Dear Editor,
I am particularly mindful of the environment in which SN, one of the only two ‘independent’ newspapers, has to function. That said, I must, however, say how much I regretted the tone of last Sunday’s editorial captioned ‘Education.’
An editorial has a tremendous sociology and it can be used with considerable effect to achieve a variety of ends. Hand-in-hand with that sociology is a huge responsibility to be as accurate and as objective as possible. If Sunday’s editorial was intended to be a commentary on my letter: ‘Educational gains during previous administration have been eroded,’ (SN, March 28), then not only is the editorial based on a serious misconception, but it also took my remarks out of context, and as a result distorted the intent of my contribution. The comments in my letter were made in the context of building a newly independent, but divided nation. They contained facts and discernible impacts/outcomes of policies within certain periods.
The editorial in its opening paragraph states: “…the issues which have to be confronted in relation to it [education] are purely technical or professional in character, not political.” How mistaken! The technical and (not or) professional aspects have got to be grounded or informed by a philosophy of education. If on one hand in my philosophy of education, I regard children as empty vessels to be crammed with bits of information, then my teaching techniques would be based on rote/indoctrination, and the focus of my professionalism would essentially be how to make rote learning and indoctrination more efficient. On the other hand, if I regard children metaphorically as seeds with unknown properties, then my teaching techniques would be designed to discover what wonders are hidden within those seeds and my professionalism would focus on how best to discover, nurture/facilitate the development of those hidden wonders/talents. A philosophy of education is central to the ‘what’ and ‘how’ in educational practice.
At a more macro level education can be practised incorrectly and destroy a nation, or correctly to build a modern, democratic and prosperous nation. If in the view of some education is being practised incorrectly, or it is being misused, and has become a threat to social justice, and to the development of a modern and democratic nation, then it automatically becomes a political issue.
Desirable progress in education is neither swift nor smooth. Anyone who has observed the ebb and flow of a tide before it reaches the high watermark would appreciate what is involved when attempts are made to transform a colonial legacy. Every initiative or solution brings with it its own problems, and unintended outcomes which now require further initiative and problem-solving ad infinitum. To belittle educational initiatives undertaken during the PNC’s tenure especially when persons involved were not educated or prepared to chart their own waters or paddle their own canoe is, to say the least, most uncharitable.
In the words of a contributor to your columns, I wish to remind the Sunday editor that “we are entitled to our own opinions, but certainly not to our own facts.” The contents of my letter of March 28, are based on verifiable facts – pure and simple.
Yours faithfully,
Clarence O Perry