Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 National Education System: How bad is it actually?

views
     
TSMiniCooperS1275
post Mar 14 2023, 09:15 AM, updated 2y ago

New Member
*
Newbie
10 posts

Joined: Feb 2017


We have been reading and hearing a lot about "how bad the education system in Malaysia is", and how parents, especially the mid-to-high income ones who reside around Klang Valley, have been clamouring to send their kids to International Schools, some as early as Year 1.

But at the same time, we also see a lot of SPM high achievers who go on to do their 'A' Levels / Matriculation / Foundation Studies, eventually ending up in universities, with some even earning scholarships. And then there are the Form 3 and Form 5 students who obtain the ASEAN Scholarship to do their 'O' Levels or 'A' Levels in Singapore. You do not get to that level of achievement overnight, so logically-speaking they must have had a good high school foundation in Malaysia first.

So, my two (2) key questions are:

1. Is the standard of the national high school syllabus really so low?

To provide some background: I completed by SRP (you can gauge my age!) in Malaysia, and moved to Singapore to do my 'O' Levels and 'A' Levels. To get into the school, I had to sit for an entrance test that covered English, B.M. (my chosen second language), Mathematics and Science - and I completed the test riding on my SRP knowledge with no problems (the difference in language for Mathematics and Science was not a barrier). When I was preparing for my 'O' Level Additional Mathematics examinations, I had my Singapore school textbook and Malaysian Matematik Tambahan textbook (I did Form 4 for 2 months prior to going to Singapore) side-by-side - the syllabus was practically the same. 'O' Level Biology was decidedly easier - put it this way, we only had four (4) bones to study for the human body, vs. a lot more for SPM Biologi. And in conversations with ex-schoolmates, the anecdotal examples we shared brought me to the conclusion that what they were learning was really no different from what I was learning - the only difference being the medium of instruction.

Has the standard of the national high school syllabus really dropped so drastically in the past two to three decades since my time? Again, note that I am asking only about the standard of the syllabus, not the medium of instruction or the quality of teaching. Because there are also recent news articles about parents complaining that the new KBAT primary school syllabus is "too difficult", which contradicts claims of "standards dropping".

I will, however, call out one subject where the syllabus has been poorly-structured: Sejarah. I did History as part of my 'O' Levels in Singapore, and some of you may be surprised to know that the syllabus was entirely about Southeast-Asian history, with an emphasis on Malayan and Singaporean history. I wrote 5-page essays about J.W.W. Birch and the circumstances leading to his murder by Maharajalela in 1875. The difference that I felt, however, was that the content was very balanced, with no glorifying of a particular caste or creed (I think you get my point), and there was more emphasis on the why's rather than the what's and when's.

2a. If the answer to (1) is 'no', then is the gap therefore in the execution of the teaching?

This one opens a whole spectrum of topics. The gulf between good national schools and bad national schools is huge. We have the urban schools that boast better facilities (no doubt with the support of strong PIBG) vs. rural schools running on spartan and run-down facilities. We have schools with teaching staff that are able to teach the STEM subjects effectively in English via the DLP vs. schools where the DLP had to be dropped because the teachers could barely string a sentence together in English. We hear of dedicated teachers who go the extra mile to teach their students well, while we also hear horror stories of teachers who habitually skip classes on the pretext of "not feeling well" (even while some of them conduct private tuition outside). And I believe it would not be an exaggeration to say that for the national schools in general, the SMJK©'s tend to outperform the SMKs (again, I am aware that there are exceptions).

To be fair, not all poor-performing teachers are so because of their own attitudes. We also hear of teachers being over-burdened with administrative duties, leaving them little time and energy to perform their primary duty: To teach. This is also an execution problem - specifically policies and practices that create barriers that hamper the execution of good quality teaching.

If we could close the gap in the teaching quality (teachers, infrastructure, administration, policies, etc.), would that, in principle, close the gap? If we taught SPM Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology using the existing SPM syllabus, except that we restored the Dual Language Programme nationwide, would that make a difference (of course, I am ignoring the elephant in the room on the mammoth task of getting the teachers up-to-mark to teach in English effectively for the moment)? If we invested in better classroom facilities and laboratories for the rural secondary schools? If Cambridge 1119 English was made the standard for SPM English? Finally... if we took away all the religious nonsense from the school environment?

[EDIT] Since empstar2 brought up the quota system, fine, I will include this as part of the execution improvement: A fair and transparent marking scheme. But again, let's not detract from the original question on the syllabus.

2b. If the answer to (1) is 'yes', then in what areas has the standard dropped, and how specifically have they dropped?

Again, I will cite Sejarah as my pet peeve. But I am actually more interested in the STEM subjects. To put it simply, has the standard of SPM Additional Mathematics dropped so much that students would give a blank stare if asked to perform differentiation and integration of an nth-order polynomial or trigonometric function, or perform a cross-product of two matrices? Or in Chemistry, that they would struggle to provide the general formula for hydrocarbons? Because the impression I am getting is that even today, the level of difficulty in SPM STEM subjects is on par with IGCSE, or at least not that far off - you can correct me if I am wrong, but preferably by way of concrete examples to facilitate a meaningful discourse.

----------------------------------------

So, coming full circle: I am asking about the standard of the syllabus - not the teaching quality, school environment or school policies. The syllabus is the same - it is the disparity in the teaching quality and school environment and policies that can be vastly different.

This post has been edited by MiniCooperS1275: Mar 14 2023, 09:54 AM
E-Tan
post Mar 14 2023, 03:34 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
136 posts

Joined: Mar 2013
I can only comment from the perspective of the physics subject: students with SPM physics enter A Levels with more content readiness compared to IGCSE Physics.

There's not as much detailed concepts in IGCSE, e.g. in the topic of magnetism, waves, gravitation.

As for the SPM scorers who do join A Levels (and can afford to do so), for the majority their tenacity, resilience, and independence is notably higher in contrast to the general IGCSE population - probably related to self studying despite bad system or teachers etc. But then again, there are many factors.
iSean
post Mar 15 2023, 08:54 AM

iz old liao.
*******
Senior Member
4,352 posts

Joined: Jun 2011



Technically both Singapore O-Level, Malaysia SPM, or the International GCSE/O-Level syllabus branched out from the same UCLES Syllabus from the Cambridge Board.
I think there was a time we all shared the common syllabus with the commonwealth countries under British Ruling in National Schools.

Therefore, if you looked into the Syllabus Manual for like SPM/STPM, it will even have the same exact word to word learning outcomes with its UCLES O-Level/IGCSE and A-Level counterpart.

Just that in Malaysia, the MOE/MOHE wanted to form their own Examination Board, LP and MPM and have higher autonomy over the syllabus, then we added/removed the contents to cater our demographic, and have Cambridge Assessment as a consultant, and have some special Cambridge 1119 paper being sent back to the UK to be graded. <back then I heard was the Essay portion>.

Whereas the Singapore Syllabus, they have their own MOE that worked closely with Cambridge Assessment in a joint partnership to developed their national syllabus.
You will see the font and style of the paper looks exactly generic like official Cambridge paper, but with some harder challenging questions catered to their syllabus.

user posted image

In some countries like Brunei, you will see their students will sit for Cambridge IGCSEs or O-Levels and A-levels as their national exam.
With some Additional Codes paper like customed to their syllabus liking: English Language (Brunei), Bahasa Melayu (Brunei), and Geography (Brunei).
But you have see their passing rate for 5 O level subjects is like 50% of the nation yearly sweat.gif


Back to STEM. In Malaysia Syllabus, I will feel that students has more content to memorize and regurgitate out in the exam.
Also the time given to students to check for the answer is mostly "more" than sufficient compared to IGCSE/O-Level.

The government textbook written for SPM STEM is kinda hot pile of garbage (most of the time), until we had to rely on external resources like references books for our studies.
If you read through IGCSE vs SPM textbook you will get what I mean...

A book filled packed with useful facts, diagrams and elaboration vs. a textbook filled with missing blanks, goes through the content briefly, without a solution manual for the student to go through.

We haven't include the transparency of marking schemes that are made available to the public. So students know what are the marking points to their answers.



This post has been edited by iSean: Mar 15 2023, 08:56 AM
TSMiniCooperS1275
post Mar 15 2023, 10:21 AM

New Member
*
Newbie
10 posts

Joined: Feb 2017


QUOTE(iSean @ Mar 15 2023, 08:54 AM)
Technically both Singapore O-Level, Malaysia SPM, or the International GCSE/O-Level syllabus branched out from the same UCLES Syllabus from the Cambridge Board.
I think there was a time we all shared the common syllabus with the commonwealth countries under British Ruling in National Schools.

Therefore, if you looked into the Syllabus Manual for like SPM/STPM, it will even have the same exact word to word learning outcomes with its UCLES O-Level/IGCSE and A-Level counterpart.

Just that in Malaysia, the MOE/MOHE wanted to form their own Examination Board, LP and MPM and have higher autonomy over the syllabus, then we added/removed the contents to cater our demographic, and have Cambridge Assessment as a consultant, and have some special Cambridge 1119 paper being sent back to the UK to be graded. <back then I heard was the Essay portion>.

Whereas the Singapore Syllabus, they have their own MOE that worked closely with Cambridge Assessment in a joint partnership to developed their national syllabus.
You will see the font and style of the paper looks exactly generic like official Cambridge paper, but with some harder challenging questions catered to their syllabus.

In some countries like Brunei, you will see their students will sit for Cambridge IGCSEs or O-Levels and A-levels as their national exam.
With some Additional Codes paper like customed to their syllabus liking: English Language (Brunei), Bahasa Melayu (Brunei), and Geography (Brunei).
But you have see their passing rate for 5 O level subjects is like 50% of the nation yearly  sweat.gif
*
Yup, that much I am aware of, i.e. that Malaysia's SPM, Singapore's G.C.E. 'O' Levels and the Brunei Junior Cambridge (BJC) have their roots in the UCLES Senior Cambridge syllabus, with their own local tweakings. Up until the time I took my 'O' Levels in Singapore during the early-1990s, they were still sending most of the examination scripts back to the U.K. for marking (the one exception I know being the mother tongue subjects such as Chinese, Malay and Tamil). The image of the 'O' Level certificate that you inserted brings back fond memories!

QUOTE(iSean @ Mar 15 2023, 08:54 AM)
The government textbook written for SPM STEM is kinda hot pile of garbage (most of the time), until we had to rely on external resources like references books for our studies.
If you read through IGCSE vs SPM textbook you will get what I mean...

A book filled packed with useful facts, diagrams and elaboration vs. a textbook filled with missing blanks, goes through the content briefly, without a solution manual for the student to go through.
*
The problem of poorly-written textbooks to accompany a challenging syllabus extends into primary school textbooks, too. My kids are in SJK© and thankfully I can read Chinese, but I still find it a challenge to help them with their Science revision. As you correctly mentioned, the textbooks are haphazard in their layouts, lots of gaps in information, and with a whole bunch of open-ended questions left unanswered. One example I can think of is the classification of plants. The format in the textbook is messy, and the examples provided are far fewer than what is eventually test in the matching activity book. In the end, I had to take the information from the multiple pages in both the textbook and activity book, and summarise all the plant classifications into a tree diagram on a single A4 sheet for clarity. It doesn't help that the image quality of the books are so poor that it is sometimes impossible identify the plants being displayed.

QUOTE(E-Tan @ Mar 14 2023, 03:34 PM)
I can only comment from the perspective of the physics subject: students with SPM physics enter A Levels with more content readiness compared to IGCSE Physics.

There's not as much detailed concepts in IGCSE, e.g. in the topic of magnetism, waves, gravitation.
*
QUOTE(iSean @ Mar 15 2023, 08:54 AM)
Back to STEM. In Malaysia Syllabus, I will feel that students has more content to memorize and regurgitate out in the exam.
Also the time given to students to check for the answer is mostly "more" than sufficient compared to IGCSE/O-Level.
*
Combining both your responses above, it sounds like in terms of content for STEM subjects, SPM students learn at least as much as their IGCSE/'O'-Level counterparts, if not more. Of course, quantity does not necessarily equate to better understanding and application of the concepts. But still, it is encouraging to know that the SPM STEM syllabus itself provides adequate base knowledge to advance to 'A' Levels, and it is over to the individual schools to execute the teaching as best as they can in order to reap the full benefits of the syllabus. Or correct me if my interpretation is off.
somewhataut
post Apr 2 2023, 02:28 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
225 posts

Joined: Sep 2022
i enrolled in a master of science at public uni, 2 semester into it, i have learnt almost nothing, the master made me a master of nothing, the research project might make me felt involved, but the rest of the course can be understood by layman, and i'm far from expert in those subjects cuz we study at layman level only.

i think i might have guilt when putting that master's degree on my resume, scared kena exposed, if asked what i have learnt i cannot answer

This post has been edited by somewhataut: Apr 2 2023, 02:30 AM
Just Visiting By
post Apr 2 2023, 01:03 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,828 posts

Joined: May 2013


As a practising engineer, I've met many recent Malaysian graduates who completed SPM and studied UEC/Foundation/STPM, who graduated from Malaysian universities like UTAR, UTHM, UMP, who are working now in Singapore, outperforming many Singaporean peers who excelled in NUS and NTU by a very large margin.

I think it all boils down to the student's attitude. I'm not saying the system is great or lousy, but we all have to admit the learner's attitude plays a vital role. If you expect to be spoon-fed everything then you can have all the resources the world could bestow upon you, and you'll still struggle when you're out. If you try to work out in the face of resource constraints, you'll excel in your life. The reward is reaped when you're forced to be independent.

Not saying the system couldn't be better. I'm saying the system isn't the only factor.

This post has been edited by Just Visiting By: Apr 2 2023, 01:03 PM

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0125sec    0.31    5 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 07:39 PM