1

Malaysian Teaching Standards: An Overview.

Nur Surayyah Madhubala Abdullah Ph.D.

Department of Language and Humanities Education
Faculty of Educational Studies
Putra University Malaysia

Teaching standards are understood as a normative or evaluative basis upon which the
actions of teachers as professionals are judged as to their performance. Underpinning this idea
of teaching standards within literature on teacher education is the idea of teacher competence
(Pauline Swee Choo Goh, 2011). Research in teacher education has shown that teacher
competence is a pre requisite to effective teaching and learning because of its relationship to
students learning outcomes be it academic or others. The Malaysian Teaching Standard is
based on this assumption that is improving teacher competence will ensure high standards of
education are achieved not only academically but also in other areas of development. The
question is whether improving teaching competence alone is enough to achieve educational
excellence. More importantly, is it right to expect teacher’s competency to create world class
students. This question then forms the backdrop within which this paper is framed and the
concerns raised through critical observation of the MTS framework.
The notion of teaching standards has become a buzz word in teacher education today.
With the MTS, it has come to refer to qualities of teachers, and further teacher education
programmes that benchmark standards within teacher education, and teaching profession in a
Malaysia. It benchmarks it against global teacher education standards to ensure that teaching
and learning in Malaysia can be compared on a similar basis with that of another country. In
addition, it has also come to serve as a basis by which potential international students can assess
the quality of education in Malaysia. Therefore, the MTS is seen not only as a measure of a
teacher but on a much broader scale the achievement of a Malaysia particularly in education vis
a vis its development as a nation.
Within this context, the move to introduce the Malaysian Teaching Standards by the
Ministry of Education of Malaysia in 2009 is not surprising in view of what is involved, and its
implication for the future of the country specifically the role education can play in meeting the
goal of being a developed country with first class education to meet the needs of a global
society (Bernama, 2009). The MTS was launched “as part of continuous efforts to place the
nations’ education system to be at par with global standards and produce first class human
resources among Malaysians” (Bernama, 2009). In line with this goal, and the push towards
benchmarking education globally through various ways, Malaysia became the first country in
South East Asia to adopt a competency based teacher standard in December 2009.
This is a commendable move by the MOE towards excellence in education not only in
the country but the region itself. However, it also raises some concerns, pros and cons, and
implications for the government through the Ministry of Education particularly the Teacher
Education Division that we highlight towards the end of this paper.
The present state of the implementation of MTS among teachers is aptly captured by
the following observation.
Dialogues and debates about standards fill the air. Websites of most government
school portals publish several links to the MTS to encourage teachers to adopt
the MTS, align their practices to the vision of the MTS and gauge for themselves
their own teaching effectiveness. Teachers in Malaysia must now concern
themselves with the MTS.
 2

(Pauline Swee Choo Goh,2011, p.88)

Indeed at present improving teacher quality through teacher competency is one of the
key challenges not only for teachers but also teacher educators, the leadership in schools and in
teacher education programmes throughout the country (Pauline Swee Choo Goh, 2011).
Interestingly a study done in 2012 (Azlin Norhaini Mansor, Lorna Fisher, Mohamad
Sattar Rasul, Mohd Burhan Ibrahim And Nuhayati Yusoff, 2012), suggested that Malaysian
teachers, instead of evolving with the imposition of standards, are “dissolving”(p.78) i .
Underpinning this study was an interest in the quality of our teachers that raised a question
specifically asking about “who are the people that now teach” in schools (p.78). The concern
expressed by the researchers is relevant in critically considering MTS and teacher quality as it
raises a question about the idea of teacher standards and student achievement that is whether a
lack of standards amongst teacher is responsible for the drop in student quality. Specifically, is
it right to judge “teacher competence” solely based on student’s achievement? Is teacher
competence an adequate measure of teachers as a professional in the context of the complex
nature of education and its human-centered nature?
Let us move on to the background and description of the MTS.

Some background to teacher standards and teacher quality in Malaysia

At present, there are 421,068 teachers in Malaysia teaching in 10,132 schools with an
estimated enrolment of 5,163,316 students (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2014). In order to
upgrade the teaching profession, the focus of the Ministry of Education as stated in the National
Educational Development Blueprint 2013-2015 is to improve the quality of teachers, the
teaching career, and teacher welfare. The aim is to make the teaching profession one that is
respected and held in high esteem in line with the duty to develop the future generations.
The MTS launched in 2009 is central to achieving the aim of the Blueprint. However, it
should be recognised that the drive towards improving teacher quality and education standards
is not new. Throughout the Malaysian Education Act 1996, and later the Education
Development Plan 2006-2010, the aim of the Ministry of Education has been to improve
education standards in Malaysia. Teacher excellence has always been at the centre of this drive.
The Ministry of Education‘s policy is to elevate the teaching profession by increasing
the quality of teachers’ advancing teaching as a career and improving the welfare of
teachers. The Ministry of Education’s goal is to make the teaching profession one that
is respected and highly regarded in accordance with the trust given to teachers to carry
out their roles in nation building (Education Development Plan 2006-2010, 2006, p.10
cited in Pauline Swee Choo Goh, 2012).

In 2010, the government of Malaysia introduced the Economic Transformation Program (ETP).
The Economic Transformation Program (ETP), ...aspires to transform the country
into a service-based economy and to shift the nation towards the middle and high-
income salary brackets by 2020 (Pauline Swee Choo Goh, 2012)

As part of this programme, 13 main pillars were identified known as the 12

National Key Economics Areas (NKEA). In all these areas, education is featured
prominently where the aim is to ensure that education contributes directly to the creation
of human capital leading to increased productivity. Specifically the education NKEA
initiatives are to improve all aspects of education in line with transforming Malaysia into
a high-income nation. The aim is also to make Malaysia a regional education hub. It is
 3

within these goals that there is recognition for the need to bench mark the teacher
standards. Improving the quality of education is at the forefront of this thrust to ensure
Malaysia’s future competiveness. In this respect, ensuring teacher quality is of utmost
importance. The launch of the Standard Guru Malaysia or the Malaysian Teacher
Standards (MTS) in 2009 is testament of the Malaysian government’s goal of meeting
world standards by 2020 by improving teacher quality and elevating teaching standards to
world class standards.
The report on the status of development, implementation and monitoring of
teaching competency standards in Southeast Asian countries (SEMEO INNOTECH,
2010), revealed some areas where teachers in Malaysia were lacking including in
pedagogical skills and classroom management. It noted that prior to the Malaysian
Teaching Standards, “teaching competence was determined by the National Inspectorate
of Schools using its own standards” ((SEMEO INNOTECH, 2010, p.29). In addition, the
state of teaching in Malaysia with the misconceptions about teaching competence existed
and the image of the profession had eroded and required uplifting (Othman, 2007) if the
objective of being a high income nation was to be achieved. Therefore the MTS can be
said to be seen as “as an effort to elevate the teaching excellence in Malaysia” (Othman,
2007 cited in Pauline Swee Choo Goh,2011) towards contributing to Malaysia’s
economic transformation (Idris Jala, 2010).
Due to the ‘highly centralized’ nature of education in Malaysia, educational
authority rests with MOE ((Siti Eshah Mokshein, Hussein Haji Ahmad & Vongalis-
Macrow, 2009, p.4). The Teacher Education Division (TED) of the Ministry of Education
(MOE) as the main provider of teacher education together with the Institutes of Teacher
Education (ITE) and the public institutes of higher education (PIHE), are in charge of
planning and implementing the Malaysian Teaching Standards.

II. MTS
The “MTS serves as a guideline for teachers to develop professional values,
knowledge and understanding while acquiring the relevant skills in teaching”(Asariah
Mior Shaharuddin, Chapman 2009, para 2.). Specifically it is described as a guideline to
measure teachers’ practice which is rigorous and is beyond the minimum requirements of
teaching. It serves as an early ‘warning system’ so that teachers themselves are sensitive
to the need to undertake the strengthening, improvement and enhancement of knowledge,
skills and personality (Pauline Swee Choo Goh, 2011).
As a guideline, it outlines the professional competency that should be achieved by
teachers, and the requirements that should be provided by agencies and teacher training
institutions to help teachers in achieving the desired level of competency (p.3). In this
context, the desired level of competencies is measured on the basis of the outcome seen in
the ideal student model (Figure 1).
Hence, MTS can be conceptualised as a measure of teaching excellence used by
the MOE specifically TED to evaluate teachers towards improving the quality of
education; as a basis for teachers to evaluate themselves towards improving their
teaching; and for teacher educators as a basis of measuring their programmes including
courses and other aspects of their teaching programme towards offering quality teacher
training and producing quality teachers and,; as a guide and reference for administrators,
managers, teacher training institutions and agencies in Malaysia to judge their
performances towards ensuring that the ideal student model is achieved by teachers.
 4

Meaning of MTS
MTS is a statement of the professional competency that should be achieved by
teachers (Standard) and the statement of the aspects that should be provided as
well as implemented by agencies and teacher training institutions (p.17). In this
respect, the purpose of the MTS is to
- identify the level of teacher’s professional competency;
-identify the level of readiness and the implementation of training needs;
-identify the policies and development strategies for teacher education.
Basis of determining standards and requirements in MTS
The detail standards and requirements are based on
1. National Mission
To achieve high pre and maximum impact from national
development, where one of the five main basis is to “To raise the
country’s knowledge capability and innovation as well as inculcating
a first class mind-set” (p.17).

2. National Philosophy of Education

Education in Malaysia is an on-going effort towards further
developing the potential of individuals in a holistic and integrated
manner, so as to produce individuals who are intellectually,
spiritually, emotionally and physically balanced and harmonious,
based on a firm belief in and devotion to God. Such an effort is
designed to produce Malaysian citizens who are knowledgeable and
competent, who possess high moral standards, and who are
responsible and capable of achieving high level of personal well-
being as well as being able to contribute to the harmony and
betterment of the family, the society and the nation at large.
(http://www.moe.gov.my/v/falsafah-pendidikan- kebangsaan)

3. Philosophy of Teacher Education

Teacher who is noble in character, progressive and scientific in
outlook, committed to uphold the aspirations of the nation, and
cherishes the national cultural heritage, ensures the development of
the individual and the preservation of a united, democratic,
progressive and disciplined society

4. Principles of conduct for teaching

Teacher’s Pledge
5. MOE Work Ethics
The work ethics of the Ministry of Education needs to be
implemented and internalised based on six principles that is the right
intention, good behaviour, one who promotes the good, does what
they say, disciplined and cultured as well as values and responsible
towards the outcomes of the efforts of the organisation.
6. Reference and benchmarking of Education in Malaysia and standard of
teacher education in several developed countries
(MOE, 2009, p. 17-20)
 5

COMPONENTS OF MTS
The MTS consists of two main components that are interrelated that is
Standards(s) and Requirements(R) (Figure 1) (MOE, 2009, p. 17-20).

MTS FRAMEWORK
S 1: Professional Values within
the Teaching Profession
STANDARD S 2: Knowledge and
Understanding
S 3: T&L Skills

BASIS OF -National Mission NPE

DETERMINING -TEP Competent Ideal
STANDARDS AND -Teacher‘s Professional Conduct Teacher Person
REQUIREMENTS -MOE Work Ethics Model

R1: Qualifications and Procedures for

Accepting Candidates for Teacher
training Programmes
R2: Training, Evaluation
REQUIREMENTS andAssessment
R3: Collaboration
R4: Infrastructure & Infostructure
R5: Quality Assurance

The figure shows the “professional competencies that should

be achieved by the teachers and what needs to be provided by training institutes
to help teachers achieve the levels of competency” (Malaysian Teaching
Standards, 2009, p.3). In line with this aim, the MTS consists of three main
content standards
Standard 1: Professional Values within the teaching profession
Standard 2: Knowledge and understanding of education, subject matter,
curriculum and co-curriculum.
Standard 3: Skills in teaching and learning.
Each of these content standards are further divided into three to eight
competencies that specify the skills sets necessary for the teacher within the
respective content competencies that are not subject specific. Each of these
standards “reflect the vision of accomplished teaching as seen by the MOE”
(Pauline Swee Choo Goh, 2011).
The Requirements show what teacher training institutions and agencies
should prepare and implement in order to support and help teachers to achieve
the level of competency of professional teaching value practice, knowledge and
understanding, as well as teaching and learning skills that is hoped will be
achieved. These are:
Requirements 1: Qualifications and procedures for accepting candidates for
Teacher Training Programmes
Requirements 2: Training, Evaluation and Assessment
Requirements 3: Collaboration
Requirements 4:Infrastructure and Infostructure
 6

Requirements 5: Quality Assurance

MTS MODEL

MODEL OF MTS

Some concerns about teacher standards as a measure of teacher excellence

Based on several studies that looked into issues of teacher quality, performance
and standards in Malaysia, several concerns can be raised directly and indirectly about the
implementation of teaching standards. These issues arise from a concern with the idea of
standards in measuring teacher quality, and the move to benchmark teacher quality
through achievement of standards. One concern is whether standards adequately take into
account the nature of teaching and teachers that vary according to students. Another
related concern is whether standards allow for student diversity, and the need for
flexibility in measuring teacher performance in the face of this diversity. A further
concern is whether standards is a notion that sits easily in an area such as education that is
highly individualized and may not lend itself to an idea of “one size fits all”.
The idea of standards has its merits but it also has it challenges. Using a checklist
to decide whether a teacher is good or not can only be a short term measure. In the long
term, standards like any other economic tool can be gotten around. In the end teachers
will work to measure and not work for the student. We as teacher educators, policy
makers and teachers at heart need to ask what kind of teachers we want to produce and for
the teachers themselves or in the case of pre service teachers, what kind of teachers they
want to be.
The concerns described above give us some questions to ponder upon with
respect to the effectiveness of MTS in improving education in Malaysia.
 7

Some points to ponder

In implementing the MTS, it is perhaps important for the parties concerned to ask
whether teaching and learning is something that is objective. Is good teaching only about
having the right knowledge, understanding, skills and values and able to use them
effectively? Although competency is important to teacher quality, it is necessary to ask
where the idea of good teaching is situated. Is it situated in teacher’s having adequate
knowledge, skills and attitudes - competency. Very often, what happens in the classroom
cannot be pre determined. There must be room for flexibility. “A teacher may find it hard
to plan a series of steps, as the lesson will be dependent on what her/his students do and
say” (Pauline Swee Choo Goh, 2011, p.81). Therefore, is it enough to gauge teacher
quality on their competency when the outcome cannot be ‘fixed’.
Another important point that should be considered is how far teacher quality is
reflected in what teachers check off on a checklist. Is this an adequate measure of a
teacher and his work? Is it a proper gauge of a good teacher for the teacher themselves
and others? A study on teachers in Malaysia found that teachers’ “passion and pride in the
teaching profession, is really dissolving, albeit slowly yet surely” (Azlin Norhaini
Mansor, Lorna Fisher, Mohammad Sattar Rasul, Mohd Burhan Ibrahim, &.Nurhayati
Yusoff, 2012). This may be one study and qualitative in nature so it is not generalisable.
However, it lends voice to an issue of whether standards are the way forward in a
profession where passion, commitment and attitude are equally if not more important to
what actually occurs in the classroom. Within the context of the concerns and points
raised in this Part, several pros and cons of MTS are outlined next.

Some pros and cons of MTS

Based on a question of adequacy and comprehensiveness, the following pros and
cons of MTS as a basis of improving teacher quality, and hence, the quality of education
in Malaysia are identified and raised. Answers are not provided as I believe it something
that must be looked at collectively returning to a proper understanding of education.
However, there is no room to elaborate on this due to the brief nature of this speech.
Suffice to say that this paper takes the perspective that the essence of education lies with
the child understood as a person and teacher sand teaching are there to have a
conversation with the child towards where they need to be based on who they and others
are as persons.
In one sense, the formulation and publication of a teacher standard is useful as a
guideline for teachers to check on their competency based on the characteristics of a
competent teacher as defined by the MOE allowing them in some sense to gauge their
performance albeit on their own using the checklist provided.
However, in another sense, there are several disadvantages to the standards
prescribed by the MOE. One is that it may be too much to handle, is daunting and
demanding for experienced teachers much less beginning teachers. Teachers have enough
on their plate without being saddled with so many aspects which they themselves may be
hard pressed to assess.
Another is that senior/experienced teachers may find it difficult to adopt and
adapt to such standards. In addition, the idea that teacher’s standard or competency is
determined by student’s achievement is unfair and may not reflect the actual performance
or “competency” of a teacher. A child brings with them many “variables” that teacher
must work with in the classroom and beyond withtin the school and their teaching and
learning. It is difficult to ‘standardize’ teachers when students themselves are diverse.
 8

Further, to determine their competency and assess them as good, bad or poor teachers
solely on this basis is morally questionable.
The disadvantages identified have several implications for teachers and teacher
training. In the next section, we list out several of the more obvious ones.

Implications
One implication is that pre-service teacher programmes may need to be
“standardised” leading to questions about the limited creativity, dynamism and
uniqueness of teacher education programmes in universities. A lack of competition among
teacher education programmes would mean that students might not be able to get the best
programme. This could lead to public and private universities having common
programmes which from an social and economic perspective may not be good for the
public. We need to ask whether this would best contribute to achieving world class
education.
Second, in imposing standards the role of the leader especially the school heads is
important. The nature of their leadership is important and there would need to be
standards for them which would include having good leadership ethics.
Third, the school climate is also important if teachers are to achieve what is
needed. If the school climate including the school ethos is not appropriate it is not enough
for teachers just to have the competency but it is not supported by the right climate. The
basic values of care and justice need to be in place.
Fourth, the implementation of in service courses is necessary. Indeed the MOE
through the TED are implementing this through Continuous Professional Development
(CPD) courses. However, informal discussions with teachers suggest that the standards
itself are not adequately being discussed and informed to teachers in schools. Further, the
CPD courses that are being carried out are more technical and ignore a very important
aspect of developing and addressing the teacher’s own ethical stance which is an
important standard in the MTS and also an important basis of teaching and education.
A fifth implication is, it must be remembered that many factors go into good
teaching. One is the social background of the students. It is not enough for the teacher to
be competent and met the standards, if there is no common playing field. Students from
rural/urban background, different SES and so on are all factors that make education
complex and not something that is straightforward.
Finally, the characteristics identified in the checklist (as well as the idea of
checklist to measure standards asks what is obvious. It does not dig deeper into what
makes for a competent teacher such as in dealing with values issues and dilemma
situation and even conflicts in their professional judgment. There are no open-ended
questions to measure qualitatively the nature of their competency and how it affects their
teaching to help teachers gauge their actual practice.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it can be said that the figure shows that the actual measure of
teacher competency is the idealistic model of the student. Is this an adequate judge of a
teacher’s competency given the concerns and implications outlined in the previous
section? It is idealistic which is good. However, we need to ask if it is realistic. Perhaps
we need to replace the student outcome with some measure that takes into account the
nature of teaching, and what it involves so that it is fair. There needs to be a consideration
of whether it is fair to think that teachers can actually achieve too ideal without giving
 9

adequate consideration to other factors that influence the outcome of teaching by teachers.
We need to reexamine how we ought to measure teacher competency.

“A competent teacher is not necessarily one who ticks all the boxes but the one who
makes a difference in the life of his/her students”.

Acknowledgement
I am grateful to comments and observation on the MTS made by Emeritus Professor
Abdul Rahman Mohd. Aroff that helped provide insights in preparing this paper.

i
This finding and the observation in this paper should be understood in the context of the limitation of
a qualitative study in generalising its findings. However, it offers much to reflect on. It also raises
questions about the idea of standards and whether setting standards is what is lacking in our teachers
and whether “competence” is the only or an adequate measure of the standard required for teachers
as a professional in the context of the complexity education and its human-centered nature that does
more than just impart knowledge, skills and attitude but also the motivation, spirit and philosophy of
who they and others are as people and in a fundamental sense beings.