Action not rhetoric

While these seven students certainly deserve to be praised, the fact that there was a special event to mark their accomplishment actually signals what dire straits the youths of Laventille exist in. So, perhaps inevitably, the Education Minister’s speech was notable for containing even more than the usual political hyperbole. "Laventille is blazing a trail. Laventille is setting an example for the kind of collaboration that will raise the level of all the schools of the area. As a trail-blazer, Laventille is shaping a model for other districts to follow." Strangely, though, the function held to so fulsomely praise the students of Success/Laventille took place at the Russell Latapy High School in Morvant.

In any case, the praise is patently untrue. The very fact that only seven students in the whole school did well shows that, if Success/Laventille and other schools in the district are to improve, they must take their lead from schools which are doing better. And this kind of political rhetoric does a disservice to the young people, for it attempts to build self-esteem without any concrete basis — indeed, such rhetoric assumes that the students being addressed are too stupid to perceive the difference between reality and ideal.

The hollowness of this speech was reinforced by the remarks on curriculum change. According to the minister’s message, there is a new curriculum which is relevant, meaningful and appropriate. "It puts emphasis on literacy, language, mathematics, science, the arts, technology, health, physical education and family values," said the speech. This raises two obvious questions. Given such a list, what does the new curriculum NOT put emphasis on? And, if this is new, what was the Education Ministry putting emphasis on before?

It is true that the education curriculum needs to be revamped if students are to perform better academically and if the education system is to be the foundation for wider social transformation. Modern education experts recommend an interlinked four-part curriculum. Part one deals with personal growth, including self-esteem and confidence-building; part two deals with life skills, including creative problem-solving and self-management; part three teaches lifelong learning, showing students learning methods and why thinking is fun; and part four is the content, but with common themes that link different subjects.

But any real revamping has to be flexible and tailored to the needs of the district. In Laventille, for example, using the arts as a pedagogical foundation for other subjects, such as English and Math, may be the most effective approach. Similarly, in rural districts, using agriculture as the primary paradigm could help students to learn better overall.

This, in broad terms, is a 21st-century curriculum which, properly adapted, reaches students of varying abilities and backgrounds. It puts content last because, without the first three bases, young people cannot learn. But all three bases are built through concrete actions, not hollow rhetoric. And, if the message given to the Success/Laventille students is an accurate reflection, this is a lesson the Education Ministry still has to learn.