Is GEP really necessary?

[corneyAmber]

Nebbermind:

Chenonceau:

I too am confused now. People in MOE have said that schools like NYPS turns in stellar results (where 40% score above 250) at the PSLE, not because NYPS teaches very much better than other schools (since all MOE believes all schools are good)... BUT because it has a large GEP population who MOE believes will naturally do well in whatever the school had they stay put in their original schools. Clearly, some MOE data suggests that GEPpers do better at the PSLE than the rest of the cohort?


And now... people say that GEPpers don't do well at the PSLE? Some also say that the really gifted are not meant to do well at the PSLE because the PSLE requires drilling and GEPpers don't get drilled enough? Others say that PSLE requires rote learning and GEPpers are bored with that?

\"Well\", it's all relative!!

From the earlier posts, people are expecting GEPpers to get 260ish...so that they can justify their EESIS and their 'top 1%' status.

:goodpost: Nebbermind...you said it all...

[Chenonceau]

Nebbermind:

\"Well\", it's all relative!!

From the earlier posts, people are expecting GEPpers to get 260ish...so that they can justify their EESIS and their 'top 1%' status.

Anyway, they r not a homogeneous bunch of kids...

There is also the possibility that the GEP test made a mistake and wrongly identified someone as gifted. No psychometric test is 100% reliable. GEP kids who don't score above a certain threshold should just be dropped (for their own good) in the same way that those who score 27+ at PSLE WERE often invited INTO the GEP in Sec 1... and therefore these DON'T get EESIS.

Beyond Fair or Unfair
We should NOT take away the GEP's privileges just because of a fairness issue. They are kids after all. Different or not, we need to love them because different kids are still the nation's legacy. The thing though, is that GEP's small classes facilitated the teaching through inquiry and self-directed learning. These are learning styles characteristic of gifted learners. However, since the inquiry-based learning has hopped over from GEP to mainstream (and I think it is a good thing) then why are classes in mainstream still at 40?

I am beyond questioning issues of fairness. Let the GEP keep whatever privileges it has... BUT... allow mainstream teachers to teach smaller classes so that they can best effectuate inquiry-based learning too.

[Nebbermind]

Chenonceau:

There is also the possibility that the GEP test made a mistake and wrongly identified someone as gifted. No psychometric test is 100% reliable. GEP kids who don't score above a certain threshold should just be dropped (for their own good) in the same way that those who score 27+ at PSLE WERE often invited INTO the GEP in Sec 1.

Of course possible...I personally believe there's very little separating them and the next 1% (for the GEP selection test) or even 5%!! I always believe that those selected are just 'privileged'.

[Chenonceau]

slmkhoo:

There is also the possibility that a kid is highly gifted in only 1 area and is pulled down by the other subjects. Not all 'gifted' kids can be equally gifted in all 4 subjects.

This for certain. The HIGHLY gifted are usually skewed. The earlier MOE interpretation of giftedness honored this. The present MOE interpretation does not seem to honor this. GEPpers are expected to perform in all areas. To stay coherent with MOE's current operative definition of giftedness (which is subject to debate), then the expectation is good performance throughout... to be consistent with this definition, then those who cannot perform across all subjects should be dropped from GEP.

That is why Lim Jeck (highly gifted ONLY in Math) is not a GEPper.

[vlim]

Chenonceau:

Nebbermind:

\"Well\", it's all relative!!

From the earlier posts, people are expecting GEPpers to get 260ish...so that they can justify their EESIS and their 'top 1%' status.

Anyway, they r not a homogeneous bunch of kids...

There is also the possibility that the GEP test made a mistake and wrongly identified someone as gifted. No psychometric test is 100% reliable. GEP kids who don't score above a certain threshold should just be dropped (for their own good) in the same way that those who score 27+ at PSLE WERE often invited INTO the GEP in Sec 1... and therefore these DON'T get EESIS.

Beyond Fair or Unfair
We should NOT take away the GEP's privileges just because of a fairness issue. They are kids after all. Different or not, we need to love them because different kids are still the nation's legacy. The thing though, is that GEP's small classes facilitated the teaching through inquiry and self-directed learning. These are learning styles characteristic of gifted learners. However, since the inquiry-based learning has hopped over from GEP to mainstream (and I think it is a good thing) then why are classes in mainstream still at 40?

I am beyond questioning issues of fairness. Let the GEP keep whatever privileges it has... BUT... allow mainstream teachers to teach smaller classes so that they can best effectuate inquiry-based learning too.

Yes I agree with tt too!

[corneyAmber]

I believe everyone knows a small class size is ideal for all the children's learning. The constraint is all MOE's resources.


There will be other realistic issues, for example:
Current top classes in a school say about 80 kids x 2 classrooms
If smaller class size, it may mean top class students size reduce to 50.
30 children will stream to other classes. Think parents will cry unfair
again. If they can build more classrooms and have more teachers,
then problem solved.

If the top classes are reduced in size, parents will ask for ALL classes
to reduce in size. This may be MOE's long term goal and dream but in
the near term, they would have problem pandering to that.

So I also support small class size for all children, only when can MOE make it happen? :?

[Chenonceau]

ksi:

I believe everyone knows a small class size is ideal for all the children's learning. The constraint is all MOE's resources.


There will be other realistic issues, for example:
Current top classes in a school say about 80 kids x 2 classrooms
If smaller class size, it may mean top class students size reduce to 50.
30 children will stream to other classes. Think parents will cry unfair
again. If they can build more classrooms and have more teachers,
then problem solved.

If the top classes are reduced in size, parents will ask for ALL classes
to reduce in size. This may be MOE's long term goal and dream but in
the near term, they would have problem pandering to that.

So I also support small class size for all children, only when can MOE make it happen? :?

Yes yes... been there... heard that. Constraints. Then don't give mainstream the GEP inquiry based syllabus. If no money, buy a smaller house. Live within your means. If no resources, don't aim so high. Must learn contentment right? Dun be kiasu right?

If reduce class side, of course must be all lag... I am crying foul because in my son's school the last 2 classes are 25 and have TWO teachers. The top 2 have 40 and loads of tuition.

[corneyAmber]

Chenonceau:

ksi:

I believe everyone knows a small class size is ideal for all the children's learning. The constraint is all MOE's resources.


There will be other realistic issues, for example:
Current top classes in a school say about 80 kids x 2 classrooms
If smaller class size, it may mean top class students size reduce to 50.
30 children will stream to other classes. Think parents will cry unfair
again. If they can build more classrooms and have more teachers,
then problem solved.

If the top classes are reduced in size, parents will ask for ALL classes
to reduce in size. This may be MOE's long term goal and dream but in
the near term, they would have problem pandering to that.

So I also support small class size for all children, only when can MOE make it happen? :?

Yes yes... been there... heard that. Constraints. Then don't give mainstream the GEP inquiry based syllabus. If no money, buy a smaller house. Live within your means. If no resources, don't aim so high.

Agree that they have to manage the transition to the small-size class learning and be realistic.

[jtoh]

Chenonceau:

Is the GEP necessary?
In my opinion, yes. From DS' experience (and I dun think he is gifted) as someone who functions well in English and Science, he was craving for stimulation. We do have kids among us who need the GEP to enjoy school and stay engaged.

Fair or Unfair?
We should NOT take away the GEP's privileges just because of a fairness issue. They are kids after all. Different or not, we need to love them. The thing though, is that GEP's small classes facilitated the teaching through inquiry and self-directed learning. These are learning styles characteristic of gifted learners. However, since the inquiry-based learning has hopped over from GEP to mainstream (and I think it is a good thing) then why are classes in mainstream still at 40?

I am beyond questioning issues of fairness. Let the GEP keep whatever privileges it has... BUT... allow mainstream teachers to teach smaller classes so that they can best effectuate inquiry-based learning too.

I agree with the above.

[atutor2001]

There are 2 camps here. One believes that GEPers are smart but may not do well in exam and the other is GEPers are smart and should do well in exam.


I am from the 2nd camp. Go to RI (not that HCI don’t have but no personal knowledge) and it is easy to find many notorious GEPers who don’t do normal school works but will ultimately do well at A-level. My own kid who is not a GEPer has an estimated T-score of only 250 at school prelim, woke up after that and was only behind 3 GEPers in her school at PSLE with just 1 month of hardwork. Such anecdotes made me believe that a true GEPer should be able to do well in exam.

Many GEPers fade away by JC. Mostly these are those that are weak in languages. Those that continues to excel are usually the humanity students. I can only infer that the GEP selection process is good in identifying GEPers in language but not so for math and science. Probably it is easier to pump math and science through accelerated learning and thus many were mistaken to be GEPers during the selection.