Education: What do we want ? - Pt 1

Keith Noel, Contributor

ONCE AGAIN, the education system is in focus. We once more hear, with growing concern, those in authority lamenting the fact that the levels of 'passes' in local and regional examinations are far from where we think they should be, and we also listen sympathetically to the complaints of potential employers that graduates of secondary (and even tertiary) institutions are not ready for immediate employment. The fact that media houses are wont to be alarmist and sensational has also helped to exacerbate the panic situation.

We must, in our examination of the system, look at what we need to do. We must reconsider the priorities we set; decide upon the outcomes we desire; and select the methods we think will produce the best results.

Educational priorities

Let us look at two areas of concern. The first has to do with our priorities. It is not easy to decide on these as we find that different outcomes are best for different people.

Where, for example, should some of the more important non-academic outcomes fall in the scale? How important is the building of self-esteem, of positive attitudes and sound values vis-a-vis the learning of mathematics? Is a poor physical education and sports programme in a school really not as bad as a poor English, math, science, or humanities programme? If so, what's all this about mens sana in corpore sano? Just lip service?

I have asked before that we consider our response to teachers who take time out of their planning of English or math classes to raise cash or kind, and to organise cooking and serving so that they ensure that no child in their small rural primary school is ever hungry while in school. Or who spend much time 'parenting' their charges: providing them with the encouragement, the hugs, the counselling, the esteem-building talks and listening ear that is absent in the home. Do we remind them that this is not why they have been employed, and that this must not be allowed to interfere with the delivery of the academic curriculum?

Interestingly, the ministry has a number of programmes that were devised to help in this aspect of education. I remember, after our tremendous success in Beijing, a team was assembled to devise ways in which this spirit could be harnessed to serve the cause of education and some good initial work was actually done. I may be wrong, but I suspect that not enough key persons really believed in its potential to make the best of it. We hear precious little of the excellent Culture in Education Programme which is meant to engender in students pride in self and country by fostering greater cultural awareness and by having students contemplate the lives, words, and actions of important individuals and cultural institutions in the nation's or community's history, and to promote cultural learning in all subjects. We hear nothing of principals being upbraided for not ensuring that this programme is made to work!

Teaching an art or a science?

Another excellent move on the part of the ministry is that of urging teachers to employ social constructivism as the underpinning of their teaching. The belief is that best results come when teachers and students work together, sharing ideas and challenging each other's perspectives. Teachers are urged to encourage peer-peer interactions and collaborative 'group' learning. They should have students work together in small groups so that all participate in sharing data and in developing group reports. This encourages interdependency among group members. This view of learning centres on the active learner within the teaching-learning process.

On the other hand, the ministry is insisting on the swift implementation of its new statistics-based, scientific approach to education with a focus on much summative assessment which informs the planning and results in the adjustment of the curriculum to suit the needs of individual classes. Many teachers are becoming so wrapped up in testing and evaluating that the 'art' of teaching is being lost. The teachers become so engrossed in output that they are unwilling to give up the degree of control of the learning process that a constructivist approach demands, and they become more authoritarian in their approaches and the classes become more teacher-centred.

This negates all of the efforts at the constructivist approach.

Keith Noel is an educator. Send comments to columns@gleanerjm.com