Conference of Christian Mission Schools

in Malaysia

26 – 27 June 2009

Olympic Hotel Kuala Lumpur.

RESOLUTIONS


Resolutions passed by the Conference of Christian Mission Schools in Malaysia

26 – 27 June 2009, Olympic Hotel Kuala Lumpur.

 

Forty one representatives from Sabah, Sarawak and Peninsular Malaysia representing 425 mission schools throughout the country meeting at the Conference of Christian Mission Schools on 26 - 27 June 2009 at the Olympic Hotel, Kuala Lumpur were encouraged, affirmed and united by their common concern in improving their current high standards of education and providing the best opportunities for the children attending these Schools. 

It was resolved that the best possible scenario ultimately for the involvement of mission schools in education in Malaysia would be for the mission schools to be allowed to operate along the lines of the system practiced in Hong Kong where the Government fully funds both the development and operational expenditure of the schools.  The schools prepare the students for a common examination mandated by the Government under a common curriculum. 

In other words, the policy is set by the Government whereas its implementation is almost entirely left to the mission authorities which will hire (or fire) all the teachers and administrative staff.

While waiting for the Government to study the above-mentioned proposal, the Conference unanimously agreed that there are other issues which could be addressed immediately by the Government and these are as follows:

   Issues

            Elaboration & Rationale

    Resolutions

1.

The principle of maximum consultation between the Ministry of Education and the Mission Authorities in the appointment of Principals / Head Teachers.

1.1  This principle of maximum consultation was recommended by the Royal Commission on the Teaching Services in its Revised Report (1971) as follows:
Recommendation 8.53:
“To allay any misgivings as regards the status and the special character of …, particularly the mission schools…, we would suggest that in exercising the powers of deployment and assignment of teachers, there should be maximum consultation between the deployment authority and the individual Boards of the school so that this character is maintained.”

1.2   This principle was upheld by the then Education Minister Dr. Mahathir b. Mohammed in 1976 in his letter to the Mission Authorities in Sabah as follows:


“…  the appointment and transfer of Heads of Schools shall be made by the Director of Education in consultation with the heads of the relevant Church.”

1.3   Maximum consultation” means:
- When vacancies arise in Mission Schools for the post of Head Teacher and / or Senior Assistant the relevant mission authority must be given the prerogative of selecting a suitable candidate for the post.
- If this candidate meets all the requirements, he / she should be appointed to the post.

1.4.1   This principle has been acknowledged by the highest government authorities but unfortunately given scant regard in practice.

1.4.2   State Education Directors act as they see fit in the appointment of Principals / Head Teachers without due consultation and without even informing the Boards of Governors or Mission Authorities concerned. 

1.1   That a directive from the Ministry of Education to all State Education Directors to adhere to and implement this principle of maximum consultation without exception in the appointment of school heads of mission schools.

1.2    To implement this principle also with regard to Assistant Heads in order to ensure continuity and the availability of suitable potential candidates as Head Teachers.

 

1.3    All mission authorities should be proactive in anticipating impending vacancies so that they can search for and nominate suitable candidates for posts left vacant.

1.4    A data base of suitable candidates qualified for promotion should be kept by the relevant mission authorities.

1.5.1    In cases of transfers or promotions, the State Education Departments should keep the mission authorities duly informed.

1.5.2  Recognizing that the Education Service is a federal matter, we request that suitable candidates be considered for inter-state appointments.

2.

Preservation of the character and ethos of mission schools

2.1   Mission schools have had a long and unique history in the education of this nation.  Founded by godly men and women of the Christian Faith they nurtured distinctive characteristics of discipline, diligence, integrity, kindness, self-sacrifice and mutual respect.  Their self-sacrificial life-styles and zeal for service, coupled with their love for and devotion to the children they served, left an indelible tradition of commitment and high academic standards.

2.2   This is what is the unique culture and ethos of mission schools.  They are rooted in a faithfulness to duty and the desire to nurture knowledgeable, competent and upright citizens to take their place in the nation.

2.3   The multi-racial composition of children and teachers led to a natural blending of cultures which has provided the nation with men and women who have taken their places as talented professionals, inspiring leaders and diligent workers in the nation.

2.4   It is to preserve this unique culture and to engender the ethos of mission schools that we request for Item 1.

2.5   In keeping with the national education policy we have followed the national curriculum and even allowed the teaching of Pendidikan Agama Islam to Muslim students.

2.1   That candidates appointed to leadership in mission schools, accept, appreciate and uphold the unique culture and character of our schools.

2.2   That Boards of Governors which supplement this role are activated and continue to preserve this legacy.

3.

Funding.

3.1   Currently, mission schools, termed “Sekolah Bantuan Modal” have been deprived of development funds for buildings, extension of educational facilities, and the provision of equipment and furniture.

3.2   As such they have been denied access to the means of upgrading their buildings and facilities.  This is in spite of educating the children of  tax-payers from all walks of life and providing an education for the future citizens of this country.

3.3  Mission schools have been unjustly denied assistance due to them in the last 13 years since the Act came into force, and even before that.

Students in mission schools are citizens of Malaysia and a majority of them are Bumiputra especially in Sabah and Sarawak.  Every student in this country has a right to receive quality education guaranteed by a just and equitable allocation of resources.

3.1  According to the Education Act (1996) Part 1 “Interpretation” Para 2 page 13, there are only two types of government schools: Sekolah Kerajaan and Sekolah Bantuan Kerajaan. There is no such category as “Sekolah Bantuan Modal”. This means that mission schools being Sekolah Bantuan Kerajaan are entitled to Capital Grants and Full Grant-in-Aid as provided for in the Education Act.

3.2             “Capital Grant means a payment from public funds to an educational institution for

a.     the provision of buildings;

b.     the alteration to or extension of existing premises;

c.      the provision of furniture or equipment for new, altered or extended premises; or

d.     such other purposes as may be prescribed
(p. 11 Education Act 1996)

3.3   Grant-in-aid means any payment from public funds, other than a capital grant, made to an educational institution.” (p. 13 Education Act 1996)

3.1.1   That the capital grants and full grant-in-aid which  mission schools are entitled to, according to the Education Act 1996, be implemented in particular for the following:
3.1.2  That Annual maintenance grants to be allocated to all Mission Schools.

3.1.3   That utilities bills to be paid by the respective State Education Departments as is the practice for all Government Schools.

3.2  That special grants to be allocated for movables such as computers, tables and chairs for students and teachers; for upgrading, such as rewiring, termite treatment, repainting, and other repair works without which our students’ and teachers’ safety will be seriously compromised.

4.

A Special Unit in the Ministry of Education to deal with matters related to mission schools.

4.1   As there are more than 400 mission schools in the country it seems imperative that a Unit be established in the Ministry to deal with matters which are unique to mission schools.

4.2   This would facilitate effective and efficient communication and ease in functioning, as it will reduce the current lack of understanding among ministry officials and improve the oversight of mission school needs.

4.1.1   That such a unit be established to enhance communication and effective implementation of policies.

4.1.2   That such a unit shall comprise officers who understand and appreciate the history, culture and ethos of mission schools, and are sensitive to the distinctive operational character and needs of mission schools.

5.

5.1   Designate selected mission schools to meet the special needs of under-achieving students who are unable to fit into the normal schools’ academic, exam-orientated curriculum.

5.2   Mission schools envisage “a recovery of our historic mission to help the poor, the helpless and the marginalized of society”.

5.1   Many students arrive at Form 1 and Form IV with a marked inability to read or write.  They show a very definite lack of interest in the academic and have a very real difficulty coping with the average expectations in the classroom.

5.2   This leads to problems of discipline and often such students leave school with low self-esteem and very little academic achievement.

5.3   There are also those who are mentally and physically disabled and unable to cope with the normal curriculum.

5.4   Schools like the ‘Montfort Model’ have helped such children adjust to their handicap and become useful, well-balanced citizens.

5.5   A study to explore the viability and effectiveness of such schools could be set up with selected areas establishing pilot projects to determine their practicality.

5.1   We visualize that when Mission schools are designated with this special mission we would be able to meet a critical need in society and serve the nation better.

5.2   We assume that since such schools would serve the vision of a caring society and enhance national goals, they would be fully funded by the Government and given the special teachers and equipment to meet their related needs.

6.

Restoring the multi-ethnic character of Mission schools in terms of student enrolment and teaching staff.

6.1   Mission schools have made a significant contribution to the nation because of the multi-racial composition of their pupils and teachers.

6.2   Providing an environment where children can learn and play together as people of different cultures is totally in line with our Prime Minister’s vision of  “1 Malaysia”.

6.3   We lament the fact that school populations are today becoming more and more polarized and parents are disenchanted by the fact that they are not able to send their children to the school of their choice.

6.4   This has had a very negative effect on the alumni and benefactors of our schools who no longer see their ‘alma mater’ as an institution of which their children could be a part of.

6.1   That the enrolment of pupils in mission schools and the posting of teachers be diversified in order to provide quality education suited to national aspirations.

7.

Mission schools built on leasehold land face a serious problem when the lease expires.  The land reverts to the State or Federal Land Commission.

7.1   As provided for by the Pekeliling Ketua Pengarah Tanah Galian Persekutuan Bil. 3/2002 Para 3.3 and 3.4 dated 13 December 2002, applications may be made for the extension of leases to the relevant authorities.

7.2   Mission Schools should be granted extension of leases in order that they may continue to function as educational institutions providing the facilities and residential quarters for effective functioning.

7.3  In the revised report of the  Royal Commission on the Teaching Services (1971) it was recommended that the sanctity of the ownership of property (mission school land) should be recognized by the government.

7.1   We request that existing leases of mission schools to be renewed at nominal premiums.

7.2    Leases of mission schools which have lapsed to be renewed at nominal premiums.

8.

Meeting of Mission School Heads and administrators for discussion of common challenges and resolving of issues peculiar to Mission schools.

The current practice of ad-hoc meetings is poorly attended as such meetings, convened by the mission authorities are not officially sanctioned or recognized.

8. 1   That we seek Ministry approval and financial allocations for annual meetings convened by mission authorities in order to provide greater cohesion and a feeling of ‘espirit de corps’ among administrators.

9.

Every Mission School shall have a fully functioning Board of Governors regulated by an Instrument of Government as required by the Education Act 1996  Chapter 11, Para 53 Management of Educational Institutions. 

9.1   This is a requirement by law which all mission schools should adhere to. 

9.2   In some schools Boards have not been convened due to the non-compliance of this requirement.

9.3   Also, Instruments of Government are not available and therefore not adhered to.

9.1   That all mission authorities ensure that every school shall have a Board of Governors regulated by an Instrument of Government.

9.2   That the Board should be fully functional and open a Bank Account for the management of funds accrued from Bookshop, Canteen and other sources related to the use of grounds and buildings.

10.

The posting of students to mission schools.

10.1   The children are unable to get admission to the school of their choice.

10.2   Children from feeder Primary schools are posted en-bloc to the Secondary schools.  It has been the practice since the foundation of mission schools that all pupils from the Primary school move into Form 1 of the corresponding Secondary school.

10.1   Long-standing supporters, alumni and church families feel disenchanted that they are no longer able to support and be an active part of the school.

10.2   They also are disappointed that a culture and tradition that helped to nurture them is no longer available for their children.

10.3   This support from the public has been a valuable component of the ethos and culture of the school.

10.1   That mission authorities / head teachers be given the discretion of 20% of pupil enrolments at Std 1 and Form 1.

10.2   That all Primary VI school children move automatically to the corresponding secondary school.

11. 

11.1   Christian Clubs and Societies are unable to function in schools as

- applications to function are not approved by the Head of school.

- applications made by teachers in charge are not forwarded to the relevant authorities by the Heads.

11.2   In some schools existing Christian Fellowship groups have been arbitrarily closed down.

11.1   These Clubs and Societies were part of the activities established by the founding missions.

11.2   They are in keeping with the first tenet of the Rukun Negara and provide religious development for non-Muslim children.

11.3   They have helped in developing students of good character and leadership calibre.

11.4   We refer to Surat Pekeliling Ikhtisas Bil 20/2000 dated 16 Dec. 2000 entitled “Guidelines for the Establishment of Non-Islamic Religious Clubs and Societies”. This circular was signed by the then Director General of Education, Dato’ Seri Dr. Abdul Shukor Abdullah. 

11.5  Such Clubs and Societies are to be allowed in all schools where there is a Christian student population provided application is made in writing to the relevant authorities and the Club or Society in question adheres to the guidelines set forth in the above-mentioned circular.

11.6   If the Clubs and Societies already exist they are to be allowed to continue.

11.7   The discontinuance of some Christian Fellowships has caused much anguish among parents and alumni.

 

11.1  We reiterate the importance of all Heads of schools adhering to the Ministry Surat Pekeliling Ikhtisas Bil. 20/2000 dated 16 Dec. 2000 and wish to emphasize that the implementation of this circular should not be left to individual interpretation or feeling.

11.2  That upon written request Christian Clubs and Societies be given approval to function in school and recognized as part of the school co-curricular activities.

12. 

12.1   Limiting SPM candidates to 10 subjects would limit the scope of more talented students and prevent them from offering a more holistic range of subjects.

12.2   A wider range of subjects will also give students the opportunity to choose their careers from a relevant range of subjects.

12.1   The Pupils Own Language, English Literature and Bible Knowledge are subjects not normally taught in school.  They are however what provides a well-rounded education and prepares the student for adult life.

12.2  Limiting to 10 subjects will curtail the more capable science students to be well rounded in both the Arts and Sciences.

12.3  Limiting to 10 subjects will also lead to the 'death' of many minor subjects and limit the creativity, innovativeness and knowledge of future Malaysians.

12.1   While we do not agree to students offering 17, 19 or 21 subjects, we propose the maximum number of subjects a candidate can offer in the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia be capped at 12.

13.

The teaching of Bible Knowledge as a subject in mission schools

13.1   We are greatly concerned about the deterioration of moral standards among the young in our society.  We are truly aware that the teaching of Moral Education in schools for non-Muslim students is to inculcate good moral values and to improve the character and conduct of our youth.  Regretfully, Moral Education does not place emphasis on God and in the absence of an Almighty and Supreme Being, our youths are not guided by their conscience and the fear of God and the after life.

13.1  That the subject, Bible Knowledge, be taught to Christian students in mission schools in place of Pendidikan Moral.

14.

Privatization of selected mission schools which are capable of financing themselves

14.1  To cater for the varied needs of students in this globalised world, schools need greater flexibility in preparing students for their future vocations in terms of curriculum management, language of instruction, preparation of students for different examinations, such as Cambridge International G.C.S.E.  “O” levels, “A” levels, Ausmat and Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia, etc.

14.2  In Developed Nations, private schools are the elite institutions of the Nation.  The Prime Minister has declared that Mission schools are already Schools of Excellence.  By allowing some of these to be privatised, they can become a bench mark for others to follow and enable Malaysia to be the Regional centre for Educational Excellence, attracting foreign students, foreign currencies and foreign investment into the country.

14.3  As these schools will be self financing, the Government will be able to spend its revenue on other schools/areas.

 

14.4  Malaysia is presently encouraging foreign branded schools to be set up in Malaysia but not sufficiently encouraging home grown private schools especially Mission schools who have proven themselves to be developed.

14.1  That selected mission schools capable of financing themselves be allowed to operate as private educational institutions.

Resolutions Sub-Committee

Mrs Glorioso Rajendran

Mr Wong Kin Yin

Ms Yin Kam Yoke

Mr Yap Kok Keong

Ms Margaret Martinez

Ms Tay Choon Neo

7 July 2009

 
Make a Free Website with Yola.