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

[jedamum]

[quote]

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.[/quote]For folk who are encumbered by a lack of ability in English, this is no longer an incentive to perform better, but rather a punitive measure by which further academic progression is inhibited.

For folk who are encumbered by a lack of ability in Math, this is no longer an incentive to perform better, but rather a punitive measure by which further academic progression is inhibited.

For folk who are encumbered by a lack of ability in Science, this is no longer an incentive to perform better, but rather a punitive measure by which further academic progression is inhibited.

See the difference? while the above argument seems possible, they do not seem as 'smooth' if compared to the subject 'Chinese', cos (i reiterate) it strongly suggests that 'academic progression' (on a broad basis, not meaning linguistically) is independent of the command of one's Chinese - if that's the case, i dare MOE to admit that they deem Chinese as a less important subject rather than hide behind the screen of saying that the reduction in weightage is intended to \"http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1052718/1/.html

[3Boys]

Multiple replies, with varying takes on what I said. Again, when acting as a lightning rod, which appears a fav past-time of mine recently, the risk is accruing a plethora of negative responses, with the respondents seemingly thinking that they are in agreement with each other, when in fact they may subtly differ on their positions.


Chinese language education is super-politicised isn’t it? It has been from long ago, when the Chinese speaking were in the majority, and drove the over-weightage of CL2. Thankfully common sense prevailed eventually. If MOE announced it were increasing the weightage of math by 50%, I doubt we would get 40 pages of posts in KSP forum.

Be it what it may, the MOE has set the direction based upon the realities on the ground, and rightfully avoided the ‘pork barrel’ of special interest groups in making its decision. That in itself, is brave and forward thinking, and I for one and glad and applaud them for it.

[Busymom]

3Boys:

It has been from long ago, when the Chinese speaking were in the majority, and drove the over-weightage of CL2.

This statement in itself is already incorrect.

CL2 was not over-weighted in comparison to EL even when Chinese speaking were the majority. EL was 100, CL2 was 100, Maths was 50 and Science was 50 up to 1985. The English-speaking should not feel that they were penalised by such a policy.

My BIL who graduated from Uni in the 80s, could not speak or understand much Mandarin even though he is 100% Chinese. He had to pick up Mandarin after started working by going for class. I guess this is the kind of productive adult you feel Singapore needs.

Even multiple replies with some subtle differences, I believe everyone here agrees with what others are posting. There are always more than one angle to an agruement. Do you watch debate at all?

[3Boys]

Busymom:

3Boys:

It has been from long ago, when the Chinese speaking were in the majority, and drove the over-weightage of CL2.

This statement in itself is already incorrect.

CL2 was not over-weighted in comparison to EL even when Chinese speaking were the majority. EL was 100, CL2 was 100, Maths was 50 and Science was 50 up to 1985. The English-speaking should not feel that they were penalised by such a policy.

My BIL who graduated from Uni in the 80s, could not speak or understand much Mandarin even though he is 100% Chinese. He had to pick up Mandarin after started working by going for class. I guess this is the kind of productive adult you feel Singapore needs.

Even multiple replies with some subtle differences, I believe everyone here agrees with what others are posting. There are always more than one angle to an agruement. Do you watch debate at all?

So, it was overweight in comparison with other subjects other than English, and out of all proportion to its economic importance at the time. If you do not recall, this was political hot potato at the time. If you even dared to speak out of turn, you would have the Chinese Ed harangue you and hurl all sorts of insults your way. It even happened in the classroom.

As to your second point, it merely proves what I have said. Despite the high weightage at the time, your BIL did NOT develop a proficiency in the language. Setting the bar high for weightage has little bearing on driving proficiency, whereas motivation (like your BIL in adulthood) and teaching technique do. Thank you for illustrating the point.

[jedamum]

i just had this novelty idea...

how about letting parents opt (prior to PSLE) which of the 4 subjects they want to reduce the weightage to 25%. so all the parents have their fair choice of opting for their weakest subject. :idea:

[Lock]

jedamum:

[quote]

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.

For folk who are encumbered by a lack of ability in English, this is no longer an incentive to perform better, but rather a punitive measure by which further academic progression is inhibited.

For folk who are encumbered by a lack of ability in Math, this is no longer an incentive to perform better, but rather a punitive measure by which further academic progression is inhibited.

For folk who are encumbered by a lack of ability in Science, this is no longer an incentive to perform better, but rather a punitive measure by which further academic progression is inhibited.

See the difference? while the above argument seems possible, they do not seem as 'smooth' if compared to the subject 'Chinese', cos (i reiterate) it strongly suggests that 'academic progression' (on a broad basis, not meaning linguistically) is independent of the command of one's Chinese - if that's the case, i dare MOE to admit that they deem Chinese as a less important subject rather than hide behind the screen of saying that the reduction in weightage is intended to \"http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1052718/1/.html[/quote]I agree. My dd's strength is is the languages and arts. Since P1, she has struggled with Math till now (P3) and i am sure she will continue to struggle all the way to P6. She spends a huge amt of time practicing her maths sums just to make sure that she maintains the average scores.

We recognise that she will not be able to get a stellar PSLE score even when she does very well in the other 3 subjects which she is good at. So, secretly, my hub and I have discussed the possibility of sending her overseas to further her studies shd she failed to go to the sch of her choice to pursue her interests. Does the government cry over the lose of such students? I am sure there are many like my dd and their talents may surpass hers.

What I am trying to point out is that the government has double standard when it comes to the argument that they do not want to lose the bright sparks who are good in 3 subjects but weak in MT. Do kids who are good in 3 subjects but weak in Math has a dimmer spark in comparison?

[Busymom]

3Boys:

So, it was overweight in comparison with other subjects other than English, and out of all proportion to its economic importance at the time.

Do you feel, at 25% weightage now, this weightage for Chinese is still out of proportion to its economic importance? At a time when many in the West are learning the language? And not for forgetting Hong Kongers who used to look down on those who speak Mandarin are mostly speaking good Mandarin now?

3Boys:

As to your second point, it merely proves what I have said. Despite the high weightage at the time, your BIL did NOT develop a proficiency in the language. Setting the bar high for weightage has little bearing on driving proficiency, whereas motivation (like your BIL in adulthood) and teaching technique do. Thank you for illustrating the point.

Oh dear, I should have been clearer. My BIL studied in a pure English stream school. He isn't a product of the bilingualism policy. That is the essence of what I am trying to say. If left on its own, even during those times when majority in Singapore were chinese speaking, there was no motivation for a student to study it. Btw, he was ex-RI. That's a good school, no?

[corneyAmber]

jedamum:

i just had this novelty idea...

how about letting parents opt (prior to PSLE) which of the 4 subjects they want to reduce the weightage to 25%. so all the parents have their fair choice of opting for their weakest subject. :idea:

This is an interesting thought Jedamum and would have appeared more fair and driven up a fiercer level of competition as everyone is competing with their best. However, problem is would English ever be allowed to be reduced in weighting if it happens to be the weaker subject?

[tamarind]

HyperKiasu:

tamarind:

[quote=\"HyperKiasu\"]
Of coz it is enjoyable if your kids are too young to face the stress of PSLE lol.....

or, enjoy of Chinese = CCA of Chinese hor.....

I believe in building a strong foundation from 3 years old. It takes many years to study a language and to be good at it, not just at P6. The only way to be very good in Chinese, is to read as many Chinese story books as possible. This is from my personal experience. I was one of the top scorers for Chinese in school, all the way to A levels. My Chinese essays consistently get the highest marks. No enrichment class for me, I don't even remember studying very hard. I only remember reading all the 金庸 novels, and all the 亦舒 novels, which are hugely enjoyable Chinese was the subject that I spent the least effort in, but scored the highest.

Those parents who think that memorizing the textbook, and doing tons of assessments, will make a kid do well in Chinese, are making a mistake.

I agree that reading is the best way to learn Chinese and in fact for all language no short cut except reading widely.
And I think u have some sort of gift for Chinese language. but for majority Chinese learner, weightage cut is disincentive.
Ungifted + unmotivated = ???

If parents are very PSLE score-oriented and weightage is cut by 50%, parents will let kids cut time by 50% accordingly....and if they really love Chinese, they can still love it like their \"hobby\"......Never be a priority in terms of academic....[/quote]
I don't have any gift for learning languages. I never get an A in English no matter how hard I tried. I memorized textbooks ! I have to thank my Chinese dictionary, and a few very good Chinese teachers for inspiring me to love the language. I didn't have inspiring English teachers, even though I was in the top English girls school.

Reading good books is not for the sole purpose of passing exams. Good books feed our minds. I grew up during an era when no one has computers at home. Reading is the most entertaining and exciting thing to do The \"side effect\" is that it becomes so easy to do well in Chinese.

If we find good Chinese books for the child, they will love to read, there is no way to control how much time they spend reading. They cannot put the books down

[tamarind]

ksi:

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. I am willing to make amends and work towards it, but not at the expense of others.

ksi,
You have written the best thing that I have read in this thread :goodpost:

You are not dumb at all. The dumb ones are those who keep complaining that their brains are not born to learn Chinese, and those who expect the system to be bent to suit them.

In fact, I think you are very clear minded, sensible and honest !