Can through-train school work in kiasu Singapore?
-
bbbay\" post_id=\"2100943\" time=\"1678749691\" user_id=\"175278:
I don’t doubt that we have a good education system. We even have a billion dollar tuition ecosystem! 😂
Our education system has good track records. The pro know what they are doing. Their policies are likely based on statistics and careful trials.
The key consideration is, this successful education system comes at what cost to the parents and the kids.
One key statistic that is often missing from discussion is the teens/children suicide rate. Compare to 20years ago, what is the trend. Upward? -
Through train sch vs complete removal of PSLE, have two different considerations.
Regardless, i believe there is a need to keep IP, if you know enough kids, and seen those who have natural flair in academics, quick in learning from books, you will appreciate. IP was developed for this group of kids. Caveat, the kids i am referring to are not mine. But IP started with only a couple of schools offering. Meant for above top 10% i believe but slowly extended to a few more schools.
The situation now becomes tricky because of inflated performance due to tuition. -
CCS did insinuate at ACS during his speech, where he questioned what happens if it is a branded TT school and how to ensure a fair and transparent enrolment. And this is where I think things will become messy as I am sure enrolment will likely become ambiguous and those with resources and affiliation will likely gain an unfair advantage. It is sort of the same as current P1 enrolment, but now the stake is much higher because this is also about secondary school selection.
Kiasuism in education will not stop at PSLE. With this TT system, the mindset for enrolment will become sec 1 enrolment where parents will compare the quality of secondary education. And certainly, schools with branded names draw crowds as their strong support or funding will mean better quality education, better facilities and more diverse programs. e.g. swimming pool or more CCA etc. And this will then create a mad rush for enrolment in those popular school, while those non-branded or less popular schools struggle to fill the vacancies because parents may choose PSLE route instead. eg. If their kids do well, they have the option to try for IPs or DSA schools. If their kids don’t do well at PSLE, they can still get into non-popular secondary schools due to low COP.
10 years is a long commitment, and for these reasons, I will not be surprised that the takeup rate for TT schools will be low unless its a branded or popular school.
What I think is very interesting is that those MPs who advocate TT programs are alma mater of IPs schools like St Nic, RGS, and RI. Suppose TTS was available during their time, I do wonder if their parent will choose TT to skip PSLE instead of going the PSLE route and trying for top schools.
If you ask me, this TT program will be hard to sell to parents as the incentive to skip PSLE may not be worth the 10 years of commitment in an uncertain and unproven education system.
Since it was highlighted that ACS is already like a TT school because the AL22 COP for express is almost as good as no PSLE. So we may actually use ACS Baker O-level outcome to evaluate and validate the merit and advantage of TT education. And of course, we must think of ACS as a neighborhood school instead of an elitist school.
Perhaps if it is not positive, someone may then suggest thru-train from Primary to JC, and skip O level as well. -
The TT school cannot be an existing popular school due to the reasons everyone knows. It will push down the popularity to even crazier levels at P1 registration.
Hence I suggested converting an existing unpopular 2CS school to TT. Or maybe not, if the name already has the undesirable label. New school with a new name may be better. Only those parents who truly want a stress-free, no PSLE thru-train experience for their kids will apply. It’s not going to be overwhelmingly oversubscribed, which is fine for a new pilot school until they prove that the TT system produces fine end-goal after 10 years. It’s not gonna cost MOE much more to run this test-bed school at all. If it really fails after 10-20 years, what’s the opportunity cost? Nothing worse than a 2CS school with falling enrolment what. -
We should not put the cart before the horse, it is more worthwhile for MOE to establish how many parents/students actually prefer the pri-sec thru train system compared to the current offering. If the take-up rate is not high, then it's game over.
Don't waste time discussing something that does not have high demand if there are enough kiasu parents/kids to support the PSLE system that is already offering a 2-way branch off to an IP and secondary system.
Sometimes, people may just spend time whining but when they think deeper, they will stick to the current choices instead of asking for another route. However, if the concern is a genuine one with significant numbers wanting a 10 year education before a national exam, then we can discuss further. -
sushi88\" post_id=\"2100920\" time=\"1678714494\" user_id=\"100857:
Suppose the cohort size at primary 1 is 400, by the time the same cohort is promoted to S1, the student population may shrink to around 200 assuming 50% chose PSLE with the intent of switching to another school. With a shrinking and erratic cohort size, it will be difficult for TT secondary schools to operate unless its ACS where there will be no shortage of takers due to ACS boy brand association.
https://postimg.cc/bZwwLM2D -
The through train schools will be a small number as I am sure majority of the parents prefer taking PSLE. I am looking at a maximum of 12 through train schools spread across different parts of Singapore and around 8 schools for unsure parents.
Although I suggested affiliated schools to be used as through train schools, we can look at other non affiliated schools to have more choices. Another criteria we can apply is the secondary should be beside or very near to the primary school. So schools like eg CHIJ Toa Payoh, Fairfield Methodist, Montfort, Maria Stella, Xinmin, Canberra etc a mixed of single/co-ed/reputed/SAP/different location schools.
The IP schools will stay as it is. But there is a need to standardise the COP for IP schools with O level AND affiliated primary schools. Schools like MGS and SCGS with a COP of 17 for affiliated for O level is too low for an IP status school. I suggest a COP of 12 for all IP schools with affiliation for O level, since CHS and SJI is in that range. -
sushi88\" post_id=\"2100952\" time=\"1678760219\" user_id=\"100857:
This is my thought too because those members of parliament who advocate TT program have in fact benefited from the PSLE system themselves. They study hard, they did well for PSLE, and they apply and are accepted into IP schools such as St Nic (Hazel Pua), RI (Jamus Lim) , RGS (Denise Phua) etc purely through their own merit via a transparent school posting process.
We should not put the cart before the horse, it is more worthwhile for MOE to establish how many parents/students actually prefer the pri-sec thru train system compared to the current offering. If the take-up rate is not high, then it's game over. Don't waste time discussing something that does not have high demand if there are enough kiasu parents/kids to support the PSLE system that is already offering a 2-way branch off to an IP and secondary system.
Sometimes, people may just spend time whining but when they think deeper, they will stick to the current choices instead of asking for another route. However, if the concern is a genuine one with significant numbers wanting a 10 year education before a national exam, then we can discuss further.
So that leads me to question, why did they choose fast-paced and high-stress schools like RI, RGS or St Nic out of all schools? Would their life be better or worst if they didn't put in the hours? Perhaps yes perhaps no. But in my view, it's more no than yes if they desire to step into politics.
With the TT system that they advocate, where students skip PSLE and forgo any chance for IP schools, I think most parents will not be warm to it. -
zac's mum\" post_id=\"2100951\" time=\"1678760115\" user_id=\"53606:[quote=\"zac's mum\" post_id=2100951 time=1678760115 user_id=53606]
What is 2CS? I think it is cheaper to do a poll.
The TT school cannot be an existing popular school due to the reasons everyone knows. It will push down the popularity to even crazier levels at P1 registration.
Hence I suggested converting an existing unpopular 2CS school to TT. Or maybe not, if the name already has the undesirable label. New school with a new name may be better. Only those parents who truly want a stress-free, no PSLE thru-train experience for their kids will apply. It’s not going to be overwhelmingly oversubscribed, which is fine for a new pilot school until they prove that the TT system produces fine end-goal after 10 years. It’s not gonna cost MOE much more to run this test-bed school at all. If it really fails after 10-20 years, what’s the opportunity cost? Nothing worse than a 2CS school with falling enrolment what.[/quote]
We should not create a system when people may feel that it is eventually a stigma for kids taking this route if it is a lesser group.
However, I am ok to see a 70/30 kind of vote in support of this, meaning 70% of people will take this route leaving 30% to dash for the over-the-edge crazy kind of academic competition and rigors like the physical 100. Normalisation is best felt with big numbers. Current NA and NT is nothing normal because the numbers are not saying it, how can they be known as normal? It's like Singapore is full of super-beings.
I find the current common PSLE and a choice of IP and secondary will at least give people a balance in their heart emotionally especially when Express, NA and NT are further removed. 心理平衡. Taking an exam at year 6 for some and year 10 for minority others may possibly tip the balance again :siao: right?
The cost is humongous for the kids who are enrolled for this pilot suggested!! :yikes: That is serious damage control for a group of kids if this pilot system does not do any good for them. OMG... -
Veyron\" post_id=\"2100957\" time=\"1678761726\" user_id=\"30663:
If there is only 1 way to the top, of course majority will choose that. But if there are different ways to reach the top, what will happen then?
This is my thought too because those members of parliament who advocate TT program have in fact benefited from the PSLE system themselves. They study hard, they did well for PSLE, and they apply and are accepted into IP schools such as St Nic (Hazel Pua), RI (Jamus Lim) , RGS (Denish Phua) etc purely through their own merit via a transparent school posting process.
So that leads me to question, why did they choose fast-paced and high-stress schools like RI, RGS or St Nic out of all schools? Would their life be better or worst if they didn't put in the hours? Perhaps yes perhaps no. But in my view, it's more no than yes if they desire to step into politics.
With the TT system that they advocate, where students skip PSLE and forgo any chance for IP schools, I think most parents will not be warm to it.
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