Asia spending billions on tutors: study

[Lilac66]

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.

Would appreciate the discussion w/o insinuation. Not everyone is well-informed. Or why is there a need for so many campaigns?

LAst post in this thread.

[iFirefly]

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:

所谓，真人不露相。。。

But.. didn't know Chief is such a \"wordy\" person..

[buds]

Lilac66:

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.

Would appreciate the discussion w/o insinuation. Not everyone is well-informed. Or why is there a need for so many campaigns?

LAst post in this thread.

Now you are.

You have championed this \"needy cause\" in other threads as well.

[BeContented]

Chief,

Seems like many may not be very well-informed about all those schemes that are available to help the needy. (neither do I :oops: )

Was wondering if it would be a good/feasible idea to create a thread just to list down the schemes avail on education especially? Buds had actually contributed some good info on it which others can reference.
I would propose that only the mods can add/edit/delete those info as and when they come across any good contribution....but it's extra work :oops:

Just an idea, thanks.

[KSP]

firefly38:

KSP:

[quote=\"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:

所谓，真人不露相。。。

But.. didn't know Chief is such a \"wordy\" person..[/quote]oops... u mean llls? :siam:

and also 真的假不了，假的真不了。。。

[Funz]

Not many will know about the various schemes for the needy unless they are involved in obtaining the help, be it for themselves or for the people they are trying to help.


Like Buds, I have been involved in helping some needy families. CDAC, Mendaki, SINDA, HOPE are some of the avenues of help for these families. The household income ceiling for qualifying for these financial aids have been raised and fine tuned lately to take into consideration per capita income as well.

I remember helping a family with 3 young kids apply for childcare subsidy. After CFAC, they still found the fees a challenge so we went to mendaki as they are muslim, on top of that , we went to SINDA as the are indians as well. After all the fundings, they pay a mthly fee of $6 for fullday childcare at a mid range privately run childcare centre that is located next to the block they were staying in.

My main grouse is the need to navigate so many organisations for various assistance. Even with the help of social workers, it can still be a mind boggling task for families who are already so caught up with making ends meet. And to make life easier for these people, wish they have a one-stop shop where they can go to and apply for what they need, be it edu, medi, etc.

[autumnbronze]

ChiefKiasu:

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.

:thankyou: :thankyou: so much for taking the time to pen your thoughts down.

Really enjoyed reading the post :love:

And I couldn't agree with you more on the statement highlighted in bold.

Not a :goodpost:, but an EXCELLENT one :boogie: :boogie:

[Busymom]

ChiefKiasu:

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).

:goodpost:

I like the part in red.

We should all do more self-reflection instead of pointing at others.

:xedfingers:

[Busymom]

BeContented:

Chief,

Seems like many may not be very well-informed about all those schemes that are available to help the needy. (neither do I :oops: )

Was wondering if it would be a good/feasible idea to create a thread just to list down the schemes avail on education especially? Buds had actually contributed some good info on it which others can reference.
I would propose that only the mods can add/edit/delete those info as and when they come across any good contribution....but it's extra work :oops:

Just an idea, thanks.

Good idea! I like!

[limlim]

ChiefKiasu:

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.

Demand comes from parents.

But, what about the other contributory factors for this \"demand\"?

Before I began, I have to say this first.. Teaching, the nature of the profession itself, is not an easy task, for someone who is committed. To perform the task effectively and diligently involves a lot of sacrifice and passion. And their contribution cannot taken lightly. That is why, traditionally, teacher are always held in high regard and respected. Which, I feel, is the way it rightfully should be.

Next, I just want to share what are some of the things I hear about teachers nowadays, from pple's account when they were students, or other parents. If you regard this as baseless hearsay, it is up to you. And, no, I am not making a sweeping statement, I am talking about isolated cases which I fear, is a growing trend (of coz the fear could be unfounded, which can only be a good thing).

The things \"some\" teachers do.

1. Read from textbook during class. And no, they did not attempt to \"teach\".. just read..
2. Never give homework (so no need to mark). No give homework how to assess student? how to fulfill the job of a teacher whose responsibility is to ensure student's learn(or learnt)?
3. Give homework, but never mark. Flash answer sheet on transparency, student mark themselves or just copy answer. Again, no marking how to assess student?
4. Disappeared after class.. cannot be found.. maybe go home already.

5. Apply to be teacher, attend public funded NIE course. Objective : To give tuition, at \"premium rates\", thanks to \"NIE-Trained teacher\" branding. Commitment to school? questionable.

......... just a couple of examples.

If the student learned nothing during class.. wouldn't it became a necessity for them to seek tuition? And no, tuition NOT to score marks.. Tuition to receive education which they, by right, should receive from the school.

Again.. this is not intended to be taken as representative of general observation.. But if there is a way to try to minimize or eliminate such occurrences.. wouldn't it be good?