The Gifted Education Programme in Singapore

Introduction

In his 2001 National Day Rally Speech, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong outlined a slew of initiatives to transform the country into a “New Singapore”. Among the Prime Minister’s list of priorities was the need to increase the local talent pool, a concern to be addressed utilising education as a key strategy.[1] Indeed the importance of education can be seen from the Singapore government’s policies over the years, as it strived to develop the only natural resource available to Singapore – its people. This can be explained because education, when characterised by new skills and knowledge, leads to an enhancement of human capital, which in turn improves the contribution of labour to the economy and hence results in greater growth.[2]

The Gifted Education Programme (GEP) was set up to this end, to equip gifted pupils with the necessary intellectual abilities in order that they would be at the “forefront of change and progress” and work for the “betterment of society and the nation”.[3] This paper therefore seeks to examine the GEP, tracing the context of the policy, as well as studying the formulation and implementation of the policy. In addition, the paper will also evaluate the Programme and suggest areas for future direction and improvement.

 Policy Context

            When examining the public policy context in Singapore, four salient factors are essential towards understanding how the policy was formulated and implemented. This constitutes an awareness of the geographical, economic, demographic and political aspects of the Singapore environment which determine the nature and style of any public policy.[4] Consequently, this study on the Gifted Education Programme will also examine how these four factors affected the implementation and formulation of the Programme.

                In terms of geography, the GEP was formulated in the context of Singapore as a small city state with a highly urban sector and negligible rural sector. In a bid to address rising demands for higher skilled workers to compete in the international arena, the Singapore government introduced the New Educational System (NES) of 1979, which was aimed at increasing the literacy level of school leavers, thereby raising the overall educational competence of the Singapore workforce. The Gifted Education Programme was initiated as part of this System, hoping to better equip intellectually gifted pupils with the necessary tools to cope with the challenges of a fast-changing society.[5] To this end, it was hoped that educational differentiation would result in the development of higher skilled workers, so as to better meet the needs of the Singapore workforce.

            Economically, the industrialisation policies of the 1960s led to rapid development and Singapore’s per capita gross national product increased significantly from $1,330 in 1960 to $13,783 in 1983, resulting in the country assuming the second highest standard of living in Asia.[6] Consequently, Singapore could afford to invest heavily in the education of its people, deemed to be the only natural resource of the country. This accounted for the willingness to spend more money on gifted pupils as these students received a higher allocation of financial resources as compared to mainstream pupils.[7] In addition, a higher standard of living implied that Singapore citizens were enjoying a higher quality of life and therefore had higher expectations. There were therefore demands for educational differentiation to meet the needs of an affluent society that expected and could afford a better education for its children.

            In terms of demography, Singapore as an island city state had a small land area and population size. Coupled with the notion that the country had no physical natural resources to develop, it had to rely on human resources as the only available natural resource. However, the small population size implied that these resources were limited. There was therefore the belief that the future of the country depended on how well it developed these human resources.[8] To this end, the GEP was formulated to develop gifted pupils among the population with the belief that these talented people would one day assume future political leadership in Singapore.[9] Hence, the Programme was deemed to be beneficial to the long-term interest of the country as it catered to the nurturing of the intellectually gifted, thereby best utilising the limited human resources available in the context of a small population size.

            The political aspects of the policy context can be understood best when considering the People’s Action Party (PAP) and its one party dominant role in Singapore’s political system. Since 1959, the PAP enjoyed a position of uninterrupted governance and was able to formulate a significant number of policies that would be implemented and continually undergo evaluation until their goals were achieved. This was unlike the situation in other democracies whereby a change in government could effect a policy reversal in the implementation of various policies. Hence, the formulation of the GEP was in accordance to the educational policy changes following the Goh Report of 1979, which called for a differentiated curriculum to allow students to be taught “at the pace at which they [could] absorb instruction”.[10] While these recommendations for a differentiated curriculum led directly to the streaming policy, the later extension of this reasoning led to the genesis of the GEP as it was realised that special provisions should be made to meet the needs of the intellectually gifted. Hence, the political continuity of the PAP government ensured that its educational policies could be pursued in order to meet their goals.

            It can therefore be seen that the policy context of Singapore in terms of its geography, economics, demography and political system, led to a conducive environment for the formulation and implementation of the Gifted Education Programme. In this respect, Singapore’s highly urban sector, its economic affluence, small population size and political continuity led to the initiation of the Programme and provided the context for the articulation of this policy. 

Policy Formulation

            In studying the policy formulation of the Gifted Programme, it is important to examine both its process and contents, understanding how these two aspects result in the initiation of the policy. This is because the process of policy formulation affects how the policy came into being, while its contents reflect the articulation of the policy as understood by the general population.[11] 

Process

            The process of policy formulation involves three important elements – the government perception of the population problem, the participation in the policymaking process, and the actual procedures of policy formulation.[12] Firstly, consider the government’s perception of the population problem. This was largely attributed to the Ministry of Education’s (MOE) recognition that gifted children needed a high degree of mental stimulation to cater to their specific needs. Subsequently, if these children were not given sufficient intellectual stimulation, they could become the “greatest underachievers” in school, frustrated by routine and repetitive learning of skills and curriculum material.[13]

In addition, the psychological and emotional needs of these children were also unlikely to be met as they tended to thrive best in the companionship of intellectual peers.[14] This was because the asynchronous development, high emotional sensitivity and intensity, superior cognitive consciousness and other attributes of gifted children manifested in behaviours that ordinary people found hard to understand. The gifted could therefore become an “underclass” if not attended to adequately.[15] It was to this end that the Singapore government embarked on a differentiated curriculum for the most gifted of its population, to cater to the educational needs of those at the higher end of the intellectual spectrum.

A second aspect of the policy formulation process involves participation in the policymaking process. In Singapore’s context, most government policies are formulated according to the elite model of public policy analysis, which articulates that government elites make policy on behalf of the masses. This occurs largely because of the political continuity of the PAP, as expressed by political legitimacy in the parliamentary process. In addition, there is also the notion that good governance requires “good men”, those with the “ability, integrity, commitment, [as well as] that special quality which will make them keep their cool under fire”.[16]

In analysing the GEP, it can therefore be seen that a top-down approach was adopted in the participation aspect of the policy’s formulation. This was articulated in the realisation by the late Minister of State for Education, Dr Tay Eng Soon, that special programmes were needed for bright children to realise their full potential. The Minister felt a compelling need to develop a special programme so as to enable bright children to realise their full potential, believing these children to have characteristics which would disadvantage them in a normal class setting, and in extreme situations lose their intellectual powers altogether, resulting in a loss for the society.[17] As can be seen, the Singapore government adopted an elitist approach to the initiation of the GEP as an extension of the New Education Policy of 1979. This was clearly because it had the parliamentary mandate of the people to formulate such a policy.

Thirdly, the actual procedures of the policy formulation process can be identified in the manner the policy originated. In the case of the Gifted Education Programme, this began with the 1981 visit by Dr Tay Eng Soon, who led a team to study gifted programmes in other countries such as the USSR and Israel. After the visit, a concept paper The Gifted Project was written in 1983 by the former MOE Director of Research and Testing, Dr Phua Swee Liang. This paper outlined the rationale and objectives behind a special programme for gifted children, describing the proposed structure of such a programme, as well as discussing the identification of teachers and the process of pupil selection.[18] Consequently, The Gifted Project provided the basis for the eventual establishment of the Special Programme Unit, later renamed the Gifted Education Branch (GE Branch), which was to be in charge of implementing the programme.

 Content

            In examining the content of policy formulation, this can be studied by considering the aspects of problem definition, policy options and language of presentation.[19] Problem definition, involving the justification of how a policy addresses an identified problem, can be pinpointed in the GEP by how the Programme helped to address weaknesses in the education system. The Goh Report of 1979 identified high education “wastage” levels as one of the major weaknesses of the education system warranting a restructuring of the existing arrangement.[20] To this end, the GEP was implemented as part of the streaming regime on the basis that education resources would be channelled into programmes for the “talented”, who would be more likely to benefit from such resources, thereby reducing the “wastage” in the education system.[21] This also reinforced the idea that “equal opportunity” could be accorded to gifted children, but this did not necessarily equate to them having the “same opportunity” as mainstream pupils.[22]

            The policy options considered by Singapore’s educationalists were manifold and involved decisions regarding the nature of the programme, the curriculum and the selection process. For instance, the MOE decided that the Programme should be conducted with self-contained classes in a mainstream school, with gifted classes consisting at most one-third of the total number of mainstream classes. This was so that gifted pupils could get the “best of both worlds”, obtaining intellectual stimulation in addition to socialisation with peers of the same age.[23]

In terms of curriculum, the GEP was to be enriched rather than accelerated, with increased breadth and depth of subject matter such that it covered the same content as the mainstream curriculum but to a greater extent.[24] In addition, gifted students would be exposed to more Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) such as synthesis, evaluation and analysis, compared to the principally mainstream approach of Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS) such as knowledge, comprehension and understanding.[25] This involved the increased adoption of group work to stimulate learning in a cooperative and collaborative manner with the teacher acting more as a facilitator rather than someone who merely “spoon-fed” pupils.[26] In essence, gifted teaching involved a “discovery learning” approach and was more pupil-centred due to smaller class size and more specialised teachers.

The selection process was also important when determining what policy options to be chosen. For instance, pupils were selected in Primary Three, at the age of nine, because of the educational belief that the earlier one intervenes in a child’s development, the greater impact this would have on his or her future advancement. As for the three years of primary education, this was to allow the schooling effect to kick in and to enable pupils from disadvantaged homes the opportunity to catch up. A similar rationale was given for the second entry point in Secondary One, which allowed pupils who developed later to be given a second chance at the programme.[27] With regards to the selection criteria, primary school pupils were given locally standardised tests in reading comprehension, vocabulary and quantitative reasoning, as well as a common primary three test in first language and mathematics. This was in addition to the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) results, which were also considered in the selection of secondary school pupils.[28]

            A third aspect of policy formulation content, the language of presentation, involved the manner in which a policy is presented to the public. In the case of the GEP, this was presented as a programme to cater to the “special needs” of gifted children who might otherwise be underachievers if they did not have the opportunity to develop their full potential. In addition, there was also the idea that if such a programme was to be made available to talented individuals, these people would be in the “best position” to benefit from the additional resources given, eventually contributing to the overall benefit of society. By presenting the GEP in such a manner, the Singapore government sought to dispel concerns that the programme was elitist, stating that it was beneficial both in an educational as well as a socio-political sense.

Policy Implementation

            The implementation of the Gifted Programme can be understood by examining the linkages between policy and performance. In this study, special emphasis is accorded to the Education Ministry’s Gifted Education Branch, as it is the government agency directly involved in the programme. From the perspective of the GEP centres, the Anglo-Chinese School (Independent), ACS(I), was selected as a case study, given its thirteen years of experience and involvement in the programme.

            Examining the relationship between policy and performance, this can be analysed in terms of the direct effects of the policy on implementation, such as its standards and objectives and the resources made available by the policy. In addition, other factors such as interorganisational communication and enforcement activities, the characteristics of the implementing agencies, the conditions affecting the policy as well as the disposition of the implementors are also important in understanding the nature of policy implementation.[29]

Policy Standards and Objectives

            The standards and objectives of the GEP can be seen in its aim of meeting pupils’ cognitive needs such as in the development of higher level thinking processes, the nurturing of creative productivity and the development of attitudes for self-directed lifelong learning. In addition, the affective needs of students were hoped to be met in the enhancement of pupils’ self-concepts and aspirations for self-fulfilment, in the development of a social conscience and a rootedness to the community, as well as in the development of leadership qualities.[30] In this manner, the programme hoped to develop a well-rounded individual, both in terms of his or her intellectual and emotional needs, thereby contributing to the society at large.

 Policy Resources

            The resources accorded to the GEP can be categorised in financial, material and manpower terms. In terms of financial resources, gifted students were generally accorded more money than mainstream pupils because of the smaller class sizes requiring more teachers. In ACS(I), like any other GEP centre, an annual grant of $58 was awarded per gifted student to offset field trips, camp fees as well as to purchase books and journals. This was in addition to the normal capitation grant accorded to students studying in an independent school.[31] As for the material needs of the students, these were supplied in terms of curriculum support from the MOE, as well as in the provision of additional resources beyond the textbook to provide a deeper understanding of contemporary issues. Manpower resources made available by the policy included the increased number of specialised teachers, and in the case of ACS(I), operated in a small teacher-student ratio of 1:8. GEP teachers also underwent training by overseas gifted education specialists and attended conferences and seminars so that they would be more effective in the education of the gifted.[32]

 Interorganisational Communication and Enforcement Activities

            In order that the implementation process be a successful one, it is important to communicate the standards and objectives of the policy to the implementors, who would otherwise not be able to carry them out in an effective manner. In addition there is also a need for enforcement activities, so as to ensure that the policy is carried out in a manner spelt out by its standards and objectives.[33] As can be seen, there was a need for communication and enforcement activities between and within the MOE and the GEP centres. This was so that the Programme’s standards and objectives could be articulated in an effective manner. For instance, members of the Gifted Education Branch would be given an intensive induction course by gifted education specialists as well as given opportunities to study successful gifted programmes.[34] They could then communicate this information to teachers in the GEP centres through the designing of the gifted curriculum as well as keeping a close supervision on GEP teachers via a mentorship programme. This close relationship between the MOE and the GEP centre also constituted a structure for the enforcement of the policy, with the Education Ministry responsible for the content of the curriculum as well as the teachers posted to the different GEP centres.

 Characteristics of the Implementing Agencies

            The ability of the implementing agencies in executing policy depends greatly on the characteristics of these agencies. Hence, a study of the GEP implementation process would also involve looking at the characteristics of the relevant agencies, in this case the Gifted Education Branch and the GEP centres. As the GE Branch is part of the MOE’s bureaucratic apparatus, it has the ability to directly influence how the GEP centres run the programme, such as in determining which schools to host the programme, as well as in what curriculum material to use and which teachers to conduct gifted classes.[35] The GEP centres, on the other hand, have the direct responsibility of implementing the programme. Hence although they follow the dictates of the MOE, the ethos of the school determines how the programme is run. ACS(I), for instance, is an independent mission school. It is therefore given more autonomy to run its programmes as compared to a government school. In addition, the Christian traditions and values of the school are also important in the education of its pupils.[36]

Political, Economic and Social Conditions

            The impact of political, economic and social conditions on public policy is significant as it directly affects the implementation of the policy and the extent of its success. In the case of the Gifted Programme, all three factors have contributed positively to the success of the policy. This can be explained in the light of the government’s strong political will towards implementing the programme and the elite participation in policy formulation. Consequently, the Education Ministry’s significant contribution of financial and other resources have been translated into adequate economic resources with which to support policy implementation. In addition, there has not been significant social opposition to the policy, given the parliamentary support accorded to the PAP government and a broad acceptance of the programme.

 Disposition of the Implementors

            When considering the success of the policy implementation process, it is important to look into how the implementors perceive the policy and how they respond to it.[37] This is in turn reflected in the strategies employed by these implementors. For the GEP, the main strategies employed were in relation to the approaches to teaching, the environment of instruction and the socialisation process. Take the ACS(I) approach towards teaching. This largely adopted an emphasis on the process rather that the product, the idea that gifted students should be given an opportunity to pursue more specialised studies at a higher level, handling things at greater breadth and depth. To this end, GEP students were taught using a differentiated approach to teaching rather than a “one size fits all” model.[38] This implied that teachers had to adopt multiple approaches within the same GEP class so as to appeal to the different ability of students within the class, either by deliberately grouping the students to enable peer mentorship, or by deliberately assigning questions based on the ability of the student.[39]

            In addition to the differentiated approach to teaching, the GEP also needed to stimulate an intellectual environment as pupils would then be able to communicate with like-minded people, and engage on an intellectual level. They were therefore be less likely to be bored than in a more mainstream “chalk and talk” environment.[40] Indeed the use of journal articles and other resources rather than a standard textbook allowed students to be exposed to a wider range of issues. In addition, the emphasis on discussion allowed the needs of individual students to be met as it gave room for students to express individual opinions freely.[41] Similarly, Independent Research Studies (IRS) and mentorship projects allowed students access to institutes of higher learning such as the universities. These projects, in addition to the numerous enrichment programmes, provided an opportunity for students to “go the extra mile and achieve greater heights” in the pursuit of intellectual development.[42]

            Equally important were the socialisation programmes involving both gifted and mainstream pupils, including enrichment camps, enrichment projects and community involvement programmes.[43] This was to allow greater integration between the gifted and mainstream students, so that the former would not be isolated from the latter, and hence not develop an “elitist” attitude.

 Policy Evaluation

            A key element in the study of any public policy should and must include an evaluation of the policy. This is because evaluations provide reliable and vital information about policy performance, revealing the extent to which specific goals and objectives have been attained.[44] Consequently, in conducting an evaluation of the GEP, this paper adopts a formal evaluation approach, examining policy outcomes on the basis of objectives that had been formally announced by policy makers and programme administrators. This incorporates the techniques of objectives mapping, value clarification, value critique, constraint mapping, process evaluation, impact evaluation and discounting.[45] As objectives mapping and value clarification of the GEP have been discussed in earlier sections, more attention will be given to the other techniques.

 Value Critique

            Given that the goals and objectives of the Gifted Programme are catered towards meeting the cognitive and affective needs of talented pupils for the overall benefit of society, a critique of the values behind such goals and objectives can be addressed by systematically questioning their appropriateness in relation to the problem that gifted children were not having their intellectual, psychological and emotional needs met. It is therefore important to consider how viable is the premise that by channelling more resources to talented individuals, these people would have their needs met, and would subsequently be more likely to contribute to society.

            While it is true that channelling additional resources to talented pupils could provide an extra opportunity for their needs to be met, this is not always the case, as can be seen from criticisms regarding the high societal expectations of gifted children. Such excessive social expectations and low allowances for failure, have led to a low sense of self-esteem on the part of many GEP pupils because of high parental expectations and the idea that they were not as good as what was expected of them.[46]

            Moreover, even if the needs of GEP pupils were met, it is difficult to determine the extent to which these students would contribute to society, especially in the light of criticisms regarding the socialisation of these individuals. Although there have been attempts to integrate gifted and mainstream students, this is a difficult process due to perceptions on both sides, with gifted pupils adopting an elitist mindset and mainstream students experiencing a sense of “injustice” concerning the programme.[47] In addition, there is also the problem of labelling and many gifted students prefer not be known as GEP students as it tended to lead to isolation.[48]

As can be seen, the elitist approach of the government in pursuing the GEP might not be congruent with the premise that it would definitely meet the needs of talented people, thereby developing them to contribute to society. This was because not all gifted pupils’ needs might be met through the programme, with some students experiencing the negative effects of high societal expectations. In addition, even if the needs of these individuals were to be met, they were not always likely to re-integrate with the mainstream, and therefore not necessarily make their contribution to society.   

Constraint Mapping

            The constraints of the GEP are centred mainly on factors affecting policy formulation, like the nature of the policymaking process as well as assumptions about giftedness. They are also concerned about factors affecting policy implementation, as reflected in the public expectations surrounding the programme. All these factors have in their different ways restricted the performance of the policy and thus had a negative impact on its outcome.

            With regards to the top-down approach of policymakers, this was a constraint to the Gifted Programme because it narrowed the number and nature of decision makers involved in policy formulation, thereby reducing the scope and variety of policy options considered. Although this elitist method of decision making provided for an efficient formulation process, it can be construed to have neglected the larger interests of the population despite attempts at extensive research studies to discern general population needs. 

            Assumptions that gifted pupils were talented in all areas led to problems regarding the performance of weaker GEP studies. For instance, the first batch of GEP students had to take ten subjects for their “O” Level examinations.[49] This was in contrast to the reality of “selective giftedness”, that not all students were talented in all areas, but that many were gifted only in a few areas. It was thus difficult for weaker students within the GEP to adapt, resulting in the poor performance of some of these students.[50]

            High public expectations of the policy are a product of the competitiveness in Singapore’s education system, which demands high performance standards of its people. This implies that teachers and students are under pressure to perform, a reaction that could result in adverse effects, reducing the programme to one only judged based on examination performance. Consequently, such high expectations could lead to a deviation of the original policy outcome, and affect the real contribution of gifted students to society.

 Process Evaluation

            The evaluation of a policy would not be complete without an understanding of whether it was implemented according to policy guidelines. Process evaluation fulfils this function, and it can be applied to the Gifted Programme by looking at some features of the implementation process and analysing if GEP goals and objectives were operationalised.

In the instance of policy resources, these have been regarded as sufficient in terms of financial and material needs, but not in terms of manpower assistance to alleviate the stress of teachers and pupils.[51] This is because the available counselling assistance is insufficient in the light of an increasing amount of pressure on both the teachers and students. Hence, although there is some attempt to help students develop higher level thinking skills through the provision of finance and materials, this is not enough in the area of helping pupils to learn self-confidence and develop self-fulfilment.

For interorganisational communication and enforcement between the GE Branch and GEP centres, these activities have been considered adequate due to the mutual communication between both the MOE and the GEP centres in terms of the GE Branch conveying curriculum requirements but also obtaining feedback from the GEP centres. In addition, the Ministry also maintains control over important aspects of the GEP centres such as their location.[52]  In this respect, there have largely been sufficient avenues for the articulation of policy objectives, promoting a general adherence to policy guidelines.

With regards to the strategies of the implementors, the GEP centres have largely executed the cognitive goals and objectives of the GEP, as reflected by the encouragement of differentiated individual assignments and innovative project work, as well as in the creation of a highly intellectual atmosphere for academic discussion and growth.[53] However, more is needed to involve the parents of gifted pupils, who are essential towards assisting them in differentiated learning and in the socialisation process. This is because the parents of gifted students generally have a low understanding of their children’s giftedness, despite programmes already in place such as MOE briefings as well as educational resources such as gifted parents’ handbooks.

It can therefore be argued that the implementation processes of the GEP have largely contributed towards the actualisation of policy goals and objectives. This is especially in the area of meeting students’ cognitive needs such as in the development of intellectual thought. However, in terms of meeting pupils’ affective needs like in self-fulfilment and in the development of a social conscience, this is not yet clearly seen.

 Impact Evaluation

            The impact of a policy is deemed positive if it effects change in a desired direction. This is the function of impact evaluation, to ascertain if public policies like the GEP have indeed resulted in significant positive changes. To this end, analysis of the programme will consider both the cognitive and affective aims of the policy, evaluating the extent to which these goals have been met.

If the cognitive goals of the GEP were measured solely on the basis of examination results per se, the programme can be said to have achieved success. This is because gifted pupils generally performed better than most mainstream students, obtaining an average L1R5 score of 6-7 points in ACS(I) as compared to an average school performance of 10-11 points.[54] However, examinations cannot be the sole indicator of cognitive goal evaluation, as the GEP trains students to think on a higher level, but they are instead subjected to examinations like the “O” Levels, which promote regurgitation and tests comprehension and understanding at a low level.[55] To this end, it might be desirable to reassess the modes of examination, perhaps even de-emphasising examinations and adopting programmes like the globally-recognised International Bachelorate (IB).[56]

In addition, there is still a problem of underachievement as some GEP pupils feel constrained by the lack of acceleration in the programme, believing it to be too routine, and therefore insufficient in challenging their mental ability.[57] In this respect, it might be feasible to consider a system of “limited acceleration”, which might be more relevant towards meeting the needs of these students, as it would allow the most able pupils to pursue higher aspirations earlier, taking into account that the emotional maturity of some of these students was well beyond those of their peers.[58]

The success of the GEP’s affective goals can be seen if one was to consider the promotion of community involvement in the Programme as a benchmark of contribution to society. This could be through the organisation of themes to foster a genuine concern for the community, for instance getting pupils to work with children in a home or to raise funds for less fortunate people.[59] In addition, longitudinal studies conducted by the MOE revealed that 30%-45% of the graduated GEP pupils were undertaking long-term community involvement projects such as participation in welfare organisations and in Residents’ Committee work. There was also another 30%-45% of former GEP students involved in the service sector, such as in public service and in medical and law services.[60]

However, despite the results of such studies, there is still a perception that GEP students possessed a low sense of rootedness to the country, and a government recognition that the gifted would be the first to leave Singapore in the event of a crisis.[61] To this end, a greater emphasis should be accorded to programmes addressing such pertinent issues as the raising of students’ self-actualisation and instilling a sense of belonging to the community and to the society at large.[62]

As can be seen, there is mixed success in the actualisation of the cognitive and affective aims of the Gifted Programme. This is partly related to the lack of measurable criteria to ascertain how the policy has made an impact in these two areas. Also, there has been an overemphasis on devices such as ranking and examination results, which bring about deviations from the policy’s original goals. Consequently, although there have generally been positive steps in the desired direction of the policy, more has be done to fine-tune the programme so as to better meet its cognitive and affective aims.

 Discounting

            A last but crucial step of the evaluation process involves discounting the non-programme features of the policy, which contribute independently to the policy outcome but are not directly related to the implementation of the policy. In the case of the GEP, this is largely centred around the quality of the pupils selected and the external factors affecting student development.

For instance, there is the idea that since the GEP selects the top 1% of the population for the programme, it is unavoidable that some of these students will do well based on their intellectual capabilities alone, with or without the presence of a gifted programme. Considering the external factors affecting student development, such as a pupil’s family background, these can affect the student regardless of the results of the programme. Hence, by discounting the impact of such non-programme factors on the policy outcome, a clearer idea can be obtained regarding the impact of the GEP on the development of its students, as well as their contribution to society.  

 Conclusion  

The 1984 Gifted Education Programme was a significant milestone in the development of an educational programme to cater to the special needs of the intellectually gifted. This was implemented in the larger context of the government’s efforts to revamp the educational system to meet the challenges of the 1980s. With the turn of a new millennium, Singapore has to adapt to new threats such as economic recession and global terrorism. The country’s educational system forms the basis for such a transformation, and its mindsets have to be altered to effect this change. Although similar needs persist, such as requirements for a talented pool of people, the methods meeting such needs have to be changed. This also holds true for the Gifted Education Programme, which needs to be fine-tuned especially in terms of its emphasis and approach, so as to better address the challenges of a new millennium.

 The above essay was written by Mark Lim Shan-Loong on 19 October 2001.  

 Appendix A

About the Interviewees

Eng, Kai Seng, was a former student under the Gifted Education Programme from 1987-1993. He studied at the Anglo-Chinese School (Independent) from 1990-1993 and is now a postgraduate student at King’s College in London.

Khoo, Grace, is Head of Department (Gifted Education Programme) at the Anglo-Chinese School (Independent), Singapore.

Ong, Teck Chin, is Principal of the Anglo-Chinese School (Independent), Singapore.

Phua, Swee Liang, was the Former Director of Research & Testing at the Ministry of Education, Singapore.

Thiruman, Mike, is the Head of Research & Evaluation, Gifted Education Branch, at the Ministry of Education, Singapore.

 Bibliography

Dunn, William N., Public Policy Analysis:  An Introduction, 2^nd ed., Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1994.  

Eng, Kai Seng, Personal Interview, 28 Aug 2001.

 Gopinathan, S., “Education and Development in Singapore”, Education in Singapore:  A Book of Readings, eds. Jason Tan et. al., Singapore: Prentice Hall, 1997, 33-52.

 Greenlaw, M. Jean and Margaret E. McIntosh, Educating the Gifted:  A Sourcebook, Chicago and London: American Library Association, 1988.

 Han, Fook Kwang, Warren Fernandez, and Sumiko Tan, Lee Kuan Yew:  The Man and His Ideas, Singapore: Times Editions, 1998.

 Khoo, Grace, Personal Interview, 17 Sep 2001.

 Lee, Leng Chee, “Educating the Gifted”, The Alumnus [Singapore], July 2001, 34-5.

 Ng, Irene, “New Strategies for a New Singapore”, The Straits Times [Singapore], 20 Aug 2001, 1.

 Ong, Teck Chin, Personal Interview, 11 Sep 2001.

 Phua, Swee Liang, Telephone Interview, 2 Oct 2001.

 ---, The Gifted Project, Concept Paper for the Ministry of Education, 1983.

 Quah, Jon S.T., “The Public Policy-Making Process in Singapore”, Asian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 6, No.2, Dec 1984, 108-26.

 Rahim, Lily Zubaidah, The Singapore Dilemma:  The Political and Educational Marginality of the Malay Community, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1998.

 Singapore, Ministry of Education, Gifted Education in Singapore – the First Ten Years, 1994.

 ---, Gifted Education Programme Handbook, 2^nd ed., 1999.

 ---, Gifted Education Programme:  A Guide for Parents, 1987.

 Thiruman, Mike, Personal Interview, 24 Sep 2001.

 Van Meter, Donald S. and Carl E. Van Horn, “The Policy Implementation Process:  A Conceptual Framework”, Administration and Society, Vol. 6, No. 4, Feb 1975, 445-88.

 Warwick, Donald P., “Cultural Values and Population Policies:  Cases and Contexts”, Patterns of Policy, eds. John D. Montgomery et. al., New Brunswick: Translation Books, 1979, 295-337.