Will Gov’t take over earlychildhood education?
IT WOULD be useful that the education minister, Fayval Williams, clarify whether it is merely her preferred option or settled policy – though not yet formally declared – for the Government to take over the early-childhood education sector. In the event of the latter, the administration should make its intention absolutely clear, indicate broad timelines for the transition, and signal how it expects to fund the project.
Moreover, given how pivotal an effective earlychildhood programme is to rescuing Jamaica’s poorly performing education system, we had expected to see this reflected in the allocation to the sector in this year’s Budget. Which makes the Government’s plan to increase its spending on pre-primary education in the 2022-23 fiscal year at below the rate of inflation very surprising.
Early-childhood education in Jamaica is delivered primarily by privately controlled and under-resourced, community-based institutions, although most now receive some support from the Government in an effort to lift standards. But as the Patterson Commission report on the transformation of Jamaica’s education made clear, echoing the findings of the Davis Task Force of 17 years earlier, the sector still lags badly.
The commission, which was headed by the Jamaican sociologist and writer Orlando Patterson, noted, for example, that of nearly 2,700 earlychildhood institutions in the island, fewer than 11 per cent, at the time of the latest assessment, met all the standards for full registration. Over half (53 per cent) did not muster 50 per cent of the requirements, and 30 per cent had covered between 50 and 69 per cent of them.
WITHOUT ADEQUATE TRAINING
And although the educational qualification of people working in the sector has improved significantly over the past decade, the commission pointed out that “a large proportion of teacher functions are being carried out by personnel without adequate training”. Only 7.9 per cent of the institutions were, according to the commission, “above the standard and have more than one trained teacher”, while 13.9 per cent teachers were “trained at the level of at least associate teacher, supervising groups”.
Additionally, children were inadequately exposed to “developmental and educational activities within early-childhood developmental/educational programmes”. Added the report: “Overall, only 11 per cent of ECIs [early-childhood institutions] were rated as having adequate numbers of play material for the numbers of students present; the standard being that each ECI should have enough material for each child to be in an activity at the same time.”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, in tests to screen children’s readiness for primary school, approximately one in five showed at least one (of 11) developmental deficiency that caused concern. Matters relating to early literacy and numeracy were at the top of the list of concerns.
It is against this background that the commission, in common with previous studies, called for institutional and other support for the sector, including the training of teachers and for the Government to accelerate its programme of adding early-childhood/pre-primary divisions to its suite of educational institutions. Only 20 per cent of the early-childhood/pre-primary enrolment is currently at government institutions.
While suggesting that some of the money now spent on vocational training (funded by the HEART/ NSTA Trust, which is financed by a payroll tax) be directed to the sector, the Patterson Commission did not specifically call for the Government’s full assumption of responsibility for early-childhood education – a position apparently favoured by Ms Williams.
In recent remarks to this newspaper, Ms Williams, in noting the shortcomings of the early-childhood sector, underscored the fact that only a small portion of pre-primary education was under the Government’s direct control, notwithstanding the regulatory responsibilities of state agencies.
She said: “So either we take it on as Government or we continue to get what we have right now.” Government control of the sector, she suggested, would mean trained teachers and a learning environment more conducive to learning by children.
Apart from Prime Minister Andrew Holness’ naming of Chris Stokes to lead a committee to monitor the implementation of the commission’s recommendations, Ms Williams’ statement is the most fundamental policy signal, so far, on the findings by anyone in government.
UNAMBIGUOUS DECLARATION
Ms Williams intervention, and an unambiguous declaration of a preference, was surprising, given that in the months since the document’s publication, the administration has not engaged in a serious debate on its findings. The education ministry, for instance, has paid far more attention on introducing a mandatory sixth-form programme to extend, by two years, compulsory secondary schooling in Jamaica. The Patterson Commission did not address this issue at all, and apparently did not believe that the problem of poor outcomes in education was because the compulsory period of secondary education was five years. Problems such as those identified in earlychildhood education, including the inadequacy of funding to the sector, were their critical focus.
It is in this context that the Government’s budgetary allocation to pre-primary education this fiscal year is noteworthy. Of the J$120 billion to be spent on education in the 2022-23 fiscal year, J$5.1 billion is allocated to the pre-primary sector, a five-and-half per cent increase over the revised figure for 2021-22. The increase is around half the rate of inflation.
Now that Ms Williams has staked out a position on the matters addressed by Professor Patterson’s group, maybe she will now initiate and lead a robust public discussion of the findings, including of who should own the early-childhood sector – and very importantly, how it should be funded. Ms Williams might also indicate whether in-between working on the Sixth-Form Pathways scheme, her technocrats have devised a programme for a transition of earlychildhood education to government control – should that be the policy decision.