Is GEP really necessary?
-
verykiasu2010:
really ? I did not do well in my A level, I am allowed to use the school's name, and even invited back to teach, and a proud alumni[/quote]You ought to be proud of your school.
Yes, cruel reality. It has been happening for years and years, and always under wraps... what are we doing to the next generation? :nailbite: What values are we imparting them? Let's not create 上等社会下等人。2ppaamm:
[quote=\"ruohoo97\"]
When there is a sport competition, those top medalist please go and get honours for the school, ditto for all the different competitions, because the school has to be 'balanced' (but not necessarily the children), and then if they don't do well academically and hence might affect the school's 'A' levels results, they are asked to take 'O' levels as a private candidates and then, please leave the school? Hm... so much for spreading, so much for building balanced schools that excel in everything. At the expense of the child? Of course, though I have a problem of agreeing, I do see merits in doing so, we are teaching the child that when he is no more of an utility, then the consequence is dire - cruel but reality of life. Treasure every lesson, I guess. :roll:
Just had a lunch with one mother who told me a \"horrible\" story about a student from one of TOP schools here. This student was DSAed into the school, but for some reason, she was not copying well, by the time of A level, she was barred to take A level as school student, but registered as private candidate, if she passed A level, she could use her school name, if not she would not be allowed even use school name in her reportcard.
:scared:
Very cruel reality indeed!
But inviting the alumni back has nothing to lose for the school. The first case I heard of (at that time, I refused to believe) was a tennis player born in 1988 (for those who do not know, even before DSA, schools were already taking in good sports people through back or side or whatever door they call that). In those days, the school was not an IP school and students his age had to do 'O' levels, he was to take it as a private candidate. He subsequently left Singapore and now plays in the US (I am not sure he eventually took his 'O' levels or left without taking as it didn't matter to him, O levels was not recognized where he wanted to go). I know of at least 5 people in the last 5 years, who were kicked out midstream in IP schools and went to do 'O' levels already. You can easily find them, they are mostly famous sports teens who represent Singapore in very prestigious competitions and win medals for the nation. You will read about them taking 'O' levels, so far, I only know of 1 case where she wanted to do so for her own sake, the rest left lost, and some have to repeat their Year 5 so that they will not pull down their school results.
I won't be naming the school
guess why? Unfortunately, I believe, everything has its price, DSA sports has its price as well, ditto for everything else.
-
verykiasu2010, I know HCI / DHS has 1 class for taking ‘O’ Level because the schools think that it’d be better for them to take ‘O’ level.
How about RI? Do they have the same ‘O’ level class like HCI/DHS? -
Melodies:
The P of HCI said not an official class, but whatever the group size...they consider their duty to make sure the boys don't drop out. Same for other schoolsverykiasu2010, I know HCI / DHS has 1 class for taking 'O' Level because the schools think that it'd be better for them to take 'O' level.
How about RI? Do they have the same 'O' level class like HCI/DHS?
I heard RI is considering so officially, but hearsay only still....in the past they provide extra coaching for those falling behind...and extensive counselling for the parents to let the kids remain -
http://stopthe-pretence.blogspot.sg/2012/03/truth-behind-my-jc-life.html
above blog is provided by snow crystal in another thread. I thought it interesting to share with you here too. -
ruohoo97:
Actually her results were pretty good, relative to what she got in school.http://stopthe-pretence.blogspot.sg/2012/03/truth-behind-my-jc-life.html
above blog is provided by snow crystal in another thread. I thought it interesting to share with you here too. -
An article written by an ex-Singaporean. Have fun reading! http://thestar.com.my/education/story.asp?file=/2012/9/2/education/11921793&sec=education
What's interesting is the Dunning-Kruger effect, which I think is so true in schools today. We need better teachers, and train them to understand all kids are different, some will be brighter than them, and they will have to accept that. Especially GEP teachers. They need NOT be gifted, but they need to understand giftedness, otherwise, they will always pick children they can relate to in order to teach effectively. :nailbite:
-
Learning as Freedom
By MICHAEL S. ROTH
The New York Times 6 Sep 2012
IN March, a task force organized by the Council on Foreign Relations tried to reframe the problems of the nation’s public schools as a threat to national security. “Large, undereducated swaths of the population damage the ability of the United States to physically defend itself, protect its secure information, conduct diplomacy, and grow its economy,” it warned, while also referring to students as “human capital.”
While the report focused on K-12 education and called for better college preparedness, its instrumentalist rhetoric has remarkable affinities with that of critics who see higher education as outmoded. Conservative scholars like Charles Murray, Richard Vedder and Peter W. Wood ask why people destined for low-paying jobs should bother to pursue their education beyond high school, much less study philosophy, literature and history. The venture capitalist Peter Thiel has offered money to would-be entrepreneurs to quit college and focus on Web-based start-ups instead. Business school professors like Clayton M. Christensen tell us that “disruptive innovation” is causing liberal-arts learning to be “disintermediated” so as to deliver just what the “end user” needs.
From this narrow, instrumentalist perspective, students are consumers buying a customized playlist of knowledge.
This critique may be new, but the call for a more narrowly tailored education — especially for Americans with limited economic prospects — is not. A century ago, organizations as varied as chambers of commerce and labor federations backed plans for a dual system of teaching, wherein some students would be trained for specific occupations, while others would get a broad education allowing them to continue their studies in college. The movement led to the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, which financed vocational education, initially for jobs in agriculture and then in other industries.
The philosopher John Dewey, America’s most influential thinker on education, opposed this effort. Though he was open to integrating manual training in school curriculums, Dewey opposed the dual-track system because he recognized that it would reinforce the inequalities of his time. Wouldn’t such a system have the same result today?
To be sure, Dewey recognized the necessity of gainful employment. “The world in which most of us live is a world in which everyone has a calling and occupation, something to do,” he wrote. “Some are managers and others are subordinates. But the great thing for one as for the other is that each shall have had the education which enables him to see within his daily work all there is in it of large and human significance.”
Education should aim to enhance our capacities, Dewey argued, so that we are not reduced to mere tools. “The kind of vocational education in which I am interested is not one which will ‘adapt’ workers to the existing industrial regime; I am not sufficiently in love with the regime for that.” Are we?
Who wants to attend school to learn to be “human capital”? Who aspires for their children to become economic or military resources? Dewey had a different vision. Given the pace of change, it is impossible (he noted in 1897) to know what the world will be like in a couple of decades, so schools first and foremost should teach us habits of learning.
For Dewey, these habits included awareness of our interdependence; nobody is an expert on everything. He emphasized “plasticity,” an openness to being shaped by experience: “The inclination to learn from life itself and to make the conditions of life such that all will learn in the process of living is the finest product of schooling.”
The inclination to learn from life can be taught in a liberal arts curriculum, but also in schools that focus on real-world skills, from engineering to nursing. The key is to develop habits of mind that allow students to keep learning, even as they acquire skills to get things done. This combination will serve students as individuals, family members and citizens — not just as employees and managers.
Higher education faces stark challenges: the ravaging of public universities’ budgets by strained state and local governments; ever rising tuition and student debt; inadequate student achievement; the corrosive impact of soaring inequality; and the neglect by some elite institutions of their core mission of teaching undergraduates.
But these problems, however urgent, should not cause us to neglect Dewey’s insight that learning in the process of living is the deepest form of freedom. In a nation that aspires to democracy, that’s what education is primarily for: the cultivation of freedom within society. We should not think of schools as garrisons protecting us from enemies, nor as industries generating human capital. Rather, higher education’s highest purpose is to give all citizens the opportunity to find “large and human significance” in their lives and work.
Michael S. Roth, the president of Wesleyan University, is the author, most recently, of “Memory, Trauma and History: Essays on Living With the Past.” -
cherryc:
... and perhaps the reason for the liberal arts school Yale-NUS that is being set up, with a cute compromise that defeats its purpose of existence, and at a great cost.Learning as Freedom
By MICHAEL S. ROTH
The New York Times 6 Sep 2012
IN March, a task force organized by the Council on Foreign Relations tried to reframe the problems of the nation’s public schools as a threat to national security. “Large, undereducated swaths of the population damage the ability of the United States to physically defend itself, protect its secure information, conduct diplomacy, and grow its economy,” it warned, while also referring to students as “human capital.”
While the report focused on K-12 education and called for better college preparedness, its instrumentalist rhetoric has remarkable affinities with that of critics who see higher education as outmoded. Conservative scholars like Charles Murray, Richard Vedder and Peter W. Wood ask why people destined for low-paying jobs should bother to pursue their education beyond high school, much less study philosophy, literature and history. The venture capitalist Peter Thiel has offered money to would-be entrepreneurs to quit college and focus on Web-based start-ups instead. Business school professors like Clayton M. Christensen tell us that “disruptive innovation” is causing liberal-arts learning to be “disintermediated” so as to deliver just what the “end user” needs.
From this narrow, instrumentalist perspective, students are consumers buying a customized playlist of knowledge.
This critique may be new, but the call for a more narrowly tailored education — especially for Americans with limited economic prospects — is not. A century ago, organizations as varied as chambers of commerce and labor federations backed plans for a dual system of teaching, wherein some students would be trained for specific occupations, while others would get a broad education allowing them to continue their studies in college. The movement led to the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, which financed vocational education, initially for jobs in agriculture and then in other industries.
The philosopher John Dewey, America’s most influential thinker on education, opposed this effort. Though he was open to integrating manual training in school curriculums, Dewey opposed the dual-track system because he recognized that it would reinforce the inequalities of his time. Wouldn’t such a system have the same result today?
To be sure, Dewey recognized the necessity of gainful employment. “The world in which most of us live is a world in which everyone has a calling and occupation, something to do,” he wrote. “Some are managers and others are subordinates. But the great thing for one as for the other is that each shall have had the education which enables him to see within his daily work all there is in it of large and human significance.”
Education should aim to enhance our capacities, Dewey argued, so that we are not reduced to mere tools. “The kind of vocational education in which I am interested is not one which will ‘adapt’ workers to the existing industrial regime; I am not sufficiently in love with the regime for that.” Are we?
Who wants to attend school to learn to be “human capital”? Who aspires for their children to become economic or military resources? Dewey had a different vision. Given the pace of change, it is impossible (he noted in 1897) to know what the world will be like in a couple of decades, so schools first and foremost should teach us habits of learning.
For Dewey, these habits included awareness of our interdependence; nobody is an expert on everything. He emphasized “plasticity,” an openness to being shaped by experience: “The inclination to learn from life itself and to make the conditions of life such that all will learn in the process of living is the finest product of schooling.”
The inclination to learn from life can be taught in a liberal arts curriculum, but also in schools that focus on real-world skills, from engineering to nursing. The key is to develop habits of mind that allow students to keep learning, even as they acquire skills to get things done. This combination will serve students as individuals, family members and citizens — not just as employees and managers.
Higher education faces stark challenges: the ravaging of public universities’ budgets by strained state and local governments; ever rising tuition and student debt; inadequate student achievement; the corrosive impact of soaring inequality; and the neglect by some elite institutions of their core mission of teaching undergraduates.
But these problems, however urgent, should not cause us to neglect Dewey’s insight that learning in the process of living is the deepest form of freedom. In a nation that aspires to democracy, that’s what education is primarily for: the cultivation of freedom within society. We should not think of schools as garrisons protecting us from enemies, nor as industries generating human capital. Rather, higher education’s highest purpose is to give all citizens the opportunity to find “large and human significance” in their lives and work.
Michael S. Roth, the president of Wesleyan University, is the author, most recently, of “Memory, Trauma and History: Essays on Living With the Past.”
When asked why she wants to go to university so young once, she said, \"Academic freedom, I want to learn what I want to learn, and I don't want the kind of life where I exist just to get A's\" But DD1 studies so hard and refuses to go to sleep each night, just because there's so much she wants to learn and find out for herself.
The education system is a problem in Singapore. Otherwise, it is the perfect place on earth to live in, she believes. But, you know, I told her, the education system is so tough, many people stop having more children, and we have to resort to migrants, which then sets off another set of problem. Education system can have social, economic, psychological and so many other effects. Of course we have a sound system, my predicament is whether we need to have a perfect system to show the world, or should we have a system that focuses on and services its people. -
2ppaamm,
Have u watch Michelle Obama Speak to the Democratic National Convention?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUpN6klYP9o
She's a very good speaker. My DH showed it to my sons & I just finished watching it.
:offtopic: -
Mychildren:
Great speech (and speech writer). How I wished people, especially those who found a way, will , \"And, he believes that when you worked hard and done well and walked through that doorway of opportunity, you do not slam it shut behind you. No, you reach back and you give others the same chance that help you succeed. \"2ppaamm,
Have u watch Michelle Obama Speak to the Democratic National Convention?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUpN6klYP9o
She's a very good speaker. My DH showed it to my sons & I just finished watching it.
:offtopic:
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