For TAS, how do they cater for GEP students? In higher level class or same level but of high ability class? Thanks.

…

2ppaamm:

Chenonceau:

[quote=\"coast\"]Here's something for any interested parents to ponder:-


A parent wrote to the media about \"Why good grades but low PSLE aggregate\"

http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20081211-106943.html

In summary, her son scored 3 A* (Eng, Maths, Sci) and 1 A (Chi) ... T-score 244 ... lower T-score than those of his peers with 3A and 1B.

Here's SEAB's reply:-

http://www.seab.gov.sg/publicCommunications/mediaReplies/Editor_of_MyPaper_20081216.pdf

Coast, can you share your ponderings of this... I am a bit blur now.

Actually, the A* is >91. So regardless of how easy/difficult the paper, or how many students do well, an A* is an A*. No distribution. This is confirmed by the two MOE replies.

HOWEVER, to convert to T-score, each student's marks is then normed against the cohort, meaning the mean and the s.d. is then used to get a subject score to be added up with the other 3 subjects. Hence, we get the T-score.

Therefore, you can get 3A*, and yet get a low T-score because the paper is probably easy, so many children get A*, but when normed against the cohort, the A* are of different 'grades' (maybe 91 vs a 100). Hence the T-score is low.

I'm confident this > 91 = A* regardless of cohort performance is right, and this is generally true for levels below university and practised in 'O' and 'A' levels as well. As confirmed by the two MOE replies we've seen. In addition, the T-score calculation is bell-curved is also right, also derived from the 2 MOE replies presented here.

So Chen's analysis of why the PSLE is a runaway train because of this bell curve is reasonable. MOE's reply that there is no bell curve for each subject is also true. But they refuse to admit that the T-score is exactly the bell curve, and designed to be so, as they use the normal distribution theory to derive the T-score for each student. The intention is to norm everybody to this curve. Given so, to achieve a high T-score, you must be better than your cohort, and it does not matter how good you are, but how you are compared to your cohort that counts. However, to get A*, you just need to score high in that subject.

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.

One way to circumvent this is to get rid of this T-score thing. A* is an A* and every child with 4 A* must be viewed equally. 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.

Just typed this out quickly and taken my son's homeschooling time away. I will review this tonight and make changes if need be.[/quote] :xedfingers: :goodpost: