Private tutors will thrive for several reasons:
1. A number of top teachers are leaving the teaching service to become tutors. Key reasons - no administration nonsense, no useless staff meetings, no need to teach more than one subject, controlled class size, motivated students, better money, fewer working hours.
2. You get who you can afford. Top tutors command top pay but top teachers get the same pay as the worst teacher in school. So, there is no motivation to outperform your peers if you are a teacher. However, as a tutor, you get creative and innovative so you can deliver a better product than your competitors.
3. Public education is subsidized, leading to students to believe that they are taught inferior stuff in school. Tutoring sessions are not subsidized, so students attending these classes tend to give their tutors more attention.
4. Ability-based lessons provided by tutors cannot be replicated in schools. Even in a group of 20, it is easier to provide targeted learning and lessons. But 20 seems to be the magic number. Any more than that and you lose the ability to provide differentiated learning experiences. Class sizes in secondary schools average 40 students per class.
5. Targeted learning happens in tutoring centres. Simply put, the student learns one or at most two related subjects in a span of 2 to 3 hours. In contrast, in a typical school setting where a class period is anywhere from 30 minutes to 45 minutes, students would need to flit between a few subjects. And because students spend a protracted amount of time on a subject (or two), they concentrate on the key concepts, practice questions, and learn. In a 1 hour double period setting in schools, teachers can't teach for more than 40 minutes. There is first the 10 - 2 rule (2 minutes rest for every 10 minutes of teaching), discipline issues, admin problems, homework collection, corrections etc due in class that one would be happy to get 40 minutes of teaching time. In fact, some teachers are so hung up over the "Good Morning" and "Good Bye" at the start and end of each lesson they spend precious minutes telling the students to stand straight, show respect, greet aloud... Terrible waste of time. I go in and tell my kids on day 1, I'm going to quote a line from Madonna's Evita, "You must love me. Or if not, my subject." That's enough. The kids don't have to greet me at all but they all show plenty of respect. (I'd like to think it's charisma or terror.) Oh yah, before I forget, what is this thing about CCA and CIP? Teach them morals and values? Wait, I need to get a hanky to muffle my laughter... WASTE OF TIME!
So, you see. There is nothing wrong with the GCE O and A level syllabi or on what you test the students. The problem is very very straightforward. Dump in enough money to reward the top teachers, cut down all the unnecessary admin and useless meetings, teach well and teach clearly, stay on task (teach/learn), and don't sweat the small stuff. Cut down CCA and CIP - our kids are getting GCE O and A levels and NOT GCE CCA/CIP. Get our priorities straight.
In any case, I'd applaud the parents who realise that they are getting a better deal elsewhere. If I were them, I'd employ extremely competent tutors and have my child homeschooled. My tutors will teach my child the key subjects (English, Mother Tongue, Math, Science and whatever else is required for promotion to the A levels) while, as a parent, I'll teach morals and values. Why bother with the school system?
But then, I'm probably alone in this rant.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
I can't decide...
whether you should live or die...
So goes the song by Scissors Sisters. I love that song. So sick and twisted.
But I like this too.
The standard obstacle course (SOC) is now supplemented by a vocational obstacle course (VOC)! So exciting...
So goes the song by Scissors Sisters. I love that song. So sick and twisted.
But I like this too.
The standard obstacle course (SOC) is now supplemented by a vocational obstacle course (VOC)! So exciting...
Monday, September 06, 2010
Logic
The Singapore property "porridge pot" has been searing hot and bubbling vigourously until the government turned down the heat to keep the searing hot temperature but dampen the bubbling.
Essentially, my reading of the policy makers' decision is that they are comfortable with the sky high prices but they are worried about the liquidity situation. In short, the porridge can be kept very hot but "let's not boil the liquid away".
To achieve that, a few measures were put in place. I am not entirely sure that I agree with them but let's have a look. All policies take immediate effect on 30 Aug 2010.
1. Private property owners who buy HDB (government housing) apartments must sell their private properties 6 months after receiving their HDB flats.
I agree with this policy. In effect, if you want to live in subsidized housing, then please give up your private property. People call this an anti-speculative measure. But I find this policy did not go far enough. Whereas "downgraders" (people who move from private housing to public housing) are forced to give up their private properties, "upgraders" (people who move from public housing to private housing) are not required to give up their HDB flat. Why then do we allow subsidized housing dwellers dabble in private property investments but disallow the other way around?
Many netizens have rightly pointed out that subsidized housing should be reserved for Singaporeans - including me - who can ill-afford private housing. Why does the government find it acceptable for people who take a subsidy from it thereafter invest their monies elsewhere instead of paying off the government subsidy?
Some who absolutely adore me will argue that I can well-afford a private apartment. But why should I saddle myself with a mountain of debt when, as a Singaporean, public housing should be a basic right enjoyed by all citizens? Just because I am not married, I am not allowed to buy an HDB flat directly from the government. Yet, if I were to agree to marry - even if it were a bogus marriage just to defraud HDB - I could apply for an HDB flat at a subsidized rate. What logic is there?
2a. Private property owners who flip (sell for a profit) their units within three years of the units becoming "occupiable" will be required to pay sellers' stamp duty (1% for first $180k, 1% for next $180k, and 1% for the rest). Sellers get a third discount for every year they hold on to the property, up to year 3.
2b. HDB flat buyers must now serve a minimum 5 year occupation period in their flat before being allowed to buy a private property.
While these two regulations are actually separate, it does take a genius like me - yes, you did not see wrong! - to place 2(a) and 2(b) together to show the contrastive effect of comparable policies.
Whereas the private property owner is penalised through monetary formats, HDB owners are made to serve time. If we are indeed to discourage speculation, then why do you apply such a light stamp duty for such a short period? Shouldn't the stamp duty penalty stretch over 5 years, just like the way HDB dwellers are "imprisoned" in their flats?
If HDB are indeed public housing, then shouldn't the public be made to make sensible choices for what they want and also for the longer term? One should imagine that HDB dwellers should not be allowed to buy any private properties until they pay off their respective HDB loans. However, make provisions to allow HDB dwellers to "upgrade" or "downgrade" after 5 years. There should not be a penalty from HDB to HDB, since no one is allowed to hoold on to two HDB flats as a matter of government policy.
3. Buyers of a second or subsequent property who have existing loans are now required to pay 10% of the property's price in cash (compared to 5% for those without loans) and 20% from their CPF (Singapore's pension/saving fund) (compared to 15%). In other words, the bank loans extended to first time home owners or those without additional debts will be 80% while for the rest of the population, it will be 70%.
Where is the help promised to the first timers? How about reducing the first timer cost outlay to 5% plus 5%? This was done to spur the housing market when it was in the doldrums. Given the eye popping housing prices now and how singles like me (NOT myself - I wonder why people cannot get this grammar item correct) really don't have that much disposable cash for the downpayment, don't say that by fending off competitors, you are "helping me". If the government is truly genuine in wanting to help me, then show me the money.
Ok, the government cannot do that because the banks are going to be over-exposed? Then how about the government bankrolls me a bridging loan? Cap it at the lower of 5% of the property valuation and 50,000, charge me bank interest rates, and make me repay the entire sum over 5 years. That would help a lot. How about that?
While the housing fiasco has turned every Singaporean with an additional dime to spare into an opportunistic home buyer, there are many a Singaporean out there who are struggling because the pennies they have are shrinking in buying power and they are not accumulating money fast enough to catch up with the property price increases.
There is little logic in "cooling" the magic private property porridge pot. The only time sanity will re-enter the market is when the entire township is covered by porridge and anyone who wanted to get home had to eat his or her way in. But then, it wouldn't be porridge that these people are going to eat.
Logic must prevail and to do so, there must be the political will to correct the imbalances.
Essentially, my reading of the policy makers' decision is that they are comfortable with the sky high prices but they are worried about the liquidity situation. In short, the porridge can be kept very hot but "let's not boil the liquid away".
To achieve that, a few measures were put in place. I am not entirely sure that I agree with them but let's have a look. All policies take immediate effect on 30 Aug 2010.
1. Private property owners who buy HDB (government housing) apartments must sell their private properties 6 months after receiving their HDB flats.
I agree with this policy. In effect, if you want to live in subsidized housing, then please give up your private property. People call this an anti-speculative measure. But I find this policy did not go far enough. Whereas "downgraders" (people who move from private housing to public housing) are forced to give up their private properties, "upgraders" (people who move from public housing to private housing) are not required to give up their HDB flat. Why then do we allow subsidized housing dwellers dabble in private property investments but disallow the other way around?
Many netizens have rightly pointed out that subsidized housing should be reserved for Singaporeans - including me - who can ill-afford private housing. Why does the government find it acceptable for people who take a subsidy from it thereafter invest their monies elsewhere instead of paying off the government subsidy?
Some who absolutely adore me will argue that I can well-afford a private apartment. But why should I saddle myself with a mountain of debt when, as a Singaporean, public housing should be a basic right enjoyed by all citizens? Just because I am not married, I am not allowed to buy an HDB flat directly from the government. Yet, if I were to agree to marry - even if it were a bogus marriage just to defraud HDB - I could apply for an HDB flat at a subsidized rate. What logic is there?
2a. Private property owners who flip (sell for a profit) their units within three years of the units becoming "occupiable" will be required to pay sellers' stamp duty (1% for first $180k, 1% for next $180k, and 1% for the rest). Sellers get a third discount for every year they hold on to the property, up to year 3.
2b. HDB flat buyers must now serve a minimum 5 year occupation period in their flat before being allowed to buy a private property.
While these two regulations are actually separate, it does take a genius like me - yes, you did not see wrong! - to place 2(a) and 2(b) together to show the contrastive effect of comparable policies.
Whereas the private property owner is penalised through monetary formats, HDB owners are made to serve time. If we are indeed to discourage speculation, then why do you apply such a light stamp duty for such a short period? Shouldn't the stamp duty penalty stretch over 5 years, just like the way HDB dwellers are "imprisoned" in their flats?
If HDB are indeed public housing, then shouldn't the public be made to make sensible choices for what they want and also for the longer term? One should imagine that HDB dwellers should not be allowed to buy any private properties until they pay off their respective HDB loans. However, make provisions to allow HDB dwellers to "upgrade" or "downgrade" after 5 years. There should not be a penalty from HDB to HDB, since no one is allowed to hoold on to two HDB flats as a matter of government policy.
3. Buyers of a second or subsequent property who have existing loans are now required to pay 10% of the property's price in cash (compared to 5% for those without loans) and 20% from their CPF (Singapore's pension/saving fund) (compared to 15%). In other words, the bank loans extended to first time home owners or those without additional debts will be 80% while for the rest of the population, it will be 70%.
Where is the help promised to the first timers? How about reducing the first timer cost outlay to 5% plus 5%? This was done to spur the housing market when it was in the doldrums. Given the eye popping housing prices now and how singles like me (NOT myself - I wonder why people cannot get this grammar item correct) really don't have that much disposable cash for the downpayment, don't say that by fending off competitors, you are "helping me". If the government is truly genuine in wanting to help me, then show me the money.
Ok, the government cannot do that because the banks are going to be over-exposed? Then how about the government bankrolls me a bridging loan? Cap it at the lower of 5% of the property valuation and 50,000, charge me bank interest rates, and make me repay the entire sum over 5 years. That would help a lot. How about that?
While the housing fiasco has turned every Singaporean with an additional dime to spare into an opportunistic home buyer, there are many a Singaporean out there who are struggling because the pennies they have are shrinking in buying power and they are not accumulating money fast enough to catch up with the property price increases.
There is little logic in "cooling" the magic private property porridge pot. The only time sanity will re-enter the market is when the entire township is covered by porridge and anyone who wanted to get home had to eat his or her way in. But then, it wouldn't be porridge that these people are going to eat.
Logic must prevail and to do so, there must be the political will to correct the imbalances.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Two Great Sayings
All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Mike Milligan
Tomorrow is often the busiest day of the week. - Spanish proverb
Tomorrow is often the busiest day of the week. - Spanish proverb
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)