If I were to ask the question, just how many learners can our school system accommodate, I am sure that some official would count up the number of places in each school in the country, and tell me voila! Learning capacity = the total number of chairs and benches in all our schools. The natural logic that follows from this capacity definition is that, to increase the learning capacity in the system, we must build more schools or expand existing ones. I would conjecture that the number of schools and capital expenditure necessary to facilitate full access for all eligible St. Lucians from Stage 1 to Form 6, would be prohibitive. Hence, while new schools provide more space, a global solution to the capacity problem would necessitate the use of a range of capacity enhancing opportunities.The issues of learning capacity and access bring to the fore two important questions: (1) how can we increase the learning capacity in the education system in a cost effective manner; and (2) how do we allocate the total capacity among the various categories of learners? These two questions must be answered in a manner consistent with the shared vision, mission, beliefs, and values of the various stakeholders.
The Capacity Construct
In my last article which appeared in the Mirror, I identified a number of "non-traditional" vehicles (where St. Lucia is concerned) for increasing learning opportunities. These included: correspondence courses (open learning); courses on television; courses on video; courses on audio; courseware; internet courses; etc. In addition to these forms, we have the traditional sit-in-a-class capacity. Can you guess the capacity of the "non-traditional" vehicles? How many people can we educate through a TV course? Through a correspondence course? Through an on-line course? Through courseware? I believe that proper use of these technologies can help to increase capacity by over 50% at a cost far cheaper than its equivalent traditional school capacity.
Apart from providing cost-effective learning capacity, investment in "non-traditional" resources can have valuable spin-offs. Such an investment can lead to entrepreneurial development in the use of technology in education. A new industry bringing teachers with computer experts could emerge quite successfully. I do believe that we have a lot of raw talent in that area. What is needed is a catalyst. It is also worth mentioning that the industry would create jobs, contribute to the tax base, and have the potential for exporting product to neighboring countries. This is in major contrast to building a new school, a depreciating capital asset that incurs thousands of dollars in operating costs an no revenues!
Some skeptics may want to argue the relative effectiveness of the above "non-traditional" resources. Arguably, depending on the set of learning objectives, different resources will have different levels of effectiveness. Hence, the crucial issue becomes, how do we effectively and efficiently allocate learning capacity in the system to the various groups of learners? While I cannot fully address this question here, "non-traditional" learning resources tend to be better suited to older learners. Answering this question requires a detailed analysis the needs of learners in the system, the capabilities of the learning resources, and subsequently, an appropriate mechanism for matching needs with resources.
Making Better Use of Traditional Capacity
In exploring the possibilities that technology provide, we should not forget traditional school places. The Labour Government has talked of a school building program. Amicable! But before rushing ahead and building new schools, we need to ask, is the use of existing capacity optimized? Are there opportunities to better utilize existing capacity? With an economy on the decline and several people jobless, investing in capital projects that generate little or no revenue, that depreciate over time, and that have monotonically increasing annual operating cost characteristics, would be "penny wise and pound foolish".
Can we increase the capacity of our schools without having to build new schools? I often wonder, What happens to our schools after 3:00 PM? If we believe that primary and secondary education should only take place between the hours of 8:30 AM to - 3:00 PM, then we have a problem.
I would like to digress a little and draw your attention to the manufacturing sector. Most factories commence operations with one shift. If the demand exceeds the current capacity of the one shift, a second shift is added. If the capacity of the two shifts become exceeded, then a third shift is added provided the labor force in the area can support three shifts. In other words, the factories use economies of scale to gain efficiency. Rather than undertaking a new capital project (building a new factory), the manufacturer would attempt to maximize the use of current capital assets. One other thing that some factories do when expanding the number of operating shifts, is that they reallocate production between the shifts. That is to say, rather than making all their products, say A, B, C, and D on all shifts, the first shift may make products A and D, the second shift may make product B, and the third shift product C. This is done in order to maximize the efficiency of production while maximizing the use of capacity in the system.
Given my factory example, I would advocate using the shift system to maximize capacity utilization, but with two major modifications which would differ from the past applications. One modification requires that students in secondary schools (Forms 4 and higher) be limited to five academic subjects. The second requires that the morning shifts be reserved for the more junior classes, and the afternoon shifts for the more senior classes. I will rationalize these modifications shortly. In the past, the two shifts were mirror images of each other.
To increase capacity utilization, we must start by making every school (both primary and secondary) a candidate for adding a second shift. Depending on the demand for spaces, not all schools may need a second shift. Hence an appropriate scheme for selecting schools for double shifts would have to be designed. Teachers and parents should be consulted in developing selection criteria. The criteria may include: the quality of the resources at the school, the infrastructure, the location, the availability of teachers, and the operating efficiency of the school. Starting with the "best" schools (based on the criteria determined) we double up the shifts until the capacity level satisfies the demand.
Given a system of day and afternoon school, students will have to be allocated between the two shifts. For example, Stage 1 up to Standard 2 in primary education and the first two years of secondary education (Forms 1-3) could take place in the hours of 7:30 AM - 12:30 PM (day school). Classes for Standard 3 - 6 and Forms 4 - 6 could take place from 1:30 PM - 6:30 PM (afternoon school). From 7:30 PM - 9:30 PM, the schools could be used for adult education classes. This recommendation will yield a significant increase in the current capacity of our schools. Note that by not mirroring shifts and allocating different class levels to different shifts, we remove the stigma that the shifts have different standards.
In our current system, we have students who are taking between 7 and 10 academic subjects. If each student demands 5 hours per week per course, then a student would demand 35-50 teacher-hours per week. If we multiply that figure by the number of students times the number of weeks per academic year, we see that these students consume a significant amount of teaching resources. If we keep in mind that students can gain entry into most university programs with 5 CXCs (Math and English included), then what is the rationale for a student doing 10 CXCs when there is competition for scarce resources? The additional five courses (or places) could be occupied by other students. Students wishing to pursue more than five subjects should be allowed to do so for a fee where space permit.
One other idea that is worth considering, is the possible rationalization of "upper secondary" schooling (Forms 4-6) along subject lines. That is, certain schools are assigned certain subjects. This is particularly important to reduce the high cost of duplicating technical vocational courses and science courses. This move would require that "upper secondary" be treated as a whole (single system) or as a number of sub-groups with integrated scheduling of courses and coordination of activities for the members (or "campuses") of a group. In that way, students belong to a sub-group and not a single school. Sub-groups could be clustered on the basis of geographical proximity.
Given our level of resources, compromise and sacrifice are necessary principles if the state is to conduct a balancing act in guaranteeing all citizens a minimal level of access to education. I would propose that secondary school students be given a full slate of courses up to the Form 3 level. The student will subsequently select 5 courses (including English and Math) for CXC preparations. Given the extent of the capacity increase that can be achieved using the above suggestions, we would then have a strong basis to advocate for the banning of Common Entrance.
What is the overall cost of these above suggestions? A lot cheaper than building new schools! Obviously, the operating cost for each school on a multi-shift system will increase. However, due to the economies of scale, the cost per hour of operation will actually reduce as the number of hours of use increases. We should also remember that a new school will incur both capital and operating expenditures. Hence, it is cheaper to expand the use of existing schools.
Increasing access to learning opportunities for St. Lucians require very radical ideas. Simply tinkering with the system will not do the trick! What we need is a radical redesign of a system that has out-lived its usefulness. Systems in Britain which ours once mirrored have changed significantly over the years. For those who believe that the barriers to change lie in limited financial resources, I beg to differ! I believe the barriers lie within our minds.
