Any Updates As To When PSLE T-Scores Will Be Scrapped?

[janet88]

I think parents should just chill....there are enough Top Schools to go around if parents extend their binoculars to look further out....

What's worrying is the 64 mark scorer. From a "sure-express stream" in present system to "potentially NA stream"....I think the govt probably need to look hard at the broader band of 45-64?

Agree! At the moment, it seems like the G is focusing mainly on the cream of the crop. However, as far as PSLE is concerned, students of all calibre will be stretched and stressed. The new system is of no help to the weaker pupils. Instead, it looks like the G is set to optimise its ITE intake.

the 45-64 band is too broad. it could be reduced to 45-50.
it's very demoralizing if weak students are not given a helping hand. this is going to stress students AND parents even more.

[Blurryburger]

Every parent wants their kids to have a uni-bound education. Next is they must go to top schools to ensure this uni-bound dream comes true for sure albeit all IP schools+their JCs are supposed to work on that. So the trigger is IP scheme or the dream of a uni-bound education?

The above context doesn't mean anything. There's no change in behavior, and therefore, no trigger to speak of.

[phtthp]

Suddenly I realise, the balloting is not just for the Secondary school, it also decides which JC, the top boy goes to.

Let's be frank, there is a difference between RI(JC) and Eunoia JC!

If affiliated AL is 12 pts, and across the board affiliation priority is -2 pts, then for this Secondary school’s COP for public :
is it AL 10pts, to do “O” level, or not really depending on the demand & available vacancies for each batch of PSLE candidates' performance turn out ?

[ChiefKiasu]

My concern as Math educator is that students extremely talented in Mathematics/Science but slightly weak in languages will be disadvantaged in the new PSLE system.

To quote from my own blog entry titled "New PSLE System favors “All Rounders” over “Specialists"":

Imagine a Math/Science-whiz with

Math:100 (AL 1)
Science: 98 (AL 1)
English: 84 (AL 3)
Chinese: 84 (AL 3)

Total marks: 366 (Approx. 275 T-score)
Total AL: 8

Previously such a student's score is more than sufficient to enter the top schools like RI/HCI. But under the new system, his score of 8, chances of entering the top schools are slim.

It is not about the prestige, but rather the resources and enrichment programmes that top schools provides that other schools may not. Some examples include Olympiad training, Laboratory sessions, etc.

For these kind of students, the PSLE score of 100 is not enough to capture their ability in Math/Science, they would score 150/100 if there is such a thing. Hence, their calibre is well above the "All-Rounders" who score 90 for each subject and get 4 points.

Unfortunately, the new PSLE system does not bode well for these students...

This is a good analysis. The new system does demand excellence in every subject, which in my opinion will increase stress more than it reduces. And for those who say that it is good because there is no need to count decimal points, consider the fact that Secondary schools will still have COPs. So it is now getting 4 points vs getting above 255 t-scores. Which measure would you consider to be more narrow?

My feeling is that the new system will actually intensify the cookie-cutter education culture and create more average joes than truly outstanding individuals.

[grimm]

But the old system does not reward someone who excels in 1 or 2 subjects since it is also reduced a single t-score.

Perhaps it is DSA that helps to bridge this....

Mass education by its definition will not create outstanding individuals. If you did well, you could truly be outstanding or you just learn to beat the system.

As adults, we should know many outstanding successful individuals who either bloom late or who never did fantastically well in school.

[sushi88]

Outstanding individuals in certain subjects are created by their love for learning in either system, not by the way they are measured....the kids do not really care or worry about the measurement as much as the adults. For those who care a lot, there are the exam-smart ones influenced by the adults, not the outstanding individuals who have specialised academic interest and talent. That is why DSA is required to pick up such kids.

[sushi88]

Every parent wants their kids to have a uni-bound education. Next is they must go to top schools to ensure this uni-bound dream comes true for sure albeit all IP schools+their JCs are supposed to work on that. So the trigger is IP scheme or the dream of a uni-bound education?

The above context doesn't mean anything. There's no change in behavior, and therefore, no trigger to speak of.

Then perhaps you can share what change in behaviour you are looking for.

[ChiefKiasu]

But the old system does not reward someone who excels in 1 or 2 subjects since it is also reduced a single t-score.

Perhaps it is DSA that helps to bridge this....

Mass education by its definition will not create outstanding individuals. If you did well, you could truly be outstanding or you just learn to beat the system.

As adults, we should know many outstanding successful individuals who either bloom late or who never did fantastically well in school.

While the old system is also based on aggregates of 4 subjects, if you understand the formula used to compute t-scores, it does reward those who are especially outstanding in specific subjects with higher t-scores, allowing to stand out of the crowd.

But you are right. The old system has always been a cookie cutter that is not very tolerant of late bloomers. Then again, perhaps those whom we call "late bloomers" were actually already excellent in very specific subjects, and only come to limelight later in their lives when they are finally recognised for their very specific talents.

[sushi88]

I think parents should just chill....there are enough Top Schools to go around if parents extend their binoculars to look further out....

What's worrying is the 64 mark scorer. From a "sure-express stream" in present system to "potentially NA stream"....I think the govt probably need to look hard at the broader band of 45-64?

Agree! At the moment, it seems like the G is focusing mainly on the cream of the crop. However, as far as PSLE is concerned, students of all calibre will be stretched and stressed. The new system is of no help to the weaker pupils. Instead, it looks like the G is set to optimise its ITE intake.

the 45-64 band is too broad. it could be reduced to 45-50.
it's very demoralizing if weak students are not given a helping hand. this is going to stress students AND parents even more.

Agree. But at the back of my mind I think the broad banding is to get the kids not to focus too much on marks counting when they study for PSLE. However, perhaps under the streaming table, they should put Express/Normal Acad to include 21-24 points and let the kids decide if they want to go Express or Normal Acad based on their confidence level of their own raw score instead of having a category Normal acad by itself. This could lower the bar for Express stream but why not if kids wants to try Express stream to stretch themselves? I agree that kids need encouragement to move to the next level. So MOE can consider tweaking the band to be narrower or changing the streaming category.

[Blurryburger]

This is a good analysis. The new system does demand excellence in every subject, which in my opinion will increase stress more than it reduces. And for those who say that it is good because there is no need to count decimal points, consider the fact that Secondary schools will still have COPs. So it is now getting 4 points vs getting above 255 t-scores. Which measure would you consider to be more narrow?

My feeling is that the new system will actually intensify the cookie-cutter education culture and create more average joes than truly outstanding individuals.

My personal approach to education is that all children are born intelligent. That sense of curiosity, that spark of questioning how a toy works, that initial years of life convinced me of this view.

Of course that intelligence level could be measured by different yardsticks and hence you might rank them differently based on different yardsticks. The new banding is but a different yardstick and so when we try to draw concordance between the two yardsticks, we will naturally see different rankings for specific cases.

But the overall picture in terms of academic merit offered by the two schemes would conceivably be quite similar. I doubt anyone would view a 8-pointer as not being a good student (well, we shouldn't). It's a student with an average score of between 85-89. That's an accurate picture of the student's average proficiency level in all subjects. They are 12 year-olds, I think "specialization" at such a young age is...for a lack of a better word, "uncalled for". We have the DSAs, the GEP for the exceptional mathletes.

I think with this new banding, the signal I'm receiving is thus: "even if you are a scientist or a mathematician, we want you to be able to have a general level of proficiency in terms of linguistics, you'll need that in the future to be able to communicate your ideas", and similarly for a child who's great with the languages, "We want you to be able to understand and analyze data and maybe work with the scientists/techies in the future". I think to be able to form good and sound arguments, you need to have a strong foundation and be proficient in the 4 subjects. You look at articles of Forbes, Fast company on the kind of talent the Silicone Valley is looking for: it's someone with both good hard and soft skills. I see the goal of PSLE as a means to assessing the proficiency levels (though I don't understand why some questions are so badly worded and convoluted).

So I see the benefit of the banding. I understand that banding is gentler when you don't have to fight over a percentage point (or basis point for the finance people out there). I see the balloting as forcing a parent's hand to look at our child and understand her intelligence when it comes to a choice of school. The child's unique and as a parent, being a primary caregiver, I need to look at her strengths and weaknesses objectively. I need to find a school that suits her and not blindly sign her up for enrichment classes based on word of mouth or fear of being or looked upon as a bad parent if I don't. I need to respect her need for a childhood and that her intelligence could be nurtured through meaningful explorations. She may need more time than others to get to that proficiency level (maybe not 6 years, maybe a little longer).

But I also need to find out as much as I can to avert that balloting situation. And we face that risk unequally.

What I don't like with what MOE has released so far, is that balloting stage and the lack of info with regards to the simulation they had done. Well, I've reiterated that too many times. *stepping down from the soap box*.