An Education System Worthy of Malaysia #42
Chapter 7: Strengthening the Schools (Cont’d)
Preschool and Primary Years (P-6) Cont’d
These innovations are expensive, but it would be more expensive if these children failed to get quality education because of inadequately trained teachers and poor facilities. Even seemingly simple items like transportation, uniforms, books, and other supplies can be major burdens for rural families. I would provide free transportation just as in America. Uniforms, textbooks, and other supplies should also be provided free. These miscellaneous items are expensive in their aggregate. The government should not be providing them to all students rather target only the poorest and most deserving, thus maximizing the impact.
I do not quarrel much with the present curriculum. In particular, the teaching of science and mathematics in English is timely. I would go further and have both English and Malay used together in tandem throughout the school years. Doing so would make the pupils learn to read and think in both languages simultaneously. To be considered fluently bilingual one has not only to read and write in both languages but also to dream in both.
I consider myself fluently bilingual. When I read in English I automatically think and respond in English; likewise when I read in Malay, I think and respond in Malay. My brain does not go through a mental translation process; it bypasses that. When I was a surgeon in Malaysia I had no difficulty explaining complex medical issues and procedures to my Malay patients, as I had already understood the concepts. I automatically and mentally processed the knowledge and then verbalized it in Malay. What I did not do was plan what I wanted to say in English and then translated into Malay.
The problem with Malaysians today is that because of their limited English, when they want to speak in that language they would first think what they are going to say in their mother tongue and then translate it into English. Not only is this process mentally inefficient, the subsequent English version will sound like the typical “Manglish,” literal translations of Malay phrases. We should encourage the young to develop the capacity to absorb knowledge in both languages and then be able to express it in either.
This mental process is equivalent to someone learning the imperial and metric measuring systems. When you are facile with both, you need not mentally convert one to the other. When visiting Tokyo and the temperature is 40 degrees Centigrade, one does not take out a calculator to convert it to the more familiar Fahrenheit (104 degrees) and then say, “Wow, it’s hot!” One has learned in the metric system to associate 40 degrees with uncomfortably hot; 30, T-shirt beach weather; 20, nice air-conditioned office; and 0, freezing and uncomfortable. Similarly in the Fahrenheit system, 32 degrees is freezing; 70, nice air-conditioned office; 90, beach weather, and over 100 uncomfortably hot. One trains oneself to bypass or eliminate the mental conversion phase.
This is what we should be teaching our students. When they think in English they will speak in English; and in Malay when they think in Malay, bypassing the mental translation. The younger we start the easier it would be. One of the difficulties in teaching a second language to adults is to break this habit of wanting to translate everything mentally.
The purpose of total immersion classes in learning a new language is precisely to eliminate this phase. That was how I learned Malay and English. Malay is my mother tongue so that is the language I used at home. At school I learned totally in English. So at a very young age I learned both languages simultaneously. A child does not know how to translate, so the brain automatically bypasses that process. I just knew that in speaking to my teachers, I used English; at home, Malay. There was no confusion. You learn right from the beginning to say “beautiful house!” and in Malay, “rumah cantek!” (lit. house beautiful). But if you were in the mode of mentally translating what you are going to say, then you would likely say in English, your Malay thought, “House beautiful lah!” That of course is how Manglish comes about, literal translations of Malay phrases.
Similarly when I write in English, I gather my thoughts in English and then go ahead and write in it. When I write in Malay I gather my thoughts in Malay and then write in Malay. What I do not do is write my essay in one language and then translate it into the other. I tried it, and it sounded awkward and just not right.
Modern clinical research supports my contention. In one experiment, bilingual subjects were shown blocks of different colors and were asked to state the color in the language in which the question was asked, while their brain activities were monitored by functional MRI or PET scans (imaging techniques of brain activities). Those who were bilingual at a young age showed brain actives in only one spot of their brain when asked in the two languages, while those who were bilingual only as adults showed activities in two areas. That is, those who were bilingual since young treat the two languages as one and use only one part of the brain. Their brain is twice as efficient as those who were bilingual as adults.
Further studies show that young bilingual children learn early that names of objects are arbitrary, so they grasp abstractions early. They are also good at ignoring “noise” or misleading information. Malaysia should capitalize on these scientific findings and push for bilingual education as early as possible. For Malaysians this would not be a novel experiment, we did it very well 50 years ago under the British.
There are many successful experiments in America on using two languages simultaneously to teach primary school-age children, as exemplified by Rice School described earlier. Likewise in Canada, more and more schools are using this approach.
Malaysia too can experiment along similar lines. In communities with a high background of English and low in Malay (as in urban areas), we could teach more subjects in Malay and fewer in English. Conversely in areas with high Malay but low English usage (rural areas), we should teach more subjects in English. The aim should be that all pupils would be fluently bilingual in Malay and English.
The other major problem with Malaysian schools is the gaping urban-rural divide. The digital divide receives much attention but it is only one manifestation of this quality gap. The dilapidated conditions of rural schools are obvious; they lack even the basics–electricity and potable water. This is one reason they do not attract good teachers. The poor facilities are compounded by double sessions. One of the worst consequences feared by Malay parents on the current proposal to teach science and mathematics in English is that it would further disadvantage rural students; hence their opposition.
The government is embarking on making all schools into single session. I would emphasize rural schools first. With single session the school day could be extended so pupils could spend the afternoon in arts, crafts, and music as well as taking part in sports or “prep” time. With such attractions and varied activities, the pupils would be less likely to drop out, especially if we combine this with school lunch programs.
Tamil schools suffer the same fate as rural ones. They are small and remotely located in estates. They attract only Tamil-speaking Indians, not a very large pool. Their dwindling enrollment makes it difficult to justify their continued funding. They would be better off integrated with national schools. Many of these Tamil schools are so dilapidated that they ought to be closed for safety reasons. National-type Chinese schools do a much better job; they are also increasingly attracting many non-Chinese students, including Malays. That speaks volumes. Their success is primarily because they emphasize the basics, especially mathematics. There is also a high degree of parental and community involvement. They pride themselves for being outside the mainstream, of being “special” and of not being mixed up with the mess that is the national system. Their facilities are also superior; few have double sessions. Apart from the common curriculum mandated by the ministry, they are remarkably free to chart their own course away from the oppressive control of officialdom.
The success of Chinese schools is precisely because the ministry does not pay much attention to them. The oppressiveness of the ministry’s control inhibits any innovation, a lesson those bureaucrats have yet to learn.
We should enhance and replicate the successes of Chinese schools. These schools should go out of their way to attract even more non-Chinese, especially Malays. They should have Malay parents serve on the board or otherwise involved with the school, and have many more Malay teachers to serve as role models. They could also make the schools more “Malay friendly” by serving halal food and teaching Islamic Studies – in Mandarin. They do that in China; use the same texts. That would definitely sell with Malays.
If these national-type Chinese schools become more Malay friendly and succeed in expanding substantially their enrollment beyond the Chinese community, they would then be viewed less as Chinese schools and more as truly national-type schools that happen to use Mandarin as the language of instruction.
Schools must be involved with the community, and vice versa. A generation ago rural schools were involved in adult literacy classes. This conferred two additional benefits. One, it afforded an opportunity for teachers to supplement their income by teaching these classes, and two, it involved the community with the schools. The community then cared about the conditions of the schools as the adults too were attending classes there. Today there is little need for such classes nonetheless we could still use the facilities for adult education to benefit the villagers. This would also reinforce the concept of lifelong learning and enhance the learning culture in the community. There could be classes for cooking and sewing, child and baby care, and hajj preparation. Or there could be extension classes teaching the basics of business or how to become better farmers. The computer labs could also be used after school hours to teach adults. Likewise with the athletic facilities; in my youth it was quite common to have the village soccer team using the school’s playing fields.
Each school should have an adult education division, the Sekolah Lanjutan (Continuing School) of years past. In addition to providing personal enrichment and extension classes, such schools could also provide private classes for nontraditional students to take the national examinations. American schools routinely offer such services.
Schools should be more than just for the children; they should be the focus of the community. The government is building expensive multipurpose halls in various communities, a wasteful duplicative effort. Why not build such facilities on the school ground so both school and community could benefit. Similarly many rural communities now have public libraries, again duplicating the school’s library. Combine both and you have one excellent library that would benefit both school and community.
When the school becomes the center of the community, the community would likely be more involved with the school, to the mutual benefit of both. The only caution would be that such activities and use should not be at the expense of the school. But there are plenty of time after school hours, weekends, and holidays when the community could use the school’s facilities.
Next: Middle School (Years 7, 8 and 9)