Tweet
40 years of accessible education
Michael Burke
Thursday, May 02, 2013
EXACTLY 40 years ago to the day, then Prime Minister Michael Manley announced that, as of September that year, the Government would be embarking upon a system of free education in Jamaica. He was making his contribution to the budget debate. This was an extension of the Common Entrance scholarships that were first granted in 1957 when his father, Norman Washington Manley, was premier of Jamaica.
During the first ten years of political Independence the government, under Bustamante then Sangster then Shearer, at a time when Edwin Allen was minister of education, set up the Junior Secondary Schools, (now called the new high schools). In the 1980s, when Edward Seaga was prime minister, an education tax was introduced. Later in the 1980s a cess was re-introduced at the tertiary level. In the 1990s, when the PNP had returned to power, cost-sharing was introduced at the secondary level.
The late Wilmot Perkins was opposed to free education. In 1989, when the PNP returned to power, Perkins asked Michael Manley on radio if he planned to re-introduce free education. Manley said that there would have to be re-thinking on it and clearly those who could afford to pay should pay. What has never been clear to me is whether this reversal of the PNP's fundamental position — which goes back to Norman — had to do with a conditionality of the International Monetary Fund.
It is true that education in a sense remains free, because successive ministers of education have announced time and again that no child is to be turned out of any school because of non-payment of fees. Still, students and parents alike complain that school administrations continue to ignore the announcement and send home children in flagrant breach of the will and wish of education ministers. At the same time, I am well aware of the benefit of cash coming into the schools to deal with infrastructure and other problems.
But the free education, at least on paper, has been used as a political football over the years. When the partial free education (the Common Entrance Scholarships) were introduced by the Norman Manley Government in 1957, comments like "salt fish is better that education", and we don't want scholarship, what we want is sugarship" were bandied about in the JLP circles. But by 1980, part of the plank of the same JLP was the schools that were "built by labour". And the PNP, after continuing the cess which expanded into cost-sharing, had to endure the about-turn in position of the same "sugarship" JLP campaigning for free education in 2002.
And the JLP acted as if the idea of free education came from them. That is because election campaigns are all about what the people want. In 1957 our people did not yet appreciate the value of free education. By 2002, just about everyone did. The JLP said it was re-introducing free education and at least one PNP MP spoke out against it. I did not even know that it was possible for a sitting PNP MP to make such a comment when free education was part of the heartbeat of the PNP, especially under the Manleys.
But after 40 years of full accessible education, we should revisit the structure of the education system. Why is education so content-based today when much of that can be had on the Internet? Why aren't we emphasising personality and character development? There are very serious problems in our society which can only be addressed in school because of the absence of workable family units. Family life is absent, indiscipline is rampant, and the list could go on.
I should make the point, however, that any de-emphasising of content should not be to the detriment of the passing on of history. Indeed, the education system should be the place where students can get a proper gist of our history for sociological reasons and also more importantly, to understand and appreciate the positives that have been achieved over the years, especially since political Independence. But certainly much of the other information such as geography, management studies, and so on, even a certain amount of mathematics can be taken from the Internet.
And education in some disciplines needs to be revisited at the tertiary level also. It is absolute nonsense for so-called top historians not to have an understanding of the sociological framework of Jamaica, let alone unable to use the very history that they claim sufficient brilliance to understand. Likewise, it is nonsense for sociologists, when tackled on matters of history that relate directly to sociology, to use as their defence that they are sociologists and not historians. This happens too often, and I have experienced people in either discipline who have no clue about the other.
The problem is that none of these issues are likely to affect the voting pattern. Unfortunately in this country, it is not likely that anything will ever be done about anything unless there is a groundswell of public opinion. And because of that, it is a problem with getting any type of change.
In any event there is too much politics in education to ever get meaningful change.
It was only last week that there was a news item somewhere that Education Minister Deacon Ronnie Thwaites made a public statement asking people to volunteer to be board members. This is a welcome announcement because it is a sign that they are taking politics out of education and appointing, instead, some volunteers. But is this so or just a smokescreen to appoint political henchmen?
Early last year I heard that there was a vacancy on the Jamaica College board, one that was to be filled by a nomination by the minister of education, not the interest groups in the school. I volunteered, but the post was given to a politician. But assuming that the minister made the correct choice, let it never be said that I did not volunteer.
ekrubm765@yahoo.com
Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...#ixzz2S8Wu8dwR
The JC boy strikes!!!
Comment