Read this pretty long article in the Star on the Third Report card of the MOE in following the progress of the National Education Blueprint (2006 to 2010). One always has to read these reports with a pinch of salt since they can be manipulated to present the facts in a positive light. It requires one to carefully read the past two report cards in addition to the latest one. But the Star article does point out some things which I thought were positive.
For example, the MOE does seem to be trying to introduce more flexibility into the education system. Cluster schools such as MCKK and Tunku Kurshiah College may allow its students to take the International Baccalaureate (IB) program instead of SPM starting in 2011.
The Minister, Hishamuddin Tun Hussein, also indicated that the ministry would be moving away from a centralized system of exams to one that would allow greater flexibility at the school level.
In addition, he also emphasized that the ministry would be putting in more resources into vocational and skills training, something which this blog has emphasized in the past.
At the very least, the MOE is trying to be accountable by trying to keep to the goals of the National Education Blueprint. In the past, it seems to me that once these Blueprints were released, nobody pays any more attention to it and they are chucked aside quickly.
One complaint though, I couldn't find any of the report cards on the MOE's website. If someone can find it, please let the rest of us know.
Showing posts with label National Education Blueprint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Education Blueprint. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Lulu's Concerned About Our Schools
The following post is taken in its entirety from Lulu's blog. I don't have to add much else really. But we know that it's nothing new. Those interested in reading up other examples of the deteriorating state of our national schools - check out my post here.
I do think however, that the recent developments are absolutely shocking and certainly runs in the face of the objective of making our national schools the school of choice for all Malaysians as per the much-hyped National Education Blueprint.
This school, and trust Lulu, it's not the only one, "disqualified" kids who were wearing shorts from winning with flimsy excuses such as failing to get the ribbons at the designated spots and that the numbers pinned on the shirts were torn.
This school pula, insisted that the children shave off their moustaches and beards and used harsh words when they tried to explain. The reason behind their un-shavenness was that they had taken a Thaipusam vow, and at least one of their parents had written in to the school informing them of their vow and the date when they would shave it off.
And we have here a case of kids who do not attend religious class [and you know la, in schools, which religion is allowed to hold "religious class"] who were asked to wash the toilet. Nothing bad/evil in washing school toilets, Lulu has had a fair share, but making it non-muhibbah? that's not right...
KJ John, who has a regular column in Malaysiakini also had problems with the zealots in his son's school.
He writes,
Join the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA/PIBG). You cannot afford to let zealots narrow your children's mind and perspective of life.
I do think however, that the recent developments are absolutely shocking and certainly runs in the face of the objective of making our national schools the school of choice for all Malaysians as per the much-hyped National Education Blueprint.
This school, and trust Lulu, it's not the only one, "disqualified" kids who were wearing shorts from winning with flimsy excuses such as failing to get the ribbons at the designated spots and that the numbers pinned on the shirts were torn.
This school pula, insisted that the children shave off their moustaches and beards and used harsh words when they tried to explain. The reason behind their un-shavenness was that they had taken a Thaipusam vow, and at least one of their parents had written in to the school informing them of their vow and the date when they would shave it off.And we have here a case of kids who do not attend religious class [and you know la, in schools, which religion is allowed to hold "religious class"] who were asked to wash the toilet. Nothing bad/evil in washing school toilets, Lulu has had a fair share, but making it non-muhibbah? that's not right...KJ John, who has a regular column in Malaysiakini also had problems with the zealots in his son's school.He writes,
"The second case was when a new Ustaz in my son’s primary school insisted that all Primary 6 prefects wear long pants; not one teacher stood up to ask why or challenged this arbitrary decision. Therefore, when I went in to write a complaint, the non-Malay deputy principal was truly appreciative of my “public protest” as he could use “my parent complaint” to raise and address this issue with the principal regarding the “new policy” which was not discussed by the teachers, but merely implemented by the new Ustaz.If you are a parent, Lulu hopes that you are sensitive and aware of what's happening in your children's school. Also, some children may choose to abide and suffer in silence. Take an active role in your children's school. Also, remember that right for your school Christian, Buddhist and Hindu activities are given in the Federal Constitution. Challenge your school principal if he does not allow it. When/If you are not sure if they are right or wrong, use your schooldays as the benchmark.
The third instance was when I was on a PIBG committee at my son’s school when we heard that the principal had issued a verbal directive to all non-Muslim clubs and societies to “refrain from undertaking their religious activities within the school compound.”
At the next PIBG committee meeting, I enquired of the principal where and why there was such a policy. She replied that it was a directive from the PPD or the Pegawai Pendidikan Daerah. I asked for a copy of the written directive, as I knew the implications of such a directive. The principal confirmed that it was an unwritten one. I advised her against following such “non-policies” and requested for her to rescind the policy before the annual PIGB meeting.
She did not and the matter was raised at the next PIBG meeting and was resolved when another senior ex-government servant and a Malay parent argued that it was against the Federal Constitution."
Join the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA/PIBG). You cannot afford to let zealots narrow your children's mind and perspective of life.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Marginalising Vernacular Schools
As reported by Malaysiakini here, the Chinese education movement Dong Jiao Zong (DJZ) or United School Committees Association, produced a report "in response to a call for feedback on the blueprint by the education ministry early this year."
I'd like to state upfront that the following views are those of my own, and not necessarily that of the political party which I'm affiliated to. There are points raised in the report which I'm in full agreement with, while there are others, which I thought were unreasonable.
First, the points which I'm in general agreement with:
1. More funds for vernacular schools
2. Greater Transparency & Accountability
3. A call for more dialogue with the Ministry of Education
As the Minister himself represented earlier, he has admitted in an exclusive interview with Nanyang Siangpau that “people should not regard the various types of schools in the country as a hurdle to be cleared. After all, this is not a zero-sum game because multi-culturalism is an added advantage and a strength for the country.”
Hence, we hope that he makes good his promise to receive feedback in good faith from all channels, including those via blogs.
On the point of disagreement with DJZ report, I find that the DJZ President, Yap Sin Tian's concern over the fact that Chinese and Tamil languages have been added as subjects in Malay- medium schools.
The availability of mother tongue education is only one of the factors affecting the parents decision to enrol students into national or vernacular schools. Two other overwhelming factors are the actual quality of education delivered as well as the perceived religiousification of the national schools.
If both streams of education seek to compete to provide better quality education in a 'secular' environment for non-Muslims, then the ultimate beneficiaries will be our future young Malaysians. Hence healthy competition should definitely not be obstructed. ;)
I'd like to state upfront that the following views are those of my own, and not necessarily that of the political party which I'm affiliated to. There are points raised in the report which I'm in full agreement with, while there are others, which I thought were unreasonable.
First, the points which I'm in general agreement with:
1. More funds for vernacular schools
DJZ president Yap Sin Tian said the blueprint “continues to ignore vernacular schools”As expressed extensively in my artictle "National vs Vernacular Schools", the BN government has persisted in ignoring the needs of vernacular schools in the country.
From 1970-2006, DJZ estimated that the country saw an increase of 2,900 national schools. A total of 193 vernacular schools - 58 Chinese schools and 134 Tamil - were closed for various reasons.
DJZ insisted that there is demand for 134 Chinese schools nationwide. Currently, there are 1,810 vernacular schools, 205 of which are run without government aid. DJZ alleged that the government has spent more money on national schools and has marginalised vernacular schools.
...despite the consistent claim by the government that it will build more vernacular schools in accordance to the needs of the people, the number of Chinese primary schools have declined from 1,333 in 1957 to 1,288 today while enrolment has more than doubled from 310,000 to 636,000. At the same time, the number of Tamil primary schools has been reduced from 526 in 2001 to 523 in 2006 despite a 12.7% increase in enrolment from 88,810 in 2001 to 100,142 in 2006.The perception of being marginalised cannot be help when The government's disbursement of RM1.4 million to 248 Chinese primary schools, or a meagre RM6,000 per school as hyped by Deputy Education Minister Datuk Hon Choon Kim in the vernacular press, pales in comparison to the RM709 million allocated to building 15 new Mara Junior Science Colleges (MRSMs), and more for upgrades and repairs of existing MRSMs.
2. Greater Transparency & Accountability
DJZ also wants greater transparency in the disbursement of funds... [including] listing subsidies for all schools.By listing the relevant expenses and disbursements to all schools, both the interested parties as well as the rakyat can decide for themselves if the government has been equitable in their distribution.
3. A call for more dialogue with the Ministry of Education
...the United Chinese School Teachers Association (Jiao Zong) president Ong Chiew Chuen said that "the ministry should initiate open dialogues with associations."It is actually quite unfortunate that the National Education Blueprint 2006-2010 launched by the Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, had not taken into account the views of the various communities and associations representing the education sector, which falls under the purview of the Ministry.
As the Minister himself represented earlier, he has admitted in an exclusive interview with Nanyang Siangpau that “people should not regard the various types of schools in the country as a hurdle to be cleared. After all, this is not a zero-sum game because multi-culturalism is an added advantage and a strength for the country.”
Hence, we hope that he makes good his promise to receive feedback in good faith from all channels, including those via blogs.
On the point of disagreement with DJZ report, I find that the DJZ President, Yap Sin Tian's concern over the fact that Chinese and Tamil languages have been added as subjects in Malay- medium schools.
“It’s as though there is a move by the government to prioritise Malay-medium schools and phase out vernacular schools,” he said.Selecting a school for one's children is a matter of choice and certainly, "competition" in terms of offering options and improving the quality of education between different streams is a move which should be encouraged. I've written on my views which are supportive of offering mother tongue languages in national schools. Instead is the much delayed implementation of the programme, despite it being a key objective of the new Blueprint should be subject to criticism.
The availability of mother tongue education is only one of the factors affecting the parents decision to enrol students into national or vernacular schools. Two other overwhelming factors are the actual quality of education delivered as well as the perceived religiousification of the national schools.
If both streams of education seek to compete to provide better quality education in a 'secular' environment for non-Muslims, then the ultimate beneficiaries will be our future young Malaysians. Hence healthy competition should definitely not be obstructed. ;)
Saturday, March 24, 2007
National vs Vernacular Schools
Hey, I have my first article published in The Sun yesterday, entitled "Schools Debate Not a Zero Sum Game". It was originally rejected by another local daily. I've written various posts on national versus vernacular schools before, particularly from the perspective of where I should send my daugther for school in the coming years. However, this article attempts a balanced look at the important question of how the Government should be treating vernacular schools.
The recently launched National Education Blueprint 2006 by Education Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein focuses purely on “strengthening the national schools”, with vernacular schools representing just a statistic in Malaysia's education landscape. Vernacular schools are often neglected or treated with suspicion due to their ethnically Chinese or Tamil nature. There are widespread fears that the strengthening or even the presence of vernacular schools in Malaysia is antithetical to achieving national unity.
Chinese and Tamil educationists on the other hand, fear the strengthening of national schools will erode the future character and viability of vernacular schools. For many of them, every facet of the existing vernacular education must be protected at all cost. Otherwise, they fear detractors will pounce on any signs of weakness to destroy vernacular education in this country.
As a result, parties on both sides of the equation treat the issue of national versus vernacular schools as a zero sum game -- one party's gain is the other's loss. However, such views are certainly flawed and works against the interest of a multi-racial and multi-cultural country like Malaysia. They are bred through mistrust and hardened by years of negative experiences.
Even the Education Minister has admitted in an exclusive interview with Nanyang Siangpau that “people should not regard the various types of schools in the country as a hurdle to be cleared. After all, this is not a zero-sum game because multi-culturalism is an added advantage and a strength for the country.” In fact, treating vernacular schools as obstacles to national unity is akin to the fallacious argument that national unity can only be achieved through cultural assimilation.
Hence, the only way to break this self-perpetuating cycle of combativeness and mutual distrust is, well, to build trust. It is important for the government and its officials to gain the confidence of the guardians of vernacular education. They must fully believe in its rhetoric that “multiculturalism is an added advantage and a strength for this country”, and take concrete steps to demonstrate its sincerity to the people.
To a large extent, the Chinese and Tamil educationists cannot be blamed for their fear of marginalisation. The government's disbursement of RM1.4 million to 248 Chinese primary schools, or a meagre RM6,000 per school as hyped by Deputy Education Minister Datuk Hon Choon Kim in the vernacular press, pales in comparison to the RM709 million allocated to building 15 new Mara Junior Science Colleges (MRSMs), and more for upgrades and repairs of existing MRSMs.
In addition, despite the consistent claim by the government that it will build more vernacular schools in accordance to the needs of the people, the number of Chinese primary schools have declined from 1,333 in 1957 to 1,288 today while enrolment has more than doubled from 310,000 to 636,000. At the same time, the number of Tamil primary schools has been reduced from 526 in 2001 to 523 in 2006 despite a 12.7% increase in enrolment from 88,810 in 2001 to 100,142 in 2006.
Vernacular school educationists are also, understandably, unconvinced by the “national unity” argument because the government has taken steps to build and expand MRSM secondary schools which are almost exclusive domains of ethnic Malays. Pre-university matriculation colleges which limit the intake of non-bumiputeras to 10% are also set up as an alternative to national two-year STPM programmes.
At the same time, it is important for vernacular schools to play up its Malaysian character to improve its perception amongst government officials and Malaysians in general. Instead of taking an overly defensive stance of protecting “mother tongue education”, it should perhaps focus greater on its nation building contributions and Malaysian character.
For instance, it should share its expertise in helping national schools get their stuttering mother tongue language programmes off the ground. This is an education policy which has been delayed by some two years already. By introducing such programmes in national schools, it will ensure that students will be able to preserve their cultural identity in multi-cultural environment. Strengthening national schools should hence not be seen as a threat to the survival of vernacular schools, but instead be treated as complementary to the very cause pursued by the latter.
Overall, the Chinese vernacular schools have for example, provided consistently high teaching and academic standards which has led to better educated Malaysians. It is for this reason, that many parents of all ethnic groups are increasingly attracted to these schools despite their typically overcrowded and under-equipped nature. Recently, at a Malay wedding, I was surprised to find out from a Malay parent who sends her daughter to a Chinese primary school in Ampang that the school had approximately 20% non-Chinese students in its most recent intake. Surely, there can be no better endorsement of vernacular education than its multi-racial character, which contributes immensely to our nation building process.
The emphasis of mother-tongue education in vernacular schools should not colour our judgement of their national unity contributions. Instead, its contribution to society should be judged by the quality of students, their patriotism to the country and in turn, their future contributions back to Malaysian society.
Hence, it is critical for the government to have faith in its own rhetoric, that not only does vernacular education contribute to the richness of the Malaysian education system, it weaves the very fabric of our diverse multi-cultural identity. The government must take the first step to win back the trust of the vernacular education community by giving priority to their development via coherent and well-funded programmes, instead of handing out piecemeal breadcrumbs. As a matter of fact, continued neglect of the vernacular education system may ironically sow the seeds of national disunity, the very outcome which our government has been seeking to avoid.
The recently launched National Education Blueprint 2006 by Education Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein focuses purely on “strengthening the national schools”, with vernacular schools representing just a statistic in Malaysia's education landscape. Vernacular schools are often neglected or treated with suspicion due to their ethnically Chinese or Tamil nature. There are widespread fears that the strengthening or even the presence of vernacular schools in Malaysia is antithetical to achieving national unity.
Chinese and Tamil educationists on the other hand, fear the strengthening of national schools will erode the future character and viability of vernacular schools. For many of them, every facet of the existing vernacular education must be protected at all cost. Otherwise, they fear detractors will pounce on any signs of weakness to destroy vernacular education in this country.
As a result, parties on both sides of the equation treat the issue of national versus vernacular schools as a zero sum game -- one party's gain is the other's loss. However, such views are certainly flawed and works against the interest of a multi-racial and multi-cultural country like Malaysia. They are bred through mistrust and hardened by years of negative experiences.
Even the Education Minister has admitted in an exclusive interview with Nanyang Siangpau that “people should not regard the various types of schools in the country as a hurdle to be cleared. After all, this is not a zero-sum game because multi-culturalism is an added advantage and a strength for the country.” In fact, treating vernacular schools as obstacles to national unity is akin to the fallacious argument that national unity can only be achieved through cultural assimilation.
Hence, the only way to break this self-perpetuating cycle of combativeness and mutual distrust is, well, to build trust. It is important for the government and its officials to gain the confidence of the guardians of vernacular education. They must fully believe in its rhetoric that “multiculturalism is an added advantage and a strength for this country”, and take concrete steps to demonstrate its sincerity to the people.
To a large extent, the Chinese and Tamil educationists cannot be blamed for their fear of marginalisation. The government's disbursement of RM1.4 million to 248 Chinese primary schools, or a meagre RM6,000 per school as hyped by Deputy Education Minister Datuk Hon Choon Kim in the vernacular press, pales in comparison to the RM709 million allocated to building 15 new Mara Junior Science Colleges (MRSMs), and more for upgrades and repairs of existing MRSMs.
In addition, despite the consistent claim by the government that it will build more vernacular schools in accordance to the needs of the people, the number of Chinese primary schools have declined from 1,333 in 1957 to 1,288 today while enrolment has more than doubled from 310,000 to 636,000. At the same time, the number of Tamil primary schools has been reduced from 526 in 2001 to 523 in 2006 despite a 12.7% increase in enrolment from 88,810 in 2001 to 100,142 in 2006.
Vernacular school educationists are also, understandably, unconvinced by the “national unity” argument because the government has taken steps to build and expand MRSM secondary schools which are almost exclusive domains of ethnic Malays. Pre-university matriculation colleges which limit the intake of non-bumiputeras to 10% are also set up as an alternative to national two-year STPM programmes.
At the same time, it is important for vernacular schools to play up its Malaysian character to improve its perception amongst government officials and Malaysians in general. Instead of taking an overly defensive stance of protecting “mother tongue education”, it should perhaps focus greater on its nation building contributions and Malaysian character.
For instance, it should share its expertise in helping national schools get their stuttering mother tongue language programmes off the ground. This is an education policy which has been delayed by some two years already. By introducing such programmes in national schools, it will ensure that students will be able to preserve their cultural identity in multi-cultural environment. Strengthening national schools should hence not be seen as a threat to the survival of vernacular schools, but instead be treated as complementary to the very cause pursued by the latter.
Overall, the Chinese vernacular schools have for example, provided consistently high teaching and academic standards which has led to better educated Malaysians. It is for this reason, that many parents of all ethnic groups are increasingly attracted to these schools despite their typically overcrowded and under-equipped nature. Recently, at a Malay wedding, I was surprised to find out from a Malay parent who sends her daughter to a Chinese primary school in Ampang that the school had approximately 20% non-Chinese students in its most recent intake. Surely, there can be no better endorsement of vernacular education than its multi-racial character, which contributes immensely to our nation building process.
The emphasis of mother-tongue education in vernacular schools should not colour our judgement of their national unity contributions. Instead, its contribution to society should be judged by the quality of students, their patriotism to the country and in turn, their future contributions back to Malaysian society.
Hence, it is critical for the government to have faith in its own rhetoric, that not only does vernacular education contribute to the richness of the Malaysian education system, it weaves the very fabric of our diverse multi-cultural identity. The government must take the first step to win back the trust of the vernacular education community by giving priority to their development via coherent and well-funded programmes, instead of handing out piecemeal breadcrumbs. As a matter of fact, continued neglect of the vernacular education system may ironically sow the seeds of national disunity, the very outcome which our government has been seeking to avoid.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
National Education Blueprint - Hiccups Already?
Ok, this is one time I can't find the reference back to the article which I read in the local papers a few weeks back. So, I'm going to blog it off my memory (if someone finds the relevant article(s), please let me know).
One of the key programmes to make National Schools an attractive choice for all Malaysians, particularly the non-Malay community, is the option of taking Chinese or Tamil language classes. This is clearly stated as a key objective in the recently launched National Education Blueprint for 2006-2010. In the Chapter 6 of the blueprint entitled "Strengthening National Schools", it was a key performance indicator that 150 national schools will offer Chinese Language as a subject, while 100 will offer Tamil Language programmes beginning 2007.
However, as reported in the local press, these targets are far from being met. Apparently, the Ministry of Education is still facing various problems in its implementation, including sourcing for the necessary teachers, preparation of syllabus etc.
This isn't the first time that the Ministry has announced a delay as well. The policy to offer the mother tongue languages in national schools did not originate in the blueprint, but much earlier in April 2005. Then, it was announced that the programme will actually commenced for all national schools on January 2006. However, as blogged here, the Ministry subsequently announced a postponement of the programme to a later date.
Now, despite the recently published Blueprint with a more modest objective of 150 schools, the Ministry of Education under the leadership of Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein has failed to deliver again.
The plan to change the teaching of Mathematics and Science subjects to the English language was executed (albeit with plenty of teething issues) within a period of 6 months. Now after more than 20 months from the date of the official announcement, Chinese and Tamil language programmes are still cooking in the oven.
This raises several questions with regards to the Ministry of Education:
I've yet to see such a plan being put in place.
One of the key programmes to make National Schools an attractive choice for all Malaysians, particularly the non-Malay community, is the option of taking Chinese or Tamil language classes. This is clearly stated as a key objective in the recently launched National Education Blueprint for 2006-2010. In the Chapter 6 of the blueprint entitled "Strengthening National Schools", it was a key performance indicator that 150 national schools will offer Chinese Language as a subject, while 100 will offer Tamil Language programmes beginning 2007.
However, as reported in the local press, these targets are far from being met. Apparently, the Ministry of Education is still facing various problems in its implementation, including sourcing for the necessary teachers, preparation of syllabus etc.
This isn't the first time that the Ministry has announced a delay as well. The policy to offer the mother tongue languages in national schools did not originate in the blueprint, but much earlier in April 2005. Then, it was announced that the programme will actually commenced for all national schools on January 2006. However, as blogged here, the Ministry subsequently announced a postponement of the programme to a later date.
Now, despite the recently published Blueprint with a more modest objective of 150 schools, the Ministry of Education under the leadership of Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein has failed to deliver again.
The plan to change the teaching of Mathematics and Science subjects to the English language was executed (albeit with plenty of teething issues) within a period of 6 months. Now after more than 20 months from the date of the official announcement, Chinese and Tamil language programmes are still cooking in the oven.
This raises several questions with regards to the Ministry of Education:
- Is the Ministry even serious about offering these subjects to attract more non-Malay students to national schools, making them the schools of choice for all Malaysians? The continuous delay does not give confidence to Malaysian parents that the Ministry is keen on such an outcome for it has shown little or no urgency.
- And if the Ministry is indeed serious about it, then surely, there needs to be a major revamp of the ministry leadership for they have then demonstrated absolute incompetence in executing their tasks and responsibilities.
- What then is the likelihood of success for the National Education Blueprint, if the Ministry officials cannot even get one of the key quantitative task done properly, when there are many more difficult qualitative goals to achieve? Some other problems was blogged here earlier. Other immediate key performance indicators for 2007 includes ensuring no one is left out of the education system (see Kian Ming's post on Primary School Enrollment), increasing the number of teaching assistants, extending the pre-school education system, strengthening the selection criteria as well implementing the "fasttrack" programme for headmasters and senior assistants.
I've yet to see such a plan being put in place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)