Edward Seaga, Contributor
The best understanding of problems is to be found in the bottom line where numbers sift out what is accurate and credible. But Jamaicans, it appears, are averse to using numbers analytically. They prefer endless discussions and 'groundings' in search of truth which is often elusive because the 'reasoning' stops short of the facts.
Although this national preference provides much satisfaction, it yields few solutions. We argue round and round in ever-tightening circles like the dodo bird pursuing its tail until its head gets stuck in you know where.
This is the first of three assessments which I will be presenting on fundamental national problems where numbers count, but are avoided.
The education system is a noteworthy area for tackling problems by 'reasoning'.
Throughout the centuries of enslavement, the education of children was considered to be counterproductive to the strategic necessity of keeping slaves ignorant and subjugated. Even the few missionary churches, principally Baptist, which provided education for literacy, mostly directed their efforts to adult slaves. When emancipation dawned, the progeny of freed slaves were completely unschooled, creating a mammoth problem of how to introduce education for many thousands of students of various ages. The few schools which existed restricted enrolment to the white population, excluding Jews, children of mixed races and free blacks. Gradually, in later years, access was given to these groups.
Limiting education to selected categories of children was in keeping with the colonial policy to educate a Creole middle class that could then be used to take over middle-level functions of the colony and provide commercial activity, administrative and professional services without threatening the ruling elite. Former slaves would be expected to provide labouring work even after emancipation, in order to ensure the needs of the plantation.
The construction of primary schools that would provide basic education for children of the freed slaves did not begin until the appointment of Governor Sir John Peter Grant, replacing the despised Governor Sir Edward Eyre who was recalled in disgrace after presiding over the massacre of the 'rebels' of the Morant Bay Rebellion in 1865.
Conditions remained without much change until the 1950s, when another surge of school building occurred. In 1957, the government of the People's National Party became involved in the education of children of the poor. Dr Ivan Lloyd, minister of education, announced that the prevailing system was dysfunctional and in need of streamlining to create a smooth passage from primary to secondary school. At the time, secondary schools held their own entrance examinations, which enabled children of parents with means to 'buy' entry, in the event of failure to gain access by merit.
To provide for a smoother and more equitable system, the Common Entrance Examination (CEE) was introduced in 1957 to select successful entrants on merit only. The education policy declaration of that year was aimed at improving the enrolment of students entering secondary schools, particularly among those who were unable to afford the fees. According to Dr Lloyd, apart from the few scholarships made available by the government (130 free places in a total secondary school population of 10,000), prior to 1957: "Those who went to secondary schools were those who could afford to." (Ministry Paper No.10, 1957).
Main objective
The main objective of this policy was to award free places to all students who had achieved a minimum standard in the CEE and for whom places could be found in high schools, irrespective of the means of their parents. The result of the CEE was vital to selection, irrespective of whether the student originated from a fee-paying preparatory school or a government free primary school.
However, the result did not match the expectation or intent. By 1961, 20,000 students were sitting the CEE. Of that total only 978, or 46 per cent, of 2,133 free places to secondary schools were won by students attending primary schools, while 1,155, or 54 per cent, went to students from preparatory schools. Analysis of these results indicated that only one in 86 students from primary schools had a chance of winning a free place as compared to one in four students from preparatory schools.
Obviously, there was a serious problem here. Edwin Allen, minister of education in the Jamaica Labour Party government elected in 1962, saw the problem of disproportionate entries which militated against children from poorer homes. To adjust this, Allen announced a policy of a 70:30 ratio, which reserved 70 per cent of the free places to secondary schools for students from primary schools who were successful in passing the minimum standard in the CEE; the remaining 30 per cent was allotted to students from private schools.
Notwithstanding the larger number of free places which then became available as a result of the increased ratio for entrants from primary schools, there were other formidable problems to overcome:
It was obvious that a considerable increase in secondary school accommodation would be necessary if all eligible students from primary schools were to gain entrance. This problem was reported in a UNESCO report on Jamaica's education system in 1964. This issue had to be resolved for other reforms to be effective.
Edwin Allen introduced a sweeping plan for education reforms in 1966 which he titled 'New Deal for Education in Independent Jamaica'. He announced an agreement with the World Bank to construct 50 new secondary schools to augment the existing 47. This was the first project of the World Bank in secondary education anywhere. By more than doubling the number of secondary places, enrolment into secondary schools would be considerably increased.
The next hurdle was even more difficult. The great majority of those students who gained access to the secondary schools were not equipped academically to benefit from education at this level. They were nonetheless admitted into the new schools. These new schools were named Junior Secondary Schools to indicate the difference in standards. The expectation was that with the passage of time there would be improvement in quality that would raise the levels of the students. This improvement would be measured by the results of the graduates from these schools through standardised school-leaving exams.
The final obstacle was the unaffordable cost to children of the poor. In 1973, in his Budget presentation to the House of Representatives, Michael Manley triumphantly announced the introduction of free education, thus closing the circle of providing education for children of the poor that was:
Accessible on merit (Ivan Lloyd)
Fully accessible in terms of the increased number of places for primary school students in secondary schools (Edwin Allen)
Affordable for the poor (Michael Manley)
Would these comprehensive reforms achieve the ultimate objective of creating an effective transformation of the system to produce substantial numbers of educated students?
The transformation of education at the secondary level was pursued largely by improvement to the primary school system with free uniforms, free school books for the core curriculum, free lunches, more trained teachers at the diploma and degree level and more classrooms.
These initiatives were an attempt to deal with the obvious shortcomings of the primary system to improve the quality of those entering secondary schools. But were all the initiatives successful in changing the dismal education picture of primary school students who could not cope with secondary education, and secondary school graduates who could not matriculate because they could not cope with the CXC school-leaving exam? This is the real bottom line. This is where it is determined whether the education system is a success or failure. After all, education systems are designed to produce successful graduates, not failures.
The problem with producing a bottom-line analysis of overall success or failure is that the figures required are buried in a maze of unpublished educational statistics. To get around this, two years ago I asked the Ministry of Education to extract the data which would track the educational progress of one stream of students born in 1987 who sat the CXC exams in 2003 by following their success or failure numerically. A picture of survival in this group can be illustrated in the diagrammatic tree above.
At the end of the line, age 16, when the CXC graduation exam was taken in 2003, only 7,728 of the original 51,520 in the age cohort passed, that is, 15 per cent of the original number. Hence, 85 per cent failed to make it after dropping out of the education system, not being enrolled in any secondary school, or lack of academic ability. What a waste of human resources!
The 43,792, or 85 per cent, non-performers are from poor households where great sacrifices are made to send children to school in the expectation that they will emerge from the process with skills to establish a career and to be of help to elderly relatives in their golden years.
Pass rate analysis
This analysis of the pass rate is the single most valuable information in the education system. It should be done every year and the results published so that policymakers, opinion makers, parents and students can be guided on whether the pass rate is improving. How wonderful it would be to achieve a pass rate of 50 per cent instead of 15 per cent. It would provide an enormous stimulant for the growth of social and economic capital. But this type of approach is ignored although, more so than any other type of analysis, numbers count.
The overall picture is even more dismal, because from the early days nearly 40 years ago when a special policy was developed to give 70 per cent of all primary school students a secondary education, it was found that this group had little proficiency for learning at the secondary level. Now, with the passage of decades and several policy initiatives to help this group, the startling fact is that the number of students has not decreased but has increased to 85 per cent in the particular year under review.
The further conclusion is that the unsuccessful students are very largely from the primary school system, just as it was 50 years ago when the 'transformation' process began. It can be concluded, then, that the education system over the decades continues to be only marginally helpful to the vast number of students who are children of the poor, in need of a ladder to climb successfully over the wall which keeps them in economic deprivation and social desperation.
The IMF, it is said, in its new dispensation, now wants to assist the social sector. Will the present opportunity of IMF negotiations be used to place education before the fund as the most critical social problem of all to secure the necessary funding for transformation? What other social sector area takes priority in building social capital by breaking the stranglehold of poverty?
Edward Seaga is a former prime minister. He is now the Pro-Chancellor of UTech and a distinguished fellow at the UWI. Email: odf@uwimona.edu.jm or columns@gleanerjm.com.
Survival chart of students born 1987, sitting CXC exam in 2003 at age 16 years