Is GEP really necessary?
-
Wow! impressive almost 100 pupils from mainstream scored >250!
Someone told me that they mixed high ability pupils with GEppers in a classes in NYPS. Is that true? Anyone can confirm? Looks like it is a good arrangement. No wonder parents are fighting hands/legs to get in!
verykiasu2010:
just for perspective from a broken record: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?
NYPS cohort size is around 480, of which 100 is GEPpers (21%)
last few years scoring above 250 is 43%, roughly around 200~206 kids.
if we assume 100% of GEPper scoring above 250, then there is still at least 22% who are non-GEP who score above 250.
but obviously not 100% of GEPper score above 250, hence the number of non-GEP scoring above 250 is even higher than 22% -
Some of my friends' ds/dd scored 260 and 259 but still didn't receive EESIS le... Of course, they can afford to study in IS, so no problems. I heard that it is abt 260/261 cutoff almost for every year to secure EESIS. My heart goes with those pupils from not so well to do families because they cant' afford to study in IS le..
Already not easy for this group of people to score 260/261/262 since they don't have resources le...verykiasu2010:
yes the label \"Gifted\" is misleading. it should be reserved only for people like Lim Jeck or Sheldon, not any Jack or Nodlehs.Melodies:
:goodpost:
Just to add that I don't think this should be called GEP program i nthe very first place. I think this is the prerequisite training for all students and yes it is necessary to nurture a pupil to develop every pupil to develop intellectual; depth and higher-level thinking.
As for the fair/unfair treatment, I'm OK with GEPpers got to enjoy those privileges but still think that the govt should also reward EESIS to those who really worked hard enough to score better than those average GEPpers. I think they deserved this. I don't wish to see pupils from poor families (parents can't afford/r not willing to pay for the IP/IS schools fees) who have scored well but missed by 1 pt in order to get EESIS. They have no choice but to admit into public sec school (I hope this is not happening)
EESIS is available to those mainstream high scorers within the top 1/3 of the IS school cohort -
:goodpost: fully agreed!
2ppaamm:
Wow... so many things transpired. My thoughts in summary:
1. I don't really agree that GEP kids can be spotted from very young. In fact, it is very difficult to spot gifted children. I have never thought my kids are gifted, and continue to doubt that every day, and honestly, MOST children I know who got into GEP were a big surprise to me. So, no, I don't think I can spot a GEP from young. BUT, I can spot a High Ability child very quickly. Normally very enthusiastic, very alert, very capable and very articulate. I cannot spot a gifted (notice I separate gifted child and GEP) child as well, unless he is very, very exceptional, but I have yet met such a kid, my own included.
2. I agree there should be a gifted program, but not in the shape of the current GEP. This current GEP does not make sense to me, from the selection all the way to the execution of the classes. I've always believed in blending in, and GEP, to me, is to put a group of very similar children together and that is not blending in. What I have observed is that by mixing the children in ALL subjects, and then pulling certain kids out for their pet subjects work really well. That is a much more cost effective way of doing things to great results. I did mention that my 12 year old class is doing advanced trigonometry and my 9 year old boy is doing prime factors, composite and Fibonacci sequence, something covered by our P4 GEP. None of my kids' classmates are labeled GEP or gifted. They are all pulled out for their Math. Both my kids are also pulled out for English. So, I don't agree to select students, label them and then give them special privileges because there is always a chance of mis-selection, there is always a chance they cannot cope.
3. I don't believe a child who is enriched cannot perform at a lower level or score high for a lower level exam. I have a big problem with that. PSLE is a primary school exam, and elementary. No matter how difficult they make it, the concepts are elementary. Take a PSLE exam and give it to strong student at Sec 2, he should be able to score. Therefore, I cannot subscribe to this view. A child who is taught higher level order thinking might not use the same methodologies to solve the problems, but they will be equipped with more tools to handle any kind of question. If a child who has gone through GEP cannot score for PSLE, then there's something wrong with what they teach in GEP, making the skills only SELECTIVELY relevant, making all effort to enrich the children futile. At the end of the day, Algebra is algebra, science concept is science concept, they are all the same.
4. I cannot accept that all children forget what they were taught. Recently, my son had to prepare for a postgrad exam which required secondary Math. He hadn't done Math for 5 years since his undergrad degree had little Math. I gave him the materials, thinking he would have forgotten and offered him help, since he is not a Math major. To my surprise, he remembered everything, and could solve all of the problems on the exam. It was a slow start and he needed to recall some theorem, but once he was on it, he covered all the topics, he finished all the algebra in an hour, for an example. So, no. I cannot accept this thinking as well. Don't know whether my son is gifted or not, but I certainly know it is not true you learn something and don't retain that, especially if we are talking about gifted kids. Recently, since my younger son decided to choose some Math courses for his degree, I decided to pick up those concepts I have not touched since my undergrad days as well. I thought I was going to take weeks since I should have forgotten, but I spent only 2 days and got myself in shape and passed an exam. So, even if we get rusty, I am of the opinion that you don't need a lot of time to brush up and get them back again. The GEPpers have a whole year to learn and revise PSLE topics, which are supposed to be easier than their own curriculum, so I find it hard to accept this claim that they cannot do lower level work better.
5. I also don't agree that you need to prepare for PSLE from P5, and it is not true that mainstreamers all start preparation from P5. My older boy who did not go to GEP was overseas with the school team for most part of P5, so did my youngest daughter, up to their prelim exams. P5 to many is a honey moon year. Many schools do not pump the kids at P5. So that notion that they start preparing at P5 is again misplaced. My son and his class started preparing for PSLE about April or May in P6. No different from a GEP class.
Bottomline is, if GEPpers want to keep their stature and reputation, they had better perform. The rest will be just excuses. Unfortunately, the more excuses are made, the more it makes the GEPpers look bad. My advice is to accept that, and then perform - same thing I tell my son. He is in the uni, but that does not mean his primary school results should be less sterling than his classmates'.
My other better suggestion is, just get rid of that PSLE! Saves all these trouble. -
Melodies:
[/quote]Hi melodies, fyi high ability performers in RGPS and Cat High also joined the GEP classes for certain but not all subjects. I wld assume this is a practice in all the 9 GEP schools (?)Wow! impressive almost 100 pupils from mainstream scored >250!
just for perspective from a broken record:
Someone told me that they mixed high ability pupils with GEppers in a classes in NYPS. Is that true? Anyone can confirm? Looks like it is a good arrangement. No wonder parents are fighting hands/legs to get in! verykiasu2010:
[quote=\"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?
NYPS cohort size is around 480, of which 100 is GEPpers (21%)
last few years scoring above 250 is 43%, roughly around 200~206 kids.
if we assume 100% of GEPper scoring above 250, then there is still at least 22% who are non-GEP who score above 250.
but obviously not 100% of GEPper score above 250, hence the number of non-GEP scoring above 250 is even higher than 22% -
Nebbermind:
Think we have no problem agreeing most of the time...just that (for me) it's really unpleasant :gloomy: to have people trying to put down the GEP kids if the kids failed to conform to their own expectation.
Actually it reflects on ourselves poorly to bash up 1% of the children. They are children after all. Whether people believe they are gifted or not, it is not important. What I do know is parents actually prefer the children not to be so-called gifted because it comes with its own set of problems which many people cannot understand. Of course, worst of all, envy that comes with nasty remarks do not help these children.
Now I understand completely why MOE does not want to provide more info on the successful GEPpers because they understand, there is no need to show track record of the success, that is not the objective to begin with. Wise move MOE.
Lastly, of course giftedness can be observed from young. If a child has never been taught things and yet he/she can do it themselves plus parents are clueless in those areas, are those not born gifts? No relevant exposure at home at all and yet it can surface. :rotflmao:
(This is my definition of giftedness by birth, not what they can achieve like Lim Jeck and Sheldon who have the benefit of translating their giftedness to achievements)
People can talk about Lim Jeck and Sheldon but everyone knows they have the relevant background to bring out their gifts and to their maximum potential. They are doubly blessed, with gifts and with great parents who know or have the ability to know how to nurture their gifts. That is why you do not see Lim Jeck suffering that he is not in GEP. In fact, he will suffer the English in GEP badly if he dislikes language pressure and he has wise parents who acknowledge that staying out and self-nurturing helps him more. On the other hand, Sheldon is a gifted all-rounder who fits the GEP. The good news is both are endorsed gifted. They are good examples to understand MOE's model of gifted programme and why some GEPpers can also struggle in there for the curriculum for areas they do not thrive.
If a child has been greatly exposed by either parents being in the field or having siblings and can learn fast then perhaps parents would be more suspicious if it is a gift. Otherwise the innate ability is pretty clear to what I have seen in true GEP children. -
ksi:
:goodpost:Nebbermind:
Think we have no problem agreeing most of the time...just that (for me) it's really unpleasant :gloomy: to have people trying to put down the GEP kids if the kids failed to conform to their own expectation.
Actually it reflects on ourselves poorly to bash up 1% of the children. They are children after all. Whether people believe they are gifted or not, it is not important. What I do know is parents actually prefer the children not to be so-called gifted because it comes with its own set of problems which many people cannot understand. Of course, worst of all, envy that comes with nasty remarks do not help these children.
Now I understand completely why MOE does not want to provide more info on the successful GEPpers because they understand, there is no need to show track record of the success, that is not the objective to begin with. Wise move MOE.
Lastly, of course giftedness can be observed from young. If a child has never been taught things and yet he/she can do it themselves plus parents are clueless in those areas, are those not born gifts? No relevant exposure at home at all and yet it can surface. :rotflmao:
(This is my definition of giftedness by birth, not what they can achieve like Lim Jeck and Sheldon who have the benefit of translating their giftedness to achievements)
People can talk about Lim Jeck and Sheldon but everyone knows they have the relevant background to bring out their gifts and to their maximum potential. They are doubly blessed, with gifts and with great parents who know or have the ability to know how to nurture their gifts. That is why you do not see Lim Jeck suffering that he is not in GEP. In fact, he will suffer the English in GEP badly if he dislikes language pressure and he has wise parents who acknowledge that staying out and self-nurturing helps him more. On the other hand, Sheldon is a gifted all-rounder who fits the GEP. The good news is both are endorsed gifted. They are good examples to understand MOE's model of gifted programme and why some GEPpers can also struggle in there for the curriculum for areas they do not thrive.
If a child has been greatly exposed by either parents being in the field or having siblings and can learn fast then perhaps parents would be more suspicious if it is a gift. Otherwise the innate ability is pretty clear to what I have seen in true GEP children. -
verykiasu2010:
just to add 2 very important points
just for perspective from a broken record: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?
NYPS cohort size is around 480, of which 100 is GEPpers (21%)
last few years scoring above 250 is 43%, roughly around 200~206 kids.
if we assume 100% of GEPper scoring above 250, then there is still at least 22% who are non-GEP who score above 250.
but obviously not 100% of GEPper score above 250, hence the number of non-GEP scoring above 250 is even higher than 22%
1. out of the 4 GEP classes 3 (or 2.5) were made up of the other best GEP students from other neighbourhood schools all over SG
2. to fill up the 1 (or 1.5) mainstream class for P4 the school can always pick those with best results from the long waiting list to join them
so it is more likely the students who are the ones make the school look good rather than the other way round since the school has more good students with better background to begin with... -
OrangeJuice:
:goodpost:[/quote]ksi:
[quote=\"Nebbermind\"]Think we have no problem agreeing most of the time...just that (for me) it's really unpleasant :gloomy: to have people trying to put down the GEP kids if the kids failed to conform to their own expectation.
Actually it reflects on ourselves poorly to bash up 1% of the children. They are children after all. Whether people believe they are gifted or not, it is not important. What I do know is parents actually prefer the children not to be so-called gifted because it comes with its own set of problems which many people cannot understand. Of course, worst of all, envy that comes with nasty remarks do not help these children.
Now I understand completely why MOE does not want to provide more info on the successful GEPpers because they understand, there is no need to show track record of the success, that is not the objective to begin with. Wise move MOE.
Lastly, of course giftedness can be observed from young. If a child has never been taught things and yet he/she can do it themselves plus parents are clueless in those areas, are those not born gifts? No relevant exposure at home at all and yet it can surface. :rotflmao:
(This is my definition of giftedness by birth, not what they can achieve like Lim Jeck and Sheldon who have the benefit of translating their giftedness to achievements)
People can talk about Lim Jeck and Sheldon but everyone knows they have the relevant background to bring out their gifts and to their maximum potential. They are doubly blessed, with gifts and with great parents who know or have the ability to know how to nurture their gifts. That is why you do not see Lim Jeck suffering that he is not in GEP. In fact, he will suffer the English in GEP badly if he dislikes language pressure and he has wise parents who acknowledge that staying out and self-nurturing helps him more. On the other hand, Sheldon is a gifted all-rounder who fits the GEP. The good news is both are endorsed gifted. They are good examples to understand MOE's model of gifted programme and why some GEPpers can also struggle in there for the curriculum for areas they do not thrive.
If a child has been greatly exposed by either parents being in the field or having siblings and can learn fast then perhaps parents would be more suspicious if it is a gift. Otherwise the innate ability is pretty clear to what I have seen in true GEP children.
Thank you for 'speaking-up' for me.... i felt so much better now.... :grphug: -
Just to share this from another thread.
Interesting interview with pioneer GEP students by NUS
http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=39436&p=826590&hilit=interview+gep#p826590 -
2ppaamm:
My other better suggestion is, just get rid of that PSLE! Saves all these trouble.
Just thinking, instead of that suggestion, how about besides the PSLE score, all the IP schools (that have SBGE programme) requires all candidates to go for a special entrance test ( to see whether they are suitable for the programme )? Is this consider more fair, Melodies? I think it will benefit the students as well. I don't know what the gep/non gep parents think though.
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 š
Register Login