2009/07/14
JEREMIAH TAN, Kuala Krai
THE cabinet decision on the PPSMI issue is not surprising at all. However, the decision has taken Malaysia a few steps backwards and I hope those who are jumping for joy are prepared to face the consequences of the education policy change announced on Wednesday.
Judging by reports on the education policy change, it looks like students who enter Form One next year will learn Science and Mathematics in English until Form Three, but when they enter Form Four in 2013 they will have to study the two subjects in Bahasa Malaysia. So, after studying the two subjects in English for three years, students will have to switch to BM. This can be very daunting, especially since Form Four and Five are crucial years leading to the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia examination.
On a more optimistic note, I think the government's willingness to fork out RM5 billion to enhance the teaching of English in schools is far-sighted. But I hope that the money is well spent. The decision to recall retired teachers to teach English is indeed a wise move.
However, before the ministry rushes into recruiting them, it has to be sure that only those who have a good record in teaching English in schools are given the chance.
At the same time, the ministry has to take a second look at the English teachers in schools now because some of them lack proper language skills and are simply not qualified to teach English.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
PPSMI: Consider a transition at secondary school level
2009/07/14
GAN TIAN ENG, Klang
I WOULD expect some brickbats from readers for stating my support of the government's decision to revert to the teaching of Science and Mathematics in Malay and the vernacular languages (Chinese or Tamil) in schools.
Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin hit the nail on the head when he said at a press conference on Wednesday: "The government is confident that Science and Mathematics need to be taught in languages that are easily understood by students."
Many of the reports seem to focus on Bahasa Malaysia, but not on the vernacular languages.
It is well known that pupils in rural national schools (and also some urban national schools) as well as those in Chinese and Tamil schools, especially at primary school level, are weak in English.
Having to grapple with mastering English while learning Science and Mathematics in English may prove too challenging for them.
The ultimate goal of improving the overall standard of English among Malaysian students is laudable, but this cannot be achieved just by using English as the medium of instruction for two subjects -- Science and Mathematics.
In fact, many students have obtained distinctions in Science and Mathematics while writing broken English as marks are not awarded for correct grammar. I don't think anyone would disagree with me here.
English opens the door to vast amounts of information on science and technology. For tertiary education, this is mandatory if Malaysia is to be on track to becoming an industrialised and technologically advanced nation.
What remains, perhaps, a moot point is when the transition should take place. At secondary school level or at tertiary level?
This is where Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's suggestion of implementing English for Science and Mathematics at secondary school level deserves serious consideration.
All the facilities and encouragement can be in place, but the mindset of Malaysians towards English must change. English should no longer be viewed as a colonial language but as an important language for business and technology.
This involves the parents of students, teachers, etc, as the government can't do it alone.
Other countries whose native tongue is not English have become English-speaking (e.g. Scandinavian countries) while retaining proficiency in their native languages because they see the wisdom and importance of acquiring proficiency in English.
Every Malaysian should strive to be bilingual or trilingual if we are to thrive in this increasingly globalised and competitive society.
GAN TIAN ENG, Klang
I WOULD expect some brickbats from readers for stating my support of the government's decision to revert to the teaching of Science and Mathematics in Malay and the vernacular languages (Chinese or Tamil) in schools.
Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin hit the nail on the head when he said at a press conference on Wednesday: "The government is confident that Science and Mathematics need to be taught in languages that are easily understood by students."
Many of the reports seem to focus on Bahasa Malaysia, but not on the vernacular languages.
It is well known that pupils in rural national schools (and also some urban national schools) as well as those in Chinese and Tamil schools, especially at primary school level, are weak in English.
Having to grapple with mastering English while learning Science and Mathematics in English may prove too challenging for them.
The ultimate goal of improving the overall standard of English among Malaysian students is laudable, but this cannot be achieved just by using English as the medium of instruction for two subjects -- Science and Mathematics.
In fact, many students have obtained distinctions in Science and Mathematics while writing broken English as marks are not awarded for correct grammar. I don't think anyone would disagree with me here.
English opens the door to vast amounts of information on science and technology. For tertiary education, this is mandatory if Malaysia is to be on track to becoming an industrialised and technologically advanced nation.
What remains, perhaps, a moot point is when the transition should take place. At secondary school level or at tertiary level?
This is where Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's suggestion of implementing English for Science and Mathematics at secondary school level deserves serious consideration.
All the facilities and encouragement can be in place, but the mindset of Malaysians towards English must change. English should no longer be viewed as a colonial language but as an important language for business and technology.
This involves the parents of students, teachers, etc, as the government can't do it alone.
Other countries whose native tongue is not English have become English-speaking (e.g. Scandinavian countries) while retaining proficiency in their native languages because they see the wisdom and importance of acquiring proficiency in English.
Every Malaysian should strive to be bilingual or trilingual if we are to thrive in this increasingly globalised and competitive society.
ENGLISH TEACHERS: Audit first
2009/07/14
LIONG KAM CHONG, Seremban
THE Education Ministry recently announced that up to RM5 billion would be allocated to promote the teaching and learning of English. By any measure, this is a large amount and serves to underscore the seriousness of the government in wanting to improve English proficiency among our schoolchildren.
The number of English teachers will be increased by some 14,000. More teachers will be sent to rural areas where they are most needed.
Some 1,000 foreign teachers, whose first language is English, will be recruited to teach at "disadvantaged" schools.
Retired English teachers will be recalled to serve. English teaching periods will be increased in primary and secondary schools. English literature will be introduced at different levels of schooling. There will also be language labs to complement these efforts.
These announcements sound encouraging, more so, I believe, to young parents and our children in schools. But, wait a minute. Haven't we heard all this before?
Ever since the medium of instruction switched from English to Bahasa Malaysia in the 1970s, politicians and education officials have been telling us about programmes and projects they had implemented to promote English and to ensure that our children were provided with the facilities to learn English.
Their actions were no different from what is promised today. Millions had also been spent. A large number of teachers were sent to English-speaking countries for so-called "immersion" programmes.
The fact is no lesser amount of money was spent in all those earlier programmes.
But today, we are still crying for better proficiency in English. English-proficiency standards have hit rock bottom among our schoolchildren and university graduates.
It has deteriorated despite all the promises and programmes. Also, the English standard of rural pupils continues to lag far behind that of their urban counterparts.
Millions have been spent but the status quo remains. Something is amiss.
I think it is only logical that before the Education Ministry goes on another spending spree to improve English proficiency, an audit be done on what has happened to all the teachers and officials who were beneficiaries of the earlier programmes. How fruitful have they been? How effective were all those programmes?
Most important of all, how can we use the experience of the past to ensure the success of the new programmes that the education minister outlined last week when he announced the demise of the PPSMI (teaching of Mathematics and Science in English) policy?
LIONG KAM CHONG, Seremban
THE Education Ministry recently announced that up to RM5 billion would be allocated to promote the teaching and learning of English. By any measure, this is a large amount and serves to underscore the seriousness of the government in wanting to improve English proficiency among our schoolchildren.
The number of English teachers will be increased by some 14,000. More teachers will be sent to rural areas where they are most needed.
Some 1,000 foreign teachers, whose first language is English, will be recruited to teach at "disadvantaged" schools.
Retired English teachers will be recalled to serve. English teaching periods will be increased in primary and secondary schools. English literature will be introduced at different levels of schooling. There will also be language labs to complement these efforts.
These announcements sound encouraging, more so, I believe, to young parents and our children in schools. But, wait a minute. Haven't we heard all this before?
Ever since the medium of instruction switched from English to Bahasa Malaysia in the 1970s, politicians and education officials have been telling us about programmes and projects they had implemented to promote English and to ensure that our children were provided with the facilities to learn English.
Their actions were no different from what is promised today. Millions had also been spent. A large number of teachers were sent to English-speaking countries for so-called "immersion" programmes.
The fact is no lesser amount of money was spent in all those earlier programmes.
But today, we are still crying for better proficiency in English. English-proficiency standards have hit rock bottom among our schoolchildren and university graduates.
It has deteriorated despite all the promises and programmes. Also, the English standard of rural pupils continues to lag far behind that of their urban counterparts.
Millions have been spent but the status quo remains. Something is amiss.
I think it is only logical that before the Education Ministry goes on another spending spree to improve English proficiency, an audit be done on what has happened to all the teachers and officials who were beneficiaries of the earlier programmes. How fruitful have they been? How effective were all those programmes?
Most important of all, how can we use the experience of the past to ensure the success of the new programmes that the education minister outlined last week when he announced the demise of the PPSMI (teaching of Mathematics and Science in English) policy?
PPSMI: It's regrettable
2009/07/14
ISA MANTEQI, Kuala Lumpur
I HAD expected our government to announce the retention of English for the teaching of Science and Mathematics together with a blueprint for the eventual re-introduction of English in our education system. Instead, our leaders have seen fit to scrap what was the best idea in education for the past three decades.
With one retrogressive step, we shall be depriving our future generations of the kind of education they deserve and one that our country can afford. I wonder if anyone has considered that most of the adverse effects will be borne by those from middle- and low-income groups.
It is still not too late. I hope the decision is reversed. Otherwise, we will all live to regret it.
ISA MANTEQI, Kuala Lumpur
I HAD expected our government to announce the retention of English for the teaching of Science and Mathematics together with a blueprint for the eventual re-introduction of English in our education system. Instead, our leaders have seen fit to scrap what was the best idea in education for the past three decades.
With one retrogressive step, we shall be depriving our future generations of the kind of education they deserve and one that our country can afford. I wonder if anyone has considered that most of the adverse effects will be borne by those from middle- and low-income groups.
It is still not too late. I hope the decision is reversed. Otherwise, we will all live to regret it.
PPSMI: Consider a transition at secondary school level
2009/07/14
GAN TIAN ENG, Klang
I WOULD expect some brickbats from readers for stating my support of the government's decision to revert to the teaching of Science and Mathematics in Malay and the vernacular languages (Chinese or Tamil) in schools.
Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin hit the nail on the head when he said at a press conference on Wednesday: "The government is confident that Science and Mathematics need to be taught in languages that are easily understood by students."
Many of the reports seem to focus on Bahasa Malaysia, but not on the vernacular languages.
It is well known that pupils in rural national schools (and also some urban national schools) as well as those in Chinese and Tamil schools, especially at primary school level, are weak in English.
Having to grapple with mastering English while learning Science and Mathematics in English may prove too challenging for them.
The ultimate goal of improving the overall standard of English among Malaysian students is laudable, but this cannot be achieved just by using English as the medium of instruction for two subjects -- Science and Mathematics.
In fact, many students have obtained distinctions in Science and Mathematics while writing broken English as marks are not awarded for correct grammar. I don't think anyone would disagree with me here.
English opens the door to vast amounts of information on science and technology. For tertiary education, this is mandatory if Malaysia is to be on track to becoming an industrialised and technologically advanced nation.
What remains, perhaps, a moot point is when the transition should take place. At secondary school level or at tertiary level?
This is where Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's suggestion of implementing English for Science and Mathematics at secondary school level deserves serious consideration.
All the facilities and encouragement can be in place, but the mindset of Malaysians towards English must change. English should no longer be viewed as a colonial language but as an important language for business and technology.
This involves the parents of students, teachers, etc, as the government can't do it alone.
Other countries whose native tongue is not English have become English-speaking (e.g. Scandinavian countries) while retaining proficiency in their native languages because they see the wisdom and importance of acquiring proficiency in English.
Every Malaysian should strive to be bilingual or trilingual if we are to thrive in this increasingly globalised and competitive society.
GAN TIAN ENG, Klang
I WOULD expect some brickbats from readers for stating my support of the government's decision to revert to the teaching of Science and Mathematics in Malay and the vernacular languages (Chinese or Tamil) in schools.
Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin hit the nail on the head when he said at a press conference on Wednesday: "The government is confident that Science and Mathematics need to be taught in languages that are easily understood by students."
Many of the reports seem to focus on Bahasa Malaysia, but not on the vernacular languages.
It is well known that pupils in rural national schools (and also some urban national schools) as well as those in Chinese and Tamil schools, especially at primary school level, are weak in English.
Having to grapple with mastering English while learning Science and Mathematics in English may prove too challenging for them.
The ultimate goal of improving the overall standard of English among Malaysian students is laudable, but this cannot be achieved just by using English as the medium of instruction for two subjects -- Science and Mathematics.
In fact, many students have obtained distinctions in Science and Mathematics while writing broken English as marks are not awarded for correct grammar. I don't think anyone would disagree with me here.
English opens the door to vast amounts of information on science and technology. For tertiary education, this is mandatory if Malaysia is to be on track to becoming an industrialised and technologically advanced nation.
What remains, perhaps, a moot point is when the transition should take place. At secondary school level or at tertiary level?
This is where Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's suggestion of implementing English for Science and Mathematics at secondary school level deserves serious consideration.
All the facilities and encouragement can be in place, but the mindset of Malaysians towards English must change. English should no longer be viewed as a colonial language but as an important language for business and technology.
This involves the parents of students, teachers, etc, as the government can't do it alone.
Other countries whose native tongue is not English have become English-speaking (e.g. Scandinavian countries) while retaining proficiency in their native languages because they see the wisdom and importance of acquiring proficiency in English.
Every Malaysian should strive to be bilingual or trilingual if we are to thrive in this increasingly globalised and competitive society.
ENGLISH TEACHERS: Audit first
2009/07/14
LIONG KAM CHONG, Seremban
THE Education Ministry recently announced that up to RM5 billion would be allocated to promote the teaching and learning of English. By any measure, this is a large amount and serves to underscore the seriousness of the government in wanting to improve English proficiency among our schoolchildren.
The number of English teachers will be increased by some 14,000. More teachers will be sent to rural areas where they are most needed.
Some 1,000 foreign teachers, whose first language is English, will be recruited to teach at "disadvantaged" schools.
Retired English teachers will be recalled to serve. English teaching periods will be increased in primary and secondary schools. English literature will be introduced at different levels of schooling. There will also be language labs to complement these efforts.
These announcements sound encouraging, more so, I believe, to young parents and our children in schools. But, wait a minute. Haven't we heard all this before?
Ever since the medium of instruction switched from English to Bahasa Malaysia in the 1970s, politicians and education officials have been telling us about programmes and projects they had implemented to promote English and to ensure that our children were provided with the facilities to learn English.
Their actions were no different from what is promised today. Millions had also been spent. A large number of teachers were sent to English-speaking countries for so-called "immersion" programmes.
The fact is no lesser amount of money was spent in all those earlier programmes.
But today, we are still crying for better proficiency in English. English-proficiency standards have hit rock bottom among our schoolchildren and university graduates.
It has deteriorated despite all the promises and programmes. Also, the English standard of rural pupils continues to lag far behind that of their urban counterparts.
Millions have been spent but the status quo remains. Something is amiss.
I think it is only logical that before the Education Ministry goes on another spending spree to improve English proficiency, an audit be done on what has happened to all the teachers and officials who were beneficiaries of the earlier programmes. How fruitful have they been? How effective were all those programmes?
Most important of all, how can we use the experience of the past to ensure the success of the new programmes that the education minister outlined last week when he announced the demise of the PPSMI (teaching of Mathematics and Science in English) policy?
LIONG KAM CHONG, Seremban
THE Education Ministry recently announced that up to RM5 billion would be allocated to promote the teaching and learning of English. By any measure, this is a large amount and serves to underscore the seriousness of the government in wanting to improve English proficiency among our schoolchildren.
The number of English teachers will be increased by some 14,000. More teachers will be sent to rural areas where they are most needed.
Some 1,000 foreign teachers, whose first language is English, will be recruited to teach at "disadvantaged" schools.
Retired English teachers will be recalled to serve. English teaching periods will be increased in primary and secondary schools. English literature will be introduced at different levels of schooling. There will also be language labs to complement these efforts.
These announcements sound encouraging, more so, I believe, to young parents and our children in schools. But, wait a minute. Haven't we heard all this before?
Ever since the medium of instruction switched from English to Bahasa Malaysia in the 1970s, politicians and education officials have been telling us about programmes and projects they had implemented to promote English and to ensure that our children were provided with the facilities to learn English.
Their actions were no different from what is promised today. Millions had also been spent. A large number of teachers were sent to English-speaking countries for so-called "immersion" programmes.
The fact is no lesser amount of money was spent in all those earlier programmes.
But today, we are still crying for better proficiency in English. English-proficiency standards have hit rock bottom among our schoolchildren and university graduates.
It has deteriorated despite all the promises and programmes. Also, the English standard of rural pupils continues to lag far behind that of their urban counterparts.
Millions have been spent but the status quo remains. Something is amiss.
I think it is only logical that before the Education Ministry goes on another spending spree to improve English proficiency, an audit be done on what has happened to all the teachers and officials who were beneficiaries of the earlier programmes. How fruitful have they been? How effective were all those programmes?
Most important of all, how can we use the experience of the past to ensure the success of the new programmes that the education minister outlined last week when he announced the demise of the PPSMI (teaching of Mathematics and Science in English) policy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
