Errol MillerTHE MINISTRY Circular on Teacher-Pupil Ratios in primary, secondary and special education schools and its guidelines concerning the 'release of teachers' is a hodgepodge of confused thinking. Anyone who knows anything about education would immediately recognise that the overall purpose has nothing to do with improving education but rather every thing to do with getting rid of teachers in order to save money. As far as I am concerned it is quite clear that teachers and children must now pay part of the FINSAC debt that will come on the Budget in April 2001. All the talk about how important education is goes through the window when it comes to the crunch, because it is nothing but talk.
To put the matter on some objective basis let me record briefly some of what is known from research about teacher-pupil ratios and class size and also make some comparisons with other countries in the Commonwealth Caribbean. It is important to understand that teacher-pupil ratio and class size are not the same. For example, if a school has six classes and six teachers, and three of the classes have 20 students and three classes have 40 students, the teacher-pupil ratio of that school would be 1:30, that is, one teacher to every thirty students. In other words, teacher-pupil ratio is but a very rough average of class size. However, the lower the teacher-pupil ratio is the greater the likelihood of small classes.
The major findings from research on teacher-pupil ratio and class size in primary and secondary schools can be summarised as follows:
The best results in terms of learning achievements are achieved in classes with 20 students or less, this is, in small classes.
There is no marked difference in learning achievement in class sizes over 20 and up to above 45 students.
The greatest impact of small classes on learning achievement in reading and mathematics is from kindergarten to Grade 3. The impact of small classes on learning achievement is less in the upper grades.
Small classes, 20 students or less, reduce repetition and dropout: that is, students repeat less grades and dropout of school less frequently.
Small classes have less disciplinary problems requiring parents to be called into schools. Teachers get to know the students and have time to deal with problems or even prevent some of them.
Teachers teach better in small classes.
Small classes boost teacher morale, teacher attitude to students, teacher satisfaction with their work, and professional growth and reduce teacher absences.
It is against this background that in the US Presidential elections Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic candidate, said that a ratio of 1:35 is not education, it is crowd control. Many countries of the world in attempting to improve education are recruiting more teachers in order to reduce class size and with it the teacher-pupil ratio. There is therefore a strong demand for teachers in many parts of the world as countries attempt to lower class sizes and teacher-pupil ratios. Jamaica may be one of the only countries in the world currently attempting to 'separate teachers' for their jobs.
Primary level
Prior to this Ministry circular the teacher-pupil ratio in Jamaica at the primary level was 1:42. The Ministry now proposes to improve this ratio to 1:35. It is instructive to look at teacher-pupil ratios in primary schools in the rest of the Commonwealth Caribbean with whom we propose to have a common market, free trade and free movement of people.
For the fifteen of the seventeen Commonwealth Caribbean countries, for which I have recent data, nine are already within the favourable range of 20 students or less. Five of the others have ratios in the twenties. Jamaica is the only Commonwealth Caribbean country with a teacher-pupil ratio above 1:30.
Neither the research findings nor the Caribbean comparisons are unknown to the Ministry of Education. If the intentions were educational I would expect that the Ministry would do the following:
1. State its intention to move the teacher-pupil ratio at the primary level to 1:20 in the shortest possible time.
2. Set up some mechanism to assist some teachers in overstaffed secondary schools to take up posts in the Junior High Schools that need subject teachers.
3. Establish retraining for other secondary school teachers to fit them to teach at the primary level.
4. Make necessary adjustments to the teacher education programme to match teacher supply with demand at the primary and secondary levels of the education system.
5. Expand the total numbers of teachers being trained in order to be able meet the demand for more teachers that low class sizes and teacher-pupil ratios require.
In the absence of these I can only conclude that this ill-advised action to separate teachers from their jobs is taking place for other than educational reasons. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Ministry's action in this matter will subvert several of the commendable initiatives that is has mounted to improve education and that it will be to the detriment of education and the long term future of the country.
Errol Miller is Professor and head of the Institute of Education UWI, Mona.
