IP vs O level
-
As far as I know…removing an exam at "O" level removes the "exam-smart" factor in children handling examinations. But does that matter? For my personality, it does not. When at work, it is work smart, not exam smart.
-
Bentan:
Although I think IP is better for children of higher academic ability, I don't think it is for the reason you mentioned. From what I hear, most IP schools teach at accelerated rate. i.e. Sec 2 students are often taught Sec 3 stuff. The \"saved time\" are used for more project work, or more advanced learning beyond the O level syllabus. For students who would prefer a more structured teaching at a moderate pace, O Level may be more suitable.The most important difference between IP and O-Level is the spread of syllabus, especially in Sec-3 and Sec-4. IP students get 4 years to study the full Secondary Syllabus. O-level students get only 3.5 year to study the full Secondary Syllabus. The last half of O-level year is spent on revision, preparing for O-level.
Some may think that half a year does not really make any difference in learning and grading. In actual fact it does make significant difference. Reason being that the O-level is testing mostly on the leanings in Sec-3 and Sec-4. This makes the Sec-3 year exceptionally challenging as the dosage is 2/3 of the combine of Sec-3 and Sec-4 syllabus. For the IP students, they study equal amounts in both Sec-3 and Sec-4.
As far as I know, all IP teachers, IP students and their parents would say that IP is better than O-Level. It is interesting to note that in our present education system; only the bright students are offered IP. In reality, it is the not-so-bright students that need this system more as it would allow them to tackle their secondary syllabus better by spreading it out more evenly. Let’s hope that one day our education system is improved to allow the not-so-bright students to also opt for IP, rather than struggling hard in their last 18 month of secondary education. -
wonderm:
What the not-so-bright students need is sufficient time to cover their 4-year syllabus. If they are given a chance to do IP, they do not need fast track, they do not need accelerated teaching and they do not need to learn beyond the O-level. They simply need sufficient time to study and understand the syllabus and they will excel.
Although I think IP is better for children of higher academic ability, I don't think it is for the reason you mentioned. From what I hear, most IP schools teach at accelerated rate. i.e. Sec 2 students are often taught Sec 3 stuff. The \"saved time\" are used for more project work, or more advanced learning beyond the O level syllabus. For students who would prefer a more structured teaching at a moderate pace, O Level may be more suitable.
From my tutoring experience at http://singapore.math-chinese-tutor.com, many students are able to appreciate the full picture of their Secondary learnings only after completing their fully syllabus at mid-year exams in May. For those who score 30+ for L1R5 during mid-year, halfing the score to less than 15 by O-level is never a problem. Some can even go as low as 1/3 of their mid-year score, from 33 to 11.
However, the present system requires these students to take Prelim in September and thereafter O-level in November. If there is only 1 exam (without O-level) in November, I am sure most of them can get A1/A2 for all their subjects. The Prelim plus O-level system consumes great deal of time on these students during the last 6 months of their Secondary education. It deprives them from having good time to review, internalize and integrate all their Secondary learning.
When IP is applied on students with higher academic ability, naturally the school will go fast track and accelerated teaching. This is definitely good for bright students. But the not-so-bright students do not need all these extras. What they need is only sufficient time to digest all their learning at the most critical time which is the last few months of their Secondary education. -
Bentan:
Wouldn't preparation also a kind of revision? :?
............. The Prelim plus O-level system consumes great deal of time on these students during the last 6 months of their Secondary education. It deprives them from having good time to review, internalize and integrate all their Secondary learning....... -
Bentan:
But without the goal of the O levels, would the students be reviewing, internalizing and integrating all their learning? :? And how then would the ministry decide who to go to which JC/poly etc?
............. The Prelim plus O-level system consumes great deal of time on these students during the last 6 months of their Secondary education. It deprives them from having good time to review, internalize and integrate all their Secondary learning....... -
2 very important conclusion about present IP system:
1)mathsparks:
Under present IP system, some (bright) students do not need O-level as they are able to review, internalize and integrate their learning without O-level.But without the goal of the O levels, would the students be reviewing, internalizing and integrating all their learning?
2)mathsparks:
Under present IP system, the ministry decides that some (bright) students go straight through into JC and not Poly.And how then would the ministry decide who to go to which JC/poly etc?
By now it is public knowledge that the present IP system is designed for (bright) students to go straight through into JC as the “goal of O-level” is not working for them.finder:
If fact, from what I have gathered, those who quit IP system are mainly for 2 reasons: (1) They have decided not to go into the particular JC that they are to IP-through (2) They are disqualified by the school as they are not meeting the standard of the IP system.Wouldn't preparation also a kind of revision?
While everyone appreciates the good intention of the IP system on the bright students, the question is: can the not-so-bright student be given a similar system that serves another purpose: Give them more time to digest the Secondary syllabus.
To go further on analysis, this system should be an opt-in system. All not-so-bright students can opt for this system and be tested evenly every year, including the Sec-4 year. Those who are not able to meet the standard shall be disqualified and take the O-level system instead. There is no need to fast track for these students. They do not need accelerated teaching and they do not need to learn beyond the O-level. Simply give them sufficient time to study and understand the syllabus and they will excel. -
Bentan:
The express stream is meant for students who are ready to take O Level after 4 years. We know the schools finish syllabus in less than 4 years, and leave sufficient time for revision and preparation for O Level. I thought for students who prefer or need more time before they are ready for O Level, they can go for the Normal stream? If you are suggesting to go without O Level exams for these students, I am not sure if it is feasible since not all of them will continue in JC/Poly, wouldn't they need the O Level Cert?can the not-so-bright student be given a similar system that serves another purpose: Give them more time to digest the Secondary syllabus.
-
Bentan:
Bentan, you've completely or deliberately misunderstood my post. My 2 qns were directed at your suggestion to remove O levels, not about the existing IP system. Are you suggesting that on top of the current Specialised Schools, IP, Express, Normal (Acad), Normal (Tech), to open another category? :faint:2 very important conclusion about present IP system:
Under present IP system, some (bright) students do not need O-level as they are able to review, internalize and integrate their learning without O-level.
1)mathsparks:
But without the goal of the O levels, would the students be reviewing, internalizing and integrating all their learning?
2)mathsparks:
Under present IP system, the ministry decides that some (bright) students go straight through into JC and not Poly.And how then would the ministry decide who to go to which JC/poly etc?
By now it is public knowledge that the present IP system is designed for (bright) students to go straight through into JC as the “goal of O-level” is not working for them.finder:
If fact, from what I have gathered, those who quit IP system are mainly for 2 reasons: (1) They have decided not to go into the particular JC that they are to IP-through (2) They are disqualified by the school as they are not meeting the standard of the IP system.Wouldn't preparation also a kind of revision?
While everyone appreciates the good intention of the IP system on the bright students, the question is: can the not-so-bright student be given a similar system that serves another purpose: Give them more time to digest the Secondary syllabus.
To go further on analysis, this system should be an opt-in system. All not-so-bright students can opt for this system and be tested evenly every year, including the Sec-4 year. Those who are not able to meet the standard shall be disqualified and take the O-level system instead. There is no need to fast track for these students. They do not need accelerated teaching and they do not need to learn beyond the O-level. Simply give them sufficient time to study and understand the syllabus and they will excel. -
Sorry if I have created any misunderstandings.
I am all for IP System. In fact, it is so good a system that it should be made the default system of our Secondary Education.
As far as I know, the present IP System is serving very well for the bright students. I only hear of praises from educators, parents, and students who are under the system.
However, I am seeing the important features of the IP system that is good for more students, irrespective of whether they are bright or not-so-bright. In fact, for the bright students, whether O-level or IP, they will still be on fast track and excel. However, for the not-so-bright student, we should ask what is the best system for them? O-level or IP?
There is no "new system" involved. All present systems are already in place: IP, O-level, N-level … and even IB. The present default system is O-level. Is it not time to switch the default system to IP?
Please do not be confused with 2 things:
1) Our present default system is not N-level. The switch of default system does not involve the N-level system.
2) Overnight switch is not the style of Singapore government. They will start with some pioneering batch and etc. We have to leave that to them to work out the details.
As parents, educators and netizens, when seeing the superiority of an education system, we naturally ask how the system can be of benefit to more students. The IP system has been running for years now and we know it is a superior system. Why not use it more widely instead of keeping it as an exclusive system for few? -
IP for all may have many constraints and problems, eg:
1. Not enough schools and facilities.
2. Many students prefer to go to Poly.
3. Not all students are academically inclined.
4. For the averge students, if we force them to go thru to A levels, their A level results may just mediocre, so they will only have a mediocre A level results to show.
etc
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 💗
Register Login