COMMENT: Developing ‘habits of the heart’

CIVIC ROLE: What is the best way for public policy to help sustain an educational framework necessary for national integration?

MANY readers have been following the discussion in the Malaysian media with regard to the decision of the Education Ministry to dispense with the 40 per cent quota for local students attending international schools in the country.

The New Straits Times (NST) reported  that the decision “to do away with the previous 40 per cent quota for local students in the nearly 100 such schools now operating” in Malaysia was  “in line with the government’s Economic

Transformation Programme (ETP) to make the country a regional education hub” according to Deputy Education Minister Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong (see www.nst.com.my/top-news/international-schools-quota-lifted-1.83311).

International schools representatives have welcomed this move arguing that “there is a demand for more places from local students and the decision will open the doors for greater enrolment” (see www.nst.com.my/top-news/international-schools-quota-lifted-1.83311).

However, the NST has also reported that  representatives of parents’ groups  have been more critical of the move: “Parent Action Group for Education (Page) president Datin Noor Azimah Abdul Rahim disagreed with the move as she said this would create ‘a new social divide between communities of different socio-economic levels’.”

She added that parents who could afford the fees would send their children to international schools, while the rest  would be enrolled in national schools.

Noor Azimah pointed out that this could result in reduced competitiveness among students in national schools  because  the  brighter ones would be studying in international schools (see www.nst.com.my/top-news/international-schools-quota-lifted-1.83311).

Critics of the shift in policy have expressed their disquiet in Letters To The Editor, pointing out, among other things, the inability to pay the high fees that international schools require. Others, however, have pointed to the positive role international schools play in inculcating critical thinking. An editorial of the NST has also asked some pointed questions.

I want to quote this editorial at length because it raises some very important issues. According to the NST editorial: “From the consumer perspective, this addition of yet another type of school and education from which to choose is a good thing; and the same benefits the individual student.

“But can the same be said for nation-building? For what builds a nation? — Relationships. And what builds relationships? — A shared life. A generation or two ago, everyone sent their children to schools which had the same curricula and the same examinations.

“So, not only the children, but also their parents, had something in common: the national school, through which the national agenda was realised.

“However, through the years, this togetherness has slowly unravelled. For various reasons, the perception of the good quality of a national school education has taken a beating. Islamic religious schools, vernacular schools, private schools and now international ones, which were once on the fringe, (have) moved to become competitive alternatives.

“Instead of investing their children in national schools, hammering a stake into the ground and fighting for the right to participate in forming a good education system, the people with money and who had the most clout in society and the wherewithal to be the strongest agents of change, withdrew their investment; because they have a choice.

“If national schools are to remain at the centre of our national integration, more Malaysians — from all racial backgrounds and walks of life — must turn around and invest in them; and make them their school of choice once again (see www.nst.com.my/opinion/editorial/investing-in-national-schools-1.88010).”

If, as supporters of the policy shift argue, the expansion of the quota for enrolment in international schools means that the forces of competition will drive improvement in national schools and that opening up international schools to more Malaysians may, in fact, help to drive down fees in such schools, then surely the reform is a good thing?

More choice is surely good for parents as consumers of educational products? More choice for parents is good; however, the question of choice for whom remains. Does everyone get increased choice, or does choice in this debate depend on your financial abilities?

One of the arguments presented in discussions over educational liberalisation is that it satisfies consumer demand: in this case, the demand of parents for greater choice and flexibility in schooling options for their children.

Parents in relation to schooling, however, are not simply consumers of a product, as  they say are in relation to the products of a supermarket, for instance.

They are citizens as well and schooling has an important and central role to play in issues of citizenship and social integration.

As citizens, we have duties  and interests that are deeper and wider than our preferences as consumers. I have discussed the issue of obligation and duty before in another context (Learning Curve, May 20) and the position outlined in this piece of writing is in keeping with the arguments I have made before in regard to obligations  in our societies.

Consumer satisfaction by itself is not a sufficient argument for educational reform and nor is the idea that because our “competitors” do something, so must we.

The NST editorial points out the importance of nation-building and the very important contribution that national schools can play in the development of a sense of common purpose and sense of togetherness.

Increasingly, we are witnessing in our societies a diminution of  mutuality and a growing sense of  division.

Misrepresentation and misunderstanding now appear to characterise the public discourse of many contemporary democracies. Incivility and the reduction of genuine disagreements over issues of substance to the terms of a street brawl where anything goes are replacing our capacity to reason with each other.

Inculcating mutual respect and being able to engage with strong disagreements and disputes and maintain an abiding sense of common respect are learned at a young age.

Being exposed to people of different ethnicities, faiths and classes and having to negotiate and learn to understand and respect diversity in the everyday social interactions of schooling is the fulcrum of democracy.

The “habits of the heart” so eloquently observed by Tocqueville are produced through the everyday actions of citizens and students. Our “habits of the heart” are the mores of democracy, but they do not come from nowhere.

They come from experiencing a shared lot with others who are different from us in many  ways.

When we lose these “mores”, we will see it in the breakdown of trust, mutual respect and the tendency of all of us to ascribe to those we disagree with the most ignoble of motives and basest of intent.

Where are our “habits of the heart” developed? In what institutions  do we find ourselves socialising and engaging with a broad range of others from diverse classes and backgrounds?

Where can we learn the practices and values of shared purpose  across class,  gender, ethnicity and religion? In principle, at least schools are one critical institution for these forms of learning. They are made better and deeper by the participation of all sectors of society in them.

In understanding that schools have a civic and integrative role to play in society and contribute to maintaining these positive “habits of the heart” is to recognise that the goods of schooling are not simply consumables. We are not only consumers in how we relate to schools.

As parents, we are citizens and, as students, we are future citizens. Good schools produce good citizens and citizens are citizens of something: that something is the nation.

Nations are sustained through the complex balance of a shared life and respecting our rights as individuals.

The “habits of the heart”, that are the deep foundations of our civic capacity, balance and temper our individualism and self-centredness. Those critics who are concerned that we are losing our sense of togetherness, our shared understandings and  “habits of the heart” upon which mutuality, respect and civility are based look to education as a strong anchor.

Ensuring that national schools do, in fact, play that civic role is critical to their success and legitimacy. Ensuring  the broadest inclusion of students from all parts of society in national schools is therefore crucial.

The same can be said of international schools. What role do they play in national integration? What contribution do they make to the common good? What responsibility do they accept in addressing social inequality, exclusion and disadvantage?

Are these considerations taken into account, or is schooling merely seen as a positional good, a consumable to advance the interests of individuals?

The question that we must ask in any discussion of educational liberalisation is not whether some people will be better off or whether  others will enjoy the benefits of choice.

Obviously some people will be better off, and  others will be able to exercise broader choice thorough educational liberalisation.

The question we need to ask is what is the best way for public policy to help sustain an educational framework that stimulates creativity, advances learning and, most importantly, supports and reinforces the “habits of the heart” so necessary for national common purpose, integration and a commitment to the common good.

Answering this question will provide us with a fuller and deeper reference point for educational reform, rooted in our sense of obligation, civic consciousness and common purpose which transcend the far narrower demands of consumer satisfaction or individual choice.
 

If national schools are to remain at the centre of national integration, more Malaysians must invest in them

1 / 1