GCE debate rages as study shows UK kid's maths woes

[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.

[oxyleo]

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.

[3Boys]

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.

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?

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.

[oxyleo]

3Boys:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[3Boys]

oxyleo:

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.

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.

Well, if you had not experienced the situation yourself, then it qualifies as hearsay, and when hearsay is sensationalist (like, \"we only teach 30% of the syllabus\"), then it needs to be challenged. Sorry if this is upsetting to you, I am merely doing the diligence, as we all must if we are stating something that is detrimental to the reputation of an individual or organisation. It is not audacity by any means. Suffice to say, I choose to be sceptical about your friend's assertion that the teacher or principal would TELL her that only 30% of the syllabus would be covered. At best, that would be career suicide for that educator. Its not to say I disbelieve your re-telling of it, just to make the distinction.

So you support streaming, but you support equal amount of content and pace of instruction, despite streaming. How on earth does that gel?

Streaming is in fact putting people in 'streams', or channels, or classifications.......or......boxes. It is a recognition that a different approach, or pace, or content need be applied. If we do not differentiate on those grounds, then why bother streaming? Lets just mash them together (which is ok with me, really).

Lets take the example of dyslexia. There are educationally subnormal children in Singapore, due to organic reasons, genetic abnormalities, birth trauma or just plain low intellect. That is the reality of life. These are the bottom 5% on the IQ tests. These are still precious children to us, we love them, groom them, put them in situations where they can best manage. They are not in the mainstream schools, they are in MINDS, or Chaoyang special school or some other. No one would ever argue that they should be given the full weight of the P-school syllabus. They receive special coaching, but they will be very hard pressed to pass P-school exams. The material they use will necessarily be restricted. The better ones will get stretched a little further if they can manage.

The cut-off for special schools is an assessed IQ of around 70.

Lets take a student with an IQ of 80. He CAN be found in a mainstream school. He may or may not have an organic illness or hereditary condition. Point is, he represents a normal variation of the human condition. IQ 80 is not abnormal, anymore than being 1.5 meters in height is abnormal, BUT functionally, he is NOT the same as someone who is IQ 130. Before I go on, let me just say IQ tests are subjective, and they test reasoning, so lets not try and attach more to them than they deserve, but they are reasonably predictive of certain academic abilities. So these children are functionally better off than those at IQ 70, but not by a whole lot. They are marginal in managing P-school syllabus. If tested harder, they will fail, if pushed harder, they will start exhibiting stress and behavioural issues, much like a very bright student placed in GEP who can't manage the work. Actually GEP is a very good example, we know hot-housing only works to some extent, i.e. at some point your natural ability will show (or not). The same principle applies to lower ability students. So why is it then that there is an expectation for them to be given the same amount of content as the higher ability kids? If they are indeed late developers, their natural progression will be obvious. There is an example in my DS1's class, a boy who was slow in class without foundation initially, given lower content to begin with, but showed steady progress and the teacher steadily upped his difficulty level progressively until he did quite well at the end of P2.

So, as much as we love these children (and because we love them), can we reasonably expect them to cover the same amount of material in the same time frame as higher ability kids? Its like asking 40 y.o. slightly overweight me to chase a Nigerian at the Singapore marathon, \"C'mon, you can do it, we coach you.\" You may say, it doesn't matter how long you take to finish, but who's to say I can cover the 42km, or that I even want to do it?

Lets not confuse or kid ourselves here. We can titrate or jiggle along a few dimensions, time, content, testing, delivery. For any particular child, they all involve tradeoffs, for a higher ability child, the envelope is larger, for a lower ability child, the envelope is smaller, but we love all envelopes, no matter big or small.

If a child has been mis-classified, lets have some faith in the system that the teachers will monitor progress and increase amount and difficulty of content for that child. I have seen it happen.

[BeContented]

I have 2 kids & I try to feed them equal amount of food daily. Each has 30 mins of meal time & 30 mins of playtime.


The boy eats well & fast, finish his food in 15mins & has extra playtime & in between ask for more food.

The gal has difficulty eating fast, nibbles at her food & often unable to finish in 30mins time, feels full too. What would u do?
- give her extra time to eat by taking away playtime?
- reduce her food portion?
- force-feed her & make her dread mealtime?

[optimistforum]

BeContented:

I have 2 kids & I try to feed them equal amount of food daily. Each has 30 mins of meal time & 30 mins of playtime.


The boy eats well & fast, finish his food in 15mins & has extra playtime & in between ask for more food.

The gal has difficulty eating fast, nibbles at her food & often unable to finish in 30mins time, feels full too. What would u do?
- give her extra time to eat by taking away playtime?
- reduce her food portion?
- force-feed her & make her dread mealtime?

Options 1 and 3 work for me.

[Lilac66]

BeContented:

I have 2 kids & I try to feed them equal amount of food daily. Each has 30 mins of meal time & 30 mins of playtime.


The boy eats well & fast, finish his food in 15mins & has extra playtime & in between ask for more food.

The gal has difficulty eating fast, nibbles at her food & often unable to finish in 30mins time, feels full too. What would u do?
- give her extra time to eat by taking away playtime?
- reduce her food portion?
- force-feed her & make her dread mealtime?

I'll whack her flat for not appreciating food.Oops! It's an analogy?

[oxyleo]

3Boys:

Well, if you had not experienced the situation yourself, then it qualifies as hearsay, and when hearsay is sensationalist (like, \"we only teach 30% of the syllabus\"), then it needs to be challenged. Sorry if this is upsetting to you, I am merely doing the diligence, as we all must if we are stating something that is detrimental to the reputation of an individual or organisation. It is not audacity by any means. Suffice to say, I choose to be sceptical about your friend's assertion that the teacher or principal would TELL her that only 30% of the syllabus would be covered. At best, that would be career suicide for that educator. Its not to say I disbelieve your re-telling of it, just to make the distinction.

I like that you are doing your due diligence, and it is the right thing to do, but remaining where you are, in your own circle, without venturing out to verify what you hear, does not qualify as doing your due d. It means you have destined it to remain as hearsay for you unless you experience it for yourself, or someone drags a confessing teacher to you, which even then you may view with skepticism. I sincerely think feedback of any sort, positive or negative, can and should be validated by any parties that it may concern, but validation should also be about asking around more to gather other people's experiences outside of its forum, in taxi rides, during your gatherings with friends who have school going children and so on. Outside of your circle, especially so if your friends mostly share a common profile - similar earning income, similar living standards etc.

So you support streaming, but you support equal amount of content and pace of instruction, despite streaming. How on earth does that gel?

I'll give this a go again. Perhaps I wasn't specific enough. Streaming, in and of itself, helps us identify the strengths and or weaknesses of those in the system. Yes, the preliminary round is to place them in boxes, but we should be taking a next step to address those weaknesses, not label them and leave them in that box. Some weaknesses can be addressed with the right dose of perseverance and drill. It then gives the child a reasonable chance of being assessed fairly again at the next streaming.

Streaming is in fact putting people in 'streams', or channels, or classifications.......or......boxes. It is a recognition that a different approach, or pace, or content need be applied. If we do not differentiate on those grounds, then why bother streaming? Lets just mash them together (which is ok with me, really).



Lets take the example of dyslexia. There are educationally subnormal children in Singapore, due to organic reasons, genetic abnormalities, birth trauma or just plain low intellect. That is the reality of life. These are the bottom 5% on the IQ tests. These are still precious children to us, we love them, groom them, put them in situations where they can best manage. They are not in the mainstream schools, they are in MINDS, or Chaoyang special school or some other. No one would ever argue that they should be given the full weight of the P-school syllabus. They receive special coaching, but they will be very hard pressed to pass P-school exams. The material they use will necessarily be restricted. The better ones will get stretched a little further if they can manage.

The cut-off for special schools is an assessed IQ of around 70.

Maybe your kids have not encountered kids with dyslexia or Adhd in mainstream school yet, or maybe the school does not accept them, but in my son's mainstream school, there are on average 2-3 kids in each class who are either dyslexic or have ADHD. Please don't take my word for it, but you may want to ask around amongst friends you know who have kids in other schools vs yours. Also, Dyslexic children and children with ADHD have learning difficulties but not necessarily low IQ. A boy with ADHD in my son's class actually scored well enough last year to be in the best MT class, with teacher and parental coaching. Dyslexic boys in P1 also \"graduate\" out of the reading program once they successfully master the required reading levels. They don't stay in any box for being dyslexic or having ADHD and certainly do not get exposed to less test material. What they are given in school tests is more time to complete their work.

Lets take a student with an IQ of 80. He CAN be found in a mainstream school. He may or may not have an organic illness or hereditary condition. Point is, he represents a normal variation of the human condition. IQ 80 is not abnormal, anymore than being 1.5 meters in height is abnormal, BUT functionally, he is NOT the same as someone who is IQ 130. Before I go on, let me just say IQ tests are subjective, and they test reasoning, so lets not try and attach more to them than they deserve, but they are reasonably predictive of certain academic abilities. So these children are functionally better off than those at IQ 70, but not by a whole lot. They are marginal in managing P-school syllabus. If tested harder, they will fail, if pushed harder, they will start exhibiting stress and behavioural issues, much like a very bright student placed in GEP who can't manage the work. Actually GEP is a very good example, we know hot-housing only works to some extent, i.e. at some point your natural ability will show (or not). The same principle applies to lower ability students. So why is it then that there is an expectation for them to be given the same amount of content as the higher ability kids? If they are indeed late developers, their natural progression will be obvious. There is an example in my DS1's class, a boy who was slow in class without foundation initially, given lower content to begin with, but showed steady progress and the teacher steadily upped his difficulty level progressively until he did quite well at the end of P2.

Thanks for sharing this example. I would like to hear a little more on how this teacher successfully transitioned the boy from being slow in class to doing well. It will be great to learn and apply this to others.

So, as much as we love these children (and because we love them), can we reasonably expect them to cover the same amount of material in the same time frame as higher ability kids? Its like asking 40 y.o. slightly overweight me to chase a Nigerian at the Singapore marathon, \"C'mon, you can do it, we coach you.\" You may say, it doesn't matter how long you take to finish, but who's to say I can cover the 42km, or that I even want to do it?

The key difference in this analogy is that we know factually that the man is 40 and slightly overweight. From his ID and his physical appearance. In the case of children at 7 or 8, how do we know the children that we have streamed into the worst class are there because they really absolutely have no aptitude? It is not something that is identifiable by age or size. Could it be that everyone else was attending Lorna Whiston and Mindchamps since 3 whilst he was staying home cos his family couldn't afford it? By 40 yrs of age, it is a true a man will know what he wants or doesn't want to do, for kids below 12, quite many of them appear not wanting to attempt things that seem beyond them, but with a whole load of encouragement and motivation and doses of self-esteem, they actually show that they can.

Lets not confuse or kid ourselves here. We can titrate or jiggle along a few dimensions, time, content, testing, delivery. For any particular child, they all involve tradeoffs, for a higher ability child, the envelope is larger, for a lower ability child, the envelope is smaller, but we love all envelopes, no matter big or small.

Yes, I understand. Overly supporting high achievers and GEP kids would be deemed elitist. Slowing the whole cohort down for everyone else to catch up would be deemed populist/pluralistic. I am not in favor of swinging too much either way. I hope we can find a good balance.

If a child has been mis-classified, lets have some faith in the system that the teachers will monitor progress and increase amount and difficulty of content for that child. I have seen it happen.

Admittedly I used to have more faith in the system, but ever since the IP got introduced, and KPIs got introduced, and schools operated more autonomously, that faith has eroded.

[metz]

BeContented:

I have 2 kids & I try to feed them equal amount of food daily. Each has 30 mins of meal time & 30 mins of playtime.


The boy eats well & fast, finish his food in 15mins & has extra playtime & in between ask for more food.

The gal has difficulty eating fast, nibbles at her food & often unable to finish in 30mins time, feels full too. What would u do?
- give her extra time to eat by taking away playtime?
- reduce her food portion?
- force-feed her & make her dread mealtime?

I'll seek to understand why the child is taking a much longer time to finish a meal.

If the child is a small eater and is growing well, I'll reduce the portion and have more frequent meals/snacks accordingly.

If the child is talking or doing other things during mealtimes, I'll threaten to dump the food away.

If the child is playing with food (just holding the food in the mouth) or refuses to eat or being choosy, I'll spank his/her bottom.

My daughter belongs to the second category. A lot of threatening during mealtimes. :evil: