Those who have been observing the education scene over many years would not have been surprised about another “flare-up” concerning teacher-pupil ratios. It is cyclical, particularly when the state is under severe financial stress. Remember in the 1980s when not only was there a storm about overstaffing but some primary schools were closed? It was said that they were “uneconomical” to operate because of low enrolments. At the end of the 1990s moves were made to “separate” some teachers from their posts because of “overstaffing” in some schools. The matter was partially settled in the courts. Whether there is another round brewing is left to be seen.

What is interesting in this last round of discussion is that the figure of 1,500 teachers cited as being in oversupply was the precise number that some overseas consultants calculated and came up with in 1998 when there was a strategic review of the education ministry. Then the figures were contested and found to be flawed. The subsequent court battle on the matter is now history, but the issue is still alive and well.

We probably know little about the history of setting teacher-pupil ratios (this should make interesting study by our economic and educational historians), but we know for sure that it is of the greatest interest to governments. Instinctively, governments would like to hold these ratios as long as possible when they are high, or even increase them. By doing so, the major cost to run the education system either would remain constant or would fall relatively. The fact is that many governments, if not most, tell themselves that it is painful to increase the budgetary allocations for teachers’ salaries. They feel that increasing allocations because of reduced ratios is excruciating. Generally, the ratios have often been reduced when governments find it impossible to resist the demand for such reductions by the teachers and their associations!

The teacher-pupil ratio issue is taken so seriously that it is often codified. Who remembers the long-standing 1:55 ratio for primary schools? It literally took hundreds of days of advocacy and meetings by the Jamaica Teachers’ Association to have this reduced to the present 1:35. Of course, this ratio represented a compromise out of the legal battle between the government and the JTA at the beginning of the decade. More important, the existing ratio should be compared with that of Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, the Bahamas and New Zealand where it is less than 1:20.

In the Cayman Islands, the ratio is approximately 1:13. It is lower in Bermuda. These ratios are considered to be necessary in order to provide “more time to focus on individual needs” as the government of New Zealand stated when it vowed to bring the ratio to at least 1:15 by 2008. It further asserted that it will “help make the foundation for learning even stronger”. We can hardly disagree with these ideas. Generally, the younger the age group, the lower the teacher-pupil ratio should be, even when we take into consideration the fact that there are some outstanding teachers who can cope with relatively high ratios. These teachers are relatively few in number, however.

We should consider some real and practical issues in debating the issue of teacher-pupil ratios. To plan and to make budgetary allocations for teacher compensation, the number of teachers must be known and the number is usually derived from set ratios. When the ratios are low, the compensation package will be relatively high. This situation is always a problem to most governments which are strapped for funds or who do not necessarily want to meet higher compensation packages, even when they are receiving value for money.

Many governments usually prefer to keep expenditure for public officers, including teachers and nurses, at the lowest level. They always cite the large number of teachers involved, but forget the large and often difficult number of students the teachers have under their care. In these days of gross indiscipline in schools, the teacher’s job is even more daunting when classes are large.

In pleading inability to pay higher compensations, except when it is a case of some favoured public officers who can’t be offended or insulted with “average” or reasonable packages, many governments tend to keep ratios fixed for long periods even though the situation warrants change. Thus in Jamaica and some other countries teacher-pupil ratios have been kept high for many reasons, including that of “inability” to meet increased compensation deriving from lower ratios.

What is not always considered is the fact that the main stakeholders – the students – generally suffer the consequences of relatively high ratios. In the absence of adequate technological tools and materials needed to facilitate teaching and learning effectively, the education of many students is stunted because of high ratios. Early childhood grades up to grade 2 of primary schools are particularly negatively affected by such ratios. It should not surprise anyone then that weak performances at the early childhood and primary levels, because of too high teacher-pupil ratios, eventually affect performance negatively at the secondary level.

Maintaining high ratios to restrict increases in total compensation packages could be penny wise and pound foolish whether applied in the schools or hospitals. Output from teachers and their students could be severely affected with high ratios. On the other hand, ratios cannot be reduced to the level where a teacher has so few students that the teacher has time on hand to do other things not related to teaching the children. The matter of budget constraints is also a legitimate concern. This suggests that teachers and their employers must come together to determine what ratios are optimal in the circumstances and what is affordable. Compromises have to be made.

The debate presents an opportunity to review the bases of setting teacher-pupil ratios. In cases of subject teaching, ratios based on the fundamental significance of the subject and the relative difficulty in teaching it should be considered. The teaching of priority subjects such as reading literacy, mathematics and a modern language or subjects that have relatively limited scope for practical application should create different teacher-pupil ratios. There are others as well but we will consider these later.

wesebar@yahoo.com