Tweet
Education recommendations of 1974
Wesley Barrett
Monday, April 09, 2007
The cynic observing the behaviour or functioning of our education system over the last 30 years should not be harshly criticised if he concludes that "the more things change, the more they remain the same". Frankly, such a conclusion would not be absolutely correct since some things have changed for the better, but regrettably some have changed for the worse. We observe that over the last 40 years political administrations have either modified or discarded educational programmes they inherited. In the long run, however, many conditions and educational outcomes have had little positive change or have remained the same.
Successive governments have commissioned studies which have produced sound recommendations to address problems, but inaction or feeble action on many of the recommendations has resulted in things remaining the same. The inaction can be explained by a lack of resources, lack of will or both.
To illustrate, I am reproducing here and over the next few weeks some of the recommendations of commissioned studies of the past. Readers may use them to judge whether some critical things in the education system have changed or have remained the same. For this article, only one study will be cited. It was a study led by 20th-century educational thinker and University of the West Indies professor of education, the late Reginald Murray. His committee included leading Jamaican educators of all time Dr P MacPherson-Russell, Faye Saunders, Dr Aubrey S Phillips, A Wesley Powell, DRB Grant, SW ************an and Rev Lewis Davidson.
In 1972 then minister of education Florizel Glasspole commissioned the study which required the committee to (1) do an in-depth study of the present primary school system (2) report on whether the existing system provides an adequate base for secondary education (3) make recommendations for such improvement as may be necessary to provide an adequate base for secondary education as well as to enrich the quality of primary education in itself.
It was unquestionably one of the most in-depth studies ever done of any level of the education system in Jamaica. It produced a very concise, cogent and comprehensive report, "Report Indepth of Primary Education in Jamaica" (1974).
The areas covered included (a) the teacher in the society (b) the teacher in the school (c) the curriculum (d) reading (e) teacher education (f) instructional materials (g) staff and staffing (h) supervision and evaluation (i) the shift system and (j) adequate facilities for elementary school children, among others. There was an average of about six recommendations on each area.
On the broad issue of "educating the masses" the committee recommended, among other things, (1) "That a system of suasion strengthened by selective compulsion be planned and instituted with a view to ensuring that pupils for whom the necessities are provided do attend school regularly. That a study be undertaken to determine by what phases full compulsory attendance can be achieved" Well!
(2) "That after 1976 no pupil be allowed to leave the primary school unless he (she) can read to at least Reading Stage 1V" and (3) "That reading and English be declared a national priority in primary schools, and means be found to evaluate the status of these subjects in each school annually" were two of the recommendations made in addressing the area of reading. Let us assess where we are on these.
On the question of instructional materials, the committee recommended, among other things, that "The range of instructional materials provided should be increased in order to support a student-centred concept of education" and "The allocation of money for instructional materials should be increased substantially". Do we have to make the same recommendation today? What is our assessment of the present status of these subjects in our schools?
The "staff and staffing" recommendations included the following: "That teachers be asked to list the clerical and non-professional work they do, estimate the amount of time spent doing it and indicate what they would do instead if they had clerical assistance. This would be a guide in changing staff patterns in primary schools", and "That a study based on reorganising instruction be undertaken to provide for many variations of grouping of pupils for instructional purposes and independent study". There have been positive changes in terms of providing clerical assistance to many primary schools over time, but have the changes been adequate? Are all schools provided for? Is the recommendation for the study on reorganising instruction still valid today?
To make a significant intervention in teacher effectiveness in the classroom the committee recommended that "a systematic in-service education programme for teachers be organised, with built-in incentives and terminal objectives aimed at improving teaching competence in making the pupils functionally literate and sensitising the teachers to the needs, values and realities of the child in the society. The term "functional literacy" is used to encompass communication, reading and basic "numeracy" and "that all teachers be required to attend at least three such in-service education programmes within every five years of teaching service, and no teacher may earn more than two increments without attending these programmes".
Because curriculum was and is so crucial at the national and local level, the committee was minded to recommend that "each area or zone of supervision be provided with a Materials Centre where education officers and teachers can meet to plan and develop instructional materials, confer on and perform other professional tasks such as developing curriculum suited to the area or zone and identifying community resources for teaching-learning activities". Is action on this still not outstanding?
An interim report of the committee had recommended "that the Ministry of Education make a complete, if rough, projection of a desirable education service and cost it, so that the public may obtain a clearer idea of the magnitude of the problem". Of course, 30 years later, that is in 2004, the Task Force on Educational Reform proposed a costing!
All the recommendations required some modest to large amount of resources but these have not been provided to the extent required over the last 30 years. I will share other recommendations next time. Till then, have a peaceful Easter holiday.
wesebar@yahoo.com
Wesley Barrett
Monday, April 09, 2007
The cynic observing the behaviour or functioning of our education system over the last 30 years should not be harshly criticised if he concludes that "the more things change, the more they remain the same". Frankly, such a conclusion would not be absolutely correct since some things have changed for the better, but regrettably some have changed for the worse. We observe that over the last 40 years political administrations have either modified or discarded educational programmes they inherited. In the long run, however, many conditions and educational outcomes have had little positive change or have remained the same.
Successive governments have commissioned studies which have produced sound recommendations to address problems, but inaction or feeble action on many of the recommendations has resulted in things remaining the same. The inaction can be explained by a lack of resources, lack of will or both.
To illustrate, I am reproducing here and over the next few weeks some of the recommendations of commissioned studies of the past. Readers may use them to judge whether some critical things in the education system have changed or have remained the same. For this article, only one study will be cited. It was a study led by 20th-century educational thinker and University of the West Indies professor of education, the late Reginald Murray. His committee included leading Jamaican educators of all time Dr P MacPherson-Russell, Faye Saunders, Dr Aubrey S Phillips, A Wesley Powell, DRB Grant, SW ************an and Rev Lewis Davidson.
In 1972 then minister of education Florizel Glasspole commissioned the study which required the committee to (1) do an in-depth study of the present primary school system (2) report on whether the existing system provides an adequate base for secondary education (3) make recommendations for such improvement as may be necessary to provide an adequate base for secondary education as well as to enrich the quality of primary education in itself.
It was unquestionably one of the most in-depth studies ever done of any level of the education system in Jamaica. It produced a very concise, cogent and comprehensive report, "Report Indepth of Primary Education in Jamaica" (1974).
The areas covered included (a) the teacher in the society (b) the teacher in the school (c) the curriculum (d) reading (e) teacher education (f) instructional materials (g) staff and staffing (h) supervision and evaluation (i) the shift system and (j) adequate facilities for elementary school children, among others. There was an average of about six recommendations on each area.
On the broad issue of "educating the masses" the committee recommended, among other things, (1) "That a system of suasion strengthened by selective compulsion be planned and instituted with a view to ensuring that pupils for whom the necessities are provided do attend school regularly. That a study be undertaken to determine by what phases full compulsory attendance can be achieved" Well!
(2) "That after 1976 no pupil be allowed to leave the primary school unless he (she) can read to at least Reading Stage 1V" and (3) "That reading and English be declared a national priority in primary schools, and means be found to evaluate the status of these subjects in each school annually" were two of the recommendations made in addressing the area of reading. Let us assess where we are on these.
On the question of instructional materials, the committee recommended, among other things, that "The range of instructional materials provided should be increased in order to support a student-centred concept of education" and "The allocation of money for instructional materials should be increased substantially". Do we have to make the same recommendation today? What is our assessment of the present status of these subjects in our schools?
The "staff and staffing" recommendations included the following: "That teachers be asked to list the clerical and non-professional work they do, estimate the amount of time spent doing it and indicate what they would do instead if they had clerical assistance. This would be a guide in changing staff patterns in primary schools", and "That a study based on reorganising instruction be undertaken to provide for many variations of grouping of pupils for instructional purposes and independent study". There have been positive changes in terms of providing clerical assistance to many primary schools over time, but have the changes been adequate? Are all schools provided for? Is the recommendation for the study on reorganising instruction still valid today?
To make a significant intervention in teacher effectiveness in the classroom the committee recommended that "a systematic in-service education programme for teachers be organised, with built-in incentives and terminal objectives aimed at improving teaching competence in making the pupils functionally literate and sensitising the teachers to the needs, values and realities of the child in the society. The term "functional literacy" is used to encompass communication, reading and basic "numeracy" and "that all teachers be required to attend at least three such in-service education programmes within every five years of teaching service, and no teacher may earn more than two increments without attending these programmes".
Because curriculum was and is so crucial at the national and local level, the committee was minded to recommend that "each area or zone of supervision be provided with a Materials Centre where education officers and teachers can meet to plan and develop instructional materials, confer on and perform other professional tasks such as developing curriculum suited to the area or zone and identifying community resources for teaching-learning activities". Is action on this still not outstanding?
An interim report of the committee had recommended "that the Ministry of Education make a complete, if rough, projection of a desirable education service and cost it, so that the public may obtain a clearer idea of the magnitude of the problem". Of course, 30 years later, that is in 2004, the Task Force on Educational Reform proposed a costing!
All the recommendations required some modest to large amount of resources but these have not been provided to the extent required over the last 30 years. I will share other recommendations next time. Till then, have a peaceful Easter holiday.
wesebar@yahoo.com