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

[ihavethingtosay]

vlim:

jedamum:

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.

.

so for the above 2 cases .... who deserve or more suitable to go better school, for example RI or other top non-ip sec school, if there is only one vacancy left? the one who is strong in mt but weak in other subjects and one who is weak in mt but good in other subjects :idea:

precisely! why cut MT weightage so that the latter get that place?! perhaps they should consider their art grades music grades pe grades and every other grade. that sounds good

[jedamum]

vlim:

so for the above 2 cases .... who deserve or more suitable to go better school, for example RI or other top non-ip sec school, if there is only one vacancy left? the one who is strong in mt but weak in other subjects and one who is weak in mt but good in other subjects :idea:

lolz. let me consult my crystal ball...
who deserve more? every parent of course feel that their child deserve more la.

[ihavethingtosay]

aiya. i think should be see who has louder voice then who get in lor :roll: might not be deserving tho. yawnz

[rags]

ihavethingtosay:

please just answer to this point. \"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????? \"

Actually, I agree that complaining to cut weight just to get into top schools is self-serving. I agree with Tamarind I don't know what's the big deal about the top schools. But it is no more self-serving than this group now who's complaining to MOE so that their children who are good in MT have a higher chance of getting into the top schools.

More importantly, there is a case for lowering the weightage and NOT because to suit the people who complain. To use your example, let's say 2 children got 100 in science, maths and P got 100 in EL and 50 in CL, Q got 50 in EL and 100 in CL. Pretend they both got into a top secondary school. Who do you think will have more problems? P will only have problems in one subject, Chinese. Q will likely have problems with EL, Lit, Geog, History, maybe others because these subjects need you to have a good grasp of EL.

That's why it makes sense to lower the weightage of CL at pri 6 because it is more critical to be good in EL in secondary school and post-sec.

This is jmo. I have nothing to gain since my ds is already past pri 6.

[jedamum]

tamarind:

If a student is motivated to work hard, he can get excellent grades even if he studies in Queenstown Secondary School.

although i agree, but i tend to also agree that (on a broad basis) 'bigger name schools' have more resources and opportunity and exposure for the students to do well (or at least the student himself must also want to do well to start with )

[Busymom]

jedamum:

to me, reduction of MT weightage clearly favours the middle upper english-speaking class demographics where MT is currently pulling down their overall scores. to me, change in MT weightage will favour this group

I have the same thought and it's just scary! We have always pride ourselves as a meritocratic society. Such a policy change is just unthinkable in my opinion. Don't children from heartland families (i.e. Chinese-speaking) deserve to be in top secondary schools if their T score is better than those who are weak in MT? Why create an unfair advantage for only those who come from English-speaking and more likely to be better off and therefore, capable of affording chinese tuition in the first place?

In case anyone think that I have a vested interest, the truth is, no. My kids are still in pre-schools. I don't know for sure if their chinese eventually will be above average, average or below average. However, going by what I can see now, they would be stronger in English simply because of the exposure from home and school. Would I want the weightage of Chinese to be reduced, as such a change will likely benefit my kids more? The answer is no. While I am guilty of not spending enough time to teach and read my kids chinese, I am still trying my best to do that with what little time I have left after other commitments, even if it is not on a daily basis. If weightage of MT is to be reduced, it would be just so easy for me to slip into a lazy mode and allocate even less time for Chinese. Like what many people have already pointed out, it becomes a vicious cycle - more and more Singaporeans of our future generations would soon be no better than the Chinese in Indonesia and Malaysia where the language is concerned (and I am refering to those who are not Chinese-educated here). Is this progressing or regressingn for our nation, at a time when even non-Chinese in West are learning Chinese both in and outside school?

jedamum:

IMO, when the govt has already publicly announced their hint of intention, it is not surprising that some sort of plan is already in the pipeline.

Is it only me, but I couldn't help noticing how one-sided the views were on last Saturday forum in the ST. :roll:

[ihavethingtosay]

rags:

Actually, I agree that complaining to cut weight just to get into top schools is self-serving. I agree with Tamarind I don't know what's the big deal about the top schools. But it is no more self-serving than this group now who's complaining to MOE so that their children who are good in MT have a higher chance of getting into the top schools.


More importantly, there is a case for lowering the weightage and NOT because to suit the people who complain. To use your example, let's say 2 children got 100 in science, maths and P got 100 in EL and 50 in CL, Q got 50 in EL and 100 in CL. Pretend they both got into a top secondary school. Who do you think will have more problems? P will only have problems in one subject, Chinese. Q will likely have problems with EL, Lit, Geog, History, maybe others because these subjects need you to have a good grasp of EL.

That's why it makes sense to lower the weightage of CL at pri 6 because it is more critical to be good in EL in secondary school and post-sec.

This is jmo. I have nothing to gain since my ds is already past pri 6.

even though all these other subjects are being taught in english and many people struggle in english, do we see any of these people come out and demand that english be cut or that moe comes up with an english B? no? then why shld there be such thing surfacing?

and your argument about good grasp of EL does not really hold true. i am an example and so do many of my peers. people claim their english is better than the prcs. please explain why the latter still manage to do better in other subjects that are taught in english. plus not everyone deals with history geography and even lit! how many shakespears do you see here? or maybe at pri sch level, they shouldnt even be asked to write compos. what good does writing compos serve in understanding math and science?

simply said, i would think effort put in would be more important. the time spent complaining would be better spent on working on areas that we are not good at

[ihavethingtosay]

in the near-end of education, at A levels for example. i think you would see more people complaining about scoring straight As but GP C, depriving them a chance of getting overseas or into Uni. but seldom those who complain of straight As but bad MT that hinders them from going anywhere.


so why the complain? despite the significance of english for 6+4+2 years in sch, why is our 'EL standard is not good". perhaps there is a problem with our english system too. time to look into that?

[Busymom]

rags:

More importantly, there is a case for lowering the weightage and NOT because to suit the people who complain. To use your example, let's say 2 children got 100 in science, maths and P got 100 in EL and 50 in CL, Q got 50 in EL and 100 in CL. Pretend they both got into a top secondary school. Who do you think will have more problems? P will only have problems in one subject, Chinese. Q will likely have problems with EL, Lit, Geog, History, maybe others because these subjects need you to have a good grasp of EL.

That's why it makes sense to lower the weightage of CL at pri 6 because it is more critical to be good in EL in secondary school and post-sec.

Well, I do not agree that if one is weak in EL, the child will automatically be weak in other subjects (other than Literature, but hey, this isn't a compulsory subject hor) simply because these subjects are taught in English. At the end of the day, you can do well in other subjects as long as you are have a good understanding of the subject. Even if your EL is superb, but if you have a bad memory to begin with and can't memorise your history, how to do well in history? Sorry to say this, but isn't Chinese also about memorising?

[rags]

ihavethingtosay:

even though all these other subjects are being taught in english and many people struggle in english, do we see any of these people come out and demand that english be cut or that moe comes up with an english B? no? then why shld there be such thing surfacing?

and your argument about good grasp of EL does not really hold true. i am an example and so do many of my peers. people claim their english is better than the prcs. please explain why the latter still manage to do better in other subjects that are taught in english. plus not everyone deals with history geography and even lit! how many shakespears do you see here? or maybe at pri sch level, they shouldnt even be asked to write compos. what good does writing compos serve in understanding math and science?

simply said, i would think effort put in would be more important. the time spent complaining would be better spent on working on areas that we are not good at

I already said this revision should not be because people complain. Why are you still being so aggressive?

I was not talking about the PRCs. You are deliberately twisting my words. I gave your example of the one who got 100 for everything and 50 for EL. the PRCs you are talking about are the ones who come here and master EL so it's irrelevant, of course they will do well in sec school.

Don't you know that all sec 1 and 2 students study lit, geog and history? I don't know what you are talking about. these are not optional subjects.