VJC’s IP plan: Upset alumni write to minister
By Amelia Tan
A ROW is brewing between the Victorian alumni association and Victoria Junior College (VJC) over a decision to expand the college’s integrated programme.
VJC submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Education (MOE) last month, seeking to admit students at the Secondary 1 level instead of Secondary 3, which it has been doing for the last four years.
The Old Victorians’ Association (OVA) – the alumni group of Victoria School (VS) and VJC – is against the move, which it feels pits VJC against VS.
OVA president Vernon Teo said in an interview yesterday that he has written to Education Minister Ng Eng Hen to explain why the association is against the expansion of the integrated programme.
An MOE spokesman confirmed it has received the letter but did not say when the results of the evaluation process will be known.
Mr Teo said the association had been talking with VJC on the possibility of expanding the integrated programme for the past three years. But VJC decided to submit the proposal to MOE despite objections from the OVA. ‘We said no but they went ahead. We are very disappointed,’ Mr Teo added.
When contacted, VJC principal Chan Poh Meng said: ‘We believe that there are significant educational advantages in having an uninterrupted six-year programme for the students to engage in a wider range of learning experiences for holistic development.’
Mr Teo said in the letter that the move will cause a split in the Victorian family, as VS and VJC will be forced to fight for the same target audience: Secondary 1 students.
He also said that expanding the integrated programme to Secondary 1 students will attract top Primary 6 pupils and breed a culture of elitism which Victorian schools do not stand for.
Mr Teo said the association’s view is shared by the majority of Victorian alumni, students and their parents. A Facebook group set up to protest against the expansion of the integrated programme has drawn about 2,200 members. All 60 comments posted on a website that OVA launched, to gather views on VJC’s proposal, were also against it.
Mr Teo said that while the OVA is against VJC’s proposal to admit Secondary 1 students, it is open to working with the school on alternative ideas that can achieve the same objectives as a six-year programme, and which also ensures VS stays an all-boys school. He added that the VS track record of excellence has proven that an all-boys formula during a student’s teenage years works.
One idea the association has is to have a management team run both VJC and VS and continue with the four-year integrated programme. This means the boys will study with female students only when they progress to Secondary 3.
The second idea is to adopt a girls feeder school so VJC can attract top female students. The girls will study for the first two years at their girls school before joining VJC in Secondary 3.
The last idea is to admit Secondary 1 girls to VJC but have them study at a separate campus from the boys for the first two years.
This article was first published in The Straits Times.
Source: Asiaone
24 Comments. Leave new
"When contacted, VJC principal Chan Poh Meng said: ‘We believe that there are significant educational advantages in having an uninterrupted six-year programme for the students to engage in a wider range of learning experiences for holistic development.’"
Open Reply to Mr Chan Poh Meng:
This model will provide the “uninterrupted six-year programme for the students to engage in a wider range of learning experiences for holistic development”:
1. VJC and VS collaborate and run a common VJC-VS 6 year VIP (SBGE).
2. The VEC/VAC to appoint a VJC-VS VIP Executive Commitee to work with MOE to design, implement and supervise the programme.
3. VJC takes in only girls and VS takes in only boys for year 1 to year 4.
4. All the VS boys who meet the minimum requirements to be promoted to year 5 will move to the VJC campus for year 5 to join the VJC girls who meet the same minimum requirements.
Two Possible Models Depending on Whether there is Agreement with VJC to collaborate.
1. Collaboration Model
2. Cooptition Model
***
If VJC agrees to collaborate with VS:
Collaboration Model
VJC and VS collaborate and run a common VJC-VS 6 year VIP (SBGE).
The VEC/VAC to appoint a VJC-VS VIP Executive Commitee to work with MOE to design, implement and supervise the programme.
VJC takes in only girls and VS takes in only boys for year 1 to year 4.
All the VS boys who meet the minimum requirements to be promoted to year 5 will move to the VJC campus for year 5 to join the VJC girls who meet the same minimum requirements.
***
If VJC does not agree to collaborate with VS, then VS can propose this Cooptition Model as its BATNA (Best Alternative to No Agreement)
Cooptition Model
(“cooptition”: “Cooperative competition”)
The Victoria family can run 3 programmes:
"VS Original" (4 Year “O” levels)
VS IB (6 Year IB)
VJC VIP (6 Year VIP)
***
“VS Original”
4 Year “O” Levels
VS continues to run its current "O" levels programme for students with PSLE T-Score of below 250 or those who have PSLE T-Score of above 250 but prefer the “O” level route.
"VS Original" students who meet the requirements may apply to VS IB or VJC VIP at certain levels.
Students from the VS IB or VJC VIP may apply to switch to “VS Original” for the “O” levels either because they do not like or cannot cope with the IB programme or IP.
***
VS IB
VS implement an IB programme for students with PSLE T-Score of 250 and above.
"VS Original" students may apply to join the VS IB on merit at certain levels.
Students opting out of VS IB may apply to switch to “VS Original” to do the “O” levels.
***
VJC VIP
VJC implements its 6 year VIP.
“VS Original” students may apply to join VJC VIP on merit at certain levels.
Students opting out of VJC VIP may apply to switch to “VS Original” to do the “O” levels.
***
The Cooptition Model will level out the playing ground for both VS and VJC and other schools with 6 year IP in the recruitment of year 1 students.
***
The Coopetition Model
(Will use the term coopetition instead of cooptition)
"Losing and winning are two extremes by which businesses are often measured. Brandenburger (Harvard Business Sch.) and Nalebuff (Yale Sch. of Management) argue that most businesses and their transactions lie somewhere between the two poles. Their liberating message is that your competitor does not have to fail for you to win. Conversely, you don't have to fail either. Your failure, in fact, can hurt your competitor. It is better, the authors assert, to have both cooperation and competition."
Co-Opetition : A Revolution Mindset That Combines Competition and Cooperation : The Game Theory Strategy That's Changing the Game of Business (Paperback)
by Adam M. Brandenburger (Author), Barry J. Nalebuff
Barry J. Nalebuff (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Co-Opetition-Revolution-Com…
On relection, when VJC implemented its 4 year IP, it had already changed the landscape from collaboration to coopetition by competing away VS top Sec 2 boys to apply to join its VIP from year 3, resulting in a hollowing out of VS Sec 3 cohort.
ST Forum
15 Sep 2009
EXPANDING IP PROGRAMMES
Beware of breeding elitism
I REFER to last Tuesday’s report (’VJC’s IP plan: Upset alumni write to minister’) and understand why the Old Victorians’ Association is averse to letting Victoria Junior College implement the integrated programme (IP).
When the Education Ministry implemented the gifted education programme in 1984, only 1 per cent of Primary 3 pupils were enrolled in it.
Interestingly, this 1 per cent cohort of gifted programme pupils had priority or access to IPs offered by some 11 schools even though they did not fare as well in their Primary School Leaving Examination.
The IP was started five years ago to provide a seamless and richer secondary and junior college education whereby students bypassed the O-level examinations.
It was aimed at letting students develop their intellectual curiosity and giving them a more broad-based education without being stifled by the exam culture.
But the pioneering IP schools have managed to attract all the top students, leaving some traditionally good JCs with no choice but to offer IPs as well to get their share of good students. Currently, the top 5 per cent of Primary 6 pupils can opt for integrated programmes.
During the 1970s and 1980s, most Singaporeans who performed relatively well in neighbourhood schools could enrol in the top five JCs without much difficulty.
Not so now. A good Secondary 4 student from a neighbourhood school, one with even a ‘perfect’ score of six points (that is, six A1s) in six subjects in the O levels, may find it harder to get into Raffles Institution and Hwa Chong Institution, National JC, Temasek JC and perhaps Victoria JC because most places would have been reserved for the IP students of the schools these colleges have hooked up with.
The Education Ministry must be sensitive and extremely careful in implementing more IPs for JCs or any other school as it may breed a culture of elitism.
In the past, we have had ministers, permanent secretaries, senior civil servants and MPs from various secondary schools.
What should not happen is a reversal of such a healthy trend, that is, future top guns in government coming from a handful of elite institutions.
Meritocracy works well but breeding elitism is unhealthy, and my sense is that many government-aided or autonomous schools have lost good students to the schools providing IPs.
David Goh
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIS…
Attracting the top students, the elite, does not necessarily make a school elitist.
In the old days of VS glory when it attracted the top students like RI did, was VS ever regarded as elitist ? Then it was meritocracy.
Whether it becomes elitist depends on the programme and ethos of the school.
The term "elitist" is too loosely used.
Also the people who write against the GEP and IPs are usually those who fear that their children cannot get into the GEP or the IP through the PSLE or "O" levels route or are not selected for the programmes.
There is a difference between an ability test (at P3 and during DSA selection) and an achievement test (PSLE and "O" lelevls). The IP goes beyond just simple examination scores and you could easily find another group of people talking cynically about the all "A" students as just being exam smart.
It is meritocracy when their children can get in but elitist when they can not.
Extending the secondary GEP for the top 1 % to the top 5% and now to the top 10% in the form of IP makes it less "elitist" because it now caters to a larger group of (about 5,500 students) rather than just a select few (about 550 students).
The choice is very simple.
In today's educational landscape, the Victoria family either has an IP (whether joint or only VJC) and have
what some call meritocracy (or what some call elitism)
or stay still and move down the slope to
mediocrity.
Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that VJC's proposal get rejected, else VS will move down the slope to mediocrity.
Both VJC and VS, the entire Victoria family will move down the slippery slope of mediocrity.
Ask and you may be given.
The site between VS and the ECP.
***
Map View on streetdirectory.com
http://www.streetdirectory.com/asia_travel/travel…
***
Satellite View on streetdirectory.com http://www.streetdirectory.com/asia_travel/gps/gp…
***
View on Master Plan 2008
“Master Plan 2008
http://www.ura.gov.sg/mp08/map.jsf?goToRegion=SIN…
(Search:
Type in 2 in box for Block/House Number
Type in Siglap Link in box for Street Name)”
***
vjc still can maintain 4-pt cut-off
"When the Education Ministry implemented the gifted education programme in 1984, only 1 per cent of Primary 3 pupils were enrolled in it.
Interestingly, this 1 per cent cohort of gifted programme pupils had priority or access to IPs offered by some 11 schools even though they did not fare as well in their Primary School Leaving Examination."
The P3 students have to go through 2 selections test.
Round 1: Top 5 %
Round 2: Top 1 %
The GEP students then go through a different, more challenging programme.
These GEP students then apply for IP through DSA again going through rigourous tests set by RI, HCI and NUS High, for example before they are offered places. NUS High do not take students through the PSLE placement. These offers are made before the PSLE.
By the time the GEP students reach P6 and go through the DSA selection, they would have gone through demanding tests in P3, a more challenging 3 year programme and rigourous DSA selection process before they are offered places in the IP of the top schools.
It is natural that the students who have already been placed in the schools of their choice are not as motivated to "score" in the PSLE.
In fact there has been debate whether it is necessary for these students to take the PSLE which is just a placement test because these students are already placed.
"The Education Ministry must be sensitive and extremely careful in implementing more IPs for JCs or any other school as it may breed a culture of elitism."
Extending the secondary GEP for the top 1 % to the top 5% and now to the top 10% in the form of IP makes it less “elitist” because it now caters to a larger group of (about 5,500 students) rather than just a select few (about 550 students).
More IPs for JCs and schools do not breed a culture of elitism. In fact it does the reverse by extending it to more students.
When more JCs and schools implement IPs, it becomes less elitist by definition.
Definition of elitist
elitist adjective
/ɪˈliː.tɪst/ adj mainly disapproving
"organized for the good of a few people who have special interests or abilities"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=25…
As schools and JCs with 6 year IP cream off the top 10% with PSLE score of 250 and through DSA, what is left for the cohort taking the "O" levels ?
Wouldn't VJ just get the best of the 2nd best ?
Wouldn't the entire Victoria family, VS and VJ then move down the slippery slope to mediocrity.
***
"vjc still can maintain 4-pt cut-off"
***
As schools and JCs with 6 year IP cream off the top 10% with PSLE score of 250 and above and through DSA, what is left of the cohort taking the “O” levels ?
Wouldn’t VJ just get the best of the 2nd best ?
Wouldn’t the entire Victoria family, VS and VJ then move down the slippery slope to mediocrity.
***
“vjc still can maintain 4-pt cut-off”
And even if MOE approve VJC's proposal of 6-yr IP, there is still a workable solution. This is in the form of – 1. A VS-VJ merger with centralised management.
From previous MOE's IP announcements, the announcement precede the implementation by one year. So if MOE approve VJC's 6-yr IP, the implementation will be in Jan, 2011. In the one year before Jan, 2011, VS and VJC can prepare for a merger.
The initial 120 Sec 1 IP students can be divided with the boys in VS and the girls in VJC. (After all, Raffles and Hwa Chong Sec 1-4 IP boys and girls are in different campuses). The IP intake can be increased gradually, giving enough time to set up a girls' school, if necessary. If not, the IP girls will continue to start Sec 1 in VJC.
I cannot see any reason for VJC to reject this.
Victoria Reunite,
The above is found in Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=11683824650…
This is also your idea – having the Sec 1-4 IP girls in VJC.
I rather those here to focus on this rather than on the future direction that VS should go after VJC break away.
I know you do not want to go to Facebook becos ST has not reported correctly about the 2200 people in the Facebook group, but it reaches out to a much bigger group compared to here. Also, the format is quite unreadable here besides the fact that one cannot start a new thread.
Reply to Old Boy
Don't worry old boy. The people there in Facebook are playing their role and the people here on the OVA blog are playing our role.
What the Education Minister say about Victoria School
"In Victoria School, I hear that the Chinese language teachers are now exploring the use of Facebook and Twitter to teach narrative and descriptive writing. They find Facebook and Twitter more interactive than blogs and discussion forums, while Twitter will allow students to capture their reflections on mobile phones through "tweets"."
Straits Times dated 19 Sep 2009 page A 28.
Old Boy, September 18, 2009 @ 12:26
I support this idea.
I think the chances that Ministry of Education will approve VJC's proposal is 90%.
To the contrary… my gut feel of approval is less than 5%…
Cos I strongly believe the key essence of education is not about grades or ranking or scholarships… but of responsible moral cultivation… how can a society of Singapore be sustainable and continue to evolve successfully in this fast pace globalised world without a sound moral foundation…
From MOE's point of view,
1. Criticism of IP being elistist does not matter. Gifted Education has been criticised for 25 years by the public and recently Education Minister has said it has been very successful.
2. VJC's proposal vs OVA's proposal. Any reason to listen more to an alumni's proposal more than the school's itself? The VJC's proposal may be very detailed and is in line with MOE's overall IP direction.