sunflower:

I have not read Dr Lee Wei Ling’s article and don’t quite understand how this works. Does that mean if student A scores 260 and student B scores 255, both put School X as 1st choice (school X is top school within a Band of schools), A is rejected while B (from a lower socio economic background) is admitted and all in the name of having diversity in school X?

Quoting from her article

\"Currently, posting to secondary schools is based on the aggregate T-score taken to two decimal places! If we could have a system where candidates are divided into bands (for example, between 130 and 140), with those scoring above a certain range (say 250 or 260) corresponding to the top decile of students, there would be no need to differentiate them further.

For the purpose of posting, all students within the same band would stand an equal chance of getting into particular schools. If there were more applicants than places available in those schools, entry might be based on balloting. Such a procedure would have the advantage of spreading out talented students among a larger group of schools than now.

At present, academically strong students are accepted into a limited number of elite schools. They tend to come from middle-class or upper middle-class homes. As a result, they are unaware that many Singaporean students come from poorer homes, have to do housework and may also have to help out at hawker stalls or do other odd jobs to supplement the family income.\"

You can read the full article here. http://ifonlysingaporeans.blogspot.sg/2012/11/modify-psle-dont-abolish-it.html

Before I'm accused of going off topic, I think the above is what Ms. Lim means by 'bigger pool'.

While what she said may not be the perfect solution ( She doesn't have to offer one.. She doesn't run MOE ), I can see the wisdom and a sense of laissez-faire in it.

sunflower:

“With lower entry scores, a bigger pool of students has a chance to gain entry into a top school.”

Hi,

I think what Ms. Lim means by 'bigger pool' is a wider pool of students coming from various cross sections of society.

This is similar to what Dr Lee Wei Ling suggested some time ago where students in a particular band can be posted to a band of school ( I can find a link to it if you need it).

In Ms. Lim's own words, a wider pool reduces the social distance between the haves and have-nots and keeps the meritocracy sustainable, which I think is a fair and logical comment.

metz:

Thanks for the clarification.

DSA, as I mentioned, is beneifitting not only GEP kids but also Mainstream bright kids. If DSA is one of her discontentments on GEP, then I'm of the view she is not presenting a fair opinion, since there are mainstream kids who benefitted from DSA.

I don't have any particularly discontentment with GEP DSA...I just feel it is unfair as a bystander..

I wouldn't have any problem with acad DSA if for every GEP kid taken in there is also a mainstrem kid gets in via acad DSA. I don't think that is the case (I don't have any stats here before someone regular here jumps and asks me to show her the stats on some public website ).

It is the elephant in the room...but if you say it is not there, it's not there. That's ok with me..

metz:

Is it true that there is a lower secondary entry requirement for those in the GEP? I assume DSA is out of the picture since Ms Lim didn't mention that.

Sure...

metz:

Sorry, I am confused here...


Is the passage you quoted targetting at GEP or the entire education system?

Sorry..I should have quoted the entire article...

Ms. Lim was referring to

1) P1 registration for alumni
2) Secondary school entry for GEP
3) Secondary school entry for affiliated primary schools
4) Preschool education

You can read the entire artcile here http://www.singapolitics.sg/views/striking-right-balance-meritocracy

...no one can fault rich parents for using the resources at their disposal to help their offspring stay ahead of the pack.


The danger, of course, is that over time, inequality begets greater inequality. The cycle of advantage becomes structural, as does the cycle of disadvantage. Those who criticise such structures are not attacking meritocracy, they are critiquing the status quo.

They are warning that if left unchecked, certain aspects of Singapore-style competition will lead to an ever more stratified society, which those stuck at the bottom will come to decry as unfair.

But change will not be easy. For starters, the winners of the current system will resist it, and they are armed with wealth and influence.

For another, any change to tilt the balance in favour of weaker and less-advantaged groups risks being seen as anti-competitive, and therefore anti-meritocratic as well.

--Lydia Lim, Straits Times 15/12/12

metz:

iFruit:

The question however though is, should we continue to shower these privileges in terms of DSA after PSLE and in JC admissions even at the expense of a bright non-GEP kid who has proved herself to be better than a GEP kid in the only national exam that she is even allowed to compete with GEP kids?

Of the 2 GEPpers - A& B that I know, A DSAed to his dream school. Even without DSA, he would have made it based on his PSLE T-score. B, though was not successful in his DSA applications, managed to score well enough in PSLE to apply to an established IB/IP school. Another boy ,C, from mainstream DSAed into one of the most prestigious boys' schools. However, his result was much less stellar than B. In fact, he scored about 10 pts below the school's COP.

right...

And yet, when LindsayL talked about a GEP student getting preference over non-GEP student, you asked

\"Do you mean an ex-GEP student taking the same exam as the non-GEP stuent was given priority to HCI despite a less stellar results? If that's true, could it be that the ex-GEP student has other talents that HCI recognises?\"

and I am left to wonder why the same logic of yours can't be applied to the mainstream boy 'C'...


But I agree with you that Academic DSA is unfair ( unless your argument is academic DSA is fair for only GEP and not for mainstreamers)

Just relax:

..... Do not make the mistake of thinking that by being in the GEP the child's PSLE will be easier.

... I know of P3 child in P4 GEP this year answering RGS P6 English prelim in 2012 (when he is 9) and scoring >90% and saying he is bored of GEP English already! ....

...There are also some last year P5 GEP boys who score full marks for GEP Maths paper although the paper is supposed to be tough and scoring >80 is considered excellent! ...

What are you implying here? That GEP kids can ace PSLE prelim papers in P4 GEP, but find it difficult to score in PSLE in P6?

I don't think anyone rational begrudges GEP programme. The kids are bright and are our nation's talent and the best resources should be deployed to nurture them.

The question however though is, should we continue to shower these privileges in terms of DSA after PSLE and in JC admissions even at the expense of a bright non-GEP kid who has proved herself to be better than a GEP kid in the only national exam that she is even allowed to compete with GEP kids?

The argumenet is not so much about the GEP kids but about the opportunities denied to non-GEP kids once they don't make it in P3. To that extent, many feel that our education system has become unlevel playing field and is breeding elitism.

264 - RGS

A small twist to the \"based on merit\" posting though....from this year's grey book...


7.2 In situations where there are two or more pupils with the same rounded aggregate score vying for the last place in a school, they will be posted based on their
citizenship status (i.e. Singapore citizens, then Singapore Permanent Residents,
then International Students)....

Ever so small advantage of citizenship...