Intellect or Age Peer?
-
2ppaamm:
Actually, I think this will be great. Imagine a world where everyone finishes his studies at 18 (like it used to be), get married at 20 (like it used to be) and then have babies at 21 or 22. Wow! I can be grandma in a few years! Then, I'll talk about my grandchildren in KSP. :imcool:sleepy:
[quote=\"schweppes\"]
But if the teen is not interested in furthering studies, then go out to the workforce?
:?
How about some backpacking? Spend an entire year travelling :imcool:
Perhaps even 谈谈恋爱? No one is going to complain about affecting studies
Imagine the load off the parents' back. As it is, I'm just wondering how tough it must be for parents to fund children's education till they are 25/26! Going at this kind of rate, I'll be way into my 60s when my #5 graduates. How can?[/quote]I follow your thoughts on this issue. I would be happy to have my kids working at a younger age - if they are so smart they can breeze through school and jump grades
Of course, if it means artificially hothousing them to accelerate their grades and they end up not having time to themselves, then it is a pointless mission － at least it is pointless to me, since it means taking time away from developing other interests and bad on personal development.
If children graduate earlier, the market will be filled with more unemployment if there isn't enough jobs created (headache for garmen). Creating jobs for themselves by becoming entrepreneurs is a great idea - but its just an idea. If the kids have been spending most of their time meeting grades, they'll have a lot to learn about society and working with people. Of course, moving up the grades faster also means they can afford to take higher studies in areas of their interests, and possibly make new discoveries (become einsteins, like what Chenonceau said)
There are pros too if they start work early - since they can afford to make mistakes when they are young (Or would people expect more from them since they are supposed to be smarter? Wow, very complex leh, cos it is society we are dealing with, so we are treading on untested grounds). Will need a lot of input from parents like 2ppaamm... -
My starting point is already different.
1. I believe more than 10% of the kids are in the wrong level.
2. I assume all kids are keen learners.
3. I also assume parents can find social activities outside the school.
4. I also believe interaction with all levels (and not with age peers alone benefits a child, and replicates the real world better than the same-age interaction.
5. I believe should play with their age peers, but must learn with their intellectual peers
6. I don’t believe all of us are only gifted in one or two areas, we are just MOTIVATED to do one or two areas. Everyone should believe they can be a Leonardo Da Vinci.
Therefore, I think this makes sense:
1. We should not chase the bell curve. Instead people should move upwards when they are ready, not when told to do so. So, even those who score 80% can move up, once they understand why they did not do those 20% right.
2. Excessive testing is not necessary. PSLE should not be necessary, not even O levels. We test only when we want to know if the kid can cope with a subject, and for universities to select their students. Therefore, class tests are sufficient, and the results need not be known to others besides the child, parents and the teachers. The purpose is for planning the next step academically for the child.
3. Given the above, all our kids will not be working at the same level. Most will be accelerated. Many of our P6 kids would be working on something of a higher level. I believe they will spend much less time on their work chasing As, and become much more contented learners.
4. More able kids will find more self-esteem in interacting with intellectual peers, to discuss things closer to their hearts. They are also allowed to pursue their passions earlier.
5. Education should not be restricted to just Languages, Math and Science, especially at the primary levels. We should allow students to explore things like dance, sports, arts, humanities, skills and philosophy. Some could be studying such subjects at high school level and yet be in Primary schools.
Is it possible? I think so. Just that we must think out of the box, and must be willing to be creative around things. "Acceleration" is just a word, it can mean anything. To me, it is a way of getting my kids out of this pressure cooker, to pursue things they love, to buy more time to do fun things. On the flip side, the social interaction with age peers suffers. We back that up with sports, music and lots of camps and parties.
Contrary to common belief, moving ahead in academic does not give stress if done correctly. For our case, it takes away stress. My 12 year old is so happy not to have to take PSLE, but his undergrad work is not much easier, the point is, he enjoys reading those 25 page philosophies compared to mugging and doing cloze passages. Which would your child prefer? He prefers researching about how to build a good website to get visitors to doing assessment papers from other schools. He would very much like to go to school everyday and play with the boys, but this is the part he does not have. So I wished more people would be like him, so that he is not viewed weird. He still goes and visit his friends who are having less and less time for him because they are preparing for PSLE. We are a little sad, but if he were to be preparing PSLE as well, I guess he cannot play. At least he gets to play with others not his age these days, and goes for training 4 times a week. Most PSLE kids are giving up their sports this year, and holding their music lessons. I find this strange… -
2ppaamm:
grab ah!jedamum:
i don't have confidence that i have the means (knowledge/money/understanding) to accelerate my kid 100% outside MOE's system.
If someone gives your the knowledge, made it cheap and teach you how to do it, what other concerns would you have? -
2ppaamm:
wow! .... i like this very much.2. Excessive testing is not necessary. PSLE should not be necessary, not even O levels. We test only when we want to know if the kid can cope with a subject, and for universities to select their students. Therefore, class tests are sufficient, and the results need not be known to others besides the child, parents and the teachers. The purpose is for planning the next step academically for the child.
-
2ppaamm, I think I understand you better now, and I agree with ALL you wrote. And I stress on the word ALL. However, I can only make sense of your points if I completely shift my mental paradigm back to the time when I homeschooled.
When homeschooling, I was/am able to…
(1) push my kids beyond their peers very easily, and it seemed so fun
(2) expose them to areas of knowledge that aren’t just about literacy
(3) preserve a healthy sense of self-esteem because learning built on learning and there was no competition to make my children feel like losers… they sensed progress with every new bit of learning. It was a thrilling experience for them, quite unlike the competition in schools where everyone is fighting for a spot on the curve… and quite unlike the sense you get of never being good enough because you’re always tested and found wanting in some way.
(4) naturally and at their own pace, which was amazingly fast (I thought at that time as a neophyte to homeschooling) they were moving up fast
(5) provide a social context
If I had time, I would move DS into cumulative frequency and work in statistical testing methods. He is ready. I have sets and sets of data we can look at to crunch and make sense of. I would teach him how to statistically model phenomenon one can neither see nor touch in the real world. This is undergrad work, and I can see myself teaching him… and I know he will love it. And I know it will impart much rigour to his thought processes.
But we have no time, because, like you said, there is PSLE.
If I had time, I would teach him about epistemology. He was already demonstrating curiosity here after he read a book by Edward Zaccaro, and if I had time, I would have built on that curiosity and opened up new vistas of thought to him. It is so easy to teach in response to a child’s curiosity. Material does not even need to be reviewed when you teach in response to a question that a child already has.
If I had time, I would teach him expository writing properly. Now, we cover enough just to tackle the most difficult Science questions, and the rest of the time we spend doing creative writing, which in our current system is a bastardized form of Creative writing, that does not accept creativity. Come on… how many of us progress in adulthood to write fiction? In contrast, the skills in weaving a logical case using words… the discipline to make evidence-based conclusions… these are skills that get you the 500K you need for your new project… these are the skills that land you the client… these are the skills that impress a client CEO.
That is what I meant when I said "lopsided education".
The moment I put myself back into our educational system, all you said makes no sense anymore. It isn’t because you’re wrong. It’s because you conceptualise a vastly different reality than what we are constrained to living in. I despair that we will ever get there where you want us to be. Already, when one suggests something as small as …
(1) having better textbooks
(2) give teachers ample resources to teach with
… there are detractors. The vision that you have, in its totality, will scare the shit out of many who read it. Your vision is beautiful and I know it is because for 1 year, I lived it with my children… and we all loved it. The vision that you have also requires a complete system overhaul. That frightens even me… and not least because you and I (I am willing to bet) are more flexible and adaptable educators than many of those who teach in MOE. Their skills would be rendered obsolete.
I take it that by the word "accelerated", you mean "accelerated learning"… and "broadened exposure", aimed at achieving as close an education to that of the Renaissance man, not just numeracy and literacy skills. This I badly wanna do for DS, if only we had time.
When I initially looked at "accelerated", I meant skipping levels in school, within the current system. This I won’t do because it is still the same lopsided education in primary school at whichever the level, which neither child nor parent can control. When I homeschool, I follow my child’s interests or I entice him with new possibilities. There is no sense of being forced into a syllabus… as one curious thing leads to another… learning overlaps with syllabus in a single continuous exploration. You start your teaching from the child’s mind. It is beautiful. It really is. And there is no pain. Just a lot of joy, even though the learning goes way way beyond grade level. Every child’s mind is made different. When homeschooling I respond to his mind and explore with him. The whole journey is powered by curiosity, not grades.
We also had no problems moving socially between interactions with people of different ages. That’s what happened when people traditionally grew up in villages. You learnt to relate to people of all ages at the same time. But here, in our current system (in most modern structured education systems), acceleration means skipping levels and evolving with another homogeneous group of people who are all older than you are. It’s a different reality than learning to interact flexibly with people of all ages at the same time.
The problems of emotional readiness and social acceptance come to the fore when modelled against the backdrop of the reality of the current system that I have decided to not completely reject. But the day I become enough disillusioned to reject the entire structure, then I would naturally find myself doing what you have done… accelerated learning, and it may well be that my kids could be ready for university at 15 too… because it is just such a different way of learning things.
Reasoning from within the system we have I can only see disadvantages in having my children skip levels. Maybe for kids with really high IQ, it is different. But mine are not of that calibre, and they are of the wrong temperament. Both mine hate to compete when learning. They don’t really see a sense in being a better learner than another, but for the sake of the PSLE, they have to… and if put into a class of older kids competing for the same PSLE, mine will be very stressed. Mine also liked to blend in. They won’t enjoy being the youngest genius in a class of clods, so I won’t push them there. DD also likes organising people and leading teams (the other aspects of school are necessary evils), I am not entirely sure she’ll have as much fun trying to get people 2 to 3 years older to do her bidding. But then again, I’ve never tried.
It’s too much trouble to accelerate them in the current system. -
Following this topic on accelerated learning, I looked up on GEP:
\"The Gifted Education Programme was first implemented in Singapore in 1984 amid some public concern. It was initiated by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in line with its policy under the New Education System to allow each pupil to learn at his/her own pace. The MOE has a commitment to ensure that the potential of each pupil is recognised, nurtured and developed. It was recognised that there are pupils who are intellectually gifted and that there should be provisions to meet their needs. Beginning with two primary centres and two secondary centres, it has now expanded to nine primary centres (as at October 2004) and was at its peak before the introduction of the Integrated Programme.\"
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifted_Education_Programme_%28Singapore%29
(If there is an existing thread on GEP, please copy me the link - thanks in advance)
Has there been any reviews since its implementation on the success of the program me? It's mission states that it is \"to provide leadership in the education of the intellectually gifted. The programme is committed to nurturing gifted individuals to their full potential for the fulfilment of self and the betterment of society.
The vision is to make the Gifted Education Programme a model of excellence in the education of the intellectually gifted. This will be achieved by providing professional expertise and exemplary resources to develop intellectual rigour, humane values and creativity in gifted youths to prepare them for responsible leadership and service to country and society.\"
How has this mission been fulfilled? Has there been any report/review?
I bring up the topic of GEP since it has been set up to cater to the top students, and the exceptionally bright. The program is already supposed to be provided for these children, but society somehow changes itself to try to fit into that system, as most people want to have a winning edge, and the outcome has somewhat been twisted over the years, which results in negative impact that has been mentioned many times in this forum. Yet, it still exists. The fact that it still exists and there is no intention to have it removed does it mean it is successful? How successful? How is its success measured?
If your kids are in GEP, how do you think it has helped your children compared to if he/she had remained in the mainstream? Would you have opted for your child to jump grade if it had been made easier? -
concern2:
If your kids are in GEP, how do you think it has helped your children compared to if he/she had remained in the mainstream? Would you have opted for your child to jump grade if it had been made easier?
I think it really depends on what we parents expect out of this 3-yr programme.
Are you expecting your kid to score more than 260 if he has been selected? Would you conclude that there's a mistake in the selection if some of the GEP kids scored only 230ish?
What is your goal (not the MOE) if u decide to put your kid thru the 3-yr programme? -
Nebbermind:
:scratchhead: So it is still about grades?concern2:
If your kids are in GEP, how do you think it has helped your children compared to if he/she had remained in the mainstream? Would you have opted for your child to jump grade if it had been made easier?
I think it really depends on what we parents expect out of this 3-yr programme.
Are you expecting your kid to score more than 260 if he has been selected? Would you conclude that there's a mistake in the selection if some of the GEP kids scored only 230ish?
What is your goal (not the MOE) if u decide to put your kid thru the 3-yr programme? -
concern2:
I was trying to click on your very small link and it is no longer there. So I suspect perhaps things have changed?Following this topic on accelerated learning, I looked up on GEP:
\"The Gifted Education Programme was first implemented in Singapore in 1984 amid some public concern. It was initiated by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in line with its policy under the New Education System to allow each pupil to learn at his/her own pace. The MOE has a commitment to ensure that the potential of each pupil is recognised, nurtured and developed. It was recognised that there are pupils who are intellectually gifted and that there should be provisions to meet their needs. Beginning with two primary centres and two secondary centres, it has now expanded to nine primary centres (as at October 2004) and was at its peak before the introduction of the Integrated Programme.\"
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifted_Education_Programme_%28Singapore%29
(If there is an existing thread on GEP, please copy me the link - thanks in advance)
Has there been any reviews since its implementation on the success of the program me? It's mission states that it is \"to provide leadership in the education of the intellectually gifted. The programme is committed to nurturing gifted individuals to their full potential for the fulfilment of self and the betterment of society.
The vision is to make the Gifted Education Programme a model of excellence in the education of the intellectually gifted. This will be achieved by providing professional expertise and exemplary resources to develop intellectual rigour, humane values and creativity in gifted youths to prepare them for responsible leadership and service to country and society.\"
How has this mission been fulfilled? Has there been any report/review?
I bring up the topic of GEP since it has been set up to cater to the top students, and the exceptionally bright. The program is already supposed to be provided for these children, but society somehow changes itself to try to fit into that system, as most people want to have a winning edge, and the outcome has somewhat been twisted over the years, which results in negative impact that has been mentioned many times in this forum. Yet, it still exists. The fact that it still exists and there is no intention to have it removed does it mean it is successful? How successful? How is its success measured?
If your kids are in GEP, how do you think it has helped your children compared to if he/she had remained in the mainstream? Would you have opted for your child to jump grade if it had been made easier?
I was lured to put my son into GEP solely because of that word \"individual\", and I thought he'll be given a chance to inquire, to ask and to grow. I thought people will understand giftedness and differences. Prior to this, I had refused to send my older kids for testing. I was wrong.
Conclusion after some time in GEP: Tay Eng Soon initiated the GEP in 1984. The Minister felt a compelling need to develop a special programme so as to enable bright children to realise their full potential, believing these children to have characteristics which would disadvantage them in a normal class setting, and in extreme situations lose their intellectual powers altogether, resulting in a loss for the society. [Quoted from http://marklsl.tripod.com/Writings/gifted.htm] The HOD from our GEP school told us he was looking for that ONE or TWO bright sparks among th e cohort each year.
Today: The teachers are more concerned to cover the GEP program syllabus (no individual attention), and they even complain the class is too BIG. Yes, what's the difference between GEP and the other classrooms? Just a different syllabus?
GEP is GIFTED education program. Giftedness is supposed to be a 'natural' thing, yet there are exorbitant courses that rich parents would send their children to, in the hope of gaining admission to GEP. Of course the GEP believes that none of this rubbish can affect the quality of the students chosen into GEP. How naive can this be? How naive can they expect us parents to be? I have conducted classes, and observed GEP kids, there are the gifted ones, the less gifted ones, and the hot housed ones, and the totally no clue about GEP but get there by accident kind. The most pitiful ones are not the hot housed ones, but the ones who are there by accident, or in other words, the accident ones.
Why so? Because the quality of GEP teachers has changed drastically over the years. The GEP teachers used to be trained by overseas instructors and experts in giftedness, they know how to look out for the needs of gifted kids, and understand their idiosyncrasies. Most of these teachers have already retired. The current teachers are like every other teacher in MOE, trained in NIE, and the only difference is that they report to the GEP branch and not the principal. This is good and bad. Good, because they supposedly know the GEP syllabus better. Bad, because they give me the feel that they are not totally 'afraid' or accountable to the principal, and always seem to have some kind of backup. Again, I am no school teacher, so I'm not sure if I am totally correct about their reporting structure. They sure gave me this feeling when I spoke to them.
From my observation, GEP is a place where the best schooled and the best home supported kids do the best. Giftedness has little to do with their required performance in the program. The Maths is \"enrichment\" style, but yet covers topics at about Sec 3 level. I have no clue what their English is trying to achieve - maybe because they placed a Maths teacher to teach English for my son's case - yes it happens in GEP, and I spot grammatical errors, poor vocab and random marking. Even so, I kept mum, for I was not interested in the coveted 'GEP syllabus', I was interested in the friends he can mix with, who are supposed to be more 'like-minded', and indeed my son loves his friends.
They used to select kids based on either Maths or English ability, now you have to be good in both to be selected. I venture to guess that it is because it easier to cover the 'standard GEP syllabus'? Or maybe other GEP parents know the real reasons why a student who is more gifted in English than a GEP child should not deserve to be given enrichment in English just because he is not as good in Math?
Parents are another interesting group of folks in GEP. Very committed, super kiasu, as expected. They are probably the best kind of parents in any society or any country, for they have the highest chance to raise compliant, obedient kids. They nurture and educate their children well, and it is no surprise that children from the same family all end up in GEP. However, just like in the mainstream, a lot of work are clearly done by parents. Projects brought into class are stunning and attention to the finest details. Some parents are lawyers and their children's essays and projects read like post graduate thesis. And it is common knowledge parents are very involved. For the 'accident' kind, the parents leave their children to strive and their work will often pale against such well supported kids. After all, how can you 'fight' with an adult's work. So yes, though the curve might not be bell, the bell-curve effect is also in GEP, and across 9 schools.
So if they are naturally smart, there should not be need for tuition? My son found it so hard to organize parties because everyone has at least 2 tuition and no time to play. Now this leads to another problem to those who did not get help throughout their first 3 years in school and 'accidentally' got into GEP. The latter has no clue how to write an essay that is acceptable in the Singaporean style, or the right methodologies to handle school work. One feature of gifted kids, afterall, is spontaneity. That is not evident in every GEP kid. Another very common trait is their sense of humour, which is, as we know, not very well accepted as well in all our schools. Teachers in school measure the kids' 'attitude' (another important feature in GEP) by how compliant the kid is. They hide anything they do not like under this abstract 'attitude' thingy. It is supposed to be attitude towards enrichment, but who's to define what that is. So it is never defined, but that forms an important rubric to a GEP child's performance. So, the more hot-housed, the more tamed you are, the higher you'll score in this department. Nothing to do with giftedness or IQ again.
I can rant forever, but I won't because I believe such a system should exist. But it is not for me or my children, or for that matter any child who is more than moderately gifted (<top 0.5%). It is for the high ability students. Children whose families are willing to cram their kids, and parents who find it important for their children to become doctors and lawyers. Families who have just one or two kids and can attend to their kids' every little need in school, including getting buying all their stationery, checking their schoolbags, help out with projects, rehearse their speech etc etc. I don't have that support structure in place (and why should I do that). My kids survive the school system pretty much on their own. My focus is not that.
My focus is to help my children find their passion and assist them realize their potential. The GEP should really be renamed HAP, and they should really pick their students from the top students in each school based upon their school results and their behavior in school. As it is, GEP misleads many families with naturally bright kids, who really do not mind being just ordinary people (no need for label, gifted or not) but doing extraordinary things. Totally different target.
As correctly pointed out by Dr Tay, gifted kids need special attention and help, and by putting them in today's GEP (with mostly hot housed kids) and expect them to behave like the rest of the HA learners, and not giving them skills to survive as gifted INDIVIDUALS, more harm than good is done. Really gifted children learn best on their own often without instructions, the GEP syllabus has little value when the mindset and environment is wrong.
Just my take, and I know some will surely stone me... :scared: -
The link did not work because the closing bracket is missing when you clicked on the link. Here is the new link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifted_Education_Programme_%28Singapore%29
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