as government in a huge population country, THW give financial

incentive for parents who choose to have two children

Population planning in Singapore spans two distinct phases: first to slow and reverse the boom
in births that started after World War II; and then, from the 1980s onwards, to encourage parents
to have more children because birth numbers had fallen below replacement levels. Government
eugenics policies flavoured both phases. In 1960s and 1970s, the anti-natalist policies flourished.
The Family Planning and Population Board (FPPB) was established, initially advocating small
families but eventually running the Stop at Two programme, which pushed for small two-
children families and promoted sterilisation. From 1969 it was also used by government leaders
to target lowly educated and low-income women in an experiment with eugenics policies to
solve social concerns.

Government leaders also announced the Graduate Mothers' Scheme in 1984, which favoured the
children of mothers with a university degree in primary school placement and registration
process over the lesser-educated.[1][2] After the outcry in the 1984 general elections it was
eventually scrapped.[3][4]

Singapore had also been undergoing the demographic transition and birth rates had fallen
precipitously. The government eventually became pro-natalist, and officially announced its
replacement Have Three or More (if you can afford it) in 1987, in which the government
continued its efforts to better the quality and quantity of the population while discouraging low-
income families from having children. The Social Development Unit (SDU) was also established
in 1984 to promote marriage and romance between educated individuals.

Different sources have offered differing judgments on the government policies' impact on the
population structure of Singapore. While Stop at Two has been described as basically successful
or "over-successful", sceptics of interventionism claim that the demographic transition would
have occurred anyway – noting that the government's attempts at reversing the falling birth rates
due to the demographic transition have been less than successful.[5][6][7][8]

 1 Post war trends and family planning
o 1.1 Overcrowding concerns
o 1.2 Establishment of the FPPB
 2 Stop at Two
 3 The demographic transition and the Graduate Mothers Scheme
 4 Have Three or More (if you can afford it)
o 4.1 Policy comparisons between Have Three or More and Stop at Two, starting
 5 Modern legacy and current practices
 6 See also

5% 1990–2000 20. about 550.5% in 1965 around independence. and the natural growth rate had fallen to 2.000 people lived in squalid squatter settlements or "ramshackle shophouses" by 1966. culminating in 1960 with a three-month nationwide family planning campaign that was jointly conducted by the Association and government.7% 1957–1970 90.2 by 1947 (high-rise buildings had yet to be constructed en masse). In 1947. treatments for minor gynaecological ailments.[7] Singapore's population expansion can be seen in the graph below: Population growth 1947–2000[9] Period Growth 1947–1957 84. the social forces which caused the post–World War II baby boom elsewhere in the world also occurred in Singapore.3% 1980–1990 18.5%. the average annual growth rate was 4.7 per thousand individuals.) Family planning was introduced to Singapore in 1949 by a group of volunteers that eventually became the Family Planning Association of Singapore and established numerous sexual health clinics offering contraception. (This was also the same year the United States saw its peak birth rate. and the average person per building density was 18.8% 1970–1980 13. and the bulk of the work of the Housing Development Board had not yet been completed. played an increasingly important role by providing ever larger grants to the Association. many Singaporeans lived in the Central Area in overcrowded shophouses. of which 1% was due to immigration.[9] The birth rate rose and the death rate fell.5 per thousand individuals.[10] Rapid population growth was perceived as a threat to "political stability and living standards" . The population growth rate slowed from 4–5% per year in the 1950s to around 2. and marital advice.9% Overcrowding concerns At the time of independence. but the postwar British colonial administration.  7 References Post war trends and family planning See also: Demographics of Singapore From 1947 to 1957. the British Housing Committee Report noted Singapore had "one of the world's worst slums – 'a disgrace to a civilised community'". followed by the Singaporean government.6% 2000–2010 40. Until the 1960s there was no official government policy in these matters. The birth rate had fallen to 29. as well as land for its facilities network.4%. Singapore experienced its highest birth rate in 1957 at 42.

000. and in September 1965 the Minister for Health. a baby was born every 11 minutes in 1965. the FPPB faced a resistant population. earning it a place in the Guinness Book of World Records for "largest number of births in a single maternity facility" each year for ten years. deemed low-income and lowly educated. the People's Action Party came to power. Lee started a vigorous Stop at Two family planning campaign. Yong Nyuk Lin. Singapore was a developing nation and had not yet undergone the demographic transition. but eventually serviced over 156. Kandang Kerbau Hospital (KKH) – a women's hospital where most babies in Singapore were delivered – saw over 100 deliveries per day in 1962. This was to become the National Family Programme.[12] Stop at Two In the late 1960s. Such a policy for Singapore would "ensure that Singapore shall maintain its pre- eminent place" in Southeast Asia." should be allocated the best of a country's limited resources to provide "a catalyst" for that society's progress. In 1966. mothers with routine deliveries were discharged from hospitals within 24 hours.that led to population overcrowding that would overwhelm employment opportunities and social services in education. KKH delivered 39.[5] Initially allocated a budget of $1 million SGD for the entire programme. submitted a white paper to Parliament. "who are more than ordinarily endowed physically and mentally. though birth rates fell from 1957 to 1970. Similar views shaped education policy and meritocracy in Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew as first Prime Minister of Singapore held wide sway over the government's social policies before 1990. Because there was generally a massive shortage of beds in that era. recommending a Five-year Mass Family Planning programme that would reduce the birth rate to 20.[5] Despite their fall since 1957. the Family Planning and Population Board (FPPB) had been established based on the findings of the white paper.835 babies. in 1966. Fearing that Singapore's growing population might overburden the developing economy. Women without an O- level degree. Abortion and sterilisation were legalised in 1970.[11] Establishment of the FPPB In 1959. providing clinical services and public education on family planning. were offered by the government seven . The Family Planning Association was absorbed into the activities of the FPPB. health and sanitation. Lee Kuan Yew was recorded in 1967 as believing that "five percent" of a society's population. birth rates rose as women who were themselves the product of the postwar baby boom reached maturity. in 1970. On average. and women were urged to get sterilised after their second child. birth rates in the 1960s were still perceived as high.0 per thousand individuals by 1970.

 Top priority in top-tier primary schools would be given only to children whose parents had been sterilised before the age of forty.  Third or fourth children were given lower priorities in education. which created many posters across different languages that were displayed in schools. National Courtesy. Three would have been a crowd.[5][9][13] A historical poster from the widespread "Stop at Two" campaign. press section head of the Ministry of Culture."[8] This same poster was also referred to in Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's 2008 National Day Rally speech.000 SGD in cash incentives to voluntarily undergo the procedure. the Speak Mandarin.days' paid sick leave and $10. The government also added a gradually increasing array of disincentives penalising parents for having more than two children between 1969 and 1972. Many other posters from the "iconic" campaign included similar themes of being content with two girls.  Income tax deductions would only be given for the first two children  Large families were penalised in housing assignments. hospitals and public workplaces.[9][15] The "Stop at Two" media campaign from 1970 to 1976 was led by Basskaran Nair. Keep Singapore Clean and Toilet Flushing Campaigns) that would lead to its reputation as "paternalistic" and "interventionist" in social affairs. to combat . "many middle-aged Singaporeans will remember the poster of two cute girls sharing an umbrella and an apple: The umbrella fit two nicely.g. Speak Good English. The government created a large array of public education material for the Stop at Two campaign. and created posters with lasting legacy: a 2008 Straits Times article wrote. raising the per-child costs of each additional child:[5][14]  Workers in the public sector would not receive maternity leave for their third child or any subsequent children  Hospitals were required to charge incrementally higher fees for each additional child. in one of the early examples of the public social engineering campaigns the government would continue to implement (e.

" A gynaecologist doctor who worked KKH recalled sterilisation rates became "sky high" after the disincentives had been implemented.we will regret the time lost if we do not now take the first tentative steps towards correcting a trend which can leave our society with a large number of the physically.[17] We must encourage those who earn less than $200 per month and cannot afford to nurture and educate many children never to have more than two. it was common for hospital workers to chide women who were pregnant with third-order or higher births. intellectually and culturally anaemic." He believed that implementing a system of government disincentives would stop "the irresponsible. recommending abortions. making them more likely to be capable... citing a woman who had undergone tubal ligation at KKH at the age of 23. noting it was common to get sterilised at a young age.[5] The government also had to respond to criticism that this policy . productive citizens. while she and four out of five sisters eventually underwent sterilisation. Lee believed that. Other slogans and campaign material exhorted Singaporeans with such messages as:  "Small Families – Brighter Future: Two is enough" (this message captioned a photo two young girls)  "The second can wait" (a mother and father are seen as being happy with one child)  "Teenage marriage means rushing into problems: A happy marriage is worth waiting for"  "One. are reproducing themselves at [a higher rate].[8] Expensive delivery fees ("accouchement fees") for third-order and higher births would also be waived with sterilisation.the common trend in developing Asian societies for families with only daughters to continue "trying for a boy". 1969[17] The government justified its social policy as a means of encouraging the poor to concentrate their limited resources on nurturing their existing children. the best method for Family Limitation" (shown with a cartoon of two girls' faces)  "Take your time to say 'yes'"[11]  Small Family: Brighter Future  "Please stop at two!" (a stork carries a four-member nuclear family)[16] The Straits Times interviewed mothers who were sterilised in that era. In addition to promoting just having two children. The Straits Times also suggested the disincentives had been very effective. The Government clearly didn't want us to have more than two. reinforcing the inevitable demographic transition. the social delinquents" from thinking that having more children would entitle them to more government-provided social services. the government also encouraged individuals to delay having their second child and to marry late.. The campaign was known to target the uneducated in particular. Lee Kuan Yew. herself coming from a large family of ten. "Free education and subsidised housing lead to a situation where the less economically productive people .. one woman cited how sterilisation certification had to be shown to a school for a third child to receive priority. Two: And that's ideal: Sterilisation. "The pressure [disincentives] was high. while such women talked about their pregnancy "[as if] they committed a crime".

a unit that was also nicknamed "Single. who had questioned that perhaps the campaign for women's rights had been too successful: Equal employment opportunities. The government also encouraged Singapore men to choose highly educated women as wives... Furthermore. thereafter the replacement rate would drop below unity. tax rebates and other benefits to mothers with a university degree. Lee conjectured. as well as their children. Malays and Indians were stereotyped to have higher birth rates and bigger families than the Chinese. establishing the Social Development Unit (SDU) that year to promote socialising among men and women graduates. and part of this failure.favoured Chinese over minority races. were upset by the views of Lee Kuan Yew. Desperate and Ugly".006 in 1975. but this proportion dropped for third-order births (52%) and fourth-or-higher-order births (36%). — Lee Kuan Yew.[13] This issue is greatly known as the Great . increases in income. be mothers. The measures sparked controversy and what became known as The Great Marriage Debate in the press. the government of Singapore gave education and housing priorities. According to a paper by the Library of Congress. "Talent for the future"."[5] Lee Kuan Yew was alarmed at the perceived demographic trend that educated women – most of all the college-educated – would be less likely to marry and procreate. especially controversial portions of the policy that gave education and housing priorities to educated women were eventually abandoned or modified.[5][18] The government also provided incentives for educated mothers to have three or four children. by the 1980s. education and health and the role of women in the workforce were strongly correlated to levels of low population growth. yes. and correspondingly. including graduate women.[5] Starting 1984. at the same time. This trend was deemed in a 1983 speech as "a serious social problem". This has affected their traditional role . yet we are frittering away this asset through the unintended consequences of changes in our education policy and equal career opportunities for women. the so-called "demographic gift" was occurring in Singapore as with other countries. as mothers. The natural replacement rate reached 1. supporting the idea that more children per capita continue to be born to women with less qualifications.[5][14] A 1992 study noted that 61% of women giving birth had secondary education or higher. 14 August 1983[9] In 1985..[18] The demographic transition and the Graduate Mothers Scheme As Singapore modernised in the 1970s. "Singapore's vital statistics resembled those of other countries with comparable income levels but without Singapore's publicity campaigns and elaborate array of administrative incentives. the creators and protectors of the next generation. Such a trend would run antithetical to his demographic policy. was "the apparent preference of male university graduates for less highly educated wives". fertility continued to drop. further fuelling accusations of eugenics.our most valuable asset is in the ability of our people. but we shouldn't get our women into jobs where they cannot.. in what was the beginning of the reversal of the original Stop at Two policy. lower income. Some sections of the population.

despite the scepticism.  All disincentives and penalties given in school registration to families with more than two children are to be removed. By 30 June of that year.[13] The government also relaxed its immigration policies. this was about $662 in 2010 US dollars). If a mother had three 'O'-level passes in one sitting. priority would be allocated to families with more than two children. Having a fourth child would qualify for enhanced child relief of 750 SGD plus 15% of the mother's income.[5] The new policy took into account Singapore's falling fertility rate and its increased proportion of the elderly. encouraging higher birth rates instead. future Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. up to $10000 SGD. remained optimistic that the population rate would restored to the replacement rate by 1995. starting 1988 This section is in a list format that may be better presented using prose.[citation needed] In October 1987.44.  Subsidies for each child in a government-run or government-approved child care centre . Editing help is available. An NUS sociologist however. Many incentives were given to graduate women to marry and give birth to produce babies which were believed to be 'highly intelligent' to maximise the talent pool in Singapore. in the presence of competition. You can help by converting this section to prose. then a young Brigadier General. and promoted "the joys of marriage and parenthood". exhorted Singaporeans to procreate rather than "passively watch ourselves going extinct". the government had abolished the Family Planning and Population Board. and discouraged having more than two children if the couple did not have sufficient income. Have Three or More (if you can afford it) In 1986 the government had recognised that falling birth rates were a serious problem and began to reverse its past policy of Stop at Two. to minimise the amount of welfare aid spent on such families.[19] and by 1987. One parent commented. many who had grown up in an era where they were told that having more than two children was "antisocial". (July 2014)  Mothers with a third child would get 750 SGD in child relief (factoring historic exchange rates. announcing that the government now promoted a larger family size of three or more children for married couples who could afford them. Goh Chok Tong announced a new slogan: Have Three or More (if you can afford it).Marriage Debate.[20] United Press International noted the "baffled" reaction of parents. "are we being told to have more children for the sake of the country or for ourselves?"[21] Goh Chok Tong. but was still concerned with the "disproportionate procreation" of the educated versus the uneducated. Singapore's birth rate has not yet been restored to replacement level. That year.[22] Policy comparisons between Have Three or More and Stop at Two. observed that Singapore had "a new breed of women" – one "involved in their careers [and] used to a certain amount of leisure and more material possessions" – and hence would not be as receptive to financial incentives like previous women of the 1960s and the 1970s. she would qualify for an enhanced child relief rebate (lowered from a threshold of five passes). As of 2011. the total fertility rate had dropped to 1. if appropriate.

1 due to [the demographic transition]. To the researchers of the study. comprehensive and broad. and family planning policies are also managed by the Ministry of Community Development. encourages all Singaporean couples to procreate and marry to reverse Singapore's negative replacement rate. dating and marriage encouragement. factoring historic exchange rates) were given to mothers who had their second child before the age of 28  Starting 1993.000 in 2010 dollars. recognising that the low birth rate reflected late marriages. a tax rebate of 20."[17][24] Different sources have offered differing judgments on the government policies' impact on the population structure of Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew.[13] Modern legacy and current practices The modern SDU. the total fertility rate was approximately ~6 – Asian MetaCentre researcher Theresa Wong notes that Singaporean birth . allowing women to agree to use reversible contraception rather than sterilisation. then you are going to worry if your son or daughter is going to make it to the university. "[If] you marry a non-graduate. the methods used in 1987 to attempt to reverse the falling birth rate was a demonstration of "the government's [continued] assumption" that citizens were receptive towards monetary incentives and administrative allocation of social services when it came to family planning.000 SGD (US$18. so long as the number did not exceed two."[8] When demographic transition statistics are examined – in 1960. 1.[23] That same year.[5] However Saw Swee Hock. While most agree that the policies have been very interventionist. Some of the social welfare.02 for Chinese. with compulsory abortion counselling  Women undergoing sterilisation with less than three children would receive compulsory counselling  Expansion of the SDU's role and authority. known for his remarks on the Malay community. argued the demographic transition "was rapid because of the government's strong population control measures. "even without the Stop at Two policy. the Library of Congress Country Study argues "it is impossible to separate the effects of government policies from the broader socioeconomic forces promoting later marriage and smaller families. the SDU also wooed those with postsecondary A-level qualifications rather than just college graduates  Starting 1990. he was quoted as saying.  Medisave could now be authorised for hospital costs of a third child (previously forbidden under the Stop at Two policy)  Families with more than two children with a HDB flat of three rooms or higher would receive priority if they desired to upgrade to a larger flat  "Abortions of convenience" discouraged. Youth and Sports. educational bursaries for existing children were added as existing benefits." suggesting that the government could only work with or work against much more powerful natural demographic trends. the [total fertility rate] would have gone below 2. Channel NewsAsia reported in January 2011 that the fertility rate of Singaporeans in 2010 were 1.13 for Indians and 1. the sterilisation cash grant for lowly educated women was liberalised. In 2008. said the below-national-average birth rate for the Chinese was a "worrying trend". a statistician and demographer quoted in the Straits Times in 2008. renamed the Social Development Network in 2009." but also admitted that.65 for Malays.

[8][9] In 2001. where family planning campaigns were much less aggressive. this is still seen by some citizens as "trivialising" love and "emotional expression". In 2002. It should appeal more to the sense of fulfilment of having children".rates and death rates fell dramatically in a period that occurred over "much shorter time period than in Western countries. Such measures include promoting workplaces that encourage spending time with the family.[9] According to Saw Swee Hock. the government announced a Baby Bonus scheme. . "the measures were comprehensive and strong." since "people get turned off" when the government appears to intervene in such intimate social affairs as marriage. The timing is good now to get a choice flat to start a family. and creating a "Romancing Singapore Campaign" that "[directly avoided being linked] to pro-children and pro- family initiatives. which "should not be engineered". which paid $9000 SGD for the second child and $18000 for the third child over six years to "defray the costs of having children". Though newer modern policies exhibit "signs that the government is beginning to recognise the ineffectiveness of a purely monetary approach to increasing birth rates". Goh Chok Tong advised "pragmatic" late marriers "to act fast. However. a former civil servant noted that the government needs "to learn to fine-tune to the emotions rather than to dollars and cents. and would match "dollar for dollar" what money parents would put into a Child Development Account (CDA) up to $6000 and $12000 for the second and third child respectively. but they weren't reversed quickly enough"." yet such a short time frame is also seen in other Southeast Asian countries.

the term “tiger parenting” did not exist until the publication of Amy Chua's (2011) book. and when giving advice to mothers around the world. these children had lower levels of socio-emotional health. feel that her parenting methods will not lead to optimal developmental outcomes in children.. Chua's supporters believe that her parenting methods are justified by the extraordinary academic and musical successes of her two daughters. warmth and support). Chinese. Her study was one of the first to ask the question. In March 2013. characterized as very strict or harsh without much warmth.CRIMINALIZE PARENTS WHO COMMIT TIGER PARENTING Why all the fuss around "tiger parenting"? As far as we know. the Asian American Journal of Psychology. Why is the study of Asian American parenting an important scholarly endeavor? Asian American parenting started gaining scholarly attention with the landmark publication of Ruth Chao's (1994) paper in the journal Child Development . Scholarly research on “tiger parenting” began after the publication of Amy Chua's book in which the concept of tiger parenting was introduced. Her daughters are not allowed to watch TV or play computer games. strict rules) and high levels of positive parenting (e. This is especially problematic when reinforcing stereotypes about groups. a Yale law professor with two daughters. it is crucial to be clear about what we mean when we talk about “successful outcomes” in children. “Why are Asian American children performing so well academically. Thus. often goes hand in-hand with poor academic outcomes in European American children. Chua's critics. People have had a strong reaction to her book. on the other hand. have sleepovers or play dates. because authoritarian parenting. one of the American Psychological Association's journals. research on Asian American children had begun to uncover an achievement/adjustment paradox: despite their academic success. one of the leading journals for developmental psychology. and Korean American parents all aimed at testing the new theory of “tiger parenting.. Also.” The goal was to use scientific methods to test whether tiger parenting is a common parenting style in Asian families.g. Amy Chua. Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother . published a collection of six empirical papers and two commentaries – using samples of Hmong. and to test whether tiger parenting leads to positive outcomes for . or get any grade less than an A. Chua claims that these strict policies are the reason why her children have been so successful in school and in their music studies and argues that this type of parenting is common in Asian families.g. given that their parents are more likely to be classified as authoritarian in parenting style?” This was an important issue to untangle. What have we learned tiger parenting? Tiger parenting is a little different than authoritarian parenting in that tiger parenting includes high levels of negative parenting (e. writes about her Chinese heritage and the way in which it has influenced her parenting choices. One concern is that the evidence presented in Chua's book is based on her personal experience and not on scientific research that can take into account the differences across families and the variety of possible outcomes.

children with supportive parents show the highest GPA. and we want data over time. Although there is a popular perception that the secret behind the academic success of Asian American children is the prevalence of “tiger moms” like Amy Chua. however. some have said that they are pleased to see the stereotype of Asian Americans being challenged by our data. This means that their positive parenting strategies co-exist with negative parenting strategies. Children of easygoing parents show better developmental outcomes than those with tiger parents. harsh parents do not engage in positive parenting strategies. We want a longitudinal study . Children with harsh parents show the worst developmental outcomes. the best socio-emotional adjustment. what about the children? What kind of parenting is best for child outcomes? The best way to answer this question is to have a large sample. What is the reaction from parents? The response among Asian Americans has been generally positive. we want data over time so that we can see how different types of parenting influence a child's development over time. Tiger parents are engaging in some positive parenting behaviors. Tiger parents and harsh parents are alike. that is. Children with supportive parents show the best developmental outcomes. we found that supportive parents made up the largest percentage of parents at each data collection wave. because they suggest that the average tiger parent will not produce extraordinarily successful children. Some European American parents have told me that they felt guilty about being too lenient after they read Amy Chua's book. but our study findings are a wake-up call to these tiger moms and dads. and wondered whether adopting . these studies showed that parenting in each of these cultures is a mix of power- assertive type parenting and supportive parenting. Easygoing parents have a more “hands-off” approach. Unlike tiger parents. What are the main study findings? Despite the popular perception of Asian American parents as “tiger” parents. in that both use negative parenting strategies. Amy Chua's book gave some Asian Americans the “license” to be as strict in order to ensure the success of their children in today's competitive global economy. Thus. The purely power-assertive type of parenting described in Chua's book was not common. and the strongest sense of family obligation among the four parenting profiles. however. the least amount of alienation from parents. Fortunately. we found that children with tiger parents actually had a lower GPA than children with supportive parents. In fact. so that there are a variety of types of parenting represented. We defined tiger parents as those who practice positive and negative parenting strategies simultaneously. Overall. We want a large sample so that we can link different types of parenting with different child outcomes. either positively or negatively.children. and do not engage as much with their children. But. tiger parents also scored high on negative parenting dimensions. then we cannot say whether parenting is leading to child outcomes or perhaps different types of children influence how their parents behave. our findings debunk the myths about the merits of tiger parenting. If we only have data from one time point. we had a longitudinal study we could use to address these questions. unlike supportive parents.

while children's recognition of parental sacrifice may be the key to understanding the academic performance of Asian Americans. About 30% of the study sample had an income at or above the median income of Asian Americans in the U. Many parents have asked me. will my children be as successful as the Chinese American students in your sample. Jeff Yang and Amy Chua criticize the research for implying that Chinese parenting is the same as Western parenting. After learning about my study. Work by Eva Pomerantz suggests that Chinese mothers think. their social networks help children “make it” to the best public schools.4?” The answer is.” and that they see the academic success of their children as a chief parenting goal. a columnist for the Wall Street Journal. partly because parenting goals are different in different groups. Our findings are therefore demonstrating that “tiger” parenting is less effective than supportive parenting. they feel better about their own parenting. “Not necessarily. Vivian Louie's study on working-class Chinese immigrant mothers suggests that even if they can't directly help their children with homework.S. or general measures of parenting. They also suggest that the lower median income of the study sample explains why “tiger” parenting was ineffective. is not the same as Western parenting. cannot provide the time. Finally. they say the study can't explain why Asian Americans are overrepresented in the Ivy Leagues and in music conservatories. The reasons why a particular type of parenting works in one cultural group may not translate to another cultural group. The study statistically controlled for parental educational level.” Ruth Chao's work has demonstrated that relationship closeness explains why authoritative parenting is related to better academic performance among European American adolescents. While seven of the eight parenting dimensions we used would be considered “etic” dimensions. “If I am a supportive parent. This may be the reason why . They feel that parents of working class backgrounds. and are glad to know that their children are better off with supportive parents. What is Amy Chua's critique of our research? Jeff Yang. just as they always suspected. whose average GPA in middle school is 3. however. regardless of parents' level of education. In a similar vein. energy and money required to groom their children for success. “My child is my report card.Amy Chua's methods would make their children more successful in school. or culturally specific measure of parenting: shaming. who made up about 50% of our sample. which Heidi Fung (1999) defines as a culturally specific type of Asian parenting in which parents actively pressure their children to internalize feelings of shame for not conforming to norms or for failing to perform as parents expect. who tend to outperform their native born counterparts despite their lower socioeconomic status. What is our repsonse to Amy Chua's reaction to the research? “Supportive” parenting. as defined in our study. writes about Amy Chua's reaction to the research findings. there is one “emic” dimension. Cynthia Garcia Coll highlights the “immigrant paradox” that is apparent among groups such as Asian Americans.

and that they are more likely to believe that putting effort into school work will result in better academic outcomes. allowing children to be independent when appropriate. these scholars are suggesting that Asian Americans are more likely to endorse the idea that academic success is due to effort instead of innate ability. Thus. Parents should also ensure that they minimize shouting or yelling at their children. Angel Harris's work suggests that the success of Asian Americans can be attributed to their schooling behaviors rather than to prior skills. What is the take home message for the average parent? Regardless of how we analyze the data. Andrew Fuligni's work suggests that Asian American children's key to understanding their academic many of the children in our sample (90% had immigrant parents) are able to achieve in school despite having fewer economic resources. Collectively. shaming their children by comparing them to other children. whereas European Americans are more likely to endorse an “entity” view of intelligence. Being warm. . we find that supportive parenting always comes out on top: parents who scored high on the positive parenting dimensions and low on the negative parenting dimensions had the most well-adjusted. we encourage parents to consider using supportive parenting techniques. If "tiger parenting" is not the answer. using reasoning and explanation when disciplining children. successful children. and monitoring children's whereabouts and activities are all good parenting strategies. and blaming their children or bringing up past mistakes. expecting unquestioned obedience from their children. what explains why Asian Americans are over-represented in the best universities and science competitions? Carol Dweck's work suggests that Asian Americans may be more likely to endorse an “incremental” view of intelligence.