Primary school maths: A vicious circle (from TODAY May 8)
-
wonderm:
If one looks through the papers of those schools that set very tough Maths papers, one would notice that it is not just 1 or 2 of such questions and that is precisely what parents are talking about. This is typically a paper 2 question comprising 5 marks. The child has 100 minutes to complete 18 questions in Paper 2 (total 60 marks). Assuming 10 mins to check paper, the child is left with 90 mins to do the paper. Based on marks allocation, the child only has about 7.5 mins to do this 5-mark question. Other than the tough questions, other 'easier' questions can also be tedious and time-consuming. The child who ends up being discouraged and worn down by the tough questions may not even have time to check or even finish the paper.
Is the answer 2.56pm?Strparent:
errr, paiseh so many good long post on this thread, but pardon me, can I stray back on-topic on pr sch maths - esp. on setting questions beyond the standard syllabus...?
I have always try to let my kids learn on their own, from sch, from friends, from teachers, but never from tutors on maths.
today I look at my DD's maths SA1 paper, which she got zero for a 5-mark question. At first glance, I blew up and questioned on how she could not get it even partially right ? 5 marks wor, why ? no time ? nervous ? careless ? cant remember formula / method ?
the question looked straight forward enough, so I asked her to take a paper and started to show her how to solve it. After 10sec, I was stumped. LOL. So I tiam tiam, act cool a bit, ask my DS to come over ( incidentally he is in Sec2 and was always fantastic in maths ). Guess what ? It took him 15mins of pondering, writing and cancelling, before he eventually started to solve the question. But the workings were like so messy and mixed up, so I asked him to explain to his sister. He tried to explain, but DD catch no ball. In the meantime, I was trying to comprehend his work, and figured out how the solution was derived.
But I know there and then, that DD never learnt this in sch, it looks like something DS do in Maths Olympiad during his P5/P6 days.
Now I am in agreement with most parents about no unnecessary pressure or workload, no tuition, etc, but now I noted that the schools DO set questions beyond the syllabus, which is ridiculous. If you taught it, fine - of course some of her classmates get full marks for the paper.
So, yes, MOE should note this and if you want to set the standards higher, then make sure the schools teach the students as well, and not depend or expect all to learn them elsewhere.
The question which I paiseh to say, had me stumped until DS showed me the solution.
It looked to me initially like some parameters is lacking :oops:
Alan took 1/2 hr to walk from Town A to Town B at a constant speed.
Eric took 3/4 hr to walk from Town B to Town A at a constant speed.
Both started at 2.20pm.
a) at what time did Alan and Eric pass each other along the way ?
b) at the precise time when Alan reached Town B, Steven started walking from Town A to Town B at the same constant speed as Alan. At what time, did Steven and Eric meet ?
maybe it's just me, but share with me , if you think it is STANDARD primary sch maths ?
Thanks for sharing. This is a very interesting question. If one were to use algebra (Sec level maths) to solve, it is actually much more lengthy and less elegant than using model method.
Which level is your DD in? It is indeed a challenging question, in my opinion it takes a P5 or P6 student who is strong in maths to be able to do it during exam condition. I don't think it requires the learning of any special method though.
If there was only 1 or 2 such questions in the paper, it is not a bad thing, it challenges those who are good in maths, and really shows how a seemingly difficult or impossible question can be very easily solved by drawing a simple model. If we expect the teacher to have given similar questions in class before the test, it really becomes pointless and makes learning maths much more painful as the children would think they need to remember the methods for all different kinds of questions.
Moreover for these 'speed' questions, there are many curveballs that are thrown at the children, for instance one person started later than the other person, they meet at a certain point between the towns or at a certain timing after traveling some fraction of the journey, etc, etc. No offence but this question may actually already be quite benign compared to others.
Maybe for psle, it really is 1 or 2 of such questions but we parents are not certain since we only have the questions by topic in the published questions book. -
linden2000:
:goodpost: I would also like to add that beginning in P5, about 35 to 40 marks test the domain that remains to be taught up until the PSLE. Of these 40 marks, let us suppose that 10 marks are allocated to such \"interesting\" questions. There still remains 30 marks that kids with a good foundation would easily score IF they had been taught.
If one looks through the papers of those schools that set very tough Maths papers, one would notice that it is not just 1 or 2 of such questions and that is precisely what parents are talking about. This is typically a paper 2 question comprising 5 marks. The child has 100 minutes to complete 18 questions in Paper 2 (total 60 marks). Assuming 10 mins to check paper, the child is left with 90 mins to do the paper. Based on marks allocation, the child only has about 7.5 mins to do this 5-mark question. Other than the tough questions, other 'easier' questions can also be tedious and time-consuming. The child who ends up being discouraged and worn down by the tough questions may not even have time to check or even finish the paper.
Moreover for these 'speed' questions, there are many curveballs that are thrown at the children, for instance one person started later than the other person, they meet at a certain point between the towns or at a certain timing after traveling some fraction of the journey, etc, etc. No offence but this question may actually already be quite benign compared to others.
Maybe for psle, it really is 1 or 2 of such questions but we parents are not certain since we only have the questions by topic in the published questions book.
This accounts for the 25 marks jump in marks my DS experienced BEFORE Onsponge and AFTER. These are easy marks provided the child was exposed to the mere dumb mechanics of some simple heuristics. No exposure = Fail. With exposure 80+ marks.
Surely we can spare our young ones this kind of agony by teaching them first the necessary? -
:slapshead: :slapshead: Quote :
Surely we can spare our young ones this kind of agony by teaching them first the necessary?
To be fair, actually the schools do teach non-routine questions. The problem is : They are teaching the present batch of PSLE students past years questions. Some schools, if not, most, are using Past year PSLE papers. DS3 took his killer paper in 2010 and some of the killer questions do appear in the latest edition. As expected, my present PSLE students do not know how to solve those questions without being taught. Maybe given a few more similar questions, they may be able to master them. However, the problem with MOE is that they will set another 'type' of unconventional killer questions cos the present killer questions become routine. :slapshead: :slapshead: I've seen it happened time and again and it has truly become a vicious cycle. :imdrowning: -
Finally found some time to settle down and wow, this thread has grown by so many pages since the last time I posted (only a few days ago).
Anyway, my response in blue below...Chenonceau:
Yes, I'm sure many parents are already doing the character development part. As for the part about us teaching our children, well, I think there are a few parameters that we need to consider. 1. Is the school adequate in their teaching? 2. What is the TRUE potential of our children? 3. What are our expectations with regards to our children's academic performance? We will then decide, based on the above, what course of action to take, which includes intervening and to teach ourselves, outsourcing or to do nothing at all. Each parent will have their own decision, within their limited capacity (either in terms of their knowledge or financial ability). We will respect their decision.
I think many parents already think that character and moral development are important. That is why parents gave feedback and a Character and Moral Development Unit was created, leading MOE to express \"Parents expect more from MOE than it can deliver.\" The initiative came from parents... it was MOE that blinked here.sunflower:
Was about to write something similar to the above but just couldn't find the time. Yes, please know and understand your child. His/her strength and weaknesses, his/her temperament and personality. We need to manage our expectations accordingly. I always have faith that my child is capable, regardless of results. Academic success is not everything, good character and sound moral values, to me, are much more important.
Character development has always been parents' job and many of us are aware of that role. Certainly psle2011mum's kids are well-grounded morally. However, what we object to is that we now ALSO have to teach in place of the school. See parts in red from tutormum and psle2011mum's sharing below.psle2011mum:
I found the above to be true - without my intervention, my DDs would have been labelled \" mixed ability\" and pulling in 70+ in an easy school. I felt the inequity of the whole scenario - why should my kids be made to feel that they aren't that good? They already have attributes going for them ie obedient, diligent, attentive in class, willing to put in the effort...so I stepped in.[quote=\"atutor2001\"]Let's look at how a normal kids will perform with out extra coaching (tuition) and especially without extra materials.
If a child relies solely on works given by school and confine his/her knowledge to the prescribed text books, the child will be lucky to get around an average of 65 marks for the 4 subjects. Translated to T-score, that is about 190 plus for T-score. The child can still opt for express in sec school.
If the teachers are hardworking and provide extra materials, the child will be lucky to get around an average of 75 marks which is a T-score of about 220. He/she can find a more comfortable sec school and will have more well-behaving classmates.
Yes, above are my guesses. However, I can assure you that they are pretty accurate. The question is, why can't the system provide equal opportunity for all to attain a T-score of above 250 if a child rely purely just on what was covered by the school curriculum. Some will rebut that there are records showing top scorers from poor families with no access to the extras. My answer is \"don't be bullshitted\". They may be poor. But they have great parents who sourced for free assessment books and past year papers for their children. Most importantly these few special children are self-motivated and above average in intelligence to do self-study. However, without those extra materials, they will not be able to achieve that score. Therefore, is there something wrong between the amount covered during lessons and that being tested in exams? I think that is what most parents here are upset with.
I've asked the question in Bold before too - but the feedback I gave to the powers that be didn't seem to result in any changes that would be in time for my DDs so I moved on, stepped in and true enough, the DDs were labelled \"HA\" based on their PSLE results.
I now share to spread this message -- the system is one of labels, but you know your child best. Don't let the system label your child and give up on them.
Remember --
\"Labels are for cans - not people.\" - Anthony Rappsunflower:
40% of NYPS scores above 25X. This is because the school tests hard and teaches a lot. This is school specific too I would imagine. School specificity is a poor excuse for the variance in quality delivered by across schools in Singapore wherein...We all stay in different parts of Singapore and our children attend different schools. What we encounter and what our children experience in the schools affect our perception of the education system, and we will form opinions and make certain generalisations. There are about 180 primary schools in Singapore and with our limited experience with certain schools, we seem to over generalise if we say ALL schools test beyond what's taught in the classroom. Some terrifying experience shared here maybe school specific.
Well, I think why 40% of NYPS scores above 25X is because the parents (probably more than 70% of them) who got their children into this school are already kiasu themselves, and most probably would have given their children lots of enrichment/tuition before their children start P1. The school has no choice but to adjust and teach according to the majority students' ability, that's why the perceived high standard.
(a) Some schools test hard and teach little beyond the textbook
(b) Some schools test little and teach little beyond the textbook
(c) Some schools test hard and teach a lot beyond the textbook (aka NYPS)
As mentioned above, in education, we have to teach based on the strength and weaknesses of the students, ie. å ęę½ę. Different types of parents will enroll their children in different schools based on their own criteria, and in most cases, certain schools will attract a majority of a certain type of students/parents. Of course there are exceptions. It is therefore the responsibility of schools and teachers to identify the exceptions and provide them with differential programmes.
The issue is also that in another school that tests easy and teaches easy, the chances of getting 25X and above for a child of similar calibre is much reduced. Entrance into choice secondary schools which give choice developmental opportunities will also be much reduced. Until entrance into secondary school is tweaked OR distribution of resources across schools is tweaked, PSLE will remain a high stakes exam... and there is no compelling argument to convince parents that they should not step in to level up their children who attend...
(a) Schools that test hard and teach little beyond the textbook
(b) Schools that test little and teach little beyond the textbook
This would form the majority of schools, which means that across the nation, many parents/tutors have to teach in lieu of the school.
Err...I'm not sure about the majority part. It may seemed like the majority when we read complaints in internet forums, which may be many individuals from the same handful of schools? Unless we do a national survey and say out of the 180 primary schools, 150 of them are doing (a) and (b) above. If not, we can't be absolutely sure and make assumptions.sunflower:
What resources are they provided with? It seems to me that each school gives out different sets of notes. Some are poorly written. A precious few are truly stellar. Others don't give out much notes at all. I know this because in the past 2 years, I have made a diligent effort to source for and pore through materials from all sorts of schools. Are we expecting too much of our Teachers that they have to write their own teaching materials AND teach/mark/morally educate multiple classes of 40?Textbooks are written based on the syllabus prescribed by the MOE, which is pretty basic. In all honesty, they are not enough, especially after the \"teach less learn more\" thing, which we see science textbooks being slashed to the minimum. Schools have the duty to teach, and they are provided with the resources to do so. In my children's 2 different neighbourhood schools, they test within the ability of the student population and give notes and organise programmes to help students.
This is reminiscent of Chairman Mao's Great Leap Forward where he tried to stimulate industrialization by encouraging people to develop industry in their backyards. Without the economies of scale, industry standards were low and varied from backyard to backyard. Many of these backyard industries had low standards and few were stellar.
Sounds like the quality delivered by Singapore schools in the present day.
Actually, I do believe schools are given the resources and budget to acquire materials suitable for their students' population. If I'm not wrong, school zone/clusters do share resources. It IS the teacher's duty to write (each subject department can form teams to do that) and provide suitable materials, which cater to the needs of their students. I think schools should release teachers of all those admin and committee work, so they have time to just focus on teaching and their professional development, creating useful teaching materials and providing differential learning experience for their students.
Lastly, the comment that each of us have different experiences in different schools and we over generalise, fails to account for the perspective of professional Tutors... who make it their business to help children from a wide range of different schools. See tutormum's sharing... and this...http://www.nie.edu.sg/nie_cma/attachments/topic/1442c80437tH/13_June_08_ST_Online_Forum_A_Tutors_Take_on_Tuition_Syndrome.pdf
I didn't manage to read the links above. My take would be many of these are good teachers, passionate about teaching, but hated the admin and committee work, as well as the politics in schools. So they come out and do what they love most - teaching. In fact, I would assume some of them would have made use of the notes/materials which they have created for their school students and modify further to cater to their students whom they tutor.
sunflower:
I've been sourcing for Math notes from secondary schools. I haven't found any from any school. Certainly, my son's school didn't give out Math notes. I dunno about Onsponge being \"too detailed\"... but I do know that in 2011 a GEP child found Onsponge most useful indeed (accounting for an improvement of at least 25 marks). The same happened with my son.Some assessment books created fanciful names of maths methods (such as unit tranfer etc) to make parents think that is something new. Frankly, these are just marketing tactics and serve only to confuse students (esp the weaker ones) even more, because they have to remember this and that method (onsponge dissected them into too many details).
In maths, there are just a few fundamental principles that the pupils need to know, and once they understand and with enough practice, they'll be able to apply. I'm sure most schools provide extra notes/resources to supplement the textbooks, and at least for the past 2 years, PSLE questions had been quite reasonable, with maybe 1 or 2 challenging questions to differentiate those with inclination towards maths.
I'm referring to primary schools here, not secondary schools, which is a whole new ballgame altogether. As for the Onsponge being \"too detailed\", this is what someone told me. The book may work well for certain type of students like your son and the GEP child, who are smart, good at reasoning and can study on their own. Weaker students find the so many breakdown of methods confusing and some resort to memorising, which is not how maths should be learnt. DD1 primary school ordered A* Maths assessment books (not available in Popular) for the whole P6 level, and she and her classmates found the questions fun and interesting, not boring and repetitive.sunflower:
You seem to know the educational system very well for a parent who only woke up 1-2weeks before exams... even down to the exact number of 180 schools... resources given to schools generally to help them give out notes... that for the past 2 years PSLE questions have been reasonable (gee... even I didn't know that because the full PSLE papers are not released)... that Onsponge is too detailed (I don't even know that because I couldn't understand Onsponge...)DD1 took her PSLE 2 years back and DD2 now in lower primary. They didn't have tuition (I don't believe in that). DD1 is really an average student. She could have done very well if I had pushed her, but being without a maid, I was too busy with baby and work. I basically left her to her own devices, and only \"woke up\" 1 -2 weeks before exams to coach her. All in all, she REALLY enjoyed her childhood. I think she played too much, doing and creating stuff, reading, playing with sister, drawing, day-dreaming, even learning to play the ukulele and piano from YouTube, and of course, watch TV. I was even chided for being too relaxed! Err... maybe I don't qualify here as a member of KIASU parent. :oops: BTW, DD1 got into her choice school, and enjoys going to school despite the hectic schedule. Most importantly, she's not burnout after PSLE and is motivated to do well in her studies. .
Yah, I know it's pretty hard to believe that for someone who only \"woke up\" 1-2 weeks before exams, I SEEM to know so much. Well, guess it's also pretty hard to believe that being the lazy me, I study only the day before and still ace in exams, much to the envy and jealousy of my friends.
So sad my children don't have my åå. :sad: Actually, I don't know a lot lah. 
Kekeke...I think you've got it all wrong.
It only takes just about 2 minutes to google and count the no. of primary schools in Singapore, and I thought I might have miscounted by about 1 or 2 schools. Is it really EXACTLY 180?
As for PSLE questions being reasonable for the past 2 years, well my DD1 took it 2 years ago and I kaypo read post PSLE internet forums (for my DD1 year and last year), through small talk with neighbours, friends and other parents, and that was the general feel that I gathered from them, no complaints about the exams being too difficult and unmanageable for common folks.
Next, in my experience and that of at least 2 others (psle2011mum and tutormum), children would burn out and give up way before PSLE and for a long time after if we don't help them academically and sustain them emotionally. We certainly could not leave them to face debilitating failure after failure with no hope of doing well because the school teaches so little... and requires so much.
Well, if that's the case, the school's not doing its job. The school's duty is to TEACH and impart knowledge. With the \"Teach Less Learn More\", it's more imperative that school teachers are given more time to know their students, prepare materials and teach creatively. If they are not delivering, please give feedback to the school teacher/principal and maybe MOE! Help the teachers and the school improve! The teachers may need further training in order to deliver the content more effectively. The principal may need to re-set his/her priorities.
An example would be my DD1's school. Parents gave feedback during the dialogue session that other schools' students were given this and that. The HOD actually listened and took action, and after some weeks, the whole P6 level was given extra notes to work on.sunflower:
I am sure you are right here. I have been able to get notes from neighbourhood schools that are excellent.My 2 children attend 2 different neighbouhood primary schools, purely because of convenience and distance. From my observations of the 2 schools, the schools' exams test within the syllabus and not beyond, pretty much PSLE standard. They don't set killer papers, which I've read in the forum. They do identify weaker students and give them extra coaching.
There you go, not ALL schools set killer papers and there are schools that are responsible enough to help students by dishing out great notes.sunflower:
Aaaah... but many children ARE academically inclined. They CAN handle the top school papers if given the opportunity (i.e., the requisite teaching AND the tough exams). It is not the child's fault if most other schools cannot manage to teach to the level of tests set by NYPS... because there could well be children in such schools who CAN manage the rigour... and DESERVE the 25X at the PSLE.Why compare with top schools exam papers and stress ourselves? It's just a handful, less than 10 out of the 180 primary schools! Why set such unrealistic standards if your child is not academically inclined?
It's one thing when you have that opportunity to learn from the school and you don't MAKE it. It's quite another when you don't have that opportunity to learn to begin with.
Agree with you on that, and I beseech everyone here to know your child well (be realistic) and his/her capability. Give feedback to the teacher/school. I'm sure the teacher would be most willing to help. Wouldn't the school want to produce top scorers?sunflower:
Heavy schoolbags is a good excuse for chick lit textbooks? What about iPADS and Kindles etc... These can carry more than 40 books without adding weight. But let us suppose it is a good excuse and MOE has no money to buy iPADS and Kindles for every student.Please know your child well. Not all schools are the same. Why push them into \"branded\" schools and later pile them with tuitions trying to keep up? Providing information packed textbooks may help students of a certain calibre, but we'll certainly complain about why our school bags are so super heavy!
Why not have a set of standardized notes that all schools deliver to students? Do these exist? It does not seem so.
Standardized information should already be in the textbooks. The textbooks are written based on MOE's syllabus and requirements. If they're insufficient, MOE would not have approved them. Nation wide notes may not work, might as well produce another textbook. Customised school notes should cater to students specific needs in that school. As mentioned before and if I'm not wrong, I think schools within cluster/zones do share notes. What I can think of (not sure whether it's already been provided for or not) is a centralised online database/forum where teachers can contribute and have access to teaching materials created by teachers and posted in the MOE teachers portal/forum (create such forum if there isn't one at the moment). All teachers would have the password to access such sharing of info, where they can comment, share resources, post questions and basically help each other. It is up to the teachers' discretion whether to use/modify or give out the notes based on their students needs.sunflower:
Because children are all different, it is an excuse for the system to NOT give same access to content (in view of PSLE as a SAME exam)... There is a flaw in logic somewhere. It's one thing when you have that opportunity to learn from the school and you don't MAKE it. It's quite another when you don't have that opportunity to learn to begin with.Just sharing an experience from my friend. Her 3 children attended the same programme in a tuition centre when each of them reached upper primary. The eldest, being average but diligent, could absorb and apply about 80% of what was being taught. The second was very bright, maybe 98% went in. The third smart but playful, can only absorb 60%. How are we going to judge the tuition centre? The teachers are all given the same materials to teach and in fact, the same teacher taught 2 of the children. There is no one size fit all solutions. Know our children well and let them take the lead, then we will be able to make wise decisions and give them the right kind of support to help them succeed in life, and at the same time, enjoy their childhood.
If you think the school has not provided the child with the opportunity, or is testing excessively beyond what they teach, please feedback to the teachers/school/MOE. 1 or 2 challenging questions in a paper is acceptable (unless the parent is unrealistic about the child's capability and expect full marks), but not the whole paper filled with such questions (I don't think PSLE set questions in this manner, if not, nearly the whole cohort will fail.
If schools did provide more comprehensive textbooks... supplemented by similarly comprehensive NOTES then no parent can cry foul. The reason for poor performance lies clearly in the child's capability. Access to material is fully open.
At present, there is no way to tell whether a child underperforms because he is not taught (and has no access to the material)... or because he just can't handle the material. No one is asking for 100% comprehensive textbooks... but one certainly does not expect the textbooks to document only 20% of what one needs to know for PSLE. Seriously, to do well in school exams, one hardly needs to flip the textbooks at all. They are really BASIC, as you put it.
Many children who ARE capable are NOT fulfilling their potential because they are NOT taught the material (and their parents DON'T give them tuition)... It's almost like a beehive where some bee larvae are fed Royal Jelly because they are the designated Queen Bees. The quantity and quality of the educational material our children are fed with... do have a bearing on their PSLE results.
In the current system, poor performance cannot all to be laid at the door of Low Child Capability. That is why parents cry foul. Until we resolve the wide variance in quality delivered by schools, the Queen Bee imagery is likely to gain traction in the wider political mindset. I already have heard people in the lower socio-economic circles comment that there is a conspiracy to keep the poor where they are... down to feeding them low quality education so that they won't do well at PSLE. Of course, I try to explain that this is not true... but well... the reality is that they think that way. And it will get worse if MOE doesn't stop trying explain things away.
It works for your child, and maybe many others who are equally smart, because they can understand and study on their own. But not all children are like yours. If I throw my DD1 the stuff, she wouldn't have understood them. Teachers still need to teach, it is their job, more so with the \"Teach Less Learn More\", not the tuition centres or enrichment centres. If they don't, are unable to know their students well enough to provide differential teaching/learning, test what they don't teach (expecting tuition centres to have already covered the topics), they fail as teachers as the school fails in providing support/healthy and strong infrastructure for teachers. We should then not just let this phenomenon carry on. School principals / MOE should do something to address the inadequacies of the teachers/schools. More should be done, and it's not just by simply providing notes, but the whole framework, mindset and priorities of the specific schools and teachers should change.
Just fix it.[/quote] -
BeContented:
Thanks BeContented. :hi5: I guess we are the same lazy and limited \"chup\" only.
:hi5: :goodpost: :goodpost:
I have 2 kids in different neighborhood Sch too. While one is a good sch, the other is probably one of the lousiest around this area (IMO & only comparing academics). Both kids' abilities are quite similar.....so I can see the difference in Sch. Eventually, my expectation from each has to be set differently too.
-
oxyleo:
I think it's not easy for teachers in normal neighbourhood schools to give their students all the resources that the teachers in so call good schools such as NYPS give their students. I'm not sure but I guess even in NYPS, not all classes are all given equal kind of notes. In the first place, many students start P1 at different levels and by giving ALL schools and everybody the same \"cheem\" stuff, it may even demoralise the weaker students further because they can't understand and may not learn as fast, prompting those in neighbourhood schools to believe that tuition is indeed necessary in order to fill in the gaps.I agree with Chenonceau.
Think of our education system this way. It's sort of like our current access to TV channels these days.
1) Free channels - Ch 5, 8, okto...
2) Pay TV -
(i) Basic Tier Cable TV
(ii) Add-on channels
(iii) On-demand TV
The good schools, as Chen describes, give you full access to ALL channels, on the house, mind you.
Some schools give you only the free channels, and a bit of basic tier pay-TV.
According to experiences shared with me by some friends, it seems that the kids who are streamed to classes other than the top classes also are deliberately only given access to Free TV, because they are deemed to be less capable, and hence really shouldn't view more than they brains can take.
Now think of PSLE as a test that assesses you on what you watch during the last 6 years, and the content of that cuts across all available channels on both Free and Pay Tv.
Kids who are in anything other than the good schools have to find a way to access all the other channels. Their parents, mostly not being experts in the field, need to find out somehow what is being aired on those other channels, in an amateurish, non-targeted manner. Because of this, many have decided to turn to tuition in the hope that the tution centers have a better idea than them as to what their kids were missing out on all those other channels.
If we veer the discussion away from education for a moment, and turn it purely to one of viewing TV for pleasure, surely many would argue almost instantly that it isn't fair that some estates, such as the Bukit Timah areas, should get to watch all channels whilst others get only some. It is unlikely that people would be accepting of the differences. Whether you have the time or the capacity to watch and appreciate all the channels is besides the point.
Now, apply the above into the context of public education. Whether a child has the ability to absorb everything is besides the point. Shouldn't they all have access to what's out there? At the very least to the point of what will be tested? Whilst streaming arguably works in favor of the smarter ones, and we do want to ensure they don't get bored and lose interest, are we doing the right thing by limiting or not ensuring that the other children have access to all the other channels? -
Mychildren:
Err...I think not only parents of children in schools who don't seemed to provide the necessary materials who are giving extra stuff to their children, being kiasu, parents of branded schools are doing the same as well, boosting their children's performance with enrichment and tuition, despite the schools having done their part in teaching and giving extra resources (as believed by many parents).At present, there is no way to tell whether a child underperforms because he is not taught (and has no access to the material)... or because he just can't handle the material. No one is asking for 100% comprehensive textbooks... but one certainly does not expect the textbooks to document only 20% of what one needs to know for PSLE. Seriously, to do well in school exams, one hardly needs to flip the textbooks at all. They are really BASIC, as you put it.
Many children who ARE capable are NOT fulfilling their potential because they are NOT taught the material (and their parents DON'T give them tuition)... It's almost like a beehive where some bee larvae are fed Royal Jelly because they are the designated Queen Bees. The quantity and quality of the educational material our children are fed with... do have a bearing on their PSLE results.
by Chenonceau
:goodpost:
GOOD POST & WELL SAID!!!
Totally AGREE with you!
I've been sourcing materials for my children now. No point depending on the school.
Parents of p1 & 2 won't feel a sting now. They'll know it as children progress from p4 onwards. Wait for the school to do something, by the time my children already finished their PSLE lo....... Got to take action before it's too late. Sigh, my job lo...... :sick: -
[quote] 40% of NYPS scores above 25X. This is because the school tests hard and teaches a lot. This is school specific too I would imagine. School specificity is a poor excuse for the variance in quality delivered by across schools in Singapore wherein...
Well, I think why 40% of NYPS scores above 25X is because the parents (probably more than 70% of them) who got their children into this school are already kiasu themselves, and most probably would have given their children lots of enrichment/tuition before their children start P1. The school has no choice but to adjust and teach according to the majority students' ability, that's why the perceived high standard.[/quote]Are we sure that this 40% of NYPS who scores above 25X is the result of school's teaching ONLY and nothing esle? :scratchhead: -
3Boys:
Indeed, I agree with you on that, 3Boys. :hi5:Wow!! BeContented, your post hits closest to my view on this matter, and put very eloquently too.
Too which I will add 1 further nuance.....
I don't think it matters very much at all in the long run. -
chamonix:
Are we sure that this 40% of NYPS who scores above 25X is the result of school's teaching ONLY and nothing esle? :scratchhead:[/quote]Kekeke...I don't think so. I hear of GEP students in NYPS, and for that matter, many other students in so called branded schools taking enrichment and tuition too. Some maybe, but I would think majority having that score is not due ONLY to the school's teaching.[quote] 40% of NYPS scores above 25X. This is because the school tests hard and teaches a lot. This is school specific too I would imagine. School specificity is a poor excuse for the variance in quality delivered by across schools in Singapore wherein...
Well, I think why 40% of NYPS scores above 25X is because the parents (probably more than 70% of them) who got their children into this school are already kiasu themselves, and most probably would have given their children lots of enrichment/tuition before their children start P1. The school has no choice but to adjust and teach according to the majority students' ability, that's why the perceived high standard.
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 š
Register Login
Online Users
Statistics
Popular Topics
