Tweet
Look carefully, Mr Minister
Published: Thursday | July 2, 2009
Keith Noel, Contributor
Noel
The minister of education has, in recent times, found himself laying blame on a number of persons for what he considers the parlous state of our education [COLOR=orange !important][COLOR=orange !important]system[/COLOR][/COLOR]. Every group at whose feet he has laid blame is, in some way, guilty. He also has tried to do his best to rectify the situation by challenging, entreating or threatening those concerned and by making new plans and proposing new schemes.
All well and good, but, before reinventing the wheel, the minister needs to take a long and hard look at the education system we have created. He should look at the decisions taken over the years which have impacted on what we have now.
I am not only speaking of the fact that, as I have pointed out, we have never tried to develop or create a system that particularly served our best interests, but rather about important decisions we have made that have impacted on the quality of our education product - even within the limited parameters we have set ourselves.
In the days when Mico, Shortwood and the other [COLOR=orange !important][COLOR=orange !important]colleges[/COLOR][/COLOR] produced some of the finest teachers in the Caribbean, candidates were trained for four years. In the first three, they were given a general, liberal [COLOR=orange !important][COLOR=orange !important]education[/COLOR][/COLOR] as befitted a teacher; their knowledge base was increased in specific subject areas [especially for those who were planning to teach above the grade seven level] and they were set fairly rigorous examinations. Having passed these, they spent one full year as interns - being monitored and further trained to deal with the realities of the classroom. Then and only then were they certified as teachers.
Sadly, because we could not 'afford the cost' of this programme, teachers' colleges had to restructure what they did in order to certify teachers in three years. To do this, the internship programme was abolished and the actual practice of teaching was to be taught during the course of the school year, in 'teaching practice'. This was not enough! But what was worse is that the time taken for these teaching practice sessions was time that would have been spent on developing the teachers' knowledge base of their subjects and their [COLOR=orange !important][COLOR=orange !important]study[/COLOR][/COLOR] of child psychology and education philosophy and theory.
So we began to send out teachers who, though just as keen, were less trained academically and professionally than they should have been. And these teachers were sent into an education [COLOR=orange !important][COLOR=orange !important]environment[/COLOR][/COLOR] where the job was getting more difficult and the challenges overwhelming.
SCHOOL PLACES
Concurrently the population boom was continuing and the Government found itself playing catch-up, with the provision of school places. Successive governments boasted about the number of schools they built but the places were still never enough. Ironically, there was at the same time a drive to reduce truantism to ensure that all children went to school. So, although some progress was made in providing places the statistics showed that many schools were still overpopulated.
In my over 35 years as a teacher, I am only aware of one occasion on which the teachers have been offered a pay package with which they were satisfied. On every other occasion they had to 'settle' for much less than they wanted. The pay packets of teachers became so small that the 'brain drain' of the brightest, most creative and best began apace. Boards found themselves forced to hire persons who had just barely passed their college exams - exams that were not rigorous enough in the first place! So, persons now argue that some teachers do not deserve even their small salaries.
The 'answer' proposed - to pressure or retrain teachers into better performance - will solve little. We need, among other things, to find the will to ensure that teachers are properly trained and properly examined so that they deserve their wages. And these wages must not be a deterrent to those creative and bright young persons who wish to teach - or those valiant young men and women who are struggling to remain in the profession while it is slowly being overrun by those who are really not competent enough or just 'holding a spot' until something better comes along. Keith Noel is an educator. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.
Published: Thursday | July 2, 2009
Keith Noel, Contributor
Noel
The minister of education has, in recent times, found himself laying blame on a number of persons for what he considers the parlous state of our education [COLOR=orange !important][COLOR=orange !important]system[/COLOR][/COLOR]. Every group at whose feet he has laid blame is, in some way, guilty. He also has tried to do his best to rectify the situation by challenging, entreating or threatening those concerned and by making new plans and proposing new schemes.
All well and good, but, before reinventing the wheel, the minister needs to take a long and hard look at the education system we have created. He should look at the decisions taken over the years which have impacted on what we have now.
I am not only speaking of the fact that, as I have pointed out, we have never tried to develop or create a system that particularly served our best interests, but rather about important decisions we have made that have impacted on the quality of our education product - even within the limited parameters we have set ourselves.
In the days when Mico, Shortwood and the other [COLOR=orange !important][COLOR=orange !important]colleges[/COLOR][/COLOR] produced some of the finest teachers in the Caribbean, candidates were trained for four years. In the first three, they were given a general, liberal [COLOR=orange !important][COLOR=orange !important]education[/COLOR][/COLOR] as befitted a teacher; their knowledge base was increased in specific subject areas [especially for those who were planning to teach above the grade seven level] and they were set fairly rigorous examinations. Having passed these, they spent one full year as interns - being monitored and further trained to deal with the realities of the classroom. Then and only then were they certified as teachers.
Sadly, because we could not 'afford the cost' of this programme, teachers' colleges had to restructure what they did in order to certify teachers in three years. To do this, the internship programme was abolished and the actual practice of teaching was to be taught during the course of the school year, in 'teaching practice'. This was not enough! But what was worse is that the time taken for these teaching practice sessions was time that would have been spent on developing the teachers' knowledge base of their subjects and their [COLOR=orange !important][COLOR=orange !important]study[/COLOR][/COLOR] of child psychology and education philosophy and theory.
So we began to send out teachers who, though just as keen, were less trained academically and professionally than they should have been. And these teachers were sent into an education [COLOR=orange !important][COLOR=orange !important]environment[/COLOR][/COLOR] where the job was getting more difficult and the challenges overwhelming.
SCHOOL PLACES
Concurrently the population boom was continuing and the Government found itself playing catch-up, with the provision of school places. Successive governments boasted about the number of schools they built but the places were still never enough. Ironically, there was at the same time a drive to reduce truantism to ensure that all children went to school. So, although some progress was made in providing places the statistics showed that many schools were still overpopulated.
In my over 35 years as a teacher, I am only aware of one occasion on which the teachers have been offered a pay package with which they were satisfied. On every other occasion they had to 'settle' for much less than they wanted. The pay packets of teachers became so small that the 'brain drain' of the brightest, most creative and best began apace. Boards found themselves forced to hire persons who had just barely passed their college exams - exams that were not rigorous enough in the first place! So, persons now argue that some teachers do not deserve even their small salaries.
The 'answer' proposed - to pressure or retrain teachers into better performance - will solve little. We need, among other things, to find the will to ensure that teachers are properly trained and properly examined so that they deserve their wages. And these wages must not be a deterrent to those creative and bright young persons who wish to teach - or those valiant young men and women who are struggling to remain in the profession while it is slowly being overrun by those who are really not competent enough or just 'holding a spot' until something better comes along. Keith Noel is an educator. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.
Comment