Kiasu Friend:

(1) Do the students joining in Year 3 or Year 5 suffer at least a slight disadvantage when compared to those joining ACS(I) IP program in Year 1 itself?


(2) If they do not suffer any disadvantage, then what is the benefit in joining in Year-1 of IP program at ACS(I)? In other words, do Year-1 and 2 of the IP program at ACS (I) have any relevance to IB curriculum or these first two years of the IP program are just like Sec-1 and Sec-2 elsewhere?

In summary my question is: \"ACS(I) rightly claims that theirs is a 6-year IP program leading to IBDP. But in what specific ways the Year-1 and Year-2 contribute in preparing the students for the eventual IBDP if one can join in Year-3 or Year-5 at their own convenience?\"

Hi there. Those are very good questions, and answering them is tricky. But I will try.

1. In theory, the students joining later should have be at a disadvantage. However, most of those joining later are scholars (Year 3 entry) or selected by having very good O-level or DSA scores (Year 5 entry). Some have pointed out that late entry at Year 5 is mostly female, and yes, female students have a high average performance level.

2. The data therefore show that on average there is no disadvantage to late joiners. But whether this is due to the programme not really differentiating or whether this is due to the high quality of the late joiners has not been established yet. In most IP schools, research shows that late joiners tend to do better — however, the bar to entry is also set much higher for late entry.

3. The main advantage to joining early seems to be that a student joining early will get into the flow earlier. The ACS(I) IP was originally crafted to develop skill sets that were necessary for the IB Diploma Programme. But not having those skill sets at a high level is obviously not an obstacle to doing well, if the student is highly motivated.

My personal (I stress 'personal') opinion is that the ACS(I) IP's original specifications would have been sufficiently rigorous to create a barrier that would have resulted in early entry being an outstanding advantage. The specifications have been reduced, so it is now no longer such a barrier.

I hope that answers your questions. There's an article I linked to in a post responding to tiger262 above that may be useful (especially towards the end). Cheers!

Hey, this site is now http://google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?tpl=safari&site=www.kiasuparents.com&hl=en!

Piggy Lim:

Hi

I understand that if the boys do well in year two in ACS(I) they will be able to get in IB from year three.
What about boys from ACS (Baker) will they be able to be given the opportunity to get into IB to ACS(I) if they do well in year two?
Thanks v much in advance for the reply.

The IB programme is actually a two-year course in Years 5 and 6, equivalent roughly to a two-year JC A-level course.

ACS(I) has three main intake points at the start of Year 1 (from PSLE/DSA), Year 3 (mostly foreign scholars), and Year 5 (from O-level/DSA etc, for the IB Diploma Programme). They also used to run entrance examinations for entry to Years 1, 2 and 3, but those tended to have a large candidature and very few qualifiers.

Secondary-level boys from ACS(Barker), unlike the primary-level boys from ACS(P) and ACS(J), have no special formal relationship with ACS(I) as far as admission is concerned. If they want to get in, they have to apply and be considered on a case by case basis just like anybody else. However, it is possible for them to be transferred under special circumstances.

If they are transferred in for Year 3, they have to do well in whatever track they are placed in (IP or O-level) and they then will stand an excellent chance of ending up in the Year 5 cohort for the IBDP two years later.

3Boys:

School spirit yes, but not overblown. The school is not the end all and be all. You can make plenty of good friends in formative years, and I still have mine, but it does not have to be in the context of a strident, 'loyalist' atmosphere in school. Do not confuse friendship formed in school with strident school spirit.

If I read the Mission Statement of ACS(I), it says, \"To be a World Class Institution in Nurturing the Holistic Development of our Students.\" An admirable aim indeed! The development of our students to be academically proficient, morally sound, and active contributors to SOCIETY. It goes on to add, A scholar, an officer and a gentleman, a scholar, leader and global citizen as visions. Nowhere do I see the development of rabid school loyalty as a vision.

What is the end game? ACS does not exist for itself, it does not exist to perpetuate school spirit for itself. It exists to provide an education and upbringing for its students. The primary responsibility of its staff and principal is to its students, not the perpetuation of school spirit. Is that so hard to fathom?

Rabid school loyalty isn't the point. Rather, school loyalty, rabid or not, is an important precursor to other traits that might be seen as valuable.

The discussion is an old one with perhaps a more modern conceptualisation first raised by SF author Gordon Dickson in the 1970s. What is needed for humans to prosper?

Is it a homogeneous system in which all are given equal opportunities and rights? Or is it a heterogeneous system in which many different traits are being developed in 'rabid' isolation?

You'll recognize the latter if you think hard enough. It's called 'portfolio diversification' and in nature, in the form of 'biodiversity', it's an important measure of environmental sustainability.

It's good for schools to be outstandingly different and bad for them to be the same. If all Singapore schools were the same, then certain traits would automatically never be expressed or surfaced except under very rare conditions.

The only way to keep them different is to create a deep sense of loyalty to key ideas which are fundamental to their makeup. For Rafflesians, there's the Rafflesian Code of Honour; for ACSians, there's the peculiar idea of diversity and spiritual and material success that is symbolised in their crest. These are all artificial and theoretically unnecessary constructs. But the need to use them as rallying points to establish difference and 'fix' loyalty is necessary in order to teach esprit d'corps.

Why would we want to teach that?

Because loyalty is an important virtue. It begins with loyalty to family, then to the local group (or school, or football club), and goes on to be a socially important trait. If a man can't be 'rabidly loyal' to his school, perhaps he can't be loyal to his friends or his wife or his nation.

Loyalty isn't always good, but it isn't often a bad thing. And 'school spirit' is one way to develop it.

clayman:

From one ACS boy to another jencrs....Cheers!


If only there is another in the mould of Ernie....

Class of 78.

Oh yes, Earnest Lau. One of the best ACSian principals I've had the pleasure to work with as a student and colleague, and also when running around seeking advice and information.

I'm from the class of 83, his last complete batch.

tiger262:

I know that this debate - IB vs A-level - is a very worn out topic. Nevertheless, since you have exposure to ACS (I), I will value your comments much more. Please feel free to chip in with your views, when time permits.

You're very welcome. Integrated Programmes are my area of research anyway.

There's a paper about 2 years old that you can download from http://nk11r10-homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/FileSharing.woa/wa/2007TSLNIBDPFInal.pdf.pdf-zip.zip?a=downloadFile&user=brythain&path=/Public/2007TSLNIBDPFInal.pdf. It's PDF, about 300+ Kb when downloaded. Enjoy.

3Boys:

What is the stake in OTC advising a top ACSian to go to RI? A better developed individual for Singapore perhaps? I am finding it hard to see the downside of that. You claim ACS for your own, but it is much bigger than that, and perhaps at that point in time, someone needed to be in place who understood that.

I quite understand your perspective. One should always (in the role of an educator) try to ensure that a student gets the best deal. We do it for them, and not for ourselves or out of our own preferences or loyalties.

If a student I found in ACS looked much more at home in an RI context, and if he qualified, I'd recommend RI at once. I would side OTC in such a case.

I would, however, distinguish between the role of educator on a personal level and educator on a public level. If the Coca-Cola CEO started recommending that, in general, everyone should switch to Pepsi, there'd be a problem of some sort. However, if on a personal level, he were to say, \"Hey, I see why you don't quite like my brand. Maybe my brand needs some changing. If you want something that is more to your liking, you might want to try Pepsi,\" I think he'd have my respect as well.

The key for independent schools, however, is the continuation of a certain kind of culture. That is one of the underlying premises behind the creation of these schools, as laid out in the February 1987 'Towards Excellence in Schools' report. In that sense, I'd want to monitor the CEO of such a school to see whether there were significant differences in expressed culture and cultural transmission while that CEO was in charge.

Muffins:

hi tiger262, take it from me, in ACS(I) as well, you will take up to about 11.00 to clear homework. There are 8 subjects alone, of which usually give homework everytime they see you for their periods, so there's not much difference there...

tiger262, it depends on which teachers your son will get. There is a homework minimum determined by the Dean of the subject department. For physical sciences and life sciences, homework can generally be cleared in school by a student who is quick to realise where the homework is coming from. For mathematics, it will be a grind (generally speaking). The English department is highly variable. Humanities (Geog, History) are tolerable, and Art is largely executed during school hours.

Three hours a day ought to be more than enough. The main burden will be the heavy CCA load (at least one UYO, possibly a competition-level sport). That can make a person feel even less inclined to do homework.

Bottom line though is personal responsibility. Keep your son away from extensive (or intensive) gaming, and life will be better (although your son might not agree).

I wonder what your reaction might have been if you had been sitting down there at one of his staff meetings where he cut loose and made scathing remarks about his former boss (about five years after the man had left) and also about a fellow principal from a brother school (in 2002, during an ongoing court case). I remember him saying things like, "Why does everyone give A the credit when I did so much work also?" and "B is a bad man, he deserves whatever happens to him."


Whether warranted or not (and in my view, considering the evidence, completely unwarranted), it was a stunning display of lack of professionalism. But that is only my opinion. Then again, many of the 100+ people sitting there felt the same way.

tiger262:

autolycus:

The 'open house' for ACS(I) is normally in the middle of the year because it's designed to attract prospective DSA parents. ACS(I) isn't very good at handling publicity — in fact, they hardly attempt to compete with RI for the students from their own feeder schools.

That is what I like about ACS(I). In my view, a good school should not be publicity-seeking. Its achievements should speak for themselves.

A school should not be like a marketing company, promoting its wares. It is very heartening that ACS(I) does not engage in such promotional tactics, unlike some 'leading' institutions in Singapore.

I didn't say ACS(I) does not engage in such promotional tactics. The ex-CEO used to call up Sandra Davie at every opportunity to try and drum up publicity for the school. They were also inclined to invite parents of top sports performers to the school for a presentation and high tea.

ACS(I) can be very liberal with promotional tactics. They just aren't very good at it.