The Tuition Arms Race — Meritocracy for Sale
I have never needed or wanted tuition growing up. Why would I subject myself to extra lessons after an already grueling day at school? That mentality changed the very instant I realised that many of my classmates had more tuition classes than they had subjects . . . Suddenly I felt compelled to conform to a race I never agreed to run, merely to avoid falling behind.
This experience captures a paradox at the heart of Singapore’s education system: a pathway to meritocracy that contradictorily can, in practice, be purchased. Tuition, initially intended as a lifeline for struggling students has devolved into a full-fledged arms race. Few truly want it, yet the moment one child begins, everyone else escalates, driven by the fear of losing out — a “kiasu” behaviour ingrained in the very fabric of society.
Singapore’s education landscape is highly competitive, where academic results are seen as direct determinants of future job prospects and standard of living. In a society that places unfounded emphasis on a narrow definition of success like wealth, the very school a child is enrolled in becomes a reason that some relocate. This phenomenon makes parents and children alike behave as defensive consumers; tuition is no longer supplementary for individuals in dire straits; it is an essential staple to maintain competitive edge. Due to every Singaporean families’ rational, self-serving decision to invest in tuition, it creates a collective action problem: society as a whole bears the brunt of the stress, time and resources.
The tuition market itself is highly differentiated. Private centres and even individual elite tutors distinguish themselves based on their past teaching experience, educational background or training and even other personal traits like gender. Most obnoxiously, many teachers from the traditional schooling system wear their title as an ex-MOE (Ministry of Education) teacher to fetch higher prices. Many large elite agencies dominate the entire tuition space whilst some specialise in certain subjects, creating an oligopolistic market structure. Considering the fact that tuition is a credence good, students — even after trial classes — and by extension their parents are unable to reliably evaluate or judge the quality of the enrolled lessons. This information asymmetry, and parents’ mindsets to spare no effort (or in this case expense) pushes families towards the most expensive and known options, further distorting market forces and needlessly escalating costs for the highest chance of success.
Tuition, particularly exam-oriented ones (which almost all are), often focuses not on comprehension or application but instead adopts formulaic answering techniques. This allows students to achieve target KPI’s as set out by tuition centres and parents, creating a misguided sense of propriety. Meanwhile, students themselves aren’t able to retain this information for future uses nor have they cultivated independent thought, heightening their reliance on tuition. This creates a vicious cycle where individuals become more and more dependent on tuition, and preventing true holistic growth. Where time and resources are disproportionately and excessively allocated towards studying — until it becomes redundant with diminishing returns — it brings a negative consumption externality towards society and causes children to lose their childhood. Instead of playing or engaging in hobbies, they become studying machines without time for holistic development. This leads to unpriced social costs that often go economically unnoticed yet palpably felt by every child.
Get Nicholas Pramono’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Where meritocracy ought to reflect pure academic aptitude and individual effort, it is increasingly marred by tuition. Merit now becomes a stratified concept where effort and ability generally matter only if the students have similar accessibility to resources. The imbalance opportunities make success purchased rather than earned. The disparities compound since young, especially where even minute differences in resources can impact decisions such as admissions into elite versus neighbourhood schools. As time passes, students from wealthier families with more resources will inherently perform better, reinforcing a rigid cycle of status and limiting genuine social mobility.
MOE has tinkered with a myriad of policies in its attempt to cool tuition pressures.
MOE’s foundational policies include reducing examinations and implementing subject-based banding to shift away from streaming and broaden definitions of success. Whilst these changes in institutional structure have been effective in providing time and space for the holistic development of children, it is unable to shift the ingrained parental and cultural mindsets, instead seeming hollow and ineffective.
In order to sufficiently support students with greater learning needs who fail to meet milestone learning outcomes, MOE has rolled out learning support programmes from the first year of primary school. This effectively replaces the need for tuition, by intrinsically achieving its core purpose and is especially useful for dampening wealth based inequality. However, in many instances it ends up counterproductive, where labelling students under a scheme for extra help catalysed families with the means to do so to quickly enroll their children in numerous tuition sessions to catch up.
Lastly, MOE has made its stance clear: it will not intervene in parent’s personal decisions to place their children in enrichment or tuition. The backfiring of China’s tuition ban proves why outright prohibiting or limiting enrichment sessions becomes impossible, where black market tuition will appear. What MOE is trying to do instead is to reduce the psychological pressure that is derived from fear-based and false advertising techniques. Whilst these guidelines are important, they should stop at preventing misleading signals without overstepping and artificially distorting the market itself.
Preventing excessive tuition in itself is impossible. What MOE can do however, is to ensure that school becomes the primary source of high-quality learning, allowing students without private tuition to thrive. Currently, younger, more ambitious and skilled teachers forgo the public route for private tutoring. The lessened workload, increased flexibility of schedules and much higher pay makes the private sector much more appealing, resulting in brain drain. Teaching, as a profession in itself, needs to be regarded more highly, with greater remuneration and higher qualifications required. This would inherently make students feel more assured about their education and decrease the need for tuition in the first place, whilst simultaneously ensuring that those without the means for tuition are also able to excel.
Furthermore, MOE can gather its best teachers from every type of institution to produce centralised and standardised resources in an accessible platform. It can adopt features from Khan academy to create videos, quizzes and adaptive learning modules so as to provide high quality exposure. These study packages can also come in distinct difficulties with adaptive learning software to cater to the needs of individual students. Additionally, the large amount of data gathered can provide quantifiable insights (such as critical gaps in knowledge) for teachers to reinforce classroom learning.
The real goal is not to end tuition. It is to level the playing field between children who have tuition and children who do not. As it is, Singapore’s education system undermines true meritocracy. If merit can be bought, then meritocracy is no longer a ladder — it is an item with a hefty price tag.
