Rankings skewed

Mark Nicely, Guest Columnist

There has recently been an unfortunate comparison of schools' performance by the results gained in external examinations. However, assessment by outcome is reliable only where the variables are the same and are controllable.

The ranking of secondary institutions based solely on students' performance in the May-June Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) exams is not only misleading, it makes a mockery of research methods.

The fact is, all secondary schools are not equal, nor are the students who are sent to these schools after the annual ritual of the Grade Six Achievement Test (GSAT). Each school is unique and operating with its own unique realities, challenges and opportunities. It is for this, and other reasons pertaining to the various peculiarities of each school, that assessing schools and ranking them by outcome is not the most suitable means of determining the quality of an institution as a whole.

MANY FACTORS TO CONSIDER

In engaging in this dialogue, there is the need to put into perspective GSAT, which replaced the Common Entrance Examination (CEE) in 1998. The fundamental aim of GSAT was to open the secondary schools to more aspiring Jamaican children from underprivileged homes. For all its intents and purposes, GSAT has been, and still remains, a placement examination. It is a curriculum-based achievement examination that measures the knowledge, skills and understanding of our children at the end of their primary education.

Ideally, the purpose of education is to move an individual along a continuum from a learner to an independent learner; from an academic dependent to an academic independent.

The process of learning is like that of building a house - it starts with foundational blocks. The quality and positioning of those foundational blocks will determine the future stability of the building and the extent to which that building can accommodate additional floors of academic competencies. The natural question, therefore, is, what kind of foundation is GSAT giving to our children? And, second, has GSAT offered any real change?

GSAT is essentially a means of placing students from primary and preparatory schools into secondary institutions on the basis of:

• Exam scores
• Demographics
• Gender

A student who achieves scores in the nineties will be placed in the secondary school of his/her choice within the zone.

Viviene Green-Evans, Observer staff reporter, in her report dated March 7, 2004, titled 'Ghost of Common Entrance Examination haunts GSAT', quoted Wesley Barrett, outgoing chief education officer at the time, who confirmed that GSAT's method was still the same as under the Common Entrance Examination. Not much has changed with the exam over the years.

The current realities of 2014 tend to confirm this.

1. This exam is a snapshot approach.

2. There is an absence of a school-based assessment component

3. The impression given is that it is a life-changing moment and will determine the future of the students.

4. Mention has been made about the unnecessary depth of the curriculum.

5. Relevance of several aspects of the content has been questioned and heavily criticised.

6. This exam is viewed as not age-appropriate.

7. The placement of students is a perennial issue. While there are concerns about the material. A major argument is that there are not enough quality high-school places, and that improved equity in the system could do more to solve the problem other than modification of the content.

Now that GSAT has been put into context, or confusion, the important issues regarding the value-added approach can be addressed without distraction.

A school that is perceived as 'good' will attract the students with the highest grades. The high-scoring GSAT students are sent to the perceived 'good' traditional high schools. These schools, on average, have far more resources, greater parental support, and parents with deep pockets and good connections. Significantly more financial support is given to these schools by private-sector and independent donors as they seek to identify with success.

These schools are usually far better equipped to assess, diagnose and treat with specific signs and symptoms of the students in their care. They have active past students' associations, and there is a perception that they are ideally placed to provide quality education to the children they serve.

Students with low grades will normally find their way to non-traditional and upgraded high schools. On average, these schools have far fewer resources, significantly less parental support, less financial support generally, inadequacies in terms of competencies to assess, diagnose and treat with specific signs and symptoms. In addition to a cadre of students, many of whom are from the lower socio-economic band, basic amenities required for teaching and learning at the high-school level are usually absent. These include the absence of well-equipped science laboratories and computer laboratories.

THE LAST TO LEARN

Ironically, they are provided with the same financial allocation per student from the Ministry of Education as the traditional high school, even though it is abundantly clear that they have students in their care who require a lot more. The disparity and inequity between the traditional high schools and the non-traditional and upgraded high schools can, in some cases, be defined as severe. To make matters worse, these schools are oftentimes stigmatised and are generally perceived as less able to provide a quality education to the children they serve.

Consequently, comparing the performance of students so distributed as a basis for ranking secondary schools is, therefore, flawed.

The interim solution, while we continue to seek after the lofty ideal of equity in the education system, is the value-added approach. The harsh reality is that the students who were sent to School X with GSAT grades of 50 would have more value added in their five years than the students who were sent to school 'Y' with GSAT grades of 90 plus, if both leave school with five CSEC subjects.

The fact is that the value-added approach is a major step towards levelling the playing field and creating some kind of equity in the education system. It would force each school, irrespective of the level students it receives, to ensure the value is added to each child. It would create a better balance.

Accountability demands, among schools and teachers, higher academic performance, and might offer in the process a balance in the education system. If we do not begin the process with the value-added approach, we will continue to engage in the unfortunate ranking of students which undermines the true performance of our students and belie the efforts of teachers islandwide.

Mark Nicely is president of the Jamaica Teachers' Association. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.