Dear Editor,

The phrase “Every child can learn, every child must learn” is widely recognised as a policy mantra developed and adopted by the Ministry of Education. This phrase embodies a rights-based and inclusive educational approach, signifying that every child possesses the capacity to learn and the education system bears the responsibility to facilitate this learning.

The overcrowded classrooms, with a teacher-to-student ratio of one to 40; the mixed learning abilities; the lack of resources; and the need to complete the syllabus are all contributing factors that encourage the need for extended learning. Additionally, the disruption of classes due to Hurricane Melissa has significantly increased the demand for these lessons following several weeks of lost learning.

Its fair to easily agree that the need for extended learning should be encouraged and facilitated by schools. These extensions are impossible to impose in an already time-restricted and overwhelmed timetabled school day. The only other option is to utilise hours after school and on the weekend.

Teachers and schools must be commended for providing an avenue through which the gap in the education system can be shortened and students are given the opportunity to be completely prepared for external exams.

As with any avenue that creates a niche that’s financially lucrative, there will be exploitation, the birth of inequality and unfairness. The concept of extra classes alleviates financial burdens for teachers while imposing additional costs on parents, particularly those with multiple children or those who struggle to manage another financial obligation.

Parents frequently experience feelings of guilt when they choose to forgo this widely promoted and structured extended learning, which is advocated by their child’s educator. This guilt, stemming from the potential negative outcomes they envision and their lack of confidence in the conventional school system, often drives them towards this supplementary educational institution.

The need for financial gain is the driving force behind the existence of any business. This is why there are so many registered enterprises in the form of “homework centres” or “online classes”. With the potential for earnings, there is a natural urge to advertise and promote these after-school programmes.

An after-school programme is not meant to replace conventional day school learning; rather, it should serve as a supplement, a reinforcer, and a form of group revision. Students who are slow learners or do not have additional help at home should be the targeted groups. These programmes were never intended to replace or serve as a continuation of regular day school classes.

The issue I have observed over the years is that when a day school educator also manages personal extended learning programmes, they have discovered methods not only to expand the targeted demographic but also to cultivate compelling incentives to encourage universal participation.

The education system has inadvertently encouraged some educators to enhance student attendance by promoting their programmes beyond their intended scope. I have observed teachers utilising these opportunities to continue delivering the syllabus, engage in in-depth exploration of topics, adopt a skim-and-scan approach during regular school hours, provide supplementary learning materials, and extend beyond the mandated syllabus.

School notice boards and class WhatsApp groups are inundated with private advertisements that can appear coercive. Students’ confidence in the capabilities of their regular day schools diminishes as the indirectly targeted message of “You need this to pass” permeates their subconscious.

This approach is detrimental to our education system as it fosters inequality, placing those who cannot afford it at a significant disadvantage. Every child will not have the opportunity to learn when the education system creates avenues that undermines fairness and equal access to education.

The schools often perceive this as a mutually beneficial situation because they have observed an increase in the number of passes. If one delves deeper into this system, it doesn’t take long to see the long-term implications of such an approach. It can blur the line between teaching as a profession and profit-driven activity which reduces trust in the teacher’s motives.

The implementation of these sessions imposes a strain on the limited resources of the school as they are conducted on school premises, utilising the institution’s facilities. Students from low socio-economic backgrounds do not have full access due to financial constraints which causes students to feel singled out or anxious if they don’t attend.

This ineffective approach is frequently observed in schools lacking a clear policy regarding after-school learning. Teachers are often tasked with creating and managing the entire process, which encompasses budgeting and determining hours of operation. Core subjects such as mathematics, languages, and science are predominant due to the significant number of students who take these examinations. Conversely, technical and certain core subjects, including food preparation, arts, music, or home and family management do not garner as much interest. This is not due to a lack of substantive content, but rather because the limited number of students enrolled in these subjects render their offering less feasible.

The Ministry of Education must take the lead in mandating schools to establish clear and transparent policies regarding the provision of extra lessons on school premises. This system should be streamlined to ensure that all students are afforded equal opportunities and access to education. Such measures will not only enhance accountability for the timely completion of the curriculum within designated school hours, but will also foster transparency within the education system.

Nicola Andrews

bop83jm@yahoo.com