Excerpt from the unpublished manuscript of Dr. McCartney’s book From The Heart And Soul: For Love Of Country
The policymakers, who were responsible for the changes made in the education system of The Bahamas in 1967, appear not to have taken into consideration the historic or cultural factors. Hence, instead of enhancing the education system, the changes seem, in my opinion to have had deleterious consequences for students. I do believe that the action that was taken by the policymakers was to provide universal and equal educational opportunities for all students in The Bahamas. This action was taken because historically the majority of Bahamians were denied access to universal and equal educational opportunities.
To the credit of the policymakers, they were doing what they thought was best for the education system and those who would have benefited from it. Coupled with historical circumstances, the rhetorical situation, and the expectations of the people, objective observers will agree that the policymakers had created the situation that was ripe for change.The change was designed to enhance and improve an education system that had not service the needs of the majority of the population of The Bahamas. However well-intentioned the change, there was a lack of consultation with the relevant stakeholders, that is, parents, the church (leaders and members), teachers, and members of the Bahamian community in general.
Making too many systemic changes, at the same time,is dangerous. The danger lies in the fact that, that which was meant for good can be deleterious to the very same system the changes were supposed to improve.Whenever systemic changes are being made, those changes should be made incrementally, which will allow for correcting errors, in the initial changes, before additional changes are made. In view of the foregoing, it can be concluded, that while the systemic changes made to the education system in 1967 had some positive results, children lost two years of preparation before entering the junior school.
However, in retrospect and in the interest of balance and fairness, it can also be concluded that the changes made in 1967 were radical, and therefore radically and negatively impacted the education of children at a very critical age, and changed the approach to the delivery of education to the most vulnerable in the system. At the time that the changes were being made, the policymakers would not have been aware of the deleterious impact of the change. There is a lesson that should have been learned from the sweeping policy changes that were made in 1967. However, lessons are best learned through periods of introspection. Presumably, the new policymakers, in their exuberance, had no time for introspection or saw no need for introspection. If there is no retrospection; no lessons are learned. From 1967 to now has provided much time for introspection and change, which should be designed to improve upon what was decided over fifty years ago.
Change is inevitable. However, any changes made, in any system, must take into consideration the history and culture. History and culture are inseparable twins. History conveys to us a sense of where we have been, and culture conveys a sense of where we are. If these concepts are accepted, it can also be said that our history and culture are essential to our holistic development. Knowing where we have been and who we are, are the compasses that are needed for all of us to chart our courses to a bright and successful future. It is important and necessary for our survival as a people that we expose ourselves, particularly our children, to the history and culture, of their ancestors, that make up our traditions to ensure their successful transition from childhood to adulthood.
Prior to 1967, all students in The Bahamas spent the first two years of their education in Classes 1 and2 in Preparatory Schools. This prepared them for the Junior School, which began at Grade 1 and continued through Grade 4. The next level of schooling was the Senior School, which began at Grade 5 (equivalent to today's Grade 7). In the Senior School, students progressed to Grade 6-7 (equivalent to today's Grade 8 and nine).
By comparison, the five-year-olds who would have entered the Prep School at age five or six, depending upon what was the admission age, spent at least two years setting the foundation for their education.In 1967, the new policy mandated that five-year-olds be placed in Grade 1. Therefore, they missed the two years of preparation for was, at the time, the Junior School.
Prior to 1967, Class 1 and Class 2 were the equivalents of preschool and kindergarten respectively. By eliminating those first two years of preparatory schooling, students were disadvantaged. This change in educational policy, though good in its intention, was implemented without reference to the relevant stakeholders is at the root of the problems being experienced today.
The attempt to introduce preschools was an effort to correct the changes that were made in 1967, which precipitated the problems alluded to in the previous paragraph. Those problems are too numerous to elucidate upon in this post. In previous posts about the Education System, I have attempted to address some of those problems. None-the-less, future posts will further discuss the Education System and its issues, successes, and problems.
While at Eastern Senior School, I recall progressing from Grade 5 to Standard 6, where I took the School Leaving Certificate at the age of 13. From Grade 6, I advanced to Standard 7(equivalent to today's Grade 9). Standard 7 was the first year preparation for the Bahamas Junior Certificate (BJC), which had replaced the Cambridge Junior Certificate (CJC) in 1954.The following year (1961), I matriculated from Standard 7 to Form 7, where I had the final preparation for the BJC Examination. However, in retrospect, the rigor and the level of the work given in Form 7 was more than equivalent to 12th Grade studies today.
Prior to 1963, the BJC was awarded at three levels: Grade I, Grade II, and Grade III. In all levels, passes Mathematics and English were mandatory. Each of the levels of the BJC was awarded when students passed a combination of subjects with grades of A, B, or C.The BJC Examination was the terminating examination for all Senior School students because the General Certificate of Education (GCE) was only taken in the High Schools such as Government High School and all the other private high schools. The BJC subjects, prior to the to the modern version, were set at GCE O Level.
The BJC, prior to the modern version, was the determining factor for entrance into the public and private employment market and for students to enter private high schools, for 5th and 6th Form studies, if you did not enter by taking the Common Entrance Examination. My entry into the teaching profession, as a Student Teacher, was on the basis of the quality of my BJC passes.
As an educator for over 55 years, it is my considered professional opinion that the national “D” average, along with other factors (McCartney, 2012) has its foundation in the policy that was mandated in 1967. In truth and in fact, in pre-1967, the education system had it right; but progress, while good, can cause a system to go awry by "throwing out the baby" with the bath water. Perhaps the pre-1967 system needs to be revisited to help us determine where we took the wrong turn.
© Dr. Donald M. McCartney, D.M., MPA, MSc.Ed. [Hons], BA, T.C.
