hayati tah? Dunia boleh jika anda sudah berubah.

• pelajar-pelajar akan mengikuti Program Pendidikan Menengah 4 tahun atau Program Pendidikan Menengah 5 tahun di peringkat menengah sebelum menduduki peperiksaan BC GCE Peringkat 'O' atau kelulusan yang sebanding
• semua pelajar akan mengikuti kurikulum yang sama selama dua tahun (Tahun 7 dan Tahun 8)
• selepas Tahun 8, pelajar-pelajar akan disalurkan ke program berikut:


• Program Pendidikan Menengah General (Tahun 9 hingga 10 atau Tahun 9 hingga 11)
• Program Pendidikan Menengah Applied (Tahun 9 hingga 11)

Lain-lain program yang disediakan untuk pelajar-pelajar dalam SPN 21 ialah:

• Program Pendidikan Khusus
  Program ini adalah bagi pelajar yang berbakat/berkecerdasan tinggi dalam bidang akademik tertentu seperti sains dan matematik atau berkebolehan dalam muzik dan seni atau berkebolehan dalam bidang sukan


• Program Pendidikan Berkeperluan Khas
  
  Program ini adalah bagi pelajar yang:
  
  • kurang penglihatan dan pendengaran
  • mempunyai tantangan mental
  • mempunyai tantangan fizikal
  • mempunyai kesukaran pembelajaran yang spesifik

 

• Pelajar yang terpilih mengikuti Program Pendidikan Menengah 4 tahun boleh bertukar untuk mengikuti Program Pendidikan Menengah 5 tahun atau sebaliknya tetapi tertakluk kepada pencapaian pelajar dan syarat yang dikenakan

Special Education in Singapore

Introduction

The education of children with disabilities is provided in special education (SPED) schools. As at January 2009, there are 20 SPED schools run by Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) receiving funding from the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the National Council of Social Service (NCSS). The SPED schools run different programmes catering to distinct disability groups of children who are unable to benefit from mainstream schooling.

Special education is also available at other privately run schools and foreign system schools.

Aims

SPED schools provide customised educational programmes and training for different disability groups. The programmes are aimed at developing the potential of pupils and helping them to be independent, self-supporting and contributing members of society. Individualised Educational Plans (IEPs) are drawn up for all pupils. Besides receiving classroom instructions conducted by their teachers, pupils also receive help and training from paramedical professionals such as psychologists, speech therapists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists and social workers.

The general mission of SPED schools is to provide the best possible education and training to children with special needs so as to enable them to function optimally and integrate well into society.

Special Education: Education Path

Pupils who are able, sit for the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). If successful, they leave SPED schools to continue their education in mainstream secondary schools. These pupils attend regular classes and follow the curriculum of mainstream schools. Special resource teachers are deployed to designated mainstream secondary schools to assist these pupils.

Hearing Impaired (HI) pupils who communicate using sign language, can opt to attend one of 2 designated secondary schools:

• Balestier Hill Secondary School
• Boon Lay Secondary School

Visually Handicapped (VH) pupils from the Singapore School for the Visually Handicapped (SSVH) who pass the PSLE can choose to attend one of the designated schools for the visually handicapped as listed below:

• Ahmad Ibrahim Secondary School
• Bedok South Secondary School
• Clementi Woods Secondary School
• Dunearn Secondary School

The above schools have additional support including resource teachers to help visually handicapped pupils cope with the curriculum.

Pupils who are unable to continue their education in secondary schools will proceed to one of the training centres or workshops run by VWOs. Such training equips them with the necessary skills for employment. Those who are able are placed in open employment whilst those who require more supervision attend production sheltered workshops or work activity centres.

List of Special Education Schools

As at January 2009, there are 20 SPED schools run by Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs). The SPED schools run different programmes catering to distinct disability groups of children.

School	Address	Contact Information	Disability Groups
AWWA School	11 Lorong Napiri Singapore 547532	Tel: (65) 6511 5280 Fax: (65) 6511 5281 awwaschool@awwa.org.sg	Multiple Disabilities; Autism
Canossian School	No.1 Sallim Road Singapore 387621	Tel: (65) 6749 8971 Fax: (65) 6749 8976 admin@cshi.com	Hearing Impairment; Autism
Chaoyang School	18 Ang Mo Kio Ave 9 Singapore 569767	Tel: (65) 6456 6922 Fax: (65) 6456 2030 cys@apsn.org.sg	Intellectual Disability; Autism
Delta Senior School	20 Delta Avenue Singapore 169832	Tel: (65) 6276 3818 Fax: (65) 6276 5608 dss@apsn.org.sg	Intellectual Disability
Eden School	101 Yuan Ching Road Singapore 618653	Tel: (65) 6265 7400 Fax: (65) 6265 9400 enquiry@edenschool.edu.sg	Autism
Fernvale Gardens School	7 Fernvale Road Singapore 797635	Tel: (65) 6481 6697 Fax: (65) 6483 2631 fgs@minds.org.sg	Intellectual Disability; Autism
Grace Orchard School	35 Boon Lay Avenue Singapore 649962	Tel: (65) 6264 4600 Fax: (65) 6264 4655 admin@go.edu.sg	Intellectual Disability; Autism
Katong School	900 New Upper Changi Road Singapore 467354	Tel: (65) 6445 8027 Fax: (65) 6445 6313 ks@apsn.org.sg	Intellectual Disability
Lee Kong Chian Gardens School	802 Margaret Drive Singapore 149311	Tel: (65) 6473 8332 Fax: (65) 6473 4776 lgs@minds.org.sg	Intellectual Disability; Autism
Metta School	30 Simei St 1 Singapore 529949	Tel: (65) 6788 5800 Fax: (65) 6788 5507 enquiry@mettaschool.edu.sg	Intellectual Disability; Autism
Pathlight School	5 Ang Mo Kio Ave 10 Singapore 569739	Tel: (65) 6459 9951 Fax: (65) 6459 3397 queries@pathlight.org.sg	Autism
Rainbow Centre - Margaret Drive School	501 Margaret Drive Singapore 149306	Tel: (65) 6472 7077 Fax: (65) 6475 9739 mdss@rainbowcentre.org.sg	Multiple Disabilities; Autism
Rainbow Centre - Yishun Park School	15 Yishun Street 61 Singapore 768548	Tel: (65) 6482 2592 Fax: (65) 6482 2593 rcbs@rainbowcentre.org.sg	Multiple Disabilities; Autism
Singapore School for the Deaf	227 Mountbatten Road Singapore 397998	Tel: (65) 6345 6765 Fax: (65) 6345 9095 admin@ssd.edu.sg	Hearing Impairment; Autism
Lighthouse School	51 Toa Payoh Rise Singapore 298106	Tel: (65) 6250 3755 Fax: (65) 6250 5348 ssvh@ssvh.edu.sg	Visual Impairment; Autism
Spastic Children’s Association School	Cerebral Palsy Centre, 65 Pasir Ris Drive 1 Singapore 519529	Tel: (65) 6585 5639 Fax: (65) 6585 5635 spastic@pacific.net.sg	Physical Disability
St Andrew’s Autism School	15 Guillemard Crescent, Singapore 399910	Tel: (65) 6345 2377 Fax: (65) 6447 0717	Autism
Tanglin School	143 Alexandra Road Singapore 159924	Tel: (65) 6475 1511 Fax: (65) 6472 0408 ts@apsn.org.sg	Intellectual Disability
Towner Gardens School	1B Lengkong Lima Singapore 417557	Tel: (65) 6446 2612 Fax: (65) 6243 7498 tgs@minds.org.sg	Intellectual Disability; Autism
Woodlands Gardens School	30 Woodlands Ring Road #01-01 Singapore 737883	Tel: (65) 6468 0566 Fax: (65) 6468 2142 wgs@minds.org.sg	Intellectual Disability; Autism

Privately-run Special Education Schools

• Genesis School for Special Education
• Kits4Kids Special School
• Divinity Especial Needs Intervention Centre
• St. Clare School for Special Education

Foreign System Schools that provide Special Education

• Dover Court Preparatory School

  Teaching in Special Education Schools

  If you are interested to teach in a Special Education (SPED) school, you may contact the school directly. SPED teachers are employees of the SPED schools.

  NIE offers the Diploma in Special Education (DISE). It is a one year full time programme and is offered only for teachers already teaching in SPED schools. The SPED schools take care of course expenses, and work out the corresponding service conditions. The school will advise regarding application procedures and dates.

Mastery learning

Mastery Learning is an instructional method that presumes all children can learn if they are provided with the appropriate learning conditions. Specifically, mastery learning is a method whereby students are not advanced to a subsequent learning objective until they demonstrate proficiency with the current one.

Mastery learning curricula generally consist of discrete topics which all students begin together. Students who do not satisfactorily complete a topic are given additional instruction until they succeed. Students who master the topic early engage in enrichment activities until the entire class can progress together. Mastery learning includes many elements of successful tutoring and the independent functionality seen in high-end students. In a mastery learning environment, the teacher directs a variety of group-based instructional techniques, with frequent and specific feedback by using diagnostic, formative tests, as well as regularly correcting mistakes students make along their learning path.

Teachers evaluate students with criterion-referenced tests rather than norm-referenced tests.

Mastery learning has nothing to do with content, merely on the process of mastering it, and is based on Benjamin Bloom's Learning for Mastery model, with refinements made by Block. Mastery learning may be implemented as teacher-paced group instruction, one-to-one tutoring, or self-paced learning with programmed materials. It may involve direct teacher instruction, cooperation with classmates, or independent learning. It requires well-defined learning objectives organized into smaller, sequentially organized units. Individualized instruction, has some elements in common with mastery learning, although it dispenses with group activities, in favor of allowing more able or more motivated students to progress ahead of others and maximizing teacher interaction with those students who need the most assistance.

Conservation refers to an ability in logical thinking according to the psychologist Jean Piaget who developed four stages in cognitive development. During the third stage, the Concrete operational stage, the child of age 7-11 masters this ability, to logically determine that a certain quantity will remain the same despite adjustment of the container, shape, or apparent size.

Conservation tasks test a child’s ability to see that some properties are conserved or invariant after an object undergoes physical transformation. Conservation itself is defined as the ability to keep in mind what stays the same and what changes in an object after it has changed aesthetically. One who can conserve is able to reverse the transformation mentally and understand compensation.

Piaget’s most famous task (there are many others e.g. conservation of substance, weight, number etc) involved showing a child two beakers, both of which were identical and which contained the same amount of liquid. The child was asked whether the two beakers had the same amount of liquid in both. Then liquid from one of the glasses was poured into a taller, thinner glass. The child was then asked whether there was still the same amount of liquid in both glasses. A child who cannot conserve would answer "No, there is more in the tall thin glass".

He furthered the conclusion to suggest that this confusion was born from a pre-operational child’s inability to understand the notion of reversibility; the ability to see the reversal of a physical transformation as well as the transformation itself. These ideas were used to create the ‘Principle of Invariance’.

The ages at which children are able to complete conservation tasks has been questioned by subsequent research. Research has suggested that asking the same question twice leads young children to change their answer as they assume that they are being asked again because they got it wrong first time around ^[1]. The importance of context was also emphasised by researchers who altered the task so that a 'naughty teddy' changed the array rather than an experimenter themselves. This seemed to give children a clear reason for the second question being asked, and reduced the age at which children passed the tests ^[2].

Newman's prompts

Finding out why students make mistakes

The Australian educator Anne Newman (1977) suggested five significant prompts to help determine where errors may occur in students attempts to solve written problems. She asked students the following questions as they attempted problems.

1.       Please read the question to me. If you don't know a word, leave it out.

2.       Tell me what the question is asking you to do.

3.       Tell me how you are going to find the answer.

4.       Show me what to do to get the answer. "Talk aloud" as you do it, so that I can understand how you are thinking.

5.       Now, write down your answer to the question.

These five questions can be used to determine why students make mistakes with written mathematics questions.

A student wishing to solve a written mathematics problem typically has to work through five basic steps:

1.Reading the problem	Reading
2. Comprehending what is read	Comprehension
3. Carrying out a transformation from the words of the problem to the selection of an appropriate mathematical strategy	Transformation
4. Applying the process skills demanded by the selected strategy	Process skills
5. Encoding the answer in an acceptable written form	Encoding

The five questions the teacher asks clearly link to the five processes involved in solving a written mathematics problem.

If when reworking a question using the Newman analysis the student is able to correctly answer the question, the original error is classified as a careless error.

Research using Newman's error analysis has shown that over 50% of errors occur before students get to use their process skills. Yet many attempts at remediation in mathematics have in the past over-emphasised the revision of standard algorithms and basic facts.

George Pólya (December 13, 1887 – September 7, 1985, in Hungarian Pólya György) was a Hungarian mathematician.

Pólya's four principles

First principle: Understand the problem

This seems so obvious that it is often not even mentioned, yet students are often stymied in their efforts to solve problems simply because they don't understand it fully, or even in part. Pólya taught teachers to ask students questions such as:

• Do you understand all the words used in stating the problem?


• What are you asked to find or show?


• Can you restate the problem in your own words?


• Can you think of a picture or a diagram that might help you understand the problem?


• Is there enough information to enable you to find a solution?


• Do you need to ask a question to get the answer?

Second principle: Devise a plan

Pólya mentions (1957) that there are many reasonable ways to solve problems. The skill at choosing an appropriate strategy is best learned by solving many problems. You will find choosing a strategy increasingly easy. A partial list of strategies is included:

• Guess and check


• Make an orderly list


• Eliminate possibilities


• Use symmetry


• Consider special cases


• Use direct reasoning


• Solve an equation

Also suggested:

• Look for a pattern


• Draw a picture


• Solve a simpler problem


• Use a model


• Work backward


• Use a formula


• Be creative


• Use your head/noggen

Third principle: Carry out the plan

This step is usually easier than devising the plan. In general (1957), all you need is care and patience, given that you have the necessary skills. Persist with the plan that you have chosen. If it continues not to work discard it and choose another. Don't be misled, this is how mathematics is done, even by professionals.

Fourth principle: Review/extend

Pólya mentions (1957) that much can be gained by taking the time to reflect and look back at what you have done, what worked and what didn't. Doing this will enable you to predict what strategy to use to solve future problems, if these relate to the original problem.

Pada tahun 2005 Perdana Menteri Inggris memperbaharui komitmen Inggris internationalising pendidikan melalui kedua 'Perdana Menteri's Initiative' (PMI2). Untai utama dari inisiatif ini adalah memperkuat kerjasama strategis di tingkat kebijakan dan institusi di kawasan Asia Timur.

Pada tingkat kebijakan ini meliputi dialog mengenai:

• peranan pendidikan dalam pengembangan tenaga kerja untuk abad ^ke-21 (pendidikan internasional dan kelayakan kerja)
• bagaimana memperkuat Trans-Nasional Pendidikan pengiriman antara Inggris dan mitra Asia Timur dalam rangka memenuhi tantangan global meningkatkan mobilitas mahasiswa
• kolaborasi untuk membangun pendidikan kelas dunia sistem dan institusi.

Pada tingkat institusional Inggris ingin sekali menjelajahi cara-cara untuk memperkuat kolaborasi untuk mendukung pendidikan nasional, ekonomi dan aspirasi sosial.

Ini menawarkan kesempatan unik pendidik dan kebijakan bagi para pemimpin untuk terlibat dalam diskusi seputar agenda bersama. Mereka juga menawarkan kesempatan yang tak tertandingi untuk usaha patungan, kemitraan strategis dan aliansi internasional.  Setiap dialog akan fokus pada bidang tertentu dan kepentingan bersama, meskipun mereka terkait, juga akan dirancang untuk berdiri sendiri. Masing-masing akan diikuti dengan sebuah rencana aksi disepakati bersama termasuk penelitian atau kolaborasi lainnya yang sesuai. The indikatif rencana adalah sebagai berikut :

  Tujuan simposium

Tujuan dari seluruh rangkaian adalah sebagai berikut:

1. PMI 2 Partnerships : untuk berkomunikasi untaian kunci dan kesempatan untuk memperkuat hubungan antara Inggris dan mitra internasional melalui dialog strategis dalam bidang-bidang prioritas bersama.
2. Knowledge sharing: untuk menciptakan forum dan dialog kebijakan strategis untuk meningkatkan saling pengertian dan kemungkinan prioritas daerah kerjasama
3. Towards a common agenda : untuk mengidentifikasi agenda bersama, mungkin bidang-bidang kerjasama dan saling menguntungkan untuk mengembangkan proyek-proyek kolaborasi

Dalam ini, tujuan-tujuan spesifik untuk Dialog 1 adalah untuk:

1. kebijakan dan praktek menginformasikan perkembangan di Inggris dan negara-negara di Asia Timur melalui berbagi masalah-masalah utama dalam pendidikan dan kelayakan kerja antara pendidik dan kebijakan senior pemimpin
2. memberikan kesempatan untuk mengidentifikasi dan membangun kerjasama masa depan dan bekerja di daerah ini antara daerah dan Inggris
3. mengembangkan jaringan informal para pembuat kebijakan senior dan influencer dalam pendidikan internasional dan kerja.

Tema

Kebijakan driver dan pemain kunci

A. Mengembangkan tenaga kerja untuk abad ^ke-21, termasuk:

• Kebutuhan keterampilan tingkat tinggi dalam angkatan kerja
• Pelan pendidikan di up-Skilling tenaga kerja
• Pelan industri di up-Skilling tenaga kerja
• Pendidikan dan industri sebagai mitra dalam proses
• Mengubah kebijakan pendidikan, sistem dan tingkat kelembagaan
• Mengembangkan pembelajaran berbasis kerja dalam kurikulum

Pendekatan praktis

B. Mengembangkan relevan dan sesuai kesempatan belajar, termasuk:

• Kerja yang fleksibel memberikan solusi pembelajaran berbasis
• Pengusaha dan penyedia bekerja sama untuk menjawab tantangan ini
• Melibatkan pengusaha dalam mengembangkan kesempatan belajar
• orang yang bekerja untuk karir baru dan belajar sepanjang hayat

Mengaktifkan kerangka

  C. Kebijakan & kualifikasi kerangka kerja & sistem:

• apa yang dapat dilakukan di tingkat kebijakan untuk mengaktifkan masalah yang rumit ini
• pengakuan dan akreditasi isu

Perwakilan akan terdiri dari:

• wakil-wakil daerah dari Brunei, Jepun, Malaysia, Filipina, Singapura, Thailand, dan Vietnam.

YouTube - Cyber Summit on 21st Century Skills: Kansas Technology Rich Classroom Project

YouTube - National Summit on 21st Century Skills: Intro Video

YouTube - 31 Ogos by Sudirman Hj Arshad

15MALAYSIA » Films

THE CHARGE of the 21st Century Skills Task Force that just delivered its recommendations to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education seems so reasonable at first glance: Review the curriculum frameworks and MCAS tests. "Evolve" them to include skills students will need to succeed in a rapidly changing world.

 

According to the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, a national advocacy group, the skills include creativity, media savvy, cultural competence, problem solving, and improved teamwork.

 

What those skills have in common is that being proficient at each requires knowledge of the liberal arts. Recognizing the central role of the liberal arts has been a key to the success of education reform since its enactment in 1993.

 

Noted educator E.D. Hirsch lauded the Massachusetts model earlier this year in a Washington Post opinion piece. "Consider the eighth-grade NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress] results from Massachusetts, which are a stunning exception to the nationwide pattern of stagnation and decline," he wrote. "That is because Massachusetts decided . . . students (and teachers) should learn explicit, substantive things about history, science, and literature, and that students should be tested on such knowledge."

 

Reform-minded Chancellor Michelle Rhee just adopted MCAS and the Commonwealth's curriculum frameworks as models for Washington, D.C. Our frameworks have been praised by groups ranging from teachers unions to education think tanks. Last year, the US Department of Education hailed the standards MCAS uses to measure proficiency.

 

A review of the task force recommendations shows just how far removed they are from the reforms Hirsch touted, which use clearly articulated goals and objective assessments to promote excellence and accountability. Instead, the task force proposes revamping MCAS and using the US history test to try out project-based assessments that require students to demonstrate skills like "global awareness" and would crowd out more central topics like the Constitution or causes of the Civil War.

 

The track record of these so-called complementary assessments is poor, because they are costly and cumbersome. Introducing subjectivity would have a corrosive effect on the Commonwealth's efforts to ensure that all students, regardless of where they live, have access to academic content that is the foundation for economic success.

 

One reason why two-thirds of students in Massachusetts' urban areas don't achieve proficiency is the failure of many cities to align their curricula with the state's MCAS frameworks. We can't ask students to exhibit hard-to-measure 21st-century skills if they haven't mastered the English, math, science, and history upon which the skills are based.

 

Subjectivity is also expensive. A 2003 General Accounting Office study found that it cost 60 cents per test to score North Carolina's multiple-choice assessment, while scoring multi-faceted college work and readiness assessments would run about $40 each.

 

Scoring MCAS cost $7 per test, suggesting that Massachusetts has achieved an appropriate balance that includes written answers that measure reading, writing, and problem solving. The correlation between MCAS scores and college performance is further proof of the assessments' quality.

 

The task force report claims that, "Massachusetts can learn from the experience of West Virginia" when it comes to integrating 21st-century skills into the curriculum. In 2005, Massachusetts became the only state to place first in every category on the NAEP test, known as the nation's report card. The next time the test was administered, the Commonwealth's students did it again. West Virginia is below the national average in all four subjects the tests measure.

 

A draft from the task force's subcommittee on assessments and accountability literally cut and pasted sections from a report by MassPartners - the teachers unions, school committees, and superintendents that have fought education reform for 15 years. The final report calls on them to define how to integrate 21st-century skills in our schools.

 

The 21st Century Skills Task Force report declares that, "Doing this right will require a shift in our curricular priorities." It would indeed require a shift from an unwavering focus on enduring academic content and raising student achievement to one that favors jargon and the politically connected.

 

Our progress has been great, but we are in no position to get complacent. Watering down academic standards would take us beyond complacency and effectively close the book on education reform in Massachusetts.