Is GEP really necessary?

[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.

[jtoh]

I think people tend to generalize and group all GEPpers as being the same. They aren’t. They run the spectrum of excelling in all 4 subjects, to those who excel in Math/Sci/Eng but fail Mandarin miserably, to those who excel only in English and Science. Some are hardworking, some sail by without studying and some don’t study and don’t do well.


By and large they will do alright in PSLE, scoring >250. To score >260, given their differentiated programme and lack of time to prepare for PSLE, many will, provided they are not particularly weak in any one subject. There are many GEPpers who are weak in MT which invariably pulls down their T-score. Or there are those who are weak in Math. If they had stayed in mainstream and had all of P4/5/6 to prepare for PSLE I dare say they would have better PSLE scores.

[jtoh]

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... 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.

Hi Chen,

I'm thinking that in the past when there was still GEP in secondary school and students who did very well in PSLE were invited to join the programme then, there was no EESIS? Or am I mistaken?

I agree with you that the teaching methods adopted in GEP should be extended to the population at large. But it's something MOE is unable to do for lack of resources. (and a whole other debate). But for MOE to do away with GEP because it's viewed as unfair by some would be to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[jtoh]

ksi, I like your posts.

[corneyAmber]

jtoh:

ksi, I like your posts.

:hi5:

[vlim]

Jtoh, time to get an avatar for yourself.. Dr Ksi can help ..