GCE debate rages as study shows UK kid's maths woes
-
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. -
oxyleo:
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.
I honestly don't think this happens. There is enough mobility within the levels, and as one transitions from P-school to S-school and beyond, there is really ample opportunity for the later developers to shine.
The problem is for parents to accept this, kiasu as we are. Once our child enters a medium level or foundation class, we think he is doomed for life. The school doesn't think so, but we suddenly fear that he is losing out on higher level teaching. We need to get out of that mindset. -
3Boys:
oxyleo:
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.
I honestly don't think this happens. There is enough mobility within the levels, and as one transitions from P-school to S-school and beyond, there is really ample opportunity for the later developers to shine.
The problem is for parents to accept this, kiasu as we are. Once our child enters a medium level or foundation class, we think he is doomed for life. The school doesn't think so, but we suddenly fear that he is losing out on higher level teaching. We need to get out of that mindset.
I honestly know teachers and former teachers first hand who tell me everything should be fine so long as your child gets to the best class or top 2 classes. They honestly also tell me that it is awfully exhausting, KPIs count, not compassion for children in the poorer performing classes, and although these gems continue to seek to do what's right, doing what's right is not what gets one promoted. Their own families and children get neglected. One gem I know has already left the teaching profession to join a popular enrichment centre. She taught my son last year - very inspiring, dedicated, motivated, loved and connected with the children, even printed and laminated certificates for the children to spur them on to do well, but she has had enough. Her promotion came too late. Another is contemplating leaving.
I honestly also know friends and family first-hand, whose kids and parents are having a hard time filling up the gap because a HOD or teacher has told them the last class only covers 30% of what is to be tested. Go for tuition. But the kid will get tested on 100% of the material anyway. And the test results will be counted, and determinant as to where the kid gets streamed to next year.
I think most of us who write here are parents, and certainly have gone through life enough to know that experiences do differ from one individual to another. For those of us who have been blessed with lesser trials and challenges, I assume no one ventures to say our positive experiences in life are surreal and untrue. Likewise, let's accord the same acknowledgement and respect to those who express an experience less positive than ours. -
oxyleo:
Well, I feel this is hyperbolic and probably exaggerated by your friends feeding you the stories. You have agreed that standards need to be kept high. You have also agreed that students learn at different rates. If the teachers in the last class were to in fact cover every inch of the syllabus, would that in fact be beneficial to the child or detrimental?
I honestly also know friends and family first-hand, whose kids and parents are having a hard time filling up the gap because a HOD or teacher has told them the last class only covers 30% of what is to be tested. Go for tuition. But the kid will get tested on 100% of the material anyway. And the test results will be counted, and determinant as to where the kid gets streamed to next year.
Of course, a solution is to have different levels of testing, and we know where that gets us, right? Or we slow them down in school, 8 years in primary school perhaps. Blunt and brutal, but lets talk about what's best for the student against whether the parents feel like they lose face.
Again it comes back to the old issue that different children have different learning abilities, no amount of labelling/re-labelling, extra coaching will change that significantly. So either we slow down the pace for weaker students, or set a lower standard for examining them, or we mash all the high and low ability into one cohort. I am ok with all three, but lets not delude ourselves that somehow with a lot of extra coaching that the weaker ability students will be comfortably on par with the stronger ones. Even if it works, it will be temporary. And if indeed they did get on par, the implication is that the higher ability students have not been optimally schooled, and the whole vicious cycle starts again. We've been through that discussion on coached GEP entry students, which in my view is a recipe for disaster. Much better to let the students find their own level. But how many parents are willing to accept that? If a child does badly in school, its always the teacher's fault or that the exam was too tough.
The students themselves won't think its a self-esteem problem if the parents don't make it so. The worry and anxiety and fretfulness works its way through to them. Parents who accept their children for who they are, instead of constantly wringing their hands, will have far better adjusted kids, in my view, however strong or weak they were in academics. -
3Boys:
I understand that it is exasperating to not be able to convince people to hold the same view as you, but as someone corresponding with you on this a forum, I do think it necessary to convey to you that your judgement on my friends' stories as exaggerated are exceedingly audacious. Even my own mother stopped doing so when I celebrated adulthood, and my husband knows better than to pronounce judgment on my friends' credibility. Thank you very much. That is a basic respect that individuals accord to each other. It is more serious than you know if you are not even aware of what you are doing.
Well, I feel this is hyperbolic and probably exaggerated by your friends feeding you the stories. You have agreed that standards need to be kept high. You have also agreed that students learn at different rates. If the teachers in the last class were to in fact cover every inch of the syllabus, would that in fact be beneficial to the child or detrimental?oxyleo:
I honestly also know friends and family first-hand, whose kids and parents are having a hard time filling up the gap because a HOD or teacher has told them the last class only covers 30% of what is to be tested. Go for tuition. But the kid will get tested on 100% of the material anyway. And the test results will be counted, and determinant as to where the kid gets streamed to next year.
Of course, a solution is to have different levels of testing, and we know where that gets us, right? Or we slow them down in school, 8 years in primary school perhaps. Blunt and brutal, but lets talk about what's best for the student against whether the parents feel like they lose face.
Again it comes back to the old issue that different children have different learning abilities, no amount of labelling/re-labelling, extra coaching will change that significantly. So either we slow down the pace for weaker students, or set a lower standard for examining them, or we mash all the high and low ability into one cohort. I am ok with all three, but lets not delude ourselves that somehow with a lot of extra coaching that the weaker ability students will be comfortably on par with the stronger ones. Even if it works, it will be temporary. And if indeed they did get on par, the implication is that the higher ability students have not been optimally schooled, and the whole vicious cycle starts again. We've been through that discussion on coached GEP entry students, which in my view is a recipe for disaster. Much better to let the students find their own level. But how many parents are willing to accept that? If a child does badly in school, its always the teacher's fault or that the exam was too tough.
The students themselves won't think its a self-esteem problem if the parents don't make it so. The worry and anxiety and fretfulness works its way through to them. Parents who accept their children for who they are, instead of constantly wringing their hands, will have far better adjusted kids, in my view, however strong or weak they were in academics.
Back to your other points. Regardless of what sorts of parents we have in the system, logical or otherwise, too proud or otherwise, too kiasu or otherwise, we need to encourage that our ministries do the right thing. And I would give our ministries more credit than that. What we think is not solvable, may actually be possible. They are the experts, right? Are we being audacious here again to presume they cannot fix things?
Yes, you have gathered correctly that I support streaming and high standards, but I do not support boxing children in. No, I do not mean equal access to information and material means i expect it produces equal outcomes, I think it is only fair to allow children access to what's out there, what they will be judged on in their educational journey. Having less material for children who seem to not catch up from p1 or p2 is an assumption in itself that they cannot ever catch up. And that cannot be right for any child.
Take dyslexia. Dyslexic children have difficulty reading, we all know that. But can dyslexic children read? Of course they can. A mother of 2 dyslexic children told me the only solution to help them get up to speed is to make them read 20-30 times more than a normal kid with no difficulties. They do read eventually. I volunteer with the Reading Program in my son's school, and we have seen a few dyslexic children blossom. Do we let them read even less because they can't. To the contrary, no. We make them read even more.
Does the dyslexic child's mother ever expect her child to read as well as other normal children? No. But is she going to deny him the opportunity to read more? No. In that same token, should we be teaching children streamed into the last classes less, or should we make them practice more, drill more? Ad once they are up to speed, move on to the next thing. It is difficult, but I think we owe it to the children.
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
Online Users
Statistics
Popular Topics
