An Eucation System Worthy of Malaysia #36
Chapter 6: Attempts At Reforms (Cont’d)
Education Development 2001-2010
In October 2001, MOE released a 250-page document, Pembangunan Pendidikan 20001-2010: Rancangan Bersepadu Penjana Cemerlangan Pendidikan (Education Development 2010-2010: Plan for Unity Through Educational Excellence – my translation). It was a comprehensive look at the system, from preschool to tertiary institutions. The ministry described it with such words as “sweeping,” “radical,” and
“revolutionary.”
For a document that is supposed to be the basis for wide public discussion on such an important issue, it was strangely not widely distributed. My attempts at getting a copy were unsuccessful. Supposedly it was out of print, only a few months after its release. No bookstore carries it. Nor is the document available on the ministry’s website, which is not surprising as that website is more show than a meaningful mechanism for the dissemination of information. An opposition politician too claimed that he was unable to secure a copy. The minister himself was strangely uninterested to discuss the report publicly or give it wide coverage.
More perplexing was the media; none covered the report extensively. The exception, the publication Education Quarterly, did an excellent job summarizing it. Regardless, that document was soon made irrelevant by subsequent developments, in particular the decision to teach mathematics and science in English, and the National Brains Trust Report. Still, as Education Development represents the thinking of ministry officials, it is worthwhile to review it if for nothing else than to get a glimpse of their mindset.
As is typical of many official documents and policy statements, Education Development is full of lofty ideas and the prerequisite current buzzwords like “globalization,” “knowledge workers,” and “IT.” But it offers precious few details. Nor does it address, despite its promising subtitle, how to stem the rapidly declining standards and increasing segregation of our schools and universities. The report is prominent for its lack of innovative ideas to tackle such glaring issues as the lack of IT workers, and the low English fluency, scientific literacy, and mathematical competency of our students. It bravely puts a target of 60 percent of secondary school students to be in the science and technical streams, but offers precious little guidance on how to get there. These goals have been stated many times before; no special insight is needed to recognize the problem, the genius lies with providing the solution. The document offers none.
One of its ambitious goals is to build a community college in every parliamentary district. That is as ambitious as it is expensive. There is no clear definition of the mission of such colleges. Are they meant, as in America, to provide a channel for adult and re-entry students, to cater for those unable to make it into the universities the first time around, or to produce workers with marketable skills and specialized training? What I fear is that these colleges will issue yet another set of diplomas that would be worthless in the marketplace. That would be a disaster, especially after expectations have been raised so high. We already have a glut of unemployed graduates.
Again, as is typical of the ministry’s pronouncements, there are repeated assertions of the nation’s aspiration of being the center of educational excellence. Fantasy would be more appropriate than aspiration.
The document has one radical suggestion, reducing the school years from 13 to 12, with the format of K-6/2/2/2, and eliminating the current Form 3 examination. This is purportedly to make the system conform to international, in particular American, pattern. As usual, Malaysia is learning the wrong lesson.
While it is true that in America it is K-12, what Malaysian officials fail to note is that the vast majority of Americans go on to postsecondary institutions. With the wide availability of junior colleges, two years of college is now the norm. There is a movement to make that the new standard, in recognition of the need for a highly educated workforce to face the global competition. Thus in reality America has a K-14, not K-12 system.
American schools are also making their curriculum more rigorous. Many offer Advanced Placement classes. Mentioned earlier was the experiment by Bard College in collaboration with New York Public School Board that combines the last two years of high school with the first two years of college. In striking contrast, Malaysian schools are “dumbing down” their curriculum. Even leading residential schools like MCKK and TKC do not prepare their students for entry into universities.
Those ministry bureaucrats obviously did not think through their proposal. Presently the plan is bogged down, with the implementation delayed, because officials have not anticipated the obvious problem of the double cohorts of students entering university with the conversion from 13 to 12 years.
The basic message the ministry is sending through its Education Development is wrong. It is saying that Malaysians need fewer years of schooling while in the rest of the world it is just the opposite.
Meritokrasi and The Teaching of Science and Mathematics in English
The year 2002 was a tumultuous one for Malaysian education. Two major decisions – the introduction of meritokrasi (meritocracy) and the teaching of science and mathematics in English – were made almost casually, through executive mandate rather than after wide public discussions and parliamentary debates.
Meritokrasi was meant to improve the quality of education by relying more on academic criteria rather than quotas and special set-aside programs in the selection of students. It is widely acknowledged that many Bumiputra undergraduates would not be there but for special privileges.
Prime Minister Mahathir and other UMNO leaders were becoming increasingly piqued by the behavior of these undergraduates. They expressed their contempt for the government generally and UMNO specifically by actively campaigning for the opposition parties during recent elections. The pivotal moment came when the landmark Chancellor’s Hall on UM was burnt down. There was immediate speculation of arson as the prime minister was scheduled to speak in that auditorium the very next day. To date there has been no satisfactory or official explanation for the fire. The fire department intimated faulty wirings. Few believe that, least of all UMNO leaders who by now could hardly contain their displeasure and anger at the undergraduates. The new head of Puteri (Young Women) UMNO, Azalina Othman, eager to show her stripes, angrily called for the firing of the university’s vice-chancellor, Dr. Annuar Zaini, for failing to “control” the students. This is surprising as Annuar Zaini is a highly qualified and respected academic physician. He is among the few who rose through the academic ranks instead of the usual path of politics and the civil service.
The decision to use merits as the basis for admission was not to enhance the academic standards as widely proclaimed, rather to give those “ungrateful” Bumiputra students their just comeuppance. Thus chastened they would then concentrate more on their studies and would be less interested in politics. Or if they were, they would be more supportive of the government lest they risk losing their cherished special privileges and quotas. At least that was the expectations of the UMNO hierarchy.
Consequently there was much anticipation of the effect of this new policy on the incoming class of 2002. Judging from the statements of UMNO leaders, they were eagerly expecting the shocking news of fewer Bumiputras admitted to universities so UMNO leaders could browbeat those students. “See, if not for us guarding your special privileges, you Bumiputras would not stand a chance!”
Come June when the figures were released, there were gasps of astonishment. The number of Bumiputras admitted under the new merit-based criteria increased, not dropped. To those who think that Malays are dumb (this includes many among UMNO leaders), that shocking news was not expected. One would have thought that there would be hearty messages of congratulations to these students for having done well. Instead there were snide remarks that the process was rigged. How else to explain the success of Malays?
Although I expected such remarks from non-Malays–after all they too needed some rationalization for their less than expected outcome – what stunned me was the disbelief among Malays leaders. The Prime Minster who long championed the cause of Malays went so far as to claim that it was a statistical quirk and that it would not happen again.
Not once did he applaud the students for having done well. Instead he and many others went out of their way to deride and belittle the students’ achievements. Some suggested that because most Malay students entered through matrikulasi while non-Malays through Sixth Form, the former must be of lower standard. Their presumption is that Malays are dumb; so matrikulasi must be easier.
As stated earlier, I believe matrikulasi is a watered-down program, but do not blame the students; blame those who run the program and the bureaucrats who juggled the scores. Meanwhile I heartily congratulate those hard working Malay students who have done well and thus surprised their leaders. May you have continued success, even though your leaders may lack faith in you. Prove them wrong again!
For now meritokrasi stays, the government’s weapon to bludgeon the students effectively neutralized. Those “ungrateful” Malay students have yet to be punished.
The second decision, to use English to teach science and mathematics, had a similar seat-of-the-pants quality to the decision making process. One would have thought that such a radical change would have been undertaken only after meticulous and exhaustive study. We are dealing with the future of our young, something not to be taken lightly. Instead the decision was rushed. The matter was discussed at UMNO Supreme Council meetings, and only minimally in the cabinet. There was no parliamentary debate. Despite howling protests from various groups, the decision stayed. Instead of engaging its many critiques, the government threatened to use the Internal Security Act to silence them.
Yet legitimate questions remain, like the availability of competent teachers and suitable textbooks. These are simply brushed aside. The leaders have spoken and it shall be so. The magic wand has been waved, and all problems will miraculously vanish. The plan is to be implemented in January 2003, but as late as November 2002 the final form and manner has yet to be finalized. Initially it is to begin at Primary 1 and at selected secondary levels, but with protests from Chinese-based political parties, that timetable is now under review.
The authorities had numerous meetings to iron out the kinks. It is instructive that none of these meetings involved teachers or educators. The issue had been discussed entirely in the political arena, indicating that the decision had less to do with education and everything to do with politics.
The rationale of the policy is valid: to enhance the scientific knowledge and mathematical competency of students and at the same encourage the wider use of English. But as presently implemented, and without much prior planning and preparation, the policy will, like the decision to introduce meritokrasi, back fire.
These two initiatives prove that momentous decisions can be made within the constraints of the present framework; there is no need to amend the constitution or have Royal Commissions of Inquiry. Whether these essentially wise decisions will achieve their intended results remain to be seen. I await their implementation.
Next: National Brains Trust Report 2002