Is GEP really necessary?

[cherryc]

ruohoo97:

Don't know those 精英们 really can understand this Chinese article or not :imcool:

For the monolingual 精英们 .......or those 似懂非懂

[2ppaamm]

comfy:

2ppaamm:

Of course a GEPper has to work very hard to get a CO through DSA. But the question is do you think it is easier for a GEPper to get a CO then a mainstreamer?Reply : I don't think so.
Second question to you, so you think that handful who slip by and get through by DSA deserves those seats better than every of the 4-5 who were misplaced due to them?
Reply : Whether they deserve or not is for the school to decide.
Have these mainstreamers worked less hard in your opinion simply because they are not GEPpers? Reply : It depend.
Are we not saying each and every child in the system is equally important and a meritocracy system? Why do you think it is ok for this handful to be given such privilege? Also, I am curious why you think having this DSA preference is only a DSA preference. Isn't that what so many 12 years old give up their childhood for? Isn't that what many parents pay thousands and thousands in tuition for? Why is this 'just'? Would you say the same if your child did not qualify for GEP?
Reply : I think all these questions have deviated too far away from what I have asked. I ask because I am curious and interested to know what other benefits or privileges that GEP kids besides DSA,smaller ratio & EESIS which is my very 1st question?

Then it is ok. You go figure whether there is any advantage or not, and I believe you can figure why your answers are as they are. If you don't think there is an advantage, then there isn't to you, so all the best to your child in the DSA vis-a-vis other mainstreamers, I hope she will have the same probability of getting in as the mainstreamers like you said, and have exactly the same outcome as the rest of the mainstreamers. And may you have peace believing so. I think you have the answers to the questions you posed me, so there isn't a need for me to answer them from the start.

[2ppaamm]

comfy:

2ppaamm:

Then, my next question is, why do you think the GEPpers' classes are smaller, given that ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the weaker students should have a smaller student-teacher ratio? Why is giving smaller classes to gifted children justifiable.

What are ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL means?

ALL THINGS like the teachers are the same, the children are as hard working, they are from the same school, gender etc, all the same. Meaning everything is the same, except that one is a GEP class, and another is mainstream class, which also means one class did better for the GEP selection test, the other didn't. So, presumably, one class will be weaker academically, then which class should have a smaller student-teacher ratio, or smaller class size?

[ruohoo97]

Snow Crystal:

ForumWriter:

Point proven. 2ppaamm is definitely not from the GEP.

:rotflmao:
Forum Writer, you obviously have no clue who 2ppaamm is to pass this remark......*hint* - go search in this forum a bit of her background and you will be :yikes: :oops: for passing such remark... :spank:
2ppaamm is probably one of the cleverest persons you will ever 'meet' in this forum...no need to be from GEP... She old era one lah no GEP yet :evil: :rotflmao:

i second it.
Now I understand where all these come from.

[Mychildren]

Adults, do you all need to be so sarcastic?

Better

[HVR]

The notion that gepers having it easy when come to DSA, having advantages and privileges (over what?) just go to show how bias one can be. There is so much more expected of a gepers from p3-p6 and they have to prove they can deliver. It is definitely not the case of once you entered GEP, you can switch off, relax and then DSA to a good IP school. It doesn’t work that way.


The argument that others get displaced because gepers secure a spot in IP school through DSA despite failing to meet cut off point of the school is well, off the mark. If gepers didnt perform well in IP schools, why do you think IPs school continue to take them in? You can have high t score if you score exceedingly well in one subject and the whole cohort fare comparatively badly in the same subject. From the IP schools’ perspective, surely they will reduce, if not stop, taking in gepers via DSA if past gepers have been performing consistently poorly in the IP schools?

[HVR]

2ppaamm:

comfy:

[quote=\"2ppaamm\"]
Then, my next question is, why do you think the GEPpers' classes are smaller, given that ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the weaker students should have a smaller student-teacher ratio? Why is giving smaller classes to gifted children justifiable.

What are ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL means?

ALL THINGS like the teachers are the same, the children are as hard working, they are from the same school, gender etc, all the same. Meaning everything is the same, except that one is a GEP class, and another is mainstream class, which also means one class did better for the GEP selection test, the other didn't. So, presumably, one class will be weaker academically, then which class should have a smaller student-teacher ratio, or smaller class size?[/quote]
I know it's hard to accept but our potential and ability are all different. In a weaker class, will reduce the class size or deploying a 'better' teacher help to improve the performance of the class? I think not. It's just like deploying 10 coaches to guide Singapore football team hoping that they can beat brazil in a football match. It just won't work. Conversely, you have to get a top coach to guide brazil team and not anyone in order to help the team to realize its full potential and I would think this is how our GEP program work.

[comfy]

2ppaamm:

comfy:

[quote=\"2ppaamm\"]
Of course a GEPper has to work very hard to get a CO through DSA. But the question is do you think it is easier for a GEPper to get a CO then a mainstreamer?Reply : I don't think so.
Second question to you, so you think that handful who slip by and get through by DSA deserves those seats better than every of the 4-5 who were misplaced due to them?
Reply : Whether they deserve or not is for the school to decide.
Have these mainstreamers worked less hard in your opinion simply because they are not GEPpers? Reply : It depend.
Are we not saying each and every child in the system is equally important and a meritocracy system? Why do you think it is ok for this handful to be given such privilege? Also, I am curious why you think having this DSA preference is only a DSA preference. Isn't that what so many 12 years old give up their childhood for? Isn't that what many parents pay thousands and thousands in tuition for? Why is this 'just'? Would you say the same if your child did not qualify for GEP?
Reply : I think all these questions have deviated too far away from what I have asked. I ask because I am curious and interested to know what other benefits or privileges that GEP kids besides DSA,smaller ratio & EESIS which is my very 1st question?

Then it is ok. You go figure whether there is any advantage or not, and I believe you can figure why your answers are as they are. If you don't think there is an advantage, then there isn't to you, so all the best to your child in the DSA vis-a-vis other mainstreamers, I hope she will have the same probability of getting in as the mainstreamers like you said, and have exactly the same outcome as the rest of the mainstreamers. And may you have peace believing so. I think you have the answers to the questions you posed me, so there isn't a need for me to answer them from the start. [/quote]Then it is ok to what? Still don't get it. It is precisely that I can't figure what other advantages that why I ask. Well, it seems to me that there are no other privilege and benefits. Sigh.... was hoping that there are more as your remark/comment seems to imply that (to me). Anyway, thanks for your sharing and questions. Yes, I hope that my dd as well as all kids (gep or non-gep) will have a chance to enter the school that she like. And have a peaceful sleep :snooze: :snooze:

[comfy]

HVR:

2ppaamm:

[quote=\"comfy\"]quote=\"2ppaamm\"

Then, my next question is, why do you think the GEPpers' classes are smaller, given that ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the weaker students should have a smaller student-teacher ratio? Why is giving smaller classes to gifted children justifiable./quote
What are ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL means?

ALL THINGS like the teachers are the same, the children are as hard working, they are from the same school, gender etc, all the same. Meaning everything is the same, except that one is a GEP class, and another is mainstream class, which also means one class did better for the GEP selection test, the other didn't. So, presumably, one class will be weaker academically, then which class should have a smaller student-teacher ratio, or smaller class size?

I know it's hard to accept but our potential and ability are all different. In a weaker class, will reduce the class size or deploying a 'better' teacher help to improve the performance of the class? I think not. It's just like deploying 10 coaches to guide Singapore football team hoping that they can beat brazil in a football match. It just won't work. Conversely, you have to get a top coach to guide brazil team and not anyone in order to help the team to realize its full potential and I would think this is how our GEP program work.[/quote]Yes, I think so too. :rahrah:

[2ppaamm]

HVR:

The notion that gepers having it easy when come to DSA, having advantages and privileges (over what?) just go to show how bias one can be. There is so much more expected of a gepers from p3-p6 and they have to prove they can deliver. It is definitely not the case of once you entered GEP, you can switch off, relax and then DSA to a good IP school. It doesn't work that way.


The argument that others get displaced because gepers secure a spot in IP school through DSA despite failing to meet cut off point of the school is well, off the mark. If gepers didnt perform well in IP schools, why do you think IPs school continue to take them in? You can have high t score if you score exceedingly well in one subject and the whole cohort fare comparatively badly in the same subject. From the IP schools' perspective, surely they will reduce, if not stop, taking in gepers via DSA if past gepers have been performing consistently poorly in the IP schools?

Nobody ever said the GEPpers had it easy when it comes to DSA, but we must admit that BY DESIGN their chance of getting into the school of choice is much higher than a non-GEPper. A GEPper or not, the chance of getting into a school of choice must be the SAME, the measurement or standard to judge a child must also be the SAME. At the moment, there is a double standard. It is also not right if the reverse is true, that a mainstreamer should have advantage over a GEPper, is it? Also, it is wrong to deprive so many more deserving children for that one GEPper to get into the school of choice as I have clearly demonstrated in the last post. Every child is equal in our society. You don't agree? Why not? Is it because GEPpers faired better than a non-GEPper in one exam, they have the rights to gain access over many non-GEPpers forever, then where is the equality?

It is a world where resources are limited. Therefore, by giving preferences to GEPpers to this extent, those resources are removed from mainstreamers.

I do not agree that we can throw a blanket and conclude that GEPpers and mainstreamers have different potentials, and that one's potential can be judged by a series of tests at 9 years old. There are late bloomers, and there are those from families that cannot afford the kind of grooming. These kids deserve an EQUAL chance of doing well, one sub-performance at a test should not disadvantage them to this extent, by the same notion, one exam should not accord so many privileges to those who happen to do well. By giving the weaker students the SAME resources, they have a BETTER chance of doing or in Singapore's case, survive, in the system. I am saddened that GEP parents can imagine that their children have better potentials than others. Did we not talk about Lim Jeck? He is not a GEPper but he went on to become the first Singaporean to win the Olympiad. But not everyone has a Mathematician family like him. Not a single GEPper in HISTORY (since 1984) has ever achieved that feat. Enough said. So, I don't agree GEPpers have better potentials and therefore should be given more resources.

What's expected of a GEPper is really no different from a non-GEPper at the end of the day. I speak as a parent with kids from both, the Singapore education system is designed to make it hard for the children, GEPper or not. I speak as a mother who have kids from local and overseas system. Of course it is hard to be a GEPper, but it is even HARDER being a mainstreamer. The odds against them are higher, BECAUSE of the GEPpers. And that is sad, because when it comes to education, it should be a level playing field. Unfortunately, as we can see, it is NOT. In the current system, some people are more EQUAL than other, the system pits one against the other. In a society, we should work together and not against each other. O no, this reminds me of Animal Farm... :evil:

The example I gave is not off the mark. I was told by an RI teacher that they have found that any child with T-score >250 can perform equally well. A check with some schools will tell you that many GEPpers go on to perform badly in secondary schools, overtaken by late bloomers from mainstream. So, there is no difference in the ability of a GEPper and non-GEPper in secondary school. There is a POLICY in place to give preference to the GEPpers. And this is WRONG. I have never said the GEPpers are wrong.

I realize there are new audience, so I repeat some of the points I made before, so bear with me. No preference should be given to GEPpers, none. So, we should not downplay it by saying 'just DSA, EEIS and smaller class size, a scholarship for the rest of their education'. These are the main things, and not btw, these are BIG DEALS. These are exactly what people need - opportunities, :moneyflies: , time and access. EVERYTHING.

Am I against teaching according to the aptitude of a child, of course NOT! By all means, teach according to the child's capabilities. Some kids have abilities to do more, then by all means do those with them, cover higher level topics, do more enrichment, IN THE SAME CONDITIONS. That means, give them the same privileges as other children. Same class size, same access, same everything. But because the kids are brighter, we can cover more topics. If such kids need more resources to cover deeper topics, than I question the ability of the children. At the end of the day, if there is a national exam, then EVERYONE should abide by the same rules, or abolish this silly exam, if the national exam does not put everyone on the same page.

Next, my take on GEP. As mentioned, there are so many levels of giftedness, but the whole class of 25 is taught exactly the same way, by the same teacher and cover the same syllabus. Didn't we say that everyone has different potential and capabilities? Consequently, there are many gifted children whose needs are not met in GEP, they are forced to level down to moderate giftedness of that 1-2% when they are at a higher level. Didn't some say that their children are so much better behaved in GEP than they were in P1-3 when they were bored? This is exactly how a highly gifted child feels in the GEP classroom, still bored, still out of sync. So, GEP does not cater to higher level of giftedness, because they have to teach a class. I thought a smaller class size is for closer individual attention? If GEP is to teach higher level topics to higher level children, with no individual attention, then why the smaller class size? Does this even make sense?

Now, the quality of GEPpers. As I have pointed out before (again), the selection process is also flawed, and fails to spot many talents. As it is today, to be selected, a child has to be good at Math, English and GA. Consequently, we get generalists, instead of prodigies. Giftedness is normally skewed, we don't expect Albert Einstein to be able to write like Shakespeare (pardon the difference in era - just trying to be quick here), do we? But he is a genius. As it is, we either expect everyone to be Omni-gifted (as in Leonardo Da Vinci) or we end up with GEPpers who are generalists and not gifted in any specific area at all. These are great high ability students, and not your gifted children. If that is what MOE wants for the GEP, for whatever reason, IT IS OK. Perfectly OK. But then, change the name of GEP to something else, so as not to mislead parents of truly gifted children who go round in circles only to find that the branch is only interested in and caters only to moderately gifted children.

But herein lies another problem. With so many very gifted children and prodigies left out of the system, some will excel beyond the GEPpers. This generalist selection method is relatively new, hence more and more skewed-gifted kids (like Lim Jeck) with access to resources, are going to appear. Very soon, people are going to realize GEP is really nothing great (and it is no big deal, really), but with all those privileges, there is bound to be dissent. We expect GEPpers to perform better than the mainstreamers, but there are so many truly gifted left out, there will be more and more mainstreamers with good support outshining the GEPpers, rendering the privileges given to the GEPpers a hoax. The consequence is that GEPpers will have hard times surviving in the world in future. Imagine this, \"You are from GEP? :roll: \" And what if their bosses are not GEPpers (very likely)? Unless, of course every GEPper hopes or will become administrators. But hey, how many will? These kids are going to feel the prejudice against them from mainstreamers and the animosity. Remember, they get the benefits but not all of them perform. This cannot be healthy for the GEPpers' psychological well-being. And I have not yet talked about the black-sheep effect for 'accidental or geared GEPpers'. The pressure on the GEPpers is unnecessary and unwanted, and for those who were hothoused into the program, the effect is even worse, this phenomenon is relatively new, so we don't know who has the last laugh yet. I have already hinted what my take is.

Now, the GEP program is not a healthy one either for gifted learners, at least IMO. We accelerate the kids with advanced work and enrichment UNIFORMLY. For the highly gifted ones who get in, this can be stifling. Already established that many kids are gifted in EITHER Math or English not both. Some are so gifted in one area, and very good in another, so they are in GEP. If we pump them up in both areas (for what purpose? I don't know, I thought learning is about bringing up the potential and not fitting into a syllabus especially in GEP), there is little time left for the subject they are good in. Many gifted children still go for tuition, to gear up their weaker subject, I suppose. Isn't it better for them to work at their 'weaker subject' at mainstream speed at ease and then zoom ahead in their pet subject? GEP hampers instead of enhances a GEPer's potential and ability because of the way it is being taught and the way giftedness is handled.

So there. In one piece for your digestion. Left out the intricate details, didn't talk about the training and quality of teachers, or discuss the implication of GEP to the society, or how I think giftedness should be handled in a public education system. If you don't 'catch' me, don't worry about it, I know it is a long post.

To parents of very gifted children who are not in GEP, I'd say it is a blessing, so work hard to prove yourself, there are plenty of opportunities you can create for yourselves in this world of knowledge. To children who are in GEP and enjoying the privileges, my take is you'd better perform and then brace, brace, brace. There will be attacks. To children who were hothoused into the program, my heart goes out to you, I hope you survive GEP and also the unnecessary hostility you will face. To the average mainstreamers, the game is not over yet, there are plenty of scholarships offered by overseas institutions if you plan wisely. Search, and you will find other pathways, we are in 2012, aren't we? To those with $$$, go overseas and let your children enjoy their childhood. To kids who are not performing in the current education system, know that there is very little support, you will need to be creative to survive. Look hard, you will find opportunities, which may not be present in the system. All in all, it is an unnecessarily difficult education system to maneuver, with everyone stepping over each other.