Quality of delivery system vital for language switch

[Harold F. Schiffman]

Quality of delivery system vital for language switch
Khoo Kay Peng
Nov 15, 05 3:41pm

Zainul Arifin of New Straits Times asks Why deny our children a better
future? That is precisely the question I would ask him. In his over
enthusiasm to rebut Gerakan deputy president Dr Koh Tsu Koons statement on
the need to evaluate the implementation of using English as a medium to
teach Maths and Science subjects in primary schools, Zainul has created
unnecessary disagreements over agreements.

First, we agree with Zainul that English language is the lingua franca of
international trade and commerce especially when the US and European
economies are still the biggest importers in the world. Over the last 500
years, the Western civilisation has contributed significantly towards many
scientific and technological inventions, business models, medical advances
et cetera. Hence, it is not surprising that knowledge on these fields can
be acquired more effectively through a good proficiency in the English
language.

Second, therefore, we agree with Zainul that it is necessary to address
the decline in English language proficiency amongst our students and
working adults in order to enhance our nations competitiveness and our
ascension into the knowledge economy. To address this, it is obvious that
we need a policy change which supports the promotion of English language
use in schools and workplaces. Emphasis should not rest only on the usage
of English but the quality of proficiency of the language as well. In this
regard, we should focus on the quality of our education delivery system
which includes the curriculum, trainers and facilities to ensure that an
optimal level of teaching is delivered to learners.

However, what we disagree with Zainul is on the need to conduct a periodic
evaluation on the implementation of the policy. Here is also where we felt
that Zainul and his Umno bosses did not demonstrate a clear and concise
understanding of the current debate (either unintentionally or
intentionally?). Koh, the Dong Jiao Zhong, Sedar Institute and many other
educationists and institutions do not dispute the importance of English or
multilingualism in the midst of globalisation. But these policymakers and
educationists want the current implementation methodology to be reviewed
in order to ensure that these objectives are achieved: 1) better fluency
of the English language, 2) higher achievements in both science and
mathematics by worlds standards, 3) a balanced and productive environment
for learners and, 4) a proper maintenance of mother-tongue education.

The concerns of these policymakers and educationists can be confirmed from
several highly established studies conducted worldwide on the use of a
second language to teach mathematics and science at the very early stages
of primary education. Studies conducted at George Mason University in
Virginia since 1985 have shown that children do better if they get a basic
education in their own language. It positively established a direct link
between academic results and the time spent learning in the mother tongue.

According to another education analyst, Brad Bell, more and more primary
schools are introducing English, a second language, as the language of
instruction from very early stages. The decision was taken with the
intention to boost the students fluency in English and to promote better
academic achievements especially in science and mathematics. He concluded
in his analysis that the use of a second language prematurely may stunt
the development of learners mother-tongues, impeding the development of
their cognitive/academic abilities, promoting negative attitudes towards
the first language and resulting in low achievement in conceptual subjects
such as science and mathematics.

Children who come to school with a solid foundation in their mother-tongue
develop stronger literacy abilities in school language. Children develop
concepts and thinking skills faster in their own mother-tongue because
majority of childrens early childhood is exposed primarily to their own
mother-tongue. This is also the case for Malaysia; with the exception of
urbanites with access to additional educational support services and
facilities for their children. However, transfer of concepts, language and
literacy skills can be two-way if the mother-tongue is promoted in school
along side the school language.  Moreover, encouraging education in the
mother-tongue, alongside bilingual or multilingual education, is one of
the principles set out by Unesco.

Hence, both the implementation mechanism and timing and the quality of
education delivery system are key determinants of the success of the
policy. Amateurish responses to the call to review and evaluate the policy
implementation are not doing us any good. Zainul is correct to say that
children have the sponge-like ability to absorb new information but they
do not have a sophisticated analytical mind yet to absorb only the
value-added ones and flush out the rubbish. The learners are only as good
as the trainers and the contents delivered to them. In 2003, then
Education Minister Musa Mohamed conceded that the complicated bilingual
formula that Chinese groups lobbied for to maintain the importance of
Mandarin was not working. Teaching the same subject in two languages is
difficult due to time constraints. Repeating the same topic in two
languages is boring and unproductive especially to the fast learners.

Finally, we agree with Zainul to not politicise this issue. Often the
quality of education suffers due to poor political decisions. We do not
want to reach a situation where there is a crucial need to rehabilitate
our local languages and the education system to avoid a total breakdown.
Perhaps Zainul should stick to research journalism and leave
sensationalism to his bosses in Umno.

The writer is the executive director of the Sedar Institute.
http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/43050

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------