The Humanites Programme under its original name of PROMSHO is probably the boost that helped HCJC overtake NJC in the 80s.

Turned quite a few science students into humanities students.

English\tMaths\tScience\tChinese\tUnadj\tAdjust\tActual\tSchool/ Year

82.0%\t68.1%\t77.0%\t79.3%\t225.2_\t228.5_\t_____\tACSJ 2010
77.1%\t64.4%\t72.0%\t75.9%\t219.7_\t223.9_\t_____\tACSJ 2009
79.5%\t64.9%\t71.7%\t57.8%\t215.5_\t220.4_\t_____\tACSJ 2008
78.3%\t71.6%\t79.6%\t65.3%\t221.5_\t225.4_\t_____\tACSJ 2006
77.9%\t71.5%\t72.0%\t70.8%\t220.4_\t224.5_\t_____\tACSP 2010
75.6%\t68.1%\t71.7%\t73.9%\t219.5_\t223.8_\t_____\tACSP 2009
64.3%\t61.5%\t58.9%\t89.6%\t217.2_\t221.8_\t_____\tAi Tong 2010
64.3%\t64.8%\t62.8%\t88.2%\t218.3_\t222.8_\t_____\tAi Tong 2008
62.0%\t66.0%\t59.7%\t88.7%\t217.5_\t222.1_\t_____\tAi Tong 2007
21.2%\t28.9%\t30.5%\t72.8%\t183.2_\t193.5_\t_____\tAng Mo Kio Primary 2010
20.0%\t26.3%\t30.0%\t73.4%\t182.0_\t192.5_\t_____\tAng Mo Kio Primary 2009
27.1%\t36.9%\t26.6%\t80.5%\t188.7_\t198.0_\t_____\tAng Mo Kio Primary 2008
22.1%\t35.6%\t27.3%\t81.2%\t187.2_\t196.8_\t_____\tAng Mo Kio Primary 2007
29.3%\t41.4%\t45.7%\t83.3%\t196.7_\t204.8_\t_____\tAng Mo Kio Primary 2006
28.2%\t37.9%\t38.9%\t81.8%\t193.2_\t201.8_\t_____\tAng Mo Kio Primary 2005
52.7%\t49.5%\t45.9%\t68.9%\t200.2_\t207.7_\t_____\tBukit Timah Primary 2007
47.4%\t50.5%\t48.4%\t77.2%\t202.3_\t209.4_\t_____\tBukit Timah Primary 2006
49.6%\t63.7%\t52.2%\t90.2%\t212.6_\t218.0_\t221.3_\tBukit View 2008
33.0%\t42.5%\t32.1%\t88.5%\t196.8_\t204.8_\t208.0_\tBukit View 2007
36.3%\t49.0%\t50.0%\t86.7%\t203.1_\t210.1_\t214.0_\tBukit View 2006
55.0%\t42.6%\t53.2%\t82.3%\t205.2_\t211.8_\t218.0_\tCanossa Convent 2009
59.3%\t52.8%\t62.6%\t89.2%\t214.4_\t219.5_\t218.5_\tCanossa Convent 2008
53.1%\t44.2%\t41.1%\t84.0%\t202.8_\t209.8_\t214.4_\tCanossa Convent 2007
56.5%\t45.8%\t51.2%\t89.5%\t209.2_\t215.1_\t214.5_\tCanossa Convent 2006
58.0%\t48.2%\t41.3%\t84.9%\t205.4_\t212.0_\t211.7_\tCanossa Convent 2005
51.0%\t49.0%\t36.9%\t87.8%\t204.1_\t210.9_\t209.1_\tCanossa Convent 2004
54.5%\t50.2%\t48.8%\t76.2%\t203.8_\t210.6_\t_____\tCasuarina Primary 2007
37.7%\t35.7%\t35.7%\t76.0%\t192.3_\t201.1_\t_____\tCedar Primary 2008
71.5%\t50.8%\t45.3%\t79.1%\t208.5_\t214.6_\t_____\tCHIJ Katong 2009
79.7%\t55.0%\t54.0%\t75.3%\t213.2_\t218.5_\t_____\tCHIJ Katong 2008
76.9%\t50.3%\t54.9%\t77.6%\t212.0_\t217.5_\t_____\tCHIJ Katong 2007
69.5%\t54.0%\t52.1%\t69.8%\t207.6_\t213.8_\t_____\tCHIJ Katong 2006
69.4%\t56.5%\t50.5%\t84.4%\t212.7_\t218.1_\t216.4_\tCHIJ Kellock 2009
71.8%\t57.1%\t51.5%\t83.1%\t213.3_\t218.6_\t220.2_\tCHIJ Kellock 2008
67.7%\t60.2%\t47.8%\t80.6%\t211.0_\t216.7_\t217.5_\tCHIJ Kellock 2007
65.2%\t61.0%\t56.7%\t85.8%\t214.9_\t219.9_\t_____\tCHIJ Kellock 2006
82.0%\t67.3%\t64.7%\t85.2%\t223.6_\t227.2_\t_____\tCHIJ Kellock 2005
58.9%\t35.9%\t46.0%\t86.6%\t204.5_\t211.2_\t213.1_\tCHIJ OLN 2009
61.6%\t39.9%\t39.1%\t91.0%\t206.8_\t213.2_\t213.8_\tCHIJ OLN 2008
70.6%\t37.9%\t45.2%\t88.2%\t208.7_\t214.8_\t_____\tCHIJ OLN 2007
53.0%\t35.7%\t44.3%\t83.8%\t201.3_\t208.6_\t208.7_\tCHIJ OLN 2006
63.7%\t47.4%\t49.5%\t89.5%\t211.0_\t216.7_\t_____\tCHIJ OLN 2005
50.5%\t38.7%\t35.5%\t94.8%\t205.5_\t212.1_\t_____\tCHIJ OLN 2004
57.3%\t42.6%\t50.0%\t77.1%\t203.1_\t210.1_\t_____\tCHIJ OLQP 2010
82.9%\t59.1%\t62.1%\t87.3%\t222.0_\t225.9_\t_____\tCHIJ ToaPayoh 2010
71.3%\t52.7%\t54.8%\t86.3%\t214.2_\t219.3_\t_____\tCHIJ ToaPayoh 2009
74.3%\t52.7%\t59.6%\t85.7%\t216.1_\t220.9_\t_____\tCHIJ ToaPayoh 2008
71.8%\t51.7%\t55.4%\t80.9%\t212.0_\t217.5_\t_____\tCHIJ ToaPayoh 2007
59.0%\t55.7%\t52.9%\t88.9%\t212.4_\t217.8_\t218.1_\tChongFu 2010
59.0%\t56.8%\t55.3%\t91.1%\t214.5_\t219.6_\t221.2_\tChongFu 2007
59.3%\t62.0%\t63.5%\t85.5%\t215.2_\t220.2_\t_____\tChongFu 2006
53.7%\t46.0%\t56.6%\t78.6%\t205.3_\t211.9_\t_____\tElias Park Pri 2008
53.1%\t48.3%\t50.7%\t77.9%\t204.0_\t210.8_\t_____\tElias Park Pri 2006
67.8%\t53.4%\t62.8%\t76.5%\t211.7_\t217.3_\t_____\tFMPS 2010
67.9%\t53.0%\t61.7%\t78.7%\t212.1_\t217.6_\t221.3_\tFMPS 2009
70.9%\t58.7%\t67.2%\t76.1%\t215.0_\t220.0_\t_____\tFMPS 2007
70.2%\t60.4%\t69.0%\t71.2%\t214.2_\t219.4_\t_____\tFMPS 2006
76.5%\t61.9%\t69.8%\t74.6%\t217.8_\t222.3_\t_____\tFMPS 2005
38.8%\t47.2%\t47.8%\t73.7%\t198.0_\t205.8_\t_____\tGeylangM 2008
69.6%\t65.9%\t68.5%\t83.8%\t219.7_\t223.9_\t_____\tHenry Park 2010
71.5%\t62.5%\t70.2%\t81.5%\t218.9_\t223.2_\t_____\tHenry Park 2009
70.3%\t65.4%\t70.3%\t78.4%\t218.2_\t222.7_\t_____\tHenry Park 2008
70.1%\t62.0%\t70.6%\t74.9%\t216.2_\t221.0_\t_____\tHenry Park 2007
74.3%\t60.1%\t71.6%\t68.8%\t215.4_\t220.4_\t_____\tHenry Park 2006
73.4%\t65.2%\t73.0%\t70.0%\t217.3_\t221.9_\t_____\tHenry Park 2005
44.0%\t44.8%\t55.8%\t82.7%\t203.8_\t210.7_\t_____\tKeming 2010
43.6%\t41.1%\t44.0%\t80.7%\t199.0_\t206.7_\t_____\tKeming 2009
33.5%\t37.0%\t46.7%\t73.9%\t193.7_\t202.3_\t_____\tLianhua Pri 2010
55.9%\t51.6%\t53.9%\t94.2%\t214.3_\t219.4_\t_____\tMaha Bohdi 2010
50.4%\t55.5%\t51.9%\t90.8%\t211.0_\t216.7_\t_____\tMahaBohdi 2009
56.5%\t55.9%\t50.8%\t89.5%\t211.6_\t217.2_\t_____\tMahaBohdi 2008
65.5%\t63.6%\t66.1%\t76.4%\t214.6_\t219.6_\t222.0_\tMaris Stella 2010
70.4%\t54.2%\t50.8%\t82.9%\t211.9_\t217.4_\t_____\tMarymount Convent 2007
47.9%\t54.9%\t45.1%\t91.5%\t208.9_\t215.0_\t_____\tMee Toh 2008
53.3%\t50.0%\t54.4%\t94.3%\t213.5_\t218.7_\t_____\tMee Toh 2007
48.6%\t52.9%\t60.0%\t92.9%\t213.3_\t218.6_\t_____\tMee Toh 2006
94.7%\t79.0%\t83.0%\t89.2%\t241.9_\t242.4_\t_____\tMGS 2010
92.7%\t75.4%\t78.1%\t84.4%\t235.0_\t236.7_\t_____\tMGS 2009
92.5%\t67.5%\t78.5%\t82.9%\t232.1_\t234.2_\t_____\tMGS 2008
90.6%\t74.5%\t81.3%\t84.2%\t234.4_\t236.2_\t_____\tMGS 2007
87.1%\t70.7%\t76.3%\t78.3%\t227.5_\t230.4_\t_____\tMGS 2006
87.9%\t68.1%\t71.1%\t89.6%\t230.3_\t232.8_\t_____\tMGS 2005
92.7%\t78.0%\t74.1%\t88.4%\t236.4_\t237.9_\t_____\tMGS 2004
72.4%\t73.8%\t75.2%\t93.0%\t229.6_\t232.2_\t_____\tNanHua 2010
71.7%\t64.7%\t63.7%\t93.3%\t223.8_\t227.3_\t_____\tNanHua 2009
70.8%\t74.5%\t75.2%\t94.0%\t230.2_\t232.6_\t_____\tNanHua 2008
71.6%\t71.2%\t73.5%\t93.0%\t228.1_\t230.9_\t_____\tNanHua 2007
73.7%\t76.8%\t76.2%\t94.4%\t232.4_\t234.5_\t_____\tNanHua 2006
79.2%\t81.1%\t80.1%\t92.0%\t235.2_\t236.8_\t_____\tNanHua 2005
87.6%\t81.3%\t84.5%\t96.3%\t244.2_\t244.3_\t_____\tNanyang Pri 2010
82.9%\t82.0%\t85.1%\t93.9%\t240.3_\t241.1_\t_____\tNanyang Pri 2009
51.4%\t55.2%\t41.8%\t74.6%\t202.0_\t209.1_\t_____\tNgee Ann Pri 2008
62.2%\t58.2%\t50.7%\t81.2%\t210.0_\t215.8_\t_____\tNgee Ann Pri 2007
47.9%\t60.3%\t45.9%\t70.5%\t202.2_\t209.3_\t_____\tNgee Ann Pri 2006
45.1%\t52.1%\t44.2%\t69.2%\t198.6_\t206.3_\t_____\tNgee Ann Pri 2005
47.0%\t44.8%\t45.3%\t66.3%\t196.7_\t204.8_\t_____\tNgee Ann Pri 2004
60.6%\t62.5%\t57.8%\t75.5%\t210.5_\t216.2_\t_____\tNorthland Pri 2008
64.6%\t72.0%\t68.0%\t85.7%\t220.7_\t224.7_\t_____\tNorthland Pri 2007
29.7%\t28.3%\t24.8%\t79.4%\t186.1_\t195.9_\t_____\tOpera Estate 2008
66.7%\t57.3%\t64.2%\t91.5%\t219.3_\t223.6_\t_____\tPei Chun Public 2010
59.1%\t54.4%\t63.8%\t94.7%\t218.9_\t223.2_\t_____\tPei Chun Public 2008
63.7%\t58.4%\t60.7%\t94.7%\t220.3_\t224.4_\t_____\tPei Chun Public 2007
71.8%\t70.6%\t67.3%\t83.2%\t221.0_\t225.0_\t_____\tPei Hwa Pri 2008
72.0%\t66.1%\t65.3%\t86.0%\t220.5_\t224.6_\t_____\tPei Hwa Pri 2007
75.1%\t72.6%\t64.2%\t86.2%\t223.1_\t226.7_\t_____\tPei Hwa Pri 2006
71.5%\t67.3%\t70.6%\t87.0%\t222.6_\t226.3_\t_____\tPei Hwa Pri 2005
70.8%\t65.7%\t66.8%\t86.8%\t220.8_\t224.8_\t_____\tPei Hwa Pri 2004
67.4%\t55.7%\t53.2%\t84.8%\t212.8_\t218.1_\t217.9_\tPLMG 2010
70.4%\t52.4%\t60.1%\t89.8%\t217.0_\t221.6_\t216.9_\tPLMG 2009
72.6%\t57.1%\t61.5%\t88.9%\t218.7_\t223.1_\t223.5_\tPLMG 2008
70.8%\t54.6%\t59.8%\t89.6%\t217.5_\t222.0_\t222.4_\tPLMG 2007
75.3%\t63.5%\t57.7%\t86.8%\t219.2_\t223.5_\t223.0_\tPLMG 2006
71.9%\t58.3%\t59.9%\t90.9%\t219.5_\t223.7_\t222.8_\tPLMG 2005
75.2%\t57.0%\t60.2%\t86.6%\t218.0_\t222.5_\t223.1_\tPLMG 2004
36.4%\t37.8%\t36.3%\t79.6%\t193.9_\t202.4_\t201.9_\tPunggol Pri 2009
58.4%\t46.1%\t50.9%\t81.2%\t206.0_\t212.5_\t202.2_\tRadin Mas 2010
57.9%\t62.1%\t63.9%\t88.9%\t216.6_\t221.3_\t_____\tRed Swastika 2008
56.8%\t54.3%\t58.7%\t85.8%\t211.5_\t217.0_\t_____\tRed Swastika 2007
\t\t______\t______\t_____\t_____\t231.4_\tRGPS 2010
80.0%\t75.0%\t72.0%\t93.0%\t231.5_\t233.7_\t_____\tRGPS aim for 2011 mainstream
80.0%\t80.0%\t72.0%\t93.0%\t233.2_\t235.1_\t_____\tRGPS aim for 2010
53.7%\t55.4%\t53.6%\t76.1%\t206.0_\t212.5_\t_____\tRiverValley 2010
52.9%\t52.2%\t46.0%\t73.0%\t202.2_\t209.3_\t_____\tRiverValley 2009
54.2%\t56.8%\t54.2%\t_____\t#NUM!\t#NUM!\t215.2_\tRiverValley 2008
54.9%\t61.6%\t55.8%\t69.3%\t206.4_\t212.9_\t_____\tRiverValley 2007
48.9%\t60.6%\t53.2%\t78.1%\t206.7_\t213.1_\t213.8_\tRiverValley 2006
\t\t______\t______\t_____\t_____\t225.7_\tRosyth 2009
\t\t______\t______\t_____\t_____\t223.3_\tRosyth 2008
\t\t______\t______\t_____\t_____\t221.8_\tRosyth 2007
63.9%\t61.5%\t58.3%\t89.1%\t216.6_\t221.4_\t_____\tRulang 2010
56.8%\t59.6%\t60.5%\t86.3%\t213.5_\t218.7_\t_____\tRulang 2009
53.2%\t57.8%\t52.1%\t92.1%\t213.2_\t218.5_\t_____\tRulang 2008
55.3%\t64.8%\t58.3%\t88.6%\t215.0_\t220.0_\t_____\tRulang 2007
61.1%\t62.7%\t60.3%\t89.6%\t217.0_\t221.7_\t_____\tRulang 2006
53.9%\t50.1%\t50.7%\t90.4%\t210.0_\t215.8_\t_____\tRulang 2005
53.9%\t55.5%\t49.0%\t90.0%\t210.7_\t216.4_\t_____\tRulang 2004
59.7%\t54.6%\t______\t57.8%\t#NUM!\t#NUM!\t_____\tSJI Junior 2009
58.5%\t52.8%\t_____\t51.6%\t#NUM!\t#NUM!\t_____\tSJI Junior 2008
60.3%\t55.9%\t55.9%\t54.6%\t202.5\t209.6_\t_____\tSJI Junior 2007
50.3%\t56.3%\t46.8%\t93.4%\t211.7_\t217.2_\t_____\tSouth View 2010
45.9%\t58.7%\t47.6%\t92.5%\t210.7_\t216.4_\t_____\tSouth View 2009
52.9%\t62.3%\t58.6%\t88.0%\t213.5_\t218.8_\t_____\tSouth View 2008
49.9%\t54.8%\t50.9%\t91.1%\t210.6_\t216.4_\t_____\tSouth View 2007
47.3%\t47.9%\t45.1%\t91.4%\t207.0_\t213.3_\t_____\tSouth View 2006
43.2%\t38.5%\t44.9%\t82.2%\t199.1_\t206.7_\t_____\tSouth View 2005
55.2%\t43.4%\t51.3%\t57.7%\t197.7_\t205.6_\t_____\tSt Andrews 2009
63.7%\t47.3%\t56.6%\t50.8%\t200.4_\t207.9_\t_____\tSt Andrews 2008
57.9%\t43.4%\t56.6%\t50.0%\t197.7_\t205.6_\t_____\tSt Andrews 2006
64.8%\t47.6%\t41.9%\t82.9%\t206.4_\t212.8_\t213.9_\tSt Anthonys Canossian 2010
59.8%\t50.0%\t47.3%\t77.2%\t205.0_\t211.7_\t213.8_\tSt Anthonys Canossian 2008
62.4%\t45.1%\t47.5%\t76.3%\t204.2_\t211.0_\t212.7_\tSt Anthonys Canossian 2007
75.5%\t56.0%\t57.0%\t81.9%\t215.0_\t220.0_\t_____\tSt Anthonys Canossian 2006
64.7%\t45.6%\t46.0%\t83.2%\t207.0_\t213.4_\t_____\tSt Anthonys Canossian 2005
47.7%\t53.3%\t54.2%\t78.1%\t204.8_\t211.5_\t_____\tSt Anthonys Pri 2008
50.6%\t52.9%\t52.6%\t69.5%\t202.4_\t209.5_\t_____\tSt Anthonys Pri 2007
48.7%\t45.0%\t54.7%\t62.3%\t198.5_\t206.2_\t_____\tSt Anthonys Pri 2006
46.7%\t47.1%\t49.3%\t72.0%\t199.8_\t207.4_\t_____\tSt Anthonys Pri 2005
45.2%\t47.4%\t45.2%\t66.7%\t197.0_\t205.0_\t_____\tSt Anthonys Pri 2004
72.0%\t?85.6%\t61.3%\t85.6%\t#VALUE!\t#VALUE!\t_____\tSt Hildas 2010
70.7%\t68.5%\t62.5%\t81.6%\t218.2_\t222.7_\t_____\tSt Hildas 2009
69.2%\t68.1%\t61.1%\t72.0%\t214.1_\t219.3_\t_____\tSt Hildas 2008
68.7%\t63.8%\t53.6%\t77.8%\t212.7_\t218.1_\t218.1_\tSt Hildas 2007
68.4%\t63.2%\t58.3%\t78.9%\t214.0_\t219.2_\t_____\tSt Hildas 2006
69.1%\t63.6%\t62.4%\t73.2%\t213.6_\t218.8_\t_____\tSt Hildas 2005
67.6%\t43.5%\t54.1%\t77.2%\t207.2_\t213.5_\t_____\tSt Margaret’s Pri 2009
54.5%\t41.1%\t50.7%\t39.8%\t192.2_\t201.0_\t_____\tSt Stephens 2010
57.4%\t53.7%\t58.2%\t44.6%\t199.3_\t206.9_\t_____\tSt Stephens 2008
59.1%\t51.4%\t55.9%\t34.3%\t195.8_\t204.0_\t_____\tSt Stephens 2007
51.0%\t50.6%\t56.8%\t83.5%\t207.6_\t213.8_\t_____\tTanjong Katong Pri 2008
83.8%\t65.9%\t70.4%\t92.9%\t229.8_\t232.3_\t232.1_\tTao Nan 2010
83.8%\t65.2%\t67.5%\t94.2%\t229.8_\t232.3_\t232.2_\tTao Nan 2009
86.1%\t71.5%\t73.4%\t90.8%\t231.8_\t234.0_\t_____\tTaoNan 2007
81.9%\t91.8%\t68.7%\t66.0%\t227.8_\t230.7_\t_____\tTaoNan 2006
81.7%\t71.0%\t70.8%\t90.8%\t229.1_\t231.7_\t_____\tTaoNan 2005
83.3%\t71.6%\t73.7%\t93.0%\t232.2_\t234.4_\t_____\tTaoNan 2004
24.1%\t32.2%\t31.4%\t77.4%\t186.8_\t196.5_\t_____\tTelok Kurau 2009
24.2%\t24.7%\t29.7%\t84.6%\t186.8_\t196.5_\t_____\tTelok Kurau 2008
20.7%\t17.0%\t21.3%\t73.6%\t176.4_\t187.8_\t_____\tTelok Kurau 2007
56.9%\t50.6%\t52.9%\t78.2%\t206.2_\t212.6_\t_____\tTemasek Pri 2008
35.2%\t36.5%\t32.1%\t80.5%\t192.4_\t201.2_\t_____\tYumin Pri 2007
33.5%\t43.9%\t39.6%\t82.4%\t196.6_\t204.7_\t_____\tZhong Hua Pri 2007
31.1%\t36.5%\t33.3%\t75.4%\t189.9_\t199.1_\t_____\tZhong Hua Pri 2006

The following is a far from conclusive list of estimates from data that I have which I hope would help parents make their decisions. It is not meant to rank schools but given the kiasu-ness of the users of this site, I'm sure there will be a few who would compare. Note that some top schools are not on list as I dont have any data.

(From this sample set, seems like some of the very best schools have a \"nan\" in them :?)

(List to follow)

The estimation model assumes:

1. School’s SD for each subject is 10.
2. Score distribution has "normal or Gaussian" shape (actual score distributions tend to be skewed downwards compared to normal distribution which results in means lower than medians).
3. The % of quality passes is due to school average being higher than national average.

Caution: The method uses quality passes % which is a frequency measure to estimate an average. There would be different scenarios where it could be off track, eg where the school manages to get a lot more borderline As, which does not increase the average much but increases the quality pass% disproportionately.

Actual data fit:

It is not easy to find complete data sets, ie both quality passes AND average t-score. Quality passes are not always published publicly and average t-scores are hard to come by (probably discouraged by MOE). Nevertheless here is some data for 4S estimates and actual reported scores.

English_ Maths_ Science Chinese AdjEstimate Actual Year/School
49.6%\t63.7%\t52.2%\t90.2%\t218.0__\t221.3__\t2008 Bukit View
33.0%\t42.5%\t32.1%\t88.5%\t204.8__\t208.0__\t2007 Bukit View
36.3%\t49.0%\t50.0%\t86.7%\t210.1__\t214.0__\t2006 Bukit View
55.0%\t42.6%\t53.2%\t82.3%\t211.8__\t218.0__\t2009 Canossa Convent
59.3%\t52.8%\t62.6%\t89.2%\t219.5__\t218.5__\t2008 Canossa Convent
53.1%\t44.2%\t41.1%\t84.0%\t209.8__\t214.4__\t2007 Canossa Convent
56.5%\t45.8%\t51.2%\t89.5%\t215.1__\t214.5__\t2006 Canossa Convent
58.0%\t48.2%\t41.3%\t84.9%\t212.0__\t211.7__\t2005 Canossa Convent
51.0%\t49.0%\t36.9%\t87.8%\t210.9__\t209.1__\t2004 Canossa Convent
69.4%\t56.5%\t50.5%\t84.4%\t218.1__\t216.4__\t2009 CHIJ Kellock
71.8%\t57.1%\t51.5%\t83.1%\t218.6__\t220.2__\t2008 CHIJ Kellock
67.7%\t60.2%\t47.8%\t80.6%\t216.7__\t217.5__\t2007 CHIJ Kellock
58.9%\t35.9%\t46.0%\t86.6%\t211.2__\t213.1__\t2009 CHIJ OLN
61.6%\t39.9%\t39.1%\t91.0%\t213.2__\t213.8__\t2008 CHIJ OLN
53.0%\t35.7%\t44.3%\t83.8%\t208.6__\t208.7__\t2006 CHIJ OLN
59.0%\t55.7%\t52.9%\t88.9%\t217.8__\t218.1__\t2010 ChongFu
59.0%\t56.8%\t55.3%\t91.1%\t219.6__\t221.2__\t2007 ChongFu
67.9%\t53.0%\t61.7%\t78.7%\t217.6__\t221.3__\t2009 FMPS
65.5%\t63.6%\t66.1%\t76.4%\t219.6__\t222.0__\t2010 Maris Stella
67.4%\t55.7%\t53.2%\t84.8%\t218.1__\t217.9__\t2010 PLMG
70.4%\t52.4%\t60.1%\t89.8%\t221.6__\t216.9__\t2009 PLMG
72.6%\t57.1%\t61.5%\t88.9%\t223.1__\t223.5__\t2008 PLMG
70.8%\t54.6%\t59.8%\t89.6%\t222.0__\t222.4__\t2007 PLMG
75.3%\t63.5%\t57.7%\t86.8%\t223.5__\t223.0__\t2006 PLMG
71.9%\t58.3%\t59.9%\t90.9%\t223.7__\t222.8__\t2005 PLMG
75.2%\t57.0%\t60.2%\t86.6%\t222.5__\t223.1__\t2004 PLMG
36.4%\t37.8%\t36.3%\t79.6%\t202.4__\t201.9__\t2009 Punggol Pri
58.4%\t46.1%\t50.9%\t81.2%\t212.5__\t202.2__\t2010 Radin Mas *Likely for whole cohort
48.9%\t60.6%\t53.2%\t78.1%\t213.1__\t213.8__\t2006 RiverValley
64.8%\t47.6%\t41.9%\t82.9%\t212.8__\t213.9__\t2010 St Anthonys Canossian
59.8%\t50.0%\t47.3%\t77.2%\t211.7__\t213.8__\t2008 St Anthonys Canossian
62.4%\t45.1%\t47.5%\t76.3%\t211.0__\t212.7__\t2007 St Anthonys Canossian
68.7%\t63.8%\t53.6%\t77.8%\t218.1__\t218.1__\t2007 St Hildas
83.8%\t65.9%\t70.4%\t92.9%\t232.3__\t232.1__\t2010 Tao Nan
83.8%\t65.2%\t67.5%\t94.2%\t232.3__\t232.2__\t2009 Tao Nan

Data sources: Kiasuparents, school websites.

Follow up comments:

Step 1: Table assumes that national percentage of quality passes (A+A*) is 44% for all subjects except Chinese, 81% assumed. A school with quality passes of 81% for Chinese and 44% for the other 3 will have an unadjusted t-score of 200.

The actual quality passes varies slightly yearly but the error in total t-score is small. To be more precise, one can add the following to the unadjusted total scores for different PSLE years.
2010\t0.2
2009\t0.5
2008\t0.1
2007\t0.3
2006\t-0.1
2005\t0.2

Step 2: Unadjusted scores calibrates a school with the national average quality passes to 200. However, what many schools report as “average” t-score is actually for students taking 4 standard (4S) subjects which excludes those taking at least one foundation or those exempted certain subjects. The national average for 4S students is about 207.5 varying a little from year to year.

Step 2 attempts to adjust the initial estimate to a 4S score using a simple straight line method where 200 is adjusted to 207.5 and 245 is adjusted to 245 (ie no difference). This is chosen because the data suggests that little adjustment is needed for top schools perhaps because few students take foundation subjects, so the difference between the performance of the entire school (as measured by quality passes) and the subset of 4S students is not that different. It could also be due to some other reasons such the difference between the actual score distribution and the “normal” distribution.

Step 2: Add up the scores

The following are the raw T-scores after interpolation:
61.4+55.4+56.0+56.9 = 229.8

Step 3: Adjust the scores using the following table.
Unadj\tAdjusted
195\t203.3
200\t207.5
205\t211.7
210\t215.8
215\t220.0
220\t224.2
225\t228.3
230\t232.5
235\t236.7
240\t240.8
245\t245.0

229.8 unadjusted = 232.3 adjusted
Reported score was 232.2

This happened to be an example when the estimate matched the reported score. Will explain some of the reasoning and assumptions behind the method in later posts.

Following example uses A+A* passes for 4 subjects (use CL for MT).

EL:83.8%\tMA:65.2% SC:67.5% CL:94.2%

Step1: Using table below, look up the score; 2nd col is for English, Math, Science and 3rd col for Chinese.
A/A% T-score
98%\t72.05\t61.76
96%\t69.02\t58.73
94%\t67.06\t56.77
92%\t65.56\t55.27
90%\t64.33\t54.04
88%\t63.26\t52.97
86%\t62.31\t52.02
84%\t61.45\t51.16
82%\t60.66\t50.37
80%\t59.93\t49.64
78%\t59.23\t48.94
76%\t58.57\t48.28
74%\t57.94\t47.65
72%\t57.34\t47.05
70%\t56.75\t46.46
68%\t56.19\t45.90
66%\t55.63\t45.34
64%\t55.09\t44.80
62%\t54.56\t44.27
60%\t54.04\t43.75
58%\t53.53\t43.24
56%\t53.02\t42.73
54%\t52.51\t42.22
52%\t52.01\t41.72
50%\t51.51\t41.22
48%\t51.01\t40.72
46%\t50.51\t40.22
44%\t50.00\t39.71
42%\t49.49\t39.20
40%\t48.98\t38.69
38%\t48.46\t38.17
36%\t47.93\t37.64
34%\t47.39\t37.10
32%\t46.83\t36.54
30%\t46.27\t35.98
28%\t45.68\t35.39
26%\t45.08\t34.79
24%\t44.45\t34.16
22%\t43.79\t33.50
20%\t43.09\t32.80

markfch:

(the one I'm especially interested in) average T-score? For GEP schools, maybe schools can even break into sub-categories for GEP & non-GEP so that parents can better gauge which schools are more value adding. ...


I fully understand MOE's rationale for not publishing ranking which I assume is to reduce the competitiveness during enrollment, but I suspect that we parents will still internally rank the schools based on whatever limited information is available anyway.... What's yours?

My vote would be for the average PSLE t-score excluding GEP students from outside the school.

We are now in the run up to P1 registration, and there are many parents out there asking which boys catholic school to go to (CHS, SJI Junior, St Stephen's ... or Maris Stella?), or which CHIJ, or which ACS. Registration popularity sometimes do not reflect actual PSLE results but rather parents' impression of academic performance (which may be 30 years out dated).

I have a feeling the MOE discourages schools from publishing PSLE average T-scores but it seems the quality A/A* percentage gives a practical estimate of the average PSLE t-score for the school which I shall present in a later post.

Laya:

Thanx everybody. My daughter is 2006 born, is the PV regn in RMPS for that batch too is over? What are the factors that one should consider whl selecting the primary school? Becaz iam still in confusion b/w CHIJ & RMPS.

Following copied from \"Choosing and Evaluating Primary Schools\" thread:

CHIJ Kellock seems to have better PSLE results (plus affliation to CHIJ St Teresa). The following data are from public sources.
Year / % A-A* for EL/MA/SC/CL / Reported Mean PSLE

CHIJ Kellock
2009 69.4% 56.5% 50.5% 84.4% 216.4
2008 71.8% 57.1% 51.5% 83.1% 220.2
2007 67.7% 60.2% 47.8% 80.6% 217.5

Radin Mas
2010 58.4% 46.1% 50.9% 81.2% 202.2

A very important comment on the reported mean psle scores. CHIJ Kellock is likely to have reported for those taking 4Standard subjects (ie no foundation students) whilst Radin Mas is for all students. The difference between the 2 methods is big for most average schools (small for very top schools since few students take foundation subjects).

One would have thought that the national average t-score is 200 but from various school slides, the national average for 4S students is about 207 and that for All (including foundation) is perhaps 195-198 range. but many schools report \"average\" of 4S scores. The other implication of a national average significantly below 200 is that one should avoid taking foundation subjects if one can help it (ie must at least be able to pass all subjects).

My estimate based on 2009 Kellock % and 2010 Radin Mas % is that the Kellock is only better by 7 points.