Thanks for this, Frances. As Schools Liaison Officer for the British 
Association for Chinese Studies (BACS), I too would appreciate any 
feedback/ideas on how to increase dialogue between HE and the secondary 
schools. I think it is time there was a lot more. Dominic Regester from 
the British Council has just joined the BACS Council too, so now there 
are 2 of us with schools' interests on the Council, it should be 
possible to represent your views and ideas. Please let us have them via 
the forum.

Katharine

In message <[log in to unmask]>, 
Frances Weightman <[log in to unmask]> writes
>Many thanks to Oliver for those comments, and particularly the banding
>statistics, which I will pass around our department here at Leeds (and
>indeed for the whole debate on Chinese assessment in schools, which I
>have been following with great interest).
>
> 
>
>Just a minor amendment for reference for anyone with pupils who may be
>considering further study at university: at Leeds we do accept people with
>some background in Chinese too ? it is possible to skip the first semester,
>or sometimes more, of our programmes. We may revisit some of our
>structures in the near future.
>
> 
>
>Native Chinese speakers who can read or write Chinese we don?t accept
>on the language programme (we always have some Cantonese speakers
>without reading skills though). Whether this is discrimination or not is
>debatable. We could in principle allow a Chinese native speaker student to
>take a BA in Chinese, but would it necessarily be in his/her best
>interests? Yes, it may be much easier for him/her to get the degree, but in
>practice it will not prove nearly as valuable when looking for work as for an
>English native speaker.
>
> 
>
>Whatever the answer, we certainly do need to increase dialogue between
>secondary schools and HE and I would appreciate any
>comments/suggestions from this list as to how universities could improve
>provision and better continue the great work you are doing at school level.
>
> 
>
>All the best
>
>Frances
>
> 
>
>**********************
>
>Frances Weightman MA PhD
>
>Dept of East Asian Studies
>
>University of Leeds
>
>Leeds LS2 9JT
>
>0113-343 3560
>
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mandarin Chinese Teaching
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>Of Oliver Kramer
>Sent: 27 September 2005 16:30
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: GCSE Chinese
>
> 
>
>Dear all,
>
> 
>
>I have been very encouraged by the discussion on this forum. This is just
>what is needed. I have been teaching Chinese at Eton College for nine
>years, for the last six years full-time. Please allow me some observations
>(and forgive the length of these ramblings):
>
> 
>
>The GCSE exam and syllabus are actually quite good. The redesign some
>three years ago was very successful and has made Chinese at this level
>just about accessible to non-native speakers. Even the marking of the
>writing paper (though harsh, not unfair) has got into line, more or less, with
>the marking of the other papers. Perhaps the weighing of the last and
>most difficult question, where 20% of the marks in the listening and
>reading papers are on offer, is too heavy, not least as the difference
>between grades is so small. This brings me to the chief worry: the grading
>band remains the biggest problem, as it does not even begin to reflect the
>differences in ability of non-native speakers but instead tries to distinguish
>between ability levels of native speakers. Compare this year's Chinese
>GCSE with those of the last years (I don't have the figures for 2004 but
>they are similar to those of this year):
>
> 
>
>2001 A* 92, A 82, B 70, C 59, D 50, E 41, F 32, G 23
>
>2002 A* 94, A 83, B 71, C 60, D 51, E 42, F 34, G 26
>
>2003 A* 89, A 79, B 69, C 60, D 50, E 41, F 32, G 23
>
>2005 A* 88, A 79, B 70, C 61, D 51, E 41, F 32, G 23
>
> 
>
>It is clear that the ludicrously high standard demanded for a starred A has
>declined slightly over the years, but equally that from B downwards it
>remains as competitive as ever. Now compare these figures with those for
>Japanese GSCE:
>
> 
>
>2005 A* 76, A 66, B 56, C 46, D 37, E 29, F 21, G 13
>
> 
>
>I would like anyone from Edexcel to justify the double standard applied
>here.
>
> 
>
>Things are getting worse when we look at what follows. What do you tell a
>successful GCSE pupil, perhaps in year 10? That there is no further exam
>on offer which he or she is likely to pass, never mind achieve reasonable 
>grades. Their career as Sinologist is over, or at least on hold for several
>years before they can continue it at university level. More likely, they will
>drop out and discontinue their Chinese studies, perhaps retaining as a
>party trick the ability to count to ten.
>
> 
>
>I have in front of me a (remarked) AS paper by a native speaker, which
>makes me weep. Without a single spelling mistake or grammatical error,
>he was deducted 20% of the marks for quality of language, which
>represents 5% of the marks available overall. As a non-native speaker
>myself, with only a BA, MSc and PhD in the subject, I cannot even dream
>of achieving this student's proficiency in writing. Needless to say, he also
>gained 5 As in his other A levels, but only a B in his native language. This
>is not an isolated case, this has been true for all of the students I have
>entered in the last four years. Again, comparing their marks with those of
>French, German or Japanese pupils, the difference in marking is
>staggering. Furthermore, the marking is very inconsistent: I had all three of
>my A2 candidates' papers remarked, and they were upgraded by 16, 17,
>and 20 UMS respectively: that can hardly be explained as the correction of
>a few oversights. I have now dropped A2 classes this year and we will not
>offer it to any of our students. Partially, because those who could do it
>don't need it, and partially because those who do it drop a grade
>needlessly.  
>
> 
>
>I would like to stress that this is not the fault of the syllabuses. The AS
>and A2 syllabus are both teachable, even though the topics remain
>somewhat vague and unspecified. The papers differ widely from those of
>French in structure as well as content, so the excuse "it should be like
>French" does not really apply. The translation exercises are very hard, but
>then, so are the Japanese translations. 
>
> 
>
>Chinese GCSE is only the beginning of a much larger issue, Chinese
>teaching at all levels need urgent overhaul in this country. At the moment,
>we are faced with the curious situation that at secondary level the
>syllabuses are geared towards native speakers, from AS onwards to the
>exclusion of non-native speakers, even excluding native speakers who are
>not also fully bi-literal. At tertiary level, students with GCSE or better are
>discriminated against: none of the English universities accept native
>speakers at all (and with Edinburgh as the only Scottish department for
>Chinese, the same applies), and admission offices automatically assume
>that a successful GCSE exam can only be achieved by a native speaker.
>However, there is hope. SOAS has recently made a concession to those
>who have acquired some Chinese at secondary school: there exists a
>beginners' class for those with knowledge of up to 500 characters
>(probably equivalent to a C or lucky B at GCSE). Of course, Chinese
>departments' core clientele is students who need to be taught ab initio,
>though some elitism ("we know how to teach best") may also play a role.
>
> 
>
>I don't think Asset languages are an alternative, they are only a pre-GCSE
>exercise. The IGCSE is harder than the GCSE. HSK level 3 (that is, a
>successful mark in the entry-level exam) is about comparable with GCSE
>at A* level, but at least has the honesty to admit that it is only for native
>speakers. In order to be successfully anchored into the timetable at 
>schools throughout the country, a viable Chinese GCSE, AS and A2 exam
>needs to exist. Then universities will pick up on the quality of applicants
>and readjust their courses accordingly, perhaps not at Oxford where they
>still believe their students learn Chinese by osmosis instead of sending
>them to China for a year minimum, but certainly at less conservative
>institutions such as SOAS. 
>
> 
>
>There is huge, huge demand for Chinese. My beginners' classes have 47 
>pupils, there are 38 in my second year (GCSE) classes. More and more 
>schools are beginning to introduce Chinese, even at prep-school level (and
>some of the pupils I have received from these prep-schools are very well
>trained). In the state sector, I fear, there is a tendency to introduce 
>Chinese as "taster courses" or "lunchtime clubs" or such like, not taking it
>as seriously as a subject than it deserves to be, and not employing
>Chinese teachers full-time or as equals to their colleagues. The private
>sector, on the other hand, seems to be more reluctant to introduce
>Chinese in the first place but does so with more commitment when it
>comes to it.
>
> 
>
>At university level, we now have two institutions offering Chinese PGCE
>(Sheffield Uni and Goldsmith). At the moment, their graduates are finding
>jobs, but how many of their candidates will be able to secure full-time jobs
>in the future, and for how long can a PGCE course be justified without a
>job market to support it?
>
> 
>
>Someone has to fill the demand for Chinese. Good work is done by the
>British Council and other organisations and we see the beginning of a
>lobbying system. The Chinese government, spearheaded by the Confucius
>Institute, is attempting to introduce a standard of Chinese teaching in this
>country. They offer money, qualified teaching, and, in time, a reasonable
>syllabus. But this means that the English exam boards will have effectively
>given up their sovereignty: syllabuses, appointments of teachers, exams
>will all be set by Beijing. It is high time for exam boards to wake up.
>
> 
>
>Yours sincerely,
>
> 
>
>Oliver Kramer
>
> 
>
>------------------------------------------------
>
>Dr H.O.Kramer
>
>Head of Chinese
>
>Eton College
>
>------------------------------------------------ 
>
>----------------------------------------
>
>This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may well
>also contain privileged or copyright information. You must not present this
>message to another party without permission from the sender. If you have
>received this message in error, we should be grateful if you would notify us
>immediately by reply e-mail and then delete the message from your sy
>stem. Please do not otherwise copy, distribute or use this e-mail or the
>information contained in it: to do so could be a breach of confidence. We
>do not guarantee that this material is free from viruses or any other defects
>although due care has been taken to minimize the risk. Any views
>expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except
>where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Eton College.

-- 

Katharine Carruthers
Brooke House
Ashdon Road, Saffron Walden
Essex, CB10 2AA