Newspaper Article: Sorry, your child is not bright enough

[coast]

Chenonceau:

coast:

Adequate materials is a necessity, not something that we should expect enrichment centres to provide or parents searching high and low or paying a fortune for it. Many self-motivated students can do wonders on their own with adequate materials and teachers are left to focus on those who really need help. It is also easier for teachers to teach if the materials are good. Parents will have the assurance that materials provided by the school are sufficient for their kids to do well in PSLE but is this the case right now? From what I read in this forum, it is definitely lacking and parents have to rely on enrichment centres, popular assessment books and even proprietary materials.

I write my own materials.

:udawoman:

My DS is only P2. I hope I don't have to do that for him when the time comes But I do customise materials for him from time to time (as I do not believe in drilling and I do not want him to spend hours doing worksheets) ... He has requested me to give him more customised materials this year!

[Nebbermind]

coast:

Yes you are right. Every child is unique. What works for one might not work for another.

But if school doesn't provide good materials while enrichment centres do ... it makes the gap wider

But that's what enrichment centres are all about. The MOE provides what it deems adequate which, many would agree, is much more than most parts of the world for children of the same age.

Enrichment centres are supposed to give beyond this limit which is why they have this 'entry test'.

Ya? :?

[try]

Nebbermind:

coast:

Yes you are right. Every child is unique. What works for one might not work for another.

But if school doesn't provide good materials while enrichment centres do ... it makes the gap wider

But that's what enrichment centres are all about. The MOE provides what it deems adequate which, many would agree, is much more than most parts of the world for children of the same age.

Enrichment centres are supposed to give beyond this limit which is why they have this 'entry test'.

Ya? :?

MOE does not provide adequate material if they are setting exams which are much harder than what are in textbooks. Just look at the textbooks, ask our children, how many children P4 level and above can score above 70 just by using the textbook and materials from school(excluding top school exam papers)?

Many schools are also streaming the children - some at P2, while others at P3. But the problem with this kind of streaming is that it is not subject specific so it defeats the purpose because teachers cannot provide harder material because some children may be very good in Math but very poor in English(but still manage to get into the top class).

Materials from Learning Lab can be easily set by curriculum specialists in MOE HQ. I have borrowed them from friends to see what the hoo-ha is about so I can attest to the fact that it is something do-able by curriculum specialists or specific HODs/teachers who are given dedicated time to create the material.

Frankly, if MOE HQ is not giving the right support and direction to schools, the outcome is monetary gain for enrichment centres as enrichment centres who are started mostly by ex-school teachers know how to plug this gap.

[corneyAmber]

coast:

Thanks! :oops: My DS is very active in sports and I think unlike academics where one can always score well in a subject (and hence not facing any setback) ... there are more ups and downs in sports competition ... I try to use it to impart certain values to him .. I was shocked when he told me last year that some of his P1 classmates would \"boo\" when others score full marks ... I told him one should feel happy for all who did well and for those who didn't ... it is like losing a match and they can always look forward to the next one to do better.

I totally agree that studies should be looked upon with the sporting spirit. Sometimes you win, sometimes you don't but you do know that if you put in extra effort, it will show in the results. And when others win, rejoice with them that they have done something right. However, I find that this important sporting spirit is hardly inculcated in the children today in general, whether in school or at home. So only parents who understand sports can do this effectively with their children. Generally, I find the kind of competitiveness today is a killer instinct one and sometimes it is promoted by the adults knowingly or unknowingly, it is so unfortunate because it gets into the way of forging lovely friendships. Gone are the days where strong friendships are forged at the primary level.....it probably has to start at the toddler level now where innocence I hope still prevails.

[corneyAmber]

coast:

Chenonceau:

Oh dear... my son was spending all day trying to amuse himself feeding spaghetti to ants pre-P1. Maybe that's why he did so badly from P1 to P3!!

:rotflmao:

Apart from the weekly spelling and ting-xie in K2 ... which my DS spent less than 10 mins in total each week ... it's pure childhood fun for him!

Even in P1 ... after school ... it's mainly non-academic stuffs that he enjoys doing. I have parents giving me the doubtful look \"where does he find time to study?\" as they know that he does this and that fun stuffs after school

You are probably on the right track for a better childhood for your child.
Likewise my child had no tingxie and spelling in the kindy...these only started in P1 for her and it was manageable.

[looking4Tutor]

try:

MOE does not provide adequate material if they are setting exams which are much harder than what are in textbooks. Just look at the textbooks, ask our children, how many children P4 level and above can score above 70 just by using the textbook and materials from school(excluding top school exam papers)?

I have a strong feeling that some primary schools are destined to be feeder schools for Normal (Academic) and (Technical), which in turn are feeder secondary schools for ITE.

[corneyAmber]

try:

MOE does not provide adequate material if they are setting exams which are much harder than what are in textbooks. Just look at the textbooks, ask our children, how many children P4 level and above can score above 70 just by using the textbook and materials from school(excluding top school exam papers)?

Many schools are also streaming the children - some at P2, while others at P3. But the problem with this kind of streaming is that it is not subject specific so it defeats the purpose because teachers cannot provide harder material because some children may be very good in Math but very poor in English(but still manage to get into the top class).

Materials from Learning Lab can be easily set by curriculum specialists in MOE HQ. I have borrowed them from friends to see what the hoo-ha is about so I can attest to the fact that it is something do-able by curriculum specialists or specific HODs/teachers who are given dedicated time to create the material.

Frankly, if MOE HQ is not giving the right support and direction to schools, the outcome is monetary gain for enrichment centres as enrichment centres who are started mostly by ex-school teachers know how to plug this gap.

To be fair, I find that MOE/SEAB sets questions that ARE COVERED conceptually in the classroom. The difference is the questions may not be seen before in any 10-years PSLE series but that is rightfully so if we want to see new emerging little scholars to place them in the right schools. If MOE tests something not within concept, I would have an issue as that is out of context. Just like they can put a big \"X\" in compo for out of point, we can put a big \"X\" to them for out of syllabus concepts too. The thing is this is not the case. I remember 2-3 years back after the difficult PSLE Math paper, there was an interview with some P6 kids. When asked how he found the paper, one boy replied, \"it was diffcult.\" Then when asked, \"were the types of questions set something not taught in class?\" His reply, \"No, the concepts were covered by the teacher but that type of questions, I have not seen them before.\" So you see , we cannot fault MOE for setting questions children have not seen before. If every question is seen before, then it is a test of memory skills. It is fair for MOE to test application skills and truly fair if it is limited only to some questions, not the entire paper, otherwise it would be a tiring paper to do for the majority. THAT, I am against too....because the stamina to complete an exam paper is crucial, no point damaging a child's energy to press on in a major exam with unreasonable number of tough thinking questions. This, I believe, is something SEAB can ensure if they vet their papers thoroughly after setters have set them.

[corneyAmber]

looking4Tutor:

try:

MOE does not provide adequate material if they are setting exams which are much harder than what are in textbooks. Just look at the textbooks, ask our children, how many children P4 level and above can score above 70 just by using the textbook and materials from school(excluding top school exam papers)?

I have a strong feeling that some primary schools are destined to be feeder schools for Normal (Academic) and (Technical), which in turn are feeder secondary schools for ITE.

I don't think so, it would be a silly & illogical move for MOE to do this as they encourage parents to put their children into schools based on proximity. If they do that, a whole neighbourhood of children are destined to go NA or NT or ITE because they stay in that area? :scratchhead:

[try]

ksi:

try:

MOE does not provide adequate material if they are setting exams which are much harder than what are in textbooks. Just look at the textbooks, ask our children, how many children P4 level and above can score above 70 just by using the textbook and materials from school(excluding top school exam papers)?

Many schools are also streaming the children - some at P2, while others at P3. But the problem with this kind of streaming is that it is not subject specific so it defeats the purpose because teachers cannot provide harder material because some children may be very good in Math but very poor in English(but still manage to get into the top class).

Materials from Learning Lab can be easily set by curriculum specialists in MOE HQ. I have borrowed them from friends to see what the hoo-ha is about so I can attest to the fact that it is something do-able by curriculum specialists or specific HODs/teachers who are given dedicated time to create the material.

Frankly, if MOE HQ is not giving the right support and direction to schools, the outcome is monetary gain for enrichment centres as enrichment centres who are started mostly by ex-school teachers know how to plug this gap.

To be fair, I find that MOE/SEAB sets questions that ARE COVERED conceptually in the classroom. The difference is the questions may not be seen before in any 10-years PSLE series but that is rightfully so if we want to see new emerging little scholars to place them in the right schools. If MOE tests something not within concept, I would have an issue as that is out of context. Just like they can put a big \"X\" in compo for out of point, we can put a big \"X\" to them for out of syllabus concepts too. The thing is this is not the case. I remember 2-3 years back after the difficult PSLE Math paper, there was an interview with some P6 kids. When asked how he found the paper, one boy replied, \"it was diffcult.\" Then when asked, \"were the types of questions set something not taught in class?\" His reply, \"No, the concepts were covered by the teacher but that type of questions, I have not seen them before.\" So you see , we cannot fault MOE for setting questions children have not seen before. If every question is seen before, then it is a test of memory skills. It is fair for MOE to test application skills and truly fair if it is limited only to some questions, not the entire paper, otherwise it would be a tiring paper to do for the majority. THAT, I am against too....because the stamina to complete an exam paper is crucial, no point damaging a child's energy to press on in a major exam with unreasonable number of tough thinking questions. This, I believe, is something SEAB can ensure if they vet their papers thoroughly after setters have set them.

I should have phrased \" MOE does not provide adequate material if SCHOOLS are setting exams which are much harder than what are in textbooks.\"

I agree with ksi that \"MOE/SEAB sets questions that ARE COVERED conceptually in the classroom\". But more and more schools are setting school exam papers which are of the top ten primary school standard. Many schools are using these top ten school papers as preparation(mock papers) for PSLE preparation on top of past PSLE papers which is understandable as all PSLE students are competing against their own cohort.

[looking4Tutor]

ksi:

I don't think so, it would be a silly & illogical move for MOE to do this as they encourage parents to put their children into schools based on proximity. If they do that, a whole neighbourhood of children are destined to go NA or NT or ITE because they stay in that area? :scratchhead:

Till now I cannot believe that there is less than 20 students in the whole cohort of my ds primary school that scored above 250.
My town consists of so many ...... children ah!