Archive for the ‘Education’ category

Matriculation Misery for Indians

April 19th, 2019
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


 

For those who don’t get the above (hint: watch the ending of Bahubali), there is a proverb in Malay: harapkan pagar, pagar makan padi.

For last one week, we have been hearing all kinds of rumours about the matriculation results which came out on 15th April. For last few years, Indian community were given additional seats (1500) as a means of tool to uplift the community socioeconomically. It offered a faster and cheaper route to university.

After winning the elections last year, the Minister even announced ADDITIONAL 1000 seats for B40 from Chinese community. I’m happy for that. Everyone had high hopes, felt good. and expected thing to remain SAME for this year. Since no news from MOE saying others, its good lah right?

When parents started to line up at Putrajaya this week for rayuan (appeal), seems like things have changed. But why no information for coming?

Then today, MOE released the following statement (refer their FB ) on “penjelasan lanjut”. In this statement its clearly mentioned that MOE is sticking to old formula of 90/10 (90% bumiputera and 10% for others). This means, about 2500 seats only for non-bumiputera (total seats about 25,000). Is it possible for Indian community to get 1500 places from a quota of 2500?

Secondly, there is a quota within quota, meaning within the initial racial quota, 60% of seats is for B40 groups and balance is for M40 and T40. Fine with us. Its good.

The problem with reverting to old system is that not informing your stakeholder/customers in advance accordingly. Why never inform last year when the application was opened? By keeping quiet you have misled them into believing their kids have a chance of furthering their studies in a cheaper, faster way. As it is, places for Asasi (foundation) has been reduced tremendously for non-bumiputera (only 2 or 3 IPTA offering), leaving only Form 6 or diploma studies at IPTA/Politeknik as public education options. Was it due to a string of by-elections, by any chance? To me, this is cowardice and betrayal.

At the very least, MOE can inform that this is the last time giving extra seats for other communities. Next year onward will be back to 90/10. At least we all will know where we stand, can plan ahead and not waste time applying.

This move by MOE leadership also puts unnecessary pressure on the Indian ministers in cabinet. They now have to figure out how to get out this hole. Maybe they should all resign en-bloc as sign of protest.

 

The irony, just this week our PM said this:

The best investment that can be made is in education. Education raises the potential of the individual through value-added means, which, in turn raises the potential of businesses and economies to perform well,” he said in his speech at the Asia School of Business’ (ASB) Master of Business Administration (MBA) convocation ceremony, here, today.

Are you investing wisely?

PS: no need heroics by later increasing seats and saying that the government has listened. That is so old. We are beyond that.

 

Dual Language Program (DLP) latest Circular 2018

November 2nd, 2018
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


The latest circular (pekeliling) on Dual Language Program (DLP) was rather quietly published on 5th October 2018. The title – Surat Pekeliling Ikhtisas Bil 8 Tahun 2018 (Garis Panduan Pelaksanaan Dual Language Programme (DLP) di sekolah-sekolah KPM Tahun 2018).  Link to DLP circular on MOE website: https://www.moe.gov.my/images/KPM/ZOOupload/SPI%20BIL%208-DLP.pdf

The silence is quite understandable as there are some opposing view on DLP even though it has been stressed many times that its optional and depends on the parents’ request and consent.

This post will not cover the background of DLP. Instead it focuses on the content of this new circular and hopes to highlight key points which may help parents and school administrators.

The document contains 2 parts: the first 3 pages (the page with signature is strangely missing) are the cover letter and the balance is the garis panduan (guideline).

1. Page 2 Item 7 states that previous circulars are now void and is replaced by the current one. So, need no make any reference to the earlier ones.

 

2. Criteria for DLP remains at four (criteria 2 should be labelled as (b)), but there are some interesting changes.

Let’s look into each of them.

Criteria a) – School should (hendaklah) have sufficient resources. Resources here means teachers, classrooms and materials. Obviously materials will come form MOE (text books) while classroom is not an issue. Only teacher qualification may be a constraint, but as long as the teacher is currently qualified to teach science/maths, it should not be even a problem, because after all, its just primary/secondary school level subject right? Anyhow the teacher criteria is described in section 6.2. Basically if the teacher has credit in SPM English, has taught science/maths for at least 3 years or has a minimum diploma qualification in science/maths related course,  then he/she is qualified.

Criteria b) (or 2) – School HM or principal should (hendaklah) have discussion with teachers and state education department to prepare short term and long term plans to ensure effectiveness and continuity of DLP in terms of teachers, students, classrooms and other resources. So, decision should be made after consultation with the PPD/JPN.

Criteria c) – Application from a minimum of 15 parents should (hendaklah) be obtained to proceed with DLP. If the number of application is insufficient, parents must (perlu) be informed. Previously, no minimum number was set at application level, but for class to begin need to have minimum 15 students.

Criteria d) – the school’s BM results at UPSR/SPM level must be equal or more than the level set by MOE (the level is not defined in the circular, which is a very smart move). Previously it was tied to the national average which meant that many schools are not able to proceed with DLP.

 

3. Implementation of DLP can only begin at Year 1 or Form 1, unlike previously which can also begin at Year 4 and Form 4. Also, once started, the class must continue until Year 6/Form 5 even if the number of students dropped below 15.

 

4. The confusion arises when I read on how to apply for DLP. As mentioned below in para 6.7.1.a, the application need to be started in the year preceding DLP implementation. So if school wants to start DLP in 2019, they should have applied by 31 March 2018! Problem is, this circular is published in October 2018 and the school themselves may not have any idea who are the parents of the new Year 1 students and whether they are interested to take up DLP option. So, this procedure and guideline assumes the initial interest comes from school, not parents. And this application process ends by June of current year whereby MOE gives approval to run DLP classes.

5. Clause 7 refer to responsibility of parents and school in application of DLP. School must give DLP application form to parents of Year 1/Form 1 students by 1st week of school. There is also an appeal process if the students is not selected for DLP.

All the relevant forms are  provided in the circular so schools need not waste time creating forms and so on. Example below is the application form for parents to fill up.

 

 

In conclusion, the new circular has removed some of the hurdles in implementing DLP. However since it was released very late, the deadline for schools to send application to run DLP is long over. Perhaps there were briefings held early of the year, but quite doubtful as no news on such briefing.  If the school didn’t make any application this year so far, MOE must give some leeway to allow schools to apply immediately and submit by some date before end of the year. Also there must a process for parents to initiate the application as some schools may be hesitant to implement DLP due to other agendas.

Guru punca masalah KBAT (HOTS) ?

November 10th, 2017
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


This is quite a statement. Granted the sample of survey is very small, less than 3% of the schools. Not sure how valid that is. But in that small sample, 60% are below par, and 40% is either good or excellent. Reason being (mainly I suppose) is teachers acceptance and understanding of HOTS (or KBAT in BM). Higher Order Thinking Skills (Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi). This points to – rushed implementation, lack of planning, or mismatch between expectation and reality. We have half a million teachers to train, not only technically but mindset and culture. Perhaps the initiative should have been started on smaller scale, but then you will end up with syllabus which is not standardised.

Oh, I’m back in action btw. Just the second post for the year, what an underachievement.

Penerimaan dan pemahaman guru antara punca 169 buah sekolah berada di bawah tahap baik dan cemerlang hasil pemeriksaan penarafan amalan terbaik Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi (KBAT).

Timbalan Menteri Pendidikan, Datuk P. Kamalanathan berkata statistik itu mewakili 60 peratus daripada 282 buah sekolah rendah dan menengah yang dinilai oleh Jemaah Nazir dan Jaminan Kualiti.

“Dalam 282 sekolah hanya 40 peratus sekolah ini telah mencapai tahap baik dan cemerlang sementara 60 peratus sekolah masih ada masalah (berada di bawah tahap baik).

“Hasil penilaian mendapati, masalah ini berpunca daripada penerimaan dan pemahaman guru-guru dan proses ini (menambah baik) sedang berlangsung sekarang. Guru-guru sedang dilatih, bukan sahaja melalui Kementerian Pendidikan malah melalui tenaga pengajar,” katanya pada persidangan Dewan Rakyat di sini hari ini.

Tambah Kamalanathan, para guru yang telah dilatih dan dapat memahami budaya KBAT akan menjadi duta kementerian untuk memaklumkan kepada guru-guru lain serta cara untuk mengaplikasikannya.

Bagaimanapun katanya, para guru dari sekolah berkenaan juga sedang dibimbing menerusi ini inisiatif SIP+ dan SISC+.

Sementara itu, penilaian pelaksanaan KBAT dalam pentaksiran hanya dapat dilaksanakan sebaik sahaja analisis keputusan UPSR tahun 2017 diperoleh dengan membandingkan pencapaian calon berdasaran pertimbangan terhadap kualiti, ketekalan, ketepatan, keadilan dan bukannya membuat perbandingan dengan keputusan UPSR tahun lalu.

Jelasnya, keputusan dan prestasi UPSR tahun 2016 tidak boleh dijadikan perbandingan dengan keputusan UPSR bagi tahun-tahun sebelumnya kerana format serta instrument yang digunakan adalah berdasarkan kepada Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah (KSSR).

source: http://www.astroawani.com/berita-malaysia/kelemahan-guru-punca-60-peratus-sekolah-hadapi-masalah-kbat-159944