Author: Chua Xin Rong
Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_483952.html
Date: January 30, 2010
Original article:
Restrict IPs to students who will gain from it
I REFER to last Saturday's letter by Mr David Goh, 'Have more IP schools'.
He advocates increasing the number of places in the integrated programme (IP) to ensure that top performing O-level students enter top junior colleges (JCs). I feel that it is fairer to ensure that students with the highest academic ability get to enter top JCs, and offer IP places only to those who can gain more from the IP than the O-level track.
Mr Goh's argument rests on the assumption that top performing O-level students are necessarily those with the highest academic ability. This leads him to conclude that it is unfair that a top scorer in the O levels cannot enter the JC of his choice.
While I do not deny such occurrences, it is worth pointing out that it is now relatively easy for a student to be a top performer in the O levels. This occurs because the O levels are marked on a bell curve, and with many academically talented students skipping the O levels, the remaining ones taking these exams face less competition. In other words, an excellent O-level score is no longer the best proxy for academic achievement, so this is not a sufficient reason to argue for a need to provide extra places for these students.
However, this argument assumes that academic ability at Primary 6 correlates exactly with academic ability at O level. Mr Goh is right in pointing out that the IP puts a lot of pressure on Primary 6 pupils, since the Primary School Leaving Examination determines their entry to these schools. After which, they may have an easier path to one of the top JCs than a late bloomer who performs well only come the O levels.
In that case, instead of reflexively opening more places in the IP to reward these late bloomers, perhaps the criteria for promotion of these IP students should be made stricter, to ensure that entry into JC is based on strong academic performance in secondary school, rather than in primary school.
We should not increase IP places merely to satisfy people. The IP has restrictions of its own - students who are more inclined towards the polytechnics are denied these choices, and IP students interact with a much smaller group of people than their non-IP counterparts. In that respect, these IP students may understand less of the concerns facing those who are not their six-year IP mates, which may hinder their interaction with others in the future.
Chua Xin Rong(Ms)
Reflections:
I refer to ‘Restrict IPs to students who will gain from it’ by Ms Chua Xin Rong. She does not agree with the idea to have more IP schools for the benefit of the top performing O-level students. There are three reasons: 1. the top performing O-level students may not have the highest academic ability correspondingly; 2. It will put a great deal of pressure to Primary 6 pupils who are going to have the Primary School Leaving Examination, but the great scores in PSLE do not mean high academic ability, either; 3. Students will be restricted to interacting with a smaller group of people by IP.
Generally, I agree with Ms Chua not to enlarge the IP programme. As far as I know, IP provides the students with an opportunity to skip the O-level Examinations, so that they can spend their 4 years-from Sec3 to JC2-engaging in broader learning experiences. I think it is an honour and an advantage for the students who are given an IP place and deserve it. If there are less IP students, the majority, non-IP students, will be under less pressure and have more chance to attend the top junior colleges through their hard work. It is also good for young people to get in a new school and make more friends, instead of staying in the same place all six years. On the other hand, too many IP places may not ensure the high quality of IP students. Those who are not excellent enough can get to a top junior college more easily. Besides, without the pressure of O-level Examinations, IP students do not have to be as hard-working as the non-IP students, which might make them lose their competitiveness in the future A-level Examinations.
Zhang Ningxin(Joy)
January 31, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I appreciate Joy’s response to the news forum. Your response contains a combination of valuable thoughts based on the forum article. Moreover, the ideas are linked logically with the aid of frequent use of connectors. I do agree with you that IP students have their priority concerning O-level exams. Because of their outstanding academic performance, this group of young prodigies is exempted from the normal system of evaluations. I do appreciate this IP system because the gathering of top students will trigger more effective teaching and learning journey. Some of my friends are actually IP candidates and they regard IP program as an opportunity to broaden their academic horizon and achieve more effective studies. In addition, though the IP program has made the education system more flexible, it is important to revise its criteria based on the changing situation of education. I suggest that continual assessment could be applied in choosing IP candidates and their number should be restricted to ensure the quality of IP students.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBob Ma Xiao
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with the ideas of Joy. First of all, this kind of exam can not be skipped because only with the experience of such important exams can a student really realize the importance of study. Second, the so called "IP" is a formless burden for all the Primary 6 pupils. Those who get into the IP will not be as hardworking as those who have to take the O-Level test; while those who do not have the opportunity to study in IP will fell themselves inferior and will be depressed from then on. In order to avoid such problems, IP should not be carried out for Singapore students.
I do not really agree that the increase of the house price is caused by the insufficient supply. As far as I know, since Singapore has really limited land resources, Singapore government has a meticulous program of the land use. It may have already marked out the multiuse of the land of the following sixty years. It is the inevitable trend in the rising house price because the population of Singapore is gradually increasing while the amount of the available land hardly changes. However, I agree the overmuch increase in house price may bring serious effects on citizens’ life and attitude. Government should always take effort to control the price rising into the acceptable scale.
ReplyDeleteThe most important for education is fair. Everyone can enjoy all the available education resources and it is everyone's right to be educated. I do not think it is necessary to set IP. IP only benefits the students with high scores but omits other students. They are too young to be distinguished. It is difficult to judge whether a fourteen-year-old boy or girl can be a scientist or a successful businessman or businesswoman. Yes, IP helps junior colleges choose the best students of Singapore but it also 'helps' junior colleges miss the potential talents.
ReplyDelete