A Comparison of Gifted Education in UK and Singapore - Essay Example

A Comparison of the Implementation of Gifted Education in UK and Singapore Implementation of Gifted Education History of Gifted Education in the UK and Singapore Initially, all nations sought to offer an education system that promotes equal opportunity for all students. Even so, students had different abilities and needs that the equal resource based allocation system of education could not accommodate. For that reason, there was a need to channel the abilities of children into specified classes and recognize them as gifted individuals. The old education system treated such students as ordinary persons, and they often could not exploit their full innate abilities. It was essential to shift the education ideology of equality, to one that brought out the potential of outstanding students (Chamberlin, 2008). Gifted education arose from the need to recognize outstanding capabilities and intelligence across school-going children. Schools transfer students that achieve high scores in verbal, mathematical and spatial abilities from normal classes to Gifted Education Programme (GEP) classes. Higher-level students can learn together and specialize in their intelligence, for instance, complex mathematics or intensive science. For Singapore, the country promoted the ‘Education for All’ principle to govern all the private and public schools. The government conceived the idea of the Gifted Education Program in 1981, and its implementation began later in 1984 (Wong, 2001). It sought to provide all its citizens a common educational experience through a common set of educational standards and curriculum that encourages equal opportunities for all religious denominations, races and ethnicities. Achievement was the main point for the progress of students through the mainstream of the education system. All students went through basic, primary, and secondary education, before higher learning institutions chose the selected few based on meritocracy (Gifted Education Programme Singapore, 2000). In this system, students with superior intelligence faced no challenges to improve their capabilities. They could only wait to reach the level of higher learning institutions before they could focus on their aptitude. Its implementation in Singapore was after some public concern to allow each student to learn at his or her own pace, Montgomery, (2008). After the government noticed that there are students who are intellectually gifted, Ministry of Education decided that each student deserves recognition and nurturing in order for them to meet their own needs. It began with two primary and secondary centers and it expanded by 2004 to nine primary centers before introduction of the Integrated Programme. The citizens showed their unrest with the education system, especially because of the ongoing Western influence on Singaporean beliefs and values in the period 1965-1985. The younger and emerging middle class citizens encouraged the government to promote democracy and public participation in its decision-making processes concerning matters such as education. Singapore had a single party dominated government, which did not represent the opposing views of its citizens appropriately. To counter the negative attitude of its citizens, Singapore’s government introduced a systemic educational reform to improve the education system in the early 1980s. It streamed students according to their different academic abilities, and in consequence, they could focus and challenge their unique abilities. The Ministry of Education proposed this education system and termed it as ‘Ability-Driven Education’ system of education. The new streaming system enabled students to learn and evolve at their own intellectual learning speed. The “Ability-Driven Education’ model was a useful reform that offered academic programs which match up to the abilities of children of the citizens. Through this, the government demonstrated that it valued the rights of its citizens and their children through offering the best educational experiences and opportunities. Groups of gifted individuals could now experience opportunities and gain due recognition. The gifted education program naturally became a basis of Singapore’s new education system following the conviction that the gifted and talented would serve as future leaders and propel the country to greater heights. According to Lennex and Nettleton (2015), gifted education refers to the special practices and procedures used in education of children identified as gifted or talented. Since the year 1999, up to 2009 Gifted and talented education in UK received one of the tremendous improvements in the history of education. They began at a low base but improvements had been continuous and static due to the evidence that it can greatly affect the national performance in education. However, the YG&T programme in UK did not go as planned especially due to delays and organization of the Learner Academy. For that reason, DCSF ended the contract, which later led to signing of a new contract that would manage talented and gifted programme. This was to end in the year 2011 but it unfortunately ended with elections in the year 2010 where DCSF commissioned new websites to hold opportunities for all the learners .This was intended specifically to hold the needs and for disadvantaged students. This has also helped in promoting education. Implementation of gifted education in the UK and Singapore The programme in the UK sought to raise the education achievement among the pupils. The reflections of the local authority adviser of a large education district within socially deprived area in London had a responsibility of implementing the policy by working with schools and practicing teachers who had a crucial role of ensuring the programme becomes successful. According to, Montgomery, (2009), the senior director of Gifted Education programme after transformation, technology seems the way forward for it. Proper guiding has been put in place and use of technology has ensured that these learners have obtained sophisticated information and literary skills. For that reason, teachers play a crucial role towards supporting these learners with the help of technology. In Singapore, GEP has the necessary labor and financial resource. Pupils in the smaller class sizes have more teachers than students in the main stream who have been allocated more money (Poon, Holden and Lim, 2009). the Ministry of Education (MOE) provides resources beyond textbooks to widen understanding of the contemporary issues. GEP teachers also underwent training overseas and attend conferences and seminars concerning gifted education programme. All these acts and efforts by the Ministry of Education have ensured that this programme is effective. In Singapore, the implementation of the gifted education program previously identified the 0.5% of students from each academic year, but it currently considers 1% in the need to accommodate more students, arising from the ever-growing population. Following its implementation in 1984, the program faced minimal opposition, as the populace could not immediately delineate its probable advantages and possible drawbacks (Sarouphim, 2010). Naturally, it seemed an ingenious way to improve the quality of the education system through tapping the intelligence of students from separate backgrounds. The implementation of the program evolved seamlessly without any bureaucracies because firstly, the Parliament and most of the principal leaders were from the same political party, and secondly, Asians naturally sorted their issues behind closed doors, instead of public confrontations. In its initial implementation phase in Singapore, the Gifted Education Program demanded the institution of clear and inclusive guidelines and underlying principles. Apart from selection of pupils, other major considerations were the structure of the program and the identification of competent instructors. Implementation of the program faced manageable challenges, mainly because of the ethics associated with the Asian culture. The society obeyed the accompanying instructions with the belief that the program would be beneficial because their leaders had already deliberated over its advantages. Lim (2002) mentions that the government set up a Special Project Unit to ensure seamless implementation of the ideologies presented in the concept paper. The unit looked into such areas such as student and teacher selection, and overall monitoring of the whole process to ensure its success. Relevant parties vetted teachers thoroughly in lieu to the curriculum and student ability. As a full-time special unit, administrators monitored the whole process and ensured its success. The Ministry of Education later took up the special unit and renamed it the Gifted Education Branch. It ensured that the relevant parties strictly followed all the guidelines. In terms of commitment, the schools chosen for the programs were reputable schools with a good standing and supportive administrators (Lim, 2002). In addition, there was a need for dynamic instructors who could understand the gifted students and motivate them into become the best individuals possible. Critique and Comments UK has had insufficient policy as far as gifted education programme is concerned. This is because the government assumed that able children always succeed and thus they need no extra help (Khoo, 2014). This is wrong because it is clear from research source that these children are arrogant, and they are so different such that meeting their needs is a challenge. Although the government policy in UK has been pushing for the programme there is still a need to improve the system especially within the individual schools. Furthermore, there is a need to improve on collaborative partnerships and improve parental involvement towards improving the Gifted Education Programme in UK. In the case of Singapore, efforts has been done for example adopting an education system which suits to the normal programs which are undertaken by GEP students ensures that in case a student opts to drop from one he or she can easily continue with the other system. Furthermore, by not evaluating the students under the programme by IQ method, it has eradicated a common role played by parents of ensuring that their students only pass their exams. This has helped to equip the much-needed skills. Even though still Singapore has to put more efforts to reverse under achievement that students internalize within the system. The implementation of the gifted education program faces several critiques. Firstly, pundits say that it encourages a special group of individuals who are more privileged than the rest. The society holds a popular belief that the naturally gifted children can take care of themselves. In addition, children who are less capable require better educational resources and opportunities than those who are gifted (Gibson and Mitchell, 2005). Secondly, there is the widespread belief that the government has its own intentions, specifically political intentions, from the program. Critics believe that the government seeks to tap the intelligence of the gifted and channel them into political elites who can control and strengthen their hold to various political powers. There are several comments concerning the critiques that gifted education faces. Most parents support the Gifted Education Program because universities and specialized institutions provide special links to improvement programs for such students (Lassig, 2009). In addition, it provides them with opportunities for future monetary rewards and enhances their chances of success in life. Implementation of the new education policy meant that the government appreciated the differences that existed between different people across the populace. It was a big achievement for the government because it showed respect for human rights and appreciate the diversity of the populace. Reflection In my opinion, the idea of the gifted education program is commendable. It develops people, as the most important natural resource that a country possesses. It improves on the quality of the education system because it nurtures and fulfills the needs of the gifted children. The program enables children to bloom and harness their abilities in a special way that could not have been possible were they in a normal school setting. The strategy demonstrates the ability of the government to plan for success of its population and ensure the development of talent. Through an analysis of the outcomes of the Gifted Education Program, I am aware of several benefits of its features. The program integrates the mainstream curriculum, and in consequence, students who do not find the gifted program suitable can return to the customary path of education. In addition, most of these classes are small in terms of the number of students, and as such, it is easy for instructors to provide students with utmost concentration. Even so, there is always the challenge of gifted underachievers who may fail to adapt to the system passably. Probably, they would have had a better chance in the normal education curriculum in which they can learn as normal students. The governments of Singapore and UK have to take consideration that only good leadership will propel the country to the next level. For that reason, the gifted and talented are the tomorrow leaders and the solution of all this. They need to take the programme as a cornerstone of the education system. Furthermore, they ought to note that under achievers are gifted children they neglected in their school. Neglecting them implies that the country has failed to harness the most important resource for her economy and future. A systematic change is necessary to improve on the quality and attention given to the gifted and talented population. Recommendations The two nations have to make some important adjustments to better the situation. Firstly, schools selected to offer the programme should be because the school is able to produce good results but because the school can be able to nurture these students to their full potential, Tan, (2013). Furthermore, parents have to be encouraged to participate more but also take necessary considerations. For example, the Singaporean parents need advice on ways to keep their talented children than merely pressuring them to perform well in their IQ tests. They should focus on developing their kids’ skills and abilities more than examinations. Furthermore, the two nations need to recognize the important role played by their teachers. A good educator or teacher is based on several factors for instance experience and character but not only teaching. For that reason, from this, it is so sad to note that most teachers avoid being gifted educators because of the pressure from the parents. Proper ways are necessary to ensure that the gifted educators who are available are motivated towards achieving their set goals. Conclusion In conclusion, the gifted education program is a beneficial strategy that recognizes and promotes outstanding intelligence. As seen above, there are several similarities and differences between the implementation of the gifted education program in the United Kingdom and in Singapore. In the main, the identification of gifted students improves the quality of the education system significantly. The recognition of the rights of gifted individuals and the ability to offer them the best education separately is beneficial for students. Students endure challenges according to their abilities. The program results in productive members of the society that can channel their abilities into the development of their country. Although gifted education has not received the best, it deserves so far, it is still important to note its important role and work towards upholding the system. I believe the programme can still help to realize and recognize the rights of individuals in receiving the best education that will suit and fit into the individual needs and abilities. Building an important and the best work force of citizenship that can help build a strong economy depend on this gifted education programme and as far as the UK and Singapore governments are concerned, expertise, which this programme can build, is worth focusing and investing on it. Therefore, management will need to really include and see how it can best take the responsibility for providing for their gifted and talented students plus the necessary workforce such as educators. GEP is highly needed therefore, because it will provide much-needed environment to greatly challenge the gifted students and enrich them as well as accelerating school programs to run continuous and in regular manner as illustrated by, Romey, (2013). Education can never be efficient education if the government fails to meet for the much-needed lot of students. With Gifted Education Programme Singapore and United Kingdom governments can built an incredibly strong leadership in different fields for instance scientists, engineers and many more. This will provide a unique change that receives appreciation and respect across the world globe in the near future. References Chamberlin, S. (2008). An examination of articles in gifted education and multicultural education journals. Prufrock Press. Journal for the education of the gifted, Vol. 32, No. 1. Gibson, K. and Mitchell, L. (2005). Critical curriculum components in programs for young gifted learners. Shannon Research Press. International Education Journal, 6 (2), 164-169. Gifted Education Programme Singapore (2000). History of the GEP. Ministry of Education [Online]http://www1.moe.edu.sg/gifted/gebr-gep/gep.htm Khoo, A. (2014). I Am Gifted, So Are You! Singapore: Marshall Cavendish. Koshy, V., Pinherio-Torres, C., and Smith, P. (2012). The Landscape of Gifted and Talented Education in England and Wales: How are Teachers Implementing Policy? Research papers in education, 27, (2), 167-186. Lassig, C. (2009). Teachers’ attitudes towards the gifted: the importance of professional development and school culture. Australian Journal of Gifted Education, 18 (2). Pp. 32- 42. Lennex, L. C., & Nettleton, K. F. (2015). Cases on instructional technology in gifted and talented Education. Lim, Gary. (2002). Gifted Education for Economic Survival: The Case of Singapore. < http://www.ualberta.ca/~ckreber/papers/lim.htm> Montgomery, D. (2008). Able, Gifted and Talented Underachievers. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Montgomery, D. (2009). Able, Gifted and Talented Underachievers. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Poon, A., Holden, P., Lim, S., & National Arts Council (Singapore). (2009). Writing Singapore: An historical anthology of Singapore literature. Singapore: NUS Press. Romey, E. A. (2013). Finding John Galt: People, politics, and practice in gifted education. New York: IAP. Sarouphim, K. (2010). A Model for the Education of Gifted Learners in Lebanon. International Journal of Special Education, Vol. 25, No. 1. Tan, A. (2013). Creativity, talent and excellence. Singapore: Springer. Wong, A. (2001, April 27). Singapore: The birth of a world-class infrastructure. Opening Keynote Address by Dr Aline Wong, Senior Minister of State for Education, at the International Women’s Forum (IWF) Global Conference in Singapore. Read More