VCAA changes to VCE Chinese

[Stick]

The small problem is that there would be plenty of students who would be willing to do badly in year 10 on purpose in order to gain an upper hand in years 11 and 12, when it actually counts.

This is an issue, but I'm hoping that there'd be some way of making this work. :S

[Professor Polonsky]

I am not disagreeing with you here; that's why I proposed another level of Chinese, as currently the gap between SL and SLA Chinese is ridiculous. This way, we would have appease both sides.

I can't see a fourth Chinese subject being created. This also does not solve the problem in other LOTE subjects with a sufficiently high proportion of native speakers to make them non-attractive to non-native speakers.

It sort of is, if you think about it. One of VCAA's solutions is to force ANYONE with a Chinese background, regardless of if their parents speak Chinese or not, to do SLA. That is literally discriminating on the basis of cultural background.

No, that's facially untrue. That option is simply not present in the discussion paper.

While I like your objective, it would complicate the calculations system and it is doubtful as to whether VCAA would adopt something like that. Also, how do you plan on assessing the "native speakers"? Am I correct in interpreting your plan to mean that someone deemed a native speaker but with only a mediocre level of proficiency or achievement, who put in the same effort as a non-native speaker to rise against their respective competition, would thus get a lower score in the end?

It's not too bad calculation-wise, and I don't really understand what you're trying to say there. There will be an arbitrary cutoff somewhere, sure, there has got to be that.

[lzxnl]

No, that's facially untrue. That option is simply not present in the discussion paper.

http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/vce/vceconsult/Strengthening_Chinese_language_provision_in_senior_secondary_schooling.pdf

Bottom of page 5
"regularly use the language for sustained communication outside the classroom,
including, but not limited to, the home."
Which covers many second-generation Chinese

I don't think I am being misinformed here

[Professor Polonsky]

Let's compare the two things you have said:

It sort of is, if you think about it. One of VCAA's solutions is to force ANYONE with a Chinese background, regardless of if their parents speak Chinese or not, to do SLA.

As opposed to

... regularly use the language for sustained communication outside the classroom, including, but not limited to, the home.

Those two things are miles apart. The former is racist. The latter is completely appropriate.

[lzxnl]

Miles apart? The latter is still effectively discriminating against someone on the basis of their background. Sure, it doesn't explicitly say so, but when you put it into practice? Who are the people that will be affected?
I admit, my former comment was overexaggerated, but I stand by my statement that this proposal is racist.

[Professor Polonsky]

Primary language used at home is one of the best way to distinguish between the true second language students, and the more advanced ones. I don't see the issue.

[SocialRhubarb]

I speak Chinese at home, and took Chinese SL in year 11. I imagine that if I had done Chinese SLA, though, I would have done much worse. The distinction between SL and SLA essentially recognises that some students, who perhaps attended Chinese speaking schools, had greater opportunity to learn a language than other students. The new suggested changes to the system are simply the same logic applied to two other groups, those with a background in Chinese, and those without a background, so I think the proposals definitely have some merit to them.

However, I don't know if it would be best to merely dump all the native speakers into SLA, as you're adding one level of distinction, but removing another which exists for a reason. The difference between an native SL student and an SLA is student is being able to have a conversation on the weather and being able to write an essay on global warming. Grouping them together would essentially give you the same sort of problem - a group of language students finding it difficult to compete with another group of students with greater opportunity to learn the language. I suppose that it would encourage non-native speakers to take up the language, and reward them more aptly for their efforts, but it seems to me that it will punish middle band of Chinese native speakers, who speak the language too well to do Chinese SL, but not well enough to do well in SLA. It seems to be discouraging people who can speak Chinese quite well from taking the subject.

I guess the other issue is that, if speaking Chinese at home puts you into a different category than others, would speaking English at home put you in a different category from those who don't? I know people who, from a young age, only spoke Chinese at home, and as a result had difficulty learning English. While they were immersed in an English-speaking school environment, many struggled with the subject well into high school, resulting from their lack of exposure to the language as children. Yet, many students from such backgrounds also go on to learn English very well, and as a result it would be very difficult and perhaps arbitrary to be streaming students based on their exposure to the language.

I think it comes down to encouraging non-native speakers to take Chinese. The changes to the system would make it perhaps more accessible to non-native students, while making it more difficult for some native speakers to compete, and as a native speaker, albeit one completely done with Chinese, it's always going to feel a bit unfair having the scales tipped against us, when it is already quite difficult to do well in Chinese SL. But at the same time, I can see that the overall aim of the change is to increase enrollment in the subject of Chinese, as it is likely to be a very useful skill in times ahead.

I'm actually divided on the issue, but if the changes actually do go ahead, I'll be glad I did Chinese in 2012, haha.

[appianway]

The message I get here is that just because the access to these opportunities is not equivalent means that the people with an opportunity to learn more ahead of school have to then be disadvantaged to be brought onto equal footing with others. My issue with my interpretation of what you said is that this does not promote accelerated learning at all, and stifles students' desires to learn outside of class.

Not everything is about vce.

I think people are forgetting part of the reward about being able to speak a language at home and having additional classes is the skill. And being able to speak Chinese at home has nothing to do with skill and everything to do with opportunity - my parents both only speak English, and if I'd had the opportunity to speak French or Indonesian at home to any level or to take extra classes from an early age, I would have loved it. Not everything is about the grade, but currently, VCE Chinese is so inaccessible to non-background speakers that something needs to be done.

This policy is important because:
1) Current students with a background are deterring other students from taking the class because:
i) The coursework is not appropriately adjusted for their background
ii) Students are ranked and if you don't come from a Chinese speaking background, had Chinese classes from a young age or haven't done an exchange, I honestly can't imagine you ever getting over 40 in VCE Chinese.
2) It's important that people learn Chinese and that we get people who might not have otherwise learned Chinese to take the language.

Also, I really don't buy your point about not promoting accelerated learning, because in theory, students who have a background are placed into a stream which is more appropriate for their abilities. Anyway, in terms of gaming the system, people who have a background are already competing with people who have none; even it this policy isn't 100% effective, it would be better than what's going on now.

[Russ]

So how about people who have attended Chinese School every weekend from prep to Yr 12? How is it fair they are not permitted to enrol in CSL and instead are forced to do SLA?

Also, as I have emphasised many times already, how will VCAA measure 'competence' in a language?

So you think it's unfair that somebody who's spent 12 years studying a language is required to enrol into a higher stream?

As has been mentioned, the ideal method is competency testing but in the absence of that, using time spend studying or speaking the language seems like a reasonable proxy. And it is not racist, I'm not sure how anybody could actually think that

[Tasmania Jones]

So you think it's unfair that somebody who's spent 12 years studying a language is required to enrol into a higher stream?

As has been mentioned, the ideal method is competency testing but in the absence of that, using time spend studying or speaking the language seems like a reasonable proxy. And it is not racist, I'm not sure how anybody could actually think that

No, I think it is unfair that a student who has spent 12 years studying a language would be disadvantaged by being forced to enrol in a higher stream and competing with people who should be in the higher stream simply because they have worked harder than others studying the language. It is like saying, "Oh you've spent x time more than other people studying the language, you're going to have to do SLA". No other subject allows/denies enrolment based on ability. Good maths students are forbidden from doing Further. Why should this be any different?

If the higher stream (SLA) marks and scaling were adjusted to give extra credit that balances any
advantage of doing the lower stream, then that would be a fairer solution though.

Speaking the language at home is difficult to prove/disprove by VCAA, and if they started looking at
parents' birth certificates or country of birth to decide whether or not to allow enrolment in a subject then that is racist.

EDIT: makes more sense now

[brightsky]

No, that's facially untrue.

sorry, couldn't help myself. xD

[Professor Polonsky]

sorry, couldn't help myself. xD

facially = on its face.

No typo there.

[appianway]

Taking 12 years of Chinese has no bearing on your personality, as I'm pretty sure that most people who start taking Chinese classes in prep are signed up by their parents. So I don't see it as something to be rewarded - you're rewarded by learning the language and developing the skill, but you shouldn't be taking classes with people who've been learning the language for four years.

[Stick]

I'm not going to chime in too much more, but this discussion is starting to take on the flavour of "Look at me I'm so special I'm really good at Chinese and I want my chance to shine like a little star and make my mummy proud so don't penalise me." I know many of you have a personal investment in this, but for the sake of the rest of us, please be tactful in your opinion.

[lzxnl]

Stick, this doesn't affect just people at the top end of SL. This affects people who would be branded as "Chinese speakers" just because they use Chinese at home, but have a very basic knowledge of Chinese (I know lots of people like this). Now, under VCAA's proposal, these students, who may want to learn Chinese as part of their heritage, would be discouraged from doing so because they're forced into competition with people who actually do have a large advantage in Chinese.

And please do not use that tone here. It's an insult to quite a fair proportion to the Chinese student population.
Is it really fair, then, that by VCAA's proposal students aren't rewarded for ability in a subject, even if it did come due to a family background? I agree, the current system does not work and does need to be improved; I just feel VCAA's suggestions make VCE Chinese bad for Chinese students. Although it could be argued that VCE Chinese is primarily designed to increase the number of second language students, it must not be forgotten that deterring students from Chinese background to do VCE Chinese doesn't feel right either.