Wan Saiful : Critics should stop acting like they are smarter than parents

Wan Saiful : Critics should stop acting like they are smarter than parents

Since Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s Budget 2016 announcement last year of two new pilot programmes to support the improvement of English language proficiency of students in schools, the Dual Language Programme (DLP) and the Highly Immersive Programme (HIP), have faced a barrage of unfounded criticism and opposition from critics.

These pilot programmes should be celebrated because the government is finally allowing parents to have a say in their children’s education, albeit still in a limited way.

This is a bottom-up policy where parents are able to vote on whether their child’s school gets DLP, HIP, or even opt out altogether.

This is a powerful move, yet it seems that many groups don’t understand that the school leadership and parents hold the power.

It is an unsupported and harmful assertion to claim that these policies are a throwback to colonial times, and to falsely accuse that it prioritises English at the cost of proficiency in Bahasa Malaysia.

Schools can only do it if they are already good in Bahasa Malaysia. These detractors are denying parents the right to choose what is best for their own children.

Who are they to dictate what parents can or cannot do? Are they saying that all parents are too stupid to know what is best for their children?

What makes them think they know better than the millions of parents and teachers?

The DLP will only be offered to government national schools that meet four criteria: proper resources, teachers who can teach in English and Bahasa Malaysia, parents who are supportive of the programme, and schools that are already performing well in Bahasa Malaysia with cumulative grade point averages (CGPAs) at or above the national average in national examinations.

They will be given the option to teach Science, Mathematics, Information Technology and Communication, and Design and Technology, in English or Bahasa Malaysia.

Meanwhile, the HIP aims to strengthen English proficiency by increasing usage hours outside the classroom.

These are essentially what the programmes are meant to do.

First published for MalaysiaKini , 27 March 2018
Click here for original source

Wan Saiful: Pilot The School Voucher System

Wan Saiful: Pilot The School Voucher System

We should expect challenges and we will make mistakes, which is why we should try, for example, an area within our district.

MY previous article calling for school choice to be given to all parents attracted responses from many people. I want to thank everyone who took the trouble to send me their thoughts. I was even stopped at Alor Setar airport last Saturday by a lady insisting on giving me a piece of her mind!

While many are curious about the practicality of my ideas, there are some who are completely opposed to them too.

I take both in stride and I am particularly thankful to those who took the time to explain why they disagree with me. I learnt a lot from these exchanges and I am sure I will continue to learn from those who are more experienced than me.

I think it is only fair I respond to some of the main issues raised by readers, especially those who feel that the idea of a school voucher is not workable in Malaysia.

image: https://content.thestar.com.my/smg/settag/name=lotame/tags=tsol,all,Fatin_GSC_Insight_ALL

The name might be “voucher system” but it does not really involve a voucher. The main principle behind this system is that the Government should fund students instead of schools and teachers.

So the Government could simply provide a guarantee letter to the parents, enabling them to take the letter to any education service provider who can then claim the cash from the Government.

In the numerous emails, Twitter and Facebook messages that I received, the most common complaint was that the scheme would discriminate against the poor.

They argued that unlike urban areas, rural areas usually have only one school and therefore it was not possible to exercise choice.

This opinion is correct if the Government introduces vouchers without making it easier to set up new private and charitable schools.

If the bureaucratic requirements are simplified, choice will actually surge in rural areas.

Currently there is only one school in many of the smaller villages because there is no incentive for private providers to open schools there.

But imagine if all parents in the country have a letter from the Government guaranteeing RM10,000 each for them to spend on schools every year.

Within a short period, all sorts of for-profit and charitable schools would open in that price range because everyone has the ability to pay the fees.

Even I might be looking for ways to open a Sekolah Yayasan IDEAS!

Accessibility would no longer become an issue as the scheme would attract new providers to enter the picture. Of course, this would only be the case if the Government simplified the processes to open a private school.

The second criticism is that parents from low-income households would not know how to choose a good school for their kids.

So if they were given a voucher, they might make decisions that could jeopardise the well-being of their own children.

I completely disagree with this suggestion. Even though those making the suggestion may have good intentions, I find the idea arrogant and condescending because it assumes that poor people are stupid and reckless parents.

When I visited low-cost private school in the slums of New Delhi, I spoke to parents who chose to send their children there because they wanted their children to learn better English, there was a higher level of teacher absenteeism in government schools, and they saw more dedication among teachers in the low-cost private schools.

These are people living in the slums of New Delhi with income of less than RM150 per month. Yet they show tremendous commitment to choosing the right schools for their kids and they are meticulous in comparing the quality of one school to another.

To make a blanket assumption that people cannot or will not think because they are poor is simply arrogant. In fact, they may actually be more careful in choosing the right school, compared to many of those who have money to spend.

Third, there are some who suggested that I am not giving enough emphasis on quality because all I want to do is to privatise schools.

On the contrary, the whole idea behind the voucher system is that it will push quality up. A voucher system explicitly links quality to the financial sustainability of a school.

In order to attract a sufficient number of students to pay the costs, schools must prove that they provide quality education. Otherwise they will not get the money that they need.

In order to produce high quality, schools will have to employ the best head teachers, teachers and administrators.

They need to ensure they accept properly trained staff and they also need to provide continuous upskilling opportunities for everyone on their payroll. Otherwise quality will slip and students will go elsewhere.

Moving forward, I urge the Government to pilot a voucher scheme in several selected schools.

This could be an area within one district, in line with the Government’s agenda to transform the District Education Offices by decentralising more powers to them.

Of course we should expect challenges and we will make mistakes. That is why it is important to pilot it first and I would be most happy to contribute the little knowledge that I have to design it.

What matters most is that we ensure our children get the type and the quality of education that they rightly deserve.

First published for The Star , 3 March 2015

Click here for original source