[PSLE MT] PSLE less weightage in Chinese / Mother Tongue

[corneyAmber]

The key message I caught in the argument of the response in lego’s original post is:

1. if you are confident in scoring for MT, you will still score…but these people are losing their competitive edge by being all-rounders.
2. if those who are not strong in MT, give them a chance to score and not penalise them but overnight they would make the people in point 1 lose their edge which takes years to build.

They are indeed lowering the standards of MT competency but they are not addressing, just saying that as long as they don’t take MT away totally, it is good enough.

Honestly, reading such replies, you cannot fight much. They maintain the framework, just changing dosage, so it’s a small change to them. They fail to see that most people are exam-oriented and exam-smart so it will dilute the interest of learning MT. The other assumption or claim made is smart children will learn the MT language with interest, exam or no exam.

All-rounders seem over-rated…time to think specialists.

[rags]

BlackAngel:

But it is very rare that we see a country education choose to neglect mother tongue education.

That's not true. People like to compare with the Japanese, French, Finnish, etc etc but they forget that in these countries, the MT IS the working language. So of course it's emphasised. Singapore is an immigrant country, our working language is English. Chinese/Malay/Tamil is not truly MT, it's a 2nd language. In fact, no other country in the world places as much importance on 2nd language exam as 1st language. If you compare with Malaysia, Indonesia, US, how many Chinese in these countries can't even speak a word of the language? It doesn't make them any less \"Chinese\".
[quote]. if you are confident in scoring for MT, you will still score....but these people are losing their competitive edge by being all-rounders.
2. if those who are not strong in MT, give them a chance to score and not penalise them but overnight they would make the people in point 1 lose their edge which takes years to build.[/quote]For those who are strong in MT and other 3 subjects, they will STILL have higher t-score than those who are good only in the 3 and not MT. Just that with reduced weightage, the scores may be closer, not so far apart. So for the true all-rounders, they don't lose out at all, I don't understand why they must win at the cost of all others.

[jedamum]

rags:

For those who are strong in MT and other 3 subjects, they will STILL have higher t-score than those who are good only in the 3 and not MT. Just that with reduced weightage, the scores may be closer, not so far apart.

Those strong in MT and other 3 subjects is never in the equation cos they are super kids; it is the group that are slightly above average in 3 other subjects (ie the average joe) but strong in MT that are losing out.
Comparing those who are strong in MT and slightly above average in 3 other subjects and those who are strong in 3 other subjects (ie above-above average) but weak in MT (prevalent in english-speaking homes), the latter will have that advantage over the former cos the MOE's decision to reduce MT weightage.

rags:

I don't understand why they must win at the cost of all others.

because of COP into entry to sec school, everyone is competiting against one another, so of course must aim to win. if COP is 238, the one who scored 238 has already 'won' (in that sense) at the cost of the one who has 237.

[rags]

jedamum:

Those strong in MT and other 3 subjects is never in the equation cos they are super kids; it is the group that are slightly above average in 3 other subjects (ie the average joe) but strong in MT that are losing out.
Comparing those who are strong in MT and slightly above average in 3 other subjects and those who are strong in 3 other subjects (ie above-above average) but weak in MT (prevalent in english-speaking homes), the latter will have that advantage over the former cos the MOE's decision to reduce MT weightage.

But if that's the case, it's debatable whether you can consider them \"all-rounders\" since in 3 subjects, they are not as strong as the other group. The other group can claim that they are strong in everything, except Chinese. Saying that the first group deserves to get higher is equally prejudiced. JMO.

jedamum:

because of COP into entry to sec school, everyone is competiting against one another, so of course must aim to win. if COP is 238, the one who scored 238 has already 'won' (in that sense) at the cost of the one who has 237.

Of course it's a competition, that's why everybody is so kiasu. But if you want someone else to be penalized so that you can \"win more\" is very bad. It's totally against what the Chinese culture teaches. With the new system, those strong in Chinese may not get as high t-score but it doesn't penalize them. If you're good in Chinese, you will still get higher marks since only the weightage is lowered and we don't know yet how much lower. May end up only very little. But the current system penalizes those bad in Chinese.

[ihavethingtosay]

haha i can’t help it but to sign in and reply to your point


you are contradicting yourself. if it is ‘very bad’, why then are the parents of the kids complaining to moe to ask them to reduce weightage for them just to ‘get into top schools?’ this is exactly wad was reported and given as a reason. you know, it is ‘VERY BAD’ for those who are complaining to ask for a reduction in weightage such that their 100 EL, 100 SC, 100 MA, 50 MT get them a place in top schools instead of their friend with 100 MT, 100 SC, 100 MA, 50 EL. so why are they still doing it???

and based on your argument, the truly all rounders are those who excel in 4 subjects. therefore ppl who ace EMS and not MT should accept it that they are not good enough to get into top schools, based on your logic. by the way, those who are good in other subjects but not english definitely do not deserve to be higher. since when do they obtain a higher grade? mind you, everything is all 25% now. and not MT 30%.

therefore, there is no need to cut here and there. just face it. so isn’t it best for equal weightage for all? it balances out and you get an average. tada. the ones who have higher Tscores get into ‘their top schools’. DONE

[jedamum]

rags:

But if that's the case, it's debatable whether you can consider them \"all-rounders\" since in 3 subjects, they are not as strong as the other group. The other group can claim that they are strong in everything, except Chinese. Saying that the first group deserves to get higher is equally prejudiced. JMO.

ya la.. changes in policies will never satisfy everyone de.
those whose kids are good in MT (and likely to be affected) will be upset.
those whose kids are poor in MT will be keeping a low profile here.

rags:

But if you want someone else to be penalized so that you can \"win more\" is very bad. It's totally against what the Chinese culture teaches. With the new system, those strong in Chinese may not get as high t-score but it doesn't penalize them. If you're good in Chinese, you will still get higher marks since only the weightage is lowered and we don't know yet how much lower. May end up only very little. But the current system penalizes those bad in Chinese.

i find it hard to see that the above in bold does not hint a form of penalising... - reducing weighting for a subject i am good in...that is not penalising me meh?

then how about lowering Math/EL weightage too as the current system penalizes those bad in numbers/EL. but truth is that a lot of secondary and post secondary syllabus still requires math/EL-as-teaching-medium, while MT is only like a 'standalone' subject.

[jedamum]

2 sec OT post to get some heat off this debate...


it intrigues me that MOE people may actually be following this thread. :imanisland: *wave at them*
do you think some of us may even get quoted in the papers?

[rags]

ihavethingtosay:

and based on your argument, the truly all rounders are those who excel in 4 subjects. therefore ppl who ace EMS and not MT should accept it that they are not good enough to get into top schools, based on your logic. by the way, those who are good in other subjects but not english definitely do not deserve to be higher. since when do they obtain a higher grade? mind you, everything is all 25% now. and not MT 30%.

Sigh... please read carefully before you post. Jedamum was referring to the group that are slightly above average in 3 other subjects (ie the average joe). Of course those who excel in all 4 subjects will do better than only those who ace EMS and not MT. That's fair. The question is now, those who do ok in EMS but good in MT are scoring higher than those who do well in EMS but badly in MT. That's not reflective of true overall ability. Are we saying that the first group are more well-rounded than the seoncd group?

ihavethingtosay:

therefore, there is no need to cut here and there. just face it. so isn't it best for equal weightage for all? it balances out and you get an average. tada. the ones who have higher Tscores get into 'their top schools'. DONE

So why don't we just include art, music, PE, social studies and have everything equal weightage? Fair right? Because the weightage needs to be representative of what is core for basic primary education. A second language same weightage as a first language is not right and is not done ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD.

[rags]

jedamum:

then how about lowering Math/EL weightage too as the current system penalizes those bad in numbers/EL. but truth is that a lot of secondary and post secondary syllabus still requires math/EL-as-teaching-medium, while MT is only like a 'standalone' subject.

That's why very hard to justify lower math/el. Even though my ds is weak in maths, I know cannot lower math because you need numeracy in so many areas. EL is even more important, if cannot do EL, then sec/post sec sure die. Imagine 7 out of 8 subjects in EL!

[tamarind]

jedamum:

rags:

For those who are strong in MT and other 3 subjects, they will STILL have higher t-score than those who are good only in the 3 and not MT. Just that with reduced weightage, the scores may be closer, not so far apart.

Those strong in MT and other 3 subjects is never in the equation cos they are super kids; it is the group that are slightly above average in 3 other subjects (ie the average joe) but strong in MT that are losing out.
Comparing those who are strong in MT and slightly above average in 3 other subjects and those who are strong in 3 other subjects (ie above-above average) but weak in MT (prevalent in english-speaking homes), the latter will have that advantage over the former cos the MOE's decision to reduce MT weightage.

rags:

I don't understand why they must win at the cost of all others.

because of COP into entry to sec school, everyone is competiting against one another, so of course must aim to win. if COP is 238, the one who scored 238 has already 'won' (in that sense) at the cost of the one who has 237.

I wrote earlier that schools should just forget about the COP. MOE should reveal the exact scores of every subject. For example, a student scores Maths - 99/100, English - 99/100, Science - 99/100, Chinese - 70/100. I am sure he has no problem getting into the top schools using these results. Another student may score Maths - 70/100, English - 99/100, Science - 70/100, Chinese - 99/100. I am sure that the top schools will recognize that he is gifted in languages and will take him.

Why make it so complicated by using the COP ? Why is MOE so secretive about revealing the exact scores ?

BTW, I also don't understand why parents try so hard to get their kids into the top secondary schools. I was formally from RGS and I was not impressed by the school. I had near perfect scores at O levels because of my own hard work, not because of the teachers.

If a student is motivated to work hard, he can get excellent grades even if he studies in Queenstown Secondary School. I know of some highly intelligent students who are taking the route of O levels - Polytechnic - University. They do not lose out to those from IP schools.