Introduction
Questions are once again being raised regarding the effectiveness of the Malaysian education system. With debates taking place surrounding the Dual-Language system which was implemented in 2016 and whether it should be replaced, the public is once again raising the alarm and asking if students are indeed receiving the best quality of education in the country paid for by their taxes.
The Malaysian education system has undergone various changes over the course of its development and can be traced back to the pre-colonial days of old Malaya. While the debate surrounding the language of instruction has been central to its various shifts, there have also been efforts at various stages to improve areas such as accessibility, equity and quality, albeit with mixed results.
In this article, we will consider the development of the education system in Malaysia, the challenges which it has faced over the years, and the areas which can be improved upon to support the achievement of long-term national level goals such as transitioning Malaysia towards a high-income nation.
A Brief History of the Malaysian Education System
A structured education system in Malaysia came into force during period of British colonisation. Prior to their arrival, localised education systems generally took place in an informal way within various village settlements.
With the arrival of the British and the rapid industrialisation that took place therein came the introduction of an education system that was largely catered towards preparing the local population for administrative work under British rule.
This eventually led to the development of National Schools and National-Type Schools. In National schools, the medium of instruction is the Malay language. However, in National-Type Schools, which are Chinese Vernacular and Indian Vernacular schools, the medium of instruction is Chinese-Mandarin or Tamil respectively. These were designed to educate the three primary races in Malaysia and the formats still exist to this day.
In the modern Malaysian education system, broadly speaking, there are government schools in which the medium of instruction is the Malay language, there are the Chinese and Indian vernacular schools, there are private schools, many of which offer the Dual-Language System, whereby Science and Math can be opted to be taught in English, and there are international schools, in which the medium of instruction is English.
Most of these schools teach both the Malay language and the English language as independent language subjects on their own both at the primary and secondary level. The subjects also constitute core subjects under the national board examinations. A pass in the subject of Bahasa Malaysia in the national board examination is mandatory to receive a formal certificate. At the national level, all secondary schools are taught in the Malay language, however some schools still operate in other languages, such as Chinese-Mandarin and English.
While the syllabus of specific schools may vary, government and private schools are each subject to national examination boards such as SPM at the end of the secondary year, while international schools have similar O-Levels examinations to qualify for tertiary education. Chinese Independent Schools offer the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC).
The Recent Performance of the Malaysian Education Sector
The effectiveness of the Malaysian education system has been called into question over the last decade or so, particularly with regards to the performance of Malaysian students in international assessments. International examinations such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) which gauge the performance of students across a range of competencies including reading, linguistics, mathematics and science have demonstrated the shortcomings of the Malaysian education system in recent years.
Between 1999 and 2011, Malaysia’s 8th grade ranking in Mathematics for the TIMSS examination fell from 16th place to 26th place. In the Science category, Malaysia fell from 22nd place to 32nd place over the same period.
Between 1999 and 2019, the average score of Malaysians students in the TIMSS Science assessment for Grade 8 fell from 492 to 460. In 2019, Malaysia ranked 29th out the 39 countries in this assessment. Comparatively, the average score in Singapore between 1999 and 2019 for the same assessment rose from 568 to 608, with Singapore ranking 1st in the world in 2019.
Figure 1.1
Source: TIMSS 2019 International Database
In the 2009+ PISA ranking, Malaysia ranked at 54th place out of 74 countries in the reading category, while ranking 57th and 52nd for the Mathematics and Science Categories respectively.
The overall ranking for Malaysians in the 2023 PISA assessment was 45th place with an overall value of 431. Singapore achieved a global ranking of 2nd place and overall value of 556.3. The highest ranking of 1st place was held by China with a score 578.2
Figure 1.2
Source:Datapandas.org
In terms of the trend with respect to domestic examinations, while there have been marginal increments in academic performance over the past decade, an analysis conducted by the NGO Untuk Malaysia showed that close to 90,000 (24%) candidates out of the 373,974 (13%) who sat of the 2022 SPM examinations failed Mathematics, while 52,000 failed English.
It is relevant to note that in the 2022 SPM examinations, 14.3% of candidates failed the English language examination, an increase of 0.4% from the previous year’s number of 13.9%. Comparatively, the percentage of students who failed the Malay language examination decreased from 3.2% in 2023 to 2.6% in 2022.
Figure 1.3
Source: Kementrian Pendidikan Lembaga Peperiksaan
The Language Debate
A central debate within the Malaysian education system has centred around the medium of language to be used for academic instruction. As mentioned above, during the colonial and post-colonial phase, the Malay language was used as the medium of instruction at national schools, while vernacular schools adopted the use of their own respective languages of Chinese-Mandarin and Tamil to support the educational development of those ethnicities. Under the present system, at the secondary level, all such schools are expected to teach in the Malay language medium with several exceptions.
In terms of the English language, this is taught as a compulsory subject throughout the schooling period while the Dual-Language Program (DLP), introduced in 2016, allows schools the option of teaching Science and Mathematics in English for students wishing to do so.
The DLP program was introduced by the administration of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad to address the need to empower students with greater proficiency in the English language while at the same time strengthening capacities in Malay language proficiency. It was considered vital at the time for ensuring that students would be able to meet the demands of an increasingly globalised workspace as well as for promoting a culture of bilingualism and national unity in the country.
The DLP program faced criticism from certain parties however, as it was considered an added burden on teachers who would have to teach subjects in both Bahasa Malaysia and English.
At the higher education level, Bahasa Malaysia is the mode of instruction in undergraduate programs at public universities, however at the postgraduate and doctorate level, the language of instruction is generally in English.
The Challenges Faced by the Malaysian Education Sector
The Malaysian education system has faced various challenges over the years and has undergone a number of changes with respect to areas such as curriculum, syllabus and the language of instruction.
A number of key areas have been pointed to within the Malaysian education as being in need of attention and reform. The curriculum and examination system in Malaysia, for instance, has been criticised for placing too great an emphasis on written examinations. In addition, as mentioned above, the primary language of instruction has changed multiple times over the course of the education systems development, this being another major concern.
A lack of equal access to educational opportunities across all Malaysian demographics is another concern that has been raised. Teacher quality and training is also a critical area that has been identified as requiring attention. It has also been pointed out that there is a need for the quality and structure of the education systems to be in greater alignment with the needs of industry.
In addition to the above, two key areas that have been identified as needing to be addressed are the standardisation and flexibility of the education system as well as the implementation and coordination of education policies in the country.
The Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025
The Ministry of Education put forward the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025 to address the challenges faced within the Malaysian Education System. Among the key areas that were identified as needing attention were Access, Quality, Equity, Unity, and Efficiency.
In terms of ‘Access’, this relates to ensuring that every Malaysian child receives equal access to an education that will enable him or her to achieve their highest potential. The aspiration of the MOE here is to ensure universal access and full enrolment of all children from preschool through to upper secondary level by 2020.
The ‘Quality’ aspiration refers to ensuring that all children have the opportunity to attain an excellent education that is uniquely Malaysian and comparable to the leading international systems. This involves achieving a place within the top 3 rankings in both PISA and TIMSS.
The ‘Equity’ aspiration is for top performing schools to deliver the best possible education for every child regardless of geography, gender, or socioeconomic background. The aspiration here is to halve the current urban-rural, socio-economic, and gender achievement gaps by 2020.
The ‘Unity’ aspiration aims to encourage students of various socioeconomic, religious, and ethnic backgrounds to foster a sense of understanding and acceptance, and to embrace their various differences. The MOE’s aspiration here is to create a system where students have the opportunity to build shared experiences and aspirations that form the foundation for unity.
The ‘Efficiency’ aspiration refers to the aim of the MOE to ensure that the resources channeled into the system are matched by equivalent outcomes. The MOE aims to maximise student outcomes within the current budget levels.
In order to achieve these aspirations, the MOE formulated 11 shifts to transform the Malaysian education system:
Figure 1.4
Source: The Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025
The complete Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025 is accessible via the link here.
The Relationship Between Education and Income Levels
It is widely accepted that education plays a significant role in improving the quality of life of individuals in terms of accessing a higher level of income. In simple economic terms, education is often considered an investment in human capital, and those with a higher level of education are able to earn a higher level of income.
The two main ways in which this occurs is that firstly, schools equip students with the skills needed to improve their productivity levels once they join the workforce. The second way this occurs is that employers are more likely to hire workers with higher academic qualifications as this tends to correlate with their capacity to learn on the job and therefore offer more opportunities to the company to grow.
According to a 2018 research paper conducted by the World Bank Group analysing the returns to investment in education, it was established that private global average return to a year of schooling was at 9 percent a year. This is based on the Mincer equation, which suggests that each additional year of education produces a private return to the individual calculated at a specific rate.
In Figure 1.5, we can see the relationship between the different levels of education and the amount of income earnings which correspond to said qualifications within selected countries. Taking Germany as the sample country, we see that those with a below upper secondary level of educational qualification are mainly distributed within the very low-income earnings and low-income earnings category. At the other end of the educational qualification spectrum, a large percentage of those with at least a bachelor’s level of education are able receive a very high level of income.
Figure 1.5
Source: The World Bank
Within all the countries a general trend can observed whereby as the level of education increases, the percentage distribution within the very low-income earnings category falls, while the percentage distribution within the very high-income earnings category increases.
The income earnings gained at the individual level from greater exposure to education is also transferrable to the economic output of a country. In Figure 1.6, we see that the GDP per capita within selected countries is proportionately linked to the average numbers years spent in formal schooling systems. In Uganda, where the average years of schooling is 6.7 years, the GDP per capita is $2,240, while in Singapore, the average years of schooling is 13.1 years and the GDP per capita is $94,506. Granted there are various economic and socioeconomic factors that impact the GDP per Capita of countries, however we can see that many countries with high performing education sectors such as Finland, Australia, Norway and Singapore have a higher number of average schooling years and a large GDP per Capita.
Figure 1.6
Source: Our World in Data
The Significant Role that Teachers Play in Education
One of the key elements that plays an integral role in ensuring that education systems are able to achieve a high degree of success in terms of performance outcomes for students lies in the quality of teachers.
Various studies have been conducted to determine the relationship between the quality of teachers and the academic performance of students, with certain essential teaching qualities identified as contributing towards high quality teachers. The OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) has defined teacher quality through five key dimensions, namely knowledge in the field and content, pedagogical skills, reflection and ability, empathy and commitment and management competencies.
In a study conducted by the OECD entitled ‘Teacher’s Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers’, it was identified that the role that teachers play has been gradually changing over time. The teachers of today are expected to take on much broader roles which involve taking into account the individual development of students, managing learning processes in the classroom, and developing ‘learning communities’ within school systems.
Among some of the key roles highlighted as being necessary for teachers to be able to perform include:
At the Student Level
- Initiating and managing learning processes
- Responding effectively to the learning needs of individual learners
- Integrating formative and summative assessments
At the Classroom Level
- Teaching in multi-cultural classrooms
- New cross-curricular emphasis
- Integrating students with special needs
At the School Level
- Working and planning in teams
- Evaluation and systematic improvement planning
- ICT use in teaching and administration
- Management and shared leadership
At the Level of Parents and the Wider Community
- Providing professional advice to parents
- Budling community partnerships for learning
The study went on to highlight certain key challenges faced by education systems around the world with respect to ensuring a consistently high level of teaching quality:
Relating to the Attractiveness of the Teaching Profession
Approximately half of the countries surveyed reported serious concerns surrounding maintaining an adequate supply of high-quality teachers, particularly in high-demand subject areas. It was also determined that large numbers of teachers perceive their professions poorly and feel professionally undervalued. The study also showed that the relative salaries of teachers had been declining in most countries.
Relating to the Development of Teacher’s Knowledge and Skills
Nearly all the countries surveyed reported concerns relating to the qualitative shortfalls of teachers in which teachers appeared to not have the necessary and knowledge and skills required to meet the school’s needs. In addition, major concerns were reported on the limited connection between teacher education, teacher’s professional development, and school needs. Furthermore, many countries appeared to lack systemic induction programme for entry-level teachers.
Relating to the Recruitment, Selection and Employment of Teachers
The study also pointed to the issue of the inequitable distribution of teachers among schools and whether students in disadvantaged areas were able to access the level of quality among teachers required. It was also demonstrated that schools often have minimal direct involvement with the actual appointment of teaching staff. The study also showed that some countries have a large over-supply of qualified teachers, therein bringing its own challenges.
Relating to the Retention of Effective Teachers in Schools
The study further established that some countries experienced high rates of teacher attrition, especially among newly employed teachers. It was also reported that teachers expressed concerns surrounding the high amount of workload, with a high number commenting on stress, poor working conditions and low levels of job satisfaction. It was also shown that there is a limited means in most countries to recognise and reward teacher’s work. Additionally, the process of responding to ineffective teaching was shown to often be cumbersome and slow.
The OECD study went on to put forward various policy recommendations to enable to the attraction and retention of effective teachers into the workforce. The policy initiatives in question covered two levels of implementation. The fist concerned the teaching profession as a whole and the means for improving its status and labour competitiveness, improving teacher development and improving school work environments. The second level was concerned with attracting and retaining particular types of teachers, and attracting teachers to work in certain types of schools.
Figure 1.7
Source: OECD – ‘Teacher’s Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers’
A Comparative Analysis of Education Systems
When gauging the effectiveness of the Malaysian education system, taken from a purely academic perspective, comparisons can be drawn to education systems both here within the country as well as at the international level.
Domestic Comparison
At the domestic level, a good comparison and one that has been the subject of discussions surrounding local academic performance is with that the of the Chinese vernacular schools’ systems. As at December 2016, there were approximately 1,298 Chinese vernacular schools registered in Malaysia as compared to the 5,877 national schools registered in the same year.
It is well understood that academic performance at Chinese vernacular schools is generally the best in the country, which has prompted a greater inflow of attendance from non-Chinese students into these schools over the past few decades.
One of the main defining characteristics of Chinese vernacular schools is the emphasis on discipline in both the teaching and general administration of the school system. The quality of teaching within such schools also appears to be of a high standard, with a strict adherence to a high standard of pedagogy.
In addition to these, Chinese Independent schools, which are those that do not receive any funding from government, prepare students for an independent board examination known as the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC).
Among the key characteristics of the UEC syllabus is, for instance, that the subject of history involves the teaching of a much broader subject matter, including a detailed history of China, Europe and Southeast Asia.
International Comparison
At the international level, comparisons can be drawn with the education system of the two of the top performing countries under the PISA and TIMSS systems, namely China and Singapore.
The success of China with respect to academic performance can be attributed to several factors. This includes the fact that the country has an ancient education system that dates back as far as 2000 years. Thus, such a system is likely to be well established and refined. There is also a high emphasis on respecting the teacher and a strong emphasis on discipline.
In addition, the Chinese school’s system is mainly structured to prepare students for the National College Entrance Examination or Goakao. The exam is considered vitally important to all students and their respective institutions, and widely regarded as their ‘ticket to the future’. As such, the system has also been criticised for the extreme pressure that it places on students to perform well in this exam.
The Singapore system on the other hand is one that appears to owe much of its success to an emphasis on structural and procedural uniformity. Under the Singapore system, a high emphasis is placed on the transmission of factual and procedural knowledge in order to prepare students for examinations. Information is imparted to students from teachers in a direct manner, with large emphasis placed on repetitive drilling and limited emphasis on excessive discussion.
The Singapore education system is also highly centralised, integrated, coherent and well-funded. In addition, there is a high degree of alignment with respect to the curriculum, assessment and instruction at all stages of the education process. Furthermore, the Singaporean education system has a strong commitment to capacity building, which includes the selection, training, and development of principals and teachers.
It should also be noted that the Singaporean education system has been identified as having certain limitations. This includes a pressing need to place greater emphasis on deeper learning and understanding, as opposed to focusing mainly on academic performance.
It has been argued that both the Chinese and Singaporean systems, while ensuing a high level of academic performance, may not be ideal for promoting creative thinking. Such systems may benefit from adopting what is referred to ‘Knowledge Building’ education systems which promote the ability to recognise, generate, represent, validate, communicate and deliberate information and knowledge.
Outside of the Asian region, a further international comparison can be made with the nation of Finland, which has performed well in both the PISA and TIMSS examinations. In the PISA 2009+ exams, Finland ranked 3rd for reading and 2nd for science with 536 point and 554 points respectively. The country achieved a ranking of 14th place and 5th place for Mathematics and Science respectively in 2019.
The success of the Finnish education system can be attributed to several factors. The current system was initially created as a means to spur economic recovery in a post-soviet rule landscape and began by organising public schools into a single comprehensive system for students aged 7 through to 16 years of age. Teachers from across the nation contributed to the national curriculum through an approach that emphasised guidelines rather than prescriptions. The main language of instruction was Swedish and Finnish, with a third language being taught at age 9, which was usually English. Another key attribute is that resources were distributed evenly to all public schools to ensure that students across the country were able to access a virtually uniform and equal standard of education regardless of the socioeconomic conditions of their particular community or region.
In addition, a reform introduced in 1979 made it a requirement for every teacher to earn a fifth-year master’s degree in theory and practice at one of eight state universities, fully funded by the government. This put the teaching profession on equal footing with the medical and legal profession. Further policies were introduced which essentially shifted administrative autonomy away from top-down regulation, providing schools and teachers with greater freedom to apply the most effective policies on the ground. Among such policy shifts included eliminating “ability groups” and placing all students irrespective of learning competencies in a single classroom, while ensuring that the necessary attention was given to struggling students to ensure none were left behind.
Summary Analysis
It can therefore be seen that the Malaysian Education system is in need of improvement, particularly if the country wishes to achieve a more favourable result in international academic assessments.
The 11 shifts highlighted under the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025 are indeed a step in the right direction. The RM 55.2 billion allocated for the Education Ministry and the RM 15.3 billon for the higher education ministry (MoHE) in the 2023 Budget are certainly encouraging and demonstrate the necessary inclination by the public sector towards improving the education system in the country.
The effectiveness of the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025 however has been called into question in recent months, with pundits commenting on the lack of consistent application of the blueprints recommendation among Malaysia’s academic institutions. In an article published in the Malaysian Reserve on the 21st of June 2023, Parents Action Group for Education (PAGE) chairman Datin Noor Azimah Abdul Rahim shared findings from a discussion session by Edunity Foundation, G25 Malaysian and BFM Radio, which showed that that despite the clear objectives and policy recommendations highlighted in the Blueprint, there had been little significant tangible progress at the ground level.
The chairman went on to state that the upskilling of teachers was an area that needs to be improved upon, in which well performing teachers are rewarded and allowed to enter leadership positions based on merit rather than on time served. She also suggested that exit policies for poor performing teachers need to be activated faster and that the teaching professions should no longer be viewed as a vocation of last resort. In addition, Datin Azimah mentioned the importance of shifting towards more student-centric teaching approaches which promote aspects such as creativity, critical thinking and digital literacy.
An example within Malaysia of an organisation that has attempted to improve the standard of the teaching profession is Teach for Malaysia. The independent NGO offers a two-year training program to fresh graduates, providing them with a holistic understanding of the best practices for teaching students in classrooms, based on contemporary and internationally accepted pedagogies that have been proven to succeed. The program prepares candidates for teaching careers and attempts to encourage a passion for teaching through its leadership training programs, an element that is crucial with regards to effectively reaching students in the classroom. Thus, capacity building, as has been emphasised in both the Singaporean and Finnish education systems, is vital for ensuring the future success of the Malaysian education system.
Additionally, a crucial consideration with regards the reformation of the Malaysian education system is that the deployment of the various goals and shifts need to be implemented in a structured, uniform and consistent manner across all education systems in the country as far as possible. Taking a page out of Singapore’s book, there is a dire need to ensure that our education systems are implemented with a similar attention paid towards overall structural cohesion. This would not only provide a level of consistency and reliability to those seeking a proper education, but it would also allow such systems to be monitored, adjusted and improved over time with greater ease.
With regards to the debate surrounding the language of instruction, it is perhaps necessary to evaluate such a question against the intended learning outcomes for local education systems. Indeed, it should be recognised that the English language is the ‘Lingua Franca’ of the modern world, and as the internationally accepted language for dialogue within the business world in particular, the importance of learning it cannot be denied. The ability to converse fluently in English unlocks a plethora of opportunities both within the arena of further education as well as employment, therefore the merits for learning the language are clear enough.
With that said, the Malay language remains as the national language of the country, one that has been spoken by its native citizens for generations. It is representative of our identity and culture as a nation, and there is a need to honour and respect that fact. That all Malaysians born in the country should be able to speak the language to one another is therefore a foregone conclusion.
A system which therefore enables both languages to be taught effectively to students ought to be implemented. Furthermore, the intention inherent in the Dual Language System, which recognises the advantages of teaching science and mathematics in English, this being the language of discourse utilised at higher learning and industrial levels, appears to be founded in the right frame of thinking. It would therefore be beneficial for the Dual Language System, or an effective variation of the system, to be preserved in the Malaysian education system.
In determining the ideal education system for Malaysia, it is perhaps necessary to ask what we ultimately want our students to achieve through the academic programs that are put in place. An open discourse as to which areas of education, such as critical thinking, building a passion for lifelong learning, and ensuring students’ readiness for high-level professional careers, ought to be emphasised upon and to what degree, should be conducted at the public level and weighed out accordingly.
It is certainly beneficial to look at high-performing systems around the world, such as those in China, Singapore and Finland, to consider the policies that have worked for these nations in achieving academic success. Finding ways to effectively adopt such policies into local structural frameworks, with due consideration given to navigating the various cultural and structural idiosyncrasies, is equally important.
Furthermore, as has been mentioned, it is highly necessary to ensure that the effective, consistent and well-monitored implementation of these policies is carried out in a ubiquitous manner across the country. An education system is a dynamic piece of socioeconomic machinery and must therefore be consistently tended to at all levels of its structural makeup to ensure that that it regularly achieves the outcomes put forth by the relevant blueprints. A strict adherence to agreed upon policy directions, pre-determined schedules and associated time-sensitive targets is necessary, and ensuring that routine assessments are carried out at both the state and district level is equally necessary for ongoing adjustments and improvements to be made moving forward.
Conclusion
Ultimately, it could be argued that a high-quality education system should essentially provide students with the appropriate knowledge and skills needed to face the challenges of life as effectively as possible. If such a target can be properly evaluated and achieved on a consistent basis, it would equip future generations of Malaysians with the necessary capabilities to achieve a high quality of life for themselves.
As Malaysia continues to aspire towards developing into a high-income nation, the parallel development of a high-quality education system which effectively supports Malaysian citizens in acquiring the skills and capabilities required to form a competitive workforce should be of paramount priority. Such a system, if founded upon proven educational metrics such those highlighted in this article, and implemented with a degree of consistency and structural uniformity across all segments of society in Malaysia, has the potential to elevate the country’s economic and socioeconomic standard towards one which is on par with the leading nations of the world both within ASEAN and beyond.
References
- British Colonialism and the Education System in Malaysia, Medium.com, Sokri.M, Accessed 2/11/2023
- 90,000 failed SPM Maths, 52,000 failed English, says NGO, Free Malaysia Today, Norhisham S.K., Accessed 3/11/2023
- Understanding Chinese Schools, The Borneo Post, Pim L.H., Accessed 3/11/2023
- Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025, Ministry of Education (MOE) Malaysia, Accessed 4/11/2023
- Strong Link Between Education and Earnings, World Bank Blogs, Patrinos H.A., Psacharopoulos G., Accessed 6/11/2023
- TIMSS 2019 International Database, Accessed 7/11/2023
- PISA Scores by Country, Datapandas.org, Accessed 7/11/2023
- Laporan Analisis Keputusan Peperiksaan SPM, Kementrian Pendidikan Lembaga Peperiksaan, Accessed 8/11/2023
- Teacher’s Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers, OECD Publishing, Accessed 8/11/2023
- China’s Education System: The Oldest in the World, Asiasociety.org, Sheah C., Accessed 10/11/2023
- Why is Singapore’s schools system so successful, and is it a model for the west?, The Conversation, Hogan.D, Accessed 10/11/2023
- Why Are Finland’s Schools So Successful?, Smithsonianmag.com, Hancock L., Accessed 10/11/2023
- Has the education system progressed in line with the Education Blueprint?, The Malaysian Reserve, Zaki H.U.M, Accessed 10/11/2023
- Average Years of Schooling Vs GDP per Capita, OurWorldinData.org, Accessed 11/11/2023
