Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author(s) do not represent the official position of Barbados TODAY.
by Lew Bovell
The test for the transition from primary school to secondary school in Barbados, a.k.a. the Common Entrance Exam, was introduced years ago to establish a fair and objective system through which all our children could be assessed and aspire to attend any secondary school of their choice.
Barbados is a society in which many favours are granted to persons based on but not limited to, their family background, association, access and familiarity with certain persons, their socio-economic background/position, popularity, etc.
Due to this ‘kisses granted for favours’ environment, the secondary school transition test remains the fairest method of measurement, with respect to transfers to our secondary school system, having replaced a system that was predominantly favourable to privileged children.
To many persons, the Common Entrance Exam appears to be and is promoted as the villain that is the catalyst for all the ills of Barbados’ modern society, in which there is now a diminution of established standards, values and the role of excellence.
The blame gamers conveniently forget that in our system, our kids have at least seven years of public education prior to the Common Entrance Exam. Specifically, their participation in Nursery school, Infants A, Infants B, then on to Classes 1 through to Class 4.
That is more than enough time for an effective public education system to assess these kids, in terms of their current learning abilities, potential capabilities, non-school-related challenges and the impact of their social environment at home, etc. It certainly gives teachers, the Ministry of Education and family members significant time to address any issues that are affecting or would potentially impact a child’s ability to learn.
In addition, within the Ministry of Education, there remains the structure to reactivate the Criterion Reference Test and its related learning aptitude assessments, that were previously conducted by our primary schools, well before our children were on the verge of the Common Entrance Exam and certainly up to Class three.
Some children will naturally learn at a slower pace and therefore for the system to continue to make it mandatory that each year over 90 per cent of these class four students undertake an exam at eleven-plus is beyond comprehension.
Certainly, this exam can be undertaken from an age range of eleven (11) to thirteen (13 ), with provisions made for taking this transition test at an earlier age.
The school leaving age just needs to be adjusted to age eighteen (18) to accommodate such change.
We know that some family members may not be competent enough to assist their charges with their school work or even check it for correctness. Nevertheless, we all live with extended families and certainly, someone within those family groupings could assist. In addition, priorities need to be balanced.
Prior to COVID-19, some persons spent thousands of dollars annually to enjoy the Crop Over festival and the accompanying fetes but would not spend five hundred dollars per year to assist their child with remedial work in the way of lessons. No doubt with Crop Over activities given the green light, this year will be no different in this regard.
Our education system needs comprehensive and sensible reform, to facilitate Barbados’ continued participation as a signatory to UNICEF’s Rights of a Child, with respect to the charter dealing with their education.
Reform of our system must embrace the marrying of a full technical suite of subject offerings with the traditional academic subjects, in ALL our secondary schools. These are but a few areas for discussion as we navigate through the shouts of “abolish it”, which emanate from blame-gaming and the bastardising of this transition exam.
A transition test is the fairest method of allocation to our secondary schools, especially in a society where kisses can grant you favours. Our partial zoning method allows for parental/guardianship choice of school, whereas allocation via full zoning, contravenes at least one of the charters of UNICEF’s rights of a child, to which we are a signatory.
People need to be cognisant of two things.
(1) We did not always have a Common Entrance (screening) Test. There were good reasons why it was introduced to create fairness.
(2) Some areas in the United Kingdom also scrapped their Common Entrance Exam under the leadership of former Prime Minister Teresa
May, only to undertake its reintroduction to buffer against the problems that surfaced.
The problem is not the Common Entrance Test, just as the problem with private operators in our public transport system is not the fact that private vehicles are allowed to operate therein. There are problems in both systems that we are simply not addressing. Let’s address the systemic shortcomings first, before we make changes that only transfer the problems from system A to system B.
Let’s get the public effectively involved and participating in a discussion with respect to education reform before we make any determination based on eroding yet another of our established developmental standards.
We should retain a transition test, irrespective of whether it’s called the Common Entrance Test or by any other reference name. Raise the school-leaving age to 18, remove the magic about doing the exam at maximum age of 11 and take the maximum age for sitting this test to age 13, give children the chance to sit from age nine if they are capable.
Ensure technical subjects are taught in all secondary schools and identify a few for specialised areas of study like music, foreign languages, culinary arts, hospitality and tourism, albeit retaining them in all the secondary schools with the others using them as a subject option.
Have a filter program in primary schools to filter those with strong traditional academic learning and those who have a strong technical bias.
With parental/guardianship input and approval, channel both groups to their strengths so they can achieve their potential in their areas of strength while ensuring the technically gifted have at least a basic knowledge of English (grammar, writing ability, and speaking),
Mathematics, Social Studies, and one other subject they are best suited to ‘master’.
Where students are both academically and technically strong, let them marry these two areas, in a cross fertilised manner.
As part of our education reform, there is an evident need to increase the number of guidance counselors per 1000 students at secondary schools.
However, even more, fundamental and critical is the need to assign guidance counsellors/mentors to our primary schools. This period is the most crucial part of a child’s formative educational years. It lays the foundation on which they build their educational progression.
During most building construction phases, when design flaws and construction weaknesses are identified relatively early, successful remedies can be employed, to ultimately pass the construction-related tests. Early education bears analogous features of laying a foundation, continuous assessments, remedial work, and finally testing.
The time is ripe for the managed assignment of guidance counselors who meaningfully interface with each primary school.
Perhaps financial constraints may be deemed a deterrent to the Government implementing such an initiative.
However, as an alternative, the use of four teams of guidance counsellors assigned to the northern, southern, eastern, and western geographic areas and to the primary schools so designated by zone, can be a compromise position explored. Such an initiative could prove to be an important tool for use during our children’s primary school education.
Effective utilisation should provide guidance to some teachers, children and family members as they navigate through at least six years of our children’s educational development leading up to the secondary school transition test. If the authorities engage the public, people could craft formal presentations delivered individually or collectively, to assist us with ending this ‘bandwagonist’ approach toward bastardising the Common Entrance Exam because someone said years ago, “let’s scrap it”.
Let us ensure it will not be just a hopeful dream for those who desire to make an input to our national education reform and because the leadership has spoken, abolition is now the order of the day, and alarmingly, without the promised public consultation with all stakeholders.
The evident lack of the promised public consultation does not surprise because, in recent times, consultation is one of those frequently and publicly used buzzwords that could aptly attract the refrain “not bout hay”.
Hopefully, some of our current and past educators plus analysts in the field of education will be allowed to make their contribution. Recently the BUT president said they were ignored by the Ministry of Education and the officers of the National Parents Teachers Association amazingly claimed leading up to the reopening of face-to-face tuition, that they spoke on behalf of parents, though they never held conversations with them in this regard.
Hopefully, we can have an environment created that democratically facilitates actual individual participation at the national level, leading to the development of meaningful, workable, and effective education reform.
This column was offered as a Letter to the Editor.
