GCE debate rages as study shows UK kid's maths woes
-
3Boys:
What is your definition of 'normal'? Or do you mean 'average'? The problem is that a lot of people use 'normal' and 'average' interchangeably, leading to confusion.SAHM_TAN:
So to sum up I'm not angry at the difficulty level of PSLE. I'm angry that schools do not believe all kids with normal IQ and ability can manage it. This is primary education, how can normal kids cannot handle? When MOE, schools and teachers believe not all normal kids can handle the academic demands of PRIMARY education, then they will not be given a fair fighting chance. In a nation whereby the only resource is her pple, I don't understand why the kids are not treasured more in the education journey.
Here are some numbers for you to mull over --> http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx
If say 'normal' encompasses 2 standard deviations from the mean, then the 'normal' IQ range can span from the low 70s up to 130+. That is a big range, and yes, low 70s are represented in the mainstream schools, and up to 5% of our students will be at that level or lower. And yes, this group, (up to 5% or more, or about 2 students per class of 40), will struggle, sometimes significantly with basic P-school content and syllabus. The 'average' student, on the other hand, I believe has no trouble managing the P-school syllabus.
This corresponds very nicely with statistics --> http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1167372/1/.html
Between 95-97% of each P-school cohort will pass PSLE. So I really can't see where the assertion that P-school kids are assumed not to be able to manage P-School syllabus comes from, since 97% or them, when tested, actually passed the exam.
Is there a differentiated syllabus? Well, of course, unless you are saying that's a bad thing too......I would shudder to think what would happen if our brighter students lost motivation or switched off if they did not feel challenged by the subject matter.
Honestly, I am having a hard time understanding what the grouse is.[/quote]
It's ok. Let me try again tonite when the kids are asleep to try to explain in another post to this thread. My intention is not to try to convince you but to explain my stand better. I am not suggesting kids who are able to score all As to be neglected or slowed down. That's not my stand. I'm also not against GEP. I will try again tonite. -
SAHM_TAN:
Alright, don't mean to stress you, but good definitions make for a good discussion yes?
It's ok. Let me try again tonite when the kids are asleep to try to explain in another post to this thread. My intention is not to try to convince you but to explain my stand better. I am not suggesting kids who are able to score all As to be neglected or slowed down. That's not my stand. I'm also not against GEP. I will try again tonite. -
Here in the UK the opposition Labour party wants to use former/existing armed forces personnel to staff schools and to enforce discipline and to raise educational standards.....You can't make it up: :?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9387642/Labour-plan-to-set-up-Service-Schools-staffed-by-soldiers.html -
Well, I did come across ex-SAF uniform personnel who became VP in a JC.
-
3Boys:
No stress, I need to exercise my brain to of use to my kids.
Alright, don't mean to stress you, but good definitions make for a good discussion yes?SAHM_TAN:
It's ok. Let me try again tonite when the kids are asleep to try to explain in another post to this thread. My intention is not to try to convince you but to explain my stand better. I am not suggesting kids who are able to score all As to be neglected or slowed down. That's not my stand. I'm also not against GEP. I will try again tonite.
Ok, this is what I believe, each child has potential and talents. The talents can be academic or non-academic like sports, arts, a fantastic cook etc. I believe if such talents can be translated into their passion and into their work, it would be good. Just like not everyone can be a surgeon, not everyone can be a chef.
Education as a whole is more or less provide manpower for the nation's economic needs. We are a practical nation, economics is the bottomline.
I treasure Primary education becos I believed it to be
the base, the foundation. I do not expect 100% pass for PSLE, my std is lower than NYPS, a few years ago when I choked it's website, the target was 100% pass for PSLE. I'm not sure if they have foundation class. A child might under perform during PSLE for whatever reasons, so I don't expect 100%.
I've been thinking what I meant by normal. I've never read about IQ tests, the range and the meaning. So it's an eye-opener for me that the normal range is low 70s-130. I should research what's the functionality of a person with low 70s-90s IQ before I decide what I meant by normal. But decided not to because it has been a long day and also because of what I believed in a child. So I decided my normal will be to use the IQ range.
To me primary education is still outsid of meeting the nation's economic future manpower needs. Though there are elements of educating the primary school going kids to meet the demands of a 21st century world.
I know kids have different level of competencies and skills before entering P1. This can be due to nature or nurture. But I believe all kids at that age and younger have a natural curiosity and the instinct of wanting to learn.
I cannot accept that normal kids cannot understand all of primary education content, so that there's a need for foundation syllabus and kids not in high ability classes are not expose to same material. I know the argument of if the child doesn't understand then it will just confuse the child so it's best to focus on the basics and make sure the child gets it right. But this primary education so I don't get it. I just feel that more can be done. It might not be economical, efficient or logical but these are young kids and I feel it's worth it.
The schools know the demographics of their students, their pre-school history. The kids are selected for LSP to help them catch up. P1 is the bridging year but why wait till P1? I find that much of P1 work is like K1/K2 work. I believe that pre-school education when compulsory will help. I don't understand why it's not compulsory.
I believe that if a child's education at K1 is managed well, then at primary school stage, more work can be done so that there's no need for foundation course and the kids will not be too far behind kids who are streamed into high abilities.
My kids go to Montessori kindergarten, so I don't think high ability kids can only benefit only when they are streamed from non-high abilities kids. During kindy, my dd1 was slower in English and Maths but she was still in the same class as those kids who were better in English and Maths. Her self-esteem was not affected and she was in fact motivated to catch up with the rest. As for the kids who are better in Eng and Maths, they were not pulled down by my daughter, they continued what they were able to achieved. The same is happening to my ds. He is not very serious in his work, a cheeky fellow and one who refused to be 5yos till his bday. But now he's also very motivated to catch up with his classmates too and his classmates are not pulled down by him too.
Of course class size of primary school is bigger than kindy. Though a good Montessori teacher is able to manage a class size of 20 and each child will progress without being held back. I was told there are Montessori based primary schools in Canada. I know our primary school is far from achieving a class size of 20 and I know Montessori method is not recognise here. I'm not suggesting Montessori method to be used but that it's possible not to stream.
I think I'm trying to say a child who is not stream into the high ability class will also be able to understand the materials taught in high ability class if K1 education is managed well and kids with poor home support or discipline issues are overcome. Because it's primary education, it's the base, the foundation, how can discount the base even further for kids?
If this is a GP paper, it might receive a failing grade. It's not very coherent, it's been a long day. I'm probably the only person in ksp and maybe in Singapore who feel that it's possible to do without foundation class or that it's possible for kids who are not identify as high ability to understand their materials. I believe it's possible at primary education level. Just need to start at K1, make sure the curriculum and teachers are of a certain std to pull it off. Of course understanding the materials do not mean all will score as well. The analysing, application and memory skills will be different. -
SAHM_TAN:
you need to be realistic. no two person has equal ability, except for robots or the minions in Despicable Me.
I cannot accept that normal kids cannot understand all of primary education content, so that there's a need for foundation syllabus and kids not in high ability classes are not expose to same material. I know the argument of if the child doesn't understand then it will just confuse the child so it's best to focus on the basics and make sure the child gets it right. But this primary education so I don't get it. I just feel that more can be done. It might not be economical, efficient or logical but these are young kids and I feel it's worth it.
normal range of academic ability is a huge range, and if going by IQ testing it ranges from IQ 70 to 130, as someone posted.
whether you can accept it not, the wide variation exists, and no amount of whatever effort is going to bridge it. every one is unique
you have said it is not economical nor efficient nor logical to achieve uniform standard - but as it is, the passing rate at PSLE for promotion to sec school is almost 100% -- so there you are, at the passing level - almost everyone has the same standard if you just look at 'passing'. Just bench mark it at passing level, please don't bench mark it at the top 10%/20%/30% etc of the cohort. -
verykiasu2010:
Agree more with vks2010.
you need to be realistic. no two person has equal ability, except for robots or the minions in Despicable Me.SAHM_TAN:
I cannot accept that normal kids cannot understand all of primary education content, so that there's a need for foundation syllabus and kids not in high ability classes are not expose to same material. I know the argument of if the child doesn't understand then it will just confuse the child so it's best to focus on the basics and make sure the child gets it right. But this primary education so I don't get it. I just feel that more can be done. It might not be economical, efficient or logical but these are young kids and I feel it's worth it.
normal range of academic ability is a huge range, and if going by IQ testing it ranges from IQ 70 to 130, as someone posted.
whether you can accept it not, the wide variation exists, and no amount of whatever effort is going to bridge it. every one is unique
you have said it is not economical nor efficient nor logical to achieve uniform standard - but as it is, the passing rate at PSLE for promotion to sec school is almost 100% -- so there you are, at the passing level - almost everyone has the same standard if you just look at 'passing'. Just bench mark it at passing level, please don't bench mark it at the top 10%/20%/30% etc of the cohort.
My own experience during my school days + looking at my 2 kids learning journey, personally, I support streaming cos' the wide variation in the kids' learning abilities can be really difficult to bridge.
Pre-school work is relatively easier and kids will not pull down each other significantly.....but as they progress and things become content-heavier, it will be different. In time to come, some will not be able to cope anymore (can be learning ability, can be attitude and no interest). So do we leave them as it is or do we stall the class and wait for them (since the T has to spend more time re-explain & teach)?
IMO, I'll rather split them and apply the appropriate teaching/teachers to each group so that all will progress at their appropriate pace. -
SAHM_TAN, thanks for your long post, I see you are idealistic and passionate about this, which is great. Not much more for me to add to vks2010 or BeContented. Quite simply, and ugly though it is, there is a wide variation in learning ability in children (and adults even). I see it even in my own kids, they learn differently and at different speeds. Short of individualised 1:1 coaching, I think some form of differentiated teaching and syllabus is the only real way we can get the best out of each child.
-
3Boys:
Short of individualised 1:1 coaching, I think some form of differentiated teaching and syllabus is the only real way we can get the best out of each child.
Retain your status quo. Differentiated teaching and syllabii would only serve to dumb down your curricula and educational attainment. We are seeing the error of our ways, here, in the UK - where the remit is now to take on the tiger economies by benchmarking to their educational systems first.
You will only realise the value of your existing educational system when it is dumbed down - and you see the results. -
Hi everyone,
My interpretation of SAHM Tan’s post is not that she is suggesting no streaming, lowering of standards or anything like that. Nor of asking for equal outcomes. I interpret her post to mean that she hopes all children can be given support to be brought up to speed on subject matter, not that when they are tested, they are found to have similar aptitude on subject matter.
I agree streaming is unavoidable, and high standards must be maintained. The original intention of streaming is also favorable. The fitter and ready ones move on and learn subject matter in a more in-depth manner. Those who are not good enough yet need to practice more and work even harder than those who are already ahead, and the teachers are there to encourage them and drill in concepts. What may have arisen as a result of streaming to the lower ranks of a school system is that children are assumed to not ever be good enough, even with hard work, and are taught even less because they are thought to not be able to keep up anyway. For those streamed into weaker classes, it is my opinion that they should be taught to embrace drill and practice even more, and be encouraged and motivated further not to give up.
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 💗
Register Login