Asia spending billions on tutors: study

[limlim]

ChiefKiasu:

limlim:

I always wanted to say this.. now is the opportunity.... :evil:


If MOE wants to raise the bar, it is absolutely fine, provided that they have the resources, capability and the will, to raise the platform for ALL kids.

BASC for al kids, PCF kindy education with the necessary skills etc..


And not cause some kids to be disadvantaged, just bcoz their parents cannot afford or don't know how to, get them a pricey stepping stone, to help them reach for the bar that was raised again, and again. Also wouldn't it also be extraneous burden on the kids to have to carry a heavy stepping stone with them at such a young age? even if the parents can afford it.

The higher the bar, the thicker the stepping stone, the heavier it is.

Thank you limlim, for that point. I will add an additional topic to cover your point, which is fundamental to the entire poll, so it will be the first topic.

Singapore has a world-class education system
a) Yes. The high exacting standards our system expects will provide Singaporeans the edge in the face of increased global competition for the next few decades
b) Yes. Parents should be grateful that their children are in a system that is admired and emulated by other countries
c) No. The system is too focused on meritocracy based on academic results, with too little effort spent on promoting and lauding character building, self-motivation and cognitive decision-making processes involving social contexts.
d) No. The system is too stressful for our children, leading to high social costs of increased delinquent behavior or psychological problems.

err.. I see no link/relation to the points I mentioned leh....

Your additional topic is more like on character development....

[buds]

verykiasu2010:

STUDENTS receive the same standard of education in local schools, although it is undeniable that their results will vary due to natural differences ('S'pore way works, but only with tuition' by Ms Wily Wan, last Saturday; in reply to my letter, 'Tough Singapore way works'; last Wednesday).


The need for tuition arises from the fact that some parents expect their children to excel, regardless of their innate abilities. Over the years, their expectations have changed - parents now expect their children to score As instead of simply passing. Few students require tuition to pass examinations, and many do not require tuition to excel.

With so much time allocated to tuition by parents, children cannot find the time to enjoy their childhood. How can the blame be placed on our education system then?

If the curriculum were to be simplified or examination results adjusted such that most students can score distinctions without any assistance, then the potential of those who can cope with the present system will not be stretched and top students cannot be identified.

Will this situation be of any good to Singapore? We will only be deceiving ourselves as the quality of students remains the same, if not worse.

Education is not only competition in the local context - we are also competing with the world. What is the point of simplifying the curriculum, only to lose out on jobs in today's globalised world?

Furthermore, if the curriculum is too easy, those who can afford to do so will switch to a more realistic curriculum offered by international schools, leaving the majority behind and thus decreasing social mobility.

In this case, instead of tuition centres, we will see private schools mushrooming. Do we really want to have a system in which public schools offer a curriculum that is inferior to that of private schools?

It saddens me that Singaporeans are unappreciative of our meritocratic education system that provides ample opportunities for social mobility, at a time when many countries envy us for it.

Yeo Boon Eng (Ms)

http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_822942.html

This is a very good read. It brings one thru a thought-provoking process instead of a myopic one-solution-solve-all by populist view.

[KSP]

BeContented:

In my 1.5 years surfing KSP, I hardly had chance to see Chief in action. (maybe I missed them). Now I see the power..... :udaman:

Poll sounds good :rahrah:

老大（chief）一出手，便知有没有 :udaman:

[buds]

Way2GO:

Chief, is ur post gonna be set up with d options format u indicated in ur last post ?

N pollsters can only choose one of d options listed?
My problem if dat is d format adopted is dat it may not capture d complete picture fr pollsters.
Eg in item 1, my answer wld include 1a), 1b). & 1c).
according to my take on dis issue:

Whilst tuition shd be made available for weaker students who needs it, it has become a thriving industry where d selling point is to give students who may not necessarily be weak in a subject but whose parents hv d financial resources, d extra advantage in d intense competition to gain a place in d commonly perceived better schools n/or scholarships.
In a meritocratic society, it is dis perpetual rat race to be ahead of one’s peers in d keen competition for limited vacancies dat drives d demand, n thus d emergence of supply to meet dat demand. It is a systemic ‘flaw’ dat is self perpetuating, contributed in parts by both policies n d participants (parents/students) n thus not easily solve. It is threatening to become an issue which will stratify d social divide further if not properly addressed.

:goodpost: bro.

[buds]

limlim:

FQW:

[quote=\"schweppes\"]
after the heat , she's gotta spread some lurrve :love:

Why I read that as larva? Must be the heat ...

larva like to hide in buds..?[/quote]You talking abt how fast i breed issit..
but still.. not like mosquitoes hor.

:wrongmove:

You guys are right.. must the the heat getting to ya.

Schweppes, you know me best sista. :celebrate:

[buds]

limlim:

verykiasu2010:

because teachers don't teach :evil:

Hence buds is teaching us.. :evil:

:evil:

[BeContented]

buds:

limlim:

[quote=\"verykiasu2010\"]

because teachers don't teach :evil:

Hence buds is teaching us.. :evil:

:evil:[/quote]Which subject or topic ar?
S education??

[Lilac66]

actually, if tuition centres are not private entities but come under MOE (MOE will access the centres based on their curriculum or some quality as in ISO cert) , maybe the problem can be mitigated.



The classes can charge a std fee . Could be divided into 2 categories- CAt I class is for those who need help with main syllabus.Fees could be subsidised for Cat 1 classes and kept very affordable,and teachers who are hard-pressed for time to focus on these few indiv can send them for such classes.CAt II will be for those who are scoring well, and can be stretched more acc to their capabilities (aka enrichment) as assessed by grades and catII centres.Just like what one premium centre is doing before students can be enrolled there. Fees for these classes will be std and affordable thereby eradicating the need for those premium centres.


The premises for the tuition can be held schools or community centres, like Blurdad mentioned, without incurring additional rental costs.



But of course, private tutors will stone me as it's taking away their rice bowls. But they can always sign up as tutors for these centres. At least needy students with a genuine need for external coaching can have a venue for that w/o the strains on the families' pockets.


Feel free to disagree. My 2c
Peace :xedfingers:

Can't resist 1 more post before facing more housework.

[buds]

Please read here on my sharing about \"needy\" kids who are the norm example categories used to supposedly fight social divide.. education disadvantage.. (etc)


http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?p=797048#p797048

[ChiefKiasu]

verykiasu2010:

...

It is ultimately a zero-sum game.

There is no denying the fact that better-off families have the decided leverage, especially if parents are willing to spare no expense in preparing their children for academic success.

Marietta Koh Ai-meng (Mrs)

http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_822962.html

And herein lies the conundrum. It is indeed a zero sum gain when analyzed at a macro level, outside of the environment. It's just like saying chemical energy stored in the petrol I buy will be converted into mechanical energy as I drive, so there really was no loss of energy (yes, I get my money's worth of mileage). But that fact is, that \"zero-sum gain\" has benefited someone, ie. me, by bringing me to places I want to go. It has also disadvantaged someone else from the air pollution, noise and traffic congestions I caused when I drove.

The government sees statistics. It doesn't see individuals. It must do so because it has to make policies that effectively benefits the country as a whole. Hence, when setting standards for education systems, it projects economic scenarios years into the future to identify the types of skills needed for the workforce at that time. That would tell us what kind of standards we need to set today to get to where we want tomorrow. This is what planning is all about, and few can argue against the sensibility of such a process.

Hence, we can be sure that the standards are set as they are today, not because of some random professor with a sadistic need to make children cry, but because of some projected future economic need. Yes, we may argue about the accuracy of the projection - no one can predict the future. We may even question whether the projections have taken into account social costs to society (we may be rich and successful, but we all live under barged fences fearful of what our neighbours may do to us). But we cannot allege that education standards are arbitrarily set high without basis.

As parents, we are all economic agents. We seek to maximize our own advantage. Who cares what my actions do to society as long as my children comes ahead in the end? You can label this as being kiasu, selfish, opportunistic... whatever, but it is the fundamental human nature that drives capitalism. An economy cannot flourishing if the government had not allowed the market forces (ie. opportunistic behavior) to work freely.

So we are all inside the \"zero-sum\" system, as opposed to MOE who is controlling the system. Blinded by our own self-interest, we seek to grasp at whatever advantage we can get for our children. If our children cannot make our expected \"standard\", we push even harder and complain about the high standards. So the question here is, who set the standards? The answer is simply: both MOE and parents.
- MOE sets the syllabus, and the criteria of measurement, baselined against their projection of future economic needs.
- Parents use MOE's standards, but baseline our standards to target the upper percentile of MOE's standards. Why? Because we are value maximising economic agents. And the higher we target, the higher the stress to ourselves.

So in this context, who is really to blame for state of affairs now? I will point the finger at Adam Smith's unseen hand of market forces. It is the cost of the free market, the cost of having freedom of choice. Tuition centres flourish now not because school teachers are unhappy and exiting to set up their own centres, but because there is great demand for them. The demand comes from parents' own expectations of how their children should fare in schools. The higher the expectations, the higher the demand. (Note that expectations could vary from parents simply wanting their underperforming children to pass, or wanting their overperforming children to excel. In my opinion, there is no difference between the two).

Let's suppose now that we decide to curb this \"trend\", by instituting regulatory control with the intention of providing equitable amounts of education given to every child in every cohort. This would be \"fair\" in the sense that every kid is given equal resources... but it will be inaccurate to say that this gives every child equal \"opportunity\". No child is alike in terms of cognitive and social capability. Slower children require more resources to bring them up to speed with the rest. Faster children would be held back and not given the opportunity to stretch themselves. Despite the \"fairness\" of resource allocation, no matter where we set the \"standard\", some children will benefit, others will suffer.

This is central planning. That's the stuff of communism. It has been demonstrated time and again that it does not work - that humans, when deprived of incentives to benefit themselves rather than the community, will just do enough to earn his allotted \"share\" of the resources. Without the incentive to outperform others, man will become complacent, but happy and contented because we don't have to compete with anyone.

My intention for the long-winded rant above is to explain my own rationalisation of what is happening and the potential effects of some suggestions to equalise opportunities for all children. Flame me if you must, and I would welcome any view that can highlight the fallacy of my thinking.