Sep 15, 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
13 Comments. Leave new
Expanding the secondary GEP for the top 1 % to the top 5% and now to the top 10% of the cohort 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 IP for JCs and schools do not breed a culture of elitism. In fact it does the opposite by opening the IP to more students.
As more JCs and schools offer IP, the less "elistist" IP becomes.
Meaning of "elitist"
"elitist"
“organized for the good of a few people who have special interests or abilities”
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=25…
***
“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.”
***
The P3 students have to go through 2 rounds of selections tests.
Round 1: Top 5 % (about 5500 students) selected
Round 2: Top 1 % (about 550 students) selected
The 550 GEP students then go through a different, more challenging programme.
These GEP students then apply for IP through DSA again going through rigorous 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 rigorous DSA selection process and tests set by individual schools 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.
***
“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.”
***
Corrections:
The P3 students have to go through 2 rounds of selection tests.
Round 1: Top 5 % (about 2500 students) selected
Round 2: Top 1.1 % (about 550 students) selected
This is the list of MPs and Ministers.
Check the list to see which schools they come from (before the days of IP as the recent batches of IP students have just finished "A" levels and IB)
http://www.parliament.gov.sg/AboutUs/Org-MP-curre…
***
"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."
***
Correction:
As more JCs and schools offer IP, the less “elitist” IP becomes.
If these Secondary 4 students from neighbourhood schools with perfect scores of six points do not get accepted by RI, HCI, VJC, NJC, and TJC because these are already full with IP students and all of them decide to apply to the next best neighbourhood JC which is more than willing to take them, wouldn't the neighbourhood JC over time become what the author would call an "elitist" JC as its cut off point drops closer to six ?
***
"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."
***
From what has written about the IP, it should be offered to more and not fewer students by having more JCs and schools implement it.
It is perceived as "elitist" because it was offered in a few "top" schools.
By expanding the IP to more schools make it more "common" and reduce the perception of it being "elitist".
***
"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."
***
These government-aided and autonomous schools with good students should consider starting their own IP (which is what Dunman High has done and talk of SJI proposing one).
***
"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."
***
The Victoria family should have a 6 year joint IP, with collaboration between VJ and VS as suggested in the alternative proposals.
This will make the Victoria IP more accessible to a wider group of students, both in VS and VJ.
It does not breed "elitism" as argued in my earlier comments.
Would you like these special programmes organised by the Gifted Education Branch of MOE to be offered to more IP students as more JCs and schools offer IP or only to IP students at just a few schools like RI, HCI and NUS High?
Would you like more students at VS and VJ to be given opportunites to participate in these programmes ?
Does giving more students a chance to participate in these programmes breed elitism ?
***
http://www.gebsp.moe.gov.sg/spc/
The main focus of the Special Programmes (SPs) is talent development. The intent of the SPs is to identify and reach out to motivated and high-ability pupils in a specific domain, and offer them opportunities to deepen their interest in the field & learn from practising professionals and academics. The philosophy underlying SPs is that strong interest in a specific area provides unequalled internal motivation and acts as a powerful driving force towards self-directed and independent learning.
In all, the SPs provide enrichment opportunities in a variety of disciplines ranging from branches of science, the humanities and language arts, to non-academic areas like leadership and innovation. Many of the SPs are unique programmes conceptualised to cater to youth who exhibit interest and aptitude in specialised areas.
Currently, there are 20 SPs that the Gifted Education Branch organises in partnership with tertiary institutions and other organisations. Of the 20 programmes, 15 cater to pupils’ interest in the Sciences, 3 in the Humanities and Language Arts, one in innovation and one in leadership. There are 12 programmes organised under the umbrella of Science Mentorship Programmes.
Common to many of the SPs is a mentorship attachment component in which participants are mentored for a period of time under the guidance of experts in relevant fields. These experts are either lecturers from tertiary education or research institutes, or specialists in the private sector. After the period of mentorship, which can vary from 4 months to a year for the different SPs, participants are given the platform to showcase their products.
Science Programmes
Creative & Heuristic Applications of Science (CHAOS)
Science Mentorship Programmes (SMP)
Science Research Programme (SRP)
Science Focus (SF)
Humanities and Language Arts Programmes
Creative Arts Programme (CAP)
Humanities and Social Sciences Research Programme (HSSRP)
Moot Parliament Programme (MPP)
Innovation Programmes
Innovation Programme (IvP)
Leadership Programmes
Leadership Development Programme (LDP)
***
Forum commentators who glibly refer to GEP and IP as elitist are displaying their ignorance, not their sophistication.
6. At the secondary level, GEP classes used to be organised by MOE. These were hosted in selected schools. Since the introduction of Integrated Programmes (IP) schools in 2004 and the establishment of NUS High School of Math and Science in 2005, MOE-organised GEP has ceased as such schools could cater to the learning needs of GEP and other high-ability students through school-based programmes.
7. The small number of GEP pupils who prefer the ’O’ Level track may enrol in schools like Anglo-Chinese School (Independent), Catholic High School, Methodist Girls’ School, Singapore Chinese Girls’ School, and St Joseph’s Institution, which offer school-based talent development programmes.
8. MOE, with its rich experience of running the GEP, now plays a major role in providing training for IP and specialised school teachers and the sharing of resources and expertise in educating the intellectually able.
9. Gifted education remains an integral part of Singapore’s education system, and will continue to evolve to cater to students who are intellectually gifted and talented to ensure they reach their maximum potential. MOE will continue to play a key role in supporting schools to deliver school-based gifted education programmes. What we aim to achieve is a diversity of such programmes.
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/parliamentary-replies…
Note this statement (from MOE parliamentary reply dated 14 Sep 2009)
“MOE will continue to play a key role in supporting schools to deliver school-based gifted education programmes.
What we aim to achieve is a diversity of such programmes.”
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/parliamentary-replies…