Students get short end of the stick; oversight isn’t keeping pace with growth
By Sandra Davie 10 March 2009
In the past two weeks alone, another two private schools went bust, leaving their students, mostly foreigners, in the lurch. A total of 11 private schools have shut down since January last year, affecting hundreds of students.
The Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) says it expects more to follow suit within the next few months.
Worryingly, after these schools went belly up, some were found to have run afoul of basic safeguards - namely the fee protection scheme and Case accreditation scheme which were put in place five years ago to protect the fees of foreign students and ensure that the schools have proper procedures to deal with students.
The fee protection scheme requires schools to deposit fees collected upfront into an escrow account with DBS which is then released by the bank in instalments until their course of study is completed.
Alternatively, the school may buy insurance guaranteeing that students get back their fee balances if the school folds.
But Case, which oversees the fee protection scheme, had to issue warnings to 13 schools last year for failing to give any fee protection to students. Only after the warnings did they comply.
In the two recent closures, out of the 10 students from one school who filed complaints with Case, only five had proof of insurance.
All four students from the other school who filed complaints were not issued insurance certificates.
The question begs to be asked: How were these schools able to circumvent the fee protection scheme?
It was set up in 2004 after a few schools landed in trouble, leaving hundreds of students without qualifications and refunds.
Under the scheme, in order to be eligible to recruit foreign students, schools must first buy fee protection for their students. They are also evaluated on their cancellation and refund policies and dispute-resolution procedures by Case.
If they pass muster they are given the CaseTrust for Education quality stamp. Only then are their students issued visas by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA).
So what happened?
Case says that ICA used to check if students had fee protection before issuing visas, but stopped doing so after a year.
On its part, ICA says it stopped asking for fee protection proof after schools were awarded the Case quality mark. When a student applies for a visa, it simply verifies that the school is CaseTrusted, based on a list supplied by Case.
ICA’s spokesman said: ‘Case would have to do the necessary checks at their end to ensure compliance with their CaseTrust scheme. It is not ICA’s function to ensure that the students are covered by the fee protection scheme.’
In response, Case says there is a time lag before it can detect a breach. It has to wait for the bank or insurance company reports before it can tally up the total number of visas granted to foreign students at a school, against the total number with fee protection.
So what seems to have happened is that both assumed the other was doing the necessary checks.
This episode is symptomatic of the lack of strict regulation and enforcement that continues to ail the private education industry, despite measures put in place as far back as 2003 to tighten up.
The industry has seen huge growth over the last five years, since Singapore embarked on its plan to build an education hub hosting 150,000 foreigners here by 2015. But oversight has not kept pace.
There has also been the lack of ownership. Half a dozen different agencies, including the Ministry of Education, Spring Singapore, Economic Development Board and Singapore Tourism Board, play a part in overseeing the growth of this industry but no one in particular is held responsible for ensuring robust standards.
Each agency controls only a specific area. The Education Ministry, for example, only registers private schools but does not accredit their programmes. Case takes care of fee protection. Spring Singapore audits their business processes.
On top of that, these private schools have been treated purely as businesses. When found to be offering unaccredited degree programmes or using teachers with bogus qualifications, there are no serious penalties. Some just deregister their schools and move on.
Attempts to regulate the private education industry remain fraught. Meanwhile, private schools have mushroomed to over 1,000, with an estimated 300 bringing in foreign students. The number of foreign students here has doubled from 50,000 students in 2003.
When the Education Ministry stepped in last year to say it will come up with an academic quality accreditation scheme this year, everyone heaved a sigh of relief.
Until that happens, most assumed that at least foreign student fees will be safeguarded through the fee protection scheme. Except now, it has become apparent that even that is not being done in some instances.
Case said yesterday that it is taking steps to close the loophole. It is in talks with ICA to ensure that student passes are not given out before the school shows proof of fee protection. It also promised to increase awareness among foreigners that they must insist on fee protection.
What we must avoid is a repeat of the AIT incident.
The private school, which occupied the former MPH building near Stamford Road, went bust in 2005, leaving some 900 foreign students in the lurch. Some 740 students lost millions in fees they had paid. Only 160 students who joined the school after the fee protection scheme came into effect, got refunds totalling $400,000.
Overnight, the news hit regional newspapers, sullying Singapore’s growing reputation as a study destination. The education authorities in China and Vietnam moved to blacklist private schools here.
Student recruitment agents still shudder as they recall how it took months before they could convince parents to send their children here again.
The agencies promoting Singapore as a study destination used the fee protection scheme to assure parents that there will be no repeat of the AIT incident.
Despite the recession, the private education industry was cheered by news of the number of foreign students here closing in on the 100,000 mark recently. But there will be no cause for cheer if the AIT incident recurs in the months to come.
1 comment:
When private schools fail
Students get short end of the stick; oversight isn’t keeping pace with growth
By Sandra Davie
10 March 2009
In the past two weeks alone, another two private schools went bust, leaving their students, mostly foreigners, in the lurch. A total of 11 private schools have shut down since January last year, affecting hundreds of students.
The Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) says it expects more to follow suit within the next few months.
Worryingly, after these schools went belly up, some were found to have run afoul of basic safeguards - namely the fee protection scheme and Case accreditation scheme which were put in place five years ago to protect the fees of foreign students and ensure that the schools have proper procedures to deal with students.
The fee protection scheme requires schools to deposit fees collected upfront into an escrow account with DBS which is then released by the bank in instalments until their course of study is completed.
Alternatively, the school may buy insurance guaranteeing that students get back their fee balances if the school folds.
But Case, which oversees the fee protection scheme, had to issue warnings to 13 schools last year for failing to give any fee protection to students. Only after the warnings did they comply.
In the two recent closures, out of the 10 students from one school who filed complaints with Case, only five had proof of insurance.
All four students from the other school who filed complaints were not issued insurance certificates.
The question begs to be asked: How were these schools able to circumvent the fee protection scheme?
It was set up in 2004 after a few schools landed in trouble, leaving hundreds of students without qualifications and refunds.
Under the scheme, in order to be eligible to recruit foreign students, schools must first buy fee protection for their students. They are also evaluated on their cancellation and refund policies and dispute-resolution procedures by Case.
If they pass muster they are given the CaseTrust for Education quality stamp. Only then are their students issued visas by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA).
So what happened?
Case says that ICA used to check if students had fee protection before issuing visas, but stopped doing so after a year.
On its part, ICA says it stopped asking for fee protection proof after schools were awarded the Case quality mark. When a student applies for a visa, it simply verifies that the school is CaseTrusted, based on a list supplied by Case.
ICA’s spokesman said: ‘Case would have to do the necessary checks at their end to ensure compliance with their CaseTrust scheme. It is not ICA’s function to ensure that the students are covered by the fee protection scheme.’
In response, Case says there is a time lag before it can detect a breach. It has to wait for the bank or insurance company reports before it can tally up the total number of visas granted to foreign students at a school, against the total number with fee protection.
So what seems to have happened is that both assumed the other was doing the necessary checks.
This episode is symptomatic of the lack of strict regulation and enforcement that continues to ail the private education industry, despite measures put in place as far back as 2003 to tighten up.
The industry has seen huge growth over the last five years, since Singapore embarked on its plan to build an education hub hosting 150,000 foreigners here by 2015. But oversight has not kept pace.
There has also been the lack of ownership. Half a dozen different agencies, including the Ministry of Education, Spring Singapore, Economic Development Board and Singapore Tourism Board, play a part in overseeing the growth of this industry but no one in particular is held responsible for ensuring robust standards.
Each agency controls only a specific area. The Education Ministry, for example, only registers private schools but does not accredit their programmes. Case takes care of fee protection. Spring Singapore audits their business processes.
On top of that, these private schools have been treated purely as businesses. When found to be offering unaccredited degree programmes or using teachers with bogus qualifications, there are no serious penalties. Some just deregister their schools and move on.
Attempts to regulate the private education industry remain fraught. Meanwhile, private schools have mushroomed to over 1,000, with an estimated 300 bringing in foreign students. The number of foreign students here has doubled from 50,000 students in 2003.
When the Education Ministry stepped in last year to say it will come up with an academic quality accreditation scheme this year, everyone heaved a sigh of relief.
Until that happens, most assumed that at least foreign student fees will be safeguarded through the fee protection scheme. Except now, it has become apparent that even that is not being done in some instances.
Case said yesterday that it is taking steps to close the loophole. It is in talks with ICA to ensure that student passes are not given out before the school shows proof of fee protection. It also promised to increase awareness among foreigners that they must insist on fee protection.
What we must avoid is a repeat of the AIT incident.
The private school, which occupied the former MPH building near Stamford Road, went bust in 2005, leaving some 900 foreign students in the lurch. Some 740 students lost millions in fees they had paid. Only 160 students who joined the school after the fee protection scheme came into effect, got refunds totalling $400,000.
Overnight, the news hit regional newspapers, sullying Singapore’s growing reputation as a study destination. The education authorities in China and Vietnam moved to blacklist private schools here.
Student recruitment agents still shudder as they recall how it took months before they could convince parents to send their children here again.
The agencies promoting Singapore as a study destination used the fee protection scheme to assure parents that there will be no repeat of the AIT incident.
Despite the recession, the private education industry was cheered by news of the number of foreign students here closing in on the 100,000 mark recently. But there will be no cause for cheer if the AIT incident recurs in the months to come.
Post a Comment