Is GEP really necessary?
-
2ppaamm:
:goodpost: :goodpost:Melodies:
This is exactly my point! If they think they r ready for a higher level or even boarded scopes, by all mean, pls give them the environment/alternative to learn themself since they r gifted! Why need to give them a smaller class size where there r kids need smaller class than them to get teacher attention to cope! Gifted kids just need pointer/direction to proceed on their own n u don't need to teach them. As such, u don't need to give them smaller class since u don't teach them. There r already many cases proved that high ability whose r not selected for gep can accelerate themself n managed to learn other than plse or even higher level n got into university at the tender age. It will be a shame if the gep kid can't make it if other higher ability can manage. If this is the case, That said a lot abt gep selection.
Can't help but be tempted to chip in here. I agree that the cohort of our GEP students using the GEP selection methodologies results in top 1% of students who are generalists, which means, these students will do well whether or not they are given special attention and small classes. Firstly, if they have to be good in both literacy and numeracy department to qualify, they are good learners and need no special attention. Hence, even if they are in a class size of 50, they will cope very well.
There are two groups of people who need small class sizes much more than the GEP students: the very gifted ones which are not necessarily good in two areas, who will need special attention, and those who fall below the average mark, who would do much better if given a smaller student-teacher ratio.
Dr Deborah Ruf wrote about the 5 levels of giftedness, something that is totally ignored in our GEP program. There are differences in the way we should handle such differences. However, under the name that the class size is too 'big' (25), the GEP kids are then handled homogeneously, which automatically reverts us back to the lowest level of giftedness, which means they are expected to behave, think and taught like high achievers rather than gifted individuals. High achievers need no special attention. They will achieve anyway. So, I'd say the GEP program makes little difference to the current GEPers who will excel in any kind of classroom.
A group totally left out are those who are at the level 5 of giftedness, which means more often than not, they will not fit into any school environment. It is not about behavior or socio-being. It is them. Such children simply do not function like other people. They think strangely, they act strangely and they have philosophical thinking beyond even their grade school teachers. Such beings suffer greatly in our GEP system, and our schools. Interestingly, from experience, once these children get into the university and get to meet people of their kind, they become at home with themselves. The sad thing is, in Singapore, with all those school-conditioning, by the time they get into university to meet the professors who understand them, they would have lost much of their special thinking abilities and 'prowess', resorting to mediocrity to survive. Hence, I again question why GEP if this group is not even catered for.
Another group that need small class size are those who fall below the average or those who hover around there. There are children who cannot afford tuition, who do not have parents who can guide them. Reducing class size for such children will make things completely different for them. The effect of putting our teaching resources into this area, I believe, will be greater than putting them into GEP. Moreover, GEP students, given the current culture, tend to come from better families and more educated parents, who can afford their education anyway. I feel the state should look into the needs of those who need more support.
Just my 2 cents' worth of thoughts after jumping around in the education system, in and out of GEP and decided that my youngest won't sit for the selection test afterall. We don't need that branding to tell him he will excel beyond his own imagination...
Lastly, the only thing a parent should ever want their child to be is normal, especially if the kid is so gifted he stands out just being himself. Sad thing is, with GEP, parents strive to brand their kids and make them different. O, just if they know the price they'd have to pay for doing so... :skeptical: -
:goodpost:
Agreed with all your points especially the high-lighted part. Given the limited teaching resources that we have, shouldn't we put them into a better use and help the most needed one and stretched resources and benefit the most students.2ppaamm:
Can't help but be tempted to chip in here. I agree that the cohort of our GEP students using the GEP selection methodologies results in top 1% of students who are generalists, which means, these students will do well whether or not they are given special attention and small classes. Firstly, if they have to be good in both literacy and numeracy department to qualify, they are good learners and need no special attention. Hence, even if they are in a class size of 50, they will cope very well.Melodies:
This is exactly my point! If they think they r ready for a higher level or even boarded scopes, by all mean, pls give them the environment/alternative to learn themself since they r gifted! Why need to give them a smaller class size where there r kids need smaller class than them to get teacher attention to cope! Gifted kids just need pointer/direction to proceed on their own n u don't need to teach them. As such, u don't need to give them smaller class since u don't teach them. There r already many cases proved that high ability whose r not selected for gep can accelerate themself n managed to learn other than plse or even higher level n got into university at the tender age. It will be a shame if the gep kid can't make it if other higher ability can manage. If this is the case, That said a lot abt gep selection.
There are two groups of people who need small class sizes much more than the GEP students: the very gifted ones which are not necessarily good in two areas, who will need special attention, and those who fall below the average mark, who would do much better if given a smaller student-teacher ratio.
Dr Deborah Ruf wrote about the 5 levels of giftedness, something that is totally ignored in our GEP program. There are differences in the way we should handle such differences. However, under the name that the class size is too 'big' (25), the GEP kids are then handled homogeneously, which automatically reverts us back to the lowest level of giftedness, which means they are expected to behave, think and taught like high achievers rather than gifted individuals. High achievers need no special attention. They will achieve anyway. So, I'd say the GEP program makes little difference to the current GEPers who will excel in any kind of classroom.
A group totally left out are those who are at the level 5 of giftedness, which means more often than not, they will not fit into any school environment. It is not about behavior or socio-being. It is them. Such children simply do not function like other people. They think strangely, they act strangely and they have philosophical thinking beyond even their grade school teachers. Such beings suffer greatly in our GEP system, and our schools. Interestingly, from experience, once these children get into the university and get to meet people of their kind, they become at home with themselves. The sad thing is, in Singapore, with all those school-conditioning, by the time they get into university to meet the professors who understand them, they would have lost much of their special thinking abilities and 'prowess', resorting to mediocrity to survive. Hence, I again question why GEP if this group is not even catered for.
Another group that need small class size are those who fall below the average or those who hover around there. There are children who cannot afford tuition, who do not have parents who can guide them. Reducing class size for such children will make things completely different for them. The effect of putting our teaching resources into this area, I believe, will be greater than putting them into GEP. Moreover, GEP students, given the current culture, tend to come from better families and more educated parents, who can afford their education anyway. I feel the state should look into the needs of those who need more support.
Just my 2 cents' worth of thoughts after jumping around in the education system, in and out of GEP and decided that my youngest won't sit for the selection test afterall. We don't need that branding to tell him he will excel beyond his own imagination...
Lastly, the only thing a parent should ever want their child to be is normal, especially if the kid is so gifted he stands out just being himself. Sad thing is, with GEP, parents strive to brand their kids and make them different. O, just if they know the price they'd have to pay for doing so... :skeptical: -
My kids are in a different system and something most Singaporeans think ‘inferior’ as we have been taught that our system is the best in the world. Let me run through what a surprise I got when I found out what the boys are doing.
My 12 year old (supposed to be P6 GEP this year) came home frowning that he did not really follow his class of his age peers. (He is dual enrolled in a primary school full-time with his age peers as well as full-time university program) His class is not your GEP or anything like that, there’s no such thing here. But what we have is just small class size of 25, though his class is that of higher ability. They were doing advanced trigonometry, and my son had not covered that topic yet, though he is very advanced in algebra (university level). So in desperation, he tuned in to Khan academy and picked up and got up to speed on sin, cos, their graphs and all those identities within a day or two.
So do we need GEP to help a child excel? My opinion is no, but with a small class size, good teachers with excellent motivation skills and an inquiry system, a child can excel and perform beyond his imagination. He said he would pick up Calculus by end of the year as well as learn Python programming. Will his teachers teach him? No. His professor told him that he should really look into it, download it into his computer and start cracking whenever he is ready. The professor asked him if he knew where to look for resources, he said he would surf out the tutorials on the internet and download the free resources. Here, parents and tutors are not involved in school work. As a mum, I only listen to his problems, don’t solve them.
My 9 year old came home today telling me about the different supernovas and soil conditions around the world. He wasn’t taught, he researched all of that out. He was given cues and asked to do whatever he wants.
To top it all, I did not pay a cent for their education. I simply sent them to a public school within the catchment where we are entitled free education. The private school I wanted to send them was full.
GEP is great, no doubt about it. But in my opinion, it is only great because of the kind of students they managed to attract, and the kind of parents these children come from. Good input, good output. And, that bell curve technique used by MOE works so well in our kiasu society, as long as it is there, it becomes an automated machine and parents just keep getting their children to chase it via tuition or external help. It is a well-oiled gadget that produces good academic results nevertheless. So good, that it is no longer necessary to put in great measures, great programs or attract great people to teach. -
Actually, I beg to differ. GEP teachers are carefully selected and trained by GE Branch. However, they are not trained to be able to teach GE students more stuff out of the curriculum than other mainstream students. They cannot answer all the (mostly philosophical) questions GEP kids ask them. But they are tasked with encouraging the kid to discover and nurture his/her interest. They are more like facilitators, able to guide GEP kids into discovering their own interests.
I support small class sizes for everyone, but I disagree that focusing more resources on those who fare poorly will necessarily justify the resources spent. We all know that most of those who fail examinations are mainly because they are lazy or don’t pay attention in class. The average Singaporean kid will easily score good (not necessarily fantastic) grades if he/she studies meticulously.
To resolve this problem, the obvious answer is to make lessons more engaging and create a culture of curiosity, encouraging students to find out more about their interests. This is a natural feature of GEP kids, but other kids may need some help.
However, here comes the conundrum: How do we engage kids and boost their interest? Perhaps, the onus is on parents to help nurture a kid’s interest in studies, since they know their kids the best and how to motivate them (Parents:Kids can be as low as 2:1, but Teachers:Students is 1:40). Also, MOE can lessen the focus on tests and exams in primary school, have more hands-on/field work and encourage teachers to have an open mind towards intelligent questions at the correct time (not disruptive questions while the teacher is speaking). -
ForumWriter:
Actually, I beg to differ. GEP teachers are carefully selected and trained by GE Branch. However, they are not trained to be able to teach GE students more stuff out of the curriculum than other mainstream students. They cannot answer all the (mostly philosophical) questions GEP kids ask them. But they are tasked with encouraging the kid to discover and nurture his/her interest. They are more like facilitators, able to guide GEP kids into discovering their own interests.
If GEP teachers are not trained to answer the mostly philosophical questions, then why are they GEP teachers because that is the main feature of giftedness. If we are only handling high ability children, then there is no need to segregate these children into smaller classes, because high ability children can survive and thrive in bigger classes.[quote]I support small class sizes for everyone, but I disagree that focusing more resources on those who fare poorly will necessarily justify the resources spent. We all know that most of those who fail examinations are mainly because they are lazy or don't pay attention in class. The average Singaporean kid will easily score good (not necessarily fantastic) grades if he/she studies meticulously. [/quote]There are those who fare poorly because they are lazy (btw, no child is lazy at P1 as far as I know, it is a matter of coping and motivation), or because they are out of their depths. And especially those really average or hovering around there. Those are the ones who can benefit most from the extra attention in class. I also do not agree that an average Singaporean kid will score good grades. Not withstanding that my own kids all manage to cope well in the system. I know of too many who struggle with parental help. Many go for tuition. So, no, I cannot put every child who do not do well under the lazy blanket.[quote]To resolve this problem, the obvious answer is to make lessons more engaging and create a culture of curiosity, encouraging students to find out more about their interests. This is a natural feature of GEP kids, but other kids may need some help.[/quote]How true! And herein lies the question of the quality of teachers we attract. From the top down, there is little effort to attract our best to teach. Most teachers (sorry for being frank here) teach because like my daughter said either out of passion or desperation, and often the latter. My own relatives who teach say the same thing about their choice of profession. Making lessons more engaging and challenging for children should not be the feature of GEP alone, it should be the feature of ALL our classes, and teachers should be trained to do that, instead of worrying about their own KPIs. As it is, they are so pressurized to perform, many choose to push the responsibilities to parents, which I feel is wrong. If anything, it is the non GEP kids who need motivation and nurturing more than the GEP children, because the latter are naturally good learners and already motivated.[quote]However, here comes the conundrum: How do we engage kids and boost their interest? Perhaps, the onus is on parents to help nurture a kid's interest in studies, since they know their kids the best and how to motivate them (Parents:Kids can be as low as 2:1, but Teachers:Students is 1:40). Also, MOE can lessen the focus on tests and exams in primary school, have more hands-on/field work and encourage teachers to have an open mind towards intelligent questions at the correct time (not disruptive questions while the teacher is speaking).[/quote]Definitely the case in Singapore but this is not right! The kids spend a minimum of 6 hours in school and if you add transportation and logistics, they would have spent more than half of their waking hours in school. If that's the case, they had better gotten the academic part straightened out. If parents are supposed to be 'more responsible' than the school, then the kids will end up in after school classes, which is the case in most families in Singapore. So sad, what happened to the family time, the lifeskills - learning to cook, visiting relatives, have some fun, and learn a special skill, pursuing a hobby or simply play time? Sadly, our kids are deprived of these as they grow up.
Tests and exams part, I think it really can swing both ways, and depends on how they are dealt with. As it is, it is the comparison between kids that I feel is really unhealthy, through this bell curve, class average etc etc. Every child should just aim to improve and do well, and not be at least average or above in his/her class. Otherwise, everyone is just chasing the bell curve and very soon, and they'll spend more and more time studying till they have to do so 24 hours a day to be top. This is simply crazy to me.
No student want to ask disruptive question, especially when they are still in primary school. The problem is when the teachers don't understand or 'tune in' to the questions (especially of gifted children). My son has learnt to bring those questions to his professors and have a great discussion instead. Those same remarks were termed inappropriate and disruptive in his GEP classes. I guess we have to teach the children when and how to ask their queer questions instead of dismissing them as disruptive. Another thing schools lack is patience, they expect overnight results. We have to work and then see results, sometimes for years! Isn't this about nurturing? BTW, why do teachers have to teach and talk so much in class? They simply need to guide, there are plenty of resources they can use which they are not using. Not every child learns by listening. There's simply not enough encouragement for individual and self-directed learning. I think this is something most Singaporean teachers have not woken up to, too. At the end of the day, especially at the postgraduate level, self-directed learning is everything. But Singaporean students are not given this chance even up till Pre U, most are spoonfed and told what to do either through teachers or tutors. Sad, isn't it, to deprive a kid of a chance to make mistakes and learn himself. :siam:
There, just my thoughts again.
-
2ppaamm:
Looking at it logically, GEP kids may one day be the leaders and pioneers of society, but this is not necessarily true for GEP teachers. GEP kids ask philosophical questions like: \"What is the probability that the sun rises tomorrow?\", \"Does the Maxwell's demon actually exist?\" and debate on the Copenhagen interpretation versus MWI. It is impossible for teachers to know the answers to these questions!If GEP teachers are not trained to answer the mostly philosophical questions, then why are they GEP teachers because that is the main feature of giftedness. If we are only handling high ability children, then there is no need to segregate these children into smaller classes, because high ability children can survive and thrive in bigger classes.
GEP teachers may not even be able to answer academic questions: As I've said in previous posts, I know a GEP guy now in MIT who taught the GEP teacher how to solve a 3-dimensional Schroedinger equation (2nd order differential). But their purpose is to facilitate the GEP kid into these areas of interest, who knows, one day they may be able to provide the solution.
Besides, high-ability children are generally very active. I doubt that they will be able to pay attention in larger classes. It is important to note that a gifted kid does not necessarily do well in studies, but they still have to pay attention because they have to sit for the same exams (e.g. PSLE, A-level).2ppaamm:
We aren't talking about P1 here, are we? Let's consider the more \"important\" cohort-wide normalised exams instead, such as PSLE and A-level. Both these exams require hard work to score well in. At this stage, yes, many fare poorly because they do not find interest in studying; more so than those who do not have the ability to study. I support smaller class sizes, but I would like to point out that lack of attention and hard work is the main obstacle, not a bad teacher or lack of resources (e.g. no money to go to school).There are those who fare poorly because they are lazy (btw, no child is lazy at P1 as far as I know, it is a matter of coping and motivation), or because they are out of their depths. And especially those really average or hovering around there. Those are the ones who can benefit most from the extra attention in class.\"
2ppaamm:
Needless to say, I wholeheartedly disagree with this.Definitely the case in Singapore but this is not right! The kids spend a minimum of 6 hours in school and if you add transportation and logistics, they would have spent more than half of their waking hours in school. If that's the case, they had better gotten the academic part straightened out. If parents are supposed to be 'more responsible' than the school, then the kids will end up in after school classes, which is the case in most families in Singapore. So sad, what happened to the family time, the lifeskills - learning to cook, visiting relatives, have some fun, and learn a special skill, pursuing a hobby or simply play time? Sadly, our kids are deprived of these as they grow up.
While teachers, as with any other profession, have an innate duty to ensure that their job is well carried out, this does not mean that their responsibility is higher than that of parents. Teaching is only a profession.
Besides, there is also the ratio of Teachers:Students versus Parents:Children. How can we expect teachers to be able to give students more attention than parents give their children?
Kids bear the future hopes of their parents. Naturally, it is the inherent responsibility of parents to nurture their kids well. Parents have the intrinsic authority to determine choices for their kids at each of the many crossroads in life. Whether they succeed or fail in life, parents are the one who are impacted, not the teachers. -
:? 2ppaamm, R ur 2 sons in Singapore primary schools? Aren't you homeschooling them? If they r not in GEP class? Where to find small class size of 25?
-
Melodies:
:? 2ppaamm, R ur 2 sons in Singapore primary schools? Aren't you homeschooling them? If they r not in GEP class? Where to find small class size of 25?
Hi Melodies, my kids are on LOA from Singapore schools since last year. At this point, I see a value putting them in schools and so I no longer homeschool them. At a different point, I might homeschool them again when the situation calls for it. My older one was still in GEP last year and the younger is only 9 (P3), he is accelerated 2 years, but I chose to put him in a class of his age peers. The older boy has been accelerated 7 years and he is dual enrolled. 25 a class is the max per class in public schools here.
Fancy how our Singapore schools score high marks on facilities and nice buildings, but forgot the 'software'. I think it is so much better to invest more on teachers, pay them more, recruit more talented and quality teachers, reduce class size for ALL (not save this just for the GEPers). In any case, I have realized you don't need to take high ability students out to enrich their learning experiences as long as we have good teachers and small class sizes.
With the lack of us parents getting involved in school work, I found the freedom to teach and work with my kids beyond what our minds' eyes can see: from cooking gourmet food, to programming, sewing dresses and even advanced post grad work. Why would I want to get involved and teach my kids schoolwork if I send them to school. If I want to teach them school work, I will homeschool them and not send them to school. Since I have chosen to send them to school, I will entrust the teachers to do the right things for the boys now, and I don't want to get involved that much. Besides, by homeschooling them over the last 2 years, I have given them enough 'buffer' to last them a long time, I reckon. I think both boys can do without my involvement in school for a long time, being ahead of their peers. At an appropriate time, I can 'retire' from academic involvement completely, which is round about 14 years old for the older 3 when they get right into their uni routines. Now, I simply play a passive role as an advisor, course finder and form-filler (O, also fee-payer) when they need administrative work done. :imcool:
But that's just me... everyone is different and that's what make this world interesting! :boogie: -
ksi:
:yikes: At 12, my son is a Gramma-nazi and has a habit of correcting people's smallest mistakes. He said his classmates do it too and there is this Facebook group (or something) that his GEP classmates and him will laugh about - this P6 non-GEPer's grammar. And he wonders how these kids will pass their PSLE, he told me his friends and him will discuss online (even though he no longer attends his classes in Singapore).
:yikes: Did you proof-read what you have written? You are an ex-GEPper?ForumWriter:
Haha in my time, we just suanned each other (similar abilities) outright, no mercy given for low scorers. Or make friendly bets on who scores better, loser has to do some forfeit. Works well, because people want face in winning these bragging rights!
Sadly, this doesn't work outside of GEP, because everyone will misunderstand and say you are an arrogant elitist. But I find that this competitive spirit works better than any physical punishment. Nothing else causes someone to study hard to beat others like a good \"haha yes! I own you, you suck\" to the face. No point comparing to people worse off though, always compete with people who are better.
I worry about this a lot. A lot. And I take time to reverse this. I don't want my kid to grow up thinking that it is alright to compete in such a manner, especially if he is bright. When you are truly bright, there are people holding guns out ready to shoot you, looking for your faults and your 'hao-lian-ness'. And with this terrible attitude, he is asking for maximum trouble. Problem is, GEP has the problem of breeding this sad, false, overinflated ego within the children.
I have made it a point to teach my kids that they are no geniuses or anything more brilliant than an average student. In fact, we are all good in different areas. 一山更比一山高， GEPers need to know that there are people who are way smarter than them, even in Singapore, why should they think the world is just GEP and mainstream? 井底之蛙！ Do GEPers know that there are Singaporeans who start university at 9? If anything, our students generally lack EQ, which really, is what makes people successful in their careers. IQ plays a small, small part. Think about the most successful people - even professors have to have good EQ to find and collaborate with the right people on their research. Parents of GEPers need to tell their kids that they are nothing special from the non-GEPers, otherwise, they are really in for a good shock, when they have to report to one mainstreamer (or more likely, a foreign talent) one day
-
2ppaamm, if I am rich and have the resources, I would like to teach my kids by my own self too
I think it is a dream that most parents in Singapore has
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