Is GEP really necessary?

[cherryc]

Has the ST reporter been reading ksp?


Gifted scheme is not about hothousing
By Janice Heng
COME Aug 24, all Primary 3 pupils islandwide will sit the first of two tests to enter the Gifted Education Programme (GEP).

The tests aim to sieve out pupils based on their proficiency in English and Mathematics. About 4,000 will go on to the second round, which also tests abstract reasoning, such as pattern spotting. And about 500 will make it into the programme.

Both tests are based on what all pupils have already been taught, says the Education Ministry - which means no preparation is needed.

But that has never stopped some parents from trying to coach their nine-year-olds for these tests. This practice was brought back into the public eye by the recent case of a fraudulent tutor who charged thousands of dollars for such services.

The tutor's lies about his credentials are one issue; there may be genuinely qualified tutors who run similar courses. In a Straits Times report in June, industry players estimated that a dozen centres offer preparation for the GEP.

But the eagerness to get one's children into the GEP in the first place may also be founded on misunderstandings. For a start, some parents seem to mistake the programme as a guarantee of academic success. It is true that most GEP pupils do well in the national Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). More than 90 per cent of gifted students score among the top 10 per cent of candidates.

But parents who treat the GEP as a ticket to good grades may be disappointed. It has never been about hothousing top scorers.

In April, Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Education Sim Ann noted that GEP pupils' good PSLE performance reflects the fact that they are drawn from the top 1 per cent to 2 per cent of their cohort.

\"However, the GEP itself is not a programme that is intended to prepare children for exceptional performance at the PSLE,\" she said. \"Its goals are to develop intellectual depth, higher-level thinking, and so to nurture productive creativity, among others.\"

If anything, the programme's \"enriched curriculum\" means that much less time is spent on covering PSLE-related material.

As a former GEP student, what I recall are lessons on such glorious irrelevancies as Greek myths and the Mayan number system. Instead of drills on past exam papers, we wrote poems and skits.

Parents who want their children to receive rigorous PSLE preparation are arguably defeating their own purpose by forcing them into the GEP.

Granted, the programme does boast smaller classes and, hence, more individual attention. But this too is geared not towards the production of stellar results, but each child's intellectual - not necessarily academic - development.

For instance, a mathematically inclined child may enjoy exploring formal logic, even if the topic never arises in exams. Another might flourish if encouraged in their poetry-writing attempts, even if it has no impact on test scores.

Some parents may thus try to get their children into the GEP because they misunderstand the programme's purpose and content.

Other parents, however, seem not to care about its purpose at all. For them, the programme is a ticket of a different sort - and in this, they are not solely to blame.

The Government and some secondary schools have helped distort the GEP's purpose by according privileges to its pupils.

In a letter to The Straits Times Forum in June, Mr Khong Kiong Seng argued that parents want their kids to be in the GEP because they enjoy an advantage in applying to top secondary schools.

Under the Direct School Admission scheme, certain schools can admit pupils before the PSLE, based on criteria other than their results. Mr Khong noted that GEP applicants are often grouped separately from others and exempted from tests which others must sit.

It is also easier for them to receive the Edusave Entrance Scholarships for Independent Schools. These are given to the top one-third of PSLE scorers who go on to independent secondary schools - and also to Singaporean GEP pupils who meet the Primary 6 GEP promotion criteria and join an independent school's integrated programme. They might thus qualify despite not being in the top one-third of PSLE scorers.

On his blog earlier this month, Workers' Party Non-Constituency MP Yee Jenn Jong identified these incentives as one reason parents clamour to get their children into the programme.

If nothing more was at stake than the GEP's reputation, all this would be little cause for alarm.

But the problem is that parents' perceptions and resulting actions have very real consequences, not least for their children.

A child hothoused into the GEP might not enjoy its more esoteric topics, or might struggle to understand higher-level ones. Worse yet, he might have trouble keeping up with the swift coverage of the national curriculum.

And if GEP preparatory classes succeed (which is a big \"if\"), they risk turning the programme into the preserve of the socioeconomic elite, since richer parents are more likely to afford this edge.

Whether the GEP's existence is justified is a separate, long-running debate. Some have argued, for instance, that more resources should be spent on lower-achieving students, rather than on those who are already likely to do well.

But as long as the GEP remains, we would do well to recall its intended purpose.

Schools and the Government could help by stripping away extraneous advantages enjoyed by GEP pupils, so as not to distort the incentives parents face. Parents should take a clear-eyed look at whether the GEP will truly benefit their child.

They may have their children's best interests at heart. But perhaps such interests should be defined not just in terms of their future secondary school, but in how much they will enjoy primary school life in the first place.

xxxxxxxxx
My questions are what is \"productive creativity \" and secondly, if people like Lim Jeck are not in it, who are the \"mathematically inclined ' they are grooming?

[PiggyLalala]

Based on my understanding, as long as the Geppers retain their GEP status and go to an independent school, they qualify for the EESIS.

[cherryc]

I am wholeheartedly supportive of nurturing of talents of any forms. However, recently there are a few interesting incidents that made me ponder more.


I have few parents whose kids have qualified for GEP but decided not to join the bandwagon. Their reason ranged from wanting their kids to work hard to get to their dream schools instead of using any advantages, to mingle with people with mixed abilities, don’t like the GEP label, want their kids to focus on core primary school curriculum while they will enrich their kids in other areas. And then there is LJ case and I start to wonder why there are so many really gifted ones outside the GEP program.

Secondly of course is the infamous KO case that shows how desperate parents are to get the golden ticket.

Then is the 25-1 vs the 40 plus vs 1 student-teacher ratio (and it may be relief teacher at times ) we are getting in schools today. What about the late-bloomers ?? Do we miss some really gifted late-bloomers ?? Most of the top top professionals I know will never qualified for GEP if there is one during our time.

Everything is interlinked. I wonder what kind of society we will have in future with what we are experiencing now in edu and everywhere.

[HVR]

I just find it strange. For those who are so concern about gepers enter DSA on the perceived advantage, why not someone go and ask the schools concerned why they give the ‘advantage’. If they acknowledge they do give ‘advantage’ at all to gepers at all to begin with. After all, it is the school that decide who they want to take in. Nothing to do with MOE. Indeed, if an Independant school so wishes, they can fill their vacancy 100% via DSA and disregard PSLE altogether!

[vlim]

Alamak why you guys keep talking abt LJ .... There is how many LJ tt did not get into gep yet is super pro in MO?... And how many very pro mo guys tt are from gep?.... :faint: ....And the fact tt LJ didn't get into gep means he did not meet the entry pt .. Not top 1% at tt time he took the screening test.... But ultimately he still go to a very Gd sec school NUSH which can further enhance his mathematical skill ...

So Wat the problem ... :faint:

[Melodies]

Thanks for the info. Since it wasn't published to all Singaporean and many people do not know this scheme, I'd take it as it is a program run by certain school not until I hear more from MOE on this TTLT....

comfy:

Melodies:

O I hope that one of the teacher is not a trainee. My dd's school has a trainee teacher in her p1 class for a few months? What is TTLT by the way?

TIA

TTLT means Thinkers Today, Leaders Tomorrow.

[Melodies]

Maybe they are better in the MOE perceived ranking system (for whatsoever criteria they set and I think they went for some additional training for teaching GEP classes). I ever engaged a GEP teacher and existing school English teacher to teach my girl's English. I don't find the GEP teacher is better than the existing school teacher (though I had to pay premium for a GEP teacher). I had requested her to tailor a English program for my girl but I had yet to receive a concrete one from her. All she did is buying lots of assessment books (6-7 books) for my girl and asked her to do (basically drilling)! :yikes:

2ppaamm:

Melodies:

O I hope that one of the teacher is not a trainee. My dd's school has a trainee teacher in her p1 class for a few months? What is TTLT by the way?

TIA

Just chip in here. I know of a GEP class that had a rookie Math teacher to teach English for the whole year. So now you know what I mean by comical when she didn't understand my son's vocab. :evil:

Many GEP parents say the GEP teachers are better. Can I ask how so, because from my experience, they are no different from the mainstream. Do they have special qualifications, training or is there a ranking system for MOE teachers and the best are sent to teach GEP? So 'better' means what?

[Melodies]

Agreed that we should ask those sec schools why they decide to take more GEPper in and disregard higher PSLE scorer (than those GEPper) and create this unfair level playing field (depriving higher PSLE scorer)! Come to think about it? Shouldn't MOE set some rules and also moderates this. I guessed we should also ask MOE why they let those sec school to decide?

HVR:

I just find it strange. For those who are so concern about gepers enter DSA on the perceived advantage, why not someone go and ask the schools concerned why they give the 'advantage'. If they acknowledge they do give 'advantage' at all to gepers at all to begin with. After all, it is the school that decide who they want to take in. Nothing to do with MOE. Indeed, if an Independant school so wishes, they can fill their vacancy 100% via DSA and disregard PSLE altogether!

[beanbear]

2ppaamm:

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.

Thanks for articulating this. It's been carthartic to read your long post. The anger I've been feeling especially in these past months has been brewing with nowhere to let out. Finally, I've awakened and made a decision stop feeling angry with the system and feeling sorry for myself and my kids. I'm not going to play the game or whatever hidden agenda this government is dishing out at me. I will carve out a different path for my kids. As it is, DS1 has been showing more interest in entrepreneurship even with the PSLE going on and I've been happy to explore these questions with him. I've been having economics 101 conversations with my 12 year old and I'm enjoying these conversations about life decisions and what he wants for his career or business. I'm learning to appreciate that these conversations about long term perspectives and decisions will be more important than some of the crazy exam questions we are trying to solve.

As for DD2 who \"gifted\" (shows moments of brilliance to solving complex problems and musically talented) and yet cannot pass an exam without herculean efforts. I've finally reframed my own thinking and did what you've said, be creative and look locally and globally for solutions. We are not rich to be able send our kids to international schools or go abroad, but that will not stop me from creating a path that I believe will help my kids to thrive in their adulthood.

[atutor2001]

Never really care much about GEP in the past. When my kids were in Pr level, I thought "Gifted" means genius. Knowing that they are no genius, I couldn’t be bother with the GEP selection tests and my kids failed happily.


However, our mind was set that the eldest must do well enough to get into the top school. It was not to show off but rather to avoid bad company. Having personally experienced bullying and fights, I do not wish my kids to be subjected to such unnecessary stress in school. Not that there are no bad hats in top school the number is much smaller. There is also the important factors of good influence and learning environment in the top schools.

We worked real hard with our eldest, to fight for a place. I have emphasized eldest because we want to set a precedence. With that, the siblings know that it can be achieved. Our theory works and the siblings followed. It became a norm and they did not feel special or proud about getting there. Instead, they thought that it was a "basic requirement".

In my earlier years, my impression of GEPers was gathered mainly through my kids. They don’t think that GEPers are smarter, except for the top few (about 3 per cohort). However, they don’t particularly like mixing with them (probably their curriculum is different and GEPers are usually very competitive.)

The recent lively discussions set me thinking about the relationship between gifted, passion, competition and GEP. Briefly, I felt that a genius is the product of a truly gifted who also possesses the "right" passion. Competition helps to accelerate learning and invention but not "discovery". The desire to win is a hidden form of passion that accelerates learning that may be mistaken to be "gifted"