The Big Read: ‘Excuse me, are you gifted?’ A deeper look at gifted education and its relevance to society

SINGAPORE: At work, Ms Neha Dharma is like any of her other colleagues. The 24-year-old Singaporean human resource consultant based in Sydney, Australia does not have all the answers, sometimes makes mistakes and even gets chided by her boss. 
This was perhaps not what her 10-year-old self would have imagined when she was part of a small group of pupils specially selected from Singapore schools to attend the Gifted Education Programme (GEP). 
“We were told (by our teachers) that we’re all gifted … that we should be doing better. I started putting pressure on myself because I slowly started believing this idea that I should be gifted,” said Ms Dharma, noting how the “gifted” label came with unrealistic expectations set not only by teachers and parents but also herself. 
Nevertheless, she enjoyed the stimulating classes and group projects under the GEP at St Hilda’s Primary School – though she didn’t do as well as she expected in her Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), getting 253 out of a possible 300 points under the old scoring system. 
Recalling how she was “devastated” at her results, Ms Dharma said: “At that moment, I felt like I had messed up my entire life … I came to the conclusion that I was not gifted like I was told, and I wasted everyone’s time and resources.” 
She went on to study at Raffles Girls’ School and later graduated from Australia’s University of New South Wales in 2022 with a bachelor’s degree in commerce.
Now, at the workplace, her “giftedness” is not something she would bring up “because it’s weird talking about something that happened so long ago, and I don’t think I’m special or gifted”.
Similarly, Mr Edric Sng does not consider himself particularly extraordinary but he credits his time in the GEP as having spurred his love for learning.
The 44-year-old pastor of Bethesda (Bedok-Tampines) Church was part of the GEP from 1989 to 1991 at Anglo-Chinese School (Primary), and from 1992 to 1995 at Anglo-Chinese School (Independent). The GEP for secondary school students was discontinued in 2008.
“I remember when learning literature in secondary school, we would act out plays and were allowed to explore the subject beyond just the fixed text,” said Mr Sng, who used to be a news editor. 
“I definitely enjoy learning because of how we were allowed to explore, wrestle with the text and curriculum and satisfy our curiosity.”
Ms Dharma and Mr Sng’s experiences are not unique: Many GEPers – as students who have gone through the programme call themselves – have contributed to society in their own ways, even if some of them are quick to downplay their achievements or “giftedness”.  
In response to TODAY’s queries, the Ministry of Education (MOE) said GEP alumni have made significant contributions to both private and public service, in diverse fields including academia, arts, law, medicine, research, entrepreneurship and technology. It added that some have gained international recognition for their areas of specialisation and many are also active leaders in the community and social sectors.
But what exactly is “giftedness”? How is it measured? Can it be trained or nurtured? What is its relevance to today’s educational systems and the workplace? 
The GEP – with all its pros and cons – is once again being dissected after Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced at his inaugural National Day Rally this year that the programme would be discontinued in its current form to benefit more students and meet the development needs of such students. 
Among the changes: Students will be able to join higher-ability programmes from Primary 4 to 6 instead of just one time at Pri 4. The selection process will also incorporate teachers’ day-to-day observations and students’ work for a “more holistic and comprehensive” understanding of their abilities.
The moves represent a shift in how MOE defines and characterises gifted children. But as some experts pointed out, academic performance still remains central in defining a child’s potential to be stretched further through the GEP.
During a recent science class at St Hilda’s Primary, a group of students excitedly raised their hands to answer Mrs Ushanthini Arumugam’s question about how the digestive system works.
A 10-year-old GEP pupil called on to answer replied that it “all ends up as NEWater”, referring to the output of Singapore’s wastewater treatment system. 
Mrs Ushanthini, who has been a science GEP teacher for 11 years, told TODAY such a response from students in her GEP class are common as they tend to be quicker in comprehending class materials, show more curiosity than other children and often are aware of global issues.
“They are not limited to print-based text. They try to form relationships with conceived ideas with their own knowledge … and are able to build conceptual connections,” she said.
To engage her GEP students, Mrs Ushanthini says she adopts a knowledge-building teaching approach, which allows her to figure out what her students already know, before addressing any other concepts that they bring up. She also answers anything they are curious about, using it as an opportunity to guide them through the class learning objectives. 
“This knowledge-building culture promotes student agency as students discuss what they want to learn,” she explained.
In comparison, students from the three non-GEP higher-ability classes she teaches usually benefit from more “scaffolding” questions and probing to help them arrive at learning objectives. While they are also curious, many are guarded about sharing their knowledge especially when it veers from the topic, she said.
In general, higher-ability learners tend to demonstrate a high level of curiosity and creativity and can learn faster than their peers, MOE told TODAY. 
“They find, solve and act on problems more readily and can grasp abstract ideas and make connections between different concepts,” it said, adding that these traits are supported by international literature. 
If solely based on the Intelligence Quotient (IQ), gifted children are often considered to have an IQ of 130 or higher. The average IQ is 100.
However, education experts noted that giftedness is defined differently around the world and there are other characteristics beyond IQ to be considered.
Associate Professor Jason Tan from the National Institute of Education (NIE), who does research in comparative education and education reform, said that while Singapore has tended to adopt a more academic approach in its definition, some countries take into account different talents such as excellence in the arts and sports.
Even the way gifted students are classified can be different. In Taiwan, its Education Ministry views giftedness as a form of special needs, he said.
“In other words, these children are quite different from the bulk of other children, and need some kind of special services and special activities to suit their giftedness,” said Assoc Prof Tan.
In a 2008 publication, Taiwan’s Education Ministry stated that gifted students are “often a special group of unsatisfied clients who, instead of ‘knowing too little’, know too much and learn too fast”.
Assoc Prof Tan added that growing research on gifted children has also found that giftedness is not universal across various domains.
A child might be, for example, gifted in languages but average in mathematics.
Despite the absence of a universal definition, identifying “gifted children” using their own metrics remains important for educational authorities since countries need to invest in their human capital.
Dr Ho Boon Tiong, principal consultant educationist at training and consulting firm ClassPoint Consulting, said: “From an education standpoint, it is worth the investment to ensure no wasted talent. Also, in terms of access and equity, we need to ensure that those with special needs and learning needs on both ends of the spectrum are supported.”
Two child psychologists told TODAY that it is a common misconception that gifted children need less support.
Dr Annabelle Chow, a principal clinical psychologist of Annabelle Psychology and Annabelle Kids pointed out that gifted children need to be appropriately engaged in academic and social settings as well as be encouraged and supported, taking their unique needs into account.
“Else they risk falling into underachievement or experiencing burnout as they get older,” she said. 
To assess if a child is suitable for the current GEP, Singapore requires Primary 3 students to participate in two rounds of examinations involving tests in English language, mathematics and general ability.
Such tests are common globally, though their scope and timing might differ. Some countries also use psychometric tests to identify children with unfulfilled potential. 
In Australia, for example, students take four tests in reading comprehension, communicating ideas in writing, quantitative reasoning and abstract reasoning. Year 7, 9, 10 and 11 students, who are typically aged between 12 and 16, can take these tests to enter the country’s Gifted and Talent programmes.
Several education experts and psychologists said that figuring out if a child is truly gifted can be difficult in some cases especially because gifted children are more likely to have neurodevelopmental conditions compared to their peers.
This phenomenon arises because profoundly high levels of intelligence stem from atypical neurological patterns and development.
Broad signs of neurodivergence include repetitive behaviours or tics, restricted interests, sensory sensitivities and attention difficulties.
Some gifted children might also display socio-emotional issues like having difficulty making friends or socialising with same-age peers, pointed out Dr Chow. 
Dr Nicole Chen, a clinical neuropsychologist from The Other Clinic, added that gifted children may have asynchronous development, which is when a child’s intellectual abilities exceed their emotional or social maturity.
“These challenges can include feelings of isolation, as they may struggle to connect with peers who do not share their interests or intellectual level. They may also experience intense perfectionism, anxiety, or pressure to meet high expectations from themselves and others, leading to frequent burnout,” she said.
Dr Chee Ai Lian, master specialist in gifted education at MOE’s Gifted Education Branch said: “Like all children, it’s important for these children to receive love, encouragement, affirmation and support. They also need the intellectual stimulation.”
“With the refreshed model of GEP benefiting more students, these students will continue receiving the support they need.”
Dr Chee also noted that some children might be “late-bloomers” when it comes to displaying their potential. With the current GEP having a single national standardised test at Primary 3, these students might be left out.
“These learners differ in their readiness for advanced learning in different areas. So, even though a child could be precocious, they may not yet be ready to commit to more advanced learning,” she said.
But as these children mature and grow, they might eventually show signs that they enjoy the intellectual challenge.
“That’s why the refreshed GEP hopes to be able to pick up students at different junctures when they are ready, ensuring they are not left behind,” she said. 
As with any examination, children can be prepped to answer correctly and ace tests.
In Singapore, parents’ desire to secure a spot for their children in the GEP has sparked a booming secondary market of tuition centres for GEP prep. 
These centres, which can charge hundreds of dollars per class, promise to train students for such tests from as young as Primary 1. Among other services, they provide mock examinations and run through previous GEP tests to give their students a leg up, with one centre charging about S$180 for each test.
This is despite MOE discouraging parents from prepping their children for the GEP test. 
While some parents may hope to mould their child into a genius, education experts said that gifted children are shaped by nurture, but require an innate level of intellect.
Dr Ho said: “My own personal belief is that a child can’t be taught to be gifted … there is some part that is innate.”
Back when he was a teacher and part of MOE’s Gifted Education Branch, which oversees the GEP, Dr Ho recalled that some parents trained their children to ace the tests and get into the programme.
However, these students who were nurtured would “fade out” by the time they were in Primary 5, struggling to keep up with the class.
In 1981, Dr Tay Eng Soon, then Minister of State for Education, led a team to study gifted education programmes in Germany, Israel and Russia. The team found that the Israeli model, which features classrooms specific for academically inclined students, was the most suitable for Singapore.
MOE set up the Gifted Education Branch in May 1983 to select teachers and students for the GEP, conduct teacher training sessions and prepare a curriculum.
The first selection test involved about 40,000 Primary 3 pupils, of which 100 students were selected for the programme pilot at Raffles Girls’ Primary and Rosyth School.
The top 5 per cent of pupils taking the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) were also tested, of which 100 students are selected for the pilot GEP in secondary schools, conducted at Raffles Institution and Raffles Girls’ Secondary.
When the programme first kicked off, the selected students only made up 0.25 per cent of their cohorts.
A 10th-anniversary book by MOE on the programme reported that the GEP in the early years faced challenges, such as meeting the needs of gifted children who have “a wide range of abilities and interests”, and figuring out how diverse gifted children in Singapore are.
The curriculum of the GEP in its early years was also different. Primary school GEP students had to sit for social studies papers in their PSLE, for example.
In 1987, a decision was made not to extend the GEP to junior colleges as these schools could already sufficiently meet the educational needs of students with differing academic abilities and interests, and such students could also take part in programmes such as doing research with the National University of Singapore.
But by the 20th year mark of the GEP, the education system had shifted “from an efficiency-driven education to ability-driven education model”, then-acting Minister for Education Tharman Shanmugaratnam wrote in a book commemorating the programme’s anniversary. 
To this end, the GEP was further expanded, and by 2003, 1,393 primary students and 1,954 secondary students were in the programme’s nine primary and seven secondary schools.
Students in the GEP were also exposed to more enrichment programmes, such as a Moot Parliament Project that was piloted in 2003.
The 20th-anniversary book also took stock of GEP students who went on to take on scholarships. Between 1991 and 2003, 22 GEP students became President’s Scholars. There were also three Lee Kuan Yew Scholars and three Rhodes Scholars during the same period.
In 2004, MOE introduced the Integrated Programme (IP) for secondary school students, allowing selected students to skip the GCE O-Level examination as part of a through-train six-year programme. These students graduate with a GCE A-Level certificate, International Baccalaureate Diploma or NUS High School Diploma, depending on which school they enrol in.
With this move, enrolment into the GEP in secondary schools declined. As such, the ministry discontinued the GEP in secondary schools in 2008, but students could attend school-based GEP in schools offering IP. 
That same year, GEP students also started spending half of their curriculum time with non-GEP students to mitigate growing criticism that the programme breeds elitism.
The GEP will now undergo another major shift: Starting with this year’s Primary 1 cohort, the revamped GEP will cut across all 180 primary schools, and students will be able to join the programme for the particular subjects that they are strong in.
With the revamp, MOE estimates that about 10 per cent of students will be able to benefit across 180 schools. Currently, just 1 per cent – around 370 to 400 students – of each cohort participates in the GEP, while school-based higher-ability programmes benefit 7 per cent of the cohort.
Instead of two rounds of selection tests involving English language, mathematics and general ability papers at Pri 3, students will take only English language and mathematics papers in the new GEP
Teachers’ day-to-day observations and students’ work will also be taken into account in assessing their suitability. Students can join the programme from Primary 4 to 6, instead of just at Primary 4.
While the upcoming revamp will benefit more youngsters, some education experts have reservations about relying on teachers’ observations to identify potential students for the revamped GEP.
Dr Ho said that gifted children might showcase disruptive behaviour in school as they lack the intellectual stimulation they need, making them seem inattentive rather than gifted.
While conducting induction programmes for teachers as part of MOE’s Gifted Education Branch between 1993 and 1998, he recalled that teachers were also often unable to identify gifted children in case studies presented to them. 
Thus, Dr Ho questioned if a teacher’s day-to-day observations would be accurate as a tool in determining a child’s suitability for the programme.
“Gifted children are very different from one another. So there needs to be a holistic approach through multiple observations in varying contexts, not just in the classroom,” he said.
He added that teachers could keep a keen eye on their students in other settings as well, such as during recess or even at home.
However, Dr Chee said students will still go through a national standardised test, which will be used with “other sources of information such as teacher observations and student work” to determine a student’s suitability for the revamped GEP.
She added that the Gifted Education Branch has been training teachers to spot talent by observing a child’s traits, which cannot be assessed by tests alone. Such traits include persistence, curiosity, reasoning and the ability to seek, find and solve problems.
“Part of the training also involves understanding the cognitive and affective traits of higher-ability learners. For example, teachers learn that a child’s multiple questions do not mean that they are argumentative or disrespectful. Rather, it is a sign of their inquisitiveness, curiosity and strong opinions,” said Dr Chee.
Dr Chee also said the workshops expose teachers to higher-ability learners’ socio-emotional needs, such as those with asynchronous development.
Assoc Prof Tan is also concerned that students who are considered gifted and might have additional intellectual, psychological and emotional needs might be sidelined when the GEP is expanded to more students. This refers to students who might be neurodivergent, or have asynchronous development.
“In this regard, MOE has been actively promoting this idea of differentiated instruction, that a teacher should be able to try and customise their teaching and learning approaches,” he said.
“So, the hope is that even as the boundaries are being blurred, teachers of these high-ability programmes will be able to differentiate their instructional and assessment strategies to reach out to the genuine needs of these intellectually gifted students.”
As for several GEP alumni, the hope is that the revamp will address their concern about the pressures children face when they are labelled as gifted.
“You’re told you’ve received all these resources and that you’re exceptional. So when hit with failure, or just not performing as highly as you’re expected to, it can be devastating,” said Mr Gerald Choa, 28, a cultural insights consultant at Quantum Consumer Solutions.
“While it was great to have that opportunity to explore different things and receive that intellectual stimulation, the flipside was the pressure-cooker environment as everyone was highly competitive.”
As a university student, Mr Choa remembered breaking down when his grades were not the best.
Even though his school days are behind him, Mr Choa admitted that he still struggles with the fear of failure and the need to always excel.
Mr Azizul Kamal Shah, 36, an in-house legal counsel, said it is most important that future GEP students are taught how to use their giftedness without the pressure to overachieve.
“As someone who was labelled gifted, I felt that when failures happened it was only me to blame because others could do it, so why couldn’t I? … Sometimes there are other factors like luck and being in the right place at the right time,” he said.
As he spends more time in the workplace, Mr Azizul said that he has learnt to accept the fact that mistakes do happen and not to be too hard on himself.
On this note, Mr Sng said that the revamped system should allow more children access to gifted education, regardless of their family background and ability to afford enrichment classes. However, he added it is important that parents and teachers ensure children do not feel their self-worth is defined by their academic performance, or by being part of the GEP. 
“It’s harmful to pressure children to get in or to game a system so that a child can feel special by being better than others,” he said.
“The programme should be to build a generation of forward and progressive thinkers … Not to determine a child’s worth based on whether they are gifted.”
This article was originally published in TODAY.