Primary education gets raw deal

THE EDITOR: There is a strong feeling that primary education, more than any other sector of education, is failing to secure its share of the educational and national expenditure (Plowden Report, 1966). The conclusion of the British Plowden Report in 1966 could apply to our present situation. Primary education in Trinidad and Tobago does not seem to get necessary funding as its secondary counterpart.  For the technocrats in the Ministry and the Project Planning Unit, education begins at eleven plus. Let us examine the facts. A Task Force was established to review Primary education a decade ago. They had formulated the great Education Plan 1993-2003. If a careful analysis is made of this Plan one would realise it has failed to deliver. The only defining moment of the White Paper (1993-2003) is Universal Secondary Education for eleven plus students. This was a revolutionary change rather than an evolutionary one. We are now reeling under the pressure of this spasmodic, haphazard move.

We are now paying the high price for remedial teaching of literacy and numeracy at the secondary level, which would have been unnecessary had we planned more wisely from the primary level. “From what we know about children learning to read, it would clearly be economic to tackle this problem at the primary rather than the secondary level”, (A Razzel, 1968). Hundreds of students enter Form One Specials unable to read and write. Many of them are functionally illiterate: They are unable to fill in a basic application form. Despite this, primary education is considered the Cinderella whose hour for transformation has not struck. We still continue to pump millions of dollars into secondary education at the expense of primary. Why not put money into three areas of primary education: staffing, curriculum development and physical infrastructure. Recent advertisements in our newspapers outlined the four areas of the Secondary Education Modernisation Programme (SEMP). A programme that is expected to last seven years and costs millions of dollars. The programme includes:
 Improved Educational Quality
 Construction and upgrading of schools
 Institutional strengthening
 Enhanced Sector Performance

Those same areas of concern in Secondary Education could also be applied to primary. But are we concerned about institutional strengthening of primary education? Are we concerned about improved educational quality at this level? Are we concerned about construction or upgrading of primary schools. Are we building our education system on a weak foundation? We need to fortify our basic education system by emphasising these four areas then we could proceed with SEMP. Life does not begin at eleven plus. What has Government done so far with primary education? They are now hastily preparing plans (Dr Romain’s Plan) for decentralisation. But critics have already argued that the Ministry’s version of decentralisation is based on deconcentration, which is a clone of central administration. When you clone the possibility exist that you may mutate. Mutation then creates a watered down version of the original or a creature so hideous to look at, he makes you vomit.

We must be brave enough to implement the recommendations in the White Paper (1993-2003). But this costs money. Are we willing to spend comparatively on both Secondary and Primary education? In words of Professor Deosaran, “Our society is wrong sided”. Apparently last comes before first and second comes before first. When the technocrats screw on their heads correctly, only then we can move forward. We need to crate a Primary Education Modernisation Programme (PEMP) to run in tandem with SEMP. Anything short of that is a waste of taxpayers’ money. Let us put the horse in its rightful place before the cart and stop giving primary education “a raw deal”.

DESMOND JAMES
Fyzabad