Integrated Programme (IP)
-
floppy\" post_id=\"2016339\" time=\"1614659850\" user_id=\"97579:
And the 4% is assuming that the 700 pupils could make it to the U, if I m correct. IP standards should be higher, first time looking at the O Chemistry last night and I seriously feeling mental block!
But that would mean ACSI, SJI, MGS, SOTA and SSP totaled only 700 pupils taking IB every year.MrsKiasu\" post_id=\"2016335\" time=\"1614657634\" user_id=\"43981:
Dont think they mention abt the numbers of drop out..
First, the 4k includes A, IB etc..Then 3300 is those taking A. Unable/not entering autonomous U is 165..if my understanding is correct..
Considering that these are some of the brightest kids, 4% not making the cut to university doesn’t bode well. It’s also a warning button for parents choosing IP to consider the suitability of the programme for the child. -
The 2013 PSLE cohort was ~43,000. All of the IP programmes were up and running then although I don't know if they were the same size as now? So would the starting IP cohort size be 4,300 or 4,000 or lower (compared to 2019 A Levels)?
I did not include SOTA or SSP in the totals. Based on MOE's IP page, these two schools are not included.
https://www.moe.gov.sg/secondary/courses/express/integrated-programme#integrated-programme
I also thought the ACSI/MGS/SJI implied IB figure would be lower than the total number of IB exam takers at these schools since this is only the \"IP\" student intake (and not those that joined IB later). I don't know the exact figure but was guessing ~600 across these three schools plus NUSH.
Lastly, I assumed the 3,300 excluded students that dropped to O Level classes but ultimately took A Levels 2 years later. -
zac's mum\" post_id=\"2016340\" time=\"1614660086\" user_id=\"53606:[quote=\"zac's mum\" post_id=2016340 time=1614660086 user_id=53606]
The intent of IP is to allow the students to broaden their learning experience in both academic/ non-academic areas during the secondary school years. Since they don't need to take the O-levels, they theoretically have more time to do other stuff.
Just throwing out a thought. What if the “streaming”/selection for IP program were to take place at end Sec 3 instead of end P6?
Wouldn’t that be a better predictor of A level results being able to qualify for local U?
Those that score in the top 10% based on end Sec 3 results...get to go IP (create a new name if u wish) and skip O levels.[/quote]
If only the final year is doing IP, then it kinda defeats the purpose since the first 3 years would have been spent preparing for the O-levels.
Unless the intent is to merely increase the % of \"new-IP-or-whatever-the-new-name-is\" students getting into the local U via A-levels. -
Zappy\" post_id=\"2016365\" time=\"1614667902\" user_id=\"134817:
I was under the impression that the current IP program was started with the rationale that those selected kids (top 10% of the cohort, based on PSLE score) would be the exact same segment of the population predicted to enter local U anyway. So they are given IP track and allowed to skip O levels.
The intent of IP is to allow the students to broaden their learning experience in both academic/ non-academic areas during the secondary school years. Since they don't need to take the O-levels, they theoretically have more time to do other stuff.zac's mum\" post_id=\"2016340\" time=\"1614660086\" user_id=\"53606:[quote=\"zac's mum\" post_id=2016340 time=1614660086 user_id=53606]Just throwing out a thought. What if the “streaming”/selection for IP program were to take place at end Sec 3 instead of end P6?
Wouldn’t that be a better predictor of A level results being able to qualify for local U?
Those that score in the top 10% based on end Sec 3 results...get to go IP (create a new name if u wish) and skip O levels.
If only the final year is doing IP, then it kinda defeats the purpose since the first 3 years would have been spent preparing for the O-levels.
Unless the intent is to merely increase the % of \"new-IP-or-whatever-the-new-name-is\" students getting into the local U via A-levels.[/quote]
I am guessing that the parliamentary qn (and the qn on many ppl’s minds) is becos unless there is 100% accuracy in prediction (ie. The outcome of all these IP kids being able to qualify for local U), then IP serves its purpose. But we are seeing 4% of these IP kids sitting for A levels NOT scoring well enough to enter the easiest course in any local U (bearing in mind, the JCs are stringent & typically do not let their students take A levels if they are insufficiently prepared. Eg. They will force students to drop 1 subject if they are predicted to fail it at A level exam).
Reference:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120124212708/http://moe.gov.sg/education/secondary/other/integrated-programme/
“While the GCE ‘O’ Levels serve as a valuable intermediate benchmark for the majority of our pupils, [U]those who are clearly university-bound[/u] can benefit from engaging in broader learning experiences during their Secondary and JC years. The Integrated Programmes (IP) will provide an integrated secondary and JC education where secondary school pupils can proceed to JC without taking the GCE ‘O’ Level Examinations. Schools offering IP will optimise the time freed up from preparing for the GCE ‘O’ Levels to stretch pupils and provide greater breadth in the academic and non-academic curriculum. However, these schools will continue to have school-based assessments to measure pupils’ progress.”
Hence I thought PSLE score is far too early to screen suitable candidates who are “clearly university bound”. End Sec 3 may be better indicator of how they can independently handle their tertiary education. -
Do bear in mind that the university Cohort Participation Rate (i.e. the number of places in local universities, subsidized) is 40% (and rose slightly to 42% last year due to additional places at universities created in view of Covid).
The actual proportion of a cohort who has degree qualification is much higher than 40% - after adding in (1) those on scholarships, as well as self-financing students who go overseas, which is not an insignificant number and (2) those who take up private university courses in Singapore.
So it is not wrong to ‘assume’ or plan on the basis that the IP cohort, given that most of them are at the top 10% at the PSLE stage, should progress on to university eventually.
I think the key in MOE’s policies is that there are many pathways. Even if you are not in the IP programme, many will still make it to the universities, whether ‘screening’ at O levels, A levels, Poly etc - there are pathways to get you to the university. Some longer, some more direct. PSLE is just one of the ‘screening’ points and even then, it is not a guaranteed path. -
zac's mum\" post_id=\"2016374\" time=\"1614670622\" user_id=\"53606:[quote=\"zac's mum\" post_id=2016374 time=1614670622 user_id=53606]
Well, you're not wrong... I suppose that the initial assumption has to be that these kids will be the same group, hence free up their time to broaden their other experiences.
I was under the impression that the current IP program was started with the rationale that those selected kids (top 10% of the cohort, based on PSLE score) would be the exact same segment of the population predicted to enter local U anyway. So they are given IP track and allowed to skip O levels.
Reference:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120124212708/http://moe.gov.sg/education/secondary/other/integrated-programme/
Hence I thought PSLE score is far too early to screen suitable candidates who are “clearly university bound”. End Sec 3 may be better indicator of how they can independently handle their tertiary education.[/quote]
In the reference link, it does say that
\"Schools offering IP will optimise the time freed up from preparing for the GCE ‘O’ Levels to stretch pupils and provide greater breadth in the academic and non-academic curriculum.\"
Even in the current MOE website, it says \"As students need not sit for the GCE O-Level examination in Secondary 4, they will engage in a broader range of learning experiences in both academic and non-academic areas.\"
https://www.moe.gov.sg/secondary/courses/express/integrated-programme
So while they can screen/ stream at Sec 3, there's really not much point and time to allow this broadening of learning experiences to only take place in Sec 4. -
Just to share -
In the IP program - they can accelerate the process / teaching …
And by end Sec 2 (Year 2)- can finished the O level syllabus.
As the kids learn faster and retain better (the traits of smarter kids) - we can give them more work and in greater depth.
For example
When I was teaching in RGS Year 1 Science. I was teaching them Chemical formula and bonding.
This is usually taught in Sec 3 Chem Term 2.
So they are far ahead
In NUSH - then when my children were there under Prof Lai’s time
They learned mole concept in Year 1 (in Main stream school - this is taught at end of Sec 3 or Start of Sec 4)
By Year 2 - they have enough knowledge to take the GCE O levels.
There were also some A level physics that were taught in Year 1
and Some Uni Mathematics concepts that were taught in Year 1 too.
Resilience LC
Mr Matthew Ng -
ResilienceLC\" post_id=\"2016406\" time=\"1614691188\" user_id=\"191449:
My opinion as a mother, not a teacher:
Just to share -
In the IP program - they can accelerate the process / teaching ..
And by end Sec 2 (Year 2)- can finished the O level syllabus.
...
They \"can\", I suppose, but I don't think they do. My daughter was in RGS a few years ago, but I doubt things would have changed drastically. From what I saw, some topics are taught earlier than in the O level syllabus, but equally, some topics might be covered later. Overall, they probably do more than the O level syllabus, but it didn't seem that they completed the O level syllabus in 2 years. And then what would they spend the other 2 years doing? They didn't cover the A level syllabus in Y3-4.
Just because a topic normally covered in higher years are introduced in earlier years in RGS doesn't mean that they have covered all the other material in between at the same depth. Often, it's just a rearrangement of the order of topics, and a light intro to a more advanced topic, not that they are expected to master them to the level of a university student.
I can't speak for NUSH. But kids' brains are still developing conceptual thinking into their late teens, so I would doubt that they can grasp the full complexities of some of those higher-level concepts when they are younger. An intro, yes, but a full grasp - I think unlikely. -
slmkhoo\" post_id=\"2016435\" time=\"1614730841\" user_id=\"28674:
Ya, I agree.
They \"can\", I suppose, but I don't think they do. My daughter was in RGS a few years ago, but I doubt things would have changed drastically. From what I saw, some topics are taught earlier than in the O level syllabus, but equally, some topics might be covered later. Overall, they probably do more than the O level syllabus, but it didn't seem that they completed the O level syllabus in 2 years. And then what would they spend the other 2 years doing? They didn't cover the A level syllabus in Y3-4.
My daughter's in IP Y3 now. They were certainly far from completing the O-level syllabus in Y2 last year. At the most, they had some intro to one or two Y3 topics then. Also, they hadn't selected their subject combinations, so it's also not possible to teach, much less complete, the various O-level Sciences or Humanities.
For parents who are debating internally whether to place their children into IP if the chance presents itself... what I noticed was that they are given a lot more opportunities to do stuff like presentations, group projects. In the last 2 years, they do much fewer exam-like activities like essays/ comprehensions for subjects like Language Arts. Even some of the weighted assessments are based on speeches, screencast presentations, story-telling, group work as opposed to the traditional written papers.
The negative part of doing all that during the school year? => The EOY is still the traditional exam!
-
Yeah I agree with parents above. My girls are in Year 3 and 5 now. In fact I feel that the school covers lesser syllabus materials than what an O level school would cover in lower sec. The skillsets they picked up are mostly investigative, analytical, oratorical and computing skills when bulk of assessments are project-based. Come upper sec, there will be lesser projects but more pen/paper assessments and contents-grilling ie same topics as O but maybe the tutorial or exam qns are not as straight forward. At the end of the day when they go Year5, I think they are equally trained in contents as the JAE so really no difference.
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