How to help every gifted child in Singapore.

It occurred to me, today, that Ainan has, unwittingly, helped every gifted child in Singapore. He has done so, by leaving the country. I shall explain.

The reason Ainan left Singapore was because Singapore was not supporting his education adequately: we were receiving a lot of delay tactics, and very little real support. By the time we left, there was no support in place at all. Now, obviously, given Ainan's relatively high profile internationally, it is very embarrassing for Singapore that he should leave. Indeed, even the front pages of the Wall Street Journal commented on the situation (even if the front pages of the Straits Times did not). There is considerable "loss of face" for Singapore, in the situation. Yet, this is actually good for Singapore's other gifted children - for it is likely that Singapore's educational institutions will think twice before being difficult and slow to respond to the needs of other gifted children. They will have, in the back of their minds (such as they are), the memory of one very public departure, because of their own previous failings to support a child, properly.

Thus, although it was not our intention to do so, Ainan's public departure from Singapore, for Malaysia (a much more open country, as far as we have presently experienced), is of great help to all other gifted kids in Singapore. I would be very surprised if Singapore did not take greater measures, in future, to provide for its gifted children. Otherwise, it would lose others to Malaysia and other countries, too. Until Ainan's departure, perhaps they were labouring under the delusion that Singapore was so wonderful a place, that no gifted kid would ever think of leaving. Funny enough, though, we are aware of a mathemetically precocious boy, who was also displeased with Singapore's response to his gifts. He left, too, for the United States, long ago. However, his departure did not come to public attention, because he has a low profile, so his decision would have no effect on the way Singapore does things. Ainan's departure, though, is different and likely to have a beneficial effect for all gifted children remaining in Singapore. The MOE and GEP will not be keen to see Ainan's individual decision, become a flood of talented emigrants, turning their backs on a nation that had, in some way, turned its back on them.

Yet, even though it is likely that the MOE will take greater care of its gifted children in future, there are other possible effects of Ainan's departure. His decision to study at a private University in Malaysia, may inspire other Singaporeans to look at Malaysia as a possible source of education for their children. The private sector in Malaysia is, unlike its public counterpart, rather strong and able to offer a wide range of schooling options which are as good as anything Singapore has to offer in its private sector - though much, much cheaper.

Perhaps, therefore, even though Ainan may inspire a better response from the MOE in future, towards its gifted citizens, he may also inspire some of those citizens to head overseas, despite the MOE's best efforts, in search of alternative options.

I wonder, therefore, what effect, on balance, Ainan's educational decision will have? Will the MOE's renewed efforts to retain talent outdo the impulse to look elsewhere for an education? Will more stay as a result of a change in MOE's attitude? Or will more leave, having learnt from Ainan's example?

It is, at this stage, impossible to say what will happen. I will, however, watch the situation closely, for any clues as to what transpires. It occurs to me, though, that whatever the effect of Ainan's move that it does help every child in Singapore. You see, it will probably mean that MOE will make greater efforts for its charges - which is good for all concerned - but it also means that parents will realize that there is an alternative to Singapore's rigidities. So whether they stay or go, Singapore's talents will benefit. They now are aware of more choices and they are also likely to be helped more, (by the MOE). So, either way, the children win.


(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 6 and Tiarnan, 4, this month, please go to:
http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at: http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/
Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/
Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is at http://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

The New Paper and the order of events.

The New Paper today carried an article about Ainan and ourselves, in it. In fact, it had two articles. One article concerned his achievement in passing the O level Physics younger than anyone else has done...two years after he passed O level Chemistry younger than anyone has ever passed an O level. My concern, though, is the second article, for I fear it has quite a few errors of information in it.

I shall explain. When telling a story, the time order of events is very important for understanding the truth of the story. However, the New Paper article muddles up the order of events, to make things look more favourable for the MOE. I find this an interesting failing...

In the article, it says that the MOE offered us workshops at the Science Centre, which we declined, and then it says we walked out of a meeting with the MOE and said we didn't want any more offers of support from them. This is not true. It makes it look like the MOE were trying to be supportive. They were not. The truth is, in fact, very different.

What happened was that we had a meeting in 2007, towards the end of the summer (I think of the summer as the middle months of the year, since I come from Europe), at which two officers from GEP were gatecrashing: they had not been invited by us, but turned up anyway. This is typical inconsiderate behaviour of GEP officers. The relationship was already pretty sour by then, so I am pretty sure they knew we wouldn't want them around - yet they turned up anyway. The Principal of Ainan's school hadn't told us they would be there, either, which is rather off, I think. Anyway, at this meeting, the GEP officers (including our case officer, who was a truly difficult person to deal with), refused everything we asked for. We made SO many different suggestions of ways in which they could help Ainan - and they refused them all. Finally, I asked if Ainan could have practical classes at NUS High (where he had been studying, though to no use, since the class was below the level of his then knowledge and ability - but they didn't respond to that). She said: "No." very firmly. She then went on to say: "If you want practical classes, why don't you find a private school and PAY for them YOURSELF!"

I thought she was a little too aggressive to be a government officer, but there you are, I didn't hire her.

I told her that Ainan has a very practical learning style and needs to do Chemistry, not just read about it.

She said: "Oh we at the Gifted branch think learning style is very important..."

"Well, I have just told you he has a practical learning style, so can he have practical classes?"

She snapped at me: "Oh that is not good enough for us!"

I couldn't take it anymore from this silly woman. She was telling me that the view of the parents, who know the child best of all people in the world, was no good for the GEP: it was to be dismissed.

I rose then and said: "We will never speak again!", though I did say one more thing: "Your problem is that you don't listen!"

Then I left - and we never did speak again, despite what the MOE says in its article in the New Paper (they claim we did some months later).

Now, what I find interesting about the article is that it moves the walk out event above to being AFTER the offer from the MOE regarding the Science Centre. This is so not true it makes me want to vomit. I walked out on the GEP, in the late summer 2007. The offer of the Science Centre arrived in February 2008 - with a bill attached: we would have to PAY for the GEP's "support". I know of no country on Earth that would ask a gifted student to pay for an intervention supposed to help them...except for Singapore of course. Anyway, we declined them, for two reasons: one was that they never actually bothered to explain to us what the workshops were about - and secondly, they wanted us to pay for them and that we just couldn't really do, at that time. The offer of a few workshops at the Science centre came via Ainan's Principal. When I saw that our GEP case officer's name was mentioned in the correspondence, I was not happy - because she had been such a pain to deal with. I said to the Principal that we wanted nothing to do with the GEP. That is all I said. I did not contact the GEP, nor the MOE. I had kept my promise and I never spoke to them directly again, after the walk out. Yet, they state in the article that we told them in February 2008 that we didn't want any more "help" from the MOE. I find that very strange, since we didn't actually speak to them at all - and what we said to his Principal referred only to the interference of the GEP and, more specifically, the officer that we just could not stand having to deal with. So, in a very real sense, the article is not true to events. The order is wrong - and some things just did not happen in the way they say.

We gave up on the GEP because they were refusing to help in anyway: they were turning down all our suggestions. The article has changed the course of events to make it look like we were turning down an offer from the GEP. This is just not true. There was NO offer on the table when we walked away from them. The Science centre "offer" (it is not an offer actually because we would have had to pay for it) came about 6 months after we had had our walk out with the GEP. Thus, changing the order of events, COMPLETELY CHANGES THE MEANING OF WHAT HAPPENED. It makes it look like we were being difficult - when in fact it was our GEP case officer who was being difficult.

Also, the person they interviewed at NUS High was someone who has been caught out in the past in what seems like a lie - because his students contradicted what he said to us. Yet, this was the man they quote with reference to Ainan. All in all, I am not happy with the way the article has distorted events.

Perhaps the distortions of events are unintentional and due to the assumptions of the writer about what must have happened. Perhaps they are deliberate distortions. I do not know - but I know this: all the changes in events make the MOE look better than it should. That all changes were in favour of the MOE does make one wonder why the events were depicted that way. The fact is the MOE was very difficult to deal with with respect to Ainan. The GEP officers were completely deaf to all information that came from us and completely ignored all requests. They did their own thing - and their own thing was always, in our view, inappropriate, insufficient, or just unnecessary. The article did not capture that at all. It created a very different impression - one that tried to make us look as if we were turning away support, when in fact, the MOE/GEP were the ones refusing to support adequately and in a timely fashion.

Another thing the article missed: the offer of the Science centre came a full THIRTEEN months after his O level in Chemistry. Well, excuse me, I think that any gifted intervention programme that takes more than a YEAR to find somewhere to support a kid's interest, should be fired at once...all of them. Then again, the offer was very little. It was just a few workshops in somewhat irrelevant Chemistry. It was also at a price (not free).Furthermore, it was not what we required - ongoing practical experience. The MOE failed to support Ainan. The New Paper failed to report this accurately, but instead tried to diminish one parent's quest for a suitable education for his gifted son.

I must say, though: I am not surprised. In Singapore, the little guy...that is me...has no say or power at all. The big guy will always manage to drown out the little voice and put their version of history across. I am getting to understand that the news here, in Singapore, is often not what it should be: it doesn't accurately reflect what really goes on and will always be slanted to make the system shine in a glossy, blameless fashion. The truth, however, can be very different. The only problem, of course, is that, in Singapore, that is something the readers will never get the chance to evaluate.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to:http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

IMDB is the Internet Movie Database for film and tv professionals.If you would like to look at my IMDb listing for which another fifteen credits are to be uploaded, (which will probably take several months before they are accepted) please go to: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3438598/ As I write, the listing is new and brief - however, by the time you read this it might have a dozen or a score of credits...so please do take a look. My son, Ainan Celeste Cawley, also has an IMDb listing. His is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3305973/ My wife, Syahidah Osman Cawley, has a listing as well. Hers is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

Differential support of the gifted.

There are, no doubt, gifted children in all nations of the world, however, are they all treated as well?

Recently, I corresponded with a Malaysian writer. She was very interested in what kind of support Ainan was receiving. Her assumption was that Ainan would be supported directly by the government, in some way - or by private sector involvement, to optimize his chances and development and remove as many barriers as possible. I had to let her down on that one. You see, Ainan is receiving no direct governmental support and no private sector assistance either. The only, though valuable, support is his attendance at Singapore Polytechnic to do Chemistry, which we arranged ourselves. That, however, was not the kind of support she was thinking of. She was thinking of the kind of assistance that allows special personalized programmes to be put in place and the funds provided for them. Yet, Ainan, despite his evident need has no such support.

Singapore has a "Gifted Branch" which, ostensibly, is supposed to support gifted children. As long term readers of this blog will know, Ainan was involved with them from the age of seven. However, we gave up on them because they were repeatedly and consistently unhelpful and obstructive. Their mantras were two fold: "There are no resources available" and "If we do it for him, they will all want it." Thus, little or nothing was done by them to support Ainan and many obvious interventions were point blank refused - for reasons similar to those above.

Singapore prides itself on being a leading nation in the South East Asian region yet, surprisingly, it is not leading in the way it supports prodigious children. The Malaysian writer assumed Ainan would be receiving special support because, in her nation, that is what happens to prodigies: they tend to get direct state support. I have heard of cases where the local government has funded the special educational needs of prodigies, in Malaysia. This, however, just does not happen in Singapore. In Singapore, the parents of prodigious children (of which there appear to be very few, since it is hard to think of any), will experience nothing but frustration at the hands of the Ministry of Education.

My question is, therefore: how is it that a developing nation, like Malaysia, has the wit to realize the importance of special support for its most unusual children...whereas a "developed" nation, like Singapore does not support them, getting hung up, instead, on the idea that no-one should receive any "special treatment".

There is, of course, a short-sightedness here on the part of Singapore, which, perhaps, explains its lack of contribution to the world's greatest thinkers. By not supporting its most able children, on an individual basis, Singapore is hampering the growth of its most promising minds. This can only lead to a stunted intellectual future for the nation. However, perhaps that is what they want: maybe they are uncomfortable that anyone should rise too far from the communal pack...standing out, here, is "just not done".

In a way, it is truly surprising that Singapore should be less able to respond to a prodigious child productively, than Malaysia. It is not what one would think. However, it does tell me something. Perhaps countries like Malaysia, while lagging in some ways, may go on to produce a sprinkling of thinkers, who bring lustre to their national name.

Will Singapore have any such shining individuals or will it just have a great big herd of conformist, rubber-stamped, cookie cutter educated people?

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to:http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

IMDB is the Internet Movie Database for film and tv professionals.If you would like to look at my IMDb listing for which another fifteen credits are to be uploaded, (which will probably take several months before they are accepted) please go to: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3438598/ As I write, the listing is new and brief - however, by the time you read this it might have a dozen or a score of credits...so please do take a look. My son, Ainan Celeste Cawley, also has an IMDb listing. His is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3305973/ My wife, Syahidah Osman Cawley, has a listing as well. Hers is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

The Gifted Education Programme is a failure.

The Gifted Education Programme, of Singapore, is a failure. I shall explain and detail why, in this post, although I have addressed the issues piecemeal in other posts over the years.

The Gifted Education Programme, or GEP, as it is known, for short, in Singapore, is a government programme supposedly intended to support the education of gifted students. I say, "supposedly" because our experience of them, and that of others we know, is that they don't seem to know what support actually means.

We became involved with the Gifted Education Programme (GEP), shortly after Ainan passed his O level Chemistry at an unprecedented seven years and one month old. This world record was enough to get their attention. Interestingly, when we had tried to approach his school about his special educational needs, prior to his O level exam, they essentially snubbed us, not taking our word for it. Their attitude soon changed once we had a piece of paper to prove it: how Singaporean.

Anyway, the Gifted Education Programme/GEP spoke a lot about what they could do for Ainan. Their first interest was to assess him. This turned out to be a long and rather involved process, putting him through a series of interviews with scientists, a psychologist and various tests. It took months to satisfy them - despite his O level - that there was a need to intervene.

When, finally, they were satisfied that a need was revealed, their offerings were remarkably slight. The only thing we asked for was laboratory access so that he could gain practical experience of Chemistry. However, this was the one thing that they seemed reluctant to provide in any meaningful way. They arranged for five sessions at Raffles Junior College and Raffles Institution. That was a help and a good start, however, at the end of it, they told us that this was "Resource intensive" and that they were not prepared to support ongoing laboratory work for him, because there were "No funds available."

Privately, we arranged access to some Chemistry workshops with RJC. When the GEP heard about it, they seemed to put a stop to it, for after the Gifted Education Programme had contacted them, Raffles Junior College told us that they were no longer able to help. They declined to give a reason, despite the fact that they had made the offer of help, themselves.

This was our first concrete indication that, far from actually helping Ainan, that the GEP may actually be interfering with his opportunities.

Interestingly, when we discussed our experience with the mother of another gifted child, she said she had had very similar experiences. Every time she let them know what she was doing to nurture her child's gift, the Gifted Education Programme tried to discourage her, or interfere in some way. So, our experience was not unique. Incidentally, she eventually left Singapore, in frustration, at the Gifted Education Programme, and is now living in another country, with her gifted son. No doubt that is beneficial to Singapore's long term potential.

The Gifted Education Programme, after much prodding, arranged for Ainan to attend NUS (National University of Singapore) High School for Maths and Science, at the age of 7. Again, the process of admission was a long one, which seemed to take forever. Eventually, however, they offered him ONE HOUR a week, at NUS High. We were rather shocked at this, since it seemed too little to actually feed his interest. However, we kept an open mind and brought him along for the first couple of weeks.

It was a great disappointment. They had assigned him to a class and a level that he had already studied. In his first two weeks there he told me that there was ONLY ONE fact that he didn't already know. That is one single piece of information encapsulated in a few words. We quickly came to the conclusion that this was a waste of time and money. It wasn't worth the taxi fare there and back again.

We explained our observations to the Gifted Education Programme. They were not very understanding. The GEP Officer said: "Oh, it is not about what he can learn, it is all about the other things." It turned out that she was referring to the social side. It seems that the GEP considers that the greatest need for a gifted child is a social club. He wasn't supposed to be there to learn anything. He was supposed to be there to make friends and get used to being around older people.

Now, that is all very well...but hang on a minute, isn't it supposed to be a Gifted EDUCATION Programme? Ainan had a need to learn, and this wasn't being met.

We asked for various things, all of which were denied us. We asked for him to go on a broad spectrum O level programme (at 7) covering all the other subjects that he hadn't yet studied, in combination with an A level in Chemistry. They denied this, saying: "He hasn't proven himself in the other subjects."

I thought this was very silly. Basically, they were saying: "We don't believe he can get an O level in the other subjects, until he has already got an O level in them. At that moment, we will believe it, then he can have an O level course, which he will no longer need."

Ainan was already the youngest O level holder in the world. If he could do that, he could do the other subjects too. It seemed a "no-brainer" - but not to the GEP no-brains, it seems.

We then asked if he could attend a broad range of courses at NUS High, to get a feel for them and see which he would like.

They wouldn't allow it.

I suggested he could just sit on the courses and audit them.

They wouldn't allow it.

I asked if he could have a Chemistry practical class at NUS High, for that was his real need.

They wouldn't allow it. Not only that but the GEP Officer, Yogini Yogarajah, said: "Why don't you find a private school and pay for it yourself."

We had already researched that, and had quotes of 600 dollars per session. Clearly, the private option was out of the question.

In our final meeting with the GEP/Gifted Education Programme, we tried to explain to the Gifted Branch Officers present that Ainan had a very practical learning style and that he needed to actually DO Chemistry, to learn it properly.

Yogini Yogarajah said: "Oh, we at the Gifted Branch think learning style is very important."

"Well, can we have practical classes, for Ainan, then, because I have just told you he has a very practical learning style."

"Oh, that's not good enough for us.", she said, with the utmost dismissiveness.

That was too much for me. She was dismissing the input from the parents - who, of course, know Ainan about a hundred thousand times better than the Gifted Education Programme ever could. Apparently, such inside knowledge, from people who really know a child, is "Not good enough for us."

I rose, said: "We will never speak again." and left.

I kept my word. We have never spoken to the GEP since, nor do we intend to. They are not what they purport to be. They are extremely slow in responding. They refuse to make funds available to support a gifted child's special needs. They attempt to block initiatives that would help the child. They refuse to take on board the views of the parents. They offer provision which is so abstemious that it makes no difference at all to the growth of the child. That which is most essential to the child is that which they precisely deny the child.

The account above is a very brief one. It leaves out detail on occasions on which the GEP made difficulties for us, in our attempts to provide the right education for Ainan. However, it does give some idea of the ways in which the Gifted Education Programme is not truly functioning as an education programme.

There is one way in which it is functioning, however. At our final meeting with the GEP, Yogini Yogarajah had a very thick folder in her hands, which she would not let us see. Apparently, it contained reports on Ainan written by everyone in the education system who had had contact with him. It transpires that all who had contact with him were under instructions to write a report on their observations of him. I found this really spooky. The Gifted Education Programme does not provide a suitable education for the gifted. However, it does keep gifted children under close observation and writes reams of reports about them. You can come to your own conclusions about what this means. Personally, I found their emphasis on observation over educational provision to be really quite perturbing. It seemed that their true intentions were rather different from their expressed ones.

One of my questions to Yogini Yogarajah and her Gifted Branch colleagues that last day, was: "What is the Gifted Education Programme for?" Yogini tried to twist the meaning of my question and rephrase it to make it seem less critical of her and her people, but I reiterated my question unchanged. Our year or so with the Gifted Education Programme had left me genuinely puzzled about what it was actually for. I could no longer see it as an educational support initiative for the gifted, because it wasn't really performing as one. I was left with a big question mark in my mind about what was the actual, real purpose of the Gifted Education Programme. I was left to conclude that either it had another (unstated) purpose, which it may well be succeeding in, or that the Gifted Education Programme was failing in its (stated) purpose of supporting the educational needs of gifted children.

Ainan is just one scientifically gifted child. Singapore, through the Gifted Education Programme, had shown itself unable to cope with the needs of just one child. One of the repeated phrases we heard on Yogini's lips was: "If we do it for your child, they will all want it." The justification, for doing basically nothing, was that if Ainan was provided with the laboratory access he needed to continue to learn science, that it would create a stampede of parents also wanting the same for their children.

I can just see it now: Singapore is clearly overwhelmed with scientific prodigies. Clearly, in Yogini's mind, there are millions of them out there, just waiting to "all want it". I found her remarks absurd. Singapore has only one child like Ainan, gifted in this particular way. There would have been no stampede of other parents demanding the same for their child. All that was happening here, was that the Gifted Education Programme were finding reasons for doing nothing to help.

To my mind, that means that the Gifted Education Programme is NOT an education programme. It is something else. What else, I don't know, but they certainly don't do even the obvious things to help a child like Ainan.

If they really have no funds available, I could make a suggestion for making funds available. They should fire the Branch Officers assigned to us...because they were completely unable to listen to us. They shouldn't work for an education programme at all. The money saved through not paying their salaries would liberate resources for many gifted children.

Better still: why not sack the entire department, then there would be plenty of resources for Singapore's gifted. All that would be needed is one person to co-ordinate the activities.

So, my advice regarding the Gifted Education Programme is not to expect much from them. In fact, you might be a lot happier not to become involved with them at all in the first place. We could have done without the experience we went through with them. I expect you can too, if you have a gifted child.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

"No resources" for Singaporeans; abundance for PRCs

I find the recent fuss over a Chinese PRC (People's Republic of China) student who took up a bond-free scholarship (that is one with no obligation to work for a set number of years in Singapore), but then fled, without notice, to a destination unknown (though suspected to be a US university), of great interest. You see, I find the contrast of the Singaporean educational authorities' response to PRC students marked indeed to what we experienced when we were working with the Gifted Education Programme.

I have written before of the differential treatment given to foreigners (particularly PRC students) and locals, but it bears writing of again, given the topicality of the issue - and the fact that I have personal experience to bring to the matter.

When we were seeking help, for Ainan, from the Gifted Education Programme, we were repeatedly told, in regards to our need for a Chemistry lab for him, that there were "No resources". The Gifted Branch Officer, Yogini, even said: "Why don't you find a private school and pay for it yourself?" Well, we checked out private schools. One, for instance, quoted a price of 600 dollars a lesson. That is a huge amount of money. Clearly, given the mercenary attitude of private schools in Singapore, it simply wasn't an option to hire a lab for ourselves. We found the GEP's response puzzling. Ainan had shown himself to be unusually gifted (he is, after all, the youngest child ever to pass an O level) - yet the GEP couldn't find the resources to help him. This seems strange given the hundreds of school laboratories across the face of Singapore: surely one had a teacher with the time and inclination to help? We were told that this was "too resource intensive" and that the GEP refused to arrange it.

Thus, we wasted a year and a half looking for a school or college for Ainan that would help. We found one, ourselves, in the Singapore Polytechnic (to whom we are most grateful). The GEP did not help, however, in any real way.

Now, contrast this experience of a gifted Singaporean child, with the experience of an imported PRC student on a government scholarship. Their education is free. They are given accommodation and a monthly stipend to meet their expenses. They have access to the best schools and facilities - and, in the case above, they are under no obligation to Singapore. There is no talk, for PRC students of "no resources".

Apparently, a gifted, even prodigious, Singaporean child is of less value to Singapore, than an imported PRC. A gifted, even prodigious, Singaporean child is of less concern to the system - it is OK not to support them, to let them be unstimulated, to deny them access to the resources they need to grow - because, heh, after all, they are not the all important PRCs of China.

We have heard of other gifted children in Singapore not getting the resources they need, or finding the response of the GEP frustrating. I doubt that PRC students have to experience the same thing.

So, my point is that if resources are available, in plenty, to lure foreign students - particularly PRCs - to Singapore, the resources should be available, in plenty, to ensure that no gifted Singaporean child (or indeed any Singaporean child of any level of intellect), goes without the resources they need to best optimize their talents.

A system which does not recognize the importance of native born Singaporeans (as my son is) and preferentially supports PRC imports, is one that has lost sight of who is more likely to make a contribution to Singapore. You see, as the flight of the PRC in question shows, the loyalty of an imported "talent" is always going to be less than that of a homegrown Singaporean (assuming, of course, that Singaporeans are well looked after and not treated poorly by the system, since that will lead to a decline of loyalty and national affection).

I understand why resources are made available for PRCs and the like: it is to seduce them into staying in Singapore, it is to increase our pool of talent. That is all very well and probably has a certain wisdom to it - but - and this is a big but - it should not be a discriminatory practice: Singaporeans, particularly ones of gift, should have just as much access to special resources as the imports. Otherwise, something strange will happen: just as the PRCs arrive, the Singaporeans will leave. Is that a desirable outcome?

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.)