Is GEP really necessary?
-
Chenonceau:
I dun understand why you address this to me. I never said that we should do away with GEP. Not sure about EESIS in the past. Dunno enough to comment. Sorry if this sounds curt. I dun know how type emoticons on smart phone. Took @#$!& long to type these few lines![/quote]No no, you've misunderstood what I've written. Or rather maybe my phrasing is awkward and led you to this. I am in agreement with you. I meant to say that like you, I do not think that MOE should get rid of GEP and that to do so (as some in the forum want) is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Hi Chen,jtoh:
[quote=\"Chenonceau\"]
There is also the possibility that the GEP test made a mistake and wrongly identified someone as gifted. No psychometric test is 100% reliable. GEP kids who don't score above a certain threshold should just be dropped (for their own good) in the same way that those who score 27+ at PSLE WERE often invited INTO the GEP in Sec 1... and therefore these DON'T get EESIS.
Beyond Fair or Unfair
We should NOT take away the GEP's privileges just because of a fairness issue. They are kids after all. Different or not, we need to love them because different kids are still the nation's legacy. The thing though, is that GEP's small classes facilitated the teaching through inquiry and self-directed learning. These are learning styles characteristic of gifted learners. However, since the inquiry-based learning has hopped over from GEP to mainstream (and I think it is a good thing) then why are classes in mainstream still at 40?
I am beyond questioning issues of fairness. Let the GEP keep whatever privileges it has... BUT... allow mainstream teachers to teach smaller classes so that they can best effectuate inquiry-based learning too.
I'm thinking that in the past when there was still GEP in secondary school and students who did very well in PSLE were invited to join the programme then, there was no EESIS? Or am I mistaken?
I agree with you that the teaching methods adopted in GEP should be extended to the population at large. But it's something MOE is unable to do for lack of resources. (and a whole other debate). But for MOE to do away with GEP because it's viewed as unfair by some would be to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Hope I've expressed myself better now. paiseh. -
PiggyLalala:
Don't worry so much lah... 4 months to study for any exam is too much time! In the uni, the whole semester is 4 months! Got to get used to it, right? That means, most people study at most 1 month for an exam. Officially, they are only given 1 or 2 weeks.
4 months to prepare 4 subjects. You have to ensure that you continue to do well in your stronger subjects. And at the same time, you need to work very hard on the weaker subject. Majority of the GEPpers can but there are some that need more time and hence do not well in PSLE.Melodies:
You need some practices but not drilling You have sufficient time to do the practice for PSLE if I recalled what you have said before. GEPpers can start prepare PSLE in mid May/June.
In the uni, things are much harder and they also do 4 to 6 courses per semester. So chill! Ample time, my dear! -
Melodies:
Some, if not all, of the independent schools have their own bursaries or aid for students who are in the schools but face financial difficulties.Some of my friends' ds/dd scored 260 and 259 but still didn't receive EESIS le... Of course, they can afford to study in IS, so no problems. I heard that it is abt 260/261 cutoff almost for every year to secure EESIS. My heart goes with those pupils from not so well to do families because they cant' afford to study in IS le..
-
2ppaamm:
[/quote]Ds not having PSLE this year. No stress, no worry.
Don't worry so much lah... 4 months to study for any exam is too much time! In the uni, the whole semester is 4 months! Got to get used to it, right? That means, most people study at most 1 month for an exam. Officially, they are only given 1 or 2 weeks.PiggyLalala:
[quote=\"Melodies\"]You need some practices but not drilling You have sufficient time to do the practice for PSLE if I recalled what you have said before. GEPpers can start prepare PSLE in mid May/June.
In the uni, things are much harder and they also do 4 to 6 courses per semester. So chill! Ample time, my dear!
I just want to show that it is NOT tt easy to get 4A* or PSLE score of >262.
It needs hard work not just intelligence. But guess I cant express myself well so not many understand what i am trying to say.
I think i have spent too much time here. Better go take care of ds2 who is having common tests this week.
-
Look, I am not envious of GEP kids at all. If a GEP kid goes to a Poly, (which is nothing wrong btw), the parent has to do a lot of explaining, e.g. like handson, don't like JC's style of teaching, etc etc. But if a mainstreamer goes to Poly, nothing wrong leh...
If GEPper don't go to uni... wah everyone throw stones, if a mainstreamer don't go, not big deal leh...
If GEPper score <250, wah, hothoused one, if mainstreamer don't score >250, so what?
Go to work. Interview a GEPper - like that only ah, what GEP? Exact same qualification - wah, this one good candidate!
Everything has its price.
sorry har, sound like sour grapes... but really don't know what is the big deal.... -
jtoh:
80% of students score minimum A in Chinese at PSLE, so scoring an A is not that big a deal. But scoring a weak A can pull your T-score down.atutor2001:
[quote=\"jtoh\"]....... There are many GEPpers who are weak in MT which invariably pulls down their T-score. Or there are those who are weak in Math. If they had stayed in mainstream and had all of P4/5/6 to prepare for PSLE I dare say they would have better PSLE scores.
This is where I find puzzling. Being gifted, they tend to have special ability, even for tackling subjects that they are weak in. An old friend who is a baba migrated to UK because her daughters were struggling with Chinese in primary school. Years later, she returned together with her kids because of her job . By then her children are in secondary level and she managed to get them into RGS. I taught they would suffer as there is Chinese. Surprisingly, they aced everything. This friend was much older then me and I regretted not seeking her advice on how she managed to make her kids pick up Chinese again, which was the cause of their migration. Is it because of a change in attitude as they had been exposed to a different learning environment in UK?
I also know many students who were good in mainly math and science. Miraculously, they were able to score A for Chinese. However, after a few years, they practically forgot everything. Such cases only make me feel that a gifted person has no problem with exams, no matter what the subject is. Perhaps those that can't is more of \"attitude problem.\"
I have to disagree with you about students who are 'gifted' having the ability to tackle any subject, even the ones they are weak in. That simply does not happen. MOE has said so as much in a briefing to parents.[/quote]Yes, a A is nothing. I think it has to be at least a mid A or high A if aiming above 260 and you have to be strong in the other 3 subjects (based on my own observation only) -
The vast majority of students in IP and IS schools are from the mainstream, so they are given equal opportunities to be in IP. Schools like RI/RGS probably only have 20% of GEPpers in their population. NYGH only 5%? DHS <5%?
If you think that DSA is an unfair basis for selection into IP because some (very few) GEPpers score below the COP, then maybe we should not allow some sports and aesthetics students to be allowed entry via DSA because some of them have T-scores far below the COP of the school. Some going in with as much as 40 points below the school's COP.
GEPpers are better able to adapt to an IP environment bec of the way they were taught in primary school. I won't bother to explain how but sufficeth to say that IP schools recognize this.Melodies:
Hi Comfy, I knew that they considered the GEPpers' academic results for DSA selection. I am not sure how representative is the results since they are based on 500 students. Heard that it is abt 80% for P6 SA1 results for DSA selection and most likely they will get CO while GEpers with results 70-79.8% may just be in WL and most of them will be converted to CO (results range from <70% to >90% for whole GEPpers cohort which is about 500 GEPs) with ~ 10% go back to mainstream. If you have not given the opportunity to mainstreamers, how did you know that they are not suitable in IP program? Honestly, I'm not sure if all GEPper suitable for IP program, though they are trained for 3 years.
comfy:
Hi Melodies,
From reading your previous posts, you keeps on harping that it is not fair that Gep kids get into top IP school with lower PSLE score through DSA. But have you ever think that it is precisely that they have been through the 3 yrs GEP programme that they are selected + respectable academic results. You have even acknowledge that (see highlighted) and they are more or less suitable/prepare for IP programme.
So that why, I give my alternative suggestion to have more fairer way of getting students into the IP school. Since there are already two groups of students (GEP, mainstream) exit in our system and educated differently, then perhaps a new assessment system might be needed including PSLE exam (since I don't need MOE will abolish it). And of course for this group, no need for DSA.
-
jtoh:
The vast majority of students in IP and IS schools are from the mainstream, so they are given equal opportunities to be in IP. Schools like RI/RGS probably only have 20% of GEPpers in their population. NYGH only 5%? DHS <5%?
If you think that DSA is an unfair basis for selection into IP because some (very few) GEPpers score below the COP, then maybe we should not allow some sports and aesthetics students to be allowed entry via DSA because some of them have T-scores far below the COP of the school. Some going in with as much as 40 points below the school's COP.
GEPpers are better able to adapt to an IP environment bec of the way they were taught in primary school. I won't bother to explain how but sufficeth to say that IP schools recognize this.
This is fact and finally someone mentioned this. Why only 'target' gepers saying they deprive other in mainstream a place if they DSA into IS/IP schools but their PSLE scores are below COP of the school? Even for mainstreamers, many of them did not meet the COP of the IS/IP schools despite successfully entered via, ironically, DSA. Cut the gepers some slack, please. -
2ppaamm:
Hi Melodies,comfy:
[quote=\"Melodies\"]I thought we already complaint that we have too many exams here in Singapore. Why create one more? Do you think it is a level playing field assessment? Isn't GEP program similar to IP program. GEPpers would have upper hand advantages because you have 3 yrs run up program before the test.
Why don't stick to PSLE exams then? Why created another one? There are many GEPpers did well in PSLE too and scrap all those DSA then? You will never get any agreement on this? Seriously, we don't have all this unfair treatment before the implementation of DSA. All based on PSLE!~
From reading your previous posts, you keeps on harping that it is not fair that Gep kids get into top IP school with lower PSLE score through DSA. But have you ever think that it is precisely that they have been through the 3 yrs GEP programme that they are selected + respectable academic results. You have even acknowledge that (see highlighted) and they are more or less suitable/prepare for IP programme.
So that why, I give my alternative suggestion to have fairer way of getting students into the IP school. Since there are already two groups of students (GEP, mainstream) exist in our system and educated differently, then perhaps a new assessment system might be needed including PSLE exam (since I don't need MOE will abolish it). And of course for this group, no need for DSA.
:? Why are GEPpers more suitable for IP program? What's the difference between IP and non, GEPpers and non? To me, IP and non are the same, except one is through train, GEPpers and non are the same, except for the different curriculum for 3 years. Don't get this... :? Maybe this is where the main difference is... we are talking like parallel lines, close but never meet... [/quote]Oops! I must clarify this. I heard this from more than 1 educator who taught both gep and non and said GEPpers are in 'demand' because of what they have learned/experienced in those 3 years. And from google from KS forum, don't know which thread, I also have this impression. I will only know that whether it is true or not for my dd in 2014 till 2019. :imcool: Whether parallel lines or not, we can always exchange information and understand each other, yeah?! 
(please take a look at Jtoh's post regarding this topic)
-
GEPpers should not be different from any mainstreamer as potential for IP. This makes no sense to me at all. I don't understand this from an academic point of view whatsoever. :? I don't know what has been told by who, but as far as I know, how a child has been taught for the last 3 years cannot affect the kid's potential if we are comparing between GEP and mainstream. IP? No way. IB at Year 5, maybe and I won't even say it is the program they went through, maybe the preference and learning style of the kid. Honestly, I find this claim quite bizarre...
How is it that in most universities, we can take in students from almost any country and from any kind of background with 12 years of education, and in Sec 1, 3 years of education makes a difference? This is just unacceptable to me. Nonsense.
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 š
Register Login