By M. Bakri Musa
[First of Three Parts]
Quality Education and Economic Development
In referring to the low quality of our labor pool, the New Economic
Model Report cites statistics showing that 80 percent of our workers
have only SPM level (11 years) of schooling. That surprises me, not
the figure rather the fact that the SPM is now viewed as inadequate.
That observation reflects more on the quality of our education
system than it does of our workers. For had our education system
maintained its quality, and today’s SPM is of the same caliber as
the old Cambridge School Certificate “O” Level, then I would argue
that our workers are among the most highly educated.
Members of the National Economic Action Council (they wrote the NEM
Report) are old enough to appreciate that when they obtained their
O-level certificate, they were in command of sufficient intellectual
and other skills to prepare them well for life. The same cannot be
said of today’s SPM, as the Report clearly implies.
In suggesting that Malaysian workers should have more years of
education, the folks at NEAC are falling into the same trap that had
ensnared others, of confusing quantity with quality of education. For
if our education system stinks (it certainly does!), then it does not
matter whether our workers have college degrees; they still will not
be well prepared for the workplace, as attested by the already
thousands of unemployed graduates.
As declared in the Center for Global Development’s A Millennium
Learning Goal: Measuring Real Progress in Education, we should
“focus on the real target of schooling: adequately equipping the
nation’s youth for full participation as adults in economic,
political and social roles.” School completion alone is an
inadequate indicator of this. Likewise, generous funding, low
pupil/teacher ratio, and physically grandiose schools and universities
do not necessarily reflect quality education.
Consider years of schooling. One can readily appreciate that a year
at an Indonesian high school is not the same as at a South Korean one.
Even within a country, there are significant variations, as with an
inner city school in South Chicago and one in the heart of Silicon
Valley, California. In California, the students are challenged with
calculus; in inner city Chicago they struggle with “consumer
math.”
As for pupil/teacher ratio, South Korean classrooms are more
crowded than American ones, yet that does not negatively impact the
learning of the Korean children.
Earlier cross-national studies attempting to relate workers’
educational levels with a country’s economic performance used such
readily obtainable data as the level of funding, pupil/teacher ratio,
and years of schooling. Even with such crude measurements economists
were able to conclude confidently that workers’ educational levels
correlate well with a nation’s economic development.
That however, could be the effect and not the cause. It could be
that when a country is rich, it could afford to spend more on
education rather than the investment in education making that country
rich.
Such studies also exposed some glaring anomalies. Latin American
countries have universal education yet their economies have been
underperforming. Egypt and South Korea spend proportionately the same
on education, with their young having comparable levels of schooling,
yet their economies are a universe apart. What gives?
The OECD made a cross-national study of its labor force focusing
specifically on cognitive (in particular reading and mathematical)
abilities rather than years of schooling. As can be appreciated, this
was a much more formidable undertaking than merely comparing national
statistics that may or may not be actually comparable. The findings of
this much more rigorous study are even more impressive, confirming not
only the earlier findings but also explaining the anomalies.
OECD has since refined and expanded its studies to include
developing countries. The resulting Program for International Student
Assessment (PISA) survey is sufficiently rigorous to conclude that
workers’ cognitive skills are causally (not just statistically)
correlated with economic development across a broad spectrum of
countries, from developing to developed ones. Meaning, a country could
not develop economically if its workers are cognitively not up to par,
regardless of the number of years of formal education.
The relevant cognitive skills relate to critical thinking, language
abilities, mathematical competence, and science literacy. It should
not surprise us that Indonesia, Bolivia and Peru remain economically
backward considering that, as per PISA findings, the average reading
ability of Indonesian students was equivalent to that of the lowest
seven percent of French students; the average mathematics score of
Brazilian students was equal to the lowest scoring Danish students;
while the average science score of Peruvian students was equal to the
lowest five percent of American students, despite the same number of
years spent in school.
Malaysia was not included in the PISA study but it did participate
in the Third (1999) International Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMMS
– R). We scored somewhere in the middle, way behind Singapore, South
Korea, Japan and Taiwan. And so is our economy.
Malaysian leaders and educators do not like to be reminded of this;
instead they would prefer us to focus on the fact that we are still
ahead of Indonesia, Bolivia and Peru.
The American performance in TIMMS was not impressive either, and
that prompted much soul searching. By way of contrast, in Malaysia I
have not heard of any official pronouncements or seen academic papers
on the subject. The only analyses done on the Malaysian performance on
TIMMS were conducted by Malaysian-born American scholars.
Americans realize that they need a skilled workforce to create
innovative products and start new entrepreneurial ventures that would
drive economic development.
The American performance at TIMMS illustrates another apparent
anomaly. While American students lag behind those of Asia and many
OECD countries, the American economy outperforms theirs. At first
glance this would negate PISA’s conclusion.
Two factors explain the apparent American anomaly. The first
relates to the American curriculum and system of teaching. Since this
is more important, let me dispose quickly of the second factor, that
is, American industries, often supported by public funds, devote
substantial resources to training and continually upgrading their
workers’ skills.
My hospital has a department devoted entirely to the continuing
professional education of its nurses, doctors and other personnel.
American editors for example, regularly send their reporters to
writing classes and to hear from luminaries in their fields.
For contrast, query any Malaysian civil servant on when was the
last time he attended a course that would contribute to his
professional development, and you would draw a blank. The response
would be the same if you were to ask what professional journals he
subscribes or reads regularly.
Returning to the more important first factor, while it is true that
American students do not do well in science and mathematics, they
shine in the critical and creative thinking department. Unfortunately
these skills are not tested by TIMMS or indeed any pencil-and-paper
test. The American curriculum, both at school and college levels, does
not emphasize rote memory and regurgitation at examination time.
Instead the focus is on critical and independent thinking. Thus
American students have “open book” and “take home”
examinations, a concept incomprehensible to Malaysians. American test
questions probe your ability to think critically, not regurgitate
textbook or lecture contents.
For those who find an “open book” examination incomprehensible,
let me suggest some examples. If Hikayat Hang Tuah were a text in an
American course, a typical examination question would be:
The central injunction of our Quran is to “command good and
forbid evil.” To what extent have the three main characters (Hang
Tuah, Hang Jebat, and the Sultan of Melaka) followed this creed?
For Shahnon Ahmad’s Ranjau Se Panjang Jalan, a suggested question
would be:
Describe three major ranjau (obstacles) faced by Lahuma (the
central character). Imagine yourself the assigned caseworker. How
would you guide him to overcome them?
Come to think of it, this would also be a good intellectual
exercise for my readers who have read both great works of Malay
literature!
As can be seen, those questions make you think. Further, there is
no right or wrong answer. Such exercises in critical and creative
thinking are the norm in an American classroom. It is this that
accounts for the continuing innovativeness, remarkable resilience, and
entrepreneurial vigor of the American economy.
Consider this. The American University in Cairo, which has an
American curriculum and teaching style, has an enrolment of about
5,000, less than one percent of the total undergraduates in that
country. Yet at the Egyptian embassy in Washington, DC, a prestigious
posting where only the best get chosen, 40 percent of the staff are
AUC graduates. The Egyptian establishment has rendered its judgment as
to the quality of that institution, and by implication, the rest of
the country’s universities, including its most famous and oldest, Al
Azhar.
Undergraduates at AUC are required to take a course, “The Human
Quest: Exploring the Big Questions,” where they pursue such queries
as, “Who am I?” and, “What does it mean to be a human?”
The Asian ‘tigers,’ their robust economies notwithstanding,
appreciate the value and uniqueness of the American system of liberal
education; they strive to make their own more ‘American.’
Singapore consciously does this, but is burdened by the fact that
it relies on current personnel (teachers, administrators, and
policymakers) and institutions to effect these changes. Unfortunately
they have been brought up under the old rigid system. I never
underestimate the power of inertia, systemic as well as personal. It
is especially difficult for individuals to change as that would mean
repudiating the very system that had brought them to where they are
today.
South Korea imports wholesale American schools, complete with the
teachers and texts. As these schools are expensive, only the children
of the elite could afford to enroll. In a way that would be a quick
and effective channel of changing the whole system as those students
are destined to be influential in their country.
Japan brings in thousands of young Americans to teach English under
the JET program. Although they are primarily for teaching English,
nonetheless their teaching methods and styles would inevitably spill
over to the ‘native’ teachers.
Thailand recognizes the limitations of its current personnel and
institutions to effect changes. Consequently it attacks the problem
frontally by opening up the system. Thus international schools,
primarily British and American, are mushrooming there. As in South
Korea, these schools are affordable only to the elite. However,
because of the ensuing competition from the sheer number of new
entries, the costs have come down substantially and these schools are
now within the reach of the middle class. Such schools would spawn a
new revolution in education in that country.
These countries realize that they have to go beyond the numbers, as
with the number of school years or universities, and focus instead on
quality. These excellent schools are still far from being the norm;
those countries still face the major challenge of access, and thus
equity.
How should Malaysia approach the dilemma of quantity versus
quality, as well as the issue of equity in her education system? The
rest of this essay is my attempt at answering this.
Next: The Trinity of Quality, Quantity, and Equity
Quality, Quantity, and Equity in Malaysian Education
#2
By M. Bakri Musa
[Second of Three Parts]
[In Part One I discuss the crucial role of workers’ cognitive
abilities (language skills, mathematical competency, and science
literacy) rather than years of formal schooling in determining and
contributing to a country’s economic development. In this second
part, I address quality, quantity and equity in Malaysian
education.]
Trinity of Quality, Quantity, and Equity
The UN lauds Malaysia for meeting – indeed exceeding – the
Millennium Development Goal of universal primary education. I
caution against taking too seriously such praises. The UN works
from the base of such countries as Afghanistan and Sub Sahara
Africa; they should not be our reference point.
The dilemma of quality versus quantity is old and familiar.
Retired Malaysians wistfully remember the old colonial English
schools. Yes, they were good, and when you scored an “A” then,
you knew that you were on par with those students in London and
elsewhere who also scored an “A.” It was essentially the same
examination. There was pride of achievement in that.
However, when you cater only to a tiny fraction of the population,
you cannot claim credit for the success. Natural selection alone
would guarantee you that.
Beyond the quality-quantity dilemma, those excellent colonial
schools exposed yet another problem, that of access. Being only in
urban centers, they effectively blocked out those in the villages.
In a country where the urban-rural divide also paralleled (still
does) racial and socio-economic cleavages, that was untenable and
a recipe for social disaster.
Thus we have the added problem of equity to the already
challenging quality-quantity conundrum. Again, this is not unique
to Malaysia. America too faces its own equity problem, with
well-funded suburban schools on one hand and dilapidated inner
city schools on the other. As with Malaysia, race and
socio-economic class compound that cleavage.
It is imperative that we address the trilemma of quality,
quantity, and equity simultaneously; they are not incompatible.
Achieving quality at the expense of quantity or equity is no
victory. Quite apart from the inherent unjustness, it is hard for
quality to be consequential in a sea of mediocrity. And if there
is no equity in the system, it is simply not sustainable.
Equity at the expense of quality is hollow. That is socialism
– yes, we are all equal, but equally poor. As for quantity
without quality, that too is futile. Besides, it would doubly hard
and more expensive to repair a damaged system; better to create a
good one right from the very beginning.
Addressing all three would require a prodigious amount of
commitment, an awareness of the obstacles, and a healthy dose of
humility. The commitment would be not only of resources but also
and perhaps more importantly, in leadership and political will.
Resources are necessarily limited; they must thus be expended
prudently. Throwing money at a problem does not solve it; indeed
that may spawn even greater problems like graft.
MARA spends billions to educate Malays through its expensive
residential schools. The initial idea was great. Gather bright
kids from poor rural areas and put them in residential schools
where they would get good nutrition, modern living conditions, and
superior educational opportunities. The impact would be greater
than had resources been thinly spread through village schools,
with each getting only a small fraction and not enough to make a
substantial difference.
Indeed during the first decade or two, these schools worked as
anticipated despite obvious leakages as with ministers’ children
also being admitted. One wonders how much more effective it would
have been had those children of the privileged been excluded.
However, good ideas, like good durians, have a shelf life.
Today with urbanization, there are as many urban as rural poor
Malays. As such, fully residential schools make less sense. MARA
could instead have day schools in the towns to cater for those
poor Malays in the area and thus save money in not having to house
and feed them. If these schools were to have hostel facility, let
it be limited to those living far away
Scrutinize MARA’s budget for education; the bulk would
actually be spent on such non-educational items as feeding and
housing the students. Yet in the statistics, those funds would be
classified as expenditures on education.
Visit Malay College; the biggest building there is not the
library or laboratories, but dormitories. The college will soon
open its multimillion-dollar IB center. Again here, the bulk of
the space and resources are not for education but simply to house
and feed the students. Imagine if the center were to be a day
facility (like the old Taylor College), it would be considerably
cheaper to build and operate. You could then have three or four
similar IB centers for the same cost, and benefiting that many
more students, thus achieving both quantity and quality. And if we
spread those centers around the country, we would also increase
access, thus enhancing equity.
We could further increase quantity without sacrificing quality
if we were to restrict entry only after Form III. Taking in
students at Form I (the current practice) not only wastes scarce
resources but is also psychologically unhealthy. Children should
not be taken away from their families at such a tender and
formative age.
On a smaller scale but in the aggregate quite large, if we
restrict admission only to students in the immediate vicinity, we
could save considerable transportation costs. Right now those
‘education’ costs are actually spent on chartering buses to
transport students at the beginning and end of the school term.
Think of the many library books and laboratory equipment that
could be had if the money were not spent on those buses and train
vouchers!
It is wasteful to have students from Kelantan attend MARA
schools in Johore, while those in Klang Valley have to go to Kota
Baru. A generation ago that was a good idea. Malays were parochial
then and lacked a national identity. Thanks to the mobility of
today’s society, that is no longer the case. So why persist on a
resource-wasting practice that no longer serves its purpose?
Returning to Malay College, you would cry seeing the decrepit
facilities. This is true of all the residential schools, even
relatively new ones. Some MARA schools are now asking parents to
take their children home during weekends to spare feeding
expenses!
Query the stakeholders and their reflex answer would be to ask
the government for more money. A typically Malay response! Yet
there is one obvious and ready solution. Charge the parents, on a
sliding scale based on taxable income. Even back in my days in the
early 1960s there were quite a few who afford the full fare. A few
of Mahathir’s children attended these expensive residential
schools for free when he was Prime Minister.
With the extra revenue these schools could enhance their
curricular offerings and physical facilities. More importantly,
the thought of having to fork out those expenses might prompt rich
parents to think twice about enrolling their children, thus
freeing up slots for children of the poor.
Similar more efficient allocation of resources could be had at
our universities. Currently the bulk of the new students have only
SPM. The university thus wastes academic and other resources
catering to those doing essentially Form VI in the first year. If
we were to expand Form VI and restrict university admission only
to those from there, the students would not only be better
prepared but they would also get more out of the same number of
their undergraduate years.
The universities’ matrikulasi and diploma programs are also a
colossal waste as these could be undertaken more cheaply and
effectively elsewhere, as at schools and polytechnics. Yes, there
was a time when concurrently running the diploma program
represented the optimal use of scarce campus facilities, but those
days are now long gone. Today, our universities should focus only
on academic activities that could not be done elsewhere, that is,
education at the undergraduate and graduate level.
Scrutinize the typical university budget; the bulk (both
operating as well as capital) is for non-academic purposes, as in
feeding and housing the students, faculty quarters, and
vice-chancellor’s residence. Today’s university is not only an
academic institution but also a major hotel with long-term
‘guests’ in the thousands. This of course is a necessity but
there is no reason why such non-academic activities could not be
‘out-sourced,’ thus freeing the university of the onerous
burden. Marriott, the giant hospitality company, feeds and houses
students on many American campuses. If Malaysian universities were
to do the same, they could then send their deputy VCs in charge of
housing back to teaching and doing research.
Malaysian universities also have extensive housing units for
their staff. Again this is a waste. Some American universities
also provide housing, but to attract young faculty members who
otherwise would go elsewhere. In contrast, housing on Malaysian
campuses are for established staff members who are not necessarily
academics. Often they stay on long after they have retired!
There is waste at another albeit lower (cost-wise) level. I
once met a Malaysian dean at a scientific convention in America.
He had first class air ticket and stayed at a five-star hotel. Had
he traveled economy and stayed at a more modest facility, he could
have taken three or four of his fellow faculty members to that
meeting. Imagine the good that would do to his staff and
institution!
His excuse was that per civil service code he was
‘entitled’ to first class treatment. There we go again, that
entitlement mentality! You cannot get rid of it even after you
become dean and vice-chancellor.
Effectively addressing quality, quantity and equity would
require efficient allocation of resources. That however, would
require another commitment – from the leadership. This is
desperately lacking.
Prime Minister Najib exhorts our graduates to discard their
budaya menuggu dan pasif (culture of waiting and passivity), yet
he is blind to the onerous and highly intrusive rules that govern
our students. It is like challenging them to explore the wider
world but at the same time keeping them on a tight leash.
Our leaders also keep reminding us of the importance of
English, yet they shy away from making that a requirement for
university entrance. They decry the lack of qualified workers in
science and technology, but examine our public universities and
the bulk of the resources are devoted to other than those fields.
To reemphasize, effectively addressing quality, quantity and
equity would require the commitment of not only resources but also
and more importantly, leadership and political will.
Next: Part Three: Clinical Trials in Educational Initiatives