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 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 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]
