Is GEP really necessary?
-
Melodies:
Sorry Melodies, I have to use your example to point out some flaws in the discussion which you may not be aware of.Hi OSIM, plse try to see the point of (1)NO one here has disputed the need to have the existing GEP program and some think that (2) the program should extend to a wider population like top 25% of the cohort. (3)Some has very good suggestions to modify the existing GEP program to suit those GEPpers who are still bored with the GEP program and are ready for a even higher level than the existing.... .
1. There have been discussion in this thread by various posts to demolish GEP completely. So the 'no one disputed....' is not true.
2. \"The programme should...... top 25%\", do you know if you are doing the children a favour or not? GEP is a self-learning/self-discovery programme. Now MOE already subtly put \"teach less learn more\" in mainstream and it is already killing the kids...including HA and the point is proven that most kids are not suited for this. Are parents going to cry foul again? As it is, parents are so furious with \"Teach Less, Learn More\".. Also, the top 26th, 27th, 28th% will ask you why not top 30%, what is so great about top 25% and the never ending story goes on........ see the vicious cycle here?
3. This is another assumption of the GEP. -
atutor2001:
I respect that you have 3 kids and many friends but how is the high percentage derived? Just purely from your network of friends?
I don't believe in statistical bluff. We can reduce the percentage of HIV by killing them. We can reduce the % of empty flats by demolishing them. But the official reasons given would be that there is an improvement to the health situation or that the take up rate of empty flats has increased. (just example - no truth at all)ksi:
Where do you get this statistics?
Personal knowledge is best. All my kids when to Sec and JC with GEPers in the school and I have been kaypohing on who and who are the top students. Besides the few top GEPers in each cohort, most fade away.
Yes, many will jump in and claim that GEPers does not equate to good exam results. I always wonder - exam which is relatively easier than GEPers curriculum. How can one be a GEPer and not do well in A level (no T-score to distort the result and they get to select the subject of their choice). Then others will say \"oh, GEPers were not interested in exam that is why they don't do well\". This makes me even more puzzled because I always remember gifted people are good in nearly everything they do though they are better in those things they like. Ordinary people are no match to them even for things they dislike. Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo... are not only good in painting. They are scientist, mathematician, poet.... Ya, another group will claim \"we can't expect our gifted kid to be of that level like these greats.\" Ya definitely not such level, but at least should be able to do well in a simple A level exam.
Lastly, what is better then getting feedback from the students themselves. I have 3 kids and many friends. I may not be a tutor but I know many students.
Sorry, but if you can tell us you know JUST ONE COHORT of ALL 500+ kids to come to this conclusion, we can still believe you, at least for that cohort otherwise this unsubstantiated information looks feeble to the extent of being vicious to the children and there is an obvious lack of compassion for this group of children.
When the 99% education is empowered by schools to run its operations, I can totally empathise with the myriad of practices which have caused a great deal of unhappiness and I support its cause for improvement whole-heartedly. When the only 1% is consistently controlled by MOE, I cannot see what unhappiness can there be to seek demolition or improvement, do we think MOE has been operating without experts for this?
PS: Btw, do you know if Leonardo da Vinci ever top in any of his academic studies? I cannot seem to find any records on this. -
ksi:
Sorry Melodies, I have to use your example to point out some flaws in the discussion which you may not be aware of.Melodies:
Hi OSIM, plse try to see the point of (1)NO one here has disputed the need to have the existing GEP program and some think that (2) the program should extend to a wider population like top 25% of the cohort. (3)Some has very good suggestions to modify the existing GEP program to suit those GEPpers who are still bored with the GEP program and are ready for a even higher level than the existing.... .
1. There have been discussion in this thread by various posts to demolish GEP completely. So the 'no one disputed....' is not true.
O, I did'nt know that at least I do not read that, was it earlier posts?
2. \"The programme should...... top 25%\", do you know if you are doing the children a favour or not? GEP is a self-learning/self-discovery programme. Now MOE already subtly put \"teach less learn more\" in mainstream and it is already killing the kids...including HA and the point is proven that most kids are not suited for this. Are parents going to cry foul again? As it is, parents are so furious with \"Teach Less, Learn More\".. Also, the top 26th, 27th, 28th% will ask you why not top 30%, what is so great about top 25% and the never ending story goes on........ see the vicious cycle here?
Honestly, parents cried foul about teach less learn more because there are insufficient resources (such as smaller class size) and supports in term of materials and trained teacher from school and parents have no choice but to engage tutors or subscribe tuition or/and parent finds their own resources to help their dc. When compared to GEP, just realized that there are much more resources/supports given to GEPers whereby they are more pupils who need more than GEPpers.
3. This is another assumption of the GEP.
Which assumption you think is flaw? you mean there are not pitched at a higher level? or assumption of some GEPpers are bored? -
why don’t we look at the END product? meaning what are these 500 GEPers lead their lives?
I know the recent one of the recipient for President Scholarship is a GEPer. -
ksi:
So sorry I do not have statistic of all 500 kids. But just 2 latest cases for your inference :.....
Sorry, but if you can tell us you know JUST ONE COHORT of ALL 500+ kids to come to this conclusion, we can still believe you, at least for that cohort otherwise this unsubstantiated information looks feeble to the extent of being vicious to the children and there is an obvious lack of compassion for this group of children.
When the 99% education is empowered by schools to run its operations, I can totally empathise with the myriad of practices which have caused a great deal of unhappiness and I support its cause for improvement whole-heartedly. When the only 1% is consistently controlled by MOE, I cannot see what unhappiness can there be to seek demolition or improvement, do we think MOE has been operating without experts for this?
A class of 20 with 3 GEPers. 7 students failed 2 subjects or more and all 3 GEPers are in them - ya this is a scary class.
A class of 20 with 5 GEPers - none of them were in the top 3 - ya this is one of the top classes.
Unfortunately don't have sample for an average class.
PS Good that you have great faith in our system. -
atutor2001:
Sorry what class of 20 is this? Intermingling class? Tuition class or secondary class?
So sorry I do not have statistic of all 500 kids. But just 2 latest cases for your inference :
A class of 20 with 3 GEPers. 7 students failed 2 subjects or more and all 3 GEPers are in them - ya this is a scary class.
A class of 20 with 5 GEPers - none of them were in the top 3 - ya this is one of the top classes.
Unfortunately don't have sample for an average class.
PS Good that you have great faith in our system. -
I don’t see how 1 standardized and controlled GEP program can suit all 500 GEPpers as well? There should be one GEPper who is very good in Area A but the other who is very good in area 2. It can’t be all are Leonardo da Vinci, right? No?
-
Melodies:
Hi OSIM, plse try to see the point of NO one here has disputed the need to have the existing GEP program and some think that the program should extend to a wider population like top 25% of the cohort. Some has very good suggestions to modify the existing GEP program to suit those GEPpers who are still bored with the GEP program and are ready for a even higher level than the existing.... .
25% :yikes: , then this is not a specialized program anymore. Many in this 25% are just hardworking and very compliant kids, the GEP is not about nurturing high achievers but to cultivate thinkers.
Honestly, if GEPper ( I didn't say all but some) can't manage to perform in PSLE (which is at a lower level than GEP level) despite all the good resources and extensive materials which are pitched at the higher level.
There is something wrong with the IP program which ignored the foundation required to back you up at a higher level. Like building a house, you need to build a very strong and robust pillar to support your high. That's my analysis based on what I have observed and read so far.
Here we go again, GEP has nothing to do with producing star students in PSLE. In fact if you take science for example, the program curriculum incorporate more experiential learning, a bigger scope in the subject which at times is out of the PSLE context so how can it be to help geppers to perform well in PSLE. In fact they have so little time to do exam type questions even dd science teacher told me we have to chip in to help her do some assessment books just for the sake of exams. The exam hothousing only start after the June holidays for geppers. I want to say here that geppers suffer a lot when mainstream drill comes in. They are train to think rather to react so many problems they handle by analysis from ground up. These kids are very quick to spot ambiguities in questions, they think and infer too much for their own good in exam. Many times, it is not their problem but the problem with poor phrasing of the questions. My dd science teacher got bombarded so bad by the kids she had to ask them to stop questioning the question or they cannot answer the question
Now you see why some geppers don't do as well in the PSLE but it doesn't matter, PSLE is just an exam, the beauty is in the mental training the GEP program gives..
Up to now, I still can't understand why you need to do the drilling for your PSLE grammar/vocabs if you are already in Sec level of grammar/vocab for cloze passages. I'd think that you have not built up the necessary foundation for sec level grammar/vocabs. So, the program should allow this group of GEPers to build up their foundation. I knew that I am going to upset some parents here but I would like to highlight this so that parents are aware of this and can help their GEP ds/dd.
Thanks for your good intention. Just to clarify, in P4/P5, there is no drill or almost no grammar or vocab (this is so for my dd school). It was all about writing, expressing and reading technique. The social studies is the cornerstone of the program that develops their critical thinking skills using social issues, geography and history. In English and SS, philosophy is also incorporated sometimes depending on the teachers style. Grammar only start in P6, vocab is almost needless for geppers as they are mostly avid readers. -
Melodies:
I don't see how 1 standardized and controlled GEP program can suit all 500 GEPpers as well? There should be one GEPper who is very good in Area A but the other who is very good in area 2. It can't be all are Leonardo da Vinci, right? No?
Sorry again Melodies, I believe this has been addressed before by some GEP parents here but not picked up. As I have said before, this is re-iteration to nth degree and no understanding seems to have been established so far. -
Melodies:
got to take it with a barrel of salt, not a pinchYour figures do support the point of GEPpers are higher in demand and TOP IP schools recognize this. :yikes:
Below are just a very rough calculation:
Presumably, average Tscore for GEPpers is 255 and this is top 6% for the whole cohort. There are abt 50k in a cohort so there are abt 3K pupils who have 255 t-score and above. Say all GEPper are evenly distributed to all IS school together with the comparable mainstreamers who has scored 255 and above, hence each school will have= 500/3000 = 16.7% GEPper. The fact is we are seeing higher % of GEPper population than 16.7% in TOP IP schools. There are abt 300 GEPper scored 255tscore n this shd give about 10% of GEPpers population for each IS school if we assume all comparable (based on PSLE score) GEPpers are evenly distributed to all IS schools with their comparable mainstream peers.
The conclusion is GEPpers are higher in demand and TOP IP schools do recognize this and prefer GEPpers to mainstreamers.
Do take the above calculation with a pinch of salts since the data is from KSP forumers and have not been verified with MOE.
what is the number 3000 ? how many IP schools now ?
why is GEPpers in demand ? isn't it the students choose the schools and not the school choose the students ? school can make DSA offers but if the students reject the CO what does it say ?
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
Online Users
Statistics
Popular Topics