Petition to Review the Singapore Education System

[Way2GO]

2ppaamm:

O, one more thing. That bell curve will never be seen to parents because that normal distribution is never revealed. It is calculated on a subject basis. Let's just call it subject T-subscore for now. That subscore is then added to another 3 subjects to form the T-score. Now if you put everyone's T-score together, you will not likely get a bell-curve, because not everyone is good in every subject, or poor in every subject.


So, if we look at the T-score, it may not look like a bell curve, but there are four bell curves in there.

I know it sounds very complicated. Yes, it is and I believe it was designed to confuse by some very smart scholars, and lay man like us will never understand. It is the most complicated system I have ever seen used to place students at elementary level?! And for that matter, any level!

But if you break it up, what Chen said is very true. It is just asking everyone to run after a train that never stops. And trying to rank everyone to the 0.00001th percentile academically. My question is: What for, at what price?

Why can't d subject bell curves be revealed if these r based on statistical data only?
Unless d subject distributions r statistically manipulated n cannot see daylight?

I don't see how d students r chasing a bell curve since we r not comparing cohort to cohort, but each student in each cohort is ranked only among his peers for placement.

[Chenonceau]

Way2GO:

I don't see how d students r chasing a bell curve since we r not comparing cohort to cohort, but each student in each cohort is ranked only among his peers for placement.

If too many people score A* in one year (i.e., skewed curve), for a particular subject, conventional wisdom in testing tells us that the exam is too easy. Indeed, when I was first trained in testing methodology (many years ago), I was taught that if 2 people score 100 for any paper, that paper is not discriminating enough because it does not tell us which of these 2 are better than the other.

The next year, the exam has to be more difficult so as to be more discriminating. Either that, or as Pam has said, marking is done ever more narrowly. Theoretically, this is how one cohort's results can impact the next year's cohort.

As papers get more difficult, parents/tutors help more. As parents/tutors help more, students A* even the difficult papers. As more and more students A* the difficult papers (with help), the papers get more difficult. As the papers get more difficult, parents/tutors help more...

Really... what we are doing here helps children and parents in later years. For our own children, it is too late.

[Way2GO]

Chenonceau:

Way2GO:

I don't see how d students r chasing a bell curve since we r not comparing cohort to cohort, but each student in each cohort is ranked only among his peers for placement.

If too many people score A* in one year (i.e., skewed curve), for a particular subject, conventional wisdom in testing tells us that the exam is too easy. Indeed, when I was first trained in testing methodology (many years ago), I was taught that if 2 people score 100 for any paper, that paper is not discriminating enough because it does not tell us which of these 2 are better than the other.

The next year, the exam has to be more difficult so as to be more discriminating. Either that, or as Coast said, marking is done ever more narrowly. Theoretically, this is how one cohort's results can impact the next year's cohort.

As papers get more difficult, parents/tutors help more. As parents/tutors help more, students A* even the difficult papers. As more and more students A* the difficult papers (with help), the papers get more difficult. As the papers get more difficult, parents/tutors help more...

Really... what we are doing here helps children and parents in later years. For our own children, it is too late.

OK I see your perspective.
If d normal distribution is skewed to d right, OK, MOE would increase d difficulty to reduce d right skew.
Conversely, if many students didn't do well in another paper, wouldn't MOE also reduce d difficulty in subsequent year to reduce d skew to d left?
D 2 in 100 in ur example r outliers n shouldn’t impact a normal distribution.
d mean n SD in d formula used are there to normalize d bell curve.
I think MOE would be more concerned about d 34% on either side of mean of d bell curve n exams would likely be pegged at a level to achieve dis.

However I do agree with ur view dat if MOE keeps pegging d exams at higher difficulty level after each PSLE, those who can’t keep up or cannot afford outside help will be disadvantage n it shouldn’t be.

I am still not convinced about chasing d bell curve thingy but I do support ur petition to help kids in d future.

[Edureach]

The awkward situation we are in occurs not just at PSLE level which many here are focussing but in the most important common exam- GCE A-level.


Many rejected applicants, both A-level and poly, are warmly welcome to study down under not to mention many of our undergrads in NUS, NTU and SMU are academically good enough for UK unis like LSE, Imperial and Warwick.

Maybe, our education system is so superior or our kids here overperform?

[Busymom]

Way2GO:

However I do agree with ur view dat if MOE keeps pegging d exams at higher difficulty level after each PSLE, those who can’t keep up or cannot afford outside help will be disadvantage n it shouldn’t be.

Are there past-years papers like in the 'O' and 'A' levels? If yes, would be easy to see if MOE keeps pegging the PSLE exams at higher level of difficulty with each succeeding year.

[Busymom]

Edureach:

The awkward situation we are in occurs not just at PSLE level which many here are focussing but in the most important common exam- GCE A-level.


Many rejected applicants, both A-level and poly, are warmly welcome to study down under not to mention many of our undergrads in NUS, NTU and SMU are academically good enough for UK unis like LSE, Imperial and Warwick.

Maybe, our education system is so superior or our kids here overperform?

Hmm... I remember someone said in another thread that Singapore students have fallen behind many other Asian countries like Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan... :roll:

[verykiasu2010]

Busymom:

Way2GO:

However I do agree with ur view dat if MOE keeps pegging d exams at higher difficulty level after each PSLE, those who can’t keep up or cannot afford outside help will be disadvantage n it shouldn’t be.

Are there past-years papers like in the 'O' and 'A' levels? If yes, would be easy to see if MOE keeps pegging the PSLE exams at higher level of difficulty with each succeeding year.

there are past years questions around

the standard hardly varies, though there are differences in style of question, if that could qualify as 'higher' standard

[Busymom]

2ppaamm:

This brings to light another point: Grade inflation. It will come a time when many will be getting a string of A* and still low T-score. This will happen when everyone is geared towards exams, and students become exam-smart. So those A* no longer will mean anything (like in the case of half of RJC students getting straight As in 'A' levels). I'm sure when this situation arises, the examiners will have to find a way to distinguish the students by either increasing the standard of the tests, test outside the syllabus or mark the tests narrowly. This contradicts creativity in children and exploration. Children will then be even more afraid to make mistakes and venture. Our children will become less risk-takers. A hallmark of our education product.

Actually, I 'll be surprised if there isn't a normal bell curve for 'O' and 'A' level as well. How then to ensure some consistency in the results as exams are set by humans and you can't ensure that every year, papers would be set at the same standard.

2ppaamm:

The sec schools can use a basket of entry criteria besides academic grades for entry. This can be interviews, cca etc. As it is DSA is school based rather than student based. The school chooses the CCA they want to emphasize and select students who are good in that area. This makes the school rounded, but not the student.

I agree with you here (since I said the same thing earlier about CCA, etc.), but there could still be a problem. One part of me wonder if kids will end up being burnt at both ends if we go this route. Also, are the kids (at 12yo) too young for this...

Our friend's kids living and studying in the US have to take up some competitive sports, besides a sterling academic result, in order to have a chance to get into the Ivy Leagues (heard it is even more competitive if you are a resident as there is a quota for students coming from each state/county). However, these are the equivalent of our secondary school students, not primary school.

Would be interesting to do a poll to see if parents are keen for such a system.

[Busymom]

verykiasu2010:

Busymom:

[quote=\"Way2GO\"]However I do agree with ur view dat if MOE keeps pegging d exams at higher difficulty level after each PSLE, those who can’t keep up or cannot afford outside help will be disadvantage n it shouldn’t be.

Are there past-years papers like in the 'O' and 'A' levels? If yes, would be easy to see if MOE keeps pegging the PSLE exams at higher level of difficulty with each succeeding year.

there are past years questions around

the standard hardly varies, though there are differences in style of question, if that could qualify as 'higher' standard[/quote]So are you saying that the papers haven't become more difficult, just that the questions have become more difficult to comprehend? This may be possible for problem sums in Math, but would be difficult to do this for English or Chinese or even Science, right?

Or is it just a problem with some (or most?) schools trying to set killer papers in P5 and P6, which are way higher in standards than the actual PSLE papers?

[Chenonceau]

Busymom:

Actually, I 'll be surprised if there isn't a normal bell curve for 'O' and 'A' level as well. How then to ensure some consistency in the results as exams are set by humans and you can't ensure that every year, papers would be set at the same standard.

There is... there should be... and I also see that standards have risen, but at a more acceptable pace. A bit like house prices. Are these a gradual rise, in tandem with productivity and median pay? OR do they far outstrip median pay allowing capital rich people to become the only land and apartment owners. And being rich, they get richer.

I've looked into the requirements for Geography and Economics at 'A' levels... and standards have risen, but not shockingly (not for a Singaporean at least)... and quite in keeping with generally rising literacy rates worldwide and educational infrastructure in many countries. This could be because 'O' and 'A' levels are common in Commonwealth countries and not every country has the same level of educational infrastructure.

The 'O' and the 'A' bell curves is not just us. Other countries are part of that population too. The population is larger and hence there is more stability. We don't have that many students every year at the PSLE, and the bell curve just blows our standards away.

At the end of the day, my bugbear is not the risen standards. I support rising standards. My bugbear is that standards have risen to a point where teachers and schools cannot teach everything they test. I agree with Coast that the bell curve issue is secondary to the issue of adequate teaching, even though both are related. In my following post, I will provide a real life anecdote that shows this beyond all doubt.

Busymom:

Our friend's kids living and studying in the US have to take up some competitive sports, besides a sterling academic result, in order to have a chance to get into the Ivy Leagues (heard it is even more competitive if you are a resident as there is a quota for students coming from each state/county). However, these are the equivalent of our secondary school students, not primary school.

Would be interesting to do a poll to see if parents are keen for such a system.

The US system is not a good model in my opinion. It is Americans who invented the reality we know in Singapore today, from KPIs to bonuses to incentive systems. Theirs is a system that tends to accentuate top end and bottom end of the population. Burnout research started in teh USA because burnout became such a problem someone had to research it.

Singapore follows US so much that we end up where we are today.

Why not examine the Finns and see what we can learn? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2062419,00.html. The Finnish have one of the world's best trained workforces without the burnout rate.

Reality can take many forms. We know the bell curve, we know the competitive systems that hold sway in many Anglo-Saxon worlds... we come from (at least Singaporean Chinese do) a culture that had the Imperial Exams where the prize that went to the top performer was fame, money and power... We know only this and think there are no alternatives to the bell curve, to school placement.

Really? No alternatives? We conclude this without searching... without thinking outside of the current reality that holds our minds and hearts captive? Perhaps, just as an intellectual exercise, we should try and imagine a world sans bell curve and see if we find something nice.

Be brave. Think outta the box and outside of the reality that we think has no alternative. I'm not saying I am right. I am just encouraging us to explore the idea first. It could well be a stupid idea but then, many of what we appreciate in life today looked like a stupid idea at first too.

\"Man can fly\" is one.