7 New IP schools

[Daddy D]

:celebrate: :celebrate:

Now I remember why I used to get confused on how to pronounce the \"IP MAN\" movie...
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[verykiasu2010]

Daddy

:celebrate: :celebrate:

Now I remember why I used to get confused on how to pronounce the \"IP MAN\" movie...
:lol: :lol: :lol:

\"aye pee\" man ...... man who wants to pee

[zacharykieran]

tanbh:

I do know the CHS and SNGS’s ties and similarities… some of my best friends are from these 2 schools, I would NOT have stated my views on this IF the new JC is taking IP students just from these two schools of CHS and SNGS of similar cultural background (leaving SCGS to partner with someone else or do it alone), because these 2 schools are NOT simply mission schools, but both sharing culture as being strong in CL (both are good SAPs ) …. (also different from other mission schools as most are relatively more ang-mo-pai / English speaking).

While you are right in stating that CHS/SNGS are 2 good SAPS, you have forgotten one key point: Both institutions pride themselves in making their students effectively bilingual. And they have succeeded. Just take a look at their O level English and Literature results, which are among the best in Singapore. While you have 'best friends' from these schools, I am surprised that you do not see the fact that it is not very strange, or contrived, to pair these 2 schools which excel in English as well with an English-medium school. In fact, adding a bilingual element to this combination, which already excel in English is a brilliant idea, in my opinion.

Please note that I am not even a student of these 3 schools. But I do recognize the traits of these schools which make them an effective combination.

tanbh:

My view is that MOE and all the 7 IP schools are moving this through soonest possible, as they fear that the Ghost of “why not go IP yet” would haunt them very soon in that the quality of their students would fall further and further behind those earlier IP schools and also competition from other good schools (especially “neighbourhood kings” or “B kings” like BPGHS, Anderson etc have possibility of overtaking them - if not already on par)

All these 7 schools have been applying for IP since 2005/2006. It is definitely not some rushed idea approved by the MOE, since all institutions have been in deep discussion with the Govt, and multiple proposals have been put forward.

For instance, did you know that originally there was a proposal for a CHS-SJI IB merger, but the idea was rejected, because of the fact that the school would be 'too big'?


I appreciate your concerns, which are certainly very valid. It is good to debate them so that everyone may see the merits/demerits of such a unique merger, hence helping them to make a more informed choice in the future, if the need arises.

[kiaaik]

zacharykieran:

tanbh:

I do know the CHS and SNGS’s ties and similarities… some of my best friends are from these 2 schools, I would NOT have stated my views on this IF the new JC is taking IP students just from these two schools of CHS and SNGS of similar cultural background (leaving SCGS to partner with someone else or do it alone), because these 2 schools are NOT simply mission schools, but both sharing culture as being strong in CL (both are good SAPs ) …. (also different from other mission schools as most are relatively more ang-mo-pai / English speaking).

While you are right in stating that CHS/SNGS are 2 good SAPS, you have forgotten one key point: Both institutions pride themselves in making their students effectively bilingual. And they have succeeded. Just take a look at their O level English and Literature results, which are among the best in Singapore. While you have 'best friends' from these schools, I am surprised that you do not see the fact that it is not very strange, or contrived, to pair these 2 schools which excel in English as well with an English-medium school. In fact, adding a bilingual element to this combination, which already excel in English is a brilliant idea, in my opinion.

Please note that I am not even a student of these 3 schools. But I do recognize the traits of these schools which make them an effective combination.

tanbh:

My view is that MOE and all the 7 IP schools are moving this through soonest possible, as they fear that the Ghost of “why not go IP yet” would haunt them very soon in that the quality of their students would fall further and further behind those earlier IP schools and also competition from other good schools (especially “neighbourhood kings” or “B kings” like BPGHS, Anderson etc have possibility of overtaking them - if not already on par)

All these 7 schools have been applying for IP since 2005/2006. It is definitely not some rushed idea approved by the MOE, since all institutions have been in deep discussion with the Govt, and multiple proposals have been put forward.

For instance, did you know that originally there was a proposal for a CHS-SJI IB merger, but the idea was rejected, because of the fact that the school would be 'too big'?


I appreciate your concerns, which are certainly very valid. It is good to debate them so that everyone may see the merits/demerits of such a unique merger, hence helping them to make a more informed choice in the future, if the need arises.

i heard sji wanted ib, but chs prefer a levels which chs can excel in

[zacharykieran]

kiaaik:

i heard sji wanted ib, but chs prefer a levels which chs can excel in

Don't ask me why I know, but there was an even earlier CHS-SNGS IB merger in 2006 that was rejected.

MOE did consider the idea of only a CHS-SNGS merger. Somehow it did not go down nicely with them.

[phankao]

zacharykieran:

For instance, did you know that originally there was a proposal for a CHS-SJI IB merger, but the idea was rejected, because of the fact that the school would be 'too big'?.

Yes, in 2005/2006, this was the proposal. And yes, for IB.

Nay, it was not rejected then bc the MOE thought the school would be \"too big\". It did not approve those 3 to be IP schools as these 3 schools accepted students who fall below the \"special stream\" criteria, which means they would generally fall below the IP eligibility. And that's bc these 3 schools take in students from their affiliated feeder schools. MOE at that point in time, did not approve IP schools with dual track programme - so far, only ACSI could do that bc ACSI independent.

anyway, the proposal was not for a BIG school. It was for all 3 schools to run their IP programmes in their schools, and the girls to go to either year 5 or 6 in CHS or SJI, or to a separate new Catholic JC set up by the Catholic Schools' Board. Anyway, MOE happily closed the application for further IP schools at that point in time, so no need for further discussion then lor, or any discussion to modify the 3 catholic schools' proposals.

[dunnoleh]

verykiasu2010:

Daddy

:celebrate: :celebrate:

Now I remember why I used to get confused on how to pronounce the \"IP MAN\" movie...
:lol: :lol: :lol:

\"aye pee\" man ...... man who wants to pee

we got only Ip Boy and Ip Girl.

[tanbh]

zacharykieran:

All these 7 schools have been applying for IP since 2005/2006. It is definitely not some rushed idea approved by the MOE, since all institutions have been in deep discussion with the Govt, and multiple proposals have been put forward.

For instance, did you know that originally there was a proposal for a CHS-SJI IB merger, but the idea was rejected, because of the fact that the school would be 'too big'?

Straits Times did reported about the CHS-SJI talk of cooperation or is it merger but details i only learned from what you mentioned ... ha ha , while \"too big\" is indeed a practical issue, i am back to my old \"rationale\".... those 2 boys school are \"two different style/culture of people\", despite both mission catholic schools - cant really bring them together

on the time frame, i probably should not have bring in the idea of or mentioned rush... which could be misleading, but come to think of it, be it CHS, SJI, Victoria plans or others ... those that \"come to light\" to the public seems had been submitted, rejected, renegotiated, back to drawing board again and start from square one through several versions ... hence, the final version likely isnt really started since 2005/6 (only the 1st unadopted or rejected by galfren/boyfren/MOE versions was started since 2005/6)

[WeiHan]

relax lah everybody…there is no such thing as "similar culture continuation" etc…so I don’t see any problem with the scgs/chs/sng sec5-6 merger.


Didn’t JCs like Hwa Chong, VJC etc already taking students from various top secondary schools in the past? What problem with the culture was there?

[kiaaik]

[quote="phankao"][quote="zacharykieran"]

MOE at that point in time, did not approve IP schools with dual track programme - so far, only ACSI could do that bc ACSI independent.
quote]

according to Straits Times, MOE has rejected SJI two earlier IP proposals…why is that so since SJI is also independent? becos ACS has better COP than SJI?