Densil Williams | Jamaica’s education Lorenz curve needs nuanced analysis

Orlando Patterson and his team produced a tome on Jamaica’s education sector, which should be made compulsory reading for all those involved in education administration. While the vast majority of the findings are not new and could be traced backed to the late Dr Rae Davis-led ROSE 2004 report, Patterson’s team reignites a fundamental debate in the development of our country, that is, the role of education in the development process.

The report, however, should be read in conjunction with another insightful piece done by the World Bank Group/UNICEF which analysed the public expenditure of the education sector in Jamaica. Both reports provide important evidentiary bases for designing the future of the education system in Jamaica.

NOTHING NEW

The Patterson report and the World Bank/UNICEF report, while detailed and comprehensive, have told us nothing new. They both point to an education system with pockets of success, but mainly characterised by inefficiency, lack of accountability and poor outcomes at the end of the education life cycle for our learners.

Put simply, the reports tell us that we have an education architecture not fit for purpose in the 21st century powered by the Fourth Industrial Revolution where, knowledge will be the main source of competitive advantage, especially for small, natural resource poor states like those of the Caribbean.

To be globally competitive in the emerging global world powered by smart automation, small countries like Jamaica will have to get their education sector operating at the highest level of efficiency and competitiveness; otherwise, they will be left behind. One order of business is to deal with the funding issues.

FINANCE NOT REALLOCATE RESOURCES

Without a properly financed education sector, Jamaica will not build a competitive labour force for the 21st century global economic space. Both reports seem to land in the same space regarding financing. They noted that government spending on education is on par with spending in some of the best locations with superb educational systems, namely Finland and Estonia. They argue that Jamaica’s education spend as a percentage of GDP is within the range of those of highly developed OECD countries and, in some cases, better than some of those countries.

Specifically, the World Bank/UNICEF report notes that Jamaica spends 5.2 per cent of its GDP on education, which is in line with international best practice and slightly higher than the average of 4.9 per cent for the Caribbean Small States. However, they contend that while the spending is comparable, the outcomes for Jamaica do not reflect the level of expenditure. Simply put, Jamaica is not getting value for money from its education spend.

LORENZ CURVE

Critically, the reports seem to contend that, to get value for money, a reallocation of the expenditure on education is necessary. The World Bank/UNICEF report notes that the spending distribution by per capita household consumption level shows that the poorest population benefits more than the richest from public investment in education in early childhood and primary education. Further, it noted that secondary education is neutral to poverty, because there is an equal proportion of students from lower and higher socio-economic quintiles in public schools. Critically, it says, spending on tertiary education is regressive, as students from higher socio-economic quintiles are over-represented at tertiary institutions.

Looking at Jamaica’s Lorenz curve, which shows how expenditure is allocated across socio-economic groups, both reports advocate for a reallocation of expenditure from tertiary to early childhood education, in order to achieve a more equitable and efficient allocation of public resources in Jamaica’s education sector.

DANGEROUS ARGUMENT

Fundamentally, the reallocation narrative is a very dangerous one for Jamaica, and any developing country for that matter. Today, post-secondary education is even more relevant to advance the development of the human capital of countries like Jamaica, to make it become more globally competitive. As such, one should not be speaking about cutting back access.

None of the OECD countries, which the reports so gleefully advanced as comparators for Jamaica, reached those levels of economic development without strong investment in post-secondary education. For, despite the pro-poor narrative about the early childhood and secondary spending, the fact is, in today’s world, the skills that are needed to compete are not honed at the primary and secondary levels of the education value chain. Those are advanced and executed at the tertiary level.

Jamaica, therefore, cannot make the mistake to abandon funding its tertiary sector because a few wealthy persons benefit from the expenditure. For, if the masses cannot access post-secondary education, we will have a labour force built on low skill, low wage and low value added. It means, therefore, that the quality of life for the majority will not change.

DEVELOPMENT TOOL

Given fiscal limitations, choices on where expenditure goes will have to be made. Funding education in its entirety should be a priority for the next two decades, in order to increase access and improve learning outcomes. To deal with the pro-poor narrative, a more nuanced analysis of the Lorenz curve should be carried out at the tertiary level.

Using data mining tools and sophisticated algorithms, administrators should be able to say how the expenditure is directed to ensure the most needy get it and allow the wealthy to pay their way. Cutting back is not the answer. More nuanced analyses are needed as we think through the implementation of the recommendations from these reports.

EPOC STYLE NOT THE ANSWER

The Patterson report, being impatient with the implementation deficit in reforming the sector, calls for an EPOC-like commission to oversee the implementation of the recommendations in its report. The Economic Programme Oversight Committee (EPOC) is credited with bringing order to Jamaica’s economic management. It appears that replicating this institutional architecture across other troubled sectors is seen as a model.

Unfortunately, I do not think EPOC-style management will have the same success in education as it did with the economy. While I have all confidence in Dr Stokes’ ability to deliver, my sense tells me that EPOC replicated in education will have the same level of success as the economic growth council, when it launched its five-in-four rallying call to stimulate economic growth in Jamaica five years ago.

I say this, for the problems that need to be fixed in education are more at the operational level, not so much at the policy level. Therefore, a first fix is to have strong principals along with strong executive leadership at the schools, excellent school boards empowered to hold principals and leadership accountable, and a decentralised structure where regional education bodies can make decisions more expeditiously and not be burdened with the bureaucracy of the central ministry of education.

Critically, the sector must tackle urgently the hiring practices for executive leadership in schools, the appointment of school boards and designing of the relevant accountability frameworks to hold leaders accountable for their stewardship and reward them where reward is merited and dislocate them where performance does not meet up to standard. If the Stokes commission can’t do this, it will not succeed.

Densil Williams is professor of international business at The University of the West Indies. Send feedback to densilw@yahoo.com