[PSLE MT] PSLE less weightage in Chinese / Mother Tongue
-
Busymom:
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.
:? Why you say that when the weightage is equal across all 4 subjects today?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?
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:
:? Why do we have to follow the rest of the world? Are we where we are today by following other countries' policies?A second language same weightage as a first language is not right and is not done ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD.
-
Busymom:
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!
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:
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. -
rags:
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.
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:
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? -
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. -
rags:
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?
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!
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. -
rags:
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?
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. -
rags:
Wouldn't this be the same for one who is strong in Maths, Science and MT but weak in EL? Do we then go and reduce the weightage of EL for him to be fair?
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:
Do you mean to say that we should be happy that our Chinese is not as bad as English is in China, or Japan/Korea? Or we should only start addressing the issue when it is as bad? :?
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. -
Sounds like you are consistently taking all my comments out of context and giving the same round-about arguments that reasons have already been provided (not just by me, also by others) in this post.
In this case, there’s no point to say anymore. -
If you are referring to me, I don’t think I am taking your comments out of context.
In this forum, we do not quote other people’s post in full as this is a request from the moderators. Even if I do not quote your post in full, I am not taking it out of context. I am happy for you to point out specific comments if you think so.
Bottomline is, both of us do not share the same opinions about this subject. -
jedamum:
that mean it is parents/kids' liability to preserve Chinese culture/heritage/root..... despite the disincentive signal of the weightage cut ?
those who really are concerned about culture will continue to focus on MT education despite lesser weightage. to those who fear that SAP schools are obsolete, is their intention of sending their children to these schools based on inculcating strong chinese culture roots or have better PSLE advantage in the first place?
JMHO.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login
