In Part 1 of this series I looked at the economy and crime. Among the points I made was that the Government has effectively abandoned its “5 in 4” plan — and is now claiming it was Michael Lee-Chin’s aspirational target. I insisted, however, that nowhere in the original announcements of the plan did the Government disown the target and as such any analysis of its performance must take account of the fact that its performance target was five per cent in each year for four years. The data show that the economy has been growing at just over one per cent per annum with 2016/17 at 1.3 per cent, 2017/18 at 0.9 per cent, and 2018/19 expected to come in under two per cent.

In a speech at Essex Valley in St Elizabeth, in mid-January, Prime Minister Andrew Holness bemoaned the sluggish pace of economic growth and set two per cent per annum as the new target.

CRIME

On the crime front, a welcome 20 per cent reduction in murders was realised nationally in 2018 over 2017, led by a 70.1 per cent reduction in St James, home of one of three states of emergency (SOE). This performance is instructive for a number of reasons, one being that reductions occurred in 12 of the 19 policing divisions, although there were SOEs in only three. One Corporate Area division, Kingston Central, in which there was no SOE experienced a reduction of 40.7 per cent, while a rural division, Manchester, also not having an SOE, realised a reduction of 32.6 per cent.

EDUCATION

Assessing the performance of the Government in the management of the education sector is a complex task for at least two reasons:

(1) timely data on the performance of the various areas of the Ministry of Education and entities within the sector, are not available; and

(2) some of the areas for which key performance indicators are available are not squarely under the control of the Ministry of Education.

In taking account of these constraints I will offer an analysis of the sector. In preparing this article I consulted with about 30 stakeholders — former policymakers, former and current senior managers and advisors in the Ministry of Education, educational planners, and practitioners. About a dozen (40 per cent) of the stakeholders responded to my questions and thus the views expressed herein partially reflect their contributions.

There are three key issues in the sector on which I will focus in this opening conversation:

(i) Foundations of critical thinking and reasoning

(ii) The New Standards Curriculum and the Primary Exit Profile

(iii) The role of parents

Thinking and reasoning

One of the areas in which I find that our education system is at its weakest is in the development of the capacities of students to engage in critical thinking. The development of critical thinking is, and has been adopted as, an important goal of education.

Critical thinking, in its simplest meaning, is the process by which a person reasons through and assesses data and information to form a judgement (ie, arrive at a position). In most education systems the foundations of critical thinking are established in the acquisition of the study of mathematics and language. Looking at the performance of students in these critical foundational subjects gives cause for continued concern. The last three National Education Inspectorate (NEI) reports (2017, 2015, and 2014) provide the context.

The 2017 report was based on a sample of 189 schools. In that report students’ attainment in English and mathematics was at or above the national average of the ministry’s targets in 21 per cent of the schools inspected. In 79 per cent it was below the national average.

The 2015 report represented the completion of the first inspection cycle which began in 2010 and reported on all 953 public schools (primary and secondary). In that report students’ attainment in English and mathematics was above the ministry’s targets in six per cent of the schools inspected, at the target in 16 per cent of schools, but below in 78 per cent.

The 2014 report used a sample of 129 schools. In this round, students’ attainment in English and mathematics was above the ministry’s target in two per cent of the schools inspected, at the targets in 10 per cent, but below the target in 88 per cent.

One of the issues to note is that the same schools are not represented in each round of inspection, and there is only one report (2015) on a complete cycle; so the 129 schools in 2014 are not included in the 189 in 2017, but both sets, and the others in the sector, are reflected in 2015. The 2017 report starts a new cycle of inspections.

Notwithstanding those constraints, the finding which stands out is performance in the two foundational areas of critical thinking (math and English). There is, firstly, good news in that the percentage of schools in which performance is below target fell from 88 per cent in 2014 (involving 129 schools) to 78 per cent in 2015, reflecting the picture islandwide. But that this figure remains in the high 70s (79 per cent) in 2017 in 189 schools, after the full round of inspections (2010 – 2015), and after which systematic interventions would have taken place, is a cause for concern.

The standards curriculum and PEP

The implementation of the New Standards Curriculum (NSC) and its major assessment, the Primary Exit Profile (PEP), has not been without its fair share of challenge. While the Ministry of Education must be commended for adjusting the implementation schedule and engaging with stakeholders, the greatest worry, in my assessment, and that of other stakeholders, is whether the PEP will land us anywhere different than the Grade Six Achievement Test (GSAT) did. Mindful that one of the primary reasons for the PEP was to rationalise and make more equitable the placement of students in high schools, there are real questions now as to whether PEP will cure that ill.

But even if PEP cures the inequity in placement to some degree, the much bigger long-term problem is whether, given the findings on the advancement of critical thinking, which the NSC is expected to address, what will be achieved?

The problem of weaknesses in critical thinking permeates the entire fabric of the education system, from top to bottom, and some of the same teachers who are to lead in the delivery of content of the NSC are themselves needing to develop their critical thinking skills. At the same time, I am not sure that an examinations-based placement system is either consistent with the nature and philosophy of the NSC or the best response to the inequities of our socio-economic and education systems.

The role of parents

One of the Government’s signature policy position is the ‘removal’ of auxiliary fees, under what is known as the “Non-mandatory Parental Contribution Policy”. I have shared before that I am of the view that this policy is untimely and retrograde as well as flawed in its real-world application. Among other things, the notion that parents have no obligation to contribute financially to the cost of their children’s education is a violation of the sacred duty of becoming a parent. But in addition to this ‘violation’, the fact is that high performing schools charge substantial fees which parents are expected to pay and, in most of these schools, the compliance rate is in the 90% range. That fact must mean something. Among the things it means is that parents are willing to pay for a decent education. A stakeholder tells me of a parent who have two boys going to high school, one attends a high performing school and the other attends a struggling school. The fees charged by the high performing school is over $30,000.00 per year with several other fees charged during the year. The fees charged by the struggling school is less than $10,000.00 p.a. According to the stakeholder, who has intimate knowledge of the facts, the single parent willingly pays the higher fees and laments that what her child is getting at the other school is not worth her money.

Alternatives and possible solutions

In relation to the deficits in critical thinking, which manifest themselves at all levels of the education system and the society, the cures are neither immediate nor simple, but there is one place at which we may begin. This starting point is that we dispense with the notion and practice that the classroom is for those who could not make it in other areas of endeavour and seek to recruit and retain the brightest, most disciplined, and most dedicated for the classroom. This will mean better teacher-training systems, better pay, and better working conditions.

Learning the lessons from the difficulties with the implementation of the NSC, one important practice we need to adopt, as a society, is that of developing an educational policy framework that is supra-political. A supra-political educational policy framework transcends political administrations and idiosyncrasies and preferences of individual ministers within and across political administrations. This policy framework would be developed in concert with a broad cross section of stakeholders, with the related plans, strategies, timelines, and resources. The implementation would be led by a set of highly competent career educators, planners, and policy experts whose tenure is not affected by the change of political administrators.

With respect to the non-mandatory parental contribution policy I hold the view that this policy has undermined an important social construct named “parental responsibility”, while at the same time being ineffectual in attaining its primary objective, that of improving access to quality education. This is not to say that the State should not provide support to vulnerable families, but for parents who were paying $60,000 per term to send their child to a private preparatory school to be told that the $30,000 per year to send that same child to a high school is optional is simply bad policy for education and society.

I have previously proposed that Government should establish a base figure for what it takes to provide a high-quality secondary education experience. Having taken account of this figure, estimated to be in the region of $65,000.00 per student, per year, the Government should then seek to develop a funding policy, which takes account of parental contributions (which should be obligatory) and the differentials in parents’ ability to pay, as well as the financial capabilities of schools and their support bases. Putting all these variables in the mix the Government’s hands would play the role of “funding the gap”. This means the abolition equality in per head subvention to schools to one which funds based on degree of need in seeking to raise quality in every school.

The conversation is by no means completer…

Dr Canute Thompson is head of the Caribbean Centre for Educational Planning, lecturer in the School of Education, and co-founder and chief consultant for the Caribbean Leadership Re-Imagination Initiative, at The University of the West Indies, Mona. He is also author of four books and several articles on leadership. Send comments to the Observer or canutethompson1@gmail.com.