There would seem to be an undue dissatisfaction with the GSAT as a placement instrument for students aged 11 entering secondary education.

This degree of dissatisfaction, however, can have a negative effect in shifting focus away from even more crucial factors, including:

(a) the inadequate attention being given to education at the basic, kindergarten and primary levels;

(b) the inability of the Government to provide the requisite infrastructure: sufficiency of properly maintained and financed schools; dedicated teachers, adequately trained and appropriately remunerated; among other things.

Thus, there is danger in examining the role of GSAT in isolation from factors as mentioned above. The effect could be to treat education as a single as opposed to a multi-dimensional issue, thereby reaching conclusions that are unlikely to be the right ones.

GSAT provides an objective criterion for the selection of students, thereby curtailing the extent to which the selection process can be manipulated.

Recently, the minister of education accused GSAT of:

(a) creating a meritocracy and

(b) causing a 'two-Jamaica' syndrome.

It is for the minister to clarify what he means by these accusations. Is it wrong to promote students on the basis of merit? Or, is it that the two-Jamaica syndrome is something new that has been occasioned by the introduction of GSAT?

With only about 15 per cent of our schools being regarded as good, any alternative system of placement can result only in replacing one set of elites (the brightest of our students) with another set (those more favoured).

There is also the question of stress among parents and students. Certainly, there is an abnormal degree of stress in regard to the GSAT. Clearly, this arises from too many students chasing too few worthwhile school places.

improve the situation

To improve the situation, a number of factors need to be considered or reconsidered:

(a) Should parents who can afford to pay not be required to contribute towards the cost of educating their children until our economy is robust enough?

(b) Should there be a progressive and substantial increase in the annual budget allocations until the standards in education reach acceptable levels?

(c) Should not there be a well-considered 'Affirmative Action Programme' to assist families who are constantly frustrated in their efforts to educate their children, from basic schools upwards?

(d) Is enough being done towards improving teacher-training facilities?

I am, etc.,

R. H. ALEXANDER

lroyhalexander@gmail.com

Kingston 6