FILE
Students listen attentively during a 'Gleaner'-sponsored 'Youthlink' Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate seminar in Westmoreland in March 2007. An educated population is likely to be more productive and enjoy a better standard of living.
Dr Joseph Bonsu-Akoto, Contributor
A cursory look at the political and economic philosophies of Karl Marx, Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, John Kenneth Galbraith, and Milton Friedman illustrates that the recommended role of government in economics varies from central government having absolute control (Marx), to government assisting in cases of economic depression (Keynes), to more support of the public sector and more government resources being derived from the affluent private sector (Galbraith), to government intervention generally hampering progress (Friedman), to limiting government (Smith). Each of the philosophers believes that education is important; the differences involve the how and the what.
According to Marx, education should be free, state controlled and financed by centralised government. Keynes and those who espouse his philosophy believe it is a governmental duty to provide complete education. Galbraith maintains that education is vital for technical and human advancement and must be supported to a more significant level by the resources that are abundant in the affluent private economy. Friedman sees government as over-controlling education. Smith sees education as one of the essential services of government. The five philosophers all see the need for and the power of education.
The importance of education to the growth of the national economy is no longer challenged. Most economists now recognise the importance of investment in education for developing the nation's large reservoir of human capital. After all, through improved schooling, the production of human capital is advanced. Right or wrong, the main thrust of expenditures for public education is towards transmitting known information to individual consumers. Since the generally accepted philosophy of education requires that all citizens have a high-quality education through most of their pre-adult life, the success of a formal education programme must be of the utmost necessity.
Education cycle
Educated employees are more skilled, take more pride in their work and are able to do a better job, faster and more creatively than their less-educated colleagues. Education motivates workers to more production and better fulfilment of organisational and personal needs. Capital begets capital. Those who have a college education generally can do nearly twice as much as high-school dropouts and consequently, have more to invest.
Investment in organisations - public or private - generally benefits society through the production of goods and services for all. The more education, the more wealth is developed for investment purposes, which creates more capital, in an endless cycle.
The wonders of modern technology have been made possible largely because of education. The position the United States holds in technical improvements is the result of an educational system that encourages research, creativity and practical application. Much of today's wealth is tied to technology, and technology is advanced through education. Every area of resources - human, physical, and financial - is improved and refined through education. Even the environment is better appreciated and preserved through education. Methods of mining, lumbering and other forms of natural-resource production and the economic benefits of education to those obtaining it are many.
A technologically advanced nation requires an educated body of citizens. When every man on the street is concerned about nuclear war or fallout; about automation, or space; when every family has possession of dozens of the products of modern technology, ranging from an automobile to a television set, automatic toaster and electric clock; when every citizen must vote for candidates for public office, who in turn must make decisions on matters of national defence, atomic power, space exploration, the regulation of industry, communication and transport, it is clear that an educated citizenry is an essential national requirement.
Education is a problem when it fails to achieve the expected purposes: creating good and effective citizens; providing the possibility for upward mobility; and facilitating individual development. The lack of education is frequently associated with failure to achieve one's ambitions in life.
Social structural factors
Among the social structural factors that contribute to the problems of education, social class and family background are particularly important. The attitudes of both teachers and students are important socio-psychological factors that contribute to the problems of education. The attitudes of students towards school and intellectual activities, towards themselves and towards their control of the environment, are strongly related to achievement. Teacher attitudes can inhibit or facilitate student achievement.
An important factor that needs attention is that of the position of the family in the stratification system. This has a close relationship to the educational attainment of the children. Parental educational attainment, and parental influence and expectations for children strongly affect children's educational aspirations and achievement (Bourque and Cosand 1989; U.S. Department of Education 1993b). In turn, parental behaviour is related to social class; the higher the social class, the more likely parents are to hold high expectations, and positively influence the child to attain a high degree of education. The greater the parental income and the fewer children in the family - both of which tend to characterise the higher strata - the more willing the parents are to pay for higher education (Steelman and Powell).
Socioeconomic background affects a child at every point in his or her academic career. Those from low-income backgrounds are less likely to graduate from high school, less likely to go to college - even if they do graduate, in part because they are more likely to marry at an early age, and, less likely to complete college if they enrol. (Lowe, Hughes and Win, 1989; Mortenson 1991, Hearn 1991).
Tracking systems
The gap between children from the lower socioeconomic strata and those from the middle and upper strata tends to increase with the level of school. This suggests that schools might somehow contribute to educational inequality - children who are disadvantaged by their social background when they enter school become even more disadvantaged as they progress through school.
A major factor is the evaluation and labelling of ability. This grouping by ability, or tracking of students, has been common in public schools. Unfortunately, once placed in a particular track, it becomes difficult for students to escape it. In fact, as the students progress through school, they tend to take classes that ensure they will remain in the same track (Kershaw 1992).
Tracking helps perpetuate the status quo. The student from a disadvantaged background is more likely to come to school unprepared to learn. That means he or she is likely to be placed in a slower track. And once in the slow track, everything works to maintain the situation. Others believe tracking systems do allow for some mobility, and the effects of tracking - at least in high schools - depend upon the way the tracking is organised (Gamoran 1992). Furthermore, there are good arguments for maintaining tracking systems, including the argument that tracking is the only way to ensure that good students can proceed at their own pace.
The important point we must keep in mind is that inequality of achievement during the first years of school does not mean that low achievers lack the capacity to attain high educational levels. Low achievement, as we have shown, tends to flow from a particular kind of social and family background. And if the low achiever is labelled as one with a low capacity, both the reaction of the teacher and the self-expectations of the child are negatively affected.
What is to be done?
Several experts have put forward the following recommendations: Extend the school year to the summer months - when the intellectual demands of the classroom would be reduced - for those children who are particularly likely to lose ground. Emphasise multicultural education, which will promote more understanding and tolerance and, therefore, a better learning climate for all groups (Banks 1991). Institute a curriculum audit, which is a way to use outside evaluators to determine if school personnel know whether the content of their curriculum is appropriate for their students (Vertiz 1992). Establish strong national standards for what students should know and be able to do, along with a system for evaluating schools in terms of whether they meet those standards (Shanker 1994). Use the model of the basic school for elementary education. This is a model in which literacy is the primary goal and all students become both well informed in the traditional fields of knowledge as well as well grounded in such core virtues as honesty, respect, responsibility and perseverance (Boyer 1995).
It is time for restructuring.
Restructuring would make schools more analogous to a baseball team. In order to win, the manager must select the team he wants to field. He can substitute players during the course of the game. He can also assign players to different roles. Players may at times cover someone else's position, because winning is a team responsibility. In other words, a baseball team is "a dynamic, organisational culture that reconfigures itself to be competitive in new situations" (Timar 1989:267).
Restructuring exercise
Talking about restructuring, Shanker (1990) offers an example, citing a school in West Germany of a population of 2,200 students in grades five through 11, including a number of children of foreigners and of poor Germans. In other words, the school has ethnic and socioeconomic diversity in its student body. For the entire six years, a team of six or eight teachers works with a group of 120 students. The teachers decide such matters as how to group students, how to organise the school day, which teacher will teach which subjects, how much time will be allocated to each subject, and what instructional materials will be used. Adjustments can be made at any time during the year as the need arises.
The system makes the teachers accountable for outcomes. Student deficiencies cannot be blamed on last year's teacher, and teachers cannot merely mark time with a student until the student is passed on to someone else. Because there is no problem of getting to know new students each term and dealing with programme changes, the German school has a great deal more instructional time without increasing the amount of time spent at school. In addition, the students take a good deal of responsibility for their education and that of their peers. Small groups of students of differing abilities work on problems, helping and instructing each other.
What are the outcomes? Because it is a more intimate and responsible setting, there are few discipline problems. And despite the fact that most of the students who come to the school have been labelled as lacking much academic potential, a disproportionate number of them go on to universities. In Germany, this requires passing a national examination. And all of this is achieved with only three administrators, all of whom teach as well as manage the school. The example of the German school is presented not as a model to be copied directly, but as an illustration of the potential value of restructuring. But, may be, only may be, it is not a bad idea for Jamaica to copy the model.
Dr. Joseph B. Akotom is a former management support adviser at the Ministry of Health and Human Services, Cayman Islands. Email jakoto@yahoo.com.
