The Gleaner 2020 report

Alfred Sansgter, Contributor

THE GLEANER, in its service to education, published on April 27, the Bill Johnson rankings of the secondary schools - high, upgraded and technical - in the school system. This is a repeat of a similar ranking done last year. This article is an attempt to analyse the report and comment on some important issues that arise.

1. Education is given a failing grade. The headline is unfortunate for a number of reasons:

First, the education system cannot be judged on the performance of the high schools alone. What about the basic, primary and tertiary systems; the policy and administration; the Jamaica Teachers' Association and its leadership; the teachers; the financing; or even the threats and challenges to the system?

Second, improvements which are recognised for all the types of schools over a three-year period are dismissed and we would have to ask what is a passing grade?

Third, there are many highly successful examples in all the categories and the averaging of results gives no recognition of these successes. There must be in the analysis a way to recognise excellence beyond the 'Top Ten Ranking'.

Fourth, we must ask, what are the qualifications of Bill Johnson which give him the right to make this kind of analysis and pronouncement, which takes no cognisance of historical realities and in some cases does unfair averaging of results - in the case of the technical high schools - to disadvantage the school's ranking?

2. Understanding the statistics. It is to former English Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, that the saying is attributed: "There are lies, damn lies - and statistics." The danger is turning statistics into lies and the quote from Evan Esser in the analysis is interesting: "Statistics is the science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures." So we must take Bill Johnson's rankings with the proverbial grain of salt. Some features of the statistics are as follows:

Quality Scores (QS) are given for each school over a three-year period and then averaged and a Quality score Index (QSI) calculated for the average. The QSI is used for the ranking of the school. I would venture to say that very few people are likely to take the trouble to understand the calculations.

The QS and QSI numbers are derived from an arbitrarily assigned number to the CXC pass grades for each school. Thus a CXC 1 is assigned 4; a CXC 2 is assigned 2; and a CXC 1 is assigned 1. Why not a 3, 2, 1 set of numbers?

There is further confusion in the analysis when the following issues are considered:

Should the cohort used be the number taking the exam or should the potential cohort of all students in the group be used as suggested by Dr Ralph Thompson?

Should the Ministry of Education statistics that are averaged be accepted?

So, even before we look at the rankings there are a number of uncertainties. However, for the record, the outcome of the exercise results in the ranking of 60 high school; 82 upgraded high schools and 14 technical high schools. What is the society in general, the Ministry of Education in particular, and members of the education sector to do with the rankings?

3. The rankings, service or disservice to education. Some questions emerge:

Is ranking an approach to stigmatising or performance improvement asks former Minister of Education Maxine Henry-Wilson?

Are rankings in English and maths only, adequate evaluative systems?

Is a snob system emerging between the high schools (the name-brand schools) and the upgraded and technical high schools?

What of the other factors in a child's experience - sports, social activity, location, community and parental support, school leadership, etc., which have no part in the rankings?

4. Issues raised by the statistics and the rankings.

What happens to the significant number of children who are 'lost' between their entry to schools at GSAT level and the number sitting the exams at grade 11?

A number of schools consistently perform at the highest level and also get the brightest students at GSAT. Are there other reasons for their consistently high performance?

Some students in schools at the lower end of the rankings perform well. What are the reasons for this disparity of individual performance and school ranking?

5. Recognising historical realities. The rankings do not take into account a number of historical situations that have a significant bearing on the rankings. What are some of these historical realities that are part of the school system to this day?

The disparity between the high and upgraded schools.

The upgraded high schools, formerly known as new secondary schools, had their genesis in the 1970s when the decision was taken to upgrade the junior secondary schools by adding a grade 10 and 11. Along with that decision was the establishment of a new examination for these upgraded schools known as the Secondary School Certificate (SSC) Examination. The examination was structured with a different grading system (the reverse of the CXC) and the schools were told that the examination would be equivalent to the existing CXC. This was not to be, and what was created was a parallel and second-class secon-dary system - expanded over time and renamed the upgraded high schools - which exists to this day. It should come as no surprise that the upgraded high schools are different from the traditional high schools - the name-brand schools - and are struggling against great odds to upgrade themselves. A close look at the rankings will show, however, that many of the upgraded high schools have higher scores than some of the high schools.

The GSAT placement process.

The Grade Six Achievement Test (GSAT) has inherited a number of features of the former Common Entrance Examination (CEE) that it replaced. One of these is the choice of school, which is particularly significant for those who do well at GSAT. What this means is that the top - name-brand schools - get the top GSAT performers. Surprise, surprise! By default, the upgraded high schools with fewer resources have the Herculean task of dealing with poor performances and their scores record this reality. It is this historical reality and perceived injustice that led one school principal last year to cry out 'unfair' in the GSAT placements to her school.

The technical high school placement system.

The technical high schools suffer from a disadvantage in the school placement system. Some students are placed on the basis of the GSAT (70 per cent) while the remainder are placed on the basis of the Grand Nine Achievement Test. The former have five years at the technical school while the latter have only two, but both are included in the cohort being evaluated. Clearly, not a fair evaluation.

6. Lessons learned and issues to be faced. The rankings, realistic as they may be, and unfair as they are, do have some lessons for us and point to some of the issues to faced in moving forward

-The perpetuation of the GSAT placement system as exists now will simply continue to enhance the quality difference that exists between the high schools and the upgraded schools. The principle of bringing low-ranking schools up rather than bringing high-ranking schools down should also be a special consideration.

A suggestion for the ministry. Two parishes - St Ann and St Elizabeth - be selected for the pilot programme. Both parishes have a number of top performing schools but there is need to expand the number. The ministry would select a number of the higher-ranking schools - either high or upgraded high - for special treatment by way of upgrading and resource allocation. These two parishes would then have a group of top schools which could become leaders in the rankings islandwide.

The outstanding performances in the technical subjects highlighted by Professor Stafford Griffith are an important signal that should not be missed. Professor Griffiths highlighted the significant career and job prospects of students doing these subjects. The signal is that the ongoing obsession with the academic grading of schools may very well be leading education in the wrong directions.

The decision of the Caribbean Examinations Council to introduce an associate degree award is a fundamentally wrong direction and adds a level of academic confusion to an already mixed up system. While this particular item is not specific to the study, it is nonetheless a policy issue which points in a direction that the main examining body in the Caribbean is taking. One senior vice-principal of a leading school told me that she advises students when sending transcript reports overseas to avoid sending information on the associate degree. The CXC could well spend its energies in helping to improve the overall standards of the school system at the lower levels.

7. Some concluding comments. The failing grade comment has already been discussed. Some specific positives which need to be highlighted are:

Overall improvement. The three-year averages for all three groups of schools show improvement. This represents an important national development. Individual schools should take pride in this fact and use this achievement as a marker for the higher heights to be climbed

Tracking performances. Research should be sponsored to find out the secret of the success or failure of the top and bottom achievers. This knowledge should then be shared with the wider system as a whole. What has Campion College been doing to head the pack for so long in academics? why is Holmwood Technical so successful in athletics? Why is STETHS so successful in cricket? why is Ardenne so high in the rankings? why is Tivoli Gardens last in the rankings and why did St Jago win the Schools' Challenge Quiz?

The rankings should, therefore, be used as a comparative performance indicator for each school and used to spur them on the greater effort. The lessons of success should be shared across the system.

The role of sports in a school's success. The article by David Riley, the coach of Wolmer's Boys' School, points out the role of sports as an important contributor to the success of a school. Many of the upgraded high schools have been successful at the highest levels in all-island sports competitions and have got their names on the educational map.

Success is critically dependent on a team approach. The success of a team is fundamentally related to the quality and dynamic of its leader. So, for starters, the role of the principal is critical in establishing the kind of school that will be a part of his or her 'empire'. That leader must then build by persuasion or discipline, a cohort of staff who are committed to the same goals and objectives. The circle must be enlarged with the parents, the community and the alumni who can come to believe in the school and want its success. On such a partnership the sky is the limit.

Dr Alfred Sangster is former president of the University of Technology, Jamaica.