[PSLE MT] PSLE less weightage in Chinese / Mother Tongue
-
I agreed. :celebrate:
-
3Boys:
Hmmm.. lowering the weightage is \"levelling the playing field\"??
I support this measure fully. Its not about lowering the standards of Chinese, for which the solution is increasing the standard of instruction, but levelling the playing field and focussing on the relevant subjects that will deliver for society a productive adult at the end of schooling. -
3Boys:
the statement is \"UNFAIR\"
For folk who are encumbered by a lack of ability in Chinese, this is no longer an incentive to perform better, but rather a punitive measure by which further academic progression is inhibited.
To those who scream 'UNFAIR', the motivation for opposing this measure is then very clear. It is not about promoting the standards of Chinese, but rather, preserving your competitive advantage over other students.
Losers cry foul. But those who cry foul might not be losers.
If you read through the posts in this forum or discussion board in Straitstime, you will find quite a number English-speaking parents are saying NO to this move. For those who say Yes to move, >90% are those weak in Chinese (0-10% are those who has no vested interest in PSLE)[/b] -
dimsum:
perhaps 3Boys think MT weightage is currently > that of any other subjects....
Hmmm.. lowering the weightage is \"levelling the playing field\"??3Boys:
I support this measure fully. Its not about lowering the standards of Chinese, for which the solution is increasing the standard of instruction, but levelling the playing field and focussing on the relevant subjects that will deliver for society a productive adult at the end of schooling.
-
ksi:
:goodpost: My DS is only 3.5YO, I won't know if his chinese will be good or poor next time. So, I am screaming UNFAIR not because of the reason 3Boys mentioned but because I disagree with tweaking the weightage to create an unfair competitive advantage for this group who are good in EMS but very weak in chinese so that they can enter top sec. schools. That's NOT levelling the playing field.
Actually I do not think there is anything wrong with the statement in bold. For parents who did an excellent job to create that competitive edge, why not? I am not one of those parents as my kid's level of Chinese is not competent, however I give kudos to parents who are able to do so. What is wrong in giving credit where it is due? I do not think my child is born inherent with the lack of ability to learn the language, what I do know is that I have not done the right thing enough resulting in this. Should I feel that since I did not do as well as those parents who did better, I should pro this motion to help my child gain back some advantage? Maybe you think that I am dumb, but I am willing to admit that I did not develop my child well enough in learning the Chinese language as a mother tongue. But I am willing to make amends and work towards it, but not at the expense of others.3Boys:
To those who scream 'UNFAIR', the motivation for opposing this measure is then very clear. It is not about promoting the standards of Chinese, but rather, preserving your competitive advantage over other students. -
dimsum:
perhaps 3Boys think MT weightage is currently > that of any other subjects....
Hmmm.. lowering the weightage is \"levelling the playing field\"??3Boys:
I support this measure fully. Its not about lowering the standards of Chinese, for which the solution is increasing the standard of instruction, but levelling the playing field and focussing on the relevant subjects that will deliver for society a productive adult at the end of schooling.
-
3Boys:
the statement is \"UNFAIR\"
For folk who are encumbered by a lack of ability in Chinese, this is no longer an incentive to perform better, but rather a punitive measure by which further academic progression is inhibited.
To those who scream 'UNFAIR', the motivation for opposing this measure is then very clear. It is not about promoting the standards of Chinese, but rather, preserving your competitive advantage over other students.
Losers cry foul. But those who cry foul might not be losers.
If you read through the posts in this forum or discussion board in Straitstime, you will find quite a number English-speaking parents are saying NO to this move. For those who say Yes to move, >90% are those weak in Chinese (0-10% are those who has no vested interest in PSLE) -
3Boys:
I think the motive for the group who propose to cut is MORE Clear....have you read the statement of the MOE's minister when he announced this proposal????
To those who scream 'UNFAIR', the motivation for opposing this measure is then very clear. It is not about promoting the standards of Chinese, but rather, preserving your competitive advantage over other students. -
3Boys:
But historically, CL2 has never been lower than EL. Up to 1985, the weightage of EL and CL2 were in fact double of that of Maths and Science. It was only later that all 4 subjects are equal in weightage.
Over the many years when the weightage for CL2 have held steady, have the standards held steady or improved?
If the weightage of CL2 is now reduced to less than 25%, how can you be so sure that its standard would not drop in the future? -
dimsum:
Of course it isn't!!
Hmmm.. lowering the weightage is \"levelling the playing field\"??3Boys:
but levelling the playing field and focussing on the relevant subjects that will deliver for society a productive adult at the end of schooling.
There are only 24 hours a day. There is only so much time that parents can spend teaching their children. Most parents here would agree that reading is the best way to improve a child's language proficiency. So, given a lack of time, is the parent going to choose reading Chinese or English books? Take the example of a parent who spends 30 minutes a day on English books with child A from age 3, and another parent who spends 15 minutes on English books and 15 minutes on Chinese books with child B. Isn't it then obvious that child A will be better in English as compared to child B, all else equal? Similarly, child B would be better than child A in Chinese.
Under the current system of equal weightage for all subjects, everyone gets a rate of return proportionate to his investment (time spent) on each subject. When the weightage is no longer the same, how can anyone still think it is fair?
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