Asia spending billions on tutors: study

[buds]

ChiefKiasu:

Flame me if you must, and I would welcome any view that can highlight the fallacy of my thinking.

I love this part most. :evil:

:torchme: Chiefy you know..

Nobody flame you laa boss..
Want to :grphug: you got lar..

Aniwaes, it's war of words nia.

Difference of opinions. But still cannot help adding..

\"There is no one-solution that anyone can come up with to fix all (everyone's needs).\"

Everyone's measure of expectation is of varying degrees.. everyone's kiasu-ism also of varying spectrum.. but SG children are blessed to be given the education whether or not parents think it's first class or whether it offers equal-opportunities for all children.

[ChiefKiasu]

limlim:

...

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...

I understand your concern. I am an educator myself, albeit for higher education. And I can say this: the observations you made of teachers are much more common place for higher education. How many of us have encountered professors that cannot teach? Or too lazy to teach?

I have had a wheelchair-bound professor who came in for the 1st lesson of the course, just to introduce his teaching assistants whom he said would be teaching us for the rest of the course. And when he left, his teaching assistants told the class that every student is to research on selected topics and then present it in class for other students to learn. Obviously, nobody learns anything in that class. But nobody complained, because everyone got As because it was a multiple-choice take-home exam!

In Sec 4, I found out just 1 month before the GCE \"O\" Levels that there was something called the \"ten years series\". Nothing of that sort was mentioned to us by our Physics teacher who was more concerned with openly sleeping on his desk while the whole class was remained standing just because we couldn't remember his own definitions of Boyles' Law relating pressure to volume.

Needless to say, I didn't get a good grade for my \"O\" Level physics. But I learnt an important lesson from that incident.

I have always thought education is something done to me - I have to go through 10 years of education mandated by law. I have had to do homework, learn stuff thrown to us by teachers. I try to do well, not knowing what's the point about \"every force has an equal and opposite reaction\", but simply believing that by knowing, it will help me score well, which makes my school, my teachers, and my parents proud of me. If they are happy then I am happy.

What that Physics teacher did to me made me realise that my score in Physics or any subject is fully dependent on me, myself, and ChiefKiasu. It was then that I learnt that teachers are human, fallible, and not always have the students as their key concern. My destiny is my own responsibility. Only then did I start to take charge and plan my own goals.

My biggest concern with our education system is NOT its high standards, or poor teachers. You get those everywhere else. It is the results-orientation. Like ourselves during our own schooldays, our children are taught the overriding importance of grades. We learn because we want to score. The harder we work, the more the learn, the higher we score. The key reason for academic tuition is to improve grades! The day when major examinations are abolished will be the day when tuition services go out of business.

There is a big difference between \"learning to score\" vs \"learn to understand\". When we \"learn to score\", it is straight-forward, with quantifiable goals and criteria that can be measured and compared. It becomes possible for us to compare apple to apple, student to student. It allows us to sieve good students from bad, and allocate limited resources to the \"deserving few\". It is easy to administer, and difficult to argue against. Your child don't deserve to go to Raffles or HCI because he didn't make the numerical quantum of 240 for his t-score. You can't quarrel over numbers.

But \"learning to score\" relates only to the technical aspects of learning. Yes, we can build knowledge by \"learning to score\", simply by remembering all the facts and techniques that we are taught. But we cannot hope to create new knowledge and wisdom. It is only when we \"learn to understand\" that we can start appreciating facts and information for what they mean, correlating them, linking them together, identifying patterns, and build new theories that allow us to predict outcomes from observations.

\"Learning to understand\" cannot be measured, and there is no guarantee of success. It is about learning for the sake of learning. It is about curiosity about things that happen around us. We always have the famous adage of Newton \"discovering\" gravity from this observation of a falling apple, Franklin \"discovering\" the electronic nature of lightning using his kite flying skills. But if Singaporeans were living in the same time period as this great thinkers, do you think we can grasp the true significance of their discoveries at that time? No! We will basically pooh-poohed their theories and say they jiak-bah-kah-eng. So free to spend time doing useless things.

In my humble opinion, unless things change, this is the reason why Singaporeans will always be, at the most, middle managers. We are trained and equipped from our young to be worker bees. To take direction and orders from the top, and to execute flawlessly. Most of us will find it very difficult to be innovative or to think out of the box or to solve problems which are unprecedented.

[limlim]

ChiefKiasu:

There is a big difference between \"learning to score\" vs \"learn to understand\".

Very interesting read, Thanks..

I read all. but only quote the above bcoz I want to comment on this..

In schools, some teacher \"teach to score\" (KPI?), and some passionate teachers will \"teach to understand\".

However, in commercial tuition/enrichment, their mission is only one, \"teach to score\", becasue it is what that drives the biz.

For some commercial classes, like arts, dancing, science camp, exploration etc.. these type are ok, because they impart skills, knowledge.

But those that focus on As for core subject matter are the ones that I have issues about. And it is these that maybe burnt out the kids or cause parents to panic(?).

Tuition as help for weak students are of course desirable and necessary.

But those who only take in certain students who met \"minimum requirement\".. are really \"unhealthy\" to society, I feel. The students who are \"learning to score\".. are they an asset to society should they finally managed to \"score\" with the additional help?

Is it really ok to not do anything about it?


By the way, perhaps it is necessary to distinguish between primary education and secondary education?

What we expect from MOE for primary sch may be different from that for Secondary sch. Bcoz for secondary school, the students are more matured, and directives like \"teach less, learn more\" might be more desirable, when it may not be so for primary schools.

[ChiefKiasu]

limlim:

... Tuition as help for weak students are of course desirable and necessary.

Unfortunately, the definition of \"weak\" is too subjective. Consider this:
a) A student who scores 80 marks but end up at the bottom of the class because all the kids find the exam easy
b) A student who fails the test scoring below 50

Most parents would consider (b) to be a clear definition of \"weak\". But how about (a)? By MOE standards, the kid is quite good, an average \"A\". But by parents' and teachers' standards, it may not be \"good\" enough because he is at the bottom of the cohort. So should this kid be given extra help to avoid being at the bottom? Are parents expecting too much, or are being too kiasu if the kid is forced to do tuition because of this?

limlim:

But those who only take in certain students who met \"minimum requirement\".. are really \"unhealthy\" to society, I feel. The students who are \"learning to score\".. are they an asset to society should they finally managed to \"score\" with the additional help?

Is it really ok to not do anything about it?

It is the free market. It is the same as asking: \"Is it right for high-class restaurants to refuse entry to guests in shorts & slippers?\" As long as the business does not refuse business based on constitutional culturally-sensitive criteria (race, language, religion), there is no basis to do something to them. Remember, when the government intervene in the free market, they are effectively telling people what they can or cannot sell or buy. Those goes against the free market philosophy. It has to be supported by laws, which have to be debated, modified and approved before they can be enacted.

Actually, we should appreciate the current situation, more than to loathe it. Free markets mean anyone can provide any good/service, which increases market competitiveness, which in turn lowers price to us consumers. If MOE steps in to regulate the tuition industry, costs will be incurred that will not only be borne by tax payers (MOE's admin cost of regulation), but by consumers (higher costs since business owners will transfer license fee to consumers).

There are other effects. A tuition agency may find that its previous business model may not work anymore. For example, since it is no longer allowed to discriminate students based on ability, it will be forced to hire other types of teachers that could handle underperforming kids, and to produce materials tailored for these kids. This increases costs, which will eventually affect prices. Or it could negate their competitive advantage. Their overall performance of students' pass rates will drop which dilutes their attraction for parents. So they may lose business and have to shut down, which decreases supply and increases prices.

So when calling for the zhenghu to institute changes, we must be wary of the \"butterfly effect\". A good idea may turn out to be a nightmare in the long term. The famous \"Stop At 2\" policy comes to mind.

PS. limlim, I accidentally edited your post instead of quoting it! Please forgive me... :imsorry:

[buds]

Orh-hor Chief...

You're in trouble with toady now. :nailbite:

Flowers are unacceptable. Only insects.

[ChiefKiasu]

buds:

Orh-hor Chief...

You're in trouble with toady now. :nailbite:

Flowers are unacceptable. Only insects.

I refuse to believe limlim is a grouchy old toad. My perception of limlim is a nice, don't-take-no-sh*t, gun shooter who happens to be a lady

[Busymom]

Erm… I still have that post… maybe take a picture of it (or copy and paste) and post it here if the post is gone?

[ChiefKiasu]

Busymom:

Erm... I still have that post... maybe take a picture of it (or copy and paste) and post it here if the post is gone?

Can post here? I will copy it and append it to limlim's post.

Edit - Got it. Done. Thanks, Busymom!

[buds]

Ok.. I didn't say aaaanything abt grouchy arh..


And I definitely kept mum abt.. as to whether or not limlim is old or young at heart.

But as to whether man or babe.. limlim has been dodging that confirmation in threads... referring to spouse as the CO or significant other.

[wonderm]

:goodpost:

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.

:goodpost: :udaman: :thankyou: Couldn't have said it better!