 |
| Ministry of Education, Jamaica. |
In 1999, the Jamaican Grade Six Achievement Test (GSAT) replaced the
Common Entrance Exam. Because Science and Social Studies had previously been
given little emphasis, exams in these subjects, based on topics covered in
grades 4, 5 and 6, were introduced in GSAT. The curriculum was overloaded
with content, much of which would be taught again at the high school level.
Great pressure was exerted on the students to get them to commit to memory a
large amount of information. Therefore a
decision was made, as I understood it, to cut down on the content and have
tests at the end of each of the grades 4, 5 and 6, to give a Primary Exit
Profile (PEP). More emphasis was to be placed on developing critical thinking
skills and less on rote learning.
A new National Standards Curriculum, for the grades one to nine levels, was
written and should have come into operation at the beginning of the 2016/17
school year, but was delayed by a year. According to JIS:
“The goal of the new Curriculum is to improve the general academic
performance, attitude and behaviour of students, which will redound to the
positive shaping of the national social and economic fabric.
Under the new system, emphasis will be placed on project-based and
problem-solving learning, with Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics/ Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics
(STEM/STEAM) integrated at all levels.
The approaches will allow the learners to have hands-on experiences that
are similar to real-world situations, making the learning experience less
abstract and more concrete.
The new curriculum will allow students to utilize their own talents, and
experiences in the learning process, while facilitating the increase use of
Information Communication Telecommunication (ICT) technologies.”
I was therefore disappointed and alarmed when I perused
the Grade 4 Science book: The New Integrated Approach – Science Workbook 4 by
G. Harper, M. Dennis and D. Ellis published by Gem Publishers, which adheres
strictly to the curriculum produced by
the Ministry of Education, Youth and Information. The content is MORE than that
in the GSAT curriculum. Several topics previously taught in Grade 6 are now to
be taught in Grade 4, namely the eye and the ear; flowering plants – types of
plant, root and shoot systems and the flower. Forces and work – types of forces
and friction; sinking and floating, previously taught in Grade 5, are now in
Grade 4. The other topics previously taught in Grade 4 remain, except for
Simple and Complex Machines; and Rocks, Minerals and Soils. It is also unfair to the teachers of these
grades, who are not specialized science teachers, to change the curriculum at
such short notice.
Furthermore, the content of The New Integrated Approach – Science Workbook 4 is sloppily
researched and presented. Many experiments are suggested. Did the authors of
the book, or the designers of the curriculum, try out the experiments before
putting them in the book? Is there scope for the children to design and carry
out their own experiments? Have they been taught how to? In First Steps in
Science Activity book 6, by Vilma McClenan, Hortense Morgan and R. Dorothy
Pottinger published by Carlong, (1999), is the following statement: “The
activities that you will do will require you to use the process or inquiry
skills which you have been using in science since grade 1. These include : observing,
communicating, inferring, predicting, hypothesising, measuring, planning
investigations that are “fair tests”, recording and interpreting data, drawing
conclusions and looking for patterns and relationships.”
The illustrations leave much to be desired. Several
are clearly not of the Caribbean. Why, when the book is intended for Jamaican
children? In the picture on page 36 of people playing musical instruments, most
of the performers are white, and the unnecessary, confusing background of trees
is the same background as on page 102, showing some people in a park. How were
these pictures put together? The one on page 110 is obviously of the English
countryside.
For several
topics in the book, students are required to research on an electronic device ,
and in many instances to download and print pictures. For example, on page 41,
students are instructed to print pictures of hearing aids and paste them in
their books. How many children have access to a printer, and are able to
download and print without help? I have to ask, what is the educational value
of this activity? The reason “Teacher says you must do it to get a grade.” What
critical thinking is involved here? It is a mindless waste of time and
resources.
There are seven
end-of-unit tests consisting of multiple choice questions many of which are
confusing, for example:
Q6. (page 15)
Sandy pasted pictures of herself in her scrapbook. She could be showing:
A. How
living things grow and change.
B. How
living things respond to stimuli.
C. How
living things remain the same.
D. That
living things are visible.
This system of testing, while capable of grading large
numbers of scripts in a short time, has the effect of encouraging teachers to teach and students to study for that kind of test. It does not encourage
critical thinking, analyzing and inquiry skills. If we want our children to
become critical thinkers, we need to cut down on the content of the curriculum and
devote more time to the development of inquiry skills. Surely it is not beyond the
capacity of the MOEYI to do this?
Additionally, is any public scrutiny of that NSC is being done by Jamaican stakeholders, as had been done with several previous curricula? It seems to me that far too much emphasis is placed on the content of the curriculum and not enough on the capacity of the teachers and schools to deliver it; and the ability of the students understand it. We end up teaching the curriculum and not the children. Surely, principals, class teachers, parents and the students themselves should be allowed to have some input in the development of curricula.
Additionally, is any public scrutiny of that NSC is being done by Jamaican stakeholders, as had been done with several previous curricula? It seems to me that far too much emphasis is placed on the content of the curriculum and not enough on the capacity of the teachers and schools to deliver it; and the ability of the students understand it. We end up teaching the curriculum and not the children. Surely, principals, class teachers, parents and the students themselves should be allowed to have some input in the development of curricula.
