IP vs O level

[VitoRelax]

Bentan:

The most important difference between IP and O-Level is the spread of syllabus, especially in Sec-3 and Sec-4. IP students get 4 years to study the full Secondary Syllabus. O-level students get only 3.5 year to study the full Secondary Syllabus. The last half of O-level year is spent on revision, preparing for O-level.


Some may think that half a year does not really make any difference in learning and grading. In actual fact it does make significant difference. Reason being that the O-level is testing mostly on the leanings in Sec-3 and Sec-4. This makes the Sec-3 year exceptionally challenging as the dosage is 2/3 of the combine of Sec-3 and Sec-4 syllabus. For the IP students, they study equal amounts in both Sec-3 and Sec-4.

As far as I know, all IP teachers, IP students and their parents would say that IP is better than O-Level. It is interesting to note that in our present education system; only the bright students are offered IP. In reality, it is the not-so-bright students that need this system more as it would allow them to tackle their secondary syllabus better by spreading it out more evenly. Let’s hope that one day our education system is improved to allow the not-so-bright students to also opt for IP, rather than struggling hard in their last 18 month of secondary education.

But if you allow the lower end of the so-called not-so-bright student to do IP, wouldn't they fail if you subject them to more \"things\" to do ? :?

[westmom]

Bentan:

As far as I know, all IP teachers, IP students and their parents would say that IP is better than O-Level. It is interesting to note that in our present education system; only the bright students are offered IP. In reality, it is the not-so-bright students that need this system more as it would allow them to tackle their secondary syllabus better by spreading it out more evenly. Let’s hope that one day our education system is improved to allow the not-so-bright students to also opt for IP, rather than struggling hard in their last 18 month of secondary education.

Not sure about this cos I heard some parents pulled their kids out from IP because they felt it's not for them. I was reading somewhere in another forum on discussion about how O levels better prepare them for A levels Maths than IP. So I think it's really really dependent on a lot of factors....

[corneyAmber]

As far as I know…removing an exam at "O" level removes the "exam-smart" factor in children handling examinations. But does that matter? For my personality, it does not. When at work, it is work smart, not exam smart.

[wonderm]

Bentan:

The most important difference between IP and O-Level is the spread of syllabus, especially in Sec-3 and Sec-4. IP students get 4 years to study the full Secondary Syllabus. O-level students get only 3.5 year to study the full Secondary Syllabus. The last half of O-level year is spent on revision, preparing for O-level.


Some may think that half a year does not really make any difference in learning and grading. In actual fact it does make significant difference. Reason being that the O-level is testing mostly on the leanings in Sec-3 and Sec-4. This makes the Sec-3 year exceptionally challenging as the dosage is 2/3 of the combine of Sec-3 and Sec-4 syllabus. For the IP students, they study equal amounts in both Sec-3 and Sec-4.

As far as I know, all IP teachers, IP students and their parents would say that IP is better than O-Level. It is interesting to note that in our present education system; only the bright students are offered IP. In reality, it is the not-so-bright students that need this system more as it would allow them to tackle their secondary syllabus better by spreading it out more evenly. Let’s hope that one day our education system is improved to allow the not-so-bright students to also opt for IP, rather than struggling hard in their last 18 month of secondary education.

Although I think IP is better for children of higher academic ability, I don't think it is for the reason you mentioned. From what I hear, most IP schools teach at accelerated rate. i.e. Sec 2 students are often taught Sec 3 stuff. The \"saved time\" are used for more project work, or more advanced learning beyond the O level syllabus. For students who would prefer a more structured teaching at a moderate pace, O Level may be more suitable.

[Bentan]

wonderm:

Although I think IP is better for children of higher academic ability, I don't think it is for the reason you mentioned. From what I hear, most IP schools teach at accelerated rate. i.e. Sec 2 students are often taught Sec 3 stuff. The \"saved time\" are used for more project work, or more advanced learning beyond the O level syllabus. For students who would prefer a more structured teaching at a moderate pace, O Level may be more suitable.

What the not-so-bright students need is sufficient time to cover their 4-year syllabus. If they are given a chance to do IP, they do not need fast track, they do not need accelerated teaching and they do not need to learn beyond the O-level. They simply need sufficient time to study and understand the syllabus and they will excel.

From my tutoring experience at http://singapore.math-chinese-tutor.com, many students are able to appreciate the full picture of their Secondary learnings only after completing their fully syllabus at mid-year exams in May. For those who score 30+ for L1R5 during mid-year, halfing the score to less than 15 by O-level is never a problem. Some can even go as low as 1/3 of their mid-year score, from 33 to 11.

However, the present system requires these students to take Prelim in September and thereafter O-level in November. If there is only 1 exam (without O-level) in November, I am sure most of them can get A1/A2 for all their subjects. The Prelim plus O-level system consumes great deal of time on these students during the last 6 months of their Secondary education. It deprives them from having good time to review, internalize and integrate all their Secondary learning.

When IP is applied on students with higher academic ability, naturally the school will go fast track and accelerated teaching. This is definitely good for bright students. But the not-so-bright students do not need all these extras. What they need is only sufficient time to digest all their learning at the most critical time which is the last few months of their Secondary education.

[finder]

Bentan:

............. The Prelim plus O-level system consumes great deal of time on these students during the last 6 months of their Secondary education. It deprives them from having good time to review, internalize and integrate all their Secondary learning.......

Wouldn't preparation also a kind of revision? :?

[mathsparks]

Bentan:

............. The Prelim plus O-level system consumes great deal of time on these students during the last 6 months of their Secondary education. It deprives them from having good time to review, internalize and integrate all their Secondary learning.......

But without the goal of the O levels, would the students be reviewing, internalizing and integrating all their learning? :? And how then would the ministry decide who to go to which JC/poly etc?

[Bentan]

2 very important conclusion about present IP system:


1)

mathsparks:

But without the goal of the O levels, would the students be reviewing, internalizing and integrating all their learning?

Under present IP system, some (bright) students do not need O-level as they are able to review, internalize and integrate their learning without O-level.

2)

mathsparks:

And how then would the ministry decide who to go to which JC/poly etc?

Under present IP system, the ministry decides that some (bright) students go straight through into JC and not Poly.

By now it is public knowledge that the present IP system is designed for (bright) students to go straight through into JC as the “goal of O-level” is not working for them.

finder:

Wouldn't preparation also a kind of revision?

If fact, from what I have gathered, those who quit IP system are mainly for 2 reasons: (1) They have decided not to go into the particular JC that they are to IP-through (2) They are disqualified by the school as they are not meeting the standard of the IP system.

While everyone appreciates the good intention of the IP system on the bright students, the question is: can the not-so-bright student be given a similar system that serves another purpose: Give them more time to digest the Secondary syllabus.

To go further on analysis, this system should be an opt-in system. All not-so-bright students can opt for this system and be tested evenly every year, including the Sec-4 year. Those who are not able to meet the standard shall be disqualified and take the O-level system instead. There is no need to fast track for these students. They do not need accelerated teaching and they do not need to learn beyond the O-level. Simply give them sufficient time to study and understand the syllabus and they will excel.

[wonderm]

Bentan:

can the not-so-bright student be given a similar system that serves another purpose: Give them more time to digest the Secondary syllabus.

The express stream is meant for students who are ready to take O Level after 4 years. We know the schools finish syllabus in less than 4 years, and leave sufficient time for revision and preparation for O Level. I thought for students who prefer or need more time before they are ready for O Level, they can go for the Normal stream? If you are suggesting to go without O Level exams for these students, I am not sure if it is feasible since not all of them will continue in JC/Poly, wouldn't they need the O Level Cert?

[mathsparks]

Bentan:

2 very important conclusion about present IP system:


1)

mathsparks:

But without the goal of the O levels, would the students be reviewing, internalizing and integrating all their learning?

Under present IP system, some (bright) students do not need O-level as they are able to review, internalize and integrate their learning without O-level.

2)

mathsparks:

And how then would the ministry decide who to go to which JC/poly etc?

Under present IP system, the ministry decides that some (bright) students go straight through into JC and not Poly.

By now it is public knowledge that the present IP system is designed for (bright) students to go straight through into JC as the “goal of O-level” is not working for them.

finder:

Wouldn't preparation also a kind of revision?

If fact, from what I have gathered, those who quit IP system are mainly for 2 reasons: (1) They have decided not to go into the particular JC that they are to IP-through (2) They are disqualified by the school as they are not meeting the standard of the IP system.

While everyone appreciates the good intention of the IP system on the bright students, the question is: can the not-so-bright student be given a similar system that serves another purpose: Give them more time to digest the Secondary syllabus.

To go further on analysis, this system should be an opt-in system. All not-so-bright students can opt for this system and be tested evenly every year, including the Sec-4 year. Those who are not able to meet the standard shall be disqualified and take the O-level system instead. There is no need to fast track for these students. They do not need accelerated teaching and they do not need to learn beyond the O-level. Simply give them sufficient time to study and understand the syllabus and they will excel.

Bentan, you've completely or deliberately misunderstood my post. My 2 qns were directed at your suggestion to remove O levels, not about the existing IP system. Are you suggesting that on top of the current Specialised Schools, IP, Express, Normal (Acad), Normal (Tech), to open another category? :faint: