Tweet
Don't try to shame them, help them
Wesley Barrett
Monday, May 05, 2008
It is well and good to be in cloistered positions and places of privilege where we can deliver positive or negative judgements at will. How rationally and fairly we use the positions we occupy to foster positive changes is quite another matter. In this context, people such as those who write editorials and other columns or who are involved in public commentary ought to weigh and reflect constantly on the impact of their pronouncements and otherwise balanced analysis of the topics that they write or speak on. In this particular regard, I invite reflection on judgements being delivered on some of our high schools by privileged people.
At the secondary level of education, schools are officially categorised as high schools, junior high schools and departments and technical high schools. There is not and never was any traditional high school category. This category was created by some as a convenient way to keep a distinction between the high schools established prior to the 1960s or established ostensibly as "grammar" high schools and those established after. The latter included the comprehensive and technical high schools. When the "new secondary" schools were reclassified as comprehensive high schools and then simply high schools, the reference to "traditional" high schools gained wider usage.
The "new secondary schools" we know were established to focus on vocational education. They received the students who were unsuccessful in gaining a place in the existing high schools. The results on the then Common Entrance Examinations (CEE) were the deciding factor. The replacement examination for the CEE, the Grade Six Achievement Test (GSAT) functioned in one respect as the CEE, that is, as a selection examination for high school places, and the newer established high schools continued to receive the same general profile of students.
But why were the new secondary schools reclassified as high schools and the term "comprehensive" dropped from one school type? One answer was that there was a global trend towards the end of the 20th century to reduce the relatively large number of secondary school types, and Jamaica sought to "weigh in" on that trend. We recall that by the 1970s Jamaica had six secondary school types, namely high schools, technical high schools, comprehensive high schools, new secondary schools, vocational schools and grade 7 to 9 of all-age schools. Jamaica was almost unique in this respect.
In a few cases, some of the newer established high schools were obtaining results comparable to those of some of their counterparts, so the distinction in performance levels was becoming blurred. The rigid classification which had some element of social discrimination had to change at some point. It started late in the 1980s when some of the newer established high schools were reclassified as high schools. What did not change, however, was the relatively low level of funding to the reclassified high schools as well as the deep-seated prejudice against them. The notion of "traditional" and "upgraded" seemed attractive to many.
Remarkably enough, no sooner than the new secondary schools were reclassified, some "bright" mind felt that it would be a brilliant idea to start to compare the external examination results of these schools with those of the longer established high schools. Since then there has even been some grandstanding, not about who has sought to help these schools overcome embedded prejudices and discrimination, but who has pointed out their weaknesses for public derision and shame.
To be reflected on is the fact that a relatively few years ago it was unthinkable by even some present-day commentators that schools such as Haile Selassie, Lewisville, Mile Gully, Cambridge, Black River, Anchovy and Buff Bay secondary schools, among others, could enter students for regional and international examinations, let alone achieve some success however modest. This is not to say that there should not be concern about examination results of these and other schools. We, however, should focus on how all schools can be helped to produce better results. The sooner we drop the term "traditional" the better, as the schools are endeavouring to be anything but traditional in most things while they are all trying to upgrade.
The fact is that the profile of students entering many high schools is a matter of grave concern.
Not only are they not prepared, but they lack adequate support from many people, including many in cloistered offices who will not get involved in parent-teachers' organisations, students' food and nutritional programmes and providing more employment for parents to make it possible that they all keep their children in regular attendance at school. There are other unaddressed ways to support student achievement!
In the recent "ranking mania", some commentators have been making misleading, even damaging comments on the performance of some high schools. Based on the statistics of the 2006 and 2007 Caribbean Secondary Examination Certificate examinations in English and mathematics and the limited analysis, the proposition is made that it would be surprising if some principals did not offer their resignation after looking at such analysis. The suggestion is that the principals and teachers should be ashamed of themselves and take all responsibility for the results. Ironically, the shame ought to be on those who do not try to understand the link between input and output factors but seek only to criticise negatively.
Some questions should help to ventilate the issue. Which principals should think of resigning? What specifically did the principals do or not do to make their school obtain the results they received? Has there been an upward trend in the results for many low-performing schools, say, over a five-year period, taking into account both actual numbers and percentage increase? Are there principals who have just arrived at the schools and have been laying a foundation for better results in the future? Are there any variables outside the control of individual schools?
While we should be concerned about the relatively poor academic performance of many students and schools, we should be careful not to demotivate those who are showing progress and who could do better if provided with some assistance. Furthermore, academic performance in English and mathematics is one and not the only indicator of school success and progress. If we put more emphasis on helping schools to achieve socially and academically rather than shaming them, we could be justly proud of our contribution.
wesebar@yahoo.com
Wesley Barrett
Monday, May 05, 2008
It is well and good to be in cloistered positions and places of privilege where we can deliver positive or negative judgements at will. How rationally and fairly we use the positions we occupy to foster positive changes is quite another matter. In this context, people such as those who write editorials and other columns or who are involved in public commentary ought to weigh and reflect constantly on the impact of their pronouncements and otherwise balanced analysis of the topics that they write or speak on. In this particular regard, I invite reflection on judgements being delivered on some of our high schools by privileged people.
At the secondary level of education, schools are officially categorised as high schools, junior high schools and departments and technical high schools. There is not and never was any traditional high school category. This category was created by some as a convenient way to keep a distinction between the high schools established prior to the 1960s or established ostensibly as "grammar" high schools and those established after. The latter included the comprehensive and technical high schools. When the "new secondary" schools were reclassified as comprehensive high schools and then simply high schools, the reference to "traditional" high schools gained wider usage.
The "new secondary schools" we know were established to focus on vocational education. They received the students who were unsuccessful in gaining a place in the existing high schools. The results on the then Common Entrance Examinations (CEE) were the deciding factor. The replacement examination for the CEE, the Grade Six Achievement Test (GSAT) functioned in one respect as the CEE, that is, as a selection examination for high school places, and the newer established high schools continued to receive the same general profile of students.
But why were the new secondary schools reclassified as high schools and the term "comprehensive" dropped from one school type? One answer was that there was a global trend towards the end of the 20th century to reduce the relatively large number of secondary school types, and Jamaica sought to "weigh in" on that trend. We recall that by the 1970s Jamaica had six secondary school types, namely high schools, technical high schools, comprehensive high schools, new secondary schools, vocational schools and grade 7 to 9 of all-age schools. Jamaica was almost unique in this respect.
In a few cases, some of the newer established high schools were obtaining results comparable to those of some of their counterparts, so the distinction in performance levels was becoming blurred. The rigid classification which had some element of social discrimination had to change at some point. It started late in the 1980s when some of the newer established high schools were reclassified as high schools. What did not change, however, was the relatively low level of funding to the reclassified high schools as well as the deep-seated prejudice against them. The notion of "traditional" and "upgraded" seemed attractive to many.
Remarkably enough, no sooner than the new secondary schools were reclassified, some "bright" mind felt that it would be a brilliant idea to start to compare the external examination results of these schools with those of the longer established high schools. Since then there has even been some grandstanding, not about who has sought to help these schools overcome embedded prejudices and discrimination, but who has pointed out their weaknesses for public derision and shame.
To be reflected on is the fact that a relatively few years ago it was unthinkable by even some present-day commentators that schools such as Haile Selassie, Lewisville, Mile Gully, Cambridge, Black River, Anchovy and Buff Bay secondary schools, among others, could enter students for regional and international examinations, let alone achieve some success however modest. This is not to say that there should not be concern about examination results of these and other schools. We, however, should focus on how all schools can be helped to produce better results. The sooner we drop the term "traditional" the better, as the schools are endeavouring to be anything but traditional in most things while they are all trying to upgrade.
The fact is that the profile of students entering many high schools is a matter of grave concern.
Not only are they not prepared, but they lack adequate support from many people, including many in cloistered offices who will not get involved in parent-teachers' organisations, students' food and nutritional programmes and providing more employment for parents to make it possible that they all keep their children in regular attendance at school. There are other unaddressed ways to support student achievement!
In the recent "ranking mania", some commentators have been making misleading, even damaging comments on the performance of some high schools. Based on the statistics of the 2006 and 2007 Caribbean Secondary Examination Certificate examinations in English and mathematics and the limited analysis, the proposition is made that it would be surprising if some principals did not offer their resignation after looking at such analysis. The suggestion is that the principals and teachers should be ashamed of themselves and take all responsibility for the results. Ironically, the shame ought to be on those who do not try to understand the link between input and output factors but seek only to criticise negatively.
Some questions should help to ventilate the issue. Which principals should think of resigning? What specifically did the principals do or not do to make their school obtain the results they received? Has there been an upward trend in the results for many low-performing schools, say, over a five-year period, taking into account both actual numbers and percentage increase? Are there principals who have just arrived at the schools and have been laying a foundation for better results in the future? Are there any variables outside the control of individual schools?
While we should be concerned about the relatively poor academic performance of many students and schools, we should be careful not to demotivate those who are showing progress and who could do better if provided with some assistance. Furthermore, academic performance in English and mathematics is one and not the only indicator of school success and progress. If we put more emphasis on helping schools to achieve socially and academically rather than shaming them, we could be justly proud of our contribution.
wesebar@yahoo.com