덕진구 ####################################################################################### 영어과외 수학과외 초등 중학생 고등

덕진구영어과외 덕진구수학과외 공부법에 대해 올라오는 사람들의 글은 수많은 시행착오를 통해 얻어낸 '결과'입니다.  시행착오의 '과정' 중에서 '깨달음'을 얻고 '결과'를 서술한 것입니다. 예를 들어 누군가는 영어를 공부할 때 제대로 해석하지 않고 단어만 보고 대충 퍼즐 끼워맞추기 식으로 공부하다 피를 봅니다. 그 이후로 그는  하나하나 제대로 해석해야 한다는 확신을 얻을 것입니다.  덕진구 초등영어과외 초등수학과외 그리고  나중에 결과가 좋으면 그에 대한 영어 공부법을 쓸 것입니다. 하지만 공부법 글에는 그 깨달음을 얻게 되기까지의 시행착오의 '과정'이 생략되어 있는 경우가 많습니다.  그냥 '영어는 하나하나 제대로 해석해라!' 식의 글이 올라오게 되죠.  그래서 최단경로로, 시행착오 없이 공부법을 우리에게 적용하려고 하면 문제가 생깁니다. 덕진구 중학생영어과외 중학생수학과외 저자가 겪은 시행착오의 경험(=퍼즐 끼워맞추기 식으로 하다 피본 경험)이 없기에,  영어를 하나하나 제대로 해석해야 한다는 최고의 공부법으로 공부한다 하더라도.. '이렇게 천천히 영어문장을 읽어도 되나' 하는 회의가 듭니다.  덕진구 고등영어과외 고등수학과외 
결국 시행착오 과정에서 생긴 깨달음이 없기에,  자신의 공부법에 대한 확신이 없게 되고,  자꾸 흔들리게 됩니다. 그래서 이 공부법 저 공부법 기웃거리게 되다가...모든 것에 대해 회의가 생기죠. 이런 맹점을 극복하기 위해선 반드시 시행착오를 겪어야 합니다.  

school remain unanswered or ambiguous: ‰ Can a school make a “profit” from its operations? What does “surplus” mean? How is the quantum of “reasonable surplus” defined? ‰ Is a private school allowed to set its own fee structure? ‰ What regulations govern the transfer of surplus funds of a school for other activities, including their use to set up other schools? ‰ Can a school charge a “development fee” on top of the tuition fee? If so, how large a fee can be charged? ‰ What are bodies such as the CBSE looking for in private-school accreditation? ‰ Should the acquisition of land at concessional rates from the government be linked to enrolment of students from for poorer sections of society? There is little clarity in regulation of India’s education system, least of all the level of acceptance of schools as profit-making ventures. This is, however, part of a wider global debate on the role of the private sector in the provision of K-12 education, which is generally considered to be a responsibility of the state. Figure 65 shows how the US, Singapore, Australia and Brazil allow “for profit” schools, but the UK and Korea do not. And while the UK has allowed profit-making in higher education institutes since 2004, Korea has yet to relax its restrictions. Profit would appear to be more philosophically acceptable, or Several court judgements have left key questions unanswered K-12 lacks a regulator, and regulation US, Singapore, Australia, Brazil are more liberal in K-12 regulations Section 3: Regulatory clarity can catalyse growth Indian education 38 bhavtosh.vajpayee@clsa.com 14 March 2008 at least more pervasive, in the provision of higher education. Debate continues in the sensitive K-12 segment. Appendix 3 of this report looks at regulations around K-12 and higher education for the US, the UK, Korea, Brazil and Singapore, and identifies a common trend towards greater private involvement in education, either directly or via public-private partnerships. Figure 65 Regulation in other countries K-12 Schools Higher education US No restrictions on private schools on fees or in making profits. Highly developed for-profit higher education market with large listed players like Apollo Group, Devry etc UK Private schools are run as charities and get certain tax-exemptions. However there is no cap on the fees charged at these schools. Higher Education Act of 2004 allows forprofit degree-granting institutes. Singapore Private schools are allowed to make profits. Government does not interfere in matters of fees and profitability. For-profit private universities allowed. Foreign universities have also been allowed to set-up in Singapore. Korea Private School Act allows only qualified non-profit foundations with certain amount of assets to run schools. Private universities are strictly restricted from making profits. They also have limited autonomy in selecting students. Australia No formal law against profit-making schools. For-profit private universities/colleges allowed. Brazil No restrictions on private schools on fees or in making profits. No restrictions on profit-making in higher education. 2 big publicly-traded players in the space, Estacio Participacoes and Anhanguera Educacional Part. Source: CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets, Media reports, Departments of Education of respective countries Delhi regulations and the Modern School judgment In 1997, an association representing parents went to the Delhi High Court seeking a rollback of fee increases imposed by various private schools in New Delhi. Private schools were also accused of violating the terms of an agreement by the Delhi Development Authority, which provided land at concessional rates with the covenant of enrolling a certain share of students from poorer sections of society. Legal argument turned on the Delhi School Education Act, arguably the most restrictive K-12 regulation of any state in India. The Supreme Court of India handed down its judgment in 2004: ‰ The court upheld the terms of the land allotment and private schools were ordered to follow the conditions on enrolments (ie some share