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

[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 !

[markfch]

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 !

The temperature is getting hot here. I'll :siam: . But before I go, want to say that I support the status quo cos MT is an impt part of my identity, even though DS is much better in EL than CL.

[tamarind]

I honestly did not read every post in the last 2 pages, some of the posts were too deep for me, did not bother to try to understand. I am only commenting on the statements that I underlined in the above post.

:roll:

[corneyAmber]

tamarind:

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 !

Thank you Tamarind.
I suppose people need to understand what it means to be \"Fair\", a loosely used word typically to camouflage one's desires.

[jedamum]

ksi:

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?

i would think, 'why not'? but higher up people may think that in the long run, the children will suffer by struggling in a stream that they may not be able to cope cos of weaker English. my take is that the parents had opted for it and it is never too late to switch stream if the child cannot cope. yes, people will argue that it will be detrimental to the child's self esteem, but what about the late bloomers? on the issue of lowering MT weightage to \"allow those stronger in mother tongues, but weaker in other subjects, to go into streams that are more suitable for them.\" higher up people should not decide for them just cos they 'foresee' those weaker in English to be struggling cos if so, these group of students are already been given a 'penalty' even before they have the chance to tackle sec sch syllabus. if higher up people admit that lowering of MT weigtage is to intended to \"allow those weaker in mother tongues, but stronger in other subjects, to go into streams that are more suitable for them.\", i will agree that that is a good cause for benefitting that certain group of students, but it should not jeopardize those 'stronger in MT but weaker in other subjects' group of students from going into Express (or Normal Academic) stream - GWIM?
MHO.
however, to my above 'argument', while i had some other nagging points which will highlight that 'those stronger in MT but weaker in other subjects', the 25% weightage is never an issue in deciding whether they ended up in Express or Normal stream, i hesitate to pen down cos it is highly speculative and entirely my unsubstantiated thinking.

[markfch]

A sampling of the posts in this thread suggests that the participants are predominately Chinese. What about the views of the other races?

[Way2GO]

3Boys:

That in itself, is brave and forward thinking, and I for one and glad and applaud them for it.

IMO, far from being forward looking, this measure, if adopted, is short -sighted.
MOE will be sending a signal to the students and schools that MT is not as important as the other subjects.
What do u think will be the likely responses from students and schools if and when the MT weightage is reduced?
I could foresee a downward shift of emphasis in MT, in particular
for those where the sole purpose of primary schooling is to get into a better school with better results
and where how well a primary school does in PSLE is a key factor in its KPI.
Over time, MT will become so diluted that our children will lose the ability to engage in their MT language, culture and roots and lose their identities.
What is a person who knows not his roots and whence where he came?

3Boys:

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.

If your statement is true, the standard of Chinese language wouldn't be in its less than stellar state that it is today.
Race itself is polarizing; the Chinese is still the majority;
but we do not want to polarize the debate along those lines, do we?
We should just keep to debating the merits and demerits of reducing weightage in MT.

3Boys:

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.

By the same argument, isn't reducing the MT weightage a punitive action against those good in MT?
What special interest groups? Level the playing field for which 'interest groups'? What's unfair?
For those who have the ability, why would you want to deny them the 'advantage'?
Ditto for other subjects such as Maths, Science,English etc..
For many, its not about gaining a competitive advantage, but knowing more of one's language, culture, roots and identity.

3Boys:

focussing on the relevant subjects that will deliver for society a productive adult at the end of schooling.

U seriously think education should solely be for this purpose?
If so, I say it is a narrow and limited view of education.
If MOE also holds your view to be true, then English being the current lingua franca of the working world,
why bother the children with the need to study other languages like Mandarin, Malay, etc..
Why not drop MT altogether and spend more time on the other relevant subjects?

One of the problems with our education system is its rigidity.
Children are not all cut from the same cloth. One size doesn't fit all.
There are already schools developed for those with special talents such as SOTA, SST, NUSH etc..
why not develop more along those lines instead of coming up with a measure that penalizes instead those who are good in MT?

So I think you are barking up the wrong tree!

[tamarind]

ksi:

Thank you Tamarind.
I suppose people need to understand what it means to be \"Fair\", a loosely used word typically to camouflage one's desires.

You are welcome, and I agree.