Can through-train school work in kiasu Singapore?
-
bbbay\" post_id=\"2103438\" time=\"1680172266\" user_id=\"175278:
I thought the point of the TT system was to alleviate the stressful juncture of PSLE. The labelling by society ties in with the allocation of stream (Exp/NA/NT), which will soon be solved by FSBB mixed form classes.
don’t start a new TT system if the labelling will still remain.
If curriculum is not suited to them at present moment, continue working hard may not produce better results. This is what the sorting is for with PSLE exam. Sort them into a curriculum more suited to them at the present moment.
Identifying how each student can learn better (sorting) could be that systematic way to help uplift them accordingly to their current capacity. The works start as early as 13yo - after PSLE. Maybe the disparities may be worse if not for the current system.
While I understand MOE has to allocate the stream for Sec 1, I do not agree that those 4 subjects at P6 level are an accurate reflection of the student’s potential / capability for the Sec 1 all 7 subjects. Even PSLE Math is markedly different from S1 Algebra method. I know students who have scored AL20 and worse. They are not necessarily all having special needs, neither are they slow in the brain or lower IQ as some may think in their preconceptions. When we peg them as needing a different curriculum, what are we really saying? Do note that MOE deems them fine for Express/NA/NT already (if u look at end-P5 score). U mean they are not suited to start on Sec 1 curriculum earlier? Why? -
zac's mum\" post_id=\"2103442\" time=\"1680173535\" user_id=\"53606:[quote=\"zac's mum\" post_id=2103442 time=1680173535 user_id=53606]
Actually psle is a good indicator of O-Level and A-Level outcome..ACSI O level is a good example.
I thought the point of the TT system was to alleviate the stressful juncture of PSLE. The labelling by society ties in with the allocation of stream (Exp/NA/NT), which will soon be solved by FSBB mixed form classes.
While I understand MOE has to allocate the stream for Sec 1, I do not agree that those 4 subjects at P6 level are an accurate reflection of the student’s potential / capability for the Sec 1 all 7 subjects. Even PSLE Math is markedly different from S1 Algebra method. I know students who have scored AL20 and worse. They are not necessarily all having special needs, neither are they slow in the brain or lower IQ as some may think in their preconceptions. When we peg them as needing a different curriculum, what are we really saying? Do note that MOE deems them fine for Express/NA/NT already (if u look at end-P5 score). U mean they are not suited to start on Sec 1 curriculum earlier? Why?[/quote]
Sec 1 is honeymoon period lots of new discovery new subject etc..no one care too much about academic. Everyone will survive Sec1 lah.. -
zac's mum\" post_id=\"2103442\" time=\"1680173535\" user_id=\"53606:[quote=\"zac's mum\" post_id=2103442 time=1680173535 user_id=53606]
People don't bother about Sec 1
I thought the point of the TT system was to alleviate the stressful juncture of PSLE. The labelling by society ties in with the allocation of stream (Exp/NA/NT), which will soon be solved by FSBB mixed form classes.
While I understand MOE has to allocate the stream for Sec 1, I do not agree that those 4 subjects at P6 level are an accurate reflection of the student’s potential / capability for the Sec 1 all 7 subjects. Even PSLE Math is markedly different from S1 Algebra method. I know students who have scored AL20 and worse. They are not necessarily all having special needs, neither are they slow in the brain or lower IQ as some may think in their preconceptions. When we peg them as needing a different curriculum, what are we really saying? Do note that MOE deems them fine for Express/NA/NT already (if u look at end-P5 score). U mean they are not suited to start on Sec 1 curriculum earlier? Why?[/quote]
Because
everyone know that Sec 1 is a one entire year of honeymoon \"adjustment\" period.
Even if one don't do well in Sec 1, no worry. Still got time, still got another one more year, Sec 2, to catch up.
Nobody need any headstart for Sec 1, bec nobody fail Sec 1. Sec 1, very relaxed ! -
These TT kids will be allowed to skip PSLE. So u mean they can slack until Sec 2 then catch up? Already further behind others, can let them fall even further behind?
Honeymoon years applies to the IP kids who have earned that right ba. -
Yes, u are right.
Sec 1, can relax.
In fact, u got one whole entire year, to relax, take your time to adjust slowly.
1)
Because Sec 1 Science is actually an … extension of PSLE Science.
Sec 1 :-
Revisit back some old PSLE Science topics that’s been taught + throw in one or 2 new Sec 1 chemistry maiden chapter topics like "chemical ionic & covalent bonding", "atomic structure", explain the concept of "proton, neutron, electron",
introduced new scientific apparatus like pipette, bunsen burner, vernier calipers (for Physics), etc. Something, very basic, fundamental
2)
Sec 1 Maths … also not difficult.
In fact,
Sec 1 Algebra Is so much easier than PSLE Maths. If u can handle PSLE Maths, Sec 1 Algebra is a breeze, a walk in the park.
3)
Sec 1 English grammar, vocab :-
Same lor, identical to PSLE English grammar + vocab.
Grammar is grammar, after all. Grammar is the same, regardless of level, whether grammar is taught at primary school level or at Secondary school level grammar.
Why ?
Because
Grammar rules don’t change, just because u go to a Secondary school.
4)
Sec 1 pu-hua Chinese :-
also nothing much.
Similar to PSLE Chinese.
Just buy your Sec 1 "shou ce", everything settled.
That’s why nobody failed Sec 1.
Unless the child faces some learning disability challenge.
============================
Ah, the real jump or delta change, arise at Sec 3 level ! -
zac's mum\" post_id=\"2103442\" time=\"1680173535\" user_id=\"53606:[quote=\"zac's mum\" post_id=2103442 time=1680173535 user_id=53606]
Your understanding is perfectly right, except that I am proposing to keep PSLE for all kids even those who opted TT ones. However, the PSLE for them is just a milestone checkpoint for themselves, not meant for S1 posting if affiliation is extended to all students. We may be surprised that with this option, some kids may perform even better in PSLE and boost their learning interest moving into S1.
I thought the point of the TT system was to alleviate the stressful juncture of PSLE. The labelling by society ties in with the allocation of stream (Exp/NA/NT), which will soon be solved by FSBB mixed form classes.
While I understand MOE has to allocate the stream for Sec 1, I do not agree that those 4 subjects at P6 level are an accurate reflection of the student’s potential / capability for the Sec 1 all 7 subjects. Even PSLE Math is markedly different from S1 Algebra method. I know students who have scored AL20 and worse. They are not necessarily all having special needs, neither are they slow in the brain or lower IQ as some may think in their preconceptions. When we peg them as needing a different curriculum, what are we really saying? Do note that MOE deems them fine for Express/NA/NT already (if u look at end-P5 score). U mean they are not suited to start on Sec 1 curriculum earlier? Why?[/quote]
Though the FSBB is in place now, if it is a TT program, perhaps more interesting content can be built to generate interest in learning. -
phtthp\" post_id=\"2103451\" time=\"1680176280\" user_id=\"35251:
What about the 3 new humanities subjects? Especially the open-ended inferential questions. I think these type of qns are the ones that they will struggle with.
Yes, u are right.
Sec 1, can relax.
In fact, u got one whole entire year, to relax, take your time to adjust slowly.
1)
Because Sec 1 Science is actually an ... extension of PSLE Science.
Sec 1 :-
Revisit back some old PSLE Science topics that's been taught + throw in one or 2 new Sec 1 chemistry maiden chapter topics like \"chemical ionic & covalent bonding\", introduced new scientific apparatus like pipette, bunsen burner, vernier calipers (for Physics), etc. Something, very basic, fundamental
2)
Sec 1 Maths ... also not difficult.
In fact,
Sec 1 Algebra Is so much easier than PSLE Maths. If u can handle PSLE Maths, Sec 1 Algebra is a breeze, a walk in the park.
3)
Sec 1 English grammar, vocab :-
Same lor, identical to PSLE English grammar + vocab.
Grammar is grammar, after all. Grammar is the same, regardless of level, whether grammar is taught at primary school level or at Secondary school level grammar.
Why ?
Because
Grammar rules don't change, just because u go to a Secondary school.
4)
Sec 1 pu-hua Chinese :-
also nothing much.
Similar to PSLE Chinese.
Just buy your Sec 1 \"shou ce\", everything settled.
That's why nobody failed Sec 1.
Unless the child faces some learning disability challenge.
============================
Ah, the real jump or delta change, arise at Sec 3 level ! -
zac's mum\" post_id=\"2103454\" time=\"1680177250\" user_id=\"53606:[quote=\"zac's mum\" post_id=2103454 time=1680177250 user_id=53606]
Sec 1 (History + English Literature), on the surface, these subjects, seems new. But if examine closely, actually is nothing new.
What about the 3 new humanities subjects? Especially the open-ended inferential questions.
I think these type of qns are the ones that they will struggle with.[/quote]
The underlying technique taught is not new. The same principle has been taught & applied in primary school, before.
5)
Sec 1 English Literature
Do you recall in Primary 1, your P1 English Teacher told the kids, \"Come children, come and sit around me, on the mat. Today, I am going to tell you funny stories ... \"
So, Primary 1 English Teacher start to read aloud to them, example, by author Joy Cowley
- Mrs Wishy Washy Farm +
- the Hungry Giant.
This was in P1, back then, many years ago.
Then, Teacher will ask the P1 students, \"class, can u identify, who are the main character(s) inside this story, Mrs Wishy Washy Farm ? \"
Come to Sec 1,
the same pattern repeats.
Sec 1 English Literature Teacher will start with a novel. But, the same underlying principle is being used / applied : that is, storytelling.
Example
=======
Sec 1 English Lit textbooks used can be \"Wonder\" book (eg. used by St Anthony Cannosian Girls' Secondary school, the Sec 1 students) or say another novel, \"The boy in Striped pajamas \".
Again, the same technique applies. Sec 1 English Lit Teacher will ask the class the same old qn, \"class, can u identify, who are the main characters inside this novel entitled Wonder ?....
Before one can even start / begin to tackle any Sec 1 \"Inferential\" questions, u must first analyse or breakdown into \"Who, What, When, Why, How \", right ? If u don't even do these basic steps, how to \"inference\" ?
6) Sec 1 History
Again, the same thing. Nothing new. Is storytelling, about nation.
Example
To understand why are we called Singapore, then, we go back to storytelling... got to understand your own roots.
Many years ago, Sang Nila Utama went hunting, with his crew on a boat. They came to this island, called \"Temasek\". While hunting, they saw an unfamiliar creature, looking very fierce but seems a powerful creature. So, they decided to name it \"Singapura\" . Singapura means \"the lion city\", in Sanskrit.
So, Sec 1 History, the same as Sec 1 Literature, all began with ... story telling. Nothing new, from primary 1 story telling session.
As long as your English fundamentally is strong, u should have no problem with Secondary school's level English Lit.
For Sec History, besides having a good command of English, another thing u need is to acquire a good ... memory of historical events that happened, and the significance behind each major event. Then from there, u can start to \"inference\". -
usaik881\" post_id=\"2103475\" time=\"1680185840\" user_id=\"199461:
I agree with you statistics are a reliable guidance is making decision. It definitely “not wrong” to use statistics to justify our actions. But I believe MOE has a “higher purpose” (to replace “big pictures”, for a change) and not only going for “not wrong”.
The discussion question, Can through-train school work in kiasu Singapore?, can mean different things to different people, unless the indicative verb \"work\" is defined.
Moreover, the MP who raised the issue of TT pilot schools, surprisingly, had asked for a TT of 10 years, and not a TT of 12 years. We can only say, based on the TT duration, her definition of the indicative verb \"work\" is different from ours.
Information is, having it, to use it. And nobody in Singapore has more information about the education of our young than the MOE. The existing system, despite all the tweaking at the peripherals by a succession of ministers for education, maintains that the sieving of students be done once at P3, and once more at P6.
We hope to be able to argue our position acceptably. Since the argument can be long, we shall do so via a few posts. Briefly, we are of the opinion, through-train schools can work in kiasu Singapore, PROVIDED a few currently firmly-held “expectations” are modified.
We shall start our argument by talking about the sieving at P3. Everybody instinctively knows, better input, better output. When our children were in school, 200 girls and 300 boys were sieved out each cohort after P3 for GEP. We once asked an official, why the skew? The answer was, we kid you not, girls matured faster (we shall leave the logical interpretation of the answer to those who want to interpret the answer logically). At a recruitment session for GEPPERs, we asked the head of a school (\"H\"), how many classes do you have for the GEP? H said, 2 classes. We asked again, what happens if a child picks your school but the 2 classes are already full? H said, if a child picks our school, and our 2 classes are full, we shall open a 3rd class just for that child. In other words, H’s school wanted every GEPPER it could lay its hands on. Some years later, we were at a talk by the JC which, later, our children attended. That year, the JC didn't do as well at the A Levels than the other JC. A few parents, loudly, asked the P what the JC was going to do about the matter. The P said, we need more GEPPERs. In a round about way, the P was telling the parents, better input, better output.
Mockers say, surely, some GEPPERs fail? Aha. Information is, having it, to use it. MOE would have thrown the scheme away if it wasn't working. After all, as a small nation without natural resources, the education of our young ranks right there at the top in terms of priority, whoever is the government. The mockers add, come on. Destiny at P3? Once again, aha. MOE says, it is so.
We shall next talk about the sieving at P6. The MOE statement about the IP students is, these students are CLEARLY university bound. We quote, \"The MOE introduced the IP in 2004 as part of the changes encapsulated in the JC/Upper Secondary Education Review in 2002. The IP targets the top 10% of each cohort of Singapore students, who are clearly university bound\".
Mockers say, surely, some IP students don't make it to U and many non-IP students make it to U? They add, surely, P6 cannot be an accurate reflection of potential, and those not in IP are not lower in IQ or slower in brain (sic), and isn't it wrong to peg students at P6? Aha. You say, he says, she says, but what does MOE say? By the way, the exceptions, as mentioned by the mockers, unfortunately, are statistically insignificant to remove the MOE statement about IP for students who are CLEARLY university bound, which the MOE sieves out at P6.
Finally, we shall say something about the DSA. All schools in Singapore, unless they are specialist schools or trade schools, are necessarily academic. The educators in them, despite all the hype about things non-academic, in the end, their key KPI is the performance of their students at the national exams. Without exceptions. The only way for these educators to remove their (dreaded?) key KPI is for there to be no national exams. There is no other way.
We are always wary of big picture statements. We always say those who make big picture statements or impose them don't always believe in them.
The MP who raised the issue of TT pilot schools, used words such as \"our precious young\", \"high stakes exams and rankings\". In a nutshell, the MP was asking for education reform that removed streaming, the PSLE, the rankings, etc. But she asked for a TT of 10 years which to us was neither here nor there. Reading behind the lines, she was probably asking for no sieving by MOE at P3 and P6 for her child/children, for she said, \"\"myself included\".
Uplifting everyone (but we have to be realistic , not everyone can reach same potential in same domain in the same time periods) may be the word. P3 and P6 sorting by learning style is not solely for the purpose to identify the academics creams, because of “better input better output”. Sorting also place individuals in a more suited learning environment at their present age so they will not lose interest in study due to being turn off by a curriculum not suited to them. This has been the studies done in the late 70s and reported in the “Goh Keng Swee” report if i recall correctly. If student lose interest in their studies , not meeting promotion criteria, they may drop out of schools. What happened may be a big group of under educated populations in our society, and along will follow all those potential social problems, less foreign investments , less economic growth potential, bigger social disparities between the “better output” and those drop out, and the potential social divide etc….
If we don’t cater to each students learning style and try to keep them as long as possible in schools to learn and be better educated (in the word we hear too often today “bring out the potential” which many of us become de sensitised to it to really know what it entail), we may all be living in a less prosperous/stable country. That is the “higher purpose” if I may, akin to volunteering for social work. And making decision with statistics are the “not wrong”, akin to scoring A grades in exam. When it comes awarding public service scholarships, the candidates are more likely those with A grades and have volunteered for social works, and to lead our country with “big picture” in mind. -
Sharing some examples here. PSLE for us was pretty stress-free for whatever reasons however I did a simple poll amongst my colleagues (same profile as me)……all lamented and wished that they had better sense during P1 registration to register for affiliated Sch so they can smoothly progress into the sec Sch without worry about PSLE and we are not even talking about the highly popular pri affiliated schools here. And their kids are probably the AL8-12 range. So perhaps there is a real demand out there for TT because maybe there are a sizeable number of parents who believes that the end goal is the same (ie university) and why should the path be so daunting……
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login
Online Users
Statistics
Popular Topics