insider:

To pay the much higher rent and higher salaries of centres...

toddles:

3Boys:

[quote=\"keenDaddy\"]
To some extent, this is true.
Not so sure if it is calculated in such a manner. Think ah gong's idea is to encourage couples to have more children in long run, which will bring in N x economy$ when they start contributing in society. This probably outweights the initial subsidies. Yes, it might translate back in taxes but the taxes' calculation always benefit people with more kids. Ah Gong probably have done the Business Case for this - the intangibles and \"TANGIBLES\".

My take is that subsidies are a rigid and ineffective way of using money. Far better to put money back in the hands of the folk who have needs and let them decide how they want to use it. I.e. rebates for parents, child development accounts. They are already there and the amounts we are talking about are not trivial.

We need to be reasonable, there are many measures in place to help parents, but ultimately it is a personal decision and SOME sacrifice is required to raise children. It cannot be so heavily stacked that those without kids become badly disadvantaged.

3Boys:

keenDaddy:

[quote=\"3Boys\"]Face up to it folks, you want good quality education, you got to pay for it.

To some extent, this is true.

3Boys:

Please don't keep suggesting that the g'ment subsidise left, right and centre, it just comes back around in terms of taxes.
$300 per child x 12 months x 30,000 kids x 3 batches (Nursery, K1, K2) = $324Million per annum.....and I am being conservative in my numbers.
That's 1 YOG every year for eternity.....

Not so sure if it is calculated in such a manner. Think ah gong's idea is to encourage couples to have more children in long run, which will bring in N x economy$ when they start contributing in society. This probably outweights the initial subsidies. Yes, it might translate back in taxes but the taxes' calculation always benefit people with more kids. Ah Gong probably have done the Business Case for this - the intangibles and \"TANGIBLES\".

3Boys:

My take is that subsidies are a rigid and ineffective way of using money. Far better to put money back in the hands of the folk who have needs and let them decide how they want to use it. I.e. rebates for parents, child development accounts. They are already there and the amounts we are talking about are not trivial.

We need to be reasonable, there are many measures in place to help parents, but ultimately it is a personal decision and SOME sacrifice is required to raise children. It cannot be so heavily stacked that those without kids become badly disadvantaged.

keenDaddy:

3Boys:

Face up to it folks, you want good quality education, you got to pay for it.

To some extent, this is true.

3Boys:

Please don't keep suggesting that the g'ment subsidise left, right and centre, it just comes back around in terms of taxes.
$300 per child x 12 months x 30,000 kids x 3 batches (Nursery, K1, K2) = $324Million per annum.....and I am being conservative in my numbers.
That's 1 YOG every year for eternity.....

Not so sure if it is calculated in such a manner. Think ah gong's idea is to encourage couples to have more children in long run, which will bring in N x economy$ when they start contributing in society. This probably outweights the initial subsidies. Yes, it might translate back in taxes but the taxes' calculation always benefit people with more kids. Ah Gong probably have done the Business Case for this - the intangibles and \"TANGIBLES\".

3Boys:

Face up to it folks, you want good quality education, you got to pay for it.

3Boys:

Please don't keep suggesting that the g'ment subsidise left, right and centre, it just comes back around in terms of taxes.
$300 per child x 12 months x 30,000 kids x 3 batches (Nursery, K1, K2) = $324Million per annum.....and I am being conservative in my numbers.
That's 1 YOG every year for eternity.....

matrix0405:

The other time ah gong increase subsidy, the childcare also increase fee by the same amt and i don think the fee goes to the teachers. So unlikely it will help. In fact ah gong is more keen in getting money than helping. In many '1st world' countires, K2 is usually taken by garmet. This issue has been raised many times with MOE, yet MOE is still 'thinking abt it'; still too stingy to get into K1/K2.

happydaddy:

the problem is.... how many youngster graduate with DPT willing to do that?? you scared them off!


the only way, ask ah gong to increase the subsidy from $300 to $500... hopefully, indirectly more pay to the teacher... we pay less, less complain? hehe..

happydaddy:

alamak....


Not all CC employ DPT for all levels....

those assistant teacher, clean the baby backside, their pay is <$1k.
those teacher with cert, also clean the baby backside, their pay is ~$1k.
those teacher undergo part time doing DPT, their pay is $1.2k.
those CC BASC teacher, o level enough, their pay is <$1k.

They can put all teachers with CPT for all levels if they want to save cost.

Their pay is still very low.......

maisy:

Hi Kysha

I was not referring to you. In fact, I agreed w you.

In your original post, you mentioned abt the feedback you've heard re management (principal) not looking into teachers' welfare, low morale of staff etc etc..hence resulted in high turnover of teachers.
which is why i commented that \"simply paying top $$ is not going to be the sole solution\" as what HappyDaddy has happily made a sweeping statement. I agreed with you that amongst other things (ie good salary, passionate teachers..etc) .. if management/principal runs the centre / school without regards to teachers' welfare , ignore teachers' grievance (altho not your exact words), teachers' morale bound to be low... and hence high-turnover of teachers. Very True, ain't it?

In short, if a principal pays good money to teachers thinking that is the sole solution , and with the principal (mgmt) herself being uncommitted, doesn't care much abt how the teachers feel, doesn't address teachers' feedback, grievance ... The teachers will hv low morale (however good the salary is) eventually if their grievances are not heard or managed well by the principal/mgmt/ centre-owner.... At the end of the day, my point is there are many factors to look at (besides top $$) : the determinants will be \"good pay, good & committed management, along with teachers' passion & commitment\".

Yes we are all straight forward & frank so let me be even more frank w you. I was referring to HappyDaddy post cos he was the one who made sweeping statement to \"KittyTan's post\" by responding with a

\"Come On lah..unless you pay top $$ for the CC, in return the CC can pay high $$ to the staff.
If not, what make you think the teacher are satisfied to work at this miserable pay for their rest of the life?\"

I thought that was rude. It was as if he was insinuating that Kitty Tan had paid low fees & yet want to see \"quality\" ... why should we assume Kitty Tan is not paying good money...for all we know, maybe her child is also in a \"branded childcare/school\". So for people without regards for others, I have the same level of nil regards for them hence my slightly strongly worded response

I hope i have made myself clear. I wonder how come you've derailed from your original thoughts.