Any Updates As To When PSLE T-Scores Will Be Scrapped?
-
mum_sugoku:
Agree with the second point. Those scoring in the 80-89 range, can be propelled to 90+ with more enrichment classes. So for that section of students, it becomes more compelling.
It certainly is in the right direction to spread high scoring students among more schools.. but.. will the new scoring system improve the \"spread\" significantly over the current one?
The spread has to be gradual not too drastic. Instead of top 5 , there will be demand for the top 10, so on. Students should be more spread out but not of markablly different academic levels because catering to them in one class may become hard , so also schools catering to a diverge range of students will not be efficient even if that were possible.
The new system is almost identical to the current 'O' level's scoring system, and the top 'O' level scorers are still cramming into the top 2, and the rest top JCs still unable to achieve the same 'glamour' as those 2.
In fact, I suspect it would make the elite more 'elite' than before: you'll need to be 4 pointers to be assured of a place in those schools, ie you'll need to score Al1 in all 4 subjects! Currently, if you are weaker in a particular subject (normally Chinese for Chinese students, I observe), you could make it up by getting good scores in the other 3. This is no longer possible under the new system, to get 4 points, one die die must also get >90 marks for his/her weakest subject.
The easiest way to achieve this is, of course, to get extra helps for the weakest subject, via tuition. And charges by those so-called high end tuition centres and 'top tutors' are not cheap, and not every parents could afford them.
So, under the new scoring system, I wouldn't be surprised if the elite schools get more students from more elite family background, making the elite schools more 'elite' than before.
But then what is the situation now? Now most including those who score 90+ consistently are in enrichment centers - because 90 is not enough, not even 95, when one can get 100. A boost in one subject may help pull up the lag in another. So every single mark matters. And the enrichment centres are minting money anyway. -
Sun_2010:
Personally, I rather see tuition centres being set up to help students weak in a particular subjects than the current situation whereby elite tuition agencies are training a 95 pointer to become a 100 pointer. The former, IMHO, is understandable but the latter is simply ridiculous.
Agree with the second point. Those scoring in the 80-89 range, can be propelled to 90+ with more enrichment classes. So for that section of students, it becomes more compelling.mum_sugoku:
It certainly is in the right direction to spread high scoring students among more schools.. but.. will the new scoring system improve the \"spread\" significantly over the current one?
The spread has to be gradual not too drastic. Instead of top 5 , there will be demand for the top 10, so on. Students should be more spread out but not of markablly different academic levels because catering to them in one class may become hard , so also schools catering to a diverge range of students will not be efficient even if that were possible.
The new system is almost identical to the current 'O' level's scoring system, and the top 'O' level scorers are still cramming into the top 2, and the rest top JCs still unable to achieve the same 'glamour' as those 2.
In fact, I suspect it would make the elite more 'elite' than before: you'll need to be 4 pointers to be assured of a place in those schools, ie you'll need to score Al1 in all 4 subjects! Currently, if you are weaker in a particular subject (normally Chinese for Chinese students, I observe), you could make it up by getting good scores in the other 3. This is no longer possible under the new system, to get 4 points, one die die must also get >90 marks for his/her weakest subject.
The easiest way to achieve this is, of course, to get extra helps for the weakest subject, via tuition. And charges by those so-called high end tuition centres and 'top tutors' are not cheap, and not every parents could afford them.
So, under the new scoring system, I wouldn't be surprised if the elite schools get more students from more elite family background, making the elite schools more 'elite' than before.
But then what is the situation now? Now most including those who score 90+ consistently are in enrichment centers - because 90 is not enough, not even 95, when one can get 100. A boost in one subject may help pull up the lag in another. So every single mark matters. And the enrichment centres are minting money anyway. -
One thing that I disagree is how they assigned 45-64 to AL6. It should be split into 45-54 and 55-64.
-
jetsetter:
10% is a lot. Poor kids who get knocked out due to a55luck.
The only way to reduce balloting is to make the sorting tool finer. And then we end up merely transferring the luck of the computerized balloting to the luck of whether the 'right' questions come out in the paper for the child. -
Sun_2010:
No idea about the situation now..
Agree with the second point. Those scoring in the 80-89 range, can be propelled to 90+ with more enrichment classes. So for that section of students, it becomes more compelling.mum_sugoku:
It certainly is in the right direction to spread high scoring students among more schools.. but.. will the new scoring system improve the \"spread\" significantly over the current one?
The spread has to be gradual not too drastic. Instead of top 5 , there will be demand for the top 10, so on. Students should be more spread out but not of markablly different academic levels because catering to them in one class may become hard , so also schools catering to a diverge range of students will not be efficient even if that were possible.
The new system is almost identical to the current 'O' level's scoring system, and the top 'O' level scorers are still cramming into the top 2, and the rest top JCs still unable to achieve the same 'glamour' as those 2.
In fact, I suspect it would make the elite more 'elite' than before: you'll need to be 4 pointers to be assured of a place in those schools, ie you'll need to score Al1 in all 4 subjects! Currently, if you are weaker in a particular subject (normally Chinese for Chinese students, I observe), you could make it up by getting good scores in the other 3. This is no longer possible under the new system, to get 4 points, one die die must also get >90 marks for his/her weakest subject.
The easiest way to achieve this is, of course, to get extra helps for the weakest subject, via tuition. And charges by those so-called high end tuition centres and 'top tutors' are not cheap, and not every parents could afford them.
So, under the new scoring system, I wouldn't be surprised if the elite schools get more students from more elite family background, making the elite schools more 'elite' than before.
But then what is the situation now? Now most including those who score 90+ consistently are in enrichment centers - because 90 is not enough, not even 95, when one can get 100. A boost in one subject may help pull up the lag in another. So every single mark matters. And the enrichment centres are minting money anyway.
In my kid's case, except for the eldest who's very weak in Chinese (almost failed) and needed tuition in Chinese, they've never had any tuition. (Myself am unfamiliar with their school's syllabus and so couldn't help them too. I give their dedicated school teachers 100% credit for my kids' 'A's and 'A*'s in PSLE
). In fact, their pri school teacher told us, very proudly :evil: , that most top scorers in their batch had no tuition too.
-
mum_sugoku:
In my kid's case, except for the eldest who's very weak in Chinese (almost failed) and needed tuition in Chinese, they've never had any tuition. (Myself am unfamiliar with their school's syllabus and so couldn't help them too. I give their dedicated school teachers 100% credit for my kids' 'A's and 'A*'s in PSLE
). In fact, their pri school teacher told us, very proudly :evil: , that most top scorers in their batch had no tuition too.
I seriously doubt that
From what I've heard, almost every kid has tuition these days. -
pirate:
work on the papers, e.g. planting 'killer' qns (ranging from levels 1-5 difficulty) in each section to sieve out the best from the better and good? :yikes:jetsetter:
10% is a lot. Poor kids who get knocked out due to a55luck.
The only way to reduce balloting is to make the sorting tool finer. And then we end up merely transferring the luck of the computerized balloting to the luck of whether the 'right' questions come out in the paper for the child.
-
Technospaz:
mum_sugoku:
In my kid's case, except for the eldest who's very weak in Chinese (almost failed) and needed tuition in Chinese, they've never had any tuition. (Myself am unfamiliar with their school's syllabus and so couldn't help them too. I give their dedicated school teachers 100% credit for my kids' 'A's and 'A*'s in PSLE
). In fact, their pri school teacher told us, very proudly :evil: , that most top scorers in their batch had no tuition too.
I seriously doubt that
From what I've heard, almost every kid has tuition these days.
it's a normal neighbourhood school and so, actually, there weren't many top scorers (260+) - by \"most\", it's just a few only.. Anyway, that's what their teacher told me when I thanked them for my kids' good results .
-
mum_sugoku:
Technospaz:
[quote=\"mum_sugoku\"]In my kid's case, except for the eldest who's very weak in Chinese (almost failed) and needed tuition in Chinese, they've never had any tuition. (Myself am unfamiliar with their school's syllabus and so couldn't help them too. I give their dedicated school teachers 100% credit for my kids' 'A's and 'A*'s in PSLE
). In fact, their pri school teacher told us, very proudly :evil: , that most top scorers in their batch had no tuition too.
I seriously doubt that
From what I've heard, almost every kid has tuition these days. it's a normal neighbourhood school and so, actually, there weren't many top scorers (260+) - by \"most\", it's just a few only.. Anyway, that's what their teacher told me when I thanked them for my kids' good results .[/quote]Haha I think that should be the focus. Tuition is intended to supplement where a student is weak but not to try and create a super-student. I'm glad your child did well sans tuition - that's something to be really proud off given how rare it is in our society today.
-
floppy:
Game theory, enrichment, tuition...Not just in play in Singaporeans' lives. It's in other people's lives too, from North America and UK to North Asia, HK & TW included.superkiasudad:
After observing the level of interest in this whole AL grading on display here in Kiasuparents. I told my son's math tutor, Mr Zhou, that his centre should start offering a course on \"Game Theory\" for all the parents of this batch of primary 1 students. We had a good laugh at the absurdity of it.
Game Theory is in play, knowingly or unknowingly for most people, for most part of our lives.
Just live with it...we need to compete w others in this global village anyway.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2048094/Meet-parents-prepared-to-children-grammar-school.html
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better š
Register Login