小學讀際小學,中學時轉回傳統中學

WYmom

In respond to the original question of this topic, I know a few ESF students that due to financial reasons chose to study in a local English DSS which offers foreign students and local students classes.  In secondary schools, most subjects are taught in English, these students don't have much problem to fit in, they likely have problems in Chinese subjects and fitting in the local school culture.

In fact, IS students graduated from UK system IS are at least one year younger than local P.6 students as they start year 1 at 4 to 5 years old and graduate from year 6 at 10 or 11 years old, which equivalent to P.5 local students.  That's why people always said that they are "lacking behind".

For SIS, ICS or ICAS etc. which follows similar age system as the local system, there will be no one year gap problem from primary to secondary.

[ 本帖最後由 WYmom 於 09-7-22 10:33 編輯 ]

WYmom

原帖由 elmostoney 於 09-9-25 14:50 發表
chanms, how did you find SIS in general?

Other than a handful of IS which has strong emphasis on Chinese, I doubt IS students can transition into LS smoothly.  My neices go to ESF, studying in F.4.   ...

Please note that:

1. ESF is running UK system, F.4 means Year 10 equals to F.3 in local school (ESF starts primary at age 5 and have 7 years of secondary school)

2. ESF classifies students into different levels of Chinese and Maths groups since primary according to their abilities,  Your niece's Chinese and Maths levels only reflect her own standard and definitely not representing all IS students.  The top Chinese group of ESF students are studying the same or higher level of Chinese books as their counterparts in local schools, i.e. Year 10 students (which equal to F.3 local students) learn F.4 Singaporean Chinese books.

3. As I have mentioned before, transition to local DSS is possible, I know some ESF students switched to local DSS due to lower school fees.  All depends on the capabilities of the students.

[ 本帖最後由 WYmom 於 09-9-25 15:22 編輯 ]

WYmom

原帖由 elmostoney 於 09-9-25 22:23 發表
my nieces are in the advanced group already in all classification, whether math or chinese.  I do know they use singapore textbooks for chinese class.  they are above average students in their school. ...

In real IS, the environment is naturally and should be an English speaking environment instead of Chinese speaking one as they have staff and students of international nationalities.  Only those "IS" such as Yew Chung having 90%+ local Chinese students will provide a Chinese speaking environment.  You can choose those if you prefer that.

To help kids using, reading or writing Chinese more in real life,  it is really the parents' job.  We develop our kids to read a lot of Chinese and English books since they are very small.  My elder kid in secondary ESF now still likes to borrow Chinese story novels frequently herself, same level as other local kids at her age.

Anyway, as many IS parents have mentioned again and again, in IS, there are many more important aspects to treasure for developing our children rather than only focusing on learning Chinese.

WYmom

原帖由 elmostoney 於 09-9-27 16:33 發表
但無可否認,好多時international math level做親比較, 亞洲國家 - 特別係用傳統方法教授 - 係呢d比賽通常都係呢類學生勝出, 幾時聽過有人話歐美d數比亞洲人d數好?  我唔係expert, 亦冇做過物野detail 研究, 但係我相 ...

The way of teaching in IS on Maths, English, Science, History, Geography etc. is very different from local schools.  They teach the concept much more clearly.  They require students to explain maths in texts.  Please don't draw conclusion to standards without thorough understandings.

This is not a topic of local schools vs IS.  They are very different types of schools, parents should understand more first before choosing rather than switching back and forward.

WYmom

原帖由 elmostoney 於 09-9-28 09:46 發表
i guess I myself qualified as a person who went to what we call international schools here in HK as I studied in a US school - in fact, a school made up with 90% caucasian in a middle class neighborho ...

What I have experienced with my kids are quite different from US or Canadian schools (I also have experienced with that in Canada), in HK ESF they use UK cirriculum and IB PYP now.  I think different IS use different system and methods.  SIS uses Singaporean method, which is also different from US and UK methods.  

Besides, as I have said before, there is age difference between local, Singapore, UK and US/ Canadian system, UK's Y1/Y6 = other countries'  K3/ P.5, so it is not correct to compare ESF Y1-Y11 to other schools' P1-F.5.  

UK GCSE is taken by their Y11 students (age 15), which equals to F.4 level in HK / US/ Canada/ Singapore, so people always said that HKCEE is more difficult, standard is higher... no one really recognize or admit that in fact in the past, HK students study 3 years of kinder, 6 years of primary and 7 years of secondary, 3 to 4 years of universities, so naturally they should attain a higher standard than all others!!

In future, the HK students will be taking the new secondary diploma and no more HKAL.  The results will be different from the past.

[ 本帖最後由 WYmom 於 09-9-28 10:48 編輯 ]

WYmom

原帖由 mow-mow 於 09-9-29 13:23 發表
Although local Hong Kong students are 1 year older than IS students when they enter university, they have received education for exactly the same number of years, NOT more.
Local students go through 6 ...

Haha, can't understand why you still don't understand?  If all kids start school at 3 years old, why HK students enter U one year later than UK, US or Canadian students?   They are not just older, they study one more year than others !!  So HKCEE is really one year higher than GCSE.  
In future, the new HK Diploma's level should equal to GCSE AL!!
Simple Maths!!

[ 本帖最後由 WYmom 於 09-9-29 15:33 編輯 ]

WYmom

原帖由 畢學武 於 09-9-29 15:47 發表

又在計年齡,
你有冇看一看課程,
香港教育制度以前跟英国,
中五=O level
中七=A level
大學三年(HKU)
N年前當香港未有太多本地書前是用英國書的,常用的有
Pure  ...

If you believe that the HKCEE and AL level should equal to UK O & A level and should not be harder, are you indicating that the HK students are in fact "dumber" than their counterparts in other countries as they need to study one more year to take the same level exam before entering U??

WYmom

原帖由 almom 於 09-9-29 17:30 發表


I was refering to the discussion of HK vs UK curriculum, whether in secondary school level and university level.
I was merely saying that although it appears that HK students seem to have an extra y ...

This is just to clarify the illusion of most people thinking HK local school standard is higher than IS standard when they compare kids of the seem-to-be "same" year.  If you have a kid of 5 years old studying in IS Y1, you will understand why we won't expect the kid to learn same thing as a 6-year old kid in P.1 of local school.  When kids grow up, they will vary more widely, some can outperform others very far away, no matter in which type of schools.

P.S.  Seems that only wisekid2007 got my point of "dumber" HK students!

[ 本帖最後由 WYmom 於 09-9-29 18:11 編輯 ]

WYmom

原帖由 mow-mow 於 09-9-29 21:27 發表
Wisekid2007 & WYmom,
I'm afraid I do not buy your logic of including the kindergarten years which is actually not compulsory education and is often termed 'pre-school'.
Following your logic, then how  ...

I have explained and now you said you don't recognize that studying one more year of kinder is one more year of education and then that's your logic!  


You cannot just equate all Y1-13 UK cirriculum to local P.1-F.7 cirriculum, that's my originally point.  Kinder education in HK is quite intensive, not just playing around.  For example, local kids have already learnt addition and substraction upto 20 or more in K3 at age 6.  In UK IS Y.1, kids have finished only K2 at age 5 will learn this, just like local kids in K3. So you cannot just eliminate all pre-school education as education by saying that it is not compulsory while in reality that all kids start kinder at 3 or even at 2 until 6.

If you only talks about official rules, then the official rule for receiving primary education in HK is 6 years old, if I apply the same on UK IS kids, then their Y1(age 5) should not be counted as education as well, so according to your logic, students in UK IS receive 5 years of primary and 7 years of secondary education, while students in HK local schools receive 6 years of primary and 7 years of secondary education, is it so obvious that there is one year more?

For IS of US/ Canadian/Singapore system, students start primary at age 6, but they only study 6 years in secondary, but local HK students study 7 years in secondary, so it is so obvious that HK students receive one more year of education!  Can't you get it?

I just tell that it is the fact that HKCEE/HKAL is one year level higher than GCSE O/AL, if you don't buy this, you can take a look at the exams.  I know that internationally they are equally recognised as secondary/Pre-U graduation qualification, but it does not mean that the standard should be equalised.  It is really more favourable for HK students to take GCSE as they HAVE really received one more year of education even you deny it.   It is simply the fact!

I can only say that in the past HK students did learn more difficult syllubus than overseas students, their standard SHOULD be higher, but whether they are REALLY higher than others or not is another issue.  Now, with the new 334 system, they are par with the overseas students and their standard is to be assessed.

For University education, it is different from kinder to secondary, it is more a specialised career-oriented education rather than the basic education for everyone.  Some HK students take 4 or even 5 years of U education instead of 3, all depends on which profession.

[ 本帖最後由 WYmom 於 09-9-30 09:04 編輯 ]