Tweet
Revisiting the Task Force Report on Education
Wesley Barrett
Monday, March 10, 2008
It is going four years now since the Task Force Report on educational reform, albeit the revised edition was submitted. At the time of its release, the major discussion point was the crude cost projected. The question - "Where will the J$52B to transform the education system come from?" - was on most people's lips with very little analysis of the proposals and their efficacy. In fact, government and Opposition seemed to have been of one accord on the need to implement the proposals without delay.
Wesley Barrett
Apart from a few concerned individuals and media commentators who attempted a critique of the proposals and the related time frames, few voices were heard. We still have had relatively little discussion on the substantive proposals. Worse still, the public is yet to be provided with frequent updates on this major plan. The issues remain critical, however, and it may be appropriate to revisit the Task Force Report to offer further comments and recommendations. In this respect, I wish to make a small contribution over the next few weeks.
There were issues in the commissioning of the study which should, among other things, culminate in the preparation and presentation of "an action plan consistent with the creation of a world-class education system.". In the foreword to the 97-page document, the chairman raised some of the issues. He noted and observed the "groundswell of public support for a transformed educational system and the political will as evidenced by the Joint Parliamentary Resolution which was signed in October 2003". This observation remains instructive and questions will remain relevant.
The chairman also alluded to the limited time available to do a review of all four levels of the education system, hence the concentration on the primary and secondary levels. Whether this limiting report would suffice is still open for debate. The issue of tertiary education is still outstanding. However, the Early Childhood Commission has addressed the pre-primary level in some, but not all important areas. What are further views here?
In the run-up to the general elections last year, education took somewhat centre stage. Whether in manifestos or campaign speeches, we were made to believe that major fundamental changes were imminent. Of course, we had heard the "commitments" several years and times before. Where is the information on the changes, if any, and where are the voices of our parliamentarians, except that of Mr Ronnie Thwaites?
Though not a technical research report, it would have been helpful if some critical assumptions were stated in it or otherwise if assumptions were reformulated into specific recommendations.
For example, the report recommended a performance target of 85 per cent as a national mean score for students sitting the GSAT tests by 2015, but neither assumed overtly that the technical deficiency of the non-equating of the tests year on year would be corrected nor made the recommendation for this to be done. Of course, test equating is of fundamental importance in making comparisons between one cohort of students and another who sit a test. I think the time to examine more closely such fundamental technical issues was unavailable. Notwithstanding, this issue and others need addressing.
There were other issues that could have been raised - and still can. The 14-member task force had a gender imbalance, nine men and five women. I would have preferred to see more women in this team, particularly when we think of their expertise and dedication to education. I also would have preferred to see more people from our universities involved even if this would have necessitated an increase in the membership. For the future, I suggest that such issues be taken more fully into consideration. I suggest, however, that the broader view of the university community on the report be sought now and taken into account over the ten-year period of reform.
We should be concerned that a regulatory framework for the transformation to take place is yet to be addressed or announced. The Education Act and Education Regulations have seen no revisions for decades. These two companion documents provide the regulatory framework in which important changes can be effected without need of recourse by affected persons to time-consuming and costly litigations.
The point is that almost all transformation efforts must contemplate significant changes in the legal framework to facilitate fundamental changes. The rational zoning of schools to enhance efficiency is a specific enabling provision that needs to be addressed in this context, for example. I would argue that any deep-seated reform cannot fit comfortably within the provisions of the 1965 Education Act and the 1980 Education Regulations.
There is the issue also of an enunciated and a visible national mobilisation framework that ensures that the transformation effort gains critical support, traction and momentum. In this sense, support systems outside the education system itself must be brought to bear. The transportation, social welfare and the health and nutrition systems will be pillars of such a support system. Most important, community bodies must be mobilised to lend support and garner goodwill for the reforms. If there are secret actions on these, they should be shared.
The gravamen of the point is that the transformation will not be successful without an articulated and a visible national mobilisation programme and the definition and implementation of a general framework that takes account of major risk factors as these I am identifying. Getting people prepared for the changes and to contribute to them will be vital.
In reassessing the potential of the recommendations to transform the education system, we may wish to look more closely once more at major ones. As we proceed, we should identify those that need reconsideration, that are "good to go", and those that were already being implemented and only need fast -racking.
To start my own reassessment, I would suggest that the target of 60 per cent of the cohort of students attaining Grade 1-3 in 5 C-SEC subjects, including English and mathematics, over a 10-year period be reconsidered. The target was low, if real energy and resources were expected to be put in the transformation process. Perhaps, though, there was no high expectation. Furthermore, almost four years have elapsed since, and a review and re-rendering of this target is necessary.
wesebar@yahoo.com
Wesley Barrett
Monday, March 10, 2008
It is going four years now since the Task Force Report on educational reform, albeit the revised edition was submitted. At the time of its release, the major discussion point was the crude cost projected. The question - "Where will the J$52B to transform the education system come from?" - was on most people's lips with very little analysis of the proposals and their efficacy. In fact, government and Opposition seemed to have been of one accord on the need to implement the proposals without delay.
Wesley Barrett Apart from a few concerned individuals and media commentators who attempted a critique of the proposals and the related time frames, few voices were heard. We still have had relatively little discussion on the substantive proposals. Worse still, the public is yet to be provided with frequent updates on this major plan. The issues remain critical, however, and it may be appropriate to revisit the Task Force Report to offer further comments and recommendations. In this respect, I wish to make a small contribution over the next few weeks.
There were issues in the commissioning of the study which should, among other things, culminate in the preparation and presentation of "an action plan consistent with the creation of a world-class education system.". In the foreword to the 97-page document, the chairman raised some of the issues. He noted and observed the "groundswell of public support for a transformed educational system and the political will as evidenced by the Joint Parliamentary Resolution which was signed in October 2003". This observation remains instructive and questions will remain relevant.
The chairman also alluded to the limited time available to do a review of all four levels of the education system, hence the concentration on the primary and secondary levels. Whether this limiting report would suffice is still open for debate. The issue of tertiary education is still outstanding. However, the Early Childhood Commission has addressed the pre-primary level in some, but not all important areas. What are further views here?
In the run-up to the general elections last year, education took somewhat centre stage. Whether in manifestos or campaign speeches, we were made to believe that major fundamental changes were imminent. Of course, we had heard the "commitments" several years and times before. Where is the information on the changes, if any, and where are the voices of our parliamentarians, except that of Mr Ronnie Thwaites?
Though not a technical research report, it would have been helpful if some critical assumptions were stated in it or otherwise if assumptions were reformulated into specific recommendations.
For example, the report recommended a performance target of 85 per cent as a national mean score for students sitting the GSAT tests by 2015, but neither assumed overtly that the technical deficiency of the non-equating of the tests year on year would be corrected nor made the recommendation for this to be done. Of course, test equating is of fundamental importance in making comparisons between one cohort of students and another who sit a test. I think the time to examine more closely such fundamental technical issues was unavailable. Notwithstanding, this issue and others need addressing.
There were other issues that could have been raised - and still can. The 14-member task force had a gender imbalance, nine men and five women. I would have preferred to see more women in this team, particularly when we think of their expertise and dedication to education. I also would have preferred to see more people from our universities involved even if this would have necessitated an increase in the membership. For the future, I suggest that such issues be taken more fully into consideration. I suggest, however, that the broader view of the university community on the report be sought now and taken into account over the ten-year period of reform.
We should be concerned that a regulatory framework for the transformation to take place is yet to be addressed or announced. The Education Act and Education Regulations have seen no revisions for decades. These two companion documents provide the regulatory framework in which important changes can be effected without need of recourse by affected persons to time-consuming and costly litigations.
The point is that almost all transformation efforts must contemplate significant changes in the legal framework to facilitate fundamental changes. The rational zoning of schools to enhance efficiency is a specific enabling provision that needs to be addressed in this context, for example. I would argue that any deep-seated reform cannot fit comfortably within the provisions of the 1965 Education Act and the 1980 Education Regulations.
There is the issue also of an enunciated and a visible national mobilisation framework that ensures that the transformation effort gains critical support, traction and momentum. In this sense, support systems outside the education system itself must be brought to bear. The transportation, social welfare and the health and nutrition systems will be pillars of such a support system. Most important, community bodies must be mobilised to lend support and garner goodwill for the reforms. If there are secret actions on these, they should be shared.
The gravamen of the point is that the transformation will not be successful without an articulated and a visible national mobilisation programme and the definition and implementation of a general framework that takes account of major risk factors as these I am identifying. Getting people prepared for the changes and to contribute to them will be vital.
In reassessing the potential of the recommendations to transform the education system, we may wish to look more closely once more at major ones. As we proceed, we should identify those that need reconsideration, that are "good to go", and those that were already being implemented and only need fast -racking.
To start my own reassessment, I would suggest that the target of 60 per cent of the cohort of students attaining Grade 1-3 in 5 C-SEC subjects, including English and mathematics, over a 10-year period be reconsidered. The target was low, if real energy and resources were expected to be put in the transformation process. Perhaps, though, there was no high expectation. Furthermore, almost four years have elapsed since, and a review and re-rendering of this target is necessary.
wesebar@yahoo.com