Parents, not enrichment centres, are key to result

[coast]

Chenonceau:

coast:

:rahrah:

There are kids with other priorities ... e.g. helping their parents at home, heavy-committment CCAs, ... There are also parents truly believing in a holistic education and not chasing 100 or 90s for every exam ... not wanting their children spending extensive hours on enrichment/ tuition/ worksheets but a balanced childhood. With comprehensive resources, these kids have an equal chance at PSLE.

Yes... holistic education. A mainstream education is valuable in how it allows children to build friendships and bridges of understanding with those who aren't labelled gifted. We skipped the GEP test. Partly, I strongly suspected DS wouldn't get in. Partly, even if he could get in, we didn't believe in it because of the skewed opportunities for social interactions... which we believed invaluable to life effectiveness.

Have comprehensive WRITTEN resources available and any kid, no matter labelled gifted or not, can take active part in his/her own learning. Why should only the GEP get exposure to math heuristics only to find that some gifted kids there CAN'T cope with heuristics (as reported by some parents)... and students in mainstream DON'T get heuristics training only to find that non-gifted children like my DS CAN cope.

This helps out the Teachers a great deal too.

:goodpost:

The irony is that even when a school claims to provide holistic education, one can easily tell that it’s lip service if it goes against “more important” criteria. The Education Minister has already pointed out that some schools occasionally used non-academic classes to catch-up with academics. In my DS school (I have also read in KSP quite a few other schools as well), CCA is not about your child’s interests. It is whether your child has the aptitude to be in the school team (and hence win medals) so even P1 students have to go through screening and parents are informed (your child is selected for this XXX CCA, we believe in a holistic education so we strongly encourage your child to take up this CCA). Did the school ask the child which CCA he would like to join in the first place?

I heard some schools make special efforts to let the GEP students attend certain classes together with the mainstream. CCAs would be another opportunity for the joint interactions and how about life outside school?

I am not sure what effects (positive or negative) the GEP label would have on a child. I would think that if a GEP child has good friends outside the GEP circle (especially since GEP starts at P4 and not P1) and the parents make a concerted effort, it should not be an issue for “normal” social interactions? But yes, I agree it is a concern as school life has a huge influence to our kids.

Some parents do not realise (or some prefer) their kids living in a protective and closed environment with other kids of similar background. They are worried about “bad” influence. While I have friends who share similar concerns about skewed opportunities for social interactions, I do not see special efforts being made to let their kids step out of it. If only they could see your point of “invaluable to life effectiveness”

[Chenonceau]

coast:

The irony is that even when a school claims to provide holistic education, one can easily tell that it’s lip service if it goes against “more important” criteria.... CCA is not about your child’s interests. It is whether your child has the aptitude to be in the school team (and hence win medals) so even P1 students have to go through screening and parents are informed (your child is selected for this XXX CCA, we believe in a holistic education so we strongly encourage your child to take up this CCA). Did the school ask the child which CCA he would like to join in the first place?

Exactly so... CCA has become about winning.

coast:

I am not sure what effects (positive or negative) the GEP label would have on a child. I would think that if a GEP child has good friends outside the GEP circle (especially since GEP starts at P4 and not P1) and the parents make a concerted effort, it should not be an issue for “normal” social interactions?

My DS' best friend JJ in P3 & P4 got into GEP. They're not best friends anymore. You really need to make an effort to maintain the relationship. My DD's best friend in K2 went to Normal Academic. They still keep in touch but it's only because I made it a point to fix a play date every holiday through primary school... and I bugged DD to do that through secondary school.

One of DS' friends attends the same TUITION CENTRE (if kids are gifted and schools teach enough, why go to tuition?) as the ex-best friend JJ who got into GEP. It has been reported that JJ has become rather snooty. My DS doubts this is true because JJ has always been shy and that can be misinterpreted as snooty. But well... if I were JJ's parents I would watch out for that.

coast:

Some parents do not realise (or some prefer) their kids living in a protective and closed environment with other kids of similar background. They are worried about “bad” influence. While I have friends who share similar concerns about skewed opportunities for social interactions, I do not see special efforts being made to let their kids step out of it. If only they could see your point of “invaluable to life effectiveness”

Most times, parents just let things happen. Structured activities always muscle out unstructured ones. Academics and CCAs are structured activities. Friendships aren't. You can measure academics and CCAs. You can't measure friendships.

Yet friendships are what will see a person through life.

In war, they save your life because they'll hide you and keep you safe. In debt, they tide you over and save your company. I know of business owners who were in the red but stayed afloat only because their creditors were long term friends willing to wait patiently. In peace and prosperity, they help keep your blood pressure at healthy levels as you share drinks and have a good time.

Why must people win all the time? Why must we know to the exact detail who the best is? Does it make a difference at all? These are philosophical questions worth revisiting. I reckoned we could skip GEP testing and still get a reasonably good education in Singapore. So we skipped. Unfortunately, we can't skip PSLE unless we are willing to migrate. So, we'll just have to self-teach the thinking skills/heuristics the PSLE tests but that schools have no time, no resources (and some people say, no skills) to properly teach.

I didn't know until ksi volunteered the information that GEP get taught heuristics... and that some students there don't do well despite of being taught heuristics. Why does GEP get taught heuristics and mainstream does not? Because mainstream students are too dumb to cope? But mainstream students take the same PSLE exam which needs these heuristics (Onsponge) or equivalent (from TLL).

Gifted Education systems worldwide were the direct result of Terman's research. Termie's kids were tracked through their lives. The evidence suggests that beyond a certain point, it doesn't really matter how smart you are. Many of Termie's kids are doing only averagely well in life.

We should revisit the following philosophical questions in view of new research findings. Why must people win all the time? Why must we know to the exact detail who the best is? Does it make a difference at all?

Anyway, I would be VERY surprised if my DS could have cleared the GEP test. Back in P3, he was almost at the bottom of his class.

[Chenonceau]

insider:

She spoke about it is important for schools to teach concepts and teaching of concepts take time and heuristics should never go before concepts else instead of maths stretching kids' brains, forcing them to think and solve, the kids maybe lock up in a 'fixed' pattern of problem solving and this will be against objective.

So why teach it in GEP? And no one said anything about NOT teaching concepts, or teaching it BEFORE concepts. Would you teach a child to read BEFORE teaching the alphabet?

No one said anything about NOT practising either. So, we agree? My DD is also 19. She didn't need heuristics because she faced a DIFFERENT, less skills heavy PSLE. The data point is 7 years late.

http://petunialee.blogspot.com/2012/01/10000-hour-rule-of-practice.html

Fixed pattern of problem-solving? The brain develops heuristics naturally anyway with practice. So with practice comes fixed patterns of problem-solving? Something not quite logical here eh?

[Chenonceau]

insider:

Chenonceau:

So why teach it in GEP? And no one said anything about NOT teaching concepts, or teaching it BEFORE concepts. Would you teach a child to read BEFORE teaching the alphabet?

teaching in GEP coz they have nothing better to teach since 'concepts' are so easy for these kids? It may take 6 lessons to cover a concept in mainstream but maybe 2 lessons for GEP and so teachers have to do something for that 4 lessons? I really dont know and could only guess. (this would mean if pr school have more maths lesson, then the kids maybe can also be taught heuristics as well but time constraint).

I am not saying that someone is saying not teaching concepts or teaching it before concept. I am stating the risk of if some parents have the mis-conception of can put the horse before the cart and go to such enrichment even before the child grasping concept. The risk is there. You may take all parents as 'intelligent' but I will take some of them may just follow the 'tide' and upon reading heuristics is 'good', start to queue up for such enrichment.

Chenonceau:

No one said anything about NOT practising either. So, we agree? My DD is also 19. She didn't need heuristics because she faced a DIFFERENT, less skills heavy PSLE. The data point is 7 years late.

Since when I said I don't agree with you huh?

I don't understand why you keep thinking that this 7 years data point is very different from the current. Both my kids still can solve almost any PSLE problem sum that is presented to them NOW (using 'pr school method'), and so the skill set required at their point of time is still similar to the current. I have been through seeing their complicated problem sums then and they are not very different from what I can read from current assessment books.

Ok.

[PiggyLalala]

I know of a few schools that have asked the students to purchase the onsponge book. These mainstream students have been taught the heuristics method. In fact I think the heuristic method are not specifically taught in any of GEP lesson. I agree with insider’s daughter that if someone understands a concept deep enough,heuristics will come naturally. However the onsponge book is useful to most students as it categorises the questions into various types.

[Chenonceau]

PiggyLalala:

I know of a few schools that have asked the students to purchase the onsponge book. These mainstream students have been taught the heuristics method.

I have noticed this too, and have said so some posts earlier. Not in all schools though.... because my DS's school doesn't do it.

PiggyLalala:

In fact I think the heuristic method are not specifically taught in any of GEP lesson.

This I can't vouch for because I did say that it is only through hearsay that I found out that they teach GEP in heuristics but some GEP students don't seem to get it. So I dunno....

PiggyLalala:

I agree with insider's daughter that if someone understands a concept deep enough,heuristics will come naturally. However the onsponge book is useful to most students as it categorises the questions into various types.

I quite agree with this too. Given enough practice, the brain develops its own heuristics. Deep understanding of concept comes with enough practice. It is enough practice that is important in the heuristic development that contributes to deep conceptual understanding. Practice is important.

http://petunialee.blogspot.com/2012/01/10000-hour-rule-of-practice.html

Onsponge is categorized by problem-solving technique (i.e., heuristics). It makes no explicit mention of heuristic.

It is more likely that if a child is REALLY smart, he would develop his own naturally. Less bright children MAY need it a bit more because their brains are less adept at developing these heuristics naturally.

These heuristics helped my son a lot. It is because he is not that bright, possibly, that these heuristics helped.

[PiggyLalala]

If you looked through the prelim papers, you will realise that not all questions can be solve by the standard heuristic method like

(1) Repeated identity
(2) External unchanged
(3) Unchanged total
(4) Constant difference.
These are the difficult sums that really required the child to think and work out the solution themselves.

[Chenonceau]

PiggyLalala:

If you looked through the prelim papers, you will realise that not all questions can be solve by the standard heuristic method like

(1) Repeated identity
(2) External unchanged
(3) Unchanged total
(4) Constant difference.
These are the difficult sums that really required the child to think and work out the solution themselves.

I also agree with this. The really challenging ones need creative thinking, and some flexibility. Teaching heuristics will not mean the child can do the whole paper. However, they do help with the easier questions. AND they do give some tools to mix and match with when dealing with the challenging ones.

[PiggyLalala]

I really do not know how the mainstream were taught maths. I have the feeling that they are taught the model method until the onsponge book categorizes the questions and develop the heuristic method of solving standard questions.

[Chenonceau]

PiggyLalala:

I really do not know how the mainstream were taught maths. I have the feeling that they are taught the model method until the onsponge book categorizes the questions and develop the heuristic method of solving standard questions.

Yours is in GEP hah?