MOE's response to the ST article on IP
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 9:03 am
ST Forum 23.12.11
---
WE WOULD like to correct the perception that the introduction of the Integrated Programme (IP) has reduced opportunities for those not selected for the programme after the PSLE.
Popular schools and junior colleges have always seen more applicants than places, resulting in higher cut-off points. For example, before the IP started in 2004, the cut-off point for Raffles Institution (RI) was around 260, similar to what it is currently.
We have expanded the enrolment of the JCs offering IP. The number of students entering these JCs from secondary schools not offering IP has increased from some 2,100 previously to over 2,300 today.
These students make up about 50 per cent of the cohort in the JCs offering IP, comparable to the proportion before IP started.
The commentary ('The runaway IP train'; Dec 14), noted that only some 500 places were set aside for O-level students entering Hwa Chong Institution (HCI) and RI at JC1. We would like to point out that prior to IP, only 400 of HCI and RI's students (at JC1) hailed from schools not offering the IP today.
There is now greater diversity in the JCs offering IP, as they are accepting O-level students from more secondary schools. Their students used to come from some 50 schools but now almost 70 schools are represented. This is partly because students from other IP schools no longer compete for admission at JC1.
Ultimately, we strive to maximise each child's potential, regardless of which school he or she attends.
The IP should not be seen as the only pathway to success. For the majority of our students, the O-level pathway will continue to be the most suitable preparation for post-secondary education.
---
WE WOULD like to correct the perception that the introduction of the Integrated Programme (IP) has reduced opportunities for those not selected for the programme after the PSLE.
Popular schools and junior colleges have always seen more applicants than places, resulting in higher cut-off points. For example, before the IP started in 2004, the cut-off point for Raffles Institution (RI) was around 260, similar to what it is currently.
We have expanded the enrolment of the JCs offering IP. The number of students entering these JCs from secondary schools not offering IP has increased from some 2,100 previously to over 2,300 today.
These students make up about 50 per cent of the cohort in the JCs offering IP, comparable to the proportion before IP started.
The commentary ('The runaway IP train'; Dec 14), noted that only some 500 places were set aside for O-level students entering Hwa Chong Institution (HCI) and RI at JC1. We would like to point out that prior to IP, only 400 of HCI and RI's students (at JC1) hailed from schools not offering the IP today.
There is now greater diversity in the JCs offering IP, as they are accepting O-level students from more secondary schools. Their students used to come from some 50 schools but now almost 70 schools are represented. This is partly because students from other IP schools no longer compete for admission at JC1.
Ultimately, we strive to maximise each child's potential, regardless of which school he or she attends.
The IP should not be seen as the only pathway to success. For the majority of our students, the O-level pathway will continue to be the most suitable preparation for post-secondary education.