Parents, not enrichment centres, are key to result
-
wonderm:
Not everyone has the resources to pay for TLL. We shouldn't have to pay for TLL for our kids to do well. My worry is this. Parents who pay others (like TLL) to do the teaching may not be entirely aware of what IS taught at enrichment. The centre needs only to produce results for you. Why would it need to share with you exactly what goes on in class?
Well said. My ds1 attended TLL when he was in upper primary. He benefited a lot from the teaching and especially the exposure to more challenging questions. They were not taught heuristics and the teaching was grouped according to maths concepts. For students who are already doing relatively well in maths, it is important to have exposure to more challenging sums if he wants to score even higher. It is true many students will benefit from the 1:1 tutoring or small class teaching. But I don't think it is just about heuristics. It is not as simple as \"include heuristics in school curriculum, then no more need for maths tuition or enrichment\". It is important to understand the concept well and do more practices of appropriate difficulty level. There is indeed no magic pill and \"quick fixes\" can backfire in the long run.
I direct my DS' journey entirely. He works entirely independently. This means that we know exactly what needs to be taught but isn't.
Heuristics such as those I have shared are not proprietary to TLL. As such, if they use it to teach with, they would be infringing on someone else's copyright. They'll have developed their own and exposed these to the kids through practice.
You are both right. With enough practice, everyone develops heuristics. With enough exposure the brain develops heuristics on its own. But this is different than saying...
(1) Students who aren't good just have no aptitude because they haven't developed any of their own heuristics naturally.
It is too easy to blame MOE's inept teaching on student lack of aptitude. The children can't defend themselves when they're labelled \"not smart\". If centres like MathHeuristics and ScienceHeuristics thrive, it is because MOE won't face up to their evolved responsibilities. The PSLE syllabus is skills heavy. Yet, MOE does a poor job teaching skills BECAUSE it thinks the kids will pick it up naturally.
(2) Heuristics dumb down the mind and make it inflexible.
The brain NATURALLY evolves heuristics with practice. Even if you don't teach them, the brain evolves them. So more practice makes you more inflexible then? Given enough time and exposure everyone develops heuristics. This was ksi's own statement.
I am sorry that I am insistent on this point. I really have nothing against both of you. I seriously believe that many children will benefit from greater exposure to basic heuristics. -
ksi:
It does not have to be business-driven if MOE teaches them.
Your problem statement may be right that Math gets tough for the majority but the recommendation of learning heuristics as a solution is overly simplistic as Math is not about heuristics, heuristics is business-driven.ksi:
Bright children (from poor families) too are the purview of MOE.The focus on heuristics is because you believe your bright child, given materials on heuristics booster jab, is like a magic pill can see miracles happening and that is solving the problem at the top 10% of the bright kids which your child belongs to and the competition is pitched at that level for him that is close to your heart, rightfully so too.
ksi:
Understanding the concepts thoroughly is definitely important. I have never said otherwise. MOE has no problems teaching concepts. It's like saying knowing the alphabet is essential to learning to read. MOE has no problems here. Not even since it started.But my point is it does not work for everyone(double-edged sword, remember?) if your concern is for everyone, and understanding the concepts thoroughly in Math does help everyone, even the very weak and this is what MOE is trying to achieve.
It's the beyond-that which poses problem if MOE TESTS way way beyond and only teaches the basics (i.e., concepts) that only the weakest can understand. So are we calibrating a TEACHING system to cater to the very weakest only... paired with a TESTING system to test to the very best?Then there is a gap right?
This certainly seems to be the case. We should be fair to the kids. We should teach better and teach more if we wanna test more. Else, dun test so much because what we end up doing is to test what enrichment centres teach. I never wanted any of these extra enrichment for my DS. In P2, he was invited to Math Olympiad training. I said no. But in P5, I discovered that Olympiad difficulty math is a part of every exam paper. So this time, we have accepted the school's invitation to train him in the next Math Olympiad. My poor DS looked at me with pleading eyes, half afraid that I was gonna reject again. But I have learnt my lesson.
He won't get gold I dun think... but it'll help in PSLE.ksi:
I am not talking bypassing concepts to get to heuristics i.e., a quick fix. One of course has to teach the concepts properly. We have to remember that the brain, with enough practice, naturally evolves its own heuristics. You made this comment yourself to defend a system that steadfastly WON'T teach heuristics. Since when should a suggestion TO TEACH HEURISTICS come to mean DON'T TEACH CONCEPTS?And understanding the concepts well has a longer mileage as in foundation into secondary school Math. A quick fix is never the way to go for the majority, all these while, unknowingly, the focus is on the top 10% and how to get to top 1-5%. Is that the majority?
Whether you like it or not, your brain does naturally develop heuristics, at every level of processing from mechanical to creative. This is why more practice gives you speed. The techniques my son uses are not just those taught to him. From practice and exposure to challenging and what he calls \"interesting problems\" he evolves his own heuristics. I'm not asking for much. Just teach the basic set in schools because the average kid does need it as a starter kit on his/her own journey of heuristic development. It is not enough just to teach heuristics. The child needs practice to gain flexibility. This, we agree on. GEP students who are taught but still do poorly lack practice perhaps?
I very sincerely don't think my DS is any much brighter than the next child. One mustn't be inveigled by the Edusave award he got last year. He spent P1 to P3 languishing as one of the \"not smart ones\". In P3 in fact, he was very close to the bottom. Friends have brought me their little kids... complained that these lack focus... aren't bright. When I begin to work with them, they open up and they bloom a bit... right in front of me. No... you get me wrong, I am not thinking of the brightest children when I make this suggestion.
I quite agree that primary school math does not lay a good foundation for secondary school math. The models train the brain in a way very different than the bent of mind required in secondary school math. The other heuristics too will have this effect I suspect. However, to get to secondary school, we have to tackle PSLE first. We didn't write the primary math syllabus (nor the exams that test it) with its unsaid and untaught focus on heuristics. MOE did.
Lastly, there are primary schools that use Onsponge as a textbook. These kids get systematic teaching in heuristics ON TOP OF concepts. And the results have been very good indeed. -
Chenonceau:
I agree with many things you said such as better teaching in school will reduce the reliance on external tuition. But I guess we have to agree to disagree with regards to learning of heuristics. By the way, I do know about what was taught and not taught at TLL as I do not just hands off and expect any enrichment centre to produce results. I was and am still guiding my children in their learning journey long after ds1 left TLL, hence I know how they approach and solve challenging maths sums. I am tempted to claim that they learn independently and do well in maths but I am also aware that they have the benefit of a \"go to person\" at home when they are really stuck. To be fair, their school teachers are more than willing and able to help them even if they don't have me. Again I understand not everyone is as fortunate and I fully support the need to improve school teaching in general.
Not everyone has the resources to pay for TLL. We shouldn't have to pay for TLL for our kids to do well. My worry is this. Parents who pay others (like TLL) to do the teaching may not be entirely aware of what IS taught at enrichment. The centre needs only to produce results for you. Why would it need to share with you exactly what goes on in class?wonderm:
Well said. My ds1 attended TLL when he was in upper primary. He benefited a lot from the teaching and especially the exposure to more challenging questions. They were not taught heuristics and the teaching was grouped according to maths concepts. For students who are already doing relatively well in maths, it is important to have exposure to more challenging sums if he wants to score even higher. It is true many students will benefit from the 1:1 tutoring or small class teaching. But I don't think it is just about heuristics. It is not as simple as \"include heuristics in school curriculum, then no more need for maths tuition or enrichment\". It is important to understand the concept well and do more practices of appropriate difficulty level. There is indeed no magic pill and \"quick fixes\" can backfire in the long run.
I direct my DS' journey entirely. He works entirely independently. This means that we know exactly what needs to be taught but isn't.
Heuristics such as those I have shared are not proprietary to TLL. As such, if they use it to teach with, they would be infringing on someone else's copyright. They'll have developed their own and exposed these to the kids through practice.
You are both right. With enough practice, everyone develops heuristics. With enough exposure the brain develops heuristics on its own. But this is different than saying...
(1) Students who aren't good just have no aptitude because they haven't developed any of their own heuristics naturally.
It is too easy to blame MOE's inept teaching on student lack of aptitude. The children can't defend themselves when they're labelled \"not smart\". If centres like MathHeuristics and ScienceHeuristics thrive, it is because MOE won't face up to their evolved responsibilities. The PSLE syllabus is skills heavy. Yet, MOE does a poor job teaching skills BECAUSE it thinks the kids will pick it up naturally.
(2) Heuristics dumb down the mind and make it inflexible.
The brain NATURALLY evolves heuristics with practice. Even if you don't teach them, the brain evolves them. So more practice makes you more inflexible then? Given enough time and exposure everyone develops heuristics. This was ksi's own statement.
I am sorry that I am insistent on this point. I really have nothing against both of you. I seriously believe that many children will benefit from greater exposure to basic heuristics. -
wonderm:
Yes... we will just have to agree to disagree. Still, I dun think the effort of debating was entirely wasted on your part (nor mine). MOE does pay attention to this forum, and an open and reasonable discussion such as this is informative.
I agree with many things you said such as better teaching in school will reduce the reliance on external tuition. But I guess we have to agree to disagree with regards to learning of heuristics. By the way, I do know about what was taught and not taught at TLL as I do not just hands off and expect any enrichment centre to produce results. -
To sum it up, it seems that we do not learn Math from the same MOE, perhaps you were brought up overseas.
It is time to agree to disagree as our logic will never cross path in this matter if the outcome of us learning the same Math does not seem to match either. I am contented to know that wonderm and pepper spice have similar experiences as me from the same MOE.
Btw, your son is definitely on the bright side. Even when he was at the bottom of the class in P3, he was in the top 2 classes(still top 80 in school), that actually does not make him bottom. Bottom would be bottom in the cohort.
The MOE system offers many avenues for a suitable child to be groomed, properly like:
1. OM training(aka HA enrichment) or remedial classes
2. GEP screening or diagnostic tests
3. Streaming into the top classes or banding with foundation classes
4. Other programmes...
But if parents keep rejecting the opportunities and wanting to chart their own paths for their children because they know better and end up suffering certain consequences, it would be a conscious decision. It would not be right to turn around and attribute it as a flaw in the system.
That said, the system is not flawless, certainly there is room for improvement, just not those areas being argued so far.
Case closed. -
Chenonceau:
Unfortunately, this discussion will probably give the affirmation to MOE that kiasuparents.com parents are indeed just kiasu. *sigh*
Yes... we will just have to agree to disagree. Still, I dun think the effort of debating was entirely wasted on your part (nor mine). MOE does pay attention to this forum, and an open and reasonable discussion such as this is informative.wonderm:
I agree with many things you said such as better teaching in school will reduce the reliance on external tuition. But I guess we have to agree to disagree with regards to learning of heuristics. By the way, I do know about what was taught and not taught at TLL as I do not just hands off and expect any enrichment centre to produce results. -
ksi:
Unfortunately, this discussion will probably give the affirmation to MOE that kiasuparents.com parents are indeed just kiasu. *sigh*
Probably. But the system itself drives kiasu-ism. It insists on the keeping PSLE testing standards really high...
(1) To be economically competitive as a country
(2) To be world class
(3) To be able to distinguish the best
As a result, it tests more than it can adequately teach. Earlier last year, I had proposed that the PSLE stop running after the bell curve. There were those who objected for the above three reasons. Well then, if the above 3 reasons are compelling enough for us maintain very high standards, then UP the teaching effectiveness in schools. Teach more and more effectively. Provide more skills practice.
What MOE terms \"innovative teaching methods\" are simply more fun and games... layered with an patina of IT. Real work is not done in schools. The skills heavy PSLE syllabus is still CONCEPTUALLY taught in classes too large to give adequate personalized feedback. But then, people will insist that there aren't enough teachers, and teacher turnover cannot be solved.
I am not sure it is accurate (nor nice) to imply that I am kiasu simply because I want schools to teach heuristics. IF I were really kiasu, I would keep quiet. This is my DS' competitive edge. Why share it with the world? IF I were really kiasu, why suggest this for the mainstream? I have money and I have time to buy the competitive edge. Why bother about all the other skinny/fat other people's kids? The fact is, when I share the stuff I do with my DS (from Chinese compo to Math), a part of me fears that it will compromise his chances at PSLE... because it is teaching his competitors to do well. But then again, I tell myself that knowing what to do is one thing but actually doing it is another. Given the same resources, children will still differentiate themselves. May the best child win. This is different than having them differentiate themselves because they have differential access to resources.
It isn't a question of being personally kiasu. It is a question of national education effectiveness. Parents say they agree that MOE should teach better... how? Not many parents CAN suggest concrete ways to teach better. Here is one concrete way to teach better. Teach the basic set of heuristics.
The last thing one expects is that enrichment material is tested in exams. Once you test enrichment material in exams, then every other not kiasu parent is forced to BE kiasu or watch their children (not dumb ones) go through school feeling very badly about themselves. -
Wah… so many parents the kids only need to focus on understand maths to do maths…
My DD in P1 last year was struggling with maths… not bcoz she can’t count but bcoz she don’t understand the English.
When I read the problems/questions, I felt that the language used is too chim for P1 already. Ya, those who have tuitions, enrichment have no language issue… but how about other kids? The level of English used in math questions is not P1 level at all… Most of the time, I am teaching her English, to explain what the question is about, to solve math problems.
I feel that the school should not only look at the maths aspect, but also to consider that the language used muz be suitable for students at that level! -
ksi:
It’s the same MOE but different school/ class.To sum it up, it seems that we do not learn Math from the same MOE, perhaps you were brought up overseas.
It is time to agree to disagree as our logic will never cross path in this matter if the outcome of us learning the same Math does not seem to match either. I am contented to know that wonderm and pepper spice have similar experiences as me from the same MOE.
I grew up locally and studied in a neighbourhood school and I remember many in my class (one-thirds or half) became top 10% of PSLE. We came from humble background. My parents do not have to buy a single assessment book and tuition is never heard of.
What is the situation now? How do we make it as much a level playing field?
I am heartened to know that you know of some experience that have benefited without enrichment/ tuition (same goes for pepper spice). Are they the minority? What happens to the majority? I know many schools come out with their own materials to supplement MOE standard textbooks. I have also heard of schools using different materials for different classes.
What’s wrong with this?
The “quality” is dependent on which schools and in some cases, which classes they belong to.
Are there many bright and self-motivated kids who are denied an equal chance in excelling in PSLE compared to others going for enrichment/ tuition/ parent coaching? Why should these kids not given an equal chance to reach their potential?
Yes, there are certainly exceptional kids who did well without enrichment/ tuition. But if we are talking about the majority, we should exclude these exceptions.
My P2 DS tops his Maths without enrichment/ tuition. Besides, he spends at least 80% of his time doing non-academic stuffs (I do not believe in drilling and hence he does not have to spend hours and hours on worksheets and he has not attempted any past years’ school papers except one which was done in school given by his teacher to the whole class).
Is he exceptional bright? I honestly do not think so. I sincerely believe that if MOE provides adequate materials to ALL students, it will make life much easier for teachers and students (and parents who are spending excessive time coaching their kids or sourcing for better materials). My only question is … why isn’t MOE doing it? Why are the schools developing their own materials or use outside materials if MOE materials are adequate? Yes you are right to say that MOE should cater for the majority. Providing adequate materials is for the majority. At the same time, why should we even deny the chance for ANY kid to excel just because he does not belong to certain school/ class/ enrichment/ tuition/ lots of external materials/ excessive parent coaching? -
ksi:
The MOE system offers many avenues for a suitable child to be groomed, properly like:
1. OM training(aka HA enrichment) or remedial classes. Remedial classes are still large classes of more conceptual teaching. If Teachers have no time to mark compos for normal 3 or 4 times 40 students, they certainly won't have time for skills practice in remedial.
2. GEP screening or diagnostic tests. We skipped this testing. I wanted to give my son a mainstream education. Why should mainstream education be so lacking? The way I see it, the exact same phenomenon with the sandwich class appears in education. The very poorly off are helped. The very top are groomed. The mainstream is left to cope.
3. Streaming into the top classes or banding with foundation classes
And this is a good proxy for ability? Did you not say yourself that grades don't reflect smartness? Well... streaming uses grades to determine what a child is capable or not capable of learning.
4. Other programmes... This is vague.ksi:
There is only one area under discussion here. Teach heuristics to mainstream... not just to Gifted. I have not made comment of GEP nor streaming etc... What is wrong with teaching heuristics to mainstream students? It rigidifies the brain? It shouldn't ... because the brain develops heuristics on its own with practice anyway.But if parents keep rejecting the opportunities and wanting to chart their own paths for their children because they know better and end up suffering certain consequences, it would be a conscious decision. It would not be right to turn around and attribute it as a flaw in the system.
That said, the system is not flawless, certainly there is room for improvement, just not those areas being argued so far.ksi:
We can agree to disagree. I am fine with that. But with all due respect to a forum moderator, it is not becoming to imply that I say what I say because I am more than extraordinarily kiasu. This has nothing to do with the discussion I am afraid.Case closed.
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