Getting parents to teach their own children won't solve the tuition problem

I refer to Vivian Lim's letter to the Today paper, "Parental involvement can stem tuition culture."

While Member of Parliament (Mountbatten GRC) Lim Biow Chuan was concerned that tuition has become a crutch for students to the point that they “have lost the skill of self-directed learning” (“Tuition culture has to go, say MPs”; March 7), one contributing factor to this situation could be that many parents today have lost the skill of “self-directed teaching”.

Parents of the current cohort grew up in a time when the world saw productivity grow through the division of labour, and are enjoying the efficiency of this model. Teaching is now seen as provided primarily by institutions, with parents taking a backseat. Even parents who recognise the value of being more hands-on in teaching end up “outsourcing” because it requires less time, effort and discipline on their part.

Promoting deeper parental involvement and genuine interest in their children can contribute to a shift away from a tuition culture, as well as education in the broader sense. This could be done through outreach programmes by relevant institutions and self-help groups.

I just have a few simple questions.

1) Who's going to pay the bills while the parents teach their own children? In most lower to middle income families, both parents need to work full-time. You can't just expect one of them to quit his/her job to teach their children. It's simply not an option unless you don't intend to put your child through a university education.

2) What's wrong with a tuition culture? So many assumptions have been made recently about the tuition culture. But will parents be any better? Will they put less pressure on their children? Will they make better teachers?

3) Self-directed teaching isn't teaching and non self-directed learning isn't learning. Learning is by definition self-directed and teaching is by definition externally imposed. How are you going to ensure the child is doing his self-directed learning if he isn't being monitored? If you're monitoring him, is that learning still self-directed? Terms like these are a load of rubbish. Stop using them.

[Read more]

When parents make baseless insinuations about CCA vendors

Of all the ridiculous letters from parents I've been reading lately, like the one on teachers taking examinations, this one stands out. From the Today paper, When CCA vendors benefit at parents’ expense, Joshua Chia writes,

I share Madam Sek Ah Yan’s view in “Shouldn’t pricey supplementary items for school be subsidised?” (March 2).

My son is in his primary school’s badminton team. The school has engaged an external vendor to conduct the badminton co-curricular activity (CCA), which is not uncommon in schools today.

At the start of the school term, the coach gave out forms for an enrichment course, which would come at a cost and would be conducted by the coach on weekends or after school hours.

I am uncomfortable with this arrangement, as the coach may have a vested interest to encourage the pupils to sign up for the course.

Also, I am unsure whether or not the coach will let pupils who signed up have more opportunities to play in the schools tournament and pay more attention to them during the CCA period.

If the pupils are already in the school team, why is there a need for the enrichment course?

It should be targeted only at those who are not in the team and wish to learn badminton, to minimise any conflict of interest, since the same vendor is conducting the CCA.

That would also provide a level playing field for pupils in the team who did not sign up for the enrichment class for whatever reasons.

In my era, CCA enrichment programmes were uncommon or unheard of, and coaches would do their best to ensure the pupils improve their skills.

The authority should probe such arrangements where an unnecessary enrichment course may be beneficial to external coaches/vendors at the expense of parents.

First of all, the writer's complaint is based entirely on his suspicion that "the coach may have a vested interest to encourage the pupils to sign up for the course," and is wholly speculative. He offers no evidence whatsoever to show that the coach has in fact tried to coerce or pressure pupils into signing up. I'm not even sure why such a baseless complaint was published. Is the Today paper short of letters to publish?

Second, there's nothing wrong with encouraging students to sign up for courses so long as it is not coercive. Schools do it all the time with various supplementary programs that they think students will benefit from. So long as the student stands to gain from it, there's no reason why vendors shouldn't be allowed to encourage the student to participate and benefit from the program. Mr Joshua Chia hasn't shown why his son wouldn't benefit from it, or why the vendor's methods of encouragement are coercive. In fact, if he has the guts to complain on the Today forum, surely he can tell his son, the answer is "no".

Third, if he thinks there's no need for his son to attend the enrichment course, then don't send him for it. Unless the coach is penalising his child for an optional program, I don't see the problem here. Or is this just another case of a kiasu parent being afraid that his child will lose out if he doesn't attend every single training session? The solution isn't to take away all supplementary programs and make everyone else suffer.

Then, he insinuates that there's a potential conflict of interest because the same vendor is providing both the supplementary program and is conducting the CCA, but he doesn't say where that conflict of interest lies. This is quite perplexing.

The coach does have a vested interest in encouraging students to sign up for the course, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Anyone who provides any kind of service has a vested interest in encouraging people to continue to utilise his services. We don't normally consider that to be a problem, so why should we in this case? It's only a problem if the enrichment course being provided isn't beneficial for the student and the student is being coerced into attending it. But if that's the case, it has nothing to do with the same CCA vendor being the one to provide enrichment courses. There's nothing inherently wrong with such arrangements.

If anything, the coach has a strong vested interest in ensuring that he demonstrates the value of his enrichment program since parents will be paying directly for it rather than having the school fund it. With enrichment programs, parents have a greater say in whether or not they choose to send their child for it since they can withhold both their permission and their funding.

If Mr Chia is unhappy with the CCA vendor, he should take the issue up with him, or with the teacher-in-charge, not make this out to be a systemic problem. Arrangements like this are very common and they are very useful for schools with limited funding who at the same time want to allow students to explore different activities through enrichment courses. They are also much easier to arrange. You can't expect every school to find a different vendor every time they choose to conduct an enrichment course. Who do you think the burden will fall to? The overtaxed teacher-in-charge of course. And is there any reason they should do this if the CCA vendor is perfectly competent? Why go for second best when you have someone you trust and can work with? Will parents be any happier with a strange face coming in every other week to take charge of their children?

Mr Chia also needs to recognise that CCA vendors don't have it easy either. They often have to travel frequently from school to school and there's a lot of down time in between, during which they don't get paid. They also don't get paid during school holidays and exam periods when CCAs are suspended. Moreover, as it is, most schools have tight budgets and don't pay CCA vendors very much. The average CCA vendor doesn't make a lot of money. Offering enrichment courses is one way for them to add value to the school while at the same time supplementing their income. These arrangements are usually mutually beneficial. While I understand Mr Chia's concern as a parent, unsupported insinuations like these are frankly quite derisory.

[Read more]

Why students can't afford to be idealistic about their university options

With the release of the A level results, most students are probably rushing to apply to the best universities. One consideration they will have is their starting pay and employment opportunities upon graduation. At least one person has written in to the TODAY forum page to encourage students to look beyond their starting salaries and job prospects.

Of what use is the Graduate Employment Survey (GES), besides allowing universities to trumpet the employability of their fresh graduates? (“Slight fall in employment rate for local graduates”, Feb 28)

Paired with favourable international institutional rankings, the three colleges appeal to the pragmatism of prospective students and — perhaps more significantly — their parents.

At first glance, the survey seems fair. A similar survey is conducted by the five polytechnics for their diploma courses. Yet, what it also does is reinforce conceptions that the diploma or degree is but a paper qualification and that starting salaries should guide study choices.

The emphasis of the GES is on employment rates and salaries, but other information should be considered before matriculation and upon graduation. The remuneration reported does not reflect the likelihood of future raises or opportunities for career progression. Within degrees or specialisations, employment options could differ as students enter different industries.

With calls by the Government for young Singaporeans to follow their ambitions, the Education Ministry could urge the three autonomous universities to reconsider the practice of conducting the GES, even though the onus is on individuals to not focus exclusively on these employment and salary figures.

Comparisons will be made even without an annual quantitative study. Look no further than the parents who converged on online platforms to aggregate data after it was decided that the highest and lowest Primary School Leaving Examination aggregate scores would not be printed on result slips and that top scorers would not be named.

But while the diploma or degree may be a paper qualification paving the way for a future career, it can be more than that. Preferences change during a course of study and options can guide trajectories.

It would be a tragedy if the decision to further one’s studies is guided only by starting salaries and job prospects, especially when graduates now have the privilege to make choices that go beyond fulfilling pragmatic needs.

The key assumption here is that "graduates now have the privilege to make choices that go beyond fulfilling pragmatic needs." I don't think that's true at all. Singapore has just been named the city with the highest cost of living for the second year in a row. Students entering university now will find that the starting salaries they receive when they start work will barely be sufficient for them to afford a HDB flat. Add to that the cost of providing for your parents and you'll soon see that these students don't really have any choice but to be realistic. They have to pick the courses that will allow them to find the best paying jobs or significantly modify their lifestyle expectations.

For instance, if they want to own a car, they'll need an above average income as the price of car ownership continues to increase in the future. The government's only solution to road congestion currently is to deter driving by making it more expensive. ERP, COE and the latest fuel hike should tell you everything you need to know about future trends. Prices will only increase.

Also, with the ageing population and the need to support them, government expenditure is set to increase in the next few years. This year's budget already saw a massive increase in expenditure to fund schemes like Silver Support. The government continues to remain unwilling to impose heavy taxes on the rich so where are they going to draw additional revenue from? It's going to be from the middle class. So, this generation can expect to have to bear a heavier tax burden. We don't know if it's going to take the form of rising GST or income tax, but we do know that the revenue will have to come from somewhere, and if not the rich, then it will most probably come from the pockets of the middle class.

Having the freedom to choose the course that you like rather than the course that will give you the best job prospects sounds good. But the truth is, it's no more of an option now for students than it was for older generations. The sad reality is our economic growth has been outpaced by an increase in the cost of living.

[Read more]