Reflections on Jamaica’s Primary Exit Profile (PEP)

Jamaica’s Primary Exit Profile (PEP) is being introduced to replace the Grade Six achievement Test (GSAT). In theory, it is not a pass/fail assessment, but in practice, as was GSAT, given the disparity between secondary schools,that is what it will be. As I said in my blog post of April 2012, “Reflections on GSAT” It is the pressure to perform to get into ‘brand-name schools’ which puts so much stress on the students and their parents.

It is claimed that under PEP 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.

However, many concerns have been raised about PEP. On Wednesday, April 4, 2018, Dionne Jackson-Miller of TVJ’s All Angles hosted a panel from the Ministry of Education to discuss PEP. The panel consisted of Dr. Grace McLean, Chief Education Officer; Stacy Witter-Bailey, Assessment Officer in Mathematics; and Terry-Ann Thomas-Gayle, Manager of Students’ Assessment Unit. The general public was invited to participate via Twitter, Facebook and text messages.

Members of the public were greatly concerned about class size. With as many as fifty children in a class, teachers are hard pressed to implement the methodologies required by PEP. Dr. Grace McLean, Chief Education Officer, said that the teacher/pupil ratio has been reduced to 1:25, and that no classes should have more than 25 students. My question is this: Where are you going to put them? I know of a school in Montego Bay with approximately 1200 students. There are 6 grades with 4 streams, equivalent to 24 classes of approximately 50 children in 24 classrooms. You might be able to employ the teachers, but they would have to share classrooms, which are already overcrowded. Is this feasible?

An underpopulated school in
Mount Vernon, St. Thomas 2011 

One of the main problems for schools throughout Jamaica is that parents opt to send their children to the big urban schools, often by-passing rural schools. Referring to my blog post of September, 2011, Class Size and the Teaching of Reading, in two deep rural All Age Schools, the total enrolments were 40 and 45, and there were 3 teachers, each teaching 3 grade levels. At the other end of the scale was a school in the heart of an urban area, with a total enrollment of 1,720 and a ratio of 37:1. This school has a 6-stream entry, with about 48 children per class, for which 36 teachers would be required. With the stated ratio of 37:1, the school could employ 46 teachers. Why not a 7-stream entry? Because there was no space—all the classrooms were occupied.

One of my main concerns is that the curriculum is overloaded with too much content. Take for example the sense organs studied in Grade 4, Term 2, unit 1. I would have thought it sufficient for children to observe their eyes in a mirror and identify the parts they can see. They would unlikely to be able to determine their functions on their own, but would be able to understand them when told. I think it’s totally unnecessary for them to draw and study a section of the eye and learn the functions of the parts. That is certainly not a concrete activity. 9-year-olds do not have the mentally capacity to conceptualize the internal structure.

 Furthermore, this will be taught again in high school. In addition, the curriculum specifically states that the children should learn the terms cornea, iris, pupil, lens, retina and optic nerve only, but in their work book the sclera, choroid, rods and cones are also included! I think the terms cornea, iris and pupil are quite sufficient at this level. Care of the eyes is very important, but surely it doesn’t make sense to expound on the types of lenses needed to correct long and short sight. We are getting into CXC Biology topics here.

Similarly, at this level it is not necessary for children to learn the internal structure of the ear. The senses of smell and taste, and sensations felt by the skin lend themselves well to investigation by children, but it is unnecessary for them to identify parts on a diagram of a section of the skin. The time frame in which these topics are to be covered is very tight, allowing no time for re-teaching, review or helping less able children. My recommendation is that there should be a core curriculum with enrichment activities for the more able children.

This brings me to the most deleterious effect of large class size and overloaded curriculum. The less able children get left behind and end up learning very little. In 2017, 15% of the children failed to achieve mastery in the Grade 4 Literacy Test; and 40% in the Numeracy Test. In an article in The Gleaner on Monday, February 5, 2018: “To really fix education”, the Rev. Ronald Thwaites addressed this problem. He cited an example of a school of a school where the grade-four teachers report that only one-third of their students habitually do homework and only half came into their grade cognitively, emotionally and socially ready for this higher standard. The same teachers and their principal, all well-trained, dedicated and, in two instances, professionally acclaimed, report having to spend up to 40 per cent of class time trying to keep order, to induce children to stop talking, and to attract their sustained attention.

He asserted: “Promotion of underachieving students without satisfactory remediation is both folly and cruelty to all concerned. All we are doing is cascading the problem to the higher grades and, ultimately, to the national scene.” Does he recommend that these children not be promoted to higher grades?

In my opinion, this is not the solution. Why have these children been allowed to reach the end of Grade 4, barely being able to read? One reason is that the teachers in grades 1-3 had to get through the curriculum with large classes which allowed for no individual attention. The children who are not keeping up lose interest and motivation, hence act up. If the focus in grades 1-3 was not to complete the curriculum, but to ensure that all the children acquired basic literacy and numeracy skills, we would be in a better position. One teacher cannot listen to 50 children reading individually, but the children can listen to and help each other. This presents an opportunity for children to work in groups, and to introduce a spirit of volunteerism. To keep the above average children occupied, they can be given enrichment activities. They can also be allowed to read story books. The best way of encouraging children to improve their reading is to have an ample supply of suitable books. In many classes in Jamaica, there are no story books at all.  

This brings me to another concern, why is PEP being introduced at Grade 4, by which time children have been programmed to learn by rote? Why not introduce hands-on project based learning in Grade 1? Perhaps had this been done, the less able children would not have been so turned off education. There would have been something in it for them.
If you are in agreement with what I have said here, please add your voice to those clamouring for change.

 

 

 

We are teaching children, not the curriculum!