19th May 2011 9:00
By Blue Tutors
Over the last few years there have been a number of examples in Asian countries where the government has tried to control the private tutoring sector. Whether it’s an outright ban on private tuition, or an attempt to regulate how much, and when, lessons take place, the supplementary education sector is clearly seen as a booming industry, and that appears to concern some politicians.
Practically every country in the world makes a commitment to provide education for free to students under 16, and this may be why so many governments are concerned about private tuition; the implication is that they are not adequately doing something which they have promised to do. Whatever the reason, it’s likely that eventually the regulations may make their way over to Europe and America, which are rapidly catching up with Asia in terms of the amount of tuition that takes place.
So, in a world where capitalism is king, or at least precariously close to coronation, what are the implications of trying to regulate an industry with such strong growth? And maybe more importantly, is regulation the best thing for the parents and students involved? Are government’s actions motivated by public service or self-interest?
One of the most popular arguments for regulation of private tuition is the idea of ‘fairness’. Fairness is a notoriously difficult concept to define, but many people are uncomfortable with one’s wealth determining the amount and quality of teaching received. We like the idea that everyone is created as equals, and that it’s each person’s hard work or god-given aptitude that ultimately decides success or failure.
Although the fairness argument is flawed (since no two students’ experiences can be homogenised to produce ‘fair’ outcomes), it’s difficult to refute it if you’re of the opinion that education is simply a race between everyone to try and get the best exam results, degree, job salary etc. However, this may not be the way that you see education, and if you consider it to be a way to educate our children as well as possible, then does it matter whether that education is ‘fair’?
An important point is that private tutors provide a service that, generally, governments don’t offer. The service is branded under the banner of education, and for that reason regulation is seen as a reasonable a just practice, but we run the risk of restricting education to information and teaching that only the government deems it reasonable for us to have.