Any Updates As To When PSLE T-Scores Will Be Scrapped?

[floppy]

jetsetter:

Have you registered a place for your DD yet? You're affected, aren't you?

Next year.
I'm not too bothered about the new system TBH.
I am not one of those who die die must get my girls into one of those top top schools. If she end up getting balloted to her 3rd or 4th choice in a mid tier school, life goes on. When life gives you lemon, make lemonades. PSLE results have very little correlation to anyone's success in life. It's the right attitude that counts.

[mum_sugoku]

jetsetter:

From Petunia Lee's blog which she has since changed her privacy settings:

[quote]MOE does care about developing a future workforce. This workforce is needed to see Singapore into future economic prosperity. Increasingly, the government realises that our workforce lacks a diversity of talent, has precious little EQ and lacks a robust moral grounding. It has realised such a workforce, whilst highly competent in numeracy and literacy was not a strong workforce because of a paucity of non-academic skills and values. All that focus on beating the bell curve left our students little time to grow in other areas - kindness, gentleness, charity... etc...

So yes, there are surely parents who are stressed by the random ballot because what if their 4 pointers cannot get into RI? It would be so awful to be shunted by random chance to HCI or SJI or ACS(I).

That sort of stress is irrelevant to the higher purpose of the MOE. The MOE does not exist to reduce parent stress. It exists as the country's Human Resource Development Department and it wants top talent distributed across the top 10 schools so that these schools with different ethos and different foci will groom top talent to be diverse.

We need that. This country needs that.

She's probably right. Not just on the distribution of top talent to more top schools, but also on the future workforce and HRD part which is under the purview of the other MOE wing (Ag Ed Minister Ong Ye Kung). https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/speech-by-mr-ong-ye-kung--acting-minister-for-education-higher-education-and-skills-at-the-ite-graduation-ceremony-2016 reminded graduands that our system is not designed with dead ends:
[quote]\"What does all this mean to you, now that you are graduating from ITE? Our system is not designed with dead ends. Far from it, it is designed as forks with multiple branches and alternate pathways for you to choose from.

So some of you may be pursuing a diploma at the polytechnics, some of you may embark on a SkillsFuture Earn and Learn Programme, some will be undergoing National Service, while others may be looking for a job, and along the way, take up short modular courses to improve yourself. Whatever it is, once you discover your area of interest, your learning never stops – if you want to become really good at what you do.

[snip]

Today, I urge you to choose a more difficult but more real definition of success – success as making a meaningful difference in this world, through perfecting your own craft.\"[/quote]Like many of you, I was concerned about the unexplained broader lower bands in the new scoring system. But after reading his speech, I suspect the powers that be want to sieve out more students who are not academically ready or wired to join the O level/IP track at age 12 and encourage them to consider alternative pathways which may take longer to reach Rome.

Fact is we may not have that many graduate jobs to go around to feed every graduate. In KBW's candid words (OSC 2013), \"What is more important is that they get good jobs after leaving school\" and \"If they cannot find jobs, what is the point? You own a degree, but so what? That you can't eat it. If that cannot give you a good life, a good job, it is meaningless.\"

KBW as a national policy maker was responding to a participant who said the G should set aside more university places for ITE and poly grads. \"Can you have a whole country where 100 per cent are graduates? I am not so sure. What you do not want is to create huge graduate unemployment.\" added the minister. I'm sure no KSPs with \"uni-bound\" kids, incl this minister's own, would want that to happen to their DC, i.e. under-employed or unemployed.

Second fact I mentioned in the GE2015 thread is that under tremendous pressure from xenophobes and displaced Singaporean workers, the G had tightened the FT quotas in selected sectors such as F&B, retail, hospitality, consumer business, ICT, healthcare since 2011, resulting in the need to plug those gaping holes urgently. They've tried to entice more Nitec grads to take up apprenticeships, internships, mgmt associate prog with companies in affected sectors, and under certain schemes, Nitec grads could upgrade by taking up part-time diploma course in our local polys, and in the event that they develop higher capabilities later in life, they may then progress upwards and pursue a degree course.

Yes, the broader lower bands at AL 6, 7 and 8 may seem cruel and unfair to us. But someone else has to fill that big layer aka 'SG Core' at any one point in time, given that many FTs are gone. Regrettably, that someone has to be one who requires a longer pathway than your own DC, until such time this someone has acquired the skills and experience to take over your DC's rice bowl.[/quote] I don't think those rationales are the true \"hidden agenda\" behind the latest revamp lah.

Firstly, it still doesn't explain why the student (cited in Mr Chee's example) who should have gotten into normal stream, but ended up in express stream as a result of the way the new banding system works.

Secondly, I believe government's move to tighten foreign workers (Work Permit holders') supply in F&B, retail, hospitality, etc is NOT in response to citizens' resentment against them since, if I'm not wrong, the general unhappiness is with government allowing too many foreign talents (Employment Pass holders) to compete with locals for PMET jobs, and not WP holders taking up jobs shunned by locals.

I think government's move to tighten quota is to (and should rightfully be) to force business operators to be less reliance on (low skilled) cheap labours, but to explore less labour-intensive means, eg via automation, to run their businesses.

Moreover, the fact we need to recruit so many EP holders, particularly IT, banking and engineering professionals, seems to suggest that we are still running short of highly qualified (tertiary educated) locals to fill up the vacancies, doesn't it?

Hence, I doubt the motive behind the latest changes is to increase supply of blue-collar labours (as you've suggested). More likely (I think), the government is just \"changing for the sake of changing\", a move which is, actually, quite understandable: People have been complaining about how PSLE is creating huge stress on parents/students, so, surely government must do something to show people that they are listening - through action, ie by making changes to the existing system. Whether the new system is more superior/effective/fairer than existing one is not the point, the point is, government have \"proven\" to the citizens (voters) that they are listening, and they are taking steps to address the concern.

[SpartanMum]

jetsetter:

From Petunia Lee's blog which she has since changed her privacy settings:

[quote]MOE does care about developing a future workforce. This workforce is needed to see Singapore into future economic prosperity. Increasingly, the government realises that our workforce lacks a diversity of talent, has precious little EQ and lacks a robust moral grounding. It has realised such a workforce, whilst highly competent in numeracy and literacy was not a strong workforce because of a paucity of non-academic skills and values. All that focus on beating the bell curve left our students little time to grow in other areas - kindness, gentleness, charity... etc...

So yes, there are surely parents who are stressed by the random ballot because what if their 4 pointers cannot get into RI? It would be so awful to be shunted by random chance to HCI or SJI or ACS(I).

That sort of stress is irrelevant to the higher purpose of the MOE. The MOE does not exist to reduce parent stress. It exists as the country's Human Resource Development Department and it wants top talent distributed across the top 10 schools so that these schools with different ethos and different foci will groom top talent to be diverse.

We need that. This country needs that.

[/quote]I pray that this is indeed the case. :please:

Let's hope this banding somehow really changes the madness that has been going on these past few years. We could really do with a more humane, empathic and committed bunch of youngsters in the workplace!!!!

My kids have told me of cases where their classmates teach them to cheat - \" download the game and then delete it so your parents will never know\" . These are academically good students. Shocking. The words used in whatsapp messages, the bullying that goes on- should we just dismiss them as teenage angst? Hiding their notes from others, not sharing information - not just the kids but parents too....all this is happening in elite schools.

Sorry, somewhat off-topic. Hope Petunia Lee is right. Thanks jetsetter for sharing.

[janet88]

SpartanMum:

Let's hope this banding somehow really changes the madness that has been going on these past few years. We could really do with a more humane, empathic and committed bunch of youngsters in the workplace!!!!

:goodpost:
when the education system becomes such a pressure cooker, kids get stressed and EVERY mark matters. as such, EQ is lowered. there is also the tendency to show less empathy and be less compassionate towards others as society made them so...and as these kids grow and become adults, the generation will become less humane, less caring for others.
it becomes a ME-first mentality. I am sure MOE and the government don't wish for this to happen. in the government's drive to get the best talent, something else equally important will suffer.

[phtthp]

CatMoon:

I bet MOE will not be giving the 2 points for affiliation.

Most likely the scenario would be -
If you want affiliation, put that school as your first choice.

Strange thing is ...
Even if MOE were to impose -2 points discount for affliated P6 students to their Secondary schools, but in reality, may not even be just -2 points so simple, in reality can be -3 points.

Why ? Reason ?
Because the quality of Psle candidates differ, every batch.

example
Suppose one Popular affliated Secondary school, set her Affliated P6 pupils AL Cut-off (for 4 subjects) to be at : AL 12

But don't forget, free market forces of demand & supply handling per Psle batch, determining the Cut-off point : is something nobody can control over.

Eg
under our current T-score system :
does MOE know beforehand, before S1 posting, what is the Cut-off point T-score for the last candidate occupying the last seat, going to be like ?
No, nobody know.

refer past Data captured
say, in some year's batch : RGS Cut-off point T-score, was 261
But, in another year's batch : RGS Cut-off point, was 258 (instead of 261)

see ?
the Cut-off point varies : per batch.
can be 261, 258, whatever

Conclusion
So, the official Cut-off point kind of \"floating\", depending on market forces that year : that particular Psle batch quality of candidates.


Let's come back, to the new AL system

As mentioned, suppose this Secondary school set or fix the affliated P6 students, to be AL 12 (for 4 subjects) -

Then, what is going to happen ?

one possible scenario (A) may happen, in Year 2021
suppose the overall, entire P6 cohort (born 2009) perform very well, resulting in many students applying to this Secondary school, and the Cut-off point officially for outsiders is AL 9 (for 4 subjects), instead of AL 10 (which people are kind of expecting, since is -2 points away), then :

12 (affliated) - 9 (non-affliates) = 3

Qn ?
wouldn't the affliation Bonus for this batch, become -3 points, instead of -2 ?

another possible scenario (B) can happen, in year 2021
Suppose something happen.

End up, for this same popular Secondary school, the official Cut-off point for outsiders, is AL 11 (for 4 subjects).

Now, 12 (affliated) - 11 (non-affliates) = 1

Qn ?
The affliation bonus for this batch become -1, instead of -2

Conclusion
Since the Cut-off point for AL (4 subjects) can fluctuate, depending on the psle performance outcome of each batch, we end up -
Affliation bonus : also fluctuate accordingly to situation,
Affliation is not fixed at -2 always, since the Official Cut-off point varies, per batch.

One can fix the affliated AL score.
But it is market forces that decide what is the official Cut-off point, be it for T-score, or for AL, going to be.

[floppy]

phtthp:

Strange thing is ...
Even if MOE were to impose -2 points discount for affliated P6 students to their Secondary schools, but in reality, may not even be just -2 points so simple, in reality can be -3 points.

Until MOE announces any concrete plans, any discussion is an exercise in futility.

[janet88]

floppy:

phtthp:

Strange thing is ...
Even if MOE were to impose -2 points discount for affliated P6 students to their Secondary schools, but in reality, may not even be just -2 points so simple, in reality can be -3 points.

Until MOE announces any concrete plans, any discussion is an exercise in futility.

:goodpost:

[pirate]

floppy:

phtthp:

Strange thing is ...
Even if MOE were to impose -2 points discount for affliated P6 students to their Secondary schools, but in reality, may not even be just -2 points so simple, in reality can be -3 points.

Until MOE announces any concrete plans, any discussion is an exercise in futility.

Must make noise first before the whole thing is set in concrete and it is too late.

[janet88]

pirate:

Until MOE announces any concrete plans, any discussion is an exercise in futility.

Must make noise first before the whole thing is set in concrete and it is too late. [/quote]
since the announcement was made, there wasn't much details from education minister. so it could mean nothing is concrete. making some noise now may be effective.

[floppy]

pirate:

floppy:

[quote=\"phtthp\"]
Strange thing is ...
Even if MOE were to impose -2 points discount for affliated P6 students to their Secondary schools, but in reality, may not even be just -2 points so simple, in reality can be -3 points.

Until MOE announces any concrete plans, any discussion is an exercise in futility.

Must make noise first before the whole thing is set in concrete and it is too late. [/quote]Are you a new Singaporean?

When have the G ever taken noise on the Internet into consideration before announcing their position?