To say that the Carnegie School of Home Economics, along with the Government Technical Institute (GTI), are among the most noteworthy and impactful training institutions in the history of Guyana is to indulge in considerable understatement. One only needs to examine their respective track records in terms of the contributions that their respective graduates have made over the years to the various institutions in which they have served.
One understands, of course, that there are those who might be inclined to throw Queen’s College and Bishops’ High School into the mix here; the response of this editorial would be that those two, themselves distinguished institutions, have always benefitted from various forms of exalted attention and support from both government and the private sector that have helped to make them what they are. In the instances of both Carnegie and the GTI, they have given service mostly in the capacity of dogged stayers, institutions that have endured, indeed shined without the benefit of a glaring limelight. Over time, they have opened their doors to triers, stayers, seeking to shine as best they could, in less than exalted circumstances. Many of them have ‘gotten there’ with flying colours.
In the particular instance of the Carnegie School of Home Economics the institution has failed, demonstrably (its standout contribution to the disciplines associated with what we describe as Home Economics notwithstanding) to attract a corresponding level of official attention. Here, however much we may insist to the contrary, it has been a matter of heavily prejudiced value judgements that have, over time, kept these institutions ‘down’.
When objective consideration is given to the sustained contribution that the Carnegie School of Home Economics and the Government Technical Institute have afforded the nation in the particular disciplines in which they specialise, governments, over the years, stand decidedly guilty of rewarding these institutions’ respective contributions with nothing even remotely resembling commensurate reciprocity.
The circumstance to which Carnegie has been tethered, over the years (though officialdom is likely loathe to admit this) has to do with the historical weighting of the value of the disciplines in which the institution specialises, against those disciplines offered by what are deemed to be the ‘higher’ institutions of learning. The problem here is that while, globally, the worm has turned significantly in terms of the weighting of the respective sets of disciplines, we in our antiquated, decidedly blindfolded ways have been unable to recognise, far less respond to the reality of changing times.
One needs no special lenses to recognise the particular direction in which Guyana appears to be heading, nor indeed do we need to look particularly closely to discern the kinds of skills that are needed to meet the demands of that momentum. The reality is – and here is where our policymakers appear to suffer from a compelling lack of insightfulness – that institutions like the Carnegie School of Home Economics and the Government Technical Institute rank among the highest in terms of their suitability to provide the skills requirements that are needed in terms of the direction in which the country would appear to be heading.
Contextually, a great deal of insightfulness is contained in the observation made by the Tourism and Hospitality Association of Guyana in its recent media release that its current collaboration with Carnegie is a consequence of its recognition that “the influx of new hotels in Guyana, the competitive nature of the hospitality industry demands that there is an ongoing investment in human resources development.” It is an irrefutably practical point, one tragically which government over time appears to have missed. Indeed, it is this that should serve as the rationale for focusing upgrading attention on the Carnegie School of Home Economics that goes way beyond the sort of cosmetic adjustments from which it has benefitted up to this time. To do so it is altogether necessary that the authorities first have a clear vision of exactly what will be required of the institution in terms of infrastructure, facilities and specialized skills. That will have to derive from a level of forward thinking that extends much beyond what appears to obtain at this time.
The same, of course, applies to the Government Technical Institute.
