All have equal chance in education

cathykitty SG

yes, actually. what i meant was tt kids fr less well off families can have a relatively comprehensive education in sch.

but they are limited in other sorts of activities.

MOE claimed in the first letter tt lower income family kids face no such constraints cos of adequate funding.

let's try not to over use analogies. it confuses things. :/

rokkie SG

yes, actually. what i meant was tt kids fr less well off families can have a relatively comprehensive education in sch.

but they are limited in other sorts of activities.

let's try not to over use analogies. it confuses things. :/

yes , people from poor family work harder, be more tolerant to heavy load of study

cathykitty SG

yes , people from poor family work harder, be more tolerant to heavy load of study

ok, i wanna clarify tt i have graduated already.

so, nt complaining in tt sense...

jus trying to discuss if lower income kids need more help. .

Gedanken SG

i actually took care in my first and second post to ensure tt i made my pt clear.

Your first post was about scholarships, funding, employment opportunities, good parenting, more resources from moe.

Your second post was about asking if NUS business school really requires AAA grades for entry. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go to the third post.

The third post was about scholarships and bursaries being too competitive, mentoring of students, parents' professions, kids who become doctors, providing financial assistance to kids, your father's salary and easing the rules for bursaries.

Checking .... checking .... nope, you did not at all make any point about teacher tarining, admin work or planning out lessons.

rokkie SG

ok, i wanna clarify tt i have graduated already.

so, nt complaining in tt sense...

jus trying to discuss if lower income kids need more help. .

what i want to say is that, the world is generally fair, you parent got alot money, but they getting divorce, or .. you are spoiled by alot allowance money

you parent is poor, but they love you very much, and you learn to be filial, and do saving.

To me, the both case sound equal weight to me, and i prefer the latter one,

Gedanken SG

let's try not to over use analogies. it confuses things. :/

What is confusing things is your repeatedly saying that more funding is needed without making a direct link between said funding and improvements in grades. What's even more confusing is your suggestion of overseas holidays for the kids.

There's no need for more funding. What's needed is for the guts of the current education system to be ripped out and thrown in the bin. Teachers need to be made accountable for their performance and the deadwood needs to be weeded out. no more iron rice bowls, no more free rides, no more sinking to the lowest common denominator.

eagle SG

if moe teachers become super effective, then even harder to earn from tuition le

cathykitty SG

ok, man. i think u’ve missed my point.

the triple As paragraph btw, was a response to someone’s complaint tt NUS business sch was becoming more strict. however, if u’d read more carefully, u’d realise tt my second post wasn’t just abt tt.

basically, there’s jus one point i am making.

in the last para of my post, 3 DECEMBER 6:38 PM

“i think the system here helps poorer kids to get thru school up to a point. and in tt sense, it is “equal” because everyone can have an education. but if the kids shld need more help, they will have a lot of problems finding it.”

that, Gedanken, is the main point i am making. the “equal” education is not that equal if we take into account other activities tt cld contribute to the child’s learning. poorer students miss out on those.

the points abt teachers and training in the post previous to this one was actually only made to counter a point abt “old teachers” tt u brought up. in fact, i am not too comfortable with how u seem to generalise tt older teachers are not responsible and just too “damned comfortable”. those sound like judgement calls that are better suited for a teacher’s gripe thread on “i hate old teachers who dun do their work”.

certainly not this thread, which is supposed a discussion on whether or not singapore kids have equal education, regardless of their parents’ wealth (pls see the first letter from MOE, and read it)

basically, i am saying tt ur bringing in the teachers into this discussion of an equal education is IRRELEVANT. when the term “equal education” is used in the thread topic, there is the implication tt it is smth to be discussed at the policy level. that is how i interprete it anyway. so, i don’t think we shld talk abt teachers or “classroom solutions” too much, because school teachers (who have not gone on to become MOE officers) have very little bearing on our education policies. in case u didn’t know, Singapore works top-down.

since my argument sounds so muddled to you (perhaps i’ve brought in too many red herrings), why don’t you tell me your main line of argument.

you have gone fr socie analysis to telling us how u’ve managed your time well in uni to finally, talking abt “old teachers” being, essentially, ineffective in the classroom.

i really lost track of what you were trying to say somewhere along the way. can u explain to me what you mean by “throw in the bin”. are u suggesting tt the older teachers be fired if they underperform?

also, what are u gg to replace with these teachers? robots? in case u didn’t know, MOE has problems hiring teachers and getting them to stay long term. and as it is, class sizes are already 40 to one teacher for sec schools.

what’s ur point, really? do you think singaporean kids have equal education? if you will be so kind, summarise ur main argument in one paragraph. or refer me to a section in ur previous post tt makes it clear.

thanks.

Quincey SG

"In fact, they come from more than 95 per cent of our primary schools and across all socio-economic groups."

If there are 1800 pupils and there are 18 schools. The top 5 per cent of my students will mean 90 students. Out of that 90, I have 60 students coming from A Star school, and the other 30 students distributed amongst the 17 schools.

Yay! the top 5 per cent of our cohort come from 100 percent of our primary schools in Singapore.

Nice try..

Gedanken SG

Stop right there. Your second post in its entirety reads:

Did you write in invisible text? From what's been repeated verbatim, the only topic of that post was about the AAA requirement for NUS Business.

in the last para of my post, 3 DECEMBER 6:38 PM

So that's your story now? It's odd, because you wrote:

i actually took care in my first and second post to ensure tt i made my pt clear.

Sorry? What was your point again? Moving the goalposts is a cheap trick, and it's one that I will neither tolerate nor let get past me. I put it to you that you either do not have any awareness of what you are writing, or you are not telling the truth. Either way, you have just demonstrated that the veracity of what you write cannot reasonably be assumed.

Given the points I have demonstrated above, you'll understand if I do not take your advice to “read it” with any measure of seriousness. I don't have the time to go after individuals who steal the public's money by drawing paychecks that they don't deserve. Had you taken your own advice, you would have realised immediately (as eagle had) that I was talking about the system's tolerance of such individuals rather than the individuals per se.

It's astounding how you could trip over yourself within the space of a short paragraph like the one above. Singapore works top down, so everything is driven by policy, and to boot you acknowledge that the title of the thread implies policy-level discussion, but then you go on to say that we shouldn't talk about it? If you think I'm sounding frustrated at this point, it will be the first accurate judgement that you have made so far. If I'm you are indeed a graduate as you claim, I'm very disappointed. What you have done above fails the basic level of analysis that is the raison d'etre of undergraduate education. Had one of my Honours students written what you had, I would have immediately told them that they would fail because they just sank their own ship.

you have gone fr socie analysis to telling us how u’ve managed your time well in uni to finally, talking abt “old teachers” being, essentially, ineffective in the classroom.

Again, disappointing. You have failed to see how each piece fits into the overall picture. The “socie analysis”, as you fail to grasp it, demonstrates the basic tenet of this entire discussion. Teachers cannot make students learn anything; they can only help students learn. Someone with knowledge of teaching, like eagle, grasp this immediately, but because you fail to understand it you choose to disregard it. For someone who claims to have tertiary education, I am saddened to tell you that you have failed to develop the basic level of intellectual discipline required of you qualification.

As for the time management point, that has nothing to do with the main line of argument. The intent was simply to tell you that your sob story about balancing work and studies doesn't hold water. Many have done more and gone further.

Vis-a-vis the “old teachers” point, as I've already said, you're barking up the wrong tree and making yourself uncomfortable for nothing. I'll review and extend in the next point.

Okay, by this point, given all of the wrong turns you've taken, I can't fault you for your conclusion, only for the wrong turns and lack of intellectual discipline. Given your demonstrated lack of capacity for identifying underlying concepts, I guess I'll have to spell it out, loathe as I am to repeat myself.

First, I'll go one better - here's a sentence that summarises everything: if school teachers were doing their jobs, we wouldn't be talking now.

I'll say it again: teachers cannot make students learn anything; they can only help students learn. This is a well-researched and widely-accepted underpinning of what the teaching industry worldwide knows about the practice of teaching. The incorporation of this simple point is the underpinning of any school of thought in teaching excellence. The ones who don't get that their job is to do their utmost to help their students learn are the ones who deserve to get fired.

It's been done before. In the early 90's, Victorian premier Jeff Kennett shook up the state's teaching industry by annulling all long-term teaching contracts and forcing teachers to justify their continued employment. There was a huge public uproar and strikes all over the place but guess what?

It worked.

Teachers took up being serious about knowing what their jobs were and teaching standards improved markedly. Those who couldn't or wouldn't get it were fired. Tough luck – the Department of Education's job was to provide (surprise) quality education to the kids and they did that. Losers who thought they had an ironclad meal ticket lost out, and I'll shed no tears for them.

Next, I'll say it again: teachers cannot make students learn anything; they can only help students learn. You're never going to turn Forrest Gump into Albert Einstein, but dammit, if you've helped Forrest do the best he's capable of, you've done your job.

And every school teacher is employed to do his or her job.

This leads me to the piece la resistance. If teachers did do what they were supposed to do, this discussion wouldn't be taking place because no amount of private tuition, *ahem* immersion programmes or trips on the River Seine for 14-year-olds would make a significant difference to the kids' grades.

Quod erat demonstradum.

I haven't missed your point. You, on the other hand, have missed your point.

Gedanken SG

if moe teachers become super effective, then even harder to earn from tuition le

Hey, who knows? You might become valued as a mainstrean teacher.

eagle SG

Hey, who knows? You might become valued as a mainstrean teacher.

I rather keep my full time job as an engineer, and at the same time move on to a full-time job as a private tutor. The two working hours do not really clash

cathykitty SG

>> This leads me to the piece la resistance (shouldn't it be "piece de la resistance"?). If teachers did do what they were supposed to do, this discussion wouldn't be taking place because no amount of private tuition, *ahem* immersion programmes or trips on the River Seine for 14-year-olds would make a significant difference to the kids' grades.

So, by your argument, if teachers become more effective via the policy of eliminating the lousy ones, poorer students would not need private tutors, and richer parents would not hire private tutors?

Correct?

Hence, the problem of inequality would be solved. Yes?

Gedanken SG

So, by your argument, if teachers become more effective via the policy of eliminating the lousy ones, poorer students would not need private tutors, and richer parents would not hire private tutors?

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Stop getting hung up on red herrings. We're talking about instituting a performance culture within teaching, a culture you find in other sectors. Some teachers won't get with the program and those will have to go, but that's incidental to the main point that you seem either unwilling or incapable of grasping.

fatone SG

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Stop getting hung up on red herrings. We're talking about instituting a performance culture within teaching, a culture you find in other sectors. Some teachers won't get with the program and those will have to go, but that's incidental to the main point tyhat you seems either unwilling or incapable of getting.

sup fella, morning

cathykitty SG

Ok, sorry then, Gedanken. I don't think I have grasped your main ideas. When I have more time away fr work, I'll read thru all the posts more thoroughly again.

With regards to your previous post, there are already performance-based assessments for teachers in Singapore. But I suppose you're right that even if a teacher has a low rank in the system, he or she might still be able to stay on.

However, I do know of teachers in Singapore who have been asked to leave because of poor performance (heard abt it thru my teacher friends). But they would have to be really bad for that to happen.

Would this help with the performance culture you're talking abt?

It's the same for universities here, but I have heard of at least one case, where this policy has been abused by unscrupulous department heads who used "ineffective" as an excuse to get rid of a good teacher who spoke up against them.

« Previous Page