7 New IP schools

[kiaaik]

for RI, do the students pay independent school fees at Year 5 and 6?

[jtoh]

kiaaik:

for RI, do the students pay independent school fees at Year 5 and 6?

Yes.

[daisyt]

kiaaik:

i think the difference is not so much in the programmes..

but being in the same school with same schoolmates for 6 yrs can be a little bit boring
other IPs have the boys' and girls' schools combining at Yr 5, and life begin in a 'new' campus even it may be ri, hci...and they are joined by quite a lof of other students from other schools as well..which make overall school life more interesting...

Thats why I told dd, treasure all her friends in RV because I can be very sure, most of them are going to be her lifetime good friends when she grows up. In RV, they are together for 2 years in the same class for 1 to 2, then 3 to 4 and 5 to 6. So far I see, after 2 years together from 1 to 2, they are very bonded.

I think if you love the school culture and peoples, you won't find it boring. If you don't, one year can be a torture too.

[daisyt]

jtoh:

daisyt:

[quote=\"WeiHan\"]
Hi,

In the old days pre-U, the students just stay in the class like sec 1-4 and the teachers of each subjects will come to the classrooms to deliver the class.

Then, the JC concept came. The JC concept is just the lectures and then tutorial class concept. Students attend a common lectures in the theatres and then separate into smaller tutorial groups for smaller groups drilling.

In other words, there is no difference in the way teachings are conducted in the pre-U of RV and DHS and the JCs. The system is exactly the same.

But I heard from dd mentioned, those year 5 and 6 students in RV, they would go to different rooms / theatres for their lectures and tutorials (unless she is wrong). And thats also why, their days normally ends at about 5. Quite similar to poly styles too right? Sorry, I still don't quite get whats the diff? :? Maybe can be more specific in comparing the models and programmes but again, are all IP schools programmes the same?

No they're not. Some schools do subjects that others don't. Also method of teaching is different.[/quote]Method of teaching is different, in terms of? Maybe can illustrate a few examples so we can understand better. TIA

[kiaaik]

jtoh:

kiaaik:

for RI, do the students pay independent school fees at Year 5 and 6?

Yes.

i think before ri n rjc merge, they pay the normal school fees at rjc

[wonderm]

daisyt:

jtoh:

[quote=\"daisyt\"]
But I heard from dd mentioned, those year 5 and 6 students in RV, they would go to different rooms / theatres for their lectures and tutorials (unless she is wrong). And thats also why, their days normally ends at about 5. Quite similar to poly styles too right? Sorry, I still don't quite get whats the diff? :? Maybe can be more specific in comparing the models and programmes but again, are all IP schools programmes the same?

No they're not. Some schools do subjects that others don't. Also method of teaching is different.

Method of teaching is different, in terms of? Maybe can illustrate a few examples so we can understand better. TIA :D[/quote]I would imagine different school teachers use different methods of teaching because my son's different subject teachers already use very different methods of teaching. Some of them design their own online resources to complement the classroom teaching, some assign pre-lesson learning and use the class time to discuss more interesting or difficult concepts. I can see the teachers really do all they can to engage the students and make their learning enjoyable as well as effective.

[westmom]

verykiasu2010:

ubiqz:

Just wondering, though they say IP schools would still have other entry points than after PSLE, eg after Sec 2, it will probably be harder to get into these schools after PSLE due to the fewer spaces left.


Thus does more IP schools mean more competition at PSLE? Which means better get your kids to study harder for PSLE? Are there parents out there who are already planning for your kids to get into IP schools though your kid is not P6 yet?

don't think so

because with the 7 more IPO schools, thousands more places in the IP program are created to cater for the demand. it simply means thousands more IP places available. relax !

Maybe with 7 new IPO schools, the 240 to 250 t-score ability students will be getting more pressure to score better to ensure a place in these IPO schools. Previously..they thought that IP schools are out of their reach in this bracket..
jmho....

[tanbh]

WeiHan:

I have read everybody's posts. There are basically not many points. Your point is just basically the three schools is not a good mix and they cannot continue their unique culture. To avoid long winded post, I did not requote all the posts but don't mean that I have not read them.


Another new point. Why can't we see that all three schools have their share of culture continuation and brand name in the new JC.

I see that you are very concerned about name. Actually....I think even if RJC is called Bishan JC but still affiliated to RI, they will still continue to excel. The same reasoning goes to Hwa Chong, even if they are called Bukit Timah JC. The same goes to the new Catholic Nicks Chinese Gals JC. It depends on how well these feeder schools students perform. Unless you are arguing that bcos of the \"culture continuation\" and \"brand name\" \"problem, these students will all quit at sec 4 to join other JCs.

Of course I won’t be claiming that WeiHan had not read earlier postings / exchanges just because WeiHan did not requote comments from others or myself; it is the seeming irrelevance of WeiHan’s questions to the context of points others and myself had already mentioned and discussed about.

Despite that, I also replied WeiHan and on his earlier comments on “HCJC and VJC previously also taking in students of other top schools”, despite this has not much relation with my concerns regarding aspects of the current IP programmes - which should be a 6 years “through train” – therefore ideally should be as continuous and seamless as much as possible in ALL ASPECTS – be it curriculum, school spirit / culture and brand name …. IP is supposed to be different from the (current) 4 year secondary + 2 year JC format (of course this was PREVIOUSLY adopted by top JCs like HCJC, VJC, RJC).

WeiHan’s lack of understanding what others had discussed and implied that I support current status quo in JC and earlier mentioning of NYGS isn’t from the Hwa Chong family are smoking gun evidences and clearly indicated that WeiHan simply jump in and fire away without reading what others had already discussed

My key points are the importance of Continuation of schools’ brand/name, culture and school spirit; (also the benefits/power/trust of an established school brand). ‘similar culture’ is in comparison just a related secondary issue – especially relevant when only discussing on partnering schools together or to feeding into JC. Somehow my concerns had been misrepresented as just about similar culture or “similar cultural continuation”.

I first hypothetically posed the question of would RJC be so successful if it were just called Bishan JC and NOT affiliated and NOT having feeder students from RI and RGS; the answer is obvious and a no brainer. WeiHan replied saying it would make no difference so long RI is still affiliated. However, to realistically compare or relate to with the CHS/SNGS/SCGS feeding into new JC scenario in our real world, questions parents and students likely asking or thinking could be:

1.how pointless and probably laughable when RI (or any school) is affiliated to and feeds to a JC but yet CANNOT be called Raffles JC ? (and also think it from angle of parent, students from SCGS, CHS or SNGS in relation to their new JC “affiliated to them ”)

2. Will as many top end students be still willing to enter Sec1 of RI had their JC for IP or JC classes is simply named Bishan JC AND SOMEHOW this Bishan JC also receives IP students from Catholic High School and SNGS instead of RGS .... 2 rather different Top catholic ‘chinese language focused’ schools with different brand name, culture and school spirit from RI/RGS.

3. Would Bishan JC be as successful had it been without RGS (since WeiHan mentioned only RI is affiliated to Bishan JC, without a word about RGS).

[tanbh]

INNOVATE:

All those who keep harping about 'shared culture' are still having the mindset of living in the previous era. In today's context and more importantly going to the future, executives and public servants need to have a balanced view and helicopter vision to be effective. MOE is wise to bring them together.


If the principal and board of SCGS feel a high degree of uncertainity on this occassion, they would have asked to join SJI, another established sch with a rich history and also a close neighbour. Surely all alternatives and options must had been debated at the board of SCGS before they accepted MOE's initiative. This include all points outlined earlier in this forum.

Hi, my main concerns are the importance of Continuation of schools’ brand/name, culture and school spirit; (also the benefits/power/trust of an established school brand). ‘similar or shared cultural’ is in comparison just a related secondary issue – only relevant when discussing on partnering schools together or to feeding into JC. Somehow my concerns had been misrepresented as solely about “shared culture”. I dont think i am harping about ‘shared culture’ :roll:

You mentioned ‘All those who keep harping about 'shared culture' are still having the mindset of living in the previous era’, which anybody can only logically think that you believe the newer IP scheme will bring about LESS ‘share OR/AND continuous’ culture as compared to the currently still ongoing O level + JC system of 4 years secondary + 2 years JC – previously also adopted by JCs and schools that then turned IP.

Isnt it obvious that with IP, most IP schools can only have MORE ‘share and continuous’ culture and school spirit… NOT less? Starting with schools like Dunman High, SJI and RVHS, NJC and TJC… all having a continuous 6 year education in the exact same compound…. Need not even transfer to a school/JC with affiliated/partnership name or relation.
( Lets for a moment totally ignore whether share/continuous culture is FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE )

Then for those IP JCs partnering with affiliated schools, MOE only stated JCs (with IP) must take at least 20% students from their NON IP affiliated school, it essentially mean that JC with IP programme could end up with up to 80% overwhelming majority of students from their affiliated IP secondary schools: more and increasing RI(JC), HCI(JC) and VJC students will be from RI,RGS,HCI(sec),NYGS,VS and CGS…. making the JC section’s culture less diverse and more uniform and related to their affiliated/partner secondary school…. [ AS compared to previous situations where top students of many secondary schools ended up in various top JCs, hence while culture and school spirit are indeed influenced by affiliated secondary schools like RI, Chinese High, VS… it would not be considered as “overwhelmed by” these affiliated schools.]

With all other Schools and JC remaining unchanged still offering O and A levels as per usual, this obviously mean that OVERALL, schools and JCs will in the future become MORE ‘shared and continuous’ in terms of school culture and spirt and in the future, with this latest extension of IP schemes in 2010.

CHS-SNGS-SCGS feeder into new JC seems the only IP school that is going against the IP norm, which seems not much different from existing non IP system (apart from the seamless curriculum you and others had mentioned). Of course, it is up to the parents and students to choose which method or system they prefer, there are pros and cons in every method. Which hopefully you can think of more for the information/guide of parents and students.

As for why and how SCGS didn’t partner with SJI which I believe they should, we can only speculate since we are not insiders: could it be SJI prefer to do it alone and have a more catholic/mission school culture…. , the principals OR schools advisory councils don’t see eye to eye on some issues etc…, not necessarily that something is not done because we assume people involved must have considered all factors and decided it is no good and not necessary.

We also need to understand and consider the fact that principals and MOE may have their constraints and difficulties and probably a more ideal outcome may need to be compromised because of practical concerns. Some principals may also adopt a more practical approach to issues, downgrading the concerns on school spirit and culture, focusing in methods which they believe to be in the short run would be more helpful to school results and other measurable outcome, which are tangible prove of their worth to their superiors in MOE.

As for the time frame issue on how long or detailed those involved had planned through, we have already discussed and mentioned earlier, hence I will not restate them again. Thank you

[soka]

There is another secondary school beside CHS . Would be easy if that be used for IP .Then Pri,secondary and JC all at one place.