In last week’s article, I raised a number of questions about the nature of our education system. I recognize that these questions are not new, but that they ought to be posed again and again if we are to avoid complacency in the system. Further, these questions must be adequately answered if we are to ensure that our children are not only properly "educated", but have ample opportunity to obtain an "education".While there may be consensus on the value of an education, I doubt very much there will be consensus on the process for educating learners. As such, the suggestions which I am about to make in accordance with the questions raised in my previous article are bound to meet with one or more dissenting voices. Further, given the amount of inertia in the current system, any major paradigm shift would raise eyebrows. So I state at the outset, I am not entering a popularity contest. I would have achieved my objective if I am able to stimulate discussion on the issues in various circles, be it among friends, family, community members, or at a national level.
There is a set of principles which I call the AFOR principles (access, fairness, opportunity, and relevance) that guide my analysis of and response to the current system we have in place. Before delineating any remedies for the apparent systemic weaknesses, let me reiterate what I think are some major problems with the education system as it stands: 1) the school system places greater emphasis on screening students rather than maximizing their learning opportunities; 2) students who exhibit early "failure" in the system have very little chance for reentry; 3) the school system feeds and maintains a class-oriented society; 4) there appears to be no guaranteed access to a minimum educational level for all St. Lucians, 5) there is an apparent shortage of school places, 6) there appears to be a hierarchy of schools along with inequities in the distribution of learning resources, and 7) there appears to be an over-reliance on externally set standards.
These fundamental beliefs influence my suggestions: 1) intelligence is multi-dimensional, and thus cannot be tested by using a single evaluation tool such as an exam; 2) there is no consensus on what intelligence is and how to measure it; 3) purpose of an education system is to equip learners with competencies that will allow them to maximize their contribution to their societies and the world at large. In this context, the measurement of intelligence or proxies for intelligence is irrelevant. The real value in any measurement information is in its use to decide how resources should be allocated or reallocated to bring about equity and parity in the system. In other words, the absolute values of the measurements are of far less value than relative values. For example, if Castries schools continually have a 60% pass rate for CXC exams and Vieux Fort schools a 20% pass rate, the inference should not be that the Castries students are brighter, but rather, that the Vieux Fort schools need better resources. Further, we should also ask, how can we make the pass rate higher.
I will start my suggestions by first looking at the Common Entrance exam. What is the purpose of the Common Entrance Exam? It would appear that the exam serves two purposes: one deals with managing the problem with the lack of spaces, and the other, a tool for deciding which students get to access which schools. The latter maintains the hierarchical system of schools that we have in place. "Bright" students go to SMC and SJC, and the "dumber" students could go anywhere else! If we apply the AFOR principles, then this process is unfair by precluding equal access to proper educational facilities. Instead, of improving the resources at other schools, we simply maintain the hierarchy, and use the results of the Common Entrance exam to allocate what spaces are left over after the children of the middle and upper class have be placed.
The is an inherent skewness in the system in that most people want their children to go to a few schools. This is a direct result of the failure to bring about equity in the school system.
I echo the sentiment of many, that the Common Entrance Exam should be banned as it does not serve the greater good of the nation. Primary schools should feed secondary schools on the basis of a geographical relationship. Further, students should only be allowed to attend schools within a certain radius of their homes. This would reduce the level of skewness in the system, and it would also help improve the distribution of resources among schools. This solution, however, does not guarantee resource parity. Resources will more than likely be correlated with the collective influence of the parents of the students in the schools. I am confident, however, there will be an improvement over the status quo.
Some people may argue that banning Common Entrance may create a bulge in the demand for spaces. If the geographical allocation rule is adopted, then, one will determine whether or not the bulge is real. If the bulge is real, then the government will have to increase the number of spaces where needed - primary education is a right not a priviledge. A cost-effective strategy to achieve this may involve the conversion of primary schools into primary/secondary institutions. There are mathematical models for designing an effective conversion strategy.
CXCs, O’ levels, and A’ levels present two concerns: one relates to the use of these exams as screening tools, and the other relates to their use as evaluation tools. Currently, a student must pass four or more O’ levels to enter Technical College or A’ level College. Why then do students take 7 or more O’ level exams and in the process risk poor performance because of work load? If a student did very well say an A in O’ level mathematics and failed everything else, why shouldn’t the student be allowed to pursue A’ level mathematics while repeating the O’ level subjects? In our current system, this student would be out of school. This process violates the opportunity principle.
I prefer a system that allows students to take both A’ level and O’ level subjects simultaneously if the need arises. I would suggest that Forms 5 and 6 be integrated into a 4-year program in which the "ideal" graduate would leave with 5 O’ levels and 3 to 5 A’ levels. The O’ levels are simply pre-requisites to A’ levels. A student passing an O’ level with a specified minimum grade should be allowed to take the corresponding A’ level subject. So conceivably, a student could be doing, 3 O’ levels and 2 A’ levels in their second year of the 4-year period, or for that matter, a student could graduate with only O’ level and A’ level Chemistry. Further, a student should be allowed to be flexible in their selection of O’ level courses. If a student failed O’ level History in the first year, then they should be allowed to switch to Sociology if they wish to, assuming that Forms 1-4 provided a sufficient background in the subject area.
Some of you might say that 5 A’ levelsis too much. Well four months later in September, any A’ level graduate registering in any university program would register for up to 10 university courses beyond the A’ level standard. So what’s 5 A’ levels? The problem is the system, not the number of subjects, and our students need a broader level of exposure, the A’ level program is TOO MYOPIC! We produce students with very limited ability to engage in discussion outside their narrow three subject areas!
In spite of my suggestions for reforming the CXC/GCE programs, my personal belief is that the O’ level/GCE and A’ level exams should be eliminated. Though these external exams have the benefit of standardization, they are inadequate in that they evaluate knowledge solely on the basis of written word. This form of evaluation reflects a cultural bias. Europeans value the written communication a whole lot more than oral communication (valued in African cultures). Also, the use of exams presupposes that intelligence and knowledge can only be effectively assessed in written form. It can be easily argued that the written exam is not the most effective way to demonstrate knowledge. Students can demonstrate knowledge through class discussions, the application of knowledge through projects, group leadership on group projects, oratory, and so on. These forms, unfortunately, cannot be observed by these external bodies. I also submit, that the process involving external exams feels distant and intangible to the learner, and consequently has a de-motivating effect. Learners like to know their evaluators - the people who hold the power to decide their fate. They want to reach them, talk to them, explain their problems to them, obtain feedback, and find out what is expected of them. With absentee evaluators, the approach to learning is often passive. I also submit that our own teachers are subconsciously de-motivated by the fact that they are out of the loop in assessing their own students. What do you think is the impact on student performance?
My belief is that, if our teachers can be expected to deliver the CXC, O’ level, and A’ level curricula, then they should also be able to evaluate the students. I am not aware of graduates of Harvard and MIT, Stanford, and U of Toronto being any worse off by having gone through a secondary school system in which they were evaluated by their own teachers as opposed to external bodies.
Many believe the use of the external bodies provide a more objective form of evaluation. I submit that anonymity is not a pre-requisite for objectivity. If that is so, then those of us with university degrees should throw them away as all of our grades were assigned by the teachers who taught us. Further, what is the "cost" of this kind of objectivity?
Recognizing that the relationship between the student and the evaluator is a vital link in the learning cycle, I re-iterate that the use of external examining bodies be phased out. The current system is myopic, intangible, and inflexible. The same curriculum may be taught, but the teachers must do the evaluations themselves using a broad range of (standardized) evaluation tools that seek to value the manifestation of knowledge in its many forms. In this proposal, the level of motivation, access, and opportunity would greatly improve. The teachers themselves would feel a greater sense of empowerment and motivation. They would have greater opportunity to influence the fate of their students. I am operating under the assumption that our teachers can and would be fair in their evaluations, and that their primary interest is in helping their students to learn.
Learners who experienced an early exit from the school system for what-ever reason, should be given every opportunity for re-entry. Two types of learning opportunities can be considered. One approach is adult evening continuing education classes at different levels. A student could conceivably complete secondary schooling through continuing education. An alternative approach is the development of computerized learning centers around the country. Students can work at their own pace in a multi-media environment. The curriculum for each secondary school level would be available on the computer complete with self-correcting exercises and quizzes. Then once a year, the Ministry of education would administer exams for these students allowing them to claim proficiency at a specific level in a specific subject. In this environment, learners might only pursue a small set of subjects at one time according to their capabilities, say Math, English and History. A student who demonstrates great promise, should be given an opportunity to reenter the regular school system as an adult if they so wish, or they may continue in the adult continuing education classes. Can the multi-media learning center work? Sure it can. We have a number of talented individuals with computer science degrees itching for a challenge. Let us put them to work!
My final comment is on curriculum relevance. The mere fact that we participate in an examination system that is world wide, means that the have foregone the right to develop an education system tailored and relevant to St. Lucia. While I agree, that for the purposes of transferability, it is necessary to take some of these subjects, we have, for the most part, simply allowed the scope of GCEs and CXCs to define the scope of our education system. To inject relevance, we have to move the boundaries set by the scope of these bodies. For example, we should be able to offer the equivalent of an A’ level course in Social Psychology and the Banana Industry. Who offers an A’ level in that? And is it important? You bet it is!
Four curriculum additions that I believe necessary and should be mandatory for ALL St. Lucian learners are: 1) a course on Caribbean Philosophical Thought on Developmental Theory and Practice, 2) Sex Education and Sexuality, 3) Environmental Management, and 4) Critical Thinking and Innovation. The first course would be akin to courses on Western Philosophy taken by American students, or courses on Marxism and Leninism taken by students in communist/socialist countries. The second course is one of the most cost-effective tools for dealing with our escalating population growth rate. A serious crisis is in the offing. The wave of crime we see today is only the tip of the iceberg. Also, we will have to fight the church on this one, for we cannot allow religious hegemony to dictate how we address this issue. We must invoke the SEPARATION of Church and State! The third course is on Environmental Management - need I say more? Finally, we have no choice but to nurture a new generation of philosophers, visionaries, and thinkers. We need innovative solutions to our economic problems. Our students are largely being taught how to "fit in"! With the state of global economics we are on a path to anarchy unless we can re-orient our creative forces to save us from becoming a candle in the wind.
I believe the current state of inertia in our education system would require a dramatic paradigm shift to bring about significant improvement. If our primary focus is the learner, then the logical question is what must the form of the system be in order to maximize the potential and the learning opportunities for our students? Common Entrance, CXCs, GCEs, all help to maintain the status quo, and as such we must dispense with them. To be truly innovative, we must re-engineer the system. We must have a system in place that not only seeks out innovation, but provides fertile ground in which the seeds of innovation can thrive! Remember, the regenerative strategies of many natural resource-void Asian countries such as Singapore, Japan, and Malaysia, have exploited the concept of the educated workforce. In many developing countries, unfortunately, political security is often directly tied to maintaining an illiterate population.
