As a former Gifted Education
Programme (GEP) student, I had
mixed feelings about Prime
Minister Lawrence Wong’s
announcement at the National
Day Rally that the GEP would be
revamped from a centralised
programme in nine schools to one
that benefits high-ability pupils
across all primary schools.
On the one hand, I appreciate
the rationale for this policy move:
it would foster greater inclusivity,
spreading the benefits of a gifted
education to many more pupils.
On the other hand, I share with
a number of my former
classmates a sense of loss at the
impending closure of a
programme that gave us so much. While there are good reasons for
decentralisation, we should
recognise that the programme
made a difference. For the new approach to succeed, it will be
necessary to equip all schools
with the resources and know-how
to support high-ability children.
So, what benefits and
challenges will the new system
bring?
Greater Inclusivity and Porosity
The revamp of the GEP is
congruent with other reforms to
the education system to broaden
opportunities and avoid locking
children into preset pathways
early in life.
Streaming of pupils may have
helped improve the efficiency of
instruction, but it also had the
inadvertent effect of
pigeonholing them according to
academic ability. There was
stigma attached to being in the
“normal stream”; some lost
confidence in their abilities as a
result.
The GEP, too, risked breeding
elitism among those who were
selected for it, and envy among
those who were not. There were
also fewer opportunities for
interaction among those from
different streams.
Streaming in primary school was discontinued in 2008 in
favour of “subject-based
banding”. The latter allows
curricula to be matched to
children’s interest and ability in
particular subjects, without the
attendant drawbacks of
streaming. From 2024, full
subject-based banding has been
implemented in secondary
schools.
Concurrently, a more inclusive
approach has been taken for the
intellectually gifted. Since 2004,
gifted education in secondary
schools has been decentralised,
allowing each school to design its
own programme. Today,
high-ability students can choose
from a range of options including
integrated programmes, the
International Baccalaureate, and
the specialised curricula of the
NUS High School of Maths and
Science, Arts School and Sports
School.
Pedagogical tools initially
developed for the GEP, such as
project work, have been adopted
more widely across schools. A
logical extension of this is to
broaden gifted education beyond
the nine primary schools that
currently host the programme.
Similar to subject-based banding, children can now be
identified for higher-ability
programmes if they show
aptitude in particular subject
areas, without having to excel in
all subjects. The greater porosity
of the new programmes will also
benefit those who take longer to
develop and manifest their
abilities, as there will be multiple
entry points between Primary 4
and 6. A further advantage is that
pupils who join these
programmes need not uproot
themselves from their existing
schools and circles of friends.
The GEP revamp has parallels
with the replacement of Yale-NUS
College by NUS College, which
will extend the benefits of a
liberal arts education to a much
larger group of students in the
National University of Singapore.
Like Yale-NUS College, the GEP
admits a very small number of
pupils. There is a strong case to
cast the net wider, so that the
pedagogy developed can benefit
many more.
Reducing Competition and Stress
The GEP selection process has
inadvertently become a high-stakes test for some pupils
who come under parental or
self-imposed pressure to qualify.
This runs contrary to the
Ministry of Education’s aim of
moving away from a fixation on
examinations and cultivating a
love for learning.
Enrichment classes aimed at
helping children qualify for the
GEP have sprung up, adding to
the stress and competition.
Replacing the GEP screening test
with a more holistic assessment
to identify high-ability pupils –
one that includes teacher
observation and feedback –
would reduce opportunities to
game the system and blunt the
motivation for “hothousing”
young children.
Besides, the disappointment of
those who are not selected for the
GEP should be weighed against
the benefit to the few who make
it through. In fact, admittance to
the programme hardly defines
one’s future prospects. Among
those in my cohort who were not
selected for the GEP, many have
gone on to attain success in both
academic and non-academic
domains, sometimes surpassing
the achievements of their GEP
peers. The outsized focus on qualification for GEP may be at
odds with the cultivation of a
growth mindset, which is far
more important for success in
life.
What Might Be Lost and How This Can Be Mitigated
This is not to say the GEP is
without value. Among my GEP
classmates and friends are those
who found understanding and
acceptance among kindred spirits
in the programme. Parents of
GEP students have cited the
benefits, both pedagogical and
social, that the programme has
brought to their neurodivergent
children. Over the years, the
programme has enabled a
number of children from less
privileged backgrounds to grow
into their strengths, raise their
ambition and be stretched by
their gifted peers.
When the secondary GEP was
under review in 2004, I organised
a lunch for the then Minister for
Education to speak with former
GEP students. The students, who
came from different cohorts, all
spoke about how the GEP
programme had positively
impacted them.
Whether the GEP has bred
elitism is probably for the wider
society to judge; my own sense is
that the majority of GEP students
are well-adjusted and do not
harbour elitist attitudes that
would make it difficult for them
to fit into society.
The question is whether the
decentralised system will cater
just as well to the needs of the
intellectually gifted. The
expertise to help such children to
flourish, which today has been
honed in nine schools, will need
replicating across many more
schools. Otherwise, some of the
precocious children, particularly
the neurodivergent and those
with less parental support, will
not benefit to the same extent.
The experience gained over 40
years of gifted education will
have to be disseminated to a
larger cadre of teachers
distributed across the education
system, so they are equipped
with the knowledge and skills to
meet the needs of the
intellectually gifted.
What may help is the pooling of
specialised resources across
schools, given the plan for
selected pupils – who could gain
from being stretched further – to
have the option of attending
after-school modules at
designated schools nearby. This
will allow them to explore their
interests in greater depth, and
bring them in contact with peers
who share similar interests and
aptitude.
If the revamp is done well, the
benefits of the GEP can be
multiplied across schools,
expanding opportunities and
allowing more pupils to realise
their potential in various
domains. This would be a boon
for Singapore, which relies
primarily on human capital for
economic progress.
Forty years from the inception
of the GEP, we should
acknowledge both the
programme’s contributions and
its drawbacks, while harnessing
what has been learnt to help
schools design better and more
inclusive programmes.
The article was first published on
The Straits Times on 22 August 2024.