Any Updates As To When PSLE T-Scores Will Be Scrapped?
-
jetsetter:
This is interesting. If the COP didn't change much from the 80s till 2001 (since the way T-scores are calculated weren't changed since 1973 and only some minor tweaks to letter grades was made), we can check if there was a sudden uptick in COP for hot schools starting from 2004 (DSA, IP etc...) can't we?
![](\"http://i65.tinypic.com/161dnis.png\")
http://i65.tinypic.com/161dnis.png\">
Do high scorers still do that nowadays, i.e. go against the tide and apply to a school that they deem better in their eyes, regardless of its prevailing ranking and prestige? If you look at the highest COP column, some did qualify for a higher-ranking sec sch, e.g. SAP stream, but they chose not to ...
:?
jetsetter, where did you find the COP info?
I mean, if we can confidently infer that the increase in COP for schools like Nanyang Girls' were attributed to the introduction of IP/DSA, then we can confidently say that the policies have somewhat changed parents'/students' behavior and those \"new initiatives\" of not revealing top scorers etc are really quite ineffective....
It certainly suggests to me that parents/students do not like taking standardized exams. And anything to avert that (enrichments, DSAs, IPs (to avert O Levels), affiliation) all points to the same direction of behavior. -
Jetsetter’s sharing of the 2002 COP was to show that the upper limit showed that top PSLE scorers are spread across a few schools. To answer your question Jetsetter, if there are any unusual upper limit COP seen in some of the schools(outside the popular ones) today, it could be only a handful of kids. In the 2002 table it could be a bigger sample with points nearer the upper limit in the schools. So the answer is yes, there are such kids spread in various schools but reduced today…since top scorers are squeezing together in some schools.
Blurryburger, the COP of NYGH in 2002 table is 260 and it has not moved very much until today. However, most other IP schools’ COP has gone up by a few points and this is certain because IP is a confirmed uni-bound route(not to mention about the drop-outs). So it is not because parents do not like exams but the IP route is an accelerated path for uni-bound kids. By cutting off O levels, they are given more time in the curriculum to develop skills suitable for a uni-bound education. MOE has probably studied from historical data that uni-bound kids can be identified by very strong PSLE results so doing O levels is a waste of time. When the programme was launched, I believe that this was true because when I looked at my friends and I (without tuition), I believe it was pretty clear that we were uni-bound kids from our primary school performance. However, these days with so much tuition going on due to competitive parents and some blindly, there could be more casualties dropping out of the uni-bound education path to "o" levels due to the crutch effect.
There is nothing wrong with the introduction of the IP scheme but what is wrong is the way we responded to it and we cannot put the blame squarely on the programme. We assume all our kids MUST and CAN go the direct uni-bound way and hence compete fiercely in that direction. However some kids are suitable to go the poly way or ITE way to find their forte or sometimes those paths are also stepping stones for them to eventually end up in the uni…albeit later but still good if they excel. Speed is not the essence in education for everyone but a suitable path is, as we can see our kids speeding to high stress now. -
sushi88:
I'm not blaming the IP program. And yes, we can look at the range and variation of COP among schools and not concentrate on one school. I'm saying that the perhaps the program induced certain behavior and to understand behavior or to ameliorate undesirable outcomes, we need to understand the triggers of these behaviors. The converse is true also, if we can't confidently attribute any of the behavior back to any scheme(s) then we don't slay the cow.
There is nothing wrong with the introduction of the IP scheme but what is wrong is the way we responded to it and we cannot put the blame squarely on the programme. We assume all our kids MUST and CAN go the direct uni-bound way and hence compete fiercely in that direction. However some kids are suitable to go the poly way or ITE way to find their forte or sometimes those paths are also stepping stones for them to eventually end up in the uni...albeit later but still good if they excel. Speed is not the essence in education for everyone but a suitable path is, as we can see our kids speeding to high stress now. -
lee_yl:
Even if G trying hard to make other JCs to be on par with RI / HCI in the subsequent future years to come (from 2021), but think RI will still be in the lead, ahead of others.
I would like Eunoia JC to be a top JC! But it was off to a poor start with a change of its interim site and delays to the completion of the final site, remember? And it definitely won't be better than RI or HCI, for sure, at least not for the foreseeable future.
Lest we get distracted, I would like to reiterate that for good students, balloting for secondary school is not just about a spot in sec school, it also decides which JC a top student goes.
Eg
Dunman High & River Valley High :
These 2 schools only take in IP students, at Psle entry point.
Only 1 intake, so far. Strange !
They do not accept any JAE (joint admission exercise) students, after O level results are out.
In contrast, many 3-pointer JAE O level students tend to apply to RI, for their A level, and are accepted.
Cut off point for JAE students in RI : is 3 point.
Who are these 3 pointers ?
Usually, they are the Top GCE \"O level\" candidates, from many O level Secondary schools, throughout Singapore.
In comparison, the cut off point for JAE students to apply for Temasek JC, Victoria JC, National JC : is not 3 point.
Hence, RI take in the best Top students in 2 round -
1st round : at Psle, where many Geppers flock to,
2nd round : at JAE exercise.
Besides having good qualify Teaching staff at A level, the quality of the students themselves also important, to determine the quality of the overall GCE A level results.
How about Eunoia JC ?
Being new, won't know yet what is the cut off point going to be like, for JAE students.
===============================
Another thing is, under the new AL system :-
for EVERY Psle batch : the Cut off point for AL, into individual IP school, is not fixed.
It depend on how each Psle batch perform.
Example
Under current T-score system :
Cut off point for T-score varies, with each Psle batch.
Eg
For O level :
Last year (2015) : Cut off point for CHIJ St Nicholas was 254,
That for St Nick IP intake, was 258
However, in one past year recently, the Cut off point for St Nick O level was low, at 245. In that year of un-expectation, many parents are very surprised, and after S1 posting results out, a long queue of appeal started to form soon, by P6 students who scored much better than 245, but did not choose St Nick O level as one of their 6 choices, because nobody expect that year to swing so low, to 245 Cut off point.
Since this illustrate how the T-score Cut off point can swing either way (can be as high at 254, or as low at 245), with each different batch of Psle candidates, similarly, the Cut off point for AL can also swing, not fixated, per psle batch, depending on how each batch perform.
AL band :
is just a replacement for T-score, when come to choosing the 6 schools, in the list.
This will then cause dilemma to parents helping their children to choose which 6 schools under the new AL scheme, since now the sequence / order is important, to determine if need to ballot or not, in the event of a tie -
sushi88:
if the kids are capable of getting strong psle results without tuition, they are more capable of doing the direct uni-bound way...but if the kids had intensive tuition to score high T-scores, there is a chance they won't be able to survive the IP route. IP is an intensive 6 year program different from the O level track.
MOE has probably studied from historical data that uni-bound kids can be identified by very strong PSLE results so doing O levels is a waste of time. When the programme was launched, I believe that this was true because when I looked at my friends and I (without tuition), I believe it was pretty clear that we were uni-bound kids from our primary school performance. However, these days with so much tuition going on due to competitive parents and some blindly, there could be more casualties dropping out of the uni-bound education path to \"o\" levels due to the crutch effect.
There is nothing wrong with the introduction of the IP scheme but what is wrong is the way we responded to it and we cannot put the blame squarely on the programme. We assume all our kids MUST and CAN go the direct uni-bound way and hence compete fiercely in that direction. However some kids are suitable to go the poly way or ITE way to find their forte or sometimes those paths are also stepping stones for them to eventually end up in the uni...albeit later but still good if they excel. Speed is not the essence in education for everyone but a suitable path is, as we can see our kids speeding to high stress now.
as parents, we have to accept that not all kids can take the direct uni-bound route. my son is one example. he knows what he likes and since he is more hands-on, the JC route being an academic one is not suitable for him. there is a long way ahead. if kids continue to speed at this fast track education, they will burn out before adulthood. there is already no childhood to enjoy. what is the meaning of life if they get burnt out? -
Blurryburger:
Every parent wants their kids to have a uni-bound education. Next is they must go to top schools to ensure this uni-bound dream comes true for sure albeit all IP schools+their JCs are supposed to work on that. So the trigger is IP scheme or the dream of a uni-bound education?
I'm not blaming the IP program. And yes, we can look at the range and variation of COP among schools and not concentrate on one school. I'm saying that the perhaps the program induced certain behavior and to understand behavior or to ameliorate undesirable outcomes, we need to understand the triggers of these behaviors. The converse is true also, if we can't confidently attribute any of the behavior back to any scheme(s) then we don't slay the cow. -
lee_yl:
Parents always want the best for their children, already the GEP selection can cause some parents to go bonkers :evil:[/quote]
All schools ARE good schools. Unfortunately every parent wants the best schoolgrimm:
[quote=\"lee_yl\"]
Sure, if you believe that all schools are good schools
Unfortunately, they want they think it's best for their children.
Do we take enough time to think about whether it is best for them or are we just following the herd? -
ParkYuni:
Good point, ParkYuni.
Agree! At the moment, it seems like the G is focusing mainly on the cream of the crop. However, as far as PSLE is concerned, students of all calibre will be stretched and stressed. The new system is of no help to the weaker pupils. Instead, it looks like the G is set to optimise its ITE intake.Imp75:
I think parents should just chill....there are enough Top Schools to go around if parents extend their binoculars to look further out....
What's worrying is the 64 mark scorer. From a \"sure-express stream\" in present system to \"potentially NA stream\"....I think the govt probably need to look hard at the broader band of 45-64?
We've just closed down 11 lower-ranking, under-subscribed sec schs. -
ParkYuni:
the 45-64 band is too broad. it could be reduced to 45-50.
Agree! At the moment, it seems like the G is focusing mainly on the cream of the crop. However, as far as PSLE is concerned, students of all calibre will be stretched and stressed. The new system is of no help to the weaker pupils. Instead, it looks like the G is set to optimise its ITE intake.Imp75:
I think parents should just chill....there are enough Top Schools to go around if parents extend their binoculars to look further out....
What's worrying is the 64 mark scorer. From a \"sure-express stream\" in present system to \"potentially NA stream\"....I think the govt probably need to look hard at the broader band of 45-64?
it's very demoralizing if weak students are not given a helping hand. this is going to stress students AND parents even more. -
sushi88:
The above context doesn't mean anything. There's no change in behavior, and therefore, no trigger to speak of.
Every parent wants their kids to have a uni-bound education. Next is they must go to top schools to ensure this uni-bound dream comes true for sure albeit all IP schools+their JCs are supposed to work on that. So the trigger is IP scheme or the dream of a uni-bound education?
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 💗
Register Login