Education and Employment: Some random thoughts

I'm doing some agriculture research lately and was reminded of a case study undertaken to probe on the counts, causes, and correlates of poverty in the poor country of Lesotho. But the salient point that struck me was this - while most women in the sample has had some access to education, their subsequent qualification was irrelevant when they want to get into the job market. For example, a case study of 3 women who initially received weaving training were subsequently forced to work in a farm as labourers as the cooperative venture plan to start a textile company failed due to the lack of mangerial capabilities.

While there is definitely more to education than just producing 'commodities' for the job market, we cannot deny the importance of integrating education to the needs of the market, especially in a developing country context. In Malaysia, industrialization has continued to dictate the shape and direction of our human capital formation. The bottleneck in skilled workers in science and technology has often been cited as an impediment to further technological upgrading in the industrial sector. In a paper by Henderson and Phillips, Malaysia only has 0.13% of its population as tertiary science and engineering students in 1998, the lowest compared to its NIE and ASEAN counterparts. Yet, we continue to hear stories of our science and engineering graduates going into sales or unrelated fields in droves.

What is wrong? I think someone should start compiling the profiles of our local graduates to analyze and further improve the education-employment integration in Malaysia. Or is someone already doing it?

Read More...

Childcare Services

Is childcare services related to pre-school education? It seems more than a coincidence that a few days ago, the Minister of Education talked about pre-school and, now, the Deputy Minister of Women, Family and Community is talking about childcare services.

Although both issues seem unrelated, but in reality, both politicians are commenting on the exact same issue. Simply, the connection lies in private pre-school centres are also childcare services. They are 2-in-1. It is a trend, especially in urban areas, that these childcare centres also provide pre-school education.

Therefore, on the one hand, the Minister of Education suggested absorbing pre-school into the national education, citing the improvement of English as the reason to do so; on the other hand, the Deputy Minister of Women, Family and Community is commenting about the different by-laws and regulation under different local authorities to administer and monitor childcare centres.

This is one sector of education that has a large proportion of private initiatives. In addition, pre-school education also involves at least three Federal ministries and other local authorities. So far, politicians in the two major ministries have proposed some changes and highlighted some problems. It seems to me, the Federal government is "eyeing" to "adopt" pre-school education fully into their jurisdiction.

However, the rationale and objective behind such a policy remain to be seen.

Read More...

Absorbing preschools?

MoE has announced its intention of ‘absorbing preschools into the national education system’, citing the improvement of English as the reason to do so.

To realize that education does not begin in schools (nor end in universities) is definitely a welcomed development but there are some lingering questions surrounding the latest decision.

Is this decision another reactionary gimmick by the government to appease critics of the recent PPSMI reversal that are concerned about the deteriorating level of English among Malaysian students? If not why let the improvement of English be the sole motivation behind the ‘absorption’ of preschools when the development of a child includes cognitive, emotive, and behavioral dimensions?

Also, what does it mean to ‘absorb preschools into the national education system’ when the Education Ministry secretary-general Tan Sri Dr Zulkurnain Awang was also quoted as saying that “The children need not necessarily attend the pre-school classes run by the ministry as there are private ones too.”

Does it mean that there will be government-run preschools alongside private ones? If so what exactly is being ‘absorbed’ into the national education system? Or does it mean that a standardized curriculum will be imposed on all preschools (with heavy emphasis on improving English)? Or preschools will be made mandatory for children of a certain age? Should it be made mandatory at all? What are the implications of all these on the present private preschools which are said to be flourishing?

I welcome this announcement if it is to generate public debate on the matter. But experience tells us that such announcement is usually done to silent critics and gain political mileage, without genuine consultation with the important players. It reeks of the government’s stench of prototyping children and their development, and demonstrates its orientation of formalizing everything that works into a standardized formula.

Perhaps the ministry might want to look into how it can best complement the existing system that works and invite more parties for roundtable discussions before jumping into another ambiguous policy decision that has grave ramifications for the future of our children.

In any case, throwing out safety floats piecemeal will not save a sinking ship. What is needed is a coherent and integrated education system from preschools to tertiary education that addresses the needs of a young nation. Only then the ship sails on… and sails with pride…

Read More...

University Branding

A recent article in the Times Higher Education discuss about university branding. I shall quickly list the advantages as well as criticisms discussed in the article:

The advantages:
1) Branding is essential for telling the world what a university stands for and values
2) Brands exist wherever there is a competition, they help people to choose
3) Branding provides a consistent point of contact throughout the whole process
4) Brand is the sum total of ideas, emotions and associations attached to a given institution; branding is the effective expression and management of them
5) Branding is about communication

The criticisms:
1) Branding is unethical because it is intrinsically deceptive, either superficial spin or hollow deception
2) Branding is wasteful indulgence, squandering resources better invested in the core business of learning and research
3) Branding is alien to the culture of higher education
4) Branding is merely cosmetic
5) Universities have reputation, and so have no need for brands

Now, take a moment to ponder, "Do Malaysian universities have branding?"

If yes, what are our brands? Are they portraying and communicating the right values about the institution?

If no, should we have one? What sort of branding should be "the ideal" brand for Malaysian universities, both public and private?

Read More...

Aims of Education

What are educational aims? What are the characteristics of a good educational aim?

According to John Dewey, the aim of education is to enable individuals to continue their education. He argues that an aim relates to results that implies an orderly and ordered sequence of activities. The results must be foreseeable and played a role in giving direction to the activities to reach the end. In other words, aim is a means of action.

More importantly, Dewey emphasises that educational aims should not be imposed externally. He argues that externally imposed aims are fixed and rigid, and they are not stimulus to intelligent, but merely dictating order to accomplish tasks. It was said that these externally imposed aims are responsible for the emphasis put upon the notion of preparation for a remote future and for rendering the work of both teacher and pupil mechanical and slavish.

Hence, do we have educational aims in Malaysian education system? (I guess schooling might be more appropriate word to substitute education). Almost the entire education system is externally dictated and without the flexiblity that enables individuals to be schooled at their own pace. It seems to me that the "aim" of the education system is strictly preparing students to sit for the various examinations, in which the results then indicate and reflect the "education" received.

This rigidity of educational aims is further complemented with the highly-structured curriculum, where teachers are expected to "deliver" to the pupils. Education is not about delivery, it is about educating. A Professor of Philosophy of Education that I knew, was extremely critical about this, where he argues that "deliver" or "delivery" are mechanical processes, like postman delivering letters, and education can never be delivered.

Therefore, the highly-structurised curriculum and examination-oriented education system, has not only restricts the flexibility of the teachers to teach, but indeed encourages the "delivery of education". I can't help but felt puzzled, "Where are the educational aims in the Malaysian education system?" or rather "Are there educational aims in Malaysian schooling system?"

Read More...

Stop banning UM students from driving to campus

This is a letter written by my brother who is currently an undergraduate in UM. It speaks volume abt the campus environment of our supposedly premier university:

I am a second year student in Universiti Malaya. I am writing this to express my discontent over a prevailing issue with the university. I would narrate a recent experience to emphasise my point.

On Sunday evening, I was pulled over by the security guard at the Kuala Lumpur gate. I was told by the guard rudely that if I wanted to go to Petaling Jaya, I'd have to take a big round instead of passing through UM; even if I'm a student of the university.

Right up to here, everything seems fine and the guard seems perfectly justified. But what I'm puzzled over is how random and inconsistent these security checks are. I understand perfectly that 1st and 2nd year students are not allowed to bring their vehicles into campus in order to reduce the traffic.

However, this was never implemented with consistency and most of the time, everyone is allowed to pass through UM without as much as a question. The enactment of this policy was a wrong move to begin with; what more the failed implementation.

The UM adminstration should understand that they do not have enough places in their residential colleges for everyone to stay in campus. That is why three quarter of 2nd and 3rd year students have to live outside.

And not all students staying outside of campus have direct access to public transport to get to class. And so, some of these students enjoy the privilege of having their own cars as a mean of transport. However, now we face another problem.

If we're not allowed to bring our cars into the campus, how are we supposed to get to class? What with the high food and lodging costs of staying outside, now we have to take a taxi to the nearest bus or LRT station every single day to get to UM just because we're not allowed to bring our cars into campus even though we have one?

I strongly believe that the administration should have thought of this before enacting and implementing ineffective and half the time, inactive policies as such. And because of the inconsistency of the policy's implementation, students are often confused about the legitimacy of bringing their vehicles into campus. But we still do it anyway out of desperation, and most of the time, we do get away with it.

What I suggest here is the eradication of this policy so that students are no longer stopped randomly just because the security guard at the gate feels like it on that particular day or the security guard on shift is a hardworking one who doesn't slack in upholding the institution's policies.

I believe that UM students, most of the time with the only intent of attending lectures (even for the purpose of bypassing traffic), should be allowed to bring their vehicles into campus and utilise its roads.

With that in light, I also question UM's policy concerning the public's use of its gates. Is the public allowed to use the roads in UM or only people who have serious business in UM? I think everyone can agree that every day, a great number of road users utilise the compounds of UM to pass from PJ to KL or vice versa in order to avoid the traffic in Federal Highway.

But these people were never stopped; almost all time. Why weren't these people stopped by the security guard at the gate? Why wasn't the man driving a Mercedes Benz stopped while I, a student of UM, was stopped and questioned rudely like a criminal?

People with nice, collared shirt driving big, expensive cars are allowed to pass from KL to PJ through UM grounds while trendy-looking youths driving economical Peroduas have to be questioned and let through with a warning never to use the road again. Isn't this a display of double standards at its highest?

Therefore, I hope that the administration come up with a clear policy with effective implementation on these two issues: UM students bringing their vehicles into the campus and utilising its roads, and the public use of UM's roads.

One, either you stop and question every single person entering UM, allowing students or those with business in UM to pass through, or two, you open the roads for public use.

I believe the former would be a crazy idea to even be considered as we already have a major traffic jam at both the KL and PJ gates during peak hours in the evening. I hope that this seemingly little but important issue is brought to the attention of people who have the power to do something about it and resolved as soon as possible.

Read More...

Education and society

Although we often use education and schools interchangeably, it must be remembered that education is a wider concept than the schools. In ancient Greece, people learned through Socratic dialogues in the Agora or the market-place. In medieval times, the Church helmed the role as the main proviso of religious and moral instructions. Education can take place within the schools but also without it.

In modern times, students spend a great amount of time in schools; perhaps on an average of 7 formal schooling hours a day in Malaysia. However, it does not preclude the fact that a great deal remaining is still spent outside of schools. And quite often, it is what takes place outside the schools which shapes the intellectual and moral character of our youths.

Perhaps it is not very constructive to over-attribute to PPSMI per se, or its absence, the debilitating state-of-affairs of English in our schools. Our ability to grasp and master a language depends a great deal on whether we actually make the effort to use the language in our daily lives, outside of formal schooling hours.

Most of the time, teachers failed to improve the standard of English of their students even though the subject was well taught and delivered simply because students retreat to their own language enclaves after school. They prefer to stick around friends of cultural familiarity and wax lyrical with those who can spew the same lingo, jargon and accent. They never take the trouble to read in English or blog in a language they are not too comfortable with.

Therefore, the English dilemma is not entirely independent of the issue of racial polarization in Malaysia. What is the point of employing the best English teachers in our schools if our wider social policies have fostered a culture of racial and language enclaves which do not encourage our youths to mix around but instead subject them to an environment of suspicion, fear and distrust? Does it really matter if Mathematics and Science is taught in English or BM if it merely reinforces our prejudice of the group that uses the other language?

What about the role of the family in the entire scheme of things? Parents play a vital role in nurturing their children, following-up what they have learned in schools, and complimenting the teachers in shaping children’s moral outlook and holistic paradigm of life. The better endowed can opt for homeschooling which requires a lot of commitment and responsibilities on the part of the parents.

Less than equitable economic policies coupled with the lack of union rights for employees to fight for better labour conditions have made both urban and rural living more difficult. Urban families almost cannot do without dual income sources these days to support a small family and parents have to work till ungodly hours to make ends meet. Yet, we applaud new liberalisation measures that privileged MNCs so unconditionally, without realizing the social impact it has on our children’s upbringing and education in the wider sense of the word.

In an age of digital information systems, we want our schools to accelerate the teaching of Mathematics, Science and Technology, but it slipped our mind that the internet is a double-edged sword. Schools can impart the skills and tools necessary to be ICT-literate, but it defeats the purpose when our youths excessively while their time away counter-striking virtual enemies, or surf pornographic sites instead of accessing the vast amount of illustrious literature available online. The lack of parental attention and nurturing is definitely not helping the matter.

Albert Einstein, who was a school drop-out himself, once said, ‘It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education’. Indeed, schools cannot be the be-all and end-all of education. In fact, schools can stifle and stunt the development of young minds. Good education, at the end of the day, must be understood within the context of a good society. Until then, our politicians and leaders bickering over PPSMI only continue to demonstrate their hypocrisy in championing for policies that are not cordial to the development of a good society.

Read More...

Pendemokrasian Bahasa, Sastera Demokrasi dan Falsafah Pendidikan

Kerap kali sebab yang digunakan untuk menjustifikasikan pengunaan jenis bahasa adalah kebolehan seseorang itu untuk menguasai sesuatu bahasa itu. Dalam hal ini bahasa yang selalunya dipakai dipilih daripada jenis yang dekat dengan individu itu atau yang lahir daripada kebudayaannya atau identitinya.

Dilihat perbahasan tentang PPSMI baru-baru ini etnik masing-masing pada dasarnya atau sekurang-kurang daripada luarannya perjuangkan untuk menggunakan bahasa yang berasal daripada identiti dan budaya masaing-masing, dengan MCA bahasa Cina dan UMNO bahasa melayu serta MIC Tamil.

Ini mungkin mempunyai kemunasabahannya tetapi harus difikir dengan kritis tujuan dan akibat daripada dasar-dasar sebegini.

Sesuatu bahasa itu tanpa ruang demokrasi tidak akan berkembang. Asas, kreativiti dan gaya sesuatu bahasa itu amat berkait rapat sekali dengan nilai demokrasi. Sekiranya sesuatu bahasa itu tidak dapat meluahkan nilai-nilai moral, estetika, sastera, etika, falsafah, dan akal fikiran, keberangkaliannya dinamika bahasa itu telah dibantutkan oleh korupsi kuasa dan pengecilan ruang demokrasi.

Dalam konteks Malaysia ini, ruang demokrasi ini dimonopoli dan diperkecilkan oleh kerajaan. Ruang wacana dan ruang demokrasi dibunuh dan dirogol kumpulan UMNO-Barisan Nasional. Jadi tidak hairan sekiranya bahasa melayu, cina dan tamil bukan sahaja tidak meluahkan nilai-nilai yang telah disebut di atas tetapi juga dikongkong tatabahasanya kerana keperluan untuk mematikan perbahasan intelektual dan pemikiran kritikal. Ini semestinya penting untuk mengekalkan pemerintahan kerajaan.

Bahasa yang dikongkong dan dikawal kemudiannya digunakan untuk mengajar anak-anak muda, murid-murid dan pelajar diseluruh Malaysia. Semestinya akan gagal untuk membuka minda dan melahirkan individu yang kritikal.

Sains dan matematik tidak seharusnya dilihat sebagai sains dan matematik sahaja.

Sains merupakan manifestasi penggunaan rasional dan akal fikiran untuk menjelaskan fenomena yang berada diluar metafisika, ontologi, theology dan epistemologi. Ia mengerakkan kemajuan dan perkembangan tamadun manusia dengan membolehkan manusia memahami serta menguasai dunia fizikal. Satu daripada cabang falsafah yang juga dikenali sebagai sains semula jadi atau ‘the natural sciences’.

Matematik merupakan manifestasi pemikiran logik dan teori yang diilhamkan dalam minda manusia.

Tanpa kedua-kedua ini, manusia tidak akan wujud kerana tiada idea, tiada akal, dan tiada rasional. ‘I think therefore I am’.

Selagi ruang demokrasi tidak dibuka, bahasa yang digunakan itu akan melahirkan anak muda yang tiada idea, akal dan rasional kerana fungsi bahasa dalam ruang yang tidak demokratik adalah bertujuan untuk melahirkan golongan pasif.

Bahasa yang difahami dan sinonim dengan budaya dan identiti sesuatu golongan adalah lebih baik lagi kerana proses pembodohan akan berlaku dengan lebih cepat dan senang. Pelajar-pelajar akan memahami kebodohan dan bertindak bodoh dengan lebih jelas dan tepat.

Bahasa melayu untuk perbodohkan orang melayu.

Bahasa cina untuk perbodohkan orang cina.

Bahasa tamil untuk perbodohkan orang india.

Bahasa yang sepatutnya dikembalikan dan dipelajari dahulu adalah sastera demokrasi. Tanpanya, bahasa, terutama bahasa yang sangat difahami oleh etnik masing-masing, hanya merupakan alat untuk perbodohkan rakyat Malaysia.

Pembebasan minda atau ‘liberation of the mind’ adalah konsep asas falsafah pendidikan. Dapatkah ini dicapai dengan bahasa melayu, bahasa cina dan bahasa tamil tanpa demokrasi?

Read More...

What is next after PPSMI?

The fiasco about Teaching Science and Mathematics in English (TSME, or perhaps more appropriate now to be called PPSMI) is finally over. Although opinions in the country remained divided over this issue, nonetheless, it is highly unlikely that a flip-flop will happen and it is safe to infer that TSME is now a part of history. So what is next for the Malaysian education system?

Certainly, from this recent fiasco, it is heartening to see the Minister of Education publicly recognising our weakness in the proficiency of the English Language. Is the government really serious about improving the English language, or merely, just to divert the criticisms of reverting TSME? Anyway, giving politicians the benefit of doubt, I shall presume that this is a genuine effort to tackle the problem.

As this is a long article, I will summarise it here for those who reads "efficiently":
First half - just critically "dissecting" some proposals;
Second half - constructively discussing other proposals.

The Minister of Education has outlined some proposals strengthen the learning and teaching of English language in schools. Among those initiatives were increasing time allocation for English, setting up laboratories for English, grammar will be emphasised, introducing the Contemporary English Literature Programme For Children (CELPFC), having English Day and summer camp during holidays. Are these initiatives going to improve our English proficiency?

First and foremost, grammar is always been part of the English curriculum. How are we going to "emphasised"? Doing more grammar exercise of filling-in the blanks? Shamefully, I am a living testimony that 13-years of grammar exercise and scoring distinction in all public exams, do not equate to having proper grammar knowledge. I'm sure one can easily identify this weakness in my writings.

Second, English Day has always been part of the school's calendar. My school used to have English Week, but my English proficiency remains terrible. What's more with just a day.

Third, what is the different between CELPFC and the current literature component in the secondary school English curriculum?

Fourth, I am terribly surprised by the idea of setting up laboratories for English. How is the laboratory going to improve English proficiency? The Language Laboratory in the University of Oxford Language Centre is merely a computer lab that is equipped with more advance technology for teaching and learning of languages. Is it really necessary to be building another laboratory in schools just for English language, where most schools in Malaysia already have a "big white elephant" in the form of a computer lab?

Last, increasing the time allocation for English language. Is it going to help? Is the declining proficiency due to constraint in the timetable? Without any significant improvement to the curriculum, teaching method and teaching quality, increasing the time allocation is just a waste of time.

Well, it's half time. Enough of being overly critical. From here onwards, I will attempt to look at the issue more constructively. Second Half

While discussing about the topic with a friend, he asked me this question, "If you are the Minister, what will be the best initiative to take to improve English proficiency?".

In fact, there is another initiative proposed by the Minister of Education that I have purposely kept to be discussed here. The Minister suggests of "importing" 1000 teachers from overseas, hiring 600 retired teachers and producing additional 12,333 teachers. To be fair, this initiative is the most logical of all the initiatives suggested, however, it is far from perfect.

Firstly, how did the figure 12,333 teachers come about? Is it another "guesstimation", like what the Deputy Minister did a few weeks ago? Nonetheless, regardless of the figures, the idea of producing additional teachers do not look like tackling the problem. We ought to remember that the problem at stake is quality, not a shortage of English teachers. The more we emphasise on the quantity, the more we are going to compromise on the quality. Therefore, what the education system needs is more competent and qualified English teachers.

Secondly, it does not seem possible to improve English proficiency with the current stock of "human resources" that the country possess. It is important to note that Malaysian education system has neglected the English language since mid-70s, which has been more than 30 years. Within this period, the quality of English language in our education system has continuously declined. Large majority of Malaysians, myself included, have been "taught English in Bahasa Malaysia" (a quote from RPK). Therefore, to produce more local teachers to teach proper English is a near-impossible task.

Similarly, even if we are to employ retired teachers, a large majority of them might not have the capability to restore the quality of English language, simply because, if they are capable of doing so, our standard would not have deteriorated over the years. To put it bluntly, Malaysia do not have the necessary resources to improve our English proficiency.

On the other hand, there are some positive from the initiative, which is acknowledging that we need external assistance. In answering to my friend's question, I felt that in order to impact the system throughout the country, the most practical initiative is hiring foreigners. Therefore, it left us with only one possible aspect of the Minister's initiative, which is to "import" English teachers.

However, three questions remain, "Who to employ?", "How many?" and "How long?" The most straight-forward answer to the first question is hiring teachers from countries where English is the native language - US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. We might only be able to hire "a handful" of English teachers from these countries. However, the consideration here is English teachers for several thousand schools throughout the country. Perhaps hiring foreigners from countries like the Philippines or India may be more cost-efficient.

Therefore the next question is "how many?". For the strengthening to have impact nationally, at least one foreigner per level in a school is needed. Merely 1,000 foreigners as the Minister proposed, is not even sufficient to distribute them in every school. (What the Minister proposes is teachers; not trainers or instructors in teachers' training). It is way too small to impact the system. Moreover, this proposal should not be short-term. We need at least one whole cycle of students to have the slightest chance of improving the overall standard of English, that is at least 10 years. Again, short-term initiative is merely educational gimmick with no hope of success.

What other initiatives could we have?

My friend suggested to send all potential English teachers overseas to pursue a degree in English, as part of the teacher's training, after which bond these teachers for 10 years. The suggestion to send these teachers overseas is to enable them to immerse themselves with the culture to enhance their learning. This could be one possible ways of strengthening teaching and learning. In fact, to my understanding, there is already such a scheme within the Ministry of Education. Still, will it have sufficient impact to improve the entire system? The English language problem has become a national issue. Probably a five to ten-fold increment to the existing programme is needed.

Another possible suggestion is to enhance teachers' training and provide continuous professional development. This suggestion will work, provided there is a concurrent revamp to the assessment in the education system. Currently, teachers already have numerous trainings and workshops to enhance their professional development. However, after attending all the courses, who actually assess the teachers and ensure that what they learn are implemented in the classrooms?

The more we think about what could be done, the more pessimistic the situation seems to be; without even taking into account the expected costs.

Simply, all that is left in me after this long article is this question: "Is it really possible for the quality of English language in Malaysia to improve?" I am doubtful!

Read More...

Mahasiswa, universiti kosong dan harapan tak bermakna

Kedatangan ke universiti penuh bermakna dan harapan. Apatah lagi bagi mereka yang datang jauh daripada kampung dan juga merupakan anak sulung keluarga tercinta. Perjalanan masuk sebagai anak atau ahli keluarga pertama yang menjejak langkah ke menara gading semestinya mendatangkan kebanggaan dan harapan kepada ibu dan ayah serta keluarga.

Kedatangan ke universiti penuh bermakna dan harapan. Apatah lagi bagi mereka yang datang jauh daripada kampung dan juga merupakan anak sulung keluarga tercinta. Perjalanan masuk sebagai anak atau ahli keluarga pertama yang menjejak langkah ke menara gading semestinya mendatangkan kebanggaan dan harapan kepada ibu dan ayah serta keluarga.

Tapi apakah harapan ini? Apakah harapan yang ingin dikecapi? Agak menyedihkan ramai yang tidak mempunyai hala tuju dan hanya setakat statistik yang mengisi kekosongan senarai dalam kertas contengan di kementerian pengajian tinggi. Apa yang sepatutnya menjadi satu kebanggaan dan harapan kepada keluarga dan masyarakat dan lebih penting lagi pelajar itu sendiri kemudiannya hancur berkecai selepas beberapa minggu atau bulan pertama universiti.

Masa dihabiskan dengan menghadiri kelas tanpa sebarang hala tuju. Mungkin lebih ramai lagi yang mengambil peluang 3 atau 4 tahun ini setakat untuk mendapat sekeping sijil yang apabila keluar dari universiti nanti tidak sama sekali bernilai.

Mungkin ada yang tidak faham tetapi ini hakikatnya. Mereka yang masuk tanpa hala tuju akan keluar tanpa hala tuju. Mereka yang masuk kerana ingin perolehi sijil sahaja akan keluar dengan sijil sahaja. Tiada yang lebih tiada yag kurang.

Sebab yang penting hanya apa yang dapat dilihat, yang dapat dipegang, yang dapat dirasa. Pemahaman dan pemikiran kita terhadap dunia terlalu sempit dan lemah atau mungkin tiada langsung. Tiada pemahaman, tiada pemikiran. Sebagaimana cacing buta yang hidupnya dalam tanah beginilah mereka yang pergi ke kelas tiap-tiap hari ulang alik tanpa membawa kepala.

Dunia berkembang pesat, tetapi semangat manusia adalah lemah. Semangat orang muda lemah. Semangat mahasiswa lemah. Ditendang sana sini tanpa hala tuju. Di arah seperti lembu yang meragut rumput di padang tani. Apakah maknanya universiti? Universiti yang hanya kosong tanpa harapan. Di isi manusia tak bermaya. Di isi fikiran yang sepatutnya berguna, tetapi tidak berguna yang tidak diguna.

Hidup di universiti membawa erti bermulanya perjuangan untuk mencari makna, untuk mengenal diri. Adakah mereka yang bakal digelar mahasiswa bersedia untuk dan sanggup menghadapi perjuangan ini?

Read More...

Bottom-up Approach

Subsequent to DAP's proposal of introducing flexibility for bottom-up approach in the debate about Teaching of Science and Mathematics in English (TSME or PPSMI), could we try to stretch the argument a little further and relates that to the bigger question about quality in schools and education in Malaysia?

Basically what DAP suggests is to allow schools and parents to decide which is the best language for their students/children to learn Science and Mathematics. Such flexibility to the policy could be regarded as bottom-up approach.

Now, the Malaysian education system is not only facing the dilemma of choosing between English or Malay in teaching of Science and Mathematics (which Malay has already been chosen), but other more pressing and important problems, such as quality of education, teacher's quality, and the question about what it meant by educating our children. I would argue that a significant portion of Malaysia's educational problems have been due to the "one size fits all" approach in policy-making.

I will attempt to discuss only of them, teacher's quality and curriculum.

First, teachers in Malaysia are all assume to be homogeneous. When we have shortage of teachers, the policy dictates recruiting simply anyone who is interested to teach will become a teacher. However, as teachers are considered civil servant and employed by the government, it would be almost impossible to sack or terminate teachers who do not performed. Therefore, the system is stuck with the chicken-and-egg dilemma; choosing between quality or quantity.

In my sincere opinion, in order to get out of this dilemma, perhaps schools should be allow to make decision which is the best teacher to hire. In other words, government gives up their monopolistic rights as the sole employer and allows the teaching profession to function in a free market. As such, the role of the government is not to provide teachers for schools, but rather, takes a regulatory role to ensure the teaching market do not fail. In addition, the government would subsidise or allocate educational funding to schools according to the number of students, and if the government is serious about closing the disparity between urban and rural schools, this is the change to allocate more to the rural school where the additional could be regarded as developmental fund. Therefore, the schools will have incentive to do their best as a way to uphold their reputation and increase their students; at the same time, teachers will have more incentive to teach effectively, as their wage and salary will be more deterministic of their performance and workload. Certainly, not a "one size fits all" policy, and indeed very much needed one in Malaysia.

Second, our education system emphasises on delivering the education to students for them to score in examination. Our curriculum has been rigidly structured and examination questions focus on testing the facts and figures, rather then their ability to think and analyse. A recent education review in the UK, the Nuffield 14-19 Review, made 31 recommendations. In one of their recommendation about the curriculum, the Review suggests, "Curriculum should be developed cooperatively and locally between schools, colleges and other providers, albeit within a broad national framework". In other words, there should be room for flexibility in curriculum to adjust and accommodate teaching and learning to the local context. Again, we should not "one size fits all" for education policy.

The essential idea about education is fundamentally related to individuals. Hence, it is important to question whether is it possible for these "one size fits all" educational policies to achieve any education purposes and aims.

Read More...

DAP's New Deal

Opinions emanating from the online media show that the scrapping of PPSMI announced yesterday has continued to leave the country divided. The plurality of views on the matter is not surprising for two reasons.

First, there is a plurality of objectives involved – accelerating skill-formation in Science and Mathematics, improving English proficiency in a school environment where the global lingua-franca is appalling and deteriorating, developing the Malay language in Science and Mathematics, closing the gap between urban-rural areas, national unity and so on. Choosing either English or BM means that only some of the objectives will be met at the expense of the others.

Second, the Malaysian students themselves are a very diverse, plural lot. The urban, middle-class lot may be able to utilize English more optimally for learning compared to their rural counterparts. And parents who want the best for their children would no doubt side with the language they think is best for the future of their children.

Which is why I think the ‘New Deal’ coming from DAP’s camp has some merits to it. LKS wrote on his blog:

“This is why I suggested a flexible approach to the PPSMI problem which does not allow a “One Size Fits All” solution, by giving parents the choice to decide on the type of education they want for their children – including having classes or schools using English as medium of instruction for mathematics and science.”

Tony P also remarked in the Education Malaysia blog:

"My stand is that PIBG should have a say/choice in the language use, particularly in urban areas where competency in English is already fairly high and in demand. You/we should push for this.Rural areas can't help it, especially with teachers who can't even string a sentence together in English."

“DAP's position, for those who are interested, is that urban national primary and secondary schools should be given a choice by the parents on the language to be used.”

This is definitely a more progressive proposal that deserves further deliberation and debate by the Cabinet. It takes into consideration the plurality of objectives and student capacities that revolves around PPSMI. Information is more efficiently handled if flows bottom-up from ‘agents’ who know best.

On a macro-level, parties concerned about the possible polarization this will bring should take heed of a survey carried out by Merdeka Center in 2008. Of the 43% respondents who first identified themselves as Malaysians first, 52% attended Chinese School, 37% attended Tamil School, and 39% attended National School. Vernacular schools have outdone national schools in terms of inculcating national identity although on a general level, the percentage is still dismal. But suffice it to say, allowing plurality of language in our education system will not be the only determinant of national unity.

Read More...

Thoughts on the PPSMI reversal

So, after 6 years, the Ministry of Education has finally decided to revert back to Malay for the teaching of Maths and Science, citing the lack of implementation capacity as the rationale behind it. The education minister Muhyiddin Yassin also stressed that measures will be taken to improve English proficiency in schools.

I have no strong objections to the policy decision itself since the crux of the issue isn’t really about the choice of language in the first place. But what is nauseating about the whole thing is the lack of admission on the part of the government that it has committed an error for subjecting our students to 6 years of unnecessary laboratory testing, which could’ve been avoided if more careful and deliberate impact assessments have been undertaken prior to its implementation in 2003.

Our youths shouldn’t have had to bear the brunt of ministerial flip-flops if more rounded consideration was given to studies by UNESCO and Santosh Mehrotra (Education for All: Policy Lessons From High-Achieving Countries) which are all published before 2003. The fact that no such consultation was carried out is typical of the top-down approach in policy design not exclusive to the education system in Malaysia.

Yet, our education minister saw it fit to seek for approval from former PM Mahathir for the reversal, which puzzles me since Mahathir is no longer in the executive body of the country nor is he an education expert. Consultation should be done with education experts and the executive should only be answerable to the Parliament. Mahathir is free to air his opinions as a citizen of the country but the need to get his approval is, to say the least, lame.

And it is not surprising that this latest announcement has caused consternation on Mahathir’s part. Much has been thrown around on how to improve English proficiency but not enough was said on measures to accelerate mathematics and scientific competency, which IMHO, was the core reason PPSMI was mooted in the first place.

Read More...

The "Expected" Outcome

The long-awaited decision about Teaching of Mathematics and Science in English (TSME) has been announced. After implementing the policy for the past six years, the policy will be revert back to the usage of Malay language and vernacular languages respectively in teaching of Science and Mathematics. I share my observation about this "expected outcome" from several perspectives.

Firstly, the U-turn in the policy, without much doubt, has been driven largely by political influence. Retrospectively, TSME was one of the last legacy of the longest serving Prime Minister of Malaysia. The revert is certainly a way to dismantle that legacy, to make way for new legacies of the current government. On top of that, with the rating of the current government at an all-time low, it came as no surprise to adopt this decision, simply because the voices to abolish have been more vocal and even took to the streets in protest. Without much doubt, political influence has been one of the major forces to change.

Secondly, from policy implementation perspective, it seems to me there isn't much implemented for the past six years. Looking at the UPSR 2008 statistics, the policy has certainly failed in terms of implementation, especially in Chinese schools. No wonder, the Chinese educationalists have been advocating the abolishment of TSME, or rather, it seems like the policy has not been implemented at all.

The Minister of Education in explaining the decision to revert to the old system revealed that only 19.2% and 9.96% of secondary and primary teachers respectively who were sufficiently proficient in English. Again, this relevation came as no surprise, due to the fact that the implementation of TSME six years ago was carried out in a rather haphazard way. However, is this a good reason to revert?

Today we realise that less than 20% of our teachers are proficient in English and therefore we abolish TSME. What if tomorrow, we realise that less than 20% of our teachers are proficient in Mathematics? Will the government, then, propose to scrap Mathematics in the schools? To me, such reasoning should not be used as an excuse for poor implementation and abolishment of the policy, but rather look at the positiveness, that more initiatives should now be targetted towards the remaining 80% of teachers.

Thirdly, is it ethical that this change will only be implemented from 2012 onwards. In other words, another 3 batches of students will have to undergo this "flawed" policy. Isn't that unethical? If the government is so certain that TSME has failed, why not immediately revert the policy?

Fourthly, I strongly felt that the educational perspective in the policy has been severely neglected. Many quarters have been using the policy as a "proxy war" to fight for their respective interests, but sadly, the core educational issue in the policy has not been addressed accordingly. What have both governments, the one in 2002/3 and now, based their decision on? Were the decisions to implement or abolish TSME based on solid educational research or merely based on "pre-conceived" ideas and hearsay.

There is a huge amount of educational research, especially in the teaching of Science and Mathematics as well as linguistic application, both in Malaysia and overseas, that have vast potentials to inform policy-making. However, not much attention has been given to understand these research, or at least cite a few of them, in consideration of implementing or abolishing this education policy. Sadly, TSME is an educational policy that has no educational aim and inputs!

Lastly, a fellow colleague and Professor in Linguistics once told me, after the implementation of TSME in 2003, our neighbouring country, Indonesia, has been inviting Malaysian linguistic experts over to help with a similar initiative. Six years down the road, Indonesia's initiative is flourishing, but Malaysia has just abolished the policy.

Read More...

PPSMI - Opening Pandora's Box

It is easy to draw lines, define boundaries, take sides, and paint it all black and white in a debate, while sacrificing the colourful nuances and sophistication of it all, although in certain cases, the issues can grow to be more sophisticated than need be.

Just take for instance the current dispute over the teaching of Maths, Science and Technology in English (PPSMI). It is almost like two kids stumbling into a huge gift box, only to end up fighting over the wrapping paper without even knowing what is inside the box.

So it was a hasty, under-consulted and ill-designed policy, a somewhat muddled together economic objective of accelerating skill formation pivotal to Malaysia's industrialisation with a linguistic objective of improving English proficiency among the students.

And critics came along, hijacked the confusion for parochial goals, and threw out the former by shooting down the latter. But to be fair, let's give credit to where credit is due. It must be admitted that there are progressive elements in the policy first put forward by Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

The pace of learning in these disciplines must be accelerated to fill the current human capital vacuum in Malaysia if it is to meet its industrial objectives.

What irked Mahathir most, perhaps, was the inability of critics in grasping the gravity of doing so, without which any cultural and linguistic ambitions can be just flushed down Sungai Kinabatangan. One needs to only pop by Dewan Bahasa and Pustaka to check and see if the development of a language is possible without adequate resources.

But he stopped short of dealing adequately with the buzzing question, 'Must we really use English to achieve this objective?' So it is true that most Science, Maths and Tech literature are in English but how will this benefit a poor Malay student from the 'kampung' who is struggling to cope with the subject, what more if it is taught in English?

The muddled policy objectives come in handy at this point when the improvement of English serves as a justified detractor, and subsequent counter-arguments further bring the debate off-track.

Back on track, teaching in English may benefit the middle-class urbanites, but its implications on the rural, poorer students, are unclear. In the worst case scenario, it deepens polarisation and increases the divide between natural/formal science and arts/humanities/social science in Malaysia.

And where do we stop? Why just Maths, Science, and Technology? Shouldn't there be experts in corporate governance and financial services too? At what point do we revert to Malay in order to develop the language in these fields?

Moreover, examples of successful non-English speaking countries lend credence to criticisms. If countries like Japan, South Korea, France and Germany can wag their mother-tongues and be successful, why can't we do the same? Or why limit ourselves to English and not Japanese or German?

The criticisms are fair enough. Indeed, there are valid equity and identity issues to contend with. Yet, the identity front has far overshadowed its equity face, so much so that the lack of stance of the non-Malay social-justice community is glaring.

Why is it the case that Islamic and Malay literati groups are more concerned than the average Malaysians when there is an equity dimension to it as well? Or why are the non-Malays less up-front when it comes to the official language of the country?

Perhaps, this is what critics themselves have failed to realise. Using Malay as the official language or the medium of instruction, even if it is for all 20 subjects, is not the equivalent of developing a sense of ownership of the language itself.

I am embarrassed to say that I have never really developed a close affinity to the Malay language even though Malay was the medium of instruction for all my school life right up to tertiary education. Outside of formal occasions, I rarely use Malay colloquially (except to order at the mamak stalls) or make any effort to read or write in the language.

The crux of the matter really is not about what language is used to teach Mathematics, Science and Technology in schools. I have studied my economics in Malay, but have no problem reading English journals for my postgraduate in the UK. Neither have I developed any true sense of ownership of the Malay language in the practical sense of the word.

The real issue rather is how different languages are perceived and received by the different ethnic groups in the country. And this is the question that policy-makers, educationists, politicians, linguists, and PTAs, must sit down together to investigate and evaluate.

Why has our education policy failed us in such a way that after 50 years of becoming a nation, certain segments of the Malaysian society have still not taken ownership of the Malay language? And why still the fear and 'threat rhetoric' surrounding the dispute of whether to use Malay or English in schools?

We have to stop fighting over gift-wrappers and open the Pandora's box. While we are at that, let us not throw away the progressive elements of PPSMI, but at the same time be mindful of the equity implications any such policies might bring.

Read More...

Language or Mindset?

There has been much debate about teaching of Science and Mathematics in English. The Ministry of Education has been contemplating whether to revert back the teaching to Malay (for National schools) and the respective mother tongue (for Chinese and Tamil schools) or continue to use English as the medium of instruction for these two subjects.

The Year Six examination (UPSR) 2008 is the first cohort of students who were taught Science and Mathematics since their first year of formal schooling and their performance in this major examination will determine the fate of the entire Malaysian education system. This morning, Director-General of Education has finally announced the long-awaited results.

I wish to share two of my observations about this issue.

Firstly, it is rather surprising that the government will want to evaluate and make a decision with just one cohort of students. Statistically, isn't this a little too small a sample for evaluation? Although the policy had been implemented for six years, nonetheless, one needs to remember that education policy is always a long-term project and the effect might take years to be fully observable. Because of this, I recalled in one of the philosophy of education discourses that politicians should never get involve in education policy-making as they will usually not able to survive their "short" political lifespan in order to see the effects take place, thus resulting in many short-term and inefficient policies being made for the sake of personal legacy. I really think that this policy might takes another five to ten years before the effect is fully comprehensible. After all, it took about two generations of Malaysians to fully see the devastating effect of changing the language focus from English to Malay in the late 1960s.

Secondly, another startling observation is the students' preferred language used in the UPSR examination. If I understand correctly, the examination questions are bi-lingual (either English-Malay, English-Chinese or English-Tamil depending of the type of schools). The contrasting percentages have an interesting story to tell. Quoting from The Star newspaper (December 16, 2008), in Tamil schools, 62.76% of students answered in English for Science and 89.11% for Mathematics, while in Chinese schools, only 2.86% answered in English for Science and 1.29% for Mathematics. There were no statistics reported for the National schools (or the students might not have the bi-lingual option).

The interesting story here is why such a low percentage of students in Chinese schools used English in answering their Science and Mathematics papers as compared to the Indians. To me, these statistics point towards a more serious problem, which is what has been taking place in the schools for the past six years. Such a low percentage of usage in English language in Chinese schools could be due to the reluctant of teachers and educators in seriously implementing the policy and thus the students are not fully expose to the English language in learning Science and Mathematics.

Therefore, the evaluation at this point of time with this one cohort is not the effectiveness of learning, but rather, the effectiveness in implementing the policy. With the biggest critics of the policy coming from the Chinese communities, the startling statistics truly reaffirmed that much of the debate is not about the medium of instruction but rather the mindset.

Read More...

Why Study?

The more you study, the more you know.
The more you know, the more you forget.
The more you forget, the less you know.
Why study?

Many of us, including myself, have always assumed that studying a subject in school/university is the way to learn and this process is known as education. Is it true?

Just a little of my own interpretation. Studying is merely getting to know about a subject, and learning is about understanding the subject. However, education is a much broader concept beyond knowledge, studying and learning; a concept that relates to the wholesome "upbringing" and "grooming".

Perhaps by re-thinking about "education" and what it meant to be "educated", the debate about Malaysian education will be more meaningful and insightful.

Read More...