It has become another test to be bested with extra tuition and classes, rather than a way to find the truly gifted.
Back in 1983, I was the first batch of students to be asked to sit for something called the Gifted Education Programme (GEP) selection tests straight after when our PSLE results came out. We could not prepare for the tests and had no idea what the programme was about.
The selection tests which comprised language, numerical and general ability were very challenging, and I could not answer many of the questions, especially the general ability ones, which were very similar to IQ tests. I did not make the grade for the GEP and did not feel very smart, despite just getting good PSLE scores a few days earlier.
The GEP then had only two classes of around 25 students each for the Secondary GEP programme in Raffles Girls’ Secondary and the same number in Raffles Institution. Another 100 joined the Primary GEP programme at Primary 4 in Raffles Girls’ Primary and Rosyth Primary. They make up the top 0.25 per cent of the overall cohort.
Fast forward 40 years, and the situation is much different, and the programme is long overdue for a rethink. We now understand that giftedness in children is no longer just a matter of having a high intellect. With the growth of enrichment classes and preparatory schools for those taking the tests, GEP has lost its original mission to identify and nurture the best and the brightest.
Why a programme for the gifted
The GEP began with the lofty goal “to provide leadership in the education of the intellectually gifted and to commit to nurturing gifted individuals to their full potential for the fulfilment of self and the betterment of society”, according to the Ministry of Education (MOE).
To mine the potential of intellectually gifted students and develop in them a strong sense of social conscience and commitment to serve society and nation, MOE spared no effort to provide professional expertise and exemplary resources for this programme. Classes are small, and the teachers are chosen among the best and well-trained.
My nephew and nieces who got into GEP said they found it enjoyable, as there was greater breadth and depth in the lessons. With less focus on examinations, students were motivated to learn beyond the regular curriculum.
Over the years, the GEP has evolved: nine primary schools now offer the programme, with the top 1 per cent of each cohort (around 400 to 500 students) being accepted, as opposed to 100 students when it first started.
The GEP for secondary students ended in 2008 due to the growing popularity of the six-year Integrated Program (IP) offered by independent schools. IP students skip GCE O-Level and proceed to JC level, taking the GCE A-Level or International Baccalaureate exam at the end of Year 6.
The curriculum in these through-train programme mirrors the GEP approach and gives the students more time to pursue other areas of interest, as teachers have more time to stretch these high ability students without O-Level exam preparation to worry about.
But the unintended consequence of the GEP is the pressure on children to get into the programme at the end of Primary 3. Parents see the merits of its curriculum and the attention given to children in its smaller classes. The children, however, may not be cut out for the programme.
Gifted or well prepared?
Unlike 40 years ago, there are now many preparatory enrichment and tuition schools to give children a leg up to get into the programme. A simple Google search will find dozens of such schools to help children with GEP-styled questions through mock papers and practice questions.
Households with more disposable income for tuition and extra coaching might bolster their children’s chances to ace these test. The data seem to bear out that the programme favours those who are better-off: It was revealed in Parliament recently that 55 per cent of pupils in GEP in the past five years live in private housing, compared to the national average of 23 per cent of the population living in private homes.
The GEP itself seems to have lost its way from its initial goal of nurturing the gifted to prepare them for responsible leadership and service to country and society. This was borne out by a survey conducted in 2005 and 2006 of former gifted students in junior colleges, in their mid-20s and mid-30s. It found that although GEP students outperformed their peers in national examinations and critical thinking test, there was no difference between gifted and other students in “softer” areas, like civic mindedness and community service.
Instead, the program now has an unintended consequence of something akin to an arms race, where the rich can out-train everyone.
Time for rethink
While the outcomes have strayed from the original objective, there is no doubt that the programme has many things going for it. Its curriculum and approach have much to commend them, but it should stop being an exclusive programme for a select few.
We should preserve its merits without inviting all Primary 3 students to sit for the nationwide test.
Instead, GEP’s lessons should be made more accessible, broadening the programme to all primary schools. It can be used to engage “high ability students” of each standard as a form of enrichment class, and is no longer the preserve of a few.
For those who are exceptionally gifted, teachers and parents can help identify and engage these children to take specific acceleration pathways depending on the child’s interests.
For instance, they could attend online courses such as those found on Coursera and edX, created by world-class universities like MIT and Harvard, and tech giants like Google and Amazon.
The resources devoted to GEP can reach a broader audience and, more importantly, this approach will safeguard Singapore’s commitment to true meritocracy.
The GEP as it stands now, however, appears to go against the idea of meritocracy. It widens the social divide, as “kiasu” parents with higher household income push their children to attend tuition and preparatory classes in order to increase their chances of getting into the programme.
By consigning the GEP exam to history, we can put all this behind us. We can also relieve the pressure on our children and return them to that sweet spot of learning when the task at hand is neither too hard, nor too easy and the challenge brings out the best in them.
To test and label someone as gifted at age nine now seems unnecessary. Nor should children be made to feel stupid if they fail to get into GEP despite doing their best – like I did 40 years ago.
[This was first published in The Straits Times on 30 July 2023.]