Transformation of the education system

THE EDITOR: The article published by the group of distinguished academics and stakeholders on the SEA and changes to the education system has focused on the creation of “quality schools” throughout TT. The hope is that all schools would be attractive and hence parents/students will not see the need to “run after” the few “prestige” schools. The timeframe given for such a transformation is two years, which should see the demise of the present SEA examination.

The article does not, however, deal with how to go about this transformation. which was started over 20 years ago by this same Ministry of Education. I will not deal with the reasons for the failure of the ministry to effect transformation of either the curriculum, the SEA or the school system.

In my research I have found that very little has been achieved in the transformation of “at-risk” schools, some becoming even worse than they were some 20 years ago. I will briefly state what some of my recommendations are:

* A transformation committee, outside of the ministry, must be set up to oversee the whole transformation process. The resources of the universities (UTT and UWI) ought to be utilised.

* Each education district must have a team to go into the schools to advise, monitor and evaluate the school plans and change management processes. Here is where education officials, the parent, and community input is vital.

* Principals must be the main change agents in their schools. They must develop the schools through shared vision and values, staff development and building “a community of learners.”

* Change cannot be successful without the co-operation of the teachers. At least 70 per cent of staff must be willing to be part of the process (buy-in). A performance management system of appraisal must be instituted. Sadly, this has been in the pipeline for well over 30 years. But it is the most effective way of monitoring and appraising the performance of principals and teachers.

* There must be targets (signposts) and regular appraisal of the changes.

* Despite being rather elusive, bothersome, and difficult to achieve, “school improvement” is possible, but not within two years. Some of the successful projects worldwide are the Comer Process – New Haven, US; Improving the Quality of Education for All (IQEA) – England; Manitoba School Improvement (MSIP) – Canada; and the Accelerated Schools Project (US). In order to appreciate the complexity of school transformation, teachers and interested people can check out these models on the internet.

My recommendations are based on my own research on school improvement and my experience with the Ministry of Education (see my PhD thesis (2012) – School Development Planning in the Newly Constructed Secondary Schools in TT.

Many of the teachers who have been trained since 2000 have retired, so that there is need to do further training and retraining. Our experience has shown that courses and seminars have had very little effect without on-the-job monitoring. Thus, we need to rethink the whole concept of “training,” which ought to be primarily in-house.

Finally, one word of caution. If we cannot manage the fixing of roads where we can see the potholes, can we fix an education system where we are dealing with intangibles, and in most cases immeasurables? Change/development is a relatively long-term process which often conflicts with political timetables. Hargreaves and Hopkins, two of the foremost researchers in the UK, have been blunt in their assessment of education reform in their country:

The haste in implementing a hugely ambitious programme of reform, arising from a political timetable, has without question been responsible for some of the profound mistakes made by governments in England and Wales since 1988.

DR PATRICK QUAN KEP

via e-mail