My boy also got the Edusave Merit Bursary certificate but not eligible to apply as household income far exceeded the $5K

Not that we are desperate for the monies but it will definitely motivate our child to strive for success.

It is unfair that the garmen deprive our kids from getting the bursary just because they are coming from a middle or well to do family.[/quote]


Actually my 2 kids qualify every year but we are not eligible too. But since it’s called ‘Bursary’, I dun mind if it can be put to better use for the real needy. I think govt has also increased the income ceiling over the years to allow more to be eligible.[/quote]



I am very happy that my DS also received the Edusave Merit Bursary certificate but not eligible because of the household income exceed more that $5000.00. I hope MOE will look into this.[/quote]

I am surprised that despite the award being termed a bursary there are parents who feel that their child should get some money from the bursary pool. By this logic of reasoning every CC/RC, CDAC, Mendaki & SINDA should also extend the bursaries they give to poor students who do well to middle class/rich students who do well as well. Why stop at the Edusave Award. Every cash award even those reserved for poor children should be available to middle class/rich students who are hard working and intelligent. It appears that the Govt. has enough money to go around from the comments made here.

The term bursary is self-explanatory. This is a teaching moment for middle class/rich parents to let their children know that not all hard-working and intelligent children are so lucky to have middle class/rich parents.

NormalLayman:

We all know PSLE & O levels are the only national exams to test the kids & dtermine how academic Secondary schools & JCs will take in. To be fair to all kids, all should be measured on same standard. 


I am hearing some saying that just because GEP students study, do & cover much much more, they deserve priority & privilege. I find it strange. 

Just give an analogy, when these GEP kids grow up & go to work, they spend more time than others on his job assignment, do a lot more work than others (but immaterial to achieving goal of his job assignment), their job assignment grade is B, while another main-stream grown up kid does not do all these bell & whistle & end up with A. If i am the boss, are you saying I must give B grader promotion & more bonus vs A because he did a lot more than the A grader? The answer is obviously no!
So, now replace \"job assignment\" by PSLE & O level exam results, replace \"promotion & more bonus\" by priority & privilege, so we see why all those priority & privilege for GEP kids don't make senUse. If they cannot even perform the basic job well, who cares how much they do & learn? Also all those extras are immaterial. If they have no such ability, then don't enter GEP programme because nobody put a gun to their head (rather, to their parents head for forcing their children to go & remain in GEP Programme). 

There is now unhealthy thing happening where parents are forcing their kids to go & remain in GEP Programme is simply because they want to reap benefit of the priority &  privilege given to these GEP kids, & many are being hothoused rather have that ability. if parents believe their GEP kids didn't do well or cannot do well in PSLE because of too much work & they can definitely ace PSLE if can focus on just like mainstream kids, bu all means, switch their kid to mainstream, don't go around giving excuses for not performing & then demanding priority & privilege because they said their kids suffered from too much work in GEP Programme not related to PSLE exam questions.  That is my frank opinion which numerous may not like to hear, but I think I need to be frank about it as it does Singapore no good to go such route handing out priority & privilege just because of 1 P3 Exam results. 

I think your whole post has missed the point about GEP which is to stretch the kids who find mainstream work not challenging enough. They may not be \"gifted\" as the word is used to describe a genius, but they are generally much better in their subjects than their mainstream friends and do are actually being held back by having to do the same syllabus as the mainstream.

In the end the GEP child still sits for the same paper and derives no advantage as the GEP syllabus does not cater for the PSLE unlike the mainstream syllabus. So the GEP student is stretched by doing projects and topics outside the PSLE syllabus and is expected to still do well for the PSLE although the GEP student does not get the same degree of exam preparation as the mainstream student.

The analogy with working life is so far removed from reality that it makes no sense.

leooel:

Seya:

U r right. It is difficult to enter RI via academic route. My DS is top 20 in SMOPS, top 50 in RIPWMC, two golds in other MOs. Therefore, he shouyld be the 1% in maths. And his science is the 1st of a neighbour school.


But he has been rejected, :rotflmao:
Even being top 5 in RIPMWC, top 10 in SMOPS, various top medals in Maths and Science can get rejected by RI :stupid: DSA route is baffling. Only people I knew who got accepted are GEP,>85%. They cramp hard and study strictly within syallabus. The rest need not apply to RI DSA

Please dont spread the wrong message out. There are parents reading and preparing for DSA next year or even the year after.

DSA is not only based on achievement, therea are also other elements like interview, GAT, HAST.

For Mainstream Academic DSA the child has to sit for test on the domain chosen. I heard it is quite difficult. Perhaps your child had a bad day and could not perform well in it.

Sharing your experience is one thing but Denigrating those who got in is quite another thing.[/quote]

The fact is: for the Mainstreaners, their chance of DSA to RI is really very slim.
might as well not to waste time for this DSA and focus on PSLE.

My DS is a mainstreamer in the intermingling class, I admit he is not the top notch student in his class, but there are few of them, brilliant and intelligent and excel in every aspect, they are not inferror to their GEP peers. As per info from my DS, their application for DSA to RI via academic domain were all rejected!

I am quite confident those Mainstreaners can enter RI via PSLE.

RI should state clearly how much DSA quota for MS via academic route, to avoid creating thousans of Mainstreamers hopeless dreaming.[/quote]


I definitedly agree your opinion. RI is unfair to the thousands mainstreamers who hopefully enter it.[/quote]

I can sympathies with the frustration of parents but it is strange to blame the system or school. A parent whose son is on RI/ACSI WL mentioned that for ACSI there are 90 DSA places and more than 800+ who applied. That means a chance of only about 1 in 10. RI is more popular and statistically if an assumption is made that at least the top 5 boys in each primary school applied and there are about 200 primary schools then you would expect the majority of these applicants to have achievements at least equal to a child thatis top 5 or top 10. These competitions are not the only competitions to look at. There are many other equally tough competitions whether in writing, speaking, CL, EL that will produce top performers who may also exhibit leadership qualities such as being Head Prefect (and top in mainstream in his primary school) or is a national swimmer and top in his school (but does not choose sport domain), or is the winner in the Commonwealth Essay Competition and is the top mainstream in his school.

There are so many children in mainstream who do exceptionally well in areas other than SMOPS or RIPMWC and who also want the chance to get in as well. It should not just be the better ones in Science or Maths that should have the greater chance.

33mama:

Out of curiosity.... are you able to appeal for DSA?


Appeal from being in a WL to a CO? Or even appeal from rejected status to a CO?

From what has happened over the years, there is no appeal process for DSA. If a child gets no offer (whether WL/CO) then child will depend on PSLE to get into school of choice. Similarly no appeal from WL to CO.

This is because schools have allocated the max no. of places for DSA, and once filled, the the balance must be left open for PSLE, otherwise unfair. So that is the reason no appeal to get a DSA place. Similarly WL cannot appeal to CO as CO means place allocated and there is only a fixed no. of DS- places. WL child will get in if PSLE mark is above COP for the school. The other advantage is is WL child has same points as COP together with other non-WL children, then WL child will get in.

spikey:

My son is in ACS P too. I am really concerned about the academic focus, or lack of, in the school. It appears that based on PSLE aggregate scores, the academic standards are dropping overall.


There should be more emphasis on at least maintaining a decent academic standard, discipline and values (e.g. punctuality). It certainly doesn't help when you have a principal that does not see fit to pay a bit more attention to studies and doesn't appear to keep time very well (based on all the parent talks, orientation that we've encountered him thus far).

I have my sons studying at ACS(P) and it is important to understand that the school does not believe in focusing on studies alone, which is fantastic! The boys are guided holistically and given opportunities to develop their leadership and thinking abilities.

Parents should have faith in the principal and the school. I never sent my sons there because of its academic results. If that was parent's intention, then the parent was misguided. ACS stands for far more than good grades. There are other primary schools that focus on good grades. There is enough information out there for parent's to choose the school that fits with what the parents want. Do not assume every school treats its children in the same way. Each school is different. Choose ACS for its strengths.

The multiple tasking of teachers is not something new and has gone on for generations. What has changed is the parent’s and society’s expectations.


When my father was a primary school principal he put in long hours not only doing admin work, but also teaching classes in his school, attending various meetings as a principal, attending RC meetings as principal, attending school committee meetings, organising and running workshops for teachers, giving talks, reviewing the weekly class teaching plans of each teacher, officiating at various activities outside school.

The teachers today have similar heavy workloads but have to deal with demanding parents who are not able to grasp the full workload of the teachers including the stress of disciplining a class of boisterous primary school kids who by their nature are full of energy.

Tutors do not have these demands on their time and rightly so as the objectives of tuition are clearly different. Tutors are not meant to be developers of the holistic child unlike the school teacher. BUT I must say the MOE can and should give much more support to MOE teachers so that they can actually perform the role of holistic teaching.

CCAs should be handled completely by allied educators or teaching assistants, admin work should be handled by allied educators or teaching assistants, certain class projects should be supervised by allied educators or teaching assistants.

Getting this balance right will allow the MOE teachers to teach and to reduce the reliance on tutors (but will never completely eliminate it)

I have also only heard good things about SOTA. These specialized schools including Sports School, NUS High are very welcome additions to the school scene and all these schools have so far proven to be top quality schools doing a very good job for a very good bunch of children. Parents must tap these specialized schools if they see the passion and interest their child has. No child who attends such schools will ever lose out but instead will have an enriching experience.

I am rather surprised at the many comments suggesting a drop in the PSH standards. Both DSs were at Claymore and were well prepared for P1 and many of their peers from parents’ feedback were also happy and well prepared for P1. Though I must say this was when Pat Koh still owned PSH. That would be at least 5 years ago for DS2.

Funz:

limlim:

Maybe it will be better if they implement the policy with a corresponding decrease in COE issued.. at least there is some benefit of a reduce car population.

COE issued has been reducing.

I think the tightened loan requirements is a good move. With interest rates at all time low people who can barely afford cars are buying. Now with the loan restrictions those who can afford to buy will buy and those who cannot can rely on our public transport system. The number of taxis will be increased as well so those who require a car to travel around will have a greater number of taxis to use. This restriction on car loans is good and follows the restriction in home loans. The objective is to prevent prices from ever increasing both for houses and cars. the big difference though is that public housing is an asset that retains its value and in fact increases in value over the years but a car just continues to fall in value.

Cars are a luxury especially in Singapore where taxi fares are among the lowest in the developed countries and where the transport network will continue to expand. The number of COEs has also fallen so in the end only those who can really afford to pay all the various charges such as ERP, road tax, insurance, car park charges etc. should buy a depreciating asset that after 10 years has to be removed from the road unless the COE is extended.

I am questioning the basis of the Workers Party’s Population Paper where it proposes to get 1% of current non-working SG citizens back into the workforce?


How doable is this? Already SME’s cannot get enough workers now, yet WP wants to freeze foreign workers at current level and start the process of getting this 1% working. What happens now? What happens for SME workforce during the period the 1% SG citizens being trained?

How realistic is this 1%? The majority of 1% would probably say if I could work I would have done it already. 2-3 incomes better than 1 but may have many reasons for not working, - looking after sick, dementia elderly parents or p-i-ls, looking after too many kids with no family support and childcare being too inconvenient or expensive, do not want maid because house too small already, spouse too ill to work so must look after, cannot afford to pay maid agency fee and maid salary upfront and cannot get loan, already working part-time but cannot do full-time. These are only some reasons. There are probably many other reasons.

So if WP strategy is to increase % working Singaporeans, how does it plan to deal with the above reasons. And mind you if you build more old folks home, hospitals, child care, mental care facilities, disability facilities, build bigger flats, etc. you still need foreign workers to build these facilities and to work there, so that the 1% of Singaporeans can go to work!!!

And what about the time spent to train up these Singaporeans? Who takes care of the different problems while these Singaporeans are being trained? Is on the job training feasible for all the jobs that WP thinks the 1% can do? So in the meantime when the stay at home mother/sister goes for part-time training at SHATEC to be a waitress or chef’s assistant who looks after the elderly dementia father?, mentally disabled brother? 3 young children? etc.

So it appears that WP proposal is a circular argument. It looks good on paper but is it workable? Why have they not thought of a workable strategy instead of something that only appears good on paper but is impossible to implement?