Dear Editor,
An extremely significant contribution from the Diaspora, captioned ‘UG: Exciting Times: Human capital and development,” by Prof Rory Fraser, appeared in SN on March 12, 2012. Strangely, there were no written comments. In his article Prof Fraser places Guyana within a world human development context that portrays Guyana’s true condition as a developing nation, and as a consequence succeeds in vividly outlining the challenges and opportunities that confront the University of Guyana.
Prof Fraser uses data from World Bank reports: ‘Expanding the Wealth of Nations’ (1997); ‘Where is the Wealth of Nations’ (2005); ‘Changing Wealth of Nations’ (2011); and two United Nations Human Development Index Reports (HDI 2010 and 2011).
“The reports emphasize that the largest single component of wealth in most countries is in their intangible assets (capital assets not readily measureable, but extremely useful and valuable). The richer the country, the bigger is the share of these assets in total national wealth. These reports indicate that between 1995 and 2005, global wealth increased by 17%, with intangible wealth growing the fastest. The most rapid growth in intangible wealth was attributed to increased educational attainment, as well as improvements in institutions, governance, and other factors that contribute to better, more efficient use of all the country’s capital – produced, natural, and human.”
Because of its phenomenal growth within the past 30 years, China is singled out for closer examination. “The reports conclude that China’s phenomenal growth is directly related to phenomenal improvements in higher education which underpins and fuels the economic juggernaut. China demonstrates that even the most dictatorial central government can make significant improvements in the nation’s well-being by creating the conditions for an intelligentsia to grow and flourish. In 2010, China was identified as having the 2nd highest change in the Human Development Index (HDI) – an estimate of health, wealth, and education in any country between 1980 and 2010.”
Guyana, however, appears to be moving in the opposite direction. In the 1980s, Guyana was ranked #81 among 129 countries on the HDI. In 2010, Guyana was ranked #104. According to the 2010 UN Human Development Report, among the top 104 HDI ranked countries, Guyana ranked: 1) 4th highest in female mortality rates; 2) 11th highest in male mortality rates; 3) 2nd highest in maternal mortality rates; 4) 2nd highest in infant mortality rates; 5) 3rd lowest in the availability of pre-natal care; 6) 4th lowest in the number of medical doctors for every 10,000 thousand people; 7) 2nd highest in 15-24 years old females infected with HIV; 8) 4th highest in adults infected with HIV; 9) 2nd lowest in the use of contraceptives (condom, etc); 10) 14th in multidimensional (various aspects) poverty; 11) 2nd lowest in GDP per capital (average wealth per person); 12) 12th in person capital remittance inflows (dependent upon financial help from relatives overseas); 13) 3rd lowest in primary school teachers trained to teach; 14) 17th highest in mobile phone charges (we talk more on cell-phones than 87 other countries); 15) 11th lowest in being treated with respect by citizens of other countries.
In 2011, Guyana was ranked #17. In one year, Guyana had slipped 13 places lower on the HDI, from #104 to #117. The trend from 1980 to 2011 is clear. Guyana is accelerating backwards. What steps must Guyana take in order to arrest, and ultimately reverse this trend?
Above everything, Guyana needs to ensure that the education enterprise is being managed as efficiently and effectively as possible. Further, whatever steps are taken and the priority outcomes must be the enlargement and enhancement of the pool of talent that can benefit from post-secondary education. This can happen only if increased numbers of students have access to quality secondary education. The implications for primary/early childhood education should be evident – particularly the need to abolish sponsored mobility.
The World Bank in ‘Education Quality and Growth‘ (2008), argues that insufficient attention is being given the quality of education, that is’ ensuring that the learning needs of students are met. It further argues that it is the quality of teachers that most influences student outcomes. The implication is clear. Improving educational quality requires a focus on institutions with the aim of making more efficient and effective use of available resources, not just the acquisition of additional resources.
Since the introduction of post-secondary education and training in Guyana, there has been no major reorganization. Developments have been fragmented, and these have resulted in unnecessary duplication of effort, and wasteful and inefficient use of scarce resources. There is a critical need to rationalize the various post-secondary education programmes: “Teacher Education; Technical (Agricultural/Business/Industrial/Nursing/etc) Education; Research Institutes; Continuing Education (IDCE, NCERD); University Education, etc, in Guyana, and to evolve by cooperative and collaborative means an integrated and cohesive ‘system‘ of the fragmented programmes, institutions and interests now in place.”
Education policy-makers will have to cease thinking about education in Guyana as consisting of separate levels, and re-conceptualize education as a system – an organic and dynamic whole consisting of early childhood, primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of education with the University of Guyana at its apex. This demands that the “restructured, redeveloped and renewed” university, staffed by faculty charged with new professional and social responsibilities, gives leadership and actively participates in all levels of the schooling process, in order to ensure the availability of an enlarged and enhanced pool of talented youth capable of benefiting from post-secondary education.
Among the several benefits that will accrue as a result of the rationalization of post-secondary education are: 1) an end to unnecessary duplication of efforts; 2) the creation of critical masses of mind power in key areas. This would provide environments conducive to the generation and cross-fertilization of ideas, foster innovation that could result in increased production and productivity; 3) a vast reduction in bureaucracy and concomitant cost; 4) the release of many resources (manpower, money, materials) that can be used more efficiently and effectively in other parts of the system (especially on the student clientele), towards ensuring the availability of an enlarged and enhanced pool of talented youth that can benefit from post-secondary education.
Yours faithfully,
Clarence O Perry
