Editorial | What’s the universities’ view on the education report?

It is an abrogation of responsibility, to the point of nonfeasance, that Jamaica’s universities, and other tertiary institutions, have up to now offered little analysis on the Patterson Commission Report on the transformation of education in Jamaica. Or, if they have, they seem to have decided to keep their findings and opinions to themselves, rather than share them with the Jamaican public.

Two things would be wrong with any such posture. It would be a betrayal of the obligation of institutions of higher learning to be thought leaders in any society, but especially in developing countries. Second, as education providers, these institutions have a direct stake in the findings of the commission, and if and how its recommendations are implemented. Indeed, some of the recommendations relate specifically to access, financing and oversight of tertiary education.

While the report pointed out that Jamaica’s public expenditure on tertiary education, hovering at around 18 per cent of the annual education budget, is close to the level of member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, there is little equity in how the money is divided. Most of the funds, in aggregate, go to the universities. There are, however, wide disparities in the per student spend between institutions.

For instance, a World Bank analysis last year showed that 71 per cent of the Government allocation to the tertiary sector goes to universities, of which the University of the West Indies (UWI) gets half. The University of Technology (UTech) is next with 17 per cent. Multi-disciplinary colleges get about 15 per cent, and teacher-training institutions in the region of 10 per cent. Beyond these global numbers is what the institutions get on a per capita basis. This ranges from a low of J$71,000 per student, to nearly J$1.2 million.

“There is little clear explanation for this disparity, as allocations are not based on a transparent policy and funding formula,” the report said.

This newspaper is not clear about the extent to which this uneven allocation of resources influences the limited access to tertiary education for what the commission called “marginalised groups” – males, students from rural communities, and those from “disadvantaged circumstances”. The commission, nonetheless, proposed investment targeting this set of potential students.

“This should be pursued through a mix of changes to the funding model for students, especially in relation to the provision of means-tested scholarships and grants,” the document said. “Greater emphasis should also be placed on better support to community colleges as a component of increasing access, especially in rural areas and in other underserved areas.”

DEEPER ANALYSIS

But even as the Patterson Commission made these and other recommendations for the financing of the sector (including elements of rebalancing in the allocation of resources; new approaches to students’ loans; special savings schemes for university education; and stackable degrees, under which students can complete their university education to reduce upfront costs), it was made clear that policy has to be grounded in deeper analysis and based on empirical data.

Said the report: “There is currently limited strategic oversight of the tertiary sector. Data is often non-existent and, as such, policy decisions are being taken within a context of limited data and analysis. There is an urgent need for a comprehensive, higher-education policy that not only establishes the funding model for institutions, but also sets the strategic framework for the development of the sector.”

We agree with the call for a higher-education policy that is anchored in law. But as the commission made clear with respect to this proposal, as much else in the report, its observations and recommendations would benefit from a more specific and targeted study – like the “non-existent data”.

We are not surprised that this kind of information is not available in the education ministry, and that the ministry’s policymaking seems to be largely driven by gut feelings and hit-or-miss shots in the dark. An example is the ill-conceived compulsory sixth-form programme, and its many failed and abandoned enterprises.

ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH

We are, however, taken aback that there appears to be a lack of data-driven research and related scholarly work at our major academies that address the issues raised by the Patterson Commission. That is even more surprising, given that the major one has itself been at the forefront of significant debates over how it should be funded, and whether its students should pay a greater portion of the economic cost of their education.

It is unfortunate, scandalous even, that the Government has not as yet, as this newspaper has been urging, instigated a public discourse on the Patterson Report. However, academies do not need the permission of governments to do these things, including analysis and research.

In that regard, we look forward to academies, including the private ones, and the specialised facilities and departments within them, doing the kind of work that helps ordinary citizens make sense of what the Patterson Commission has put on offer.

That, after all, is what academies do.