in this aspect, except certain groups which are in this discussion.

At this moment, our views differ. No one can say who is right or wrong. It maybe just speculations. I speculate that there is a problem that is linked to the tuition phenomenon, you speculate that there is none.

Unless, we have means to gather data.

[limlim]

cherryc:

Wow, what a great day with so many thought-provoking and inspiring posts from oxyleo, ksi, lilac66, concern2, Singfrench, limlim etc. (anyone I have missed, rest assured I also appreciate your input….. Sounds like an oscar thank you speech). :rahrah: :rahrah: :rahrah:


Back to limlim's example, if the teachers believe that they have done a good job, they wouldn't feel guilty if parents suspected/complained of those who don't.Their conscience is clear, in fact is those who didn't do a good job who should feel guilty and mindful of their responsibilities. Remember good teachers get paid and not so good teachers also get paid (even better maybe) so blowing the whistles or asking MOE to study the phenomenon does not mean we are blaming all of them. In fact, some good teachers may have left because no one speaks up for them. Ultimately, only MOE can do something about it if they choose to, not anyone of us so it does not benefit anyone to keep blaming anyway.

Teachers are adults and are professional, we respect them but students are children whom we have to protect at all costs. I believe that children has basic rights to access to equitable education, sufficient rest and play and growing at their suitable pace.

I cannot comment if all teachers teach well, but I have seen a fair share of teachers who frequently took sick leave, annual leave, many new inexperienced teachers due to high turnover, once in a while perverted teachers (like today's chinese evening newspaper headline with photo of the male teacher glaring at me now).

The puzzling part is the authority's silence on this issue that resulted our repeating of our \"observations\" till the system breaks or self-resolved?

I salute to all those who give voice when they observe social anomaly or injustice when they can be easily contented with their good lives. I personally know some of them, they are blessed with success in all areas but yet choose to speak up. This is the Singapore I like. :rahrah: :rahrah: :rahrah:

:thankyou: for your sharing :rahrah:

Couldn't have put it better than you.. and in a more palatable form..

It could be due to my occupation leading to my rather unpleasant way to put things.

When I see a problem, I look at the possible causes, than find ways to gather data, or vary a parameter of the process, in an attempt to improve the yield.

I wanted to see \"results\". So, the \"blaming\" of a certain parameters isn't my cup of tea. I look at ways to improve the parameter that are within my span of control. Do the best we can, with what we have, as my seniors always said.

As I don't deal direct with people often, emotions observation and dealing with it does not come naturally to me. I appreciate ksi's Patience in explaining things, as well as all who are mentioned in your post. Thank you.

[limlim]

autumnbronze:

The tone adopted is that ALL teachers are bad because they are not doing their job properly [snipped]

And as a clarification, ONE negative experience
should not constitute any kind of sweeping statement.

ps: this post is addressed to limlim.

Your 2nd paragraph, is absolutely true.

But, back to your 1st statement again.. isn't that what you're accusing me of? I never say all teachers are bad.

I never say ALL teachers are bad. I acknowledge there are GOOD teachers. Why people do not see that?

And always jumping to the conclusion that I am making sweeping statements.

I am just discussing how we can deal with bad apples(maybe?) and improve the overall situation. Bcoz there are good apples doesn't mean we should ignore bad apples.

And, my next reply will explain part of my stand..

[limlim]

autumnbronze:

Ok, I cannot see the relation of your example but this is my very direct response wrt to eating in MRTs.

Eating should be banned in MRTs at all costs. Even if passengers do not intend to litter, there will inevitably be crumbs on the floor, creating a mess and breeding pests ....

It is not an inhumane policy.

My 2 cents.

Thank you for bringing this up.

My reply is, moonlighting, will inevitably lead to potential <conflict of interests> situations and compromise best interests of the school students, even if they do not purposely intend to.

If the person who eats is responsible and careful, there will be NO crumbs at all. But we cannot assume everyone to be responsible to the same degree, isn't it?

Same thing. Good responsible teacher can moonlight and still fulfill their duties well. But we cannot expect all teachers are the same, isn't it?


The problem is, when I talk about how to curb bad practice, pple accuse me of implying all teachers are bad, MOE is bad etc.. which is NOT fair to me.

By suggesting ways to curb bad practice do NOT imply that all teachers are bad.

[limlim]

verykiasu2010:

may be even some of the MOE/teacher bashers are tuition teachers ...... :evil: :evil:

MOE should regulate the tuition industry and control.

Maybe only allow NIE-trained retired teacher to teach. or engage qualified teachers with relevant teaching certifications. I am fully supportive of this. Although some may disagree.

If tuition is banned, I most welcome it. I feel it is best. And steps to improve the school and eliminate the need to external tuition.

But, others may disagree.. anyway, that is just my personal view.

[cherryc]

S'pore ways work, but only with tuition - Straits Times 14 July 2012



MS YEO Boon Eng argues that our education system facilitates social mobility, and therefore should be maintained as it is ('Tough Singapore way works'; Wednesday).

I beg to differ.

I do not believe that any Singaporean is asking for our system to be dumbed down. What many parents want is a more balanced and rounded education that prepares our children effectively for the future, yet allows them time to play and develop holistically, and gives families time to bond.

The fact that a few exceptional students from lower-income families can succeed despite the current system is not proof that our education system facilitates social mobility.

How can we tell ourselves that all students stand an equal chance of moving up the social ladder, when success in our education system is highly dependent on the extra tuition and enrichment lessons that wealthier parents can afford and poorer parents cannot?

Because of the way our education system is structured and operated, students from lower-income families cannot compete equally with those from better-off families.

That, in principle, is unacceptable.

If our education system is as effective as we like to believe, then we might ask ourselves why so many children need so much extra tutoring at every level.

There is no point having 'free' education when families must spend thousands of dollars more to supplement what is being taught in school, so that their children can cope.

In fact, it would be interesting to find out how Singapore would fare in international educational rankings if we selected children who have not had the benefit of external tutoring to sit the ranking tests.

We must review how our education system operates.

As a nation, we need to be willing to spend more money on education.

We need to have smaller classes and more age-appropriate testing, and discourage the 'tuition' mindset and unhealthy competition, especially among primary schools, for the 'top school' label, as well as stop our obsession with international rankings.

Our schools and their top managements must refocus on the core purpose of education - to educate our children academically and as social beings, and to ensure that every Singaporean child has an equal shot at future success, regardless of whether his family can afford tuition.

Wily Wan (Ms)

[limlim]

I wouldn’t be surprised if there are tuition center operators or moonlighting school teachers here too.


I don’t see why are are so many opposition when some of the suggestion can only be good for the education industry, such as adopting good practice and regulation.

And controlling the tuition industry, screening tutors etc… or maybe require them to take up part time teaching course to get license to teach. It can only benefit the parents.

And, I am a taxpayer and I am concerned if teachers are devoting the best to the public schools and not private practices.

Of course, am not saying all teachers are bad, MOE no good.

[iRabbit]

C’mon, limlim.


So you suggestion of [the criteria of] licensing tutors is based solely on their academic qualification? That’s a lazy way to licensing issit? I for one, doesnt have any teaching ‘certification’, but I dare say I’m well qualified to coach any lower pri sch pupils with similar ability as my child, having worked closely with him for the last few years.

Your suggested criteria of licensing ‘qualified’ tutors would have in one swoop, disqualified many experienced and good tutors - when the responsibility of gauging the suitability of tutor-pupil combination is solely a parent’s prerogative to make. The chemistry of teaching is one of soft skill as well, not just binary - have/don’t have cert so straight forward.

But before we get ahead of ourselves, what do we hope to achieve in all this [licensing]?

[oxyleo]

buds:

Busymom:

I do not think that some forummers here lack empathy per se. It is perhaps the constant \"attacking\" by some on MOE and teachers over multiple threads in this forum over the last few months that caused some wanting to speak up and present an alternative view to balance things up a bit.

Sadly, it's always been misrepresented as having the perfect life or the perfect children... Between the lines, we have shared plenty and exhaustively... but oh well... nobody truly listens... or reads (in this case)...

:hugs: Likewise, some of us who are \"challenging\" the status quo are also misrepresented as making sweeping statements. Spreading myths. The feeling is mutual. In that sense, we are square on this? :celebrate:

[Lilac66]

cherryc:

S'pore ways work, but only with tuition - Straits Times 14 July 2012



MS YEO Boon Eng argues that our education system facilitates social mobility, and therefore should be maintained as it is ('Tough Singapore way works'; Wednesday).

I beg to differ.

I do not believe that any Singaporean is asking for our system to be dumbed down. What many parents want is a more balanced and rounded education that prepares our children effectively for the future, yet allows them time to play and develop holistically, and gives families time to bond.

The fact that a few exceptional students from lower-income families can succeed despite the current system is not proof that our education system facilitates social mobility.

How can we tell ourselves that all students stand an equal chance of moving up the social ladder, when success in our education system is highly dependent on the extra tuition and enrichment lessons that wealthier parents can afford and poorer parents cannot?

Because of the way our education system is structured and operated, students from lower-income families cannot compete equally with those from better-off families.

That, in principle, is unacceptable.

If our education system is as effective as we like to believe, then we might ask ourselves why so many children need so much extra tutoring at every level.

There is no point having 'free' education when families must spend thousands of dollars more to supplement what is being taught in school, so that their children can cope.

In fact, it would be interesting to find out how Singapore would fare in international educational rankings if we selected children who have not had the benefit of external tutoring to sit the ranking tests.

We must review how our education system operates.

As a nation, we need to be willing to spend more money on education.

We need to have smaller classes and more age-appropriate testing, and discourage the 'tuition' mindset and unhealthy competition, especially among primary schools, for the 'top school' label, as well as stop our obsession with international rankings.

Our schools and their top managements must refocus on the core purpose of education - to educate our children academically and as social beings, and to ensure that every Singaporean child has an equal shot at future success, regardless of whether his family can afford tuition.

Wily Wan (Ms)

Thanks cherryc for posting this article. Believe it or not, I had wanted to post this too. Telepathy again? Lol!
Anyway, it's a good piece to chew over. :celebrate: