Major overhaul of CSEC needed to give our students and societies a chance to rise
Dear Editor,
The 2024 CSEC results are in. They have the usual flashes of individual brilliance, followed by the desultory. Frequently, the dazzling performances of highfliers make us lose sight of the long string of less impressive CSEC students. Thus, there is great difficulty in dealing with the disparity between the handful of top performers and the army of those struggling with the CSEC minimum levels. I tread gingerly, for there is bafflement between the ease of scoring highly on 25 (or 15) subjects, and the great crowd of children who are unable to succeed in a mere 5, with English and Mathematics among them.
It may have furnished some respite, gave some improper comfort, that the CSEC issue of so few students passing 5 subjects, with the requisite two, is a regional one. It doesn’t. When only 1 out of 20 CSEC students makes those 5 subjects or more with English and Math that is both alarming statistic and heaving reality. The sweet stuff of way over a dozen subjects passed by a handful of superstars cannot drown out only 4.9% of 200,000 regional students having the mother tongue and Math in their CSEC portfolio. And especially after the money poured into education in many countries and the speeches made by the regulars of what a quality education means for the future. I fully agree with education being the key, but after some 50 years with CSEC, that key is failing. Some crucial inputs are fundamentally flawed, demand serious overhaul. As radical, traumatic as this may be, perhaps the CSEC should be scrapped, with starting over from zero. That may bring shuddering, preferred not to be faced. Still, some tough decisions hover about the expanse of the curricula, the underpinnings, the human elements, and the methods, as those feed into national and regional visions.
Because how do we go on with approximately 190,000 of our students statistically irrelevant annually? What system could ever justify such numbers? Why maintain such a system that produces such results? As an aside, where would Guyana be in its Math and English CSEC numbers without private lessons? And, to take matters to the extreme, where does this leave our children given the bitterness that lingers in the aftermath of the controversially
concluded Guyana teachers strike? Human nature has ways of expressing resentments.
Separately, there is another testing consideration for this nation, because it leaves us in an unacceptable, distressing place. When only 1 out of 3 students pass Mathematics at the CSEC level, this leaves Guyana staring at an ever-widening capacity deficiency in crucial areas. I will make the leap that limited success in Math translates to limited success in Physics and possibly Chemistry. Though it does not necessarily mean so, the Math weakness could have an unhelpful impact on accounting, Advanced Statistics, Calculus, and Business. There will come that time in tertiary education when even at the undergraduate level some prowess with numbers is a priceless ingredient. That said, there has been rare honesty in owning up to the severe capacity deficits that this country face at this time in its fastmoving existence. Glaring capacity limitations have sponsored continual calls for urgent capacity building. At least we have gotten that far. The question, if I may be bad guy and ask, is from what? Where is the feeder system that helps us make sustained inroads in the areas of scientists and engineering and such? I submit that the capacity levels desired cannot be erected on a foundation where 1 out of 3 student pass Math. Too small by far; too slow and too long in coming to make us stand our own feet with our own people. If I may be excused the sacrilege: I will boldly assert that should the CSEC results in Math and English continue at their current abysmal levels, then there is the high probability of the capacity gap widening, at the worst possible time for Guyana.
I acknowledge the 16-point plan that the Ministry of Education has rolled out to address the troubling Math situation. It’s about an hour more per week in Math instruction, with more possible in some circumstances. The AM Math classes should intensify focus. How about reducing the number of subjects offered? A crucial issue is that the hearts of teachers be in the right place to deliver on a sustained basis, with that controversial 10% deal a possible inhibition to best efforts. I absorbed the layers of review and assessment and think of two things. They had better be in-class and full-time. The second is how many foot-dragging and underdelivering Math teachers are going to be disciplined, given the shortage of quality ones in the first place. Still, let’s give hope a try.
To close this out, tens of billions have been spent over the years and our English and Math grades are where they are. Where is the problem: classroom or boardroom, teachers or their masters? The calibre of students is taken for granted, notwithstanding the fear of many for Math. Again, private lessons and the small cohort of private schools loom large; the question is how bad things would be in these two disciplines should those private facilities be subtracted. Last, I think that regional governments need to be honest and face reality: the CSEC as presently constituted is not working, demands scrapping or major overhaul to give our students and societies a chance to rise. There must be the leadership will to empower the making of hard decisions and then implement them.