Primary school maths: A vicious circle (from TODAY May 8)

[Chenonceau]

Joule:

extracted from blinkymummy.blogspot.com


blogger writes about it here



RE: Standards are unrealistic

\"If so many pupils require tuition, it means our education system has failed in its basic goal of imparting the correct skill sets.

My wife, a university honours graduate, quit her job to coach the children at home, but is herself exasperated at the standards required of pupils today.

I have yet to observe any beneficial effects of pushing children so hard in primary school, apart from high stress levels and sapping of intellectual curiosity.

Besides removing the joy in learning, another side effect of today's education system is that my children hardly have time to enjoy childhood.

They have less time to play outdoors, to read their favourite books (which is a great way to improve one's English), to explore new hobbies or to learn about the world around them - all because of so much homework.\"


It's intriguing to see so many adults getting upset over these P5/P6 maths questions.
(Check out the number of reposting of and comments on the above-mentioned letter to the forum!!)


(A) Misunderstanding the National Examination System

The point of the national exams is, obviously and if you haven't already figured out by adulthood, to segregate people into different grades (social/intelligence tagging).

To achieve that, the exams will have to include questions which CANNOT be solved by most people. What's the point of only setting questions which can be solved by EVERYONE or even by most people?! DUH?! Now that's certainly being 'unrealistic'.

If the public education system only stops at teaching what's required for most people to get a job, then the maths syllabus need only include addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.

But surely stopping at this level will limit the horizon of one's mind, right?
Don't you wanna expand your (or your child's) mind by learning about complex mathematical concepts?
How can one say that learning such concepts limits one's creativity?
Learning such concepts is in fact the way that one gets introduced to extreme creativity!! DUH?!!

The current education system is nothing more than a super stringent set of training for the brain. Just like a super 'siong' training for one's muscles... for say a national 'brain' sport.

If you prefer for your kid 'to have a childhood' and as such minimise time/effort spent on the drills, training, pain, failure etc, then by all means allow your kid go wild at the playground, watch TV, play games on the iPad, dress up as a princess Kpop star coz that his hobby etc, right after he's learnt his ABCs and 123s.

But remember, while your kid is 'having his childhood', someone else's kid, with the aptitude and is willing to put in the hard work, has moved ahead. With all that training and practice, he is getting really good at this 'brain sport'. His 'head muscle', i.e. the brain, has become more familiar with the drills, the different possible scenarios, the different level of challenges, and have developed the stamina to withstand a 2 or 3-hour examination and even a series of 2-hour exams over a few weeks.

This 'poor childhood-less kid' will 'make it to the national team', while your kid, who may have learnt the basics of how to dribble the ball or how to swing a racket, will find it difficult to excel at this 'brain sport', and perhaps cannot even finish his exam questions on time.


(B) You (the tertiary-educated adult parent) can't solve it, doesn't mean other people's 11-year-olds can't

Rather than thinking that 'current standards are unrealistic'... Perhaps these complaining adults (many who have made it to university) ought to realise that maybe... just maybe... the standard of (P5/P6 Maths) exam questions they were used to was in fact... too 'accessible', i.e. too low.

You got lucky and made it through the hoops back in the 70s and 80s when you were a kid, doesn't mean your kid is gonna be as lucky too.
(I'm really quite surprised that most people (e.g. my peers) do not realise how lucky they were, and not because we are 'sooooooo clever' to make it to a SAP school and university.)
Times change. Population profile changes. The hoops change too.

There are many many parents out there who are willing to invest dollars and hours of grilling, tuition, supplementary classes etc in/for their kids to get that 'A'.

And there are more and more kids with 'all As', not to mention their impressive 'portfolios of CCAs, intellectual pursuits/achievements, community work, internships/attachments' to ensure that they have an edge over their 'all As' peers.

Grades, wages, social status etc.
It's all relative, isn't it?
Just have to work harder and harder.

Actually, I'm just glad that we ain't South Korea or Taiwan or PRC.
Their national exams, and the attendant competition amidst a much larger population, are way more grueling and unforgiving than ours.

Blinkymummy is the mummy of a cat called Blinky. She views Ian's letter through the prism of her own past experience with education in Singapore. I too had a great experience in Singapore education a few decades ago. I don't think she really knows what is happening in primary schools nowadays.

I have noticed that parents who maintain that there is absolutely nothing wrong with our system are usually (not always) highly intelligent parents with kids in lower primary, with time to spare coaching. I wonder what these parents will say when come end P4 and P5... and even P6, their kids fail for no reason other than that tests examine what was never taught because of some theoretical principle that states \"A test where students score 100 is a too easy test. Of course, these parents may teach ahead. They may find it normal to do the school's job... but some will realize that as much as they teach ahead, the school will then test further ahead.

There are DIFFERENT types of testing... testing to differentiate is ONLY one type. It's just like people maintaining that chilli is the only spice and put chilli and ONLY chilli in all their dishes from breakfast to dinner. I don't understand why schools ONLY do differentiating tests as if testing had no other purpose than to differentiate. In some types of tests, serving different purposes. You WANT some people to score 100%.

We have sent people abroad to study testing methods which teach them ONE TRUE WAY and they come back and impoverish our educational system with ONE type of testing - differentiating standardized tests. Every theory/methodology has limitations. It is harmful to apply the same theory/methodology blindly thinking it the ONE TRUE WAY. We should do more in schools than differentiate.

Someone (a high flying teacher) told me yesterday that schools they need to diagnose what kids don't know. Therefore they put in questions that they haven't taught. Seriously? What logic is that? If you haven't taught, can you not assume they don't know? Do you need to test to diagnose what you haven't yet taught?

[mamemo]

Chenonceau:

Blinkymummy is the mummy of a cat called Blinky.

:rotflmao:

[Nebbermind]

mamemo:

Chenonceau:

Blinkymummy is the mummy of a cat called Blinky.

:rotflmao:

:scratchhead: What Chen said is TRUE!! It really was/is a cat!

[mamemo]

Nebbermind:

mamemo:

[quote=\"Chenonceau\"]
Blinkymummy is the mummy of a cat called Blinky.

:rotflmao:

:scratchhead: What Chen said is TRUE!! It really was/is a cat![/quote]
Yup, I know...
I was laughing at the irony of someone who does not have kids to write this blogpost.
From her intro, she sounds like a scholar though...

[Edureach]

In recent years, there were parents complaining that psle chinese is set at too high a standard. My kids found it managable even as their standard is of mediocre level.


In this instance, parents are making so much noises that is too difficult. What is difficult is actually relative. Each year, the no of pupils scoring A* remains constant. So there should be no complaint at all. If every question is doable by vast majority, that means there’s no differentiation btw ordinary and advance pupils. At this junction, we must remember that we are gearing the next generation of professionals and technocrats. How to compete against others including fts if we do not constantly move up our standards?. The schools setting such standard are actually laying the foundation for their pupils.

Take this as a challenge to develop your kids’ analytical skills. At uni level, many maths questions are either you know or don’t know. So be thankful that the schools are preparing your kids early.

[mamemo]

The number of children scoring As and A*s remain constant is because of the moderation process to bell curve. Wonder what’s the outcome if there is no moderation.

[Nebbermind]

mamemo:

Yup, I know...

I was laughing at the irony of someone who does not have kids to write this blogpost.
From her intro, she sounds like a scholar though...

Somehow I have this impression she was from St Nic's and was/is in the civil service or some stat board. I may be wrong.

[Nebbermind]

mamemo:

The number of children scoring As and A*s remain constant is because of the moderation process to bell curve. Wonder what's the outcome if there is no moderation.

and thanks to the moderation, my boy finally got an A for chinese!!! :imcool:

[Chenonceau]

Edureach:

In recent years, there were parents complaining that psle chinese is set at too high a standard. My kids found it managable even as their standard is of mediocre level.


In this instance, parents are making so much noises that is too difficult. What is difficult is actually relative. Each year, the no of pupils scoring A* remains constant. So there should be no complaint at all. If every question is doable by vast majority, that means there's no differentiation btw ordinary and advance pupils. At this junction, we must remember that we are gearing the next generation of professionals and technocrats. How to compete against others including fts if we do not constantly move up our standards?. The schools setting such standard are actually laying the foundation for their pupils.

Take this as a challenge to develop your kids' analytical skills. At uni level, many maths questions are either you know or don't know. So be thankful that the schools are preparing your kids early.

Difficult is when P3 is tested on material from P5 syllabus SO THAT they can stand a chance of that A* at PSLE.

Does it not surprise you that even as our children are able to manage now to read Sec 3 Chinese textbooks to cope with PSLE, the number of A* remains constant? As the exams get more difficult, parents and kids try harder... put in more time... do more assessments. As they rise in competence, the exams get that much harder so that the proportion of A* remain the same.

It doesn't matter how good or poor the cohort is, the number of A* remains the same because it is a quota imposed by the transformed (and therefore normalized bell curve). MOE (and others) advise parents not to be kiasu... and to not help their kids... and to take failure as it comes because the child cannot cope so why bother.

We are Singaporeans. We were brought up to work hard and try harder. This is the spirit that brought Singapore where it is today. Now, we are told. It's ok if your kid doesn't do well... doesn't pass... don't bother to try because then you are contributing to kiasu-ism. So... okay. As a population, we suddenly all decide, fail is fail lor... don't have to try lah... cannot do as well means cannot lor... so give up. Then everyone will have a easier life. Teachers less stressed. Kids less stressed. So, parents, go home and tell your kids that \"trying hard in life to get somewhere\" is no longer a virtue, it is something to be ashamed of. Such a spirit is now called a derogative name \"kiasu\".

This is the spirit we want for our children? Don't bother? Fail also never mind? Accept that you're dumb and stop trying?

When people have actually climbed in competence and the A* proportion remains the same, THAT tells you something is wrong.... and that it doesn't matter how much you've improved, there is a quota for the A*.

The only way to beat that quota is for the majority of the population to stop trying... like the kids in polytechnic who often cannot be bothered to try. The proportion of A* remains the same there too, except that year on year, the cohorts TRUE competence goes down because the kids cannot be bothered and so year on year... they do worse on worse BUT because of the bell curve, the proportion of A* remains the same. People who teach in polytechnics have problems arresting the downward spiral in standards they demand of their students.... BUT their proportion of A* is still the same.

You have confused the number A* with true competence/standards. The 2 are not the same. Give me any set of numbers, I have ways to transform it to make the bell curve, and give you exactly the same proportion of A*.

[Chenonceau]

Edureach:

In recent years, there were parents complaining that psle chinese is set at too high a standard. My kids found it managable even as their standard is of mediocre level.


In this instance, parents are making so much noises that is too difficult. What is difficult is actually relative. Each year, the no of pupils scoring A* remains constant. So there should be no complaint at all. If every question is doable by vast majority, that means there's no differentiation btw ordinary and advance pupils. At this junction, we must remember that we are gearing the next generation of professionals and technocrats. How to compete against others including fts if we do not constantly move up our standards?. The schools setting such standard are actually laying the foundation for their pupils.

Take this as a challenge to develop your kids' analytical skills. At uni level, many maths questions are either you know or don't know. So be thankful that the schools are preparing your kids early.

If a mother talked to teacher about your son. \"Hey Ms So&So, Edureach's son is a Band 2 student, my son is a Band 1 student. I don't want my son to sit with or be in the same group as Edureach's son because Edureach's son is not worthy enough to be in the same group as mine.\" What would you think of that Mother.

Have you asked yourself WHY we need to differentiate? So that we can pop the smart ones together and teach the worthy ones together? Fine... let's go with that logic. All the smart ones go to RI and HCI and they are pushed harder academically and they really are all brain... get all sorts of awards etc.... But even there, in RI and HCI, the proportion of A* stays the same because of the normalized curve. For all you know, a FAIL in HCI would be graded a Distinction in a neighbourhood secondary school.

Is that all there is to education? All there is in education is to put the best with the best so that they can have their own bell curve? Perhaps, if you think that intellect is everything. But a lot of people don't think intellect is everything. A lot of people think that bright children would benefit from hanging out with people who are their intellectual inferiors. There is a lot to learn from the daily cut and thrust of playground politics. At the end of the day, people from RI and HCI have to come out into the world to work with people they don't understand and have no empathy for.

Now, if you question the type of lopsided social education that comes from putting the best with the best, then you will question the utility of differentiating. Why differentiate if it isn't good to put the best with the best with the best?

In which bible is written \"Thou must differentiate\".