GEP Preparatory Program

[metz]

nansk:

No, that is not my stand. I am all for academic achievement (and the benefits it confers). I was merely clarifying the other poster's point-of-view (as I interpreted it). You seemed to be keeping DSA out of the discussion on the basis that the article writer (Lydia Lim?) had not specifically mentioned that term, and I felt that the DSA advantage (specifically, the non-requirement of GAT for certain GEPpers) should be considered.
Hope that clears things.

Thanks for the clarification.

DSA, as I mentioned, is beneifitting not only GEP kids but also Mainstream bright kids. If DSA is one of her discontentments on GEP, then I'm of the view she is not presenting a fair opinion, since there are mainstream kids who benefitted from DSA.

But if DSA is indeed benefitting only GEP kids regardless of their performance, I am of the view that it should be scrapped or modified.

[nansk]

metz:

DSA, as I mentioned, is beneifitting not only GEP kids but also Mainstream bright kids. If DSA is one of her discontentments on GEP, then I'm of the view she is not presenting a fair opinion, since there are mainstream kids who benefitted from DSA.


But if DSA is indeed benefitting only GEP kids regardless of their performance, I am of the view that it should be scrapped or modified.

After reading various opinions on this matter, I side with the view that the non-requirement of GAT for GEPpers is unfair.

As I understand, mainstream students have to submit their P5, P6 results (and, for some schools, P4 results too). Analogous to that is that GEPpers have to maintain an average 80% achievement.

So both groups of students have to demonstrate a consistently high academic achievement. Then why do the secondary schools require the mainstream applicants to sit for the GAT and not the GEP applicants?

[metz]

I shall leave this to the veteran GEP parents who have experience on DSA to present their views.


For me, it's fine if the GEP kids have to do another round of GATs. If we were to recall, they did clear some GATs at P3.

nansk:

After reading various opinions on this matter, I side with the view that the non-requirement of GAT for GEPpers is unfair.

As I understand, mainstream students have to submit their P5, P6 results (and, for some schools, P4 results too). Analogous to that is that GEPpers have to maintain an average 80% achievement.

So both groups of students have to demonstrate a consistently high academic achievement. Then why do the secondary schools require the mainstream applicants to sit for the GAT and not the GEP applicants?

[nansk]

metz:

I shall leave this to the veteran GEP parents who have experience on DSA to present their views.


For me, it's fine if the GEP kids have to do another round of GATs. If we were to recall, they did clear some GATs at P3.

I don't think a test at P3 level is the same as a test at P6 level. See, is this not the very thing mainstream parents are complaining about? That one test at P3 determines a child's whole schooling path?

And yet, if I were a GEP parent, I guess I would say the same thing in defence of my child's advantages.


BTW did you get a chance to read my earlier, on-topic post about GEP Prep? Any comments?

[iFruit]

metz:

Thanks for the clarification.

DSA, as I mentioned, is beneifitting not only GEP kids but also Mainstream bright kids. If DSA is one of her discontentments on GEP, then I'm of the view she is not presenting a fair opinion, since there are mainstream kids who benefitted from DSA.

I don't have any particularly discontentment with GEP DSA...I just feel it is unfair as a bystander..

I wouldn't have any problem with acad DSA if for every GEP kid taken in there is also a mainstrem kid gets in via acad DSA. I don't think that is the case (I don't have any stats here before someone regular here jumps and asks me to show her the stats on some public website ).

It is the elephant in the room...but if you say it is not there, it's not there. That's ok with me..

[sunflower]

iFruit:

You can read the entire artcile here http://www.singapolitics.sg/views/striking-right-balance-meritocracy

Thanks for your article, interesting read. I find the point in the article (quoted below) quite intriguing.

“With lower entry scores, a bigger pool of students has a chance to gain entry into a top school.”

COP (entry scores) is not determined by the school, but by the number of vacancies available and the calibre of the students applying. So unless there’s affiliation, which could make a difference in COP of up to 20 points for some schools, how could a school (with limited vacancies), admit someone with 250 and reject another with 260?

[iFruit]

sunflower:

“With lower entry scores, a bigger pool of students has a chance to gain entry into a top school.”

Hi,

I think what Ms. Lim means by 'bigger pool' is a wider pool of students coming from various cross sections of society.

This is similar to what Dr Lee Wei Ling suggested some time ago where students in a particular band can be posted to a band of school ( I can find a link to it if you need it).

In Ms. Lim's own words, a wider pool reduces the social distance between the haves and have-nots and keeps the meritocracy sustainable, which I think is a fair and logical comment.

[Rio]

[quote]We have no evidence that schools are preparing their pupils for the GEP Screening and Selection Tests....’

[/quote]Definitely not true....DD told me yesterday that teacher said there will be a very important exam coming up in Aug, and all these quiz questions that they are doing daily are to prepare them for it. However, she has no idea what exam it is, and is just merely following what the teacher is asking them to do.

[nansk]

sunflower:

iFruit:

You can read the entire artcile here http://www.singapolitics.sg/views/striking-right-balance-meritocracy

Thanks for your article, interesting read. I find the point in the article (quoted below) quite intriguing.

“With lower entry scores, a bigger pool of students has a chance to gain entry into a top school.”

COP (entry scores) is not determined by the school, but by the number of vacancies available and the calibre of the students applying. So unless there’s affiliation, which could make a difference in COP of up to 20 points for some schools, how could a school (with limited vacancies), admit someone with 250 and reject another with 260?

I agreed with the first part of the article, but not with the final suggestion of lowering entry scores. So what if there is a bigger pool of applicants? How would that help the lowest scorers to get admitted? Even if the COP goes lower, the schools will still admit the applicants with the highest scores.

BTW I liked the cartoon at the start of the article. A picture says a thousand words.

[nansk]

Rio:

[quote]We have no evidence that schools are preparing their pupils for the GEP Screening and Selection Tests....’

Definitely not true....DD told me yesterday that teacher said there will be a very important exam coming up in Aug, and all these quiz questions that they are doing daily are to prepare them for it.[/quote]Thanks for the confirmation.
Although http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/programmes/gifted-education-programme/faq/general/ says, 'We have no evidence that schools are preparing their pupils for the GEP Screening and Selection Tests. The questions for the selection of pupils for the GEP are not accessible to the schools.', your post and another in this thread confirm that P3 students in the GEP schools do get an edge due to extra coaching by the school.

But this does not make what MoE said false. Their web site merely states that they have no evidence of such hot-housing by schools, not that such hot-housing does not happen. :evil: