The UPSR exam this year marks the end of the 6-year trial-run to test the efficacy of teaching maths and science in English. How the 518,616 pupils who sat for the UPSR exams last week performed will presumably be factored into the education ministry’s assessment of the experiment, and the upshot of it all will likely decide whether English will continue to be used to teach these two subjects, or whether the country will go back to status quo ante and make do with BM as the medium of instruction.

There is so much at stake for the children whose future depends on the government making the right decision. But first, the ministry must decide what it is that it will evaluate: the standard of English or the standard of maths and science after 6 years with English as the medium of instruction.

Not saying the two are mutually exclusive, I am inclined to the latter in terms of the primary aim of the switch to English, and was rather disconcerted recently when Royal Professor Ungku Aziz decried what he regarded as an ill-considered attempt to improve the standard of English through teaching maths and science in English.

I rather think that the main aim in switching the medium of instruction to English was to enhance the teaching of maths and science and make it more connected with the mainstream education in the English dominated developed world. One clear advantage is to avail the children to top quality books from the English speaking world, instead of relying so much on a few locally produced books.

In any event, if any school subject should be taught in English for the purpose of improving the standard of the language, why pick maths and science that offer much less in the way of diction than the vocabulary rich humanity subjects like geography, history and moral education, to mention only a few?

When the change was made to use English at the behest of Dr Mahathir some 6 years ago, Malaysia’s standard of English was clearly on the downslide, a consequence of a national system of education that tried to make do with BM, relying on a severely limited number of translated works impregnated with English derivatives hot from the word mint of Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

It was not difficult to see that fettered by the self-imposed language handicap, our education system was not likely going to provide the necessary scientific and technological human resource to take the country into the globalised world of the 21st century.

In January this year Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) carried out a study on some 1700 year 5 pupils to gauge the standard of maths and science as a consequence of English having been the medium of instruction for 5 years. The results turned up some rather damaging conclusions about English as the medium of instruction for these two subjects.

The results of the UPSI study are pregnant with socio-political implications that provide opponents of the English medium with much ammunition to shoot it down and reinstate BM as medium of instruction for maths and science.

Professor Isahak Haron himself made no bones about his wish to see BM reinstated. Khairy Jamaluddin, member of parliament for Rembau, who wrote in the New Straits Times recently, similarly advocated ditching English as medium of instruction for maths and science. Predictably, all opponents of the policy cited their concern for the welfare of the rural children who “lose out” by having maths and science taught in English. The idea of certain groups “losing out “ is a politically charged statement.

But there are also many who would like to see the policy continue, and have been critical of the UPSI study which they say is flawed in at least two respects: faulty sampling and inconclusive results. Some of the questions were linguistically neutral questions that tested more the children’s knowledge of the multiplication table, fractions and their understanding of concepts, than their understanding of English.

It didn’t come as a surprise that a large number of rural students perform badly in maths and science, as they almost always do badly in most things relative to urban kids. The crucial question that we must ponder over is, if 70 percent of the primary school children lag behind, do we hold back the 30 percent who can proceed at speed and raise the country’s educational profile?

I feel that there is really no sense in holding back the 30 percent to keep pace with the 70 percent. Doing so is trying to be unrealistically egalitarian in a country that is far from egalitarian in almost every other respect. Besides, if ethnicity is a factor in this consideration, let it be said that there are many Bumis in the 30 percent who make good as there are many non-Bumis in the 70 percent who can’t keep up.

Sometimes we find ourselves glued to some small details and lose sight of the bigger pictures. We read all manner of conclusions into a study that says some 70 percent of the country’s primary school population are badly done by as a result of teaching maths and science in English.

And then because we make such a great to do about the 70-30 percentage disparity which does not look good politically, we forget why we made the switch to English in the first place 6 years ago. We have lost sight of our goal to be numbered among the developed nations in less than two decades, a goal our leaders still say is on track, although not so convincingly.

That is our goal and whether we like it or not, we must untether the 30 percent to allow them to realise their full potential. If we looked at the bigger picture, it would make no sense to hold them back to keep step with those whose English is not quite up to the mark.

So the sensible thing to do to resolve the maths and science situation is to allow for flexibility and adopt a bilingual approach in the teaching of maths and science. Let those schools that are well equipped and have teachers proficient in English teach maths and science in English, and let those who are not ready for the change-over use BM until such time that they can, while introducing English gradually starting from Primary 3 upwards and continue with bilingual public exam papers as is done now until the majority are comfortable with the change.

Part of the problem that confounds any attempt to formulate a workable education model for this country is our leaders’ attempts to devise a one-system-fits-all policy and in doing so, using the lowest common denominators that are within the capability of the masses. This is an example of levelling down, that is, an attempt to hold back the urban, educationally more advanced communities, while the government tries to find a way of raising the standard of rural children, thus jeopardising the standard of education as a whole.

Despite that, those who have the resources are able to raise their children above the common denominator by sending them to tuition classes, international schools or overseas, like many do. The latter category, government leaders among them, shows the extent of their confidence in the standard of education in this country that they have a hand in creating and support.

The switch to English for science and maths was a step in the right direction that the nation took six years ago. Despite some set backs, I think we can do it if we are prepared to be flexible and patient. We have started a few steps in a journey of a thousand miles.

Those who want to backtrack must consider what consequences such an inward looking policy would spell for Malaysia in the community of the future world where we wish to be a developed nation. Clearly, going back is not an option.