Unesco's Education Position Paper 2003, titled "Education in a multilingual world', may well inject some rationality into the current debate on the teaching of Science and Mathematics in English in primary schools.

The medium of instruction for the two subjects in Malaysia was switched to English in all the primary schools in January 2003. Before this, the national schools taught Mathematics and Science in Bahasa Melayu while the Chinese and Tamil schools used Mandarin and Tamil respectively.

This abrupt switch, mooted by the then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, was bulldozed through without any pilot study or discussion. The rationale for the switch was never established. It all started as a casual comment by Mahathir on May 6, 2002 when he would bring back English medium schools if the people wanted it. Four days later, he announced that Science and Mathematics would be taught in English in all schools from 2003.

The switch could have been a mere blunder out of a genuine concern over the declining standards of English among Malaysians. Whatever the reason, the critics were silenced and the programme began with sophisticated delivery of laptops, training and teaching modules in 2003. After three years of implementation, questions are being raised if the language switch has been effective. There are now calls for the move to be reviewed.

Everyone is free to discuss the issue. But one must comment with honesty and substantiate any argument with some base findings. We are talking about children and the future generations of our country. It is certainly not an arena for political mileage and patronage.

Three years is too short a period to determine the full impact of the switch in primary schools. On the other hand, if we wait to realise the full impact of the move, it may be too late to remedy the situation. It will be a sad case of missed opportunities and a costly waste of human capital and material.

In the awake of available findings, we analyse the possible implications of the language switch.

Unesco's findings include a comprehensive research review carried out for the World Bank in 1997. The most important conclusion drawn from this research says, " ...when learning is the goal, including that of learning a second language, the child's first language (ie, his or her mother tongue) should be used as the medium of instruction in the early years of schooling. The first language is essential for the initial teaching of reading, and for comprehension of subject matter. It is the necessary foundation for the cognitive development upon which acquisition of the second language is based".

Unesco quotes from Education for all: Policy lessons from high-achieving countries (Staff Working Papers, New York, Unicef): "In a situation where the parents are illiterate if the medium of instruction in school is a language that is not spoken at home, the problems of learning in an environment characterised by poverty are compounded, and the chances of drop-out increase correspondingly".

The report further states, " the experience of the high achievers has been unequivocal: the mother tongue was used as the medium of instruction at the primary level in all cases. There is much research which shows that students learn to read more quickly when taught in their mother tongue. Second, students who have learned to read in their mother tongue learn to read in a second language more quickly than do those who are first taught to read in the second language. Third, in terms of academic learning skills as well, students taught to read in their mother tongue acquire such skills more quickly".

In concluding its position, Unesco formulated three basic principles. The first basic principle states, inter-alia, "Unesco supports mother tongue instruction as a means of improving educational quality by building upon the knowledge and experience of the learners and teachers. Mother tongue instruction is essential for initial instruction and literacy and should 'be extended to as late a stage in education as possible: 'every pupil should begin his [or her] formal education in his [or her] mother tongue'."

In this context, one micro-study (reported on Sept 23, 2002) by Yayasan Strategik Sosial, the MIC's think-tank, was not surprising. Children from Tamil schools, who are predominantly from poor backgrounds, out-performed their peers from national schools by 41 per cent in Science and 31 per cent in Mathematics in the Standard Six assessment examinations. This finding conclusively supports Unesco's findings.

The debate for the use of mother tongue to teach Science and Mathematics seems to be a political battle rather than a policy decision. Colouring the issue with a racial brush often hinders rational considerations. There is also biased opinion originating from the English-educated group which often finds it difficult to appreciate the dynamics of mother tongue education that provides cultural identity, dignity, pride and cognitive development in children.

While the need to master the English language is ever so important, this cannot be at the expense of wholesome child development. Also, there is no basis to claim that if we master the English language, we will be better off. Of the top 25 countries in the Human Development Report 2004 by UNDP, only eight countries use English as the main medium of instruction in schools. The other 17 countries in the list have their own languages.

In conclusion, we should appreciate the call to review the policy and revert to teaching Science and Mathematics in the respective mother tongue languages as before at the primary level. Proficiency in English language must be pursued aggressively through other means.