Memorandum to Maintain Full DLP Schools and Expand DLP Schools, Classes and Pupils where Criteria are Met

1.    Background

1.1. The Dual Language Programme (DLP) allows selected schools and classes to teach science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects in English. It was introduced in 2016 as a radical approach to enhance English proficiency by way of immersion and, simultaneously, acquire scientific knowledge in its lingua franca making students more marketable in the workplace.

1.2. The DLP guidelines are contained in the Surat Pekeliling Ikhtisas (SPI) Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia (KPM) Bilangan 3 Tahun 2020: Penambahbaikan Garis Panduan Pelaksanaan Dual Language Programme (DLP) KPM Tahun 2021 dated 26 November 2020.

1.3. The DLP guidelines clearly spell out the four criteria for a school to apply for DLP that: sekolah mempunyai sumber yang mencukupi (5.1); Pengetua/Guru Besar mempunyai perancangan untuk melaksanakan DLP (5.2); persetujuan daripada ibu bapa/penjaga (5.3); pencapaian dalam mata pelajaran Bahasa Melayu (BM)(5.4) however only at school level and not individual.

1.4. Reasonable conditions were added on for a smooth flow in that: students have the capacity to continue being in a DLP class at secondary level (12.2.3); there must be at least 15 students to open up a DLP class (12.2.4); to open a class when there is at least 15 students (12.3.2c) and students who opt for non-DLP should not be deprived (12.2.7).

1.5. But what is not contained in the DLP guidelines are: 1) six-year-olds will be subjected to a language assessment of which the result will determine the placement for DLP or non-DLP class; and 2) a non-DLP class must be established which are unwritten terms forced onto schools. This is in contradiction to the DLP guidelines which states that - Bagi mencapai objektif DLP, kejayaan DLP bergantung kepada komitmen dan kecekapan semua pihak yang terlibat dalam memastikan kebolehlaksanaan dan kelestarian program ini pada peringkat sekolah (15.0 - Penutup).

2.    Issue

2.1. Some parents of school-going children who are already enjoying DLP have been told to switch to non-DLP in 2023 as well as the upcoming academic year under duress.

2.2. Schools have been forced to open a non-DLP class in a full DLP school in the new academic year even if all criteria have been met. As it is, there are already very few full DLP schools that have met all criteria. A majority of subjects are still being conducted in BM in such schools. It is not a zero-sum game.

2.3. Placement of pupils in the non-DLP class which is to be established in full DLP schools in 2024 is unclear. The compulsory implementation of non-DLP class not supported by parents creates segregation, deemed discriminatory. It subjects pupils who chose DLP to victimisation when they are forced into non-DLP class seen for weaker students. This has psychological implications which creates demotivation and interest in STEM.

2.4. Ignoring parental choice which is clearly contradicting the spirit of formulating DLP by the Economic Council in 2015.

2.5. Principals must be committed in abiding by the DLP guidelines to ensure its success without prejudice and by interpreting it to suit their understanding of verbal instructions given to them by JPN and KPM.

3.    Request for the following action to be taken:

3.1. Respect parents’ choice, be fair and equitable to those who opt for DLP classes. Avoid making parents sign non-DLP forms under duress. Give parents dignity. Allow parents to decide on the education they desire for their children as stipulated in the Education Act 1996, which recognises parental aspirations, that pupils are to be educated by the wishes of the parents.

3.2. Allow the number of existing full DLP schools to remain. Refrain from imposing non-DLP classes on parents and their children when clearly the schools have the resources to conduct full DLP.

3.3. Encourage and support partial DLP schools to become full-fledged ones. Expand DLP schools, classes, and pupils.

3.4. Cease from subjecting any language assessment on six-year-olds who can barely read and write. Restrain from using the flawed language assessment to determine whether or not a pupil should go to a DLP or non-DLP class

3.5. Where pupils are weak in BM/Bahasa Ibunda, resist from depriving them of attending a DLP class. Instead, immerse them in BM/Bahasa Ibunda programmes without taking away their choice of DLP.

3.6. Where schools fail to meet the BM GPMP at SPM or standard 6 assessment to apply for DLP, support these schools to meet this requirement. Focus on enhancing BM/Bahasa Ibunda without sacrificing DLP. Students from schools which do not meet the DLP BM criteria cannot be presumed that they are weak in BM when all the subjects are taught in BM. The problem lies in the overall learning. These students need intervention to improve their learning and multi-language skills.

3.7. Uphold teacher integrity by giving autonomy to principals to accommodate parents’ wishes. PPD/JPN/KPM must cease threatening principals with “tindakan tatatertib” by means of autocratic ways.

4.    We urge the Minister of Education to thoroughly debate upon and lend favourable consideration to the humble request submitted by the concerned parents. Additionally, we earnestly request that the Minister of Education in her respectable capacity as a member of the cabinet to take the initiative to update her esteemed cabinet colleagues and the honourable prime minister of the intricacies surrounding this matter, seeking their invaluable feedback and support in their weekly cabinet meetings as soon as reasonably possible, keeping in mind that there is very little time left for the new academic term which will begin in March 2024.

Yours Sincerely

On behalf of parents who have chosen DLP for their children

Authored by Parent Action Group for Education Malaysia (PAGE)

Supported by:

Asian Strategic & Leadership Institute (ASLI)

Lembaga Pengelola (Board of Governors) Bukit Bintang Boys’ Secondary School

Lembaga Pengelola (Board of Governors) CBN 1 (Convent Bukit Nanas 1)

Lembaga Pengelola (Board of Governors) SMK Canossa Convent, Melaka

Lembaga Pengelola (Board of Governors) SMK Methodist Girls’ School (MGS), SK MGS 1 and SK MGS 2, Melaka

Lembaga Pengelola (Board of Governors) SMK Notre Dame, Melaka

Lembaga Pengelola (Board of Governors) SMK St David, Melaka

Lembaga Pengelola (Board of Governors) SMK St Francis, Melaka

Lembaga Pengelola (Board of Governors) SMK Yok Bin, Melaka

Lembaga Pengelola (Board of Governors) SM La Salle, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah

Lembaga Pengelola (Board of Governors) SM St Michael, Penampang, Sabah

Board of Managers, Vivekananda Tamil School Brickfields

Boston University Alumni Malaysia

British Graduates Association Malaysia (BGAM)

Bukit Bintang Girls’ School (BBGS) Alumni Berhad-Elena Cooke Education Fund (ECEF)

Centre for Vernacular School Excellence

Christian Brethren Education Board Trust (CBEBT)

Edunity Foundation

Federation of Christian Mission Schools Malaysia (FCMSM)

FMM Berhad (Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers)

G25

HIVE Educators, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah

KSI Strategic Institute For Asia Pacific

LeapEd Services (Education Service Provider and Social Enterprise)

Malayan Christian Schools’ Council (MCSC)

Malaysian Association for Education (MAE)

Melaka Action Group for Parents In Education (MAGPIE)

National Patriot Association (Patriots)

PEMANDU Associates

Project ID

STEM 4All Makerspace

Teach For Malaysia (TFM)

The Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall – Youth Section (KLSCAH Youth)

The Tiada.Guru Campaign

Voice Of The Children

The Federation of Methodist Schools Alumni Associations Malaysia

12 January 2024