he was a visionary but got lost along the way with the racial stuff. But if it was not for him, many would not have left, so they have him to thank for migrating

He was a great speaker though.

@Amral posted:

he was a visionary but got lost along the way with the racial stuff. But if it was not for him, many would not have left, so they have him to thank for migrating

He was a great speaker though.

Eloquent speaker With charisma !

well he taught us abt rice flour which is considered healthy nowadays

he made us eat local..lol

even wear our own cotton..(flour bag uniform)

he introduced National service..wht was the purpose of that anyways..just to create jobs??

i was never into poltitcs n im still not interested

but LFSB made education at UG FREE n i benefited..never mind that I had to do 2 months of National service(fortunately i was placed in GT n not the hinterland)

no more paying to attend private schools ..free education  

yes free school books in my high school time, eat local and buy local.

@Amral posted:

yes free school books in my high school time, eat local and buy local.

But under him, the standard of education fell from Kindergarden to University. Certificates favoured his supporters.

@Mitwah posted:

But under him, the standard of education fell from Kindergarden to University. Certificates favoured his supporters.

Well..my std didnt fall..high sch or UG..

maybe later years..

recently our 5th form bio teacher shared that the best grad class at our high sch was 1976, so much so that someone from Min of ED visited to find out how so many students excelled in science subjects that yr….saying our sch was the only sch in country that was on par with t he top 5 high sch in GT .  Min. Of Ed wanted to know who these teachers were n wht they did …

all 3 of the teachers were new A level grads..19-early 20’s ..from Olevel to Alevels n then came to teach Physics,Chem n Bio

the chem n physics teachers were former students of our sch ..

i have many teachers in my family..so im notsure wht u mean by std dropping..they gave their all n their students excelled.  Nieces n nephews attended QC n St Stanislaus n Roses ..they were all successful n today r univ graduates

i have a high sch friend who was my colleague at CML..she attended GY medical sch n worked in Turks n Caicos for a few yrs..cam to Canada n did residency her n today she is a consultant..majored in Internal medicine n rheumatology.  Her sis in law also did medical technology at UG n medicine n came to canada n got into residency programme here n is a now a licenced Cdn qualified specialist

@Mitwah posted:

But under him, the standard of education fell from Kindergarden to University. Certificates favoured his supporters.

i have to disagree there Mits, in the 70's at least at my school many students did extremely well, both Indians and Blacks, and we had some of the best teachers there at SSS.

Leaving aside the issue of fraudulent elections, Burnham’s worst legacy to the nation was in the area of education. It was not, it must be said, that this was the intention, far from it; the intention was to improve the quality of education available to all and to make it free. Burnham’s education policy was a lesson in the danger of pursuing idealistic objectives which completely ignore the realities on the ground. The aim of free education from nursery to university was certainly desirable, but the economy had to be able to sustain it. As it was, the socialist experiment caused a severe contraction in the economy, and the funds were simply not available to underwrite such an ambitious programme at the level which was required.

Various measures could have been introduced piecemeal instead to cater for parents in the lowest income group, and to extend secondary schooling of an acceptable quality to far more children, but Mr Burnham it seems favoured a radical approach. The thinking behind the community high schools and multilaterals which his government introduced, for example, was not without its merits, but in terms of implementation these fell very far short of the ideal. In fact, the community high schools were already turning out functional illiterates in some quantity long before the PPP/C ever acceded to office in 1992, and the aim of providing quality secondary education to everyone has yet to be achieved.

As it was, the abolition of dual control and the nationalization of the schools turned out to be an error of serious proportions. The old system might have been idiosyncratic, but the point is, it worked. The private schools were not operated for profit, they had to meet state standards and they offered a modicum of choice to parents. When they were suddenly taken over they became the full responsibility of a bureaucracy which had not been fully reorganized in all departments to accept the additional burden, and they became subject to the same pressures and deficiencies as many of the state schools. It would have been better to build on what existed, modifying where necessary, than sweep the traditional arrangements away altogether.

Providing free textbooks was something else which was not economically viable. The move had been preceded by a measure controlling the mark-up on textbooks, which had the effect in the end of putting the private booksellers out of business. This meant that the wide variety of reading matter for all age groups which had been previously available, completely disappeared, something which has surely played a role in our plummeting literacy rates. Once the education system undertook to supply textbooks, it ran into difficulties not just because of the amount of funding required, but because of the lack of infrastructure to efficiently distribute, monitor and manage the system. It was not as if either they chose to go the full Cuban route of mass producing cheap books on a large scale for the population utilizing newsprint. The deleterious consequences of this piece of idealism and lack of foresight are still with us, and as things stand many parents still have to buy textbooks for their children.

Then there were other decisions, such as suddenly ordering the integration of the senior secondary schools, for which no preparation was undertaken. Physical facilities had to be restructured very quickly to accommodate either boys or girls, as the case may be, involving an unnecessary outlay from limited finances, while a whole new range of problems was created in schools which traditionally had catered only for a single sex. Following studies over decades done elsewhere, we now know that boys and girls do better in school if educated separately, although it is true that that was not known at the time.

Then there was President’s College, which was an unnecessary investment given the number of senior secondary schools available. This is not the same thing as to say that the school has not acquitted itself well, and that the pupils and teachers have not distinguished themselves over the last twenty years; they certainly have. It is merely to observe that founding the school did not represent the most pressing educational need at the time, more especially since educational resources were so lacking.

But most of all, perhaps, there was the de-professionalization of the teachers, who were required to follow political instructions, and among other things take children out marching onto the street for everything from welcoming visiting dignitaries to the anniversary of Burnham’s entry into Parliament. It was deeply resented, and the qualified staff began to leave in droves. The situation was not improved with the introduction of Mass Games, which were hated by the parents as much as by the teachers. At a more advanced level, of course, there was compulsory National Service, which could hardly be described as enjoying backing from all segments of the population. All of these things ran counter to the notion of what education should be, and conveyed the impression of an attempt to impose political regimentation on a system which had been accustomed to a measure of freedom of thought and decision-making. Good teachers do not flourish in such a constrained environment, although some of them managed to survive. General economic conditions as well, of course, have taken their toll on the teaching profession – beginning under the PNC – and we have now reached a crisis point. Both the PNC and then the PPP/C mostly fell back on the training of more teachers to make good the deficit, a strategy which has had no measurable impact on the situation to date.

In a general sense it can be said that education systems tend to respond slowly to changes, and the effects of these are frequently not evident until a few years down the line. When too many changes are thrust on a system in quick succession, it does not have time to adjust, and the effect is frequently the opposite of what the policy-makers intended. When this is coupled with a severe shortage of teachers, major disciplinary problems in the classroom, the politicization and lack of order affecting the system, unsuitable appointments, and the loss of status of the teachers who remain, it is hardly surprising that decline would set in. As it is, what can be said is that when Forbes Burnham came to office the literacy rates of this country were some of the highest in the world; when he died, that was no longer true.

Source:

@Amral posted:

i have to disagree there Mits, in the 70's at least at my school many students did extremely well, both Indians and Blacks, and we had some of the best teachers there at SSS.

I agree!!

@Lynn posted:

I agree!!

I was not there in the 70's.

Perhaps You and BM were the exceptions contrary to as mentioned in the article: the community high schools were already turning out functional illiterates in some quantity long before the PPP/C ever acceded to office in 1992, and the aim of providing quality secondary education to everyone has yet to be achieved.