EVERY YEAR around this time, there is some debate about the flaws in the GSAT system of placing students in high schools. It is almost getting redundant, talking about the same things year after year yet doing nothing about it.

Let's be frank: The primary purpose of GSAT is to ensure that only the best of the best can secure a spot in the few available places in traditional high schools. It is also well known that some Corporate Area high schools attract only the brightest. The idea of feeding into this culture of segregation at a young age cannot be healthy.

Years ago, there was a two-shift education system which existed in many high schools for a long time. The Common Entrance, which existed prior to the GSAT, was a fairly simply IQ/comprehension-type assessment test. I don't think there is any issue with having a placing system of some sort to assess students abilities and needs.

Marginalising

This is probably the best way to place and group similar students and develop appropriate teaching methods based on group learning needs, even for a second shift of high-school classes. However, the idea of the GSAT sought to do so much more. Its primary focus seems to be to ration out the already very scarce high-school spots and, in the process, there is much trauma, confusion and margina-lisation, which is very harmful to all those affected.

The two-shift education system almost doubled the number of places available in high schools. Students who passed the Common Entrance were given the day shift priority, and others not considered 'a pass' still had the chance to continue in the traditional system by opting for the second shift. There was really no difference in the student population on both shifts. Some classes even overlapped, and many who attended second shifts went on to achieve great careers. All students shared the same facilities and extracurricular activities, and, in many cases, some of the same teachers who taught morning shift also taught afternoon, earning extra pay.

A second shift would boost jobs available in teaching and the education sector in general, while helping to ease the traffic congestion and demand on public transportation during peak daytime periods.

Draw good from the past

Perhaps the minister of education might want to reconsider these options as they seek to fix flaws in the GSAT system. When looking towards the future, you can't ignore what worked in the past. While there is a place in the educational system for both traditional and non-traditional high schools, the GSAT results alone should not decide that. The rigours of GSAT should be toned down. It should be nothing more than a straightforward general assessment test, and not a life-altering process which students at that age certainly don't need.

Even though some might argue against the increased costs in maintaining two shifts, the benefits would far outweigh the costs and it could work by considering all options, even if this meant for increased education funding from the Government's budget. There should be no second-guessing when it comes to giving priority to education, health care and social-support systems. This is the right foundation if the Government is really serious about development.

I am, etc.,

P. CHIN

chin_p@yahoo.com

Ontario

Canada