Asia spending billions on tutors: study
-
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 -
verykiasu2010:
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....
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
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. -
Some schools are designated venues for stAr programme… an after school-hours tuition programme charged at very low fees of only $70 a month if i recall correctly. Current school teachers teach this programme with a set curriculum designed by HODs themselves.
There’s also the SINDA & MENDAKI assistance for needy.
There are also churches who offer free tuition for students of all levels and accepts students of all races and faiths. These are conducted by volunteers, some of whom are also school teachers.
Needy students are the ones with a lot of help as they are and have been identified to be within the less-privileged scope.
In my view, it is the sandwiched middle income that usually are at the brunt of it. Whatever it is. They are neither poor and starving nor rich with extras. This category of families are the piggies-in-the-middle who may not have the straightforward path or avenues to seek assistance should it be required. -
buds:
Some schools are designated venues for stAr programme.. an after school-hours tuition programme charged at very low fees of only $70 a month if i recall correctly. School teachers teach this programme with a set curriculum designed by HODs themselves.
There's also the SINDA & MENDAKI assistance for needy.
There are also churches who offer free tuition for students of all levels and accepts students of all races and faiths. These are conducted by volunteers, some of whom are also school teachers.
ok see your pt. In that case, MOE's or MCYS job is to raise more awareness about these programs. I do know about the CDAC but not too sure about the income requirement . -
> http://mts.mendaki.org.sg/tuition.html
> http://www.sinda.org.sg/students/collaborative-tuition-programme/
Parents need to be better informed before targeting MOE for the lack of this and that in the guise of protecting the needs of the needy. Help is there. Ask and one shall receive. -
ChiefKiasu:
:salute: :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost:
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.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
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.
Wow. 100% agree. :love: -
STU – Star Programme
This is a tuition programme offered in collaboration with Singapore Teachers’ Union. It caters to Primary 4 – Primary 6 students. Classes are offered in various centres island-wide. Subjects offered are English, Maths & Science at a monthly fee of $70 (4hrs tuition per week) or $90 (6hrs tuition per week). SINDA subsidises up to $35 per Indian student per month, for students attending 4hrs of tuition per week and up to $45 per Indian student per month, for students attending 6hrs of tuition per week. -
ChiefKiasu:
Could not agree more.
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.
You are my idol. :love:
-
buds:
Agree with buds.> http://mts.mendaki.org.sg/tuition.html
> http://www.sinda.org.sg/students/collaborative-tuition-programme/
Parents need to be better informed before targeting MOE for the lack of this and that in the guise of protecting the needs of the needy. Help is there. Ask and one shall receive.
Honestly, SG do take care of the needy as a whole in many areas. -
STU – Star Programme
This is a tuition programme offered in collaboration with Singapore Teachers’ Union. It caters to Primary 4 – Primary 6 students. Classes are offered in various centres island-wide. Subjects offered are English, Maths & Science at a monthly fee of $70 (4hrs tuition per week) or $90 (6hrs tuition per week). SINDA subsidises up to $35 per Indian student per month, for students attending 4hrs of tuition per week and up to $45 per Indian student per month, for students attending 6hrs of tuition per week.
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 💗
Register Login
Online Users
Statistics
Popular Topics
