TLDR:
- I frame Education through a its aim to i) Conform to social requirements (social responsibility), and ii) Living Well (Individual responsibility).
- Ending tuition intuitively helps minimise domestic inequality - but the issue is far more complicated than it seems.
In my last post, I wrote about the western glorification of the Asian education system, and tried to paint a fuller picture on the pros and cons of different systems.
While recovering from my second Jab, I read an article that triggered a few thoughts on education. Since my last post was on education.. Hwell I daresay I might as well keep piling on some meat for this series.
I think its a great move by China. While I may not agree with its execution alll the time - the signalling is clear: China is willing to ruthlessly enforce what it believes is good for the greater society at large. I can admire and respect the decisvieness. As an observer of the stressors of an unduly “kiasu*” system, I feel it could be a good thing in Singapore too.
*Kiasu in the Singaporean parlance is a fear on missing out. More broadly, imagine an insecure, FOMO Chinese-traditionalist who is scared his/her kid’s an idiot. Yup…the tuition industry thrives on this fear. If I had a kid, I too would be rationally fearful of ensuring my kid has the best chance of survival so to speak.
Caveat - while this is my second post on education, I am still neither an educator nor a parent, and hence the below is my armchair-expert un-lived perspective.
Better Defining the Role of Education
Perhaps it it worth reminding myself or defining different types of education.
I see it through two lenses:
Government - Led (Conformity)
The first is the ubiqutious “government-led” education system. Governments have their own interests which can significantly shape what outcomes they are trying to achieve through education. For example, language, maths, sciences, history, art are all taught to varying degrees, but governments and societies are able to shape which are “more valuable” for the purpose of contributing to soecities too. Ultimately it teaches kids to be good citizens, in the right context too.
Its good to be clear on what it is or isn’t:
- It breeds a conformity to a common system and to contribute to society
- It gathers people together in an environment where there may be “right” or “wrong” ways to act in a community. For example - throwing a chair is bad. Answering a maths question is good.
- It teaches a common language - the foundation of any stable society (not 100% effective mind you)
- It establishes what are seen as valuable skills or knowledge to be a productive member of society.
- It is also output focused - measured by metrics through exams oral and written. The key here being that such exams are standardised.
In a similar vein, this form of education would also be present in religious shools, or moral education camps (e.g. reeducation camps during the peak of communist ideology). These breed conformity, but in their own ways.
Life-Led (Individualism and the Self)
The second, is what I would…for a lack of a better term, describe as a “life-led” education system. It teachers us to live a good life.
Unlike the “harder” skills taught in the government-led system, there are other critical aspects to life a a productive life, but There is just as much valuable knowledge to learn in this area.
- Softer skills - such as teamwork, discipline, self-management and more;
- Far harder to structure and systemise (hence the brevity);
- Depends heavily on the individual (high customisation);
- Immeasurable - the human to human and intrahuman interactions are far more complex to define what is “rgiht” or “wrong”. We spend most of our lives learning these I suppose.
I think these are the types of learning education where, as the world becomes more complicated, there will be greater need and edcucation in this area.
Is it right to end tuition?
I find myself in agreement with the fundamentals of a “government-led” education system. Indeed, I am a believer that societal stability, harmony and productivity stems from a common education system. Having seen the calibre of teachers, and the general education system in Singapore - it is, in my view a good enough baseline.
But “conformity” gets a bad rap these days - “All schools are good schools” is the oft-quoted phrase that draws ire, debate and memes alike.
It is unfortunate that not ALL people may fit well into the conformist system. The traditional argument being that an art-inclined individual may struggle or find themselves being deemed a failure in a society that places higher value on STEM-oriented inclinations.
HOWEVER, my philosophy has always been that a system of governance is all about trade-offs. Taking a more utilitarian view, this is a trade-off. If human beings were left to their own devices, the structure of our community and societies would be very, very different. A country full of whimsical artists may not be able to earn a living; just as a country full of identured engineers may not be able to have a lived life. Diversity has always been key.
So we could do better - why are we, as a society, compelling teenagers to undergo FURTHER conformity and standardisation through additional (tuition) services? Why place extra stressors on conformity that promotes inequality in a standardised field? How can these resources be deployed to promote a better balance of conformity vs non-conformity?
So seeing China taking action to level the playing field for what I would call the “conformist” system is a good thing. If anything, tuition should raise the bottom to meet the baseline, not necessarily to raise the top to unenviably have them join the rat race at the tender age of…10.
…But its Complicated
But its more complicated than that.
To be clear, I do not blame the parents (and certainly not the kids) on why things have turned out the way they have. It is a race to infinity for parents to spend money and reosurces; and kids to spend their time hustling towards better grades. It is the right of the parent to invest in as much as they want for their child. I take no issue with it.
But here are my take on why it the problem remains a problem as it is.
Exposure to an international schooling system
Can we compete with other countries to get into top-tier universities? ( instinctively my answer is yes, but I am curious if there is data to show the proportion of individuals getting into top tier schools with, or without tuition)
As long as Universities market themselves, and that employers respect these, this would be an unshakeable, reinforcing cycle.
Exposure to the subseqent international Jobs market
Whether we like it or not, the skills and knowledge equipped must be on par, or above average to continue for a country to thrive in an open, globalised economy. This would allow the majority of individuals to garner the benefits of globalisation, as opposed to being smothered by it. More so when a country’s only resource are its people. Intuitively, this has a strong link to the education system - but again, there are many factors complicating this too.
Exposure to domestic inequality
There are reasons why many scoff at the notion that “all schools are good schools”. A healthy competition between schools, of course, can breed success, but there remain socio-economic narratives that will continue to haunt the current state of he system. Stakes are high too - there is another narrative that plays of the dynamics of power-inequality: would cutting the budget of an “elite” school be untenable if the decision makers are from an influential caste themselves?
I am not terribly sure on what works - but I suppose minimally there should be similar budgetary requirements between all schools across the board - but again, I think this is far from a silver bullet solution.
The need for intervention
Overcoming many of these can’t be left to societal norms. Again, it is a matter of priorities and trade-offs. But this is why many of the interventions have to be top-down and may not self-correct organically?
What if there was a ban on private tuition for fundamental subjects unless the student was identified to be weak? What if governments promoted supplementary areas in areas of self-discovery and interest (ala my previous post)? What if governments unpopularly deconstructed and reconstructed the system to ensure all schools EQUALLY good schools? What if education was designed with equality in mind?
These are the kinds of shenangians that only a secure government can pull off.
I intuitively feel that this could lead to less stress for both children and parents alike.
Tracking back to the trigger of this post - it would appear that China is less concerned about its position in the international school and jobs market, but is more attentive to domestic issues - be it inequality, dismal birth rates, and population unhappiness. Yea…that makes sense to me.
Afternote:
I personally went through tuition as a kid struggling with maths in IB (perhaps I’m intrinsically a humanities oriented person - but studied as an engineer, * cough * conformity). There is immense value to 1-1 teaching, a decision that could potentially have changed the trajectory of my life. It is for this reason that I recognise the deep complications in addressing this issue equitably. Would I send my kid for tuition to maximise their chance of success? Abso-fricking-lutely. Would I be conflicted in promoting inequality? Probably. Would that stop me? no. And thus the cycle continues.