KiasuParents - Parenting in Singapore

Secondary School banding has been removed. Now schools can focus more on providing quality education. Do you agree?

ks2011 wrote:Secondary School banding has been removed. Now schools can focus more on providing quality education. Do you agree?

To a slight extent, yes. It removes quite a major academic-based KPI for schools. However, I'm not sure what kind of KPI changes will be imposed on school principals by MOE, and Principals on HODs etc.

-Justin

It might atleast stop schools from asking a student to drop subjects he is interested in but not good in to maintain the school's banding.

I am not sure how we as parents now, can really ascertain the quality of school's holistic education effort.

I guess as a parent of a primary kid, I would look at the last year COP when I seek admission. Beyond that, do we need bands?

I also don't like the streaming of kids by subject or results in primary school. Why can't all kids be taught the same syllabus making it even ground for giving psle. Currently, we have different schools teaching at different level of difficulty. Even in the same school, different class teachers pitch differently. For e.g: when my older child was in primary school, the teacher did not use the textbook much since it was very basic.

ks2011 wrote:I guess as a parent of a primary kid, I would look at the last year COP when I seek admission. Beyond that, do we need bands?

I also don't like the streaming of kids by subject or results in primary school. Why can't all kids be taught the same syllabus making it even ground for giving psle. Currently, we have different schools teaching at different level of difficulty. Even in the same school, different class teachers pitch differently. For e.g: when my older child was in primary school, the teacher did not use the textbook much since it was very basic.

What would you propose then? Use a more difficult textbook?
I guess everything gotta give & take.
If my child is weak, I would complain that teacher should go slower, but what happens to the faster kids?
If my child is fast, I would complain teacher too slow, my kids not learning/gotta wait for others etc.
Even in the top class where all are of higher ability, absorption rate is different.

I kinda pity teachers, principals, MOE

I have gone into to class to teach a simple financial literacy program as a parent volunteer in my dc's school. Last year I taught one of the better classes in Pri 4. This year I taught the slowest class for the same level. There was a big difference. While the children in the faster classes were able to quickly grasp the concepts I was teaching, and indeed some of them already knew the terms I was introducing to them, the children in the slower classes were, well, slow to catch on.
For instance, as part of the program the kids were asked to play a game that's pretty similar to "the Game of Life". Kids in the faster class could mentally accurately add, subtract and move round the game board quickly. Kids in the slowest class took over 10min just for form a group of 6, while those in the faster class we already in their teams within 5min. And this was because they just simply moved more slowly. And they needed help with simple addition and subtraction, single digit addition and subtraction. Which at P4 is worrying.
My point here is that if you put slower students with very fast students you would get half a class bored out of their wits, while the other half struggles to understand what's going on. I too used to disagree with streaming, but now I can see why teachers would prefer to have students grouped according to their abilities. If your child's teacher finds the basic texts too basic for the class' ability, they would rightly try to stretch and broaden their teaching scope. But some classes really find the basic text difficult to follow and need to go slowly so that the kids can grasp basic concepts.
Having said that, I genuinely enjoyed teaching the slowest class. They were more friendly, warm, welcoming and appreciative. While not academically inclined, they were also more patient and understanding of the couple of handicapped kids in class. So, now my stance is that while pupils should be streamed, everyone should recognize that pupils in the slower stream may not be academically strong, but that they have other gifts and strengths that are just as important, and just as worthy of our admiration and praise.

Laura02 wrote:I have gone into to class to teach a simple financial literacy program as a parent volunteer in my dc's school. Last year I taught one of the better classes in Pri 4. This year I taught the slowest class for the same level. There was a big difference. While the children in the faster classes were able to quickly grasp the concepts I was teaching, and indeed some of them already knew the terms I was introducing to them, the children in the slower classes were, well, slow to catch on.
For instance, as part of the program the kids were asked to play a game that's pretty similar to "the Game of Life". Kids in the faster class could mentally accurately add, subtract and move round the game board quickly. Kids in the slowest class took over 10min just for form a group of 6, while those in the faster class we already in their teams within 5min. And this was because they just simply moved more slowly. And they needed help with simple addition and subtraction, single digit addition and subtraction. Which at P4 is worrying.
My point here is that if you put slower students with very fast students you would get half a class bored out of their wits, while the other half struggles to understand what's going on. I too used to disagree with streaming, but now I can see why teachers would prefer to have students grouped according to their abilities. If your child's teacher finds the basic texts too basic for the class' ability, they would rightly try to stretch and broaden their teaching scope. But some classes really find the basic text difficult to follow and need to go slowly so that the kids can grasp basic concepts.
Having said that, I genuinely enjoyed teaching the slowest class. They were more friendly, warm, welcoming and appreciative. While not academically inclined, they were also more patient and understanding of the couple of handicapped kids in class. So, now my stance is that while pupils should be streamed, everyone should recognize that pupils in the slower stream may not be academically strong, but that they have other gifts and strengths that are just as important, and just as worthy of our admiration and praise.

BeContented wrote:

ks2011 wrote:I guess as a parent of a primary kid, I would look at the last year COP when I seek admission. Beyond that, do we need bands?

I also don't like the streaming of kids by subject or results in primary school. Why can't all kids be taught the same syllabus making it even ground for giving psle. Currently, we have different schools teaching at different level of difficulty. Even in the same school, different class teachers pitch differently. For e.g: when my older child was in primary school, the teacher did not use the textbook much since it was very basic.

What would you propose then? Use a more difficult textbook?
I guess everything gotta give & take.
If my child is weak, I would complain that teacher should go slower, but what happens to the faster kids?
If my child is fast, I would complain teacher too slow, my kids not learning/gotta wait for others etc.
Even in the top class where all are of higher ability, absorption rate is different.

I kinda pity teachers, principals, MOE

Perhaps, I sound too simplistic. Is it impossible for all kids to use the textbook (as they are right now) as reference with no high ability stuff thrown in at primary school level? Anyway, there are the GEP classes where higher ability kids are already identified. Why is there a need to create more tiers? MOE should set guidelines so that the exam papers set by all schools are of the same level of difficulty.

Laura02 wrote:I have gone into to class to teach a simple financial literacy program as a parent volunteer in my dc's school. Last year I taught one of the better classes in Pri 4. This year I taught the slowest class for the same level. There was a big difference. While the children in the faster classes were able to quickly grasp the concepts I was teaching, and indeed some of them already knew the terms I was introducing to them, the children in the slower classes were, well, slow to catch on.
For instance, as part of the program the kids were asked to play a game that's pretty similar to "the Game of Life". Kids in the faster class could mentally accurately add, subtract and move round the game board quickly. Kids in the slowest class took over 10min just for form a group of 6, while those in the faster class we already in their teams within 5min. And this was because they just simply moved more slowly. And they needed help with simple addition and subtraction, single digit addition and subtraction. Which at P4 is worrying.
My point here is that if you put slower students with very fast students you would get half a class bored out of their wits, while the other half struggles to understand what's going on. I too used to disagree with streaming, but now I can see why teachers would prefer to have students grouped according to their abilities. If your child's teacher finds the basic texts too basic for the class' ability, they would rightly try to stretch and broaden their teaching scope. But some classes really find the basic text difficult to follow and need to go slowly so that the kids can grasp basic concepts.
Having said that, I genuinely enjoyed teaching the slowest class. They were more friendly, warm, welcoming and appreciative. While not academically inclined, they were also more patient and understanding of the couple of handicapped kids in class. So, now my stance is that while pupils should be streamed, everyone should recognize that pupils in the slower stream may not be academically strong, but that they have other gifts and strengths that are just as important, and just as worthy of our admiration and praise.