#502 PPSMI

The fact of the matter is that the teachers are unequipped to teach both Science and Maths in English given the short period of time to adapt. While some have done well, others lag behind.

It's not really the teachers' fault per se, though certain teachers don't even bother to attempt to teach in English. The government has not provided a proper implementation and training process.

The problem is the teachers' training and delivery. So the rakyat keeps asking for the teachers to work on their English, i.e. the root problem.

However, the Education Ministry decides to implement a program to improve the students' English. Yes, to a certain extend, this should have been a vital area of focus. But the problem isn't the students' English. The problem is the teachers' English. And the book writers' English. Where else in the world do you learn broken English from school textbooks that was so bad it had to be recalled?

Only in Malaysia.

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

By Sandra Rajoo

Many felt disappointed and let down by the decision taken by the Ministry of Education (MOE) to abolish PPSMI. No matter how lengthy the arguments presented by the MOE, they still fall short.

Saying that teachers have to use Bahasa Malaysia to cater to students who do not understand English does not present a true picture of what is happening in schools. The problem does not lie entirely with the students; difficulty arose because of teachers’ proficiency too. When PPSMI was introduced almost 7 years ago, no proper groundwork was laid to prepare for the transition. Teachers who had been teaching in BM all the while were forced to switch to English. Imagine the difficulty. The MOE implemented some programmes to help these teachers but unfortunately the momentum lasted only a couple of years. After that, as usual, everything died a natural death. By right, Heads of schools should have been tasked with ensuring that teachers conscientiously and continuously upgrade their proficiency, at the same time providing the necessary support. Lack of seriousness and commitment has led to the demise of good policies.

The MOE says the policy is ‘flawed’ but provides no lucid analysis to support this assertion. Surely such a pronouncement requires more substantial and clear arguments. Merely quoting two researches done by two university educationists in my view, is quite inadequate. Who the respondents were, which schools were involved, what the actual findings are etc., are not clearly outlined or explained. We would certainly like to read the actual findings in order to draw our own conclusions. Merely making general statements to justify a reversal of policy seems like a tactic to lull the unsuspecting public to go along with its ideas without question. The Ministry has a research arm, EPRD, but correct me if I am wrong, they did not conduct any study on this very important matter. Why so?

Read more here.