Hello Learners!
Let’s think about the nature of tuition services in Singapore. It’s a huge education sector in Singapore. According to the latest Household Expenditure Survey conducted between 2012 and 2013, Singaporean families spent $1.1 billion a year on tuition, doubling the amount spent a decade ago ($650 million). Just five years ago, households spent $820 million.
Our MPs have even urged for us to reconsider the seemingly maddening culture of tuition. Perhaps with good reason as well – with how the global and Singaporean economy is evolving, there is room and opportunity for our future generations to excel in fields that go beyond academics. Entrepreneurship, innovation, the arts and creative industries are avenues where fresh talents can consider joining, just to name a few.
But let’s get absolutely REAL with the reality of the education system and structure. Firstly, it is still testing-based. The new banding system awards students based on their academic performance even if it is not relative to the overall cohort performance. Students are still scored on a revamped banding system, ironically called Achievement Levels (AL). Achievement, evidently, still counts.
Should academics be de-emphasised, and should we allow students to learn and study in school at their own pace, without supervision? After all, isn’t the government emphasising skills, instead of academic achievement, as the enabler of an empowered future? Does this mean I don’t need to invest in my child’s education? No more tuition?
You make your own judgement. As educators, we can only emphasise that we should look at academics as the means of development, not the ends (this will be addressed in a different blog post).
Let’s consider tuition from an investment and risk perspective.
The investment in sending children for tuition would be that the child would have more contact time with an educator (our student-teacher ratio in formal classrooms are still dismal), more personalised attention, and a mentor to guide them in their poorer or stronger subjects.
The returns in investing is manifold. It could be the intangible outcomes, such as reprogramming a child with a more empowered and confident mindset, instilling learning discipline. What parents often focus on are the tangible outcomes – immediate improvements in the results – which is expected, as that is the easiest outcome to measure. We should remember that the intangible outcomes are most often the longest to produce, and are necessary before any visible, significant improvement in marks can be observed.
However, with ANY investment comes a risk. And the risk is NOT in whether or not the child produces the tangible returns in investment. The risk is in whether or not the invested tuition fits with the child’s learning style, personality, current ability and capacity. Hence, parents HAVE to do their due diligence in finding out more about the teaching philosophy and teaching styles of the available tutors and educators.
There has to be a level of discernment and constant communication between all stakeholders of a child’s education journey. Whether or not at-home supervision is sufficient or not depends on the capacity of the parents to be there for the child. Leaving your child alone to face the stresses of school makes it all the more difficult for your child, unless he or she has the support system, attitude and approach to self-study masterfully.
We at Learning Studio believes that the biggest risk of all is in not making any investment at all – neither investing your time to monitor, guide and teach your child, nor seeking the professional help of educators to rectify any gaps that your child may face. As the new year approaches, let us all seek to reflect on the ways that we can improve as parents and educators to support our children better, to fully realise their potential!
Teacher Ada 