My previous post got locked for some reason. Is my stand
displeasing to the moderators of this forum? In any case, I'm going
to post it here again and let's see what happens:
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.
My apologies for that thread being locked, as my moderators have
probably forgotten to remind you all to keep similar topics into
one thread.
And i emphasize this once again here.
Meanwhile, please feel free to express your opinions about this
issue over here. Any other thread regardings this issue will be
locked.
Thanks