CHECK LINUS Final Report Deloitte 2012

Project CHECK LINUS
Deloitte Report for National

Assessment and Audit of LINUS
PEANUTS © 2011 PEANUTS Worldwide LLC
18 January 2012
Foreword
This report is confidential for Performance Management and Delivery Unit (PEMANDU) and prepared solely for the purposes(s) set out in our
engagement letter. You should not refer to or use our name or the report for any other purpose, disclose them or refer to them in any prospectus
or other document, or make them available or communicate them to any other party. No other party is entitled to rely on our report for any
purpose whatsoever and we accept no duty of care or liability to any other party who is shown or gains access to this report.
1 CHECK LINUS Audit and Assessment Report © 2012 Deloitte Consulting Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.
List of Abbreviations
LINUS Literacy and Numeracy

MOE / KPM Malaysian Ministry of Education
JPN Jabatan Pelajaran Negeri (State Education Department)
PPD Pejabat Pelajaran Daerah (District Education Office)
JNJK Jemaah Nazir dan Jaminan Kualiti (School Inspectorate)
BPK Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum, MOE
LPM Lembaga Peperiksaan Malaysia
UPAR Unit Pengurusan Akademik (Rendah), Bahagian Pengurusan Sekolah Harian
FasiLINUS LINUS Facilitators (represented within the PPD)
LINUS Teachers for either for Bahasa Melayu (literacy) or Mathematics
Guru LINUS
(numeracy)
Guru Pemulihan Khas Remedial teachers
Penyelaras LINUS LINUS Coordinators
OKU Orang Kurang Upaya (special needs/disabled)
Students who have passed Constructs 1-8 (literacy) and Constructs 1-10
Arus Perdana
(numeracy)
Students who have pass the minimum Construct 1-2 for both literacy or
LINUS Biasa
numeracy, but not achieved Arus Perdana
Students who have not passed the minimum Construct 1-2 for both literacy or
LINUS Tegar
numeracy
P&P Pengajaran & Pembelajaran (Teaching & Learning)
BPPI Borang Pelaporan Prestasi Individu (Literasi/Numerasi)
SOP Standard Operational Procedure (Buku Panduan dan Pengoperasian)
Table of Contents
• Our Approach 4
• Good Practice Findings 11
• Student Assessment Scoring Criteria 16
• Written Student Assessment Findings 18
• Student Assessment Question Item Analysis 26
• Analysis of Teachers‟ Survey 31
• Findings and Cause Analysis 39
• Recommendations 46
• International Best Practices 52
• Appendix 1: International Case Studies 58
• Appendix 2: Student Written Assessment – State by state analysis 66
• Appendix 3: Student Oral Assessment – State by state analysis 76
Our Approach
Deloitte’s Approach to the CHECK LINUS Project
The CHECK LINUS project sampled a total of 3982 students of which 1934 Year 1 and 2048 Year 2 Arus Perdana students
who were assessed on their literacy and numeracy competencies. Deloitte had four (4) teams deployed nationally covering on
average 2 schools per day, spending about 4.5 hours per school over a period of 1.5 months. Deloitte had randomly selected
on average 20 students from each of the 199 schools in 13 states, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya.
CHECK LINUS Key Areas:

Environment • Performance: Student
achievement specifically the Arus
Perdana level group
Administration • Assessment: The approach or

process to screening students
• Administration: The overall

Assessment process focused on the integrity
of NKRA portal data
• Environment: Factors that

may/will impact student
outcomes i.e. parents, medical,
Performance transfers etc
Development of CHECK LINUS audit review framework
Documentation Review and Audit Interview Framework
Deloitte‟s audit teams were deployed nationwide from 28 th September till 18th November 2011. Three activities were carried out during each
school visitation session which took on average 4.5 hours per school. Deloitte‟ audit teams were guided by the Deloitte audit checklist as the
guiding framework. Observations and findings from the document reviews and audit interviews were recorded , key risks identif ied and
substantiated by copies of LINUS documentations from schools. The Teachers‟ Survey Form was deployed to gather viewpoints an d
teacher‟s profile information. In order to gather additional school-level LINUS data, the LINUS Data Request Form was used to identify
quantitative LINUS data from the schools.
Deloitte Audit Tools
Deloitte Auditor‟s Checklist Guide LINUS Data Request Form
LINUS Teacher Survey Form
CHECK LINUS audit review approach
Review Current State of Develop Assessment Execute Assessment Project Review &
LINUS Model and Priorities & Audit Reporting
Verification Exercise Approach

Key Activities & Methodology
& Objectives
 Audit and assess the filing system of LINUS  Activity 1: LINUS Documentation Review – audit of LINUS
documentations in schools documentations and filing system guided by the Deloitte Auditor‟s Checklist
LINUS Guide. Documentations that were reviewed were mainly from the following:
Documentation  Determine LINUS data accuracy and consistency
- “Fail Induk”
(Data Management Integrity)
Review - “Fail Data”
 Assess and determine LINUS program - “Fail Murid”
implementation progress within schools - “Fail Minit Mesyuarat”
 Assess resource availability for LINUS program - “Fail Konsep”
Original BPPIs were checked randomly as part of documentation review to
verify the accuracy of data entry into the NKRA portal.
 Conducted Deloitte‟s student written and oral Coordinators/Teachers were asked to clarify the BPPI discrepancies (if
(literacy and numeracy) assessments using tools any) during the audit interview session.
Deloitte Student
which have been selected from past screening
Assessment
instruments  Activity 2: Student Assessment Tool – On average 20 students were
Tool
 Assess and verify the validity of Arus Perdana selected (10 each from Year 1 and Year 2) for the Deloitte‟s written student
student classification assessment. On average 5 students from the same group were then
assessed orally.
 Activity 3: Audit Interview – School administrators (Head Teachers, LINUS

 Gather feedback from teachers on LINUS Coordinator, LINUS Teachers and the Remedial Teacher (Guru Pemulihan
program teaching and learning delivery Khas))were gathered for the audit interview session to obtain clarifications
Audit Interview
 Determine good practices and key challenges in for any documentation discrepancies identified during Activity 1. The audit
and Teacher‟s
the implementation of LINUS program at the interview was also to gather feedback on key challenges faced by school
Survey
school level administrators or teachers in implementing the LINUS program at the
 Determine the resource availability and quality of school level. The audit interview was structured and guided by the Auditor‟s
teachers Checklist Guide.
Deloitte’s Written Student Assessment Tool
Rationale of Deloitte’s Student Assessment Tool/Instrument
Deloitte‟s student assessment tool was created with reference to the criteria from MOE‟s screening instrument manual to provide a fair reflection of
the actual LINUS assessment. Constructs selected were based on the required constructs/criteria in order for students to be classified as Arus
Perdana. Deloitte‟s student assessment tool was designed after group consultations with BPK and LPM in September 2011. Deloit te‟s student
assessment tool design criteria was agreed upon during those consultations.
Assessment
Tool
Assessment Tool Framework
 Total 20 questions. Four questions for each construct assessed. Selected questions were from the question bank
of the past screening instruments.
 Assessed Constructs 3, 5,6,7, and 8. These constructs are expected to have been mastered by Arus Perdana
Written students.
Literacy  Lower Constructs 1 and 2 are too basic hence were not assessed as students who did not master the lower
constructs would have been LINUS Tegar students.
 Higher constructs 9, 10, 11 and 12 were not assessed since students have to master at least up to Construct 8, in
order to be classified as Arus Perdana during the LINUS screenings.
 Total 20 questions. Three questions for Constructs 3,6,8, and 9. Four questions for Construct 7 and 10. Selected
questions were from the question bank of the past screening instruments.
Written  Assessed Constructs 3,6,7,8,9, and 10. These constructs are expected to have been mastered by Arus Perdana
students.
Numeracy  Lower Constructs 1 and 2 are too basic hence were not assessed as students who did not master the lower
constructs would have been LINUS Tegar students.
 Higher Constructs 11 and 12 were not assessed since students have to master at least up to Construct 10, in
order to be classified as Arus Perdana during the LINUS screenings.
Assessment Administration Methodology
 Deloitte‟s written student assessment was administered as a test. Instructions were read out to the students with an explanation of the example questions in
the paper. No guidance (bimbingan) was given throughout the written assessment.
 School teachers were allowed to assist in the administration of the student assessment after being briefed by Deloitte personnel.
 Students were given 20 minutes to complete each written assessment paper. However, students were still allowed to complete the paper even if they have
exceeded the time limit.
 On average 20 students were selected from each school. Sample of students were jointly selected by Deloitte and teachers. Selected students are all Arus
Perdana students as of Saringan 5 (Cohort 1) and Saringan 2 (Cohort 2).
Deloitte’s Oral Student Assessment Tool
Rationale of Deloitte’s Student Assessment Tool/Instrument
Deloitte‟s student assessment tool was created with reference to the criteria from MOE screening instrument manual to provide a fair reflection of
the actual LINUS assessment. Constructs selected were based on the required constructs/criteria in order for students to be classified as Arus
Perdana. Deloitte‟s student assessment tool was designed after group consultations with BPK and LPM in September 2011. Deloit te‟s student
assessment tool design criteria was agreed upon during those consultations. Student‟s oral assessment result data will be rep orted separately and
is non-binding for the selected students since not all 20 students were assessed orally due to time constrains. The 30% student sample group would
provide a representation of the oral literacy and oral numeracy mastery.
Student
Assessment Assessment Tool Framework
Tool
 Total 10 words were assessed. Two words assessed for each construct. Selected words were from the question
bank of past screening instruments.
 Students were asked to read out the 10 words.
Oral  Assessed Constructs 3, 5,6,7, and 8. These constructs are expected to have been mastered by Arus Perdana
Literacy students.
 Lower Constructs 1 and 2 and the higher Constructs 9,10,11, and 12 were not assessed for the same reason as
the written assessment. The lower constructs are basic constructs and the higher constructs are not assessed
as Construct 8 is the minimum for a student to be classified as Arus Perdana.
 Only one question assessed. Question selected is from Construct 10.

 Students were asked to arrange a mathematical sentence.
Oral  Only one question from Construct 10 was assessed because this is the highest minimum construct level to pass
Numeracy a student to Arus Perdana. Construct 10 also encompasses a full understanding and grasp of the mathematical
concept in order to translate a normal sentence into a mathematical sentence.
Assessment Administration Methodology

 Deloitte‟s oral student assessment was administered as a test. Instructions were read out to the students with an explanation of the example
questions in the paper. No guidance (bimbingan) was given throughout the oral assessment.
 School teachers were allowed to assist in the administration of the student assessment after being briefed by Deloitte person nel.
 No time limit was given to the students. Students were allowed to complete the oral assessment in their own time.
 On average 5 students were selected for the oral assessment from the same 20 students who completed the written assessments.
Student assessment tool and student selection criteria
Student selection criteria
Students were jointly selected by Deloitte‟s personnel and school teachers. Students were selected based on the criteria that the students must
be an Arus Perdana student as of Saringan 5 (Cohort 1) and Saringan 2 (Cohort 2). Students were either “Straight Perdana” (st udents who are
Arus Perdana from the first screening itself), “LINUS to Perdana” (students who were initially LINUS Biasa students and then passed to Arus
Perdana in subsequent screenings, or “Tegar to LINUS to Perdana” (students who were initially LINUS Tegar, then passed to LINUS Biasa or
Arus Perdana in subsequent screenings).
Written Assessment Questions Oral Assessment Questions
Oral
Literacy
Oral
Numeracy
Written Literacy Written Numeracy

Deloitte designed three sets (Set A, Set B, Set C) of student assessment tools. Set A was used in the large majority of schoo ls visited. The
standard/level of difficulty of Set A is the easiest version among the three sets. Set A was designed based on Year 1 syllabu s. All sampled
students (Year 1 and Year 2) were assessed using the same paper during the Deloitte‟s student assessment.
Good Practice Findings
Throughout the verification exercise, we discovered
encouraging activities and dedication from PPDs, teachers...
•Allowed the early identification of weaker students. Teachers are now able to identify
Advantages of the which constructs that students struggle in and provide targeted remedial activities
•A more structured approach compared to KIA2M
LINUS Programme •The accountability driven approach provided committed action at all levels in school
•Dedicated and committed FasiLINUS in providing innovative solutions for P&P – Kem
LINUS
PPD / FasiLINUS •A valued delivery partner and very accessible to teachers and school administrators
•Administrative liaison committed to succeed with the LINUS stakeholders of their district
•Took initiative in creating innovative teaching aids (ABM) to improve student outcomes
•Organised creative activities such as “LINUS Graduation Ceremony” to increase student
LINUS Teachers interest and encourage LINUS progress
•Took initiative and extra hours to provide individual coaching for weaker students
...and school administrators in their effort to realise success
in the LINUS Programme
LINUS Corners (Sudut LINUS) & Classes

• Supportive school administrators who provided resources (material) to ensure success of the teachers
• Remedial classrooms were nicely decorated with attractive and interactive teaching aids
• Schools had dedicated LINUS Corners to attract students interest in reading and counting
Special LINUS Programmes

• Most schools conducted its own unique special LINUS programmes such as “Bacalah Sayang”, “Program Mentor-
Mentee”, “Program Anak Angkat”, and “Mari Mengira”, to supplement the LINUS modules
• Schools have taken great initiative to understand trends of learning weaknesses and focused intervention
• Conducted Open Days to educate parents on the LINUS Programme
Facilitating Cooperation
• Cooperation among school teachers to assist LINUS teachers in managing the classroom during P&P and
administrative work
• Certain GPKs have taken the initiative to understand the programme and be actively involved in student development
• Remedial teachers took responsibility of weaker LINUS Biasa students on top of LINUS Tegar students assigned to
them
Student Assessment Scoring
Criteria
Written literacy assessment scoring guide
Jawapan Penguasaan A student must master Constructs 3,5,6,7 and 8 for the written
Konstruk Item literacy test in order to be qualified as Arus Perdana.
Betul Salah Kuasai Tidak Kuasai __________________________________________
BASELINE (prescribed from LINUS original scoring guide)
1
• Construct 3: all items must be correct
2
3
3 • Construct 5: 3 out of any 4 items must be correct
4
• Construct 6: 3 out of any 4 items must be correct
5
5
8
BEST
9
10 • 4 errors allowed in any construct.
6
11
• Not more than 1 error can be made in a construct
12
13 WORST
14
7 • Construct 3: all items must be correct
15
16 • Only 2 errors can be made by a student from Constructs
5,6,7, or 8.
17
18 • No 2 errors can be made in the same construct.
8 __________________________________________
19
Any other answer combinations that contradicts the above criteria
20 will not qualify a student as Arus Perdana.
Written numeracy assessment scoring guide
Jawapan Penguasaan
A student must master Constructs 3,6,7,8,9 and 10 for the
Konstruk Item
Betul Salah Kuasai Tidak Kuasai written numeracy test to be qualified as Arus Perdana.
_________________________________________
1 BASELINE (prescribed from LINUS original scoring guide)
3 2 • Construct 3: all items must be correct
3
4
6 5 • Construct 7: Year 1 students are exempted in Item 7
(multiplication) for the score tabulation. No error is allowed
6 for Items 8,9 and 10. Year 2 students must have all items
7 correct.
8 • Construct 8: all items must be correct
7
9
10
8 12 BEST
13
• 4 errors allowed in any construct.
14
9 15 • Not more than 1 error can be made in a construct
16
WORST
17
• No errors
18
10 _________________________________________
19 Any other answer combinations that contradicts the above criteria
will not qualify a student as Arus Perdana.
20
Oral literacy and numeracy assessment scoring guide
Deloitte – Oral Scoring Sheet Literasi Numerasi
Konstruk 3 Konstruk 5 Konstruk 6 Konstruk 7 Konstruk 8 Kuasai/ Kuasai/

No Nama Jumlah T. T.
Meja Pilu Manis Siput Kilang Potong Sekoi Serai Saat Lauk Menguasai Menguasai
Literacy
BASELINE: A student must pronounce all 10 words from Constructs 3,5,6,7 and 8 correctly.
BEST: A student is allowed 2 errors. No 2 words from the same construct.
Numeracy
BASELINE / BEST: In order to master the numeracy oral test, a student must be able to phrase a normal sentence to a mathematical
sentence (Construct 10).
Written Student
Assessment Findings
Case scenarios of nationwide students achievements
A total of 1934 Year 1 and 2048 Year 2 (in 199 schools across 13 states, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya) Arus Perdana students we re assessed
on their mastery of literacy and numeracy using Deloitte student assessment tools which were designed based on the LINUS prog ram criteria.
Year 1 Students Achievement Written Literacy Year 1 Students Achievement Written Numeracy
100.00%
100.00%
82.42%
80.00% 80.00% 73.53%
64.53% 63.86%
60.00% 57.76%
60.00%
49.02%
40.00% 40.00%
20.00% 20.00%
0.00% 0.00%
Best Baseline Worst Best Baseline Worst
100.00% 100.00%
81.74%
80.00% 72.41% 80.00% 72.07%
71.44%
61.18%
60.00% 60.00% 52.98%
40.00% 40.00%
20.00% 20.00%
0.00% 0.00%

Student achievement between urban and rural schools
Of the total students assessed, a total of 1376 Year 1 were in Bandar schools, 558 Year 1 in Luar Bandar schools and 1463 Ye ar 2 were in
Bandar schools, 585 Year 2 in Luar Bandar schools, across the visited 199 schools in 13 states, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya.
Year 1 Students Achievement Written Literacy
Year 1 Students Achievement Written Numeracy
100.00%
100.00%
82.41% 82.44%
80.00% 80.00% 73.33% 74.01%
66.13%
63.88% 63.30% 65.23%
60.00% 60.00%
57.99% 57.17%
49.27% 48.39%
40.00% 40.00%
20.00% 20.00%
0.00% 0.00%
Best Baseline Worst Bandar Best Baseline Worst Bandar

Luar Bandar Luar Bandar
100.00% 100.00%
82.50% 79.83%
80.00% 72.52% 72.14% 71.43% 71.45% 80.00% 74.64%
65.64% 62.82%
60.00% 60.00% 57.09% 54.68%
48.72%
40.00% 40.00%
20.00% 20.00%
0.00% 0.00%
Best Baseline Worst Bandar Best Baseline Worst Bandar
Luar Bandar Luar Bandar
Student achievement between school enrolments ratio
Total School Enrolment Less than 500 students Between 501 to 100 students Between 1001 to 1500 students More than 1501 students
Total Year 1 70 563 842 340
Total Year 2 70 647 838 368
100.00%
100.00%
80.00% 80.00%
60.00% Less than 500

students 60.00%
Between 501 to
40.00% 100 students 40.00%
Between 1001 to
20.00% 1500 students 20.00%
More than 1501
students
0.00% 0.00%
100.00% 100.00%
80.00% 80.00%
60.00% Less than 500 60.00%

students
Between 501 to
40.00% 40.00%
100 students
Between 1001 to
20.00% 1500 students 20.00%
More than 1501

students 0.00%
0.00%
Student achievement between school bands
Band 1 Band 2 Band 3 Band 4 Band 5 Band 6
Total Year 1 70 563 842 340 106 3
Total Year 2 70 647 838 368 111 4
Year 1 Students Achievement Written Numeracy Band 1
Year 1 Students Achievement Written Literacy Band 1
Band 2
Band 2
Band 3 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Band 3
100.00% 100.00% Band 4
Band 4
Band 5 Band 5
Band 6 Band 6
80.00% 80.00%
60.00% 60.00%
40.00% 40.00%
20.00% 20.00%
0.00% 0.00%
Band 1 Year 2 Students Achievement Written Numeracy Band 1

Year 2 Students Achievement Written Literacy
Band 2 Band 2
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Band 3
Band 3 100.00%
100.00% Band 4
Band 4
Band 5 Band 5
Band 6 Band 6
80.00% 80.00%
60.00% 60.00%
40.00% 40.00%
20.00%
20.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Nationwide best and baseline scenario comparative analysis
100.00% 92.22% 92.22% 100.00%

Total Year 1 student sample 87.09% 87.09%
82.42%
80.00% Deloitte JNJK Year 80.00% 73.53%
Year 1 1
64.53%
60.00% 60.00%
57.76%
Literacy 1934 1246
40.00% Numeracy 1934 1139 40.00%
20.00% 20.00%
0.00% 0.00%
Best Baseline Deloitte
Deloitte Best Baseline
JNJK
JNJK
100.00% 93.07% 93.07% Total Year 2 student sample 100.00%

81.74% 81.01% 81.01%
Deloitte JNJK Year
80.00% 72.41% 80.00% 72.07%
Year 2 2
61.18%
60.00% Literacy 2048 1198 60.00%
40.00% 40.00%
Numeracy 2048 1185
20.00% 20.00%
0.00% 0.00%
Deloitte
Best Baseline Best Baseline Deloitte
JNJK JNJK
Baseline scenario comparative analysis based on school type
Year 1 Baseline Literacy Year 1 student literacy sample Year 1 Baseline Numeracy
100.00% 95.29% SK SJKC SJKT 100.00%
87.40% 90.17%
82.08% 82.28% JNJK Year 1
955 212 79 77.65%
80.00% 75.39% Literacy 80.00%
Deloitte Year
1394 390 114
64.87% 63.16%
60.00%
1 Literacy 60.00% 55.45%
Year 1 student numeracy sample

40.00% 35.13% 35.09% 40.00%
SK SJKC SJKT
20.00% JNJK Year 1 20.00%

881 173 85
Numeracy
0.00% Deloitte Year 0.00%

1394 390 114
Deloitte 1 Numeracy Deloitte
SK SJKC SJKT SK SJKC SJKT
JNJK JNJK
Year 2 student literacy sample

SK SJKC SJKT
Year 2 Baseline Literacy Year 2 Baseline Numeracy
JNJK Year 2
953 182 63
100.00% 93.91% Literacy 100.00%
90.66% 87.30% 86.67%
1485 389 134
80.00% 2 Literacy 80.00% 74.29% 73.58%
Year 2 student numeracy sample 58.32% 60.45%

60.00% 60.00%
SK SJKC SJKT
39.85%
40.00% 36.57% 40.00%
JNJK Year 2
913 212 60
Numeracy
20.00% 20.00%
Deloitte Year
1485 389 134
2 Numeracy
0.00% 0.00%
Deloitte Deloitte
JNJK JNJK
Best case scenario comparative analysis based on school type
Year 1 Best Case Literacy Year 1 student literacy sample Year 1 Best Case Numeracy
100.00% 95.29% SK SJKC SJKT 100.00%
90.17%
91.39% 87.40%
82.08% 82.28% JNJK Year 1
955 212 79 79.49% 81.58%
80.00% Literacy 80.00% 77.65%
71.52%
Deloitte Year
57.18% 57.89% 1394 390 114
60.00%
1 Literacy 60.00%
Year 1 student numeracy sample

40.00% 40.00%
SK SJKC SJKT
20.00% JNJK Year 1 20.00%

881 173 85
Numeracy

1394 390 114
Deloitte 1 Numeracy Deloitte
JNJK JNJK
Year 2 student literacy sample

SK SJKC SJKT
Year 2 Best Case Literacy Year 2 Best Case Numeracy
JNJK Year 2
953 182 63
100.00% Literacy 100.00%
91.85% 93.91% 90.66% 86.67%
87.30%
Deloitte Year
1485 389 134 82.37% 84.58%
80.00% 2 Literacy 80.00% 76.12%
68.89% 73.58%
60.00% 55.78% Year 2 student numeracy sample 60.00%

45.52% SK SJKC SJKT
40.00% 40.00%
JNJK Year 2
913 212 60
Numeracy
20.00% 20.00%
Deloitte Year
1485 389 134
2 Numeracy
0.00% 0.00%
Deloitte Deloitte
JNJK JNJK
Student Assessment
Question Item Analysis
Year 1 students struggled particularly with literacy constructs 3 and 8
Construct 3 Construct 8
Most students are unfamiliar with the word „Kemeja‟ and Construct 8 assessed students on their mastery of
tend to mistake the answer as „Kerija‟ or „Keseja‟. This KVKVVK. Most students are confused and weak in
includes students from SK and SJK. diphthong. E.g. : „duraun‟ or „durain‟
Errors occurring
predominantly in:
Errors occurring
Sarawak, Negeri predominantly in:
Sembilan, Kedah,
Melaka, Putrajaya,
Johor, Kuala Lumpur,
and Perak
Pahang, Selangor,
Sabah, Teregganu,
and Pulau Pinang
Year 1 students struggled particularly with numeracy constructs 9 and 10

Construct 9 assesses students on measurement. However, Construct 10 Item18 contributed to the lowest passing
students appear to be careless in not reading or percentage in most states except for Terengganu and
understanding the instruction properly Kelantan. Students do not seem to understand the
mathematical concept and the meaning of the „X‟ sign.
Errors occurring Errors occurring

predominantly in: predominantly in:
Kelantan and Sarawak, Perlis,
Melaka Putrajaya, Johor,
Sabah, Selangor,
Perak, Melaka,
Kuala Lumpur,
Negeri Sembilan,
Pahang, Kedah,
and Pulau Pinang
Year 2 students struggled particularly with literacy constructs 3 and 6
Students in 9 out of 15 states demonstrated a lack of Errors pertaining to Item 11 were common in all states but
familiarity with the Item 4 word „kemeja‟; confusing it with magnified in the states of Perak, Pahang, Putrajaya and
„keseja‟ and „kerija‟ instead. Perlis. Frequent mistakes include: „locong‟ and „locing‟.
Errors occurring
predominantly in:
Errors occurring
Negeri Sembilan,
predominantly in:
Johor, Sarawak,
Perak, Pahang,
Pulau Pinang, Kuala
Putrajaya, and Perlis
Lumpur, Melaka,
Kedah, Sabah, and
Selangor
Year 2 students struggled particularly with numeracy constructs 8 and10

The area of Putrajaya saw consistent errors pertaining to A variety of errors occurring in Item 18 severely affected
basic currency-related addition tested in Item12. the Arus Perdana passing rate in all states. Students do
not fully understand the mathematical concept and the
meaning of the „X‟ sign.
Errors
occurring
predominantly Errors occurring in
in Putrajaya all states
Common errors for literacy Years1 and 2
Students were found to be unfamiliar with the word „sikat‟ Item 9 and 10 gave an insight into the students‟
(especially in Sabah and Sarawak as the word „sisir‟ is vocabulary range. Errors like „pitong‟ and „geling‟ were
used in its place) and unable to arrange the given options especially prevalent among SJK(C) students.
to spell out the word „pintu‟ for Items 6 and 8
SJK(C) students commonly made mistakes with the word Construct 8, Item17, 18 and 20 showed that students were
„serai‟ in Item 13, identifying it as „semau‟ possibly due its unable to spell some commonly used words, despite being
similarity with the Mandarin word of „xiang mao‟. Item 16, able to identify them correctly.
also posed a problem for students who lack vocabulary.
Common errors for numeracy Years 1 and 2
Construct 3
Construct 7 posed problems for many Year 1 and 2 students. The majority of errors found were pertaining to Items 7, 8, 9, and 10. These are
errors relating to the multiplication and subtraction concepts.
Construct 10
Construct 10 also proved to be challenging for both Year 1 and Year 2 student groups. These questions were questions on operations
identification and subtraction based on given illustrations. Students generally struggle with the „crossing out‟ or „X‟ symbols for subtraction
questions.
Analysis of Teacher’s
Survey
A total of 639 teachers were surveyed nationwide
Rationale of Teacher’s Survey
School administrators, LINUS teachers, and remedial teachers (Guru Pemulihan) are key individuals in ensuring that the execution of the LINUS
Programme on the ground, i.e. schools, are delivered according to the programme objectives. Teachers play a significant role in facilitating
students‟ early education learning particularly in the effort to improve literacy and numeracy standards nationally. It is th erefore an important
element in Deloitte‟s audit framework to ensure that feedback from school administrators and teachers are duly addressed.
Teacher’s Profile Teaching Experience
• The average years of teaching Primary level BM or Primary Level 1

experience of teachers responding to Average Teaching
the survey (612 respondents) was States Maths Teaching Teaching Experience
Experience (Years)
13.5 years. Experience (Years) (Years)
• The average years of teaching
experience in Bahasa Malaysia
JOHOR 15.18 11.63 8.59
and/or Maths at primary level was KEDAH 14.83 11.62 10.21
10.8 years.
KELANTAN 19.34 17.70 15.25
• The average years of teaching
experience in Level 1 (Tahap 1) of
MELAKA 16.24 11.00 8.80
the 570 respondents was 10.7 years NEGERI SEMBILAN 12.58 8.33 7.73
• It can be concluded that experienced PAHANG 12.72 10.77 9.97
teachers are generally being
deployed in schools to teach BM and
PERAK 14.28 13.12 10.23
Maths LINUS classes PERLIS 17.00 13.55 12.82
• Vernacular schools have the PULAU PINANG 10.24 9.00 7.39
biggest challenge in recruiting
experienced / qualified teachers. 8
SABAH 14.55 10.35 8.28
cases of GSTTs & KDCs detected SARAWAK 15.28 13.21 10.65
• Remedial Teachers are not SELANGOR 11.98 8.97 7.61
represented in every school. 7
cases were detected out of 199 TERENGGANU 16.96 11.50 12.20
schools. Remedial Teachers are WP KUALA LUMPUR 10.56 7.18 6.54
not the better teachers; 2 mentally
challenged cases detected WP PUTRAJAYA 16.83 15.83 12.33
Teachers commented on 10 key topics
Comments by Teachers
The teacher‟s survey form allowed for teachers to respond openly on their viewpoints and challenges in executing the LINUS Programme. These
comments were analysed and categorised into 10 key topics, namely: P&P Delivery/Remedial , Governance/Policies/Administration , Role of
PPD/JPN/KPM, Screening, Students‟ Ability / Aptitude, Attitude & Attendance, P&P Content / Curriculum, Environment, Socio -Economic, &
Family Factors, Learning Challenges, Transfers of Students and Other Issues / Comments.
Categorised
Number of Comments
Comment Areas
Count / Learning
Categories of Comments
Number Other Issues / Challenges,
Environment, Comments, 1.28% Transfers of
P&P Delivery/ Remedial 474 Socio - 6.39% Students,
Economic, 0.30%
Governance/ Policies/
324 Family Factors,
Administration 7.49%
Role of PPD/JPN/KPM 162
P&P Delivery/
P&P Content/ Remedial,
Screening 154 Curriculum, 28.87%
7.49%
Students' Ability/Aptitude,
151
Attitude, Attendance
Students'
P&P Content/ Curriculum 123 Ability/Aptitude,
Attitude,
Environment, Socio -
123 Attendance.,
Economic, Family Factors 9.20% Governance/
Other Issues / Comments 105 Policies/
Screening, Administration,
9.38% 19.73%
Learning Challenges 21
Role of
PPD/JPN/KPM,
Transfers of Students 5 9.87%
Selected key topics commented by teachers
28.87% of teachers‟ comments were related to P&P Delivery and Remedial Teaching issues.
Common issues highlighted were related to the following:
P&P Delivery and • Mixed level classes (Arus Perdana, LINUS Biasa and for some, even Tegar students in a class) –
Teachers are unable to focus on P&P and manage delivery
Remedial Teaching • Teachers are being overloaded with administrative duties
• Teachers need guidance or updates on creative / innovative teaching techniques especially for
LINUS students
Selected examples of teachers’ comments
• GURU GURU LINUS TELAH MENGAMBIL MASA YANG AGAK PANJANG UNTUK MENJALANKAN SARINGAN-SARINGAN KHASNYA LITERASI
MEMBACA DAN NUMERASI LISAN. INI MENGGANGGU PROSES P&P – Johor
• BILANGAN GURU YANG LEBIH RAMAI AKAN MEMUDAHKAN DAN MEMPERCEPATKAN KERJA KERANA BEBAN KERJA GURU YANG SEMAKIN
BANYAK- Kedah
• BEBAN-BEBAN GURU TIDAK SEIMBANG DAN MEMBEBANKAN CONTOHNYA GURU MEMEGANG TUGAS UNTUK MELAKSANAKAN LINUS,
KSSR BEBERAPA SUBJEK, DAN BANYAK TUGAS KHAS YANG LAIN- Negeri Sembilan.
• KEPERLUAN GURU LINUS DALAM KELAS (2 ORANG GURU PERLU ADA SEMASA P&P) DI SAMPING MEMBANTU SEMASA SARINGAN
DIJALANKAN- Perak
• BEBANAN KERJA GURU YANG MELAMPAU MENJADI HALANGAN UTAMA MENGEKALKAN FOKUS GURU TERHADAP PROGRAM LINUS PADA
TAHAP MAKSIMUM- Pulau Pinang
• LINUS MENYUKARKAN GURU BERBANDING KIA2M KERANA PENEKANAN YANG KETERLALUAN TERHADAP PROGRAM LINUS LINUS.
BIDANG TUGAS GURU TERTUMPU KEPADA PROGRAM TERSEBUT SAHAJA.
• GURU LINUS MENGHADAPI MASALAH KERANA TERPAKSA MENGAJAR TERLALU BANYAK MASA (TERMASUK MATA PELAJARAN LAIN)
DALAM SATU MINGGU SELAIN TERPAKSA MENJALANKAN TUGAS SEBAGAI GURU KELAS YANG BANYAK KERJA PERKERANIAN- Sarawak
• MENGHADAPI KESUKARAN UNTUK MELAKSANAKAN P&P KERANA MURID-MURID ARUS PERDANA DAN LINUS BERADA DI DALAM KELAS
YANG SAMA DAN DICADANGKAN AGAR MENYEDIAKAN GURU KHAS UNTUK LINUS – Selangor
• SAYA MENCADANGKAN GURU-GURU YANG TERLIBAT DENGAN LINUS DIBERI PENDEDAHAN / KURSUS TENTANG PENAMBAHBAIKAN
TEKNIK PENGAJARAN SUPAYA GURU-GURU LEBIH BERINOVATIF DAN KREATIF DALAM PENGAJARAN - Kedah
19.73% of teachers‟ comments were related to Governance, Policies and Administration issues. Common
issues highlighted were related to the following:
Governance, • NKRA portal problems and its lagging performance especially during peak periods
Policies and • Non-existence of a special funding for the LINUS Programme
• BPPI design causes confusion (for literacy esp. Construct 1) and too many separate forms (for numeracy)
Administration • Documentation requirements for the LINUS Programme adds to teacher‟s administrative burden and the
schools‟ storage facility challenges
• NKRA PORTAL DILAKSANAKAN DENGAN KURANG MEMUASKAN. NAMA MURID TIDAK MENGIKUT HURUF. INI TELAH MENYUSAHKAN GURU
TERPAKSA MENGAMBIL MASA YANG PANJANG UNTUK MENCARI NAMA MURID UNTUK KEY-IN KEPUTUSAN.- Sabah
• SISTEM PORTAL YANG SENTIASA BERUBAH-UBAH MENYUKARKAN GURU MENYIMPAN DATA YANG STANDARD – Selangor
• SISTEM PORTAL PERLU DIPERBAIKI, SEBAB BILA SAYA MASUKKAN MAKLUMAT MURID LINUS, MENGALAMI MASALAH KADAR KELAJUAN
LAMBAT – Selangor
• PERLU PERUNTUKKAN: FAIL MURID SECARA PERIBADI: SATU SETIAP SEORANG, FAIL MURID PERLU DISIMPAN DALAM MAGAZINE BOX
(FOLDER) - BAYANGKAN, 1 FOLDER MUAT UNTUK 15 ORANG (FAIL) SAHAJA, FOLDER DISIMPAN DI DALAM LOCKER. LOCKER??
PERUNTUKKAN?? LOCKER PULA PERLU DISIMPAN DI BILIK YANG SESUAI & SELAMAT, SEKOLAH PULA KURANG KELAS (BILIK) - Selangor
• SAYA BERHARAP PERUNTUKAN KHAS UNTUK PROGRAM LINUS DAPAT DISALURKAN KEPADA AJK LINUS UNTUK MENGADAKAN BAHAN
BANTU YANG LEBIH BAIKI – Pahang
• TIADA SUMBER KEWANGAN UNTUK MENJALANKAN AKTIVITI DAN PROJEK UNTUK PELAJAR LINUS - Kelantan
• BORANG BPPI NUMERASI BANYAK, INI MENAMBAHKAN LAGI BEBANAN GURU YANG TERPAKSA MENGISI BORANG. SAYA CADANGKAN
SUPAYA BORANG BPPI NUMERASI DIBERI SEKEPING SAHAJA SEPERTI BORING BPPI LITERASI – Kedah
• SKEMA BORANG PELAPORAN PENGUASAAN INDIVIDU (BPPI) BAGI LITERASI TERUTAMA KONSTRUK 5 BAGI MEMBACA (LISAN) DIHARAP
DAPAT DIPERBAIKI DARI SEGI BILANGAN SOALAN KERANA MEMBERI IMPAK BAGI PENENTUAN PENGUASAAN MURID SEMASA MENGISI
BORANG MARKAH – Terengganu
• SISTEM FAIL YANG TERLALU CEREWET MENAMBAH BEBAN TUGAS GURU – Perak
• BEBANAN KERJA YANG BANYAK TERUTAMA MENYEDIAKAN FAIL. GURU TERPAKSA MENGEMASKINI FAIL SELALU MEMANDANGKAN
MAKLUMAT YANG BERUBAH-UBAH SETIAP KALI BERMESYUARAT DI PPD – Kuala Lumpur
9.87% of teachers‟ comments were related to the Role of PPD / JPN / KPM. Common issues highlighted
were related to the following:
Role of PPD / JPN / • Undue pressure to coach, guide, drill or even pass off students as Arus Perdana
• Confusion caused by conflicting information provided by different departments or authorities
KPM • Need for more guidance and professional support from FasiLINUS
• Need for more quality training which should include P&P techniques

• MAKLUMAT PERLU DISAMPAIKAN DENGAN TEPAT KEPADA GURU DARIPADA PIHAK KEMENTRIAN, KERANA SENTIASA BERLAINAN
MAKLUMAT DENGAN FASILINUS – Kelantan
• FASILINUS PERLU TURUN PADANG MEMBERI TUNJUK AJAR DAN PENDEKATAN YANG DIGUNAKAN UNTUK MURID LINUS.- WP Kuala Lumpur
• FASILINUS PERLU BANTU GURU JALANKAN SARINGAN LINUS DI SEKOLAH SEKIRANYA GURU YANG MENGAJAR DI SEKOLAH TERSEBUT
BERPINDAH SEKOLAH ATAU PENCEN.- Johor
• GURU LINUS HARUS DIBERI KEBEBASAN UNTUK MEMBUAT PENILAIAN YANG SEPATUTNYA TANPA TEKANAN.- Sarawak
• SAYA TIDAK BERSETUJU DENGAN CARA YANG DIARAH OLEH FASILINUS UNTUK MEMBIMBING MURID-MURID SEMASA MEMBUAT SARINGAN
KERANA TIDAK MEMBERI GAMBARAN YANG TEPAT TENTANG PENGUASAAN KONSTRUK-KONSTRUK YANG DIUJI. ADA KEMUNGKINAN
BESAR MURID-MURID YANG DIPERDANAKAN SEPATUTNYA TIDAK SEPATUTNYA DIPERDANAKAN- Sarawak
• TEKANAN DARI PIHAK ATASAN UNTUK MENAMBAHKAN BILANGAN JUMLAH PERDANA/LULUS (FASILINUS).- Sarawak
• KAMI GURU, DIBERI TEKANAN UNTUK MELULUSKAN MURID-MURID YANG BETUL-BETUL LINUS TEGAR ATAU DALAM LINUS WALAUPUN
BIMBINGAN GURU BERKALI-KALI GAGAL UNTUK MELULUSKAN MEREKA KE TAHAP YANG LEBIH BAIK SEPERTI LINUS TEGAR KE LINUS,
ATAUPUN LINUS KE PERDANA.- Perak
• APABILA BILANGAN MURID LINUS ATAU LINUS TEGAR RAMAI, GURU BESAR MENEGUR GURU. GURU 'CARI JALAN' UNTUK MENGELAKKAN
TEGURAN – Perak
• KEBANYAKAAN KURSUS YANG DIHADIRI TIDAK MENUNJUKKAN CARA YANG TERBAIK TEKNIK PENGAJARAN SEBALIKNYA MEMINTA GURU
YANG HADIR KURSUS MENUNJUK CARA – Selangor
• PIHAK PPD PERLU MENGENALPASTI SEMULA GURU YANG TERLIBAT YANG BELUM DIDEDAHKAN DENGAN TEPAT TENTANG PROGRAM INI.
CONTOHNYA SEPERTI GURU PEMULIHAN – Kelantan
9.38% of teachers‟ comments were related to the Screening issues. Common issues highlighted were
related to the following:
• Insufficient time to complete screening process
Screening • Screening instruments assesses students on topics which have not been taught in curriculum yet
• Students are unable to catch up with curriculum after passing into Arus Perdana (Construct 8 and 10
respectively for literacy and numeracy screenings)

• MURID YANG MELEPASI SARINGAN 2&3 TIDAK DAPAT MENGIKUTI P&P DI KELAS PERDANA (AGAK LAMBAT MENERIMA PELAJARAN).- Negeri
Sembilan
• TEMPOH MASA SEBULAN UNTUK SARINGAN 1 - LISAN TIDAK MENCUKUPI BAGI SEKOLAH RAMAI MURID. SAYA MENGAJAR 3 KELAS (1 LITERASI, 2
NUMERASI). KESELURUHAN MURID UNTUK 3 KELAS ADALAH 110. MASA UNTUK MENGUJI MURID SECARA INDIVIDU TIDAK CUKUP.- Negeri Sembilan
• SARINGAN NUMERASI LISAN TERLALU BANYAK MENGGUNAKAN BAHAN BANTU MENGAJAR LAMBAT UNTUK MENGHASILKAN UJIAN UNTUK
SEORANG MURID (SEKOLAH YANG RAMAI MURID CONTOH 40 ORANG SATU KELAS).- Pahang
• ADAKAN SEROANG GURU LINUS KHAS UNTUK MEMBANTU GURU BM/MATEMATIK YANG TERPAKSA MENGHADAPI BEBAN MENJALANI SARINGAN
SARINGAN LINUS KERANA MURID-MURID I SEKOLAH KAMI RAMAI.- Perak
• SARINGAN MELIPUTI TAJUK-TAJUK YANG BELUM DIPELAJARI CTH: WANG, MASA DAN WAKTU, PENYELESAIAN MASALAH.- Perak
• SARINGAN DIJALANKAN TERLALU AWALPADA TAHUN, MURID-MURID BELUM MENYESUAIKAN DIRI BELAJAR DI SEKOLAH, MURID MURID TERLAH
DIMINTA MENGAMBIL SARINGAN.- Pulau Pinang
• MURID LINUS TEGAR TIDAK HADIR KE SEKOLAH MERUMITKAN PROSES PELAKSANAAN SARINGAN YANG DIJALANKAN. PROSES P&P TIDAK DAPAT
DIJALANKAN DENGAN SEPENUHNYA.- Johor
• INSTRUMEN SARINGAN NUMERASI TERLALU BANYAK, INI MENGAMBIL MASA YANG AGAK LAMA UNTUK MENGUJI MURID.- Kedah
• MENAMBAH BILANGAN GURU YANG MENGENDALIKAN LINUS KERANA SARINGAN LISAN TERUTAMANYA NUMERASI MENGAMBIL MASA YANG AGAK
LAMA.- Kedah
• ARAS SOALAN SARINGAN 1 KURANG SESUAI DENGAN TAHAP PENCAPAIAN MURID (SOALAN AGAK SUSAH). SOALAN KONSTRUK 1 HINGGA 12
(LITERASI MEMBACA) MELIPUTI UNIT 1 HINGGA 9 SEDANGKAN PROSES PENGAJARAN DAN PEMBELAJARAN ADALAH MENGIKUT KEMAHIRAN DARI
UNIT 1 HINGGA 9.- Kelantan
9.20% of teachers‟ comments were related to the Students‟ Ability/Aptitude, Attitude and Attendance.
Common issues highlighted were related to the following:
Students’ Ability / • Poor student attendance
Aptitude, Attitude • Uncooperative parents who do not value education
• Social-economic challenges and family problems affecting students‟ development
and Attendance • Students with slower development and learning abilities or with poor attitudes

• KEHADIRAN MURID LINUS AGAK MENDUKACITAKAN. INI JUGA MUNGKIN DISEBABKAN MASALAH KERJASAMA IBU BAPA. ADA SEGELINTIR
IBUBAPA YANG MASIH KABUR AKAN HAL INI. NAMUN BEGITU, BERDASARKAN PROGRAM CAHAYA YANG DIJALANKAN ADALAH DIDAPATI
IANYA TELAH MEMBERI KESEDARAN KEPADA PARA IBU BAPA MURID LINUS BAGI YANG HADIR- Negeri Sembilan
• KEHADIRAN MURID KURANG MEMUASKAN. MURID YANG MEMERLUKAN BIMBINGAN SERING TIDAK HADIR KE SEKOLAH- Melaka
• GURU JUGA MENGHADAPI KESUNTUKAN MASA UNTUK MEMBIMBING MURID-MURID LINUS YANG AGAK LEMAH KERANA KADAR KEHADIRAN
MEREKA KURANG MEMUASKAN. OLEH ITU, GURU TIDAK DAPAT MENJALANKAN KELAS TAMBAHAN SEBELUM KELAS BERMULA. KADANG
KALA MURID-MURID TERSEBUT JUGA DATANG LAMBAT KE SEKOLAH.- Sarawak
• KEHADIRAN MURID KE SEKOLAH DALAM KEADAAN YANG SERBA KEKURANGAN - TIADA ALAT TULIS, TIADA BUKU, KEHILANGAN BUKU ATAU
BAHAN BANTU MENGAJAR YANG DIBEKALKAN OLEH GURU- Selangor
• LATAR BELAKANG MURID LINUS TEGAR JUGA MENJADI HALANGAN KEPADA KEHADIRAN DAN KEMAJUAN AKADEMIK ANAK MEREKA
SEPERTI FAKTOR KEMISKINAN DAN MASALAH RUMAH TANGGA- Selangor
• KESEDARAN IBUBAPA TERHADAP KEDATANGAN DAN KESUNGGUHAN MURID UNTUK BELAJAR SANGAT RENDAH- Kelantan
• PENGLIBATAN DARIPADA PIHAK TERTENTU SEPERTI JABATAN KEMAJUAN ORANG ASLI (JAKOA) UNTUK MENGATASI MASALAH KEHADIRAN
DAN KECICIRAN YANG MEMBERI KESAN KEPADA PENCAPAIAN LINUS BAGI SEKOLAH MURID ORANG ASLI- Pahang
• MURID-MURID LINUS SENANG LUPA, TIDAK BERSUNGGUH-SUNGGUH, NAKAL MERUMITKAN GURU-GURU YANG INGIN MEMIMPIN MEREKA –
Selangor
• SEBAGAI GURU PEMULIHAN KHAS, DIDAPATI KEBANYAKKAN MURID LINUS TEGAR ADALAH MURID-MURID YANG MEMPUNYAI KOGNITIF
YANG SANGAT LEMAH DIMANA SUKAR MENERIMA PEMBELAJARAN DAN MEMPUNYAI MEMORI YANG SANGAT SINGKAT WALAUPUN
PELBAGAI PENDEKATAN DILAKUKAN OLEH GURU - Melaka
Findings and Cause
Analysis
Five pillars should be addressed in order for the LINUS
Programme to achieve better student outcomes
P1: Improve
the
assessment
process
P5: Better P2: Ensure

manage dedicated
student & teaching
environment How can the capacity &
al challenges LINUS capability
Programme
achieve
meaningful
outcomes?
P4: Align
P3: Enhance
LINUS
& focus
modules
remedial
with
efforts
curriculum
Improve outcomes by maintaining a standard for the LINUS
assessment and administrative process
Rationale
The LINUS screening assessment process is an important element in ensuring that students would have mastered the basic litera cy and
numeracy standards and are therefore able to cope in mainstream education. Misclassification of students, whether upwards or downwards,
caused directly or indirectly by assessment process weaknesses would deprive students who are in need of remedial assistance and at the same
time jeopardise the integrity of the screening results.
Key Issues Data Sources
 Lack of clarity and detail on the extent of guidance or coaching Selected Teacher’s Comments:
 Current minimum requirements to be deemed as Arus Perdana • Fasilinus menggalakkan kami seboleh-bolehnya melepaskan murid tertentu masuk
ke Arus Perdana. Sedangkan murid itu memang tidak boleh dalam P&P
(Constructs 8 and 10) are not reliable indicators of genuine literacy and
numeracy standards • Tekanan dari pihak PPD/Pentadbiran yang ingin keputusan saringan lebih kepada
kuantiti berbanding kualiti
 An inconsistent understanding of the marking scheme • Ujian saringan LINUS jarak masanya terlalu dekat sangat. Guru-guru tidak sempat
 Undue KPI pressure impacts assessment process membuat pemulihan lebih kerana masa sangat suntuk. Jadi ujian saringan LINUS
hendaklah dua kali
 The screening period (1 month for oral and 1 week for written) is a • Cara perlaksanaan saringan tidak sesuai – Uji 3 atau 4 orang murid sekali – 30 orang
challenge especially for early screening periods (Screening 1 & 2) murid yang lain bising, ditinggalkan dan mengganggu
affecting integrity of the process – high student number and limited time
• The short time gap between screenings (within a year) does not allow
sufficient time for meaningful remedial actions
• Screening 1 (Year 1) assessment period does not allow sufficient time Document Review and Interview:
for students to settle in to primary education before being assessed. • Ambiguity of screening method has caused FasiLINUS and teachers in some schools
Students without pre-school education are disadvantaged to have misunderstood the marking scheme. E.g. Scores of 3/5 were thought to be
sufficient for a student to be marked as “kuasai”
• The oral screenings conducted during the P&P period is not ideal as
• BPPI design – contributed to careless data entry errors (Literacy Construct 1a and 1b)
there are too many distractions in class
and repetitive data transfers (4 different sets of numeracy BPPIs)
• Data entry discrepancies between the BPPI and NKRA portal identified • Teachers acknowledge that over-guidance or drilling of students prior or during
several intentional and unintentional causes. Non-standardisation of screening assessments have contributed to the sudden improvement in student
template design for literacy and numeracy assessments (i.e. BPPI) classification numbers between screenings
• There are reports of missing data or inaccurate student number totals when data is
• NKRA portal‟s lagging performance especially during peak usage being entered into the NKRA portal.
periods. Teachers also have to re-enter Arus Perdana students‟
screening data for every screening causing unnecessary administrative
overheads
Improving teaching capabilities and capacity would ensure
that students receive the best possible outcomes from LINUS
Rationale
Teachers play a pivotal role in ensuring that students are able to master basic literacy and numeracy skills. The conducivene ss of the learning
environment and the pedagogical capabilities of teachers, together influence students‟ learning outcomes. Teachers have, in t heir own means,
coped with the current situation but in order to enable effective/meaningful improvements in literacy and numeracy standards, teaching capability,
and capacity (number of teachers), and teaching resource support availability should be increased.
 Insufficient professional support or pedagogical training with Selected Teacher’s Comments:
the right quality, content, and delivery. LINUS teachers are
• Bilangan guru BM tidak mencukupi. Sebilangan guru bukan opsyen BM “dipaksa” untuk
not equally exposed to the LINUS programme teaching mengajar BM
methodology • Bebanan guru tidak seimbang dan membebankan. Contohnya guru memegang tugas
 Delivery in each class is hampered by the need to cater to 2 untuk melaksanakan LINUS, KSSR beberapa subjek, dan banyak tugas khas yang lain
or 3 different levels (Tegar, LINUS Biasa, Perdana) due to • P&P dijalankan dengan masa yang singkat. Tumpuan kepada P&P berkurangan. Guru
the constrains of the number of teachers in the school as terpaksa membahagikan masa mengajar aliran perdana dan LINUS
well as the availability of physical infrastructure • Kursus yang ditawarkan untuk guru LINUS tidak mencukupi dan tidak menyeluruh di mana
hanya seorang guru sahaja dipanggil sepanjang tahun
 The focus on weak LINUS Biasa students require a more
specialised approach somewhat like the remedial students
• Teachers are burdened with LINUS administrative functions
(together with multiple school roles and/or curriculum
administrative duties) particularly during academic “peak” Document Review and Interview:
periods such as the LINUS screening periods or school • On average, teacher student ratio stands at 1:32, while larger schools struggle with an
assessment / activity periods average of 1:40 teacher student ratio. The average schools‟ total teacher to total student
• Insufficient teachers with the right subject option and/or
population ratio however stood at 1:15
• Teachers acknowledged that some Arus Perdana students have been neglected in class
experience to teach BM or Maths
due to the teachers having to focus on LINUS students or students with different learning
• Teachers struggle and have to cope with the lack of abilities during P&P
teaching materials such as LINUS modules and teaching • Teachers have either used the school‟s budget for Panitia BM and Maths, or even their
aids / instructional support, to effectively improve the literacy personal finances to photocopy or prepare teaching materials and teaching aids
or numeracy levels • School administrators commented that administrative duties are taking teachers away from
their core P&P responsibilities
• Parents‟ role as teachers particularly in support of the LINUS
Programme is still underdeveloped (possible equipping?)
Aligning LINUS with mainstream curriculum would provide a
logical development outcome for students
Rationale
The LINUS Programme is a diagnostic and remedial programme designed to ensure students acquire literacy and numeracy skills. Based on the
LINUS Lab objectives, LINUS modules (and assessments) are to be contextualised with mainstream curriculum in order for studen ts to relate and
apply their literacy and numeracy skills in view of the increasing demands of standard curriculum. Teachers and students alike would need only
to intervene on their weaknesses and as quickly be steered back to the standard curriculum.
 Students are being assessed during the screenings on topics Selected Teacher’s Comments:
which have not been taught yet (e.g. Numeracy topics such as • Latihan dalam modul murid agak banyak. Murid tidak sempat habiskan dalam kelas
money and time of day) especially at Year 1 • Didalam kelas ada 3 aras murid dan ini menyukarkan guru untuk melaksanakan P&P
 LINUS constructs are too basic and not aligned to the dalam satu masa mengikut KSSR dan juga modul LINUS
• Konstruk dalam modul numerasi perlu ditambahbaik supaya relevan dan berkait dengan
mainstream curriculum KSSR
 Lack of clear instruction to teachers on how to use and deliver the • Ujian saringan LINUS terutamanya Saringan 1&2 agak tidak sesuai dengan tahap murid
LINUS modules according to the students‟ construct achievement Tahun 1. Soalan yang dikemukakan meliputi semua topik kemahiran sedangkan proses
level – particularly for those in the LINUS Biasa level P&P hanya meliputi kemahiran asas nombor
 Students who pass into Arus Perdana currently (K1-K8 for

literacy and K1-K10 for numeracy) may not have the ability to
cope with the mainstream curriculum
 The development outcome for LINUS (over the three years) is Document Review and Interview:
• There is an inconsistency in the usage of LINUS modules whereby some schools are using
unclear for teachers and they struggle to contextualize or
it as a standard curriculum which must be completed until the student passes to Arus
complement the current material with the mainstream curriculum. Perdana who will then follow the KSSR/KBSR syllabus. Other schools are using the LINUS
• LINUS proficiency level particularly the LINUS Biasa category (K3 modules as supplementary materials and exercises to complement the mainstream
to K7) is too broad. There may be a need for review especially for syllabus
those transitioning from LINUS Tegar to Biasa (and even Biasa to • Some teachers find that the LINUS modules and KSSR syllabus are not in-line and is
Perdana). Their needs are often underestimated and current focused on different skill areas
teaching / curriculum approach may not be adequate. LINUS • Year 2 students are taught Maths in English, however the LINUS modules are in BM.
Teachers suggested that a bi-lingual modules should be made available
Biasa level is a very broad level – there are three logical levels
• According to some teachers, LINUS modules are too simple for better students but are too
within this band
difficult for the weaker students
Enhancing remedial efforts to ensure that targeted students
receive the development needs required
Rationale
The remedial effort within LINUS is a critical activity which when compromised has a compounding effect on the overall progra mme outcomes
especially in addressing school drop-outs. It is crucial that remedial teachers have the capacity and capability to provide adequate guidance to
LINUS students (and other remedial students) who are most in-need of help. Material support provided must be suitable for the learning needs of
these weaker students. All schools should be equipped with this facility as it is the foundation to meeting NKRA outcomes.
 Remedial teachers in schools are not the best or best equipped to meet the LINUS Selected Teacher’s Comments:
programme outcomes. There are insufficient teachers .Certain schools do not have • Modul hanya sesuai untuk murid LINUS. Tidak sesuai untuk murid LINUS Tegar
remedial teachers (class) • Saya berharap agar guru pemulihan khas diberi pendedahan dan latihan LINUS yang
 LINUS modules tend to be late and are not able to fully meet the needs of LINUS lebih berkesan untuk mengurangkan bilangan murid LINUS Tegar
Tegar students who struggle with different learning challenges • Guru pemulihan perlu diberi kursus pendedahan penggunaan modul dan instrumen
 Medical verification needs to be done through the schools. Parents are denying the
saringan. Guru pemulihan perlu diberi maklumat tentang perkembangan LINUS dari
responsibility semasa ke semasa
• Bilangan murid yang memasuki kelas pemulihan yang dihantar oleh program LINUS
 Lack of standardised remedial teaching aids / instructional support for LINUS Tegar
adalah ramai (sehingga 15 orang) dan kerana pemulihan adalah berfokus kepada
students or weaker LINUS Biasa . Current material (Pemulihan Khas) is preferred
over LINUS modules as it is better structured. pembelajaran individu maka tidaklah sesuai
 Insufficient and late LINUS-specific training or exposure for school remedial
teachers. The relationship of LINUS outcomes and the current remedial outcomes
are not clearly mapped and defined
 Planned LINUS-specific remedial teacher deployment was not carried out until the
last quarter of the 2011 academic year. The 1:15 ratio is not carried out. Current
remedial capacity cannot meet LINUS demands. Current school remedial process
Document Review and Interview:
looks at customizing development for each student from Year 2 – Year 6. The • Current remedial efforts are carried out by school remedial teachers who traditionally have
current LINUS programme demands (for weak LINUS Biasa and Tegar cases) a different methodology and approach towards students with learning difficulties. The
cannot be met by the single remedial teacher LINUS Programme is viewed as an additional portfolio for these teachers
 LINUS (special) remedial teachers (Guru Pemulihan LINUS Khas Tambahan) – • Remedial teachers have resorted to using the remedial kits (Modul Pemulihan Khas)
teachers who were being appointed were not informed prior to appointment, instead of the LINUS modules for LINUS Tegar students who struggles with the LINUS
creating a logistical challenge. Some appointed teachers have no prior exposure or modules due to the relatively higher standards
knowledge about the LINUS programme • The recent appointment of LINUS-specific remedial teachers (Guru Pemulihan LINUS
• Parents role in students‟ development especially for LINUS (Tegar) has been Khas Tambahan) created some confusion among teachers due to the uncertainty and
underestimated (especially in recognising their special requirements) and needs to ambiguity of the role. Operationalisation and teacher transfers are among the other issues
be encouraged further raised
Addressing social environmental challenges to enable better
student learning outcomes
Rationale
The environment surrounding a child is an important factor in determining the child‟s overall development. Students are physically in school for 6
hours a day on average but spends the majority of their time in the home environment. It is therefore vital for parents/guardians to play a larger
role in educating and guiding their children at home as well as to care for their basic welfare. Students with specific learn ing challenges should
obtain proper medical diagnosis and/or attention for effective intervention.
 Schools are still struggling
through PIBG to better Selected Teacher’s Comments:
educate parents on LINUS to garner support to help • Murid terlalu bergantung pada pengajaran guru dan tiada kesinambungan di rumah
students • Kehadiran murid semasa program LINUS dijalankan kurang memuaskan
• Masalah sosial yang tidak begitu sihat di kawasan ini. Contohnya pengaruh daripada
 Poor attendance in school particularly for LINUS Tegar media masa, siber café dan golongan sebaya yang bersikap negatif
students due to circumstances ranging from no funds • Kebanyakan murid LINUS and Tegar adalah murid yang mempunyai latar belakang
for transportation, family relationship issues, priorities keluarga yang kurang mementingkan pencapaian akademik. Jika dipanggil untuk
on education and health considerations (child or perbincangan, ramai ibubapa ini tidak hadir
parent/guardian) • Laterbelakang murid yang ada masalah keluarga (perceraian, miskin, terbiar)
 There is no practical and effective medical verification

process to assist in identifying students with special
needs
• Informed parents of medically „suspect‟ cases are Document Review and Interview:
• Documentations of parents refusal to consent to refer their child for medical examination
denying proper medical verification; a personal struggle although the student have been identified as having learning disabilities by Special Needs
with what they might discover Teachers (Guru Sekolah Pendidikan Khas)
• Social economic background of students – there are • Class register records shows that LINUS Biasa or LINUS Tegar students have poor
attendance generally
cases of students registering for formal education much
• According to most teachers who were interviewed, a student‟s family background and the
later due to insufficient documentation (foreign and local
social environment plays a big role in the child‟s overall development. Parental guidance is
children) or education in itself is a secondary priority generally lacking for LINUS Biasa and Tegar students
• Some LINUS Biasa and Tegar students lack focus and have short memory span which
then complicates their learning process
Recommendations
Overall recommendations roadmap
The following is a broad outline of recommendations that should to be implemented for the LINUS Programme to achieve a meaningful outcome.
The overall LINUS programme goal needs to be clarified and carefully communicated. The special screening should be conducted as early as
possible in Year 2012 to allow sufficient time for intervention. Screening processes will need to be streamlined, clarified and re-designed to ensure
that the screening process accurately measures students‟ literacy and numeracy standards. The administrative overheads for teachers as a result
should be lessened to focus on what they do best – teaching. Teachers need to be immediately assisted or guided with adequate pedagogical
skills to integrate the LINUS modules with mainstream curriculum to contextualise the learning outcomes. Head Teachers must also be supported
to deliver on the outcomes (and not shamed for poor results).
In summary:
• LINUS goal - Review outcomes and communicate effectively

• LINUS screenings - the assessment “check-point” must be delivered impartially to provide an assurance of outcomes
• LINUS management process – must be standardised, streamlined and properly communicated
• LINUS teachers (and Head Teachers) – must better understand LINUS outcomes and be supported to deliver it effectively
A detailed analysis on LINUS data to be correlated with other data points should be built as soon as possible to provide an objective plan of
intervention to better meet NKRA KPIs by 2012. We urgently need analytics on the data at hand.
LINUS
Special delivery
Screening f or mapped with
Cohort 1 & 2 curriculum
Clarif y and LINUS

redesign
... inf rastructure
screening equipped
processes schools
Second Fourth
First quarter 2012 Third quarter 2012
quarter 2012 quarter 2012
Several initiatives should be carried out in the short term as
an intervention measure...
1 2
Improve screening
Align LINUS with
administration
curriculum
processes
Review LINUS outcomes
and communicate it
effectively
LINUS
Success
Enhancing
Addressing social-
teaching
environmental
capabilities and
challenges
capacity
4 3
...to support the long term success of the LINUS Programme
with meaningful outcomes
Key Activities Ownership
1 • Conduct special screening for Cohort 1 & 2
Improve screening • Students must be assessed on all 12 constructs
• Streamline screening processes with clear new standard guideline
administration
• Reduce screening to two (2) per year
processes • Ensure screening instrument topics are aligned with curriculum
2 • Provide prescriptive/suggested lesson plans for teachers as a guide

• Redesign LINUS modules to contextualise activities with mainstream
Align LINUS with curriculum
curriculum • Enhance remedial materials and activities for LINUS Tegar students
• Review LINUS levels i.e. LINUS Biasa, as this level is too broad
3 • Delegate administrative duties to school clerks

Enhancing teaching • Ensure adequate remedial teachers in schools who are guided and
supported
capabilities and
• Train remedial and LINUS teachers on targeted pedagogical skills
capacity • Review portal performance and processes for more efficient
administrative update
4 • Involve parents in students‟ education progress by equipping them with
Addressing social- home education teaching aids
• Intensify community/parents awareness programmes (e.g. through
environmental
mass and social media)
challenges • Enhance breath and depth of medical diagnostic instrument
Detailed recommendations – short term activities to initiate
First quarter 2012 – “Gate” and “Guardian” Second quarter 2012 – “Healer”
Implement a special screening and streamline screening processes Improve teaching focus for literacy and numeracy
urgently (remedial teaching included)
P1: Improve the assessment process P1: Improve the assessment process
• Conduct a special screening for Cohort 1 & 2 students, assessing all 12 constructs ‒ To reduce the number of screenings per year to just two (e.g.
• Ensure that the screening instrument topics are aligned with the curriculum schedule to allow May/June and Sept/Oct). The process or screening cycle framework
for a fair and effective assessment must be finalised and ready to be implemented latest by Year 2013
• Streamline assessment processes by issuing a clear new standard guideline on the marking ‒ Redesign and standardise the LINUS administration templates (i.e.
scheme, the extent of guidance (only allowing the reading and clarification of instructions), BPPI format / layout for both literacy and numeracy) to make it clearer
and there shall be no coaching of students. Screenings should all be conducted in the form and less open to misinterpretation
of a pure assessment
• To change the students‟ assessment level standards. All 12 constructs must be mastered in
P2: Ensure dedicated teaching capacity and capability
order to be deemed Arus Perdana • Conduct a LINUS-specific (pedagogical) skills training for all Year 1 to
P2: Ensure dedicated teaching capacity and capability 3, BM and Maths teachers as well as remedial teachers to enhance
• Delegate LINUS administrative duties such as portal data entry and document filings, to a
their teaching capability especially in developing the weaker students
school clerk so that teachers can focus on P&P P3: Enhance and focus remedial efforts
‒ Ensure that dedicated fundings for LINUS are deployed to enable teachers to create creative
teaching aids
• To ensure that every school has at least one remedial teacher. In
schools where the remedial teacher would need more assistance or
P3: Enhance and focus remedial efforts guidance, school administrators are to assign an experienced and
• To deploy an effective intervention programme especially for Cohort 1 after the special qualified teacher to assist and guide the remedial teacher
screening to help students close the gaps with the basic literacy / numeracy standard (i.e.
The mastery of all 12 constructs) . This will be a learning template for subsequent Cohorts
• To research on the performance of remedial teachers in all schools to
allow MOE to compare this information with the special screening
• Bahagian Pemulihan Khas (BPK) has to organise a workshop to quickly equip remedial results to identify and target intervention or assistance programmes
teachers with the right remedial pedagogical skills and to guide or assist them on the creation for remedial teachers of schools with larger LINUS Tegar populations
of suitable teaching aids (or weak LINUS Biasa)
P4: Align LINUS modules with curriculum
• Professional support by FasiLINUS (or suitable personnel) to provide a suggested (guide)
lesson plan for teachers to guide them on how to integrate the LINUS modules with
mainstream curriculum. Teachers will then need to use their own creativity to achieve the
suggested learning outcomes
• To establish a task force to drive and manage the integration or contextualisation of LINUS
modules with mainstream curricular in a holistic and systematic manner – aligned to LINUS
outcomes
Detailed recommendations – short term activities to initiate
Third quarter 2012 – “Horse and the Cart” Fourth quarter 2012 and beyond – “Castle”
Reflect and review LINUS literacy and numeracy goals and align Planning infrastructure and capability requirements for a
modules with mainstream curriculum (review LINUS goals) sustainable LINUS programme
P1: Improve the assessment process P1: Improve the assessment process
‒ To review the portal performance and certain processes i.e. update of Arus • To plan adequate infrastructure to provide a condusive environment for
Perdana scores for every screening period, that would allow for a more efficient learning and particularly for oral screening sessions
administrative update by the schools (after screenings)
‒ To conduct a yearly „audit‟ to evaluate the effectiveness of LINUS
P3: Enhance and focus remedial efforts administration, delivery and verify students‟ progress over the year
• To dedicate a separate module or to enhance LINUS remedial activities in the P2: Ensure dedicated teaching capacity and capability
modules to be more suitable for LINUS Tegar or weaker LINUS Biasa students
• To train and deploy more BM and Maths teachers with a special focus
P4: Align LINUS modules with curriculum on Primary School Level 1 (Tahap 1) – assumption that all students
• Redesign the LINUS modules to align or contextualise the activities with
entering Year 1 have no literacy and numeracy skills
mainstream curricular. The LINUS levels (12 construct assessment) need to be • Establish better physical infrastructure for LINUS as a programme for
mapped for every year of assessment. The challenge levels are in need of literacy and numeracy (perhaps even science) for all schools
review in light of the new curriculum (KSSR). If LINUS is to assess only on
basic constructs (12 or otherwise) then dedicate as a separate remedial
• Focus on pre-school education initiatives as part of NKRA
programme – aligned with remedial programme of schools. P5: Better manage student and environmental challenges
• Review LINUS levels especially LINUS Biasa as this level is too broad. • To deploy qualified assessors of learning disabilities (such as trained
Logically there are three levels within this band medical officers, special needs teachers, certified teachers, child /
education psychologist) to assess students for learning disabilities
P5: Better manage student and environmental challenges
• To involve parents in student‟s education progress by equiping parents with
• Enhance the breath and depth of the medical diagnostic instrument to
include a broader range of learning disabilities apart from dyslexia
home education teaching aids or guidelines
• To intensify community or parents awareness programmes particularly to
‒ To allow data of students who are genuinely suspected of learning
disabilities (evidence of learning challenges must be documented as
highlight the importance of parental guidance at home and its influence on
proof) to be removed from NKRA portal if parents have refused
student learning outcomes
consent for more than three recommendations for a medical
• To research on LINUS achievement results with infrastructure data points (such examination
as teachers student ratio, remedial teachers student ratio, qualification of
teachers and teachers‟ performance)
• To research on student learning disabilities (a growing concern) in
relation to early education and tie outcomes to LINUS programme
delivery
International Best Practices
Comparative country reported literacy and numeracy rates
Canada
PISA Literacy Result &
Rank: 524 , 6
PISA Numeracy Result
& Rank: 527, 10 Finland
CIA Literacy Rate: 99% PISA Literacy Result &
Rank: 536, 3 Singapore
PISA Numeracy Result
& Rank: 541, 6 PISA Literacy Result &
CIA Literacy Rate: 100% Rank: 526, 5
Kerala, India PISA Numeracy Result &
CIA Literacy Rate: 94% Rank: 562, 2
CIA Literacy Rate: 93.2%
Source: 1) PISA 2009+ International Report
TIMSS Numeracy Result
2) CIA World Factbook & Rank: 599, 2
3) TIMSS, 2007
Finnish teachers are highly qualified and independent
Basic Education Teacher Education & Training

• Compulsory education starts at age 7 for • Emphasis on research-oriented approach
nine years • Teaching practice is central
• National core curriculum established for • Independent in choosing teaching
6-year olds‟ pre-school methods
• Continuous learning & improvement
Special Education Supported Socio-Environment

• Integrated into ordinary schools by adequate • Foreign films television not dubbed in
• Similar objectives & content areas with facilities for Finnish
mainstream education system • Educated women as role model
Finnish
• Education providers devise individual • Comprehensive library facilities &
curricula & personal plan for each reading assistance
institution, monitored with the home & culture • High-esteem of reading - Literacy as
multi-disciplinary welfare system basis for further learning
Legislative Reform Tripartite Consensus

• Education institutions receive full • Formed by government, trade unions and
autonomy in developing daily delivery, employees organisations
evaluating operations & localize • Closely coordinate, communicate and
education conditions, in line with pre- heading towards a common goal
determined government objectives
Source: 1) The EFA 2000 Assessment: Country Reports

2) Education and the Finnish society, 2011
3) What makes education in Finland that good? 10 reform principles behind the success.
4) Inclusion and excellence in education, The Finish Experience
Canadian teachers work collaboratively with colleagues to
develop instructional strategies and approaches
•Provided extra teacher/ assistant to facilitate student focus group to ensure intensive
Teacher Education teaching
•Teaching resources developed in-house/purchased are aligned with the program of studies
and Training •Provided lead teachers with a mentor to help them acquire and hone their skills
•Students with chronic attendance and suffer developmental delays are provided with
transportation to schools
Special Education •Ontario‟s Early Year Centres provide services not only for typically developing children, but
also for children with special needs
•A structured language-focused curriculum in a preschool setting is provided to improve

language skills
Early Learning •Alternative specialised consultation programming and specialised materials for severe
needs students are provided
•Parents are taught specific activities to promote language and literacy development
•Teachers supply parents with support tools including workshops
Family Support •Parent-Child Mother Goose Program (P-CMGP) targeted parents who have low incomes.
They are taught rhymes, songs, and stories to use with their children
•Tailoring program to meet the needs of the school

School & •In many communities volunteers work with young students, directly within schools
Community Support •Communities across Canada provide tutoring, mentoring, and support for families
Sources: 1) Supporting the Literacy Learner, 2008

2) National Strategy for Early Literacy, 2009
Various initiatives and programs have helped Singapore in
their English literacy rates
Singapore Initiatives and Programs
Family Support Special Education Education Reform
• „STELLAR Programme‟ strategy: • „Reading Mastery‟ strategy: • „REAP‟ programme strategy:

- Shared Book Approach - explicit teaching - shared reading
- Modified Language Experience - detailed lesson plans - a modified language experience
Approach - high teacher-student interaction approach
- Language Centres - continuous reinforcement - a book flood
• Parents encouraged to talk, listen, • Children with mild special needs • 1991 syllabus values personal
read, write, and play language in mainstream schools supported growth, language as a thinking
games with their child by Allied Educators tool and included critical thinking
• Parents supplied with • 10% of all teaching staff are • Teachers trained and regularly
informational booklets / brochures trained in special needs visited by staff from the ministry
Sources: 1) An Overview of Language and Literacy Issues in Singapore

2) Lifting Literacy Levels with Story Books
3) Press Releases, MOE Singapore
The state of Kerala in India outperforms other states in literacy
• Impart functional literacy to non-literates especially among women,

National scheduled castes & tribes, and backward classes
Literacy Mission • Campaigns are area-specific, time-bound, participative, delivered
through voluntarism, cost effective and outcome oriented
“Akshara • Conducive environment, effective programs for post-literacy and

Keralam” – availability of schools within close proximity to homes
Kerala‟s Literacy • Maintenance of literacy through continuing education for neo-literates
Campaign • 37% of state‟s annual budget going towards education
• Decentralised control over district education planning and management

District Primary
• Creation of Village Education Committees (VECs)
Education • An Act was passed for improved community participation in primary
Programme education
Sources: 1) Literacy in the Context of the Constitution of India

2) Literacy Rate on the Rise, The India Post
3) Kerala Education
Appendix 1: International
Case Studies
Finnish teachers are highly qualified and independent
Basic Education Legislative Reform
• Compulsory education starts at age seven for nine years in comprehensive
schools. A child may be granted the right to start basic education one year • School legislation has been reformed since the 1980‟s, continuously
later than prescribed (at age 8) provided that the child has, based on increasing the decision-making power of municipalities and educational
psychological and medical examinations, the aptitudes for non-coping at institutions. The reform transferred more responsibility to the local level,
schools providing pupils with more freedom of choice concerning their studies.
The responsibility for teaching arrangements, course content and the
• Pre-school education is provided in day care centres, where parents pay a selection of teaching material have been passed to the local level.
reasonable fee, and in comprehensive schools, where it is cost-free. A
national core curriculum was established for 6-year-olds‟ pre-school • The government determines the broad national objectives for education
education in 1996 with the aim of involving children and their parents in the and the number of classroom hours allocated to each subject. The
planning of pre-school education National Board of Education decides on the national core curriculum,
which defines objectives and core contents of instruction, as well as the
Special Education
basic rules for the evaluation of the pupils. Based on these, the education
• Pupils with learning difficulties get remedial teaching in addition to normal provider, i.e., usually local education authorities, and the schools
classes. The education authorities are responsible for the education of all themselves draw up their own curricula. The flexibility of time allocation
children, including those with profound developmental disability. The aim is gives schools an opportunity to provide studies which fulfil pupils and their
to integrate special-needs education as far as possible into ordinary schools, parents‟ wishes and which are based on the special features of schools
keeping in mind that there are those who benefit more from separate
special-needs education
• Schools receive full autonomy in developing the daily delivery of
education services. Schools can plan their own curricula to reflect local
• In all forms of special education, the general objectives and essential concerns
content areas are the same as in mainstream comprehensive education
provision. On the basis of the relevant core curricula, the education provider
• The decentralisation transferred decision-making power at the level of
implementation, allocating state appropriations as calculatory (not ear-
draws up the individual curricula for each institution and a personal plan
marked) „lump sums‟ and evaluating educational outcomes. Educational
concerning the organisation of instruction for each pupil in special education
institutions are obligated to evaluate their own operation and its effects
• Pupils who are lagging behind instruction due to illness, absences for other which provides a partial basis for the national evaluation of educational
reasons or temporary learning problems have the right to receive remedial outcomes. Both external and self-evaluation aim at intensifying
instruction educational outcomes, the sectors of which are efficiency, effectiveness
• The personal plan for pupils with learning difficulties includes a description
and financial accountability.
of the pupil‟s performance level, interaction skills, and his/her personal • At the local level, municipalities and the educational institutions
interest and hobbies in various learning environments. It should also include maintained by the local authorities have the responsibility to develop the
among other things, short- and long-term objectives, a list of services and education they provide according to the local conditions. Evaluation stems
aids supporting instruction and rehabilitation. The specification of the plan is primarily from the educational objectives of the municipal educational
an ongoing task, and the achievement of the objective is monitored in administration, which must be based on national objectives
cooperation with the home and a multi-disciplinary pupil welfare team
Supported by adequate facilities for Finnish reading culture
Teacher Education and Training Socio-Environment
• All teachers need a master‟s degree in education to qualify for a
• High esteem of reading in Finnish culture (homes subscribe to
permanent job. Class teachers teach the lower classes of comprehensive
newspapers, parents read for their children at home); literacy as the
school. The subject teachers teach in upper classes. Subject teachers
basis for further learning is widely accepted; constructive role of the
take a higher university degree in the faculty responsible for the
news media in creating good publicity for the promotion of reading and
instruction and research of their major subject
writing
• Finnish teacher education is characterised by an emphasis on research-
• Social status of mothers as an important role-model for girls; high
oriented approach. Teaching practice plays a central role in all teacher
educational attainment of Finnish women; salaried work outside home;
education
women read more than men
• The aim of teaching practice is to broaden the students‟ (student
• Large and dense network of public (municipal) libraries with modern
undergoing teacher education and training) idea of the teacher‟s work and
equipment, good collections and quality supply for the whole family.
to familiarise them with different methods of carrying out the teacher‟s
Library staff are eager to promote literacy in cooperation with schools
duties. Students find their own personalities as teachers and that they are
capable of developing their instruction and taking independent, creative • There is ample supply of foreign films on television provided with
and well-founded solutions to problems which can occur in teaching Finnish sub-titles instead of dubbing; while watching television,
situations. A further aim is to guide the students in evaluating their own children can read, hence developing a quick reading routine
work and to support their professional growth.
• Teachers have considerable independence in the classroom to choose
their preferred appropriate pedagogical methods.
Tripartite Consensus
• Teachers make their own assessment tests, not quoting numeric grades,
but using descriptive feedback, no longer comparing students with one • Since the 1960s, political authorities always have seen education as
another. This helped teachers and students focusing on learning in a fear- the key to survive and thrive in an increasingly competitive world. All
free environment, in which creativity and risk-taking are encouraged. governments from left to right have respected over the past four
Teachers have more real freedom in time planning when they do not need decades, that economic growth is the primary goal, with education as
to focus on annual tests or exams the critical driver. Finland has to substantially boost investments in
• Teachers, with a research-oriented training, are very willing to education and research to foster innovation and cutting-edge
continuously update their professional skills via post-graduate studies and development
are more willing to work on themselves, are open to new ideas and • Political consensus and the capacity of policy makers to pursue
developed broader perspectives reform; government, trade unions and employers‟ organisations form a
• Teaching assistants are educated professionals who help pupils either in tripartite in Finland, closely coordinating, communicating and heading
individual work or small groups or half a class; they also assist the teacher to a common goal
in planning, preparing or bringing teaching material, and correcting tests
or exams
Canadian teachers work collaboratively with colleagues to
develop instructional strategies and approaches
Teacher Education and Training Special Education
• Small classes are coupled with a variety of literacy strategies in order • Pupils with chronic attendance difficulties of severe developmental
to achieve good results delays are provided transportation to schools
• Resources, whether developed in-house or purchased, need to align • Universal infant screening programs and the availability of appropriate
with the program of studies and the stated goals of the Alberta clinical service delivery programs permit early detection and effective
Initiative for School Improvement (AISI) project intervention when sensory disorders are present in infancy
• Provided release time for staff to develop a deeper understanding of • Speech and language centres that provide clinical services can also
the process of literacy learning support typically developing children. For example, Canada‟s Hanen
• Collaboration on instructional strategies helps teachers put the
Centre has become internationally known for language facilitation and
intervention programs that harness the potential for primary caregivers
elements together to see the bigger picture across all subject areas
to reinforce and promote children‟s social language and literacy skills.
and grade levels
Hanen‟s intervention programs are designed to help parents and other
• Ensured continuing professional development of all staff members caregivers to promote language development as part of a child‟s
involved with literacy enhancement – workshops, mentors for lead everyday social interactions both for typically developing children and
teachers, collaborative planning of units, and specific skill for children who have a speech or language disorder.
development and practice
• Ontario‟s Early Year Centres provide services not only for typically
• Provided extra teacher-assistant time to facilitate smaller interactive developing children, but also for children with special needs
learning groups for students and to allow for small-group intensive
teaching
• Improve written comprehension through strategies that develop both
fluency and expertise, such as journal writing, author centres,
reflective portfolios, graphic organisers and writing exercises. Provide
lead teachers with a mentor to help them acquire and hone their skills
• Research indicates that children benefit from highly structured, well-
focused, scaffolded, and explicit instructional strategies within a
lesson; these lessons must have an obvious purpose and be related
to achievement of a specific goal
While Canadian parents are equipped with literacy
enhancement tools
School Support Family Support
• Schools are equipped with a large collection of appropriate reading • Teachers supplied parents with a variety of support tools, including workshops
materials
• Provinces implemented education sessions for parents on how they can best
• Promote reading through literature-appreciation activities support their child‟s literacy development. Parents are helped to acquire
• Tailoring programs to meet the individual needs of the school learning resources for use with their children
• Parents are taught specific activities that promote language and literacy
development
Community Support
• Family literacy programs address three levels of learning: (1) intellectual (e.g.
• Communities across Canada provide tutoring, mentoring, and support
Language, literacy, emergent literacy); (2) emotional (e.g. Positive
interactions and bonds, resiliency, confidence, security); and (3) social
for families. In many communities volunteers work with young
learning (e.g. Connection to the community)
students, directly within schools
• The Aspen View School and Family Literacy Enhancement Project – A
Family Literacy Handbook was made available to parents of students in
kindergarten to Grade 4 as well as to parents with children in playschools.
Early Learning Improved communication with parents through the Family Literacy Handbook,
• A large and growing number of Canadian children spend time in early
parent evenings and parent corners
learning and care programs, which provide a natural setting within which to • Family literacy programs are offered in conjunction with agencies that are
help develop children's skills. A structured language-focused curriculum in a already a part of a family support network
pre-school or kindergarten setting is provided to improve the language skills
of students aged 3 to 5 in British Columbia
• Nova Scotia‟s “Read to Me!” program distributed bags of books and literacy
information to the mothers of newborn babies. Preliminary results show that
• Early access to school for pupils with mild/moderate developmental delays Nova Scotia parents who received the bags are reading to their babies
are allowed significantly more than parents in Prince Edward Island – 74.1% vs. 53%
• Alternative specialised consultation programming and specialised materials • Parent-Child Mother Goose Program (P-CMGP) targeted parents who have
for severe needs students (pupil unit funding) is provided in an inclusive low incomes. They are taught rhymes, songs, and stories to use with their
setting children
• Over 40% of the cost for early childhood programs in Quebec is paid for by • Evening family literacy workshops in local schools coordinated by volunteer
the tax revenues obtained from mothers who could not work if affordable Education Leadership Constituencies Council (ELCC) teachers were shown
child care was not offered. Programs were staffed by well-trained teams of to produce significant literacy gains for children, particularly in alphabet
teachers and early childhood educators working with an established, knowledge, conventions print, meaning and vocabulary, and in changes in
consistent curriculum and approach to learning home literacy practices (e.g. Increased library visit, increased shared reading,
and decreased television viewing)
Various initiatives and programs have helped Singapore in
their English literacy rates
Family Support Education Reform
• The Ministry of Education's Curriculum Planning and Development Division • There have been attempts to improve the curriculum and the teaching and
established the STELLAR Programme to guide parents on how they can learning of English; partly as a response to a study by Ng (1980) which
support their child‟s development in listening, speaking, reading and writing showed a less than satisfactory teaching of reading in lower primary
in English classes and children were having problems learning to read
• The STELLAR Pedagogic Model is made up of three major teaching • Several language projects were introduced after the study which included
strategies – Shared Book Approach, Modified Language Experience the Reading and English Acquisition Programme (REAP) and the Active
Approach and Language Centres Communicative Teaching Programme (ACT) in primary schools. These
• Parents are supported to talk, listen, read and write with their child as well projects culminated in the production of a new syllabus for English
language in 1991 and new textbooks for the schools
as introducing language games for developing the listening, reading,
writing and spelling skills of children • The new English language syllabus brought about several important
• Parents are also supplied with booklets and brochures from the changes to literacy education. The philosophy of language learning has
changed from a functional literacy and academic learning emphasis to
International Reading Association (IRA) to help parents guide their child in
beginning literacy and reading in the family environment one that values personal growth and the use of language as a thinking
tool. Critical and creative thinking has also been introduced into the
syllabus to encourage students to become more independent learners
Special Education with a range of flexible skills
• A direct instruction reading programme (“Reading Mastery”) was introduced • REAP was described as “an integrated whole language approach” using
in special education schools. The programme is a highly structured reading shared reading, modified language experience approach and a book
programme characterised by explicit teaching (vs. Learning through flood. The language experience component was added to enable the
discovery) and reading skills are taught systematically through detailed young pupils to engage in writing from the outset. Teachers were trained
lesson plans with high teacher-student interaction and continuous in the shared reading and language experience approach and were
reinforcement while learning regularly visited and helped by staff from the ministry and the Institute of
• Students with intellectual disability showed significant gains in their early Education. Pupils who were taught using REAP showed significant
advantages in language test when compared to non-REAP pupils. Non-
reading skills after going through the reading programme
REAP pupils were taught English using the traditional audio-lingual
• Children with mild special needs in mainstream schools were supported by programs which emphasised regular structured drills, extensive use of
Allied Educators (Learning and Behavioural Support) in mainstream schools phonics and workbook exercises. REAP pupils showed continuous
• 10% of the teaching staff in all primary and secondary schools are trained in improvements and performed well in international literacy surveys such as
the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
special needs
Achievement (IEA), despite the fact that nearly 80% of REAP pupils had
English as their second language.
The state of Kerala in India outperforms other states in literacy
National Initiatives State Initiatives (Kerala’s Success)
• The National Education Policy (modified 1992) recognised the National • In 1990, the Government of Kerala decided to launch a mass programme to
Literacy Mission (NLM), first launched in 1988, as one of the three attain literacy within one year. A literacy campaign called “Akshara
instruments to eradicate illiteracy from the country by imparting Keralam” was organised and launched by the government, being
functional literacy to non-literates in the age group of 15-35 years as this implemented and directed by the state‟s Saksharatha Samithi (District
age group are in the productive and reproductive period in life Office)
• The Mission also takes into its fold children in the age group of 9 to 14, • About 1.7 million illiterates attended the literacy classes and 1.2 million
in areas not covered by non-formal education programmes to reach the people who successfully completed the evaluation conducted by the
benefits of literacy to out-of-school children as well. The major thrust of Saksharatha Samithi (District Office) were declared as neo-literates. The
these programmes is on the promotion of literacy among women, Government of Kerala insist that the total literacy of 93.58% is therefore not
scheduled castes and tribes and backward classes a political exaggeration
• The National Literacy Mission has succeeded in making 124.64 million • The government believes that a conducive environment, effective
persona literate. Of these, 60% are females programmes of post literacy and continuing education will yield extremely
• Total Literacy Campaign (TLC) has been the principal strategy of the good results otherwise the effects made in literacy programmes become
NLM for eradication of illiteracy, The TLC has certain positive meaningless. In keeping with this believe that maintenance of literacy and
characteristics like being area-specific, time-bound, participative, its development as an integral part of any literacy programme, the second
delivery through voluntarism, cost effective and outcome oriented. On phase of the literacy campaign was launched in 1991, mainly giving
the conclusion of TLC, Post-Literacy Programme (PLP) is implemented continuing education for the neo-literates
by Zilla Saksharata Samiti (Zilla District Office) for one year • In Kerala, commitment to education pervades society with about 37% of the
• PLP enables neo-literates to learn the application of literacy skills as a state‟s annual budget going towards education. The state supports 12,271
problem solving tool, so that learning becomes relevant to living and schools with an elementary school within two miles of every settlement.
working. Within PLP, those learners who dropped out or could not Even during economic downturns, education is the last item the Kerala
achieve the NLM levels of literacy in the TLC phase are enabled to government will cut as there is a social demand for education to be funded
achieve them through remediation or “mopping up” operation continually
• PLP aims at remediation, retention and consolidation of literacy skills in District Initiatives
the first phase through guided learning. In the second phase, learners • The District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) is a centrally
are provided with a variety of supplementary reading material and sponsored multi-faceted program with an emphasis on decentralised
library services to help them continue learning through self-directed planning and management as well as community participation
processes
• DPEP decentralises control, supervision and support functions to the
States which in turn pass them on to the district
• Achievements of DPEP include the creation of Village Education
Committees (VECs) and the passing of an Act for improved community
participation in primary education
Best practice case studies references
Finland
• The EFA 2000 Assessment Country Reports (http://www.unesco.org/education/wef/countryreports/finland/rapport_1.html)
• Education and the Finnish society, 2011 (http://www.oph.fi/english/sources_of_information/international_assessments/pisa/literacy_in_finland )
• What makes education in Finland that good? Ten reform principles behind the success ( http://bertmaes.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/why-is-
education-in-finland-that-good-10-reform-principles-behind-the-success/ )
• Inclusion and excellence in education, The Finnish experience
(https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:oJ2f1yFEqL8J:www.britishcouncil.org/december-newsl-07-feature-article-excellence-in-
education.doc+finland+literacy+disability&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj_pboALCzGiRGuzodolW5DGEograglL7x3oU5F8iYVQCxc2brwxX2-
82O_x3bjp-EvB6ekA-
t_nCdWWIA2DyzBwCr1ugYs0_8Si2qZ3Ae0ZveCsMBiX8i6aHvMhCytQbhZudAL&sig=AHIEtbQCDxFUDyK2dCArBtRJDoglnYb9SA&pli=1 )
Canada
• Supporting the literacy learner, 2008 ( http://docs.cllrnet.ca/NSEL/finalReport.pdf )
• National strategy for early literacy, 2009 ( http://education.alberta.ca/media/696711/support.pdf )
Singapore
• Press Releases, MOE Singapore ( http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2010/03/moe-to-provide-greater-support.php )
• Singapore Stellar Literacy Programme ( http://www.stellarliteracy.sg/cos/o.x?c=/wbn/pagetree&func=view&rid=20786 )
• An overview of language and literacy issues in Singapore ( http://www.glp.net/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=12858&name=DLFE-1130.pdf )
• Lifting literacy levels with story books ( http://literacy.org/sites/literacy.org/files/publications/elley_lit_ed_w_story_books_96.pdf )
India
• India Literacy Project ( http://www.ilpnet.org/sites/ilpnet.org/images/India%20Literacy%20Rates%20Graph%20-%2091_01_11.png )
• Literacy in the context of the constitution of India ( http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v2b1-5.htm )
• Literacy rate on the rise, The India Post ( http://www.theindiapost.com/2008/09/04/literacy-rate-on-the-rise-11th-plan-targets-80/ )
• Kerala Education (http://www.keralaschools.com/php/showContent.php?linkid=4 )
• The impact of total literacy programmes on neo-literate adults of Malappuram district in Kerala, by T. Vasumathi, 2011
(http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/1553 ; http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/1553/9/09_chapter-1.pdf )
Appendix 2: Student Written
Assessment – State by
State Analysis
Baseline scenario of nationwide students achievements
A total of 1934 Year 1 and 2048 Year 2 (in 199 schools in 13 states and 2 Federal Territories) Arus Perdana students were assessed on
their mastery of literacy and numeracy using Deloitte student assessment tools which were designed based on the LINUS program criteria.
Year 1 Baseline Scenario Written Year 2 Baseline Scenario Written

Literacy Literacy
Pass Fail Pass Fail
35.5% 27.6%
64.5%
72.4%
Year 1 Baseline Scenario Written Year 2 Baseline Scenario Written

Numeracy Numeracy
Pass Fail Pass Fail
42.2% 38.8%
57.8% 61.2%
Baseline scenario of students’ Literacy achievements
A total of 1934 Year 1 and 2048 Year 2 (199 schools in 13 states and 2 Federal Territories) Arus Perdana students were assess ed on
their mastery of LINUS Literacy. Overall, 64.53% Year 1 and 72.41% Year 2 students who were assessed passed our baseline criteria
for Arus Perdana.
Baseline Scenario Written Literacy

100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 95.7%
92.0%
87.5%
86.4%
82.5%
78.0% 78.2%
80.0% 74.4% 74.8% 75.6% 76.3% 76.0%
73.1% 72.0% 74.2% 72.6%
70.0% 69.9%
66.1% 66.7% 67.6%
63.3% 63.7%
58.8%
60.0% 55.3% 56.7%
55.1%
40.0%
33.8%
20.0%
0.0%
WP
NEGERI PULAU TERENGGA WP KUALA
JOHOR KEDAH KELANTAN MELAKA PAHANG PERAK PERLIS SABAH SARAWAK SELANGOR PUTRAJAY
SEMBILAN PINANG NU LUMPUR
A
Year 1 55.3% 56.7% 78.0% 73.1% 55.1% 74.2% 66.1% 100.0% 75.6% 76.3% 33.8% 69.9% 82.5% 63.7% 95.7%
Year 2 63.3% 70.0% 92.0% 72.0% 58.8% 74.4% 74.8% 100.0% 66.7% 78.2% 67.6% 72.6% 87.5% 76.0% 86.4%
Baseline scenario of students’ Numeracy achievements
A total of 1934 Year 1 and 2048 Year 2 (199 schools in 13 states and 2 Federal Territories) Arus Perdana students were assess ed on their
mastery of LINUS Numeracy. Overall, 57.76% Year 1 and 61.18% Year 2 students who were assessed passed our baseline criteria f or
Arus Perdana. Year 1 students were exempted from Question 7 (multiplication question) in the analysis of numeracy achievement data.
Baseline Scenario Written Numeracy

100.0%
78.9%
80.0% 76.0% 77.5% 76.0%
71.1% 72.2%
69.6% 68.9% 70.0% 70.0%
61.8% 64.4% 64.9% 64.8%

60.2% 60.0% 60.4%
58.1% 58.0% 58.1% 59.0%
60.0% 56.2% 56.0% 55.6%
51.9%
49.4%
44.0% 45.5%
43.5%
40.0%
30.8%
20.0%
0.0%
WP
A
Year 1 61.8% 71.1% 44.0% 51.9% 60.2% 64.9% 56.2% 70.0% 78.9% 56.0% 30.8% 60.4% 77.5% 64.8% 43.5%
Year 2 58.1% 64.4% 76.0% 58.0% 69.6% 58.1% 68.9% 60.0% 72.2% 55.6% 49.4% 59.0% 70.0% 76.0% 45.5%
Best case scenario of nationwide students achievements
A total of 1934 Year 1 and 2048 Year 2 (199 schools in 13 states and 2 Federal Territories) Arus Perdana students were assessed on their
mastery of literacy and numeracy using Deloitte student assessment tools which were designed based on the LINUS program crite ria.
Year 1 Best Case Scenario Written Year 2 Best Case Scenario Written
Literacy Literacy
Pass Fail Pass Fail
17.6% 18.3%
81.7%
82.4%
Year 1 Best Case Scenario Written Year 2 Best Case Scenario Written
Numeracy Numeracy
Pass Fail Pass Fail
26.5% 27.9%
73.5% 72.1%
Best case scenario of students’ Literacy achievements
A total of 1934 Year 1 and 2048 Year 2 (199 schools in 13 states and 2 Federal Territories) Arus Perdana students were assess ed on
their mastery of LINUS Literacy. Overall, 82.42% Year 1 and 81.74% Year 2 students who were assessed passed our best case
scenario criteria for Arus Perdana.
Best Case Scenario Written Literacy

100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 95.0% 95.7%
92.0% 91.7% 92.5% 90.9%
87.4% 88.7%
86.0% 85.1% 85.6% 85.9% 86.0%
84.6%
82.0% 83.1% 84.0% 82.4% 83.8%
82.2%
80.0% 80.0% 79.5%
80.0% 75.5%
70.6% 72.5%
68.1% 66.7%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
WP
A
Year 1 70.6% 80.0% 86.0% 84.6% 75.5% 87.4% 85.1% 100.0% 85.6% 91.7% 72.5% 82.4% 95.0% 83.8% 95.7%
Year 2 68.1% 80.0% 92.0% 82.0% 66.7% 83.1% 84.0% 100.0% 82.2% 88.7% 85.9% 79.5% 92.5% 86.0% 90.9%
Best case scenario of students’ Numeracy achievements
mastery of LINUS Numeracy. Overall, 73.53% Year 1 and 72.07% Year 2 students who were assessed passed our best case scenario
criteria for Arus Perdana. Year 1 students were exempted from Question 7 (multiplication question) in the analysis of numeracy
achievement data.
Best Case Scenario Written Numeracy
100.0%
92.2% 90.9%
87.5%
85.6% 85.0%
80.0% 81.6%
80.0% 80.6% 80.4% 80.1% 79.0% 80.0% 81.0%
78.2% 78.0%
80.0% 74.4%
73.7% 75.0%
72.7% 71.2%
70.0% 70.0% 69.3%
64.8% 66.5%
65.4%
61.8% 60.9%
60.0%
48.3%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
WP
A
Year 1 78.2% 85.6% 78.0% 65.4% 80.6% 80.1% 74.4% 85.0% 92.2% 69.3% 48.3% 73.7% 87.5% 81.0% 60.9%
Year 2 64.8% 80.0% 80.0% 70.0% 80.4% 72.7% 79.0% 70.0% 80.0% 66.5% 61.8% 71.2% 75.0% 81.6% 90.9%
Worst case scenario of nationwide students achievements
A total of 1934 Year 1 and 2048 Year 2 (199 schools in 13 states and 2 Federal Territories) Arus Perdana students were assessed on their
mastery of literacy and numeracy using Deloitte student assessment tools which were designed based on the LINUS program crite ria.
Year 1 Worst Case Scenario Written Year 2 Worst Case Scenario Written
Literacy Literacy
Pass Fail Pass Fail
36.1% 28.6%
63.9% 71.4%
Year 1 Worst Case Scenario Year 2 Worst Case Scenario Written

Written Numeracy Numeracy
Pass Fail Pass Fail
49.0% 47.0%
51.0% 53.0%
Worst case scenario of students’ Literacy achievements
A total of 1934 Year 1 and 2048 (199 schools in 13 states and 2 Federal Territories) Year 2 Arus Perdana students were assess ed on
their mastery of LINUS Literacy. Overall, 63.86% Year 1 and 71.44% Year 2 students who were assessed passed our worst case
scenario criteria for Arus Perdana.
Worst Case Scenario Written Literacy

100.0%
100.0% 95.7%
95.0%
90.0%
87.5%
86.4%
80.0%
78.0% 77.4%
80.0% 75.6%
73.1% 74.2% 73.9% 74.7% 73.7%
72.0% 72.7% 71.9%
68.9% 69.9%
66.1% 66.7% 67.2%
62.4% 63.7%
60.0% 57.8%
55.6%
52.9% 53.1%
40.0%
33.3%
20.0%
0.0%
WP
A
Year 1 52.9% 55.6% 78.0% 73.1% 53.1% 74.2% 66.1% 100.0% 75.6% 74.7% 33.3% 69.9% 80.0% 63.7% 95.7%
Year 2 62.4% 68.9% 90.0% 72.0% 57.8% 72.7% 73.9% 95.0% 66.7% 77.4% 67.2% 71.9% 87.5% 73.7% 86.4%
Worst case scenario of students’ Numeracy achievements
mastery of LINUS Numeracy. Overall, 49.02% Year 1 and 52.98% Year 2 students who were assessed passed our worst case scenario
criteria for Arus Perdana. Year 1 students were exempted from Question 7 (multiplication question) in the analysis of numeracy
achievement data.
Worst Case Scenario Written Numeracy
100.0%
80.0% 76.0%
72.5%
68.9%
67.0%
64.4% 64.4%
60.8% 60.0% 60.0%
58.3% 58.8%
60.0% 55.0%
54.4% 54.2%
54.1% 51.4%
48.2% 48.8% 49.4% 50.1%
47.1% 46.0% 46.0% 45.6%
44.6%
40.9%
40.0% 40.4%
39.1%
40.0%
24.6%
20.0%
0.0%
WP
A
Year 1 48.2% 64.4% 40.0% 40.4% 54.1% 58.3% 44.6% 60.0% 68.9% 49.4% 24.6% 50.1% 72.5% 54.2% 39.1%
Year 2 47.1% 54.4% 76.0% 46.0% 60.8% 48.8% 58.8% 55.0% 64.4% 46.0% 45.6% 51.4% 60.0% 67.0% 40.9%
Appendix 3: Student Oral
Assessment – State by
State Analysis
Baseline scenario of nationwide students oral achievements
A total of 576 Year 1 and 555 Year 2 Arus Perdana students were assessed on their oral Literacy and Numeracy mastery using student
assessment tools which were designed based on the LINUS program criteria. The number of students were sampled from the same
group of students who were assessed on the written assessment.
Year 1 Baseline Scenario Oral Year 2 Baseline Scenario Oral

Literacy Literacy
Pass Fail Pass Fail
43.1% 48.8%
56.9% 51.2%
Year 1 Baseline Scenario Oral Year 2 Baseline Scenario Oral

Numeracy Numeracy
Pass Fail Pass Fail
18.7%
21.8%
78.2% 81.3%
Baseline scenario of students’ oral Literacy achievements
A total of 576 Year 1 and 555 Year 2 Arus Perdana students were assessed on their oral Literacy mastery. The number of studen ts were
sampled from the same group of students who were assessed on the written assessment. For the oral literacy assessment, 56.94% Year 1
and 51.17% Year 2 students who were assessed passed our baseline criteria for Arus Perdana.
Baseline Scenario Oral Literacy

100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
83.3%
81.4%
80.0%
80.0%
75.0%
68.2%
64.4%
59.7%
60.0% 57.1% 57.9% 57.7% 58.3% 57.5%
53.8%
50.0%
46.6% 47.5%
43.5% 45.2% 44.8% 45.0%
42.9% 43.1%
40.5%
40.0% 38.9% 37.3%
36.4%
26.7%
20.0%
8.3%
0.0%
WP
A
Year 1 40.5% 36.4% 38.9% 26.7% 68.2% 57.1% 45.2% 80.0% 57.9% 58.3% 37.3% 64.4% 83.3% 81.4% 100.0%
Year 2 46.6% 43.5% 42.9% 8.3% 47.5% 53.8% 44.8% 100.0% 57.7% 43.1% 59.7% 57.5% 50.0% 45.0% 75.0%
Baseline scenario of students’ oral Numeracy achievements
A total of 578 Year 1 and 555 Year 2 Arus Perdana students were assessed on their oral Numeracy mastery. The number of studen ts were
sampled (30% for Year 1, and 28% for Year 2) from the same group of students who were assessed on the written assessment. For the oral
numeracy assessment, 78.20% Year 1 and 81.26% Year 2 students who were assessed passed our baseline criteria for Arus Perdana .
Baseline Scenario Oral Numeracy

100.0%
100.0%
93.0%
86.7% 87.5%
86.2% 85.7% 84.6% 84.3% 83.6%
83.3% 82.5% 81.9% 83.3%
81.1% 79.5% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0%
80.0% 77.3% 77.8%
72.7% 73.7% 72.4% 71.4%
71.4%
69.6% 67.7%
65.5% 64.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
WP
A
Year 1 81.1% 77.3% 77.8% 86.7% 72.7% 71.4% 67.7% 80.0% 73.7% 87.5% 64.0% 83.3% 100.0% 83.6% 71.4%
Year 2 86.2% 69.6% 85.7% 83.3% 82.5% 79.5% 65.5% 80.0% 84.6% 72.4% 81.9% 84.3% 80.0% 93.0% 50.0%
Best case scenario of nationwide students oral achievements
A total of 576 Year 1 and 555 Year 2 Arus Perdana students were assessed on their oral Literacy and Numeracy mastery using student
assessment tools which were designed based on the LINUS program criteria. The number of students were sampled from the same
group of students who were assessed on the written assessment.
Year 1 Best Case Scenario Oral Year 2 Best Case Scenario Oral
Literacy Literacy
Pass Fail Pass Fail
24.0% 26.1%
76.0% 73.9%
Best case scenario of students’ oral Literacy achievements
A total of 576 Year 1 and 555 Year 2 Arus Perdana students were assessed on their oral Literacy mastery. The number of studen ts were
sampled from the same group of students who were assessed on the written assessment. For the oral literacy assessment, 76.04% Year 1 and
73.87% Year 2 students who were assessed passed our best case scenario criteria for Arus Perdana.
Best Case Scenario Oral Literacy

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
93.2%
85.7%
84.2% 83.3%
81.8% 80.6%
80.0% 80.8%
75.9% 79.2% 77.6%
80.0% 76.2% 76.3%
69.6% 74.4% 74.2% 75.0%
72.5%
75.0%
68.2% 67.5% 69.0%

66.7%
63.8%
61.3%
59.5% 58.3%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
WP
A
Year 1 59.5% 68.2% 66.7% 80.0% 81.8% 76.2% 74.2% 100.0% 84.2% 79.2% 61.3% 76.3% 83.3% 93.2% 100.0%
Year 2 63.8% 69.6% 85.7% 58.3% 67.5% 74.4% 75.9% 100.0% 80.8% 69.0% 80.6% 77.6% 75.0% 72.5% 75.0%

CHECK LINUS Final Report Deloitte 2012

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CHECK LINUS Final Report Deloitte 2012

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Project CHECK LINUS

Deloitte Report for National

PEANUTS © 2011 PEANUTS Worldwide LLC

LINUS Literacy and Numeracy

• Good Practice Findings 11

• Student Assessment Scoring Criteria 16

• Written Student Assessment Findings 18

• Student Assessment Question Item Analysis 26

• Analysis of Teachers‟ Survey 31

• Findings and Cause Analysis 39

• International Best Practices 52

• Appendix 1: International Case Studies 58

• Appendix 2: Student Written Assessment – State by state analysis 66

• Appendix 3: Student Oral Assessment – State by state analysis 76

CHECK LINUS Key Areas:

Administration • Assessment: The approach or

• Administration: The overall

• Environment: Factors that

Deloitte Audit Tools

Deloitte Auditor‟s Checklist Guide LINUS Data Request Form

LINUS Teacher Survey Form

Verification Exercise Approach

 Activity 3: Audit Interview – School administrators (Head Teachers, LINUS

 Only one question assessed. Question selected is from Construct 10.

Assessment Administration Methodology

Written Literacy Written Numeracy

LINUS Corners (Sudut LINUS) & Classes

Special LINUS Programmes

Konstruk 3 Konstruk 5 Konstruk 6 Konstruk 7 Konstruk 8 Kuasai/ Kuasai/

BEST: A student is allowed 2 errors. No 2 words from the same construct.

Best Baseline Worst Best Baseline Worst

Best Baseline Worst Best Baseline Worst

Best Baseline Worst Bandar Best Baseline Worst Bandar

60.00% Less than 500

Best Baseline Worst Best Baseline Worst

60.00% Less than 500 60.00%

More than 1501

Best Baseline Worst Best Baseline Worst

Band 1 Year 2 Students Achievement Written Numeracy Band 1

100.00% 92.22% 92.22% 100.00%

40.00% Numeracy 1934 1139 40.00%

100.00% 93.07% 93.07% Total Year 2 student sample 100.00%

Year 1 student numeracy sample

20.00% JNJK Year 1 20.00%

0.00% Deloitte Year 0.00%

Year 2 student literacy sample

Year 2 student numeracy sample 58.32% 60.45%

Year 1 student numeracy sample

20.00% JNJK Year 1 20.00%

0.00% Deloitte Year 0.00%

Year 2 student literacy sample

60.00% 55.78% Year 2 student numeracy sample 60.00%

Year 1 students struggled particularly with numeracy constructs 9 and 10

Errors occurring Errors occurring

Year 2 students struggled particularly with numeracy constructs 8 and10

• The average years of teaching Primary level BM or Primary Level 1

Selected examples of teachers’ comments

Selected examples of teachers’ comments

Selected examples of teachers’ comments

P5: Better P2: Ensure

 Students who pass into Arus Perdana currently (K1-K8 for

 There is no practical and effective medical verification

• LINUS goal - Review outcomes and communicate effectively