Education reform

[Don1]

Dumpling, Dumpling, Dumpling - Why we must change the Caribbean education system

Published: Sunday | January 24, 2010


Ruel Reid, Contributor

My colleague Peter Espeut has inspired me to respond to his comments, 'Change the system', Gleaner, January 15 ) about the critique of the CXC exams by Education Minister Andrew Holness. As one who serves at so many levels of the education system and a master teacher, I would like to enter the debate.

I was proud to have attended the launch of the new initiative, Career Advancement
Programme (CAP), by the minister, Mr Holness. Essentially, the principle involves extending the school-leaving age to 18 and adding two more grades to the system at grades 12 and 13.

According to Simon Sine, great leaders inspire everyone to take action by "starting with 'why'". So, let's ask, why do we have the current system of education? As Penwood High School principal, Austin Burrell, said in his remarks, "Why is it that there is so much change around us in technology and process re-engineering and we cannot make changes to our education system, too?". So we adopted the British elite system of education that started by limiting access. Examinations like O' and A' levels were designed as entrance exams to feed into the then Oxbridge universities. These exams were not criterion referenced. They were group-reference tests following the normal bell curve. This meant that it was set so that only a limited number of the population would qualify to obtain grades 'A' to 'C', but it was also at a time that the British economy did not require a large pool of certified workers. The world then was quite content with manual uncertified labour. However, this is the system that we have adopted in the British Caribbean.

Formal education

Further, traditionally, we felt that formal education should begin at age six or seven. Research has since shown the importance of early childhood development and learning stimulation as necessary for a child to develop the cognitive capacity for learning. Indeed, in these early years, the development of language takes place. A young child can be taught many different languages at ages three to eight. Before this knowledge, many of our colleagues in the Caribbean who did well under this system were the exceptional students. We still need to resolve how we transition students from their dialect background to Standard English.

So, after all these 30 years of CXC and the British model, in the 2009 results, for all the students in high schools, only 60 per cent sat any CXC exams across the participating countries. Only 25 per cent sat five or more subjects at any one time, while only 12.7 per cent received grades 1-111 in five or more subjects. This means that over 75 per cent of these Caribbean students did not achieve the desired standard. Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago all had less than 50 per cent of the students who sat these examinations gaining less than grade 111 certification in mathematics. The regional average for those who sat English language was 66 per cent, with Barbados gaining approximately 70 per cent.

This is not a Jamaican problem alone. This is a systemic problem. So, it is against this background that our minister of education must ask the question, why do we continue with this system? What must we do to fix it? The minister has a full grasp of the factors that go into the transformation of the education system.

The key elements involve resources, teacher training and effectiveness, curriculum review and rationalisation, effective early-childhood programme, and a literacy transition model to the secondary level. That is making sure that all students who are going on to the secondary system are prepared. It also includes redesigning the secondary education system, consistent with present international benchmarks. CXC or GCE are not the only examining bodies in the world. In fact, among the top Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, the British model gets the least students into the ter-tiary system. Most OECD countries extend their school-leaving age to grade 12 or 13 for all students. In Finland - the system is the model I much prefer - they have the lower secondary up to grade 11, and then they have the upper-secondary system. Students are assessed and streamed into programmes for which they are ready. Finland has the best- performing education system. Why not model them?

Our analysis of the current system is that we are using CSEC to certify students to enter tertiary institutions at age 16. Should that be the only purpose of the secondary system? What we should have is a synergistic curriculum that starts from early childhood to secondary, with appropriate scope and sequence. The education system and assessment examinations should be led by a curriculum, and not by an examination body. The flip side of this is that we have more students now than spaces for programmes such as law and medicine. Many more students are meeting the criteria, but because of limited access they can't get in. We have a space constraint. So we need universal secondary and universal tertiary with enough diversity to meet the needs of our students. We need a continuous-assessment paradigm and a lifelong-learning paradigm; different pathways for students to develop their full potential.

So, to adapt to this new-knowledge eco-nomy, we need to extend the educational experience of our students to age 18, and beyond, and prepare them for the world of work first, and for tertiary education. I have no problem if we want to let all students do the Caribbean Certificate of Secondary Level Competence (CCSLC) as a prerequisite for the Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC). Equally, not all jobs require CSEC as an entry qualification. What is required from employers is that the worker is certified for the job that he is required to do. This is now the Finnish, Asian and Singaporean model. CCSLC, NVG, CVQ or City and Guilds are all alternatives to CSEC.

As under the GCE O' level system, not all students will achieve at the same pace at age 16. In fact, developmentally, more students would do better if they were sitting CSEC at age 18 or 19. Hence, when our students succeed in our system, they can go anywhere else in the world and do well. We need, through the CAP programme, to give all our students the opportunity to realise their dreams. I looked at the CXC website and it says grades 1-111 are acceptable for tertiary qualification, but grade IV should be acceptable for entry-level jobs. So why did we have the CXC basic exams?

Educational achievement

Sorry to disabuse us that CSEC English language is not a test of literacy. While I was at Munro College, as master teacher, the students who were in our grade 12 programme who did not get grades 1-111 in English at CSEC were allowed to sit the GCE English Language paper and they all obtained a grade 'A'. This was after we used CAPE Communication Studies and Caribbean Studies to improve their communication skills and self-confidence. For equity
also, we have to introduce the school-based assessment for CSEC mathematics and English language.

I am looking forward to HEART establishing workforce colleges to give our students even more pathways to educational achievement and certification for the world of work.

Yes, let's ask, why? The minister is right - the way we have used CXC in the Caribbean needs revision. In the same way we transformed the tertiary sector to introduce course work and the semester system, we need also to revise the secondary system, or we will retain an elitist system and be perpetually left behind developmentally.

Equifinality - The same end but different pathways. Some can swallow a whole 'dumpling', but others could do so by cutting it into pieces and having one piece at a time. Let your hearts not be troubled, we are not saying do away with CXC.

Ruel Reid is chairman of the National Council on Education. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.

[Karl]

Nice post!
Weh Jawge deh?

[Karl]

Revisiting and checking the primary education goal

Revisiting and checking the primary education goal
WESLEY BARRETT


Monday, January 25, 2010



THE year 2010 is an important one for the international social services community. As such, it should be of much significance to our own educational ministry as well as to other ministries that address social service issues. The issue that cuts across social services is the set of eight Millennium Development Goals. These were enunciated in 2000 and the date set for their achievement is 2015. In 2010, two-thirds of the time would have elapsed with only one-third remaining. A pertinent question then is how well have we been proceeding to realise these goals as well as others we have set for ourselves.


The most relevant goal to the education sector is the one that deals with primary education. The goal is to "achieve universal primary education". Many will react sharply by saying that Jamaica achieved this goal several years ago. The reason put forward is that there has been 100 per cent access to primary schooling and that there is full enrolment even above 100 per cent. Some children of secondary school age may still be counted in the primary education statistics.



The claim about our achieving universal primary education is debatable if we accept the two main dimensions of access, which are (a) provision and (b) participation. The latter is always glossed over but is most crucial. Yes, the state might have provided buildings, even poor quality ones, as well as teachers for the primary school age cohort, but whether students are actively participating in the programmes provided is quite another matter. The fact is that despite numerous strategies, on an average only round about 80 per cent of primary school age children are attending or participating. The truth is that access is merely theoretical without strong evidence of active participation by the entire cohort.


If the attendance or participation rate were bad enough, when we examine the attainment levels we see that the picture is worse and worrying. The mastery rate of reading literacy for example is below 60 per cent. When we consider the intent of the goal that goes beyond enrolment figures and space provided, we see that meeting the goal of quality universal primary education by 2015 is a daunting task if all hands are not brought on board for the exacting tasks involved.


Perhaps we should remind ourselves about the concept of primary education. A World Bank Policy Paper entitled, "Primary Education" (1990), argues that "the central purpose of primary education is twofold: to produce a literate and numerate population and to lay the groundwork for further education". To date, primary education is doing neither, or better expressed, not facilitated or made to do neither. It is interesting to hear that there are improvements, but more interesting would be knowledge that we will meet the primary education millennium goal defined here by 2015.



There has been a tendency to shift focus from primary education to secondary education, with even plans to extend the latter to age 18. For many years now we have been telling ourselves that we have achieved universal primary education and so we should shift focus to secondary education. Surely we should have a focus on secondary education but not to the exclusion of primary education. What would be most prudent is if we shift to a "higher gear" in driving quality primary education while we set our sights on quality secondary and tertiary education.



Our work in primary education is far from complete and we should revisit the millennium goal for primary education with a view of reinterpreting it. The new interpretation should be quality primary education for all. Until we achieve this goal along with quality early childhood education, there is no hope of achieving widespread quality secondary education and beyond. Primary education is the cornerstone of formal education and should reach everyone. That is not happening, like it or not. We should do something more about it now.


Another pertinent issue is the provision of adequate data and information on education to the public. It is no longer sufficient for the authorities to "tell the public" what our achievements have been. The new dispensation of open governance requires the public to be provided, in an easily digestible form, key data and linked information that affect their life. The cost of such provision could be an issue but ways and means must be found to provide the linked data that can be accessed cost effectively. We bear in mind the main characteristics of any good data set, that is, timeliness, relevance, comprehensiveness and trustworthiness.



Information or data on students' performance on tests should be accompanied for example by timely and accurate information about the tests themselves in respect of broad content area and depth of treatment. Armed with knowledge of test content, orientation and rigour, interested persons can decide for themselves any real performance improvement. You see improved statistics can be obtained from tests that are not necessarily of much rigour and relevance. When that happens, complacency sets in. Alert and knowledgeable people can be helpful then in influencing real and positive change in the statistics, but only if they are provided the complete data set and evidence.


A third issue is whether in introducing additional programmes to address the problems at hand, the impression is conveyed that the programmes are revolutionary, new and sure to produce the desired results. The fact is that at best we can only guess outcomes and be willing to use with utmost caution some results that emerge. The authorities should carefully consider therefore if programmes are announced that give the image of quick fixes and unprecedented innovations.



More troubling is the fact that announced programmes are not given enough time for absorption, reflection and discussion. It is coming across too that at last we have found the illusive solutions of yester year. I would caution restraint in any premature pronouncement on the efficacy of programmes that are not yet rigorously tested for their logic, let alone effectiveness. Though well intentioned, the initiatives taken require the input of the larger population and an assurance about funding. This should be clearly understood.


Needed in 2010/11 is a clear roadmap with mileposts for the achievement of universal quality primary education. The mounting of participative fora will likely reveal significant areas for intervention and prompt action that will speak louder than the words. I recommend this.



wesebar@yahoo.com



http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...Jan-25_7347111

[Jawge]

Karl it's good that certain aspects of the education system is being questioned. We must now ask ourselves: are we serious about progress? It's pointless improving your education system, restructuring your social, economic, and political system when as an island you are at quarrell with one of the biggest traders in the world. You are only setting yourself up for insatbility and social upheaval. Ja needs some new minds in its leadership; SIMPLE.