Basil Jarrett | We were wrong

The ‘road to Damascus’ is a term typically used to refer to the conversion of Saul to Christianity while travelling to Damascus to persecute said Christians. Today, the phrase is used to point to an important moment in a person’s life, where a great change of ideas or belief takes place. A transformation, if you will.

I’ve been told that ‘It takes a big man to admit he was wrong, and an even bigger one to apologise for it’. But alas, I recently found myself doing both while on that very same road that Saul travelled all those years ago, not to torment Christians, mind you, but in pursuit of an equally questionable venture – the persecution of the Educate Jamaica High School Ranking system.

PUBLIC CRITICISM

You see, a few years ago, I was a part of an army of disappointed high-school old boys who, having grown frustrated with some of the cracks in the rankings, led an assault on the entity in order to force it to give us a better look.

We believed that Educate Jamaica’s ranking methodology needed to be reassessed, as it only considered CSEC subjects taken in grade 11. This, we felt, forced some schools to bar students from taking subjects in lower grades, or pressured them to redo those subjects in grade 11. I think that even Educate Jamaica’s founder, Ainsworth Darby, himself will admit that this was an important limitation.

We also believed that the rankings did not provide a true reflection of what happens to a cohort of students over a five-year period. When a school, for instance, takes in students with roughly 65 per cent or 75 per cent averages, they are being compared to schools where students are entering with averages of over 90 per cent. We called it ‘value-added’, and we were convinced that we offered a more value-added, more ‘well-rounded’ education than those big guns in the top 10.

That was until a gentleman named Orlando Patterson entered the stage and put our theory to the sword. The Patterson Report’s rankings, unlike Educate Jamaica’s, did include a value-added component, defined as “the value that a school, or teacher, adds or contributes to the achievement, growth and academic performance of their students” over the five years. In other words, a school that moves a student from 60 per cent to 85 per cent has added more value than one that moves a student from 90 per cent to 95 per cent.

LIFTING THE VEIL

Patterson ruthlessly exposed our theory by revealing that we were not adding as much value as we thought. For instance, of the boys’ schools in question, one ranked 34 in the purely academic portion of the ranking system, but ranked the same dismal 34 in the value-added category. Another ranked 19 in academics, scored a slightly better 14 in value-added, while a third scored 26 in academics and 20 in value-added. I’ve deliberately not identified the schools because I want you to dig up the report for yourself and go through it. Any reason to reread and be reminded of this seminal piece of work by Dr Patterson and his team is always a good one.

Then there were others, including principals, who added their own condemnation of the rankings, but went a tad further in labelling it “illegitimate and flawed”. Some even demanded that the organisers adjust it or exclude them, or cease the rankings altogether.

Wait. What? Slow down now, cowboy. Methinks that perhaps doth protest too loudly.

The English Premier League has always had a problem with controversial calls from referees. Was the solution to scrap the league altogether or to withdraw teams? No. Instead, we developed video assistant referees, which, though not perfect, has helped to straighten out some of the vagaries of football refereeing. In other words, the rankings had its issues, but throwing out the baby, bathtub, bath water and rubber duckie could not have been the solution. So I was surprised when I found out that Mr Darby had relented, folded the operation and exited stage right, due largely in part to the criticisms that had rained down on him.

THE IMPORTANCE OF RANKINGS

I felt flat when I heard this, as it was never our intention to rob ourselves or the country of one of the most valuable means of keeping our educators’ feet to the fire. Without it, underperforming principals and school officials could now create their own version of academic reality and how well they were performing, pulling the wool over our eyes about the true state of their schools.

What ought to have happened was for us to sit with Mr Darby and share some of the ideas that we thought would improve the ranking system. Our ideas were not far-fetched or unworkable, as Dr Patterson showed by incorporating them in his system. It just needed dialogue, partnership and engagement to implement.

For that reason, I reached out to Mr Darby and had a very good, revealing and positive conversation. He was quite receptive to my call and explained some of the other issues that forced him to retire the rankings. I won’t share the details of the rest of the conversation, but I can tell you that I did feel a sense of slight relief of the burden on my conscience.

Academic rankings are important. They provide a true benchmark for our educators. They motivate our students to compete academically. They help educators and schools to improve strategies and enhance their reputations. Most importantly, they force accountability and transparency.

I am therefore imploring Darby and his team to resume, and to continue to improve their very critical work. Schooling is too important a vehicle to not have a speedometer or onboard navigation. Without these instruments, we end up burning gas and furiously spinning our wheels, but having no idea where or how fast we are going.

- Major Basil Jarrett is a communications strategist and CEO of Artemis Consulting, a communications consulting firm specialising in crisis communications and reputation management.