Rethinking Schooling for the 21st Century

24). An unpublished 2009 survey found that tutoring accounted for 12.6 per cent
of household costs at Grade 1 and 15.6 per cent at Grade 5. Shadow education
also appears widespread in Indonesia, especially at primary level, but its precise
extent is unclear. This is also true of Thailand in 2011, where, the ADB report
noted, cram schools were proliferating and consuming US$233 million in fees.
There is also significant ethnic variation in access to private tutoring in some
Southeast Asian countries. A 2012 study of primary school students in Malaysia
found that minority Chinese students were more likely to receive private tutoring
than majority Malay students — although it also suggested that the gap may be
closing (Jelani and Tan, 2012). According to an earlier study in 2005, Chinese and
Indian households in Malaysia also spent more money on private tutoring than
Malay households (Bray and Lykins, 2012). There is a similar ethnic dimension
in Viet Nam, but with the roles reversed: majority Kinh students were receiving
more private tutoring than the minority students (Dang, 2011). More research into
the causes of such ethnic discrepancies is needed, but it bolsters the findings
of studies — including the ADB report — that indicate the tendency of private
tutoring to exacerbate existing patterns of social inequality.
Research in Singapore, Malaysia and Viet Nam suggests that the benefits of
private tutoring are uneven and are subject to a law of diminishing returns
(Cheo and Quah, 2005; Dang, 2007; Tan, 2009). It may lead variously to improved
or poorer academic results. Research in Cambodia finds that rather than
supplementing school education, private tutoring makes it less efficient — largely
due to the behaviour of teachers doubling as tutors (see above) — while also
reducing students’ time for leisure and rest (Dawson, 2009).
The precise incidence of bullying in schools across the region is also unclear, but
the existence of legal and policy provisions against it suggests that it may be
substantial, if under-reported. The Anti-Bullying Act in the Philippines provides
a framework for dealing with bullying in elementary and secondary schools. The
Act addresses incidents of bullying and cyberbullying and establishes procedures
and requirements for reporting, and related sanctions. It also calls for attempts
to build parental and community awareness, and the capacity to counter bullying.
There is no similar law in Singapore, although the Protection from Harassment
Act, aimed to protect adults, stipulates protection of ‘persons against
harassment and unlawful stalking and to create offences [sic]’ (UNESCO, 2017a,
p. 35). There have also been a variety of anti-bullying campaigns in the region. In
2013, Malaysia participated in UNICEF’s #ENDviolence initiative, which sought to
raise awareness of bullying. The initiative also led the government, civil society
and private sector to take action against bullying and to plan future research
and action. The Indonesian government has collaborated with stakeholders
such as parents’ associations and adolescents’ networks in launching a social
media campaign against child bullying, which includes the publication of an ‘End
Bullying’ manual for children. In Viet Nam, the Young Lives project on childhood
poverty found verbal and indirect bullying, such as humiliation and social
Rethinking Schooling for the 21 st Century:
The State of Education for Peace, Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship in Asia
133