A Comparison of Gifted Education in UK and Singapore Essay

A Comparison of Gifted Education in UK and Singapore - Essay Example This discussion declares that the citizens showed their unrest with the education system, especially because of the ongoing Western influence on Singaporean beliefs and values in the period 1965-1985. The younger and emerging middle class citizens encouraged the government to promote democracy and public participation in its decision-making processes concerning matters such as education. Singapore had a single party dominated government, which did not represent the opposing views of its citizens appropriately. To counter the negative attitude of its citizens, Singapore’s government introduced a systemic educational reform to improve the education system in the early 1980s. It streamed students according to their different academic abilities, and in consequence, they could focus and challenge their unique abilities. The Ministry of Education proposed this education system and termed it as ‘Ability-Driven Education’ system of education. The new streaming system enab led students to learn and evolve at their own intellectual learning speed.As the report discusses  groups of gifted individuals could now experience opportunities and gain due recognition. The gifted education program naturally became a basis of Singapore’s new education system following the conviction that the gifted and talented would serve as future leaders and propel the country to greater heights.  Gifted education refers to the special practices and procedures used in education of children identified as gifted or talented.

Skills for Academic Learning in Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Skills for Academic Learning in Law - Essay Example FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT 2: 40101/02 1. HARD COPY RESEARCH a. FIND THE CASE OF REVILL v NEWBERY [1996] GIVE THE CITATION FOR THE CASE AND EXPLAIN WHAT IT MEANS BRIEFLY STATE WHAT THE LEGAL ISSUES IN THE CASE ARE Citations are in two forms. One is the paper form and the citation for the above case in paper form is: Revill v Newbery [1996] 1 All ER 291 and it contains the following: 1. the heading of the case; 2. the number of the volume; 3. number of pages; and 4. the year in which the case was decided. Several cases decided by the courts are not printed. The reason is to avoid the expenditure of typesetting and printing. Only very important cases are printed. When the cases decided by the courts were printed on the Internet an overflow of information ensued.This resulted in trying to find out a neutral way to cite a case. (World Legal Information Institute, WorldLII). This normally has the following informations: The year in which the case was decided The title of the court in an abbreviated form; and The number of the decision. Thus, the above case can be cited as: Revill v Newbery (1996) 2 WLR 239 Legal issues of the case: The issues in Revill v Newberry [1996] 1 All ER 291, is that an aged allowance possessor was sleeping in his hut with a scattergun, to put off thieves. On discovering the plaintiff, attempting to break in, he shot his gun via a hole in the shed, hurting the plaintiff. At first occurrence, the defendant effectively raised the justification of ex turpi to keep away from the claim. Conversely, the Court of Appeal approved the plaintiff's prayer, assenting that the defendant was neglectful to have shot blindly at body height, without a caution or even shooting a forewarning shot into the air, and that the response was...(World Legal Information Institute, WorldLII). The issues in Revill v Newberry [1996] 1 All ER 291, is that an aged allowance possessor was sleeping in his hut with a scattergun, to put off thieves. On discovering the plaintiff, attempting to break in, he shot his gun via a hole in the shed, hurting the plaintiff. At first occurrence, the defendant effectively raised the justification of ex turpi to keep away from the claim. Conversely, the Court of Appeal approved the plaintiff's prayer, assenting that the defendant was neglectful to have shot blindly at body height, without a caution or even shooting a forewarning shot into the air, and that the response was out of every section to the danger (http://www.lawteacher.net/tort-law/lecture-notes/liability-for-land-premises-lecture.php accessed on 27 October 2009). This case was filed by Mr. Major Dhillon for recovery of damages resulting in financial losses. The financial losses were due to a number of breaches of duty on the part of one or more of the defendant accountants. These accountants were his advisors between 1997 and 2004. Further Mr.