It's a load of flowery-sounding bollocks, and as Ah Pak says, it meanders drunkenly.

What will I defend?  Not much.  If they touch my favourite char siew rice stall, however, it's fuckin' war.

Don't know what botex is.  maybe Botox can do it, but Kotex is definitely absorbent enough to keep your hands dry.

Originally posted by cathykitty:

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.

Hmm.  Tough one.  A shortlist would be:

Dino 206SP (although a 330P4 would be a great substitute)
Mercedes 300SL Gullwing
and of course, a GTO - either '63 or '84

Originally posted by eagle:

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.

Originally posted by cathykitty:

 

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.

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

Originally posted by cathykitty:

 

are the grades cut-off really AAA for NUS business school? where did this info come from? :/

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.

Originally posted by cathykitty:

 

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.

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

Originally posted by cathykitty:

 

ah, then tt wld be an issue of teacher training. fr what i know, teachers here have been complaining abt being too bogged down by admin work tt they are unable to focus on preparing really well thought out lessons for the kids.

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.

Originally posted by cathykitty:

 

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)

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.

Originally posted by cathykitty:

 

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.

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.

Originally posted by cathykitty:

 

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?

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.

Originally posted by cathykitty:

 

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.

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.

Originally posted by cathykitty:

 

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

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

Originally posted by cathykitty:

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.

Originally posted by cathykitty:

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.

Originally posted by cathykitty:

ok, let's clarify. do u mean by education specifically only school education? or does it include other chances tt a child might have to take part in activities tt can help him or her improve as a person?

Don't know about you, but I was talking about academic education as per the original post's intent, not moral, religious or any other form of education.  So throwing more money at a kid is going to make him a better person?

Originally posted by cathykitty:

i wld save up the money, to answer u bluntly, so tt my kid wld nt have to work to get pocket money. and he or she wld be able to use the money for overseas excursions and wld nt miss out simply because we can't afford it as a family.

my case is related to specifically how financial assistance can benefit  *financially poor* children. in terms of classroom solutions, this is smth tt applies across t the board and affects kids who may come from well to do families as well.

So lemme get this straight.  The money's for overseas holidays, not anything to help the kids achieve better grades?

Originally posted by cathykitty:

moreover, isn't this solution u recommend also based on the assumption tt teaching is ineffective?

Yes it is, but it makes more sense to me to fix the Toyota than buy the Ferrari.

Originally posted by cathykitty:

 

Nope. It’s not abt “dropping out”. That would be the extreme. I think most of us basically have the means to not drop out. What I’m saying is that getting the basics is not a big problem, but those who come fr low income families are disadvantaged when it comes to the extras that would’ve enhanced their education, such as further readings, immersion programmes, even hostel stays. They can only afford the basics, but not the rest tt wld enhance their education (the things that other students who have money can afford).

Further readings and immersion programmes?

Hang on - by the time you get to university you're meant to have developed the capacity to have self-directed learning already.  Certainly when I was at university I didn't go for any extra pay-per-use courses or classes, and any extra reading I needed could be found in the library.  That didn't stop me from staying in the top 5% of my classes.  What's with all of this extra stuff?

From what you wrote earlier, it sounded like people were dropping out of university because they couldn't afford it.  Now, to be blunt, the tune seems to have changed to "they didn't have money to get the nice-to-haves".

Originally posted by cathykitty:

By university, we would be able to apply for the tuition fee loan, with interest, of course. But the bursaries would have been very useful in paying for other items, and certainly, in ensuring that I would not have to resort to giving private tuition to get pocket money, which I did, sometimes, at the expense of time spent on my studies.

While it’s true that lots of uni students work part-time, it would be better if these jobs were taken out of choice (such as, they have gauged tt they wld be able to cope even with the job), rather than out of necessity.

 

You get no sympathy here.  Between classes, homework, placements/internships and paid work, an 85-hour week was an easy one for me, with the norm being a 105-hour week.  I did that for eight years.

Originally posted by cathykitty:

Lots of things can be “bought”. Money has been taken for granted, perhaps unwittingly, by the people who have it. Try living on two dollars a day for a month, and you will see how important money is, and what a difference it makes to have and not have money.

 

Again, not impressed - been there, done that, and paid work sorted that problem out.  It didn't stop me at all.

Originally posted by cathykitty:

Again, I think this idea that people from poorer familes ought not to be given “too much” financial assistance is an idea that is perpetuated by the very pple who do not need such assistance. And who would rather spend money on other areas, like, as mentioned, reconstructing school buildings, creating impressive structures, rather than helping the “soul” of the schools, which are the students.

Wrong.  Throwing money at the students is like slapping a band-aid on an AIDS patient.  You may cover up the symptoms but you're missing the root cause of the problem altogether.

When I did a stint as a relief teacher, my biggest problem was not class discipline.  it wasn't students who didn't get the idea either.

The problem was the lazy, unimaginative 20-year veteran teachers who didn't want their iron rice bowls disturbed.

By the end of my first month, my poorest-performing students were showing a minimum grade improvement of 15%.  The problem wasn't that they were incapable of understanding the subject matter.  The problem was that the teacher I was relieving was absolutely hopeless at presenting the subject matter and diagnosing where the students were having difficulty.

For example, in maths classes, it was obvious that the Chinese-educated students were as arithmetically capable as the English-educated ones., but they really struggled with the problem sums.  I took a week out of the syllabus to focus on English and to teach the students to break the sentences down and understand what was being asked of them.  It took a day to diagnose the problem and a week to remedy it, and I got an easy minimum 15% improvement.  I wasn't MOE trained - I just used my common sense to sort things out.  What the hell was the other teacher doing?

After I got the result, the older teachers came up to me and said, "Don't work too hard".  Honest to God, I swear that they said those precise words.  Next thing I knew, these teachers were going to the principal and complaining that I was "getting along too well" with the kids.  WTF does that mean?  Was I accused of being a pedophile?!

What it came down to was this group mentality amongst the older teachers that as long as nobody produced a good result, they could all do their own thing and collect their own paychecks without accountability.

If you want to do something to help the poorer kids, start making teachers as accountable for performance as anybody in the real world, and fire them if they screw up.  They're too damned comfortable in their jobs and it's the students who suffer for it.

Originally posted by cathykitty:

If you’ve ever gone for an interview, you will probably know how important preparation is. Knowing the right things to say will make all the difference in getting a job, or in this case, a scholarship. And my point is, teenagers from lower-income families are now disadvantaged, as they are less likely to be “trained” by their parents on what to say during these interviews. Basic questions, like “What is your aim in applying for this scholarship?” and “What do you know about this sector?”, might be easy for the interview-seasoned adult, but a teenager who has had no experience and no guidance will probably fumble when answering the questions.

But unlike a job interview where if we fail to make the cut, we can always try to apply to another company in the same industry, for an undergrad scholarship interview, usually, that is the only chance that the teenager has got to prove himself or herself. They only have one chance to get the undergrad scholarship – after their A levels. And if they screw up, they will not get a chance to apply for the same scholarship again.

The problem here is not with the students or their abilities.  The interviewers have failed in their job, which is to identify the academic potential of the students and to accommodate for the applicants' different interviewing styles.

Originally posted by cathykitty:

Yes, but employment opportunities are often a function of education opportunities, don’t you think? The point addresses the impact of unequal opportunities in education on the future life of a person.

Irrelevant.  We're discussing educational opportunities here, so employment opportunities and even the impact of lack of educational opportunities are red herrings.  Let's not muddy the waters here.

Originally posted by cathykitty:

The importance of financial assistance for the poor has been understated. I think many people believe that money won’t make a difference, choosing instead to believe in the power of the individual to overcome all odds. But usually, these people are the very ones who don’t need financial help. Try asking a poorer family struggling to make ends meet if they would rather have financial assistance, or if they would prefer to be left alone to overcome their odds by themselves. The answer seems to be a no-brainer.

At the moment, I don’t think the financial assistance for students is sufficient. I believe the MOE in Singapore has an extra-curricular fund for every student. But this is across the board. The poorer students do not get more help. So, in the event that the funds are insufficient, those students who are unable to pay out of their own pockets for expensive programmes, such as overseas trips, will lose out, in terms of the experience.

This still begs the question - I didn't ask if people got enough money, I asked how education and finances would help parents do more for their kids.  I'll put it to you bluntly: if I gave you ten grand today, what precisely would your plan be to help your kid get better grades, and how would it work?

Originally posted by cathykitty:

Money. An education contribution, maybe tied to low-income parents’ CPF accounts, for their kids’ welfare? And I mean, specifically, for the children before they enter the university. When they reach uni level, of course, they can use their parents’ CPF for their tuition fees. Currently, only “baby bonuses” are given for parents of young children. This is tied to how many children one has, and doesn’t evaluate the financial status of the parents.

Nope.  This is the pitfall of all policymakers - those that believe that throwing money at a problem only find that at the end of the process they're broke and they haven't achieved a thing.  It's not what you've got - it's how you go about solving the problem.

Originally posted by cathykitty:

Lower-income families, unlike those who can afford to contribute to endowment funds, often do not save up for their kids’ education. That’s usually the last thing on their minds. So, more money for extra activities, to fund overseas trips, to provide tuition teachers for those who need them, would be extremely useful. Often, these extra activities may be subsidised, but still not fully paid for. The student would also need to co-pay. But even with subsidised rates, the poorer kids will have a problem paying, and may not be able to join as many activities as their peers.

In terms of helping with paying for tutors, it’s because it’s not reasonable to expect a school teacher to offer intensive remedial for students all the time. Now, poorer kids who are lagging in their studies either don’t do anything abt it, or they go to social NGOs where free tuition is provided. But the quality of such volunteer tutors is not being controlled. Also, the environment in which this takes place, having been a volunteer tutor myself, is not always conducive for teaching a child, leading to a haphazard type of learning that doesn’t really help.

All of the above is based upon the assumption that the teaching that students receive during class time is ineffective.  That's like going out and buying a Ferrari because you assume that a Toyota isn't going to get you from Point A to Point B.  Why not focus on solutions to make classroom teaching more effective?

Originally posted by cathykitty:

Kids who grow up in money-scarce families are very conscious of that fact. Some of them may appear wayward, but they actually do care very much abt their pride and their family’s money woes. In fact, there are many bright students who do part-time jobs just to supplement their family’s income (and not just for branded goods). Surely that would affect their studies? Why shldn’t the govt do more to help them?

It would affect their studies if you assume that the only predictor of academic performance is the amount of time spent studying, ignoring other factors like efficiency of study techniques.

Certainly if a kid spent all his time after school and weekends helping run the family chicken rice stall with absolutely no time to do homework, you would have a problem there.  On the other hand, I'd wager that such cases do not constitute a significant proportion of Singaporean students.

Let's take a step back here and be solution-focussed rather than problem-focussed.

Originally posted by eagle:

It's more important for the student to adopt the correct studying techniques. A tutor is there not only to help the student understand, but more importantly, to impart the correct exam techniques and strategies (as well as bring up the student's interest) in the subject. This is what I believe in the most... Exam techniques are important, especially for Os and As... With the correct techniques and strategies, much time and effort could be saved during exams... and possibly leading higher scores...

Let's take it a bit broader, eagle.  Teachers cannot actually make students learn - absorbing and internalising the information is entire the task of each student.  What teachers can do is show them the best ways to learn, and to guide them in the learning process.

Originally posted by mrvictor:

yes, i admit the rich do have an advantage in getting a better education because they probably have better tutors and teachers. but what is there we can do about it? to tax the rich heavily and give to the poor is what is being done now, the only way to eradicate this problem is to go back to communism.

since there is nothing anyone can do about it, the only thing not so well-to-do children can do is try their best and study harder than their richer counterparts. merely lamenting the unfairness of the system does not solve the problem. this is a competitive world where survival is for the fittest in the various aspects.

Why assume that there is nothing that can be done about it?

In the course of this thread, despite the number of times it has been opined that some teachers and tutors are better than others, we have not yet paid enough attention to precisely what makes them better.

Without knowing what makes them better, we do not know if these qualities are innate, or if other teachers can be trained to teach the same way.

Without knowing if the qualities are innate or if they can be taught, it would be too early to decide that nothing can be done about it.

 

Originally posted by maxtor:

Gedanken, i appreciate your expertise on this subject and the fact that you have extensive experience in doing research. However as i was reading this i was considering that perhaps there might be 'another side' to it. U have taken census data and while i recognize that while the data is taken from a populationary model, populationary might in this sense mean Australia or Melbourne as a population. I do not doubt that. However if this data was taken in the context of the world's educational institutions it would just be a sample amongst the different countries.

That's good clarification, maxtor, but the implicit assumption is then that learning styles and cognitive mechanisms differ across countries.  Does a Singaporean child learn differently from, say, an Australian or American child?  The fact that educational systems adopt models and teaching practices from other countries are testtament that the kids learn the same way across countries and cultures - what differs is how they are taught.

Originally posted by cathykitty:

if we examine our system further, we will find there are many kids who may not be so good academically, but who have gotten the chance to be nurtured, because they have people (ie parents who are better educated or good teachers) who can act as mentors and help them clarify their goals.

the kids from poorer familes do not have access to such mentor figures, and it seems to be only thru luck that they can get good teachers who will help them all the way. and even then, the teachers can’t help much financially.

Can't say I disagree with this one, but to expand the point, the benefit is not so much a matter of financial or educational advantage on the parents' part as it is the environment's influence on the child's level of efficacy.  Specifically, a child growing up in a highly-educated environment is less likely to believe that high educational achievement is impossible, compared to a child from a less-educated environment.

Originally posted by cathykitty:

ask ard and you will know. it is extremely hard to apply for students to get financial assistance. for myself, for example, my dad’s salary was barely 1K a mth and he was already working beyond retirement age (over 65), yet I still did not manage to get bursaries throughout my university career, despite having above average grades.

do the scholarships and bursaries really need to be so competitive? i think if we relax the rules a bit, and give more resources, we can help a lot of bright kids with dreams achieve what they never thought was possible for them.

To get to the point, how many of your university classmates dropped out because of financial difficulties?  Did you drop out for that reason?

Originally posted by cathykitty:

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.

Could you specify (to phrase the question bluntly) what kind of help could be bought?

Originally posted by mrvictor:

local universities entrance grades must definitely rise, and at a pace faster than the current one, otherwise the average joe in colleges would just make it into university, which renders getting into university as not a privilege or upper hand over your counterparts. currently, the top 25% of each cohort make it to either overseas or local universities. this is too much. the government is thinking of making it 30% by having a fourth university. in the not so far future, the percentage might even be 50%. how about the government just give every person in a cohort a university degree? the percentage entering local universities should be fixed at 10% so that our standard can be improved and we can progress forward, or rather upward in the top 50 universities list.

Why set a specific percentage?  If indeed 50% of the cohort demonstrate the capacity to handle university studies, why arbitrarily set a 10% limit and deny the other 40% of the education they deserve?

Conversely, if 2% of a third-world country's population is capable of handling subjects of a university level, would you waste university training on 8% to make up the quota on an arbitrary 10% figure?

When I was an undergrad, there was (and still is) a furore about the concept of "education for sale" - the perversion of tertiary's raison d'etre in service of the demands of industry.  Students were being churned out to make up the numbers of graduates demanded by employers, and in the process being trained what to think instead of how to think, and the intent of tertiary education was lost, producing degree holders who really had no business holding degrees.

To provide or deny anyone an education for reasons other than the purpose of education is simply shortsighted.

Originally posted by cathykitty:

to take a specific example… in terms of getting scholarships… interviewers are usually looking for a certain kind of answers… chances are, kids fr lower income families who are not well educated will lose out to someone fr a better family backgrd, who has the resources and the knowledge to tell their kids what to say or do during the interview…

What specifically is it about those questions that would disadvantage the lower-income groups?

Originally posted by cathykitty:

we can argue tt what we do is make the best of what we have in life… but no matter how motivated the kids are, when those fr poorer families have to make choices like tt… it will have an impact on their future life… and certainly their careers… (considering the alma mater connection in getting jobs) wld tt still be considered equal opportunities for all?

This point seems to address equal employment opportunities rather than equal education opportunities.

Originally posted by cathykitty:

it’s nt really abt gd parenting too. if parents dun have the right financial resources or a high educational backgrd, there will be limitations to how much they can help…

What specifically would finances or education contribute to the parents' ability to help?

Originally posted by cathykitty:

i tink MOE shld make more resources available to help those kids who fall into the lower-income bracket…

What resources would specifically help lower-income-bracket kids?

Originally posted by eagle:

Therein lies the difference between A2, A1... or rather, grades ranging from 70 to 100.

I think that's where the potential varies.... :D

 

And the problem is that most students are not brought to their potential, and hence another reason why the grades vary so much...

Well eagle, in the study that I mentioned above, one of the findings is that teachers do need to remove obstacles to learning.  An example of such obstacles is poor class discipline, which prevents students from focussing.

And yes, properly constructed exams do test the entire gamut of ability levels.  That said, to do so, you'd need a pretty long test to cover those levels.  My doctoral thesis was on the use of adaptive testing (like what the SAT or ASVAB use) to do the same job with fewer questions, and we actually managed to cut the exam lengths down by 80% - it's a complex and expensive process, though.

Originally posted by kilua:

If you have really done social science research before, there always two side to the story. I can bet a million dollars i can dig a research thats has the opposite conclusion to yours.

My charge-out rate to do this stuff is three grand a day, so yes, I think I know a thing or two about research.  Your  "two sides of a story" defence would apply if I picked a random sample and extrapolated it to the general population.  The strength of the findings is that it is census data - we literally surveyed everybody, so there's no "two sides" to it.

Can't say I agree with that, eagle.  Motivated students will strive to achieve to the best of their potential, but that potential varies across individual students.

If the tests used to not cover the distribution of levels of potential, it is possible for all students to get the same score, i.e. a full score for tests that are too easy, or low scores for tests that are too difficult.

Originally posted by kilua:

Err

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_305814.html

He pointed to the widening income gap in the country and the high salaries of Government leaders. He also finds it unfair how a disproportionate number of the academically successful come from higher-income families.

Glass houses, my friend.  If you demand that Jennifer Chan provides precise data to back her claims, you cannot reasonably take Tan Kin Lian at his word, can you?

Originally posted by kilua:

Acknowledge the problem first. why hide the problem in "they come from more than 95 per cent of our primary schools and across all socio-economic groups" or "private tuition has no effect on grades"?

You're assuming that there is a problem.

Originally posted by kilua:

Given 2 groups of motivated students,

One group from rich family and free access to competent teachers for private tuition,

the other from lower income group and no access to any private tuition.

Under Singapore's education system, which group would perform better?

 

Neither.

Over here in Melbourne, I worked on a project that used census data (i.e. all schools, not just a representative sample) to assess the influence of various school characteristics on  student results.  This was done via structural equaltion modelling and the variables included factors such as private vs public schools, as well as application levels of best-practice teaching practices.

None of it made a difference.

The things that did come out of the modelling were that:

1) Teachers do not have the power to improve results, only to remove obstacles to reaching maximum potential performance
2) Effective teaching practices do not influence results (bearing in mind the caveat in the point above), but are effective in instilling an interest in learning in the students
3) If there is a predictor of results upon leaving the school, it is the students' performance at the time of entering the school - the high-performance schools' claim to fame is simply based on the quality of students it chooses to admit.

 

Obviously there's insufficient data in that letter to draw any firm conclusions.  On the other hand, does tutoring the living daylights out of a kid produce better results?  Can you turn Forest Gump into Albert Einstein?

Does Coach make that?

What three fishes are those anyway?