Alfred W. Sangster , ContributorTHE STATE of education in the country has been placed on the front burner what with the Dennis Minott and the Task Force on Education reports with their analyses and recommendations.
The Minott report represented the first salvo, in which schools were classified and ranked from very good to failing. Dr. Minott cast blame for failure on a lack
of vision and school (principal) leadership, and dismissed woolly excuses for lack of performance. He argued that parents expected children to pass exams and that academic results were the best and internationally recognised way to rate performances. He did admit to some errors in his analysis when challenged.
The report generated a great deal of debate and often heated disagreement. The conclusion of the report, that a lack of vision and school leadership were the main causes of school failure or poor performances, was rejected out of hand by numerous school principals or alternatively seen as being misleading or unfair. Many commentators also argued that a ranking of schools on the basis of one year's CXC results was restrictive and did not take into consideration many other factors that affected school performance (the qualitative concerns).
There is another factor which has not been commented upon. It is the grading system that was used in the analysis (the quantitative concerns).
The Minott report covered the performance of 148 secondary schools in the CXC examinations of 2003 of which 59 are traditional high schools, 75 are upgraded or comprehensive secondary schools, and 14 are technical schools. Sixteen subjects were chosen for the comparative study. Of the total, 48 schools or about one third got failing grades.
QUALITATIVE CONCERNS
There is a list of issues that many writers argue impinge upon the performance of students in the school system and might have led to poor performance ratings. These factors have nothing to do with vision or school leadership. They are all reasons as to why school A might have done better than school B.
1. Placement of GSAT or GNAT students: It is well-recognised that the placement of GSAT students is not equitable. The top schools get the top achievers in the GSAT examinations on the basis of students' (and presumably parents) choice, while the poor achievers or non-performers are placed in the lower echelon schools.
2. Subject selection: The 16 subjects selected for the review represent a definite 'academic' slant. Many technical and skill-related CXC subjects, or alternative examinations, e.g. HEART/NCTVET programmes, have been omitted in the selection. The National Council on Education (NCE) argues that this limited selection could lead to gender or school type bias.
3. The pre-selection process for English and math cohort corrections: Many secondary schools are now in the practice of allowing Grade 10 students (the pre-CXC form) to take these subjects a year ahead. The school cohort can thus be distorted and incorrectly adjusted if this factor is not recognised.
4. The 'value-added' principle competence at entry: It is also well-known that many students enter high schools unable to read or write. Many secondary schools are faced with the need to run remedial programmes for these students. Even the University of the West Indies at
the tertiary level has had to
develop this remedial programme approach.
5. The history of upgraded schools: Many of the upgraded schools were formally junior secondary schools, later converted to new secondary schools doing a different exam the SSC and only recently brought into the overall high school orbit, but at a significant disadvantage.
6. School locations and social concerns: Many schools are located in violence-prone areas and children come into daily contact with gang warfare and the rule of the 'dons'. The children often bring that 'badness' to school. Witness the many cases of teachers being attacked by students and the police now being brought into the control of school compounds. This is not the environment that is conducive to learning and in addition, many children question the value of 'education'.
7. The home environment: It is a worrying fact that the home environment in many cases is not what it should be. Children are living with single parents, foster parents or no parents at all, and are subject to all kinds of ill-treatment and violence. Ill-discipline and stress are the outcomes, and the school is now being called upon to significantly expand its normal role with the provision of
guidance counsellors, social workers, mediators and nurses.
8. Ministry of Education provisions: It is a fact that many schools lack the capital and recurrent expenditure provisions to operate effectively. In addition, the non-provision of funds under the cost sharing/fees and PATH programmes leave the schools in critical financial positions. Some 'rich schools' can ask the parents to support their programmes.
9. Teacher exodus: The sudden exodus of teachers to foreign jobs in 2003 created a sudden vacuum in many schools which would have had to scramble to fill these gaps. Children faced with this situation would have been traumatised and could not have performed at satisfactory levels.
10. Conditions of test 2003: One writer reminds us of the extreme weather conditions that affected many schools in the summer of 2003. Some children came to school late, or soaking wet, or not at all.
QUANTITATIVE CONCERNS
One of the major concerns about the study is that it tends to give a deliberate skew of the results towards failure. The arbitrary grading system that is used
compounds the problem.
Major concerns are the following:
1. The pass mark for schools' performance is 55 per cent. This seems quite arbitrary. It also bears no relation to current CXC pass marks. Clearly, since we are dealing with the CXC examinations, it would seem reasonable to relate the school performance to a CXC benchmark.
In some cases pass marks may be as low as 40 per cent for some subjects for a Grade III CXC pass. We will however use a
figure of 50 per cent as the
pass mark for the school's
performance.
2. The allocation of marks for the pass and fail areas are skewed to failure. Thus: Pass grouping A to E has 100 - 56 = 44 marks, revised proposal 50 marks: Fail grouping F1 to F8 has 56 - 0= 56 marks, revised proposal 50 marks
3. Grade bands are quite variable:
The Minott figures are shown in the accompanying table and graph. The basic Minott numbering system has been used for comparison. An alternative (Revised Minott) set of data is shown in the graphic and plotted also in the accompanying chart.
Some of the implications of the alternative scheme are:
A. It shows better school performance, particularly at the lower ends. A horizontal line from the Minott graph to the alternative gives the improved value.
B. There is little change in the top grades. The graphs, however, diverge most at the lower levels.
C. Those schools with lower grades should take heart with the following changes of grades:
E (0) goes to D (+1) ; F1 (-1) goes to E (0); F2 (-2) goes to F1 (-1) (See graph).
Mark Wignall argues that the Minott survey shook the foundations of the secondary school system. This is hardly likely in the light of: "the many flaws that have been pointed out"; its dismissal by many educators, and "being seen as drawing both misleading and unfair conclusions".
What can be said in favour of the report is that Dr. Minott has attempted to develop what the U.K. educational system calls 'League Tables'. But these tables rightly should also include other factors to assist in parental choice.
Dr. Henley Morgan has
challenged the 'bad school syndrome' (or failed school grading) which emerges from the report and argues for the need to recognise the many other factors that make up a school community.
Among these are: the school climate; parental and community involvement; educational leadership; consensus and cohesion among the staff; and achievement orientation culture of excellence.
The danger of the present analysis is that a school with good potential may convert itself into an examination mill. "What is important is a root-cause analysis to determine the driving
factors behind the differences in school outputs".
The report, however we take it, is clearly a challenge to everyone in the educational system to do better. It calls us all to critical self-examination and to look at ways to improve our performance. It certainly should not be used either as a chest-beating exercise or a self-deprecating attitude on the school's performance.
THE FUTURE OF EDUCATION
The Task Force on Educational Reform, Jamaica recently
presented its report entitled, 'A Transformed Educational System'.
One newspaper had a bold headline entitled: "$520 billion education reform plan unveiled". One would hope that we do not think that this huge amount of money will 'fix the system'.
A quote from the early childhood movement in Jamaica is instructive and needs to be taken to heart: "Quality education does not involve money so much as the dedication, creativity and a willingness to work in partnership with parents and community members, civic organisations, government and international donors".
An important factor in the future of education in our country will involve a commitment to partnership of all the stakeholders in the system parents, schools, government, and the community. Each of these stakeholders faces a different set of challenges for the success of the endeavour.
The ultimate question is: Are we up to the challenge as a nation?
Dr. Alfred Sangster is a past president of the former College of Arts Science and Technology, now University of Technology (UTech).
