It is now 8:13 pm Sunday, April 5, 2009. I have just listened to Prime Minister Golding deliver an approximate 11 minute national broadcast ostensibly setting the context and preparing the nation for the 2009-2010 Budget, whose estimates of expenditure are due to be laid at Parliament’s opening on Tuesday. Mr. Golding attempted to lecture us on Macro Economics 101. He was clear that it cannot be business as usual, and we should expect some expenditure cuts. He also spoke at length on the need to implement tax reforms now. I wait with baited breath hoping that huge tax increases are not sold as tax reforms!
The most interesting part of the broadcast was the Prime Minister volunteering to reduce his salary by 15% and asking all Members of Parliaments to do so. While I laud the prime Minister for giving up a portion of his salary, I must remind everyone that salary constitutes a relatively small portion of the cost to maintain the Prime Minister and his fellow Cabinet Ministers. Other costs include entire ministries, travelling etc. Instead, Mr. Golding should have announced a reduction of 15% in the number of Cabinet Ministers and consequently Ministries. There should also be a reduction in the number of State Ministers/Parliamentary Secretaries.
The Ministries would then include: 1) Office of the Prime Minister(OPM), Planning & Development; 2) Finance & Public Service; 3) Agriculture; 4) Education & Youth; 5) Labour and Social Security; 6) Health & Environment; 7) Foreign Affairs & Foreign Trade; 8) National Security; 9) Justice; 10) Industry, Commerce & Tourism; 11) Transport & Works; 12) Water & Housing; 13) Energy, Telecommunications & Mining; 14) Information, Culture, Sports & Entertainment. This would mean a reduction from 16 to 14 Ministries. Tourism is added to Industry and Commerce as the Jamaica Tourist Board is the main driver of that portfolio, not the Ministry. Energy can return to Mining & Telecommunications as these were separated to find a job for Minister Derrick Smith after returning from surgery. Only two Ministers without Portfolio are needed: 1 each for OPM and Finance. As the House Speaker is a Cabinet position, this then results in 17 members of the Cabinet, down from 20, which gives us the 15% reduction.
The reduction in Ministries and Cabinet Ministers would send a strong message through the Public Sector that it is not business as usual. Mr. Golding’s idea to take a 15% cut and hope that others will follow suit will have little impact on the overall public sector expenditure. The Prime Minister has clearly missed the mark!
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Letter to the Gleaner Editor
I write in response to the article published in your paper on March 19, 2009 entitled “Non-traditionals trump' established' schools - Top 28% of 'older' institutions”. This article is totally misleading and the Ministry of Education continues to pull a fast one over the general public.
The article claims that “Jonathan Grant, Old Harbour, Denbigh and Lewisville high schools had more than 70 per cent of their subject entries receiving passing grades”. When one examines the data and looks at success rate in Math and English Language it tells a different story. These are the only two compulsory subjects island wide and are therefore best used to compare school performance at CSEC. The success of a school cannot be measured by the pass rate of those who sat the exam; rather it must be of the pass rate of the entire Grade 11 cohort (total number of students in Grade 11 and therefore eligible to sit the exam) as is used in the Task Force Report on Education Reform. In the case of English Language the pass rate varied from 4% at Lewisville to 41% at Denbigh; while for Math it varied from 3% to 17%. Defining the pass rate based on the number of students who actually sat the exam is the Ministry's way of falsely claiming it has achieved anything.
The article claims that “Jonathan Grant, Old Harbour, Denbigh and Lewisville high schools had more than 70 per cent of their subject entries receiving passing grades”. When one examines the data and looks at success rate in Math and English Language it tells a different story. These are the only two compulsory subjects island wide and are therefore best used to compare school performance at CSEC. The success of a school cannot be measured by the pass rate of those who sat the exam; rather it must be of the pass rate of the entire Grade 11 cohort (total number of students in Grade 11 and therefore eligible to sit the exam) as is used in the Task Force Report on Education Reform. In the case of English Language the pass rate varied from 4% at Lewisville to 41% at Denbigh; while for Math it varied from 3% to 17%. Defining the pass rate based on the number of students who actually sat the exam is the Ministry's way of falsely claiming it has achieved anything.
Jamaica’s grades trending, but still not good enough
Selected data from the National Council on Education (NCE) in Jamaica as well as the Ministries of Education (MOE) in both Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago (T&T) indicate that Jamaican students lag behind their counterparts from T&T. It is instructive to point out however that while the national results for T&T have been declining since 2001; those for Jamaica have been increasing. The significant dip in Jamaica’s performance in 2004 coincides with the very first GSAT graduates sitting the CXC exams. Attempts to get similar data for Barbados proved futile; however the World Economic Forum has ranked the Quality of Barbados’ Education System at #10 in the world compared to #88 for Jamaica and #46 for T&T.
There are many schools of thought and many methods used to compare the national student CXC performance. One is easily tempted to use the pass rate based on those who registered and sat exams, however this distorts the analysis as in many cases, particularly in Jamaica many students are deliberately not entered and are therefore eliminated from the assessment system very early. Instead, we have chosen to use the total Grade 11 cohort. Jamaica’s Grade 11 cohort was 40,690 in 2004 compared to 22,692 for T&T.
Using non-compulsory subjects such as Information Technology of Physics, again distort the results as there is a natural selection process and many students choose not to take these subjects, yet alone sit the subjects. In certain cases this makes sense as it is deemed a waste of resources entering certain students. Instead we use the results for English Language and Mathematics which are universally compulsory subjects.
While 88% of the cohort registered and sat English in T&T, only 56% did so in Jamaica. 43% of the T&T cohort was successful compared to 31% for Jamaica. While T&T’s performance has declined since 2001 (57% down to 43%); Jamaica’s performance actually increased over the same period (28% up to 31%). Jamaica’s English pass rates in Traditional, Upgraded and Technical High Schools were 64%, 14% and 23% respectively.
A similar comparison holds true for Mathematics. While 88% of the cohort registered and sat Math in T&T, only 46% did so in Jamaica. 41% of the T&T cohort was successful compared to 20% for Jamaica. While T&T’s performance has declined since 2001 (45% down to 41%); Jamaica’s performance actually increased over the same period (16% up to 20%). Breaking down Jamaica’s performance by school category, the data indicate that in both English and Math there were increases over 2001 for the Traditional and Upgraded Schools and a decline since 2001 for Technical schools. Why then are Jamaican students generally performing at a lower level than their counterparts in T&T and ostensibly even more so than those in Barbados? Let us look at Government investment in Education, national policies and other practices.
The World Economic Forum reports that Jamaica’s expenditure on education is one of its 10 best economic strengths, while the quality of its education system is among its 10 worst economic weaknesses. In fact, Jamaica’s economic spend at 5.05% of its Gross National Income (GNI) ranks #36 in the world and #4 in the Latin America region. Barbados spends 6.99% of its GNI ranking #9 in the world and #1 in the Latin American region. T&T spends a paltry 4.01% of GNI ranking #67 in the world and #13 in the Region. The fact that Jamaica’s Quality of Education ranks at #88 suggests that our return on investment leaves very much to be desired. This is quite similar to the poor return on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) as during the 1990’s and early 2000’s Jamaica led the world in FDI with little conversion to GDP growth. The poor returns on FDI and Education expenditure point to inefficiencies in our public sector. We therefore turn to the Education policies in Jamaica and in T&T.
The 2004 Task Force Report on Education Reform in Jamaica and the 2008 National Report on the Development of Education in Trinidad & Tobago indicate several commonalities between the policies of the two countries.
1. The Jamaica 2030 Vision and the T&T Vision 2020 are the respective national contexts
2. Both countries agree that the education systems must be student-centred, with full access and full stakeholder participation.
3. Jamaica stresses autonomy and authority at the school level while T&T’s Report focuses on school-based management.
4. The respective Ministry will focus on policy and Quality Management; while in Jamaica Regional Education Authorities (REA’s) are to provide support to schools.
5. Jamaica’s Task Force Report indicates a shift from funding institutions to funding students.
We were unable to gather the relevant information on how effective T&T has been in implementing its Education policy and will therefore limit the review to Jamaica.
To implement the Task Force Report, both transformational and improvement initiatives need to be addressed. Transformational activities require minimal resources along with national and political will, paradigm shifts and tough decision-taking. Improvement initiatives on the other hand require lots of resources but have very little impact on the education outcomes without any transformation.
The paradigm shift, political will and tough decision-making required to make the Jamaican Education System student-centred, to give individual schools the required authority and autonomy and to hold everyone in the system accountable for performance have not occurred. To be fair, the former and current administrations have made concerted efforts to improve stakeholder involvement and this should continue. However, while significant resources have been spent in restructuring the MOE and establishing supporting institutions such as the National Education Inspectorate, there has been little change in the management of the education delivery. The attempt by the MOE to decentralize and delegate authority to the Regional Authorities was not the intention of the Task Force Report and will not result in Education Transformation. The fact is that while changes are required at the Ministry, transformation needs to occur at the school level.
Jamaica’s poor education performance combined with the fact that Jamaica ranks high on education expenditure is an indication of an inefficient public sector supporting the education system. Secondly, the lack of political/national will, paradigm shifts and tough decision-taking by successive administrations to effectively implement the transformational initiatives outlined by the National Task Force on Education Reform in Jamaica have resulted in dismal CXC performances.
There are many schools of thought and many methods used to compare the national student CXC performance. One is easily tempted to use the pass rate based on those who registered and sat exams, however this distorts the analysis as in many cases, particularly in Jamaica many students are deliberately not entered and are therefore eliminated from the assessment system very early. Instead, we have chosen to use the total Grade 11 cohort. Jamaica’s Grade 11 cohort was 40,690 in 2004 compared to 22,692 for T&T.
Using non-compulsory subjects such as Information Technology of Physics, again distort the results as there is a natural selection process and many students choose not to take these subjects, yet alone sit the subjects. In certain cases this makes sense as it is deemed a waste of resources entering certain students. Instead we use the results for English Language and Mathematics which are universally compulsory subjects.
While 88% of the cohort registered and sat English in T&T, only 56% did so in Jamaica. 43% of the T&T cohort was successful compared to 31% for Jamaica. While T&T’s performance has declined since 2001 (57% down to 43%); Jamaica’s performance actually increased over the same period (28% up to 31%). Jamaica’s English pass rates in Traditional, Upgraded and Technical High Schools were 64%, 14% and 23% respectively.
A similar comparison holds true for Mathematics. While 88% of the cohort registered and sat Math in T&T, only 46% did so in Jamaica. 41% of the T&T cohort was successful compared to 20% for Jamaica. While T&T’s performance has declined since 2001 (45% down to 41%); Jamaica’s performance actually increased over the same period (16% up to 20%). Breaking down Jamaica’s performance by school category, the data indicate that in both English and Math there were increases over 2001 for the Traditional and Upgraded Schools and a decline since 2001 for Technical schools. Why then are Jamaican students generally performing at a lower level than their counterparts in T&T and ostensibly even more so than those in Barbados? Let us look at Government investment in Education, national policies and other practices.
The World Economic Forum reports that Jamaica’s expenditure on education is one of its 10 best economic strengths, while the quality of its education system is among its 10 worst economic weaknesses. In fact, Jamaica’s economic spend at 5.05% of its Gross National Income (GNI) ranks #36 in the world and #4 in the Latin America region. Barbados spends 6.99% of its GNI ranking #9 in the world and #1 in the Latin American region. T&T spends a paltry 4.01% of GNI ranking #67 in the world and #13 in the Region. The fact that Jamaica’s Quality of Education ranks at #88 suggests that our return on investment leaves very much to be desired. This is quite similar to the poor return on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) as during the 1990’s and early 2000’s Jamaica led the world in FDI with little conversion to GDP growth. The poor returns on FDI and Education expenditure point to inefficiencies in our public sector. We therefore turn to the Education policies in Jamaica and in T&T.
The 2004 Task Force Report on Education Reform in Jamaica and the 2008 National Report on the Development of Education in Trinidad & Tobago indicate several commonalities between the policies of the two countries.
1. The Jamaica 2030 Vision and the T&T Vision 2020 are the respective national contexts
2. Both countries agree that the education systems must be student-centred, with full access and full stakeholder participation.
3. Jamaica stresses autonomy and authority at the school level while T&T’s Report focuses on school-based management.
4. The respective Ministry will focus on policy and Quality Management; while in Jamaica Regional Education Authorities (REA’s) are to provide support to schools.
5. Jamaica’s Task Force Report indicates a shift from funding institutions to funding students.
We were unable to gather the relevant information on how effective T&T has been in implementing its Education policy and will therefore limit the review to Jamaica.
To implement the Task Force Report, both transformational and improvement initiatives need to be addressed. Transformational activities require minimal resources along with national and political will, paradigm shifts and tough decision-taking. Improvement initiatives on the other hand require lots of resources but have very little impact on the education outcomes without any transformation.
The paradigm shift, political will and tough decision-making required to make the Jamaican Education System student-centred, to give individual schools the required authority and autonomy and to hold everyone in the system accountable for performance have not occurred. To be fair, the former and current administrations have made concerted efforts to improve stakeholder involvement and this should continue. However, while significant resources have been spent in restructuring the MOE and establishing supporting institutions such as the National Education Inspectorate, there has been little change in the management of the education delivery. The attempt by the MOE to decentralize and delegate authority to the Regional Authorities was not the intention of the Task Force Report and will not result in Education Transformation. The fact is that while changes are required at the Ministry, transformation needs to occur at the school level.
Jamaica’s poor education performance combined with the fact that Jamaica ranks high on education expenditure is an indication of an inefficient public sector supporting the education system. Secondly, the lack of political/national will, paradigm shifts and tough decision-taking by successive administrations to effectively implement the transformational initiatives outlined by the National Task Force on Education Reform in Jamaica have resulted in dismal CXC performances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
