MOE to scrap Banding for Secondary Schools
-
alng:
:rahrah:
Thanks Justin! Have bookmarked your website. -
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. -
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. -
Errrrrr don't stress this sahm leh. I can't do what they do....... :siam:
-
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. -
Chenonceau:
Sourcing is the easy part. The crux lies in execution. Wish me luck.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.
:nailbite:
-
Uh... So how is the S1 Posting Exercise going to be like? Or is there going to be no posting exercise at all? Isn't it unfair for students with IP schools which provide without O levels examination? With weak students in Top Secondary Schools, it is hard for teachers to teach as well! I really do not understand WHY MOE is trying to change these very important parts of the education system. It will affect all the research students had did to get into their dream school. For example, my friend is trying extremely hard to get into NUS high school. From a B to an A*! Now, if he gets into some school like Dunearn, his efforts would have been futile. Although I know that saying all these things is useless, I still have to make these point clear to the forum users. I hope you will take my reply into consideration.
A P6 Student :thankyou: -
tanjd:
The minister said there will be no more banding, nothing about the change in s1 exercise. Think we should stop imagining things.Uh... So how is the S1 Posting Exercise going to be like? Or is there going to be no posting exercise at all? Isn't it unfair for students with IP schools which provide without O levels examination? With weak students in Top Secondary Schools, it is hard for teachers to teach as well! I really do not understand WHY MOE is trying to change these very important parts of the education system. It will affect all the research students had did to get into their dream school. For example, my friend is trying extremely hard to get into NUS high school. From a B to an A*! Now, if he gets into some school like Dunearn, his efforts would have been futile. Although I know that saying all these things is useless, I still have to make these point clear to the forum users. I hope you will take my reply into consideration.
A P6 Student :thankyou: -
no time to catch up reading from page 1
here is my view. when MOE stops the banding, there will be enterprising people who will start to compile the data and do their own research and ranking and analysis, and parents will buy those info in a book, or subscribe to a website
I know there were people who wanted to do just that - research, compile & analyse data, interview the school, and rank them, and sell the info
Probably ksp website could one day evolve into that database, subscription based
Not giving any idea to CKS to start charging. It is just an example
The bottom line is, MOE does not do it, others will do it. Last time it was done by SPH/ST -
Like that MOE win liao lor!
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 š
Register Login