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

[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\".

[Edureach]

Chenonceau


Nice talking to you again.

From primary all the way to unis, awarding grades base on bell curve is prevailing.

I understand what are you driving at. The percentage of students segregated to study at ites, polys and unis are managed. Our nation has to ensure that the value of local degrees are preserved so that talents are rooted here. As for differentiation that takes place in each cohort, it doesn’t matter as long as a student scores well within the upper percentile to ace the exam. In short, one needs to be competitive to chose a desired school or course.

As far as poly level is concerned, all Aussie unis accept our diplomas. In fact, a gpa of 3 is good enough to get into a top Australian university. Don’t talk about affordability as is a different subject altogether. Our law and medicine rejects are more than good enough to be reading their desired courses at very good unis. Look at our IB students at ACSI, they are performing great vs-a vs international competitions.

All in all, the system here is improving.

[Pris.011283tang]

Chenonceau:

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\".

:goodpost: :goodpost: :thankyou:

[Chenonceau]

Edureach:

Chenonceau


Nice talking to you again.

From primary all the way to unis, awarding grades base on bell curve is prevailing.

I understand what are you driving at. The percentage of students segregated to study at ites, polys and unis are managed. Our nation has to ensure that the value of local degrees are preserved so that talents are rooted here. As for differentiation that takes place in each cohort, it doesn't matter as long as a student scores well within the upper percentile to ace the exam. In short, one needs to be competitive to chose a desire school or course.

As far as poly level is concerned, all Aussie unis accept our diplomas. In fact, a gpa of 3 is good enough to get into a top Australian university. Don't talk aboput affordability as is a different subject altogether. Our law and medicine rejects are more than good enough to be reading their desired courses at very good unis. Look at our IB students at ACSI, they are performing great vs-a vs international competitions.

All in all, the system here is improving.

This is a change of topic. You are no longer saying that Chinese exams are as easy as 20 years ago just because the A* is the same proportion?

Fine... manage the proportion into ITE etc... go by true merit then? NOT merit by access to tuition and to tutors who help you ace exams because they are happy to teach you the Sec 3 stuff that your PSLE tests but your shool doesn't teach (and uses that t-score to put you into the best school) . Meanwhile, the other kid (actually smarter than you, who would have understood if the school had taught) doe badly and gets put into ITE because no one taught him Sec 3 stuff in P6, but he was still tested at PSLE.

Next, I don't think you have understood what I am driving at. I said nothing about whether or not it is good to manage proportions into ITE and Poly. You changed the topic. My concern is the lopsided education our best and brightest get in the top schools segregated socially and emotionally from the rest of the 98.5% of their cohort.

So, you've changed topic to acceptance into overseas unis. Fine... let's look at rate of acceptance into top unis, not Australian unis. Did you know that in recent years, Ivy League universities are rejecting our top scorers? Instead, they are taking people from China and Malaysia who do EASIER A levels and score distinctions.