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

[Way2GO]

HyperKiasu:

sure will give him some face. blame it on his surname: N.G. (cut)

:rotflmao:
cute.

He is just the front man.

[3Boys]

Way2GO:

3Boys:

.....What does this tell me. Protectionism? Self interest? .......

Don't you see that by supporting reduction in MT weightage, you take a position no different from those you imputed on quote 'there is an internal contradiction in their position when they then insist that all must be held to the same standard, so that their precious baby's advantage will not be eroded away. ', except that you are at opposite ends of it.

Why must one group benefit at the expense of another group?
gnoikj is right. One cannot improve the system by piece measure such as just reducing the MT weightage.

Actually, I see very little impact on my children one way or the other. We will adapt , and I don't obsess over fractions of percentage points differences, they will even out in the long run. My philosophy on such matters is generally pragmatic, when in Rome, do as the Romans.

I take this position not because I have a vested interest, but because I think it is the right thing to do.

[3Boys]

Way2GO:

ksi:

Exactly, and 3Boys, your baby's advantage is English just like mine, but I think in fairer terms for those who focused on Chinese. ... I do not expect the playing field to be levelled but I DO expect my child to try hard for her own sake. I would be happy to inform in future that she has not taken the defeatist attitude towards her life.

ksi
My anti-MT- weightage- reduction stance is definitely not motivated
by gaining some advantage for my kids.
For the record, my DS1's weakest subject was CL during PSLE.
My kids were raised in an English speaking home environment.
In school, all their schoolmates also interact in English, except during CL classes.

A survey was carried out in his secondary school recently
along this line with these options (may not be exact words in survey)
If MT weightage is reduced, would you
1. Put more effort into learning MT, or
2. Put same effort in learning MT, or
3. Put less effort in learning MT.

His selection?
3
Just as I predicted in an earlier post.
I believe many students will think the same way!

To be clear, I do believe that many parents are like yourself. You believe in the importance of cultural connectedness, and the neccessity of learning the language to gear for the future. It is a perfectly rational and justifiable position to take, for YOUR children. I have never had an issue with that, but to extend it beyond your family, insist that it be examinable across the board to some notional standard, then begins to look like an imposition, and we have to be careful on how we implement that.

I believe those who primarily take the cynical 'my child ahead of others' approach are in the minority, but they are there.

[Way2GO]

3Boys:

I take this position not because I have a vested interest, but because I think it is the right thing to do.

Good for u
though I may add just reducing the MT weightage is not the right solution.
As many correctly pointed of, MOE should implement a system that encourages
the learning of MT, not discourage it.

I share with u something else....
When my DS1 was young and realizing his MT was not up to par.
we decided he should go for Chinese enrichment.

He absolutely refused and declared that
he is NOT Chinese :!:
He is OK with Mandarin now,
but at that time, his declaration raised an alarm bell!
Do kids know any better at their tender age?
Most will take the route of least resistance.

[3Boys]

nan.nan:

Now I want to address the lowering of the bar...


>However, my view is that it is unreasonable to set the general bar at a
>level that a small (but significant) number of otherwise smart students
>struggle constantly with it through school and are disadvantaged when it
>comes to certain opportunities on the account of it

Say there are 10 students: 4 of them A* for MT, 3 of them B for MT, 2 of the C for MT, and 1 of them D for MT. Suppose one of the B students is 3Boys' child.

Now the bar is at 25%.

So, the B, C and D are struggling.

MOE lower the bar to 10%. The B's are happy, now they don't struggle so much.

But the bottom 3 are still struggling.

6 months later, they petition to MOE. MOE lower the bar again to 5%.

The C's are now happy. But there is still a D there struggling.

So where should the bar be such that NO Smart students are struggling ?

The bar should be at Zero.

Although the bar is at Zero, the 6 students' MT standard is still poor compare to the 4 ! Because no effort was made to improve their capability but lower the bar. They remain weak and happy, because in Singapore, they speak English as working language and in coffeeshop they order mee pok in Teochew. That works.

These 10 students now will not struggle with MT. So the next thing will be Maths. There will be Science Smart student but struggling with numbers. So, their parents will petition to MOE to lower the weightage of Maths for PSLE.

...on and on...until all weightages are zero. All Singaporeans are happy now.

Singaporeans are happy to continue to speak English as a working language, order mee pok in Teochew, the mee pok man give change, they cannot count, take out a calculator and press...

There is a difference between Math/English, and Chinese.

Math is a universal tool. Practically all elementary schools around the world teach soem form of math. It transcends cultures and languages.

English is the lingua franca of Singapore. It is also, presently, still the main language of business the world over. The Japanese study English as a 2nd language, as do many French, Germans, Brazilians, and yes, even Chinese.

There are some international standards to those subjects, there is a universality to English and Math that Chinese does not have. Not even everybody in Singapore studies Chinese, for instance, but they all study English and Math. Hard as it is to hear, there needs to be a primacy accorded to them.

Yes, we need to set standards, but we do so after careful evaluation of WHY we are doing it. It is very clear for English and Math, less clear for MT (hence the debate).

Hence linking a potential de-weighting of Chinese language to the general slippage of academic standards is the wrong analogy.

[3Boys]

Way2GO:

3Boys:

I take this position not because I have a vested interest, but because I think it is the right thing to do.

Good for u
though I may add just reducing the MT weightage is not the right solution.
As many correctly pointed of, MOE should implement a system that encourages
the learning of MT, not discourage it.

I share with u something else....
When my DS1 was young and realizing his MT was not up to par.
we decided he should go for Chinese enrichment.

He absolutely refused and declared that
he is NOT Chinese :!:
He is OK with Mandarin now,
but at that time, his declaration raised an alarm bell!
Do kids know any better at their tender age?
Most will take the route of least resistance.

Understand your concerns, very valid. You would be right to correct quickly and firmly, as will I. But how does a school academic standard change his world view? It needs to come from the parents. Whether MT is at 15% or 25% is not going to alter a child's perception of the language.

[sunflower]

tamarind:

I am just curious about all these complains that Chinese is a rote learning subject. Anyone of us had Chinese teachers that make us memorize the textbook ?


In fact, I remember that our Chinese textbooks contain interesting stories, and all we had to do is to read and learn the new words. There is no need to memorize the stories. It is similar to the Stellar program now. I looked at the primary school textbooks kids are using now, they are still using Chinese stories to teach.

The only thing we had to practice is Ting Xie, and this is definitely not more than English Spelling. Lots of kids need to spend a lot of time memorizing English spelling also, then English is also a rote learning subject, why no one complains ?

Just to address your query regarding memorising textbooks. I know during my time, Chinese schools (not sure if it's all the Chinese schools) require students to memorise passages or even the whole 课文 from the textbook (ie. 默写). I think most English schools just have 听写, maybe some practise 默写 too.

I myself disliked English spelling because I basically rote learnt how to spell as we weren't taught phonics. In addition, I had this fierce teacher in P3 who would hit our hands with a long wooden ruler if we didn't do well for spelling. I actually witnessed such cases where the girls closed their eyes and cringed when they were being hit. Hence, English lessons were basically terrifying and not interesting at all! On the other hand, most of my Chinese teachers were kind and friendly.

Other than conducive home environment, I feel that the teachers we encountered during our formative years had great influence and shaped our attitudes towards learning certain languages (and for that matter, other subjects as well).

[Way2GO]

3Boys:

But how does a school academic standard change his world view? It needs to come from the parents. Whether MT is at 15% or 25% is not going to alter a child's perception of the language.

1. I think he is too young to have a world view.
The language issue has to be tackled when they are young.
The general consensus is that learning a 2nd language gets more difficult with age.
He needs to acquire a good handle on the language now to access the culture part if he has the interest.
The identity part comes visiting at some point in all our lives, doesn't it?


2. PSLE is a placement exam; so the same standard must apply to all for it to be fair and valid.
I firmly believe that a reduction of MT weightage will de-emphasize the importance of learning of MT, especially if the focus is on PSLE results.
Despite what MOE proclaims about maintaining its importance in schools,
this action will inevitably result in a re-allocation of time and resources on MT by students, schools and administrators?
Is this the aim and is this what we want?

[tankee]

IMHO


MOE should spend the time & effort in exploring ways to make learning Chinese more interesting.

While English teaching methods has changed and improved over the years, the same cannot be said about Chinese teaching methods.

I do not know about other MT languages thus can’t comment.

[gajidouma]

8 years ago, when my hubbie was working in Canada, holding Canadian PR, when came to the big decision of where to settle down for our new family, we chose Singapore over CA in the end. Why? coz we came to agreement that we wanted our future kids to be truly and effectively bilingual…


so you see, there are people leaving the country using that as lame excuse…but we also win small "potatoes" over who are far-sighted (hahaha, feel good praising myself) or attract some Big ‘ Potatoes" like Mr. Roggers.

Until now, I still believe it is rumor that LKY would ever make such comments along the line as "bilingual policy is a mistake" as I read from some online forum thread.

It is not about how many % they cut, it is the act of cutting itself not only sends the wrong message, undermining the importance of MT but offers no cure, only adding confusions as I see it.

What do you call this? barking up the wrong tree? 缘木求鱼？

So please, no more Z-Turns… 别折腾了。