Hi, KF!


ACS(I) does not follow the IB MYP. It uses its own specially modified curriculum, the ACS(I) IP Y1-Y4 curriculum.

In this curriculum, the key differences with most schools (although I should add that quite a number of schools have now begun to adopt some of these practices) are:

1. Separation of lower sec science into life sciences and physical sciences (first implemented 2001, Y1/Y2).

2. A course called 'Philosophy of the Disciplines' which is intended to build some foundations for the IB Theory of Knowledge course (first implemented at Y3 2003, now Y1-Y4).

3. A module called CASL (Creativity, Action, Service, Leadership) which is intended to build foundations for the IB CAS (Creativity, Action, Service) requirement. (Y3-Y4)

4. Various adaptations from the GEP and other education systems, in terms of pedagogy and practice. (Y1-Y4)

5. A subject called IHS (Introduction to Human Societies), originally designed to be a 'gateway' module preparing all students to do any humanities subject, but aimed mainly at the IB Group 3 (Individuals and Societies) subjects. (Y3-Y4)

6. Combining language and literature skills into a set of modules (equivalent to one or two subjects depending on your perspective) called Language Arts. (Y1-Y4)

7. Project work and other skills modules. (Y1-Y4)

I think that's about it. Or at least, that's all I can remember.

I’ve seen a top-line tutor charge $330/hr before.


I would never pay that much. However, by looking around at various qualified tutors, I would venture to say that $120-$150/hour is about right for secondary level tuition, 1 to 1.

Singapore is already one of the countries with the lowest birth rates and we have to import people to make up the numbers and we are worried about BGR?


I think the lack of attention to proper guidance in BGR is the problem. It needn't be a distraction. In fact, in most civilised societies, BGR is a possible source of inspiration in all fields of human endeavour.

Consider this: suppose we declare a moratorium on BGR until after students have got a basic university degree. What do you think will happen?

ohnjay:

:?:

My son is Sec 1 going Sec 2 and keep complaining he bored and say he want to buy Sec 2 textbook to read. Can anyone tell me what textbook to buy for humanities (history, geography???) Help would be appreciated

If your son wants to have a good overview of the humanities in advance, as well as keep a book that will be useful for the next 6-8 years, I suggest that you look for Ideas That Changed The World, by Felipe Fernández-Armesto, Dorling Kindersley (2004). ISBN: 9-781405-305938.

It is excellent preparation for studying the humanities, comes in very very short chapters, and is nicely illustrated with high-quality photographs. About 400 pages, costs not more than S$40/-, I think.

Someone really should put this thread to sleep.


The answer is that this is never going to happen. The transitional costs and everything would make it prohibitive.

In the case of ACS(I), the school created a whole Year 5/Year 6 cohort doing IB out of nothing. They extended up from Sec 4. No added transitional cost. This was helped by the fact that ACS already detached its pre-university A-level programme in 1977 and never took it back.

For RI and HCI, they already have a well-established A-level programme entrenched for a large cohort. It would have a large added cost to change the whole programme or a part of it large enough to make the trouble worthwhile.

In the case of the international schools, they can all offer IGCSE, GCSE, whatever they want. So they all decided on what they would offer and then set up their programmes. Again, no added transitional cost.

OFF-TOPIC


Dear all,

I am surprised and appreciative of the kind comments. I just have to say that it's just my good fortune to be a teacher-researcher who specialises in integrated programmes at a time when people seem to need info. So I help lor! It's like community service.

As for ACS(I), I must confess to privileged information.

Don't worry, I don't work there. I just happen to know it very well.

A.

If you are taking the GCE O-levels, you need to look at the MOE website, on http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/admissions/jae/. Download the JAE Information Booklet. In section 3, you will find that you can apply to ACS(I) just like any other JC.


You will probably need an aggregate score of 5 or better, based on existing info and including bonus points.

International students need to pay at least $850 per month in fees. Look under school code 7001 in the booklet for more details.

=====

However, as a foreign student doing IGCSE or GCSE, you will need to take the entrance exam, which basically means ACS(I) can do anything they want to you. Note that the number of places is very small; they have 450+ places, and a majority of those are already taken by students moving up from Year 4.

I suspect that the entry to the IP at Year 1 does not have a rigid COP. That is because of the DSA students, as well as the very flexible criteria used. This has been my experience. However, you can count on it that the COP is set roughly at 250+. There are certain reasons for this which you can figure out...


In fact, for some reason, the typical entry score (since we can't say 'COP') for ACS(I) IP is very close to (or 'around') the mean for non-affiliated entry.

This is why you can use the public data as a proxy for data you cannot otherwise obtain. It's like trying to figure out the staff turnover rate at ACS(I). They won't tell you, but it's easy to find out.

PS: also note that entry to the IBDP (International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme) itself is only at Year 5. The IP (Integrated Programme) is the whole Year 1 to Year 6 thing, with three main entry points.

Kiasu Friend:

What is the CoP for IB intake for year-1 in ACS(I) last year through PSLE Centralised posting (i.e., from non-affiliated schools)?

Some say it was 253, some others say 257. I remember one forum member had mentioned 251. If an accurate figure is not possible, can you please indicate what is the nearest guess?

The idea of calling up the school office is a bad one. They have unofficial statistics and official ones. They also have DSA students with PSLE scores. And they do not need to tell you.

However, you can go to the MOE database http://app.sis.moe.gov.sg/schinfo/SIS_index.asp. Choose 'Mixed Level Schools (Offering Sec1 to JC2)' and select ACS(I) from the drop-down menu.

I can do it for you. So here is the official MOE distribution, for ACS(I) 2009 PSLE to 2010 Year 1, copied from the resulting page:

Non-Affiliated: 250-264, mean=254, median=254
Affiliated (for comparison): 235-280, mean=246, median=244

=====

For 2008 PSLE to 2009 Year 1 it was:
Non-Affiliated: 253-269, mean=256, median=256
Affiliated: 235-270, mean=246, median=246

=====

For 2007 PSLE to 2008 Year 1 it was:
Non-Affiliated: 252-267, mean=257, median=256
Affiliated: 235-270, mean=248, median=248

=====

For 2006 PSLE to 2007 Year 1 it was:
Non-Affiliated: 254-271, mean=257, median=256
Affiliated: 235-266, mean=246, median=244

=====

In a nutshell, there is no significant change in intake across the school. Remember, the process is driven somewhat by market forces, even though there is a large degree of 'market failure' because of DSA and other things.

Hope this helps!

Kiasu Friend:

If it is true that ACS(I) has diluted the rigour of the curriculum in Year-1 and Year-2 to help late entrants, then I would consider it most unfortunate. Because, making it easy enough to enter in Year-3 and Year-5 in fact reduces the stature of the IB program itself. It adds credence to the prevailing view (incorrect view, I would say) that IB is not as rigourous as A-level.


I wish that ACS(I) restores the rigour to the original specifications and thus establish IB as a course no less in rigour to A-level. If it means raising the barriers to late-entrants, by all means let them do it. Because, among the late-entrants, those who are really motivated and capable will get over the entry-barrier anyway. But by restoring the rigour, the stature of IB will be protected. This is my personal view.

I don't think that the rigour was diluted to help late entrants. I suspect it was diluted because it was too difficult to cope with rapid expansion (hence the staff talent density would have fallen) plus curriculum changes at the same time. It's always difficult to enact major changes all round in a very short time.

The success of the school can be put down in large measure to the high quality of the intake, actually. The in-house curriculum helps somewhat, but not as much as it should. It would be odd, though, if a pre-selected Singaporean top 10% intake didn't outperform the average IB school worldwide...