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
National Education System: How bad is it actually?