Dear All

Thanks for your input Mary.

Please keep the views coming in. I will collate them all at the end of 
next week and then we can discuss how you all want to take things 
further.

Best wishes
Katharine

In message <[log in to unmask]>, 
Mary Wood <[log in to unmask]> writes
>Hooray.  Couldn't agree more.  We had over 70 pupils choosing to learn
>Chinese after school last year at Bedford School.  The demand is huge. 
>The only pupils to emerge with anything more than a Beginners' certificate
>so far however (other than native speakers) were 4 boys who successfully
>incorporated Chinese as part of their IB diploma.  The rest study on,
>achieve quite reasonable skills in many cases, but don't sit the GCSE.
>I have now moved schools to St Bart's in Newbury, which is a large
>comprehensive.  I am planning to introduce Chinese but quite how we do it
>will depend to a large extent on the outcome of this lobbying.  I am not
>prepared to bring it onto the mainstream timetable until pupils have a
>chance of fair grades and the prospect of an achievable AS/A2 exam. 
>Otherwise it will back to after-school teaching for those who have the
>interest/money to take this option.
> 
>Mary
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Oliver Kramer <[log in to unmask]>
>  To: [log in to unmask]
>  Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:30:10 +0100
>  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 an
>  chored 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 stude
>  nts 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 system. 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.
>
>  This message has been sent through the Bedford School email Server.
>  The views expressed are the views of the individual sending the
>  message and not necessarily the views of the School.
>  Any misuse should be reported to [log in to unmask]

-- 

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