"branded" sch vs neighbourhood sch

[laissezfaire]

DesertWind:

Chenonceau:

No lah... From what I know they chopped them off after PSLE results were out. Sorry if I wasn't clear. It's still terrible to lose 2 of 7 classes though. It is an indictment of your own teaching quality, especially when the kids are scions of successful families with intelligent parents.

OIC, thanks for clarifying!
Wah...ho....you are very brave to state this in bold. Because thought even our SM could not stand up to public pressure on this...

SM could not stand up to this because it was bad social science all round, as simplified as Chenonceau's conclusions.

Mentioning studies which have shown strong correlation between parent IQ and child IQ is a simplified version of the tale. These studies have been discredited because of the small sample sizes. Given that you express surprise that \"scions of successful families with intelligent parents\" cannot make it in some circumstances, it's no wonder that your reverse logic quotes the self same studies which only sample upper middle class families and above, the precise ones which have been shown to be self-serving and proved \"evidence\" for anyone ranging from psychologists to supremacists.

Your own experience contradicts your own argument. You took your child out of one environment and it worked, especially considering you probably exchanged one set of social and hereditary circumstances for another. Did you not factor environment or age or class? Giving a nod to alternative argument by saying that no theory is 100% predictive is a cheap way of dismissing factors that are just as powerful as heredity. It's bad social science, no matter which way you look at it.

[Chenonceau]

laissezfaire:

DesertWind:

[quote=\"Chenonceau\"] No lah... From what I know they chopped them off after PSLE results were out. Sorry if I wasn't clear. It's still terrible to lose 2 of 7 classes though. It is an indictment of your own teaching quality, especially when the kids are scions of successful families with intelligent parents.

OIC, thanks for clarifying!
Wah...ho....you are very brave to state this in bold. Because thought even our SM could not stand up to public pressure on this...

SM could not stand up to this because it was bad social science all round, as simplified as Chenonceau's conclusions.

Mentioning studies which have shown strong correlation between parent IQ and child IQ is a simplified version of the tale. These studies have been discredited because of the small sample sizes. Given that you express surprise that \"scions of successful families with intelligent parents\" cannot make it in some circumstances, it's no wonder that your reverse logic quotes the self same studies which only sample upper middle class families and above, the precise ones which have been shown to be self-serving and proved \"evidence\" for anyone ranging from psychologists to supremacists.

Your own experience contradicts your own argument. You took your child out of one environment and it worked, especially considering you probably exchanged one set of social and hereditary circumstances for another. Did you not factor environment or age or class? Giving a nod to alternative argument by saying that no theory is 100% predictive is a cheap way of dismissing factors that are just as powerful as heredity. It's bad social science, no matter which way you look at it.[/quote]Just to be clear, lest we be speaking of different relationships. The relationships being discussed are...

1) IQ relates to academic results
Multiple studies. Large sample sizes. Studies across cultures. Therefore classed as robust finding. In addition, studies include longitudinal ones.

2) IQ relates to socio-economic status
Multiple studies. Large sample sizes. Studies across cultures. However, compared to the other 2, this relationship is less strong in cultures with unequal opportunity.

3) Parent IQ relates to child IQ
Multiple studies. Large sample sizes. Studies across cultures. Therefore, classed as robust finding.

The numbers say what they say. We mustn't reject science and call it bad because we disagree with the results.

The picture, as you say, is more complex than it is simple. This whole discussion started because I took the position that Nurture is Important. We do not disagree. Otherwise, why have schools? If I did not take nurture as important, then why caution parents to do due diligence in researching branded schools thoroughly before they put their children there? We do not disagree.

The worry in Singapore is that the educational standards bar has been raised so high that to do well, a child needs TOO MUCH nurture in the form of tuition. Families unable to afford tuition prejudice their children's future success. I know a child in Normal Stream with an IQ of 120. Frankly, I am not sure I and my kids are that smart. This child in Normal Stream has a dead parent and another parent who doesn't care. This kid, with his brains, is well on his way to create a headache for our police force 20 years from now. He is smarter than many policemen.

This is a child from a family which has found soci-economic success through the past 4 generations. The family has affiliations to the nation's most reputable schools. The parents are smart and have reached a certain socio-economic status because they are smart. But that was because Singapore has had high social mobility in the past 3 decades. In the past 3 decades IQ would relate well to socio-economic status (meritocracy mah...) but in the next 2 decades, unless something is done about the need for tuition and more tuition, we will find that those who go into the top schools are there because...
1) they have high IQ
2) AND they have access to good tutors (or a vigilant parent)
Both conditions are necessary for educational success TODAY.

What this means is that many high IQ children (those without good tutors &/or vigilant parents) will fall between the gaps. In 20 years time, this will be a problem because we have many smart children who, having had paths to legitimate success blocked... will find success in other ways. And these very smart children are the nation's wasted talent.... who will become the nation's bane (for they are smart enough to find alternative routes to success that may not be entirely legal).

I do not dismiss other factors. Nowhere have I stated that NURTURE is not important. Indeed, the whole idea of encouraging parents to perform due diligence on branded schools (and not blindly trust the name) is premised on the belief that nurture matters. If you have an affiliation to a branded school, it is likely that you have high socio-economic status, and therefore high IQ. Your kids are likely to inherit your IQ.

Put that high IQ child of yours in a branded school that provides poor education, and you lose your kids. Where in this line of reasoning do I state that Nurture is unimportant? My line of argumentation is not simplistic. But if readers choose to focus on a single statement and then conclude that it is simple... well...

Happily there is a good side to all this. Neighbourhood schools stand a good chance of evening the score for parents with no affiliations because some branded schools don't value add much. Find a good neighbourhood school, be a vigilant parent and find good tutors. The kid can still do well. This of course, assumes you have the money for good tutors.

[Chenonceau]

insider:

The \"AND\" of 1 and 2 does not hold true in my case (unless my kid is not classified as one of the \"TODAY\" kids).

Yup... TODAY. The Daughter had no tuition either. And I compare the PSLE demands of 2010 to that of 2003. The phenomenon is starting.

insider:

affiliation to a branded school = likely to have high socia-economic status and THEREFORE high IQ? to me this is seriously flawed.

Need to clarify. Which part is flawed? There are 3 relationships here. High socio-economic status relates to high IQ? Affiliation relates to high socio-economic status? Or affiliation relates to IQ? It would be unproductive debate unless one ascertained where specifically one disagreed on... because as the debate goes back and forth, it may well be that we disagree for the love of disagreement rather than have a substantive point upon which to disagree.

insider:

A child with ability will shine wherever they go, branded or non-branded schools...

Does this mean that you believe that nurture does not matter... and that our success is defined only by our genes? A bit fatalistic no? Nurture does matter. There are neighbourhood schools that offer good/bad nurture. There are branded schools that offer good/bad nurture. The school matters. It's just that branded/non-branded doesn't.

[Chenonceau]

insider:

The real and the true ability to succeed comes from within a child and this is partly nature (not all will have this sense). If you are in the motivation field, you should know those rewards and punishments systems are not real elements in inspiring a person towards success. These may serve only as temporary motivating factors and will worn off later if the child does not internalise the true meanings on own.

Rewards & punishments is premised upon a single one of the major motivation theories, of which there are more than 10 which have a fair amount of empirical support (not counting the newer streams of motivation research which are less well founded and have less studies supporting them). What makes you think that the science of motivation does not also possess knowledge of how to increase \"achievement motivation\"... or internal drive?

There is far more to motivation than reward and punishment.

[Chenonceau]

insider:

Affliation to branded schools = High IQ is flawed.

Ok. I agree. No need for endless debate here.

insider:

Nature is more important than nurture. Nature comprises of other elements than IQ (I will take EQ / temperament / resilience / etc more important than IQ as determining success factors in a child's later part of life as academic success does not equate a quality life).

Nurture does matter. But for 'nurture', I am referring to giving a child enough support and not over support that may cripple a child's natural development. A quest of excellence through over support (unnecessary tuitions / enrichments / etc) mask a child's true potentials instead of enhancing it.

Agree. No need for more endless debate eh?

insider:

My main disagreement is that a child needs to have high IQ AND must have tuition from a good tutor, in order to succeed in academics for TODAY children in the future (my current 8 years old qualified to be TODAY kid I think. Still no tuition.). You may be right since we are talking about 2 decades down the road but my view on this is feed kids with enough faith and confidence (ideally parents must be good role models) and let them discover their own potentials, and they can live well, whether in or not in top schools.

It depends... You have one son in poly. You don't mind. I do. Whether you're right or I am wrong is beside the point. I mother my kids. You mother yours.

Again, there is little scope for disagreement here eh?

I read Koh Ming Ming (top HCO student 2010) interview in the Straits Times. She expressed that she wished her parents had pushed her to do music instead of letting her give up. My own children tell me, with a tinge of blame, \"Mom. why did you let me give up on the music and drawing classes? I could have made it if you had pushed me you know?\" So... to enhance or not to enhance? Does anyone have an objective measure of how much is too much? Gee... even my kids don't agree with me that music and art was over enhancement. And their opinions are more important to me in how I mother them than a forum poster's surely.

At 8, my son had no tuition either. He is one of his school's top scorers (except for Chinese). I don't believe in tuition. Neither my husband and I ever had tuition. We managed. The Daughter had no tuition. However, I realize to my dismay that the PSLE standard is far higher today than even The Daughter's time, and the jump in standard hits you in P5. It is then that the school hurries into overtime... and it explains the hoo-ha on supplementary classes. Schools are so desperate that they themselves give tuition. I have taken my son out of all the supplementary classes because I don't believe mass tuition is effective.

Had you asked me in Dec last year, I would have blithely told you that no one needs tuition to do well. I would have pointed to me, my husband, my daughter and my son as evidence. But having compared the past year P5 exams (for every subject) to the textbook and to the P5 and P6 exam practices from The Daughter's time, I dare not say this now. Our kids need help. IQ is no longer enough because the standards are way to high for 12 year olds.

Anyhow the endless debate around \"I believe\" and \"You believe\" won't be productive because it'll still be lotsa words only. What we need is a study on the IQ of kids in normal stream. The number of kids who end up there despite having an IQ > 120 will be proof enough that IQ alone is not enough. I already know one. There are surely others.

Perhaps here too we will find scope for agreement when your 8 year old comes face to face with the PSLE paper AND provided that you want to help your child into a top secondary school.

[Chenonceau]

insider:

Chenonceau:

There is far more to motivation than reward and punishment.

Yah, I wish parents can learn more about the power of motivation to let a child discover their inner potentials than trying their usual means of rewards (PSP, iPhone, holidays, cash) and punishments (nagging, scolding, cold wars, caning, etc).

Many motivating factors are intangible kinds (faith, confidence, love, acceptance, etc) that require time to be rooted in a child. Guess many parents do not have enough faith in these and prefer to resort to faster visible rewards / punishments. I don't really how to put this point well enough here...

PS: Sharing with those who have not read one of my favorite articles in raising successful kids:

http://www.raisingresilientkids.com/resources/articles/stop_fixing.html

Perhaps because this is an internet forum, you are limited in your capacity in fully expressing the various workable motivation strategies... but there is far more than what you have described even here. I know I would be terribly challenged to try and do it here.

The field is more than 6 decades old, with easily hundreds of people looking into it every year. Each research paper published is the result of 5 years of work. Tens of such are published every quarter. Not possible to articulate all that accumulated knowledge in 3 lines on a forum, I don't think... with a few vague and imprecise terms such as faith, confidence etc...

Also, I don't think it is that parents have no faith... it is merely that they don't know the methods. If they knew, many would try it for the love of their kids. We need to have faith in other parents too and not so easily believe that other parents are in some way flawed (lack faith) because they don't do what we think they should do.

Managers motivate the best way they know how. After a 4 day management workshop with me, they know enough to try out some of the techniques. After some time, the effects can be seen. If people know, they would. Not a question of faith. If managers are happy to try with their staff. Parents will be even more keen to try with their kids simply because they love their kids more than they love their staff (usually).

It isn't helpful to parents when motivation strategies are reduced to faith, confidence, love, acceptance, etc. More helpful would be actual steps and methods that encapsulate these (faith, confidence, love, acceptance, etc). And since detailing these methods properly takes so long and still doesn't adequately explain the steps, I am often frustrated when I post here, and I end up posting very little on these methods.

Motivating is a skill. You learn it when you do it. It is hard to teach it via explanation. It is easier when there are case studies and discussions and also skills practices.

[Kissgurami]

Such an interesting topic which I relate to,


After reading the posts, I feel less bad about not being able to get my girls into a "branded" school (though occasionally I do chide myself in not purchasing a place nearer to a branded school)

My ex and his family lives 2mins away from a "branded" school but they have been refusing to use their address as they don’t like the conduct of the students even though the curriculum is very good.

My initial place was right opposite Mee Toh and when I shifted place, my friends & colleagues were feeling sad that I lost a chance for my kids.

Sometimes I do wonder if I want to get them into a branded school because it makes me look good amongst my peers and friends or because I want them to have a good education? Both my ex and my current partner (he’s from uk) feels that separating my girls into 2 schools absurd which I agree but at times, I relapse into wanting to do it when people around me goes on about making arrangements for a branded school.

The turning point came about when my 2nd gal had chicken pox and they had to stay separately from each other for 2 weeks , my 2nd gal even went to stay with my ex for a few days and my 1st gal broke down so badly. My 2nd gal was miserable and voiced that she doesn’t want me to do this about separating them next time…

During my hunt for a student care, the parents of well known schools seem to have 2nd doubts and told me not to feel bad placing my girl in a neighbourhood sch. 1 felt bad everyday that her girl has to wake at 5.30am for NYPS as they staying quite far away. She was a old girl of NYPS so her surrounding friends told her to just enrol and now she feels she can’t reverse the situation. 1 even told me, what matters is your child and not the school.

Nonetheless, my 2 girls are going to a neighbour school which is 1 - 2km radius of my work place, my home and student care. They are having tuition since they enjoy it lol

It is kind of sad that neighbour schools doesn’t have much movement in the parent’s networking threads…

[Kissgurami]

insider:

Kissgurami:

My 2nd gal was miserable and voiced that she doesn't want me to do this about separating them next time..

PS: Parents who split their kids with each having one child are selfish, whether ignorant or not. One party has to forego his/her 'rights' to give the other child to his/her ex-spouse so that the kids can be together if parents really care and love them. In many battles / decision makings, 'winning' means 'losing' and 'losing' means 'winning' but many people just want to win without knowing what they have actually lose...

Thanks Insider

That was our sentiments as well, it was a mutual separation no animosity hence it was decided that either 1 of us will take care of both girls and no dead set rules on visits since I have good relation with my ex-laws.

Next year will be challenging in emotions as 1 in P1 and the other in K2

[Kissgurami]

insider:

Kissgurami,


Would you be kind enough to share with us in the \"Divorce or Not Divorce\" thread about your marriage journey when you are free?

I don't encourage divorce in general but I have seen many marriages that actually ending them is better than trying to prolong.

Life after a divorce may or may not be hell; yours seem to be quite 'successful'. Your sharing may enable those who are suffering but are enduring all kinds of pain together with their poor kids to consider a probable better life (that a divorce is not the end of hope) instead of being stuck in a dark tunnel, refusing to move coz worry that there's no roads in front...

Sure