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

[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.

[rags]

Busymom:

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?

I didn't say \"automatic\". I said \"likely\". Even the one who is weak in Chinese in PSLE can suddenly improve in Chinese at secondary school. Talking about probability. In some sec schools, lit is taught at sec 1 and 2.

[Busymom]

rags:

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?

:? Why you say that when the weightage is equal across all 4 subjects today?

rags:

A second language same weightage as a first language is not right and is not done ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD.

:? Why do we have to follow the rest of the world? Are we where we are today by following other countries' policies?

[rags]

Busymom:

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?

People keep harping on that but I don't think it's true. More and more English-speaking parents now sending their children to SAP schools because they know Chinese is important. This is not because of exams. You think just lower the weightage in PSLE, suddenly everyone stop learning Chinese? Remember we are still Singaporeans, everything aim for full marks one :lol:

[Busymom]

rags:

I didn't say \"automatic\". I said \"likely\". Even the one who is weak in Chinese in PSLE can suddenly improve in Chinese at secondary school. Talking about probability. In some sec schools, lit is taught at sec 1 and 2.

Even if you say \"likely\", I still do not agree. Aren't we talking about bright kids who got into top secondary schools because they are strong in MT? That means, their EL can't be that poor in the first place, such that they have difficulty understanding history or geography taught in English. History and Geography also taught in sec 1 and 2. Only Literature meh?

[rags]

Busymom:

rags:

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?

:? Why you say that when the weightage is equal across all 4 subjects today?

The scoring in PSLE is very funny. You tend to get higher if everything is slightly above average than if you do well in 3 and do badly in one. It's the bell curve, those towards the the end of bell curve will pull down by a lot.

rags:

A second language same weightage as a first language is not right and is not done ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD.

:? Why do we have to follow the rest of the world? Are we where we are today by following other countries' policies?

Not following for the sake of following, but there is a REASON why no one else in the world has this. It's because it doesn't make sense. Eg. even China, which knows English is important because it's the most widely used business language, doesn't expect their children to score the same weightage for English and Chinese at the basic primary school level.

[rags]

Busymom:

rags:

I didn't say \"automatic\". I said \"likely\". Even the one who is weak in Chinese in PSLE can suddenly improve in Chinese at secondary school. Talking about probability. In some sec schools, lit is taught at sec 1 and 2.

Even if you say \"likely\", I still do not agree. Aren't we talking about bright kids who got into top secondary schools because they are strong in MT? That means, their EL can't be that poor in the first place, such that they have difficulty understanding history or geography taught in English. History and Geography also taught in sec 1 and 2. Only Literature meh?

But these children wouldn't be the ones scoring 50 in EL at PSLE!! Pl read the original post properly! Yes, hitstory and geog too! I was responding to you saying lit is not compulsory!