Guyana is a land of slogans. We can all parrot them from the earlier decades: Feed, Clothe and House – by 1976, no less − and Grow More Food. Now we have Grow More – which has since metamorphosed into the reprise version of Grow More Food − and from the current Ministry of Education, No Child Left Behind. The earlier ones never eventuated in anything very substantial, and there is some suspicion that the present ones are not doing much better.
It is the No Child Left Behind which made it into the news last week, not least because the parents of Linden and Wismar had something to say about it. In fact, this is the second time in recent weeks that parents in different locations have taken to publicly protesting either about the state of facilities in the schools which their children attend, or more unusually, as in this latest demonstration, about an actual education policy.
The policy itself was issued last year in the form of a circular, where head teachers were instructed that all pupils were to be promoted after completing a school year, no matter what the marks obtained. The present contretemps started when the headmaster of the Christianburg Wismar Secondary School did not follow the guidelines, and was duly summoned to defend himself before the disciplinary committee of the Teaching Service Commission.
As we reported last week, Head Teacher Cleveland Thomas said that a number of students at his school could not read and write, and we quoted him as going on to say, “How can we promote such a student when they haven’t even mastered the basic things that are taught at the primary level.” Some students had been promoted because they had shown some level of improvement, but others, he explained, had results as low as 15 per cent.
It is possible that this story might not have come to media attention at all had it not been for the determination of the parents, who not only demonstrated in Linden, but who took their protests to Georgetown despite the efforts of the police to intercept them. The acting President of the Regional Parent Teachers Association (RPTA), Dennis Gill, told this newspaper that his organization would be seeking an audience with Minister of Education Shaik Baksh, and that they wanted to see the abrogation of the policy, not merely in relation to the Linden schools, but those in the country as a whole.
There should be no child in the secondary system that cannot read and write, but clearly, Mr Thomas has some pupils in his school which fall into this category. Furthermore, if that is the case in his school, then it is probably the case in a large number of the secondary schools – senior secondaries excepted – not to mention the community high schools and primary tops. In recent times the ministry has announced a flurry of remedial programmes, including one during the July-August vacation for low achievers in English and Maths. Of course, it is not always clear what a euphemism like ‘low achiever’ in English really means. Does it refer to a child who does poorly in the subject, or is it really a term for someone who is functionally illiterate? If the latter, then ‘summer’ programmes will have only limited impact.
Other initiatives have been announced from time to time, such as sending teachers with remedial experience throughout the country to assist with ‘low achievers,’ and remedial interventions for those in the same category entering the secondary system for the first time; this is aside from the larger literacy campaign. Exactly what success the ministry has had with its various programmes over the years, however, has not been revealed. Neither is it publicly known how many functionally illiterate students there are in the secondary system, and how they are distributed throughout the country. One can only hope that the ministry knows.
We reported on Friday that the letter sent to Mr Thomas by the TSC contained the following exhortation: “you are advised to make full use of the guidelines which are attached to the circular and pay particular attention to the remedial work necessary and maintain proper records of same that can be presented whenever necessary.” What is not clear, however, is exactly what resources a headmaster like Mr Thomas has been given to deal with low achievers, and more especially those who are functionally illiterate and innumerate. Are there on his staff, for example, any teachers specialising in remedial work, or does he just have the normal teaching complement, which is supposed to give extra attention to students with learning difficulties of one kind or another? If the latter is the case, then the ministry cannot be serious.
Even if, however, there are special remedial classes in Christianburg Wismar school, that would still not make the ministry’s policy any more coherent if they do not cater for all levels. It simply defies common sense to promote a student to the next grade, if he or she has failed to benefit from instruction in the previous one, or worse yet, still cannot read or write. Such a child in most cases is in need of special attention in a special class; there can be no benefit in having him or her hold up the form to which s/he is promoted, or monopolise the teachers’ attention to the detriment of the other students.
For his part, Mr Thomas told this newspaper that he thought the policy was in need of modification. We quoted him on Friday as saying, “I prefer that they have a seven-year cycle which would accommodate some students who are likely to fail at some point; they need to look at policy and tweak it a bit, modify it.” While he did not expand on his remarks, prima facie they have much to recommend them. With the best efforts in the world, a number of students will fail in the course of their school career, and some of them, for one reason or another, will resist the efforts of regular teachers to help them. The ministry needs to cater for remedial efforts for all age groups by teachers who are either specialists or have experience in remedial work.
Clearly the parents are in full agreement with Mr Thomas, and so, we reported on Wednesday were 90 per cent of the Linden heads. The question is, will the Ministry of Education – or more specifically, the Minister of Education – be prepared to listen to what the parents have to say, consult with the head teachers, and amend the policy. It has to be said that the prognostications are not good if the handling of the Queen’s College teachers in the Neesa Gopaul case is anything to go by. Changing direction as a consequence of contrary information that comes into the public domain, or in response to cogent arguments put forward from some quarter beyond the ministry’s portals, tends to produce obduracy from the denizens of Brickdam.
In this case, however, the ministry’s customary reaction to criticism and suggestions would not be well advised. As was obvious from our last report, the RPTA is not about to back down; parents understand very well that the policy in its present form makes no sense. In the circumstances, Mr Baksh should give them a hearing, as said above, consult with head teachers, and most of all, approach the issue with an open mind.
