Dear Editor,

In 2019 the Grade Six Achievement Test (GSAT) will be replaced by the much-vaunted Primary Exit Profile (PEP). The latter is expected to transform the educational landscape by enabling students to become critical thinkers. Unlike GSAT, the PEP will comprise school-based assessments and short answer questions requiring students to justify their responses.

On paper it appears that this exam will prepare our students for a globally competitive economy, demanding them to be analytical thinkers. Notwithstanding, the impending roll-out of PEP has not been without controversy. Teachers are arguing that they have not been sufficiently prepared to administer the new curriculum that will commence next year. On the other hand parents are of the view that PEP will be too challenging for primary level students. Both arguments have merit, but the bigger issue is that PEP has not taken into account the socio-economic features of the country or the ability of teachers to deliver the curriculum.

Students from the poorer echelons of society were never at a disadvantage because of GSAT. For example, such students with limited parental support could always work hard and pass the GSAT. But PEP is an entirely different ball game. Preparing for this exam requires having superior research skills and access to the Internet. Jamaica has an Internet penetration rate of 55 per cent, according to recent research. Therefore, nearly 50 per cent of the population has no access to the Internet in their homes. Home-based Internet users are disproportionately residents of middle-class communities. Hence poorer students who lack this amenity at home are at a disadvantage economically and intellectually.

Since PEP will require Internet-based research, these students will have to find the extra cash to attend the library and endure the added inconvenience of possibly slow computers or in some instances overcrowding.

Though GSAT covered a wide array of topics it rightfully tested content and not analysis. At the primary level students ought to develop an appreciation for the content before they can analyse it. Pupils from the lower socio-economic strata will definitely need more assistance to master the PEP. Whereas with GSAT they could help themselves, PEP will force them to depend on adult knowledge that could be lacking at home.

Furthermore the greatest obstacle to the implementation of PEP is the suitability of teachers to deliver the curriculum. In 2012, the then Minister of Education Ronald Thwaites noted that only 16 per cent of the country’s mathematics teachers were qualified to teach the subject. The issue of teachers teaching subjects for which they have no qualification has been a long-standing problem. The PEP is expected to be an analytical method of assessment; therefore, teachers administering the curriculum must understand the foundations of their disciplines well. It would be illogical to switch from GSAT to PEP when the research that our teachers may not be up to task is overwhelming.

PEP may be a good idea, but our students should not be used as scapegoats to further political goals.

Lipton Matthews

lo_matthews@yahoo.com