Parents! Show restrain!
-
I read with a heavy heart two ST forum pieces published on May 5, 2010 in support of cutting MT weighting at the primary level (“Cut it to focus on other subjects? Precisely” by Kenneth Kwok [http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum...y_522641.html] and “Examine why many families felt forced to migrate” by Jason Lu [http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/...y_522640.html]). Close reading of their viewpoints will show their arguments to be motivated by personal agendas that seek instant gratification, and to be lacking in foresight.
Mr Lu suggests that many families are migrating due to their children facing difficulties in coping with Chinese, and hence it is advisable for MT weighting to be cut. This proposal is absurd at best. Any responsible parents’ response to a child failing to cope with a subject would be to try all means to improve the child’s proficiency. It is inconceivable to try to coerce policy-makers into undercutting sound assessment policies just in order to create a false impression of academic excellence. Even if what Mr. Lu suggests turns out to be true, would we want to subvert a vital educational policy to retain citizens whose first reaction to hardship is to flee the country? Furthermore, in stating that “subjects like English and other vital character-moulding activities… have suffered because pupils have had to sacrifice the time for them in order to study Chinese”, Mr. Lu has revealed his scant regards for MT. It is little wonder, by Mr. Lu’s own admission, that his children detested the language from the very beginning. This is the root cause that has resulted in their poor performance despite much effort and time spent, not a fallacious perception of “unfair” weighting.
In the other article, Dr Kwok’s primary argument in support of cutting MT weighting hinges on two points. Firstly, that the emphasis on a bilingual education will produce “incomplete all-rounders” who are proficient in neither language. As a trained linguist with years of teaching experience, I can assure Dr. Kwok that the viability of a bilingual education is a well-researched domain and attested practice. Examples of successful bilingual educational policies where two or more languages are mandated as compulsory subjects are plentiful, especially in European countries. There are simply no scientific grounds to say that learning two languages will result in mastery of neither. But more speciously, Dr Kwok argues that de-emphasizing MT will allow for students to “specialize” in other subjects where they may have a “natural flair”. He further insinuates that such a move will then provide the “right emphasis”. What is the “right emphasis” according to Dr. Kwok? By the same argument, we can also cut the weighting of any other subject to allow focus on whatever the student’s “natural flair” dictates. Why then target only MT for a weighting cut? Perhaps unconsciously, Dr. Kwok has also exhibited the same less-than-altruistic tendencies of Mr. Lu.
At this juncture, I would like to call attention to a critical but yet untouched aspect of this discussion, namely that the focal object here is primary education which is first and foremost foundational education. Hence is why primary students learn Maths instead of algebra or calculus; Science instead of chemistry, physics or biology; English and MT instead of literature or cultural history. The goal of primary education is to provide the most basic of building blocks, so that all students will have the ability to pursue different domains of study on a firm footing, as well as the flexibility to undertake or switch different field of works later on in life. Arguably, this is the basis for holistic development and life-long learning. Given the foundational nature of primary education, equal weighting given to all four generic subjects is nothing less than essential. This, ironically opposed by Dr. Kwok, is exactly what has allowed “second language dropouts” to reconnect with the language when the need arises. Therefore I find the call to specialize, an often-used line of reasoning in this ensuing debate, to be highly misplaced at the early stages of a child’s education. There is also something to be said for emphasizing groundwork and standing firm in the face of personal inclinations.
The crux of the matter is, as so aptly pointed out by Mr. Lu, emotive in nature. While I understand and empathize with English-speaking families possibly such as Mr. Lu’s, I must also beseech them to be dispassionate and exercise impartiality, not only for the good of their children but also for future generations of Singaporeans. It bears to reiterate that upholding the bilingual policy is a cornerstone of Singapore’s global success. Cutting MT weighting at the primary level will lead to serious repercussions on all subsequent stages of education. Only when English-speaking parents show restrain in displaying Anglo-chauvinistic predisposition will their children really learn to appreciate their mother tongue, and eventually conquer this seemingly insurmountable obstacle. Rather than pointing fingers at all MT-related policies, perhaps its high time parents take a long hard look at how their own attitude maybe negatively affecting their children’s motivation to acquire MT. -
" It bears to reiterate that upholding the bilingual policy is a cornerstone of Singapore’s global success."
Really ? The cornerstone of GLOBAL success ?
Why ?
Is Chinese the ONLY language outside Singapore ?
Why not French/Italian/Russian/Spanish.. etc etc ?
Does the children has a CHOICE , other than our "mother tongue" ?
Can children who are instructed in a NARROW MINDED school system be GLOBALLY competitive ? No way.
So, really.. Parents are "fleeing" Singapore because they WANT their children to receive a more open and GLOBALLY viable education.
-
There are cheenas, there are babanas and there are cheenabananas.
The core of the debate thus is:
1. continue with mother-tongue educational policies and thus retain ties with the countries of our ancestors, and thus our cultural identities as Chinese, Malay or Indian; or
2. cut ties totally with countries of our ancestors and allow each individual the freedom of choice.
If we pick 2. , then Singapore will become a cultural desert, with each ethnic group knowing little about their own culture, language and heritage. The so-call "Singaporean culture" is yet a shallow rojak culture, for we are still an infant country. For now, we can only borrow from others, hence do we choose to borrow mainly from the west?
Throughout the whole of Asia, there isn't a country that advocates abandoning their mother-tongue education to embrace English and western culture completely. When most Asians are with their own countrymen, they speak their mother-tongues and do so with pride. Singaporeans, it seems are the only bunch of Asians that who speak English with one another. Some people think that's cool. Well, it isn't. That's my personal view.
China has much to learn from the west, likewise, the west has much to learn from China. A culture is never static, it constantly evolves. Being bilingual will enable us to understand the world from different perspectives, this is something that pure English-speaking Singaporeans may not fully realise as they only have access to the English medium. You cannot fully understand the Chinese if you do not understand their language.
Me, I am a cheenabanana
. I grew up on a diet of western literature. At the same time, I read Chinese newspapers and surf the Chinese websites regularly to keep myself updated on the cultural trends and events in mainland China. -
I wonder why these parents had to give in to their kid's inabilities. Shouldn't they be correcting this behavior by thinking of a better solution to guide their kids in MT? By cutting the weighting, we are only going to take 2 step backwards from that every step we have gone forward.
-
if your precious snowflake crotch dropping cannot make it here, what makes you think your precious snowflake crotch dropping can make it elsewhere?
or is it your precious snowflake crotch dropping could have made it here but you didn't have the courage or belief in your precious snowflake crotch dropping to stay here?
or is it your feelings of woeful inadequacy that caused you to use your precious snowflake crotch dropping as an excuse to run away from reality?
-
My dua sen on this is simple: just maintain the status quo.
I can understand that some people are simply not effectively billingual. However, I seriously don't understand why the solution to this problem is to reduce the weightage. Not everything can be solved by simply catering to the lowest common denominator.
After all, by cutting the weightage, isn't it being unfair to those who are actually good at being billingual? I think the better solution would be to give more support to those who are weak at being billingual than to dumb things down to cater for their lack of ability.
And we all know that some people are naturally weaker at the Sciences too - should we have to cater to their whims and fancies too?
As it is, Mother Tongue at the higher levels have already been 'dumbed down' over the past few years. For example, in my time GP had the same weightage as Mother Tongue for admission to uni. Now, all you need to do is to pass.
So for goodness' sake, just maintain the status quo at the lower levels.
-
Originally posted by fudgester:
My dua sen on this is simple: just maintain the status quo.
I can understand that some people are simply not effectively billingual. However, I seriously don't understand why the solution to this problem is to reduce the weightage. Not everything can be solved by simply catering to the lowest common denominator.
After all, by cutting the weightage, isn't it being unfair to those who are actually good at being billingual? I think the better solution would be to give more support to those who are weak at being billingual than to dumb things down to cater for their lack of ability.
And we all know that some people are naturally weaker at the Sciences too - should we have to cater to their whims and fancies too?
As it is, Mother Tongue at the higher levels have already been 'dumbed down' over the past few years. For example, in my time GP had the same weightage as Mother Tongue for admission to uni. Now, all you need to do is to pass.
So for goodness' sake, just maintain the status quo at the lower levels.
everyone gets straight-As but no one knows a thing
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
everyone gets straight-As but no one knows a thingIf some students have a lack of ability in some fields, the solution should be to provide more support to them in the areas that they are weak at. I seriously don't understand why standards should be cut across the board to cater to them.
So, yeah, there's really no point in lowering standards to make sure that everyone does well........ with the end result that no one really knows anything much.
-
If the pressure to learn chinese decreases in primary school, how can these students make it in secondary school or even in JC?
Foundation is always the most important and based on how the system goes, at the end of the day, singlish will only be the language they/we are good at.