universalising secondary education in the caribbean

Caribbean Educational Research Journal The University of the West Indies

Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016, 97-114 Cave Hill Campus

Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1727-5512

©School of Education, The University of the West Indies Cave Hill Campus

http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/fhe/hum/publications/EducationCERJ.htm

Universalising Secondary Education in the Caribbean: Contrasting

Perspectives

Verna Knight

University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Barbados

Having adopted a regional conceptualisation of basic education as being necessarily inclusive of secondary level schooling, emerging research on Caribbean countries’ experiences with Universal Secondary Education (USE) highlight a plethora of concerns which have implications for educational quality at the secondary level (Knight, 2014; Knight & Obidah, 2014; Marks, 2009; Thompson, 2009). Such concerns mandate a re-examination of national justifications and extent of support for USE. As such, this paper discusses the national justifications for USE, and uses data collected from students, teachers, principals and ministry officials as a basis for an evaluation of stakeholder reactions and support USE in the tri-island state of Grenada. The findings show that students strongly support being granted the opportunity for a secondary education, and share a belief in a direct relationship between completion of secondary schooling and improved life prospects. Principals and teachers however, have concerns that USE may have limited secondary schools’ capacity to provide a quality education for every child. Given new global support for USE as a post-2015 education goal (UNESCO/UNICEF, 2013; UIS/UNICEF, 2015) this paper adds to a growing body of work relevant to informing effective education planning and policy development at the regional and international levels. Keywords: Caribbean Education, Universal Secondary Education, Secondary Education

Introduction “Education represents the hopes, dreams and aspirations of children, families, communities and nations around the world – the most reliable route out of poverty and a critical pathway towards healthier, more productive citizens and stronger societies.” (UNESCO/UNICEF, 2015, p. 03) Increasing demand for secondary education during the post-emancipation and post-

independence era in the Caribbean evidences the high value attached to secondary education by Caribbean nationals. Secondary education was accepted as being the most productive route to social mobility as it facilitates access to both university-level study as well as careers in various professional fields (DeLisle, 2012). The limited number of school places and the high demand in these early years necessitated a selection mechanism, and so two decades after its introduction in England in 1944, the Eleven Plus examination was introduced into the

mailto:[email protected]

98 V. Knight

Caribbean as a means for selecting the highest performing students for free secondary level study.

This approach was challenged at the beginning of the 21st century by both the Education

For All Initiative (EFA) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) initiative which

compelled world countries into action towards the provision of what became known as

Universal Basic Education by 2015. Being signatory to the goals of these initiatives, and having

adopted a definition of compulsory education as being from ages five to sixteen, most

Caribbean countries re-doubled their efforts towards pursuing not only universalised access to

primary education, but also increased access to secondary education. This emphasis on

increasing access was evident in overt changes in education policies and plans across the region.

Some countries took a comprehensive education-reform approach (such as Bahamas, Barbados,

the countries of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), and Trinidad and

Tobago), and others took a project-driven approach (such as Belize, Guyana, Jamaica, and the

Turks and Caicos Islands) (Miller, 2000).

Key to note at this stage is that prior to 2015, the international EFA and MDG initiatives

had been careful to emphasise the goal of universal education access as being necessarily

inclusive of access to primary education, and as far as possible access to the lower levels of

secondary schooling. Therefore, while for other developing countries in areas such as Pakistan,

South and West Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa, the EFA/MDG struggle was mostly limited to a

focus on achieving universal primary education, in most Caribbean countries the focus had

moved on to universal secondary education (Cohen, 2006; Cohen & Bloom, 2005; Latif, 2009;

Omotayo, Ihebereme & Maduewesi, 2008; Sperling, 2005; Uko-Aviomoh, Okoh & Omatseye,

2007).

Although there had been improvements in access to secondary education in the

Caribbean during the 1980’s, at the end of that decade, student access to education at that level

remained highly restricted and limited to the number of school places available, and students’

academic ability. A sub-regional assessment of the status of education in the OECS in 1989

revealed that the provision of educational access at the primary level was generally satisfactory

(with the exception of students with disabilities who still faced challenges to access). The vast

majority of students who entered primary schools were generally being promoted annually,

remaining in school, and completing the primary cycle in the prescribed time, and so the system

was deemed efficient. With efficient completion rates at the primary level, the limitations in

access to the secondary level then became a major concern. A decision was therefore taken to

expand, re-conceptualize and improve secondary education across the sub-region (Miller, 1991).

The Plan for Restructuring Secondary Education in the OECS

OECS member-states agreed that secondary education would be restructured to include the

following key features as presented in Table 1.

The Caribbean Educational Research Journal 99

Table 1

Summary of the Key Features of Planned OECS Restructure for Secondary Education 1991-2000

All OECS member states agreed to work towards the following reforms in education at

the secondary level:

Provision of secondary schooling to all children up to the age of 16 years;

The transfer of all children who were not developmentally disabled;

Provision of special schooling for the developmentally disabled up to age 16;

Ensuring that the transfer from primary to secondary schooling be based on satisfying

functional standards of literacy and numeracy at the primary level, and that this would

lead to the phasing out of the Common Entrance Examinations overtime;

That the age of transfer would be allowed to vary between 10-13;

That secondary education would provide a general education through a common

curriculum at the lower secondary level, followed by two years of broad specialization

at the upper secondary level.

Improving the quality of secondary education through comprehensive training for school

principals and teachers , strengthening of foreign language teaching, and lengthening of

school days to five and one half hours of instruction;

Articulate secondary schooling with upper primary grades; tertiary programs; continuing

education; and regional, sub-regional, and national TVET programs;

Strengthen support services at the secondary level in areas such as guidance and

counseling; social welfare; and libraries and learning resources.

Adapted from “Foundations for the Future: The OECS Education Reform Strategy” (Miller et al.,

1991).

The general consensus was that secondary education was to be provided for all students

in both regular and special education institutions until the age of 16, but that the transition

would be dependent on students’ achievement of the functional standards of literacy and

numeracy at the primary level.

In 1998, an assessment of the status of progress on the secondary education strategies

reported moderate to low implementation. The same strategies were therefore retained in the

revised regional education reform strategy (Miller et al., 2000) with a few adaptations as evident

in Table 2.

100 V. Knight

Table 2

Adaptations to the Planned Strategies for Restructuring Secondary Education in the OECS Sub-

Region 2000-2010

The following are some additions and clarifications included in the revised plan for

restructuring secondary education 2000-2010:

Provide secondary education for all children whose developmental status and level of

educational attainment permit their acquisition of this level of education;

Students meeting the functional literacy and numeracy standards at the primary level

should receive certification of their achievement in the form of a primary school

certificate;

The age of transfer from the primary to the secondary education programme should be

allowed to vary from 10 to 15 years.

All students transferred to secondary education should be guaranteed five years of

secondary schooling from the time of their transfer.

At the upper secondary level, all students should be required to take English Language,

Mathematics, a foreign language, a Science and a Technology subject as the core of their

programme of study, to which would be added any other interested areas of study.

Source: “Pillars for Partnership and Progress: The OECS Education Reform Strategy” (Miller et

al., 2000)

Specific mention must be made of the variation period provided for students in

transferring to the secondary level – the age of transfer was allowed to vary from 10-15 years,

and all students who transferred to the secondary level were to be guaranteed five years of

secondary schooling from the time of transfer. Upon completion of secondary school all

students were expected to sit a minimum core of five subjects certified by the CXC (Caribbean

Examination Council) level (English language, Mathematics, a foreign language, a science and

a technology subject).

The Reality of the Implementation of USE in the OECS Sub-Region

The reality of the implementation of USE in member states however tells a different story to

that which was agreed in the conceptualised OECS Plan for restructuring secondary education.

Reports and research on the reality of the implementation of the policy of universalised

secondary education in St. Vincent and Grenada for example (Marks, 2009; Knight, 2014;

Knight & Obidah, 2014) make several areas of concerns immediately apparent. The general

areas of concern included: an elimination of functional literacy and numeracy standards as a

basis for facilitating student transfer to the secondary level; limited variations in the age

criterion for transfer; inadequate training of secondary teachers for addressing literacy and

numeracy deficiencies; inadequate teacher training in differentiated instruction; increased

disciplinary concerns; and the absence of differentiated pathways for upper secondary

education.

CSEC level certifications of students upon completion of secondary schooling

The CSEC certification results for students on completion of secondary education raised further

concerns. CSEC reports on secondary students’ performance in English A and Mathematics

over the period 2006 – 2014, for example, show a dismal picture as upon completion of the


secondary level less than half of the student population were able to obtain CSEC certification

in these foundational areas (CXC Subject Reports, 2006-2014). CXC’s CSEC regional

performance reviews also showed that generally less than one quarter of the cohort of students

sitting CSEC examinations obtain acceptable grades in five or more subjects. In 2009 for

example, only 21 percent of the students sitting CSEC received five or more passes. Fifty-two

percent of the candidates either did not pass any subject, or received acceptable grades in only

one subject (Jules, 2010). Such outcomes present a threat to the ultimate goals of universalised

access to education.

Research Questions

The significance of the above concerns for educational quality at the secondary level (Knight,

2014; Knight & Obidah, 2014; Marks, 2009; Thompson, 2009) mandate a re-examination of

national justifications and extent of support for USE. As such, this paper specifically addresses the

following research questions:

1. What were the national justifications for pursuing USE in Grenada?

2. What was the reaction of principals toward USE?

3. What were the reactions of teachers and students toward USE?

The contrasting perspectives of these three groups of stakeholders are then used as a

basis for a general evaluation of stakeholder reactions and support USE in the tri-island state of

Grenada.

The Background to USE in Grenada

An analysis of the tri-island state’s struggle towards universalised access to secondary education

as presented in Knight (2014) was characterised by the full implementation of USE on the sister

isles in 1997/1998, and a gradual phasing in of the policy on the mainland. Given the small

population of 6,000 inhabitants on the sister isles (Government of Grenada, 2013) and the

availability of school places, the directive was given that all students sitting the CEE would be

offered a place at the secondary level despite their performance at the beginning of the

1997/1998 school year. The traditional procedure remained for students attending schools on

the mainland of Grenada; places were offered for the highest performing eleven to twelve year

old students. However, a second directive was given relating to students on the mainland – that

space would be reserved for all students sitting the CEE who were aged thirteen-plus, and for

whom it would have been their final attempt at the CEE. This was intended to ensure that these

students transitioned to the secondary level and were not left behind at the primary level

(therefore being at risk to eventually dropping out).

To accommodate the increased student enrollment, classroom space was expanded in

secondary schools throughout the tri-island state. Only one new school was built. Given that

current and projected birth-rate patterns predicted reduced students enrollment figures within

the coming years, the decision was made to pursue a phased approach (as space allowed). Full

transition was achieved in 2012.

Literacy and Numeracy Levels in Grenada

Table 3 provides insight into student performance in literacy and numeracy across Grenada for the

years 2000-2013. This is a useful backdrop for understanding the perspectives shared by the

102 V. Knight

various stakeholders as it relates to universalising secondary education in the way that it has been

achieved in Grenada.

Table 3

National Mean Performance in Grade 4 Minimum Competency Test 2000 – 2013 (English and

Mathematics)

Years National Mean for English

Language

National Mean for

Mathematics

2000 31.7 25.2

2001 34.2 36.1

2002 44.3 38.1

2003 52.6 39.4

2004 Not Available Not Available


2006 58.0 24.9

2007 47.5 41.2

2008 52.4 47.9

2009 55.2 43.7


2011 55.1 49.2

2012 58.8 56.2

2013 59.7 43.2

Source: Education Statistical Digest (Ministry of Education – Grenada, 2014)

The data show that for over the last decade and a half, the mean student performance in

the subject of English Language has ranged between 31 percent to 59 percent; for the area of

Mathematics it is lower – 24 percent to 56 percent. This is indicative of student performance in

Grade 4 at the primary level and shows significant gaps in the minimum competencies that

students should have already attained at that level, and is indicative of the gaps they later have

when transferred to the secondary level. This paper seeks to contribute to the growing debate on

universalising access to quality education at the sub-regional, regional and international levels,

through an interrogation of the multiple perspectives of ministry officials, principals, teachers

and students towards universalised access at the secondary level.

Given limited finances for education development in developing countries, global efforts

aimed at improving education quality have resulted in many premature and ad-hoc adoption and

implementation of policies and programmes promoted by international donor agencies. This has


implications for the overall effectiveness of such policies and programmes, and the ultimate

success of these in achieving positive student outcomes (Anderson & Mundy, 2014; Creemers

& Reezigt, 2005).

The conceptual framework for this paper is informed by the dual fields of school

effectiveness and school improvement research which emphasise that there is a direct

relationship between school processes and student outcomes, and that system-level changes

which target schools should ensure that schools have first been strengthened for managing the

change, and that ultimately all changes should enhance student outcomes. Such studies are

supportive of a mandate for schools to produce students for future societal effectiveness, and

therefore underscore the need for greater accountability to the public for education quality

(Cheng & Mok, 2008; Schereens, 2013).

Methodology

Design

This study utilised a mixed-method design. Mixed-methods research is now viewed as the third

methodological movement and an approach that has much value to education research. Its

emergence has been in response to the limitations of the sole use of either quantitative or

qualitative methods and it is considered by many to be a legitimate alternative to these two

research traditions (Creswell, 2015; Johnson & Christensen, 2014). A QUAN-QUAL mixed

method design was used; specifically what Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2009) refer to as a

“partially mixed concurrent equal status design” (p. 268).

The contrasting perspectives presented in this paper were obtained from data collected

from a larger mixed–method study of USE in Grenada. Table 4 provides a summary of the

composition of the purposive research sample from which the data was collected to inform the

development of this paper.

Table 4

Demographic Composition of Research Participants

Research Participant

Groups

Numbers of Participants Data Collection Mechanism

Ministry Officials Three (3) Interviews

Principals Eight (8) Face-to-Face Interviews

Teachers Three hundred and Eleven

(311)

Questionnaire Survey

Students Eight (8) Groups

Focus group Sessions

Three ministry officials were interviewed (two former Chief Education Officers, and one former

area education officer for the sister islands). Each principal from the eight selected schools was

interviewed. Questionnaires were also distributed to all teachers in the eight selected schools,

104 V. Knight

and one student focus group session was held per selected school. Each focus group was

comprised of ten (10) students per school. The students were selected from all five class levels

at the secondary schools. The students selected all volunteered to be part of the group session

and represented a range of mixed ability levels. The schools targeted were the two secondary

schools on the sister isles, and six of the lowest performing secondary schools on the mainland

to which most lower performing students were being allocated since the policy of USE was

implemented.

Data Analysis

While descriptive statistical procedures were used to analyse the quantitative data from both

teachers and student surveys, thematic analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data. The

qualitative data analysis was also aided by a Daily Interpretive Analysis (DIA) (Claudet, 1999)

which was conducted after each interview and focus group session, and aided in identifying

emerging themes from the data. In the use of this QUAN-QUAL design, the data were not

mixed across phases but rather each was analysed separately and mixed at the data

interpretation stage (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009).

Findings

Examining the justifications for the implementation of the policy of universalized access to

Secondary Education in Grenada

Principals and teachers revealed a lack of knowledge as it relates to the national justifications

for the government’s determination to pursue the policy of universalised access to secondary

education. Two principals interviewed were aware of the exact year when the policy of USE

began affecting their school; however the others reported that they became aware of the policy

after noticing a gradual increase in student enrollment at their schools, especially the placement

of an increased number of students lacking basic skills for successfully engaging at the

secondary level. As principals and teachers began to raise questions regarding the weak basic

skills of increasing numbers of students being transferred to the secondary level, ministry

officials confirmed that a policy of USE was being pursued, and was thus affecting their

schools. Schools were therefore not prepared for the move towards universalised access.

Interestingly, when the question of consultations with key educational stakeholders was

raised in interviews with ministry officials, they insisted that educational stakeholders were

consulted regarding the implementation of USE, but not directly. The consultations were

described as having taken place at the Teachers’ Union level given their involvement in

consultations towards the development of the Strategic Plan for Educational Enhancement and

Development (SPEED II) which included the goal of pursuing universalized secondary access.

As was explained:

“The Grenada Union of Teachers and the National Parent Teacher Association were

part of the preparation of SPEED I and SPEED II, and increasing access to secondary

education was highlighted then as one of governments’ plans for the coming years.”

(Ministry Official #3)

The consultations therefore were not necessarily held with schools directly, or even the

Union directly. The result was a disconnect between the policy dictated from the central

administrative level (Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development) and the reality

being experienced at the school level.

Ministry officials were therefore the only group who was able to present insight into the


national justifications for the implementation of universalised access to secondary education in

Grenada. All three ministry officials interviewed explained that the policy was basically linked to

capacity. The following three key points were presented by all three Ministry officials as

justifications for pursuing USE:

1. That one of the goals of education was always to provide a secondary education for

every child;

2. That the inability to previously provide a place at the secondary level for each child

had been traditionally limited by capacity not students’ ability; and

3. USE was a goal being pursued by other Caribbean countries at the regional level

(OECS), and Grenada was lagging in implementation.

Generally, access at the primary and secondary levels was considered to comprise a

basic education, and the inability to provide a place for every child had simply been previously

limited by capacity, that is the number of physical places available for enrolling students at the

secondary level, rather than an issue of students’ ability or readiness for secondary education.

As a result when the opportunity allowed for increased enrolments, it was taken.

It was also explained that increased motivation came in the form of regional emphasis

on achieving USE which had been achieved or was at the time being aggressively pursued by

other neighbouring Caribbean countries and therefore USE was included in the national

education policy as a goal of education. This allowed for increased emphasis to be placed on the

achievement of USE as an educational attainment.

Mixed Reactions toward USE

Principals, teachers and students provided insight into the question of support for the policy of

USE.

Principals

Dissatisfaction with policy of USE

All eight (8) principals expressed dissatisfaction with the policy of USE. The overall feeling

was that there was an increased number of students being transferred from the primary school

level to the secondary level, who were unprepared for successfully engaging with learning at the

secondary level, and additionally they were being transferred to the care of teachers who lacked

the skills to help them succeed. Principals explained that while the idea of everyone being given

a secondary education was good, the challenges it has brought to the secondary education

system were affecting the quality of education being provided at that level. The principals

asserted that increased numbers of students were being sent to their schools even though the

schools were not prepared to receive them.

Challenges due to the policy of USE

For all schools, the years since the government began its aggressive implementation of USE

(1997-present) have been fraught with struggles to expand school facilities, and teaching

capacity to match increased numbers. Even with the additional provision of literacy

coordinators and school counselors to secondary schools, the challenges remain. The principals

highlighted the following as critical challenges: students with significant weaknesses in the

basic areas of language and numeracy; inability of teachers to provide differentiated instruction

in all classrooms; the predominantly academic orientation of the secondary school curriculum;

and a general fear that USE was compromising the quality of education being provided at the

106 V. Knight

secondary level.

Teachers

USE perceived to be impacting teaching Quality

At the point of the study being conducted, most teachers (88%) in the selected schools were

aware that the policy of USE was in effect. In fact, most teachers blamed USE for what they

perceived as being falling standards in teaching and learning at the secondary level. Ninety eight

percent (98%) of the teachers reported an increase in the number of students facing academic

challenges in the classroom. Seventy-three percent (73%) of them believed that the policy of

USE was responsible for falling standards in teaching and learning. This they believed was as a

result of students lacking the basic skills for secondary level education (73%); overcrowded

classrooms (42%), lack of appropriate resources to address students’ needs (56%); inadequate

curriculum (55%); and teachers’ lack of appropriate training to meet the current student needs

(40%). These results are depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Teacher-Identified USE-Motivated Factors Affecting Quality of Education

Teachers were of the view that universalised access had contributed to an increase in the

following problems at the secondary level: students with poor literacy skills; insufficient teaching

and learning resources to adequately teach all students; an inadequate curriculum which was no

longer suitable for meeting all students’ needs; overcrowded classrooms which made teaching

difficult, and inadequacies in teacher training as the traditional training which was suited for

teaching at the secondary level was now revealed as being no longer adequate. Teachers therefore

saw the policy of USE as having aggravated negative conditions at the secondary level which now

threatened their delivery of quality teaching and learning.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Poor LiteracySkills

InsufficentResources

InadequateCurriculum

OvercrowdedClassrooms

InadequateTeacherTraining

Percentage (%)


Teacher-recommended actions for addressing USE-related challenges

From a list of research-supported educational interventions for improving educational

quality, teachers indicated their greatest support for providing alternative secondary schools

(76%), improved professional development training jointly collaborated among schools (75%),

peer assessment for developmental purposes (61%), and the joint educational programmes

among/between schools (60%). They exhibited mixed reactions regarding teacher exchange

programmes (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Level of Teachers’ Support for Five Optional Educational Interventions for Improving

Secondary Schooling

Students

Students’ perception regarding current Education Quality

Seventy-five percent (75%) of the students generally genuinely believed that they were being

afforded a good quality education at their schools even though there were areas in which they were

aware that improvements were needed. A significant twenty-four percent (24%) however

disagreed. This is evident in Figure 3.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Supportive (%)

Non Supportive (%)

108 V. Knight

Figure 3: Students Perceptions Regarding the Quality of Their Secondary Education

Students’ feelings were in direct contrast to those of their teachers, while at the same

time showing evidence of their awareness of the new context of education within which they

were being taught. They were generally of the belief that a good education was necessary for

success in adult life. They saw schools as being the providers of the enabling foundations for

obtaining a good job, and subsequently a successful life, and were willing to pursue secondary

schooling for this reason; this was true even for the students with weak reading and writing

skills.

“You need a good education to get a good job…[students] struggle through even if they

are having problems, because they want to get a good education…to get a good job”

(Group #1)

Students’ feelings regarding the policy of USE

Most students had never heard the term ‘Universal Secondary Education’ nor were they

aware that it was a policy informing their transfer to the secondary level. Most students on the

sister isles of Grenada (attending the two secondary schools on the Carriacou) were however

familiar with the term, having heard it being used but unsure as to what it really meant.

These students from schools on Carriacou were however very aware that they no longer

needed to ‘pass’ the CEE to be placed at a secondary school on the island of Carriacou, while

the students from the secondary schools on mainland Grenada were still generally of the belief

that they had all been awarded a place because they had ‘passed’ the CEE.

In order to obtain students’ views on the policy of USE, the concept was subsequently explained

to them during the focus group discussion, and general feelings were shared by students as they

made the connections between the policy and their current secondary schooling experience. The

students who were part of the focus groups on the sister isles were the most vocal about their

feelings regarding USE.

“Some [students] are not ready for secondary school but are given a free pass, and then

they can’t do the work…lots of them get teased because they can’t speak well, read well or

write well…these students misbehave and distract class” (Group #1).

75%

24%

1%

YES NO NR


“It is not a completely good policy; not if some students lack the basic skills…those lacking

skills are sent to secondary school and they give more trouble than anything else” (Group

#2).

Overall, all eight groups of students were generally supportive of the plan to afford

every child a secondary education, but had some reservations about the impact this would have

on schools. The general feeling was that the opportunity should only be given when a student

has obtained the basic skills to enable them to complete the level of work necessary at the

secondary level.

“It is a good policy but only for those who are ready and able to do the work. Some students

cannot do the work and need help to learn to read and write well first” (Group #8).

“It is a good policy. Everyone needs a good education, but [there needs to be] more help

for the slower students” (Group # 4).

“Students should earn the right to a secondary education. It should not be a free pass.

Those who are not ready should remain at the primary school level until they are

ready…It makes no sense to give them a free pass if they cannot do the work…because

those students are the main ones who come to school and give teachers a lot of trouble and

cause distractions in the class” (Group # 7).

“Some students are not performing good because they don’t have the skills they need to

understand and do well in the different subjects and so they get left behind” (Group #2).

“Students who can’t read and write don’t do well on exams” (Group #3).

The dominant feeling of most students was that while a secondary education was

valuable and critical to every student’s future, students should only be transferred from the

primary to the secondary level when they have obtained the necessary skills (basic reading,

writing and numeracy skills) needed for successful engagement with the curriculum.

Students’ recommendations for addressing current problems in Secondary Education

A recommendation from the students as it regards improving secondary education was that

secondary schools needed to obtain more trained teachers to help those students who were

struggling:

“They [School authorities] need more trained teachers to help those who are weak and

struggling…teachers who care. ...those [students] who are weak in their main subjects

want to at least learn a skill before leaving secondary school, since they won’t be able to

go any further …like college” (Group #8).

Students also recommended that a skills training programme be part of the curriculum or

programme options at the secondary level to present an alternative educational pathway for some

students who are unable to successfully engage with the dominantly academic nature of

the current secondary school curriculum.

110 V. Knight

Discussion

Examining justifications for USE

Firstly, the insight provided by the research findings as it relates to justifications for pursuing

USE shows evidence of two deep concerns: lack of clarity at the school level as it relates to

national justifications for pursuing USE, and a disparity between education administrators’

stated reasons for pursuing USE, and the national conceptualisation of secondary education as

articulated in education policy plans for Grenada.

While education administrators at the ministry level were able to articulate their

perceptions regarding what they believed to be the justifications for pursuing universalised

access to secondary education, this clarity was glaringly absent at the school level. Both

principals and teachers revealed this in their responses. There are strong indications that this

lack of clarity regarding the justifications for the implementation of USE may have contributed

to the high level of concerns expressed by both principals and teachers regarding the policy’s

perceived negative impact on education quality. This is obviously a critical factor to be

addressed in planning for implementation of USE at the school level.

The effort made by the Ministry of Education to engage stakeholder consultations is

evidence of a basic awareness of the importance of stakeholder consultations to effecting

successful policy implementation. However the limitations of this consultation to the union

level rather than engaging schools directly may have been a weakness as it relates to planning

for implementation. The aspect of the tale as it relates to justifications could therefore only be

articulated at the ministry level through the voice of educational administrators and not at the

school level through the voices of principals and teachers.

Secondly, analysis of the administrators’ responses regarding the justifications for USE

in Grenada provides insight into two perceived main drivers for USE: a belief in the provision

of secondary education for every child, and a desire to fulfill external education policy

commitments regarding the provision of basic education. This first justification while evident at

the sub-regional level (Miller et al., 2000) is however not directly evident in the education

strategic plan for Grenada – SPEED II. While establishing that “every individual has the right to

access to education for lifelong learning” (SPEED II, 2005, p. 08), as it relates to secondary

education SPEED II clearly articulates the following:

a) Secondary education should be premised upon the attainment of the goals of primary

education,

b) Secondary education should provide a foundation for access to and successful

completion of tertiary education,

c) Completion of secondary education is seen as the minimum standard for basic

preparation for the world of work.

Local administrators’ justification that the inability to previously provide a place at the

secondary level for every child had been traditionally limited by school capacity and academic

merit is supported and explained by the findings of Knight (2014) as it relates to the

implementation of USE in Grenada. Knight (2014) in outlining the implementation process

provided insight into the policies which guided the transfer process. The Ministry’s policy

informing the transfer process was the practice of awarding a place at the secondary level for

the best performing 11-12 year old students who would have attained the desired ‘pass mark’ on

the basis of having completed the CEE. The pass mark however was not a fixed performance

grade to be attained by students, but rather a flexible performance score that was dependent

each year on the number of classroom places available for facilitating student transfer. This


nnumber of places available was affected in any given year by a number of factors inclusive of

classroom expansion, and student retention levels at the secondary schools.

The second driver for USE in Grenada appears to be its regional educational

commitments. As one of the nine member states of the sub-regional Organization of Eastern

Caribbean States, Grenada was committed to a harmonised sub-regional education policy

framework which highlighted universalised access to education as a regional goal to be pursued

and achieved by 2015. This sub-regional policy framework was developed by all nine member

states with deliberate alignment to the international EFA and MDG educational targets to which

the wider Caribbean region was also signatory as members of the Caribbean Community

(CARICOM) Miller et al., 2000; UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs/UN

(UNESCO, 2000; Department of Public Information, 2005). This sub-regional agenda feeds into

broader regional and international commitments to EFA and MDG’s goals.

Shared Concerns for Educational Quality

The global post-2015 education and developmental agenda has taken a more direct

approach to shaping secondary education by highlighting the goal of the pursuit of universalised

access to basic education as not being limited to the primary level but necessarily inclusive also

of secondary level schooling (UIS/UNICEF, 2015; UNESCO/UNICEF, 2013). Unlike many

other developing countries in Asia, the Caribbean is way ahead in the implementation of this

educational goal. The question which persists is how should the secondary education system be

structured to ensure that access results in individual student success? Critical to responding to

this question however is the need to respond to the experiences shared by multiple school-level

stakeholders such as principals, teachers and students regarding the impact of USE on schools.

The findings generally reveal that principals believe that secondary schools currently

lack adequate and relevant resources to meet the needs of the newly-included groups of

students, given increased disparities in students’ knowledge, skills, abilities and interests.

Teachers’ concerns on the other hand were specifically focused on the negative impact

they perceived that universalised access to secondary education has had on the quality of their

overall output, i.e., the results of teaching evident by student performance on standardised

exams. Their concerns mainly relate to increased challenges in the classrooms due to student

diversity and the increased strain this placed on them as teachers.

The responses of the teachers and students reflect a belief that transition should be based

on student readiness, rather than automatic promotion. This feeling is generally in support of a

conceptualisation of secondary education that reflects the old model but with a more stringent

focus on student acquisition of the basic literacy, numeracy and communication skills at the

primary school level. However in recognition of the new context that is the current reality

shaped by the policy of USE, both teachers and students were supportive of differentiated

secondary education to meet the needs of the current secondary education.

An interesting observation from the findings was the contrasting feelings of teachers and

students regarding current educational quality. While teachers were convinced that educational

quality was currently under threat, students shared the opposite view. Students expressed

sincere faith in the current education quality, and believed that it was a good one that would

prepare them for success in life. This belief did not blind them to the fact that there were

problems; an awareness they were quite willing to express (Knight & Obidah, 2014). However

this obvious faith in the education system must be honored, upheld and maintained at all costs.

112 V. Knight

Teachers specifically expressed support for the introduction of alternative schools, and

developing joint education programmes among schools to address the needs of students with

challenges. Teachers’ responses show evidence of their awareness of their own limitations as it

relates to training and development and expressed a general willingness to participate in

appropriate collaborative programmes for developmental purposes.

Students on the other hand expressed the need for increased options for students to

pursue skills training at the secondary level; especially those students facing significant

difficulties with the academic-oriented nature of the secondary education programme.

While the responses of principals simply indicate that better preparation of secondary

schools to meet the new demands is needed, the responses of the teachers and students seem to

strongly support specifically differentiating instruction and/or programmes and pathways for

students transferred to the secondary level.

Teachers and principals serve as key gatekeepers of educational quality and by extension

students’ preparation for success in life and work. If the educational gatekeepers are questioning

the educational quality they are able to provide then as educational administrators and policy

makers we must stop and listen. The research findings did not provide data to allow the

researcher to delve deeply into the factors teachers perceived as having a detrimental impact on

educational quality, but a general idea could be obtained as teachers identified threats such as

students’ poor literacy skills; insufficient teaching and learning resources to adequately teach all

students; an inadequate curriculum which was no longer suitable for meeting all students’

needs; overcrowded classrooms which made teaching difficult, and inadequacies in their teacher

training as the traditional training which was suited for teaching at the secondary level was now

unable to enable them to adequately meet the needs of all students.

Conclusion

In an era of universalised access to secondary education, research and reports repeatedly

emphasise the need for education systems, and by extension schools, to maintain a parallel

focus on education quantity and education quality in order to achieve the ultimate goal of

educational success for each child. In the Caribbean the question of what is the best way

forward for improving the quality of educational outcomes in Caribbean secondary schools

continues to dominate educational forums. Consensus is yet to be reached as to whether

education for all should mean that secondary education must look the same for every child or

whether secondary education should be re-conceptualised to provide multiple pathways

responsive to the varying interests, needs, and capabilities of students. This paper confirms the

need for urgent decision making in this regard, and provides support from the perspectives of

education administrators, school leaders, teachers and students toward the development of

multiple pathways in secondary education to fully address the demands of educational

inclusion.

References

Anderson, S., & Mundy, K. (2014). School Improvement in developing countries: Experiences

and lessons learned. Retrieved online:

https://www.oise.utoronto.ca/cidec/UserFiles/File/Research/School_Improvement/Anders

on-SIP_Discussion_Paper-08042015.pdf

Barrow, D. (2012). Students’ image of the eleven plus: Implications for Identity, Motivation, and

Education Policy. Caribbean Curriculum, 19, 1-41.


Claudet, J.G. (1999). An interpretive analysis of educator change processes in response to a

program innovation: Implications for personnel evaluation. Journal of Personnel

Evaluation in Education, 13 (1), 47-69. doi: 1023/A: 1008050105136.

Cohen, J. E. (2006). Goals of Universal Basic and Secondary Education. Prospects, 36 (3), 247-

269.

Cohen, E. J., & Bloom, E. D. (2005). Cultivating minds. Finance and Development, 42 (2), 4-18.

Retrieved from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2005/06/cohen.htm

Coulson, A. J. (2003, May). Implementing education for all: Moving from goals to action. Paper

presented at the IncontroInternazionaleMilanoliberal, Italy.

Creemers, B. P. M., & Reezigt, G.J. (2005). Linking school effectiveness and school improvement:

The background and outline of the project. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,

16 (4), 359-371.

Creswell, J.W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. London: Sage

Publications.

DeLisle, J. (2012). Secondary school entrance examinations in the Caribbean: Legacy, Policy, and

Evidence within an Era of Seamless Education. Caribbean Curriculum 19, 109–143.

Fergus, H.(2003). A History of Education in the British Leeward Islands, 1838-1945. Kingston:

The University of the West Indies Press. xi + 236 pp. ISBN: 976-640-131-4.

Figueroa, J. J. (1971). Society, schools and progress in the West Indies. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Hinds, H. (2007).Universal secondary education in the OECS: Policy and access, quality and

rewards. St. Lucia: OECS-OERU. Retrieved from http://www.oecs.org/.../144-universal-

secondary-education-in-the-oecs-policy-and-access-quality-and-rewards-a-paper-for-

discu

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L.B. (2014). Educational research: quantitative, Qualitative and

Mixed Approaches. London: Sage Publications.

Knight, V. (2014). The policy of Universal Secondary Education: Its influence on secondary

schooling in Grenada. Research in Comparative and International Education, 9 (1), 16-35.

Knight, V. C, & Obidah, J. (2014).Instituting Universal Secondary Education: Caribbean students’

perceptions of their schooling experiences. Journal of Education and Practice, 5 (32), 71-

81.

Leech, N.L., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality

and Quantity, 43 (2), 265-275. doi:10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3.

Marks, V. (2009).Universal access to secondary education in St Vincent and the Grenadines. The

Journal of Eastern Caribbean Studies, 34 (2), 56-70.

Miller, E., Jules, D., & Thomas, L. (2000). Pillars for partnership and progress: The OECS

education reform strategy 2010. Castries, St Lucia: OECS/OERU.

Miller, E.M., Lockhart, A., Sheppard, E., Fenton, M., Ross, B., Forde, G., & Vanloo, C. (1991).

Foundations for the future: OECS education reform strategy. Castries, St Lucia:

OECS/OERU.

Miller, E. (2000). Education For All in the Caribbean in the 1900s: Retrospect and Prospect.

Retrieved from: http://www.unesco.org/carneid/monograph.pdf

Miller, E. (2009). Universal Secondary Education and Society in the Commonwealth Caribbean

Journal of Eastern Caribbean Studies, 34(2), 3-18.

http://www.oecs.org/.../144-universal-secondary-education-in-the-oecs-policy-and-access-quality-and-rewards-a-paper-for-discu



http://www.unesco.org/carneid/monograph.pdf

114 V. Knight

Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (2010). Education statistical digest:

Past trends, present positions, and projections up to 2015/2016. St Georges, Grenada:

Statistical Division, Planning and Development Unit.

OERU (2013). OECS Education Sector Strategy 2012-2021(OESS): Every learner Learns. St

Lucia: Education Management and Development Unit.

Scheerens, J. (2013). The use of theory in school effectiveness research revisited. School

Effectiveness and School Improvement, 24:1, 1-38. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2012.691100

Sperling, G. B. (2005). The case for universal basic education for the world’s poorest boys and

girls. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(3), 213-216.

Spring, J. (2006).The Universal right to education: Justification, definition, and guidelines.

Mahwah, NJ, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 33, 37.

Strategic Plan for Educational Enhancement and Development, SPEED II 2006-2015. (2005). St.

Georges: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from:

http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Grenada/Grenada%20Speed%20II.pdf

Thompson, B. (2009). Disruptive behaviours in Barbadian classrooms: Implications for universal

secondary education in the Caribbean. Journal of Eastern Caribbean Studies, 34(3), 39-

58.

UNESCO (2005). EFA Global Monitoring report: Education for All – The Quality Imperative.

Retrieved from: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-

international-agenda/efareport/reports/2005-quality/

UNESCO (2006).EFA Global Monitoring Report: Literacy for Life. Retrieved from:

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-

agenda/efareport/reports/2006-literacy/

UNESCO (2014). UNESCO. (2005). EFA Global Monitoring report: Teaching and Learning –

Achieving quality for all. Retrieved

from:http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-

agenda/efareport/reports/2013/

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the UN Department of Public Information.

(2005). Millennium Development Goals: 2005 Progress Chart. Retrieved from:

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/mdg2005progresschart.pdf

UNESCO and UNICEF (2013). Making education a priority in the post-2015 development agenda:

Report of the Global Consultation on Education in the Post-2015 Development Agenda.

Retrieved

from:http://www.unicef.org/education/files/Making_Education_a_Priority_in_the_Post-

2015_Development_Agenda.pdf

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) and UNICEF (2015). Fixing the Broken Promise of

Education for All: Findings from the Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children.

Montreal: UIS. http://dx.doi.org/10.15220/978-92-9189-161-0-en

http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Grenada/Grenada%20Speed%20II.pdf

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/efareport/reports/2005-quality/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/efareport/reports/2005-quality/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/efareport/reports/2013/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/efareport/reports/2013/

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/mdg2005progresschart.pdf

http://www.unicef.org/education/files/Making_Education_a_Priority_in_the_Post-2015_Development_Agenda.pdf

http://www.unicef.org/education/files/Making_Education_a_Priority_in_the_Post-2015_Development_Agenda.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.15220/978-92-9189-161-0-en

universalising secondary education in the caribbean

Documents