The Star yesterday published my letter about schools in Malaysia. You can see it here. This the one translated into Malay and published by Berita Harian previously.

The original full version of what I wrote is below.

——————

Empower parents, let them choose – improving our schools

Wan Saiful Wan Jan

In a workshop on Malaysia’s education policy earlier this month in Nottingham, England, Dato Sri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein spoke of the need to improve our school system.  He described how difficult it is to get teachers to go to rural areas. Usually, the newest teachers have to be forced to go there as no one else would do it. He spoke of the dire state that some schools are in – some don’t even have 24 hours electricity and water supply. He described how difficult it is for some students to go to school due to their parents being so poor. And many more. 

I am a school governor in England. I was appointed by the Local Education Authority over here to be on the governing body of a school in a deprived area about 30 miles north of London.  At the same time, I work in policy research, which means I interact with policy-makers and some of the great policy thinkers in the United Kingdom.

Two of my favourite figures in education policy are John Blundell (Director General of Institute of Economic Affairs) and Professor James Tooley (Director of EG West Centre of Education). Both have been campaigning tirelessly on education issues for many years.

Just a few weeks before Dato Sri Hishammuddin came to Nottingham, I had the honour of meeting both John Blundell and James Tooley.  Having been exposed to the British school system and the ideas proposed by the two policy experts, I think the best way we can improve our schools is by being introducing parental choice and competition. John Blundell and James Tooley have repeatedly argued that the best way to ensure quality education is by ensuring parental choice and school competition.

We at Malaysia Think Tank London used some of the main principles they advocated to produce a proposal “Introducing Choice and Competition into Malaysia’s Education System”, which was submitted to Dato Sri Hishammuddin at Nottingham.  

Parental choice means giving parents the ultimate say in choosing the best type of education for their children. If parents have the financial capabilities to choose, and if they are presented with practical options in terms of which school to send their children to, parents would undoubtedly exercise that choice to ensure their children get the best school education.  

Imagine a system where parents can decide to send their children to any school of their choice.

If teachers in school X mistreat the pupils, parents can take their children to another school with more committed and talented teachers.

If a school repeatedly do badly in UPSR or PMR, parents can move their children to a better performing school.

Wouldn’t that be much better?  

Nobody would stay in a hotel where the toilet is blocked or where staff are abusive. Why should parents be forced to keep their children in a school that do not have the necessary resources, or whose teachers are incompetent? 

Admittedly, low household income prevents the vast majority of Malaysian parents from exercising choice. They are almost always forced to send their children to schools that are closest to home because they cannot afford to go anywhere else.  To improve, Government must empower parents by removing the financial barrier, and at the same time ensure schools compete to improve their performance. 

There are many ways to remove the financial barrier and introduce competition. I propose three strategies. First, introduce a targeted voucher system. Second, set up a National Education Fund funded solely by corporate and individual donations. And thirdly publish a school league table every six months. 

The voucher system has been proven to work in countries from America and Britain to Bangladesh and Colombia. It works in developed countries just as it works in developing countries.  The targeted vouchers give parents with low household income the necessary funds. The vouchers can only be used to pay for education.  Through this system, school no longer get automatic funding from the state. Instead, “vouchers” are given directly to parents who can then use the vouchers to pay for their children’s education needs at a school of their choice. Having the funds in hand, they are no longer compelled to send their children to the school that is closest to home. They can use the funds to cover the costs of enrolling into a better school that maybe a bit further.  

The National Education Fund would be funded by the private sector and individual contributions, not Government. Companies and individuals who donate would gain tax relief, as an incentive for them to donate. Money from this Fund can be used to top-up the vouchers if necessary, especially to assist the very poor to pay for other costs like transport, books and school uniform.

Removing school-based funding and giving money directly to parents would effectively make schools become like any other private companies offering a service. In this case, they are, effectively, becoming private schools. Imagine too how much taxpayers’ money can be saved by axing the intermediaries between the Ministry of Education and individual students. If we remove the bureaucrats in Jabatan Pelajaran Negeri and Pejabat Pelajaran Daerah, and give the saved funds directly to parents, imagine how better off lay-people would be. When parents make informed choices, there is no need for these intermediaries. 

Schools must compete to offer services that are the best value for money, and schools have to prove that they are delivering the results parents demand. Otherwise, schools would lose money and risk closure because parents would simply not send their children there. The six-monthly league table would provide parents with a tool to compare performance of schools and therefore help their decision making process. It would also inject more competition to improve the schools. 

If Government wants to be bolder, they should stimulate growth of private schools in all parts of Malaysia so that there is more competition between schools. Malaysians must get out of the mindset that says private schools are elite expensive institutions. In many African and South Asian countries, there are thousands of private schools catering for the very poor and charging very low fees.

If parents have the vouchers, there is no reason why they cannot afford to pay. Under the proposed system, parents are not adversely affected by the “privatisation” of schools as they hold in their hands the necessary funds to pay for whatever fees schools charge. Parents have the vouchers and they therefore have the power.

The proposed “privatisation of schools” brings choice and empowerment to all parents regardless of their household income, and puts pressure on schools to improve. Privatisation of schools coupled with the voucher system therefore brings huge benefits to everyone, including and especially to the poor. 

Similar systems have been proven to be effective in countries around the world. The report submitted to the Minister of Education by Malaysia Think Tank London provided evidence of these successes. 

In an article published in October this year, John Blundell argued that the best way to improve schools is to turn schools into enterprises and teachers into entrepreneurs. Schools that are not up to standard would have to improve or be closed down.  

James Tooley has written extensively about how private schooling worked well for poor people worldwide. In his book “The Global Education Industry”, he drew on examples from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Peru, Romania, Russia, South Africa, Zimbabwe and other countries. Professor Tooley gave a snapshot of private education that was unknown to many - that contrary to expectations, the private education sector was large in many poor countries, was innovative, and was not the exclusive domain of the wealthy. On the contrary, he found that the private sector often provided social responsibility, subsidised places and student loan schemes. 

Choice and competition have been proven to work worldwide. It will work in Malaysia. There is no reason for us to continue to deny Malaysian parents the right to choose the best education for their children. And there is also no reason why failing schools should continue to operate through subsidies.  

It is time we find a way empower parents and improve our schools. The surest way is through choice and competition.

I received a phonecall from an editor of the Observer Magazine last Friday. They want to do a feature on young Conservatives.

Unfortunately, as I was still in Morocco, I could not take part.

The feature will be published on 3 December 2006.

Berita Harian published a shortened version of my article, which was originally written  in English.

This news is sad.

The biscuit does have a “+” shape on it.  But is it a cross sign, or a plus sign? In any case, does it really matter? Don’t these people have anything better to do?

What next? Ban teachers from using the “+” sign in schools because it resembles a cross?

No. 1: Islam & capitalism 

I found this article while browsing tonight.

This paragraph is particularly interesting:

To the question of whether Islam hinders development, Mr. Erdogan offers one answer: On the economy this “Islamist” government has stuck to the market playbook. The budget deficit is 1% of GDP, down from 16% in 2001; the debt-to-GDP ratio 60%, compared with 110% five years ago. Inflation is creeping up, to 10%, after hot money fled emerging markets early this summer and the lira fell 22% against the dollar at one point; but Turkey weathered that brief storm well. The Islamists embarked on the most far-reaching privatization program in Turkish history, selling off telephone companies, petrochemical plants and steel makers and lowering barriers to foreign investment–with little opposition. A vestige of state control, dating back to Ottoman times, is its ownership of large tracts of land, but that, too, is on the agenda.

Mustafa Akyol wrote a good article about Islam and Capitalism which is worth a read if you haven’t done so.

No. 2: Book Launch and Dinner

I was at the National Liberal Club last night.

The main reason was to attend a press launch of a book “Corporate Social Responsibility & International Development”.   The author quoted me twice in this book, so it must be a very good book!!!

Had dinner with a friend at the Club. Excellent food.

No. 3: Fez

I am off to Fez, Morocco, for one week next week.

No. 4: Two Malaysian Ministers in Nottingham

Dato Mustapha Mohamad (Minister of Higher Education) and Dato Sri Hishamuddin Tun Hussein (Minister of Education) were in Nottingham last week for a brainstorming session on Malaysia’s education and higher education policies.

I had the chance to speak to them both, and submitted a report to Dato Sri Hishamuddin. The report outlines four proposals to reform Malaysia’s school system:

1. Introduction of targeted vouchers to help poor families access well-performing public or private schools.

2. Setting up National Education Fund that is free from political control and fully funded by private (corporate or individual) donations.

3. Stimulating the growth of non-state / private education institutions by making it easier for entry into, and exit from, the education industry.

4. Introducing league tables to help parents compare school performance.

None of these are new ideas as they were taken from the experience of many countries including the UK, the USA, Colombia, Bangladesh, etc.

Introducing choice and competition into education has been proven to work. There is no reason why Malaysian parents should continue to be deprived of choice.

On 15 october 2006, David Davis wrote an article in the Daily Telegraph. The title of his article was “Do Muslims really want apartheid here?”. You can read the article here.

David Davis’ writing alarms me. Whatever happened to the Tory party that defends personal choice?

We should be supporting anyone who exercises personal choice. If a woman chooses to wear bikinis or veils, if Jews choose to wear skullcaps or hats, if a Sikh wants to wear turban, if a Christian wants to wear a cross, we should defend them as they are making conscious personal choice.

Mr Davis spoke of the need for integration and daily contacts. The teaching assistant in Leicester and the British Airways staff, despite donning religious symbols as part of their clothing, are both well integrated, or, at least, are integrating. Their jobs ensure the “daily contacts” Mr Davis so demands. Mr Davis’ argument about religious symbolism “creating apartheid” is weak at best, and xenophobic at worst.

In the printed newspaper, above David Davis’ article was this cartoon:

Is it not ironic that Mr Davis’ article was printed right underneath a cartoon satirizing “big government”?

Big government is not merely about legislations. Government becomes “big” when politicians interfere with what is private and personal to the citizens. Whatever next? A politically correct dress code for all citizens walking in public area in order to avoid offending others?

Daily Telegraph printed part of my comments here.