Preliminary-Blueprint-Eng

3-19
EXHIBIT 3-24
Comparison of rural and urban school gap over time
UPSR scores
Percent GPS (2005-2011)
70
65
60
55
SOURCE: Examination Syndicate
Urban
Rural
50
2005 06 07 08 09 10 2011
2011
% gap
3.8
SPM scores
Percent GPS (2004-2011)
50
45
40
35
30
2004 05 06
07
08
09
10 2011
Urban
Rural
NOTE: Urban schools are taken to be schools classified as “Bandaraya”, “Bandar” and “Bandar Kecil.” Rural schools are
schools classified as “Luar Bandar.”
Achievement gap between rural and urban
schools is narrowing over time
2011
% gap
The Ministry and the general public have long focused attention on
inequity in educational outcomes between students attending school
in urban communities versus those in rural communities. States with a
higher proportion of rural schools, like Sabah and Sarawak, on average,
underperform states with fewer rural schools. However, Malaysia has
made clear progress in this area: the gap between rural and urban
schools has been gradually closing over time (Exhibit 3-24).
In the UPSR examinations, the gap today between urban and rural
students is almost 4 percentage points in favour of urban schools.
At the SPM level, the gap appears to have widened to 8 percentage
points. This widening gap could be driven by two factors. The first is
that failure is cumulative. A child who fails at UPSR is unlikely to be
able to succeed at SPM. Early intervention is thus critical. The second
is that there was no actual widening. Instead, the 2006 UPSR cohort
maintained their urban-rural gap of 8 percentage points through to
SPM in 2011.
8.0
EXHIBIT 3-25
Comparison of National and National-type UPSR scores from
2005 to 2011
UPSR scores of primary schools
Percent GPS
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
2005
06
07
08
09
2011
1 Gaps are calculated as the difference in percentage points between SK scores less SJK(C) or SJK(T) scores
SOURCE: Examination Syndicate
10
SK SJKC
Achievement gaps between National and
National-type schools are narrowing over time
Student outcomes by school type also warrant consideration. The story
here is a positive one overall, as the gaps are consistently narrowing.
At the primary level, SJK(T)s still lag behind both SJK(C)s and SKs by
approximately 4 percentage points in 2011 (Exhibit 3-25). However,
this gap has been almost halved during the past five years. The
difference in performance between SK and SJK(C) is negligible at
0.3 percentage points in 2011.
2005
gap
-2.5
11.7
SJKT
2011
gap
0.3
3.5