All Malaysians are in favour of our students improving their English. The disagreement is on how to achieve it. We can learn by examining how America manages its large number of English-illiterate pupils.

Like Malaysia, America is a diverse nation. Unlike Malaysia, education in America is decentralised to the local level. The selection of teachers, curriculum, and textbooks are made locally. Thus schools in California are very different from those in Texas.

What is remarkable is that the different models have their successes and failures. The corollary is that there is no 'one-size-fits-all' solution. Malaysia should therefore expect that what works in Ukay Heights may be totally inappropriate for Ulu Kelantan. With the former, there is high level of English background in the community and at home; not so with the latter. We must be mindful of such crucial differences.

The successful American models are those carefully thought out and thoughtfully implemented. The other lesson is the importance of small classes and dedicated teachers, together with the willingness to assess and improve as we go along. A perfect system does not remain so forever. We should be wary of those peddling panaceas; nor is there a magic wand.

Bilingual education

The American education establishment favours bilingual education, where students are taught in their native language (usually Spanish), with English as a second language. The assumption is that when schools teach in the pupil's native language, they impart two things: knowledge and literacy.

The knowledge the children get through their mother tongue helps them learn English better, while the literacy developed in the mother language gets transferred to English. That is, the ability to read transfers across languages, even when the writing system is different, as in Chinese or Japanese to English. This view is similar to that held by Chinese Malaysian educationists who favour the status quo of teaching science and mathematics in the mother language.

As pupils become proficient in English, they begin learning other subjects in English (initially science and mathematics) in a sheltered environment. As their English improves, other subjects requiring more abstract use of language (literature, geography and history) will also be taught in English. Eventually the students are put in the mainstream with English as the medium of instruction, the mother language being taught only as a subject.

Testing the theory

Critics of bilingual education point to the appalling rate of school dropouts and the atrocious test scores of children in such programmes. Many of these critics are themselves successful immigrants who as students had opted out of bilingual education for English immersion classes.

As is so typical of the social sciences, the results of studies on bilingual education are confusing and contradictory. Often the designs and conclusions of such researches have less to do with scientific rigor than with the researchers' underlying political philosophies and biases, making the interpretations difficult and problematic.

Fortunately, a political development in California provides a unique opportunity for testing the theory. In 1998 Californians passed Proposition 227, effectively legislating an end to bilingual education. This proposition was initiated by a group of Spanish-speaking parents fed up with the poor performance of their children in bilingual education. A leading industrialist, equally fed up with the mediocre quality workers available for his company, funded the movement. The rest of the nation meanwhile continued with bilingual education.

The campaign leading to this proposition was divisive and contentious. Opponents feared that children would be unable to cope with the sudden introduction of English and thereby drop out. Supporters were variously labeled as racists and anti-immigrants. They in turn accused the other side of wanting to trap immigrant children in perpetual mediocrity. All of course professed to have the children's best interest at heart!

The current acrimonious debate in Malaysia over the teaching of Science and Mathematics in English eerily reminds me of that earlier rancorous campaign in California.

Total English immersion

With passage of that proposition, children with limited English proficiency now spend their first year totally immersed in English. Following that they are placed in the mainstream, with their mother tongue taught only as one subject. This is similar to Malaysia's current 'remove' classes.

The results of this forced experiment are now obvious. Within the first few months, teachers immediately began noticing a remarkable transformation. The children were no longer dropping out indeed their attendance improved markedly and they were learning much more rapidly. Improvements were noted in all age groups. Test scores in English in one school, for example, jumped from the 11th percentile to 23rd by the end of the first year. Double improvement! By the third year it jumped to the 32nd percentile!

Even more remarkable than improved test scores was the progress at the ground level. The students loved speaking English; they actually enjoyed learning! Their teachers were ecstatic! On the playground these children were even more confident and mixed more freely with native English-speaking students. These pupils now had a 'one up' over their classmates who could speak only English. This tremendously enhanced their self-esteem and confidence, which spilled over to their other classroom performances.

Such dramatic results make converts of those who previously favoured bilingual education into boosters of English immersion classes!

Did such successes settle the issue once and for all? Far from it! For one, at the same time that proposition was passed, California also mandated class size reduction and introduced phonics teaching of English (sounding letters and syllables). While previously the average class was in excess of 30 students, today it is under 20. And English was taught using the 'whole language' method. Presumably all three small classes, phonics teaching, and immersion classes helped.

Modify models

Meanwhile, proponents of bilingual education have also improved their techniques and introduced innovative models. In Texas, the Houston school district in collaboration with prestigious Rice University set up a pioneering school where both English and Spanish are used in tandem throughout the school years. Thus far Rice School/La Escuela Rice offers only K-8 levels, and already it is proving to be wildly popular such that entry is by lottery and slots for children of Rice faculty members are limited to 12 percent. The unique features of the school are its small class size and extensive use of electronics like videodiscs, computers, and Internet access.

The successes of both the Rice experience and California's immersion classes prove that any system can be made successful if we pay attention to details and are willing to modify as we go along.

Far from discouraging debates, we should encourage them. The goal should be to correct models that fail and enhance those that work.

Portions of this essay are from the writer's latest book, An education system worthy of Malaysia, to be published in early 2003. He can be contacted at: bakrimusa@juno.com.