Latest update April 17th, 2024 12:59 AM
Mar 27, 2017 Letters
Dear Editor,
Every aspiring developing country wants to have a well-trained, educated and qualified workforce. But without proper capacity building institutions the training and teaching of hundreds of young people and thousands of children can be an extreme waste of resources and time. What is needed is a decision by the government that all learning institutions in Guyana discard outdated and ineffective training and teaching methods and replace them with modern training and teaching methodologies.
Like many other Guyanese, I reeled in shock when I read recently in the daily newspaper that only 29 out of some 167 nursing students passed the nursing exam. Few people appreciate the implications of that outcome. And even fewer people understand the consequences of that result. One wonders what sort of training is being meted out to young unsuspecting adults in other training institutions in Guyana.
It is indeed painful to read such daunting statistics. I feel sorry for those students: the hours they put into their studies, the long, boring lectures sitting passively in box-like classrooms, the dull textbooks and inadequate teaching resources, the depressing learning environment and the hassle to get there.
They are the victims of administrative ineptitude. I firmly believe that any one of those students is capable of excelling in their chosen area of study if provided with adequate and effective training.
As I read the report, I noted, yet again, the knee-jerk reaction of the administration – blame the teachers. That is a cop out. I believe the blame lies squarely with the administration and their stubborn and persistent reliance on outdated and ineffective teaching methodologies. It is not the teachers who are at fault. It is the administration that sets out the teaching methodologies that are used for training those aspiring nurses.
As I reflected on the nursing exam results, I got a flashback of the equally shocking 2016 NGSA results. According to a recent article that appeared on the Ministry of Education website, the reporter Synieka Thorne wrote:
“The results for English and Mathematics, at the Grade Six levels, were alarming. In 2016, 10 and 11-year-olds took tests on core subjects, which resulted in 14 percent passing Mathematics, revealing that over 12,000 children were not numerate. More than half of those writing English could not sufficiently comprehend the official language to attain a 50 percent score.”
I asked myself, is there a connection between the teaching methods used in the public school system, at both the primary and secondary school levels, and the outcomes in the training institutions? The answer is yes: the same ineffective methods are being used with stubborn persistency. What cognitive psychologists tell us is “If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.” If you want a different outcome, then you must do things differently.
That brings me to the COI into Education. It is now almost a year since the Commission of Inquiry into Education was launched on April 29, 2016. I sat in the auditorium at St. Stanislaus College. I saw the battery of commissioners at the head table – some ten or more ‘so-called’ experts who would deliberate on the submissions of the participants and come up with solutions to the problems in the education sector. I looked around the sparse audience and noted the poor turnout.
I asked myself, was that a reliable barometer to gauge the level of the public’s interest in the workings of the Ministry of Education? I think so.
I heard the voice of the Minister of Education, Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine bemoaning the poor turnout then urging all Guyanese to participate in the process. I heard him enunciate, with his usual flair, the purpose of the inquiry: to review, revise, upgrade, expand and modernize the Education Sector Plan. I heard him reaffirm the ministry’s approach of ‘evidence-based decision making’ and I listened to him appealing to the few there to make submissions in writing to the commission.
I watched and listened as the Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Ed Caesar, sought to reassure all that their submissions would be welcomed and taken on board. And I thought, well now, things are going to change.
A year later, things haven’t changed, except for some collateral damage: the former CEO of the Ministry of Education, Mr. Olato Sam is no longer with the Ministry of Education. And the COI into education is yet to submit its report.
So, I did some research on the performance of students in mathematics and English over the period 2013 – 2016 to determine under whose watch fell the lowest performance. Who were the decision makers, the architects of the education policies then? Who were the achievers and the under-achievers? In other words who were the Ministers, CEOs and Deputy CEOs at that time and I leave you dear readers to make the inferences because you are literate, numerate and think critically.
The Ministers of Education were Mr. Sheik Baksh, Ms. Prya Manickchand and Dr. R. Roopnaraine (2015 – present). The Chief Education Officers were Mr. Ed. Caesar and Mr. Olato Sam. The Deputy CEO, Mr. Hudson. The percent passes are shown in the table below. Note: Source of the data: Ministry of Education.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CSEC English I-III 45.69% 46.98% 49.07% 59.33% –
CSEC Math I-III 28.97% 38.75% 45.07% 38.37% –
Based on the figures shown, it is clear who the underachievers are. Albert Einstein is reported to have said, and I quote: “We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created it in the first place.” The question therefore is: why is it that the level of thinking that created the problem in the first place is being applied to solve the problem it created? Is that not the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
I saw recently on Channel 27 CGTV a contest between a group of British teachers and students pitted against a group of Chinese teachers and students to see which group would perform better in the following three subject areas: English, Mathematics and Science. And guess what? Who you think won? The Chinese! In all 3 areas. Why? You guessed it: the British still relied on outdated teaching methodologies like those used in Guyana. The crux of the matter is Guyana is still using early 19th century teaching methods to teach children and adults in the 21st century.
Based on results – and the Ministry of Education has publicly asserted its policy of ‘evidence-based decision making’ – the public school system is failing our children. What business analysts tell us is that in order to predict future performance it must be based on past performance. On hard data and facts and figures. It’s called trend analysis. Given the dismal performance over the past 3 to 5 years it would be very optimistic to expect a 10 percent improvement in performance. According to the reporter, last year 14 percent passed math at the NGSA. Even if you were to add on 10 percent improvement, that still spells failure. If action is not taken now, it would only get worse.
Tony Willis
JAGDEO ADDING MORE DANGER TO GUYANA AND THE REGION
Apr 17, 2024
2024 CWI Regional 4-Day Championships Round 7…GHE vs. CCC Kaieteur Sports – After a highly-successful round 6, Guyana Harpy Eagles will look to take full advantage of the out-of-sorts...Kaieteur News – Every school teacher should take a close look at the students in his or her classroom. The probability... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]