Edward Seaga The history of 'free education' has become a quest for the Holy Grail in the context of the emergence of Jamaica from a subjugated slave colony to a country seeking upliftment through enlightenment and education.
Throughout the centuries of enslavement, the education of children was considered to be counterproductive to the strategic necessity of keeping slaves ignorant and oppressed. Even the few missionary churches, principally Baptists, which provided training for literacy, mostly directed their efforts to adult slaves.
When emancipation dawned, the progeny of freed slaves were completely unschooled, creating a mammoth problem of how to introduce education for many thousands of students of various ages. The few schools which existed restricted enrolment to the white population, excluding Jews, children of mixed races and free blacks, until gradually, in later years, access was given to these groups.
Colonial policy
Limiting education to selected categories of children was in keeping with the colonial policy to educate a Creole middle class who could then be used to take over middle level functions of the colony and provide commercial activity, administrative and professional services without threatening the ruling elite. Slaves would be expected to provide labouring work even after emancipation, in order to ensure the needs of the plantation.
The construction of primary schools which would provide basic education for children of the freed slaves did not begin until the appointment of Governor Sir John Peter Grant. He replaced the despised governor, Sir Edward Eyre, who was recalled in disgrace after presiding over the massacre of the 'rebels' of the Morant Bay Rebellion in 1865.
Other than the limited efforts of government, education was left to the church and was principally directed to the training of a middle class for civil society.
In 1957, 90 years later, the elected government of the People's National Party became involved in the education of children of the poor. Dr. Ivan Lloyd, Minister of Education, announced that the prevailing system of education was dysfunctional and in need of streamlining to create a smooth passage from primary to secondary schools.
'Buy' entry
Secondary schools at the time held their own entrance examinations which enabled children of parents with means to 'buy' entry in the event of failure to gain access by merit.
To overcome this, a Common Entrance Exam (CEE) was introduced in 1957, which would select successful entrants on merit only. The 1957 education policy declaration was aimed at improving the enrolment of students entering secondary schools, particularly among those who were unable to afford the fees. According to Dr. Lloyd, apart from the few scholarships made available by the government prior to 1957 (130 free places in a total secondary school population of 10,000), "those who went to secondary schools were those who could afford to." The main objective of this policy was to award free places to all students who, irrespective of the means of their parents, had achieved a minimum standard in the Common Entrance Examination, and for whom places could be found in high schools.
The result of the CEE was vital to selection, irrespective of whether the student originated from fee-paying preparatory schools, or government free primary schools.
However, the result did not match the expectation or intent. By 1961, 20,000 students were sitting the CEE. Of that total, only 978 or 46 per cent of 2,133 free places to secondary schools were won by students attending primary schools, while 1,155 or 54 per cent from preparatory schools received awards. Analysis of these results indicated that only one in 86 students from primary schools had a chance of winning a free place as compared to one in four students from preparatory schools. Another conclusion can be drawn: 29 per cent of the students from private schools were successful as compared to 7 per cent of those originating from primary schools.
Obviously there was a serious problem here.
Disproportionate entries
Edwin Allen, Minister of Education in the Jamaica Labour Party government elected in 1962, saw the problem of disproportionate entries which militated against children from poorer homes. To adjust this, Allen announced a 70:30 policy which reserved 70 per cent of the free-places to secondary schools for students from primary schools who were successful in passing the minimum standard in the CEE; the remaining 30 per cent was allotted to students from private schools.
Notwithstanding the much larger number of free places now available as a result of the increased ratio for entrance from primary to secondary schools, there were other formidable problems to overcome:
"the inadequate number of schools and school places: only a minority of primary school graduates were able to be placed in the secondary school system;
"There was a lack of aptitude for secondary education among the majority of primary school students who gained access to the expanded secondary school system;
"the cost of education at the secondary level was largely unaffordable to poor parents.
It was obvious that a considerable increase in secondary school accommodation would be necessary if all students from primary schools were to gain entrance. This problem was reported in the UNESCO Report on Jamaica's education system in 1964. It had to be solved or the other reforms would be ineffective.
Edwin Allen introduced a sweeping plan for education reforms in 1966 which he entitled, "New Deal for Education in Independent Jamaica". He announced an agreement with the World Bank to construct 50 new secondary schools to augment the existing 47 schools at secondary level; forty primary schools by the end of 1967 and an increase in the annual output of trained teachers from 350 to 1,000 by 1969. This was the first project of the World Bank in secondary education anywhere. By more than doubling the number of secondary places, this would considerably increase the enrolment into secondary schools.
Junior Secondary Schools
The next hurdle was even more difficult. The great majority of those students, who gained access to the secondary system were not equipped academically to benefit from education at this level. They were nonetheless admitted into the new schools. These new schools were named Junior Secondary Schools to indicate the difference in standards.
The expectation was that with the passage of time, there would be improvement in quality which would raise the substandard levels of the students. This improvement would be measured by the results of the graduates from these schools in school leaving exams.
The final obstacle was the unaffordable cost to children of the poor.
Free education
In 1973, in his budget presentation to the House of Representatives, Michael Manley triumphantly announced the introduction of free education which closed the circle of providing education for children of the poor that was:
"accessible on merit (Ivan Lloyd);
"fully accessible in terms of the increased number of places for primary school students in secondary schools after doubling the number of schools (Edwin Allen)
"affordability for the poor (Michael Manley).
But Manley was not in a proper position to make his announcement in 1973. The initiative was far reaching and required study by the Ministries of Education and Finance. He made the announcement on impulse, however, after advising his ministers of finance and education that he was going ahead regardless of the state of readiness of their examination of the proposal. His desire to seize the moment was because I had belittled the first budget of his government and he wished to play a trump card. However, in so doing, he went to the extreme of providing free education to cover all costs in primary, secondary and tertiary level. By over-playing his hand he increased budget expenditure from $47,750,000 in the current year to $209,000,000 the next year. This wiped out virtually all the surplus that was to be derived from the bauxite levy which he secured in 1974 and set the stage for a necessary withdrawal from free education eventually.
Cost-sharing policy
First to go was "free education" at the tertiary level which was replaced by a 15 per cent cess roughly a decade later, in 1985, to be paid by students as part of the severe fiscal adjustment package consequent on the near collapse of the bauxite/alumina industry at that time. This was followed by abolition of free education at the secondary level again a decade later in 1994, when the cost-sharing policy wasintroduced requiring parents of secondary school students who could afford it to pay a subsidised cost. In effect, these changes could be considered a shift from free education to the cost-sharing system.
The restoration of "free education" insofar as covering the cost of payments for tuition, was a strong platform of the JLP in the 2002 general election when I made repeated calls for the abolition of payment of tuition fees. Prime Minister P.J. Patterson promised to implement a policy of free tuition within two years, but it was not done. Bruce Golding, Leader of the Opposition, has quite rightly revived the issue for the current election, but so far without success.
Education as a result, continues to be tossed around as part of a one-upmanship game without recognising that with all the changes made over 40 years, the results remain the same: 75 per cent of the secondary school age students have no CSEC passes and no marketable skills at all.
[Edward Seaga is a former Prime Minister: He is now a Distinguished Fellow at the UWI. E-mail: odf@uwimona.edu.jm]
