LIKE Madam Teo Suang Sim ('Unfair advantage?', last Tuesday), I have doubts about investing our tax dollars and expensive teachers in young children perceived to be gifted.

A child born later in the year may have trouble understanding certain maths problems in the middle of the year, but find them easy at the end of the year, compared to a child born earlier in the year.

Also, at this tender educational age, girls are generally academically more able than boys in English.

Related links: » S'pore s got talent » Only 9, he passes O-level physics exam » HDB-dwelling students have lower threshold for stress?

Children from low-income families are most likely to be unable to show their 'giftedness' since they may have limited exposure to vocabulary and training in maths at a higher level. So how is the gifted programme relevant to them?

Finally, families that can afford the steep tuition fees, send their children to coaching lessons that promise to take them past the first stage of the two-stage test. So are their children more gifted?

As for Mr David Goh's letter last Tuesday, 'Beware of breeding elitism', my elder son will sit for his Primary School Leaving Examination next month. At first, we were happy to let him continue his secondary school education in the same school. But we changed our minds after other parents advised us to send him to a secondary school that is affiliated to a junior college, or he would have a harder time securing a place in a JC.

Meritocracy in the education system may not work as well now. Years ago, when tuition was not a trend, most students who were naturally gifted academically were likely to do better than the rest in exams, regardless of whether they were from well-to-do or low-income families.

Now, genuinely gifted students whose parents cannot afford external help will not be spotted and developed.

Heng Chay Hiang (Ms)

This article was first published in The Straits Times.