Editorial | Make Stokes oversight group a commission of Parliament

Dr Adrian Stokes, the economist and financial analyst, is a credible choice to lead the team Prime Minister Andrew Holness intends to appoint to monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the Patterson Commission on reforming Jamaica’s education system.

However, Mr Holness, at least in his initial outline of the body’s expected structure, fell short in the design of its operating system. For, based on what the prime minister indicated to Parliament during his Budget speech, the committee will not be grounded in law. It will, therefore, have limited authority to ensure that agreed projects are executed, except by moral suasion and/or the public shaming officials and institutions that fail at their tasks.

Led by the renowned Jamaican sociologist and writer Orlando Patterson, the Patterson Commission was the latest to review and make suggestions to reverse the weaknesses of an education system that does not deliver value for the money allocated to it – over five per cent of the country’s gross domestic product.

Among the more graphic of these shortcomings, as was highlighted in the report, is that at grade six, when children are transitioning to high school, only 41 per cent of students pass mathematics in the Primary Exit Profile (PEP) exams; 49 per cent in science; and 55 per cent in language arts. “ A breakdown of the language arts results indicated that a third of students at the end of primary school could not read, 56 per cent could not write, and 57 per cent could not identify information in a simple sentence,” the report noted.

At the Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate examinations, mostly taken by high-school students, only 28 per cent of Jamaican candidates passed five or more subjects at a single sitting, with math and English among them.

WIDE RANGE OF SOLUTIONS

The commission noted a raft of structural, social and economic factors underpinning these weaknesses in Jamaica's education outcome and proffered a wide range of solutions, including:

- The differential funding of schools, based on their demographic make-up and the capacity of parents to contribute to their children’s education;

- The rebalancing of funding from the vocational training and parts of the tertiary sector, to early-childhood education;

- The overhaul and better funding of teacher-training institutions;

- The upgrading of legislation covering the education sector;

- Improved accountability in the system; and

- A genuine decentralisation of the operations of the education ministry, including giving greater autonomy to its regional offices, as was intended when the system was devised.

In many respects, the findings and recommendations of the Patterson Commission echoed those of earlier reports, including those by the 2004 Rae Davis-led task force. The Patterson document, however, updates and expands on several of the issues, taking into account the passage of time, changes in technology, and shifts in the global economy.

But the bane of earlier reports has been the failure to implement, or only partial implementation of, recommendations despite the declared commitment of governments to see them through. These undertakings, however, do not penetrate or dislodge a resistant bureaucracy.

This is the context that perhaps caused the Patterson Commission to recommend that the Government establish a body akin to the Economic Programme Oversight Committee (EPOC), which monitored Jamaica’s adherence to its fiscal programme when it had borrowing agreements with the International Monetary Fund. The work of EPOC was widely credited with helping to ensure that Jamaica met its commitments under those agreements.

Said the Patterson Commission: “The education sector reform should be designated as an area of national priority and a structure like EPOC should be considered. The proposed education progress commission should be responsible for monitoring the implementation of Jamaica’s education reform measures.”

AGREED WITH RECOMMENDATION

Prime Minister Holness agreed with the recommendation. He told Parliament of his plan to appoint an Education Transformation Oversight Committee, chaired by Dr Stokes, and including “members of the commission and key stakeholders, including the Opposition”.

This newspaper broadly supports the scheme, including Dr Stokes’ appointment – but with a significant proviso. As we said in the aftermath of the publication of the report, this oversight group should not be merely an ad hoc committee. It should be a formal commission of Parliament, with the legislated powers thereof, including to hold individuals and institutions accountable and to recommend consequences if deliverables are not achieved.

In this regard, the commission, as is proposed in the reform document, should have “dedicated resources and institutional support”. But more critically, as the Patterson Commission said: “This body should develop annual work plans with targets and should prepare quarterly and annual reports that outline achievements against targets.”

The arrangement suggested by the Patterson Commission will not work well if the body lacks executive authority to decide on its annual and quarterly priorities and to insist that they are followed. Moreover, making it a commission of Parliament would provide the body with insulation against too much ministerial meddling after the priorities are set and work programmes are agreed. Further, Parliament – through a specialised oversight committee – would hold the commission and its principals accountable for their own performance.