Question 1

1. Math - E2K, Exposure to competitions, Math Stretch (by vendors), C2T, Math Oylmpiad Tg

2. SC - E2K, Exposure to competitions, SC Olympiad Tg

3. EL - Creative Writing, In-house Writing Programme (Writers'/ Reporters'), Reading Circles, Wits and Words, YMCA Speaking Competition, Speak up.

Question 2

1. No particular model used.

2. Used the GEB results list/checklist for identification.

3. One school used Treffinger's model

4. Used differentiation for learning

5. somewhat used Renzulli's model, project works (sc projects). differentiate beyond competition but towards their interests

Question 3

1. Adopted somewhat the Treffinger's model

2. somewhat using the Renzulli's model.

• Multiple rounds of classroom observations

• Performance in higher-order thinking tasks

• Cross-subject teacher inputs

• Consider both academic and non-academic talents

2. Parent Engagement Strategies

• Early communication about HAL identification process

• Individual parent-teacher conferences to discuss recommendations

• Share specific examples of child's high-ability indicators

• Regular updates on child's learning progression

• Clear documentation of student's exceptional performance

3. Evidence-Based Selection

• Use standardized screening tools

• Document specific instances of advanced learning behaviors

• Include problem-solving and creativity assessments

4.      Supporting Non-Selected Students

• Provide alternative enrichment opportunities (e.g. Olympiad workshops)

• Explain future chances for HAL entry

- Provide resources for the HALs students

- Make time for teachers in the level to create questions to cater to the ability of the students using ready resources

• give teachers white spaces to discuss and design resources)

Q2 - tools / instruments for teachers to identify these group of HAL students

- knowing students' character well so they can present their work in different mode (verbal or written presentation)

Q3 - DI in the form of different questions / tasks

- Direct students to other resources to find out more such as newspaper articles

• empowering students to have self-assessment since HAL students could foster greater autonomy for their learning

• teachers could use formative tools to check students understanding

• Use of ed-tech tools to support students (group the students according to assignments)

• Give teachers autonomy to compact the curriculum (not just following the SOW) by modifying the activity / worksheets

2. What do teachers need to know about HALs and their learning needs:

• Characteristics of HALs (gifted behaviours vs trained behaviours)

• Debunk the myths (results may not be consistently exceptional)

• Multiple sources of identification (results, qualitative feedback, subject-specific feedback)

• Distinct learning needs (autonomy, pace of learning, wider content that pique their interest) 

• DI needs to be consistent - to sustain HALs’ interest and motivation

3. Areas that teachers can be given more autonomy and flexibility

• Flexibility in instructional strategies eg. using ICT tools, inquiry-based learning

• Banding/re-grouping students according to levels of readiness 

• Assessment design - alternative mode beyond pen and paper

• Autonomy to incorporate interdisciplinary connections and real-world applications

Use checklist, and recommendations from subject teachers. Behavioural indicators will be used.

Students may not score well during a test, but teachers may recommend these students.

Students may be removed from the programme if they cannot cope with the programme. Parents will be informed.

Teachers are trained for E2K and will be conducting the lesson. They are equipped with the necessary skills to run the programme.

Triangulated identification process:

• Previous year’s and current year’s teacher recommendations.

• Standardised test results.

• Observational checklists

• Behavioural Indicators (Motivation and commitment)

How to get more teachers trained?

These teachers will be able to observe and make correct recommendations.

How to get more resources so that we do not need to depend on vendors anymore.

• Relook at the manpower and teachers. To pullout low progress students from the classrooms to allow teachers to better differentiate their teaching in the classrooms.

• Coming up with a resource bank to share differentiated resources.

• Adaptive learning systems in SLS could drive self-directedness in learners. However, the affordances of technology could also be a hindrance as 1-1 computing may not be available.

• Sharing of strategies to help teachers cope with HALs in mixed ability classroom.

• Compacting of curriculum can be considered, and also how it can be reduced for High Ability learners to cater more time for open ended tasks.

  2. What do all teachers need to know about HALs and their learning needs so that no HAL ends up becoming invisible in our classrooms?

• HALs can be taught to be independent learners. They can carry out self-directed learning.

• Provision of high ceiling and low floor tasks for these type of mixed-ability classrooms.

• HALs can also be resources for each other, helping each other out in areas of learning. The peers can also be checked upon to see how they actually help each other.

• Using of inquiry-based lessons for students would actually facilitate learning for all types of learners in the classroom. It could serve as a high ceiling and low floor task for the students.

  3. What are some areas where teachers can be given more autonomy and flexibility, so as to facilitate DI?

• The possibility of adapting lessons or the curriculum to suit their learners, for example, carrying out of "Brain Dumping" activities prior to the lesson to facilitate students to stretch their thinking and also extend their learning within their 5 minutes of "Brain Dumping".

• Flexibility on the use of worksheets: Teachers could consider replacing these with open-ended tasks, to pick and choose the resources which they deem suitable for the students. The teachers should also facilitate discussion within the students after the tasks were given, not to leave them alone.

• These HAL teachers could be provided some kind of white space to carve out such assignments which are open ended, differentiated, tasks for the HALs in the mixed ability classrooms.

·       Most schools adopt materials from GE branch, eg: E2K, and implement them in classes based on topics to be taught, as well as tasks’ interest level, students’ readiness.

·       Identified HAL students also use different platforms such as SLS, GCR, for students’ exploration. Other programmes include Reading Circle Programs, Wits and Words, 3-ACT, journal entries based on misconceptions.

·       Differentiation also in the process besides the product.

Question 2:

HAL teachers must know:

·       What the checklist entails, eg: articulating their views, dislike being challenged etc

·       Characteristics and traits

·       Monitor social and emotional needs

Question 3:

·       Autonomy and flexibility in planning the MA tasks and projects as well as in lesson delivery and content delivered, eg: SLS, GCR (for collaboration online)

·       Existence of MA leaders to manage booths, self-start projects.

·       Alternative resources availability: 3-ACT: open-ended tasks for MA

·       Tapping on PD for teachers to collaborate and level up.

·       Using generative AI for idea generation in writings

Teachers Deployment Consideration:

·       Enthusiastic level and interested in discourse in class

·       Set a different frame for teachers: ability to handle HAL students’ traits/profiles, to be able to adapt in facilitation skills

·       Tolerate messiness/context in classrooms

Incorp E2K in currr – Ha (2 subj – EL and Sci or MS) Ma La – 2 classes of 80 students

Depth is compromised – stretch thinking….

HA teacher – banding is easier; cater specific approach to targeted group of students

Embedded in curr and benefitted to more students vs depth of coverage

Students who finish their tasks – make them help their friends – empathy and develop friendships. – good learning for them to understand teaching is not easy

2.        Qinjin from BRPS

EMS – more mompetition orientated to build portfiolio DSA

No checklist so go by marks and recc from trs quota – less than a class due to small school population

3.    Eunice

EL – not comp driven, public and journal P3 – 5 vendor-driven LC for P5 and broadcasting

E2K Math & Science – HAL talent i/c 7 Olympid PMPC

P3 selection by marks at start of P4

4.        Shamini Bukit Timah School

M & S (after school) – competition, STEM comp; trying to FPSP (tr-trained)

P3 – GEB results first cut and not made it to GEP

Journal 0 real world current affairs, e-journalism explore FPSP

Challenging to teach mixed ability – DI is more for intervention for Ma and La

PLD – decide to do DI as a project

Strat thrust – thinking curr – HALs

Even with recommendations and comments from teachers, I have still faced parents who give strong feedback that we are segregating students according to ability and not interest.

Possible for GE branch to reach out to public with online workshops catered for pupils solely on interest level? That might help to alleviate the stress we face from such parents.

1. Scheduling

2. Identification of staff who are competent

3. Identification of students lack student agency

Assumption

1. E2k Maths not necessarily the best

2. Quality vs Quantity

3. Academic grades not necc = HAL, there could be 'soft' qualities

   
   

   AFI

   1. A steady/experienced KP or ST to helm the programme to support students

   2. Deployment of teachers have to be very intentional (e.g. if doing HAL, then excused from relief)

4. 
   

1. The teachers in the programme were BTs- not sure of their experiences in HAL and HAL Programme and whether they have been trained in various programmes implemented (e.g E2K, Reading Circles) or if they have guidance from more experienced teachers

2. The teachers are not off-loaded from some duties.

3. The selection of students and the grouping does not suggest that that the students may not have interest or natural ability in the area that they are selected for.

4. Communication to parents to address their concerns.

5. Parents' concerns which may have led to the declining participation rate.

6. The school programmes does not seem to be de-conflicted, leading to decline rate of participation.

(b) Assumptions

1. Students have natural ability for all areas.

2. Eager Beaver teachers = will be willing and able to meet the challenges of running ha HAL

3. One-time-off training will be sufficient to prepare the teachers for the teaching of HAL and to run a programme

4. Using current MOE resources = teacher can conduct lesson with minimal preparation

(c) AFI

1. Deconflict school schedule

2. Manage teachers' workload

3. Teacher competency. Need to identify teachers beyond their enthusiasm, energy and motivation.

4. Relook at selection criteria. Should based on students' strength, interest, availability. Do we need to differentiate between Parent Interest and Student Interest? (At primary school level, how much can we rely on student voice?)

5. Listen to parents' feedback and work on clearer communication with parents so that are more supportive of the programme

(a) Key challenges: too many programmes, deployment of BTs may not be suitable, may have to consider off-loading, training needs may not be met

(b) assumption that trs are able to implement the prog effectively... motivation not equal to competency... assume that the students do not overlap. the programme may not suit the students

(c) AFI - need to review the school programmes, prioritise programmes, deployment, PD, manage expectations of students, parents, staff. TD team - to be made up of heads to get the buy in from SLs, staff to move together as a school. need to evaluate the effectiveness of their programme. be more structured.

review the approach of implementation - like how did they choose the students?

• small sized team

• other colleagues (e.g., IP KPs, SSD) were not involved

• parents' feedback

• declining participation rate

• teachers were not offloaded

Assumptions:

• division of children - not by interest, aptitude

• teachers would be able to carry out programmes immediately

• HALs only from top two classes

• teachers did not need time to plan for HAL programmes since MOE resources were used

AFI:

• lack of teacher training / PD

• refine identification process by including other criteria opportunities for teacher recommendation

• evaluate and clarify programme objectives

• improve parent engagement in the next run - consider including progress reporting and early engagement

• deployment of teachers based on their interest and ability (better matching)

• clear stand by school - HAL programmes priority over CCA, etc.

• clear expectations for parents and students - help them see the value of HAL provisions

• giving students the option to choose which programme they would like to attend

• yearly evaluation and refinement of programme

1. managing teachers' workload

2. deployment of beginning teachers who may need greater support and guidance

3. Parents' expectations in wanting equal opportunities for all

4. Streaming of top 75 students to the various HAL subjects based solely on exam results

Assumptions

1. that when resources or materials are given by GE branch, there is no preparation needed

2. BTs are motivated and eager so they are deployed but should also consider support and experience

3. HAL do well in exams

4. Top 25 is good in Math, followed by English, then Science.

AFI

1. To provide the necessary time and space for teachers to prepare and also to provide the necessary PD

2. To have multiple data points in identifying HAL rather than depending on exam results

3. To support BTs and include at least 1 experienced teacher in the team

4. Allow students' voice and agency to have them decide on which programme they would like to be in

5. The school can deconflict the days that the various subjects conduct the programme so that the students may select more than 1 to take part in

1. To develop in-house curriculum and reduce reliance on external vendor programmes

2. Burnout faced by teachers and students. Students may feel that they are not suitable or not a right fit for the programme.

3. No systematic approach to deconflict the different HAL subjects and also CCA leaders.

4. 4 teachers trying to anchor 3 different subjects and uncertain of how many levels they may be stretch to.

5. Explaining to parents the criteria for cut-off for various programmes if parents enquire especially if the child is scoring high and good results.

6. Follow up is necessary even after going for trainings even for experienced teachers. Support is needed in the long run.

Assumption:

1. When using MOE resources, there are assumptions that the resources fits the needs of the students.

2. Prioritizing the different tiers of students taking EL, MA then SC. May be based on EOY results.

3. Teachers who are keen and motivated are assumed that they can run the programmes without much support or PD.

4. When removing Olympiad, there is a struggle to craft another programme that can replace Olympiad. Teachers may not be skilled to teach beyond. Different stakeholders coming in to question if Olympiad is necessary.

AFI:

1. Systematic approach and having different data points to identify the different HAL students.

2. There should a mix of BT, ST or KPs. A combination of teachers of varying experiences.

3. Look into offloading these teachers to cope with the additional workload (not just the lessons but the behind the scenes prep work).

4. It should be communicated to Secondary Schools if Olympiad is necessary or a tool used for evaluation (Independent schools vs govt schools).

5. Should we write to parents regarding the expectations and the target students that the school is looking for (based on the criteria for selection). - Need to vary the different criteria eg. interview/holistic

• increased in teacher's workload

• declining participation rate

• overlooking of hidden gems of the students (not being recognised at the beginning)

• selection of students to join the different subject HAL programmes

• Parents want their voices to be heard

• Calendaring of the school

(b)

• logistics challenges (clashes with other after school programmes -CCA)

• Teachers' readiness to handle the programme

• 3 beginning teachers could be motivated but may not be competent yet to plan and execute out the programme

• Assuming students are interested in the assigned HAL programme

• The use of existing resources does not mean workload is lesser, there is still a need to prepare, modify the lesson to suit the students

• Replacing the Math Olympiad with E2K / HAL programmes --> the intention of the two is different

(c)

• Use GEP results as first cut, teacher's recommendations / checklists, Previous year EYE results, dialogue / interview with the students

• Teachers are off-loaded for CCA / other duties to conduct the HAL programme

• Students get to select the programme to join instead of being assigned

• Pair the beginning teachers with experience teachers to plan the programme

  
  

  
  

1) The programme is run by the coordinator supported by 3 BTs

2) Over reliant on vendors to run the programme

3) Identification of HALs (top 2 classes - based on marks)

4) Parents - lack of transparency & communication

Assumptions:

1) Stakeholders are aware of what the programme is

2) Students' grades is an indication of their ability and interest

3) Importance seems to be given to Math first, then English and finally Science

4) Seems to equate teachers' motivation to their ability to run the programme and to prepare resources without relevant training and preparation for the role

5) Seems to assume that the programme can be started without much preparation/training as schools are given HAL resources by GEB - in reality, the resources given or shared with schools have to be first understood by the teachers teaching them before they can even be customised to meet the needs of the HALs in different schools.

AFIs:

1) Teacher training/PD

• more teachers should be identified and trained to run the programme

• teachers to be trained in alternative / new pedagogical practices e.g. EdTech, KB,etc

• more sharing platforms for HAL teachers to learn and share practices

2) Streamlined Identification of HALs

Challenge- An experienced teacher with 3 BTs is a lean team. More support needed

Will need a stronger team where there are experienced trs who have taken HAL classes

Suggestion: The programme by the vendors to be evaluated first (by the talent development co-ordinator) before removing the vendor run programme totally and suddenly.

Suggestion: The school can take a phase-in approach- have vendor run programme and teacher prepared lessons at the same time.

2) Teacher Workload

Challenge - the team is taking on too many roles.

Suggestion - Reconsider the make-up of the team and deconflict deployment

3)Engaging parents

Challenge - parents feel that selection is unfair as selection criteria is not communicated to parents.

Suggestion: For students who are not selected, more communication with the parents is needed. The team also need to have an understanding of the students’ strengths and assure parents that their child will continue to be stretch in class.

Q: How much transparency is needed?

4) Identification Process

• It should be a rigorous one. May need to relook how the identification of top 75 is done.

  Eg. Reading Circus - students who have been identified need to have the aptitude. Selection should not be based solely on academic results.

1. teachers workload increased

2. declining students' participation

Assumptions made by sch:

1. students can be HAL in more than 1 subjects

2. students selected for the other groups may not be accurate as they may not be interested in the subject that they are selected for

3. undermining teachers' effort in conducting the programmes, teachers need time to prepare the lessons to cater to their students although resources are provided.

AFI:

1. more systematic way to identify HALs for the Enrichment programmes

2. deconflict the scheduling of the enrichment programmes so that students do not have to choose between CCAs and these programmes

3. PD the teachers to develop their capabilities to conduct the in house programmes - a one-time/ one-day course may not be sufficient to equip the teachers the skills to stretch the HALs and sustain their interest, PD must be on-going.

4. Beginning teachers may not have the content mastery to conduct the programmes - consider teachers' readiness, can have teacher mentors like STs deployed to guide them.

5. Conduct interest check with the students to allow them to choose / rank the programmes that they would like to take part in, parents can also be involved to help their children select the programmes.

6. Manage teachers' workload, teachers should not be overtaxed, e.g. staying back everyday for different programmes.

1.      Teacher burnt-out

2.      Identification of students

3.      declining student participation

4.      negative parent feedback

Assumptions & AFI:

1. The team relied on materials by MOE. However, the materials may not be one size fit all. Hence, teachers should be given time and space to look into the resources.

2. Team is made up of BTs who may not have the experience. Hence it would be wiser to include a good mix of teachers with experience and passion.

3. The team assumed the profiles of students to be homogenous and hence divided them into the three groups according to their ranking. It would be ideal to identify them according to the criteria of each talent programme. The team should get more data points for a selection and identification. Having a fair and reliable selection would ease the anxiety from parents. Have better communication with parents to help them understand the selection process.

4. Manpower crunch- tap into different groups of expertise for manpower. Eg different groups of teachers for resource creation, carrying out of the lessons etc. Vendors, esp those with specialised skills, could be tapped on to contribute to the programme. For instance, debating skills, Maths Olympiad, sports

5. Sustainability – bring in new members to the team, sharing within clusters for professional learning

6.  Spread out the talent programmes to reduce the burnt out from students and teachers.

1. Intent of the program and clear structure has not been set.

2. Parental objections

3. Rationale for method of selection for grouping and allocation of area is unclear.

4. Teachers are not trained and developed in support the programs. Based on willingness rather than readiness. Workload for teacher has not been managed and planned out. Teachers having to juggle between supporting LP and HP students.

5. Declining participation of students due to varied commitments.

Assumptions

1. Assuming HALs are sited in the top classes of the level.

2. Assuming students' strengths and interest result in indiscriminate selection criteria (i.e. E2K Math -> Reading Circles -> E2K Sci)

3. Teachers in TD Team do not have the competence.

4. Having ready resources does not translate to teachers being able to conduct effectively in stretch programmes.

5. HALs are self-motivated in participating in stretch programmes without prior communication / outreach to students and/or parents.

AFIs

1. Provide PD for teachers. There should be a balance of experienced teachers and teachers who are willing to work with HALs.

2. Crucial for SLs and KPs to be involved in decision-making and having a "big-picture" view of school programs and structures that are in place.

3. Identification process has to be structured and transparent. This solves 2 challenges involving students and parents. Putting in consideration of students' interest and strengths, and also their commitment across school programs. Increase home-school partnership through providing parents with resources or workshops to support their child.

4. Looking into workload of teachers within and beyond curriculum time to avoid burnout.

5. Having a clear plan for all stakeholders to be aware of the outcomes and various checkpoints. e.g. (providing students with an overview of the programs' end goals / parents having clarity of the progress of their child).

·       Parents: Unfair selection and the perception of “widening the gap” and creating stress

·       Teachers: Difficulty in communicating and convincing certain groups of parents, HAL programme as one of the many different duties instead of off-loading. Need to plan and adapt the lesson plans for HAL students. Lack of training to deliver effective HAL programmes

·       Students: CCA choices affecting enrolment into HAL programmes due to limited afternoons

(b)    Assumptions made:

·       Parents: Criteria for selection is not made known/ transparent, hence resulting in a sense of unfairness. Interest-based criteria instead of aptitude-based criteria

·       Teachers: Design of the programme with the specific rigour to cater to the specific groups of students / Assumption that the teachers in HAL programme would not need to make any preparations or adjustments for the programme and they could run the programme quickly. Some training / PD required to cater to HAL well

·       Students: Student selected for HAL for any subjects would have the interest in the subject, but it may not be so.

(c)    Areas for Improvement – Success + Sustainability

·       Schools must be clear about their considerations for selection criteria to justify the selection of students – if the programme is broad-based and general, the selection could be geared towards interest-based. If the programme is based on certain specific subjects, then it would have to be aptitude-based selection

·       Some training / PD required to cater to HAL well – departmental duties

·       Ensure clear communication with staff for greater buy-in to the programme (whether in deployment load or in the design of the programme)

·       KPs to deconflict whole-school programmes with forward planning to develop students holistically, clearly setting aside certain afternoons as ‘CCA day’ or ‘Enrichment’

• Increased workload, do not have the luxury to offload teachers

• Competency of teachers (relief) conducting enrichment programme

• Student engagement level

Assumption

• Students are only strong in one area, some could be strong in multiple subjects

• The BTs are able to sustain the enrichment effort despite the additional workload

• interest level of the students

• only looking at students results, should consider other factors such as learning disposition, need to look beyond academic results.

AFI

• For the increase in workload, to remove workload in place of the additional workload

• Start small, scale gradually

• Streamlining of existing of school programme.

• include student voice on their willingness to participate in the enrichment programme

• Partnering with parents – managing their expectations

• Increased workload, do not have the luxury to offload teachers

• Competency of teachers (relief) conducting enrichment programme

• Student engagement level

Assumption

• Students are only strong in one area, some could be strong in multiple subjects

• The BTs are able to sustain the enrichment effort despite the additional workload

• interest level of the students

• only looking at students results, should consider other factors such as learning disposition, need to look beyond academic results.

AFI

• For the increase in workload, to remove workload in place of the additional workload

• Start small, scale gradually

• Streamlining of existing of school programme.

• include student voice on their willingness to participate in the enrichment programme

• Partnering with parents – managing their expectations

There is a lot of talk about student choice and interest. So how small a size of a class is acceptable to start a HA programme?

While the in-curriculum extension for HALs (via DI in a mixed ability class or various other models to do SBB) is definitely a must, what about more niche programme like Creative Writing programme- we really don't have many children who are REALLY interested in exploring writing each year.

There was a time where I had a manpower crunch (not enough teachers to carry through will all the various ISO options at P5s), I had to choose the option of cutting down FPSP (Future Problem-Solving Programme) Scenario Writing (similar to Creative Writing) because it had the least number of students. But thinking back, I wondered if I had actually deprived my good writers of this wonderful time to explore writing with them on a more mentorship like manner.

I understand that some schools may not have a big class of HALs, so would there be a time where they cut down HA programmes in favour of other programmes because the the "impact" they can make in the entire student body group? Is there a "minimal number" they have in mind? How then can we "catch" this pool of kids in the future?