Chapter 6 Attempts At Reform
There have been many amendments to the Education Act since the landmark Razak Report of 1956. Most involved mere tinkering at the edges. Interestingly the legislation that had the greatest impact on education – the New Economic Policy (NEP) of 1970 – was not directed specifically at education. That bold social engineering experiment changed not only the nature of Malaysian society but also the structure of education. NEP institutionalized quotas especially in higher education, and radically expanded the access to education for Bumiputras.

The second watermark period was when Malay replaced English as the medium of instruction in schools (except vernacular primary schools). The first batch of students to enter university under this new system of all-Malay instruction was in 1982. To some, that represented the pinnacle of achievement; to others, the beginning of the decline.

I belong to the second group, and was roundly chastised for my supposedly anti-nationalist sentiments. While I agreed that Malay should have wider usage as befitting a national language and that the then existing English schools were doing a poor job in teaching the language, my proposed remedy was very different. Instead of converting the then existing English schools into Malay, I suggested instead that more subjects be taught in Malay in these schools. History and geography would have been the ideal candidates, but keep science and mathematics in English. My reason then was practical, we did not have enough textbooks or Malays qualified to translate or write them. Nor did we have enough qualified teachers. My proposal would have achieved the same end results as what we are trying to reach today: for Malaysians to be fluently bilingual and at the same time have a good command of science and mathematics.

I made my views known to the political establishment as well as to the Director of Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (Language Agency) in the form of an article submission. I was severely berated by the director for being ungrateful and having no pride in my own heritage. Something about a pea forgetting its pod (kacang lupakan kulit). I would have been satisfied with a simple, “No thank you!” rejection letter.

The agency then was headed by one Syed Nasir Ismail, a vigorous advocate of Malay language and a top UMNO functionary. At the time he was tipped to be the next education minister, which was the reason I wrote him. If Syed Nasir had his way, he would have wiped out all signs in the country other than those in Malay.

With clear hindsight the significance of that change into an all-Malay instruction can now be more objectively assessed. The man who claimed so much of the credit for introducing that change more than two decades ago is today spearheading a movement in the opposite direction. Then, Mahathir Mohamad as Education Minister was basking in the glory of having “restored” the honor of Malay language and of championing the cause of the race. Today as Prime Minister, Mahathir is advocating reintroducing English schools. Perversely, he is again being regarded as the nation’s savior!

At the risk of appearing to gloat, had the government then been more cautious and proceeded along the lines I suggested, the nation today would not have the mess it has. By aggressively promoting Malay, the government sacrificed the greatest asset of its people, their English fluency. As we are now finding out, once we lost something, it is mighty difficult to reclaim it.

While the language nationalists may have their victory parade celebrating their “success” in extinguishing English and substituting Malay instead, the economic costs for this loss has yet to be estimated. Apart from the direct added costs of having translators, think of the immense potential loss through businesses and investments going elsewhere because our workers cannot communicate in English.

Another pivotal point was in 1996, with the amendment to permit the setting up of private universities. Within a few years literally hundreds of private institutions were established. For the first time the monopoly of the government in providing education, at least at the tertiary level, was broken. This was significant as it created the momentum for further change.

The nation had barely digested that innovation when the new millennium brought in more radical changes. One was Education Blueprint 2001-2010, the grand design envisioned by ministry bureaucrats; and soon right after, the National Brains Trust Report of 2002. It is highly significant that these two major proposals, with their far ranging implications, were made without wide public discussions or input. They were not even presented to Parliament.

In addition to these two major reform efforts, there were other significant decisions made during this time that had great impact on schools specifically and education generally. What is significant and frightening was the cavalier way in which these weighty matters were decided. The use of English to teach mathematics and science was made in response to a resolution passed at an UMNO divisional meeting.

Of course the division that made the resolution was the prime minister’s own; hence its extraordinary holding power. In Malaysia nothing happens spontaneously. The other equally significant initiative – to admit non-Malays into MARA residential schools – was also made extemporaneously by the Prime Minister. Purportedly this was part of his overall attempt at injecting merit into the system. The only revealing aspect to that decision is that he now finally acknowledges that there is no consideration of merit in the current system.

I agree with both initiatives and made similar recommendations in my The Malay Dilemma Revisited. I advocated non-Bumiputras be admitted to all residential schools both to increase the competitiveness as well as reduce the insularity. But I went further. These non-Bumiputras as well as those Bumiputras who could afford it, should bear the full costs. These schools should revert to their original mission of being an outreach program for the poor who do not have ready access to quality schools.

My other recommendation was to teach science and mathematics in English at these schools. It would be a way to attract more Bumiputras to pursue those subjects, and as the students are smarter, the plan would more likely succeed and the kinks more easily ironed out. Once the system was running smoothly, then it could be expanded onto regular schools.

Like others, I too have deep reservations on the workability of the government’s current proposals. It would not surprise me that there would be few non-Bumiputras eager for the MARA slots. This was confirmed by the headlines in November 2002. Non-Bumiputras are not the only ones who are unimpressed with MARA. To many Malays especially those in the private sector and the professions, MARA is synonymous with mediocrity. Few send their children to MARA institutions.

Likewise with the teaching of science and mathematics in English; I anticipate problems not only with textbooks but also the teachers.

Next: Education Development 2001-2010

Chapter 5: A Look At Other Systems (Cont’d)

Brazil’s Bolsa Escola

Brazil, like many developing countries, has appalling rural poverty, child labor, and school dropout rates. Bolsa Escola (School Bursary Program) was started in 1995 to overcome these problems by paying poor families to keep their children in school. The theoretical and intellectual underpinning of this bold social engineering program was provided by the American Nobel laureate in economics, Gary Becker, who advocated that investments in human capital is just as valid and can be as productive as investments in physical infrastructures.

Poor parents of pupils of ages 7-14 are paid if they keep their children in school. These parents are given a monthly income equivalent to the prevailing wage for one year. This would continue monthly thereafter only if all their children attend school for over 90 percent of the time in the previous month. Most of the beneficiaries are families headed by single mothers.

The immediate results were impressive and went beyond merely improved school attendance. In one study there was a remarkable drop (by 36 percent) in child employment rate and a significant drop in street children. But most spectacular was the reduction in school dropout rates. Control districts (that is, comparable areas not under the program) had dropout rates of about 7.4 percent; in subsidized areas, a stunning under 0.4 percent–a near 20-fold difference.

The program has since been refined with payments dependent on the number of school-age children, and reduced proportionately when only one child is missing school rather than the previous all-or-none rule. Some programs also incorporate nutrition and health care. Further, the minimum number of years of support is now two instead of one, and the period extended to a maximum of eight years. These families are further encouraged to be involved in the school.

The World Bank studied this program and offers some useful lessons. One is the careful selection of candidates so as not to miss those most deserving. Two, the selection criteria must be objective and transparent, and understood by all, especially the local bureaucrats and citizens. Most importantly, the program should not be tied to any political party or be used as a tool to curry citizens’ political favors or votes. Brazil’s program is also highly decentralized, as only the government entity closest to the people can best know who are the most needy.

The Bank is sufficiently impressed with the program to fund its expansion. The Bank also notes other equally significant accompanying benefits besides increased educational achievements, like reduction of poverty and child labor. It suggests further refinements, for example, to base payments on the number of children and not just school-age children. The Bank reiterates the importance of decentralization and local control to avoid leakage, that is, missing those deserving. At the same time the Bank cautions that these programs should not be at the expense of basic investments in schools. There is no point in giving grants to families and then have no money left over for improving schools or providing for teachers.

The program is currently being replicated elsewhere in Latin America with equally impressive results. Mexico has the comparable and equally successful Progressa program.

Another innovation of Bolsa Escola is that recipients are now given ATM cards so they can collect their money without having to face the local petty bureaucrats, thus eliminating a potential source of corruption. This also introduces the recipients to the modern concepts of banks and ATM cards.

I recommend a Malaysian variation of Bolsa Escola for the poorest areas. The decision as to who would qualify should rest with those who know the students and their parents well – the teachers. Further, I would restrict the payments only to children attending secular and not religious schools. I would also expand the social experiment by introducing other subsidy models and then evaluate to see which ones work best. In some districts I would improve the physical facilities by providing air-conditioned classrooms, single session, and extended school day, in others by providing nutritious meals. One of these interventions might well be just the right ticket to keep our poor children in school.

* * * * *

The examples cited here all offer some relevant lessons for Malaysia. My reform proposals incorporate some elements from each of these, modifying them to suit Malaysian conditions. Before I get to the specifics, I will first critique past and present attempts at reform. The next chapter will also review recent reforms in other countries for lessons that would be of relevance to Malaysia.

Next: Chapter 6: Attempts At Reform

Chapter 5: A Look At Other Systems (Cont’d)

International Baccalaureate

The International Baccalaureate (IB) is a Geneva-based non-profit organization established in1968 to cater initially for the needs of children of internationally mobile families. In the short space of time it has already acquired a deservedly high reputation among universities worldwide for its rigorous matriculating examination. Schools in over 112 countries subscribe to the IB program, including many American magnet schools. In Malaysia apart from the few international schools, only MARA College, Banting, offers IB diploma. The college has done exceptionally well, including producing the best results worldwide for the last two consecutive years.

The IB school years resemble the Malaysian pattern, with six years of primary, five of secondary, and two years of matriculation (pre-university or Sixth Form). The curriculum is both broad and deep, integrated, and emphasizes critical thinking. There is also a strong component of community service. The matriculation program revolves around six core areas: primary language, second language, social sciences and history, mathematics, natural sciences, and an elective. Students choose three or four subjects at the higher level (HL) for more in depth studies and instructional hours. HL would be equivalent to Sixth Form‘s principal level. The rest of the subjects are taken at the standard level (SL), equivalent to the Sixth Form’s subsidiary level. This combination of SL and HL neatly tackles both breadth as well as depth. Students with an “artsy” bend need not take mathematics and science at the same intense level as would-be engineers.

This integrative approach is reflected in that all students have to take three common core elements. First is the Theory of Knowledge that emphasizes critical thinking and relates knowledge in the overall grand scheme of things. Second, students choose a topic for an in depth study, culminating in the writing of an extended essay, similar to the portfolio exhibition of the American CES schools. Third, students participate in a community project (CAS) that involves the three elements of creativity (C), action (A), and service (S).

IB’s HL pass is so highly regarded that even elite American universities give college credits for it. The American National Research Council praises IB, considering it one of the two best programs to prepare students to pursue science and mathematics in college, the other being AP.

The secret for IB’s success is due to its strict adherence to standards. Participating schools not only have to pay the equivalent of a franchise fee, but they also have to be regularly accredited. There are regular professional development programs for teachers as well as continuing curricular support for them available on-line. The emphasis on class participation and group projects means that IB, unlike other matriculating examinations, cannot be obtained through home schooling or correspondence courses. But like SAT, IB is both broad and comprehensive. All matriculating examinations have the same disadvantage of being a single end-of-year assessment, instead of regular and ongoing as with GPA. In this regard IB has a slight advantage in that with its science subjects, 26% of the final marks are based on teachers’ internal evaluation of the students’ laboratory work.

IB is sufficiently flexible to meet the national needs of various countries. I suggest modifying Sixth Form towards the IB model.

Next: Brazil’s Bolsa Escola

Chapter 5: A Look at Other Models (Cont’d)

The Canadian and German Dual Sysstem

The Canadian System

The Canadian system is similar to the American in being highly decentralized. Education falls under provincial jurisdiction, thus variations between the provinces. While most have K-12, Ontario and British Columbia have K-13. Like America, schools are under the local control of elected trustees. Unlike America, there are two school boards: the Public and Separate (or Catholic). Traditionally the Catholics are mainly French-Canadians; their own school board allows them to maintain their religious, cultural, and linguistic heritage.

The curricular pattern is similar to America. Unlike America, Canadian high schools have common exit examinations (“departmental”) that serve as the matriculation qualification. There is no national examination equivalent to the American SAT. Interestingly America too is toying with similar exit examinations but for a different purpose–to ensure minimal competency and not to rank the students.

Most Canadian universities are public, operated by the provinces. Their fees are low and highly subsidized. There are few private universities modeled after the American non-for-profit ones like Simon Fraser and George Williams. Canadian universities too offer broad based liberal education but generally it is less liberal and broad than the American. Electives are often prescribed, you choose among a given group rather than a free wide choice.

Canada is of particular interest in that it has to deal with two languages and cultures (English and French), and has done so successfully. While in the past there was resistance to learning a second language, today all young Canadians are functionally bilingual. Previously it was considered surrendering or giving in for a French-Canadian to learn English (or an English-Canadian to learn French), an attitude not dissimilar to that held by many Malaysians. Fortunately Canadians are much more enlightened today; now it is an asset to be bilingual.

The main lesson from Canada is how it handles the bilingual and bicultural issue, in particular how it successfully integrates the two groups despite having dual school systems. The difference between the Public and Catholic systems is much greater than that of national and religious schools in Malaysia. With the former there are differences of religion and ethnicity (Protestant English and Catholic French), while in Malaysia the clientele of the dual system share the same race and religion (Malay-Muslims). Despite the lesser difference Malaysia still has difficulty integrating the religious with the national stream. In Canada both streams contribute their share of educating future citizens.

In marked contrast, religious schools in Malaysia are fast turning into seminaries; they do not contribute to the education of the nation’s future professionals and executives.

Although both Public and Catholic schools have different curriculum, nonetheless there is a core of commonality such that students could switch from one to the other without much disruption. Further, all fields of studies in higher education are available for graduates from both streams. In comparison, products of Malaysian religious schools could continue their higher education only in Islamic Studies.

In my reform I propose that Islamic schools become more like Catholic schools in Canada.

Germany’s Dual System

German education is also highly decentralized, with each state having its own separate rules. German children are not required to enroll in kindergarten but many do, and they can start as early as age three.

They enter elementary school (Grundschule) at age six, and after Year 4 they are streamed. There is the general school (Hauptschule), Intermediate (Realschule), and the academic Gymnasium where they will spend the next six years. There is a fourth comprehensive school (Gesamtschule) that combines elements of all three so students could switch between streams without changing campus. After Year 10 students would continue for another two or three years in vocational and technical training or academic stream. German universities charge very low fees; additionally, students get a state subsidy, the amount dependent on the parents’ income. There are private schools and universities, but they play a minor role.

I choose Germany to highlight its much-vaunted vocational training, the Dual System. So called because students undertake vocational and occupational training while at the same time attend school. They spend part of their day or certain days of the week in school, and the rest working in industry. Thus students are exposed simultaneously to educators (teachers) as well as master craftsmen and skilled technicians. Students combine the fundamentals of a general education and learning the theories of the trade both by the book as well as hands-on.

The important feature of the dual system is that it is a joint government and industry endeavor. The local government finances the schools, while the state pays for personnel. Industry provides the cost of the vocational training, including paying wages to the students. The role of the federal government is mainly that of a facilitator and regulator.

As employers pay for the direct costs of the vocational training, they (through a committee) control the curriculum and type of skills the students should learn. The committee also determines the suitability of firms providing the training, monitors the quality, and sets the necessary standards and examinations.

Many Third World countries including Malaysia are eagerly importing the German Dual System with varying success. As the World Bank noted, there are many salient features of the German system that must be appreciated. First, Germany has a large manufacturing and service industry providing 90 percent of the jobs. The figures for most developing countries are considerably lower. In Malaysia, government, agriculture, and the “informal sector” are still major sources of employment. These sectors are unlikely to partake or be competent to contribute to the dual system. If Malaysia were to adopt the dual system it would have to be modified to prepare workers for those areas (especially agriculture) and of employing practitioners in the field as instructors. In Germany, vocational education was introduced long after there had been a formal apprenticeship program. Thus it was easy to graft the two together.

Malaysia does not as yet have such widespread skill-training programs. The German system must be modified to cater for these local deficiencies. Second, the German workplace is highly regulated and the workforce heavily unionized. There is greater compliance with safety and other rules that do not normally exist in the Third World. Student safety must be a top priority for the program to succeed. Third, industry controls the vocational component. It sets the curriculum, standards, rules, and examinations. Third World countries trying to copy the system usually have bureaucrats in the distant ministry controlling the program. The government often meddles by insisting on minimum wages and other work conditions that are not tolerated by industry.

MARA’s many apprenticeship programs suffer from this grave error, in particular, lack of industry input. As a result their products are not readily employable. In Germany participation by industry is voluntary. Companies would not lose their government contracts if they do not partake in the program. Fourth, and most important, vocational training is not regarded as a dead end stream or a pathway for those not qualified to enter university. The system provides increasing levels of technical training so motivated students could continue on right up to the highest level of technical colleges and universities. Equally important, the educational and vocational components complement each other.

Vocational training is expensive and should come only after the basic education needs of the citizens are taken care. Countries like Indonesia that attempt to graft the dual system fail miserably because scarce resources are diverted away from basic education. Malaysia however has solved the problem of providing primary and lower secondary education and thus is in a better position to benefit from the dual system.

Malaysia’s many vocational schools would benefit greatly from close industry collaboration. Future schools could also be built near industrial estates or major plants. The important element is that there must be major input from industry.

Next: The International Baccalaureate

Chapter 5: A Look At Other Systems (Cont’d)

American Universities

American universities are just as varied. They vary in their requirements for admission and graduation, academic and social ambience, and also most importantly, in academic reputation. The crowd attracted to and accepted by Harvard is very different from those of Podunk State. But what is important is that both institutions serve the nation well.

American universities are either public or private. As education is state responsibility, the federal government does not operate any university except for service academies like West Point and Annapolis. Public universities are mostly state institutions although there are a few operated by municipalities (Pittsburgh and Cincinnati). The private ones are typically set up as not-for-profit bodies (Harvard and Stanford), or by religious organizations (Georgetown and Notre Dame).

There are some for profit (proprietary) institutions (University of Phoenix); few are of superior quality. This is worth mentioning because in Malaysia all private colleges and universities are profit-making entities. There is no exemplary model for Malaysia to follow.

In terms of funding, there is little difference between public and private universities as both receive substantial public funds. The private Caltech gets nearly half its revenue from government sources in the form of research grants and consultancy fees, while public UCLA gets only 27 percent of its funding from the state government. This is important for Malaysia to note.

The fees for public institutions are as expected highly subsidized and affordable. The junior colleges are practically free. The fee differential between private and public universities can be as high as ten fold. Students attending private institutions are treated no differently from those attending public ones with regards to government study loans and scholarships.

There is a definite class system in American higher education. This fact is not well appreciated by foreigners especially those from the Third World who think that a degree is a degree. In the marketplace, those parchment papers command different premiums depending on the institution issuing them.

Of the over 3,000 degree-granting institutions, only about 300 (less than 10 percent) can be considered competitive. That is, they do not admit everyone who applies. The rest will admit anyone with a high school diploma, and who can afford the fees. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching classifies American universities as follows: doctoral universities (offering up to doctoral degrees); masters’ institutions; baccalaureate colleges; junior colleges (offering only Associate degree); and specialized institutions (Julliard School of Music and California Institute of Technology). By this classification, Harvard is lumped together with Idaho State University (ISU). While people at ISU may be flattered by this categorization, consumers (that is, would be students) are not much helped. Under the old Carnegie classification, Harvard is classified as Research University I (offering more than 50 doctorates per year) and ISU, Research University II.

This class system is best demonstrated in California where the top 12.5 percent of high school students are eligible for the elite University of California (UC) System with its nine campuses, while the top third qualify for the CSU System with its 22 campuses. The junior colleges admit everyone including those over 18 who do not have high school diplomas.

An outstanding feature of American undergraduate education is its broad-based liberal curriculum. Regardless of their ultimate career goals, students have to take a year of English, mathematics, laboratory science, foreign language, and the humanities. The first two years (freshman and sophomore) are spent fulfilling these “general ed” requirements. Only in the last two years (junior and senior) do the students concentrate on their majors.

American universities, especially the top ones, also have incredibly diverse student body. This is by design. Harvard has no difficulty filling its slots with Americans, yet it actively seeks bright young students worldwide. It is this diversity that gives American campuses their intellectual spark.

Top American colleges in addition have freshman seminars, where first year students gather in small groups under a professor, with the emphasis on oral communication and class participation. Students also have to enroll in writing classes. At a quality school a student typically writes dozens of term papers in addition to the senior thesis.

It usually takes four years to complete the baccalaureate program, although students who enter with advanced standing and who take summer courses could accelerate their studies. Conversely, students could take a more leisurely pace or skip a year or two. Many, especially the talented, are doing exactly that – for travel, preparing for the Olympics, writing a novel, or even starting a business. Some like Bill Gates and Tiger Woods became so successful that they never returned to complete their degree.

Another innovation at many American universities is the year off campus where students can study at an approved foreign university and have the academic credits transferred back to his home campus.

It is this liberal and flexible education that gives American graduates an edge in the marketplace. It is also the reason why the best and brightest from around the globe compete vigorously to enter the system.

Next: The Canadian System

Chapter 5: A Look At Other Systems (Cont’d)

Reforms at American Schools

There are many recent attempts at reforming the schools, but Conant’s comprehensive schools remain the staple to this day. In 1983 a committee chaired by David Gardner, later to become president of the prestigious University of California System, produced its landmark report, A Nation At Risk. The Imperative for Educational Reform, in which it laments the declining academic rigor of American high schools that fill their curriculum with soft subjects like consumer math and driver ed. “The educational foundations of our society,” the report notes, “are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and a people.”

Gardner’s report was commissioned in response to the challenge coming from what was then widely accepted as the rising East, in particular Japan. Gardner’s committee lacked enforcing power; it was merely advisory. As a result nothing much happened.

Since then there have been many other reform movements. Though they have not caught on nationally, nonetheless in their aggregate, they produce far greater changes. These include the voucher system, charter schools, and the movement of returning to the basics, in particular the Coalition of Essential Schools (CES). Vouchers are meant to empower poor children trapped in lousy school districts. With vouchers these students would be free to enroll in any school, public or private. Presently the system works well in some districts (Milwaukee) where the vouchers are restricted to poor families. Elsewhere the voucher system is entangled in protracted lawsuits. California voters rejected the system because they believed it would simply subsidize those currently enrolled in private schools. The California initiative would more likely be palatable if it had been restricted to the poor, as in Milwaukee.

My concern with unrestricted vouchers is that they would perpetuate if not promote self-segregation, with Jewish parents sending their children to Jewish schools, Arab parents to Arabic schools, Serbians to Serb’s. A generation hence and America would be like the Middle East and the Balkans.

CES, unlike the other reform movements, was started by educators and teachers rather than citizen activists or politicians. Theodore Sizer, a longtime teacher and former headmaster of Phillips Academy, a prestigious New England prep school, started the movement to revamp the way schools teach. Instead of the present factory and assembly-like module system, students would be divided into groups and taught by a team of teachers. The idea is to dismantle the artificial boundaries separating the different academic disciplines and have the teachers communicate with each other more. Thus instead of one teacher teaching chemistry and being oblivious of what the others are doing in physics or history, with team teaching every teacher is made aware of each other’s lesson plans, and their teaching would be interrelated and integrated.

A major feature of CES is that for graduation, students must present an exhibition on a topic of their choice for each subject. This is comparable to the student’s portfolio in a fine arts academy. I am familiar with CES as one of my sons attended such a school and I was on the governing board. One of his exhibitions (for chemistry) was on the internal combustion engine in history, which neatly combined elements of mathematics (laws of thermodynamics), history, and social science in addition to chemistry. The unique feature of CES is that it works within the system; there is no need for special legislation or increased funding. CES involves rearranging the present elements. To join CES, the teachers would have to petition for it and then agree to the guidelines. Unlike other reforms that are often forced upon the working professionals, CES is teacher-driven, which explains its remarkable success and acceptance.

Many American high schools work closely with nearby colleges so ambitious students could simultaneously take college courses for credits. Bard College goes further with an innovative program of fully integrating the last two years of school with the first two years of college for highly talented and motivated students.

There is no national or standard exit examination in America. Each teacher assesses the students on his or her own terms. The school district lays down the graduation requirements. Students are continuously assessed throughout the school year rather than in one final examination. Even their homework and other assignments are graded and contribute to this final score. The student’s Grade Point Average (GPA) represents the yearlong assessment and not a snapshot as one would get with a single Malaysian type end-of-year examination.

There are standardized national tests like the Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT), Achievement Test (AT), and AP. Many universities use both standardized test scores and GPAs in evaluating students. There is a trend among top-ranked colleges of doing away with SAT.

This sentiment has professional backing. The American Psychological Association in its guidelines for test use specifically prohibits basing any consequential judgment about individuals on a single test score. The reason is the significant margin for error. The solution is to use multiple measures, including test scores, GPAs, teachers’ recommendations as well as reviewing the student’s portfolio. For admission to select music, drama, and design schools, the student’s portfolio is the determining factor.

SAT does serve a purpose; it allows comparisons between schools. It does not say much about the academic rigor (or at least the rigor of its testing) of a school if collectively it’s “A” students score poorly at SAT. SAT and similar tests serve to assess the schools as much as the students.

For the individual student however, the predictive value of such standardized tests is more problematic. There are few students who excel in class but perform poorly in these “filling-in-the-blanks” tests. Texas and California now accept the top 5 percent of graduates from each school into their elite universities regardless of their SAT scores.

Doing away with standardized tests creates its own problems because of the variability of school quality. The less selective California State University (CSU) System does not require SAT; it relies exclusively on GPAs. Consequently half of its freshmen have to take remedial classes in English and mathematics.

Next: American Universities

Chapter 5: A Look At Other Systems (Cont’d)

The American System

America, like Malaysia, is a diverse nation and faces the same problems of integrating her various ethnic groups. Like Malaysia, the educational achievements of its various groups are closely related to ethnicity. Both countries have the same problem of increasing the English proficiency of a large segment of its student population who are not native English speakers.

Even though American students do not score at the top in TIMSS, nonetheless they turn out to be very productive, innovative, and creative. Many attribute the remarkable strength and buoyancy of the American economy to its highly talented workers. Ministers of Education from Singapore to Hungary trot to America to learn the secrets of its system.

The prominent feature of the American system is its decentralization. Up until recently, there was no equivalent of a federal Ministry of Education. Education is state responsibility, and that authority is further delegated to the local districts with elected trustees. Teachers in each district are paid by and are accountable to the local school board, not the state superintendent or the federal Secretary of Education in Washington, DC.

These districts vary in size from a few hundred students to one with literally millions as in Los Angeles and New York. They are also incredibly diverse. A school in downtown Los Angeles can have pupils speaking a hundred different languages! And that school will be very different from the one in Minnesota or even close by in affluent Santa Monica. The differences between a school in Ulu Kelantan and Ukay Heights are nothing compared to the varieties in America. Despite such a diversity, the system is remarkably successful in integrating and acculturating the students into the American mainstream, a point that should interest Malaysians.

Because of the tremendous diversity it is difficult to describe the typical American system. For purposes of discussion, I will use California as an example. Even within a single state there are considerable variations.

The American system consists of Kindergarten to Year 12 (K-12). Children enter at age 5. Some districts offer preschool beginning as early as age 3 or 4, especially in poorer areas. After kindergarten they move on to six years of elementary school, followed by two years of middle school, and four years of high school. American schools are all single session, typically ending in mid afternoon; preschools are half days.

In elementary school the pupils learn to read and write, do basic arithmetic, and explore the world around them. Creative arts like singing and drawing are emphasized. Pupils stay with the same teacher, except for subjects like music and special education. Some schools are experimenting with having the same teacher for the entire six years, to maintain continuity. You can be certain that the teachers know their students very well at such schools.

In middle school, the variety of subjects offered broadens, and students move from class to class, each taught by a different teacher. Students take a core curriculum of English, science, mathematics, and social studies. The rest of the school day is taken up by electives, which include such subjects as woodworking and creative arts. There may be a home teacher who will teach two or three of the core subjects in the homeroom. He or she also serves as a center point for the students, a stabilizing focus for them. Some schools have the same home teacher for both years.

High school is similar in that students move from class to class, with different teachers for the various subjects. Apart from the core curriculum, the students again have electives to meet their special needs and interests. Students also have to take a foreign language, although in many districts that exposure could begin earlier in middle or even elementary school.

Most American high schools are the typical large comprehensive variety offering wide range of subjects from agriculture and woodworking to auto shop and welding, as well as highly academic subjects like calculus, economics, and statistics. The more academic schools offer Advanced Placement (AP) classes, the equivalent of first year college courses.

The student’s interests and future goals dictate the courses chosen, with guidance from the counselors. Those aspiring for highly selective colleges take four years of English, science, mathematics, and a foreign language, plus suitable electives in the social studies and fine arts. The transcripts would be greatly enhanced by taking these courses right up to the AP level. Those planning to enter the workforce upon graduation or whose academic goals are less lofty, would still have to take these core subjects except that instead of taking calculus for example, they would opt for “consumer math;” and instead of physics, a less demanding physical science.

The present large comprehensive schools were started in the 1950s and early 60s through the influence of James B. Conant, the former president of Harvard. Prior to that American schools were akin to cottage industries–small and scattered, and thought to be inefficient. The impetus for change was precipitated by the Soviet launching of the Sputnik satellite in 1957. That shocked Americans into realizing how far behind they were in science and mathematics.

Merging these small schools into a single large campus was thought to be the most efficient (meaning, cheapest) way to educate as many students as possible. With a sufficiently large pool of students, the number of subjects offered could be expanded. It was also a reflection of the era when assembly line and “scientific” production championed by the likes of Charles Taylor were the rage. Implicit in that model is the lumping of all students together with no streaming. The assumption is that students learn from each other, the slower ones from their brighter classmates. The system works up to a point. To Conant, these comprehensive public schools also serve as a melting pot not only racially but also socially.

Increasingly today these giant educational factories are exacting their toll. Students feel alienated, disciplinary problems abound, and crowd control becomes a major issue. On many campuses there are metal detectors and armed policemen. And an irony that cannot be dismissed, these policemen earn more than the teachers! Columbine High School, Colorado, the scene of the deadly shootout a few years ago, is typical of such campuses with over 3,000 students.

This lack of streaming is more apparent than real. Many districts now have magnet schools and special GATE (gifted and talented) programs. Further, parents do their own streaming. Increasingly when people buy homes, the first question asked is, “How is the neighborhood school?” The high school at Palo Alto, California, regularly sends its top students to elite universities; meanwhile a stone’s throw away across the freeway in East Palo Alto, the story is very different.

The preceding describes the public system. America also has vigorous and extensive private schools run by churches and other organizations. For the most part they are academically oriented “prep” schools, meaning they “prepare” students for top colleges. Some like Groton and Exeter count among their graduates, luminaries in government, business, and the professions. They are also increasingly attracting many foreign students.

Next: Reform of American Schools

Chapter 5: A Look at Other Models

In this chapter I will examine the education system of three countries: United States, Canada, and Germany. American universities are the best; many countries are now adopting its system of broad-based liberal education with emphasis on languages, the sciences, and mathematics. Canada’s biculturalism and bilingualism are of special relevance to Malaysia. For Germany, the superiority of its vocational education is widely acknowledged.

There are many other countries with superior systems of education, but I choose not to include them. Britain is one. Its public schools and rigorous matriculating examination–the GCE Advanced level–are universally highly regarded, recent scandals on markings notwithstanding. Students with A level pass are routinely granted first year college credits at American campuses. I have not included the British system simply because Malaysians are already very familiar with it.

Nor will I discuss except in passing the excellent schools of some Asian countries like Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. Their schools are widely lauded and their students consistently score at the top in international tests. The world may sing praises for their system, but their own students and parents think differently. To them their school is nothing but a relentless and uncompromising system of rote learning, regularly punctuated by grueling examinations. Their young hardly had time to enjoy their childhood as their waking hours are spent cramming for tests after tests. And when they are not doing that they are busy at private tuition or attending “cram schools.” Their leaders and educators erroneously equate test scores as the be-all and end-all of education.

A measure of the inadequacy of their system can be gauged by the fact that South Korean parents would do anything to have their young escape the torture that is their school system. Many are sending their young to Canada and America, accompanied by their mothers while the rest of the family are stuck back home, with the father busy working hard to pay for that expensive education abroad. A more recent phenomenon would have pregnant Korean mothers flying to America for delivery so as to obtain an automatic American passport for the baby. After delivery both mother and baby would fly back home. When it is time for high school, that baby–now a young teenager–would be back in America as an American. All these elaborate schemes are designed simply so Korean parents could spare their young from attending the torture system that is their high school. If Korean parents go to such extremes, I do not think their schools are worthy models for Malaysia.

Singapore, despite its excellent schools, has little to offer Malaysia. Like Japan and South Korea, Singapore does not have problems of cultural and linguistic diversities. Sure it has small minority groups but Singapore does not exactly demonstrate much sensitivity to them. Singapore’s treatment of its minorities is not exactly the one that Malaysia should emulate. In terms of size, Singapore’s schools would be the equivalent of a midsize American school district. There is not much that Malaysia can learn from Singapore or any of the other two Asian countries.

Singapore does have something going for it. Its schools have high standards of English, science, and mathematics. Its teachers are well paid and highly regarded. Teaching still attracts top talent, a far cry from the situation in Malaysia.

In addition to reviewing the education system of the different countries, I will also review two exemplary programs at opposite ends of the spectrum. First is the International Baccalaureate (IB), widely recognized as a superior matriculating examination, and second, Brazil’s Bolsa Escola program which deals with problems in the polar opposite–of how to keep children in school.

Next: The American System

Chapter 4: Deficiencies of the System (Cont’d)

The Universities

The recent widely publicized plight of over 40,000 graduates unable to find jobs is emblematic of the failure of Malaysian higher education. The overwhelming majority (over 94 percent) were Malay graduates of local institutions. The public was stunned by the revelation, the sudden realization that the blight had infected the cream. The whole edifice might crumble.

There was no shortage of commentaries and finger pointing, with some blaming the students for being choosy, and others the universities for being out of touch with reality. In all those discussions the basic question was not asked, let alone answered. Were these graduates unemployed or simply unemployable? With the former, the answer would rest with the greater economy; with the latter it would be with the education system.

It is hard to imagine with the current near full employment and with the country having to import thousands of workers that these graduates would have difficulty finding jobs. It is my contention that the universities have done a lousy job to ensure that their products are employable.

Mustapa Mohamad, chairman of the National Economic Action Council, identified this as essentially a Bumiputra problem. Again, this reflects the tendency of officials to view problems through the prism of race; it permeates their thinking. As graduates of local public universities are mostly Malays, the poor Malay race again gets blamed when in actuality it is the universities’ fault in doing a lousy job of preparing their graduates for the realities of the marketplace.

Sadly, the government again reverted to pat pattern in solving the problem, by pouring more money on these graduates. The results will be no better than other similar programs to help Bumiputras, and will be just as expensive and wasteful. The government has done enough already by giving them the opportunity to get a university education. If they cannot go on their own after that, then there is no hope that they ever will. Spending more money only heightens their already inflated sense of entitlement and ingrains their dependency mentality. These graduates are getting RM500 monthly allowance; a hawker can easily earn much more. If an illegal and illiterate Bangladesh immigrant can earn a living in Malaysia, I see no reason why these graduates could not do the same. It is not ordained that our graduates cannot be construction workers, taxi drivers, farmers, or hawkers. Indeed with their university education they would become better and more productive at those jobs.

The government’s various attachment schemes for graduates are nothing more than camouflaged public works programs. They are meant more to provide an income to the graduates rather than equipping them with the necessary salable skills. I would scrap the entire program and use the funds to retrain them with marketable skills. Enhance their English fluency, mathematical competency, and IT training, and they will find ready employers.

The only avenue of employment for arts graduates from local universities is with the government. They have no useable skills needed in the private sector. Blame our pubic universities for this. Had our universities followed the example of leading American colleges and made a year of English, mathematics, and laboratory science mandatory, then our graduates would have greater flexibility not only in the marketplace but also in their further studies. In America, because of its broad-based liberal education, it is quite common for a religious studies or history major to go into medical, law or business school, or to change their field of study at the graduate level.

There have been tepid attempts at broadening the undergraduate program. Deputy Prime Minister Badawi suggested that Islamic Studies students take one elective outside their major. UUM students now have to take at least three courses conducted entirely in English. This will go a long way to stem the decline of English fluency of its graduates. To date this sensible idea has not spilled over to the other campuses.

Despite the glut of jobless graduates, the government continues to provide scholarships and loans for students to pursue the liberal arts. It should be sending a very strong signal to would-be undergraduates by sharply curtailing financial support for those pursuing these unneeded disciplines. Additionally, again through the funding mechanism, I would send the appropriate message to the universities to cut their intake for such disciplines. These academics are being irresponsible in churning out products that are not needed in the marketplace.

Concomitant with the reduction in intake for the arts stream, the government should also broaden the curriculum by making these students take English, science, and mathematics to enhance their employability.

There is a sinister but hidden aspect to the government’s help for these jobless graduates. There is no incentive for would-be undergraduates to choose carefully their majors, as no matter what, the government would be there to bail them out in the end.

The problem with our public universities is that with Malay being the medium of instruction, students have low English proficiency. There are limited number of books and reference materials in Malay, meaning that the students’ intellectual horizon is necessarily limited. Their reading list is extremely short, and students rarely venture beyond the few prescribed texts.

The typical Third World professor is also aloof, all knowing, and imperious, a demeanor not likely to encourage or tolerate vigorous class discussions or intellectual debates. Consequently Malaysian students are passive listeners; their classroom involvement is merely to show up. A senior history professor from UM lamented that his students were reduced to being silent stenographers dutifully transcribing everything he uttered, and regurgitating them at examination time.

The professor was as much at fault. If he was worried about his students becoming stenographers, why, simply publish and distribute his lecture notes. To encourage class discussion, try assigned seating and have class participation factored in the final grades. Or he could use some of my tricks mentioned earlier in teaching medical students where I simply uttered something ridiculous and see the students’ reactions. Similarly, he could have “open book” examinations and design his questions to minimize rote memory and mindless regurgitation.

What goes on in the lecture halls and seminar rooms on Malaysian campuses is essentially a one-way communication, a monologue from the lecturer. Students are treated simply as empty dustbins to be filled with data and dogma rather than curious minds to be stimulated. Students in turn treat everything emanating from the professor as gospel truth.

While student evaluation of professors is standard on American campuses, it is unthinkable at a Malaysian university. While Malaysian academics endlessly exhort their students to be original and creative, these professors hardly contribute anything creative or original.

This lifelessness did not develop overnight. The government is directly responsible and indeed actively promotes this sorry state of affair. Such an atmosphere is not conducive for excellence or innovation. If one were to look for the turning point that led to the current state of mediocrity, it would be the introduction of the Universities and Colleges Act of 1971. The original intent of the Act was benign enough, to prevent a recurrence of the nightmare of the race riot of 1969. But the Act has been “strengthened,” that is, made more repressive with subsequent amendments, in particular the one in 1975. The Act not only did away with what little academic freedom the professors and universities had, but more menacingly created a palpable atmosphere of repression on campus. The university was put on a very tight leash; those who dared stray would be jerked right back, or worse. Those who dare express independent viewpoints, meaning not what the government or ruling party wants to hear, would suffer the consequences, and many have. A professor of sociology active in the opposition party had his teaching contract not renewed; actually he was fired, just in case the message did not register with his colleagues. Justice finally prevailed with the professor winning his case in court. The verdict itself was a surprise. No, he was not reinstated, merely awarded monetary damages.
Academics quickly learn that if you want to progress you have to ingratiate yourself if not overtly suck up to the powerful. No surprise then that the universities have failed the nation; they are being led by the meek and the toady rather than the brilliant and innovative.

Malaysian universities are not autonomous; they are divisions within MOE. Faculty members are treated (and they in turn behave) more as civil servants rather than as scholars and scientists. Discussions in the faculty club often revolve around one’s position on the salary scheme rather than papers published or patents applied. Senior academic positions are chosen not by the university community rather appointed by the minister. Often they are civil servants seconded from the Tourism Ministry while on their way to be undersecretary at the Sports Ministry.

This civil service milieu is purposely created. And like the civil service, brilliance, creativity, and innovations give way to precedent, seniority, and general orders.

For the past few years the regional publication Asiaweek (now defunct) conducted regular surveys of Asian universities. Already in that short space of time we see the steady decline in the ranking of local institutions. In its first survey in 1997, Malaysia’ leading and oldest university, UM, was ranked 11th, two years later it slipped to 27th, and in the last survey (2000) it dropped to 47th. Meanwhile UKM made the list once at the very beginning, and then dropped out of sight. Only UPM improved its standing from 69th in 1999 to 52nd in 2000. One may argue with the criteria used, but there is no mistaking the trend. Of course the typical ministerial response is, well, we are still ahead of Papua New Guinea!

Those attempting reform must be prepared to address not only the institutional issues but equally important, the cultural impediments to change. Before presenting my proposals, I will examine the system of education of a few select countries that is worthy of Malaysia to note. This would be followed by a chapter reviewing attempts at reforming the system, in particular the two current proposals, MOE’s Education Development 2001-2010, and the more recent report of the National Brains Trust.

Next: Chapter 5: A Look At other Models

Chapter 4: Deficiencies of the System (Cont’d)

(Personal note: Despite my best attempts (use of filters, moderated comments), I am still inundated with spam. With my mass editing mode, I may occasionally and inadvertently delete legitimate postings. If you find that your posting have been deleted, please email me at bakrimusa@juno.com and I will try to retrieve it.

I read every comment, and appreciate very much your time, effort and willingness to share your thoughts and views. MBM)

Residential Schools and Matrikulasi

The track record of the system in meeting the needs of the more academically inclined is not much better either. Bright Bumiputra students are selected to continue their secondary studies at residential schools. These schools are free; in addition students from poor families receive a stipend.

These schools are also very expensive to operate, with the bulk of the funds going merely to feed and house the students. With such diversion of resources, little is left for academic activities. Thus even though these schools get the best students, their aggregate academic performance is wanting.

In the past students who passed the special entrance examination would continue right away into the two-year pre-university (Sixth Form) in January. They had 24 months of continuous academic study that prepared them well for university. Stories abound of students who failed Sixth Form and were not accepted to local universities only to shine when they went abroad, a reflection of the rigor of the program.

Unfortunately nobody thought of expanding the program and before long it became a chokehold on the supply of undergraduates, especially Bumiputras. In an effort to boost the number of Bumiputra undergraduates, UM embarked on an imaginative outreach program where selected students would be brought on campus after completing their Form Five. The argument was that if they were exposed early to the campus environment and taught by qualified personnel, they would do well. The experiment was a resounding success and these students indeed did indeed excel.

Matrikulasi was designed specifically for Bumiputras as few of them successfully came through Sixth Form. Most schools where they attended were in small towns and did not have Sixth Form. Thus the overall quality of teaching suffered, with the students poorly prepared for the entrance examination. Further, undoubtedly related, Bumiputra students who did manage to enter Sixth Form did not perform well, reflecting the poor teaching of science and mathematics at the lower levels. Matrikulasi was thus to augment and complement Sixth Form.

The success of matrikulasi emboldened the government to expand it. Today matrikulasi has effectively supplanted Sixth Form. I have not visited the matrikulasi run directly by the universities. Looking at the facilities and qualifications of the instructors (many with doctoral degrees), I have no doubt that these programs are far superior to the old Sixth Form. But it is the freestanding programs and those “franchised” to private institutions that concern me. I have visited some of them, talked to the instructors, and examined the students’ handbooks. Their courses are definitely watered down. This is not a surprise. For one, matrikulasi runs for one year (actually two semesters, which are shorter than one school year) while Sixth Form is two full school years. In terms of actual instructional hours, matrikulasi is less than half of Sixth Form. Additionally Sixth Form begins immediately in January while matrikulasi starts typically in June. During that long hiatus considerable attrition of knowledge occurs. The first few weeks or even months of matrikulasi involve reviewing old material.

The most damning criticism of matrikulasi is that despite having been in place for over three decades, there is little research comparing its efficacy to that of Sixth Form or other matriculating examinations. One study done by UUM‘s researchers showed that students who went through Sixth Form performed better than those from matrikulasi. This was presented at an academic forum and was widely reported in the national press under the banner, “Malay students perform poorly as compared to non-Malays.” The basis for that conclusion was that students in Sixth Form were non-Malays while matrikulasi, Malays. Looking at the data, an equally valid conclusion would be that matrikulasi prepares students poorly for university and that race has nothing to do with the results. Indeed had the researchers drawn this conclusion, the next logical question to ask is, “Why?” One clue would be to look at the number of instructional hours.

I am appalled that such half-baked studies, poorly designed, and the data erroneously interpreted were even accepted for presentation and then widely and uncritically reported in the media. Even more surprising was that no professional educators challenged the obviously silly findings. I e-mailed the coauthors of the paper with my criticism; none bothered to reply.

This lack of solid research is even more revealing when one considers that many of the programs are being run by the universities. This lack of intellectual curiosity on the part of the academic community is truly shocking.

A more damning criticism of both residential schools and matrikulasi is the insularity and homogeneity of their students, thus diminishing the overall quality of the education itself. These students compete in a limited environment.

These residential schools take away bright students from regular schools, depleting the overall caliber of those remaining. This demoralizes the teachers, as there is no nucleus or core of bright students to stimulate and motivate the class. When I visit rural schools, the frequent excuse I get from the teachers is that their bright students have been siphoned off to residential schools.

Our schools have not served the non-academically inclined as well as those aspiring for universities. Who exactly have they served?

Next: The Universities