Is GEP really necessary?
-
2ppaamm:
Hi Pam,jtoh:
Our current GEP system was never intended for the profoundly gifted or even the exceptionally gifted. And that's why your Einsteins and the like will never fit into the system. I think statistically there would only be 1 or 2 profoundly gifted children in a cohort (if at all) so I can understand why the govt would hesitate to have a programme just for this small number. Therefore it has chosen to enhance the learning of a slightly wider group of 'gifted' children, as defined by their parameters. Should the entire GEP programme be discarded because it doesn't cater to these Einsteins? No. It would be akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Should the govt ignore the needs of these profoundly or exceptionally gifted children? No it shouldn't. I don't think it needs to be an either/or situation. We should be able to provide for the needs of the GEP students, the profoundly gifted as well as the Special Needs.
Actually, you are saying exactly what I am saying but in a different way.
Today, where do our profoundly or exceptionally gifted children go to? The GEP, there's no other avenue. So admittedly, there's no other program for them. So, are we saying we should not cater to the EG and PG so that we can nurture the moderately gifted and high ability in GEP? Then it should not be called a gifted program. Exactly my point. Secondly, the system has also degenerated to not even pick up a Math or humanities genius, given the aggregate method they use. So, not only do we not pick up the Einsteins, we are also not picking up the Terry Taos. So, what we have are High ability students. And this makes sense, because it makes classes easy to teach.
I have a very good friend who used to teach the GEP. He is like pro-GEP forever kind, since his own daughter was in GEP. And, admittedly, he couldn't handle the English GEP kids of those days, as he taught Math. He would sweat and cringe over them. He applauded when the system changed to the aggregate one. I asked if he was worried that those literature geniuses will be left out. He said he was more worried about how to 'pump up' those who can't even pass Math.
So our GEP is not for the genius, and not for those gifted in one area. The latter may not be geniuses, but certainly those who can contribute significantly in future in one area.
My point is to call it as it is. Handling giftedness is different from handling high ability. Today, our GEP is no longer a gifted program. By giftedness, it is not about being top 1%, it is about being extraordinarily good in some areas. But our GEP now means being top 1% in the cohort. So yes, I agree that there should be some kind of attention given to these children, but not together with the gifted ones. The ones who will fail your Math, but brilliant in their literature. Those who cannot write good compositions or can't even spell but they could not only solve but create mathematical models. Today, these kids are not being recognized, and thrown into the mainstream with no intervention, while we spend resources on high ability students, who, in all honesty be able to excel in any environment.
So, I'd say, by all means, give a special program to these high ability students within the schools, give them enrichment, give them lots of work and project etc etc, they will be our leaders and administrators one day. Honestly, they are still not gifted, and their propensity to contribute and create is different.
While those who are now left out cold in the system, those who are extremely creative in one area, look out for them and design something for them. These are the ones who will be spinning new innovations, new inventions for the country. They may not be your regular high ability students, but they deserve an education that meets their needs as well. And I'm not talking about exceptionally gifted category (who will make it into GEP mostly), I'm talking about just the ones gifted in one or two areas.
Another queer thing about GEP. Why are the girls always a minority by half? Never in my research do I ever come across boys being more often gifted than girls. Again, I question the selection. So again, it is not about choosing the gifted. It is about picking a category that we CHOOSE to nurture, which BTW, to me, is WRONG. EVERY child deserves a suitable education. So, again, GEP is not about giftedness.
And, I haven't gotten to the hothousing part yet, which many fellow forummers have discussed.
Singapore has failed to produce brilliant academic stars at the highest level to date. TO DATE. Yet, our GEP system has run since 1984. Time to wake up. If it is time to throw out the system, then it is time. Looking at the parliament seating, it is quite clear everybody knows it is time as well. The secondary schools knew it was time years ago.
If the gifted kids are not afraid of challenging status quo, why should we be?
I understand where you're coming from better now. And yes, we are saying similar things but coming from different standpoints. I still believe there is a place for GEP, albeit an improved version that is able to weed out those who have been prepped to pass the entrance exams.
And what you mentioned about the proportion of girls to boys being selected has always intrigued me. I put it down to social engineering.
btw, can you point me to the link on the parliament seating? Thanks. -
2ppaamm:
Singapore has failed to produce brilliant academic stars at the highest level to date. TO DATE. Yet, our GEP system has run since 1984. Time to wake up. If it is time to throw out the system, then it is time. Looking at the parliament seating, it is quite clear everybody knows it is time as well. The secondary schools knew it was time years ago.
since 1984 - so many batches, generation of GEP students had come and gone. It had been a long 28 years !
But till todate, SG has not produced any Nobel prize winner in Maths nor English. -
2ppaamm:
I realise we are looking at the same problem from 2 different perspectives.O, I am so tempted to say this. If you look at the GEP curriculum, you really don't need to be gifted to survive or excel in it. You just need hardworking parents and lots of tutors. If it is for gifted kids, restrict the work in class, and spare the parents for goodness sake!
So how does it feel if your child is not in the GEP, and you other children getting those DSA places from their parents' hard work. The world is never fair, but we don't have to make it less fair.
And this is no sour grapes. I have 2 DSA children. I felt it was unfair, too, because I could afford the time, the money and the commitment to go through those. Because I could afford does not make it more fair.
Your Perspective: EG Poorly Served
You have an EG not served by a system that insists that it has too little resources to give individualized attention... so even in GEP, there must be aggregate banding so that kids are good everywhere and thus Teachers' lives are made easier. So our GEP has evolved into a HA Program? In that case, my son would have managed just fine.
It is true that God is fair. When he gives EXTRAORDINARY talent in one area, it is almost always at the expense of very uneven development in others. This makes Yee Jenn Jong's suggestion to leave EG kids IN mainstream quite logical. This way, they can follow the other subjects at normal pace and their PET subject can be accelerated via online modules and one-to-one special classes. After all, how many EG can there be in a year? Surely we can manage to cater to the 1 or 2 a year? We are not a poor country eh?
My Perspective: Mainstream Poorly Served
I have an HA who is poorly served by a school that until recently gave no extra (though necessary) documented resources. I had to give him written resources from 2 GEP centres, add some sourced from overseas, add others that aren't stocked by Popular. He went through the materials independently and is doing fine. Not top... but fine.
Cutting past the irrelevant details of face, elitism etc... and looking purely at the quality of teaching, 2 things I particularly envy about the GEP are...
(1) small classes
(2) dedicated written resources developed by GEP Branch
Mainstream curriculum has evolved to comprise features that once were GEP. By the way, I was trained to teach GEP decades ago AND I have actually taught gifted kids before. I recognise features of today's mainstream curriculum from what little I can remember of the GEP many years ago. Teach Less Learn More was what I did with my GEP kids a long time ago, way before it became the stinking tag line and euphemism for Tuition, that it is today.
It was good exposure for me because I later adapted the method for adults. And I still use it today with DS.
In fact, I have lesser problems teaching DS his current mainstream syllabus, than many of his Teachers. I actually KNOW how to structure, plan and evaluate Teach Less Learn More interventions PROPERLY. To properly Teach Less Learn More, you need
(1) smaller classes
(2) ample written resources (or video) for kids to independently consult
In essence, if you really know Teach Less Learn More, you can teach a child plenty without needing to yourself know ANYTHING. This is how I taught DS Chinese (whilst being Chinese illiterate), Math (without bothering to master models), Science (with only an amateur's interest). I'm only good at English and DS doesn't really need to be taught there. And NO TUITION (even though I consider my work with him at home, very heavy tuition).
Question is... why did features of the GEP syllabus make it into mainstream without the key supporting features such as
(1) smaller classes
(2) ample written resources (or video) for kids to independently consult
I am not saying GEP is unnecessary. I think many kids in GEP enjoy the learning. My question is, why do we have a bastardized mainstream now... with GEP syllabus features ... but a non-GEP teaching support structure? Had I known this to be the case, I would have paid to hothouse my son into GEP, and not apologise for it. He has to do some of it in mainstream anyway so why not go the whole hog and let him enjoy...
(1) smaller classes
(2) ample written resources (or video) for kids to independently consult
DS is not gifted. Not by a long shot. He is clearly, HA. I thought I knew the GEP and so I never bothered to push him there. Then I found GEP came to mainstream. -
2ppaamm:
I dont think it is justified to say that to survive in GEP, you just need hardworking parents and lots of tutors. This is definitely not so in my ds school. Maybe this happens in some of the 'rich GEP centres'. From what I observed, majority of the students in my ds's school did not have tuition in science or maths. I would say that majority of the GEP do the work themselves and learn from the teachers. Usually, for projects, the parents may give some ideas on how to start, the actual writing or research are done by the child. I dont think there are many parents who can help in all 4 subjects. And if the child needs the parents or tutors to do the project or work, then he would be very miserable and insecure in GEP since they have to do quite a number of projects each year.O, I am so tempted to say this. If you look at the GEP curriculum, you really don't need to be gifted to survive or excel in it. You just need hardworking parents and lots of tutors. If it is for gifted kids, restrict the work in class, and spare the parents for goodness sake!So how does it feel if your child is not in the GEP, and you other children getting those DSA places from their parents' hard work. The world is never fair, but we don't have to make it less fair.
And this is no sour grapes. I have 2 DSA children. I felt it was unfair, too, because I could afford the time, the money and the commitment to go through those. Because I could afford does not make it more fair. -
PiggyLalala:
I am inclined to believe Piggy. With 25 in a class and ample reference materials to read and learn from, the school's teaching should be quite sufficient EVEN IF there are presentations and such. I wouldn't see the need for tuition nor parent help either.
I dont think it is justified to say that to survive in GEP, you just need hardworking parents and lots of tutors. This is definitely not so in my ds school. Maybe this happens in some of the 'rich GEP centres'. From what I observed, majority of the students in my ds's school did not have tuition in science or maths. I would say that majority of the GEP do the work themselves and learn from the teachers. Usually, for projects, the parents may give some ideas on how to start, the actual writing or research are done by the child. I dont think there are many parents who can help in all 4 subjects. And if the child needs the parents or tutors to do the project or work, then he would be very miserable and insecure in GEP since they have to do quite a number of projects each year.2ppaamm:
O, I am so tempted to say this. If you look at the GEP curriculum, you really don't need to be gifted to survive or excel in it. You just need hardworking parents and lots of tutors. If it is for gifted kids, restrict the work in class, and spare the parents for goodness sake!So how does it feel if your child is not in the GEP, and you other children getting those DSA places from their parents' hard work. The world is never fair, but we don't have to make it less fair.
And this is no sour grapes. I have 2 DSA children. I felt it was unfair, too, because I could afford the time, the money and the commitment to go through those. Because I could afford does not make it more fair.
I have looked through GEP written resources and think that HA kids can more than cope even without tuition. After all, DS currently learns off GEP written resources, has no tuition but still can cope.
Many mainstream parents these days send for tuition to compensate for what mainstream schools don't teach but do test. This, I would imagine, has lesser chance of happening in GEP and in the HA classes of GEP centres. -
Chenonceau:
I am inclined to believe Piggy. With 25 in a class and ample reference materials to read and learn from, the school's teaching should be quite sufficient EVEN IF there are presentations and such. I wouldn't see the need for tuition nor parent help either.
I dont think it is justified to say that to survive in GEP, you just need hardworking parents and lots of tutors. This is definitely not so in my ds school. Maybe this happens in some of the 'rich GEP centres'. From what I observed, majority of the students in my ds's school did not have tuition in science or maths. I would say that majority of the GEP do the work themselves and learn from the teachers. Usually, for projects, the parents may give some ideas on how to start, the actual writing or research are done by the child. I dont think there are many parents who can help in all 4 subjects. And if the child needs the parents or tutors to do the project or work, then he would be very miserable and insecure in GEP since they have to do quite a number of projects each year.PiggyLalala:
[quote=\"2ppaamm\"]O, I am so tempted to say this. If you look at the GEP curriculum, you really don't need to be gifted to survive or excel in it. You just need hardworking parents and lots of tutors. If it is for gifted kids, restrict the work in class, and spare the parents for goodness sake!So how does it feel if your child is not in the GEP, and you other children getting those DSA places from their parents' hard work. The world is never fair, but we don't have to make it less fair.
And this is no sour grapes. I have 2 DSA children. I felt it was unfair, too, because I could afford the time, the money and the commitment to go through those. Because I could afford does not make it more fair.
I have looked through GEP written resources and think that HA kids can more than cope even without tuition. After all, DS currently learns off GEP written resources, has no tuition but still can cope.
Many mainstream parents these days send for tuition to compensate for what mainstream schools don't teach but do test. This, I would imagine, has lesser chance of happening in GEP and in the HA classes of GEP centres.[/quote]O, I think you read me wrong. What I'm saying is that, you don't have to be gifted to survive GEP. Meaning, a non gifted child can survive GEP with hardworking parents and lots of tuition. I didn't mean everybody needs to have tuition teachers and parents' help to survive.
And, I don't think a child can get into GEP without being at least very HA.
-
Chenonceau:
I also think kids should all just be in their own classes, mixed, so they can play with everyone their ages. You can have high ability classes, and I do suggest smaller class sizes of perhaps 30. And those gifted ones can be pulled out for their specialties with professors or industry experts (not the MOE teachers, for goodness sake!). And, every school should have their own HA classes, just 500 in a nation is just too small. Maybe at least 3 classes every school? We need to spend more on our own children's education! And, the GEP DSA should be open to ALL HA students if they want to keep it. Otherwise, scrap it!
I realise we are looking at the same problem from 2 different perspectives.
Your Perspective: EG Poorly Served
You have an EG not served by a system that insists that it has too little resources to give individualized attention... so even in GEP, there must be aggregate banding so that kids are good everywhere and thus Teachers' lives are made easier. So our GEP has evolved into a HA Program? In that case, my son would have managed just fine.
It is true that God is fair. When he gives EXTRAORDINARY talent in one area, it is almost always at the expense of very uneven development in others. This makes Yee Jenn Jong's suggestion to leave EG kids IN mainstream quite logical. This way, they can follow the other subjects at normal pace and their PET subject can be accelerated via online modules and one-to-one special classes. After all, how many EG can there be in a year? Surely we can manage to cater to the 1 or 2 a year? We are not a poor country eh?
My Perspective: Mainstream Poorly Served
I have an HA who is poorly served by a school that until recently gave no extra (though necessary) documented resources. I had to give him written resources from 2 GEP centres, add some sourced from overseas, add others that aren't stocked by Popular. He went through the materials independently and is doing fine. Not top... but fine.
Cutting past the irrelevant details of face, elitism etc... and looking purely at the quality of teaching, 2 things I particularly envy about the GEP are...
(1) small classes
(2) dedicated written resources developed by GEP Branch
Mainstream curriculum has evolved to comprise features that once were GEP. By the way, I was trained to teach GEP decades ago AND I have actually taught gifted kids before. I recognise features of today's mainstream curriculum from what little I can remember of the GEP many years ago. Teach Less Learn More was what I did with my GEP kids a long time ago, way before it became the stinking tag line and euphemism for Tuition, that it is today.
It was good exposure for me because I later adapted the method for adults. And I still use it today with DS.
In fact, I have lesser problems teaching DS his current mainstream syllabus, than many of his Teachers. I actually KNOW how to structure, plan and evaluate Teach Less Learn More interventions PROPERLY. To properly Teach Less Learn More, you need
(1) smaller classes
(2) ample written resources (or video) for kids to independently consult
In essence, if you really know Teach Less Learn More, you can teach a child plenty without needing to yourself know ANYTHING. This is how I taught DS Chinese (whilst being Chinese illiterate), Math (without bothering to master models), Science (with only an amateur's interest). I'm only good at English and DS doesn't really need to be taught there. And NO TUITION (even though I consider my work with him at home, very heavy tuition).
Question is... why did features of the GEP syllabus make it into mainstream without the key supporting features such as
(1) smaller classes
(2) ample written resources (or video) for kids to independently consult
I am not saying GEP is unnecessary. I think many kids in GEP enjoy the learning. My question is, why do we have a bastardized mainstream now... with GEP syllabus features ... but a non-GEP teaching support structure? Had I known this to be the case, I would have paid to hothouse my son into GEP, and not apologise for it. He has to do some of it in mainstream anyway so why not go the whole hog and let him enjoy...
(1) smaller classes
(2) ample written resources (or video) for kids to independently consult
DS is not gifted. Not by a long shot. He is clearly, HA. I thought I knew the GEP and so I never bothered to push him there. Then I found GEP came to mainstream.
My other thought is that DSA and PSLE should be mutually exclusive. But that is another topic altogether!
-
how to teach kids math or chinese WITHOUT having to know them yourself?? :?
sure u need some basic mah, no meh?? -
smurf:
I know some Math (of course) but till now, cannot do models.how to teach kids math or chinese WITHOUT having to know them yourself?? :?
sure u need some basic mah, no meh??
I am illiterate in Chinese... though these days, I am learning fast to recognise some characters with the help of Google Translate. Quite fun. With some practice, I can even post some cheem Chinese (like θ·³θΏι»ζ²³δΉζ΄δΈζΈ ) ... but I can help DS' compo marks improve from 18/40 in SA1 last year to 29/40 last week in a class compo.
Can be done. To me, not difficult. To others, maybe impossible. -
2ppaamm:
This sounds a lot like what Yee Jenn Jong is suggesting. It is misleading to title his writings \"Scrap GEP\" or something like that. I read him through and realized that he wasn't suggesting to kill off GEP but to enhance it for the GEP and HA students' holistic development...
I also think kids should all just be in their own classes, mixed, so they can play with everyone their ages. You can have high ability classes, and I do suggest smaller class sizes of perhaps 30. And those gifted ones can be pulled out for their specialties with professors or industry experts (not the MOE teachers, for goodness sake!). And, every school should have their own HA classes, just 500 in a nation is just too small. Maybe at least 3 classes every school? We need to spend more on our own children's education! And, the GEP DSA should be open to ALL HA students if they want to keep it. Otherwise, scrap it!
My other thought is that DSA and PSLE should be mutually exclusive. But that is another topic altogether!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better π
Register Login
Online Users
Statistics
Popular Topics