wonderm:

limlim:

But those who only take in certain students who met \"minimum requirement\".. are really \"unhealthy\" to society, I feel.

This is not the first time I heard of this view in this forum. I wonder what people think of top Sec schools/universities setting admission standard. Should they also accept students of different abilities?

Yes wonderm I think pre-u and universities can set high admission standards. Not everyone can or should qualify for university. As for secondary schools I'm not so sure. IMHO 12 yr olds are really not all mature enough to think for themselves and about their future clearly.

I also believe that healthy competition among children is good. We mustn't emulate the public US elementary school system where everyone wins and no one loses kind of system. It would definitely encourage a hardworking child if he were to be acknowledged for good performance. Another award which was given out in my DD's old school was a peer-elected award for character. Qualities like empathy, kindness towards peers should be rewarded with equal importance.

oxyleo:

Geez I hope I didn't trip over any land mines here. If I suddenly disappear from this forum... :?: :imdrowning:

Thanks for your input Oxyleo. really appreciate your input and as others have said you write really well and you do have a way with words.

Chenonceau:

Food for Thought... I don't agree with everything but I do agree that with meritocracy, elites believe they are ENTITLED to success whilst others are not... and fail on the attitude of stewardship... and empathy for others who don't succeed.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/opinion/19brooks.html


Again, I don't agree with everything but this is well-written...
http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_822110.html

Thanks for sharing Chenonceau...good reads and i agree on most points with the two writers.

verykiasu2010:

Singfrench:

-- no more elite schools: truly equal opportunities for all. e.g.: setting a quota based on household income (e.g. every school must have 20 % of the lowest 20%tile), trying to make core teaching more uniform across all schools, less focus on t-scores.

quota ..... you from M'sia ? that's how they do it .... quota ....in order to fit the quota, the passing mark of Add Math for the reserved quota people could be as high as 25 to 30 marks, while those left with crumbs (in terms of places) got to achieve a low passing park of 50 or 60 ......

equal opportunities and yet based on household income and less focus on t-score (ranking exercise) is totally self contradicting. why should the well off be discriminated ?

by the way, t-score is just a ranking exercise. do we seriously expect everyone of the 40+ thousand kids to be on par in every aspect? let them be the robots and minions of the Despicable Me then

Perhaps i didn't explain what i meant about the quota. It was meant for primary school admission not junior college or university. Obviously we cannot push in people who are not up to the mark.

Education should be seen as a leveler (of the playing field) and not as a tool to get further and further ahead of the competition when we have the resources. Finland and several european countries have higher social mobility because they have managed to drastically reduce elite schools, standardized testing and rankings.

FQW:

What constitutes a \"healthy well-balanced diet of good education and TLC\" means different things to different pple. That's a given.

Whether or not one chooses to take vitamins, it is not up to others to say [it's his perogative after all].

If we can have consensus on the 2 pts above, then it'll be more meaningful to carry on this discussion.

i'm not trying to bash those who are pro tuition/enrichment etc...its a tough system we have, everyone does whatever they can to get ahead...survival of the fittest whatever.

I'm just taking a broader view of things and looking at its impact on our society and the way our system and exams have evolved, the amount of parental involvement (time and money) necessary is probably reaching really unhealthy levels when it comes to their kid's education.

My whole point on this thread (see my first post if u haven't) was to express views on how our system has created this mentality which promotes elitism by increasing social divide and reducing social mobility.

FQW:

Singfrench:

If the 20% who have weak immune systems use antibiotics, that's fine but if 60% or more use antibiotics then the bacteria (aka exams) are just going to get tougher and tougher for fear of being beaten too easily. Then the antibiotics have to be stronger and stronger. It's a viscous cycle both one-upping each other only the kids suffer lor since adults are immune to this bug.

Err, why would the 60% [I guess they're the ones with strong immune system in your e.g.] who are not sick want to take antibiotics [tuition]? If they so wish to, they should take vitamins [enrichment] so as not to fall sick. If less pple fall sick, then there's less chance of germs mutating/spreading to everyone else, including those 20% with weak immune system. Issit this a good thing?

We can all quote analogies to support our case, and then, we can all interprete analogies to support our case. Agree?

Before you pass judgement on my post, please hear me out on this one below.

What I would like to suggest - instead of begrudging those who take vitamins - is that, we should find out the reason why the 20% in your e.g. are with weak immunity in the first place? Is there something we can help to strengthen their bodies, especially in the early, formative years.

This, rather than insisting those with stronger bodies should be discouraged/disallowed to take vitamins. I for one, certainly don't want to see all children [weak or strong] fall sick with high frequency.

more analogy:
Be it vitamins or antibiotics the only people who are truly reaping the benefits are the pharmaceutical companies.... we won't need vitamins if we're given a healthy well-balanced diet of good education and TLC. Antibiotics if taken in moderation when absolutely necessary is fine but there's no reason to abuse it.

If the 20% who have weak immune systems use antibiotics, that’s fine but if 60% or more use antibiotics then the bacteria (aka exams) are just going to get tougher and tougher for fear of being beaten too easily. Then the antibiotics have to be stronger and stronger. It’s a viscous cycle both one-upping each other only the kids suffer lor since adults are immune to this bug.

hi nice to see that there are parents on both sides of the argument.


To me the whole issue of tuition is not about individuals and whether u want, dowan or no choice…Neither is it about MOE or ultra-kiasu parents. Every parents wants the best for their child. It may be by giving tuition, enrichment, hobbies, holidays, personal grooming etc etc.

Looking at tuition from an individualistic point of view really favors the elites and breeds an elitist mentality. We have been brought up in this generation where everyone wants to remain elite, become elite or get closer to being elite. It has been inculcated in us that the only way to make it in life is to do well in education. Study hard, go uni, get a good job blahblah.

Looking at the bigger picture, tuition is not only responsible for perpetuating this elitism but it is also widening the income gap and reducing social mobility. But who to blame? No point blaming the parents for wanting the best, no point blaming MOE for teacher standards or setting harder than syllabus papers.

If everyone had no tuition, no matter how hard they set the papers there’ll still be t-scores according to the bell curves, only diff is the bell curve would have a lower correlation to the income of the parents. It is a fact that kids from higher income families (even in developed countries without tuition culture) tend to do better as they have greater family support and more stable family structures. But the fact that tuition has come into play has further skewed the results in favor of the richer parents. This is of course unfair to society at large and definitely unfair to the smart kid from a poor home.

In the 60s, 70s and 80s social mobility was rife and everyone who was determined and worked hard could move up the social ladder. But now with the tuition from a very young age and a very ‘uneven’ schooling system plus other advantages the rich kid has over his peers, the less affluent can no longer compete. In order to enhance social mobility, so that the poorer have a better chance of moving up, we should look at it from a societal point of view and our policies should be changed to promote more fairness and less elitism.

i really don’t know how to accomplish this but our million dollar ministers who have a wealth of knowledge and have studied systems from all over the world should make it a mission to promote lowering the income gap and enhancing social mobility in singapore.

After some discussion with friends, some suggestions might be:

– longer school day with (subcontracted) homework supervision and extra activities available for all within the school setting. (Parents would not have to worry about child care too)
– lower the stakes of PSLE: No selective transition from Pri to Sec. Kids below 12 have lower intrinsic motivation and hence need more adult involvement. (tutor or parental coaching favors the rich). IMHO good PSLE results is not necessarily a reflection of a child’s true intelligence or motivation (just a measure of how much coaching he’s had). I also think a child with too much external pushing will have trouble developing his own intrinsic motivation to do well independantly later in life. (but thats another issue)
– no more elite schools: truly equal opportunities for all. e.g.: setting a quota based on household income (e.g. every school must have 20 % of the lowest 20%tile), trying to make core teaching more uniform across all schools, less focus on t-scores.

That was a rant about a much discussed issues within my circle of friends.
Feel free to disagree would love to hear other opinions.

Good one chen,

Class size must definitely be reduced.
I’d also go for longer school day or after school care within school.
Ex-Tuition centre staff could be deployed by MOE to do homework supervision, organize truly enriching/creative activities (not necessarily academic) based on children’s interest.

linden2000:

Not sure how prevalent the practice of setting killer papers from P5 onwards is but this practice results in such young kids experiencing failure frequently and really shatters their confidence and self-esteem.

totally agree :scared: :

who can honestly say that getting 95/100 is better than getting 85/100 in terms of mastery, application and intelligence. The difference could have been luck, less or more drilling, speed, testing skills prep etc....are these skills a true measure of what a child has or has not mastered??? Would drilling them incessantly to score that 10 extra points make them more intelligent??
:scratchhead: :scratchhead:

IMHO, a parent/tutor/enrichment center who gives more drills to coach a child to get from A to A* is just making an intelligent child feel inadequate. It is not uncommon to hear of top scorers who break-down after a difficult paper or when they get an A instead of A*.

A grade is meaningless when you're not comparing apples with apples...a child who has no home support and no tuition scoring an 85 might be a lot better than one who has tutors and lots of home support who gets 95.

confidence and self-esteem are definitely important and grades should not be used to compare, shame or define children.