Preliminary-Blueprint-Eng

Recommendations

Info

3-11 ▪ In Science, students are able to identify, explain and apply scientific knowledge in a variety of complex life situations. They consistently demonstrate advanced scientific thinking and reasoning. Students are able to use scientific knowledge and develop arguments in support of recommendations and decisions that centre on personal, social, or global situations. The contrast with other top-performing Asian countries is obvious: the percentage of students in Singapore, South Korea, and Hong Kong performing at the Advanced level in reading is 120-150 times that of Malaysia (Exhibit 3-14). EXHIBIT 3-14 Comparison of Malaysia’s PISA 2009+ performance in Reading by skill level against other countries Percentage of students at each performance levels 1 in PISA 2009+ Reading Advanced Intermediate Below minimum 12.9 13.4 81.3 79.3 71.8 73.0 5.8 Korea 12.4 8.3 Hong Kong 15.7 12.5 Singapore 13.6 Japan 7.6 73.6 18.8 OECD average 0.7 0.3 0.1 58.9 56.8 55.9 40.4 42.9 Romania Thailand 44.0 Malaysia 0 46.6 53.4 Indonesia 1 Advanced includes proficiency level 5 and level 6; Intermediate includes proficiency level 2, 3, and 4; and Below minimum includes proficiency level 1 and below SOURCE: PISA 2009+ Exhibit 3-15 compares all the countries taking part in international assessments and how well their students performed. The vertical axis shows their level of achievement on the universal scale. Countries are classified based on the universal scale into broad performance bands of Poor, Fair, Good, Great, and Excellent. The difference between each performance band (approximately 40 universal scale points) is equivalent to one year of schooling. Thus, 15-year-olds in a Good system are performing as though they have had one extra year of schooling compared to 15-year-olds in a Fair system. The horizontal axis of the chart shows the public expenditure on education per student in US dollars (PPP adjusted) as of 2008. All the countries have been allocated to the bar that corresponds to their expenditure band. The number at the top of this bar is the maximum score achieved (by a particular country) for this level of expenditure, and the number at the bottom represents the minimum score. The chart highlights Malaysia’s public expenditure per student in 2008. Combining the two axes highlights the variation in performance between countries that have similar levels of expenditure in education. TIMSS and PISA highlight that there are Good and Great schools in Malaysia worthy of study and replication While Malaysia’s performance as a system on the international assessments is not as strong as is desired, an analysis of the distribution of scores by school shows that there are schools worthy of study and replication (Exhibit 3-16). These are schools whose performance falls in the Good or Great performance band by international standards. In the TIMSS 2007 assessment, for example, 11% of schools performed in the Great band, while another 30% were in Good. In the PISA 2009+ assessment, 7% of schools were in the Good band. EXHIBIT 3-16 Malaysian school performance by performance bracket for TIMSS 2007 and PISA 2009+ TIMSS 2007 Participating schools by performance bracket Performance bracket Number Percent Excellent 0 0% Great Good Fair Poor SOURCE: TIMSS 2007; PISA 2009+ 17 45 64 24 11% 30% 43% 16% 150 100% PISA 2009+ Participating schools by performance bracket Performance bracket Number Percent Excellent 0 0% Great Good Fair Poor 0 11 20 121 0% 7% 13% 80% 152 100% The Ministry also has two types of Special Awards to recognise schools with outstanding performance: HPS and Cluster Schools (CS). There are 66 HPS around the country, with enhanced decision-making rights (and accountability) to sustain performance while enabling principals and teachers to continue to raise the bar (Exhibit 3-17). There are also 170 CS nationwide. National examinations and international assessments suggest variance in standards There is some evidence to suggest that there is a lack of alignment between the national and international assessments in terms of how standards are defined. These discrepancies go some way toward explaining the mismatch between the trends seen in the national examinations and those revealed in the international assessments.
EXHIBIT 3-15 Country performance in international assessments relative to public spend per student Universal scale score 1 2009 (max, median, min) 580 560 540 520 500 480 460 440 420 400 380 360 340 320 0 Kyrgyzstan 478 Russia Armenia Syria 455 Turkey 441 Iran Bahrain Serbia Chile Bulgaria Uruguay Thailand Romania Mexico Algeria Mauritius Philippines W. Cape Moldova Malaysia Botswana El Savador Jordan Azerbaijan Ghana Kazakhstan Colombia Tunisia Argentina 397 Indonesia Georgia Morocco Panama 327 0– 1,000 370 1,000– 2,000 Slovak Republic 2,000– 3,000 Lithuania 489 412 3000– 4,000 Shanghai Chinese Taipei Poland Hungary Latvia Croatia Greece Oman Saudi Arabia 578 422 4,000– 5,000 Singapore Korea, Rep. Australia Estonia Czech Republic 6,000– 7,000 7,000– 8,000 8,000– 9,000 Public spend per student 2 , PPP units 1 Universal scale based on Hanushek & Woessmann methodology, to enable comparison across systems. 2 Public spend per student for basic education (pre-school, primary, and secondary school levels) for 2008 current prices Note: Malaysia 2008 public spend is USD3000 SOURCE: World Bank EdStats; IMF; UNESCO; PISA 2009+, TIMSS 2007; PIRLS 2006; Global Insight; McKinsey & Company. Israel 544 458 5,000– 6,000 Hong Kong New Zealand Macao SAR, China Portugal Malta 547 458 Japan Germany France Spain Kuwait 531 402 Ontario Canada Slovenia Italy 530 486 Finland UK Iceland Ireland Cyprus Malaysia Education <strong>Blueprint</strong> 2013 - 2025 Chapter 3 Current Performance 545 464 Belg.Flanders 9,000– 10,000 Netherlands Switzerland Norway Denmark USA Sweden Austria Belg. CFB Luxembourg 531 483 10,000 + Excellent Great Good Fair Poor 3-12
Page 1:
Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013 -
Page 5 and 6:
CHAPTER 1 CONTExT AND
Page 7 and 8:
TION Our education system has been
Page 9 and 10:
Delivering the shifts in achievemen
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
CHAPTER 5 TEACHERS AND SCHOOL LEADE
Page 17 and 18:
CHAPTER 4 CURRICUlUM AND ASSESSMENT
Page 19:
CHAPTER 8 SEQUENCINg THE TRANSfORMA
Page 22 and 23:
E-1 executive summary In October 20
Page 24 and 25:
E-3 significant and sustained inves
Page 26 and 27:
E-5 timss and Pisa international as
Page 28 and 29:
E-7 challenges remain in achieving
Page 30 and 31:
E-9 aspiratiOns fOr the malaysian e
Page 32 and 33: E-11 shift 1: provide equal access
Page 34 and 35: E-13 shift 3: develop values-driven
Page 36 and 37: E-15 Eleven shifts to transform the
Page 38 and 39: E-17 shift 5: ensure high-performin
Page 40 and 41: E-19 shift 7: leverage ict to scale
Page 42 and 43: E-21 shift 9: partner with parents,
Page 44 and 45: E-23 What Impact Will This Transfor
Page 46 and 47: E-25 EXHIBIT 9 the education transf
Page 48 and 49: E-27 gains will be delivered within
Page 51 and 52: CHAPTER 1 context and
Page 53 and 54: Background to the Blueprint In 1957
Page 55 and 56: in 2010 to 95% by the end of Year 2
Page 57 and 58: ▪ Fieldwork at both urban and rur
Page 59: The Ministry acknowledges how impor
Page 62 and 63: 2-1 2. vision and aspirations Every
Page 64 and 65: 2-3 consistently demonstrated that
Page 66 and 67: 2-5 EXHIBIT 2-2 Time spent by stude
Page 68 and 69: 2-7 ▪ Emotional intelligence: pos
Page 71 and 72: CHAPTER 3 current
Page 73 and 74: EXHIBIT 3-1 Profile of the Malaysia
Page 75 and 76: EXHIBIT 3-3 Educational attainment
Page 77 and 78: EXHIBIT 3-5 Malaysian national exam
Page 79 and 80: Malaysia’s performance in the 200
Page 81: EXHIBIT 3-12 Comparison of Malaysia
Page 85 and 86: Comparison of results between the T
Page 87 and 88: administration of students’ welfa
Page 89 and 90: EXHIBIT 3-23 Comparison of within-s
Page 91 and 92: EXHIBIT 3-26 Examination results, d
Page 93 and 94: EXHIBIT 3-28 Enrolment rates in dif
Page 95 and 96: In general, there are signs of incr
Page 97 and 98: Which countries Spend the most on e
Page 99: As illustrated in this chapter, Mal
Page 102 and 103: 4-1 4. student learning All educati
Page 104 and 105: 4-3 the Written Curriculum The Mini
Page 106 and 107: 4-5 intensifying support systems fo
Page 108 and 109: 4-7 lANguAge The Ministry will aim
Page 110 and 111: 4-9 EXHIBIT 4-6 English and Bahasa
Page 112 and 113: 4-11 setting the stage for structur
Page 114 and 115: 4-13 the roadmap: Working with comm
Page 116 and 117: 4-15 Centres of Excellence for Indi
Page 118 and 119: 4-17 ▪ Special education schools:
Page 120 and 121: 4-19 special award schools The Mini
Page 122 and 123: 4-21 Johor’s Best Practices -- id
Page 124 and 125: 4-23
Page 127 and 128: CHAPTER 5 Teachers and
Page 129 and 130: TEACHERS The Ministry will ensure t
Page 131 and 132: EXHIBIT 5-4 Breakdown of academic r
Page 133 and 134:
EXHIBIT 5-5 Breakdown of average st
Page 135 and 136:
ole) in 25 years. Nonetheless, this
Page 137 and 138:
e-Guru Video library The Ministry h
Page 139 and 140:
SCHOOl lEADERS The Ministry will en
Page 141 and 142:
Reviews indicate that these trainin
Page 143 and 144:
Establishing a principal residency
Page 145:
Page 148 and 149:
6-1 6. Ministry transformation The
Page 150 and 151:
6-3 EXHIBIT 6-1 selected examples o
Page 152 and 153:
6-5 LinUs case study on strong prog
Page 154 and 155:
6-7 ▪ Federal: The Head Office wi
Page 156 and 157:
6-9 The Ministry will also prioriti
Page 158 and 159:
6-11 The roadmap: maximising studen
Page 160 and 161:
6-13 incorporating outcome-based bu
Page 162 and 163:
6-15 EXHIBIT 6-11 identified gaps i
Page 164 and 165:
6-17 EXHIBIT 6-13 school infrastruc
Page 166 and 167:
6-19 single- and double-session sch
Page 168 and 169:
6-21 One reason usage still appears
Page 170 and 171:
6-23 discussed in Chapter 4, and wi
Page 172 and 173:
6-25
Page 175 and 176:
CHAPTER 7 SyStem
Page 177 and 178:
EXHIBIT 7-1 the Malaysian education
Page 179 and 180:
Preschool education Early Childhood
Page 181 and 182:
EXHIBIT 7-3 Compulsory education po
Page 183 and 184:
partners to improve the industry re
Page 185 and 186:
In addition, there are approximatel
Page 187 and 188:
enhancing the religious education p
Page 189 and 190:
evaluating sports and arts schools
Page 191 and 192:
current system structure to be main
Page 193 and 194:
They will be provided with addition
Page 195 and 196:
education can make a significant di
Page 197 and 198:
launching an engagement toolkit for
Page 199 and 200:
engaging the broader community Scho
Page 201:
Page 204 and 205:
8-1 8. Delivering the roadmap The M
Page 206 and 207:
8-3 Sequencing the tranSformation T
Page 208 and 209:
8-5 EXHIBIT 8-3 the education trans
Page 210 and 211:
8-7 ▪ Enhanced practicum in vocat
Page 212 and 213:
8-9 Delivering Differently A well-c
Page 214 and 215:
8-11 getting StarteD The first year
Page 218 and 219:
G-1 1BestariNet A project to equip
Page 220 and 221:
G-3 IPTS Institut Pengajian Tinggi
Page 222 and 223:
G-5 National dialogue engagement an
Page 224 and 225:
G-7 SK Sekolah Kebangsaan or Nation
Page 228 and 229:
A-1 Appendix i: A Brief History of
Page 230 and 231:
A-3 educatIon develoPment durIng th
Page 232 and 233:
A-5 Appendix ii. Methodology The de
Page 234 and 235:
A-7 analyses conducted By the Pmo T
Page 236 and 237:
A-9 analyses conducted By PuBlIc un
Page 238 and 239:
A-11 roundtable discussions These w
Page 240 and 241:
A-13 Appendix iii: national dialogu
Page 242 and 243:
A-15 Subtopic Example topic raised
Page 244 and 245:
A-17 school quality Subtopic Exampl
Page 246 and 247:
A-19 student learning Subtopic Exam
Page 248 and 249:
A-21 Exhibit iV-1 the universal sca
Page 250 and 251:
A-23 Exhibit V-2 PiSA PISA a A samp
Page 252 and 253:
A-25 Exhibit V-4 PiSA PISA a sample
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
A-31 Exhibit V-10 PiSA PISA a sampl
Page 260 and 261:
A-33 Exhibit V-12 PiSA PISA a sampl
Page 262 and 263:
A-35 the education transformation w
Page 264 and 265:
A-37 Appendix Vii: GTp 2.0 educatio
show all

Preliminary-Blueprint-Eng

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?