Dear Editor,
Having been in the public education system for over 25 years I listened to the Jamaica Labour Party's proposal for the removal of educational fees with interest, and waited to see what plan would be rolled out.
It has been reported that, at a Jamaica Observer luncheon, Senator Kamina Johnson Smith outlined the party's policy and identified as the sources of funding, the Education Tax, an increase in the subvention paid per student to schools, and a cut in the number of contracted consultants employed to the Ministry of Education.
While the cutting of salaries to consultants is worthwhile pursuing, this amount is a drop in the bucket, $225 million per year (her numbers not mine), when compared with the estimated additional monies required totalling $1.8 billion (quoted by her).
The other two sources quoted are monies already in the consolidated fund meeting needs, so the question of where the additional funding will come from is still unanswered. I agree that education for the most vulnerable must be supported by State funding, my question, given the existing economic climate, is why should those who can contribute to their children's education not do so? Especially since secondary education is already highly subsidised.
Surely even with the identification of additional funding this would allow for the allocation of additional monies to those who absolutely need it, and also allow for funding for those schools which need additional support because of the inability to collect auxiliary fees. Why do we want to promote the notion that you do not have a responsibility to contribute to developing your child, once you can?
From my considerable experience, $19,000 per student is not enough to keep a school operating at the standard that the 'schools of choice' operate at now.
In response to her position that there would be no opposition to fund-raising, I point out the following: Schools do engage in fund-raising, despite the collection of auxiliary fees, and this is quite time consuming, even with the support of alumni associations and the Parent-Teachers' Associations. If administrators are to engage in even more fund-raising to compensate for the shortfall occasioned by the removal of auxiliary fees, their main task, which is quality control of the curriculum and delivery of same, will be compromised.
Schools which collect low percentages of auxiliary fees usually have challenges with fund-raising for one reason: many of the stakeholders do not have a lot of disposable income. Who buys the barbecue tickets? Who goes to the concerts? The students and their families, of course.
Maybe she would not be surprised at the less-than-supportive position of the stakeholders had she bothered to have real dialogue with those on the ground in education, and so engage in research which would have permitted her more than a superficial grasp of how education functions.
The question of how best to organise education in Jamaica is complex and impacted by several factors. The proposed plan will only bring another set of issues to be resolved, while promoting mediocrity across the board. If education is to be transformed, rather than to be used as a political football, the key question to be addressed is how to bring all schools to the standard of those which have become 'schools of choice' while supporting the vulnerable so that all can access what will be a quality secondary education. Think on those things, Senator.
Patricia Castriota
Kingston 20
tricia.castriota@gmail.com
Senator Johnson Smith's plan still needs work
-->
Having been in the public education system for over 25 years I listened to the Jamaica Labour Party's proposal for the removal of educational fees with interest, and waited to see what plan would be rolled out.
It has been reported that, at a Jamaica Observer luncheon, Senator Kamina Johnson Smith outlined the party's policy and identified as the sources of funding, the Education Tax, an increase in the subvention paid per student to schools, and a cut in the number of contracted consultants employed to the Ministry of Education.
While the cutting of salaries to consultants is worthwhile pursuing, this amount is a drop in the bucket, $225 million per year (her numbers not mine), when compared with the estimated additional monies required totalling $1.8 billion (quoted by her).
The other two sources quoted are monies already in the consolidated fund meeting needs, so the question of where the additional funding will come from is still unanswered. I agree that education for the most vulnerable must be supported by State funding, my question, given the existing economic climate, is why should those who can contribute to their children's education not do so? Especially since secondary education is already highly subsidised.
Surely even with the identification of additional funding this would allow for the allocation of additional monies to those who absolutely need it, and also allow for funding for those schools which need additional support because of the inability to collect auxiliary fees. Why do we want to promote the notion that you do not have a responsibility to contribute to developing your child, once you can?
From my considerable experience, $19,000 per student is not enough to keep a school operating at the standard that the 'schools of choice' operate at now.
In response to her position that there would be no opposition to fund-raising, I point out the following: Schools do engage in fund-raising, despite the collection of auxiliary fees, and this is quite time consuming, even with the support of alumni associations and the Parent-Teachers' Associations. If administrators are to engage in even more fund-raising to compensate for the shortfall occasioned by the removal of auxiliary fees, their main task, which is quality control of the curriculum and delivery of same, will be compromised.
Schools which collect low percentages of auxiliary fees usually have challenges with fund-raising for one reason: many of the stakeholders do not have a lot of disposable income. Who buys the barbecue tickets? Who goes to the concerts? The students and their families, of course.
Maybe she would not be surprised at the less-than-supportive position of the stakeholders had she bothered to have real dialogue with those on the ground in education, and so engage in research which would have permitted her more than a superficial grasp of how education functions.
The question of how best to organise education in Jamaica is complex and impacted by several factors. The proposed plan will only bring another set of issues to be resolved, while promoting mediocrity across the board. If education is to be transformed, rather than to be used as a political football, the key question to be addressed is how to bring all schools to the standard of those which have become 'schools of choice' while supporting the vulnerable so that all can access what will be a quality secondary education. Think on those things, Senator.
Patricia Castriota
Kingston 20
tricia.castriota@gmail.com
Senator Johnson Smith's plan still needs work
-->