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

[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!

[Busymom]

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:

Not when you do not have enough time for everything and need to prioritize. And because we are Singaporeans, we will choose to be exam-smart - spend more time on subjects that have higher weightage.

[rags]

Busymom:

Not when you do not have enough time for everything and need to prioritize. And because we are Singaporeans, we will choose to be exam-smart - spend more time on subjects that have higher weightage.

I agree we all need to prioritize but weightage is not the only criteria. If I'm already excellent in maths, I won't need to spend so much time on it even though it's high weightage. I will work on the subject I'm weaker in, even if it has lower weightage because it will still affect my t-score.

[Busymom]

rags:

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!

That is your example in your post. I don't think I need to be bound by that in my post. The reason that was stated why MOE is reviewing the policy is because they have many parents complaining that MT has prevented their child for competing effectively for top secondary schools, no?

When I said Literature is not compulsory, I was referring to Literature as an O' Level subject. It is in response to your remark that one who is stronger in English will do better than another who is weak in English in subjects such as Literature, History, Geog. I was quoting your own words! My opinion is, and based on my own experience, the only subject that can be afffected by a poor command of English is Literature.

[Busymom]

rags:

I agree we all need to prioritize but weightage is not the only criteria. If I'm already excellent in maths, I won't need to spend so much time on it even though it's high weightage. I will work on the subject I'm weaker in, even if it has lower weightage because it will still affect my t-score.

So why should we give advantage to only those who are good in EL but not MT; if those who are weak in EL (but strong in MT) are similarly working on their weak area to get a high T score to get into top secondary schools?