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

[Edureach]

Chenonceau


The quality of teachers are evenly distributed to all popular and non popular schools. What makes a child able to score 250 and above is the inate ability, home support from the parents and above all the kid’s determination and preserverance to succeed

Psle is only the first stage and parents here should not be overly concern at this juncture if their kids score below that.

The main exams are their poly gpa. IB and A-levels. That’s just too much emphasis on psle here which is not the best indicator of academic success.

One outstanding example, if based on psle t- score, all students having the score of above 240 are expected to make it to unis. In reality, its far from truth as many did not make it and many below had made it.

In conclusion, the system is still fair though far from perfect.

[Chenonceau]

Edureach:

The quality of teachers are evenly distributed to all popular and non popular schools. What makes a child able to score 250 and above is the inate ability, home support from the parents and above all the kid's determination and preserverance to succeed

There is only ONE Principal per school. Principal calibre situates along the bell curve? Not all Principals are same calibre? If you are in a school with a lousy Principal, then no matter how good the teachers, the school still provides poor quality.

My son has the innate ability and the drive. Unfortunately, his school produces few notes. Left alone, my poor boy had only the textbook to study. My son is very determined. I will be travelling in June and July for 3 weeks very close to his PSLE. He has already planned his study schedule and I know from experience that he will get it done. He is confident and determined.

This same boy did very badly before I started to teach him myself. I don't provide just SUPPORT like my parents used to do. I provide ACADEMIC support. He is now top in class in 3 subjects (or amongst the top). Why should I have to teach him myself? The school should teach him. My son has both determination and ability. Why couldn't he score? Because I denied him tuition... and I still do, even though I teach him myself.

Edureach:

Psle is only the first stage and parents here should not be overly concern at this juncture if their kids score below that.

The main exams are their poly gpa. IB and A-levels. That's just too much emphasis on psle here which is not the best indicator of academic success.

If you score below a certain threshold, it will be difficult to even get to take 'A' levels or IB unless as a private candidate in another country. If you've experienced failure since P4, it would be very miraculous that you will get to poly with academic self-efficacy intact and still determined to do well. Even the most determined children will give up if they have been taught they're lousy by every report card since P4 (and all because they're tested on what tutors/parents are expected to teach... and these poor little ones didn't have the high calibre tutors/parents).

Edureach:

One outstanding example, if based on psle t- score, all students having the score of above 240 are expected to make it to unis. In reality, its far from truth as many did not make it and many below had made it.

In conclusion, the system is still fair though far from perfect.

Again, we are not talking about eventual entrance to unis. Anyone can go to uni in Singapore because there is UniSIM. Yes... that is good. It still doesn't mean the system is fair.

I definitely agree the system is not perfect. Specifically, in primary school, the standards expected of our kids are way beyond what the teachers can manage to teach. Hence, those who do well and have their paths smoothed are those with tuition or are lucky enough to be in those rare primary schools that conscientiously teach high and test high.

I am pleased that you actually concede that the system is far from perfect. I don't think it is a rotten system. I merely think that if the MOE wants to boast about its high standards then it should teach better in many more schools, than just those few. Many schools (some branded ones) cannot keep up a standard of teaching quality in line with the standards the PSLE expects of our kids.

It's very specific and the lack of fairness is on THIS specific point - no one is commenting on access to uni.

[cherryc]

Chenonceau wrote :

You have confused primary and secondary education. My question still is "Did you have a child take PSLE since 2008?" If not, your experience is outdated and you will never understand what we are facing now. Of course, there are parents whose kids went to schools that taught well and tested hard. Those too won’t understand what it feels like to have to personally teach a bright child whose school tests hard but fails to teach what it tests.

Very valid point indeed ! In addition, those who have not seen p6 Maths textbooks or PSLE Maths questions and do not know much about the new "Teach less, learn more" culture in school ,kindly find out more first before shooting their arguments. MOE will think that there is indeed NO Problem cos these people who based on their prior school experience decades ago said so !

[oxyleo]

Dear Edureach,

I do believe that our education system is spiraling out of control. You may say that parents place an over emphasis on PSLE, but I think it is so because PSLE results, now more than ever before, ever since the IP was introduced, gives some the privilege to skip the ‘O’ Level exams. It’s pretty much like offering a license to drive without needing to prove that you can drive, because your earlier tests show that you should not have a problem doing so. MOE itself describes on its website that IP students are clearly university bound, whilst those who do not make the cut to IP, well, still have to prove they are university bound, by clearing another hurdle of exams, the 'O’s. It is therefore not surprising that parents now place an increased emphasis on the PSLE, because of the huge differentiation in experience in IP vs the secondary route. I don’t think people generally have an issue with the IP per se, because there is nothing wrong with catering to the brightest people in our society. Why wouldn’t we want to nurture them? The problem is these people that we have qualified as bright throughout PSLE scores are in all likelihood having access to one of the following:
(1) studying in a branded school, well-known for pushing hard and churning huge quantities of top PSLE scorers
(2) good quality outside tuition and/or
(3) smart parents who are resourceful enough to gather the information required to coach the kids to attain a good PSLE score.
It is evident those who don’t have access to any of the 3, have the odds stacked highly against them. True, you may find 1, or 2, or even 10 who don’t have any of the 3 and still make it. But to put things in perspective, that probability is very, very slim.
If anything, this is also the reason why parents end up clamoring after branded schools, because kids are pushed and exposed from the get-go, which is like a first-mover advantage, vs one who reacts only when the tide comes. GIven the huge gap to be filled, time may not be on their side.
I have a kid in P2, who never had a day of tuition, or academic enrichment, and I am truly beginning to understand why so many others his age were ‘enriching’ themselves in every possible way since they were 3 or 4.
MOE’s predictable stance throughout all this feedback only serves to send more to tuition and enrichment centers, maybe starting now at age 2? And even more parents queuing up for branded schools.

[tutormum]

Let me just add my 2 cents worth.


Kids who rise above the system and do well either:
1. Are naturally of high ability and gifted and don’t need tuition
2. Have parents who have deep pockets to stay near branded schools (I know of many who pay top $ to move within 1km of the school of their choice)
3. Have parents (even same parents as point 2) who can afford to pay tutors to ensure that they stay in the branded schools.
4. Have parents who pay tutors to ensure that though they are in neighbourhood schools they are able to catch up with those kids in branded schools.
5, Have smart parents to guide them.

Kids who are struggling in the system either:
1. Have low ability and not gifted
2. Do not have rich parents to move near branded schools
3. Have parents (probably the same parents as point 2) who cannot afford to pay tutors to keep up with their peers in branded schools (if they are lucky to get in and risk being squeezed out).
4. cannot even cope with what is taught in neighbourhood schools and their parents cannot afford to pay tutors to help them
5. Don’t have smart parents to guide them.

All schools are not the same. If they are, why are most, if not all, parents fighting tooth and nail to get their kids into branded schools every year? We don’t have to spell out what these schools offer that other schools lack. A child in a neighbourhood school has a lower chance of doing well enough in the PSLE to move on to a branded secondary. Subsequently, the chances of getting into a top JC is lowered if he/she is posted to a neighbourhood secondary school. I bet that all parents already have this figured out. PSLE has been the yardstick for admission to secondary schools. I took it donkey years ago. My parents were not bothered with how well I would do. Their only concern was that I could pass and get into a secondary school. We as parents now are raising issues cos we are educated and have higher expectations for our kids than our parents. MOE also know this, thus has been raising the bar. The problem is, how high does MOE think our kids can jump?

[blessed777]

mamemo:

Nebbermind:

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

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

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...[/quote]She sounds immature to me, n her definition of 'having a childhood' is ridiculous..

[lim72]

tutormum :goodpost:


My friend's dd is now struggling with PSLE, she is not in the first 5 points that tutormum mentioned but her dd is in a branded school. I think her dd will have a better chance at a not-so-famous school but in the top few classes, as she is quite smart but lack of motivation. I feel she probably belongs to those Big Fish type and will perform better in a small pond.

[Chenonceau]

tutormum:

Let me just add my 2 cents worth.


Kids who rise above the system and do well either:
1. Are naturally of high ability and gifted and don't need tuition
...

Kids who are struggling in the system either:
1. Have low ability and not gifted

I agree with most of your post... except that I wanna point out that in a system where teaching quality is patchy across schools, even kids of high ability like my DS won't make it good.

I am Chinese illiterate. I am a Math Idiot. My knowledge of the hard sciences is rudimentary. All I did was to pick high quality resources for each of these subjects and my DS did the rest. I didn't ever actually explain anything. He had the reading materials and he learnt.

Sadly, the textbook is insufficient for him to learn even the basics on his own... let alone pass exams with questions set from stuff not taught and nowhere to be found documented in the few pages of school notes he received.

Low ability students can do very well indeed given enough tuition by pushy parents from a young age. The problem arises when the system mis-classes low ability as high ability simply because these have access to tuition... and misclasses high ability as low ability those without access to tuition.

If I had not started my 1-person library-school last year, I would never have found out that my DS is high ability. My Boy skimmed Onsponge in ONE WEEK... did 2 sums from each sub-chapter... and that was enough to help him ace his exam. Who would have known if I had not myself begun to teach him?

[coast]

Chenonceau:

tutormum:

Let me just add my 2 cents worth.


Kids who rise above the system and do well either:
1. Are naturally of high ability and gifted and don't need tuition
...

Kids who are struggling in the system either:
1. Have low ability and not gifted

I agree with most of your post... except that I wanna point out that in a system where teaching quality is patchy across schools, even kids of high ability like my DS won't make it good.

I am Chinese illiterate. I am a Math Idiot. My knowledge of the hard sciences is rudimentary. All I did was to pick high quality resources for each of these subjects and my DS did the rest. I didn't ever actually explain anything. He had the reading materials and he learnt.

Sadly, the textbook is insufficient for him to learn even the basics on his own... let alone pass exams with questions set from stuff not taught and nowhere to be found documented in the few pages of school notes he received.

Low ability students can do very well indeed given enough tuition by pushy parents from a young age. The problem arises when the system mis-classes low ability as high ability simply because these have access to tuition... and misclasses high ability as low ability those without access to tuition.

I agree with most of your post (and many many more in your many other posts). But I do not understand Low ability students can do very well indeed given enough tuition by pushy parents from a young age.

I know many parents (even teachers) might not agree with this. I am a firm believer that majority of the kids are intellect equals, plus or minus an insignificant band. Some may be faster or slower in certain areas/ subjects, but in general, given the right environment and nurture, they can excel. I do not agree with streaming at such a young age (after P2). I know the \"pros\" of streaming as advocated by MOE and many parents. But I wonder if they know the price of the \"cons\" to label the majority of the kids (Vs the top 2 classes) as non HA.

I like kids since I was a teenager. I observe them closely when I spend time with them. Many of them are bright. Their academic results vary. It's not because they are \"low ability\". They need motivation. They need the right support and guidance. Most of them can do well in academics ... if we have the right system. But we have \"quotas\" for IP, Express, NA, NT, ... so there will be sacrifices along the way ... and these children will also believe they are \"low ability\" as classified by the system.

Is that what you meant by \"Low ability students can do very well indeed given enough tuition by pushy parents from a young age.\"? when they are actually not \"low ability\" to begin with?

I feel sad to read (and media praising) top PSLE scholars attending numerous tuition/ enrichment, putting in 6 - 7 hours daily after school of hard work, doing 50 (or 100) assessment books. I never thought of them as low or high ability, I just feel sad but hope that their life changes after PSLE. More activities beyond classes and home studying. Otherwise, even if they \"suceed\" in life, they are pretty out of touch with the real world except their own social circle. Maybe that is why we have certain officials who could never understand the people's concern ... that it needs a GE before voices are being heard and understood.

I respect and support your valuable contributions in this forum! I am your fan!!! Just want to clarify that statement. But we certainly can disagree on certain things and still like and support each other :snuggles:

[coast]

oxyleo:

Dear Edureach,

I do believe that our education system is spiraling out of control. You may say that parents place an over emphasis on PSLE, but I think it is so because PSLE results, now more than ever before, ever since the IP was introduced, gives some the privilege to skip the 'O' Level exams. It's pretty much like offering a license to drive without needing to prove that you can drive, because your earlier tests show that you should not have a problem doing so. MOE itself describes on its website that IP students are clearly university bound, whilst those who do not make the cut to IP, well, still have to prove they are university bound, by clearing another hurdle of exams, the 'O's. It is therefore not surprising that parents now place an increased emphasis on the PSLE, because of the huge differentiation in experience in IP vs the secondary route. I don't think people generally have an issue with the IP per se, because there is nothing wrong with catering to the brightest people in our society. Why wouldn't we want to nurture them? The problem is these people that we have qualified as bright throughout PSLE scores are in all likelihood having access to one of the following:
(1) studying in a branded school, well-known for pushing hard and churning huge quantities of top PSLE scorers
(2) good quality outside tuition and/or
(3) smart parents who are resourceful enough to gather the information required to coach the kids to attain a good PSLE score.
It is evident those who don't have access to any of the 3, have the odds stacked highly against them. True, you may find 1, or 2, or even 10 who don't have any of the 3 and still make it. But to put things in perspective, that probability is very, very slim.
If anything, this is also the reason why parents end up clamoring after branded schools, because kids are pushed and exposed from the get-go, which is like a first-mover advantage, vs one who reacts only when the tide comes. GIven the huge gap to be filled, time may not be on their side.
I have a kid in P2, who never had a day of tuition, or academic enrichment, and I am truly beginning to understand why so many others his age were 'enriching' themselves in every possible way since they were 3 or 4.
MOE's predictable stance throughout all this feedback only serves to send more to tuition and enrichment centers, maybe starting now at age 2? And even more parents queuing up for branded schools.

:goodpost:

Welcome to KSP!

My DS is in P2 too

I can't agree more with the sentences in bold.

I think the Education Minister's reply (can't remember if it's the current minister or his predecessor) is \"we can't stop parents from sending kids to tuition\". Tuition exists for decades and it's certainly useful for certain kids under certain circumstances ... but the majority of kids having tuition? I will not be surprised if it's >90%. Even for the minority without tuition, how many of these kids are coached by parents at home?

When my PS just started P1, we had a gathering with his K2 classmates parents to continue their bond even though they are now in separate schools. I had not even heard of \"Berries\", \"Learning Lab\", .... until then.

Then a close friend called me ... her kid in P1 at a branded school ... the teacher said \"your kid is slow in Maths and I am concerned ... are you worried?\" (it was only P1 Term 1). :scared: They kept getting calls from the teacher. Her kid is having tuition now.

Not all schools are like that. I know my DS school grouped the slow learners (during school hours) so that they attend another class with a smaller ratio (Learning Support Programme) and they do it quietly. I know it because my DS came home one day and told me these few kids always bring back gifts from those classes