Is Wicked truly Wicked?

An Analysis of Remedial Intervention in Solving the

Wicked Problem of Illiteracy in Malaysian Primary
Schools

Alex Lim Xiong Chun i6260207

4th day of June 2021

Graduate School of Governance Maastricht-UNU MERIT
1. Executive Summary
This paper examines the initiatives of the Malaysian Ministry of Education in addressing a long-
standing issue of illiteracy as one of the identified causes of student attrition. Despite numerous
attempts, international assessments have reported poor literacy outcomes which leads to the issue
being termed as “wicked”. In addressing this wicked problem, the Ministry of Education has recently
implemented LINUS 2.0. An analysis conducted through this paper uncovers the implementation of
this programme in identifying potential causes of the literacy being a “wicked problem” in Malaysia,
if it is as “wicked” as it seems.

2. Introduction
The Malaysian Ministry of Education (MOE) recognised the lack of mastery in basic literacy and
numeracy since the foundational years of the Malaysian education system, perceived to be a critical
national agenda even in the 1960's (Murad Dropout Report, 1973). This was the beginning of the
Malaysian government’s focus in providing primary education level and its emphasis on the mastery
of three basic skills which include reading, writing, and numeracy.

In 2005 the Master Plan of Development Education 2006-2010 (2006) reported that 4.4 percent of
the students in primary schools did not master basic reading skills. Remedial classes were introduced
and conducted in schools with customised teaching and learning activities to help students attain
basic literacy skills in the classroom. At this juncture, this paper clarifies that as both the Malay
Language and English are being taught in every national-type school in Malaysia, unless specified
otherwise, literacy for the purposes of this paper will encompass the aggregate ability of students in
reading in both languages.

The MOE also introduced KIA2M, a form of intervention on early reading and writing in Malay
language designed to help low-performing students in Year One. The program was implemented full-
time based by the Malay language teachers at Year One nationwide (Concept Paper on
Implementation of Intervention Class on Early Reading and Writing (KIA2M) (Malay language), 2005).
Literacy in English however, did not receive similar attention.

Impact analysis conducted by the Education Planning and Research Division in 2008 as reported by
Chew Fong Peng (2018) revealed that 105,255 (23 percent) of the total 463,990 Year One students in
that year failed to master reading skills as intended through the programme.

It was not until the publication of results of Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
scores in 2009, a triannual assessment conducted by OECD in assessing efficacy of education
systems, that much alarm was raised over the rate of literacy of 15-year-old Malaysian students.
Ranking 54 in reading proficiency out of 74 participating countries, Malaysia was outperformed by
her regional neighbours such as Singapore and Thailand. The report by OECD revealed that 44
percent students assessed were found to have failed to meet minimum reading proficiency
(Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025., 2013).

In addressing this matter, the MOE, through a national transformation agenda called National Key
Result Area (NKRA) put in place the implementation of the Literacy and Numeracy Screening (LINUS)
programme which initially addressed only literacy in the Malay Language and numeracy, was later
revised to include literacy in English (LINUS 2.0) in 2011

Year One teachers were required to attend training sessions by the Teacher Education Division of
MOE in implementing LINUS 2.0. In LINUS 2.0, there were three stages of filtration, namely Filter 1
(in Year One), Filter 2 (in Year Two), and Filter 3 (in Year Three). All Year One students are required
to undergo the Filter 1 screening which will determine if a student will be enrolled for remedial
treatment under LINUS 2.0. Students selected will be required to undergo additional remedial
sessions in addition to attending mainstream classes alongside their peers.

In summary, while Malaysia has long recognised the need for universal attainment of literacy, the
MOE has executed numerous intervention programmes under various labels, with little success in
eradicating illiteracy in primary education which has significant implication on student attrition in
later years. This paper will set out to examine (1) the wicked problem that is illiteracy, (2) the actors
in the system, and how these actors influence the efficacy of the remedial literacy policies by the
MOE, and (3) if this problem is as “wicked” as it seems.

3. A Wicked Problem
With reference to the above, “wicked problems”, a term first coined by design theorists, Rittel and
Webber refers to societal challenges whose simple resolution has been perceived as impossible for
any optimal planner (Rittel, 1973). Policy challenges often fit such description, as with the present
case of unending cases of illiteracy in Malaysia.

Shyama Ramani (2021) described policy challenges as wicked problems “not due to any malevolent
content, but because the definition of the problem itself and its possible resolution pathway(s) are
perceived differently by different stakeholders, such that the processes and outcomes of addressing
the original problem may lead to vicious consequences for some, open up new problems both
foreseen and unforeseen for others and even lock the system into sub-optimal functioning. But, for
policy responses to wicked problems.”

At hand, the policy challenge of addressing illiteracy is made more complicated through the diverse
perspectives of stakeholders with differing interest and priorities associated to the problem of
illiteracy.

An additional layer of “wickedness” to this policy challenge is the seeming perception of success, as
highlighted by the World Bank in its recent publication (2018). The implementation of LINUS 2.0 was
deemed successful because of its conceptualization and implementation has demonstrated some
elements of evidence-based decision making at work, with wide-spread applications for other
countries and programs (World Bank, 2018).

Nevertheless, through the most recent PISA reading scores, only 46 percent of Malaysian students
assessed attained minimal reading proficiency when the OECD average is at 77 percent (OECD,
2019). In light of LINUS 2.0 being in execution for more than eight years, such findings may negate
the overall success of the programme as reported by the MOE.

In this paper, we will proceed to examine the relationship of actors in the next section and how
mindsets, skills, competency, and actions of respective actors further complicate the MOE’s initiative
in addressing of illiteracy through LINUS 2.0.

4. A Systemic Analysis into Actors and Their Relationships

Ministry of Education
A key actor in the national education landscape in Malaysia is the MOE. As previously raised, the
Ministry in the past had been introducing initiatives to address illiteracy. An analysis into the manner
remedial literacy policies were formed and implemented, may reveal insights into the extent these
initiatives, particularly LINUS 2.0 has been successful in addressing illiteracy in lower primary
schools.

Past researchers like Nazariyah bt Sani, identified that policy makers in the MOE behind the design
of LINUS 2.0 were influenced by their beliefs, norms, and values, driven by the MOE’s interest in
reporting success within a short term (2013). The application of power in a top-down manner highly
common in government initiatives, revealed that policy makers lack empathy and may not be aware
of the wickedness of the problem at hand.

In implementing LINUS 2.0, teachers who were the main implementors of the programme, were
reported to have felt unsupported by officials from the MOE who failed to provide sufficient
guidance in the implementation of the programme in terms of finance, expertise, and autonomy.
Training provided by the MOE were reported to be inadequate with some teachers attesting that
trainers would merely play tape recordings on the architecture of the programme (Bokhari, 2015).
While expecting results from the programme output through rigorous reporting, much discretion
was also left to the school leaders who were equally ill-equipped with the objective of the initiative
(Sani, 2013)

In haste to implement the programme, the implementors of LINUS 2.0 found challenges in executing
the same on target students. Described as a pedagogical flaw, the mismatch between the contents
in the programme and mainstream curriculum complicated the learning of students enrolled in the
programme. According to a teacher, “The pupils were not able to cope with two different topics
within the same session of learning. The problem here is that the identified pupils are known to be
slow learners but have to cover two topics within a same period of time. This is killing them and I
have difficulty to help them focus” (Bokhari, 2015).

To the disappointment of the implementors, the MOE found the programme became onerous when
undue emphasis was given on technicalities deemed trivial such as the use of red inked pens for
grading, the mandatory use of blue and black inked pens to record individual performance, and
recording of precise dates and time of activities which were perceived as disruptive to the whole
programme, in light of the existing responsibilities of the implementors in absence of the
programme (Yusuf & al, 2019).

Despite the minimal support by the MOE, significant pressure was reported to be applied on the
teachers in ensuring increase in students literacy level. This, as we will further elaborate below, has
triggered undesirable actions by other actors.

School Leaders
The MOE heavily relies on school leaders in implementing LINUS 2.0 in ensuring its success.
Nevertheless, the lack of onboarding provided to school leaders on the programme, existing heavy
workload which were deemed to be redundant, limited knowledge in remedial education, lack of
financial resources, insufficient contact time within school hours to carry out the programme were
found to be challenges which school leaders had to manage in light of the implementation mandate
by the MOE (Sani, 2013).

Research on the implementation of LINUS 2.0 and its impact has also led to the uncovering of a long-
existing issue within the public education landscape in Malaysia. School leaders reported that they
often inherit systems from previous school leaders who were described as “lazy to be bothered”,
and appointed to leadership with only two or three years prior to retirement. This has allowed
teachers as implementors of the programme feeling abandoned and unsupported, and yet at the
same time being heaped with additional pressure by school leaders to ensure success of the
programme to avoid accountability to the MOE (Sani, 2013).

The lack of supervision and support from school leaders had also led to questionable outcomes
reported at school level. Students were reported to be allowed to graduate from the programme
prematurely, without strictly satisfying the minimal proficiency benchmark prescribed through the
programme (World Bank, 2018).

School leaders are paramount to the success of the programme. Where there are gaps or challenges
in the implementation, school leaders have the authority and means to debottleneck such obstacles
to the implementation process. This is evinced through an account of a school leader who took
charge and exercised own discretion in the implementation of the programme - "Initially, I
implemented LINUS to my own likings. In 2010 and 2011, LINUS students were combined with the
mainstream due to lack of classes… This year, on my initiative, I obtained a class to accommodate
the LINUS students.” (Sani, 2013)

Implementors (Teachers)
It was reported that when the programme was first implemented, materials to screen and filter
students were provided in softcopies. Teachers had to print them out for each student. With strict
budget allocation for printing in schools, many teachers lamented the difficulty of getting the
voluminous materials printed in time. This was perceived as an unnecessary burden for them
(Bokhari, 2015).

On closer inspection, research found that teachers tasked with implementing the English module of
the programme were not provided with adequate resource materials. As such, additional time had
to be spent in developing their own teaching aids. This unpleasant experience however, was not
shared by teachers implementing the Malay Language and numeracy module of the programme.
This has lead to teachers implementing the English module feeling unfairly treated, granted that
they had to bear additional undue cost and having to develop additional materials within constraints
of time.

Teachers implementing the English module also pointed out that there was no teacher assistant
unlike in the implementation of the Malay Language and numeracy module of the programme
where extra help could be procured from remedial teachers and LINUS teacher assistant specially
appointed by the MOE. Much to the disappointment of the teachers implementing the English
module of the programme, it was found that during the Malay language literacy and numeracy
sessions in the latter years of the programme implementation, identified pupils were assigned to
specific remedial classrooms. Students enrolled in the English module were still unseparated from
their peers in the mainstream class. Teachers implementing the English module therefore felt that
attempting to teach these students effectively was a daunting task. (Bokhari, 2015)

The judicious treatment above affirmed division within the teaching force and has hampered the
overall drive in providing remedial intervention on students (Norfairos binti Hadzir, 2016).

However, a common remark across implementors of modules is the inconsistent understanding of

the grading scheme among teachers implementing the programme which appear to cast shades on
the reliability of LINUS results. CHECK LINUS, an independently commission audit on the programme
identified a risk of over-estimation in the students’ reading and math ability as a result of the lack of
understanding the programme’s grading scheme (World Bank, 2018).
It is however noted that during the screening, teachers are required to guide the pupils as much as
they can without giving direct answers. For example, during the assessment the teachers would read
the instructions and showing how to answers the questions using almost similar questions. It is also
noted that the teacher would be able to check the answers and correct them if there are any errors.
In a real examination, these situations would not occur as there will be no teachers to help them.
(Norfairos binti Hadzir, 2016)

Parents
The implementors of the programme identified parents as key actors in addressing illiteracy.
However, many remarked that parents were not very cooperative with the school. Among other
mindsets, beliefs and actions, parents were perceived by implementors as paying inadequate
attention on their children in ensuring their development due to work commitments and poverty,
and had relegated much responsibility in caring for their children to the school. Implementors also
reported that some parents refused to accept the reality that their children have special needs and
will benefit more from a customised education (Nazariyah bt Sani, 2013).

Other Actors
The teaching of English language in Malaysia has been historically wrought by extenuating socio-
cultural factors such as socio-economic disparities causing limited access to opportunities in a
multethnic society, the advocacy of right-wing Malay-language lobbyist, and fears of vernacular
language endangerment among multilinguals. Other related factors such as teachers’ English
proficiency as well as quality of pedagogy and materials can also hinder progress of the
implementation. This situation becomes more complex when the same issues are politicized and
debated upon by language nationalists, vernacular advocates, politicians, economists, educationists,
and linguists (Azman, 2016). Relevant to LINUS 2.0, these actors who function at a national level
cause disruption to the programme by way of blocking resources allocation.

It is unfortunate that the performance of the programme is dependent on exogenic factors such as
social, economic and political developments. Uncertain political condition such as power struggle
and election would greatly influence the execution of a programme. In the wake of such condition,
some implementation may be postponed, or discontinued (Nazariyah bt Sani, 2013). Sentiments
such as the above are highly discouraging for implementors who as described above, have been
voluntarily expending own resources to ensure the success of the programme

5. Implications and Recommendation

The Multilevel Perspective
In understanding the wickedness of the problem, we employ the Multilevel Perspective (MLP)
Framework to understand how illiteracy can be addressed despite the complexity illustrated in the
above section. As provided by Ramani (2021), the MLP illustrates this systemic problem of illiteracy
in form of a vertical three-layered-deck as illustrated below in Figure 1.

At the Macro Level, we would find exogenic factors influencing the course of public education, which
would include existing policies, laws, and regulations, national economic health, political shifts in the
leadership of the nation, advocacy by right-wing Malay language lobbyist, and annual budgetary
allocation to fund remedial programmes such as this.
When applied to our current case, LINUS 2.0 fits the “niche innovation” at the Niche Level, formed to
address the wicked problem, exhibited at the Meso Level.

At the Meso Level, we would find endogenic factors within the public education landscape in
Malaysia which allows for the perpetuation of illiteracy such as inefficient allocation of resources,
poor management, and issues relating to want of capacity and capability, and primarily students
being allowed to progress through grades without ensuring mastery of basic literacy skills, which can
be referred to as self-reinforcing forces. The systemic outcome that is illiteracy is determined by
these sets of self-reinforcing forces wielded by the abovementioned actors also known as the
dominant regimes.

Macro Level: Landscape Pressures & Policies

Meso Level: Dominant Self-Reinforcing Regime

Forces

Niche Level: Introduction of novelties into the

system to weaken the elements of the dominant
regime and/or lower landscape pressures through
adoption and diffusion.

Figure 1: The Multilevel Perspective

According to Shyama Ramani, “the actions of dominant regimes are assumed to support the status
quo, given landscape pressures from above and novelties from below. At the same time, it is the
functioning of the system as it does – that also contributes to the build-up of negative landscape
pressures and the wicked problem within the system. Thus, to weaken a wicked problem, the status
quo of dominant regimes has to be broken partially or totally.” In context, this explains that the
dominant regimes are made out of existing idiosyncrasies and characteristics of the MOE, school
leaders, teachers, and parents which contribute to the present state of student literacy. As such,
these characteristics must be addressed in a fresh attempt to address the age-old problem of
illiteracy.

The MLP provides that public policy can intervene at one of the two levels, either at the top
‘landscape pressure’ or at the bottom ‘niche innovation’ level to tackle this wicked problem. We
begin by working on improving the ‘niche innovation’.

Enhancing the Niche Innovation

As established above, implementors cited the lack of professional support and adequate training to
be a significant impediment to successful implementation of the programme. Instead of providing
one-off training on teachers implementing LINUS 2.0, a yearly course or training is necessary to
ensure teachers are sufficiently equipped with latest development associated to the programme.
Implementors are also able to form supportive professional network in sharing resources and best
practices through this periodical upskilling (Eunice Ong Luyee, 2015).
An essential feature in successful implementation of programmes found missing, i.e. creation and
utilisation of open feedback loops. This would ensure the continuous improvement of the
programme and contribute to raising the effectiveness of the same. Issues such as lack of alignment
between the content of the programme and mainstream curriculum would be identified and
rectified (Rosseliiah Bokhari, 2015).

Though acknowledged by implementors themselves, as a necessary initiative in remedial education,

many cited the accompanying workload as cumbersome and vexatious. According to an interview
conducted, a teacher related that she was “very happy that my pupils got better results for English. I
think the instrument was perfect…Hmm, there are bit of problems when conducting the tests... err...
The time is too short...I have a lot of pupils in my class...and to check their answers and give them
guidance during the test individually are quite hard and tiring...Especially when the pupils in the class
have problems in English…Wanting to teach the lesson, while at the same time conducting the
tests...It was really hard.” (Norfairos binti Hadzir, 2016).

“I am happy that the government initiative with LINUS benefitted the pupils…They will have better
grades...But there are bit of problems during the screening…Too much programmes at school, I don’t
have enough time to focus on LINUS...Maybe they can adjust the time to make them longer...Other
teachers that I`ve met also agree with me...” (Norfairos binti Hadzir, 2016)

Other prior research unanimously concur that remedial teachers should be provided across all
modules to ease the implementation of the programme and ensure holistic attainment of basic
literacy (Rosseliiah Bokhari, 2015).

Addressing the Pressures from Macro Level

The collateral effect of living in a nation which allows for freedom of political expression, is the
activism of right-wing Malay language lobbyists which caused significant set-backs to the MOE’s
apportionment of resources to ensure bilingual literacy in Malaysia; both in the Malay Language and
English. In addressing this matter, strong strategic communication, rallying other actors is required.

Parents are key stakeholders and they stand much to lose should the economic competitiveness of
the nation is compromised as a result of poorer acquisition of bilingual skills, let alone literacy in the
said languages. Engagement of parents can take the form of encouraging parents to be involved
their child’s learning, achievements, and potentials. Training should be provided to schools to guide
parents on how to be more involved in their child’s learning at home (Azman, 2016). Adequate
communication must be made on the necessity of bilingual literacy as key to survive in a volatile
future. Successful grassroot engagement of parents would serve to counter the persuasive rhetoric
of the right-wing Malay Language lobbyists, in achieving a balanced, bilingually literate society.

Having said the above, this paper recognises that the MOE wields the greatest power in addressing
illiteracy. Reforming its organisational culture is essential in the successful implementation of LINUS
2.0. One such is the culture of detached supervision and expectation of outcomes in absence of
providing adequate professional support. Studies have identified that the MOE’s strict emphasis on
outcomes without providing adequate resources, have resulted at best in poor implementation of
initiatives (no less LINUS 2.0), and at worst, fabrication of results to escape accountability through
show-cause letters. Studies have also highlighted that MOE’s expectations to produce instantaneous
results through LINUS 2.0 had compromised its execution, and providing longer time in observing its
impact is an inevitable programme management process (Norfairos binti Hadzir, 2016).
6. Conclusion
In resonance with prior studies, this paper would like to affirm that LINUS 2.0 is conceptually a
necessary remedial intervention in addressing illiteracy in Malaysia. Rosseliiah Bokhari highlighted
that the most significant aspect of LINUS 2.0 is the data-driven intervention design, highly
customised to suit the varying proficiency levels of each student. This enables implementors to
effectively identify and administer remedial literacy intervention on students in need (Rosseliiah
Bokhari, 2015).

Further evidence in favour of LINUS 2.0 can be found in statement of implementors - “So I will call
the student in front and I will teach… Is quite easy…actually they were quite interested to learn
when I taught them in a small group… Because I gave them my full attention… they are very
active…they still very poor…there is a slight change”. (Rosseliiah Bokhari, 2015)

The recommendations above highlighted that with strategic allocation of resources including equal
provision of remedial teachers, a well thought-out content, strong professional support, strategic
management of other opposing actors, and reforming of the MOE’s organisational culture, this
‘wicked problem’ might not be overly ‘wicked’ as perceived. Strong political will, as with most cases
is necessary, but that is hardly a surprise.

Shyama Ramani’s analogy of the Apollo 13 Moon landing mission: “Failure is not an option” (2021)
aptly sums up the nature of our policy challenge at hand. It is indeed true that illiteracy when
allowed to persist in a society significantly contributing to student attrition, makes room for social
injustices to be perpetrated against its most vulnerable section of the society. Perceived in that light,
the pursuit of literacy is the beginning of restoration of social justice in any community.
References
Azman, H. (2016). Implementation and Challenges of English Language Education Reform in
Malaysian Primary School. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies – Vol
22(3): , 65 – 78.
Chew, F. P. (2018). Evaluation on the LINUS Program. The 2018 International Academic Research
Conference in Vienna (pp. 269-182). Vienna: ICBTS.
(2005). Concept Paper on Implementation of Intervention Class on Early Reading and Writing
(KIA2M) (Malay language). Putrajaya: Curriculum Development Division, Ministry of
Education. .
Eunice Ong Luyee, F. I. (2015). Suitability of the Literacy and Numeracy. The Malaysian Online
Journal of Educational Science (Volume 3 - Issue 2), 36-44.
(2012). Laporan Kajian Pelaksanaan Pemulihan Khas di Sekolah Rendah. Putrajaya: Education
Planning and Research Division, Ministry of Education Malaysia.
(2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia.
(2006). Master Plan of Education Development 2006-2010. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education
Malaysia.
Nazariyah bt Sani, A. R. (2013). Implementation Of Linus Programme Based On The Model Of Van
Meter And Van Horn. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Science Volume 1, Issue 2,
25-36.
Noor, M. M. (1973). Committee Report on Survey Regarding Education and Community Research
(Dropout Report). Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Education.
Norfairos binti Hadzir, A. M. (2016). Teachers’ Perception On Literacy, Numeracy And Screening
(Linus2.0) Assessment Features Based On Year 1 Students’ Performance. Research Journal of
English Language and Literature (RJELAL) Volume 4 Issue 1, 40-47.
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What School Life Means for Students’ Lives. Paris: OECD
Publishing.
Ramani, S. V. (2021). How should policymakers tackle ‘wicked’ problems? From designing solutions
to building legitimacy. Policy Brief, No. 1.
Rittel H W J, W. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, No. 4, pp. 155-
169.
Rosseliiah Bokhari, S. M. (2015). Teachers’ Perception on the Implementation of the Literacy,
Numeracy and Screening (LINUS LBI 2.0) Programme among Lower Primary ESL Pupils.
Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 11(1), , 108-121.
World Bank. (2018). Improving Education Sector Performance in Malaysia; Lessons from a Delivery
Unit Approach. Kuala Lumpur: World Bank Group.
Yusuf, A. B., & al, e. (2019). Implementation Program LINUS Bahasa Inggeris 2.0. Advances in Social
Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 239, 11-19.