MOE to scrap Banding for Secondary Schools

[daisyt]

nani:

Actually in order for the public to understand this better, it will be interesting to watch a 'OurSgconversation' Live where all the school principals come together with HSK to discuss and share their insight on how this going to work.

Is there going to have one?

[alng]

Is there a complete list of sec schools and their last published banding here in KSP? Thanks!

[AceTutors123]

alng:

Is there a complete list of sec schools and their last published banding here in KSP? Thanks!

Here you go http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/admissions/secondary-one-posting/files/secondary-one-posting-english.pdf
Pages G4-G9. MOE doesn't organize the schools by banding. Somebody has to sort it out in an excel sheet.

Or you can check out the cut off points of the secondary schools, organized by yours truly
http://www.acetutors.com.sg/Secondary-School-Ranking-2012-Based-On-PSLE-Intake

-Justin

[alng]

AceTutors123:

alng:

Is there a complete list of sec schools and their last published banding here in KSP? Thanks!

Here you go http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/admissions/secondary-one-posting/files/secondary-one-posting-english.pdf
Pages G4-G9. MOE doesn't organize the schools by banding. Somebody has to sort it out in an excel sheet.

Or you can check out the cut off points of the secondary schools, organized by yours truly
http://www.acetutors.com.sg/Secondary-School-Ranking-2012-Based-On-PSLE-Intake

-Justin

Thanks Justin! Have bookmarked your website.

[AceTutors123]

alng:

Thanks Justin! Have bookmarked your website.

:rahrah:

[Chenonceau]

I've reproduced here the excerpt of Associate Professor Jason Tan's interview in the Sunday Times Insight section today, 15th September 2012.


Why was ranking necessary in the first place?

The British began publishing their school ranking tables in 1992. We started in the same year.

The idea at the time, borrowed from the West, was that the schools had been stagnating for so long because they had not been exposed to market forces. So we needed ranking to make them wake up, make them more responsive to consumer demand, just like in the marketplace.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) touted competition as the way to go, in order - supposedly - to improve the overall quality of education for all students.

The theory appeared appealing at first glance: to keep everyone on their toes so they would improve. The trouble in the real world was there wasn't a level playing field.


What effect did it have on the education system?

Schools had to keep competing to attract the desirable students, the ones who would boost the school's ranking. There was a disincentive for school heads to dedicate their schools solely to struggling students or those who had discipline or morale problems, because a school would have to put in that much more effort and time with such students.

You could already see in the mid-90s an element of strategising on the part of the schools. By 1995, some schools had already taken English literature off the syllabus because allegedly it was harder to score well in it.

In response to complaints that the original ranking system was overly focused on academic outcomes, MOE then tried in 2004 to assess schools on a wider spectrum of achievements.

But this simply extended the strategising from the academic to non-academic arena.

For example, some schools have abolished co-curricular activities that don't bring in any awards. Some have resorted to recruiting most or all of their playing teams in strategic sports from overseas.

If you think about it from the viewpoint of providing opportunities for all students, it is at odds with a holistic education.

A lot of the time, students pick up values not so much in the classroom as through personal observation of what school teachers and heads are doing. If they see for themselves that the school is sending the signal that winning is what we're all about, it teaches them that the ends justify the means.

Read the rest of the article in the Sunday Times...

My Own Notes
Dr Jason Tan shares that our educational system is not meritocratic BUT parentocratic. Those with parents who have resources to help and to strategise do better in school. He further talks about the notion of \"marketisation\" where schools are considered free market units.

Now I understand why parents of good and successful students feel good about the system as it WAS... they're the 20% that enjoys the 80% of school resources. If I had been as kiasu or as involved as some parents, Little Boy would not have done badly and I too would be ignorant of the underbelly of neglected students resulting from school marketisation.

[Melodies]

I fully agree with the part highlighted in green!


My observation is that SAHM's dc do better in school! I have monitored this phenomenon for a while. This is because SAHM who have time to source and help and also can strategise for their dc to do better in school. :siam:

Chenonceau:

I've reproduced here the excerpt of Associate Professor Jason Tan's interview in the Sunday Times Insight section today, 15th September 2012.

Why was ranking necessary in the first place?

The British began publishing their school ranking tables in 1992. We started in the same year.

The idea at the time, borrowed from the West, was that the schools had been stagnating for so long because they had not been exposed to market forces. So we needed ranking to make them wake up, make them more responsive to consumer demand, just like in the marketplace.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) touted competition as the way to go, in order - supposedly - to improve the overall quality of education for all students.

The theory appeared appealing at first glance: to keep everyone on their toes so they would improve. The trouble in the real world was there wasn't a level playing field.


What effect did it have on the education system?

Schools had to keep competing to attract the desirable students, the ones who would boost the school's ranking. There was a disincentive for school heads to dedicate their schools solely to struggling students or those who had discipline or morale problems, because a school would have to put in that much more effort and time with such students.

You could already see in the mid-90s an element of strategising on the part of the schools. By 1995, some schools had already taken English literature off the syllabus because allegedly it was harder to score well in it.

In response to complaints that the original ranking system was overly focused on academic outcomes, MOE then tried in 2004 to assess schools on a wider spectrum of achievements.

But this simply extended the strategising from the academic to non-academic arena.

For example, some schools have abolished co-curricular activities that don't bring in any awards. Some have resorted to recruiting most or all of their playing teams in strategic sports from overseas.

If you think about it from the viewpoint of providing opportunities for all students, it is at odds with a holistic education.

A lot of the time, students pick up values not so much in the classroom as through personal observation of what school teachers and heads are doing. If they see for themselves that the school is sending the signal that winning is what we're all about, it teaches them that the ends justify the means.

Read the rest of the article in the Sunday Times...

My Own Notes
Dr Jason Tan shares that our educational system is not meritocratic BUT parentocratic. Those with parents who have resources to help and to strategise do better in school. He further talks about the notion of \"marketisation\" where schools are considered free market units.

Now I understand why parents of good and successful students feel good about the system as it WAS... they're the 20% that enjoys the 80% of school resources. If I had been as kiasu or as involved as some parents, Little Boy would not have done badly and I too would be ignorant of the underbelly of neglected students resulting from school marketisation.

[SAHM_TAN]

Errrrrr don't stress this sahm leh. I can't do what they do....... :siam:

[Chenonceau]

SAHM_TAN:

Errrrrr don't stress this sahm leh. I can't do what they do....... :siam:

You will do fine. I think. You''re already sourcing materials from overseas. I think you are quite capable. Really I do.

[SAHM_TAN]

Chenonceau:

SAHM_TAN:

Errrrrr don't stress this sahm leh. I can't do what they do....... :siam:

You will do fine. I think. You''re already sourcing materials from overseas. I think you are quite capable. Really I do.

Sourcing is the easy part. The crux lies in execution. Wish me luck. :nailbite: