7 New IP schools
-
kiasu being kiasu, I think there is no stopping pupils trying DSA at end of Sec 2 and end of Sec 4 again, and there will be some criss-crossing between the IP schools…lol
-
jtoh:
Partnering up with their respective affiliated JCs is more easily said than done. They are in different locations. And if Saint Nick, Cat High and SJi going to partner up with CJC, there will be four locations and you will end up with same resource problem. Moreover IP programme is not supposed to be just about \"skipping O levels\", it should be a SEAMLESS education from sec1 to JC2. If they are going to let each schools run their own IP programme and then just skip the O level and then join the affiliated JC, there isn't much change in real substance and it defeat the purpose.
You raise a valid point. I suppose these schools have to find the right partner in an established JC. Hence MGS-ACJC/ACSI or SJI/CJC seem obvious and natural choices.WeiHan:
Some of the schools that didn't get IP status have some of their top students draining away in the last few years. Examples are Saint Nick, SCGS etc...
Concern about IP in these schools that have smaller pocket of \"university bounded\" students is that they will not have enough threshold number of students to offer all the A level subjects. For example, if the school has only 50 students doing IP, and out of this 50 students, 15 want to do humanities subjects like literature, history, geography and 35 wants to do science subjects. And when under humanities subjects and science subjects, there are many more subject combinations. Will MOE just send teachers to teach classes with just a few to 10 students? Wouldn't it be very resource taxing. This problem is OK for ACSI because they are independent school and rich and can employ extra teachers to handle the situation. Will the subject combinations in these smaller IP schools be restricted then? -
I think IP should be implemented in like all of you said, the consistent band 1 schools but there must be a COP for that too such as an average of A2s so as to ensure that only those who will pass "A" levels will get into a JC.
This is because if students whom are faring badly enter IP, they would most likely fail the "A" levels and be unemplyed for most times in this highly competitive world. Their highest education would be the PSLE as they will not have the "O" levels to "back them up". -
WeiHan:
Partnering up with their respective affiliated JCs is more easily said than done. They are in different locations. And if Saint Nick, Cat High and SJi going to partner up with CJC, there will be four locations and you will end up with same resource problem. Moreover IP programme is not supposed to be just about \"skipping O levels\", it should be a SEAMLESS education from sec1 to JC2. If they are going to let each schools run their own IP programme and then just skip the O level and then join the affiliated JC, there isn't much change in real substance and it defeat the purpose.[/quote]I remember for CHS & SNGS & SJI, one of the original proposal they had for IP submitted to MOE just before the IP applications closed some years ago, was for students of these 3 schools to eg. continue to year 5 or 6 in CHS or SJI. That's a little like the NYGH model. Even RGS goes to RI for year 5 or 6 now at a totally different location.
You raise a valid point. I suppose these schools have to find the right partner in an established JC. Hence MGS-ACJC/ACSI or SJI/CJC seem obvious and natural choices.jtoh:
[quote=\"WeiHan\"]Some of the schools that didn't get IP status have some of their top students draining away in the last few years. Examples are Saint Nick, SCGS etc...
Concern about IP in these schools that have smaller pocket of \"university bounded\" students is that they will not have enough threshold number of students to offer all the A level subjects. For example, if the school has only 50 students doing IP, and out of this 50 students, 15 want to do humanities subjects like literature, history, geography and 35 wants to do science subjects. And when under humanities subjects and science subjects, there are many more subject combinations. Will MOE just send teachers to teach classes with just a few to 10 students? Wouldn't it be very resource taxing. This problem is OK for ACSI because they are independent school and rich and can employ extra teachers to handle the situation. Will the subject combinations in these smaller IP schools be restricted then?
I like the extra option. I don't hope my ds2 go to HCI for example bc of certain reasons not related to the academic side and hopes he remains he chS, so with the option of IP, it'd be good. Whether he makes it into the stream, well, that's another story that is really up to him. -
powershengyang:
If an IP student has been doing fine in the course and for some reason, eg gfbf issues, do badly in the 'A' level, they should be given a second chance to stay in the same school to re-do 'A' level.
This is because if students whom are faring badly enter IP, they would most likely fail the \"A\" levels and be unemplyed for most times in this highly competitive world. Their highest education would be the PSLE as they will not have the \"O\" levels to \"back them up\". -
phankao:
I remember for CHS & SNGS & SJI, one of the original proposal they had for IP submitted to MOE just before the IP applications closed some years ago, was for students of these 3 schools to eg. continue to year 5 or 6 in CHS or SJI. That's a little like the NYGH model. Even RGS goes to RI for year 5 or 6 now at a totally different location.
Partnering up with their respective affiliated JCs is more easily said than done. They are in different locations. And if Saint Nick, Cat High and SJi going to partner up with CJC, there will be four locations and you will end up with same resource problem. Moreover IP programme is not supposed to be just about \"skipping O levels\", it should be a SEAMLESS education from sec1 to JC2. If they are going to let each schools run their own IP programme and then just skip the O level and then join the affiliated JC, there isn't much change in real substance and it defeat the purpose.WeiHan:
[quote=\"jtoh\"]
You raise a valid point. I suppose these schools have to find the right partner in an established JC. Hence MGS-ACJC/ACSI or SJI/CJC seem obvious and natural choices.
[/quote]I thought NYGH does not have its own Year 5 and 6? -
jtoh:
I see the new 7 IPs as more like 2nd tier IP schools. So if there's any dilution in COP for IP schools, they're more likely for the less popular existing IP schools.
So ACS(I) is a 2nd-tier IP school in your eyes? -
phankao:
I'd say RI/RGS and HCI/NYGH are head and shoulders above the rest. ACS(I) is working very hard to join the ranks but is still not up there with them, in my opinion.jtoh:
I see the new 7 IPs as more like 2nd tier IP schools. So if there's any dilution in COP for IP schools, they're more likely for the less popular existing IP schools.
So ACS(I) is a 2nd-tier IP school in your eyes? -
ApronMama:
Maybe they should consider the option but wont it seem unfair to others? If a student usually does well, all A1s, the worst he can do is maybe all C5s. The government would not let people retain because of this as you still pass. Those wh maybe have an average of F9 should have the chance to retain but there will be just this feeling of unfairness in the hearts of the other pupils
If an IP student has been doing fine in the course and for some reason, eg gfbf issues, do badly in the 'A' level, they should be given a second chance to stay in the same school to re-do 'A' level.powershengyang:
This is because if students whom are faring badly enter IP, they would most likely fail the \"A\" levels and be unemplyed for most times in this highly competitive world. Their highest education would be the PSLE as they will not have the \"O\" levels to \"back them up\". -
wonderm:
Yes, NYGH goes on to HCI across the road. RGS as well, no year 5 & 6.
I thought NYGH does not have its own Year 5 and 6?phankao:
I remember for CHS & SNGS & SJI, one of the original proposal they had for IP submitted to MOE just before the IP applications closed some years ago, was for students of these 3 schools to eg. continue to year 5 or 6 in CHS or SJI. That's a little like the NYGH model. Even RGS goes to RI for year 5 or 6 now at a totally different location.
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