**********************

Frances Weightman MA PhD

Dept of East Asian Studies

University of Leeds

Leeds LS2 9JT

0113-343 3560

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

------------------------------------------------