MOe announced Learning of English to Develop 21st Century
-
My DS is in p2 now and had been using Stellar since p1. Based on my experience, agree that it may be more suitable for pre-schoolers. I had to accelerate him to p3 work in order to keep him focus - everything had been taught since pre-school so he becomes extremely careless. My biggest challenge now is learning from all the parents in this website how to teach him write essays. They do not seem to teach it well in school. Am not sure if it is the curriculum or implementation which is causing the problem.
-
MyBaby:
Yes.... Look after your own kids like I looked after mine. But yes... Speak up too. Exactly like this. Reasonably, wisely... Measuredly.As we were discussing the revised examination format over dinner last night, I told my son (who is in P3 this year) that it looks like I have to coach him. He added that I am already his coach for Chinese and Science.
I have no complains over the revised MOE syllabus, however, I have my reservations over the implementation - I doubt whether teachers know what is required and whether are they competent enough to teach and assess. -
Hi Chen,
Conceptually, I think it is good program provided comprehensive materials are given to teachers for teaching and the class-size is small.
Sigh..... my dd is with Stellar program for 3 years but I have NOT seen any teaching materials (eg. visual materials..etc.) so far and I have personally witnessed how they conduct the class, I can only find one word to describe it 'chaotic' for lower primary. For the last 3 years, my dd has not bought back much learning materials that can give me some kinds of assurance about the program....nothing concrete at all..
Good thing is my dd is having fun and good time in schools and looking forward to school everyday..
I have to supplement it with teaching grammar, subscribing reading programs and even sending her to TLL for more exposure to high thinking materials..Chenonceau:
I understand the concerns about quality of Teachers. But I cannot help but breathe a prayer of thanks at this news. I read this as a prayer come true. For 2 years I prayed that Teachers would be given materials to help them teach. Stellarizing Upper Primary English is already better than status quo. My son has one thin textbook and his teacher is too incompetent to develop her own materials. This is MOE's way to improve textbooks. Textbooks alone can no longer hold everything kids need to learn. Doing it like this is ALMOST as good.
Issues with quality of teaching in Science in Upper Primary could be linked to the fact that there is no equivalent of Stellar to teach Science. Something is being done to help teachers teach English. Maybe MOE MIGHT move to stellarize Science and Math too?
Those with kids in lower primary, you already have it better than my son with his thin textbook, no other materials and a teacher who can't spell. Yes... things can be better... so keep the feedback coming. Make suggestions. Push for improvement. If you don't speak up, nothing will improve. If you do speak up, something might. My son is done with PSLE soon. I won't be speaking much after. -
My 04 child will be affected
-
Agree with Melodies that the good thing about Stellar is that my kid enjoys school but am not really sure if all kids have the ability for higher order thinking. Sometimes, I get the impression that some kids do not know what is going on in Language Art lesson. Hence, is it something that can be taught or is there a limit to such ability? Also, am concerned if it will benefit kids who comes from more priviledged background as it seems like parents need to help their kids develop the relevant skills if schools cannot implement it well.
-
There is a 10-15 IQ points difference between my 2 children and am seeing a vast difference in analytical and information processing ability age on age, hence I really wonder if an average child without parental guidance similar to those given by some of the parents here can make it under the Stellar program.
-
Scary:
Maths syllabus confirmed changed. This was announced just a few weeks ago.
SINGAPORE:
Primary 1 Maths syllabus to be tweaked from next year
Pupils entering primary school next year will be given more breathing room to grasp basic numeracy skills with the Ministry of Education (MOE) planning to drop part of the Primary 1 mathematics syllabus as part of its regular curriculum review.
A ministry spokesperson said that \"minor changes\" will kick in from next year's Primary 1 cohort.
For instance, Primary 1 students will no longer learn about measuring and comparing objects' physical mass through the use of non-standard units like paper clips and apples. They will also not be taught about 3D shapes.
They will instead learn about the orientation of objects such as whether they are facing left or right or pointing up or down.
\"These minor changes improve the sequence of the topics being taught without increase in content,\" added the spokesperson.
In tandem with these changes, the format of the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) for mathematics will be adjusted for these students come 2018. No details on the format change are available yet, but the MOE said schools will be informed of the change two years in advance.
The syllabus adjustments come after the MOE's regular curriculum review - done every six years - and they are in line with the Primary Education Review and Implementation (PERI) initiated by the MOE to provide a more all-rounded primary school education.
Primary school teachers welcomed the latest move, saying it bridges current gaps in students' understanding and allows more time for students to grasp the remaining topics.
A teacher who has been teaching for seven years agreed that teaching children left and right orientation is useful because \"not all know their left from their right and this knowledge is needed when it comes to heuristics problems\".
Another primary school teacher with more than 30 years of experience said: \"The syllabus is already very tight for Primary 1 and doing away with some topics will allow for more breathing space.\"
Noting that not all students enter primary school with a good knowledge of numeracy, she felt lightening the syllabus load will give teachers more time to impart basic numeracy skills.
\"It is important to have a strong foundation so that it will be easier for them to understand more difficult concepts later on,\" she said.
source:-
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1200575/1/.html -
Sun_2010:
[/quote]I like this, in fact, a good chef (teachers) can make a delicious meal even with very ordinary ingredients (students) with minimal seasoning(parents).Chenonceau:
[quote=\"Melodies\"]
As always the a good recipe doesnt mean a delicious dish. It depends on the Chef (teacher) and the Main Ingredients (students) and side Ingredients ( parents).
This applied to our primary English teachers in our days, many of them were not graduates but had passion in teaching us. -
Coolkidsrock2:
There is a 10-15 IQ points difference between my 2 children and am seeing a vast difference in analytical and information processing ability age on age, hence I really wonder if an average child without parental guidance similar to those given by some of the parents here can make it under the Stellar program.
Exactly..stellar program works if kids are able to understand and apply..but for some kids..u have to simply tell them..that is the grammar rules..memorise and learn it...no need to understand why it has to be this eay.
In a way, I am glad that the changes only affect the P3 this year, if it would to be implemented to my dd1 (P4 this year), I doubt she would pass PSLE English (I better start earning and save more $$ to send her to overseas uni) ..some kids are just not into this kind of visual, oracle questions. -
The article below appeared in the Straits Times. It was written by a PAP MP. It was originally from here - http://hri-kumar.blogspot.sg/2012/09/primary-colours-dispelling-myths-about.html?showComment=1346808723555
Primary Colours – Dispelling Myths About Primary Education
While the system of pre-school education featured heavily at the National Day Rally, the message which resonated most was a simple one: PM's urging that pre-school should be more about developing social skills and that kids should be allowed to enjoy their childhood. Every parent I know wants that.
But the tail that wags the dog is primary school. We regard pre-school as a preparatory step to primary school. Mandating that pre-schools focus on soft skills may make more parents turn to private centres to coach their kids on the hard skills they think are necessary for primary school. That would make the problem worse.
I think there is a more fundamental question of what we want our primary school system to be, and whether we should allow more choices in the system. Minister Heng spoke of two different parents: one did not want to his child to have homework during the holidays, while the other questioned why his child was not given any. Perhaps the solution is for the two children to swap schools – in other words, allow parents to choose the kind of education which best suits their child. When government runs schools, it tends to result in a one-size-fits-all approach. This is not a criticism – it is a natural consequence of efficiency and fair distribution.
But so long as we maintain the current system, MOE can and should deal with parents’ concerns about Primary One education. They should start by addressing directly and clearly a number of questions which keep surfacing.
Myth or Fact 1: It is not clear what literacy and numeracy skills children are expected to have when entering Primary One.
Parents I have spoken to are not clear about what level of skills their child should have when they start Primary One. The consequence is clear: if parents do not know, they will over-prepare their child. The MOE should simply make this clear, and remove the anxiety.
Myth or Fact 2: Teachers do not teach the curriculum if the majority of the class already knows their stuff.
There is much anecdotal evidence that this happens. If it is true, MOE should put a stop to it. It only rewards over-preparation and forces others to over-prepare as well. That just means more homework and tuition. If teachers want to teach beyond the curriculum, fine, but it should not be at the expense of their responsibility to ensure that all their students are taught the curriculum. If parents want their child to get ahead, that’s their prerogative, but they must accept that their child may get bored having to do the same thing twice.
Myth or Fact 3: Teachers encourage parents to send kids who are behind for tuition.
Again, one hears of this happening. It would be particularly egregious if the child is considered “behind” simply because his classmates are ahead of the curriculum and the teacher is therefore not prepared to teach it.
More fundamentally, it should be the obligation of the school to help those who are behind or have difficulty coping. The problem should not be out-sourced to a tuition centre. With primary schools going full day, there is more scope to offer weaker students extra lessons.
Myth or Fact 4: Pupils are “streamed” according to abilities in Primary One and the better teachers are assigned to the “better” classes
If this is true, MOE should put a stop to it. This only encourages parents to over-prepare their child to get into the \"better\" classes. Putting all the “better” students in the same class also lends to the impression that children will not be taught equally. Teachers should be assigned randomly. Also, if teachers ensure that all their students are taught the curriculum, there will be no need for such “streaming”. Besides, if you want pre-school to be more about social skills and play, it makes no sense to group kids according to their literacy and numeracy skills the minute they enter Primary schools. The only assessment the school should be concerned with is to identify the kids who have not achieved the minimum skills (Myth 1) and to give them extra attention (Myth 3). Given that more than 99% of our children go to pre-school, this will likely be a small group in each school.
Even with these changes, will some parents still send their kids for tuition? Of course they will. Parents will do what they believe will give their kids an advantage. That has been, and will always be, the case. And we should not stop that - it is their prerogative how they wish to raise their children. But what we can and should do is to address features in our system which compel such conduct.
Some have said that any changes at pre-school or lower primary level will have little or no effect unless we also deal with GEP and PSLE. I do not think that is necessarily true, although we do need to address some issues with them as well. I will share my thoughts in a later post.
I think many PAP MPs see the issues and MOE Primary Schools' role in them. I think changes happen in the preschools and in special education because these 2 systems are UNdeveloped. I think MOE is protective of the system as-is at Primary level because it is either...
(1) too PROUD to see the faults
(2) too locked inside their perspective to understand what is happening on the ground
(3) too keen to say \"It is not OUR fault. It's the parents' fault.\"
Unless MOE decides to care for students and parents (instead of some theoretical future economy which it is trying to prepare our kids for)... I don't think PAP MPs can do much even if they understand what parents are going through.
I bolded and underlined the sentence that I KEEP repeating even though some say that it is NOT a systemic issue. It is.
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