Networking Group - JCs General
-
GrandyPa seems to have 4 likes, consecutively on the previous 2 posts, hmmm something suspicious
-
Seeing both sides of the arguments, I am glad that MOE has issued FAQs:
1. Why are schools and JCs being merged?
School mergers are necessary for our students’ benefit. Schools with low enrolment find it challenging to offer a wide range of subject combinations, educational programmes and co-curricular activities (CCAs).
For example, schools have had to stop offering some CCAs which did not have enough students to form teams. Other CCA groups which continued without a full team were unable to participate in some programmes or competitions. The mergers will provide our schools with the healthy enrolment needed to continue to provide a rich variety of learning programmes and experiences for our students.
Declining birth rates will also lead to a corresponding decline in students entering post-secondary institutions. We will see a fall in demand of around 3,200 JC places between 2010 and 2019, with the sharpest year-on-year drop expected in 2018 and 2019. In fact, it will likely continue to drop in 2020 before stabilising for the foreseeable future. If no action is taken by MOE, this fall in cohort sizes will result in low enrolment across all JCs in the long term.
It would be untenable for MOE to continue to hold off from merging any JCs when we will have cumulatively a drop of about 3,200 JC1 places by 2019.
2. What is considered ‘critical mass’ or sufficient enrolment?
Sufficient enrolment in a school differs from school to school, depending on the type of educational programmes offered. Our primary and secondary schools can usually take up to about 1,300 or 1,400 students based on the infrastructure provided, but we typically operate at slightly below that for most schools.
For most JCs, the enrolment would be about 1,600. Actual enrolment figures will also depend on other factors such as overall cohort sizes, demographic shifts, students’ choice of educational pathways, etc. From experience, it is not an issue if enrolment is about 200 - 400 below those numbers. But if enrolment goes well below that, then it would generally start to have some impact on the educational experience of the students.
Schools with low enrolments would not have the critical mass to offer a range of curricular and co-curricular learning programmes. It would be challenging to provide an enriching education experience for students in such low enrolment schools.
3. Why not just keep the low-enrolment schools but reduce class sizes across the board?
The classroom experience is only one aspect of a student’s experience in school. Regardless of class sizes, schools with low enrolment will still find it challenging to offer a wide range of subject combinations, educational programmes and co-curricular activities (CCAs). The mergers will provide our schools with the healthy enrolment needed to offer a rich variety of learning programmes and experiences for a holistic development of our students.
As a system, we have reduced class sizes in a selective and targeted manner, by reducing to 20 for most of the Normal (Technical) classes, and by reducing to below 10, even as low as four in some cases, for those with learning difficulties or need special support to level up their school-readiness. This allows the schools to conduct literacy and numeracy support programmes in smaller class sizes of eight to 10 at the primary level to provide more focused support for weaker students. For subjects like Design & Technology and Food & Consumer Education, where students may be required to operate machinery or equipment, as well as most N(T) classes, the class size is usually 20.
We call this needs-based resourcing, where we take a student-centric approach to meet the needs of the students or to ensure effective programme delivery. We have chosen to do things which are targeted and focused on needs of our students, to optimise our limited manpower resources.
4. Is MOE doing this just to save money for the Government?
The primary driver for mergers is not cost but the quality of the school experience, i.e. range of education programmes, CCAs, subject combinations, overall environment.
If the schools are not merged in 2019, more schools would have low enrolment, which would negatively impact the range of education programmes and CCAs that could be provided for our students. Ultimately, the overall student experience will become a poorer one, and this is exactly what MOE aims to avoid.
There are some cost savings when we merge schools – most of this would be in the form of fixed overheads such as the school leadership and administrative team, infrastructure maintenance costs, etc. MOE has to be prudent in how we manage costs and, ultimately, we have to be good stewards of public funds, so that every dollar of our spending achieves the most in developing our students and achieving good student outcomes.
Nonetheless, we do not make decisions on school mergers with the aim of achieving a cost savings target or to maximise cost-effectiveness. Otherwise, we would have gone for far more school mergers and ensured all schools operate at close to their planned or optimal capacity for maximum cost-effectiveness outcomes.
5. Why not merge a low-enrolment Government school with a Government-Aided school? Why merge only eight non-IP Government JCs, and not the Government-Aided or IP JCs?
MOE’s priorities in planning schools are to provide quality education, meet demand for school places at both national and local levels, and ensure accessibility based on proximity to housing developments and public transport.
Schools are identified for mergers based on factors such as: (i) sufficient enrolment to ensure critical mass for a wide range of educational programmes and co-curricular activities; (ii) the geographical proximity of affected schools; and (iii) the infrastructure capacity to support the merged school.
MOE had studied the different potential merger partners carefully. In considering the compatibility of merger partners, we generally prefer to pair Government schools. The mergers would be far more complex and challenging if we paired a Government school with a Government-Aided school, as their legal and governance structures are different and difficult to integrate.
In addition, JC merger partners were selected based on geography, so as to maintain a good spread of JCs across the country. We started by looking at the overall demand and supply of JC places. After assessing that we should merge four pairs of JCs, it came down to finding suitable merger pairs.
Integrated Programme (IP) JCs and non-IP JCs are not compatible merger partners because they offer different programmes to suit their students’ needs. On the other hand, we found that we could retain a reasonably good geographical distribution by merging the existing eight Government JCs.
6. Will “weaker” students be able to secure a place in JCs? Won’t the remaining JCs have higher cut-off points?
Every JC-eligible student – with a L1R5 score of 20 or better – is assured of a JC place.
Following the mergers, there will be some reduction in the overall number of JC places but this would have taken into consideration the reduction in cohort sizes. This is to ensure all JC eligible students who wish to have a JC education will be posted to a JC. As in previous years, the posting will be by merit, and this may or may not be the student’s preferred choice.
For 2018, as part of the transition for the 2019 JC mergers, we expect to open up more places in all the JCs (less the four JCs not admitting JC1 students in 2018) to ensure sufficient JC places to meet the demand from all eligible students. This could lead to some fluctuations in the cut-off points for JCs in the 2018 JAE.
Cut-off points are neither pre-determined by MOE nor the JCs, but are dependent on students’ choice patterns across the JCs from year to year.
7. Why did MOE build Eunoia JC when cohort sizes are dropping?
MOE regularly reviews our education landscape and curriculum in line with the needs of our society in the future.
Eunoia JC leverages the strengths of each partner secondary school (Catholic High, CHIJ St Nicholas Girls’ and Singapore Chinese Girls’), so as to offer innovative programming.
Even though we had anticipated falling cohort sizes in the coming years, we decided in 2010 that we should not hold back this new JC model, so that more students can benefit from the Integrated Programme.
This is no different from what we did for secondary schools. Even though we were aware of falling cohort sizes in the coming years, we decided to invest in two new Specialised Schools – Crest (2013) and Spectra (2014) – to benefit those who would be more suited for the applied learning track with a special Normal (Technical) curriculum.
8. What will happen to teachers in the merging schools? Can the remaining JCs take in all the JC teachers who are not posted to the merged school?
There will be no retrenchment of MOE staff. Staff will either be posted to the merged school, or redeployed to other schools or to HQ. Some of the teachers may have to be redeployed to teach at other school levels, e.g. from JC to Secondary, or from Secondary to Primary levels. MOE will provide the necessary training and support for these teachers.
Teachers who are affected by the school mergers can apply for available positions at other JCs during MOE’s internal posting exercise. However, we expect the number of JC vacancies to be fewer than the number of JC teachers to be redeployed. Some of these teachers will therefore have to consider a move to secondary or primary schools, where they can continue to contribute.
The Ministry will provide these teachers with the necessary support. The Academy of Teachers (AST) will run bridging courses for those who are deployed to secondary or primary schools, to equip them with the necessary pedagogical skills and content knowledge to teach at the secondary or primary level. -
mindays:
I have an intriguing qn on number 5, when MOE says that \"Integrated Programme (IP) JCs and non-IP JCs are not compatible merger partners\", does it mean that 2 Integrated Programme (IP) JCs are compatible merger partners, since the programme both run by IPJCs are similar?Seeing both sides of the arguments, I am glad that MOE has issued FAQs:
1. Why are schools and JCs being merged?
School mergers are necessary for our students’ benefit. Schools with low enrolment find it challenging to offer a wide range of subject combinations, educational programmes and co-curricular activities (CCAs).
For example, schools have had to stop offering some CCAs which did not have enough students to form teams. Other CCA groups which continued without a full team were unable to participate in some programmes or competitions. The mergers will provide our schools with the healthy enrolment needed to continue to provide a rich variety of learning programmes and experiences for our students.
Declining birth rates will also lead to a corresponding decline in students entering post-secondary institutions. We will see a fall in demand of around 3,200 JC places between 2010 and 2019, with the sharpest year-on-year drop expected in 2018 and 2019. In fact, it will likely continue to drop in 2020 before stabilising for the foreseeable future. If no action is taken by MOE, this fall in cohort sizes will result in low enrolment across all JCs in the long term.
It would be untenable for MOE to continue to hold off from merging any JCs when we will have cumulatively a drop of about 3,200 JC1 places by 2019.
2. What is considered ‘critical mass’ or sufficient enrolment?
Sufficient enrolment in a school differs from school to school, depending on the type of educational programmes offered. Our primary and secondary schools can usually take up to about 1,300 or 1,400 students based on the infrastructure provided, but we typically operate at slightly below that for most schools.
For most JCs, the enrolment would be about 1,600. Actual enrolment figures will also depend on other factors such as overall cohort sizes, demographic shifts, students' choice of educational pathways, etc. From experience, it is not an issue if enrolment is about 200 - 400 below those numbers. But if enrolment goes well below that, then it would generally start to have some impact on the educational experience of the students.
Schools with low enrolments would not have the critical mass to offer a range of curricular and co-curricular learning programmes. It would be challenging to provide an enriching education experience for students in such low enrolment schools.
3. Why not just keep the low-enrolment schools but reduce class sizes across the board?
The classroom experience is only one aspect of a student’s experience in school. Regardless of class sizes, schools with low enrolment will still find it challenging to offer a wide range of subject combinations, educational programmes and co-curricular activities (CCAs). The mergers will provide our schools with the healthy enrolment needed to offer a rich variety of learning programmes and experiences for a holistic development of our students.
As a system, we have reduced class sizes in a selective and targeted manner, by reducing to 20 for most of the Normal (Technical) classes, and by reducing to below 10, even as low as four in some cases, for those with learning difficulties or need special support to level up their school-readiness. This allows the schools to conduct literacy and numeracy support programmes in smaller class sizes of eight to 10 at the primary level to provide more focused support for weaker students. For subjects like Design & Technology and Food & Consumer Education, where students may be required to operate machinery or equipment, as well as most N(T) classes, the class size is usually 20.
We call this needs-based resourcing, where we take a student-centric approach to meet the needs of the students or to ensure effective programme delivery. We have chosen to do things which are targeted and focused on needs of our students, to optimise our limited manpower resources.
4. Is MOE doing this just to save money for the Government?
The primary driver for mergers is not cost but the quality of the school experience, i.e. range of education programmes, CCAs, subject combinations, overall environment.
If the schools are not merged in 2019, more schools would have low enrolment, which would negatively impact the range of education programmes and CCAs that could be provided for our students. Ultimately, the overall student experience will become a poorer one, and this is exactly what MOE aims to avoid.
There are some cost savings when we merge schools – most of this would be in the form of fixed overheads such as the school leadership and administrative team, infrastructure maintenance costs, etc. MOE has to be prudent in how we manage costs and, ultimately, we have to be good stewards of public funds, so that every dollar of our spending achieves the most in developing our students and achieving good student outcomes.
Nonetheless, we do not make decisions on school mergers with the aim of achieving a cost savings target or to maximise cost-effectiveness. Otherwise, we would have gone for far more school mergers and ensured all schools operate at close to their planned or optimal capacity for maximum cost-effectiveness outcomes.
5. Why not merge a low-enrolment Government school with a Government-Aided school? Why merge only eight non-IP Government JCs, and not the Government-Aided or IP JCs?
MOE’s priorities in planning schools are to provide quality education, meet demand for school places at both national and local levels, and ensure accessibility based on proximity to housing developments and public transport.
Schools are identified for mergers based on factors such as: (i) sufficient enrolment to ensure critical mass for a wide range of educational programmes and co-curricular activities; (ii) the geographical proximity of affected schools; and (iii) the infrastructure capacity to support the merged school.
MOE had studied the different potential merger partners carefully. In considering the compatibility of merger partners, we generally prefer to pair Government schools. The mergers would be far more complex and challenging if we paired a Government school with a Government-Aided school, as their legal and governance structures are different and difficult to integrate.
In addition, JC merger partners were selected based on geography, so as to maintain a good spread of JCs across the country. We started by looking at the overall demand and supply of JC places. After assessing that we should merge four pairs of JCs, it came down to finding suitable merger pairs.
Integrated Programme (IP) JCs and non-IP JCs are not compatible merger partners because they offer different programmes to suit their students’ needs. On the other hand, we found that we could retain a reasonably good geographical distribution by merging the existing eight Government JCs.
6. Will “weaker” students be able to secure a place in JCs? Won’t the remaining JCs have higher cut-off points?
Every JC-eligible student – with a L1R5 score of 20 or better – is assured of a JC place.
Following the mergers, there will be some reduction in the overall number of JC places but this would have taken into consideration the reduction in cohort sizes. This is to ensure all JC eligible students who wish to have a JC education will be posted to a JC. As in previous years, the posting will be by merit, and this may or may not be the student’s preferred choice.
For 2018, as part of the transition for the 2019 JC mergers, we expect to open up more places in all the JCs (less the four JCs not admitting JC1 students in 2018) to ensure sufficient JC places to meet the demand from all eligible students. This could lead to some fluctuations in the cut-off points for JCs in the 2018 JAE.
Cut-off points are neither pre-determined by MOE nor the JCs, but are dependent on students’ choice patterns across the JCs from year to year.
7. Why did MOE build Eunoia JC when cohort sizes are dropping?
MOE regularly reviews our education landscape and curriculum in line with the needs of our society in the future.
Eunoia JC leverages the strengths of each partner secondary school (Catholic High, CHIJ St Nicholas Girls’ and Singapore Chinese Girls’), so as to offer innovative programming.
Even though we had anticipated falling cohort sizes in the coming years, we decided in 2010 that we should not hold back this new JC model, so that more students can benefit from the Integrated Programme.
This is no different from what we did for secondary schools. Even though we were aware of falling cohort sizes in the coming years, we decided to invest in two new Specialised Schools – Crest (2013) and Spectra (2014) – to benefit those who would be more suited for the applied learning track with a special Normal (Technical) curriculum.
8. What will happen to teachers in the merging schools? Can the remaining JCs take in all the JC teachers who are not posted to the merged school?
There will be no retrenchment of MOE staff. Staff will either be posted to the merged school, or redeployed to other schools or to HQ. Some of the teachers may have to be redeployed to teach at other school levels, e.g. from JC to Secondary, or from Secondary to Primary levels. MOE will provide the necessary training and support for these teachers.
Teachers who are affected by the school mergers can apply for available positions at other JCs during MOE’s internal posting exercise. However, we expect the number of JC vacancies to be fewer than the number of JC teachers to be redeployed. Some of these teachers will therefore have to consider a move to secondary or primary schools, where they can continue to contribute.
The Ministry will provide these teachers with the necessary support. The Academy of Teachers (AST) will run bridging courses for those who are deployed to secondary or primary schools, to equip them with the necessary pedagogical skills and content knowledge to teach at the secondary or primary level. -
mindays:
GrandyPa seems to have 4 likes, consecutively on the previous 2 posts, hmmm something suspicious
People like my posts, you also conplain?
People only like my posts if they agree with what i am saying, correct?
You mean you agree its ok to curse a person's 3rd generation, mindays? -
Grandypa:
Grandypa, you must be a 'lowly educated oldie' that you can't even differentiate a cautionary advice with a curse. And most of all, you do not even know how to quote a third party's post properly. It seems more like you were the one who wrote it. As for your comment on 'grave enmity', you should direct it at the writer of the offensive post if you even have any conscience.
Wow. Do you need to curse jetsetter's 3rd generation? You are writing as though you have some 深仇大恨 with her. Over a JC merger?blurblob11:
I think you KBKB the loudest. Really a pot calling kettle black.
There are only a handful of jcs and it's the first time they are merging them so of course netizens can express their views in social media. You can't understand such simple logic?
Also, students of jc going age are more matured and smarter so they have stronger sentiments than when they were in pri or sec schools. You must have never experienced jc life right hence your nonsensical comments.
The way you 'suan' those people who don't have strong alumni or calling those jcs as' empty vessels too ashamed to fight' is really uncalled for. Your DC in EJC with COP 9 so what's there to ya-ya papaya? Aren't you afraid that your 3rd generation will get their retribution?
Like what someone mentioned, you are afraid of losing the new building for your kid and I know you feel very insecure that EJC COP is exactly the same as the affected AJC. Pathetic!!
Gosh. You are just behaving like a 泼妇骂街
I shall check with the ministry if gathering the alumni and stirring an uproar is a better alternative.
ps: Can you also provide the link to that post as it involves multiple parties being insulted esp at the last paragraph and they demand an apology from the writer; as also as proof to the authority for instigation. This is serious. Tks. -
Grandypa:
Great post by jetsetter in the other thread
Frankly, I dunno who the people making noises are. Some are parents with kids in JCs attended by Ministers' kids, i.e. they are from top JCs like VJC or NJC. They themselves were non-alumni of any of the 28 affected schools, unless they otherwise admit in this forum. As far as I know, only 2 KGMs have mentioned they were from AJC and while they lamented about the merger and possible slide in COP, they aren't going to petition or do anything at all. Other noisemakers aren't teachers or staff from the affected schools it seems.
The hardcopy ST covers a lot more stories on the mergers. Most netizens jumped at the dribs and drabs because they obtained snippets from forums (sometimes backdated ST links or blocked links because you're limited to 15 ST online articles per month!) but actually I get a better picture and more balanced perspective after reading the hardcopy news articles like Zaobao and ST. For instance, I didn't get the impression the teachers were disgruntled. Perhaps they were but were muted by media. But at least from ST report, I know the Singapore Teachers' Union is already working in concert with affected teachers on the transition.
Likewise, from ST hardcopy, I learnt that while JJC alumni were sad that their 30yo JC is going to go down in history, they have come to terms with the merger and will be engaging alumni on the merger at a meeting next month and has already started collecting feedback from them, including asking for ideas on how the new JC’s identity can be shaped.
I'm also baffled why some altruistic champions of lower income/late bloomers aren't sticking their necks out for those affected primary and secondary schools, but only those 8 JCs.
Some of the affected primary schools have a longer history （Shuqun Pri School 1925; Da Qiao Pri Sch 1936; ) than the new and under-subscribed JCs. I found out from Zaobao article that Macpherson Primary School was Chan Chun Sing's alma mater. Even the Minister's alma mater wasn't spared in this mass merger.
http://origin-www.channel8news.sg/news8/singapore/20170421-sg-schools-merger/3695934.html
Why aren't the noisemakers kicking up a big fuss over these heritage pri schools? Why take aim at EJC whose brandnew campus was already agreed upon during the JIP negotiations among stakeholders and alumni, and cast in stone/rubber-stamped in the blueprint some 8-10 years ago, i.e. before this current rookie minister decided to merge the 8 non-IP JCs? I think it's unfair to take aim at EJC because the students have already been sensible and magnanimous enough to occupy the temp campus in Mount Sinai for 2 years after the outcry in 2015.
If the parents of those 8 JCs are so upset (or some crusaders with no vested interests in any of the 28 schools), they should muster their courage to write in to the Minister, start a petition or Meet their MP to express their grievances, like the parents of those 3 heritage schools of EJC. MOE sat up to engage the stakeholders, because the immediate stakeholders cared enough to take ownership of their case to voice out their concerns through proper channels.
However, I don't see any alumni of those affected JCs taking ownership to start any petition or write to MOE at all. They seem ok that their / DC's lower-tier JCs are being merged and shut down. Why? Either they have no pride of, no affinity to those under-subscribed govt JCs and secondary schools or they are just 'empty vessels' in a public forum, unlike those EJC indept/govt-aided school stakeholders 2 years ago. Who's going to bother with you if you are too ashamed to fight for your alma mater?
I rarely ventured out of my IJC den but this post caught my attention. It is particularly impudent to make such negative general comments for whatever reasons.
Please explain and I demand an apology from you on behalf of IJC alumni! -
blurblob11:
Grandypa, you must be a 'lowly educated oldie' that you can't even differentiate a cautionary advice with a curse. And most of all, you do not even know how to quote a third party's post properly. It seems more like you were the one who wrote it. As for your comment on 'grave enmity', you should direct it at the writer of the offensive post if you even have any conscience.
Wow. Do you need to curse jetsetter's 3rd generation? You are writing as though you have some 深仇大恨 with her. Over a JC merger?Grandypa:
[quote=\"blurblob11\"]
I think you KBKB the loudest. Really a pot calling kettle black.
There are only a handful of jcs and it's the first time they are merging them so of course netizens can express their views in social media. You can't understand such simple logic?
Also, students of jc going age are more matured and smarter so they have stronger sentiments than when they were in pri or sec schools. You must have never experienced jc life right hence your nonsensical comments.
The way you 'suan' those people who don't have strong alumni or calling those jcs as' empty vessels too ashamed to fight' is really uncalled for. Your DC in EJC with COP 9 so what's there to ya-ya papaya? Aren't you afraid that your 3rd generation will get their retribution?
Like what someone mentioned, you are afraid of losing the new building for your kid and I know you feel very insecure that EJC COP is exactly the same as the affected AJC. Pathetic!!
Gosh. You are just behaving like a 泼妇骂街
I shall check with the ministry if gathering the alumni and stirring an uproar is a better alternative.
ps: Can you also provide the link to that post as it involves multiple parties being insulted esp at the last paragraph and they demand an apology from the writer; as also as proof to the authority for instigation. This is serious. Tks.[/quote]BlurBlob,
I may be \"lowly educated\", but at least I still know what is 礼义廉耻
I prefix my post very clearly with these words \"Great post by jetsetter in the other thread\" . I am sure your eyesight cannot be worse than a old man's like me. Unless you are blind, I see no reason that you can avoid reading it.
If you are too lazy to locate the original post, please read here in this page
https://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=88776&start=130
奉劝你一句,拟稿时不要这样缺德, 尤其对老一辈, 否则会因果报应的. -
Grandypa:
Let me explain then. First you wrote this:
BlurBlob,
I may be \"lowly educated\", but at least I still know what is 礼义廉耻
I prefix my post very clearly with these words \"Great post by jetsetter in the other thread\" . I am sure your eyesight cannot be worse than a old man's like me. Unless you are blind, I see no reason that you can avoid reading it.
If you are too lazy to locate the original post, please read here in this page
https://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=88776&start=130
奉劝你一句, 写字时不要这样缺德, 尤其对老一辈, 否则会因果报应的.
\"So if my HDB flat does not have lifts that stop at every floor, should I kao beh kao bu and demand that all flats that have such conveniences be rid of this privilege? To me that seem to be quite a communist ideology and a looser mentality. Four legs good. Four legs good\"
I dislike people who use foul language and verbal insults. Next you posted that long msg from jetsetter without using any punctuation such as \" \" or colon to indicate which part was written by her. So I thought you were the one who wrote it. Yes, I do have old flowery eyes indeed.
So, you admit you are a man. A man must have 'du liang'. Don't be so calculative and niang. -
A lady should also be gracious and 积点口德。
-
“The suspicious mind conjures its own demons.”
— Hanshiro Tsugumo
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