Subsequent to DAP's proposal of introducing flexibility for bottom-up approach in the debate about Teaching of Science and Mathematics in English (TSME or PPSMI), could we try to stretch the argument a little further and relates that to the bigger question about quality in schools and education in Malaysia?
Basically what DAP suggests is to allow schools and parents to decide which is the best language for their students/children to learn Science and Mathematics. Such flexibility to the policy could be regarded as bottom-up approach.
Now, the Malaysian education system is not only facing the dilemma of choosing between English or Malay in teaching of Science and Mathematics (which Malay has already been chosen), but other more pressing and important problems, such as quality of education, teacher's quality, and the question about what it meant by educating our children. I would argue that a significant portion of Malaysia's educational problems have been due to the "one size fits all" approach in policy-making.
I will attempt to discuss only of them, teacher's quality and curriculum.
First, teachers in Malaysia are all assume to be homogeneous. When we have shortage of teachers, the policy dictates recruiting simply anyone who is interested to teach will become a teacher. However, as teachers are considered civil servant and employed by the government, it would be almost impossible to sack or terminate teachers who do not performed. Therefore, the system is stuck with the chicken-and-egg dilemma; choosing between quality or quantity.
In my sincere opinion, in order to get out of this dilemma, perhaps schools should be allow to make decision which is the best teacher to hire. In other words, government gives up their monopolistic rights as the sole employer and allows the teaching profession to function in a free market. As such, the role of the government is not to provide teachers for schools, but rather, takes a regulatory role to ensure the teaching market do not fail. In addition, the government would subsidise or allocate educational funding to schools according to the number of students, and if the government is serious about closing the disparity between urban and rural schools, this is the change to allocate more to the rural school where the additional could be regarded as developmental fund. Therefore, the schools will have incentive to do their best as a way to uphold their reputation and increase their students; at the same time, teachers will have more incentive to teach effectively, as their wage and salary will be more deterministic of their performance and workload. Certainly, not a "one size fits all" policy, and indeed very much needed one in Malaysia.
Second, our education system emphasises on delivering the education to students for them to score in examination. Our curriculum has been rigidly structured and examination questions focus on testing the facts and figures, rather then their ability to think and analyse. A recent education review in the UK, the Nuffield 14-19 Review, made 31 recommendations. In one of their recommendation about the curriculum, the Review suggests, "Curriculum should be developed cooperatively and locally between schools, colleges and other providers, albeit within a broad national framework". In other words, there should be room for flexibility in curriculum to adjust and accommodate teaching and learning to the local context. Again, we should not "one size fits all" for education policy.
The essential idea about education is fundamentally related to individuals. Hence, it is important to question whether is it possible for these "one size fits all" educational policies to achieve any education purposes and aims.
This post is also available in The Malaysian Education Debate
Basically what DAP suggests is to allow schools and parents to decide which is the best language for their students/children to learn Science and Mathematics. Such flexibility to the policy could be regarded as bottom-up approach.
Now, the Malaysian education system is not only facing the dilemma of choosing between English or Malay in teaching of Science and Mathematics (which Malay has already been chosen), but other more pressing and important problems, such as quality of education, teacher's quality, and the question about what it meant by educating our children. I would argue that a significant portion of Malaysia's educational problems have been due to the "one size fits all" approach in policy-making.
I will attempt to discuss only of them, teacher's quality and curriculum.
First, teachers in Malaysia are all assume to be homogeneous. When we have shortage of teachers, the policy dictates recruiting simply anyone who is interested to teach will become a teacher. However, as teachers are considered civil servant and employed by the government, it would be almost impossible to sack or terminate teachers who do not performed. Therefore, the system is stuck with the chicken-and-egg dilemma; choosing between quality or quantity.
In my sincere opinion, in order to get out of this dilemma, perhaps schools should be allow to make decision which is the best teacher to hire. In other words, government gives up their monopolistic rights as the sole employer and allows the teaching profession to function in a free market. As such, the role of the government is not to provide teachers for schools, but rather, takes a regulatory role to ensure the teaching market do not fail. In addition, the government would subsidise or allocate educational funding to schools according to the number of students, and if the government is serious about closing the disparity between urban and rural schools, this is the change to allocate more to the rural school where the additional could be regarded as developmental fund. Therefore, the schools will have incentive to do their best as a way to uphold their reputation and increase their students; at the same time, teachers will have more incentive to teach effectively, as their wage and salary will be more deterministic of their performance and workload. Certainly, not a "one size fits all" policy, and indeed very much needed one in Malaysia.
Second, our education system emphasises on delivering the education to students for them to score in examination. Our curriculum has been rigidly structured and examination questions focus on testing the facts and figures, rather then their ability to think and analyse. A recent education review in the UK, the Nuffield 14-19 Review, made 31 recommendations. In one of their recommendation about the curriculum, the Review suggests, "Curriculum should be developed cooperatively and locally between schools, colleges and other providers, albeit within a broad national framework". In other words, there should be room for flexibility in curriculum to adjust and accommodate teaching and learning to the local context. Again, we should not "one size fits all" for education policy.
The essential idea about education is fundamentally related to individuals. Hence, it is important to question whether is it possible for these "one size fits all" educational policies to achieve any education purposes and aims.
This post is also available in The Malaysian Education Debate
No comments:
Post a Comment