Education system needs fine tuning, not complete overhaul

Dear Editor,

BEING born and brought up in Brunei, I have done schooling here. As a student I am watching the changes being made in the education system with fascination and alarm.

Fascination because it's good to change and alarm because I feel some of the changes recommended by the consultants are not necessary.

1. Being brought in a British tradition we were told that "If it ain't broken don't fix it". The education system has not broken done, so why are we doing an overhaul of a good system which has served us well all these years? If we are fine tuning to make it better then it's good, but we seem to be reforming the entire system.

All these years the system has delivered the goods and the proof is all around you. Look at the number of teachers, doctors and lawyers all produced in the former "chalk and talk" and examination stressed system. Some of the teachers and school principals even became diplomats and ministers! So the education was good enough for them (and for me).

The proof of the pudding is in its eating and the former education system did produce the goods namely students who could pass a British curriculum examinations and could enter a wide range of local and foreign universities.

I am not a fan of examinations. I never believed (even then) that life consists of how many 'A's you've scored at school! However every profession uses examinations to test competency and understanding.

Reliance on examinations

For example even to be a consultant doctor you have to take examinations at the various colleges and in a finite time prove what you know....you have to write that down or take a practical test and demonstrate what you know. Even if you are a pilot you have to take examinations frequently and demonstrate your training in a live check flight or in a simulator. So there is no running away from examinations!

Every profession uses them even for graduates after university. I believe that to pass well the majority of marks up to about 60 per cent still should come from written examinations!

If we don't have stringent examinations and high passing marks our kids might find it difficult to get access to foreign universities in future.Therefore, I am not in favour of moving away from reliance on examinations.

2. I applaud however the introduction of IT, Music and Entrepreneurial subjects into the curriculum.

This should have been done a long time ago and is long overdue.

I think we should insist that every school should have a school band and every two years we should have a national competition to pick the best school band. Schools grouped in the same zone and geographical areas can team up to form a school orchestra. I mean if JIS can have an orchestra what about other government schools and premier sixth form colleges? I noticed the premier university with more than 4,000 students has no orchestra.

Don't you think after being in existence for 25 years they should have one combining both staff and students both foreign and locals. Again this is long overdue. I would have thought that the premier university would have prioritse better to set up an orchestra before it set up a student radio station!

3. In the school leadership programme I think that the emphasis on life long learning and development is correct, necessary and excellent. Education is forever.

Emphasis on certificates

However there should not be a tendency to over emphasise the collection of certificates. I noticed in Brunei people like to collect certificates of attendance and then forget about what they have learnt in the various post degree and executive/professional development courses after a few months.

We should certify the learning and not just the course! Otherwise people collect will certificates which are not worth the paper they are printed on because they have not internalised the learning and the curriculum.

4. I think we should not accredit and certify the principals and give them competency certificates. This is a classic American approach of the consultants. It is unnecessary in Brunei. We are a small country. America is a big continent and they do this because the education is based on a state system (each state control education) and they need certification because teachers and principals move from state to state and they have state boards in each state.

Accredition of school principals

Our system here is different. Brunei is one state and one nation combined, so we do not need to certify and accredit each school principal. Otherwise it becomes a highly rigid and mainly clerical process which can degenerate into a favouritism exercise.

For example, "Oh you cannot be promoted to be a school principal because you haven't attended or passed this course!"

This may lead to favouritism and many good teachers may lose the chance of becoming school principal. Instead of certifying and accrediting the principals, I would rather have a system that could measure the dedication of the principal or (potential) principal in improving his/her school and the education system in general rather than simply counting how many mandatory degree courses he/she has done.

5. I heard from a school principal that the Education Ministry has discontinued the London University 'O' and 'A' Levels examinations being held at some schools. I was appalled. Why did they do this? For the uninitiated, the London University exams were held at school centres and every student was entered as a "private" candidate.

They paid their own examination fees and were entered as "private" candidates because the London syllabus was different and the student studied in his/her own time.

Two examinations

I always thought that it was an advantage for Brunei's education system to have two examinations and for students to be encouraged to pass both. Students then had a choice. Some did better in the Cambridge examinations.

Other found the London University examinations easier. Brunei was one of the only countries where students had both choices.

So a Bruneian student could score 16 'O' Levels in eight subjects having taken both examinations. This helped Bruneian students in getting admission into foreign universities as they could make a good assessment of the student on the basis of his/her performance in both examinations.

From a system which allowed two different examinations to go to a system with one examination is a highly regressive step.

I hope the Ministry of Education will reinstate the London University examinations immediately.

This is essential for students who want to apply to colleges following the London University system which insist that the minimum qualifications are a pass in 'O' Level English and Mathematics in their own London University examinations. Without passes in these two subjects admissions to London University colleges might be seriously jeopardised.

Abraham De Cruz,

BSB