GATE clarity

Last year, significant cuts were made to the programme. Recent murmurings suggest more cuts may be on the way effective next month.

Among any government’s top priorities should be equal access to education for all. To this end, we in Trinidad and Tobago enjoy free education up to the secondary school level. Whether the State has a responsibility to provide free tertiary education is debatable. For some, the State has a duty to do so because in today’s world students face limited job prospects without a degree.

With university education left to market forces, those from wealthy backgrounds will have a distinct advantage over those who do not enjoy such privileges. Privatisation of education entrenches the system which sees the gap between the haves and have-nots widen.

On the other hand, some would say it is preferable that tertiary education is provided, not essential.

After all, the State already assists university campuses regionally through millions of dollars in funding.

And too often, programmes like GATE have been subject to abuse, manipulation and wastage.

Far better would be a system that funds specific subject areas critically needed to meet development goals. In theory, opening up the tertiary education sector to market forces encourages a more competitive market place and economy. It can also encourage more students to study hard to access scholarships.

The problem with all of this, however, is the fact that Trinidad and Tobago has changed little over the decades in terms of its social structures. It is still a challenge for many families to make ends meet, far worse to even dream of funding a child’s university study. And encouraging students to compete for scholarships risks turning education itself into a perversion. Instead of encouraging critical thinking, it simply encourages focus on high marks and percentiles.

We fall into the camp of those who would prefer if the State provides education. But at the same time, we acknowledge the need to streamline State subsidisation in light of reduced revenues.

The very name of the programme, with its emphasis on “assistance with tuition expenses,” should be the barometer by which we examine these matters. If the cuts introduced last year were needed to make GATE more sustainable in the long run, then the State must take a look at how those cuts worked and whether gains were realised.

However, it is counterproductive for there to be a lack of clarity on the future of the programme. A recent press release from the Ministry of Education, stating that the “status quo” in respect of the programme cannot be maintained, is far too vague.

If it is that further cuts are to be made, then these should be announced as soon as possible. If the entire programme is to be scrapped – whether on a phased basis or not – then this too must be stated as soon as possible for people to make the necessary planning needed to enter the world of work.

Whatever changes happen, the State will still have a duty to assist certain vulnerable groups. According to last year’s review of the programme, most of the recipients come from families which fall in the supposed “middle” to “high” income groups.

The reintroduction of means testing in 2017/2018 was identified as one of the adjustments that should be made to GATE. Whatever changes are coming, the State must find a way to allow our most vulnerable and talented students to go forward, side by side.