I argued last week that the physical and institutional infrastructure and processes within the education system have changed significantly in recent times. However, system reform in itself is not a panacea to better education outcomes. We are not getting the returns we desire because our general and specific poor socio/economic condition has contributed significantly (in order of priority) to weak school management, poor teacher quality, low levels of parental involvement and decrepit physical school facilities. As such, greater success is more likely if we focus upon making improvements to these factors.
En passant, as after every national examination, recently there was much talk about the private schools doing better than the public ones, and particularly for the more established ones this is true largely because they tend to be better resourced and have a central ingredient that the public schools do not at present have, but with proper policies can try to build, namely, the motivation inherent in the profit/ideological commitment. TVET and Arts sectors have the capacity to contribute to enhanced motivation by facilitating a closer fit between learning and natural attributes.
It is partly with this in mind that I promised last week to present today a 2004 paper in which I sought to make the case for the approach that seeks to unify general and technical education. But in the interest of space and being more up to date, I will integrate its main arguments into the discussion that follows.
The Ministry of Education review of its 2008-2013 education plan, contained in its Education Sector Plan 2014-2018, identified as among its major achievements the adoption of the competency-based approach, the piloting of the Caribbean Vocational Qualification (CVQ), the 2010 revitalization and rolling out of the 2005 Basic Competency Certificate Programme (BCCP – level 1 CVQ) – renamed the Secondary Competency Certificate Programme – to 50 secondary schools and 10 practical instructions that resulted in over 2000 students graduating from the SCCP programme.
Reasonable change has been taking place, but nowhere in this document or elsewhere, did I find a clear exposition of the relationship that exists between general and vocational education. Thus it appears to me that the contention in the SN editorial that ‘The criteria for the assessment of students for entry into the vocational education system as opposed to them continuing in the general education system would need to be clear and well thought out’ appears quite appropriate (Vocational education SN 15/07/2016).
The general aim of secondary education is to provide all students with a broad-based education that will enable them to acquire the knowledge, skills, attitudes, values and core competencies that will make them rounded and productive citizens. In November last year, the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) made some recommendations concerning technical and vocational education and training (TVET) that again encouraged countries to establish ‘Well-articulated outcome-based qualifications frameworks or systems based on learning outcomes and relating to a set of agreed standards should be established, in consultation with stakeholders, based on identified needs including occupational standards. Policy or regulatory mechanisms supporting horizontal and vertical progression should be established and include flexible learning pathways, modularization, the recognition of prior learning, accumulation and credit transfer. Special attention should be given to encouraging low-skilled and unskilled individuals to gain certification for access to further learning and decent work …’
The International Labour Organisation (ILO) and UNESCO’s recommendation on ‘Technical and Vocational Education and Training for the Twenty-first Century’ also viewed technical and vocational education as an integral part of general education and four approaches to aligning general and vocational education have been discerned from the European experience.
(1) vocational enhancement, which emphasizes the distinctive nature of vocational education, its distinctive content and links between the education system and employers; (2) mutual enrichment in which vocational institutions and business cooperate with the aim of giving students a broader range of choices; (3) linkages, which seek to make vocational and general education more formally equal by linking both to a common qualification structure, and (4) unification, wherein vocational and general education are merged into one another with the aim of abolishing the distinction between vocational and general learning (http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol /documents/ 000001164.htm).
In Working Paper Unifying Vocational and General Education: European Approaches, David Raffe stated that ‘Despite the diversity of European systems the trend towards the ‘unification’ of general and vocational education is found in nearly all European countries, even if it takes different forms’ http://www.ces.ed.ac.uk/PDF% 20Files/Brief015.pdf.
Regardless of what approach is adopted, the demand today is for students to be exposed to a balance of subjects. Employers express the view that those who study the arts must pursue something in science and technology while technicians and engineers must know something about the arts. While there is general agreement that the basic subjects of the traditional curriculum are essential, I agree with those who hold that our conceptualization of a general education must include the arts and technical education.
In which case, the task of the modern education manager must be to creatively design a curriculum and related activities that offer both ‘core’ (English, mathematics, etc.) and ‘elective’ (aesthetics education such as art, music, dance, and technical/vocational such as electrical, mechanical, building, etc.) This will necessitate a liberal use of modularization to accomplish the required level of integration and avoid the stigmatization that usually accompanies those choosing to do TVET/Art.
Coupled to the above and most importantly, I believe that the TVET sector should be reformed to make a reality of UNESCO’s recommendation about establishing supporting mechanisms that include the recognition of prior learning and the need to pay special attention to encouraging low-skilled and unskilled individuals to gain certification for access to further learning and decent work.’
In Guyana technical education delivery appears to be still a rather disjointed affair, with various public, private and non-governmental organisations making differing isolated levels of offerings without their being set into a system of progression that gives recognition to prior learning. Reform that focuses on making the smallest piece of education academically acceptable and marketable is therefore necessary. The national TVET and accreditation councils are important arrangements for the institutionalization of this process.
Secondly, utilising the existing school infrastructure, the BCCP was also intended to provide comprehensive coverage to give a second chance to those thousands of unqualified and incidentally qualified persons who are now in the job market and/or on our streets. Unfortunately, it appears as if this process has been abandoned and that what is left is the usual relatively marginal efforts of the Board of Industrial Training and the various ad hoc projects. If this observation is true, corrective action is now urgently required.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
