By John
Farmer.
As another
calendar year comes to a close, it is long past time for a serious debate on
educational reform in this country. There is no point in waiting for yet
another round of miserable results followed by the usual bout of handwringing
regarding the abject failure of our public educational system (if one can use
that word to describe something so dysfunctional).
The
teachers blame the parents, the parents blame the teachers, and the students
continue to 'graduate' into the job market with an 'education' that renders
them virtually unemployable.
So what is
it about our public education that routinely accepts deplorable results year in
and year out, and actually trumpets at D- average a ‘success’? Can you imagine
the parents of the students at St. Andrews, Lyford Cay, St. Augustine’s, or
Queens College, to name a few, accepting this level of ‘success’? I think not.
So what
makes a private school like St. Andrew’s successful, and our public schools a
failure? I do not believe it is a question of family economics; the excellent
performance of the underpriviledged children to whom St. Andrews generously provides scholarships
puts paid to that argument. So let us look at structure.
Private
schools are generally non-profit organisations with a board of directors
elected by the shareholders (parents). The board has the power to hire to hire
a principal to run the school, who essentially becomes the managing director,
because in this day and age schools require what is in effect a CEO to run
them, leaving the teaching to professionals. Coupled with this structure is a strong PTA and Alumni association whose
members are frequently called upon to assist in raising money for capital
improvements.
So maybe
it is now time to consider re-structuring the public school system along
similar lines.
First, let
the ministry confine itself to establishing the curricula and examination standards.
Create competition with a league table of academic results and reward good
schools with additional grants for capital development so that there is an
incentive for them to perform.
As for
the schools themselves, and free them from the Ministry. Set them up with their
own elected board of directors, and allow them to direct the affairs of the
school. (Yes they have boards now but they are toothless). Allow them to hire
and fire their own teachers, allow them to plan and execute their own
maintenance, allow them to raise money as they can for their own capital
projects.
Secondly,
abolish the concept of 'free' education. While in theory it is a laudable
concept, nobody respects the value of something they receive at no cost. It
does not have to be a large sum of money, even $50 or $100 per term will
engender some respect, and then have the government top up the fees to provide
the schools with a realistic income for their operations.
Finally,
establish specialty schools that prepare students for the kinds of careers that
are provided within our economic framework. The country is desperately short of
qualified tradesmen (emphasis on qualified), professional managers (emphasis on
professional), accountants, chefs, farmers, engineers - the list is endless.
What we do NOT need is more lawyers, doctors and contraband smugglers!
Alas, too
few countries have had the courage of their convictions. One example is Finland, who simply abolished centralised
education and hired a lot of good teachers, becoming the best educated population in Europe. Maybe one day we can also find the
courage of our convictions, bite the bullet and really build our nation.
