Misunderstanding
I offer my sincere apologies to those affected by the misunderstanding caused from my previous post "IP or No IP" esp. towards Yee Jek and the VIP Students. That post, unintentionally though it may have been, has not given the full idea of what the Integrated Programme is about, thus making it seem to be a one-sided view.
While it was unintentional for the disclaim, I have put in my utmost to make up for losses. It was actually an overlook on my part not to seek Yee Jek's permission before reusing information from our conversation, not considering this to be a public portal to such an extent. Even so, I did not make it clear to him that I had wanted to find out more about IP, for juniors to comprehend better how IP is about, before they apply for the programme. Therefore, the actual paradigm put forward as well as facts about IP during the chat are somewhat distorted especially when not presented fully here, for it was supposedly thought to be a casual friendly chat.
Once again, I am sorry for all the inconvenience caused, the negative influence cast on you as well as on the programme. After all, I was doing this for the sake of my juniors, I do hope you will take my liberty in good faith.
In fact, the introduction of the Integrated Programme, i personally think, is somewhat related to what was taught in humanities, and I should have known better to question its existence. From late 1970s, the government saw that different pupils had different needs. A change in education system was therefore necessary. The needs of the brighter pupils were considered. The Gifted Education Programme (GEP) was an example of such introduced to provide an alternative pathway for brighter pupils with a more challenging education, learning extended syllabus, learned research skills and carrying out of independent study and research projects. Such a diversity promotes critical and creative thinking. This is mandatory to prepare students for the Challenges Singapore might face in the 21st Century.
Similarly, the Integrated Programme (IP) acted as a catalyst for education, providing a boost activation pathway, thereby giving brilliant and independent pupils and edge to venture into areas to achieve greater heights and maximising capabilities. This is indeed very true, for I have seen real-live examples too. Nevertheless, it may also serve as a great hindrance to education, to pupils who are NOT good enough and end up struggling in the programme.
Indeed, many Sec 2 students that I know of are planning to apply for the programme. However, most of them, whom I know personally, are not the type of students who will survive through it. Most of them are either not mature enough, or are not the exceptional cases in lower secondary. Thus, how can they be let alone through an independent and less stringent pathway?
In this way, I believe this programme would not have served it objectives well and would instead cause a backfire for those who are not suitable for it. I sincerely hope these applicants would reflect, and consider the pros and cons. This is the main reason why I have to remind these kind of juniors not to apply for the sake of applying, for the chance or prestige, for I know they will need furthur guidance through their growth to maturity yet to be. I do not wish for my juniors to regret making their decisions due to a moment of folly. This is also how it has led to the misunderstanding, by the strong-headed harsh ideas I tried to put across.
While it was unintentional for the disclaim, I have put in my utmost to make up for losses. It was actually an overlook on my part not to seek Yee Jek's permission before reusing information from our conversation, not considering this to be a public portal to such an extent. Even so, I did not make it clear to him that I had wanted to find out more about IP, for juniors to comprehend better how IP is about, before they apply for the programme. Therefore, the actual paradigm put forward as well as facts about IP during the chat are somewhat distorted especially when not presented fully here, for it was supposedly thought to be a casual friendly chat.
Once again, I am sorry for all the inconvenience caused, the negative influence cast on you as well as on the programme. After all, I was doing this for the sake of my juniors, I do hope you will take my liberty in good faith.
In fact, the introduction of the Integrated Programme, i personally think, is somewhat related to what was taught in humanities, and I should have known better to question its existence. From late 1970s, the government saw that different pupils had different needs. A change in education system was therefore necessary. The needs of the brighter pupils were considered. The Gifted Education Programme (GEP) was an example of such introduced to provide an alternative pathway for brighter pupils with a more challenging education, learning extended syllabus, learned research skills and carrying out of independent study and research projects. Such a diversity promotes critical and creative thinking. This is mandatory to prepare students for the Challenges Singapore might face in the 21st Century.
Similarly, the Integrated Programme (IP) acted as a catalyst for education, providing a boost activation pathway, thereby giving brilliant and independent pupils and edge to venture into areas to achieve greater heights and maximising capabilities. This is indeed very true, for I have seen real-live examples too. Nevertheless, it may also serve as a great hindrance to education, to pupils who are NOT good enough and end up struggling in the programme.
Indeed, many Sec 2 students that I know of are planning to apply for the programme. However, most of them, whom I know personally, are not the type of students who will survive through it. Most of them are either not mature enough, or are not the exceptional cases in lower secondary. Thus, how can they be let alone through an independent and less stringent pathway?
In this way, I believe this programme would not have served it objectives well and would instead cause a backfire for those who are not suitable for it. I sincerely hope these applicants would reflect, and consider the pros and cons. This is the main reason why I have to remind these kind of juniors not to apply for the sake of applying, for the chance or prestige, for I know they will need furthur guidance through their growth to maturity yet to be. I do not wish for my juniors to regret making their decisions due to a moment of folly. This is also how it has led to the misunderstanding, by the strong-headed harsh ideas I tried to put across.
em@il sent in @ 8:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home