When tuition centres tell only half the story behind ‘90 per cent distinctions’

A Facebook tuition group of 6,000 members says it’s run by an “ex-MOE teacher”, with only “2 slots left”. A tuition centre website boasts that 90 per cent of its students scored A or B grades, displaying their names, schools and trophies. A flier company offers targeted distribution outside primary schools, secondary schools and junior colleges as a standard service.

A quick search online shows how routine such tactics have become – I saw these examples myself – and is what the Ministry of Education (MOE) hopes to regulate.

In February 2025, then Education Minister Chan Chun Sing announced that MOE is working with the advertising industry to develop a code of conduct aimed at curbing unethical marketing practices in the tuition industry.

The issue was brought up again recently in Parliament on Feb 24, when MP Hamid Razak asked if any progress had been made, pointing to “fear-based marketing” in the sector. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun Alhabsyi said that MOE is reviewing what additional measures are needed.

In 2023, Singapore families spent $1.8 billion on private tuition, up from $1.4 billion in 2018. It is an intensely competitive market catering to understandably anxious parents.

In the formula milk industry, which Mr Chan drew a parallel with in 2025, anxiety-driven marketing once targeted new parents. Singapore responded with new, stricter guidelines, restricting how manufacturers promote infant formula.

The principle is clear: When parents are anxious, marketing standards should be higher, not lower. The same should apply to tuition.

Questionable practices

In many cases, such questionable marketing practices are not outright falsehoods. Rather, outcomes are presented selectively without necessary context.

Take a centre that reports that 90 per cent of its students scored distinctions – but parents can’t tell if this is a result of effective teaching or selective intake. Or the widespread claim, “Taught by ex-MOE teachers”, which doesn’t indicate how recently the teachers left the ministry or how long they taught.

The practice of enlisting top PSLE scorers to endorse centres or brands, which was highlighted by Mr Chan in 2025, could also mislead parents into thinking the centre helped those students achieve their scores.

Then there are behavioural pressure tactics: fliers distributed outside primary schools on the very first day of school for Primary 1 pupils, and “last few slots” scarcity messaging that can trigger anxious decisions.

This is why stricter guidelines – specific to the sector – are needed, to act as a “cooling measure” of sorts. But what could these look like?

A ‘nutrition label’ for tuition centres

One practical step would be to define what centres must disclose when advertising outcomes. This could be in the form of a standardised disclosure panel required whenever a centre advertises outcomes: a nutrition label for tuition results.

The label would require centres to answer five questions: how many students are reflected in the results, and for which subject and examination; whether pupils were screened or excluded; the size of the cohort and the period covered; their starting attainment, not just final distinctions; and the instructors’ qualifications, including when they left MOE and how long they taught.

A simple cohort accounting would show how many students enrolled, how many stayed to the exam, and how many are included in the advertised results.

This anchors every claim to a verifiable base rate. The governing principle is clear: no claim without a denominator.

This can remain light-touch and self-regulatory. Centres that advertise outcomes could retain documentation and make it available on request, with a complaints-driven review process supplemented by random spot checks.

Those who adopt the standard panel voluntarily could receive a recognised-format status, providing clearer assurance and faster complaint resolution. For digital advertisements, a QR code linking to the full panel would satisfy the requirement without cluttering the advertisement.

Some practices, such as having PSLE top scorers endorse brands, may not be tackled sufficiently by the inclusion of such an information panel alone. Nonetheless, the guidelines should address this.

The Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS) Children’s Code for Advertising Food and Beverage Products limits advertising aimed at children aged 12 and under and prohibits high-pressure sales tactics directed at them or their parents.

This would be a useful benchmark to have, particularly in restricting the use of minors as commercial endorsers.

Learning from other sectors

Other sectors also offer useful templates.

In the case of financial institutions, the Monetary Authority of Singapore published digital advertising conduct guidelines that come into effect in March.

The guidelines require that every advertisement be understandable on its own, without omitting information that could mislead consumers. Disclosures must remain prominent regardless of format, and senior management remains accountable for third-party marketers. A companion guide on responsible financial content creation, developed together with ASAS, cautions against exploiting fear of missing out.

That dual approach, formal principles paired with a practical guide, could be adapted for tuition.

Closer to education, SkillsFuture Singapore offers a second precedent. After documented cases of misrepresentation and pressure on learners, they banned third-party direct marketing for registered training providers. Providers that violated the rules faced suspension and contract termination.

A similar restriction could apply to tuition centres that engage third-party promoters to distribute fliers outside schools or run fear-based social media campaigns on their behalf.

As MOE and the industry develop guidance, it is timely to design it for what comes next, especially with the rise of AI-powered tutoring platforms, which can scale and personalise the same selective-truth tactics. A framework built today is easier to sustain than one imposed after practices have hardened.

Education Minister Desmond Lee has spoken about moving Singapore beyond a narrow meritocracy that ties achievement solely to grades and breaking the cycle of an education arms race. Stronger performance-claim standards for tuition would support that direction.

Standardised disclosure does not shrink the market. Rather, it makes performance claims comparable.

When parents can see the full picture, they make calmer choices for their children. That is good for families, and good for the education system Singapore is building.

• Kelvin Law is associate professor at Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University. His research examines how organisations disclose information to stakeholders, with a focus on corporate responsibility and sustainability.

---

Source: The Straits Times