Dear all,
Can I invite you to join this education caucus group (ECG)? At http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_164790286881424
Showing posts with label education system. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education system. Show all posts
Friday, October 22, 2010
education in Malaysia
Education in Malaysia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Education in Malaysia Ministry of Education
Ministry of Higher Education
Minister of Education -
Muhyiddin Yassin
Minister of Higher Education - Mohamed Khaled Nordin
National education budget (2006)
Budget: RM30 billion1
General Details
Primary Languages: Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Tamil
System Type: National
Established 1956
Total: 95%
Enrollment
Total: 5,416,924
Primary: 3,111,948
Secondary: 2,304,976
Education in Malaysia is overseen by two government ministries: the Ministry of Education for matters up to the secondary level, and the Ministry of Higher Education for tertiary education. Although education is the responsibility of the federal government, each state has an Education Department to help coordinate educational matters in their respective states. The main legislation governing education is the Education Act of 1996.
Education may be obtained from government-sponsored schools, private schools, or through homeschooling. By law, primary education is compulsory. As in other Asian countries such as Korea and Japan, standardised tests are a common feature.
History
Batu Pahat High School, JohorSekolah Pondok (literally, Hut school), Madrasah and other Islamic schools were the earliest forms of schooling available in Malaysia . Early works of Malay literature such as Hikayat Abdullah mention these schools indicating they pre-date the current secular model of education.
Secular schools in Malaysia were largely an innovation of the British colonial government. Many of the earliest schools in Malaysia were founded in the Straits Settlements of Penang, Melaka, and Singapore. The oldest English-language school in Malaya is the Penang Free School, founded in 1816, followed by Malacca High School, and Anglo Chinese School, Klang. Many English-language schools are considered quite prestigious.
British historian Richard O. Winstedt worked to improve the education of the Malays and was instrumental in establishing Sultan Idris Training College. The college was established with the purpose of producing Malay teachers. R J Wilkinson helped established the Malay College Kuala Kangsar in 1905 which aimed to educate the Malay elite.
Initially, the British colonial government did not provide for any Malay-language secondary schools, forcing those who had studied in Malay during primary school to adjust to an English-language education. Many Malays failed to pursue additional education due to this issue..[1] Despite complaints about this policy, the British Director of Education stated:
“ It would be contrary to the considered policy of government to afford to a community, the great majority of whose members find congenial livelihood and independence in agricultural pursuits, more extended facilities for the learning of English which would be likely to have the effect of inducing them to abandon those pursuits.[2] ”
Malay representatives in the Federal Council as well as the Legislative Council of Singapore responded vehemently, with one calling the British policy "a policy that trains the Malay boy how not to get employment" by excluding the Malays from learning in the "bread-earning language of Malaya". He remarked:
“ In the fewest possible words, the Malay boy is told 'You have been trained to remain at the bottom, and there you must always remain!' Why, I ask, waste so much money to attain this end when without any vernacular school, and without any special effort, the Malay boy could himself accomplish this feat?[3] ”
To remedy this problem, the British established the Malay College Kuala Kangsar. However, it was mainly intended as a way to educate low-level civil servants, and not as a means to opening the doors of commerce to the Malays — the school was never intended to prepare students for entrance to higher institutions of education.[4]
Missionaries of various Christian denominations, such as the Roman Catholic Josephian order and the Lasallian Brothers, Seventh-day Adventist, Anglican as well as Methodist also started a series of mission schools which provided primary and secondary education in the English language. Most of these were single-sex schools. Although nowadays they had fully assimilated into the Malay-medium national school system and most admit students regardless of gender and background (some single-sex schools remain), many of the schools still bear their original names today, such as the ones with the names of various saints or words such as “Katholik”, “Convent”, “Advent” and “Methodist”.
During the British colonial period, large numbers of immigrants from China and India arrived in Malaya. The Chinese and Indian communities eventually established their vernacular schools with school curricula and teachers from China and India respectively.
In the 1950s, there were four initial proposals for developing the national education system: the Barnes Report (favoured by the Malays), Ordinance Report (modification of the Barnes Report), the Fenn-Wu Report (favoured by the Chinese and Indians), and the Razak Report (a compromise between the two reports). The Barnes proposal was implemented through the 1952 Education Ordinance amidst Chinese protests. In 1956, the Razak Report was adopted by the Malayan government as the educational framework for independent Malaya. The Razak Report called for a national school system consists of Malay, English, Chinese and Tamil-medium schools at the primary level, and Malay and English-medium schools at the secondary schools, with a uniform national curriculum regardless of the medium of instruction. Malay-medium schools would be known as "national", while other languages schools would be known as "national-type".
In the early years of independence, existing Chinese, Tamil and mission schools accepted government funding and were allowed to retain their medium of instructions on the condition that they adopt the national curriculum. Chinese secondary schools were given the options of accepting government funding and change into English national-type schools, or remain Chinese and private without government funding. Most of the schools accepted the change, although a few rejected the offer and came to be known as Chinese independent high schools. Shortly after the change, some of the national-type schools reestablished their Chinese independent high school branches.
In the 1970s, in accordance to the national language policy, the government began to change English-medium primary and secondary national-type schools into Malay-medium national schools. The language change was made gradually starting from the first year in primary school, then the second year in the following year and so on. The change was completed by the end of 1982.
In 1996, the Education Act of 1996 was passed to amend the Education Ordinance of 1956 and the Education Act of 1961.
Preschool education
Preschool education is mainly provided by private for-profit preschools, though some are run by the government or religious groups. Some primary schools have attached preschool sections. Attendance in a preschool programme is not universal; while people living in urban areas are generally able to send their children to private kindergartens, few do in rural areas.
There is no formal preschool curriculum except a formal mandatory training and certification for principals and teachers before they may operate a preschool. The training covers lessons on child psychology, teaching methodologies, and other related curricula on childcare and development.
Registered preschools are subjected to zoning regulations and must comply to other regulations such as health screening and fire hazard assessment. Many preschools are located in high density residential areas, where normal residential units compliant to regulations are converted into the schools.
There is no fixed rules on when a child needs to start preschool education but majority would start when the child turns 5 years old. Preschool education usually lasts for 2 years, before they proceed to primary school at age 7.
Primary education
There are two main types of public primary schools in Malaysia: national (Sekolah Kebangsaan in Malay, abbreviated as SK) and national-type (Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan, abbreviated as SJK). National-type schools are further divided into Chinese national-type schools (Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan Cina, SJK(C)) and Tamil national-type schools (Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan Tamil, SJK(T)). By degree of government funding, national schools are government-operated, while national-type schools are mostly government-assisted, though some are government-operated. All schools admit students regardless of racial and language background.
The medium of instruction is Malay for SK, Mandarin and simplified Chinese characters writing for SJK(C), and Tamil for SJK(T). Malay and English are compulsory subjects in all schools. All schools use the same syllabus for non-language subjects regardless of the medium of instruction. In January 2003, a mixed medium of instruction was introduced so that students would learn Science and Mathematics in English. Due to pressure from the Chinese community, SJK(C) teach Science and Mathematics in both English and Chinese. However, the government reversed the policy of teaching Science and Mathematics in English in July 2009, and previous languages of instruction will be reintroduced in stages from 2012.[5]
Primary education consists of six years of education, referred to as Year 1 to Year 6 (also known as Standard 1 to Standard 6). Year 1 to Year 3 are classified as Level One (Tahap Satu) while Year 4 to Year 6 are considered as Level Two (Tahap Dua). Primary education begins at the age of 7 and ends at 12. Students are promoted to the next year regardless of their academic performance (poor curriculum induced).
From 1996 until 2000, the Penilaian Tahap Satu (PTS) or the Level One Evaluation was administered to Year 3 students. Excellence in this test allowed students to skip Year 4 and attend Year 5 instead. However, the test was removed from 2001 onwards due to concerns that parents and teachers were unduly pressuring students to pass the exam.
At the end of primary education, students in national schools are required to undergo a standardised test known as the Ujian Pencapaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) or Primary School Evaluation Test. The subjects tested are Malay comprehension, written Malay, English, Science and Mathematics. Chinese comprehension and written Chinese are compulsory in SJK(C), while Tamil comprehension and written Tamil are compulsory in SJK(T).
Between 1995 and 2000, the Seventh Malaysia Plan allocation for primary education development allocated 96.5% to national primary schools which had 75% of total enrollment. Chinese primary schools (21% enrollment) received 2.4% of the allocation while Tamil primary schools (3.6% enrollment) received 1% of the allocation.
The division of public education at the primary level into national and national-type schools has been criticised for allegedly creating racial polarisation at an early age.[6] To address the problem, attempts have been made to establish Sekolah Wawasan ("vision schools"). Under the concept, three schools (typically one SK, one SJK(C) and one SJK(T)) would share the same school compound and facilities while maintaining different school administrations, ostensibly to encourage closer interaction. However, this was met with objections from most of the Chinese and Indian communities as they believe this will restrict the use of their mother tongue in schools.
Secondary education
Chio Min Secondary School, Kulim, Kedah.Public secondary schools are regarded as extensions of the national schools. They study in five forms. Each form will take a year. Some students, however, will have to study in "Remove" before they can study in Form 1 because of the poor academic results, or simply choosing to do so, which is possible in some schools. At the end of Form 3, the Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR, formerly known as Sijil Pelajaran Rendah (SRP) or Lower Certificate of Education (LCE)) or Lower Secondary Evaluation is taken by students. Based on choice, they will be streamed into either the Science stream or Arts stream. The Science stream is generally more desirable. Students are allowed to shift to the Arts stream from the Science stream, but rarely vice-versa.
Co-curricular activities are compulsory at the secondary level, where all students must participate in at least 2 activities. There are many co-curricular activities offered at the secondary level, varying at each school and each student is judged based in these areas. Competitions and performances are regularly organized. Co-curricular activities are often categorized under the following: Uniformed Groups, Performing Arts, Clubs & Societies, Sports & Games. Student may also participate in more than 2 co-curricular activities.
At the end of Form 5, students are required to take the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) or Malaysian Certificate of Education examination, before graduating from secondary school. The SPM was based on the old British ‘School Certificate’ examination before it became General Certificate of Education 'O' Levels examination, which became the GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education). As of 2006, students are given a GCE 'O' Level grade for their English paper in addition to the normal English SPM paper. (Previously, this was reported on result slips as a separate result labelled 1119, which meant students received two grades for their English papers.) This separate grade is given based on the marks of the essay-writing component of the English paper. The essay section of the English paper is remarked under the supervision of officials from British 'O' Levels examination . Although not part of their final certificates, the 'O' Level grade is included on their results slip.
Shortly after the release of the 2005 SPM results in March 2006, the Education Ministry announced it was considering reforming the SPM system due to what was perceived as over-emphasis on As. Local educators appeared responsive to the suggestion, with one professor at the University of Malaya deploring university students who could not write letters, debate, or understand footnoting. He complained that "They don't understand what I am saying. ... I cannot communicate with them." He claimed that "Before 1957 (the year of independence), school heroes were not those with 8As or 9As, they were the great debaters, those good in drama, in sport, and those leading the Scouts and Girl Guides." A former Education Director-General, Murad Mohd Noor, agreed, saying that "The rat race now begins at Standard 6 with the UPSR, with the competition resulting in parents forcing their children to attend private tuition." He also expressed dismay at the prevalence of students taking 15 or 16 subjects for the SPM, calling it "unnecessary".[7]
National Type/Charter Secondary/High Schools/Residential Schools or Sekolah Berasrama Penuh (SBP)
Within the national public school system are a few magnet type/charter public high schools. Admissions are very selective, reserved for students who demonstrate outstanding academic achievement and potential at the elementary level, Grade/Standard 1 through 6. These schools are either full time day or boarding schools ('asrama penuh'). Examples of these schools is the Malacca High School, Royal Military College (Malaysia) and Penang Free School.
Residential schools or Sekolah Berasrama Penuh are also known as Science Schools. These schools used to cater mainly for Malays elites but has since expanded as schools for nurturing Malays who are outstanding academically or those displaying talents in sports & leadership. The schools are modeled after British Boarding School.
Pre-university education
After the SPM, students from public secondary school would have a choice of either studying Form 6 or the matriculation (pre-university). If they are accepted to continue studying in Form 6, they will also take the Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (which is usually abbreviated as STPM) or Malaysian Higher School Certificate examination (its British equivalent is the General Certificate of Education 'A' Levels examination or internationally, the Higher School Certificate). STPM is regulated by the Malaysian Examinations Council (http://www.mpm.edu.my/bi/main.php) . Form 6 consists of two years of study which is known as Lower 6 (Tingkatan Enam Rendah) and Upper 6 (Tingkatan Enam Atas). Although it is generally taken by those desiring to attend public universities in Malaysia, it is internationally recognised and may also be used, though rarely required, to enter private local universities for undergraduate courses.
Additionally all students may apply for admission to matriculation which is a one or two-year programme run by the Ministry of Education. Previously, it was a one-year programme, but beginning 2006, 30% of all matriculation students were offered two-year programmes. Not all applicants for matriculation are admitted and the selection criteria are not publicly declared, which has led to speculation that any criteria existing may not be adhered to. A race-based quota is applied on the admission process, with 90% of the places being reserved for the Bumiputeras, and the other 10% for the non-Bumiputeras. The matriculation programme is not as rigorous as the STPM. The matriculation programme has come under some criticism as it is the general consensus that this programme is much easier than the sixth form programme leading to the STPM and serves to help Bumiputeras enter public universities easily. Having been introduced after the abolishment of a racial-quota-based admission into universities, the matriculation programme continues the role of its predecessor, albeit in modified form. It is considered easier because in the matriculation programme, teachers set and mark the final exams that their students sit, whereas in the STPM the final exam is standardised and exam papers are exchanged between schools in different states to ensure unbiased marking. Also, the matriculation programme adopts a semester basis examination (2 semesters in a year) whilst STPM involves only one final examination, covering all 2 years' syllabus in one go. The scope and depth of syllabus in matriculation is also lesser to that of STPM. The disparity between the programmes does not end there, for it is a known fact[citation needed] that in critical courses offered by local public universities (such as Medicine, Pharmacy, Dentistry and Law), almost 70% of the students comprise matriculation students. On the contrary, STPM students forms the majority in courses which are less in demand, such as a Bachelor in Science. Defenders of the matriculation programme have described the two programmes as distinct and different, drawing the analogy of an apple and an orange. However, having serve the same purpose (i.e. as an entrance requirement to local public universities), the Malaysian public is criticising the matriculation programme as a blatant practice of double standards.
The Centre for Foundation Studies in Science, University of Malaya, offers 2 programmes only for Bumiputera students : i) The Science Program, a one year course under the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Higher Education. After completing the program, the students are placed into various science-based courses in the local universities through the meritocracy system. ii) The Special Preparatory Program to Enter the Japanese Universities, a two year intensive programme under the Look East Policy Division of the Public Service Department of Malaysia in cooperation with the Japanese Government.
Some students undertake their pre-university studies in private colleges. They may opt for programmes such as the British 'A' Levels programme, the Canadian matriculation programme or the equivalent of other national systems - namely the Australian NSW Board of Studies Higher School Certificate and the American High School Diploma with AP subjects. More recently, the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme is becoming more popular as a pre-university option.
The Government has claimed that admission to Universities are purely meritocracy based, but having so many different pre-university programmes and without a standard basis for comparison among the students, the public has been highly sceptical of the claim.
Tertiary education
See also: List of universities in Malaysia
Tertiary education is heavily subsidised by the government. Applicants to public universities must have completed the Malaysia matriculation programme or have an STPM grade. Excellence in these examinations does not guarantee a place in a public university.The selection criteria are largely opaque as no strictly enforced defined guidelines exist.
The classification of tertiary education in Malaysia is organised upon the Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF) which seeks to set up a unified system of post secondary qualifications offered on a national basis both in the vocational as well as higher educational sectors.
In 2004, the government formed the Ministry of Higher Education to oversee tertiary education in Malaysia. The ministry is headed by Mustapa Mohamed.
Although the government announced a reduction of reliance of racial quotas in 2002, instead leaning more towards meritocracy. Prior to 2004, all lecturers in public tertiary institutions were required to have some post-graduate award as a requisite qualification. In October 2004, this requirement was removed and the Higher Education Ministry announced that industry professionals who added value to a course could apply for lecturing positions directly to universities even if they did not have postgraduate qualifications. To head off possible allegations that the universities faced a shortage of lecturers, Deputy Higher Education Minister Datuk Fu Ah Kiow said "This is not because we are facing a shortage of lecturers, but because this move will add value to our courses and enhance the name of our universities...Let's say Bill Gates and Steven Spielberg, both well known and outstanding in their fields, want to be teaching professors. Of course, we would be more than happy to take them in." He went on to offer architecture as an example whereby well-known architects recognized for their talents did not have a masters degree.
The academic independence of public universities' faculty has been questioned. Critics like Bakri Musa cite examples such as a scientist who was reprimanded by Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak for "publishing studies on air pollution", and a professor of mathematics at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia who was reproved for criticising the government policy of teaching mathematics and science in English at the primary and secondary levels.[8]
Students also have the choice of attending private institutions of higher learning. Many of these institutions offer courses in cooperation with a foreign institute or university. Some of them are branch campuses of these foreign institutions.
Many private colleges offer programmes whereby the student does part of his degree course here and part of it in the other institution, this method is named "twinning". The nature of these programs is somewhat diverse and ranges from the full "twinning" program where all credits and transcripts are transferable and admission is automatic to programs where the local institution offers an "associate degree" which is accepted at the discretion of the partnering university. In the latter case, acceptance of transcripts and credits is at the discretion of the partner.
Some foreign universities and colleges have also set up branch campuses in Malaysia, including:
■Monash University, Australia.
■The University of Nottingham, United Kingdom
■SAE Institute, Australia
■Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
■Curtin University of Technology, Australia
■Raffles Design Institute, Singapore
The net outflow of academics from Malaysia led to a "brain gain" scheme by then (1995) Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamed. The scheme set a target of attracting 5,000 talents annually. In 2004, Science, Technology and Innovation Minister, Datuk Dr Jamaluddin Jarjis in a parliamentary reply stated that the scheme attracted 94 scientists (24 Malaysians) in pharmacology, medicine, semi-conductor technology and engineering from abroad between 1995 and 2000. At the time of his reply, only one was remaining in Malaysia.
Postgraduate programmes
Postgraduate degrees such as the Master of Business Administration (MBA) and the Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) are becoming popular and are offered by both the public universities and the private colleges.
All public and most private universities in Malaysia offer Master of Science degrees either through coursework or research and Doctor of Philosophy degrees through research.
Vocational programmes and polytechnics schools
Besides the university degrees, students also have the option of continuing their education in professional courses such as the courses offered by the ICSA (Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators) etc. Polytechnics in Malaysia provide courses for diploma level (3 years) and certificate level (2 years).
The following is a list of the public polytechnics in Malaysia.
■Ungku Omar Polytechnic
■Politeknik Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah
■Politeknik Sultan Abdul Halim Muadzam Shah
■Politeknik Kota Bharu
■Politeknik Kuching Sarawak
■Politeknik Port Dickson
■Politeknik Kota Kinabalu
■Politeknik Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah
■Politeknik Johor Bahru
■Politeknik Seberang Perai
■Politeknik Kota, Melaka (Version (http://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeknik_Kota%2C_Melaka|Malay) )
■Politeknik Kota, Kuala Terengganu
■Politeknik Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin
■Politeknik Merlimau
■Polytechnic Of Sultan Azlan Shah or Politeknik Sultan Azlan Shah
■Politeknik Kulim
■Politeknik Sultan Idris Shah
■Politeknik Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin
■Politeknik Muadzam Shah
■Politeknik Mukah
The Vocational Courses for Automotive Technology:
■TEKAT Automotive College
Universities produce almost 150,000 skilled graduates annually.
Other types of schools
See also: List of schools in Malaysia
Apart from national schools, there are other types of schools in Malaysia.
Islamic religious schools
A system of Islamic religious schools exists in Malaysia. Primary schools are called Sekolah Rendah Agama (SRA), while secondary schools are called Sekolah Menengah Agama (SMA).
Another type of schools available in Malaysia is the Islamic religious schools or sekolah agama rakyat (SAR). The schools teach Muslim students subjects related to Islam such as early Islamic history, Arabic language and Fiqh. It is not compulsory though some states such as Johor make it mandatory for all Muslim children aged six to twelve to attend the schools as a complement to the mandatory primary education. In the final year, students will sit an examination for graduation. Most SAR are funded by respective states and managed by states' religious authority.
Previously, former Prime Minister Tun Mahathir Mohammad suggested to the government that the SARs should be closed down and integrated into the national schools. However, his proposal was met with resistance and later, the matter was left to die quietly.
Such schools still exist in Malaysia, but are generally no longer the only part of a child's education in urban areas. Students in rural parts of the country do still attend these schools. Since the academic results published by these schools are not accepted by mainline universities, many of these students have to continue their education in locations such as Pakistan or Egypt. Some of their alumni include Nik Adli (Son of PAS leader Nik Aziz).
Some parents also opt to send their children for religious classes after secular classes. Dharma classes, Sunday schools and after school classes at the mosque are various options available.
Chinese independent high schools
After receiving primary education in national-type primary school, some students from SJK(C) may choose to study in a Chinese independent high school. Chinese independent high schools are funded mostly by the Malaysian Chinese public, with UCSCAM (United Chinese School Committees Association of Malaysia, also known as Dong Jiao Zong after its Chinese acronym) as the overall coordination body. Students in Chinese independent high school study in three junior middle levels and three senior middle levels, similar to the secondary schools systems in mainland China and Taiwan, each level usually takes one year. Like the students in public secondary school, students in Chinese independent high school are streamed into several streams like Science Stream or Art/Commerce Stream in the senior middle levels. However, some school recently provided unique streams like Electrical Engineering stream, Food and Beverage Studies or Arts design stream. The medium of instruction in Chinese independent high schools is Mandarin, and uses simplified Chinese characters in writing.
Students in Chinese independent high schools take standardized tests known as the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) at the end of Junior Middle 3 and Senior Middle 3. UEC has been run by UCSCAM since 1975. The UEC is available in three levels: Vocational Unified Exam (UEC-V), UEC Junior Middle Level (UEC-JML/JUEC) and Senior Middle Level (UEC-SML/SUEC). The syllabus and examinations for the UEC-V and UEC-JML are only available in the Chinese language. The UEC-SML has questions for mathematics, sciences (biology, chemistry and physics), bookkeeping, accounting and commerce in both Chinese and English.
UEC-SML is recognised as the entrance qualification in many tertiary educational institutions internationally like Singapore, Australia, Taiwan, China and some European countries, as well as most private colleges in Malaysia, but not by the government of Malaysia for entry into public universities. As the government of Malaysia does not recognize the UEC, some Chinese independent high schools provide instructions in the public secondary school syllabus in addition to the independent school syllabus, thus enabling the students to sit for PMR, SPM, or even STPM.
Dong Jiao Zong's policy:
A "Rooted" Chinese
According to UCSCAM (United Chinese School Committees Association of Malaysia), known as DJZ (Dong Jiao Zong - the stronghold/fortress of Chinese), it was the British colonial policy (1786–1957) allowing the vernacular language schools to exist and develop, at the same time enabling the Malays while placing restrictions on the Chinese. Students of British school gained better opportunities in employment than any other schools. Nevertheless, under such policy, the development of Chinese language education thrived. Before Malaysia gained independence, the Chinese has had 1300 primary schools, nearly 100 high schools, and even Nanyang University, built without the financial support of the government. The report of UCSCAM claimed that the main reason for many Chinese parents sending their children to Chinese schools was that Chinese parents generally hoped their children would retain their Chinese identity, with love and awareness of the nation, love of their own culture and traditions, ethnic pride, and most importantly being aware of their ethnic "roots".
Mr. Lim Lian Geok (Chinese:林连玉), known as the "Soul of ethnic Chinese" (Chinese:"族魂"), the former president of UCSCAM, said: "One’s culture is the soul of one’s ethnicity, and its value as important to us as our lives. And if any of you (Chinese) want to inherit Chinese cultural heritage, and if any of you (Chinese) want to live a "true" Chinese, your children must be sent to a Chinese school.
"Final goal"
The UCSCAM believed that the government of Malaysia had a "final goal" (referring to Razak Report) to eradicate the Chinese schools and Tamil schools. The report claimed that the Government of Malaysia's culture and language education policy, over the past 50 years was, to not give up implementation of the "final goal", that is, only a final "national school" with the Malay language (National language) as the main medium of instruction. The language of other ethnic groups, namely Chinese and Tamil, thus could only serve as a foreign language. The reason given by the government was that the Chinese and Tamil primary schools were the root cause of disunity of this country. In order to achieve "national unity", all other non-National Schools should be restricted, and finally merge with the National School.
"Do not give up and do not compromise"
The standpoint of UCSCAM is that only the implementation of a multilingual school policy befits Malaysia's multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-linguistic and multi-religious society. Dong Jiao Zong's distinctive position for this protest has remained unchanged over the last 50 years. [1] (http://www.djz.edu.my/hjdaobao/hj.php?id=79&period=54)
International schools
In addition to the Malaysian National Curriculum, Malaysia has many international schools. International schools offer students the opportunity to study the curriculum of another country. These schools mainly cater to the growing expatriate population in the country. International schools include: the Australian International School, Malaysia (Australian curriculum), The Alice Smith School (British Curriculum), elc International school (British Curriculum), The Garden International School (British Curriculum), Lodge International School (British Curriculum), The International School of Kuala Lumpur (International Baccalaureate and American Curriculum), The Japanese School of Kuala Lumpur (Japanese Curriculum), The Chinese Taipei School, Kuala Lumpur and The Chinese Taipei School, Penang (Taiwanese Curriculum), The International School of Penang (International Baccalaureate and British Curriculum), Dalat International School in Penang (American Curriculum), Lycée Français de Kuala Lumpur (http://www.lfkl.edu.my/) (French Curriculum), Horizon International Turkish School[9] amongst others.
School uniforms
See also: School uniform#Malaysia
Present-day Malaysia introduced Western style school uniforms (pakaian seragam sekolah) in the late 19th century during the British colonial era. Today, school uniforms are almost universal in the public and private school systems. Standardised beginning January 1, 1970, public school uniforms are compulsory for all students and standardised nationwide.
A common version of Malaysian school uniform is of public schools. The dress code for males is the most standardised while female uniforms are more varied based on the religion of students and the type of schools. Male students are required to wear a collared shirt with a pair of shorts or long pants. Female students, however, may wear a knee-length pinafore and a collared shirt, a knee-length skirt and a collared shirt, or a baju kurung consisting of a top and a long skirt with an optional hijab (tudung) for Muslim students. White socks and shoes of black or white are almost universally required for all students, while ties are included in certain dress codes. Prefects and students with other additional school duties may wear uniforms of different colours; colours may also differ between primary and secondary schools.
Education policy
The ruling political alliance is composed of ethnically based parties and one of the concessions allowed by the controlling Malay party is to allow the Chinese and Indian parties to start colleges.
In July 2006, Higher Education Deputy Minister Datuk Ong Tee Keat stated that a review of the controversial Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) will be held among Malaysian MPs.[10]
National Education Blueprint
In 2006, the National Education Blueprint 2006–10 was released. The Blueprint set a number of goals, such as establishing a National Pre-School Curriculum, setting up 100 new classes for students with special needs, increasing the percentage of single-session schools to 90% for primary schools and 70% for secondary schools, and decreasing class sizes from 31 to 30 students in primary schools and from 32 to 30 in secondary schools by the year 2010. The Blueprint also provided a number of statistics concerning weaknesses in education. According to the Blueprint, 10% of primary schools and 1.4% of secondary schools do not have a 24-hour electricity supply, 20% and 3.4% respectively do not have a public water supply, and 78% and 42% are over 30 years old and require refurbishing. It was also stated that 4.4% of primary students and 0.8% of secondary students had not mastered the 3Rs (reading, writing and arithmetic). The drop-out rate for secondary schools was given as 9.3% in urban areas and 16.7% in rural areas.[11]
The Blueprint also aimed to address the problem of racial polarisation in schools. Under the Blueprint, schools will hold seminars on the Constitution of Malaysia, motivational camps to increase cultural awareness, food festivals to highlight different ethnic cooking styles, and essay competitions on different cultural traditions. Mandarin and Tamil language classes will be held in national schools, beginning with a pilot project in 220 schools in 2007.[12]
The Blueprint has been subject to some criticism. Academic Khoo Kay Kim has criticised the plan, saying:
“ We do not need this blueprint to produce excellent students. What we need is a revival of the old education system... meaning the education system we had before 1957. That was when we saw dedication from the teachers. The Malaysian education system then was second to none in Asia. We did not have sports schools but we produced citizens who were Asian class, if not world class.[13] ”
Issues in Malaysian education
The history of Issues in Malaysian Education started from the British government, the Barnes Report back in 1951, that is to unite all races with the colonial language. The later Razak Report was made to replace the unsuccessful Barnes Report, and the system remains until today.
Language
The issue of language and schools is a key issue for many political groups in Malaysia. UMNO championed the cause of Malay usage in schools but private schools using the Chinese and Tamil language are allowed. Up until 1981 in Peninsular Malaysia (and some years later in Sarawak), there were also English-medium schools, set up by Christian missions. However, following the severe race riots in Kuala Lumpur in May 1969, English-medium schools were phased out from January 1970, so that by 1982 these became Malay-medium schools (‘national schools’).
The existence of vernacular schools is used by non-Malays components of the ruling Barisan Nasional to indicate that their culture and identity have not been infringed upon by the Malay people. This is often a key issue as it is considered important by many. Dong Jiao Zhong (the association of Chinese vernacular school boards and teachers) and other such organizations still shape much of the views of the Chinese educated community, which is a key electoral constituency.
In 2002, the government announced that from 2003 onwards, the teaching of Science and Mathematics would be done in English, in order to ensure that Malaysia will not be left behind in a world that was rapidly becoming globalised. This paved the way for the establishment of mixed-medium education. However, the policy was heavily criticized especially by Malay linguists and activists, fearing that the policy might erode the usage of Malay language in science and mathematics, which led to a massive rally in Kuala Lumpur on 7 March 2009.[14] The government announced however this policy will be reversed in 2012, where the teaching of both subjects would be reverted back to Bahasa Melayu.[15]
Due to the lack of Chinese students attending government schools, coupled with the number of non-Chinese students attending Chinese vernacular schools, the government announced in April 2005 that all national schools will begin teaching Chinese and Tamil, not as a mother tongue course but as an elective course.
Gender
In 2004 the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) representative Dr. Richard Leete stated that Malaysia's ranking in the UNDP gender index was not "as high as it should be". Former Higher Education Minister Datuk Dr Shafie Salleh replied that it was not unique to Malaysia. His quoted statistics revealed that there was a 2:1 ratio of boys to girls in polytechnics and at public higher learning institutions. However it should be noted that in virtually all developed countries that both females and males enter university in approximately equal ratios, thus the 2:1 ratio in Malaysia is seen as rather peculiar when placed in a global context.
Malaysian polytechnics and community colleges are not degree producing institutions and none have post-graduate programmed. Most are vocational or technical institutions. This imbalance is corrected once the respective genders leave the educational system.
Racial Quotas in Universities
In 2004, a new Ministry - the Ministry of Higher Education - was formed. The then minister, Dr. Shafie Salleh, stated at the United Malays National Organisation 2004 general assembly, "As the Higher Education Minister, I will ensure the quota of Malay students' entry into universities is always higher"[16].
Some, such as prominent opposition figure Lim Guan Eng, have alleged that this quote may be taken out of context, stating that Shafie was instead guaranteeing that the number of Bumiputra students admitted to public universities would increase every year[17]. He has also stated that "Education is looked at from a racial perspective and not on the basis of educational needs."
Racial quotas, a highly politicised and controversial issue in Malaysia, exist for university admission. In 2002 the government announced a reduction of reliance on racial quotas, instead leaning more towards meritocracy. However, in 2004, 128 students who obtained 5As in the STPM (the best possible grade for university application) were denied their first choice of course which was medicine. This is part of an ongoing issue, where the only thing these students had in common was that they were non-Malay or non-Bumiputra. All students managed to successfully gain offers to private institutions but some did not pursue a medical education due to lack of funds and financial support.
PMR SPM Reference Books
Academic reference books which covers all subjects that are tested on the PMR (Penilaian Menengah Rendah) and SPM examinations (Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia) are popular with students. Many students purchase these books as they cover most of their respective subject's essential concepts so much so that it provides a easily adaptive framework for students to write a report. In addition, the PEKA (Science Lab Reports) are written in very elaborate and concise details which allows the students to easily write a modified, unoriginal report for submission. These books reduce the students' capacity to engage in independent learning and hinder their long term potential to think critically by a considerable margin.
See also
■Mahathir bin Mohamad#Educational system
References
■"Country Facts - Malaysia" (http://www.tradeport.org/countries/malaysia/01grw.html) . Retrieved Oct. 16, 2005.
■"A Glimpse of History" (http://www.moe.gov.my/tayang.php?laman=imbasan_sejarah&bhs=en) . Retrieved Oct. 16, 2005.
■"PM Unveils Caring Budget, More New Measures To Perk Up Economy" (http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news_business.php?id=158185) . (Sept. 30, 2005). Bernama.
■Yusop, Husna (Oct. 16, 2005). Speaking of culture (http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=11569) . The Sun.
■Yusop, Husna (Mar. 9, 2006). Time to overhaul education system (http://www.malaysia-today.net/Blog-e/2006/03/time-to-overhaul-education-system.htm) . Malaysia Today.
■Tan, Peter K. W. (2005), ‘The medium-of-instruction debate in Malaysia: English as a Malaysian language?’, Problems & Language Planning 29: 1, pp. 47–66 The medium-of-instruction debate in Malaysia (http://www.benjamins.com/jbp/series/LPLP/29-1/art/0003a.pdf)
Notes
1.^ Puthucheary, Mavis (1978). The Politics of Administration: The Malaysian Experience, p. 9. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-580387-6.
2.^ Puthucheary, pp. 9–10.
3.^ Puthucheary, p. 10.
4.^ Puthucheary, pp. 10–11.
5.^ English in Schools: Policy reversed but English hours extended (http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Thursday/Frontpage/20090709083157/Article/index_html) , New Strait Times, 9 July 2009.
6.^ Beech, Hannah (Oct. 30, 2006). Not the Retiring Type (http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501061106/story3.html) (page three). TIME.
7.^ "Experts: Go back to drawing board", p. 22. (Mar. 21, 2006). New Straits Times.
8.^ Musa, M. Bakri (2007). Towards A Competitive Malaysia. Petaling Jaya: Strategic Information and Research Development Centre. pp. 143. ISBN 978-983-3782-20-8.
9.^ "Foreigners in Malaysia Prefer Turkish Schools" (http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20031129174159986) . http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20031129174159986.
10.^ theSun (http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=14677)
11.^ Koh, Lay Chin (Jan. 17, 2007). "Free hand for 'clusters' to excel", p. 12. New Straits Times.
12.^ "Enhancing racial unity in national schools", p. 13. (Jan. 17, 2007). New Straits Times.
13.^ "Review of curricula soon", p. 13. (Jan. 17, 2006). New Straits Times.
14.^ "Malaysian police fire teargas at protesters: witnesses" (http://news.my.msn.com/regional/article.aspx?cp-documentid=2722919) . AFP. MSN News. http://news.my.msn.com/regional/article.aspx?cp-documentid=2722919. Retrieved 10 March 2009.
15.^ "Teaching Of Science And Mathematics Back To Bahasa Melayu" (http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsgeneral.php?id=423799) . Bernama. 2009-07-08. http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsgeneral.php?id=423799. Retrieved 2009-07-08.
16.^ Malaysian National News Agency :: BERNAMA (http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news.php?id=94883)
17.^ Will qualified non-bumi students be sacrificed by Shafie for his defeat in UMNO? (http://dapmalaysia.org/english/lge/lge011.htm)
External links
■Ministry of Education official website (http://www.moe.gov.my/?lang=en)
■Ministry of Higher Education official website (http://www.portal.mohe.gov.my/portal/page/portal/ExtPortal/MOHE_MAIN_PAGE)
■Education Malaysia (http://educationmalaysia.gov.my) , government website promoting education in Malaysia
■United Chinese School Committees Association of Malaysia (UCSCAM) (http://www.djz.edu.my) , also known as Dong Jiao Zong (董教总)
■This page was last modified on 12 October 2010 at 09:45.
Contact us
Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Education in Malaysia Ministry of Education
Ministry of Higher Education
Minister of Education -
Muhyiddin Yassin
Minister of Higher Education - Mohamed Khaled Nordin
National education budget (2006)
Budget: RM30 billion1
General Details
Primary Languages: Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Tamil
System Type: National
Established 1956
Total: 95%
Enrollment
Total: 5,416,924
Primary: 3,111,948
Secondary: 2,304,976
Education in Malaysia is overseen by two government ministries: the Ministry of Education for matters up to the secondary level, and the Ministry of Higher Education for tertiary education. Although education is the responsibility of the federal government, each state has an Education Department to help coordinate educational matters in their respective states. The main legislation governing education is the Education Act of 1996.
Education may be obtained from government-sponsored schools, private schools, or through homeschooling. By law, primary education is compulsory. As in other Asian countries such as Korea and Japan, standardised tests are a common feature.
History
Batu Pahat High School, JohorSekolah Pondok (literally, Hut school), Madrasah and other Islamic schools were the earliest forms of schooling available in Malaysia . Early works of Malay literature such as Hikayat Abdullah mention these schools indicating they pre-date the current secular model of education.
Secular schools in Malaysia were largely an innovation of the British colonial government. Many of the earliest schools in Malaysia were founded in the Straits Settlements of Penang, Melaka, and Singapore. The oldest English-language school in Malaya is the Penang Free School, founded in 1816, followed by Malacca High School, and Anglo Chinese School, Klang. Many English-language schools are considered quite prestigious.
British historian Richard O. Winstedt worked to improve the education of the Malays and was instrumental in establishing Sultan Idris Training College. The college was established with the purpose of producing Malay teachers. R J Wilkinson helped established the Malay College Kuala Kangsar in 1905 which aimed to educate the Malay elite.
Initially, the British colonial government did not provide for any Malay-language secondary schools, forcing those who had studied in Malay during primary school to adjust to an English-language education. Many Malays failed to pursue additional education due to this issue..[1] Despite complaints about this policy, the British Director of Education stated:
“ It would be contrary to the considered policy of government to afford to a community, the great majority of whose members find congenial livelihood and independence in agricultural pursuits, more extended facilities for the learning of English which would be likely to have the effect of inducing them to abandon those pursuits.[2] ”
Malay representatives in the Federal Council as well as the Legislative Council of Singapore responded vehemently, with one calling the British policy "a policy that trains the Malay boy how not to get employment" by excluding the Malays from learning in the "bread-earning language of Malaya". He remarked:
“ In the fewest possible words, the Malay boy is told 'You have been trained to remain at the bottom, and there you must always remain!' Why, I ask, waste so much money to attain this end when without any vernacular school, and without any special effort, the Malay boy could himself accomplish this feat?[3] ”
To remedy this problem, the British established the Malay College Kuala Kangsar. However, it was mainly intended as a way to educate low-level civil servants, and not as a means to opening the doors of commerce to the Malays — the school was never intended to prepare students for entrance to higher institutions of education.[4]
Missionaries of various Christian denominations, such as the Roman Catholic Josephian order and the Lasallian Brothers, Seventh-day Adventist, Anglican as well as Methodist also started a series of mission schools which provided primary and secondary education in the English language. Most of these were single-sex schools. Although nowadays they had fully assimilated into the Malay-medium national school system and most admit students regardless of gender and background (some single-sex schools remain), many of the schools still bear their original names today, such as the ones with the names of various saints or words such as “Katholik”, “Convent”, “Advent” and “Methodist”.
During the British colonial period, large numbers of immigrants from China and India arrived in Malaya. The Chinese and Indian communities eventually established their vernacular schools with school curricula and teachers from China and India respectively.
In the 1950s, there were four initial proposals for developing the national education system: the Barnes Report (favoured by the Malays), Ordinance Report (modification of the Barnes Report), the Fenn-Wu Report (favoured by the Chinese and Indians), and the Razak Report (a compromise between the two reports). The Barnes proposal was implemented through the 1952 Education Ordinance amidst Chinese protests. In 1956, the Razak Report was adopted by the Malayan government as the educational framework for independent Malaya. The Razak Report called for a national school system consists of Malay, English, Chinese and Tamil-medium schools at the primary level, and Malay and English-medium schools at the secondary schools, with a uniform national curriculum regardless of the medium of instruction. Malay-medium schools would be known as "national", while other languages schools would be known as "national-type".
In the early years of independence, existing Chinese, Tamil and mission schools accepted government funding and were allowed to retain their medium of instructions on the condition that they adopt the national curriculum. Chinese secondary schools were given the options of accepting government funding and change into English national-type schools, or remain Chinese and private without government funding. Most of the schools accepted the change, although a few rejected the offer and came to be known as Chinese independent high schools. Shortly after the change, some of the national-type schools reestablished their Chinese independent high school branches.
In the 1970s, in accordance to the national language policy, the government began to change English-medium primary and secondary national-type schools into Malay-medium national schools. The language change was made gradually starting from the first year in primary school, then the second year in the following year and so on. The change was completed by the end of 1982.
In 1996, the Education Act of 1996 was passed to amend the Education Ordinance of 1956 and the Education Act of 1961.
Preschool education
Preschool education is mainly provided by private for-profit preschools, though some are run by the government or religious groups. Some primary schools have attached preschool sections. Attendance in a preschool programme is not universal; while people living in urban areas are generally able to send their children to private kindergartens, few do in rural areas.
There is no formal preschool curriculum except a formal mandatory training and certification for principals and teachers before they may operate a preschool. The training covers lessons on child psychology, teaching methodologies, and other related curricula on childcare and development.
Registered preschools are subjected to zoning regulations and must comply to other regulations such as health screening and fire hazard assessment. Many preschools are located in high density residential areas, where normal residential units compliant to regulations are converted into the schools.
There is no fixed rules on when a child needs to start preschool education but majority would start when the child turns 5 years old. Preschool education usually lasts for 2 years, before they proceed to primary school at age 7.
Primary education
There are two main types of public primary schools in Malaysia: national (Sekolah Kebangsaan in Malay, abbreviated as SK) and national-type (Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan, abbreviated as SJK). National-type schools are further divided into Chinese national-type schools (Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan Cina, SJK(C)) and Tamil national-type schools (Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan Tamil, SJK(T)). By degree of government funding, national schools are government-operated, while national-type schools are mostly government-assisted, though some are government-operated. All schools admit students regardless of racial and language background.
The medium of instruction is Malay for SK, Mandarin and simplified Chinese characters writing for SJK(C), and Tamil for SJK(T). Malay and English are compulsory subjects in all schools. All schools use the same syllabus for non-language subjects regardless of the medium of instruction. In January 2003, a mixed medium of instruction was introduced so that students would learn Science and Mathematics in English. Due to pressure from the Chinese community, SJK(C) teach Science and Mathematics in both English and Chinese. However, the government reversed the policy of teaching Science and Mathematics in English in July 2009, and previous languages of instruction will be reintroduced in stages from 2012.[5]
Primary education consists of six years of education, referred to as Year 1 to Year 6 (also known as Standard 1 to Standard 6). Year 1 to Year 3 are classified as Level One (Tahap Satu) while Year 4 to Year 6 are considered as Level Two (Tahap Dua). Primary education begins at the age of 7 and ends at 12. Students are promoted to the next year regardless of their academic performance (poor curriculum induced).
From 1996 until 2000, the Penilaian Tahap Satu (PTS) or the Level One Evaluation was administered to Year 3 students. Excellence in this test allowed students to skip Year 4 and attend Year 5 instead. However, the test was removed from 2001 onwards due to concerns that parents and teachers were unduly pressuring students to pass the exam.
At the end of primary education, students in national schools are required to undergo a standardised test known as the Ujian Pencapaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) or Primary School Evaluation Test. The subjects tested are Malay comprehension, written Malay, English, Science and Mathematics. Chinese comprehension and written Chinese are compulsory in SJK(C), while Tamil comprehension and written Tamil are compulsory in SJK(T).
Between 1995 and 2000, the Seventh Malaysia Plan allocation for primary education development allocated 96.5% to national primary schools which had 75% of total enrollment. Chinese primary schools (21% enrollment) received 2.4% of the allocation while Tamil primary schools (3.6% enrollment) received 1% of the allocation.
The division of public education at the primary level into national and national-type schools has been criticised for allegedly creating racial polarisation at an early age.[6] To address the problem, attempts have been made to establish Sekolah Wawasan ("vision schools"). Under the concept, three schools (typically one SK, one SJK(C) and one SJK(T)) would share the same school compound and facilities while maintaining different school administrations, ostensibly to encourage closer interaction. However, this was met with objections from most of the Chinese and Indian communities as they believe this will restrict the use of their mother tongue in schools.
Secondary education
Chio Min Secondary School, Kulim, Kedah.Public secondary schools are regarded as extensions of the national schools. They study in five forms. Each form will take a year. Some students, however, will have to study in "Remove" before they can study in Form 1 because of the poor academic results, or simply choosing to do so, which is possible in some schools. At the end of Form 3, the Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR, formerly known as Sijil Pelajaran Rendah (SRP) or Lower Certificate of Education (LCE)) or Lower Secondary Evaluation is taken by students. Based on choice, they will be streamed into either the Science stream or Arts stream. The Science stream is generally more desirable. Students are allowed to shift to the Arts stream from the Science stream, but rarely vice-versa.
Co-curricular activities are compulsory at the secondary level, where all students must participate in at least 2 activities. There are many co-curricular activities offered at the secondary level, varying at each school and each student is judged based in these areas. Competitions and performances are regularly organized. Co-curricular activities are often categorized under the following: Uniformed Groups, Performing Arts, Clubs & Societies, Sports & Games. Student may also participate in more than 2 co-curricular activities.
At the end of Form 5, students are required to take the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) or Malaysian Certificate of Education examination, before graduating from secondary school. The SPM was based on the old British ‘School Certificate’ examination before it became General Certificate of Education 'O' Levels examination, which became the GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education). As of 2006, students are given a GCE 'O' Level grade for their English paper in addition to the normal English SPM paper. (Previously, this was reported on result slips as a separate result labelled 1119, which meant students received two grades for their English papers.) This separate grade is given based on the marks of the essay-writing component of the English paper. The essay section of the English paper is remarked under the supervision of officials from British 'O' Levels examination . Although not part of their final certificates, the 'O' Level grade is included on their results slip.
Shortly after the release of the 2005 SPM results in March 2006, the Education Ministry announced it was considering reforming the SPM system due to what was perceived as over-emphasis on As. Local educators appeared responsive to the suggestion, with one professor at the University of Malaya deploring university students who could not write letters, debate, or understand footnoting. He complained that "They don't understand what I am saying. ... I cannot communicate with them." He claimed that "Before 1957 (the year of independence), school heroes were not those with 8As or 9As, they were the great debaters, those good in drama, in sport, and those leading the Scouts and Girl Guides." A former Education Director-General, Murad Mohd Noor, agreed, saying that "The rat race now begins at Standard 6 with the UPSR, with the competition resulting in parents forcing their children to attend private tuition." He also expressed dismay at the prevalence of students taking 15 or 16 subjects for the SPM, calling it "unnecessary".[7]
National Type/Charter Secondary/High Schools/Residential Schools or Sekolah Berasrama Penuh (SBP)
Within the national public school system are a few magnet type/charter public high schools. Admissions are very selective, reserved for students who demonstrate outstanding academic achievement and potential at the elementary level, Grade/Standard 1 through 6. These schools are either full time day or boarding schools ('asrama penuh'). Examples of these schools is the Malacca High School, Royal Military College (Malaysia) and Penang Free School.
Residential schools or Sekolah Berasrama Penuh are also known as Science Schools. These schools used to cater mainly for Malays elites but has since expanded as schools for nurturing Malays who are outstanding academically or those displaying talents in sports & leadership. The schools are modeled after British Boarding School.
Pre-university education
After the SPM, students from public secondary school would have a choice of either studying Form 6 or the matriculation (pre-university). If they are accepted to continue studying in Form 6, they will also take the Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (which is usually abbreviated as STPM) or Malaysian Higher School Certificate examination (its British equivalent is the General Certificate of Education 'A' Levels examination or internationally, the Higher School Certificate). STPM is regulated by the Malaysian Examinations Council (http://www.mpm.edu.my/bi/main.php) . Form 6 consists of two years of study which is known as Lower 6 (Tingkatan Enam Rendah) and Upper 6 (Tingkatan Enam Atas). Although it is generally taken by those desiring to attend public universities in Malaysia, it is internationally recognised and may also be used, though rarely required, to enter private local universities for undergraduate courses.
Additionally all students may apply for admission to matriculation which is a one or two-year programme run by the Ministry of Education. Previously, it was a one-year programme, but beginning 2006, 30% of all matriculation students were offered two-year programmes. Not all applicants for matriculation are admitted and the selection criteria are not publicly declared, which has led to speculation that any criteria existing may not be adhered to. A race-based quota is applied on the admission process, with 90% of the places being reserved for the Bumiputeras, and the other 10% for the non-Bumiputeras. The matriculation programme is not as rigorous as the STPM. The matriculation programme has come under some criticism as it is the general consensus that this programme is much easier than the sixth form programme leading to the STPM and serves to help Bumiputeras enter public universities easily. Having been introduced after the abolishment of a racial-quota-based admission into universities, the matriculation programme continues the role of its predecessor, albeit in modified form. It is considered easier because in the matriculation programme, teachers set and mark the final exams that their students sit, whereas in the STPM the final exam is standardised and exam papers are exchanged between schools in different states to ensure unbiased marking. Also, the matriculation programme adopts a semester basis examination (2 semesters in a year) whilst STPM involves only one final examination, covering all 2 years' syllabus in one go. The scope and depth of syllabus in matriculation is also lesser to that of STPM. The disparity between the programmes does not end there, for it is a known fact[citation needed] that in critical courses offered by local public universities (such as Medicine, Pharmacy, Dentistry and Law), almost 70% of the students comprise matriculation students. On the contrary, STPM students forms the majority in courses which are less in demand, such as a Bachelor in Science. Defenders of the matriculation programme have described the two programmes as distinct and different, drawing the analogy of an apple and an orange. However, having serve the same purpose (i.e. as an entrance requirement to local public universities), the Malaysian public is criticising the matriculation programme as a blatant practice of double standards.
The Centre for Foundation Studies in Science, University of Malaya, offers 2 programmes only for Bumiputera students : i) The Science Program, a one year course under the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Higher Education. After completing the program, the students are placed into various science-based courses in the local universities through the meritocracy system. ii) The Special Preparatory Program to Enter the Japanese Universities, a two year intensive programme under the Look East Policy Division of the Public Service Department of Malaysia in cooperation with the Japanese Government.
Some students undertake their pre-university studies in private colleges. They may opt for programmes such as the British 'A' Levels programme, the Canadian matriculation programme or the equivalent of other national systems - namely the Australian NSW Board of Studies Higher School Certificate and the American High School Diploma with AP subjects. More recently, the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme is becoming more popular as a pre-university option.
The Government has claimed that admission to Universities are purely meritocracy based, but having so many different pre-university programmes and without a standard basis for comparison among the students, the public has been highly sceptical of the claim.
Tertiary education
See also: List of universities in Malaysia
Tertiary education is heavily subsidised by the government. Applicants to public universities must have completed the Malaysia matriculation programme or have an STPM grade. Excellence in these examinations does not guarantee a place in a public university.The selection criteria are largely opaque as no strictly enforced defined guidelines exist.
The classification of tertiary education in Malaysia is organised upon the Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF) which seeks to set up a unified system of post secondary qualifications offered on a national basis both in the vocational as well as higher educational sectors.
In 2004, the government formed the Ministry of Higher Education to oversee tertiary education in Malaysia. The ministry is headed by Mustapa Mohamed.
Although the government announced a reduction of reliance of racial quotas in 2002, instead leaning more towards meritocracy. Prior to 2004, all lecturers in public tertiary institutions were required to have some post-graduate award as a requisite qualification. In October 2004, this requirement was removed and the Higher Education Ministry announced that industry professionals who added value to a course could apply for lecturing positions directly to universities even if they did not have postgraduate qualifications. To head off possible allegations that the universities faced a shortage of lecturers, Deputy Higher Education Minister Datuk Fu Ah Kiow said "This is not because we are facing a shortage of lecturers, but because this move will add value to our courses and enhance the name of our universities...Let's say Bill Gates and Steven Spielberg, both well known and outstanding in their fields, want to be teaching professors. Of course, we would be more than happy to take them in." He went on to offer architecture as an example whereby well-known architects recognized for their talents did not have a masters degree.
The academic independence of public universities' faculty has been questioned. Critics like Bakri Musa cite examples such as a scientist who was reprimanded by Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak for "publishing studies on air pollution", and a professor of mathematics at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia who was reproved for criticising the government policy of teaching mathematics and science in English at the primary and secondary levels.[8]
Students also have the choice of attending private institutions of higher learning. Many of these institutions offer courses in cooperation with a foreign institute or university. Some of them are branch campuses of these foreign institutions.
Many private colleges offer programmes whereby the student does part of his degree course here and part of it in the other institution, this method is named "twinning". The nature of these programs is somewhat diverse and ranges from the full "twinning" program where all credits and transcripts are transferable and admission is automatic to programs where the local institution offers an "associate degree" which is accepted at the discretion of the partnering university. In the latter case, acceptance of transcripts and credits is at the discretion of the partner.
Some foreign universities and colleges have also set up branch campuses in Malaysia, including:
■Monash University, Australia.
■The University of Nottingham, United Kingdom
■SAE Institute, Australia
■Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
■Curtin University of Technology, Australia
■Raffles Design Institute, Singapore
The net outflow of academics from Malaysia led to a "brain gain" scheme by then (1995) Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamed. The scheme set a target of attracting 5,000 talents annually. In 2004, Science, Technology and Innovation Minister, Datuk Dr Jamaluddin Jarjis in a parliamentary reply stated that the scheme attracted 94 scientists (24 Malaysians) in pharmacology, medicine, semi-conductor technology and engineering from abroad between 1995 and 2000. At the time of his reply, only one was remaining in Malaysia.
Postgraduate programmes
Postgraduate degrees such as the Master of Business Administration (MBA) and the Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) are becoming popular and are offered by both the public universities and the private colleges.
All public and most private universities in Malaysia offer Master of Science degrees either through coursework or research and Doctor of Philosophy degrees through research.
Vocational programmes and polytechnics schools
Besides the university degrees, students also have the option of continuing their education in professional courses such as the courses offered by the ICSA (Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators) etc. Polytechnics in Malaysia provide courses for diploma level (3 years) and certificate level (2 years).
The following is a list of the public polytechnics in Malaysia.
■Ungku Omar Polytechnic
■Politeknik Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah
■Politeknik Sultan Abdul Halim Muadzam Shah
■Politeknik Kota Bharu
■Politeknik Kuching Sarawak
■Politeknik Port Dickson
■Politeknik Kota Kinabalu
■Politeknik Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah
■Politeknik Johor Bahru
■Politeknik Seberang Perai
■Politeknik Kota, Melaka (Version (http://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeknik_Kota%2C_Melaka|Malay) )
■Politeknik Kota, Kuala Terengganu
■Politeknik Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin
■Politeknik Merlimau
■Polytechnic Of Sultan Azlan Shah or Politeknik Sultan Azlan Shah
■Politeknik Kulim
■Politeknik Sultan Idris Shah
■Politeknik Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin
■Politeknik Muadzam Shah
■Politeknik Mukah
The Vocational Courses for Automotive Technology:
■TEKAT Automotive College
Universities produce almost 150,000 skilled graduates annually.
Other types of schools
See also: List of schools in Malaysia
Apart from national schools, there are other types of schools in Malaysia.
Islamic religious schools
A system of Islamic religious schools exists in Malaysia. Primary schools are called Sekolah Rendah Agama (SRA), while secondary schools are called Sekolah Menengah Agama (SMA).
Another type of schools available in Malaysia is the Islamic religious schools or sekolah agama rakyat (SAR). The schools teach Muslim students subjects related to Islam such as early Islamic history, Arabic language and Fiqh. It is not compulsory though some states such as Johor make it mandatory for all Muslim children aged six to twelve to attend the schools as a complement to the mandatory primary education. In the final year, students will sit an examination for graduation. Most SAR are funded by respective states and managed by states' religious authority.
Previously, former Prime Minister Tun Mahathir Mohammad suggested to the government that the SARs should be closed down and integrated into the national schools. However, his proposal was met with resistance and later, the matter was left to die quietly.
Such schools still exist in Malaysia, but are generally no longer the only part of a child's education in urban areas. Students in rural parts of the country do still attend these schools. Since the academic results published by these schools are not accepted by mainline universities, many of these students have to continue their education in locations such as Pakistan or Egypt. Some of their alumni include Nik Adli (Son of PAS leader Nik Aziz).
Some parents also opt to send their children for religious classes after secular classes. Dharma classes, Sunday schools and after school classes at the mosque are various options available.
Chinese independent high schools
After receiving primary education in national-type primary school, some students from SJK(C) may choose to study in a Chinese independent high school. Chinese independent high schools are funded mostly by the Malaysian Chinese public, with UCSCAM (United Chinese School Committees Association of Malaysia, also known as Dong Jiao Zong after its Chinese acronym) as the overall coordination body. Students in Chinese independent high school study in three junior middle levels and three senior middle levels, similar to the secondary schools systems in mainland China and Taiwan, each level usually takes one year. Like the students in public secondary school, students in Chinese independent high school are streamed into several streams like Science Stream or Art/Commerce Stream in the senior middle levels. However, some school recently provided unique streams like Electrical Engineering stream, Food and Beverage Studies or Arts design stream. The medium of instruction in Chinese independent high schools is Mandarin, and uses simplified Chinese characters in writing.
Students in Chinese independent high schools take standardized tests known as the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) at the end of Junior Middle 3 and Senior Middle 3. UEC has been run by UCSCAM since 1975. The UEC is available in three levels: Vocational Unified Exam (UEC-V), UEC Junior Middle Level (UEC-JML/JUEC) and Senior Middle Level (UEC-SML/SUEC). The syllabus and examinations for the UEC-V and UEC-JML are only available in the Chinese language. The UEC-SML has questions for mathematics, sciences (biology, chemistry and physics), bookkeeping, accounting and commerce in both Chinese and English.
UEC-SML is recognised as the entrance qualification in many tertiary educational institutions internationally like Singapore, Australia, Taiwan, China and some European countries, as well as most private colleges in Malaysia, but not by the government of Malaysia for entry into public universities. As the government of Malaysia does not recognize the UEC, some Chinese independent high schools provide instructions in the public secondary school syllabus in addition to the independent school syllabus, thus enabling the students to sit for PMR, SPM, or even STPM.
Dong Jiao Zong's policy:
A "Rooted" Chinese
According to UCSCAM (United Chinese School Committees Association of Malaysia), known as DJZ (Dong Jiao Zong - the stronghold/fortress of Chinese), it was the British colonial policy (1786–1957) allowing the vernacular language schools to exist and develop, at the same time enabling the Malays while placing restrictions on the Chinese. Students of British school gained better opportunities in employment than any other schools. Nevertheless, under such policy, the development of Chinese language education thrived. Before Malaysia gained independence, the Chinese has had 1300 primary schools, nearly 100 high schools, and even Nanyang University, built without the financial support of the government. The report of UCSCAM claimed that the main reason for many Chinese parents sending their children to Chinese schools was that Chinese parents generally hoped their children would retain their Chinese identity, with love and awareness of the nation, love of their own culture and traditions, ethnic pride, and most importantly being aware of their ethnic "roots".
Mr. Lim Lian Geok (Chinese:林连玉), known as the "Soul of ethnic Chinese" (Chinese:"族魂"), the former president of UCSCAM, said: "One’s culture is the soul of one’s ethnicity, and its value as important to us as our lives. And if any of you (Chinese) want to inherit Chinese cultural heritage, and if any of you (Chinese) want to live a "true" Chinese, your children must be sent to a Chinese school.
"Final goal"
The UCSCAM believed that the government of Malaysia had a "final goal" (referring to Razak Report) to eradicate the Chinese schools and Tamil schools. The report claimed that the Government of Malaysia's culture and language education policy, over the past 50 years was, to not give up implementation of the "final goal", that is, only a final "national school" with the Malay language (National language) as the main medium of instruction. The language of other ethnic groups, namely Chinese and Tamil, thus could only serve as a foreign language. The reason given by the government was that the Chinese and Tamil primary schools were the root cause of disunity of this country. In order to achieve "national unity", all other non-National Schools should be restricted, and finally merge with the National School.
"Do not give up and do not compromise"
The standpoint of UCSCAM is that only the implementation of a multilingual school policy befits Malaysia's multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-linguistic and multi-religious society. Dong Jiao Zong's distinctive position for this protest has remained unchanged over the last 50 years. [1] (http://www.djz.edu.my/hjdaobao/hj.php?id=79&period=54)
International schools
In addition to the Malaysian National Curriculum, Malaysia has many international schools. International schools offer students the opportunity to study the curriculum of another country. These schools mainly cater to the growing expatriate population in the country. International schools include: the Australian International School, Malaysia (Australian curriculum), The Alice Smith School (British Curriculum), elc International school (British Curriculum), The Garden International School (British Curriculum), Lodge International School (British Curriculum), The International School of Kuala Lumpur (International Baccalaureate and American Curriculum), The Japanese School of Kuala Lumpur (Japanese Curriculum), The Chinese Taipei School, Kuala Lumpur and The Chinese Taipei School, Penang (Taiwanese Curriculum), The International School of Penang (International Baccalaureate and British Curriculum), Dalat International School in Penang (American Curriculum), Lycée Français de Kuala Lumpur (http://www.lfkl.edu.my/) (French Curriculum), Horizon International Turkish School[9] amongst others.
School uniforms
See also: School uniform#Malaysia
Present-day Malaysia introduced Western style school uniforms (pakaian seragam sekolah) in the late 19th century during the British colonial era. Today, school uniforms are almost universal in the public and private school systems. Standardised beginning January 1, 1970, public school uniforms are compulsory for all students and standardised nationwide.
A common version of Malaysian school uniform is of public schools. The dress code for males is the most standardised while female uniforms are more varied based on the religion of students and the type of schools. Male students are required to wear a collared shirt with a pair of shorts or long pants. Female students, however, may wear a knee-length pinafore and a collared shirt, a knee-length skirt and a collared shirt, or a baju kurung consisting of a top and a long skirt with an optional hijab (tudung) for Muslim students. White socks and shoes of black or white are almost universally required for all students, while ties are included in certain dress codes. Prefects and students with other additional school duties may wear uniforms of different colours; colours may also differ between primary and secondary schools.
Education policy
The ruling political alliance is composed of ethnically based parties and one of the concessions allowed by the controlling Malay party is to allow the Chinese and Indian parties to start colleges.
In July 2006, Higher Education Deputy Minister Datuk Ong Tee Keat stated that a review of the controversial Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) will be held among Malaysian MPs.[10]
National Education Blueprint
In 2006, the National Education Blueprint 2006–10 was released. The Blueprint set a number of goals, such as establishing a National Pre-School Curriculum, setting up 100 new classes for students with special needs, increasing the percentage of single-session schools to 90% for primary schools and 70% for secondary schools, and decreasing class sizes from 31 to 30 students in primary schools and from 32 to 30 in secondary schools by the year 2010. The Blueprint also provided a number of statistics concerning weaknesses in education. According to the Blueprint, 10% of primary schools and 1.4% of secondary schools do not have a 24-hour electricity supply, 20% and 3.4% respectively do not have a public water supply, and 78% and 42% are over 30 years old and require refurbishing. It was also stated that 4.4% of primary students and 0.8% of secondary students had not mastered the 3Rs (reading, writing and arithmetic). The drop-out rate for secondary schools was given as 9.3% in urban areas and 16.7% in rural areas.[11]
The Blueprint also aimed to address the problem of racial polarisation in schools. Under the Blueprint, schools will hold seminars on the Constitution of Malaysia, motivational camps to increase cultural awareness, food festivals to highlight different ethnic cooking styles, and essay competitions on different cultural traditions. Mandarin and Tamil language classes will be held in national schools, beginning with a pilot project in 220 schools in 2007.[12]
The Blueprint has been subject to some criticism. Academic Khoo Kay Kim has criticised the plan, saying:
“ We do not need this blueprint to produce excellent students. What we need is a revival of the old education system... meaning the education system we had before 1957. That was when we saw dedication from the teachers. The Malaysian education system then was second to none in Asia. We did not have sports schools but we produced citizens who were Asian class, if not world class.[13] ”
Issues in Malaysian education
The history of Issues in Malaysian Education started from the British government, the Barnes Report back in 1951, that is to unite all races with the colonial language. The later Razak Report was made to replace the unsuccessful Barnes Report, and the system remains until today.
Language
The issue of language and schools is a key issue for many political groups in Malaysia. UMNO championed the cause of Malay usage in schools but private schools using the Chinese and Tamil language are allowed. Up until 1981 in Peninsular Malaysia (and some years later in Sarawak), there were also English-medium schools, set up by Christian missions. However, following the severe race riots in Kuala Lumpur in May 1969, English-medium schools were phased out from January 1970, so that by 1982 these became Malay-medium schools (‘national schools’).
The existence of vernacular schools is used by non-Malays components of the ruling Barisan Nasional to indicate that their culture and identity have not been infringed upon by the Malay people. This is often a key issue as it is considered important by many. Dong Jiao Zhong (the association of Chinese vernacular school boards and teachers) and other such organizations still shape much of the views of the Chinese educated community, which is a key electoral constituency.
In 2002, the government announced that from 2003 onwards, the teaching of Science and Mathematics would be done in English, in order to ensure that Malaysia will not be left behind in a world that was rapidly becoming globalised. This paved the way for the establishment of mixed-medium education. However, the policy was heavily criticized especially by Malay linguists and activists, fearing that the policy might erode the usage of Malay language in science and mathematics, which led to a massive rally in Kuala Lumpur on 7 March 2009.[14] The government announced however this policy will be reversed in 2012, where the teaching of both subjects would be reverted back to Bahasa Melayu.[15]
Due to the lack of Chinese students attending government schools, coupled with the number of non-Chinese students attending Chinese vernacular schools, the government announced in April 2005 that all national schools will begin teaching Chinese and Tamil, not as a mother tongue course but as an elective course.
Gender
In 2004 the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) representative Dr. Richard Leete stated that Malaysia's ranking in the UNDP gender index was not "as high as it should be". Former Higher Education Minister Datuk Dr Shafie Salleh replied that it was not unique to Malaysia. His quoted statistics revealed that there was a 2:1 ratio of boys to girls in polytechnics and at public higher learning institutions. However it should be noted that in virtually all developed countries that both females and males enter university in approximately equal ratios, thus the 2:1 ratio in Malaysia is seen as rather peculiar when placed in a global context.
Malaysian polytechnics and community colleges are not degree producing institutions and none have post-graduate programmed. Most are vocational or technical institutions. This imbalance is corrected once the respective genders leave the educational system.
Racial Quotas in Universities
In 2004, a new Ministry - the Ministry of Higher Education - was formed. The then minister, Dr. Shafie Salleh, stated at the United Malays National Organisation 2004 general assembly, "As the Higher Education Minister, I will ensure the quota of Malay students' entry into universities is always higher"[16].
Some, such as prominent opposition figure Lim Guan Eng, have alleged that this quote may be taken out of context, stating that Shafie was instead guaranteeing that the number of Bumiputra students admitted to public universities would increase every year[17]. He has also stated that "Education is looked at from a racial perspective and not on the basis of educational needs."
Racial quotas, a highly politicised and controversial issue in Malaysia, exist for university admission. In 2002 the government announced a reduction of reliance on racial quotas, instead leaning more towards meritocracy. However, in 2004, 128 students who obtained 5As in the STPM (the best possible grade for university application) were denied their first choice of course which was medicine. This is part of an ongoing issue, where the only thing these students had in common was that they were non-Malay or non-Bumiputra. All students managed to successfully gain offers to private institutions but some did not pursue a medical education due to lack of funds and financial support.
PMR SPM Reference Books
Academic reference books which covers all subjects that are tested on the PMR (Penilaian Menengah Rendah) and SPM examinations (Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia) are popular with students. Many students purchase these books as they cover most of their respective subject's essential concepts so much so that it provides a easily adaptive framework for students to write a report. In addition, the PEKA (Science Lab Reports) are written in very elaborate and concise details which allows the students to easily write a modified, unoriginal report for submission. These books reduce the students' capacity to engage in independent learning and hinder their long term potential to think critically by a considerable margin.
See also
■Mahathir bin Mohamad#Educational system
References
■"Country Facts - Malaysia" (http://www.tradeport.org/countries/malaysia/01grw.html) . Retrieved Oct. 16, 2005.
■"A Glimpse of History" (http://www.moe.gov.my/tayang.php?laman=imbasan_sejarah&bhs=en) . Retrieved Oct. 16, 2005.
■"PM Unveils Caring Budget, More New Measures To Perk Up Economy" (http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news_business.php?id=158185) . (Sept. 30, 2005). Bernama.
■Yusop, Husna (Oct. 16, 2005). Speaking of culture (http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=11569) . The Sun.
■Yusop, Husna (Mar. 9, 2006). Time to overhaul education system (http://www.malaysia-today.net/Blog-e/2006/03/time-to-overhaul-education-system.htm) . Malaysia Today.
■Tan, Peter K. W. (2005), ‘The medium-of-instruction debate in Malaysia: English as a Malaysian language?’, Problems & Language Planning 29: 1, pp. 47–66 The medium-of-instruction debate in Malaysia (http://www.benjamins.com/jbp/series/LPLP/29-1/art/0003a.pdf)
Notes
1.^ Puthucheary, Mavis (1978). The Politics of Administration: The Malaysian Experience, p. 9. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-580387-6.
2.^ Puthucheary, pp. 9–10.
3.^ Puthucheary, p. 10.
4.^ Puthucheary, pp. 10–11.
5.^ English in Schools: Policy reversed but English hours extended (http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Thursday/Frontpage/20090709083157/Article/index_html) , New Strait Times, 9 July 2009.
6.^ Beech, Hannah (Oct. 30, 2006). Not the Retiring Type (http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501061106/story3.html) (page three). TIME.
7.^ "Experts: Go back to drawing board", p. 22. (Mar. 21, 2006). New Straits Times.
8.^ Musa, M. Bakri (2007). Towards A Competitive Malaysia. Petaling Jaya: Strategic Information and Research Development Centre. pp. 143. ISBN 978-983-3782-20-8.
9.^ "Foreigners in Malaysia Prefer Turkish Schools" (http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20031129174159986) . http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20031129174159986.
10.^ theSun (http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=14677)
11.^ Koh, Lay Chin (Jan. 17, 2007). "Free hand for 'clusters' to excel", p. 12. New Straits Times.
12.^ "Enhancing racial unity in national schools", p. 13. (Jan. 17, 2007). New Straits Times.
13.^ "Review of curricula soon", p. 13. (Jan. 17, 2006). New Straits Times.
14.^ "Malaysian police fire teargas at protesters: witnesses" (http://news.my.msn.com/regional/article.aspx?cp-documentid=2722919) . AFP. MSN News. http://news.my.msn.com/regional/article.aspx?cp-documentid=2722919. Retrieved 10 March 2009.
15.^ "Teaching Of Science And Mathematics Back To Bahasa Melayu" (http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsgeneral.php?id=423799) . Bernama. 2009-07-08. http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsgeneral.php?id=423799. Retrieved 2009-07-08.
16.^ Malaysian National News Agency :: BERNAMA (http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news.php?id=94883)
17.^ Will qualified non-bumi students be sacrificed by Shafie for his defeat in UMNO? (http://dapmalaysia.org/english/lge/lge011.htm)
External links
■Ministry of Education official website (http://www.moe.gov.my/?lang=en)
■Ministry of Higher Education official website (http://www.portal.mohe.gov.my/portal/page/portal/ExtPortal/MOHE_MAIN_PAGE)
■Education Malaysia (http://educationmalaysia.gov.my) , government website promoting education in Malaysia
■United Chinese School Committees Association of Malaysia (UCSCAM) (http://www.djz.edu.my) , also known as Dong Jiao Zong (董教总)
■This page was last modified on 12 October 2010 at 09:45.
Contact us
Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimers
Thursday, August 12, 2010
STPM may be best option
Sunday January 17, 2010
STPM may be best option
TAKING the STPM (Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia) may actually be the best option before entering university, said Star-Jobs Online senior executive Joyce Lee.
Lee, who was speaking at the fair, surprised many students and parents who turned up for the Options After SPM talk.
She said: “If you have budget constrains, or have interest in environment-related courses, the STPM is actually a very good option.”
Lee told the audience that certain courses were more widely available in public universities, which require the STPM for admission.
“Private universities may have less options in certain fields, so it is important to identify what your interest is before ruling out your options too quickly.”
Lee also recommended that students take courses that offer internships, as work experience plays an important role in future employment.
Students busy taking down notes during the talk on How to Approach SPM Add Maths and Physics.
“Soft skills are also very important to an employer, so make sure you join relevant clubs or societies, and try to be an office-bearer because it shows that you have responsibilities.”
“There are no interesting resumes, only interesting people,” she added.
Other speakers were City & Guilds country director (South East Asia) Ian Oswin Noronha, who spoke on the vast opportunities available in vocational training, and Studylink senior education adviser Jerry Tan, who explained the different pre-university options.
During the session on Funding Higher Education, Malaysian-American Commission on Educational Exchange (Educational Advising Centre) coordinator Doreen John touched on the various scholarship opportunities available for the United States (US).
Sharing some tips on university applications, she said: “In the US, your academic skills are not the only ones that are important.
“We pay attention to your other skills as well, such as sports and work experience.”
“We even have a beauty pageant scholarship!” she said, to laughter from the crowd.
AusEd-UniEd group marketing and recruitment director James Kon spoke on funding for higher education in Australia.
Touching upon the various loan options for parents, Kon said: “Parents can easily get a loan of up to RM250,000, with up to five years of repayment.”
“There is also the option now to do certain Australian degrees locally, which would cost a fraction of what you would pay if you did it there.”
Meanwhile, National Higher Education Fund Corporation (PTPTN) representative Zubir Che Embi assured them that there was always the option of taking the PTPTN loan.
He explained in detail the requirements for the loan, and how students could go about applying for it.
Wrapping up the session was Star Education Fund manager Susanna Kuan, who told the audience about the various scholarships available under the fund.
Kuan also reminded students to only apply for the courses they were eligible for.
At his talk, Additional Mathematics and Physics teacher Sunny Yee gave students tips and advice on how to approach the two subjects in the SPM (Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia) exams effectively.
“Many students do not do well in these subjects due to a lack of understanding of application,” he said.
Students are expected to have an inquiring mind when answering maths and science questions.
“They must study the two subjects using the right study methods.
“Learn from the common mistakes you make and do as many past year questions as possible,” he said.
STPM may be best option
TAKING the STPM (Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia) may actually be the best option before entering university, said Star-Jobs Online senior executive Joyce Lee.
Lee, who was speaking at the fair, surprised many students and parents who turned up for the Options After SPM talk.
She said: “If you have budget constrains, or have interest in environment-related courses, the STPM is actually a very good option.”
Lee told the audience that certain courses were more widely available in public universities, which require the STPM for admission.
“Private universities may have less options in certain fields, so it is important to identify what your interest is before ruling out your options too quickly.”
Lee also recommended that students take courses that offer internships, as work experience plays an important role in future employment.
Students busy taking down notes during the talk on How to Approach SPM Add Maths and Physics.
“Soft skills are also very important to an employer, so make sure you join relevant clubs or societies, and try to be an office-bearer because it shows that you have responsibilities.”
“There are no interesting resumes, only interesting people,” she added.
Other speakers were City & Guilds country director (South East Asia) Ian Oswin Noronha, who spoke on the vast opportunities available in vocational training, and Studylink senior education adviser Jerry Tan, who explained the different pre-university options.
During the session on Funding Higher Education, Malaysian-American Commission on Educational Exchange (Educational Advising Centre) coordinator Doreen John touched on the various scholarship opportunities available for the United States (US).
Sharing some tips on university applications, she said: “In the US, your academic skills are not the only ones that are important.
“We pay attention to your other skills as well, such as sports and work experience.”
“We even have a beauty pageant scholarship!” she said, to laughter from the crowd.
AusEd-UniEd group marketing and recruitment director James Kon spoke on funding for higher education in Australia.
Touching upon the various loan options for parents, Kon said: “Parents can easily get a loan of up to RM250,000, with up to five years of repayment.”
“There is also the option now to do certain Australian degrees locally, which would cost a fraction of what you would pay if you did it there.”
Meanwhile, National Higher Education Fund Corporation (PTPTN) representative Zubir Che Embi assured them that there was always the option of taking the PTPTN loan.
He explained in detail the requirements for the loan, and how students could go about applying for it.
Wrapping up the session was Star Education Fund manager Susanna Kuan, who told the audience about the various scholarships available under the fund.
Kuan also reminded students to only apply for the courses they were eligible for.
At his talk, Additional Mathematics and Physics teacher Sunny Yee gave students tips and advice on how to approach the two subjects in the SPM (Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia) exams effectively.
“Many students do not do well in these subjects due to a lack of understanding of application,” he said.
Students are expected to have an inquiring mind when answering maths and science questions.
“They must study the two subjects using the right study methods.
“Learn from the common mistakes you make and do as many past year questions as possible,” he said.
A new front
Sunday January 17, 2010
A new front
By RICHARD LIM
Private higher education institutions are urged to take risks and set up privately-run polytechnics.
PRIVATE universities and university colleges have been encouraged to establish their own polytechnics to offer engineering and technical programmes.
Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin extended the invitation after ministry data showed that five out of 10 students enquired about the aforementioned programmes at the ministry’s overseas expos.
As public varsities have a 5% cap on international students, private universities and university colleges were poised to benefit.
However, the same did not apply to local polytechnics as there were barely enough places for Malaysian students.
“More than 120,000 local students apply for around 30,000 places in polytechnics each year,” said Mohamed Khaled in a press conference during The Star Education Fair 2010 at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre.
“Private universities and university colleges must be willing to take the risk and set up polytechnics as international students are interested in these programmes.”
He added that the ministry was looking at either private universities or university colleges as they were in a better position compared to colleges which were smaller.
Students in search of study options from various institutions at the fair.
“These institutions could use their entrepreneurial and creative abilities to develop these programmes,” he continued.
“It is a unique opportunity for them to capitalise on, and the ministry is willing to facilitate any move.”
Mohamed Khaled said the Government would look into providing incentives in the budget for this purpose.
“Higher education is an industry by itself,” he added. “It is one sector which can make Malaysia a serious global player in higher education.”
According to Unesco’s Global Education Digest 2008, approximately 2% of the world’s 2.5mil international students are studying in Malaysia.
Malaysia is currently ranked as the 11th most preferred study destination behind Singapore.
The top nine are the traditional big names in education like the United States, Britain, France and Australia, among others.
Mohamed Khaled also said that the ministry was confident that its target to have 75,000 international students this year would be met.
The number of international students in Malaysia currently hovers around the 70,000 mark.
Mohamed Khaled told The Star that the ministry would be willing to consider any serious applications, as the establishment of privately-run polytechnics would boost Malaysia’s higher education standing.
He expressed his hope that private universities and university colleges would be willing to step up to the plate.
“There are two private companies that have applied to set up polytechnics so far, but they are not private higher education providers,” he confirmed.
Mohamed Khaled also threw his weight behind the education fair and thanked The Star for its long-standing commitment to higher education.
Describing the fair as instrumental in providing educational outreach, he added that students and parents would not be the only beneficiaries, as Malaysia’s many private higher education institutions stood to gain as well.
“Participating institutions stand to gain a great deal by being able to see themselves in comparison with other providers,” he said.
“This will encourage them to improve the quality of their service as well as to educate the public on the type of degrees and specialisations available in Malaysia.”
Mohamed Khaled also recognised that the fair was the biggest of its kind in Malaysia and one of the largest in Asia.
“An education expo and fund as large as this is very rare indeed and I’m happy that The Star recognises the country’s effort to be a regional education hub,” he said.
Thanking the institutions which pledged scholarships, Mohamed Khaled expressed the ministry’s hope for the fair and the Fund to continue to expand.
Also present were Star Publications (M) Bhd group managing director and chief executive officer Datin Linda Ngiam and executive director Ng Beng Lye.
In her speech, Ngiam said that The Star had always been more than just a newspaper that covers stories and events.
“We see ourselves as an integral part of the community and a responsible corporate citizen. We believe that a sound education system is central to our growth of a developed nation.
“We will continue to play our part in promoting our Prime Minister’s goal of developing a creative and innovative nation,’’ she said.
The fair, which ran for the 23rd time this year, took place in Kuala Lumpur on Jan 9 and 10.
It will also be held at the Penang International Sports Arena (Pisa) on March 6 and 7.
A new front
By RICHARD LIM
Private higher education institutions are urged to take risks and set up privately-run polytechnics.
PRIVATE universities and university colleges have been encouraged to establish their own polytechnics to offer engineering and technical programmes.
Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin extended the invitation after ministry data showed that five out of 10 students enquired about the aforementioned programmes at the ministry’s overseas expos.
As public varsities have a 5% cap on international students, private universities and university colleges were poised to benefit.
However, the same did not apply to local polytechnics as there were barely enough places for Malaysian students.
“More than 120,000 local students apply for around 30,000 places in polytechnics each year,” said Mohamed Khaled in a press conference during The Star Education Fair 2010 at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre.
“Private universities and university colleges must be willing to take the risk and set up polytechnics as international students are interested in these programmes.”
He added that the ministry was looking at either private universities or university colleges as they were in a better position compared to colleges which were smaller.
Students in search of study options from various institutions at the fair.
“These institutions could use their entrepreneurial and creative abilities to develop these programmes,” he continued.
“It is a unique opportunity for them to capitalise on, and the ministry is willing to facilitate any move.”
Mohamed Khaled said the Government would look into providing incentives in the budget for this purpose.
“Higher education is an industry by itself,” he added. “It is one sector which can make Malaysia a serious global player in higher education.”
According to Unesco’s Global Education Digest 2008, approximately 2% of the world’s 2.5mil international students are studying in Malaysia.
Malaysia is currently ranked as the 11th most preferred study destination behind Singapore.
The top nine are the traditional big names in education like the United States, Britain, France and Australia, among others.
Mohamed Khaled also said that the ministry was confident that its target to have 75,000 international students this year would be met.
The number of international students in Malaysia currently hovers around the 70,000 mark.
Mohamed Khaled told The Star that the ministry would be willing to consider any serious applications, as the establishment of privately-run polytechnics would boost Malaysia’s higher education standing.
He expressed his hope that private universities and university colleges would be willing to step up to the plate.
“There are two private companies that have applied to set up polytechnics so far, but they are not private higher education providers,” he confirmed.
Mohamed Khaled also threw his weight behind the education fair and thanked The Star for its long-standing commitment to higher education.
Describing the fair as instrumental in providing educational outreach, he added that students and parents would not be the only beneficiaries, as Malaysia’s many private higher education institutions stood to gain as well.
“Participating institutions stand to gain a great deal by being able to see themselves in comparison with other providers,” he said.
“This will encourage them to improve the quality of their service as well as to educate the public on the type of degrees and specialisations available in Malaysia.”
Mohamed Khaled also recognised that the fair was the biggest of its kind in Malaysia and one of the largest in Asia.
“An education expo and fund as large as this is very rare indeed and I’m happy that The Star recognises the country’s effort to be a regional education hub,” he said.
Thanking the institutions which pledged scholarships, Mohamed Khaled expressed the ministry’s hope for the fair and the Fund to continue to expand.
Also present were Star Publications (M) Bhd group managing director and chief executive officer Datin Linda Ngiam and executive director Ng Beng Lye.
In her speech, Ngiam said that The Star had always been more than just a newspaper that covers stories and events.
“We see ourselves as an integral part of the community and a responsible corporate citizen. We believe that a sound education system is central to our growth of a developed nation.
“We will continue to play our part in promoting our Prime Minister’s goal of developing a creative and innovative nation,’’ she said.
The fair, which ran for the 23rd time this year, took place in Kuala Lumpur on Jan 9 and 10.
It will also be held at the Penang International Sports Arena (Pisa) on March 6 and 7.
Victoria Institution contoh sekolah satu aliran
Victoria Institution contoh sekolah satu aliran
November 5, 2009 by jebatmustdie
GAGASAN 1Malaysia tidak mungkin terlaksana tanpa penubuhan sekolah satu aliran. Bagaimana mungkin ia terjadi jika 12 tahun kanak-kanak berada di satu tempat iaitu: 1tahun di peringkat prasekolah, 6 tahun sekolah rendah dan kemudian 5 tahun di sekolah menengah.
Bayangkanlah betapa akrabnya hubungan antara kaum jika sejak berumur 6 tahun mereka dapat bergaul mesra sehingga tingkatan 5 ketika mereka berumur 18 tahun.
Inilah ramuan atau formula paling mujarab untuk membentuk bangsa Malaysia tanpa mengira kaum dan agama.
Pemimpin-pemimpin politik yang mewakili tiga kaum terbesar di negara ini iaitu Melayu, Cina dan India mestilah jujur dan komited mahu benar-benar melahirkan bangsa Malaysia yang bersatu padu.
Janganlah hanya mementingkan kaum masing-masing tanpa mengutamakan kepentingan negara. Kita amat kecewa apabila anak-anak pergi ke sekolah yang berbeza, ibu bapa dan guru juga terpisah mengikut kaum kerana memilih sekolah yang berbeza atas kepentingan kaum masing-masing.
Sebenarnya model Sekolah Wawasan yang pernah dicadangkan oleh mantan Perdana Menteri, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad adalah model sekolah satu aliran yang paling praktikal.
Sebenarnya orang Cina dan India pun amat berminat dengan sekolah satu aliran ini tetapi para pendidik di kalangan kaum-kaum tersebut yang mempunyai sentimen perkauman yang amat menebal yang menentang idea yang baik ini.
Lihat sahaja Sekolah Victoria Institution (sekolah VI) yang merupakan contoh terbaik Sekolah Satu Aliran di negara ini.
Lihat sahaja semua ibu bapa dari kaum Melayu, Cina dan India berlumba-lumba mahu menghantar anak-anak mereka belajar di sekolah itu.
Lihat sahaja bagaimana mesranya pelajar-pelajar dari ketiga-tiga kaum bergaul mesra dan bersaing secara sihat dalam pelajaran.
Guru-guru, staf juga mempunyai komposisi ketiga-tiga kaum ini. Begitu juga dengan Persatuan Ibu Bapa dan Guru juga diwakili oleh ketiga-tiga kaum.
Lihat sahaja betapa seronoknya pelajar bergaul mesra semasa bersukan dan apa juga kokurikulum yang lain.
Sekolah VI ini juga cemerlang dalam akademik. Mengapa semua ibu bapa dari kaum Melayu, Cina dan India amat berminat dengan sekolah VI ini sedangkan ia adalah model sekolah satu aliran?
Kerajaan terutamanya Menteri Pelajaran wajar mengkaji model sekolah VI ini dan menjadikannya sebagai asas atau model untuk membentuk sekolah satu aliran di negara ini.
Setakat ini sekolah VI amat popular dan menjadi rebutan pelajar serta ibu bapa daripada semua kaum.
Mengapa sekolah VI sebagai sekolah satu aliran begitu berjaya dan dan mendapat sokongan semua kaum ?
SEKOLAH SATU ALIRAN
Kuala Lumpur
Saya bersetuju dengan pendapat dari pembaca di atas. Mengapa kita harus menidakkan para pelajar kita untuk bergaul dengan pelbagai kaum? Saya juga berpendapat, sistem sekolah satu aliran perlu diterapkan kepada lapisan sekolah rendah dahulu. Ini penting kerana di usia begitulah mereka akan lebih mudah merasa selesa dengan kawan-kawan dari pelbagai warna kulit. Contoh sekolah rendah kebangsaan yang bermutu tinggi sewaktu ketika dahulu adalah Sekolah Rendah Sultan Hishamuddin berdekatan dengan Bank Negara dan juga Sekolah Rendah St. John di Bukit Nanas.
Untuk membentuk Orang Malaysia yang cintakan negara dan rakyatnya, mereka perlulah bergaul antara satu sama lain dahulu, lebih lebih lagi dari kecil lagi.
Kita mendengar banyak keluhan dan kritikan serta cemuhan dari mereka yang menentang sekolah satu aliran di mana mutu pendidikan yang tidak bagus menyebabkan perlu wujudnya sekolah vernakular.
Ini mudah diatasi dengan membuat kajian menyeluruh terhadap sistem pelajaran kita sebagaimana yang telah dibuat lebih 50 tahun dahulu. Laporan dari penyelidik bebas mampu membuahkan cadangan-cadangan bernas yang boleh menyelesaikan masalah yang dihadapi di dalam sekolah kebangsaan rendah dan menengah.
Jika mereka mengatakan bahawa mereka perlu mengekalkan budaya kaum masing-masing, hujah ini tidak masuk akal kerana kaum-kaum mereka di negara-negara lain tidak sedikit pun belajar di sekolah-sekolah vernakular malah, ada sekolah-sekolah vernakular di negara tersebut dilarang penubuhannya. Yang ada, cuma sekolah kebangsaan di negara masing-masing. Rakyat mereka belajar mengenai satu sama lain dengan lebih dekat dengan cara begini.
Ada yang menjadi negara maju kelas pertama tanpa wujudnya sekolah vernakular di negara tersebut. Oleh itu, apa sebabnya mahu diteruskan juga sekolah vernakular di negara Malaysia ini?
Mungkin juga negara ini tidak jadi maju kerana wujudnya sekolah vernakular? Manakan tidak? Apabila para pelajar tidak dapat duduk semeja dan mengenali satu sama lain, mana mungkin mereka dapat mentadbir negara ini dengan baik apabila mereka memerintah negara ini apabila dewasa kelak? Adakah kita akan menjadi maju jika ditunggangi oleh permasalahan sebegini?
Ini akan menjadi lebih kronik di dalam masa 10 tahun akan datang apabila para pelajar sekarang menjadi pemimpin muda di dalam parti politik masing-masing.
Mereka yang ingin menegakkan sekolah vernakular hanyalah mereka yang muflis idea dan masih berfikiran di tampuk lama. Ironisnya, kebanyakkan mereka yang menyokong sekolah vernakular, tidak pernah pula belajar di sekolah tersebut. Ini terjadi kerana mereka ini penyokong tegar puak pembangkang.
Hanya kerana membenci kerajaan, mereka menentang semangat harmoni yang akan terbit dari sekolah satu aliran. Orang jenis apakah ini? Ya, orang yang tiada sifat malu dan tiada pendapat bernas untuk melahirkan Orang Malaysia yang bersatu padu dan harmonis.
Mereka hanya mahu mencipta api kebencian supaya rakan-rakan mereka dapat memegang kuasa. Barulah puas hati mereka.
Yang menjadi mangsa adalah – impian untuk melihat rakyat yang mendokong ke arah Rukunegara dan Perlembagaan Malaysia.
Adalah penting agar kajian terperinci dilakukan untuk meningkatkan mutu pembelajaran di dalam sekolah kebangsaan. Ini perlu dilakukan segera.
Akta Pendidikan 1996 juga perlu digubal secepat mungkin. Jika Menteri Dalam Negeri, Datuk Seri Hishamuddin Hussein mampu menggubal semula akta yang penting seperti Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri, nescaya Timbalan Perdana Menteri yang juga Menteri Pelajaran Malaysia terlebih mampu untuk mengembleng tenaga menggubal Akta Pendidikan kita yang berkecamuk itu.
Jika Menteri Pelajaran malas untuk pening kepala mendokong aspirasi Orang Malaysia untuk melihat anak-anak mudanya bersekolah di dalam sistem satu aliran, maka serahkanlah jawatan tersebut kepada orang lain yang lebih kuat jatidirinya.
Masa untuk duduk bersimpuh, tertunduk malu seperti anak dara di dalam Kabinet sudah berakhir. Inilah masa untuk tunjukkan sifat kepimpinan yang sebenar! Terima kasih.
November 5, 2009 by jebatmustdie
GAGASAN 1Malaysia tidak mungkin terlaksana tanpa penubuhan sekolah satu aliran. Bagaimana mungkin ia terjadi jika 12 tahun kanak-kanak berada di satu tempat iaitu: 1tahun di peringkat prasekolah, 6 tahun sekolah rendah dan kemudian 5 tahun di sekolah menengah.
Bayangkanlah betapa akrabnya hubungan antara kaum jika sejak berumur 6 tahun mereka dapat bergaul mesra sehingga tingkatan 5 ketika mereka berumur 18 tahun.
Inilah ramuan atau formula paling mujarab untuk membentuk bangsa Malaysia tanpa mengira kaum dan agama.
Pemimpin-pemimpin politik yang mewakili tiga kaum terbesar di negara ini iaitu Melayu, Cina dan India mestilah jujur dan komited mahu benar-benar melahirkan bangsa Malaysia yang bersatu padu.
Janganlah hanya mementingkan kaum masing-masing tanpa mengutamakan kepentingan negara. Kita amat kecewa apabila anak-anak pergi ke sekolah yang berbeza, ibu bapa dan guru juga terpisah mengikut kaum kerana memilih sekolah yang berbeza atas kepentingan kaum masing-masing.
Sebenarnya model Sekolah Wawasan yang pernah dicadangkan oleh mantan Perdana Menteri, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad adalah model sekolah satu aliran yang paling praktikal.
Sebenarnya orang Cina dan India pun amat berminat dengan sekolah satu aliran ini tetapi para pendidik di kalangan kaum-kaum tersebut yang mempunyai sentimen perkauman yang amat menebal yang menentang idea yang baik ini.
Lihat sahaja Sekolah Victoria Institution (sekolah VI) yang merupakan contoh terbaik Sekolah Satu Aliran di negara ini.
Lihat sahaja semua ibu bapa dari kaum Melayu, Cina dan India berlumba-lumba mahu menghantar anak-anak mereka belajar di sekolah itu.
Lihat sahaja bagaimana mesranya pelajar-pelajar dari ketiga-tiga kaum bergaul mesra dan bersaing secara sihat dalam pelajaran.
Guru-guru, staf juga mempunyai komposisi ketiga-tiga kaum ini. Begitu juga dengan Persatuan Ibu Bapa dan Guru juga diwakili oleh ketiga-tiga kaum.
Lihat sahaja betapa seronoknya pelajar bergaul mesra semasa bersukan dan apa juga kokurikulum yang lain.
Sekolah VI ini juga cemerlang dalam akademik. Mengapa semua ibu bapa dari kaum Melayu, Cina dan India amat berminat dengan sekolah VI ini sedangkan ia adalah model sekolah satu aliran?
Kerajaan terutamanya Menteri Pelajaran wajar mengkaji model sekolah VI ini dan menjadikannya sebagai asas atau model untuk membentuk sekolah satu aliran di negara ini.
Setakat ini sekolah VI amat popular dan menjadi rebutan pelajar serta ibu bapa daripada semua kaum.
Mengapa sekolah VI sebagai sekolah satu aliran begitu berjaya dan dan mendapat sokongan semua kaum ?
SEKOLAH SATU ALIRAN
Kuala Lumpur
Saya bersetuju dengan pendapat dari pembaca di atas. Mengapa kita harus menidakkan para pelajar kita untuk bergaul dengan pelbagai kaum? Saya juga berpendapat, sistem sekolah satu aliran perlu diterapkan kepada lapisan sekolah rendah dahulu. Ini penting kerana di usia begitulah mereka akan lebih mudah merasa selesa dengan kawan-kawan dari pelbagai warna kulit. Contoh sekolah rendah kebangsaan yang bermutu tinggi sewaktu ketika dahulu adalah Sekolah Rendah Sultan Hishamuddin berdekatan dengan Bank Negara dan juga Sekolah Rendah St. John di Bukit Nanas.
Untuk membentuk Orang Malaysia yang cintakan negara dan rakyatnya, mereka perlulah bergaul antara satu sama lain dahulu, lebih lebih lagi dari kecil lagi.
Kita mendengar banyak keluhan dan kritikan serta cemuhan dari mereka yang menentang sekolah satu aliran di mana mutu pendidikan yang tidak bagus menyebabkan perlu wujudnya sekolah vernakular.
Ini mudah diatasi dengan membuat kajian menyeluruh terhadap sistem pelajaran kita sebagaimana yang telah dibuat lebih 50 tahun dahulu. Laporan dari penyelidik bebas mampu membuahkan cadangan-cadangan bernas yang boleh menyelesaikan masalah yang dihadapi di dalam sekolah kebangsaan rendah dan menengah.
Jika mereka mengatakan bahawa mereka perlu mengekalkan budaya kaum masing-masing, hujah ini tidak masuk akal kerana kaum-kaum mereka di negara-negara lain tidak sedikit pun belajar di sekolah-sekolah vernakular malah, ada sekolah-sekolah vernakular di negara tersebut dilarang penubuhannya. Yang ada, cuma sekolah kebangsaan di negara masing-masing. Rakyat mereka belajar mengenai satu sama lain dengan lebih dekat dengan cara begini.
Ada yang menjadi negara maju kelas pertama tanpa wujudnya sekolah vernakular di negara tersebut. Oleh itu, apa sebabnya mahu diteruskan juga sekolah vernakular di negara Malaysia ini?
Mungkin juga negara ini tidak jadi maju kerana wujudnya sekolah vernakular? Manakan tidak? Apabila para pelajar tidak dapat duduk semeja dan mengenali satu sama lain, mana mungkin mereka dapat mentadbir negara ini dengan baik apabila mereka memerintah negara ini apabila dewasa kelak? Adakah kita akan menjadi maju jika ditunggangi oleh permasalahan sebegini?
Ini akan menjadi lebih kronik di dalam masa 10 tahun akan datang apabila para pelajar sekarang menjadi pemimpin muda di dalam parti politik masing-masing.
Mereka yang ingin menegakkan sekolah vernakular hanyalah mereka yang muflis idea dan masih berfikiran di tampuk lama. Ironisnya, kebanyakkan mereka yang menyokong sekolah vernakular, tidak pernah pula belajar di sekolah tersebut. Ini terjadi kerana mereka ini penyokong tegar puak pembangkang.
Hanya kerana membenci kerajaan, mereka menentang semangat harmoni yang akan terbit dari sekolah satu aliran. Orang jenis apakah ini? Ya, orang yang tiada sifat malu dan tiada pendapat bernas untuk melahirkan Orang Malaysia yang bersatu padu dan harmonis.
Mereka hanya mahu mencipta api kebencian supaya rakan-rakan mereka dapat memegang kuasa. Barulah puas hati mereka.
Yang menjadi mangsa adalah – impian untuk melihat rakyat yang mendokong ke arah Rukunegara dan Perlembagaan Malaysia.
Adalah penting agar kajian terperinci dilakukan untuk meningkatkan mutu pembelajaran di dalam sekolah kebangsaan. Ini perlu dilakukan segera.
Akta Pendidikan 1996 juga perlu digubal secepat mungkin. Jika Menteri Dalam Negeri, Datuk Seri Hishamuddin Hussein mampu menggubal semula akta yang penting seperti Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri, nescaya Timbalan Perdana Menteri yang juga Menteri Pelajaran Malaysia terlebih mampu untuk mengembleng tenaga menggubal Akta Pendidikan kita yang berkecamuk itu.
Jika Menteri Pelajaran malas untuk pening kepala mendokong aspirasi Orang Malaysia untuk melihat anak-anak mudanya bersekolah di dalam sistem satu aliran, maka serahkanlah jawatan tersebut kepada orang lain yang lebih kuat jatidirinya.
Masa untuk duduk bersimpuh, tertunduk malu seperti anak dara di dalam Kabinet sudah berakhir. Inilah masa untuk tunjukkan sifat kepimpinan yang sebenar! Terima kasih.
Education Dept: report students who don’t wear helmets”.
Dear editor,
Appreciate if you can publish this write ups
I am frustrated and wish to add on the recent article “Education Dept: report students who don’t wear helmets”.
This story hv been discussed / complaint by the public for many years now. Its attitude problem and it’s reflect on most of Malaysian population be it the adult or the young folks. We hv a culture / behavior of “tidak apa” NO policemen or when authority is not around attitude. As for the school admins, they hv done their level best to tackle discipline or indiscipline issues in schools. But when this happens outside the school jurisdiction, they are no added incentives for everyone to resolve this issue. It can be from non responsive law enforcement attitudes or the fear of retaliation / revenge. I can vouch in my area, where students after school or even in the morning when they are going to school, rides without helmets, smoking, speeding at traffic junctions or going through a red light and I’m sure riding with no license. This also happen in an area where uniform personnel are living. It has become a normal day routine for both the uniform personnel to pass by each other without any enforcement. This flouting of the law is replicated in many areas in urban KL, what more in rural areas? I pity the governments NKRA effort as we know this secondary student will eventually become the future citizens of the country. If at a young age they are not educated in the “laws”, we should not blame if our youth population is having a serious attitude issues when they grow up.
Ras
Setiawangsa
Appreciate if you can publish this write ups
I am frustrated and wish to add on the recent article “Education Dept: report students who don’t wear helmets”.
This story hv been discussed / complaint by the public for many years now. Its attitude problem and it’s reflect on most of Malaysian population be it the adult or the young folks. We hv a culture / behavior of “tidak apa” NO policemen or when authority is not around attitude. As for the school admins, they hv done their level best to tackle discipline or indiscipline issues in schools. But when this happens outside the school jurisdiction, they are no added incentives for everyone to resolve this issue. It can be from non responsive law enforcement attitudes or the fear of retaliation / revenge. I can vouch in my area, where students after school or even in the morning when they are going to school, rides without helmets, smoking, speeding at traffic junctions or going through a red light and I’m sure riding with no license. This also happen in an area where uniform personnel are living. It has become a normal day routine for both the uniform personnel to pass by each other without any enforcement. This flouting of the law is replicated in many areas in urban KL, what more in rural areas? I pity the governments NKRA effort as we know this secondary student will eventually become the future citizens of the country. If at a young age they are not educated in the “laws”, we should not blame if our youth population is having a serious attitude issues when they grow up.
Ras
Setiawangsa
Monday, August 2, 2010
Pointers for first-timers
Wednesday January 6, 2010
Pointers for first-timers
CHILDWISE
By RUTH LIEW
WHILE some Year One schoolchildren may fret over starting school for the first time, many are no longer new to the idea of making the transition from home to school. Today’s children are well prepared because they have attended preschool.
I remember when I first sent my second daughter to Year One class.
I overheard one of her classmates comforting another child: “Don’t be scared. Your mummy will come for you after school.”
While these first-timers are prepared for academic learning, they are not quite prepared for school life. It’s a big leap for many children who attended small kindergartens to move into a large building for primary education. The school hours are longer, and there are more classes and students.
Parents are concerned about their children’s health and safety when they first enter Year One. They look out for traffic safety and hygienic school canteens that serve healthy snacks. However, they may neglect to teach their children some personal safety rules.
Your Year One child needs to know his full address, parents’ handphone numbers and the phone number of one more trusted adult. Rehearse with your child the steps to take if he should need to contact his parents. For example, start by teaching him how to use a pay phone or seek help from the school office.
If he is unable to remember them, he should keep the details in a safe place in his bag. Do not write personal details on his bag for all to see. Your child must understand that these personal details should not be revealed to strangers.
As for talking to strangers in and out of school, Year One children need to know that good strangers do not seek help from children. If anyone approaches them for help, they should run to a trusted adult for assistance.
Children should be reminded never to take things from strangers or follow them anywhere.
Don’t be over-zealous over labelling your child’s belongings. Allow your child to learn from his mistakes after losing a few pencils or water tumblers. Some children feeling very anxious when they lose their belongings. They would try to find it at all cost so that they would not have to face their parents’ wrath.
Children need to know that their safety comes first. They can learn ways on how to remember to keep their belongings. But they must know that they should always make their personal safety a priority above all things.
Name labelling can lead to strangers knowing your child’s name.
Some children tend to trust an unfamiliar adult who calls them by name. You must help your child to remember that he has a name tag on his uniform.
Many Year One children encounter problems with bullying and teasing. You can help your child feel confident in class by being on friendly terms with everyone in his class. If one of his friends should ask him to do something he is not comfortable with, he has the right to say “No”.
He should never feel coerced to do things that are not right.
Remind your child to stay away from teasing and tattling in class. Teasing can hurt even if it is just name-calling. Tattling is about telling on someone to hurt him or get him into trouble. But your child needs to know that he can tell his teacher if it is going to help someone keep out of trouble.
Children must also understand that they should never go alone anywhere in the school grounds or outside, without the knowledge of their teachers.
They should always remain in groups or in pairs. I have seen many Year One children playing hide-and-seek. They are placing themselves in potentially dangerous situations when they go to places where the school authorities cannot supervise them.
At the start of the new school year, spend more time listening to your child talk about the goings-on among his friends and things that happened in the canteen.
You will learn more about his school life and be able to help him adjust better. He needs to know that you will always be ready to help him out when he encounters a problem in or out of the classroom.
Pointers for first-timers
CHILDWISE
By RUTH LIEW
WHILE some Year One schoolchildren may fret over starting school for the first time, many are no longer new to the idea of making the transition from home to school. Today’s children are well prepared because they have attended preschool.
I remember when I first sent my second daughter to Year One class.
I overheard one of her classmates comforting another child: “Don’t be scared. Your mummy will come for you after school.”
While these first-timers are prepared for academic learning, they are not quite prepared for school life. It’s a big leap for many children who attended small kindergartens to move into a large building for primary education. The school hours are longer, and there are more classes and students.
Parents are concerned about their children’s health and safety when they first enter Year One. They look out for traffic safety and hygienic school canteens that serve healthy snacks. However, they may neglect to teach their children some personal safety rules.
Your Year One child needs to know his full address, parents’ handphone numbers and the phone number of one more trusted adult. Rehearse with your child the steps to take if he should need to contact his parents. For example, start by teaching him how to use a pay phone or seek help from the school office.
If he is unable to remember them, he should keep the details in a safe place in his bag. Do not write personal details on his bag for all to see. Your child must understand that these personal details should not be revealed to strangers.
As for talking to strangers in and out of school, Year One children need to know that good strangers do not seek help from children. If anyone approaches them for help, they should run to a trusted adult for assistance.
Children should be reminded never to take things from strangers or follow them anywhere.
Don’t be over-zealous over labelling your child’s belongings. Allow your child to learn from his mistakes after losing a few pencils or water tumblers. Some children feeling very anxious when they lose their belongings. They would try to find it at all cost so that they would not have to face their parents’ wrath.
Children need to know that their safety comes first. They can learn ways on how to remember to keep their belongings. But they must know that they should always make their personal safety a priority above all things.
Name labelling can lead to strangers knowing your child’s name.
Some children tend to trust an unfamiliar adult who calls them by name. You must help your child to remember that he has a name tag on his uniform.
Many Year One children encounter problems with bullying and teasing. You can help your child feel confident in class by being on friendly terms with everyone in his class. If one of his friends should ask him to do something he is not comfortable with, he has the right to say “No”.
He should never feel coerced to do things that are not right.
Remind your child to stay away from teasing and tattling in class. Teasing can hurt even if it is just name-calling. Tattling is about telling on someone to hurt him or get him into trouble. But your child needs to know that he can tell his teacher if it is going to help someone keep out of trouble.
Children must also understand that they should never go alone anywhere in the school grounds or outside, without the knowledge of their teachers.
They should always remain in groups or in pairs. I have seen many Year One children playing hide-and-seek. They are placing themselves in potentially dangerous situations when they go to places where the school authorities cannot supervise them.
At the start of the new school year, spend more time listening to your child talk about the goings-on among his friends and things that happened in the canteen.
You will learn more about his school life and be able to help him adjust better. He needs to know that you will always be ready to help him out when he encounters a problem in or out of the classroom.
denver and the west
denver and the west
Data shows racial gaps in Colorado public-school suspensions
Minority students' rates still higher than whites'
By Burt Hubbard
The Denver Post
Posted: 01/05/2010 01:00:00 AM MST
Updated: 01/05/2010 01:10:02 AM MST
Black public-school students in Colorado are nearly three times as likely to face serious discipline as their white peers, a disparity that is persistently growing despite efforts to curb it.
In the 2008-09 school year, about 70,000, or 8.5 percent, of the state's 818,000 students were suspended, expelled or disciplined for being disruptive, according to a Denver Post analysis of newly released data. Reasons ranged from drug, weapon and alcohol infractions to disobedient and detrimental behavior, the most common — and subjective — reasons.
But while black students make up just 5.9 percent of the student population, they were the subject of 12.7 percent of the discipline cases, up from 11.7 percent five years ago. White students, who were about 61 percent of the population, were the subject of 46.8 percent of discipline cases.
Latino students make up 28.4 percent of the population and were involved in 37 percent of discipline cases, another persistent gap.
Expressed as a rate, 18 of every 100 black students and 11 of 100 Latino students faced serious discipline, compared with 6.5 out of 100 white students and 8.5 of 100 students overall.
In the Colorado Springs 11 district, 31 percent of black students were suspended, expelled or disciplined last year. The district's student population is 11 percent black.
"It's discouraging," said Mike Poore, deputy superintendent for the Colorado Springs 11 school district.
"On expulsion, suspension, achievement, we have not closed the gap. We should be called out for that, I guess. We're working hard to make changes."
The racial gaps also are large when gender is considered. Among male students, 23.7 percent of blacks faced discipline compared with 14.9 percent of Latinos and 9.5 percent of whites, the analysis showed.
The gaps among racial groups have remained constant over the years, said Janelle Krueger with the Colorado Department of Education's Safe and Drug-Free Schools division.
"Every race and ethnicity is flat-lined, and it struck us in the face how alarming that is because you are looking at institutionalized attitudes and behaviors," Krueger said.
The disproportionate rate of suspensions for black students needs to be addressed to improve achievement, said Dr. Levester Lyons, president of the Aurora branch of the NAACP.
"Emotional trauma"
"Some students suffer emotional trauma when they are suspended or expelled, which may cause them to be rebellious when they return back to campus," Lyons said. "Students who feel suspension or expulsion was unjustified may lose trust in the education system."
Among school districts with sizable black student populations, Colorado Springs had the highest discipline rate for those students, 31 percent, followed by Aurora at 23 percent and Denver at 19 percent . The rate is up in Colorado Springs from five years ago but down in Denver and Aurora.
Poore said the Colorado Springs school board wants to reduce both the discipline and achievement racial gaps by 10 percent this year.
"We're really bothered by this," he said.
In Aurora, the school district is in the midst of providing "equity training" to administrators and teachers to get a better handle on why suspension rates are high for black students and lower the gap, said Superintendent John Barry.
"We're trying to figure that out. I don't have a good answer for that now," Barry said. "Over-representation is a concern."
Lyons said the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is working with Barry and the district to set up pilot programs to address suspensions and expulsions among minority students.
"That doesn't mean that the Aurora Public School District doesn't have issues they need to address internally, such as increasing diversity among its staff and evaluating instructors, staff and administrators who have a history of disproportionately disciplining African-American students," Lyons said.
Among the difficulties in addressing the gap is determining whether black students are suspended for different offenses at varying rates compared with other races. While the most common offenses for discipline for "disobedient" or "detrimental" behavior, both more subjective offenses than weapons possession, for example, the state does not require school districts to submit racial breakdowns for each offense.
There are bright spots in the data. From the 2000 school year to the 2008 school year, the percent of students disciplined in Colorado fell from 11.1 percent to 8.5 percent.
Judith Martinez, with the Colorado Department of Education's Prevention Initiatives, said the decline is a move away from no-tolerance policies and toward a state program on a positive behavior system.
"For a period of time, there was really a trend of zero tolerance," Martinez said.
Pilot program
Under the positive-behavior approach, schools are trained to identify conduct, such as respect, it wants students to emphasize and come up with rewards and punishments, she said.
"That way, all the teachers know how to respond early and appropriately as opposed to punitively and reactionary," said Cindy Wakefield, a state preventions initiative specialist.
Different approaches are reflected in the data.
The Colorado Springs school district combines the positive-behavior approach with a no-tolerance policy toward student behavior, said Elaine Naleski, spokeswoman for the district.
Colorado Springs, which disciplined 17 percent of its students last year, had the highest overall suspension rate among Front Range school districts, except Sheridan, during a time when suspensions statewide were falling. Sheridan, with only 1,640 students, disciplined 21 percent of its student body.
On the other end of the spectrum, Boulder Valley schools use formal suspensions as a last resort after trying to work out problems with students, said administration official Michele DeBerry. Only 3 percent of Boulder students faced discipline last year.
Denver's rate fell from 13 percent to 11 percent, and Aurora dropped from 15 percent to 13 percent of all students.
Denver Public Schools revamped its disciplinary approach several years ago after a study by Padres Unidos, an advocacy group, found that district disciplined too many students for nonviolent offenses and disproportionately targeted minorities.
It also de-emphasizes sending students home as part of the suspension instead of keeping them in school.
"I think we've taken a totally different look at it," said Cheryl Karstaedt, outgoing director of DPS Student Services. "Kids aren't going to learn if they aren't in school."
Burt Hubbard: 303-954-5107 or bhubbard@denverpost.com
Data shows racial gaps in Colorado public-school suspensions
Minority students' rates still higher than whites'
By Burt Hubbard
The Denver Post
Posted: 01/05/2010 01:00:00 AM MST
Updated: 01/05/2010 01:10:02 AM MST
Black public-school students in Colorado are nearly three times as likely to face serious discipline as their white peers, a disparity that is persistently growing despite efforts to curb it.
In the 2008-09 school year, about 70,000, or 8.5 percent, of the state's 818,000 students were suspended, expelled or disciplined for being disruptive, according to a Denver Post analysis of newly released data. Reasons ranged from drug, weapon and alcohol infractions to disobedient and detrimental behavior, the most common — and subjective — reasons.
But while black students make up just 5.9 percent of the student population, they were the subject of 12.7 percent of the discipline cases, up from 11.7 percent five years ago. White students, who were about 61 percent of the population, were the subject of 46.8 percent of discipline cases.
Latino students make up 28.4 percent of the population and were involved in 37 percent of discipline cases, another persistent gap.
Expressed as a rate, 18 of every 100 black students and 11 of 100 Latino students faced serious discipline, compared with 6.5 out of 100 white students and 8.5 of 100 students overall.
In the Colorado Springs 11 district, 31 percent of black students were suspended, expelled or disciplined last year. The district's student population is 11 percent black.
"It's discouraging," said Mike Poore, deputy superintendent for the Colorado Springs 11 school district.
"On expulsion, suspension, achievement, we have not closed the gap. We should be called out for that, I guess. We're working hard to make changes."
The racial gaps also are large when gender is considered. Among male students, 23.7 percent of blacks faced discipline compared with 14.9 percent of Latinos and 9.5 percent of whites, the analysis showed.
The gaps among racial groups have remained constant over the years, said Janelle Krueger with the Colorado Department of Education's Safe and Drug-Free Schools division.
"Every race and ethnicity is flat-lined, and it struck us in the face how alarming that is because you are looking at institutionalized attitudes and behaviors," Krueger said.
The disproportionate rate of suspensions for black students needs to be addressed to improve achievement, said Dr. Levester Lyons, president of the Aurora branch of the NAACP.
"Emotional trauma"
"Some students suffer emotional trauma when they are suspended or expelled, which may cause them to be rebellious when they return back to campus," Lyons said. "Students who feel suspension or expulsion was unjustified may lose trust in the education system."
Among school districts with sizable black student populations, Colorado Springs had the highest discipline rate for those students, 31 percent, followed by Aurora at 23 percent and Denver at 19 percent . The rate is up in Colorado Springs from five years ago but down in Denver and Aurora.
Poore said the Colorado Springs school board wants to reduce both the discipline and achievement racial gaps by 10 percent this year.
"We're really bothered by this," he said.
In Aurora, the school district is in the midst of providing "equity training" to administrators and teachers to get a better handle on why suspension rates are high for black students and lower the gap, said Superintendent John Barry.
"We're trying to figure that out. I don't have a good answer for that now," Barry said. "Over-representation is a concern."
Lyons said the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is working with Barry and the district to set up pilot programs to address suspensions and expulsions among minority students.
"That doesn't mean that the Aurora Public School District doesn't have issues they need to address internally, such as increasing diversity among its staff and evaluating instructors, staff and administrators who have a history of disproportionately disciplining African-American students," Lyons said.
Among the difficulties in addressing the gap is determining whether black students are suspended for different offenses at varying rates compared with other races. While the most common offenses for discipline for "disobedient" or "detrimental" behavior, both more subjective offenses than weapons possession, for example, the state does not require school districts to submit racial breakdowns for each offense.
There are bright spots in the data. From the 2000 school year to the 2008 school year, the percent of students disciplined in Colorado fell from 11.1 percent to 8.5 percent.
Judith Martinez, with the Colorado Department of Education's Prevention Initiatives, said the decline is a move away from no-tolerance policies and toward a state program on a positive behavior system.
"For a period of time, there was really a trend of zero tolerance," Martinez said.
Pilot program
Under the positive-behavior approach, schools are trained to identify conduct, such as respect, it wants students to emphasize and come up with rewards and punishments, she said.
"That way, all the teachers know how to respond early and appropriately as opposed to punitively and reactionary," said Cindy Wakefield, a state preventions initiative specialist.
Different approaches are reflected in the data.
The Colorado Springs school district combines the positive-behavior approach with a no-tolerance policy toward student behavior, said Elaine Naleski, spokeswoman for the district.
Colorado Springs, which disciplined 17 percent of its students last year, had the highest overall suspension rate among Front Range school districts, except Sheridan, during a time when suspensions statewide were falling. Sheridan, with only 1,640 students, disciplined 21 percent of its student body.
On the other end of the spectrum, Boulder Valley schools use formal suspensions as a last resort after trying to work out problems with students, said administration official Michele DeBerry. Only 3 percent of Boulder students faced discipline last year.
Denver's rate fell from 13 percent to 11 percent, and Aurora dropped from 15 percent to 13 percent of all students.
Denver Public Schools revamped its disciplinary approach several years ago after a study by Padres Unidos, an advocacy group, found that district disciplined too many students for nonviolent offenses and disproportionately targeted minorities.
It also de-emphasizes sending students home as part of the suspension instead of keeping them in school.
"I think we've taken a totally different look at it," said Cheryl Karstaedt, outgoing director of DPS Student Services. "Kids aren't going to learn if they aren't in school."
Burt Hubbard: 303-954-5107 or bhubbard@denverpost.com
Enhancing The Role of Private Sector in Education
Enhancing The Role of Private Sector in Education
M. Bakri Musa
[Last of Six Parts]
[In the preceding essays, I discussed the rationale and benefits of enhancing private sector participation in education, surveyed the various models in the rest of world, and summarized the current state of affairs in Malaysia. This last piece is my prescription for private sector participation at the tertiary level.]
As with schools, opportunities for private sector participation at the post-secondary level are also endless. At one end would be the completely independent proprietary universities free of governmental control except those that govern any private enterprise. At the other would be the various public-private partnerships.
The advantage of being independent is just that. As Thomas Kealey, head of the only independent private university in Britain, the University of Buckingham, observed, “Every other university … works solely to government targets. The government gives them money, and therefore they do whatever the government wants. …. [O]ur economic success is determined by our students’ satisfaction. The other universities’ success is determined by how much they please the government.”
Kealey’s assertion reveals something else, and that is the basic philosophy of any commercial enterprise: Give your customers (in this case, students) what they want, not what they need. It is not my purpose to challenge the legitimacy of such a viewpoint, or support the traditional view of the university as a community of teachers and scholars concerned only with the pursuit of knowledge and truth. In reality, we need both types of institutions.
Just because a college is private and free from governmental funding does not mean that the government can abrogate its responsibilities to regulate these institutions. They too must be regulated, like other private providers of services like hospitals and restaurants.
The purpose of regulatory oversight is to prevent and weed out fraudulent operators and institutions; that is, to protect the public and the industry. Our students must be assured that when they enroll in a private college and part with their parent’s hard-earned cash to pay for the tuition, they are indeed getting an education and not be the victim of a degree mill. Of course there is no way any regulator could prevent a shady character with money and eager to burnish his qualification from getting a fake degree from one of the many fraudulent purveyors.
Such regulations would also protect the industry. If it were to be infested with shady operators and degree mills, then the industry as a whole would suffer. The value and marketability of the genuine providers would decline. This applies to providers of education as well as purveyors of Gucci leather goods.
This oversight function gets complicated in these days of “non-traditional” learning. The line between a degree mill and legitimate “non-traditional” on-line degree program can be blurry. A “dissertation” can be nothing more than a few pages of your “life experiences,” and heavily coached at that, or even ghost written. That these fraudulent operators are becoming more sophisticated is reason to remain vigilant.
One way to achieve this would be to have strict definitions of terms and clear criteria to qualify. Just as private doctors and lawyers must have certain qualifications and experience before they hang out their shingle, so too private colleges and universities must meet certain published and transparent standards.
Thus before any institution could grant a degree or diploma, it must satisfy certain academic and non-academic criteria. The former would include the qualifications of its key faculty and academic leaders, entry requirements, and quality of courses. The non-academic criteria relate to the facilities, financial soundness, and the posting of a performance bonds.
As for the quality of the academic offerings, these institutions would have to acquire accreditation from recognized foreign bodies. Alternatively they could seek accreditation from Lembaga Akreditasi Negara (LAN).
Unfortunately LAN is not an independent agency; it is just another government bureaucracy. Further, it accredits only private institutions, not public ones. We need an independent agency staffed not by civil servants but relevant professionals from both the public and private sectors. That is the only way to enhance LAN’s credibility.
Once the regulatory requirements are met, any entity, foreign or local, should be able to set up a private college using whatever language of instruction it chooses.
Private, Non-Profit Post-Secondary Institutions
As indicated earlier, there is no model of a successful truly private or proprietary university anywhere in the world. Hence I suggest we adopt the American model of private but non-profit universities.
Like America, we should grant our private non-profit universities tax-free status; free from paying income, property and other taxes. Additionally, donations to these institutions should be tax deductible. The government should also treat the students attending these private institutions no differently from those of public ones in terms of eligibility for scholarships and student loans. Likewise, the government should not discriminate the granting of research funds between public and private universities; those should be given to those most competent to conduct the study. These universities should also have access to government-guaranteed loans so they could lower their funding costs for capital projects.
Additionally the government should give direct financial grants to these non-profit universities. After all it has done that to foreign universities, like Ohio University (US), the Royal College of Surgeons (Ireland), and Cambridge.
In return for those privileges, these universities would have to agree to some mutually agreed and beneficial goals, like having their faculty and domestic student body broadly reflect Malaysian society. However, there would not be any rigid quota. The university should recognize that diversity in the classroom enhances the learning experience. It would also be a wonderful and effective way of preparing your students for the diverse global marketplace.
In short, these non-profit private universities would be like my proposed charter schools.
My concept could be extended to technical and vocational institutes. I envisage a consortium of construction companies banding together to set up a vocational institute to produce electricians, plumbers and carpenters. Another would be a group of major hotel operators establishing a school training chefs, tour guides, and hotel workers.
In America, there are many bridges between private and public institutions so students could seamless move from one system to the other at many levels with minimal loss of academic credit. This is particularly useful during this time of economic crisis when many parents find their priories have shifted and they can no longer afford private universities.
On an administrative level, I would not put these universities and institutions under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) as that would impose significant conflict of interest. Those folks at MOHE see themselves first and foremost as looking after the interests of public universities. They would see these private universities as unwelcome challenges to the growth of public universities.
Instead these private tertiary educational institutions should be under the Ministry Of Trade and Industry (MITI). After all the initial idea of having them was essentially economic – to save and earn foreign exchange – the same mission of the ministry. Besides, there is precedent for this, with the International Islamic University under MITI. That was a sneaky maneuver to overcome the government’s prohibition on the use of English in public universities. By having IIU under MITI, the university is considered under the law as a commercial enterprise rather than an educational institution, and hence could use English without incurring the wrath of the language nationalists. Brilliant!
Apart from establishing these non-profit universities, there are other avenues for public-private partnership involving our public universities. On many American campuses, the food, housing, and many other non-academic services are run not by the university but by private entities, relieving the university of the financial, human, and other strains of running such ancillary services.
Another would be for public universities to employ practitioners from the private sector as adjunct faculty members. That would not only supplement the teaching staff but also bring a much needed practical perspective to the curriculum.
Like everything else, such private-public partnerships can go too far as to undermine the universities core academic mission. A major concern on American academia today is to what extent these collaborations with private for-profit entities would compromise the intellectual and academic integrity of the research and the institution. In many instances especially in medical research, the findings are often tainted because key investigators are too generously funded by interested commercial parties.
Such conflicts are experienced even on such hallowed campuses as Harvard. Recognition of the problem is the first step towards solving or even preventing it.
The Malaysian government tried to loosen its stranglehold on our public universities through the exercise of “corporatization” in the hope of freeing them from the tight leash of ministry bureaucrats. The result? Nothing much has changed despite the costs, flurry of paperwork, and legal maneuverings. The reason is that the same people with the same mentality remain in charge, only their titles are changed.
Take one example. A few years ago the newly corporatized University of Malaya went into partnership with a private entity to develop part of the campus. Unfortunately it was not to build a new laboratory, convention center, or student residence, but an exclusive gated community! Not even under the most generous interpretation would such an arrangement be viewed as advancing the university’s mission. The units were so luxurious that that they were beyond the reach of the faculty members! Such one-sided arrangement is not the sort of PPP I envisage.
My criticism is not directed at corporatization, rather how it was done, again illustrating my earlier point about a sound policy having flawed implementation. My proposals as outlined here would entail first of all a change in mindset of those in charge.
A vigorous private sector involvement in higher education would lead to greater competition for our public universities. That could lead to their improvement. We already see this. The recent decision by many public universities to improve the English proficiency of their students is directly the consequence of the competition from private universities. Employers (other than the government) are preferring graduates of private institutions over those from public ones. Consequently public universities have to respond to this challenge.
Such is the consequence of competition. That alone is a good enough reason for the government to engage the private sector.
M. Bakri Musa
[Last of Six Parts]
[In the preceding essays, I discussed the rationale and benefits of enhancing private sector participation in education, surveyed the various models in the rest of world, and summarized the current state of affairs in Malaysia. This last piece is my prescription for private sector participation at the tertiary level.]
As with schools, opportunities for private sector participation at the post-secondary level are also endless. At one end would be the completely independent proprietary universities free of governmental control except those that govern any private enterprise. At the other would be the various public-private partnerships.
The advantage of being independent is just that. As Thomas Kealey, head of the only independent private university in Britain, the University of Buckingham, observed, “Every other university … works solely to government targets. The government gives them money, and therefore they do whatever the government wants. …. [O]ur economic success is determined by our students’ satisfaction. The other universities’ success is determined by how much they please the government.”
Kealey’s assertion reveals something else, and that is the basic philosophy of any commercial enterprise: Give your customers (in this case, students) what they want, not what they need. It is not my purpose to challenge the legitimacy of such a viewpoint, or support the traditional view of the university as a community of teachers and scholars concerned only with the pursuit of knowledge and truth. In reality, we need both types of institutions.
Just because a college is private and free from governmental funding does not mean that the government can abrogate its responsibilities to regulate these institutions. They too must be regulated, like other private providers of services like hospitals and restaurants.
The purpose of regulatory oversight is to prevent and weed out fraudulent operators and institutions; that is, to protect the public and the industry. Our students must be assured that when they enroll in a private college and part with their parent’s hard-earned cash to pay for the tuition, they are indeed getting an education and not be the victim of a degree mill. Of course there is no way any regulator could prevent a shady character with money and eager to burnish his qualification from getting a fake degree from one of the many fraudulent purveyors.
Such regulations would also protect the industry. If it were to be infested with shady operators and degree mills, then the industry as a whole would suffer. The value and marketability of the genuine providers would decline. This applies to providers of education as well as purveyors of Gucci leather goods.
This oversight function gets complicated in these days of “non-traditional” learning. The line between a degree mill and legitimate “non-traditional” on-line degree program can be blurry. A “dissertation” can be nothing more than a few pages of your “life experiences,” and heavily coached at that, or even ghost written. That these fraudulent operators are becoming more sophisticated is reason to remain vigilant.
One way to achieve this would be to have strict definitions of terms and clear criteria to qualify. Just as private doctors and lawyers must have certain qualifications and experience before they hang out their shingle, so too private colleges and universities must meet certain published and transparent standards.
Thus before any institution could grant a degree or diploma, it must satisfy certain academic and non-academic criteria. The former would include the qualifications of its key faculty and academic leaders, entry requirements, and quality of courses. The non-academic criteria relate to the facilities, financial soundness, and the posting of a performance bonds.
As for the quality of the academic offerings, these institutions would have to acquire accreditation from recognized foreign bodies. Alternatively they could seek accreditation from Lembaga Akreditasi Negara (LAN).
Unfortunately LAN is not an independent agency; it is just another government bureaucracy. Further, it accredits only private institutions, not public ones. We need an independent agency staffed not by civil servants but relevant professionals from both the public and private sectors. That is the only way to enhance LAN’s credibility.
Once the regulatory requirements are met, any entity, foreign or local, should be able to set up a private college using whatever language of instruction it chooses.
Private, Non-Profit Post-Secondary Institutions
As indicated earlier, there is no model of a successful truly private or proprietary university anywhere in the world. Hence I suggest we adopt the American model of private but non-profit universities.
Like America, we should grant our private non-profit universities tax-free status; free from paying income, property and other taxes. Additionally, donations to these institutions should be tax deductible. The government should also treat the students attending these private institutions no differently from those of public ones in terms of eligibility for scholarships and student loans. Likewise, the government should not discriminate the granting of research funds between public and private universities; those should be given to those most competent to conduct the study. These universities should also have access to government-guaranteed loans so they could lower their funding costs for capital projects.
Additionally the government should give direct financial grants to these non-profit universities. After all it has done that to foreign universities, like Ohio University (US), the Royal College of Surgeons (Ireland), and Cambridge.
In return for those privileges, these universities would have to agree to some mutually agreed and beneficial goals, like having their faculty and domestic student body broadly reflect Malaysian society. However, there would not be any rigid quota. The university should recognize that diversity in the classroom enhances the learning experience. It would also be a wonderful and effective way of preparing your students for the diverse global marketplace.
In short, these non-profit private universities would be like my proposed charter schools.
My concept could be extended to technical and vocational institutes. I envisage a consortium of construction companies banding together to set up a vocational institute to produce electricians, plumbers and carpenters. Another would be a group of major hotel operators establishing a school training chefs, tour guides, and hotel workers.
In America, there are many bridges between private and public institutions so students could seamless move from one system to the other at many levels with minimal loss of academic credit. This is particularly useful during this time of economic crisis when many parents find their priories have shifted and they can no longer afford private universities.
On an administrative level, I would not put these universities and institutions under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) as that would impose significant conflict of interest. Those folks at MOHE see themselves first and foremost as looking after the interests of public universities. They would see these private universities as unwelcome challenges to the growth of public universities.
Instead these private tertiary educational institutions should be under the Ministry Of Trade and Industry (MITI). After all the initial idea of having them was essentially economic – to save and earn foreign exchange – the same mission of the ministry. Besides, there is precedent for this, with the International Islamic University under MITI. That was a sneaky maneuver to overcome the government’s prohibition on the use of English in public universities. By having IIU under MITI, the university is considered under the law as a commercial enterprise rather than an educational institution, and hence could use English without incurring the wrath of the language nationalists. Brilliant!
Apart from establishing these non-profit universities, there are other avenues for public-private partnership involving our public universities. On many American campuses, the food, housing, and many other non-academic services are run not by the university but by private entities, relieving the university of the financial, human, and other strains of running such ancillary services.
Another would be for public universities to employ practitioners from the private sector as adjunct faculty members. That would not only supplement the teaching staff but also bring a much needed practical perspective to the curriculum.
Like everything else, such private-public partnerships can go too far as to undermine the universities core academic mission. A major concern on American academia today is to what extent these collaborations with private for-profit entities would compromise the intellectual and academic integrity of the research and the institution. In many instances especially in medical research, the findings are often tainted because key investigators are too generously funded by interested commercial parties.
Such conflicts are experienced even on such hallowed campuses as Harvard. Recognition of the problem is the first step towards solving or even preventing it.
The Malaysian government tried to loosen its stranglehold on our public universities through the exercise of “corporatization” in the hope of freeing them from the tight leash of ministry bureaucrats. The result? Nothing much has changed despite the costs, flurry of paperwork, and legal maneuverings. The reason is that the same people with the same mentality remain in charge, only their titles are changed.
Take one example. A few years ago the newly corporatized University of Malaya went into partnership with a private entity to develop part of the campus. Unfortunately it was not to build a new laboratory, convention center, or student residence, but an exclusive gated community! Not even under the most generous interpretation would such an arrangement be viewed as advancing the university’s mission. The units were so luxurious that that they were beyond the reach of the faculty members! Such one-sided arrangement is not the sort of PPP I envisage.
My criticism is not directed at corporatization, rather how it was done, again illustrating my earlier point about a sound policy having flawed implementation. My proposals as outlined here would entail first of all a change in mindset of those in charge.
A vigorous private sector involvement in higher education would lead to greater competition for our public universities. That could lead to their improvement. We already see this. The recent decision by many public universities to improve the English proficiency of their students is directly the consequence of the competition from private universities. Employers (other than the government) are preferring graduates of private institutions over those from public ones. Consequently public universities have to respond to this challenge.
Such is the consequence of competition. That alone is a good enough reason for the government to engage the private sector.
Muhyiddin proposes a review of education curriculum
Monday May 11, 2009
Muhyiddin proposes a review of education curriculum
KUALA LUMPUR: Sports must once again be given serious emphasis in schools so as to produce well-rounded students.
Pointing out that education should be fun and interesting, Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, who is also Education Minister, proposed a review of the education curriculum to place more importance on sports.
“When I was in school, sports was a very important co-curricular activity. We would go back to school to train and our teachers would guide and motivate us,” he said.
“Sports Day in schools was something the whole town would get involved in. It was such a big event with our parents showing up to lend their support.” Muhyiddin said that the present situation was nothing like that.
“I have a son who is in Victoria Institution, and I did not even know when his Sports Day was. I did not even see him go for training,” he said.
Congratulations: Muhyiddin (right) presenting the trophy to winner Jamalluden Abdul Rosli at the Mines Golf and Country Club yesterday.
“I think we are missing something that is very important in life. Sports is not only for health but also provides a form of bonding,” he said, adding that children now bonded with the use of a computer.
Muhyiddin said as the new Education Minister, he wanted to “bring back sports to schools.”
“In the United Kingdom, it is compulsory to take up two sports, even in universities,” he said in his speech at the prize-giving ceremony of the Tan Sri Muhyiddin Patron’s Cup here.
However, Muhyiddin added that it would not be easy to revamp the system. “For one, not all schools have fields now and there are also not enough sports teachers.”
Muhyiddin proposes a review of education curriculum
KUALA LUMPUR: Sports must once again be given serious emphasis in schools so as to produce well-rounded students.
Pointing out that education should be fun and interesting, Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, who is also Education Minister, proposed a review of the education curriculum to place more importance on sports.
“When I was in school, sports was a very important co-curricular activity. We would go back to school to train and our teachers would guide and motivate us,” he said.
“Sports Day in schools was something the whole town would get involved in. It was such a big event with our parents showing up to lend their support.” Muhyiddin said that the present situation was nothing like that.
“I have a son who is in Victoria Institution, and I did not even know when his Sports Day was. I did not even see him go for training,” he said.
Congratulations: Muhyiddin (right) presenting the trophy to winner Jamalluden Abdul Rosli at the Mines Golf and Country Club yesterday.
“I think we are missing something that is very important in life. Sports is not only for health but also provides a form of bonding,” he said, adding that children now bonded with the use of a computer.
Muhyiddin said as the new Education Minister, he wanted to “bring back sports to schools.”
“In the United Kingdom, it is compulsory to take up two sports, even in universities,” he said in his speech at the prize-giving ceremony of the Tan Sri Muhyiddin Patron’s Cup here.
However, Muhyiddin added that it would not be easy to revamp the system. “For one, not all schools have fields now and there are also not enough sports teachers.”
Call to instil sporting culture in school needs action, not talk
Sunday May 17, 2009
Call to instil sporting culture in school needs action, not talk
COMMENT
By RAJES PAUL
A RECENT call to give more emphasis to sports in schools may be like sweet music to some but, to many, it is like listening to a broken record.
Our Ministers have a tendency to shoot from the hip. They can talk and talk and talk. That’s all. Nothing ever happens after that.
So, when Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, who is also the Education Minister, spoke about the good old days of sporting rivalry between schools, it brought back fond memories.
After all, who can forget the intense on-field rivalries between the likes of Victoria Institution and St John’s in Kuala Lumpur, Free School and St Xaviers in Penang, St Paul’s and King George V in Seremban; and Anderson and Anglo-Chinese in Ipoh?
Inter-school competitions at district and state levels were a matter of pride – not only to the children and the schools concerned, but to the parents and, sometimes, even the entire neighbourhood.
And to bring back this kind of sporting culture, Muhyiddin has proposed to review the education curriculum to place more importance on sports.
Muhyiddin should know what he is talking about, having helmed the Sports Ministry a few years back.
Now that he is heading the Education Ministry, his call for a merger between sports and studies does have a credible ring to it.
With the Sports Ministry now headed by the youthful-looking and vibrant Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek, there seems to be no better time to get things moving and make sports more prominent in schools.
Sounds too good to be true, right?
But can you blame anyone for being sceptical? How many times have we heard such rhetoric?
In reality, everyone wants to see a concerted effort that goes beyond mere talking.
There are just too many deep-rooted problems in our school system which are hindering the implementation of sports programmes.
First of all, the mentality of teachers and parents that life is all about academic excellence should be changed. Haven’t they ever heard of the good old saying: “All work and no play makes Jack (or Jill) a dull boy (girl).”
A healthy balance – good academic results and equally good sporting achievement – is the key to nurturing a complete student.
In the United Stated and Australia, parents are the pillars behind their children’s interest in sports. And, most of the time, it is a family affair.
But children in Malaysia these days seem to have developed a fear of getting their skin tanned, preferring to spend their time playing computer games or watching television while others are busy being shuttled from one tuition centre to another.
Perhaps, parents should take some of the blame here. Many parents these days prefer their children to stay indoors than to sweat it out at the fields and parks around their neighbourhoods.
And the rising crime rate in the country is not helping matters either.
There are other setbacks too – lack of male teachers; poor sporting facilities; fast disappearing fields and playgrounds; biased selection of athletes at school, district, state and national levels; and the concentration of a sport based on a particular race.
On top of that, there is the issue of ownership and red tapes.
Schools refuse to release potential athletes to play for clubs, states and national sports associations. And states fight - literally - for the right to own students, especially when the Malaysian Games (Sukma) looms ahead.
No wonder, the children of this generation are losing interest in sports and have so much time to get involved in unhealthy activities.
In short, the school system needs a major shake-up to give sports a chance to take root once again.
And for the Ministers and their hordes of yes-men, it is time to walk the talk. Otherwise, they can talk until the cows come home and nothing will happen – ever.
Call to instil sporting culture in school needs action, not talk
COMMENT
By RAJES PAUL
A RECENT call to give more emphasis to sports in schools may be like sweet music to some but, to many, it is like listening to a broken record.
Our Ministers have a tendency to shoot from the hip. They can talk and talk and talk. That’s all. Nothing ever happens after that.
So, when Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, who is also the Education Minister, spoke about the good old days of sporting rivalry between schools, it brought back fond memories.
After all, who can forget the intense on-field rivalries between the likes of Victoria Institution and St John’s in Kuala Lumpur, Free School and St Xaviers in Penang, St Paul’s and King George V in Seremban; and Anderson and Anglo-Chinese in Ipoh?
Inter-school competitions at district and state levels were a matter of pride – not only to the children and the schools concerned, but to the parents and, sometimes, even the entire neighbourhood.
And to bring back this kind of sporting culture, Muhyiddin has proposed to review the education curriculum to place more importance on sports.
Muhyiddin should know what he is talking about, having helmed the Sports Ministry a few years back.
Now that he is heading the Education Ministry, his call for a merger between sports and studies does have a credible ring to it.
With the Sports Ministry now headed by the youthful-looking and vibrant Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek, there seems to be no better time to get things moving and make sports more prominent in schools.
Sounds too good to be true, right?
But can you blame anyone for being sceptical? How many times have we heard such rhetoric?
In reality, everyone wants to see a concerted effort that goes beyond mere talking.
There are just too many deep-rooted problems in our school system which are hindering the implementation of sports programmes.
First of all, the mentality of teachers and parents that life is all about academic excellence should be changed. Haven’t they ever heard of the good old saying: “All work and no play makes Jack (or Jill) a dull boy (girl).”
A healthy balance – good academic results and equally good sporting achievement – is the key to nurturing a complete student.
In the United Stated and Australia, parents are the pillars behind their children’s interest in sports. And, most of the time, it is a family affair.
But children in Malaysia these days seem to have developed a fear of getting their skin tanned, preferring to spend their time playing computer games or watching television while others are busy being shuttled from one tuition centre to another.
Perhaps, parents should take some of the blame here. Many parents these days prefer their children to stay indoors than to sweat it out at the fields and parks around their neighbourhoods.
And the rising crime rate in the country is not helping matters either.
There are other setbacks too – lack of male teachers; poor sporting facilities; fast disappearing fields and playgrounds; biased selection of athletes at school, district, state and national levels; and the concentration of a sport based on a particular race.
On top of that, there is the issue of ownership and red tapes.
Schools refuse to release potential athletes to play for clubs, states and national sports associations. And states fight - literally - for the right to own students, especially when the Malaysian Games (Sukma) looms ahead.
No wonder, the children of this generation are losing interest in sports and have so much time to get involved in unhealthy activities.
In short, the school system needs a major shake-up to give sports a chance to take root once again.
And for the Ministers and their hordes of yes-men, it is time to walk the talk. Otherwise, they can talk until the cows come home and nothing will happen – ever.
Enhancing The Role of Private Sector in Education
Enhancing The Role of Private Sector in Education
M. Bakri Musa
Private Sector Participation in Preschools and Schools
[Fifth of Six Parts]
[In the preceding four parts, I discussed the rationale and benefits of enhancing private sector participation in education, surveyed the various models in the rest of world, and summarized the current state of affairs in Malaysia . This fifth part contains my specific prescription for private sector participation at the pre-schools and schools, while the last (and sixth) part, for tertiary level.]
Private sector participation at the preschool level is already robust; there is not much more that can be done to increase that. However, the glaring deficiencies must be remedied. One, these private preschools cater only to those who can afford them. No surprise there as they are profit-making ventures. Two, there is minimal regulatory oversight; it is strictly a case of buyer (or more correctly, parents) beware.
Private preschools catering to the poor and disadvantaged are non existent except those few set up by religious and charitable entities, as well as public social agencies. The government could increase that number considerably by granting generous subsidies. As we want to encourage our young to integrate early, these grants should only be given to those preschools whose pupils reflect the general population. If the subsidies were generous enough, there would be plenty of takers. I envisage a chain of brand name preschools set up all over the country catering to the poor.
The government must regulate these private preschools more stringently to ensure safety. Such issues as adequacy and safety of the physical facility, criminal background checks on the staff, and qualifications of the licensees must be clearly established before these preschools could be set up. The facilities should also be regularly inspected to ensure their compliance.
Private Schools
There has been a remarkable increase in private sector participation worldwide at the school level both in developing as well developed countries. In resource-challenged Benin , enrolment in private primary schools increased from 3 to 12 percent from 1990 to 2005, and 8 to 25 percent for secondary schools, reflecting the vast potential for contributions from the private sector even in a poor country.
Private sector participation can take two forms: on its own, independent of the government except for regulatory compliance, or in partnership with the public sector (public-private partnership – PPP). Both would require an official recognition of the fact that while education is a public good, the government is not the only entity that can provide it.
As schools are concerned with the nurturing of young minds – the future citizens – permits to operate a private school even one free of government funding should not be granted liberally as if one were dispensing licenses to sell ice cream. Even operators of ice cream parlors have to meet certain rules with respect to public health.
Private schools too must be subjected to certain rules not only with respect to protecting its consumers (students) but also in serving legitimate national interests. An example of the first would be to require these schools to post performance bonds such that if they were to fail, the students would be compensated for their inconvenience and time loss. Beyond that I do not think the government has any legitimate right to demand these schools follow the national curriculum or dictate the teachers they employ.
As for serving the national interest, these schools must assume their appropriate responsibility of preparing their students to be citizens of a plural Malaysia . Thus their students must be sufficiently fluent in our national language, and be familiar with our history, society, and system of governance. Specifically the school must teach Malay language every school day and at every level. To prevent such classes from being a sham, their students’ aggregate performance must match those of government schools. If not, these schools would risk losing their license.
All the current private schools – international, independent Chinese, and private religious schools – meet these minimal physical standards, except perhaps some of the private pondok religious schools in Kedah and the East Coast. This is evident from the regular news reports of students succumbing to food poisoning or being burnt to death in dorm fires.
The greatest demand is for international schools, in part because they do not follow the national curriculum. This tells us something of what citizens feel about our national curriculum. These schools are still few in numbers and expensive. If we liberalize the setting up of such schools and open up the admissions, many more would be set up. Then the wonders of the marketplace would take over: Their fees would come down because of the competition and more Malaysians could afford them.
As with anything else, we will never know how such a policy would actually turn out. Thus it would make sense to start out small, like giving out permits for about 20-25 such schools initially and then study the results for the first few years.
My hope is that the experiment would be so successful that there would unanimity to expand it. By this I mean that these schools would provide quality education, with their students flawlessly fluent in as well as proud of our national language, and have a faculty and student body representative of Malaysian society. The poor would also be sufficiently represented, made possible through scholarships. In short, they would emulate the successful “private” non-profit American prep schools.
Of course many things could go wrong. There could be corruption in the awards of these permits. The schools would then be expensive, ineffective, and merely a repository for spoilt rich kids who would be illiterate in our national language and have no appreciation of our history. That would only generate a backlash.
Or these schools could be set up by extremist groups (secular and religious) bent on perpetuating their own brand of intolerance or on proselytizing rather than educating. That too would not be healthy.
Should any of these were to happen, then the policy or its implementation would have to be reexamined and modified.
Public-Private Partnership
The other avenue for private sector participation would be through a variety of public-private partnership (PPP). The World Bank recently analyzed the global experience with PPPs. At one extreme is the Netherlands where the government is merely the provider of financing, with the private sector the provider of services. At the other end is Chile with its extensive use of vouchers. In between we have charter schools ( America ), direct subsidies ( Quebec ), or where private contractors are engaged to run public schools ( America ).
Nearly two thirds of Dutch pupils attend private schools, which can either be fully or partially funded publicly. This model obviously works for it receives wide support. Dutch students also consistently score at the top in various international comparisons like TIMMS.
If such a model were to be adopted locally without any modification, there would be the inevitable self-segregation based on class, ethnicity, or religious beliefs. That would not be healthy. There would also be the question of inequity of access based on geography, with the good schools in affluent areas and beyond the reach (physically as well as psychologically) of the poor.
The best for Malaysia would be to have PPP along the concept of charter schools. Charter schools are fully funded by the state but run by private (usually non-profit) entities. The state would pay the school the same amount what it would normally cost for a pupil to attend government school.
The main barrier to charter schools in America is that such permits are issued only by the local public school board. That immediately sets up a conflict of interest because for every charter school it approves, funds would be taken away from the board’s budget. Further, to maintain their charter these schools have to satisfy the local school board, which views such schools as unwelcome competitors.
I suggest that Malaysia adopts the charter concept but with some adaptations. The first is that these charters should be given only to entities that meet the openly stated criteria put forth by MOE. These should address the financial and academic requirements, specifically the qualifications of senior academic officers like the headmaster. He or she should have a degree from a recognized university and have specified years of relevant experience. I would also put as a requirement that the governing board has significant representation from parents and teachers.
The student body of these schools must also reflect Malaysian society with respect to race and socio-economic class. To minimize inequity of access based on geography, these schools must also have sufficient hostel facilities to cater for those who live beyond commuting distance.
The admission policy too must be fair and transparent. Where there are more applicants than space, the school must have a fair method of selection (a lottery for example) to prevent favoritism or corruption. This would also avoid these schools from skimming the top talents. There must be exceptions of course, to accommodate the siblings of present students and children of staff members.
As for the curriculum, the only requirement would be that these schools teach our national language for one period a day at all levels. Again as with private schools, the students of these charter schools must collectively demonstrate competency in Malay comparable to those attending national schools.
If at any time these schools fail to maintain these standards, they would be given a specified time (three years, for example) to correct the deficiencies, or risk losing their charter.
In return such schools would get preferred government funding and credit for capital projects like new buildings and instituting new programs, in addition to their per student grants.
Beyond those guidelines these schools would be free to carve their own path, including the freedom to choose the curriculum and language of instruction. I venture that if there were to be sufficient demand from a broad section of Malaysians for a charter school using Swahili, there will be one.
Again, as with the private school program, I would start small, limiting such charter schools to about 15 or 20 each for primary and secondary levels per state. Study the development, and if successful expand it. I would also allow for the conversion of existing schools into charter schools upon petition by a majority of the teachers and parents.
Malaysia should also be open to other models of PPP. One would be to have private entities (local or foreign) run a national school under a management contract. That would include recruiting the teachers to designing the curriculum, subject to the same conditions as charter schools. The difference is that the contractor would not own the physical facility; the buildings and land would remain government-owned. Likewise, the government would select the students entering such schools.
My first candidate for such private management would be our residential schools. I would invite experienced operators locally and abroad to bid in running such schools. The contract would specify the goals, like the type of matriculation examinations the students would sit, as well as the costs.
Imagine the operators of Exeter running Malay College ! We need not go far; we have many existing excellent private schools that could be encouraged, through proper incentives, to run some of our residential schools.
Another PPP would be the reverse, where private companies bid to build the entire school complete with desks, chairs and blackboards to the government’s specifications and then lease it back to the government. The government would run the school, just like any other government school. The P3 program of Canada ’s Nova Scotia province is one such program. Such a scheme would lighten the strain on the government’s capital budget.
The government, spearheaded by Khazanah, has initiated a PPP with its Trust Schools scheduled to be operational by 2010. It has wisely started with a small pilot project.
There are a number of commendable features to the concept, principally the granting of greater autonomy to the schools and the possibility of supplemental funding from the sponsoring private entities. However, this autonomy extends only to administrative matters, and a very limited one that. For example, the teachers would still remain as civil servants, and thus the school management would still be unnecessarily constrained by civil service rules especially in critical matters of hiring and firing.
From what I can see from the preliminary design, a private entity would form a non-profit body to run the trust school. So far so good! Then this non-profit body would engage a for profit “operator” to actually run the school. This is an unnecessary intermediation, adding another layer of cost structure (the operator is for profit) and administrative hurdle. I do not see why the non-profit entity cannot run the school itself, thus dispensing with the “operator.” I can just see it: the awarding of these contracts to the “operators” would be yet another source of local corruption and political lobbying. I can predict who the owners of these for profit operators would be. Yes, companies associated with the local UMNO chiefs.
More problematic is that these schools will have to follow the national curriculum. What is at issue is that the national curriculum itself that is wanting. This critical point is missed by the originators of the Trust Schools concept. True, these schools are free to add beyond the national curriculum, but that is a meaningless freedom. The national curriculum already consumes the entire school day; there is little time left for anything else.
Similarly, the freedom to prepare students for other examinations (like GCE or IB) is also a meaningless because these schools must also prepare their students for national examinations. Imagine a school trying to prepare its students to sit for the IB as well; it would be a horror to design the curriculum and train the teachers. This is just not practical.
Lastly, the trust schools designers have not addressed the issue of access, specifically equity of access, and increasing racial as well socio-economic segregation. I would hope that a condition for such schools must be that their students and teachers broadly reflect the greater Malaysian society, and that these schools must have adequate boarding facilities to cater for those who live far away, specifically those in rural areas.
Truly the opportunities for meaningful private sector participation in education, either alone or in partnership with the government, are limitless, bounded only by our creative imaginations and self-imposed limitations.
There is a great pent-up demand for a school system other than what is being offered today by our national schools with its hide-bound culture and outmoded curriculum. We see this in the backlog of applications to international schools, and more dramatically in the daily convoy of school buses carrying our young across the causeway in Johor. It is time we address this desperate need with the help of the private sector.
Next: Last of Six Parts Private Colleges and Universities
M. Bakri Musa
Private Sector Participation in Preschools and Schools
[Fifth of Six Parts]
[In the preceding four parts, I discussed the rationale and benefits of enhancing private sector participation in education, surveyed the various models in the rest of world, and summarized the current state of affairs in Malaysia . This fifth part contains my specific prescription for private sector participation at the pre-schools and schools, while the last (and sixth) part, for tertiary level.]
Private sector participation at the preschool level is already robust; there is not much more that can be done to increase that. However, the glaring deficiencies must be remedied. One, these private preschools cater only to those who can afford them. No surprise there as they are profit-making ventures. Two, there is minimal regulatory oversight; it is strictly a case of buyer (or more correctly, parents) beware.
Private preschools catering to the poor and disadvantaged are non existent except those few set up by religious and charitable entities, as well as public social agencies. The government could increase that number considerably by granting generous subsidies. As we want to encourage our young to integrate early, these grants should only be given to those preschools whose pupils reflect the general population. If the subsidies were generous enough, there would be plenty of takers. I envisage a chain of brand name preschools set up all over the country catering to the poor.
The government must regulate these private preschools more stringently to ensure safety. Such issues as adequacy and safety of the physical facility, criminal background checks on the staff, and qualifications of the licensees must be clearly established before these preschools could be set up. The facilities should also be regularly inspected to ensure their compliance.
Private Schools
There has been a remarkable increase in private sector participation worldwide at the school level both in developing as well developed countries. In resource-challenged Benin , enrolment in private primary schools increased from 3 to 12 percent from 1990 to 2005, and 8 to 25 percent for secondary schools, reflecting the vast potential for contributions from the private sector even in a poor country.
Private sector participation can take two forms: on its own, independent of the government except for regulatory compliance, or in partnership with the public sector (public-private partnership – PPP). Both would require an official recognition of the fact that while education is a public good, the government is not the only entity that can provide it.
As schools are concerned with the nurturing of young minds – the future citizens – permits to operate a private school even one free of government funding should not be granted liberally as if one were dispensing licenses to sell ice cream. Even operators of ice cream parlors have to meet certain rules with respect to public health.
Private schools too must be subjected to certain rules not only with respect to protecting its consumers (students) but also in serving legitimate national interests. An example of the first would be to require these schools to post performance bonds such that if they were to fail, the students would be compensated for their inconvenience and time loss. Beyond that I do not think the government has any legitimate right to demand these schools follow the national curriculum or dictate the teachers they employ.
As for serving the national interest, these schools must assume their appropriate responsibility of preparing their students to be citizens of a plural Malaysia . Thus their students must be sufficiently fluent in our national language, and be familiar with our history, society, and system of governance. Specifically the school must teach Malay language every school day and at every level. To prevent such classes from being a sham, their students’ aggregate performance must match those of government schools. If not, these schools would risk losing their license.
All the current private schools – international, independent Chinese, and private religious schools – meet these minimal physical standards, except perhaps some of the private pondok religious schools in Kedah and the East Coast. This is evident from the regular news reports of students succumbing to food poisoning or being burnt to death in dorm fires.
The greatest demand is for international schools, in part because they do not follow the national curriculum. This tells us something of what citizens feel about our national curriculum. These schools are still few in numbers and expensive. If we liberalize the setting up of such schools and open up the admissions, many more would be set up. Then the wonders of the marketplace would take over: Their fees would come down because of the competition and more Malaysians could afford them.
As with anything else, we will never know how such a policy would actually turn out. Thus it would make sense to start out small, like giving out permits for about 20-25 such schools initially and then study the results for the first few years.
My hope is that the experiment would be so successful that there would unanimity to expand it. By this I mean that these schools would provide quality education, with their students flawlessly fluent in as well as proud of our national language, and have a faculty and student body representative of Malaysian society. The poor would also be sufficiently represented, made possible through scholarships. In short, they would emulate the successful “private” non-profit American prep schools.
Of course many things could go wrong. There could be corruption in the awards of these permits. The schools would then be expensive, ineffective, and merely a repository for spoilt rich kids who would be illiterate in our national language and have no appreciation of our history. That would only generate a backlash.
Or these schools could be set up by extremist groups (secular and religious) bent on perpetuating their own brand of intolerance or on proselytizing rather than educating. That too would not be healthy.
Should any of these were to happen, then the policy or its implementation would have to be reexamined and modified.
Public-Private Partnership
The other avenue for private sector participation would be through a variety of public-private partnership (PPP). The World Bank recently analyzed the global experience with PPPs. At one extreme is the Netherlands where the government is merely the provider of financing, with the private sector the provider of services. At the other end is Chile with its extensive use of vouchers. In between we have charter schools ( America ), direct subsidies ( Quebec ), or where private contractors are engaged to run public schools ( America ).
Nearly two thirds of Dutch pupils attend private schools, which can either be fully or partially funded publicly. This model obviously works for it receives wide support. Dutch students also consistently score at the top in various international comparisons like TIMMS.
If such a model were to be adopted locally without any modification, there would be the inevitable self-segregation based on class, ethnicity, or religious beliefs. That would not be healthy. There would also be the question of inequity of access based on geography, with the good schools in affluent areas and beyond the reach (physically as well as psychologically) of the poor.
The best for Malaysia would be to have PPP along the concept of charter schools. Charter schools are fully funded by the state but run by private (usually non-profit) entities. The state would pay the school the same amount what it would normally cost for a pupil to attend government school.
The main barrier to charter schools in America is that such permits are issued only by the local public school board. That immediately sets up a conflict of interest because for every charter school it approves, funds would be taken away from the board’s budget. Further, to maintain their charter these schools have to satisfy the local school board, which views such schools as unwelcome competitors.
I suggest that Malaysia adopts the charter concept but with some adaptations. The first is that these charters should be given only to entities that meet the openly stated criteria put forth by MOE. These should address the financial and academic requirements, specifically the qualifications of senior academic officers like the headmaster. He or she should have a degree from a recognized university and have specified years of relevant experience. I would also put as a requirement that the governing board has significant representation from parents and teachers.
The student body of these schools must also reflect Malaysian society with respect to race and socio-economic class. To minimize inequity of access based on geography, these schools must also have sufficient hostel facilities to cater for those who live beyond commuting distance.
The admission policy too must be fair and transparent. Where there are more applicants than space, the school must have a fair method of selection (a lottery for example) to prevent favoritism or corruption. This would also avoid these schools from skimming the top talents. There must be exceptions of course, to accommodate the siblings of present students and children of staff members.
As for the curriculum, the only requirement would be that these schools teach our national language for one period a day at all levels. Again as with private schools, the students of these charter schools must collectively demonstrate competency in Malay comparable to those attending national schools.
If at any time these schools fail to maintain these standards, they would be given a specified time (three years, for example) to correct the deficiencies, or risk losing their charter.
In return such schools would get preferred government funding and credit for capital projects like new buildings and instituting new programs, in addition to their per student grants.
Beyond those guidelines these schools would be free to carve their own path, including the freedom to choose the curriculum and language of instruction. I venture that if there were to be sufficient demand from a broad section of Malaysians for a charter school using Swahili, there will be one.
Again, as with the private school program, I would start small, limiting such charter schools to about 15 or 20 each for primary and secondary levels per state. Study the development, and if successful expand it. I would also allow for the conversion of existing schools into charter schools upon petition by a majority of the teachers and parents.
Malaysia should also be open to other models of PPP. One would be to have private entities (local or foreign) run a national school under a management contract. That would include recruiting the teachers to designing the curriculum, subject to the same conditions as charter schools. The difference is that the contractor would not own the physical facility; the buildings and land would remain government-owned. Likewise, the government would select the students entering such schools.
My first candidate for such private management would be our residential schools. I would invite experienced operators locally and abroad to bid in running such schools. The contract would specify the goals, like the type of matriculation examinations the students would sit, as well as the costs.
Imagine the operators of Exeter running Malay College ! We need not go far; we have many existing excellent private schools that could be encouraged, through proper incentives, to run some of our residential schools.
Another PPP would be the reverse, where private companies bid to build the entire school complete with desks, chairs and blackboards to the government’s specifications and then lease it back to the government. The government would run the school, just like any other government school. The P3 program of Canada ’s Nova Scotia province is one such program. Such a scheme would lighten the strain on the government’s capital budget.
The government, spearheaded by Khazanah, has initiated a PPP with its Trust Schools scheduled to be operational by 2010. It has wisely started with a small pilot project.
There are a number of commendable features to the concept, principally the granting of greater autonomy to the schools and the possibility of supplemental funding from the sponsoring private entities. However, this autonomy extends only to administrative matters, and a very limited one that. For example, the teachers would still remain as civil servants, and thus the school management would still be unnecessarily constrained by civil service rules especially in critical matters of hiring and firing.
From what I can see from the preliminary design, a private entity would form a non-profit body to run the trust school. So far so good! Then this non-profit body would engage a for profit “operator” to actually run the school. This is an unnecessary intermediation, adding another layer of cost structure (the operator is for profit) and administrative hurdle. I do not see why the non-profit entity cannot run the school itself, thus dispensing with the “operator.” I can just see it: the awarding of these contracts to the “operators” would be yet another source of local corruption and political lobbying. I can predict who the owners of these for profit operators would be. Yes, companies associated with the local UMNO chiefs.
More problematic is that these schools will have to follow the national curriculum. What is at issue is that the national curriculum itself that is wanting. This critical point is missed by the originators of the Trust Schools concept. True, these schools are free to add beyond the national curriculum, but that is a meaningless freedom. The national curriculum already consumes the entire school day; there is little time left for anything else.
Similarly, the freedom to prepare students for other examinations (like GCE or IB) is also a meaningless because these schools must also prepare their students for national examinations. Imagine a school trying to prepare its students to sit for the IB as well; it would be a horror to design the curriculum and train the teachers. This is just not practical.
Lastly, the trust schools designers have not addressed the issue of access, specifically equity of access, and increasing racial as well socio-economic segregation. I would hope that a condition for such schools must be that their students and teachers broadly reflect the greater Malaysian society, and that these schools must have adequate boarding facilities to cater for those who live far away, specifically those in rural areas.
Truly the opportunities for meaningful private sector participation in education, either alone or in partnership with the government, are limitless, bounded only by our creative imaginations and self-imposed limitations.
There is a great pent-up demand for a school system other than what is being offered today by our national schools with its hide-bound culture and outmoded curriculum. We see this in the backlog of applications to international schools, and more dramatically in the daily convoy of school buses carrying our young across the causeway in Johor. It is time we address this desperate need with the help of the private sector.
Next: Last of Six Parts Private Colleges and Universities
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
