Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Love lost

There's not much to say about Spitzer's budget that others (namely The Chalkboard) haven't already said, but my own little two cents are "you lost me at the v-word."

Sorry Mr. Spitzer, but vouchers (in the form of tuition tax credits) are a deal breaker for me. You are no longer my favorite new governor.

Tuition tax credits are particularly odious because they follow the Jeannie Allen-ish logic that people who send their kids to private school are paying "double" for their kids' education -- once for tuition and once when they pay their property taxes. The problem with this logic is that it suggests that rather than being a public good that benefits everyone in society equally, whether you send children there or not, public school is a service that you should only have to pay for if you use. I would almost prefer a straight-up voucher program than tuition tax credits.

Prediction: gleeful editorial from the NY Sun tomorrow.

UPDATE: Not quite the rapture I was anticipating, but here's the blurb on vouchers from the NY Sun editorial:
It's all frustrating to friends of real reform, the more so because there is so much admirable in the budget the governor is going to be trying now to get through the same Assembly he has just alienated. The most important, by our lights, is the point of principle he has crossed with his proposal for what can be called a voucher concept that would offer a $1,000 tax deduction to parents who pay tuition at "public and nonpublic schools." It's modest, but it's a start.

Let There Be Carnivals!

The 104th midway of The Carnival of Education (hosted this week by Carol over at The Median Sib) has opened its turnstiles with a variety of exhibits and sideshows from across the EduSphere.For extra credit, checkout what the homies are up to over at this week's edition of the Carnival of Homeschooling. --------------------------See our latest EduPosts.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Thank You 600,000 Times!

At 10:23 PM, an Unknown Visitor from Jenny D. became the 600,000th visitor to our site.We wish that we could thank each and every one who has taken a few moments out of their busy schedule in order to drop in and visit with us.Thanks! ------------------------------ See our latest EduPosts.

Education in Australia: Declining Quality?

The bloggers here aren't experts on the quality of Australian education. However based on requests by some readers, I've written a little on it here and here.

I'm personally no big fan of Australia in general, mainly due to the excessive commercialisation aspects of Australian tertiary education. In addition, based on anecdotal evidence of the many Australian graduates whom I have received job applications from, as well as interviewed, the general entry requirements into many well-known Australian universities are set too low.

As reported in the Sun today, a study by demographer Bob Birrell of Monash University, “more than one-third of foreign students graduating from Australian universities, mainly Asians, have such poor English skills they should never have been admitted”.
Overall, 34% of the graduating foreign students offered permanent redisence visas last year did not have competent English... [Bob Birell] said he believed the study to be representative of all foreign students, partly because Asia was amajor source of fee-paying overseas students for Australian universities. “It does raise questions about university standards.
Apparently, while these students have sufficient grasp of the English language “to cope with most situations” i.e., for day to day use. However, it is rightly argued that English competency for academic studies should be set at a higher standard.
... people who have reached this standard (to cope with most situations) are still not capable of conducting a sophisticated discourse at the professional level.
Birrell even claimed that there was a “mountain of anecdotal material” that many overseas students struggled to meet their couse requirements and that universities coped by lowering the English demands of courses.

If indeed true, it is nonetheless, not surprising. Tertiary institutions in Australia are heavily reliant on international students for the latter provides at least 15% of funding, which leads to suggestions that academic standards are sacrificed in favour of financial rewards.

Professor Gerard Sutton, the president of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, could only suggest that the result might be just due to a “deficiency in spoken language”, and not due to proficiency in reading, writing and listening. While possibly valid to a limited extent, I'm doubtful that the reason provided forms the substantive factor behind the large percentage of English sub-competence (is there such a word? ;)) highlighted by Birrell's study.

Does this mean that one should not attend Australian universities? No. But it does mean that students, particularly top students should be more discerning with regards to the universities which they choose to go in Australia, should it be the destination country. If in doubt, always pick the universities with the highest entry requirements.

Carnival Entries Are Due!

Entries for the 104th midway of The Carnival Of Education (hosted this week by us Carol over at The Median Sib.) are due today. Please email them to: carol [at] the mediansib [dot] com . (Or use this handy submission form.) Submissions should be received no later than 6:00 PM (Eastern), 3:00 PM (Pacific). Contributions should include your site's name, the title of the post, and the post's URL if

The Watcher's Council Has Spoken!

Each and every week, Watcher of Weasels sponsors a contest among posts from the Conservative side of the 'Sphere. The winning entries are determined by a jury of 12 writers (and The Watcher) known as "The Watchers Council."The Council has met and cast their ballots for last week's submitted posts. Council Member Entries: American Future took first place with On the Possibility of an Embargo of

Monday, January 29, 2007

Business and schools, part 72

More on this story to come. Basically, it's unclear at this point how the closing of a major Williamsburg fixture, a Pfizer plant, will affect the charter school that has been its major beneficiary.

Wonkitorial: Setting The Goal Post Back Yet Again

U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings has begun the push for the reauthorization of The No Child Left Behind Act: U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings kicked off a national dialogue today in Chicago with top business leaders, students, teachers, and school officials to promote Building on Results: A Blueprint for Strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act. The Secretary's visit to

Sunday, January 28, 2007

This is why HCZ rocks

I love this!
In a second-floor classroom, Charles and Camilla watched the Harlem Children’s Zone theater troupe run through a scene from “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” the play it performed at the National Black Theater last month. Fittingly, it was the play-within-a-play sequence, in which the six “rude mechanicals,” or laborers, perform “Pyramus and Thisbe” for Theseus and Hippolyta, the royal couple.

The actors, who mostly ranged in age from 12 to 14, performed in modern-day workmen’s uniforms, but held close to the original dialogue. The prince and duchess sat with their hands clasped in their laps, her legs primly pressed together, his stretching wide of his shoulders and pointing wider still, horseman that he is.

Whee

Anybody recognize this little ditty?
I am a wonder, I am a whee
I am known as Peabody
What am I like? Just look and see
Then you'll know me, Peabody
If so, please email and let me know what it's from. It has something to do with a puppet, a record, kindergarten, and the 80s, but Google is failing me on this one.

UPDATE: Google eventually did lead me here, where I found this very apt description of the puppet I'm remembering:
I think it was something to do with the Peabody Reading Scheme and another puppet called Peamoonie(?) He was the one that looked like Hitler in a baseball cap, had a magic wand and an awful song which, embarrassingly, I can still remember!

UPDATE II: Further obsessive Googling (have I mentioned that there is actual work that I should be doing?) revealed that his name was actually "P. Mooney," that he is part of a language program that is still in use, and that he looks something like the dude on the left below, although the puppet from my memory is a lot more like the puppet described above, with a much more bulbous head.

So many hours down the YouTube

Instead of boning up on revolutions or studying for my upcoming CST like I should be doing, I've been spending the morning watching YouTube clips of Misha. Justification: Clips like this one (subtitled "video of misha before he deported to the USA") could be useful when teaching about the Cold War:



At the very least, it could be useful in teaching the difference between the words "deported" and "defected."

Slaughter Of The Innocents

Students and staff of a Baghdad girls school have been caught up in the crossfire of the Iraqi Civil War: Mortar shells rained down Sunday on a girls' secondary school in a mostly Sunni area of western Baghdad, killing four pupils and wounding 21, witnesses and police said. At least seven other people died in a series of bombings and shootings across the capital.The mortar attack occurred about

Saturday, January 27, 2007

Medical College Cons?

This issue has been raised regularly over the past year or so. It has also been blogged fairly regularly here. Concern Malaysians as well as those involved in the medical profession have been asking, "are we sacrificing too much of quality to boost the quantity of doctors?"

Two private medical colleges in Malaysia are under investigation by the Health Ministry for violating regulations pertaining to training of students in the clinical phase of their studies.
The colleges are believed to be taking in too many students and not providing adequate training for them, which is vital before they can be full-fledged doctors. Health Minister Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek said that, after a six-month-probe, the ministry found the lecturer-student ratio to be 1:20 when ideally it should be one to between six and eight.

“While Universiti Malaya alone is churning out about 200 students each year, these private colleges, which have been operating less than 10 years and have produced 300 students,” he said.
What's more investigations have found that there are NO permanent lecturers at the colleges, just part-timers!

How did the Minister of Higher Education approve these colleges in the first place? Unlike the expansion of tertiary education in other aspects, reckless expansion of medical colleges will result in unqualified doctors, who will put the lives of all Malaysians at risk. And instead of acting with greater urgency, the Minister of Higher Education, Datuk Mustapa Mohamed could only say that "he had not received a report on the matter from the Health Ministry."

Then next question then is, who are these colleges and why are they banned with immediate effect? It has been more than a week since this was reported, what are our Ministries waiting for?

See further related post here:

Friday, January 26, 2007

More on Pre-U ASEAN Scholarship

Ah... the Scholarship post has obviously attracted a fair bit of attention, with many giving their diverse opinions on the matter. I can only say that while Charlotte's and the posts by the bloggers' here did give a positive slant (and it is largely positive) to the scholarship experience, there are of course niggling negatives which I dare say, all of us have experienced. However, both ends of the experience certainly gives me a better perspective to the world, hence I am who I am today. ;)

Anyway, here's another article hosted at TinKosong.com written by another Asean Scholar, currently pursuing his degree in Dartmouth College. Unlike many of the earlier batches of Asean Scholars who were sent to the "top" junior colleges like Raffles or Hwa Chong, Benjamin Lo did his at Andersen Junior College (AJC) under the pre-university scheme.

In contrast to Charlotte's post which was more experiential, Benjamin gave a thorough account on the specifics of Junior College life, the hostels as well as the system in general. He emphasised specifically on the fact that enrolment into different colleges may result in distinctly different experiences, and as such, scholars should pay attention to the JCs allocated before deciding on the acceptance of the scholarship.
Know your school well, and know your own goals before accepting the scholarship. Recognize that the school you are placed into is highly important; good schools will provide you with a wealth of opportunities and further scholarships to go to top schools abroad, while giving you the connections to make successful applications. Mediocre schools will turn you into what’s derided as a “mugger” – A student who merely can work and memorize, devoid of any spark of creativity because it was burned out by Singapore’s harsh fires.
The ASEAN scholarship scheme has obviously evolved since my days (I was a scholar back in 1985 as a secondary 1 student) where students were largely sent almost exclusively to the Raffles schools. However, I'm just glad that despite the years of difference, those who still managed to gain entry into Raffles like Charlotte still shared largely the same experience, which I hope many more will get to enjoy. ;)

It is officially ...

… way, WAY colder in NYC today than it is in Minneapolis.

Or, as Chris put it, “30 degrees? Warm! I’m going to go for a jog.”

Meanwhile, I am wearing so many layers I’d feel comfortable taking part in any game of strip poker, even with this guy.

UPDATE: The natural balance has been restored, and all is right with the world. Speaking of restoring the natural balance, there's a great article by Michael Pollan in the NYT Magazine.

What We Talk About When We Talk About School Privatization

A variation of the post appears at Schools Matter.

Before Bush II came to Washington with his Texas Mirage (TAAS) that would become the Nation’s Nightmare (NCLB), the Dems owned the education issue. In large part it was due to the work of another Texan, LBJ, whose policies eventually brought us face to face with the liberal (as in Enlightenment) delusion that for every social or economic problem, there is a schooling solution. That we continue to embrace the delusion is clearly evident in the continuing acceptance of a Bush education policy purportedly aimed at helping a minority population whose support for him has never climbed into double digits.

Notwithstanding a continuing widespread blindness among white voters to the real Bush agenda, it is with a heightened sense of incredulity that we are subjected to another round of threadbare platitudes about not leaving minority children behind, platitudes that are cynically used as they have been from the start to disguise the conservatives' real agenda of crushing public schools while continuing to subjugate the poor. In this new push for the conservatives' privatization scheme, the focus has subtly shifted from saving poor children by closing the achievement gap in the public schools to now saving poor children by giving them $4,000 to escape into either Christian fundamentalist madrasahs or the Big Lots version of secular private schools. Oh yes, one other Spellings option: Chain-gang charters (the Tucker Solution) that have been demonstrated by her own "scientifically-based" research to be no better, or even worse, than the public schools she would replace. No matter--the charter solution is at least cheaper to run with no messy collective bargaining units to deal with and no prying eyes from publicly-elected school boards.

From the Tribunein Chicago, where Spellings was yesterday trying to remedy that elusive 1% of non-perfection that continues to plague her almost pure plan:
"For the promise of No Child Left Behind to be real, we must provide more vigorous and robust tools to address the chronic underperformers," Spellings said. "We cannot have kids trapped in these schools year after year after year."
What do African-Americans think of Bush's new plan to free their children by giving them a handout big enough for them to choose their own correctional testing facilities?
Is this a window of opportunity to reclaim the education agenda for the purpose of advancing democracy? Here is must-read commentary from New America Media:

EDITOR'S NOTE: President George W. Bush is asking Congress to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act, but the act has failed to deliver on its promise, writes Donal Brown, a New America Media reporter who taught for 35 years in California's public schools.

President George W. Bush is asking Congress to re-enact the No Child Left Behind Act even though the act has failed to significantly boost the performance of under-achieving students.

Calling the NCLB a "good law" during the State of the Union address, the president ignored the criticisms of those in the educational trenches.

NCLB began auspiciously with the right emphasis on enabling urban students to improve their school performance. It provided a frame for establishing high standards for all students and making schools responsible for student progress.

But for all its good intentions, the law has created huge problems for educators, students and parents, and has failed to deliver in crucial areas.

At the onset, NCLB was never funded properly. There was no money provided to transfer students out of under-performing schools. In Chicago, 2,000 students needed to transfer, but had no place to go.

In a feeble attempt at a remedy, once again the Bush administration is playing the voucher card. In his speech, Bush said he wants to enable "children stuck in failing schools the right to choose some place better."

The Department of Education reauthorization plan allocates $4,000 scholarships for students to attend private, other public or out-of-district public schools. This does not address the problem that in many cities, there are simply no schools in which to use the scholarships. Private schools are exclusive and are not likely to accept large numbers of under-performing students from public schools. The tuition of the best private schools can range from four to seven times that of the scholarship money. And there is no sign that suburban schools with high performing students are lining up to accept these students, either.

So far, the transfer aspect of NCLB is a failure. In 2005, nationwide, only 1 percent of eligible students chose to transfer. Critics also question spending money on busing students when funds are needed to hire better teachers, improve instruction and provide books and computers.

Notwithstanding the need to establish stronger benchmarks for success, the testing regime established by NCLB has delivered no more than minimal results.

In his speech, Bush cited the progress minority children had made in closing the testing score gap between them and other students. Fact-checkers working after the speech and others say that Bush's claim that NCLB is closing the gap is exaggerated.

Results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 2005 indicated that the reading scores for fourth grade Asian, Hispanic and black students went up modestly. Native American scores went down. For the eighth grade, scores for all groups except Asians went down. The achievement gap between black and white students from 2002 to 2005 widened a bit.

Professor W. Norton Grubb of the University of California at Berkeley, who has extensive experience in urban schools, thinks it is too early to make any claims for NCLB. He says that any rise in scores can be characterized as one-time improvements from students getting used to testing and teachers teaching to the test.

For sure, teachers around the country are reeling under the weight of a testing regime. Some out of desperation are resorting to deadly drills that sap the spirit of students and deaden the joy of learning.

The Bush plan to reauthorize NCLB calls for more funding for tutoring that was not funded under the original act. The reauthorization funds tutoring for disabled and limited English proficiency students. Unfortunately, there are legions of other students who need tutoring.

Urban districts strapped for funds have found it impossible to provide qualified tutors. Grubb said districts that do provide tutoring often hire untrained college students unfamiliar with students' needs or how to help them. He said that a program called Reading Recovery was effective using one-to-one or small group tutoring by highly trained tutors.

The list goes on. The reauthorization plan is woefully inadequate in addressing the need for more and better-trained teachers. The plan wants to improve teaching by rewarding effective teachers, but only offers "resources" to interested states and districts rather than funding.

That will do little to provide excellent teachers for the most difficult students to teach. Harnessed with poor teaching conditions, unruly students and inadequate training, teachers do not last. There should be more federal money going directly for salaries and training for those teachers willing to take jobs in schools with vast numbers of under-performing students.

It is unlikely that the Bush administration will make significant outlays for education. The war in Iraq and tax cuts for the rich have depleted the treasury, and now that the Democrats rule Congress, Bush has forsaken the route of deficit spending and is trumpeting the virtues of a balanced budget.

Yet there is no more important challenge facing the nation than turning out, in Bush's words, "a public with knowledge and character." It will take more than a warmed-over NCLB to meet that challenge.

What We Talk About When We Talk About School Privatization

A variation of the post appears at Schools Matter.

Before Bush II came to Washington with his Texas Mirage (TAAS) that would become the Nation’s Nightmare (NCLB), the Dems owned the education issue. In large part it was due to the work of another Texan, LBJ, whose policies eventually brought us face to face with the liberal (as in Enlightenment) delusion that for every social or economic problem, there is a schooling solution. That we continue to embrace the delusion is clearly evident in the continuing acceptance of a Bush education policy purportedly aimed at helping a minority population whose support for him has never climbed into double digits.

Notwithstanding a continuing widespread blindness among white voters to the real Bush agenda, it is with a heightened sense of incredulity that we are subjected to another round of threadbare platitudes about not leaving minority children behind, platitudes that are cynically used as they have been from the start to disguise the conservatives' real agenda of crushing public schools while continuing to subjugate the poor. In this new push for the conservatives' privatization scheme, the focus has subtly shifted from saving poor children by closing the achievement gap in the public schools to now saving poor children by giving them $4,000 to escape into either Christian fundamentalist madrasahs or the Big Lots version of secular private schools. Oh yes, one other Spellings option: Chain-gang charters (the Tucker Solution) that have been demonstrated by her own "scientifically-based" research to be no better, or even worse, than the public schools she would replace. No matter--the charter solution is at least cheaper to run with no messy collective bargaining units to deal with and no prying eyes from publicly-elected school boards.

From the Tribunein Chicago, where Spellings was yesterday trying to remedy that elusive 1% of non-perfection that continues to plague her almost pure plan:
"For the promise of No Child Left Behind to be real, we must provide more vigorous and robust tools to address the chronic underperformers," Spellings said. "We cannot have kids trapped in these schools year after year after year."
What do African-Americans think of Bush's new plan to free their children by giving them a handout big enough for them to choose their own correctional testing facilities?
Is this a window of opportunity to reclaim the education agenda for the purpose of advancing democracy? Here is must-read commentary from New America Media:

EDITOR'S NOTE: President George W. Bush is asking Congress to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act, but the act has failed to deliver on its promise, writes Donal Brown, a New America Media reporter who taught for 35 years in California's public schools.

President George W. Bush is asking Congress to re-enact the No Child Left Behind Act even though the act has failed to significantly boost the performance of under-achieving students.

Calling the NCLB a "good law" during the State of the Union address, the president ignored the criticisms of those in the educational trenches.

NCLB began auspiciously with the right emphasis on enabling urban students to improve their school performance. It provided a frame for establishing high standards for all students and making schools responsible for student progress.

But for all its good intentions, the law has created huge problems for educators, students and parents, and has failed to deliver in crucial areas.

At the onset, NCLB was never funded properly. There was no money provided to transfer students out of under-performing schools. In Chicago, 2,000 students needed to transfer, but had no place to go.

In a feeble attempt at a remedy, once again the Bush administration is playing the voucher card. In his speech, Bush said he wants to enable "children stuck in failing schools the right to choose some place better."

The Department of Education reauthorization plan allocates $4,000 scholarships for students to attend private, other public or out-of-district public schools. This does not address the problem that in many cities, there are simply no schools in which to use the scholarships. Private schools are exclusive and are not likely to accept large numbers of under-performing students from public schools. The tuition of the best private schools can range from four to seven times that of the scholarship money. And there is no sign that suburban schools with high performing students are lining up to accept these students, either.

So far, the transfer aspect of NCLB is a failure. In 2005, nationwide, only 1 percent of eligible students chose to transfer. Critics also question spending money on busing students when funds are needed to hire better teachers, improve instruction and provide books and computers.

Notwithstanding the need to establish stronger benchmarks for success, the testing regime established by NCLB has delivered no more than minimal results.

In his speech, Bush cited the progress minority children had made in closing the testing score gap between them and other students. Fact-checkers working after the speech and others say that Bush's claim that NCLB is closing the gap is exaggerated.

Results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 2005 indicated that the reading scores for fourth grade Asian, Hispanic and black students went up modestly. Native American scores went down. For the eighth grade, scores for all groups except Asians went down. The achievement gap between black and white students from 2002 to 2005 widened a bit.

Professor W. Norton Grubb of the University of California at Berkeley, who has extensive experience in urban schools, thinks it is too early to make any claims for NCLB. He says that any rise in scores can be characterized as one-time improvements from students getting used to testing and teachers teaching to the test.

For sure, teachers around the country are reeling under the weight of a testing regime. Some out of desperation are resorting to deadly drills that sap the spirit of students and deaden the joy of learning.

The Bush plan to reauthorize NCLB calls for more funding for tutoring that was not funded under the original act. The reauthorization funds tutoring for disabled and limited English proficiency students. Unfortunately, there are legions of other students who need tutoring.

Urban districts strapped for funds have found it impossible to provide qualified tutors. Grubb said districts that do provide tutoring often hire untrained college students unfamiliar with students' needs or how to help them. He said that a program called Reading Recovery was effective using one-to-one or small group tutoring by highly trained tutors.

The list goes on. The reauthorization plan is woefully inadequate in addressing the need for more and better-trained teachers. The plan wants to improve teaching by rewarding effective teachers, but only offers "resources" to interested states and districts rather than funding.

That will do little to provide excellent teachers for the most difficult students to teach. Harnessed with poor teaching conditions, unruly students and inadequate training, teachers do not last. There should be more federal money going directly for salaries and training for those teachers willing to take jobs in schools with vast numbers of under-performing students.

It is unlikely that the Bush administration will make significant outlays for education. The war in Iraq and tax cuts for the rich have depleted the treasury, and now that the Democrats rule Congress, Bush has forsaken the route of deficit spending and is trumpeting the virtues of a balanced budget.

Yet there is no more important challenge facing the nation than turning out, in Bush's words, "a public with knowledge and character." It will take more than a warmed-over NCLB to meet that challenge.

An intellectual giant passes away

We lost Prof Syed Hussein Alatas this week (January 23rd, 2007), an intellectual giant in Malaysia's educational landscape. He is arguably, one of Malaysia's greatest scholar in the social science tradition. His book, the Myth of the Lazy Native, is internationally renowned and is well known among scholars, including the likes of Edward Said. He is one of the few Malaysian social scientists who has a decent publication trail on google. There are not many in the Malaysian academia who have followed his footsteps of academic excellence. For a more eloquent essay on the life and achievements of Prof Syed Hussein Alatas, please read an essay by Prof Abdul Rahman Embong in Malaysiakini. My condolences to his family.

Bloggers under fire!

I'm sure most of us in the blog world in Malaysia have heard of the lawsuits filed by NST and some of their senior management against Jeff Ooi and Rocky. Tony has blogged about it here in his personal blog and I've been following this issue closely. Given that this is not specifically an 'educational' issue, I think we've both refrained from discussing it in this blog. But I think it's high time that I flesh out some of the pertinent issues in regards to these lawsuits.

First of all, let me say right off the bat that I am categorically against the actions taken by NST and its senior management against Jeff and Rocky. It's a classic case of David(s) versus Goliath, the resources of the NSTP group against two individual bloggers. Why didn't NST also sue BBC over the story that a column which was written by Brendan Pereira was actually plagiarized from a Mitch Albom column? (which from my understanding, forms part of the case against Jeff) It's clearly a case of not only wanting to muzzle these two bloggers but also to send a strong signal to the larger blog community to 'take note' of what they write.

What impact will these cases have on the blogosphere in Malaysia? I thought about the possibility of some of our private colleges or public universities suing myself and Tony for some of our posts, which in some people's opinion, might be considered 'defamatory'. Might a blogger also be sued for posting a negative review of a restaurant, or for saying that he or she is frustrated by the actions (or inactions) of a politician over a certain matter, or for pointing out the deficiencies of a certain product?

Perhaps what is more ironic about this situation is that it's usually individuals who sue newspapers and journalists for making defamatory remarks about these individuals in the journalists' newspapers, not the other way round! For a short and insightful opinion on this, please read Azmi Sharom's letter in Malaysiakini.

I wish Jeff and Rocky all the best as do most of our readers, I'm sure.

But if there's any good that comes out of these cases, it is that:

1) Civil society and members of the public have and will continue to 'mobilize' in response to this issue. There's nothing like an interesting story of the small guy taking on the giant corporation to incense some members of the public and to capture the attention of the public at large.

2) That future lawsuits against bloggers will not be as likely given the negative 'press' that has been given to the NST following the lawsuits. If there is growing momentum to 'boycott' the NST as a sign of protest, the already flagging sales of that newspaper might be further affected (as well as the group's bottom line, of course).

(This is quite sad since I know that there are good journalists at the NST who just want to get on with their jobs and write good and insightful stories / columns / pieces)

Hopefully, Tony and I won't be sued anytime in the near future. But if we do, hopefully some of our readers will come to our aid! :)

The School Of Silence

A Warwick, Rhode Island Catholic school has adopted a new policy requiring students to be silent while they eat their lunch: A Roman Catholic elementary school adopted new lunchroom rules this week requiring students to remain silent while eating. The move comes after three recent choking incidents in the cafeteria.No one was hurt, but the principal of St. Rose of Lima School explained in a

NOLA Needs Teachers: (And It's No Wonder Why!)

One would have to be a Saint in order to go and serve in the public schools of hurricane-crime-corrupt-and-poverty-ridden New Orleans: Wanted: Idealistic teachers looking for a Peace Corps-style adventure in a city in distress.Some of New Orleans' most desperate, run-down schools are beset with a severe shortage of teachers, and they are struggling mightily to attract candidates by appealing to

Thursday, January 25, 2007

A lot more gore, a lot less verbinski

A science teacher in Washington has been disciplined for planning to show "An Inconvenient Truth" to her seventh grade class without following the appropriate protocol for "'controversial'" material, according to an article that Chris sent me today.

Teachers, let me take this opportunity that you can get a free copy of "An Inconvenient Truth" by clicking here.

(By the way, if you don't recognize the subject of this post, you should definitely click here.)

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

stuff.

I’m always interested in the search terms people use to find this site. (The most common being “Amadou Ly,” the undocumented kid Chris wrote about here; the phrase “college isn’t for everyone;” and the phrase “Dawn breaks over Marblehead.”)

The cutest one so far, though, has to be “stuff i should know for the english regents,” searched today at 11:08 a.m. Given that the second session of the English Regents exam is being given TODAY starting at 1:15, I have to say I admire the degree of this kid’s blasé-ness.

Can you imagine if they'd done that to Rod Paige?

I was too busy getting the solfege mixed up during my first choral rehearsal last night to watch the SOTU address, but my buddy Erin makes a crucial disambiguation about the coverage of the address over at the Quick and the Ed.

Malaysia Room at the LSE

Just a short one. Pak Lah is in London now and presented a check worth 50,000 pounds (350,000RM) to the LSE, one of my alma maters, for the creation of a Malaysian room. Read about it here and here.

The LSE has been associated with many distinguished Malaysians including the likes of the late Dr. Nordin Sopiee, the late Dr. Ishaak Shaari, Azman Yahya, Munir Majid and Yong Teck Lee. You can see a list of active alumni here. Not in the list of active alumni, two politicians who graduated from the LSE - Minister of Education, Hishamuddin Tun Hussein and Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Mah Siew Keong.

P.S. I think I didn't pay my annual dues so I'm not on the list.

ASEAN Scholarship - A Life's Experience

Readers out there are probably aware that both Kian Ming and myself, who are both loyal and dedicated Malaysians, were both products of the Singapore, or more specifically, the Rafflesian secondary school system, courtesy of the Asean Scholarship. I've written about it a year ago here, whilst Kian Ming wrote on the pros of the Singapore education system here.

But I thought, instead of just listening to both of us, have a read at Charlotte's experience, which she has published on her blog. Charlotte's a final year engineering student at Imperial College under a Scholarship from a Malaysian corporation. I can only say that her words were true to me, and if there were that many scholars who actually shared the same experience despite a total gap between Charlotte, Kian Ming and myself of more than a dozen years - then surely, the Asean Scholars' experience is a fairly consistent one.

Her post certainly struck a chord when she talked about her teachers, the rich extra-curricular activities, the "competition" and even the facilities. She posed the hypothetical question if she would do it all over again, and the answer as affirmative. Mine will certainly be the same.

But the most thankful thing (in my opinion anyway) I found in her post? It was in her last paragraph:
Deep down, I'm patriotically Malaysian by nature and I still snigger at Singaporean news from time to time, however I can't deny that Singapore gave me a chance to see things from a different perspective, while Malaysia is continuously trying to pull wool over my eyes. Would I do it all over again? Any day, baby, any day.
Yes, Singapore gave me a different perspective and certainly opened up the world to me in a way which I'm not sure if the Malaysian secondary education system could. However, it's that experience which I've gathered and earned which I wish to share and contribute to further the development and betterment of all Malaysians.

The Carnival Of Education: Week 103

Welcome to the 103rd edition of The Carnival Of Education! We are delighted that the Midway has returned home after a sustained road trip.This week's collection of exhibits from around the EduSphere represents a very wide variety of political and educational viewpoints. Unless clearly labeled otherwise, all entries were submitted by the writers themselves.If you have a website and are interested

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Don't want to teach in English!

Right on the heels of yesterday's Star report about an English proficiency test for teachers in Science and Math, there was a follow up report in today's Star with the headline "Many still refusing to teach in English".

Said a teacher/trainer, who declined to be named: “There are three main reasons why teachers are still not teaching Maths and Science in English: lack of confidence, the hope that the policy will revert to Bahasa Malaysia and the fact that the exams are in both languages.”

I was only aware that the Math and Science exams were still in both languages for the new batch of students who were taught both of these subjects in English when one of our readers pointed this out in the comments section. While there may have been some validity in having this policy during the transition period, if the MOE is committed to this policy, then dual language exam papers should certainly be phased out and soon. If not, the very thing which the anonymous teacher / trainer pointed out will occur - that many teachers will refuse to teach Science and Math in English thinking that the policy will be reversed in the near future.

While I think the move to teach Science and Math in English was badly implemented, to do a U-turn now and revert back to the old policy would be an even worse policy option. Certainly, I think the cabinet and MOE deserves at least some faint praise for sticking to their guns on this policy despite pressure at the UMNO General Assembly last November to abandon this policy.

Hopefully, having more press coverage on this issue will ensure that the MOE keeps taking proactive steps to rectify the situation.

Ironically but perhaps not surprisingly, also in today's Star, a report which showed that almost a third of students graduating from public universities have limited proficiency in English. How many of these graduates are channeled into our primary and secondary schools as well as into the public service? One can only wonder...

Education In Afghanistan: Running In Reverse

The Taliban is announcing that it will open its own peculiar type of "school" throughout Afghanistan: KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- The Taliban said it will open its own schools in areas of southern Afghanistan under its control, an apparent effort to win support among local residents and undermine the Western-backed government's efforts to expand education.The announcement follows a violent campaign

Carnival Entries Are Due!

Entries for the 103rd midway of The Carnival Of Education (hosted this week by us here at The Education Wonks.) are due today. Please email them to: owlshome [at] earthlink [dot] net . (Or use this handy submission form.) Submissions should be received no later than 9:00 PM (Eastern), 6:00 PM (Pacific). Contributions should include your site's name, the title of the post, and the post's URL if

The Watcher's Council Has Spoken!

Each and every week, Watcher of Weasels sponsors a contest among posts from the Conservative side of the 'Sphere. The winning entries are determined by a jury of 12 writers (and The Watcher) known as "The Watchers Council."The Council has met and cast their ballots for last week's submitted posts. Council Member Entries: Rhymes With Right took first place with MLK Day -- A Singular

Monday, January 22, 2007

Can speak English or not?

According to a recent Star report, teachers who don't pass an English proficiency test might have to go back to school to brush up their English. My question is - what were they doing teaching Science and Math in English in the first place?

I would have thought that English proficiency would be one of the subjects in which ALL teachers are tested for in teacher training school, not just those who are supposed to be teaching Science and Math in English. For these teachers, shouldn't the bar have been set much higher? Shouldn't they have been better trained to begin with?

It probably has to do with the hurried nature in which this policy was implemented. The then political masters (under Dr. M) wanted to push through this policy in a hurry without first putting in the measures (such as adequate teacher training) to ensure that there was sufficient qualified personnel to teach both of these classes in English. Now, 4 years into this new policy, it's time to play catch up after complaints from all sides:

The teaching of the two subjects in English was introduced in Year One, Form One and Lower Six in 2003. Since then, many parents have voiced concerns over the quality of teaching, including in the media. Their children, they said, were unable to follow the lessons properly as the teachers were less than proficient in English.

I guess this is better than doing nothing about the whole situation and letting those kids who have poor teachers suffer. But again, this shows the seriousness of trying to implement a policy without putting in place the necessary infrastructure to support these policies.

I wonder if the Ministry will place public the % of teachers who have to go through an English 'refresher' course after failing this exam?

Sunday, January 21, 2007

Tell me all your secrets

I'm giving my students a questionnaire tomorrow. Never used this before, so let me know what you think ...

To help me get to know you better, and ultimately to teach you better, please answer these questions as best you can. If there is a question you do not feel comfortable answering, feel free to leave it blank.

1) What is your favorite subject in school?

2) What is your best subject?

3) Have you ever traveled outside of the state or country? If so, where?

4) Do you speak another language? If so, which one? How well do you speak it?

5) Do you work after school or during the summer? If so, where?

6) What’s something you can do better than most people can? (i.e., playing guitar, soccer, listening to friends)

7) If you had a choice, would you rather:

  • Take a test
  • Write an essay
  • Create a skit
  • Give an oral presentation
  • Make some sort of visual (poster, brochure, etc.)

8) I learn the most when

  • The teacher talks and I take notes
  • I read and take notes
  • I discuss information with other people
  • I have to do something with the information

9) Which question do you find most interesting:

  • Does money make the world go round?
  • Why are there “winners” and “losers” in history?
  • What is “civilization?”

10) Have you ever been doing something and had the feeling that you were so energized and focused, you lost track of time? If so, what were you doing?

11) Rank the following from 1-5 (1 being most interesting to you, 5 being the least)

  • Women’s history
  • Sports history
  • History of music
  • Art history
  • History of social classes

12) Anything else I should know about you?

Saturday, January 20, 2007

You say you want a ...

Also: I have about a week and a half to learn all there is to know about revolutions before I start teaching them. I checked out Hobsbawm's Age of Revolution this morning from the library, but I'm a little intimidated by him. Anyone have any other suggested reading material?

My thanks, with liberty, equality, and that other thing, to you all.

Rock and roll high school

Just finished the first week of my high school student teaching placement, and after 11 hours of sleep, I'm finally well-rested enough to post about it.

My cooperating teacher teaches three sections of mixed ninth and tenth grade Global Studies. I've never heard of doing it that way before, and it's too early for me to have any opinion on it, but it's certainly interesting: This year's ninth and tenth graders will take Global 3 and 4, and next year when they're sophomores the ninth graders will take Global 1 and 2 with the younger kids.

After Regents are over, I'll be taking over one section, team-teaching the second, and helping out with the third. This is a portfolio school, so the kids just have to take the English Regents and have vacation the rest of the time while the teachers have meetings, PD and parent-teacher conferences.

It's pretty good timing for a vacation -- apparently there has been a rash of fights recently between kids from one part of town and kids from another. Obviously that's not good news, but the way the school handled it is: they completely rescheduled classes on Friday, making room for a 45-minute advisory period at the beginning of the day during which each class talked about how they can contribute to a better school environment. It sounds hokey, but at least the way my cooperating teacher did it, it had a really positive, democratic vibe.

I think I'm going to learn a lot this semester, both from having my own class and from observing my cooperating teacher, a transplant from L.A. who has a great rapport with students.

Calling all benefactors

I picked this up in a recent issue of my campus' newspaper, The Chronicle. It reported that the estate of the late Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat (of Standard&Chartered fame) donated $80 million to the Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School that will be matched by the Singapore government. Which reminded me of the fact that such benefactors are totally absent in Malaysia, at least to my knowledge.

It is a common practice for wealthy individuals here in the US to fund endowed 'chairs' or to donate generously to the building of a new facility, often to have their name attached to that facility. In the Malaysian context, almost all of these endowed 'chairs' have been funded by the government or government linked companies such as the Tun Razak Chair in Ohio University or the recently announced Ungku Aziz chair.

Why haven't any of the wealthy individuals in Malaysian, many of whom obtained the bulk of their wealth through government contracts or licenses, come forward to fund endowed chairs or other worthy causes in our public or private universities? Why haven't the like of Vincent Tan, Ananda Krishnan, Halim Saad, Tajuddin Ramli, Lim Goh Tong, Francis Yeoh and others stepped forward?

Perhaps some of them have donated to education causes, some of which have been publicized, others which have not. I remember Ananda Krishnan making a RM20 million donation to UTAR a few years back. The late Yap Chor Ee (founder of Ban Hin Lee Bank) has donated a building as well as cash to GERAKAN's Wawasan Education Fund for the establishment of the Wawasan Open University. If anyone remembers if any other tycoons have made significant contributions towards educational causes, please let us know.

I can think of some reasons why this has not happened. Firstly, as a developing country, many wealthy benefactors have not inculcated the habit of making financial contributions especially at the higher education level.

Secondly, many of them do not see value in making contributions to public universities because they were not, by and large, alumnis of public universities. (There are exceptions, I remember my uncle telling my that Tajudin Ramli graduated from UM) One of Duke's major benefactors is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation because Melinda Gates was a graduate of Duke. Many wealthy benefactors to US universities are also graduates of those universities.

Thirdly, many of these wealthy benefactors probably don't want to be associated with any of the public universities because of their relatively low international prestige. Remember that naming privileges or endowment privileges are in part 'branding' exercises. Many people want to see their names attached to a Harvard or Yale 'chair'. I'm guessing that less people want to see their names attached to a UM or USM 'chair' or a business school because of the potential of seeing that 'name' devalued.

Fourthly, there is almost no 'marketing' efforts done on the part of university administrators to reach out to these potential benefactors to ask them to contribute to these universities. There are no incentives for VCs or other university administrators to do so. Funding of professors and other faculty comes directly from the government. There is little competition in terms of the salary of a professor because it is standardized across all the public universities (more or less).

So while many of these wealthy tycoons should be gently 'reminded' of their 'duty' to contribute back to the country, including the area of higher education, the current infrasructure and organization of our public universities also have to take some blame.

Who will be the first Malaysian 'Khoo Teck Puat' to step up? Incidentally, he was a Malaysian before he became a Singaporean.

National Education Blueprint is out

Finally, the National Education Blueprint 2006 to 2010 out online on the MOE website. You can download it in two parts here. It's only in Malay and it takes a long time to download because of the size of the files (5.5MB each, approximately). For some reactions, read here and here. I'm sure there will be a full report in this weekend's Star education section. In the meantime, Tony and I will go through the report and share our own reactions in the coming weeks.

National Education Blueprint - Initial Impressions

Connection to Blogger has been pathetic recently, making regular posts a pain for both of us at the moment. At the same time, we can't migrate to the “new” Blogger yet due to the size of the blog, to enjoy purportedly better functions and features. So bear with us this two weeks. ;)

The new National Education Blueprint is finally released to the public after a few days' delay with much fanfare. Expectedly, the local media hyped up the event as well as its contents over the past couple of days. You can also download the Bahasa Malaysia version of the blueprint on the Ministry of Education website here. However, the promised “blog” to encourage feedback from concerned readers is still non-existent.

Due to a busy week, I've only managed a cursory glance of the Blueprint and isn't yet ready to make substantive comments on it. However, there has been some significant comments made by others in the press already.

The key surprise, of which significance is yet to be determined, is the finding by Parliamentary Opposition Leader, Sdr Lim Kit Siang was the ditching of the term “Bangsa Malaysia” as enshrined in our Vision 2020, to some vague and convoluted concept term “Negara Bangsa”. This concept of building “Negara Bangsa” is identified as the First Strategic Thrust of the National Education Blueprint. Hence the obvious question for our Government is, have we decided to do away with the all important and unifying concept of “Bangsa Malaysia”?

The other Strategic Thrusts identified by the Ministry of Education are:

  • Developing Human Capital
  • Strengthening the National Schools
  • Narrowing Rural-Urban Education Gaps
  • Strengthening the Teaching Profession
  • Raising the Standards of Excellence in Schools
Hence, on first take, it appears to me that while the Thrusts identified are definitely agreeable, there has been a severe lack of identification and discussion on the current problems and issues facing our national education system today.

The Thrusts identified above aren't revolutionary “new concepts”. These are concepts which have been in place for the longest time in our education policies. They have merely been refreshed and jazzed up to be more contemporary and professional looking in nature. Hence, it is obvious that repacking as well as a better presentation of the Ministry's objectives and thrusts alone, aren't going to significantly resuscitate our flagging education system.

Without specific policies in place to eradicate the problems and weaknesses in our current education system, the implementation of “new” policies and concepts will not be effective. As discussed often in this blog, there has been a worry trend towards turning national schools into religious institutions by many education officials and school administrators. There is also the concern of opaque quota and racially discriminatory policies which disadvantages minority races. What about the issue of overcrowded vernacular schools? Parents and concerned citizens alike are worried about the substantial deterioration of standards of our examinations, which runs in clear conflict with the objective of raising the standards of excellence in schools.

Without reading the Blueprint in detail, I've failed to find policies in the Blueprint which specifically resolves the above issues which will only serve to negate whatever positive contributions by the new blueprint. I'm clearly not alone in holding these views. Datuk Denison Jayasooria of Yayasan Strategik Sosial has commented that while the policies might have been fine-tuned, it's the same officials who have failed us in the past, who will be carrying out the new policies, hence placing major doubts on the success of the new blueprint.

[He] hoped there would be new faces to implement the targets set from the ground level, otherwise there would be a bottleneck of archaic-thinking people” who are not able to change how things are executed.
The Secretary-General of the National Union of Teaching Profession (NUTP) shared the same views.
"The blueprint will only be successful if there is unity. It will remain a blueprint if the Education Ministry is not willing to accept feedback and criticism."
And given that the Ministry have failed to address some of the key problems and issues with our national education system with any conviction or resolve in the Blueprint, it is unsurprising that I have grave reservations with regards to its likely success.

Footnote: The Blueprint however, contains a whole load of facts and figures pretty much unavailable previously, which is probably a statistical nirvana for number junkies like myself ;).

Friday, January 19, 2007

Cicero in the 21st Century

In lieu of a profound post this morning, a bit of a lyric by Steve Savitzky:
Times were bad two thousand years ago
Said Cicero, just take a look:
Children don't obey their parents
And everyone is writing a book....

Yes, these are terrible times that we live in
Society is going to the dogs
Children don't obey their parents
And everyone is writing blogs.

Steve's voice is just fine, but something about the chorus makes me think that Bob Dylan's voice fits the last three lines.

Cicero in the 21st Century

In lieu of a profound post this morning, a bit of a lyric by Steve Savitzky:
Times were bad two thousand years ago
Said Cicero, just take a look:
Children don't obey their parents
And everyone is writing a book....

Yes, these are terrible times that we live in
Society is going to the dogs
Children don't obey their parents
And everyone is writing blogs.

Steve's voice is just fine, but something about the chorus makes me think that Bob Dylan's voice fits the last three lines.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Quandary

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the scandal-embroiled brother of a highly unpopular and conservative major political figure made a surprise visit to the school for which it is your job to do the publicity.

Do you publicize this event?

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

QB3 Malaysia Programme

Top Malaysian bioscience graduate students and postdoctoral scientists will have a chance to study in the San Francisco Bay Area as part of a new program aimed at boosting Asia's ability to find treatments for some of the world's most devastating diseases.

The $6.7 million program is funded by the non-profit Malaysia Biotechnology Corporation, which reports to the Malaysian government. Over the next five years, it will allow up to 30 Malaysian graduate students and postdocs to gain valuable technical skills in the laboratories of the California Institute for Quantitative Biomedical Research, or QB3, a cooperative effort that integrates the scientific expertise of UCSF, UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz with private industry to benefit human health.

Taking these skills back home, the participants can strengthen the technical ability of Malaysian biomedical research. The hope is that the increasingly sophisticated Malaysian workforce and the economies of the region will allow the country to take on development of drugs for tropical diseases that have been neglected by the Western pharmaceutical industry.

"Malaysia is a developing country that wishes to develop a biotechnology industry," said Reg Kelly, PhD, director of QB3. "Their vision is to build that industry around diseases that are not being addressed by Western biotechnology and pharmaceutical firms. QB3 wants to help them."

Kelly serves as principal investigator on the new project. Neglected diseases include malaria, African sleeping sickness, schistosomiasis, Chagas' disease and tuberculosis. These diseases disable or kill hundreds of millions of people in the developing world every year. In addition, the program aims to prepare young scientists to help Malaysia develop new diagnostics or treatments for important emerging viruses like Dengue, or the new and lethal Nipah and EV71 viruses.

The new program also supports visits by senior Malaysian scientists for three to 12 months to gain sophisticated laboratory training; brief, intensive training courses in biotechnology for Malaysian administrators; and an option for students and more senior Malaysian scientists to participate in UCSF's Center for Bioentrepreneurship to learn the skills needed to help move laboratory discoveries into commercialization.

Hence the programme is now seeking outstanding Malaysian scientists who wish advanced training in the strategies needed to develop novel drugs and diagnostics for neglected and emerging diseases. After training in California the successful candidates are expected to return to Malaysia to become faculty at the new National Institute for Pharmaceuticals and Nutraceuticals.

The program is designed for three categories of Malaysian candidates:
  1. Students who have completed graduate training (PhD or MD) and wish further post-doctoral experience.

  2. Students who have started their thesis work in Malaysia, or elsewhere and have institutional approval to complete their thesis work in QB3 as part of this program.

  3. Students who are currently completing their undergraduate or Master's degree and wish to do their research at QB3 as part of this program. Such students will enroll and obtain their PhD degrees from Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Applicants can download the application forms from www.qb3.org. The application should include a cover letter, curriculum vitae, contact details for three letters of reference and
a 1-2 page statement of research interests and future career goals.

Completed application materials should be submitted electronically as a single document in PDF format by February 15, 2007. Decisions on acceptance will be made by March 31, 2007. All applicants should indicate which of the qb3 faculty listed on the website would be acceptable to them as mentors and why. Submit applications electronically to: qb3-Malaysia Program Assistant - malaysia@ucsf.edu.

For more information on the programme, check out the QB3 Website. Thanks to LPF for the heads up. ;)

Taking note

The Winter 06-07 edition of the Philadelphia Public School Notebook is a really wonderful examination of the issue of parent involvement. The Notebook examines parent involvement from all angles, from charter schools to Bill Cosby.

The best part of this Notebook is an article written by two members of the Philadelphia Student Union -- an awesome organization that was a vocal opponent of the 2002 school privatization. The students surveyed and interviewed parents, analyzed their data, and presented recommendations.

Also check out this blurb on Scrabble – one of the School of Bloggers’ favorite pastimes. (Have I mentioned that I have a sister who is a nationally ranked Scrabble player?)

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

“Doing better”in grammar school or middle school?

For the better part of a decade, urban districts (Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York – and my own Lancaster, Pa.) have been pondering, planning and, in some cases, implementing a shift back to the grammar school (K-8) model and away from the middle school that has become the educational home of choice for 6th, 7th and 8th graders since the early 80s. Into this policy playground comes a new study by respected Johns Hopkins middle school researchers Douglas and Martha MacIver that claims “No benefit to eliminating middle school,” according to the headline in my morning paper.

I haven’t yet gotten my hands on the MacIver study; my comment here should not be read as a critique of their research. The study seems to be well-conceived to determine whether students experience learning growth – as measured by test scores -- over the three years of a middle school stay. The data support the view that children in middle schools score as well as students in K-8 schools, at least when other variables like teaching quality, curriculum, etc. remain constant.

I don’t doubt the MacIvers research findings but I do question what it means to “do better.” And I do want to question the assumption that we should put students of a certain age either into a middle school or a grammar school. Why not both/and? Before explaining what I mean, a bit of school history:

The middle school was, as those over 40 know, the successor to the junior high school. In 1989, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching published Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century, a report that took the developmental profile of young adolescents seriously and designed a school around them. The middle school, already in place in some districts (more because of demographic demand than developmental focus), found its philosophical underpinnings: to strengthen academic demands and to create a caring environmental in which those academic demands could be prosecuted.

And the middle school made sense, at least more sense than its predecessor, the junior high school. In the junior high school, a universe of growing hormone levels, independence needs, and shaky identities came together in a blend that was toxic for many. Shifting the age range and locating learners in teams where a finite number of teachers and students could establish on-going relationships made lots of sense. It still does.

But we forgot something. In the grammar school, big kids could be big kids to little kids. They were in a position to be someone’s role model and to live up to that task. They could reach down and help a smaller child tie a shoe or hang a sign or find the right room. And this aspect of doing better is not as easily addressed in a middle school. Sources as various as philosopher Nel Noddings and recent research on recidivist adolescent offenders tells us that one learns to care by take the role of the carer as well as by being cared for. Middle school children need to experience caring for another regularly, even systematically. I am not talking about the emotions that go with the act of caring for; I mean the habitual mode of attending to and providing for the needs of another. Now, one can care for one’s books and one’s pets and one’s other possessions, of course. But not even pets will respond as the “cared for” (to use Noddings’ phrasing) in the same way that a younger child will. Adolescents need younger children in their lives to play the role of the “cared for” to their “carer.” The grammar school can provide that. Whether or not test scores go up, a grammar school arrangement offers opportunities that middle school structures cannot.

But what of the problems? Don’t young adolescents need something more challenging and more independent than the self-contained classroom? Might big kids not bully little kids? Might little kids not annoy big kids to distraction? Sure. And that’s why we should be thinking both/and, not either/or, when it comes to middle school and grammar school. Why can’t 6th, 7th and 8th graders live in their own section or wing of a grammar school, remaining segregated for many functions but emerging to act as reading buddies, tutors, mentors, guides for younger children and ushers for adult visitors in planned ways? And while we’re at it, why can’t we blur grade and curricular lines to allow those children to move at their own academic pace within the “middle school” that is within the “grammar school”?

The MacIver study is a careful and well-designed study that provides interesting data about a real policy question. Should children of a certain age be in this kind of school structure or that one? Are grammar schools “better” for kids than middle schools? Well, it depends on how you define “better,” what it means to “do better” educationally. If “doing better” is a matter of test scores, as the MacIvers apparently maintain, then teaching quality and curriculum are the critical variables and school structure may be aperipheral concern. But if “doing better” is also a moral matter, if we are concerned with what adolescents do as well as what they know, then we would do well to consider placing middle schools within a grammar school structure. There younger adolescents can learn first-hand what it means to be “older and wiser.” They can practice their wisdom and their caring on the young children in their midst. Then we will all do better.

“Doing better”in grammar school or middle school?

For the better part of a decade, urban districts (Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York – and my own Lancaster, Pa.) have been pondering, planning and, in some cases, implementing a shift back to the grammar school (K-8) model and away from the middle school that has become the educational home of choice for 6th, 7th and 8th graders since the early 80s. Into this policy playground comes a new study by respected Johns Hopkins middle school researchers Douglas and Martha MacIver that claims “No benefit to eliminating middle school,” according to the headline in my morning paper.

I haven’t yet gotten my hands on the MacIver study; my comment here should not be read as a critique of their research. The study seems to be well-conceived to determine whether students experience learning growth – as measured by test scores -- over the three years of a middle school stay. The data support the view that children in middle schools score as well as students in K-8 schools, at least when other variables like teaching quality, curriculum, etc. remain constant.

I don’t doubt the MacIvers research findings but I do question what it means to “do better.” And I do want to question the assumption that we should put students of a certain age either into a middle school or a grammar school. Why not both/and? Before explaining what I mean, a bit of school history:

The middle school was, as those over 40 know, the successor to the junior high school. In 1989, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching published Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century, a report that took the developmental profile of young adolescents seriously and designed a school around them. The middle school, already in place in some districts (more because of demographic demand than developmental focus), found its philosophical underpinnings: to strengthen academic demands and to create a caring environmental in which those academic demands could be prosecuted.

And the middle school made sense, at least more sense than its predecessor, the junior high school. In the junior high school, a universe of growing hormone levels, independence needs, and shaky identities came together in a blend that was toxic for many. Shifting the age range and locating learners in teams where a finite number of teachers and students could establish on-going relationships made lots of sense. It still does.

But we forgot something. In the grammar school, big kids could be big kids to little kids. They were in a position to be someone’s role model and to live up to that task. They could reach down and help a smaller child tie a shoe or hang a sign or find the right room. And this aspect of doing better is not as easily addressed in a middle school. Sources as various as philosopher Nel Noddings and recent research on recidivist adolescent offenders tells us that one learns to care by take the role of the carer as well as by being cared for. Middle school children need to experience caring for another regularly, even systematically. I am not talking about the emotions that go with the act of caring for; I mean the habitual mode of attending to and providing for the needs of another. Now, one can care for one’s books and one’s pets and one’s other possessions, of course. But not even pets will respond as the “cared for” (to use Noddings’ phrasing) in the same way that a younger child will. Adolescents need younger children in their lives to play the role of the “cared for” to their “carer.” The grammar school can provide that. Whether or not test scores go up, a grammar school arrangement offers opportunities that middle school structures cannot.

But what of the problems? Don’t young adolescents need something more challenging and more independent than the self-contained classroom? Might big kids not bully little kids? Might little kids not annoy big kids to distraction? Sure. And that’s why we should be thinking both/and, not either/or, when it comes to middle school and grammar school. Why can’t 6th, 7th and 8th graders live in their own section or wing of a grammar school, remaining segregated for many functions but emerging to act as reading buddies, tutors, mentors, guides for younger children and ushers for adult visitors in planned ways? And while we’re at it, why can’t we blur grade and curricular lines to allow those children to move at their own academic pace within the “middle school” that is within the “grammar school”?

The MacIver study is a careful and well-designed study that provides interesting data about a real policy question. Should children of a certain age be in this kind of school structure or that one? Are grammar schools “better” for kids than middle schools? Well, it depends on how you define “better,” what it means to “do better” educationally. If “doing better” is a matter of test scores, as the MacIvers apparently maintain, then teaching quality and curriculum are the critical variables and school structure may be aperipheral concern. But if “doing better” is also a moral matter, if we are concerned with what adolescents do as well as what they know, then we would do well to consider placing middle schools within a grammar school structure. There younger adolescents can learn first-hand what it means to be “older and wiser.” They can practice their wisdom and their caring on the young children in their midst. Then we will all do better.

Monday, January 15, 2007

Merit pay

I may have missed it, but did any bloggers have anything interesting to say about this study? Or is it too bogus to blog about?

Politicising Education

It is unfortunate that in this country, the marginalised community will only receive aid come the time for elections.

It was announced in the Star yesterday that "in the run up to the Batu Talam by-election in Pahang, the Education Ministry has approved a RM180,000 allocation to the sole Chinese primary school in the constituency.
A state executive councillor, who chose not to be named, confirmed the matter, reported Nanyang Siang Pau. He said the school authorities submitted their request to Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein during the Education Minister’s visit to the constituency on Saturday.

Hishammuddin, who is Umno Youth chief, gave an immediate approval for the allocation.
Even with the "immediate approval" of the allocation, you can be assured that the disbursement of the funds are going to take forever. For example, during the head 1999 elections which UMNO required its coalition partners to help the party secure parliamentary majority for the first time ever, the Chinese community was promised relocation of certain vernacular schools. However, till today, schools which was designated for relocation such as SRJK(C) Pulai is only "planned" to be completed before 2010.

But the bigger question then is, isn't the Government abusing its control over the Ministry of Education, using tax payers funds to finance UMNO's election campaigns? Aren't there laws against such irresponsible and unfair practices?

Similarly, in the last by-election at Pengkalan Pasir, Kelantan, the people was promised a university in the state, subject to UMNO victory. The university was hence subsequently incorporated in the 9th Malaysia Plan. This was despite the fact that Malaysia has consistently failed to raise the quality of our existing local public universities.

Are these ad-hoc election and by-election education expenditure and modus operandi part of the yet-to-be announced National Education Blueprint 2006-2010?

Joint Japan/World Bank Graduate Scholarship Regular Program

Thanks to Weng Fong Lim for this headsup. You can view the details for this scholarship here and download the application form here.


The Joint Japan/ World Bank Graduate Scholarship Program (JJ/WBGSP), is in its 20th year. The Program awards scholarships to individuals from World Bank member countries to undertake graduate studies at universities renowned for their development research and teaching. In its Regular Program, the JJ/WBGSP has awarded scholarships to 2,613 scholars chosen from a total of nearly 53,000 applicants.

The Regular Program is open to the universities all over the world. Scholars awarded scholarships receive their training and graduated degree from more than 150 Universities in more than 30 countries. Scholars study in well-known Universities in the World Bank member countries, except their own country. The Regular Program creates high level of competition among applicants, where thousands apply and compete for a limited number of scholarships.

The Regular Program guarantees diversity of host institutions as well as an increasing number of fields of studies such as economics, education, public health, environment, agriculture, women studies, child care, etc. Graduates of the Regular Program are highly positioned in their countries, some are already ministers while others are highly involved in policy making processes.

The JJ/WBGSP Secretariat initiated discussions with partner universities about cost-sharing arrangements. The goal is to reduce tuition expenses and, hence, increase the number of JJ/WBGSP scholarships. Host universities, by entering into such arrangements, recognize and appreciate the contribution of the Government of Japan to the JJ/WBGSP.

Sad day

Chris is on his way back to Minnesota right now, via Akron, OH and Atlanta, GA, and I am on my way back to the grind, via working on MLK day and starting my new student teaching placement tomorrow. I'm psyched about it, but I haven't yet met my cooperating teacher and I only have half a voice.

Meanwhile, here's a little MLK day video from your friendly local history teacher-to-be.



UPDATE: It isn't just 8th graders who think Martin Luther King Jr. freed the slaves. Apparently a good chunk of college kids think so too.

Sciences vs Humanities

Ah... a theme close to my heart, and certainly something of a surprise that I've not blogged about this earlier in the past 20 months since this blog was initiated!

The Star over the weekend, published a few articles, here and here with regards to the choice of Science versus Arts stream for students moving on to Form Four. As highlighted by Tiara, an enthusiastic proponent of the Humanities, the articles were a tad disappointing in that they conceded, or at least hinted at the superiority of the Sciences over the Arts. (Trust Tiara to be quick to the draw in responding to the reports ;))

Reading the articles, it's fairly clear that there is a strong societal bias towards the Science stream, practically indicating that students taking the humanities courses are of weaker intelligence.

A principal in Petaling Jaya highlighted that generally, "good students prefer to do Science as they find it more challenging compared to Arts." Another principal, Mary Wong, argued that (horrors!) "doing Science forces you to be more analytical and diligent."

To put it bluntly, that is such a load of rubbish.

Firstly to put things into perspective, I was a mixed Arts and Science student for my 'O' Levels i.e., I took Geography and English Literature, complemented by (pure) Physics and Chemistry, as well as both Mathematics subjects. For my 'A' Levels, I ditched Geography for History, and took on Economics and Mathematics. I did reasonably well for most of the subjects, with no distinct superiority of Arts or Science over one another (I'm not a straight 'A's student), with the exception of Mathematics, which I consistently aced. Hence I'd like to think that I have the necessary perspective to "comment" on this "which-is-better?-science-or-arts" debate.

There is no such thing as Sciences being more "analytical" than Humanities. They are all subjects which can (severely) test the human mind, and it's analytical levels are in fact only limited by the teachers, the teaching methodology as well as the students themselves.

In fact, contrarians such as Tiara might even argue that the Arts are clearly more analytical for the answers aren't carved in stone like the sciences whereby E=MC2. And because there are no concrete answers, students of Arts subjects are required to be more analytical to argue, substantiate and flesh out their case.

There is also a clear misconception that the Arts subjects are all about memorising facts.
Nesa Sivanesan, whose son completed his PMR recently, advised him to go into the Science stream. “I felt it was the path of least resistance as he fared better in subjects such as Mathematics, Science and languages. He hates History because he doesn’t like memorising dates.
My 'A' Levels history tutor, Mrs Sng would have flipped on such flippant remarks on her pet subject. History, contrary to popular perception, isn't so much about dates but about analysis of events. History, for example, is less about when Melaka is conquered, but more about why it has fallen and whether it was inevitable.

Again, it is possible to argue that Science and Mathematical subjects have their fair share of memory work, with all the biological terms, chemical names, physics and mathematical formulas.

In addition, a student who excels in Sciences may fare terribly in the Arts, and obviously vice versa. Hence, streaming should never be a matter of the superiority of the sciences over the arts, but instead be a question about the individual's aptitude.

The parental, school and peer pressure for top students to enrol into science courses despite a preference and aptitude in excelling in Arts subjects will only find misery when confronted with test tubes and dissected frogs. And such misery would certainly be detrimental towards the student achieving his or her own potentials. It is unfortunately not helped by the fact that poorly performing students are automatically 'relegated' to Arts courses, giving the wrong impression that such courses are only suitable for weaker students.

In fact, I would argue that all students, in which ever streams should have compulsory subjects from other streams to shape more rounded individuals for the subjects would test a persons different faculties. In Singapore, even my school mates in a Pure Science stream taking Physics, Chemistry and Biology would have to take English Literature as one of the compulsory subjects. On the other hand, all Arts students will have to take a "combined science" paper to have a better understanding of the sciences.

I would certainly encourage the Ministry of Education or the relevant schools to offer the "in-between" streams where students get a good mix of the pure sciences as well as the Arts subjects. I for one, who would not have survived biology (I will probably throw up or faint, if I ever had to dissect a living being), benefited immensely from such a stream for it enabled me to be an all-rounded adult e.g., an Arts cum Social Science degree graduate managing a company specialising in computers and information technology.

The only argument which I find plausible, in choosing Science over Humanities, with the exception of aptitude and ambition, is that if one has strong interest in both, but is yet undecided on which stream to choose. In such a case, it is definitely easier for a science student to pick up an Arts subject in tertiary education, instead of say, an Arts student taking up Physics for his degree.

Other than that, take the stream or subjects which your heart tells you to. This advice comes from someone who has graduated in Philosophy and Politics, and yet has no problems gaining employment and achieving a little success for himself.