The pre-2007 A.Math syllabus had topics such as Functions and Permutations and Combinations (P&C). These topics were removed (and moved up to JC level) as part of the MOE’s content reduction exercise, in order to allocate more curriculum time to Project Work (PW), National Education (NE) and Thinking Skills (TS) for all government schools.

However, the IP schools need not follow the O-Level syllabus and I have found out from my IP tutees that Sec 3 students in some IP schools are already learning Functions, P&C as well as Graphical Transformations. Thus some IP students have a 2-year headstart over their non-IP counterparts in certain topics of some subjects.

Apparently, the IP schools are able to incorporate JC topics into their syllabus because they have freed up curriculum time in two ways: (1) by not having to set aside time for O-Level preparations such as prelim and mock exams, and (2) by not teaching O-Level topics that have no consequence for the A-Level exams (such as Geometrical Proof in A. Math). Thus IP schools are in effect taking between 3 to 4 years to prepare their already bright students for the A-Level exams when non-IP students have less than 2 years to prepare for it! Some IP schools even introduce the use of the graphical calculator to their Sec 1 students.

The above is not supposed to happen. It doesn’t make sense to allow brighter students more time to prepare for the same exam (thus, in the final analysis, are IP students really smarter? And imagine how academically bright the non-IP students who obtain straight As for the A-levels are. And what to make of the IP students who don’t get As for the A-levels?)

I don’t think the intention behind the IP concept is to allow IP students more time to prepare for the A-levels. If I’m not mistaken, the time that IP schools ‘save’ in NOT having to prepare for the O-levels is meant to be used for the students to enrich their learning or pursue their passion in certain areas or to acquire soft skills, and not to learn ahead A-Level topics! That is why IP students are not allowed to sit for the O-Level exams, even privately, as it defeats the purpose of having the additional free time meant to develop them more holistically. However, it seems to me there is nothing to prevent an IP school from using SIX YEARS to train it’s students entirely for the A-Levels, by focusing on just the A-level topics and not teaching at all anything that is not tested in the A-levels. Of course this is an extreme example, but there is already concrete evidence that IP schools are teaching JC topics at their secondary levels and omitting secondary level topics that are not tested at the A-levels (yes, I was initially surprised to find out that my IP tutees are not aware of certain concepts tested at the O-levels).

Needless to say, there would be many parents who support giving their children four instead of two years to prepare for our difficult A-level exams. But what about the thousands of students who have to take the O-level route? If ‘brighter’ students need more time to learn, how about the ‘less bright’ ones? And what about the original purpose behind the idea of the Integrated Programme? And when we say every school is a good school, what do we mean? I like what one of my non-IP tutees has said – “Every school is a good school, but some are better than others.”

_______________________________________

TUITION CLASSES:

_______________________________________________________________

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES:

______________________________________________________________

By EX-MOE TEACHERS & EXPERIENCED TUTORS

@ BLK 644, BUKIT BATOK CENTRAL, #01-68. S(650644).

CALL 65694897 OR SMS 98530744 OR 97860411.