Friday, August 31, 2007

Orientationism

Three days of school behind me, three days of weekend ahead of me.

This week we had "new student orientation." Working in a high school makes me so happy that I am no longer in high school. High school is tough! Especially when you're a new student. You're either a) trying to let everyone know real quick who you are and what you're all about, or b) desperately trying not to be noticed so that people won't figure out too soon who you are and what you're all about.

Meanwhile I planned an activity for them today where they worked in groups to create a three-minute presentation, which they then presented in front of all 40 new students. What you guys are probably thinking, which didn't occur to me, is that no high schooler is going to want to a) work in a group of strangers and b) do a presentation in front of a huge group of strangers. Oh my god, it was awful. Bless them, they all did the best they could, but I have never seen such mass anxiety.

Fortunately they all have three days to recover before they come back on Tuesday, where they'll be joined by a whole bunch of returning kids for the whole-school orientation.


High school: Less like this .....




... than like this:

What Went Wrong In Our Schools?

If you had read my other blog, you'd have know that I'm kinda tied up with a writing project for my "work", so I didn't really have time to post a "Merdeka" message. In addition, I've been receiving requests for comments on the latest Higher Education Action Plan launched by Dato' Mustapa Mohammad and the Prime Minister recently. In particular, whether the hype over autonomy for our local universities as well as the highly commended "Apex University" concept are justified. Well, I have my reservations but as I've not read the report in detail except for the media reports (you'd probably need to give me at least a week), I won't say too much as yet.

Anyway, I thought it'll be good for everyone to read an article by R Nadeswaran of The Sun on "What Went Wrong in Our Schools?" published earlier this week, which I'll take the liberty to republish here for all to read.
At the sound of the engine, my late father, who was returning home from work, stood at attention. Others who were cycling got off their bikes and did not move until the Austin A40 went past.

I watched this drama unfold almost every other day - circa 1956.

I remember these scenes vividly as it gave me early impressions and would have a great impact on me decades later. Innocently, I asked my mother what it was all about. She said: "Ithu Vellakaran vatcha sattam." (This is the law of the white man).

When the estate manager was on the move, everything else came to a standstill. The mandore would chide even children if they did not give the manager his due respect.

I was considered lucky because my dad was an estate conductor or kerani as they used to call him, but for the other workers, they were at the mercy of the management and its systems.

Being the son of the kerani, I was forbidden to go to the "labour lines" as they used to call the one-room wooden houses that housed Indian immigrants brought here to tap rubber.

That was my first glimpse of apartheid a'la Malaya, and fortunately, I was never to see such class polarisation and discrimination, when the family moved out of Ebor Estate in Batu Tiga, to Klang.

In town, the initial adaptation was difficult because the boys in the neighbourhood spoke English and I had spent two years in the estate Tamil school.

But those I befriended had no inhibitions. We studied together; walked to school together and played together. No one, let alone my friends who came from the Special Malay Class to join me in Standard Four classified me as kaum pendatang.

I learnt to sing Negara Ku with others, with Mrs Nora Eu on the piano. We did not have to raise flags or write slogans to show our patriotism.

We were all Malayans and we never saw any barriers - racial or religious - in our interaction.

While I was representing the school in the oratory contests and debates which were open to only non-Malays during the Bulan Bahasa Kebangsaan, the Indian Muslims and Pakistanis, in order to take part, proudly gave their full names including son of or daughter of - not bin or binti.

Today, the same people have conveniently dropped those words and assimilated themselves with the majority. I have no problems with that. Good for them that they have learnt how to work around the system.

We had two Abdul Halims in class and in order to avoid confusion, we called one Halim Kichap - referring to skin tone - and he had no qualms about that.

We learnt about the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Francis Drake, Christopher Columbus, Gandhi, Mohamed Ali Jinnah and the like.

We were taught that a Javanese Hindu named Parameswara founded Malacca, but we are now told that someone is trying to re-write history by obliterating his name from textbooks.

My Standard Six teacher, B. M. Das, used the cane sparingly and those who had contemplated complaining to their parents were politely told that "if your father comes to school to complain, you can sit at the back of the class and watch me teach".

There were only 13 "A" graders in the trial exams before the government exams proper.

"If there are more than 13 who pass with an A, I'll eat your shoes," he ventured. Our class produced 33 and it goes to show how teachers used to motivate the pupils. Das never ate our shoes and we never asked him to!

In secondary school, we had inter-class games, inter-house games and inter-school games. We all got involved. When the class was playing, everyone was on the field - cheering the team on.

Besides, everyone was encouraged to join the literary and debating society or other extra-mural activities, as they were called. But then, there were no computer labs or clubs.

We never identified ourselves by race and the only "segregation" came when we had to attend "Pupil's Own Language" classes in the afternoon. Everyone ate from each other's tah pau from home, and nothing was taboo.

In Form Two, our literature teacher P.K. Singh made us read a book a week, and then write a synopsis and identify 10 new words that we had learnt. It was this that helped our generation excel in the language.

Cikgu Idris, who taught us Bahasa Kebangsaan, told us that letters should end with Wassalam, an Arabic form of greeting which has now taken religious connotations.

We had the like of Lee Mun Yew and D. R. Daniel as headmasters of two schools - Klang High School and Anglo Chinese School respectively - which had a strong rivalry be it on the playing field or the debating halls.

They were there when the inter-school matches were played, and of course, like all school sports days, the main event was the inter-school relay.

Fifty years on and as a parent of a school-going child, I wonder how these great school days just disappeared and how well-versed they are with some famous names and places. Thanks to the Internet, some children know that the American Independence Day falls on July 4 or that Captain Tasman sailed to Australia with a boatload of convicts and that at one time, the sun never set on the Great British Empire.

What went wrong? Why are children now embroiled in colour, creed and religion at such a young age?

We are blaming the schools for all the ills that afflict society. Can it be changed? Can we go back to the times when we gained so much knowledge within six hours? Can we re-live the times when you had to fight tooth and nail to find a place in the school football team?

I don't have the answers, but as the nation turns 50 tomorrow, our policymakers should put on their thinking caps for a solution.

Happy Merdeka!
Happy Merdeka to you too! ;)

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Today's Historical Non Sequitur

Who would have thought that the most successful pirate in world history would have been a lady of means? I just wish that I could have shared this with my seventh grade students....

Carnival-Carnival!

The 134th midway of The Carnival of Education (hosted this week by Matthew K. Tabor) has opened the midway for your educational enjoyment.And if you're in the mood for a little extra credit, see what the homies are up to over at The Carnival of Education.--------------------------See our latest entries.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Community Organizing and Urban Education: Cutting an Issue

[To read the entire series, go here.]

I am currently working on the introductory "lectures" for an online community organizing class I am teaching this Fall. Later on I'll be posting the first draft of the entire course online and will post an introduction on this blog. Below I'm posting the introduction to the "cutting an issue" module (FYI, it repeats some of the content of an earlier post). The complete lecture can be accessed here.

Note that I'm no longer numbering posts in this series, and I'll be reorganizing the "series" page to put posts under more coherent subheadings.

The "text" referred to is "Organizing for Social Change" by Kim Bobo, et. al.

Cutting an Issue”

In the previous module we discussed how to identify a “target” and the importance of analyzing the power structure within which the target resides.

As a reminder, a “target” is “the person or institution that can make the change you want” and a “secondary target” is “a powerful person or institution that can influence the
target.”

You need to know who the target is because otherwise you may be pressuring the wrong person or institution. It’s helpful to identify secondary targets, because they represent people and groups that can influencethe decision-maker.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A “PROBLEM” AND AN “ISSUE”

A problem is something that you don’t like about the world or your society, but that is too big and/or too vague to grapple with in any coherent way. “Pollution” and “crime” are “problems.” We don’t like them, but it’s hard to know about what to do about them in general. To use an obsolete term, they are “bummers.” In the words of our text, they are “broad area[s] of concern.” They’re terrible but just thinking about them can be disempowering.

In the terms community organizers use, an issue is a more specific challenge that is separated out from the larger “problem.” An issue, rightly described, always includes the solution to the challenge that is chosen. As our text notes, “an issue is a solution or partial solution to a problem.” For example, an issue that one might “cut” out of the “problem” of crime is police accountability, and the solution that your group might fight for could be installing video cameras in all police cars in the city. An issue you might “cut” out of pollution might be a campaign to stop a new coal-fired plant from being built in your community.

Again, notice that from the perspective of community organizing, you haven’t “cut” an issue until you have also defined how you plan to solve the specific challenge you have chosen. Without an identified solution, your group doesn’t have anything specific to fight for.

CUTTING AN ISSUE” AND POWER

To some extent, the criteria for cutting an issue, discussed in detail below, can be counter-intuitive. We are used to thinking about “winning” as the most crucial goal in any battle against oppression. However, community organizers think about campaigns in a fundamentally
different way. To understand organizing you have to understand this different way of thinking.

The key problem for any community organizer is a lack of sufficient POWER. You just don’t
have the money or the people to ensure that the social changes you want are made. So the core goal for all community organizers is generating POWER.

How do you generate power? In this context, you generate power by strengthening your
organization. So the core aim of all organizers is building a stronger organization.

Therefore, you want to pick issues that are likely to BUILD YOUR ORGANIZATION. For example, an issue that you can easily win without really making organization members work and extend themselves probably isn’t an issue you want to get involved in. You want an issue that will force the organization to grow, and organization members to learn to be better actors.

It is important to understand that having a reputation for a strong organization is a
crucial asset for organizing groups. If people perceive your group as strong, YOU MAY NOT NEED TO FIGHT! Groups that might have otherwise done things to harm your community may not because of the threat you may get involved. And organizations may invite you to the table early in the process of developing particular projects because they know you can cause problems for them later if you don’t. Organizations that aren’t respected, that aren’t seen as powerful, don’t get this treatment.

When you try to “cut an issue,” think about how a specific issue will help build your organization, how it will help you build POWER for the LONG TERM instead of just about whether and how to achieve a particular goal. Then and only then will you be thinking like an organizer.

FRAMING

One of the key challenges for “cutting an issue” is how you frame what your issue is to outside audiences which may be sympathetic to different concerns than you or your group is. On page 23, the text gives some examples of framing. For example, if you are an environmentalist and want to have logging stopped in a particular forest, it makes sense to frame your “issue” by emphasizing how you will make sure this won’t eliminate jobs, since forest workers may be a crucial part of your opposition.

CRITERIA FOR “CUTTING AN ISSUE”

Chapter 3 of our textbook, Organizing for Social Change, lays out a series of criteria for what counts as a good issue. They do a nice job of describing these. I focus in on what I think the key issues are, here.

  1. Result in a Real Improvement in People’s Lives

  2. Give People a Sense of Their Own Power

  3. Alter the Relations of Power

  4. Be Worthwhile

  5. Be Winnable

  6. Be Widely Felt

  7. Be Deeply Felt

  8. Be Easy to Understand

  9. Have a Clear Target

  10. Have a Clear Time Frame that Works for You

  11. Be Non-Divisive

  12. Build Leadership

  13. Set Your Organization Up for the Next Campaign

  14. Have a Pocketbook Angle

  15. Raise Money

  16. Be Consistent with Your Values and Vision.

For the rest of this lecture, go here.

Community Organizing and Urban Education: Cutting an Issue

[To read the entire series, go here.]

I am currently working on the introductory "lectures" for an online community organizing class I am teaching this Fall. Later on I'll be posting the first draft of the entire course online and will post an introduction on this blog. Below I'm posting the introduction to the "cutting an issue" module (FYI, it repeats some of the content of an earlier post). The complete lecture can be accessed here.

Note that I'm no longer numbering posts in this series, and I'll be reorganizing the "series" page to put posts under more coherent subheadings.

The "text" referred to is "Organizing for Social Change" by Kim Bobo, et. al.

Cutting an Issue”

In the previous module we discussed how to identify a “target” and the importance of analyzing the power structure within which the target resides.

As a reminder, a “target” is “the person or institution that can make the change you want” and a “secondary target” is “a powerful person or institution that can influence the
target.”

You need to know who the target is because otherwise you may be pressuring the wrong person or institution. It’s helpful to identify secondary targets, because they represent people and groups that can influencethe decision-maker.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A “PROBLEM” AND AN “ISSUE”

A problem is something that you don’t like about the world or your society, but that is too big and/or too vague to grapple with in any coherent way. “Pollution” and “crime” are “problems.” We don’t like them, but it’s hard to know about what to do about them in general. To use an obsolete term, they are “bummers.” In the words of our text, they are “broad area[s] of concern.” They’re terrible but just thinking about them can be disempowering.

In the terms community organizers use, an issue is a more specific challenge that is separated out from the larger “problem.” An issue, rightly described, always includes the solution to the challenge that is chosen. As our text notes, “an issue is a solution or partial solution to a problem.” For example, an issue that one might “cut” out of the “problem” of crime is police accountability, and the solution that your group might fight for could be installing video cameras in all police cars in the city. An issue you might “cut” out of pollution might be a campaign to stop a new coal-fired plant from being built in your community.

Again, notice that from the perspective of community organizing, you haven’t “cut” an issue until you have also defined how you plan to solve the specific challenge you have chosen. Without an identified solution, your group doesn’t have anything specific to fight for.

CUTTING AN ISSUE” AND POWER

To some extent, the criteria for cutting an issue, discussed in detail below, can be counter-intuitive. We are used to thinking about “winning” as the most crucial goal in any battle against oppression. However, community organizers think about campaigns in a fundamentally
different way. To understand organizing you have to understand this different way of thinking.

The key problem for any community organizer is a lack of sufficient POWER. You just don’t
have the money or the people to ensure that the social changes you want are made. So the core goal for all community organizers is generating POWER.

How do you generate power? In this context, you generate power by strengthening your
organization. So the core aim of all organizers is building a stronger organization.

Therefore, you want to pick issues that are likely to BUILD YOUR ORGANIZATION. For example, an issue that you can easily win without really making organization members work and extend themselves probably isn’t an issue you want to get involved in. You want an issue that will force the organization to grow, and organization members to learn to be better actors.

It is important to understand that having a reputation for a strong organization is a
crucial asset for organizing groups. If people perceive your group as strong, YOU MAY NOT NEED TO FIGHT! Groups that might have otherwise done things to harm your community may not because of the threat you may get involved. And organizations may invite you to the table early in the process of developing particular projects because they know you can cause problems for them later if you don’t. Organizations that aren’t respected, that aren’t seen as powerful, don’t get this treatment.

When you try to “cut an issue,” think about how a specific issue will help build your organization, how it will help you build POWER for the LONG TERM instead of just about whether and how to achieve a particular goal. Then and only then will you be thinking like an organizer.

FRAMING

One of the key challenges for “cutting an issue” is how you frame what your issue is to outside audiences which may be sympathetic to different concerns than you or your group is. On page 23, the text gives some examples of framing. For example, if you are an environmentalist and want to have logging stopped in a particular forest, it makes sense to frame your “issue” by emphasizing how you will make sure this won’t eliminate jobs, since forest workers may be a crucial part of your opposition.

CRITERIA FOR “CUTTING AN ISSUE”

Chapter 3 of our textbook, Organizing for Social Change, lays out a series of criteria for what counts as a good issue. They do a nice job of describing these. I focus in on what I think the key issues are, here.

  1. Result in a Real Improvement in People’s Lives

  2. Give People a Sense of Their Own Power

  3. Alter the Relations of Power

  4. Be Worthwhile

  5. Be Winnable

  6. Be Widely Felt

  7. Be Deeply Felt

  8. Be Easy to Understand

  9. Have a Clear Target

  10. Have a Clear Time Frame that Works for You

  11. Be Non-Divisive

  12. Build Leadership

  13. Set Your Organization Up for the Next Campaign

  14. Have a Pocketbook Angle

  15. Raise Money

  16. Be Consistent with Your Values and Vision.

For the rest of this lecture, go here.

Our Falling Reading Scores: What's To Be Done?

This is some troubling news: Reading skills among U.S. students graduating from high school this year fell to the lowest since 1994 as measured by the most widely taken college-entrance exam.Reading scores on the SAT declined 1 point to 502 after a 5- point drop last year, the test's operator, the College Board, reported today. The decline in 2006 had been the largest in three decades. Average

Washington Watch: Another Hypocrite Exposed

Apparently, Idaho's senator Larry Craig was attempting to do a little unauthorized "exit polling" in a public restroom recently:Sen. Larry Craig said that he "overreacted and made a poor decision" in pleading guilty to disorderly conduct after his June arrest following an incident in a Minneapolis airport bathroom.Tuesday, in his first public statement on the arrest, the Idaho Republican said he

Carnival Entries Are Due!

Entries for the 134th edition of The Carnival Of Education (hosted this week by Matthew K. Tabor) are due. Please email them to: mktabor [at] gmail [dot] com . (Or, easier yet, use this handy submission form.) Submissions should be received no later than 11:00 PM (Eastern) 8:00 PM (Pacific) today. Contributions should include your site's name, the title of the post, and the post's URL if possible

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: Right Wing Nut House received the most votes with Is the United States an

Monday, August 27, 2007

Incentives to stay at home

These couple of reports, here and here, in the Star on the same subject caught up interest. The basic gist of the new proposal by Tok Pa is this - he wants to 'entice' a third of all top SPM scorers (by which he means straight A1s scorers) to study locally, perhaps in a 3 + 1 program where three years are spent in a local university and 1 year is spent abroad.

I think that the flaws of this proposal can be seen almost immediately. First of all, what possible kinds of 'enticements' can one offer a top SPM scorer to study in a local institution when this scholar can potentially study in the best universities outside Malaysia? Cambridge vs UM or Harvard vs UM, hmmm, which school do you think these scholars will choose? Will there be monetary incentives offered to these scholars so that they won't go abroad? Actually, this makes financial sense on the part of the MOHE. Why not offer to pay these scholars 2000RM a month for 4 years (for a total of 96,000RM) versus having to spend almost half a million RM to send a scholar to the US or the UK, many of whom don't return to Malaysia to serve out their 'bond'. If this is the case, why not make ALL JPA scholars stay back in Malaysia? Why only 'entice' a third of them to stay back? In any case, imagine if you were in the position of a student who has gotten into Cambridge or Harvard. Would this student want to take the short term financial incentive and forgo his or her chance to study in one of these prestigious institutions? If I were to advise them, I'd tell them that you can always earn back the 100,000RM (or whatever financial incentives the MOHE is offering) later in life. It's a chance of a lifetime to go abroad to study, especially if you manage to get into a good foreign university.

Secondly, what sort of university do you think these top scorers can go to in a 3 + 1 program where their final year is spent abroad? It's not likely that Cambridge or Oxford or Harvard or most of the top universities in the UK or the US will likely offer up places for Malaysians to go to for only a year. It is much more likely that these 3 + 1 destinations will be the universities which currently have twinning programs with Malaysian colleges. These might be decent schools but probably not the top schools in the US or the UK.

Yes, I know that the US have this junior year abroad program which is basically a 3 + 1 program (with the 1 in the third year) where many juniors in US universities study in universities abroad for a year. But can the MOHE negotiate this kind of deal with the top UK or US universities? (or tops unis in other countries for that matter) As far as I know, none of the top US universities offer this kind of option for students in other universities. And as far as I know, Cambridge and Oxford doesn't offer this kind of option to US university students (unless you're a Rhodes scholar which is applicable only for Oxford).

Thirdly, what sort of criteria will be used to select the one third of scholars who are 'enticed' or perhaps 'forced' to stay back to study in a local institution? I'm afraid that with this kind of 'quota', those who get to go abroad might be those who are more 'connected', politically or socially.

Imagine that you're a top SPM scorer who's been awarded a JPA scholarship and then later told that you're getting into UM or UKM or USM as your 'reward'. How would you feel about this? Especially if you know that 2/3rds of your fellow JPA scholars are going abroad to study, many of them at prestigious foreign universities?

Fourthly, if JPA scholars are sent abroad with the intention of getting more exposure, how much of help will 1 year in a foreign institution be? I think the benefits are likely to be minimal.

If Tok Pa wants to increase the standard of students going into the local universities, he should start with the 'second tier' students, those who are not the top SPM scorers but who are offer government scholarships of different types to go abroad to study. Why not 'entice' these students to stay back in a local uni? Aren't the top scorers more 'deserving' of going abroad (as well as standing a better chance of getting into a really good universities) than these 'second tier' (or perhaps even third tier) SPM scorers? These second tier scorers might presumably be better than the average student currently going into the local unis and hence, still help to increase the overall quality of students going into the local unis.

NUS in Singapore was managed to build up a reputation for being one of the best universities in Asia despite having many of the top scorers in Singapore heading to unis overseas. Of course, other factors are also at play in NUS such as better management, better pay for professors, more institutional incentives for research, better hiring practices etc... but it shows that not having your best students is not necessarily an obstacle towards creating a quality university.

As an aside, I think Tony's earlier proposals of offering scholarships to students at a later date and only after they've obtained entry into one of the top foreign universities makes sense. It would reduce the number of JPA scholars that we fund and would guarantee that we're funding scholars who only get into the best universities. Those who don't manage to get into these universities can be conveniently absorbed by our local unis, thereby 'solving' one of Tok Pa's major problems - attracting good students into our local unis. (Of course, some of these potential JPA scholars might still try to fund themselves to go overseas but that can't really be prevented)

On a longer term note, unless we have a much better enforcement and human resource management policy, I'm in favor of slowly but surely cutting down the number of JPA scholarships available at the undergrad level since a large proportion of JPA scholars don't return to serve out their bonds by working for any part of the Malaysian government. (If those of you who thought that the RM1.25 million spent on Dr. Azly was 'extravagant' and 'wasteful', think of the BILLIONS that are and have been spent on JPA scholars who don't serve a single day of their supposed 'bond').

In the meantime, I feel sorry for the first batch of JPA scholars who are denied the opportunity to go abroad to study while they watch 2/3rds of their cohort leave for prestigious universities abroad.

Sunday, August 26, 2007

Continuing to pee in my pants with excitement

Good food for thought as I start my job as a career advisor: Minnesota teens do well on the ACT, but contrary to what the research department at ED thinks, most of the fastest-growing careers don't require a college education. Of course fastest-growing should never be confused with highest-paying, as University of Minnesota students will soon find out.

Monday and Tuesday we have parent-teacher-student conferences. Historically the school has had 100% attendance at these conferences, which is amazing considering that when I was in high school I would rather die than have my parents meet my teachers. Since I'm not a "base group advisor" I do not have to attend conferences, but I'll be on hand to answer questions about things like PSEO and college admissions, as well as the seminars I'll be teaching.

This time tomorrow I will have actually met students and families!

Saturday, August 25, 2007

The Beaverton Bare Gets Busted!

Apparently, this guy didn't know when to quit: PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - A group of campers tied a peeping Tom suspect to a tree, keeping him bound until police arrived.Richard H. Berkey, 63, was charged with private indecency, a misdemeanor, by sheriff's deputies who were called to the Big Fan Campground near Bagby Hot Springs last weekend, according to Clackamas County Detective Jim

Friday, August 24, 2007

DisJustice The Modern Way

The tedious soap opera latest legal difficulties of useless lay-about "actress" Lindsay Lohan is about the best evidence that supports the idea that in today's America, there is one standard of justice and "due process" for the Rich, Famous, Or Simply Beautiful and a very different one for the Rest of Us:BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (AP) - Lindsay Lohan reached a plea deal Thursday on misdemeanor

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Charters in N.O.

In the most recent edition of The Nation, Michael Tisserand takes on the state of Louisiana's attempt to salvage public education in New Orleans through charter schools. One particularly poorly managed charter school is "but one battleground in what some are calling an education revolution." He goes on to imply that charter advocates jumped in to take advantage of an apocalyptic event and further their own goals of the privatization of public schools:
More recently, some advocates have argued that charters represent a superior way to run all public schools. Yet the results of national achievement tests have been inconclusive at best. Those wishing to forge ahead with a full-tilt charter revolution have also lacked a platform from which to launch their crusade. Then the floodwaters rose over New Orleans, sending some 65,000 public school students fleeing.
I tend to agree with Tisserand. The New Orleans charter move came from a sector of policymakers who view charters as "half a loaf," the whole loaf being vouchers and total school privatization. I think putting New Orleans public education in the hands of any nonprofit who stepped forward during a very traumatic time was an extremely misguided, but politically driven, thing to do.

What I don't like about this article is how familiar it sounds. It is basically an illustrated version of the AFT's talking points on charters (and I should know because I used to help write them). Take the argument that powerful people are intentionally starving non-charter public schools and fattening up charters, which don't educate the poorest kids, and which therefore have an unfair advantage in the school market. Tisserand writes that
By selective admissions, parental contracts and grade requirements, charter schools are able to "cream" their students not just by race and class but also by levels of parental involvement.
The New Orleans project, AND the Nation article, represent to me the worst thing about the charter movement in the U.S.: the partisan, Us vs. Them, unions vs. kids, private vs. public discussion. While accusations are being thrown around the think tanks of D.C., charter schools (as well as non-charter public schools) are quietly doing their thing for the benefit of countless needy kids. I'm afraid the lessons of N.O. will get lost in this discussion rather than contributing to a challenging discussion about how charters and districts can work together.

UPDATE: Please take a look at the thoughtful comment left by writer Michael Tisserand. Thanks, Michael, for pointing out where I quoted you out of context.

Staff development

Day 4 of staff development. Kids start making an appearance next week with parent/teacher conferences and a three-day new student orientation. I came home to work since my school is having computer issues and thought I'd write a quick little update.

I am peeing in my pants with excitement about the new school year. It's a new feeling for me to be overwhelmed with stuff to do, but not feel stressed or depressed about it.

During new student orientation, I will be subjecting some kids to the story "Everything Will Be Okay" by James Howe from the collection of memoirs When I Was Your Age. This collection is used a lot in reading-writing workshop, so some of you may have read the story. If you have, you know it is one of the saddest stories ever written. If you haven't, I'll limit myself to saying that it involves a boy who finds a sick, dying kitten in the woods. As Michael Vick could tell you, stories about the suffering of animals are MUCH sadder to the general public than stories about the suffering of humans. I read this story for the first time in a class full of eighth graders, and was only saved from bursting into tears in front of all of them by the lunch bell.

Anyway, that and many, many other things have to be planned, so I'll post another update when I can!

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Carnivalicious!

The 133rd midway of The Carnival of Education (hosted this week by The Red Pencil) has opened the midway for your educational enjoyment. (Be sure to scroll down and have a good look at those nifty pie-charts that have been put-together by the host.)And if you're in the mood for a little extra credit, ease on over to the "magical" edition of this week's Carnival of Homeschooling.------------------

Scam Oxford MBA?

Well, Mr "David Smith" has continued to feed me with information with regards to the MBA scams perpetuated by a "Oxford Centre for Leadership (OXCEL), United Kingdom" which clearly abuses its non-existent association to Oxford University to gain credibility.

First of all, the OXCEL doesn't exist beyond a mail forwarding service provided at the contact address. You can check out the address yourself at the Regus website, an international service office provider.

The OXCEL company was only purportedly set up in the United Kingdom in April this year. However, as early as last May, Oxcel has been granting degrees in Malaysia.

Yusry & co receives their degress & awards

In May last year, KRU main singer, Yusry Abdul Halim was selected to receive an special award (Young Creativity Award) from Oxcel at Oxford Graduation Ceremony in Subang Jaya. Other celebrities who apparently received their diploma, degrees are Nizal Mohamad, Ashraf Sinclair and Chef Ismail (Master in Business Hospitality).

Not only did these celebrities clearly publicised the "school", it was Deputy Minister of Human Resources, Datuk Abdul Rahman Bakar who "launched" OXCEL in Malaysia last year at Carcosa Seri Negara. The modus operandi appears very similar to other dodgy degree-granting institutions such as the non-Irish Irish International University, where Deputy Minister, M Kayveas was also invited to present degrees at convocation ceremonies, which lends credibility to the institution.

(By the way, IIU continues to exist in Malaysia despite the tonnes of information available which discredits their standing. They have been holding convocation ceremonies on a year basis since 2002)

It is understood that the next convocation ceremony for Oxcel will be held at a college of Oxford university on 12 September 2007 for their 5-day MBA programme (or some equivalent award). All the graduates are allegedly Malaysians.

I really wonder sometimes why is it that in a country such as Malaysia, there remains plenty of such bogus institutions, guillible Ministers who are easily persuadable to lend credibility to dubious organisations as well as certification-hungry students who are willing to pay good money for poor qualifications.... sigh.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Crazy guy on a bike

Okay, time to change topics. I was never very adventurous in my days as a student. Never went camping, never tried to climb Kinabalu or hike to Tahan, etc... The most 'adventurous' things I attempted were to travel to Iceland, cycled around some inactive volcanic fields, stayed overnight at the airport in Oslo, Norway and got involved in a car accident in Turkey where a good friend of mine was seriously injured (Thankfully, he's fully recovered now and is a happily married dad). That's why I take my hat off to a friend who recently graduated from Duke (undergrad) and is on his way back to Malaysia ... on a bike!

This friend, Law Tzuo Hann, decided that instead of looking for a job immediately after his graduation, he would take a trip of a lifetime which was to cycle back to Malaysia starting from the United Kingdom, a trip which will take him an estimated 8 months.

He wanted to see if you could endure such a trip and tested himself by trying to cycle across the United States. This he did, to my (and probably his) amazement. Check out his route from the West Coast of the US all the way to DC, a trip which took him roughly 38 days.

Right now, he's in Germany now and making good progress on his way back to Malaysia which would take him through many 'exotic' countries which are not known for being good cycling locations such as Turkey, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan (if I'm not mistaken).

It always amazes me when a student can attempt this sort of journey of discovery, especially when it is done under very minimalist conditions. Tzuo Hann doesn't have an entourage, he camps in church yards and other outdoor locations to save accommodation costs (or stays with friends). He's clearly doing this on a minimalist budget and without any institutional support. He's not looking to be rewarded with a Datukship or money from the government. Instead, he's looking for support and sponsorships to benefit charities.

As far as I know, his dad, who has been very encouraging of him, is trying to raise publicity in regards to this journey and is trying to garner sponsorship for Tzuo Hann's trip back to Malaysia, hopefully, to be donated to charities and to defray some traveling expenses. Indeed, his dad is hoping to join him and cycle back to Malaysia from China!

I think that his story has been featured in Malaysian Mensa and maybe some of the Chinese dailies but if any of our readers would like to help out Tzuo Hann, you can do the following:

(i) Write an encouraging note on his journal which can be accessed here.
(ii) Contact him via email to send an email of encouragement (thl13@duke.edu)
(iii) Contact him if you think you can raise some corporate sponsorship for him
(iv) Contact him if you think you can get him some publicity (newspapers, journals, magazines, newsletters etc...)

In the meantime, safe travels to Tzuo Hann!

Party-Hearty!

Allright. For those of you who must know, here are America's top party schools.And now for extra credit, who can tell us (without peeking) what very famous American patriotic song's melody is based upon on an old English drinking tune called "To Anacreon in Heaven?"Stumped? Go here.

Carnival Entries Are Due!

Entries for the 133rd edition of The Carnival Of Education (hosted this week by The Red Pencil) are due. Please email them to: theredpencil [at] gmail [dot] com . (Or, easier yet, use this handy submission form.) Submissions should be received no later than 11:00 PM (Eastern) 8:00 PM (Pacific) today. 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: Big Lizards garnered the most votes with The "Don't Make Waves!" Theory of

Saturday, August 18, 2007

A Foundations Student Speaks on NCLB

I just wound up a summer session of my graduate foundations class. This is how one student closed her final essay in response to this question:

Is it possible or likely that the purposes and aims that you will pursue and promote as an educator are or can be realized by all American children, regardless of race, gender, or where they happen to go to school? Using evidence supplied from this course, explain how and why your most important educational purposes or aims are equally accessible – or how and why they are or cannot be equally accessible.

American education should be an equal-opportunity endeavor, but it is not. History has seen a constant struggle for democracy in education. Educational thinkers and policymakers have grappled with the question of how to give all students equal educational opportunities, yet even today, equity in American education is lacking. As a result of No Child Left Behind, the country is experiencing a frenzy to close the achievement gap between white and minority students. The unfortunate irony of NCLB, however, is that it is creating inequity in education rather than alleviating it, for the law is effectively harming precisely those students it purports to benefit: minority students, students with learning disabilities, and students whose first language is not English. Thus, my aforementioned aims [to cultivate a love of learning in my students and promote an ethic of care] as an educator are not equally accessible to all American children, regardless or race, gender or where they happen to go to school. The current emphasis on test prep makes fostering a love of learning nearly impossible, and the push to bolster the scores of some students while letting others fall through the cracks precludes an ethic of care in education.

My first aim as an educator is to cultivate a love of learning in my students by engaging their interests and making the classroom experience a positive one. However, if I am forced to teach to a test, that aim is made almost impossible. Many critics of NCLB say it is an attempt by the federal government to implement a standardized curriculum in public schools. Scripted lessons and “one-size-fits-all” curriculums are the antithesis of engaging and interactive learning. As Jaeger points out, “Teachers find that their work has been reduced to follow a scripted teacher’s guide, passing out worksheets, and drilling students on isolated skills,” (chapter 6). How can I, as Dewey and Noddings suggest, take my students’ individual needs and interests into account when I must deliver a robotic lesson or drill test strategies into their heads? It seems to me that NCLB unfairly makes teachers more concerned about ensuring students are proficient in math and reading for the sake of a test than providing them with a wholesome, fulfilling education.

Not only does NCLB lead to robotic teaching and narrow curriculums, it also reduces learning to filling in blanks and bubbling in scantrons; that is, it sends the message that the purpose of learning is to pass a test. According to Dewey, learning needs to be made relevant to students’ lives so that they will seek out more positive educative experiences in the future. In order to achieve my aim of cultivating a love of learning in my students, I have said that I will try to help them see the relevancy of the material to their daily lives. But if I can only justify the relevancy of my lessons by saying, “You need to know this for the test,” that aim is effectively derailed. The last thing students want to hear is that they must absorb the information because they’ll be tested on it later. High-stakes testing turns students off to learning. School must be made relevant to daily life so that students can realize the immediate impact of their educative experiences. The current testing craze greatly inhibits that aim.

The law also is antithetical to my second aim of promoting an ethic of care in the classroom. The very name of the law, “No Child Left Behind,” sounds caring enough in theory, but the reality is that it cares very little about the welfare of America’s children. It is largely ineffective in providing support for the students who need it the most. It expects children with learning disabilities to achieve at the same rate as other students, yet states are not allowed to make provisions for alternative tests or significantly modify testing conditions to make that possible (Jaeger, chapter 3). Furthermore, higher qualification standards for paraprofessionals has forced many of them out of their jobs, which means students with learning disabilities are not receiving the extra support they need (Jaeger, chapter 5). English language learners who have been in the U.S. for at least a year face a similar unrealistic and unfair expectation, for they are required to take a test that is not written in their first language. What’s even worse is that when it comes to intervention services for struggling students, many districts now focus on “those children who are considered ‘pushables’ (those just below passing) and ‘slippables’ (those at risk of slipping out of the proficient category),” according to Jaeger. “When one teacher asked what was to be done for students in dire need of extra help, she was told by her principal to ‘forget them’” (chapter 2). How can teachers care about each and every student when they are being told to forget about those deemed lost causes? And how can teachers show students they care when they cannot gauge their understanding of and response to the material, as Jaeger describes when she writes, “ They are unable to respond appropriately to the diverse needs of their students because required adherence to a rigid pacing schedule forces them to move full speed ahead whether students understand the lessons or not” (chapter 6)? Noddings says every child has the potential to achieve. It is our responsibility as caring educators to help students realize their potential, yet NCLB prevents such a caring approach to education.

Furthermore, NCLB makes it advantageous for schools to let drop-outs fall through the cracks. The provision of the law that it supposed to help schools with high drop-out rates implement prevention programs has a $0 budget, and “other provisions of the law serve to diminish rather than increase incentives for keeping all students in school,” (Jaeger, chapter 7). “There is a reason for excluding from testing lower-achieving students...by transferring or expelling them, or by encouraging them to drop out. If these students leave school, they do not participate in the tests which determine whether schools are deemed under-performing,” (Jaeger, chapter 7). Thus, NCLB effectively encourages schools to not care about lower-achieving students who are likely to drop out. One hardly needs to point out how this goes against an ethic of care.

Thus, it is clear that society’s emphasis on standardized test scores, as well as the federal government’s intrusion into the educational system, makes the realization of my most important educational aims highly unlikely or nearly impossible. But, to end on a more optimistic note, there is hope for me yet, as No Child Left Behind is up for re-authorization this September. Repealing the law would make my aims more feasible.

References
Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education (reprinted ed.) New York: Touchstone Books.

Dewey, J. (1938/2000). Experience and education. In R. Reed & T. Johnson, Eds., Philosophical documents in education (2nd ed.) (pp. 115-124). New York: Longman. (Reprinted from Experience and education by J. Dewey, 1938, Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi, pp. 33-50).

Dewey, J. (1897/1972). My pedagogic creed. In R. Reed & T. Johnson, Eds., Philosophicaldocuments in education (2nd ed.) (pp. 103-110). New York: Longman. (Reprinted from John Dewey: The early works 1895-1898, vol. 5 by J. Dewey, J.A. Boydston, Ed., Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 84-95).

Dillon, S. (2007, July 25). Focus on 2 R’s cuts time for the rest, report says. New York Times. Retrieved August 9, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com

Glater, J. (2007, July 29). Certain degrees now cost more at universities. New York Times. Retrieved August, 9, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com

Jaeger, Elizabeth. What every parent, teacher, and community member needs to know about No Child Left Behind. Unpublished manuscript.

Noddings, N. (1992/2000). The challenge of care in schools: An alternative approach to education. In R. Reed & T. Johnson, Eds., Philosophical documents in education (2nd ed.) (pp. 247-257). New York: Longman (Reprinted from The Challenge to Care in Schools: An Alternative Approach to Education, by Noddings, 1992, New York: Teachers College Press).

Tyack, D. (2003). Seeking common ground: Public schools in a diverse society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

I wish that all my colleagues could say as much on the subject as well.

A Foundations Student Speaks on NCLB

I just wound up a summer session of my graduate foundations class. This is how one student closed her final essay in response to this question:

Is it possible or likely that the purposes and aims that you will pursue and promote as an educator are or can be realized by all American children, regardless of race, gender, or where they happen to go to school? Using evidence supplied from this course, explain how and why your most important educational purposes or aims are equally accessible – or how and why they are or cannot be equally accessible.

American education should be an equal-opportunity endeavor, but it is not. History has seen a constant struggle for democracy in education. Educational thinkers and policymakers have grappled with the question of how to give all students equal educational opportunities, yet even today, equity in American education is lacking. As a result of No Child Left Behind, the country is experiencing a frenzy to close the achievement gap between white and minority students. The unfortunate irony of NCLB, however, is that it is creating inequity in education rather than alleviating it, for the law is effectively harming precisely those students it purports to benefit: minority students, students with learning disabilities, and students whose first language is not English. Thus, my aforementioned aims [to cultivate a love of learning in my students and promote an ethic of care] as an educator are not equally accessible to all American children, regardless or race, gender or where they happen to go to school. The current emphasis on test prep makes fostering a love of learning nearly impossible, and the push to bolster the scores of some students while letting others fall through the cracks precludes an ethic of care in education.

My first aim as an educator is to cultivate a love of learning in my students by engaging their interests and making the classroom experience a positive one. However, if I am forced to teach to a test, that aim is made almost impossible. Many critics of NCLB say it is an attempt by the federal government to implement a standardized curriculum in public schools. Scripted lessons and “one-size-fits-all” curriculums are the antithesis of engaging and interactive learning. As Jaeger points out, “Teachers find that their work has been reduced to follow a scripted teacher’s guide, passing out worksheets, and drilling students on isolated skills,” (chapter 6). How can I, as Dewey and Noddings suggest, take my students’ individual needs and interests into account when I must deliver a robotic lesson or drill test strategies into their heads? It seems to me that NCLB unfairly makes teachers more concerned about ensuring students are proficient in math and reading for the sake of a test than providing them with a wholesome, fulfilling education.

Not only does NCLB lead to robotic teaching and narrow curriculums, it also reduces learning to filling in blanks and bubbling in scantrons; that is, it sends the message that the purpose of learning is to pass a test. According to Dewey, learning needs to be made relevant to students’ lives so that they will seek out more positive educative experiences in the future. In order to achieve my aim of cultivating a love of learning in my students, I have said that I will try to help them see the relevancy of the material to their daily lives. But if I can only justify the relevancy of my lessons by saying, “You need to know this for the test,” that aim is effectively derailed. The last thing students want to hear is that they must absorb the information because they’ll be tested on it later. High-stakes testing turns students off to learning. School must be made relevant to daily life so that students can realize the immediate impact of their educative experiences. The current testing craze greatly inhibits that aim.

The law also is antithetical to my second aim of promoting an ethic of care in the classroom. The very name of the law, “No Child Left Behind,” sounds caring enough in theory, but the reality is that it cares very little about the welfare of America’s children. It is largely ineffective in providing support for the students who need it the most. It expects children with learning disabilities to achieve at the same rate as other students, yet states are not allowed to make provisions for alternative tests or significantly modify testing conditions to make that possible (Jaeger, chapter 3). Furthermore, higher qualification standards for paraprofessionals has forced many of them out of their jobs, which means students with learning disabilities are not receiving the extra support they need (Jaeger, chapter 5). English language learners who have been in the U.S. for at least a year face a similar unrealistic and unfair expectation, for they are required to take a test that is not written in their first language. What’s even worse is that when it comes to intervention services for struggling students, many districts now focus on “those children who are considered ‘pushables’ (those just below passing) and ‘slippables’ (those at risk of slipping out of the proficient category),” according to Jaeger. “When one teacher asked what was to be done for students in dire need of extra help, she was told by her principal to ‘forget them’” (chapter 2). How can teachers care about each and every student when they are being told to forget about those deemed lost causes? And how can teachers show students they care when they cannot gauge their understanding of and response to the material, as Jaeger describes when she writes, “ They are unable to respond appropriately to the diverse needs of their students because required adherence to a rigid pacing schedule forces them to move full speed ahead whether students understand the lessons or not” (chapter 6)? Noddings says every child has the potential to achieve. It is our responsibility as caring educators to help students realize their potential, yet NCLB prevents such a caring approach to education.

Furthermore, NCLB makes it advantageous for schools to let drop-outs fall through the cracks. The provision of the law that it supposed to help schools with high drop-out rates implement prevention programs has a $0 budget, and “other provisions of the law serve to diminish rather than increase incentives for keeping all students in school,” (Jaeger, chapter 7). “There is a reason for excluding from testing lower-achieving students...by transferring or expelling them, or by encouraging them to drop out. If these students leave school, they do not participate in the tests which determine whether schools are deemed under-performing,” (Jaeger, chapter 7). Thus, NCLB effectively encourages schools to not care about lower-achieving students who are likely to drop out. One hardly needs to point out how this goes against an ethic of care.

Thus, it is clear that society’s emphasis on standardized test scores, as well as the federal government’s intrusion into the educational system, makes the realization of my most important educational aims highly unlikely or nearly impossible. But, to end on a more optimistic note, there is hope for me yet, as No Child Left Behind is up for re-authorization this September. Repealing the law would make my aims more feasible.

References
Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education (reprinted ed.) New York: Touchstone Books.

Dewey, J. (1938/2000). Experience and education. In R. Reed & T. Johnson, Eds., Philosophical documents in education (2nd ed.) (pp. 115-124). New York: Longman. (Reprinted from Experience and education by J. Dewey, 1938, Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi, pp. 33-50).

Dewey, J. (1897/1972). My pedagogic creed. In R. Reed & T. Johnson, Eds., Philosophicaldocuments in education (2nd ed.) (pp. 103-110). New York: Longman. (Reprinted from John Dewey: The early works 1895-1898, vol. 5 by J. Dewey, J.A. Boydston, Ed., Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 84-95).

Dillon, S. (2007, July 25). Focus on 2 R’s cuts time for the rest, report says. New York Times. Retrieved August 9, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com

Glater, J. (2007, July 29). Certain degrees now cost more at universities. New York Times. Retrieved August, 9, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com

Jaeger, Elizabeth. What every parent, teacher, and community member needs to know about No Child Left Behind. Unpublished manuscript.

Noddings, N. (1992/2000). The challenge of care in schools: An alternative approach to education. In R. Reed & T. Johnson, Eds., Philosophical documents in education (2nd ed.) (pp. 247-257). New York: Longman (Reprinted from The Challenge to Care in Schools: An Alternative Approach to Education, by Noddings, 1992, New York: Teachers College Press).

Tyack, D. (2003). Seeking common ground: Public schools in a diverse society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

I wish that all my colleagues could say as much on the subject as well.

Friday, August 17, 2007

Reiterating my support for Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara

Frankly, I'm been amazed and surprised by the number of negative comments generated by my previous post on the current situation facing Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara. This prompted me to do a more thorough investigation into the history and chronology of the firing of Dr. Azly and his wife from UUM. My investigations, coupled with my personal experience of pursuing a PhD here in the US, have led me to reiterate my support for Dr. Azly and his wife, in stronger terms than before. In addition, I also want to try to respond to some of the queries raised by certain comments to my previous post on this matter. Be warned, this is going to be a long post.

According to an exclusive by Malaysiakini dated Aug 22, 2005, it was in March of 2004 when UUM initiated 'proceedings' against Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara.

In a letter dated March 17, 2004 from the disciplinary committee stating that the pair had broken the code of conduct, they were also accused of failure to report for work on completion of their doctoral studies in the United States.

Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara started their doctorate program in 1997 (I'm guessing the fall of 1997 when most US universities start their academic term).

The same Malaysiakini report stated that:

They had gone to the US in 1997 and had then written to UUM on Sept 5, 2004 to ask for no-pay leave extension up to September next year (which means Sept 2006, I think), citing a need to stabilise their personal financial situation as the reason for wanting to prolong their stay.


So, the period of time from Sept 1997 to Sept 2004 is roughly 7 years, and including the 2 years that Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara was asking for, means that it would be roughly 9 years before they would return to serve UUM. During this time, according to a lawsuit recently filed by UUM Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara were paid their salaries as well as monthly expenses totaling RM1.25 million.

Some of our readers have commented on why it cost UUM RM1.25 million to fund Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara. For those who are unfamiliar with the US education system, it costs roughly 50,000 US dollars a year to fund a PhD student. My costs are being borne by the department of political science at Duke University. I've said in a previous post that it would eventually cost roughly RM900,000 to fund me for the 5 years of my PhD program (God willing I'm be able to finish in another 2 years). If it was the three years of sponsorship that UUM gave to Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara, it would cost roughly RM600,000 each (depending on the exchange rate and cost of living, which is higher in NY than in North Carolina) which would work out to the RM1.2 million or so cited by UUM.

I'm not sure if the school fees of Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara were waived by Columbia (which is roughly 30,000 US per year) but regardless, the RM600,000 or so spent by UUM on Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara respectively is not extravagant and in fact, well within bounds of two graduate students living in NY for three years. In fact, RM600,000 is roughly what JPA will spend to support one student for 4 years here in the US or the roughly RM500,000 JPA will spend to support a student for 3 years in the UK. I don't need to remind many of our readers that many of these JPA scholars fail to return to Malaysia to 'serve' out their bond or that even if they return to Malaysia, many of them end up working in the private sector. This is not to say that I support anyone including Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara to break their bonds which have been paid by taxpayers money (although the circumstances facing Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara were different, more on this later) but that our readers who are critical of the amount spent on Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara should be equally critical of JPA sending undergraduates to study in the US or the UK!

OK, back to the question of salaries and expenses. What is unclear to me was whether UUM continued to pay cost of living expenses and the salaries of Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara during the period in which they requested for the 4 extensions asked for.

Again, according to Malaysiakini,

It said the couple had also asked for extensions on four occasions to complete their studies, and this was granted with their monthly salaries paid and their expenses financed by the university despite being absent from duty.

This seems to imply that they were paid their living expenses and their salaries while they were on each of their 4 extensions. But was this sufficient for living and supporting a family in NY?

For those of you who have not had the experience of relocating to another country with your entire family without the support of a corporation (like the many MNCs which help transfer their staff from one country to another), it is a very traumatizing process. Fitting into a new culture, finding schools for your kids, transitioning to a new and demanding academic environment.

My wife and I found it hard enough to transition to life in Durham, North Carolina, and we were relatively 'lucky' in the sense that we don't have any kids, we were able to purchase a car relatively quickly, I was being funded by two scholarships (Duke and Fulbright), she managed to find a job relatively quickly (she's an architect by training) and the cost of living in Durham is much lower than that of major cities in the US, not least NY.

Most sponsored PhD students from Malaysia choose to go to 'easier' places such as the UK and Australia where (i) there is already a large support group of Malaysians there who can help a family settle in relatively quickly (ii) which is closer to home (Sydney is 8 hours from KL, London is 13, compared to the 20 plus hours of traveling time to NY and add another 10 or so hours if you have to transit another time within the US) (iii) there are few pre-PhD dissertation requirements.

Point (iii) deserves further elaboration. Unlike most PhD programs in the UK and in Australia, most, if not all, PhD programs in the US require a student to take between 2 to 3 years of coursework before they are even allowed to start working on their PhD dissertation. That is why it takes much longer for a US Phd student, especially those in the humanities and the social sciences, to finish their Phd. The average time for my course is 6 years. For those in the religion department, which have much tougher language requirements, it usually takes an average of 7 plus years to finish a PhD.

While Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara might have taken a bit longer (I think it took them a total of 9 years to finish their doctorate dissertations), this has to be seen in the context of their personal hardships which included the Asian financial crisis in 1997 / 1998 which probably cut their living expenses (including their ringgit denominated savings and salaries, which probably was used as part of their relocation costs) significantly and the 9/11 attacks on the US and NY specifically, which might have pushed their dissertation work back as much as a year. Both of them, for legitimate reasons, have wanted to keep the personal side of their circumstances private since they don't think that that was what led to their subsequent firing but in the end they decided to reveal some of these circumstances in a public letter which was published in Malaysiakini on Aug 9, 2007.

Would it have been easier if they had decided to do their doctorates locally in Malaysia or in the UK or Australia? Of course it would have. But getting into Columbia is no easy feat and it presented them with a once in a lifetime opportunity to study and work in one of the best universities in the US, if not the world.

For those of our readers who wondered why these scholars had to travel all the way to the US to write about Cyberjaya or the MSRMs, I would say this in reply. Being in an academic environment such as one in Columbia allows you to learn different theoretical approaches to one's subject of interest which one can then apply in the study of that subject. In addition, one can also learn about comparative examples (from other countries) in one's subject of interest. I don't exactly know what Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara wrote their respective dissertations on or if they brought in many comparative examples from other countries but I can illustrate this point using my own personal situation.

In the course of my studies here in the US, I've learned a semi-sophisticated statistical technique which can help one estimate racial voting patterns in ethnically divided societies. Using this method, I've been able to estimate ethnic voting patterns in Peninsular Malaysia from the 1959 to the 2004 elections. Using data which my research collaborate, Dr. Bridget Welsh, from SAIS in Johns Hopkins, at the polling station level for the 1999 and 2004 elections, we have managed to estimate racial voting patterns at the polling station level. Would I have been able to learn and apply this if I did my PhD in Malaysia? Probably not! So while I might be writing about elections in Malaysia, I'm using relatively sophisticated tools and theories which I've learn throughout the course of my studies here in the US. I'm willing to bet that Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara have benefited similarly from their US experience.

For those readers who are wondering why Dr. Azly had to take so long to finish his dissertation and why he couldn't just 'transfer' credits from his previous Masters degrees, this is what I have to say in response. Most US PhD programs actively discourage the 'transfer' of credits, if you will. There are a few reasons why this is so. Most schools want you to fulfill a number of credits in terms of courses because they want you to be familiar with the theoretical approach which a particular department or faculty member takes in regards to the subject of interest. In addition, this is a good way for a doctorate student to get to know faculty better so that one can better pick and choose faculty to be on one's committee. So even if you could transfer credits, you might not want to because you want to take certain courses under certain professors.

To illustrate how difficult it is for one to 'transfer' credits from one program to another here in the US, let me give you a few more personal examples. I have an MPhil in economics from the University of Cambridge. I toyed with the idea of applying to do a PhD in Economics in the US after my Masters in Cambridge and I found out that I couldn't 'exempt' myself from the coursework components for all of the top schools in the US. A friend of mine who recently transfered from Duke to Berkeley also faced a similar quandary if you will. She did two years of coursework here at Duke, including a Masters dissertation, but she has to repeat another two years of coursework at Berkeley even though she will be in the same field i.e. political science. Hence, the notion that Dr. Azly could have 'transfered' credits from his previous Masters programs is not a very realistic one.

I also have to mention that one needs to take a 'qualifying' or 'comprehensive' exam at the end of the coursework period and one needs to pass this exam before even starting one's own dissertation.

They could have given up even before they started on their quest for their respective doctorates because of the Asian financial crisis. They could have given up halfway through their program especially after the 9-11 attacks on New York. Believe me when I say that if you take a straw poll among many sponsored academics in the public universities, you'd find a significant number who only returned with a Masters degree after 4 or 5 years abroad or that they had to come back and finish their PhDs locally. Kudos should be given to Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara for 'braving' it out in NY and finally finishing their respective doctorates despite their difficult circumstances. Instead, many of our readers have chosen to disparage them, perhaps out of a lack of knowledge of their personal circumstances as well as the a lack of knowledge in regards to the US doctorate process. (I hope that none of the critical comments were 'planted' by members of certain political parties as a way to 'sabotage' this blog)

Back to the chronology of events. After asking for a no-pay leave extension for 2 years starting from September 2004, the disciplinary committee made a decision on December 7, 2004 that the two were 'found guilty' and that they would be fired with effect from Dec 9, 2004. The grounds of the firing were twofold - firstly, because they had not reported back to work at UUM after the completion of their doctorates (it is unclear to me if both of them had finished their doctorates in 2004) and also because of their refusal to sign the 'Akujanji' pledge.

They were sent a letter , dated Dec 23, by the disciplinary committee which 'also gave them 30 days of receipt in which to lodge an appeal, which they did on Jan 1, 2005'.

Now, I've been told by some of my lecturer friends in the public universities, that it is very difficult to fire a civil servant, especially lecturers in public universities. It takes a series of steps culminating with some sort of signed document on the part of the minister in charge (in this case, it would be the Minister of Higher Education, previously it would be the Minister of Education). This kind of move is highly unprecedented, especially given that Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara were sponsored students and a significant amount of resources had already been spent on their obtaining their respective doctorates. In fact, Dr. Azly speculated that they were probably the first two academics to be fired because of their refusal to sign the Akujanji. This leads me to believe that their firings were more about their refusal to sign the Akujanji rather than their requests for a further no-pay leave extension until 2006. To have the approval of the Minister for the firing of two highly qualified academic staff is no small matter.

It also had to go through the then VC of UUM, Dr Ahmad Fawzi Basri (now deceased), which from his writings, I gather that Dr. Azly was not on good terms with. In a letter dated June 13, 2007, he listed some of these issues including his reputation as a dictatorial VC and as someone who regularly suppressed freedom of speech among students and who seemed to specifically target Dr. Azly. Of course, Dr. Basri cannot defend himself now that he has passed away but clearly Dr. Azly saw the potential that Akujanji could be used against him by the then VC if he signed it and later returned to UUM. (For those interested, you can read a report on Malaysia Today on allegations of corruption brought up against the same VC)

The fact that their respective terminations had to go through a vindictive VC is only further proof to me that they were targeted more for their views and their seeming 'disobedience' against the administration of UUM than for their request for a no pay leave of 2 years.

One should look at the case of Terence Gomez, who at one point in time, was 'forced' to resign by the UM, under an unpopular VC, when he was appointed to a position as a research coordinator at UNRISD in Geneva, Switzerland. He was later reinstated at the intervention of Pak Lah. Or one can look at the case of Prof Ramasamy of UKM whose contract was not renewed probably because of his outspoken views against the Malaysian government.

At this point in time, I should remind our readers that Akujanji was only introduced after Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara had left for the US. It was not part of their 'contract' agreement with UUM when they left for the US as sponsored students.

Why not just sign the Akujanji and be done with it, some of our readers might ask? I firmly believe that Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara did not sign the Akujanji as a matter of principle and not because it was an easy 'cop-out'. Here are some of the reasons behind my thinking.

If Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara had wanted to stay on in the US and earn the 'big bucks', as some of our readers have speculated, then, the easy way would have been to sign the Akujanji in hope of getting the 2 year no pay extension. Even if they had wanted to stay on in the US indefinitely, it would have been easier to 'dupe' the UUM authorities by showing a certain amount of pliancy and sign the Akujanji and then after the 2 years of no-pay leave, ask for another extension or just not come back at all and ignore UUM totally!

By refusing to sign the Akujanji and by asking for continual clarification in regards to two clauses within the Akujanji which can potentially be abused, they took the risk of getting their request for a no-pay leave extension rejected.

I certainly don't think that Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara wanted to be fired from UUM so that they could be freed from their bonds. By being fired, they risked losing their pensions which they could have built up by continuing to work in UUM after finishing their doctorates. They also risked not being able to be employed by any other public university in Malaysia (all of whom have Akujanji pledges) because they would probably be 'blacklisted' by the MOHE as well as the public universities. They would also know that by being fired, they risked UUM going after them for the amount of living expenses and salaries paid to them while they were studying in the US (which is what is happening now) and that UUM could go after their guarantors if both of them remained in the US (which is what is happening now as well).

No, by not wanting to sign the Akujanji pledge, Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara were taking a high road and standing by their principles and they are paying dearly for it now, having been fired from UUM (and probably losing the pensions which they have built up there from working before going off to the US) and probably not able to seek employment elsewhere in the public university system and on top of that, being sued by UUM for RM1.25 million.

How would our readers feel if the government decided to target a few JPA scholars who have come back to Malaysia but not served out their bond and instead went to work for opposition parties and sued these individuals while letting those scholars who are working for MNCs get off 'scott-free'? Wouldn't you be criticizing this policy instead of asking only for these few JPA scholars who are targeted to quit opposition politics? (And Dr. Azly's 'crime' is much less 'serious'. He didn't join the opposition, he only voiced out his opposition against Akujanji)

As for the question of them taking the 2 year no pay leave to 'stabilize their financial situation', could we really blame them for doing so, especially if they had run up substantial debts for the medical bills of both Dr. Mutiara and at least one of their children? Taking this no pay leave and working for a US based institution for 2 years doesn't 'cost' UUM anything and in fact, they could potentially benefit from Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara's experience from teaching / working in these US based institutions. If they decided that at the end of 2 years that they didn't want to come back to UUM, they could still be asked to pay back UUM the amount they owe plus interest over the 2 years.

I firmly believe that if UUM had allowed Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara to have that 2 year no pay leave and allowed them NOT to sign the Akujanji as a way of compromise, I think both of them would be teaching in UUM right now. Earning the so-called 'big bucks' in the US would still take Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara a long time to pay off the 300,000 to 400,000 US dollars (depending on the exchange rate) owed to UUM. Perhaps it will take less than the 5 lifetimes that Dr. Azly mentioned but it certainly wouldn't be paid off in a few years, especially with bills to pay and with children to support in the US.

I firmly believe that Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara were and still are committed to improving the state of our public universities in their own respective areas. Just read this excerpt taken from a letter written to Malaysiakini by one of Dr. Azyl's former students, who did not agree with Dr. Azly's decision to remain in the US:

I studied under Azly way before he went to US for his doctorate. Even then, he was, to me, an outstanding educationist. His approach towards learning was different from other teachers, not that I am implying that the others are bad. Azly’s approach is different. He taught us, among others, how to think critically and how to approach a problem and find the best solution. His style of lecturing kept us awake, with him inserting current issues with facts learned, making us voice out our opinions and creating many discussions one after another.

I can remember many of us coming out glimmering from his class, eager to share the knowledge gained with others who were not so fortunate to be taught by him.

Being a true visionist, Azly had so many ideas on how the education system could be improved. Even with all the bureaucracy in MRSM, he and his wife did all they could to make education fun while at the same time making learning as effective as possible. I remember one time when we were a part of an English club which hosted a Drama Night with dancing, singing and a live band performance - something that was truly unheard of in the MRSM learning system.

After that, some of my friends who were originally quite shy, including myself, were more vocal in class and not afraid to give our ideas which completely reversed our personality. Sorry Academy Fantasia, we were performing way before you (only not on a national level).

As a true educationist and after gaining so much experience abroad, I am sure that both Azly and Marina are eager to part with their knowledge only be bogged down with bureaucracy that will only degrade what they have learned. As an ex-student of Azly, I can vouch that he does care for his students. Many, however, may feel threatened by him because of his approach and how much students responded to his way of learning.

Yes, I agree with Ariff that Azly and Marina should come back and just sign that ‘Aku Janji’ pledge and prove themselves to this country and how classroom teaching should be. But then again, as an educationist with a vision that is beyond the standards that are here, I wouldn’t blame him if he wanted to stay in the US where he would be truly appreciated and given the opportunity to expand his talent.

As Malaysia heads for 2020, ‘Aku Janji’ and the University and University Colleges Act should be scrapped, giving freedom to both educators and students to express themselves without fear and prejudice, creating the right kind of mentality to appreciate Vision 2020.


Lastly, for those who want to cast aspersion on Dr. Azly's Doctorate in Education (EdD) instead of a PhD in Education, I'll just point to this Columbia link which says that an EdD requires more credits compared to a PhD (90 versus 75) and that an EdD usually takes longer to complete compared to a PhD. As far the difference between the two, I'd just say, based on my limited knowledge that the EdD focuses more on the 'practice' while the PhD may focus more on the 'theoretical' aspects of education. (Perhaps similar to the different between a DBA - application of theory - and a PhD in Business Administration) Please remember that this is Columbia University, a distinguished and reputable university, unlike some of the more dubious ones which we've highlighted in this blog in the past.

I think I've gone on long enough.

I'd like to recap the main points made in this long post:

1) That the RM600,000 or so spent on Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara respectively is not an extravagant sum and is roughly what the JPA spends on a single Malaysian student studying in a private college here in the US, many of whom don't return to serve out their bonds

2) That the US Phd process usually takes longer than the UK or the Australian PhD process because of heavy coursework requirements as well as the need to take a 'comprehensive' or 'qualifying' exam.

3) That it would have been easier for Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara to sign the Akujanji pledge to obtain their no pay leave extension

4) That it doesn't make financial sense for Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara to renege on their bond to UUM so that they can work in the US

5) That they took a principled stand against Akujanji and paid the price for it

6) That they were targeted by the former VC and perhaps the former Minister of Higher Education because of their stand against Akujanji rather than because of their request for a 2 year no pay leave

7) That they went through many trying personal hardships including the 1997 / 1998 Asian financial crisis, the 9-11 attacks on New York and the many illnesses and deaths in the family and still managed to finish their respective doctorates

8) That they were and still are committed to returning to Malaysia to teach and contribute to building up the capacity of our local public universities

I hope that I've answered many of the criticisms targeted at Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara in this post.

And I sincerely hope and pray that with a different VC at UUM and with a different Minister of Higher Education, the situation facing Dr. Azly and Dr. Mutiara can be resolved in the near future (perhaps with the intervention of Pak Lah?) so that these two scholars can return to Malaysia and contribute their expertise, their passion for teaching and their knowledge to building up our public universities.

Thanks for your patience in reading through this long post and apologies for any grammatical and spelling errors (of which I'm sure there are many).

The Spellings Report: Margaret Heads South!

One of our confidential sources inside the Bush Administration has intimated to us that Washington's Educrat-in-Chief Margaret Spellings was recently sighted down in Memphis, Tennessee, where she was heard to say this: (emphasis ours) How do we close the achievement gap and prepare all children to succeed in the global economy? To me, the answer is clear—the reauthorization of No Child Left

A consultant's ideas to improve schools in the US

Thanks to my wife for referring me to this New York Times article about how a senior adviser to Tony Blair and now a partner with McKinsey and Co, one of the world's top management consultancies, was being asked to help improve schools in the US. I read three points in this article that are worth highlighting.

The first point Sir Michael Barber raises is in regards to teachers.

“What have all the great school systems of the world got in common?” he said, ticking off four systems that he said deserved to be called great, in Finland, Singapore, South Korea and Alberta, Canada. “Four systems, three continents — what do they have in common?

“They all select their teachers from the top third of their college graduates, whereas the U.S. selects its teachers from the bottom third of graduates. This is one of the big challenges for the U.S. education system: What are you going to do over the next 15 to 20 years to recruit ever better people into teaching?”

South Korea pays its teachers much more than England and America, and has accepted larger class sizes as a trade-off, he said.

Finland, by contrast, draws top-tier college graduates to the profession not with huge paychecks, but by fostering exceptionally high public respect for teachers, he said.


I can't say much about the education system in Finland, South Korea and Alberta, Canada but I can say something about the education system in Singapore, where I spent 4 years studying.

As far as I know, teachers in Singapore are paid a respectable salary and continual efforts are made by the Ministry of Education in Singapore to review the salary schemes of teachers. Most teachers lead a decent lifestyle and perhaps with not as much stress as those working in the private sector or for MNCs in Singapore. And choosing teaching as a career path is also a respectable one though many parents would probably prefer their kids to be earning more money in the private sector.

To be fair to the Malaysian government and to the Ministry of Education, steps have been made to increase the salaries of teachers. From some of the comments from one of Tony's previous post, I gather that the starting salary of teachers have increased and adding in the allowances which they receive, their salaries are almost commensurate with some starting salaries in the private sector.

I also recall when I was back in Malaysia in May this year that the hardship or transport allowances for teachers who teach in the more rural parts of Malaysia, especially in Sabah and Sarawak were to be increased, I think as much as up to 1500RM per month.

But my impression is that teaching as a profession is not attracting anywhere close to the top quality Malaysians who graduate from either a local university or from abroad. When was the last time you heard a friend who after graduating decided to go for teacher training and decided to become a teacher at either the primary or secondary level? While I know many friends who are teaching in private and public colleges and universities in Malaysia, I cannot name one single friend, Malay, Chinese or Indian who is teaching in a primary or secondary school in Malaysia. If I was a betting man, I would say that most of our readers would not be able to name more than 5 of their friends who are teachers in either primary or secondary schools. I'm also willing to bet that many of our readers would probably be able to name at least 5 people who are either aunts, uncles or parents of their friends who either are teachers or were teachers and have retired.

Truth be told, I don't know of many of my Singaporean friends who have entered the teaching profession but I can at least name a couple of acquaintances from my Raffles Junior College cohort who have gone into the teaching profession in Singapore.

So if pay is not necessarily one of the main obstacles in attracting decent talent to the teaching profession in Malaysia, what are some alternative explanations? A few that comes to mind off the top of my head include: (i) the possibility of being assigned to a rural school, especially for those who are more used to the more urban lifestyle (something which Singapore teachers don't have to face) (ii) the possibility of being assigned to a school with a lot of disciplinary problems (which describes a majority of urban schools) especially at the secondary level (iii) the perception that there is little prospect for career advancements, more so on the part of the non-Malays (iv) the declining respect for teaching as a profession, perhaps because of a lack of publicity and marketing on the part of the Ministry of Education (v) the lack of aggressive recruitment drives on the part of the MOE.

The problems facing our primary and secondary education system are complex but certainly addressing the quality of the teaching staff has got to be one of the main priorities.

The 2nd point he raises is in regards to the amount of control a federal government has over the education system.

Comparing the UK with the US, he says:

But more important, he said, Britain’s political system endows its prime ministers with greater powers to impose new practices than any corresponding American official enjoys, since basic education policies in the United States are set in the 50 states and in the nation’s 15,000 local school districts, he said. Even though President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Law has considerably increased federal influence over what happens in American schools, Washington still plays a subsidiary role to states and municipalities, he said.

“Once Britain’s prime minister is elected, he has a majority in Parliament and it’s much easier to change things,” Sir Michael said. “In contrast, the founding fathers created a political culture where you have to get consensus from competing factions.”


The Malaysian federal government is similar to the UK's in that it has almost complete oversight in regards to education matters in Malaysia. Therefore, it should be easier for the Malaysian government to change education policies in Malaysia compared to the US.

Of course, with great power comes great responsibility and with this power, the Ministry of Education has within its capability, the ability to do great harm as well as to do great good. This includes haphazard changes in the syllabus, frequent changes in national education blueprint depending on the minister in charge, the failure to implement policies set by either the cabinet or the minister and so on.

But the fact that there is centralization of power in regards to education policies in Malaysia means that the potential to change our education system for the better is there and can take place faster compared to a context where the jurisdiction for education matters is much more decentralized.

The third point that he makes is in regards to the review process in evaluating schools.

The world’s best school rating systems, including England’s, he said, not only consider test results, but also send government inspectors directly into schools to search for causes of poor performance. McKinsey’s report on Ohio recommended that the state create a corps of inspectors like England’s, which reviews every school at least once every three years, examining the teaching environment and the caliber of school leadership, and suggesting changes, he said.

New York has set up a similar corps of inspectors, he added.


I'm not sure what kind of a review process our MOE has in regards to our primary and secondary schools but I'd be very interested to find out. For example, does the MOE try to teach the 'best practices' of the top performing schools to other schools? Does it have some sort of internal rating process in regards to how well individual schools are performing? Does it have a review process by which non-academic results (such as the UPSR or the PMR) are evaluated? My guess is that currently, no such comprehensive review process exists and that not much is done in regards to trying to improve the worst performing schools in the country.

For those interested in the report which Sir Michael Barber and McKinsey and Co did for the Ohio state government, please click here. It's over a hundred pages long. I'm sure that there's a lot of stuff in there which is already known to us ('taking your watch and telling you the time and charging you for it' consultant practice) but I'm sure that there are insights to be garnered and interesting comparisons which can be made between the US education system (or Ohio to be more exact) and the Malaysian education system.(For example, I was surprised to find that disadvantaged Asian and White students performed better than non-disadvantaged Black and Hispanic students and that Asian and White students performed better than Black and Hispanic students even after controlling for income)

In the meantime, we should keep our eyes on how well our MOE is doing in regards to keeping with the objectives of the latest National Education Blueprint. I'm happy to hear that the MOE is conducting regular reviews on how many of the Blueprint's objectives and plans they have implemented / achieved, according to reports in the past few months.