It’s critical to budget for the Dual Language Programme
The Ministry of Education (MoE) needs to view the Dual Language Programme (DLP) from a wider and more dynamic lens, rather than twisting and turning the guidelines to find ways and means to annihilate it.
Currently, only 20.74% of primary schools and 33.21% of secondary schools offer DLP. Subtracting the number of Sarawak schools, the primary schools offering DLP significantly drop to only 4.5%. In terms of pupils, only 7.4% of primary school students and 12.17% of secondary school students are eligible to enrol in DLP classes. The numbers are a pittance.
Accelerating progress: Reflecting on Gentari's two-year journey in the clean energy landscape
Two years of putting clean energy into action: Gentari offers clean energy solutions through three initial core pillars - Renewable Energy, Hydrogen and Green Mobility - forming a portfolio of solutions cutting across the electron value chain to help customers achieve net zero emissions.
DLP should instead be provided with a considerable budget. It should be relooked, restudied and reviewed to consciously and systematically expand the number of DLP schools and DLP classes, so that the number of pupils enjoying DLP can be increased significantly. The training of teacher trainers, teacher trainees and in-service teachers needs to be boosted as this appears to be the main obstacle affecting the programme.
The English Language Teaching Centre (ELTC) is the unit in MoE that manages and oversees DLP and everything else related to English. Among the recommendations made by the National Education Advisory Council (2018-2020), of which I was a member, was that ELTC should be made a full-fledged department with ample support if its policies are to succeed and flourish. It appears that it is unable to cope with the demands of DLP, in particular ensuring that there is an adequate number of acceptor schools. Nonetheless, once a primary school offers DLP, there is still a good six years before the cohort is elevated to secondary level. The programme has now reached a critical stage.
The teaching and learning of science and mathematics in the English language had long existed, since pre-Merdeka days, producing world-class doctors, engineers, scientists, architects, economists, accountants and professionals of all disciplines, taking what was then Malaya from the backwaters and turning it into a robust and trail-blazing modern Malaysia. South Korea and Vietnam were way behind us in those days.
Post-1969, the education system turned to the Malay language as the medium of instruction, the purpose of which was to find a Malaysian identity. English-medium schools were closed and vernacular schools were reactivated. An attempt was made to resurrect the teaching of science and mathematics in English (PPSMI) in 2003 but after six years, it was abolished, although the programme was allowed to run its course so students’ learning was not disrupted.
Parents are more discerning now. Mother tongue could mean the English language for some families. It cannot be assumed anymore that one’s mother tongue is based on one’s race.
DLP was introduced in 2016 to give parents the option of having their children taught science and mathematics in English. A budget of RM20 million was allocated. Since then, while DLP continues to be budgeted for, there has been silence on whether or not it receives any funds whatsoever.
Moving forward, it is clear that little has been allocated, if at all, for DLP. As parents seek to retain existing DLP classes, obedient principals become obstacles, as in the stalemate between the director-general of MoE and the parents of SK Convent Bukit Nanas (1), SK Bukit Damansara, SJKT Vivekananda, SJKT Segambut and SJKT Ladang Edinburgh in Kuala Lumpur. The opening of more DLP classes, such as at SK Seri Hartamas, and schools wanting to offer DLP such as SK Cyberjaya, in spite of complying with all criteria, face extraordinary challenges.
Further, the excuse given to parents who want to choose between DLP and non-DLP classes for their children is that they are told there is no guarantee that DLP classes will be available at the secondary school level. Teachers create fear in parents and they choose the non-DLP option.
Instead of the current situation, Kuala Lumpur should be targeting more DLP classes and schools as it is the students in KL who will propel the way forward: it is the financial centre, with Bursa Malaysia achieving a market capitalisation of US$400 billion, taking its place among the top bourses in Asean; it has an array of private boutique medical centres with a variety of specialists in medicine offering world-class medical tourism; there is the presence of oil and gas conglomerates; and Google and Microsoft have settled here, bringing the digital economy to our shores, apart from many more such developments.
The Academy of Sciences Malaysia, also based in KL, has been emphasising for the longest time the importance of meeting the human capital needs of the science, technology and innovation sectors. It is well known that employers in these fields desperately need 20,000 scientists, 10,000 engineers and technologists, 190,000 engineers, scientists and applied scientists, 280,000 engineers, doctors, architects and ICT implementers and 500,000 skilled workers in support services with qualifications ranging from PhDs to diplomas.
Sarawak is single-minded about DLP. It is pushing ahead regardless of the challenges, beginning with 1,265 primary schools in 2019. Penang, too, has demanded that all of its schools have DLP as it requires a capable workforce to attract foreign direct investment. Johor and Selangor, too, should push for more schools to offer DLP as both have strong manufacturing and commercial sectors.
There is no place for state directors of education who have no vision of preparing students for the unrelenting future where they will face demanding challenges. They have to work hard now, but later will get to enjoy a better quality of life in their adulthood. It is time to act fast.
Comments