Dear Editor,
With most of the dust settling on the CXC results, I respond to my inner compulsion to make a statement as a CXC teacher (though now part time) for more than two decades in both public and private schools.
There seem to be two sets of orientation that guide the commentaries on the number of subjects attempted by our students. Among the issues discussed regarding the students’ attempts of more than ten CSEC subjects are readiness; social pressure; the impact on the students’ health, psyche and rounded development; the real benefit of all these subjects to the student; and even the relayed benefit to society. A recurring question is, does the student really need all these subjects?
For the folks who believe that students are under pressure to write too many subjects, their concerns are pregnant with merit, but only if the student is of low ability and is being coerced either directly or indirectly in an institutionalised way to attempt more subjects than he/she really can cope with on a normal scale. It’s not as helpful when the motivation is to compete for some known reasons, though in competition there may exist a catalyst to reveal potential. The alternative opinion informs us that as long as the student has the ability, and wants to do twenty subjects then their potential should be challenged. My reservation here, however, lies with some of the criteria used to determine the students’ potential to write in excess of ten subjects. Since it is impractical for 15-20 subjects to be timetabled for quality delivery in school, the lessons industry comes to have some relevance.
Here, the diagnostic instruments used to determine the student’s readiness, and the preparatory modalities for the exams must come into question. If the lessons’ institution is motivated by profits at the expense of genuineness in curriculum delivery, especially when it comes to the flexibilities in catering for individual differences, then we have a problem. There exist, however, quite a few reputable ‘lessons’ teachers and institutions that have over the years been of tremendous help to students. The valedictorians and successful students can attest to this. The schools actually, in a passive way, sanction the lessons by merely allowing students to write more subjects than are being offered in their normal instruction time. This is bearing fruit to a budding exploitative process on a concerning scale, involving teachers in some schools using their influence to make low achievers believe they can actually write ten or more subjects. The benefit to the teacher comes with the student being privately tutored for very rewarding hourly fees. There is nothing wrong with private tutoring of additional subjects, but the sole objective must never be to increase a teacher’s income.
I now come to the question of the need for many subjects. A student may, indeed, not need twenty subjects for entry into a tertiary institution of any calibre, but should this be the only yardstick to measure need in this context? If it’s for the sake of challenging oneself in the case of a student who wants to attempt 15 subjects, then why use under-development of the child as a deterrent? Has any research been conducted to show the relationship between the number of subjects attempted by a student, and his/her capacity to function as a normal member of society? Some may argue that the mere exposure to various subjects can increase the child’s versatility not only academically, but socially as well. Knowledge leads to conversations and conversations lead to healthy interactions. Healthy interactions in turn influence positive self esteem. Others may even argue that there are many more impacting variables in our homes and society that may inhibit students’ psycho-social development than just the number of subjects they attempt at CSEC.
Some commentaries labelled these students as ‘nerds’ and other unfavourable nicknames coming with the explanation that “they need a life.” If the time taken for the preparation of as many subjects and the perceived pressure, lead some to make such assertions, then it is worth reminding of the advancements in technology/communication in this age. While in 1988, photocopiers were like ‘ET’ for Guyanese, in 2016 the access to past papers online and the availability of youtube videos and Google have made information access not even a challenge to the memory. The website https://www.khanacademv.org/ contains scores of videos that our high-school students can use, which are in some ways more beneficial to them than a teacher in a classroom. A video can be replayed as many times as a student needs for clarity without the fear of affecting the progress of a class, or testing the patience of the teacher. Students today also have the luxury of communication with others and their teachers via messenger apps and social media in relation to questions whose answers don’t have to wait until the next morning in school. Altogether, the degree of stress that we may deem a result of an above-average child attempting twenty subjects at CSEC may very well be lessened by the aid of technology.
Besides, should we be so conclusive about the relationship between the number of subjects and a child’s development rather than concerned about the availability of facilities and capable management systems for youth involvement in sports? Sports after all assist in social development. The question of time for sports may be posed for the students writing 15 and more subjects, but with the explanations above regarding techno aid, a child can still find time for 15 subjects and play tennis, though perhaps, not enough time for professional sport development.
Are the West Indies cricket woes a result of students writing too many subjects at CSEC?
For those who feel the subjects are too many for the sake of numbers, try telling Usain Bolt he was too ambitious to try for nine medals instead of six or try telling Michael Phelps he should have gone for twelve medals only. Self confidence may be the only thing an above average student needs and will have available at an older age to take him/her through some seemingly insurmountable tasks. Writing twenty CSEC subjects can be the source of such confidence.
Yours faithfully,
Kalesh Ramsaroop
