In my previous two articles, I argued the case for a quality primary education from different perspectives. Looked at broadly, I was arguing a case also for early childhood and secondary education. You see, primary education is situated influentially at the interface of early childhood and secondary education. It exerts influence in both directions. If primary education is malfunctioning, then one possible cause would be the inadequate preparation at the early childhood education level. This would prompt an assessment of the early childhood programme with follow-up action.

On the other hand, if there are dysfunctions at the primary level that are not corrected, many of these will inevitably be transferred to the secondary level with dire consequences. A strong primary programme enhances success at the succeeding level and reduces the need for, and cost of remediation.

Let us agree on some issues. The need for remediation is always there, but its magnitude can be controlled and limited with early diagnostic systems. Secondly, the cost to remediate at higher levels of the education system increases in magnitude. In particular, it is vastly more expensive to remediate at the secondary level than at the primary level. If resources are limitless, then we can remediate at both levels at will. However, since resources are finite, choices have to be made and the choice should be in favour of the lower level. This suggests that all efforts should be exerted to bring to an absolute minimum the need for remediation at the secondary level on the one hand, and to increase to the maximum the achievement at the primary level.

The potential and real influence of primary education requires more elaboration here. When young children move to our primary schools, the weaknesses of their early childhood school experiences and programmes show up within the first year or two. This has been our experience over several years now. Prompt referrals to the early childhood institutions for corrective measures within their control could have improved the situation, but such actions have not always been taken. Those without the control of the schools have feebly been addressed so far by the state, despite the gallant efforts of the Early Childhood Commission and other bodies.

The potential influence of the primary level is not normally exploited. Officially, there is no requirement for constant dialogue and feedback between early childhood and primary schools on issues of programmes and transition. That is not to say that dialogue between some receiving and sending schools does not take place, but it is more a matter of choice and convenience on the part of particular primary and early childhood school heads. That said, it is necessary for some policy formulation on the issue of interfacing of primary and early childhood institutions, particularly where a relatively large number of students may be involved.

If effective recovery programmes are not implemented at the primary level before the students progress to the secondary level, then recovery becomes highly unlikely or even impossible. This has been the experience. Getting it right the first time is possible, but such a strategy seemed not to have been the preferred one as shown up in the many remedial programmes that are being implemented or proposed. To a great extent, primary education breaks or makes secondary education but it is now more the breaking than the making. The fact is that full empowerment, like some financial debts, have been rescheduled time and time again leaving many primary schools on hard times.

If research is done or updated on reading illiteracy in Jamaica at this time, it will almost certainly show links with the inadequate coverage of quality primary education. This will be so because the primary schools as a whole have not been provided the support that will make them all strong in the basic literacies. Perhaps because they have been with us for almost our entire history, they have been taken for granted by many who should empower them. The situation should change dramatically.

Apart from exerting positive influence on early childhood and secondary education, one other reason suggested here for primary education to be kept a priority sector is that it actually caters for a significant proportion of the early childhood sector. The fact is that seven and eight year olds are regarded internationally as part of the early childhood cohort. (This cohort is from birth to eight years.) Thus children in grades 1 and 2 of our primary schools are in the early childhood cohort. In our case there are well over 100,000 students in grades 1 and 2 of our primary schools. Their needs must be addressed by our primary schools, which are tasked dually with completing the education of the early childhood cohort and preparing students for secondary. They are truly critical.

The twin focus for our education system at this time should be early childhood and primary education. We are seeing an increasing need for remediation at the secondary level and it results partly from the weak bases of early childhood and primary education. For the immediate future, the first eight years of education should therefore be given pride of place in funding and general support.

Having said all of this, I would recommend the following for action without delay by the authorities:

* Renew the call for widespread support for primary and early childhood education supported by planned conferences.

* Continue to renew the curricula for the primary grades.

* Implement compulsory attendance at the primary level.

* Ensure at least 95 per cent success rate at each grade in the primary school.

* Develop and implement a programme for the integration of technology in teaching and learning at the primary grades comparable to the present programme being delivered at the secondary level by Mico University College.

* Maintain the model of joint community and government funding for early childhood education with government’s contribution for quality inputs such as teacher training and curricular programmes increasing.

* Starting in fiscal 2010, set out clearly the increments of budgetary support for primary education and make reasonable provisions for monitoring.

*Do not drop the focus on primary education for any other level at this time.

Despite the IMF conditionalities I hope primary education will receive more attention and resources in 2010.

wesebar@yahoo.com