Letter to Heng Swee Keat

[SAHM_TAN]

I suggest to de-link teachers’ performance bonus from students’ results. Instead focus on teachers’ professionalism, like writing / presenting / publishing papers, projects, teaching skills, care for students, how they upgrade their skills to enhance the students’ learning experience.


Just teach with the aim in mind that to help the students do the best that they can in PSLE.

I think it will be less of a stress if MOE just do away with foundation course, it’s ridiculous to pigeon-hole children at such a young age.

I think if the teachers are able to teach with their heart, parents, even kiasu ones, will be less stress, and the kids will benefit the most.

[kwokwc]

There is definitely some problems in our education system. I was teaching dd2, who is in P3 this year. There are some many questions that I don't know. There is one asking - Kangaroo, wombat, koala are mammals but there is a even better group of animals that they belong to. My 1st answer to dd is - Australian animals. Then after talking to my ds (in P5), he told me off, where got such group, the term is mursupial animals. I was :rotflmao: :rotflmao:


Really in the future, it will be the rich people who produce better result kids, bcos they can afford tuition for everything and can start young. These tutor will provide more information to these kids. There are so many questions that I have check thru the internet.

It happen that my son loves animals, he will watch all those documentary on okto as and when he can. However, I only allow him to watch during holidays, if not, no energy for class the next day. If I were to study in current primary school, I think I won't be able to make it for uni.

I really pity our next generation. I am really lucky to have my son who asks a lot of questions and try to find his answer from the internet, all on his own. He will be the 'tutor' to my 2 younger girls.

[BlueBells]

[quote]I think it will be less of a stress if MOE just do away with foundation course, it's ridiculous to pigeon-hole children at such a young age[/quote]
Actually I am all in for the foundation course. It has a purpose to serve. If we do away with this, and have the academically-inclined children grouped together with non-accademically inclined (or late bloomers) children, what will happen? The non-accademically inclined children may become demoralised, and the academically inclined children may become complacent, then we will have different problems to deal with. Children who are placed into foundation classes are typically children who score in the low or under 20 range for a 100 mark paper, otherwise, they are still given a chance at P5 to go for standard classes. That having said, the school will only recommend; it is the parents who made the ultimate decision to accept or reject the school's recommendation.

[BeContented]

Chenonceau:

cwc:

When our children are doing well in school, are WE NOT interested to know where they stand in their cohort?

Personally, no... I am not interested in how they stand in their cohort. I didn't bother in P1 and P3 because I knew there was no streaming (at least for my kids, there weren't). I had to pay attention in P2 and P4 because they streamed into ability classes. If (hypothetically, because a pure form of mixed ability teaching may have serious downsides) all secondary schools were created equal, and the opportunities in secondary didn't differ greatly from one school to another... then I wouldn't even bother about PSLE.

I think it takes a lot of confidence to NOT be interested From the various threads and post, I believe you are highly educated, understand and has confidence in what you do, hence you are able to 'let go'.
Often, I ask myself, am I coaching correctly, am I instilling the right learning attitude, how do I motivate them to learn for themselves, to have the desire to learn, am I depriving them etc etc ..... 70% of the time, I doubt myself :oops: Hence, I need to know there my kids stand cos that is probably the benchmark I can use else I really dunno how to gauge.

[Chenonceau]

ChiefKiasu:

The basic premise of meritocracy is that opportunities come to those who are able to demonstrate greater competency by some standardized measure, regardless of birth-rights or wealth.

I find missing in the definition, the notion of competency achieved by one's own hard work and ability. Wealth and birth right, if helping someone along too much, means competence is not achieved largely through one's own effort and ability.

ChiefKiasu:

If meritocracy is about being \"fair\", playing the devil's advocate, if we believe that access to tuition is key to a student's academic success, and we take action to provide or subsidize only students from poorer families to good tuition teachers, are we not discriminating against students from wealthier families?

Happily, no one has yet suggested this (that I have read) but the government might. So it is good to state that this is not meritocratic (nor fair... I suppose) because too much depends on tutors, and not on the child. Between
(1) subsidizing tuition for poorer families and
(2) tightening up textbooks, library resources, online resources (that SHOULD be a fair reflection of exam material because at present they are not...) for all kids to access (poorer ones can be given free access via the school computers)
...the 2nd would be more in line with meritocracy. In my view, at least.

I think access to equal access to resources makes a lot of difference. There should be redundancy between Teacher and textbook (plus other resources). If the Teacher does not teach or teaches poorly, there is at present, nowhere else to get at the Process Skills Content unless one has parents who can buy tuition or buy resources. DS and I navigated P5 SA1 with somewhat expensive resources. I found the resources, and my son did the rest on his own.

Whenever I effectuate Teach Less Learn More strategies, the first thing I evaluate is the body of references that I make available to workshop participants. As of now, MOE's supporting resources for Process Skills teaching is not as robust as it should be. Process skills come ONLY through Teachers, so how can Teachers teach less? Teachers can only teach less and have students learn more if there is widely available alternative resources than teachers that a hungry and motivated student can explore and use.

ChiefKiasu:

In reality, meritocracy has nothing to do with \"fairness\" - it simply says that people should be hired based on their capability. Students, wealthy or not, will still have to sit for the same exams. Wealthier students may be able to spot more questions because of the additional access to resources - but they will still need to put in the necessary effort to learn the material. Poorer students may lack quality resources, but they will be hungrier and are more motivated to put in the extra effort to do better than their peers.

Poorer students may lack tutors, and expensive external resources... but if schools provide computers, online resources, good library resources (that also document what Teachers are supposed to teach) then the poor and hungry student has a chance of success. Else, I don't see how the poor child can squeeze content out of nowhere no matter how motivated.

With equal access to content (exhaustively documented in textbooks and other supporting resources), the poor kid who is hungry and motivated can access the same body of savoir and savoir-faire as the rich kid who depends on a Tutor to spoonfeed him... and in the long run, it is the poor kid who will do better in life because the poor kid is used to exerting effort to get what he wants.

When needed content is not available through the school in any codified form, and when Teachers are pressed for time and cannot manage to teach all the child needs to do well... then even a hungry and motivated child cannot make it.

I say this because my kids are motivated and hungry for success. My son failed because he had no access to content tested (whether via textbook or from his teacher). After I sourced for and provided the content in the form of well-written resources, I discussed with him how he can help himself learn. He did the rest.

He merits his achievement because he achieved it largely through his own effort.

ChiefKiasu:

I feel that the real focus should be on the level of difficulty that students are being examined and tested against. The benchmark increases every year because educationists feel that this is how they can grow better \"crops\" each year.
The question is whether the standard of education should be equated to that of economic growth.

I quite agree. Very much.

[Chenonceau]

cwc:

Chenonceau:

[quote=\"cwc\"]When our children are doing well in school, are WE NOT interested to know where they stand in their cohort?

Personally, no... I am not interested in how they stand in their cohort. I didn't bother in P1 and P3 because I knew there was no streaming (at least for my kids, there weren't). I had to pay attention in P2 and P4 because they streamed into ability classes. If (hypothetically, because a pure form of mixed ability teaching may have serious downsides) all secondary schools were created equal, and the opportunities in secondary didn't differ greatly from one school to another... then I wouldn't even bother about PSLE.

I think it takes a lot of confidence to NOT be interested From the various threads and post, I believe you are highly educated, understand and has confidence in what you do, hence you are able to 'let go'.
Often, I ask myself, am I coaching correctly, am I instilling the right learning attitude, how do I motivate them to learn for themselves, to have the desire to learn, am I depriving them etc etc ..... 70% of the time, I doubt myself :oops: Hence, I need to know there my kids stand cos that is probably the benchmark I can use else I really dunno how to gauge.[/quote]Actually... I would not be interested, not because I am confident, but because in that hypothetical situation where secondary schools are all the same... there is no practical value to be interested. If all secondary schools are same, and all access to tertiary education and jobs are same and random... then why bother?

If everybody earns the same pay, why bother to be better?

This is probably the other extreme we must guard against, where the system is so \"fair\" that no matter what you do or don't do, it doesn't matter. It's all in the incentive system. There is no incentive to bother, so I won't bother.

Similarly, in P1 and P3, no streaming... I took my eyes of academics and focused on building self-motivation instead. Streaming is done based on P4 end-of-year average only. So, there was no practical value in knowing how my kids stood vis-a-vis the cohort in P1 and P3.

[SAHM_TAN]

BlueBells:

[quote]I think it will be less of a stress if MOE just do away with foundation course, it's ridiculous to pigeon-hole children at such a young age

Actually I am all in for the foundation course. It has a purpose to serve. If we do away with this, and have the academically-inclined children grouped together with non-accademically inclined (or late bloomers) children, what will happen? The non-accademically inclined children may become demoralised, and the academically inclined children may become complacent, then we will have different problems to deal with. Children who are placed into foundation classes are typically children who score in the low or under 20 range for a 100 mark paper, otherwise, they are still given a chance at P5 to go for standard classes. That having said, the school will only recommend; it is the parents who made the ultimate decision to accept or reject the school's recommendation.[/quote]
We are talking about primary school education, don't you think it's strange for a child, with no learning disability and normal IQ, to score 20 or below for a 100 mark paper?

This is what I believe, every child, with no learning disability and normal IQ, can pass PSLE in the standard curriculum. MOE must have the proper support to give to teachers, so that they can teach, really teach.

The environment and thinking in a class must change. There is no need for academically weak child to feel demoralise if they are helped by not only the teachers but by the academically stronger child. Through this process, the academically stronger child benefit as well, in terms of better understanding and development of character.

There is nothing to stop the teacher to give extra work to the academically strong student, so that the student is engaged.

For example, in a Montessori environment, a class of mixed age children have no problem learning. Closer to home, my kids are in a montessori kindergarten, for maths, my DD is behind compared to her classmates. She is not demoralise, she is motivated to catch up. Her teacher is forcusing her on addition and substraction, while her classmates are moving on to multiplications. My DD is motivated to prove to her teacher she can master addition and subtraction, so that she can move on to multiplications. She even ask me about multiplications.

If you think my DD is a very confident child, she's not really, her teachers all commented that she has confidence issue, as in not really believing that she can accomplish certain task. But she still want to learn what the others are learning. She does not think that she's stupid because her teachers are supporting her in her learning journey.

A teacher cannot be in an environment whereby maintaining a particular average is more important then a child. For example, my niece's teacher told her parents, she's not fit to be in her class and scolded my niece for pulling down the class's average. I mean doesn't this show that the teacher's focus is not right? I heard from my aunt, that the teacher is not answering my niece's questions because the teacher does not think my niece can understand.

At primary level, what we need are teachers who believe in the ability of children to learn. We need teachers with the heart to teach, to see that the kids are not numbers, not statistics, marks.

This will sound mushy but children just need someone to believe and love them. That's all they need to enable them to do their best.

[Chenonceau]

SAHM_TAN:

We are talking about primary school education, don't you think it's strange for a child, with no learning disability and normal IQ, to score 20 or below for a 100 mark paper?


This is what I believe, every child, with no learning disability and normal IQ, can pass PSLE in the standard curriculum. MOE must have the proper support to give to teachers, so that they can teach, really teach.

The environment and thinking in a class must change. There is no need for academically weak child to feel demoralise if they are helped by not only the teachers but by the academically stronger child. Through this process, the academically stronger child benefit as well, in terms of better understanding and development of character.

There is nothing to stop the teacher to give extra work to the academically strong student, so that the student is engaged.

For example, in a Montessori environment, a class of mixed age children have no problem learning. Closer to home, my kids are in a montessori kindergarten, for maths, my DD is behind compared to her classmates. She is not demoralise, she is motivated to catch up. Her teacher is forcusing her on addition and substraction, while her classmates are moving on to multiplications. My DD is motivated to prove to her teacher she can master addition and subtraction, so that she can move on to multiplications. She even ask me about multiplications.

If you think my DD is a very confident child, she's not really, her teachers all commented that she has confidence issue, as in not really believing that she can accomplish certain task. But she still want to learn what the others are learning. She does not think that she's stupid because her teachers are supporting her in her learning journey.

A teacher cannot be in an environment whereby maintaining a particular average is more important then a child. For example, my niece's teacher told her parents, she's not fit to be in her class and scolded my niece for pulling down the class's average. I mean doesn't this show that the teacher's focus is not right? I heard from my aunt, that the teacher is not answering my niece's questions because the teacher does not think my niece can understand.

At primary level, what we need are teachers who believe in the ability of children to learn. We need teachers with the heart to teach, to see that the kids are not numbers, not statistics, marks.

This will sound mushy but children just need someone to believe and love them. That's all they need to enable them to do their best.

:goodpost:

Believe in them... love them, and so they reach their FULL potential whilst feeling good about themselves. Right now, even for rather above average students like my DS, school is painful.

[wapobs]

nowdays, teachers no need teach so much, just give them super hard tests and exams, the more jialat the better. No matter how jialat, parents die die want their children to score high high. I told you oredy, tuition centre sure make money one! :evil: :evil: :evil:

[SAHM_TAN]

Chenonceau:

SAHM_TAN:

We are talking about primary school education, don't you think it's strange for a child, with no learning disability and normal IQ, to score 20 or below for a 100 mark paper?


This is what I believe, every child, with no learning disability and normal IQ, can pass PSLE in the standard curriculum. MOE must have the proper support to give to teachers, so that they can teach, really teach.

The environment and thinking in a class must change. There is no need for academically weak child to feel demoralise if they are helped by not only the teachers but by the academically stronger child. Through this process, the academically stronger child benefit as well, in terms of better understanding and development of character.

There is nothing to stop the teacher to give extra work to the academically strong student, so that the student is engaged.

For example, in a Montessori environment, a class of mixed age children have no problem learning. Closer to home, my kids are in a montessori kindergarten, for maths, my DD is behind compared to her classmates. She is not demoralise, she is motivated to catch up. Her teacher is forcusing her on addition and substraction, while her classmates are moving on to multiplications. My DD is motivated to prove to her teacher she can master addition and subtraction, so that she can move on to multiplications. She even ask me about multiplications.

If you think my DD is a very confident child, she's not really, her teachers all commented that she has confidence issue, as in not really believing that she can accomplish certain task. But she still want to learn what the others are learning. She does not think that she's stupid because her teachers are supporting her in her learning journey.

A teacher cannot be in an environment whereby maintaining a particular average is more important then a child. For example, my niece's teacher told her parents, she's not fit to be in her class and scolded my niece for pulling down the class's average. I mean doesn't this show that the teacher's focus is not right? I heard from my aunt, that the teacher is not answering my niece's questions because the teacher does not think my niece can understand.

At primary level, what we need are teachers who believe in the ability of children to learn. We need teachers with the heart to teach, to see that the kids are not numbers, not statistics, marks.

This will sound mushy but children just need someone to believe and love them. That's all they need to enable them to do their best.

:goodpost:

Believe in them... love them, and so they reach their FULL potential whilst feeling good about themselves. Right now, even for rather above average students like my DS, school is painful.

Thanks for your good post remark.

It's sad that school is painful for your son who is an above average student.

It must be hell for students who fare worse. They are too young to be in such a situation. I see my niece's face and she just look so sad and discouraged. I tried to explain to my aunt that it's not my niece's fault. We are close to the aunt but not her daughters. So hope, my niece will have more support.