Why screen kids in P1?

[PhoBIA]

sleepy:

When dd2 was in p1, she didn't even know she sat for any test

that's good. Your dd2 should be able to perform well as she does not feel pressurised. In her opinion, it is just class work.

Sometimes parents are the ones who pass the stress to the children. If they treat the mini test as a consolidation for teachers to identify who needs help, then children will be able to learn and thrive happily.

Active learning is not about sitting for tests/examinations...... How many of us can enforce this? :?

[PhoBIA]

AceTutors123:

The concern I guess of some parents would be that their children may be given an \"average\" or \"laggard\" label and be treated accordingly.

There is no need for a test to give children an \"average\" or \"laggard\" label. A successful educator should not label any children and give all children equal chance. Some children are late boomers. If labelled too early, it destroys their chance to blossom totally.....

[Chenonceau]

PhoBIA:

AceTutors123:

The concern I guess of some parents would be that their children may be given an \"average\" or \"laggard\" label and be treated accordingly.

There is no need for a test to give children an \"average\" or \"laggard\" label. A successful educator should not label any children and give all children equal chance. Some children are late boomers. If labelled too early, it destroys their chance to blossom totally.....

Yes... based on the results of a single test... some important decisions relevant to the child's capability are likely to be made. Psychometric tests are not completely failsafe. This is a very Orwellian practice and it makes me VERY VERY uncomfortable.

[AceTutors123]

PhoBIA:

There is no need for a test to give children an \"average\" or \"laggard\" label. A successful educator should not label any children and give all children equal chance. Some children are late boomers. If labelled too early, it destroys their chance to blossom totally.....

Exactly PhoBIA, the last thing we need is for educators to hold subconscious biasedness against some children. I would think that giving teachers access to IQ scores of the children may disadvantage some of the children, and it would skew that teacher's perception that every kid in the class is smart and has equal chances in learning more and doing well.

[thetinyseed]

I am not sure if there were labels attached. As I understand from the LSP teachers at my DS school, the ‘tests’ were administered to identify developmentally weak students. That is, the so-called "late bloomers" who are in fact "very late bloomers". These children were identified and monitored closely in term 1 for learning difficulties. If they appear to be struggling, the could be placed in the LSP programme, though not all are - some, managed to catch up with their peers.


Testing patterns and copying patterns is not just seen in IQ tests. Developmental tests also use patterns and copying of patterns, so as not to discriminate against poor or non-readers.

One reason i can think of for not informing parents could be the fact that some parents may over-react and start ‘preparing’ their child for the ‘test’. If so, it would defeat the purpose of the test, and could even mask a developmental learning difficulty which will not be identified or addressed until it is too late! For this, I am grateful that my DS school conducted the test discreetly.

[Chenonceau]

thetinyseed:

I am not sure if there were labels attached. As I understand from the LSP teachers at my DS school, the 'tests' were administered to identify developmentally weak students. That is, the so-called \"late bloomers\" who are in fact \"very late bloomers\". These children were identified and monitored closely in term 1 for learning difficulties. If they appear to be struggling, the could be placed in the LSP programme, though not all are - some, managed to catch up with their peers.


Testing patterns and copying patterns is not just seen in IQ tests. Developmental tests also use patterns and copying of patterns, so as not to discriminate against poor or non-readers.

One reason i can think of for not informing parents could be the fact that some parents may over-react and start 'preparing' their child for the 'test'. If so, it would defeat the purpose of the test, and could even mask a developmental learning difficulty which will not be identified or addressed until it is too late! For this, I am grateful that my DS school conducted the test discreetly.

The legal guardians have a right to know. Developmental tests are a variation of IQ tests. Both test raw innate ability at a given age. Then the results are normalized. If the schools are afraid that parents will react badly then they must engage and explain... and fully disclose WHY this is done. By keeping it under wraps, it just shows they have something to hide.

I spoke with an HOD acquaintance 2 months ago. She said she tried to argue against her school's decision to stream students in P1 into high ability and low ability classes after administering a test such as this.

Let's not be naive. Singapore strikes you as the type of country that will focus resources on the underdog? It has a track record for compassion and gentleness? It has a track record of giving small classes and better resources to the less gifted?

Such tests CAN be used to identify weak students for better help... they can ALSO be used to accelerate those with higher scores. So let's not kid ourselves that the schools won't use the data to accelerate the bright ones... the way schools are evaluated and incentivised, this is the more likely usage. Everyone says we have \"limited resources\". You seriously believe that these limited resources will go to what the test classifies as \"dumb-dumbs\"?

The test may be wrong, you know. Anyone thought of that before they streamed the kids in P1 using the results of ONE test?

Doing things hush hush is not the way to go. If you have nothing to hide, then disclose. It only takes a letter to parents. If you do it discreetly, then you have something to hide. It is not about parents over reacting. Don't blame it on parents. Whatever parents reactions, parents have a right to know. We are not living in an Orwellian society. I hope. If you do something to my kid and keep it secret because you think I will be mad, then why are you doing it to my kid in the first place? If after disclosing, parents still object, then we should have the right to do so and to protect our kids from practices we disapprove of.

What schools should do is to come right out and advertise that they stream students in P1 based on developmental tests. Parents who like that can choose the school. Parents who don't, can choose another school. We have a right to know... and to choose what we think best for our kids.

In addition, the school's mandate is to develop literacy and numeracy. If they administer a literacy test, then it will know what else it has to do to help the child bridge the gap between what he/she knows and what he/she should know. This is the kind of test coherent with the school's mandate. What business does it have to administer a developmental test? To see which child at the same age is slower than another child at recognizing patterns? Patterns are part of P1 syllabus?

The tendency of our educators to slot and classify our kids like economic units is being taken too far. When streaming happens at P1, it is no wonder that preschools like this don't exist anymore...

http://www.wenaili.blogspot.sg/2012/09/my-2-cents-on-early-childhood-education.html

[sleepy]

If moe publicized this 'p1 iq test', would parents treat this as another gep screening & start sending their k2 kids to p1 iq prep class :yikes:

[Chenonceau]

sleepy:

If moe publicized this 'p1 iq test', would parents treat this as another gep screening & start sending their k2 kids to p1 iq prep class :yikes:

Of course they will!! And I don't blame them. Dangling the carrot of being in the top P1 class with access to better materials and better teachers. Who wouldn't? I would except that I might actually elect to take my kid out of the system altogether because I don't want to be tempted in this way to abuse my kid. As Hri Kumar clearly expressed parent behaviors are shaped by system features... http://hri-kumar.blogspot.sg/2012/09/primary-colours-dispelling-myths-about.html

This said, MOE wanted to give people more choices. We can't have choices without access to full information. Different schools do things differently. Those schools who DO stream should say it at all their parent briefings.

Then the market will decide whether there are enough parents who will choose to send their children to such schools. You can't blame parents if you don't even give them a choice.

[iRabbit]

Chenonceau:

sleepy:

I think it's to identify children for LSP - learning support?


When dd1 was in p1, she told me about some simple test. I asked her form teacher during parent teacher session & her form teacher told us that was the purpose of that test.

When dd2 was in p1, she didn't even know she sat for any test

It is not to identify for LSP. If they're testing patterns... and not literacy and numeracy... they're testing for IQ. They're trying to identify the high IQ. The focus is not so much on what the kids have LEARNT in preschool nor to find the gap between what kids HAVE NOT LEARNT and need to know in P1.

They're testing for the raw quality of the children's brains. Why do they do so?

(1) Certainly, with the school incentive system as it is, schools have every interest to try to maximize the high IQ brains. These will be the future PSLE top scorers.

(2) They may try to devise ways to work with low IQ brains.

(3) They may be collecting data for a longitudinal study of some sort. If that is so, research ethics protocols in many other countries require parent consent. This is not an academic test. It's an IQ test. It may or may not be used to make decisions germane to the way the child will be treated in future.

I would myself be most upset if I found out that my child was given an IQ test to decide his future treatment WITHOUT my permission... and without full disclosure of what the test results will be used for. To me, such tests are on par with genetic testing.

If people took your child's DNA for testing and then used the results about predisposition to heart disease, breast cancer and cervical cancer to potential employers... who may deny you a job based on the data...WITHOUT telling you anything... you would be fine?

C'mon, in your last paragraph, you are clearly exaggerating.

Since this letter is out in ST forum, let's see what explanation MOE gives. For me, I really doubt the impact of this test to be as great as what you mentioned here. Surely IQ is not the single factor for success in life. We all know that. I'll shudder if MOE doesn't know that.

[Chenonceau]

FQW:

C'mon, in your last paragraph, you are clearly exaggerating.

Since this letter is out in ST forum, let's see what explanation MOE gives. For me, I really doubt the impact of this test to be as great as what you mentioned here. Surely IQ is not the single factor in success in life. We all know that. I'll shudder if MOE doesn't know that.

I don't think it is an exaggeration at all. The parallels are close. As an adult we see that the small little opportunities at childhood to be little things of small consequence. To a child, these opportunities to learn and develop are in effect as important as being given a job one wants.

Little opportunities over many years add up into big big gaps. No... I write carefully. There is no exaggeration.

Whether MOE knows or not, I can't tell but I will tell you this... the system ALREADY shows us a strong assumption that IQ is everything. Based on a P3 GEP test... kids go in and through train to A levels in RJC. A whopping 42% of RI (the nation's best boys' school) are GEPpers whilst GEPpers form only 1% of the total national cohort.

If you ask me, this shows me that MOE doesn't seem to know that IQ isn't everything.