[PSLE MT] PSLE less weightage in Chinese / Mother Tongue
-
tamarind:
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.
ksi,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.
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 ! -
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: -
tamarind:
Thank you 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 !
I suppose people need to understand what it means to be \"Fair\", a loosely used word typically to camouflage one's desires.
-
ksi:
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?
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?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:
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.
-
A sampling of the posts in this thread suggests that the participants are predominately Chinese. What about the views of the other races?
-
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:
If your statement is true, the standard of Chinese language wouldn't be in its less than stellar state that it is today.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.
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:
By the same argument, isn't reducing the MT weightage a punitive action against those good in MT?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.
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:
U seriously think education should solely be for this purpose?focussing on the relevant subjects that will deliver for society a productive adult at the end of schooling.
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!
-
ksi:
You are welcome, and I agree.
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. -
[quote]What is a person who knows not his roots and whence where he came?[/quote]
The fact is that many Singaporeans have already forgotten their roots. Many Singaporean Chinese are brought up thinking that China is a backward country, and that Western culture is superior. It does not matter to them that their kids don't know a word of Chinese. I have long given up trying to persuade these people, it is their upbringing, they will not change.
The question is, what is the percentage of the population who still knows their roots ? Let's wait and see whether MOE goes ahead to reduce the weighting of Chinese. Then we will know the answer. -
Personally, I’m relieved to hear of the lowering of weightage of MT at PSLE. Although I had excelled in Chinese and thought Chinese to be the easiest subject ever offered, my kid has suffered the consequences of her mother being brilliant in the language. I alienated her from Chinese as much as possible since young as I struggled to master English as a child, even as an adult.
So now, it’s not surprising that she dislikes Chinese now that she’s in the upper primary, although she’s not weak in it. She is able to do well in tests which she learnt at the very last minute. However, she detests doing Chinese homework. Or more accurately, she does not detest Chinese as a language, but loathes, or fears, it as an examinable subject, esp compo-writing.
I feel that lowering the weightage of MT will help relieve me, as well as my kid, the pressure of mastering Chinese within a short period of time.
I try to read with her Chinese books, the way I did with English books when she was young. It’s clear that she doesn’t find the language repulsive. In fact, she’s starting to find some words interesting which I see as an emergent interest, but the need for an exam puts her off and she demonstrated this repulsiveness through her rebellion towards her Chinese teacher, who is often vexed (aloud) by her attitude.
I wouldn’t say I strongly support this move of MOE, but I do welcome the change and hope that it’ll be in time for my kid’s psle.
And I beg to differ when people say that learning Chinese is equivalent to knowing Chinese roots. Almost all of my secondary schoolmates spoke in Chinese and did alot better in Chinese than English, but they knew nuts about Chinese history, literature, much less their roots. -
[Editor's note: Topic selected & edited for http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/content/some-thoughts-about-chinesemother-tongue-and-educational-systems.]
Hmm...very interesting discussion. I happened to read 2 articles in the Chinese newspaper yesterday abt languages. One abt doctors who can't speak/read Chinese competently and the other is abt directional signages and station announcements in mrt are only in English. In the first article, the author (doctor working in hospital) was from a sap school and he felt sad that a Chinese national TCM doctor in the hospital expressed surprised when the author could read Chinese newspaper. Although many of us could advance in our career without much in-depth knowledge of Chinese, we could become a laughing stalk when foreigners see us Chinese can't even read/speak or understand Chinese very well.
The second article mentioned that announcements and signages in Switzerland are in the 4 official languages.
I'm not very familiar with the education system in Switzerland, but it seems that due to their unique demographics, they have 4 official languages (German, French, Italian, Romanic). Also, they do not have much natural resources so have to depend on human resource. All these quite similar to Singapore.
Depending on region, they have to study one of the 4 official languages as the main and 2 other foreign languages (chosen from the other 3 official languages) in their primary school years. Only in recent years that English is compulsory as one of the 2 foreign languages in the syllabus.
http://www.educa.ch/dyn/152272.asp
Quoting from a passage in the website:
Language teaching
In a multilingual country, the coordination of language teaching is particularly important. In March 2004, the Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education (EDK) adopted a national strategy for further development of language teaching. This strategy aims to realise early and consistent promotion of pupils' language skills in their first national language and the provision of a solid basis in a second national language as well as English, with the possibility of learning a third national language. The most important content of the strategy is incorporated into the inter-cantonal agreement on the harmonisation of compulsory education (HarmoS Concordat), according to which, 2 foreign languages (a second national language and English) are to be taught already on the primary level. The first foreign language begins in the third school year at the latest and the second foreign language begins in the fifth school year at the latest (if counted according to the new school structures as defined by the HarmoS Concordat: first foreign language: fifth school year; second foreign language: seventh school year). The question of which language is to be taught first is coordinated regionally. Regardless of the beginnings, comparable knowledge of both foreign languages is to be achieved by the end of compulsory education. The objectives are defined via the national educational standards. The cantons have begun to implement this language resolution. Teaching in the first foreign language is to be introduced by 2010 at the latest and teaching of the second foreign language no later than 2012. The cantonal language concept of the canton Ticino deviates from these specifications and envisages compulsory teaching in 3 foreign languages (German, French and English) during compulsory education.
They don't have PSLE per se but they do stream students according to ability in the period (depending on region/state) spanning from our equivalent of P5 to Sec 2.
OK, why I bring up Switzerland? Well, I find it quite amazing that despite their language differences, they are very united as one country. Read somewhere that although English wasn't a compulsory subject previously, majority of the population know English rather well, due to economic reasons.
Their cultural roots are well grounded because of history and also the study of their Mother Tongue (one of the 4 official language) as their first language. I'm not too sure of the weightage of the other 2 foreign languages but it seems it's not an issue.
Hee...hee, just a thought... :idea: why don't we make Mother Tongue our 1st language but still make English study compulsory as (foreign/2nd?) language. By 1st language I don't mean to teach Maths and Science in MT, but to learn the language at a deeper level, involving literature, history and cultural. I think English is still important as a working language, for communication between different races and for economic reasons, but I don't think we need to attain proficiency of the language to an exceptionally high level (ie. equivalent level to the ang mohs).
Our Mother Tongue is equally important but to preserve our roots and cultural, we need also to study the literature and history of the language of origin.
Lowering the weightage of 2nd languages will evolve into a situation where in time to come, we'll slowly be transformed into an ABC (American Born Chinese) equivalent.
BTW, Switzerland produced many Nobel prize winners. Quoting from wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Demographics, Nobel prizes were awarded to Swiss scientists, for example to the world-famous physicist Albert Einstein in the field of physics who developed his theory of relativity while working in Bern. More recently Vladimir Prelog, Heinrich Rohrer, Richard Ernst, Edmond Fischer, Rolf Zinkernagel and Kurt Wüthrich received Nobel prizes in the sciences. In total, 113 Nobel Prize winners stand in relation to Switzerland[86] and the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded 9 times to organisations residing in Switzerland.
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