Is GEP really necessary?
-
comfy:
We are interesting creatures, we can look ourselves in the mirror, and do not see a thing. Read the above post if you like.
Then it is ok to what? Still don't get it. It is precisely that I can't figure what other advantages that why I ask. Well, it seems to me that there are no other privilege and benefits. Sigh.... was hoping that there are more as your remark/comment seems to imply that (to me). Anyway, thanks for your sharing and questions. Yes, I hope that my dd as well as all kids (gep or non-gep) will have a chance to enter the school that she like. And have a peaceful sleep :snooze: :snooze:
-
2ppaamm:
Thank you for writing this Pam. I am grateful to you.
Nobody ever said the GEPpers had it easy when it comes to DSA, but we must admit that BY DESIGN their chance of getting into the school of choice is much higher than a non-GEPper. A GEPper or not, the chance of getting into a school of choice must be the SAME, the measurement or standard to judge a child must also be the SAME. At the moment, there is a double standard. It is also not right if the reverse is true, that a mainstreamer should have advantage over a GEPper, is it? Also, it is wrong to deprive so many more deserving children for that one GEPper to get into the school of choice as I have clearly demonstrated in the last post. Every child is equal in our society. You don't agree? Why not? Is it because GEPpers faired better than a non-GEPper in one exam, they have the rights to gain access over many non-GEPpers forever, then where is the equality?
It is a world where resources are limited. Therefore, by giving preferences to GEPpers to this extent, those resources are removed from mainstreamers.
I do not agree that we can throw a blanket and conclude that GEPpers and mainstreamers have different potentials, and that one's potential can be judged by a series of tests at 9 years old. There are late bloomers, and there are those from families that cannot afford the kind of grooming. These kids deserve an EQUAL chance of doing well, one sub-performance at a test should not disadvantage them to this extent, by the same notion, one exam should not accord so many privileges to those who happen to do well. By giving the weaker students the SAME resources, they have a BETTER chance of doing or in Singapore's case, survive, in the system. I am saddened that GEP parents can imagine that their children have better potentials than others. Did we not talk about Lim Jeck? He is not a GEPper but he went on to become the first Singaporean to win the Olympiad. But not everyone has a Mathematician family like him. Not a single GEPper in HISTORY (since 1984) has ever achieved that feat. Enough said. So, I don't agree GEPpers have better potentials and therefore should be given more resources.
What's expected of a GEPper is really no different from a non-GEPper at the end of the day. I speak as a parent with kids from both, the Singapore education system is designed to make it hard for the children, GEPper or not. I speak as a mother who have kids from local and overseas system. Of course it is hard to be a GEPper, but it is even HARDER being a mainstreamer. The odds against them are higher, BECAUSE of the GEPpers. And that is sad, because when it comes to education, it should be a level playing field. Unfortunately, as we can see, it is NOT. In the current system, some people are more EQUAL than other, the system pits one against the other. In a society, we should work together and not against each other. O no, this reminds me of Animal Farm... :evil:
The example I gave is not off the mark. I was told by an RI teacher that they have found that any child with T-score >250 can perform equally well. A check with some schools will tell you that many GEPpers go on to perform badly in secondary schools, overtaken by late bloomers from mainstream. So, there is no difference in the ability of a GEPper and non-GEPper in secondary school. There is a POLICY in place to give preference to the GEPpers. And this is WRONG. I have never said the GEPpers are wrong.
I realize there are new audience, so I repeat some of the points I made before, so bear with me. No preference should be given to GEPpers, none. So, we should not downplay it by saying 'just DSA, EEIS and smaller class size, a scholarship for the rest of their education'. These are the main things, and not btw, these are BIG DEALS. These are exactly what people need - opportunities, :moneyflies: , time and access. EVERYTHING.
Am I against teaching according to the aptitude of a child, of course NOT! By all means, teach according to the child's capabilities. Some kids have abilities to do more, then by all means do those with them, cover higher level topics, do more enrichment, IN THE SAME CONDITIONS. That means, give them the same privileges as other children. Same class size, same access, same everything. But because the kids are brighter, we can cover more topics. If such kids need more resources to cover deeper topics, than I question the ability of the children. At the end of the day, if there is a national exam, then EVERYONE should abide by the same rules, or abolish this silly exam, if the national exam does not put everyone on the same page.
Next, my take on GEP. As mentioned, there are so many levels of giftedness, but the whole class of 25 is taught exactly the same way, by the same teacher and cover the same syllabus. Didn't we say that everyone has different potential and capabilities? Consequently, there are many gifted children whose needs are not met in GEP, they are forced to level down to moderate giftedness of that 1-2% when they are at a higher level. Didn't some say that their children are so much better behaved in GEP than they were in P1-3 when they were bored? This is exactly how a highly gifted child feels in the GEP classroom, still bored, still out of sync. So, GEP does not cater to higher level of giftedness, because they have to teach a class. I thought a smaller class size is for closer individual attention? If GEP is to teach higher level topics to higher level children, with no individual attention, then why the smaller class size? Does this even make sense?
Now, the quality of GEPpers. As I have pointed out before (again), the selection process is also flawed, and fails to spot many talents. As it is today, to be selected, a child has to be good at Math, English and GA. Consequently, we get generalists, instead of prodigies. Giftedness is normally skewed, we don't expect Albert Einstein to be able to write like Shakespeare (pardon the difference in era - just trying to be quick here), do we? But he is a genius. As it is, we either expect everyone to be Omni-gifted (as in Leonardo Da Vinci) or we end up with GEPpers who are generalists and not gifted in any specific area at all. These are great high ability students, and not your gifted children. If that is what MOE wants for the GEP, for whatever reason, IT IS OK. Perfectly OK. But then, change the name of GEP to something else, so as not to mislead parents of truly gifted children who go round in circles only to find that the branch is only interested in and caters only to moderately gifted children.
But herein lies another problem. With so many very gifted children and prodigies left out of the system, some will excel beyond the GEPpers. This generalist selection method is relatively new, hence more and more skewed-gifted kids (like Lim Jeck) with access to resources, are going to appear. Very soon, people are going to realize GEP is really nothing great (and it is no big deal, really), but with all those privileges, there is bound to be dissent. We expect GEPpers to perform better than the mainstreamers, but there are so many truly gifted left out, there will be more and more mainstreamers with good support outshining the GEPpers, rendering the privileges given to the GEPpers a hoax. The consequence is that GEPpers will have hard times surviving in the world in future. Imagine this, \"You are from GEP? :roll: \" And what if their bosses are not GEPpers (very likely)? Unless, of course every GEPper hopes or will become administrators. But hey, how many will? These kids are going to feel the prejudice against them from mainstreamers and the animosity. Remember, they get the benefits but not all of them perform. This cannot be healthy for the GEPpers' psychological well-being. And I have not yet talked about the black-sheep effect for 'accidental or geared GEPpers'. The pressure on the GEPpers is unnecessary and unwanted, and for those who were hothoused into the program, the effect is even worse, this phenomenon is relatively new, so we don't know who has the last laugh yet. I have already hinted what my take is.
Now, the GEP program is not a healthy one either for gifted learners, at least IMO. We accelerate the kids with advanced work and enrichment UNIFORMLY. For the highly gifted ones who get in, this can be stifling. Already established that many kids are gifted in EITHER Math or English not both. Some are so gifted in one area, and very good in another, so they are in GEP. If we pump them up in both areas (for what purpose? I don't know, I thought learning is about bringing up the potential and not fitting into a syllabus especially in GEP), there is little time left for the subject they are good in. Many gifted children still go for tuition, to gear up their weaker subject, I suppose. Isn't it better for them to work at their 'weaker subject' at mainstream speed at ease and then zoom ahead in their pet subject? GEP hampers instead of enhances a GEPer's potential and ability because of the way it is being taught and the way giftedness is handled.
So there. In one piece for your digestion. Left out the intricate details, didn't talk about the training and quality of teachers, or discuss the implication of GEP to the society, or how I think giftedness should be handled in a public education system. If you don't 'catch' me, don't worry about it, I know it is a long post.
To parents of very gifted children who are not in GEP, I'd say it is a blessing, so work hard to prove yourself, there are plenty of opportunities you can create for yourselves in this world of knowledge. To children who are in GEP and enjoying the privileges, my take is you'd better perform and then brace, brace, brace. There will be attacks. To children who were hothoused into the program, my heart goes out to you, I hope you survive GEP and also the unnecessary hostility you will face. To the average mainstreamers, the game is not over yet, there are plenty of scholarships offered by overseas institutions if you plan wisely. Search, and you will find other pathways, we are in 2012, aren't we? To those with $$$, go overseas and let your children enjoy their childhood. To kids who are not performing in the current education system, know that there is very little support, you will need to be creative to survive. Look hard, you will find opportunities, which may not be present in the system. All in all, it is an unnecessarily difficult education system to maneuver, with everyone stepping over each other. I am glad I am out of it, and because I am out of it, my kids are fairing a lot better academically, psychologically, socially and intellectually. For that, I am thankful.
-
Hi 2ppaamm,
I think DSA, EEIS and smaller class size for the GEPpers are perks to entice parents especially parents who are not risk takers like myself, and those families like us that need the EESIS :moneyflies: for the independent schools to the GE program. Whether such resources are given to the GEPpers is fair, this is debatable. If such perks are not available to the GEPpers, I think i would not give consent for ds to join the program.
As a mother, one of my wish is that my sons can have a good tertiary education (it would be good if they secure a good scholarship). For that to happen, I would then put my boys in secondary schools where the chances of doing well in A level are higher. This would mean that my boys should aim for a good IP schools, which also then mean that my boys need a good PSLE score, say > 262. To me, it means, they have to do equally well for ALL 4 subjects in PSLE. This implies that my boys need to be drilled on his weaker subjects. I think the pupils in the mainstream, at least, in my son's primary school, are well drilled to perform well in their PSLE. However, this is not in the case of GEPpers though they may have a more interesting program.
So without the perks, I would have a more difficult time in making the decisions for my boys at P3. Also, I really hope that whatever changes made to the GEP, it should not and it is NOT FAIR to affect the current P4 to P6 GEPpers. I will be :stompfeet: :frustrated: if it does.
- a simple mother's thinking/wish. -
comfy:
Hi comfy,
Hi 2ppaamm, may I know what are the perks and privileges that GEP have besides smaller ratio of teacher to student and DSA?
Just to reassure you, I dont think there is other privileges apart from what are already mentioned in this thread. I can understand why you asked these questions. We are both anxious mothers with a simple wish that our dc can enter a good secondary school of his/her choice. All the best to yr dd in her DSA and PSLE next year. -
PiggyLalala:
Hi!Hi 2ppaamm,
I think DSA, EEIS and smaller class size for the GEPpers are perks to entice parents especially parents who are not risk takers like myself, and those families like us that need the EESIS :moneyflies: for the independent schools to the GE program. Whether such resources are given to the GEPpers is fair, this is debatable. If such perks are not available to the GEPpers, I think i would not give consent for ds to join the program.
As a mother, one of my wish is that my sons can have a good tertiary education (it would be good if they secure a good scholarship). For that to happen, I would then put my boys in secondary schools where the chances of doing well in A level are higher. This would mean that my boys should aim for a good IP schools, which also then mean that my boys need a good PSLE score, say > 262. To me, it means, they have to do equally well for ALL 4 subjects in PSLE. This implies that my boys need to be drilled on his weaker subjects. I think the pupils in the mainstream, at least, in my son's primary school, are well drilled to perform well in their PSLE. However, this is not in the case of GEPpers though they may have a more interesting program.
So without the perks, I would have a more difficult time in making the decisions for my boys at P3. Also, I really hope that whatever changes made to the GEP, it should not and it is NOT FAIR to affect the current P4 to P6 GEPpers. I will be :stompfeet: :frustrated: if it does.
- a simple mother's thinking/wish.
The reason to put a kid into GEP should have never been for the perks. It should always have been to maximize the potential of the child. Thank you for letting us all know what most GEP mothers think. Unfortunately, if a gifted program has to resort to such perks and advantages given to the children to attract them, it speaks of how successful it is. :yikes:
Next, I venture in letting you know my thoughts about university entrance, since I get to involved in such process yearly. It is NOT about PSLE score. It is NOT about which IP schools they went to, hey, in fact, going to a good IP school could hamper your child's chance of getting into a good Ivy League school. Erm... not sure if that is your target, but if it is, then you will be in for a big surprise. I am not going to elaborate here because it takes time, maybe another time. But in the meantime, do yourself a simple exercise. Look for the university (not sec school) you want your kid to get into, and then the criteria. You will quickly realize your could be chasing after the wind, my friend. :frustrated: And that's my issue with the whole system. Everyone is chasing after something that gets them into the opposite direction. Such irony.
Singapore seems to have forgotten that even though we are an island, we are still in the world. :skeptical: -
2ppaamm:
Hi!
The reason to put a kid into GEP should have never been for the perks. It should always have been to maximize the potential of the child. Thank you for letting us all know what most GEP mothers think. Unfortunately, if a gifted program has to resort to such perks and advantages given to the children to attract them, it speaks of how successful it is. :yikes:
What I have shared earlier are just my own views, not too sure whether they are the views of most GEP mothers. I am a greedy mother too. Of course I hope that the GE program would maximize the potential of my boys but if it is going to reduce the chance of going to top IP schools, ( not because the GE program is not good but more because the GE program is not aimed to drill the students to perform at PSLE), I would say NO to the program.
Personally, I preferred IP schools as I feel that the programs are more holistic and it trains the students to be an independent and critical thinker.
Next, I venture in letting you know my thoughts about university entrance, since I get to involved in such process yearly. It is NOT about PSLE score. It is NOT about which IP schools they went to, hey, in fact, going to a good IP school could hamper your child's chance of getting into a good Ivy League school. Erm... not sure if that is your target, but if it is, then you will be in for a big surprise. I am not going to elaborate here because it takes time, maybe another time. But in the meantime, do yourself a simple exercise. Look for the university (not sec school) you want your kid to get into, and then the criteria. You will quickly realize your could be chasing after the wind, my friend. :frustrated: And that's my issue with the whole system. Everyone is chasing after something that gets them into the opposite direction. Such irony.
Singapore seems to have forgotten that even though we are an island, we are still in the world. :skeptical:
Thanks for sharing. I am really ignorant about university entrance. The only way that I know is having a stellar A level result. Do not have any friends that have been to good Ivy League school too. If you have the time, could you share more please. Thank you very much. -
My DD had 8 distinctions at A levels… Prize-winning sportswoman… 2 research awards amongst others. Rejected by Cambridge. Her best friend was VP of student council in secondary… She took a top tier PSC scholarship even BEFORE sitting A levels. Rejected by Princeton AND Harvard.
Ivy leagues want you to be top of your school. They don’t care whether you come from a school where you compete with the best of the nation or not. It’s the bell curve in YOUR school that counts. It doesn’t matter that the average in RI is better academically than the top in another school in China, the top in the other school stands a better chance. DD’s tutor explained that Cambridge reduced intake of Singaporean students greatly last year. The places went to PRC students instead. Pam’s kids went on alternative paths where they don’t compete like crazy. They had differentiated paths and this differentiation has put almost all of them in Harvard on scholarship. I am not sure Pam’s kids are smarter than DD’s best friend. They’re just so lucky to have Pam. This is what Pam meant by we may be an island but we are part of the world.
That has been our experience.
But if you’re not sticky about Ivy League then a good A level certainly does get you nice bond free scholarships to NUS and various Australian unis. We’re not sticky about Ivy League in our family. We reckon that after 5 years in the workforce… Unless you wanna be in academia… No one cares which uni you went to. -
Chenonceau:
Thank you for yr sharing, Chen. You have answered the question that I have in mind.My DD had 8 distinctions at A levels... Prize-winning sportswoman... 2 research awards amongst others. Rejected by Cambridge. Her best friend was VP of student council in secondary... She took a top tier PSC scholarship even BEFORE sitting A levels. Rejected by Princeton.
Ivy leagues want you to be top of your school. They don't care whether you come from a school where you compete with the best of the nation or not. It's the bell curve in YOUR school that counts. It doesn't matter that the average in RI is better academically than the top in another school in China, the top in the other school stands a better chance.
That has been our experience.
But if you're not sticky about Ivy League then a good A level certain does get you nice bond free scholarships to NUS and various Australian unis. We're not sticky about Ivy League in our family. We reckon that after 5 years in the workforce... Unless you wanna be in academia... No one cares which uni you went to.
-
Incidentally, there is an article about purpose of GEP scheme in today's Straits Times.
Gifted Scheme is not about hothousing
The Straits Times, 18 August 2012
by Janice Heng![](\"http://i47.tinypic.com/rhrewn.jpg\")
http://i47.tinypic.com/rhrewn.jpg\">
![](\"http://i50.tinypic.com/30vhm3l.jpg\")
![](\"http://i47.tinypic.com/1231aac.jpg\")
-
2ppaamm,
You have many valid points in your long post. You ask for level playing field for all but what if all participants in the field is not level to begin with? Wouldn’t by levering the field itself ‘not fair’?
I see more IP schools coming up. I think GEP or not, the system recognise that top 10% of the cohort would ultimately ended up in University and the IP through train allow them to skip the, if I may, ‘redundant’ ‘O’ level and that’s why we are opening up more IP schools. So, be it mainstreamers or geppers, if you are among the top 10%, you should secure a spot in one of the IP schools with no problem. So why fault the GEP system? Why say DSA deprive mainstreamers a spot in IP school? Geppers ony consists of about 1 % in any given cohort and the way I see it, if you are among the top 10%, you will get a spot in an IP school.
I think we can agree that when come to education, we cannot have a ‘one side fit all’ approach. We can agree in any cohort, there will be about 1% who are ‘gifted’ and 0.1% who are exceptionally ‘gifted’. If these ‘gifted’ one are lump together with the rest to receive the same education program, we will stifle their potentials and make them mediocre. That’s not my view, that’s what I gathered after reading up on GEP after I first came to know GEP in 2010.
I think what really debatable is how we determine giftedness in a child. Can we tell when they are 9, 10 years old? The research said can and until it is proven otherwise what can we do but to accept it? The intention behind GEP is good because we have to identify the ‘gifted’ one early and nurture them differently. We have to harness their talents in view of our scarce resources as we only have ‘human power’ to tap on.
All said, I think education system is one thing but as parents, we have to prepare to step in if we find the system inadequate or not benefiting our children. After all, the system is design to benefit the majority and with so many different students with different backgrounds and abilities, how can we expect the system to suit everyone? Certain degree of sacrifice is expected in order to bring up our children. Cannot expect MOE or relevant authority to do everything for us. In another thread, people are talking ‘incentive’ for ‘children’, there is totally no mention of having children because we love them, we feel sense of fulfillment in bringing them up to be a good person, contributing member of society, etc. Reading those comments really turn my heart cold.
2ppaamm, I know you strive to better things for the masses but I think GEP is a good program. But I have to concede if too many pupils enter GEP due to hothousing, then the very purpose of GEP is defeated.
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