“Only in Malaysia could we announce education reform by putting two teachers in one classroom and calling it innovation. It sounds almost poetic – or tragic – depending on your mood and caffeine level.”
– Mihar Dias (Rahim Said), human behaviourist, writer and consultant
WHEN Education Minister Fadhlina Sidek announced the ministry’s new co-teaching model under the 2027 school curriculum involving two teachers sharing one classroom to “balance academic achievement and character development”, it sounded, at first, like a bold educational innovation.
Two minds. One mission. What could possibly go wrong? Plenty, it seems!
The minister describes the co-teaching system as an effort to make lessons “more engaging” while cultivating students who are not only academically capable but morally upright. On paper, it sounds progressive, even visionary. But once you peel off the glossy educational jargon, you’re left with a host of unanswered questions, starting with the simplest: where will the extra teachers come from?
Malaysia already faces an acute shortage of educators. Many schools, especially in rural Sarawak and vernacular areas, are understaffed. Teachers double up on subjects outside their expertise, classrooms overflow with 40 or more students, and even basic facilities like fans, internet access and teaching aids remain inconsistent.
Yet, the ministry now wants to double the number of teachers per class. Unless there’s a secret cloning lab somewhere in Malaya, this proposal feels more aspirational than operational.
Deputy Education Minister Wong Kah Woh told Parliament recently that over 19,000 teachers opted for early retirement in recent years, with more than two-thirds citing loss of interest. That’s not a statistic from a healthy profession. How then does the government plan to deploy two teachers per classroom when so many are leaving the system altogether?
Fadhlina insists the method will “make the teaching and learning process more creative and interactive”. But one wonders if it implies that teachers have not been creative or interactive all this while. The reality is that most teachers want to innovate but are bogged down by bureaucratic red tape, outdated assessment systems and excessive paperwork. Co-teaching won’t change that unless the structural bottlenecks are first addressed.
Then comes the curious concept of “integrated learning”. The idea is to merge several subjects, say English, Science and Music, into a single session. A noble experiment perhaps, but how does one realistically and effectively teach all three subjects in a single session? Perhaps, the ministry should appoint the likes of AR Rahman or Datuk Seri Nurhaliza Tarudin as consultants to guide music teachers.
Such creative crossovers might thrill policymakers, but teachers know the chaos it could unleash. Students who dislike science might tune out entirely. Those uninterested in music might drag the class down. And if one teacher leads while the other struggles to find his/herrole, the lesson risks descending into confusion.
Malaysia loves borrowing educational trends from abroad, like Finland, Japan or whichever country is fashionable. But those nations didn’t leap into co-teaching overnight. They first invested heavily in small class sizes, teacher training, school autonomy and community engagement. Hello, co-teaching in Finland isn’t about doubling teachers; it’s about doubling understanding.
Here, we seem to adopt the headline without the homework. We are told this is “based on successful models abroad”, yet no country is named. Perhaps some education officials and experts saw a cheerful case study during an overseas study tour and thought it would be good to copy.
Sarawak, to its credit, has always preferred a pragmatic and context-driven approach. As SUPP assemblyman Datuk Lo Khere Chiang rightly pointed out, education reform should never be a copy-and-paste exercise. He cautioned that the untested co-teaching model could burden educators, disrupt learning and drain public funds if implemented nationwide without pilot trials.
Lo cited Sarawak’s own example, the Primary Six Dual Language Programme Assessment Test introduced after the abolition of UPSR, as a locally designed solution that reflected the state’s linguistic and academic needs.
Under Premier Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Abang Johari Tun Openg’s leadership, Sarawak continues to position both Bahasa Malaysia and English as working languages, with English used for Science and Mathematics.
“English is not a cultural threat,” Abang Johari has said repeatedly. “It is a global tool, vital for science, technology, investment and innovation.”
That clarity of vision is what Malaysia’s education system often lacks. Rather than rushing to embrace fads, Sarawak prefers to test, measure and adapt. Perhaps, this is a lesson Malaya could emulate.
The ministry claims the 2027 curriculum will integrate character and moral values into all subjects, complemented by a 60-minute weekly character building programme. Admirable, perhaps. But haven’t we been preaching moral and religious education for decades?
If the system has truly instilled character and civility, why are schools today reporting higher cases of bullying, truancy and disciplinary issues? If our existing moral and religious education failed to produce ethical graduates, adding another “character hour” won’t magically fix the problem. The rot lies deeper in parental disengagement, social media influence and societal hypocrisy where success often trumps sincerity.
The moral crisis in education is not about curriculum design; it’s about the ecosystem surrounding it. Teachers can only do so much. Parents must shoulder equal responsibility. You can’t preach integrity in the classroom if children see corruption and impunity glorified outside it.
Even if one accepts the noble intent behind co-teaching, its execution remains a logistical nightmare. Doubling the number of teachers per class means either doubling the education budget or halving resources elsewhere, perhaps from digital learning, school maintenance or student welfare programmes.
And what of rural schools in Sarawak, Sabah, Kelantan or Perlis? Many already face teacher shortages, poor connectivity and long travel distances. Will co-teaching be selectively applied to urban, well-resourced schools while others are left behind? The ministry has yet to explain how this model will work in overcrowded or under-enrolled schools, or in classrooms where one teacher already juggles multiple levels due to staff scarcity.
There’s another uncomfortable truth! We keep reinventing curricula while ignoring the erosion of discipline. Perhaps it’s time to revisit the education ethos of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, when mission schools thrived and teachers commanded respect. Those decades produced generations of disciplined, academically strong Malaysians who are now leaders of the country. We were products of a system that valued order, respect and genuine learning.
Yes, the times have changed, but the fundamentals of discipline haven’t. Perhaps the controversial practice of caning, when done within reason, should be re-examined. Today’s students, raised on gadgets and instant gratification, often lack resilience and respect for authority. A character building programme is fine, but without real accountability for both students and parents, it becomes another paper exercise.
Let’s be fair to Fadhlina. She is right about one thing, the world has changed. Students today live in a digital universe of distractions. Teaching them requires new approaches and renewed energy. Co-teaching, in theory, can enrich classroom dynamics, offer students varied perspectives and reduce teacher burnout through shared responsibility.
But such success stories are conditional. They demand small classes, clear role definitions, compatible teaching partners and strong administrative support. Without these, co-teaching risks turning into co-confusion.
Imagine 30 restless pupils, two exhausted teachers, one flickering projector, and a ceiling fan spinning lazily above them. Somewhere between “integrating subjects” and “building character”, both teachers are arguing about who takes attendance.
Education reform cannot thrive on slogans alone. It requires strategy, data and honesty about our limitations. Fadhlina and her ministry must first address teacher morale, recruitment pipelines and school infrastructure before re-engineering classroom structures.
Perhaps the co-teaching model deserves a chance; but only through controlled pilot projects in selected schools, evaluated independently for effectiveness and cost efficiency. If it works, scale it gradually. If not, admit it, learn from it, and move on.
Education should never be reduced to a trial-and-error laboratory where each new minister plays reform roulette. Our children are not guinea pigs, and our teachers are not disposable resources like baby or rather adult diapers!
Before Malaysia doubles its teachers per class, perhaps we should first double our efforts towards quality, accountability and practicality. Because education reform isn’t about multiplying bodies in a room; it’s about multiplying minds that inspire, nurture and lead with purpose.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune. The writer can be reached at rajlira@gmail.com
