©New
Sunday Times (Used by permission)
by Chok Suat Ling
The Education Ministry is seeking feedback on whether Science and Mathematics
should continue to be taught in English. Experts say the policy should be
allowed to go on but with some adjustments, writes Chok Suat Ling
THE decision six years ago to teach Science and Mathematics in English stirred up turbulent emotions.
The tempest has since subsided but talk of a review of the policy has, once again, roiled up sentiments and heated discussions.
The Education Ministry will make a decision by year–end and is now seeking
feedback from various quarters. It held its first roundtable discussion with
academics and examination board officials last month.
But minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein's assurance that changes will only
affect a new batch of pupils has not calmed increasingly anxious educators,
parents and students.
Their concern is not without basis, for a reversion at this
point would mean six years of hard work going practically "down the drain".
National Union of Teaching Profession secretary–general Lok Yim Pheng puts it in
stark perspective: "It will be extremely painful for everyone. Billions of
ringgit would have been wasted in teacher training, reprinting textbooks, and
formulating courseware and teaching aids. It would all have been a sheer waste
of money and time."
The NUTP will have its executive council meeting and conference this month and
is expected to issue a strong collective statement on the matter later.
The union points out that for teachers who have been sent for training and
retraining, going back is not an option. Even those in rural areas, who faced
extreme difficulties when the policy was first introduced, have gradually become
used to teaching in English.
"But now, we don't know what is going to happen. Teachers do not appreciate
being made guinea pigs. It is disturbing when programmes implemented are
reversed just because politicians disagree with them," says Lok.
Going back to using the mother tongue in the teaching of the two subjects is,
however, a move keenly anticipated by many Chinese educationists, who had
adamantly been against the move from the start.
They had vociferously protested the switch from Mandarin to English, and have
continued to speak up through the years.
Educationist Goh Kean Seng hopes the teaching of Science and Mathematics will
revert to Mandarin in Chinese schools:
"If the policy is reversed, the government will be rectifying the mistake it
made in 2003."
As primary and secondary education is "foundational", it is imperative that the
subjects be taught in the pupil's mother tongue, says Goh.
"Many students think in their mother tongue. They would need to be adept in the
language used in teaching in order to be able to learn content–oriented subjects
like Science, Mathematics and geography. If they cannot grasp the language, they
cannot master the subjects," says Goh who has more than 20 years' experience as
an educator.
"Only a handful of pupils can overcome this language barrier. This is not right
as education should apply for all, not just this specific group of pupils," says
the headmaster of the Confucian Private Secondary School in Kuala Lumpur.
As it is, Goh points out that many students from Chinese primary schools already
find the going tough when they have to learn everything in Bahasa Malaysia in
secondary school: "Many have dropped out because they cannot cope with the
language."
And he claims "Malay pupils, especially those in the rural areas, are worse
off."
Most others, however, do not agree and insist that a major change now is grossly
premature and unjust.
The argument is that it will take between 10 and 15 years for the impact of any
policy change to be felt. A cohort or two of students need to "graduate" under
the framework of a new policy before any measure of efficacy can be made. Six
years may be an appropriate time for a review but it should only involve
fine–tuning, not an abrupt about–turn.
Education consultant Anushia Senthe stresses that a review should not in any way
be used as an opportunity to revert to the old system as it will only create
upheaval in schools. She says it is more prudent to just refine the policy: "If
children in rural schools are struggling, maybe we should allocate more time for
the teaching of Mathematics, Science and also English to allow them to gain
confidence in this medium of instruction.
"A one–size–fits all implementation model, especially with regard to textbooks
and teaching aids, may not be appropriate given the differing competency levels
between urban and rural children," says the master trainer for the Cambridge
International Diploma for Teachers and Trainers in Malaysia.
She calls for a thorough competence evaluation of teachers to weed out
ineffectual teaching practices and facilitate more effective training.
"Attention towards these types of issues will be better than a complete policy
reversal."
Educators themselves also demand continued attention. In many schools, teaching
is hampered by teachers with a poor command of English. This predicament is
faced by many rural and vernacular schools.
In Tamil schools, for example, there is a dearth of teachers who can teach in
English.
"Of the 7,800 teachers in Tamil schools, fewer than 500 are trained to teach in
English. If ministry officials go to the ground, they will see that teachers are
teaching the subjects in Tamil," says a Tamil educationist.
"In one school, of the 28 teachers, only two are graduates. But even then, both
cannot string two sentences together in English without making a mistake.
The results of pupils for the two subjects in school tests have also declined.
He claims that before the policy was introduced, 70 to 80 per cent of pupils
passed their Science and Mathematics but after 2003, there has been a
precipitous drop with only an average 30 per cent passes.
Nevertheless, he concedes that the problem is with implementation, not the
policy itself.
"The government should stick with it. English is an essential language now and
this policy is beneficial. The ministry just needs to implement it properly."
But in focusing energy and resources on the training of teachers, it is integral
that pupils are not neglected.
Schoolchildren who lag behind in Science, Mathematics and English should be
given remedial classes or made to undergo special programmes similar to the
KIA2M intervention course introduced recently to ensure all pupils in school
master reading and writing.
Lok says: "This is true for schools in rural areas. If pupils are left far
behind, they will not be able to catch up no matter how good the teachers are."
The consensus, however, is that more thought should have been given to all
aspects of the policy before introducing it half a dozen years ago.
Education policies need to be especially well thought out to prevent flip–flops,
as these will have long–term adverse consequences.
"There should be dialogues and feedback from all concerned parties –– parents,
teachers and experts –– before effecting a change. Discussions should come
before a major policy change, not in between or after," says Lok.
Indeed, constant changes and inconsistent policy messages have caused many
parents to lose confidence in the education system.