Dear Editor,
Comfort zones are the enemies of progress. A comfort zone can bring an implementation plan to a halt. A comfort zone creates a dangerous complacency which breeds stagnation and frustration among persons who would want change. Comfort zones can be liars. They make persons affected feel confident about performance when the performance can be very deficient, indeed. Comfort zones can destroy communication which is crucial if change is to come about.
Comfort zones abound in education. The reason is inbuilt. Persons in education see themselves as knowledgeable. They know subject information. They have experience. They know that there are problems in delivery of education. However, the individual teacher does not necessarily see that he/she can bring about change. The teacher can justify his mindset by claiming that he is not paid to fix the system. The entity called the ‘Ministry of Education’ should do that.
The system can be ’fixed’ but such fixing depends on conversations among educators about education. Dr Jailall started such a conversation very nicely in his letter about ‘re-aligning and re-vamping’ so the conversation must continue to see whether these are possible at all.
When we ask for ‘realignment’ what are we aligning to and at what point did alignment fail? If we wish for ‘revamping’ what are we envisioning as the improvements? These are not easy questions to answer. Answers may be very localized and vexing at all levels of the education system.
Dr Jailall calls for ‘accountability’. Certainly this is needed school by school. I suggest, however, that ‘accountability’ does not necessarily produce’ transparency’ which is a major deciding factor for measuring ‘accountability’ and performance. Transparency, therefore, is a valuable input which establishes good faith as change unfolds.
Teachers will protest that they are already accountable: teacher punctuality and attendance records exist, student attendance records are kept, teachers reply to questions asked by the administration, teachers mark papers and score students. If, however, their accountabilities are stored and jealously guarded and used, perhaps for argument and school feuds, then the schools will underperform. Each person will have his basket of accountabilities and he does not share, he resists requests for discussion. Progress is slow. Transparency, the willingness to reveal plans and outcomes, has not happened.
Whenever we consider change, it is necessary to know what the original condition is to know what to change to. Some schools will insist that their results are such that they simply need to continue on their developmental path. They want to be left alone. Are their results across the board in their schools or are there only a few high performers, and should this change to include many others? How is change possible?
I suggest that a neutral instrument which presents the national objectives for education are of prime importance. The national values are crucial to transformation as these will give all schools standards which can be interpreted and realized at the level of the school despite geographical location. Guyana, with its small and fragile numbers of native born Guyanese, must have a well thought out national plan for education. And if it does not have this it must get this with concentrated speed as Guyana’s need to preserve her culture is urgent given the pace of economic development and the inclusion of many ethnicities as Guyana moves to meet her need for labour by importation.
Within a neutral framework of national values, goals and objectives, the thought framework is set up so that schools begin to see that change is possible without witch hunts, feuds and crucifixions. School by school they establish their own values and these align with the values of the national education plan. School by school they establish goals and objectives circumscribed by the goals and objectives of the national plan.
Therefore, a framework for thought begins to emerge which works to meld parts together and to produce forward movement on a wide scale. Easily check-ed progress becomes possible because the expected outcomes are already defined. The process is dynamic. Even as a plan is established its revision based on relevant data begins to point the way forward.
Training in management of change would be crucial at this time so that all gain an understanding of what is possible and how to enact desirable outcomes. A management expert can present how performance indicators work, how it is possible to plan and expect change to happen. Pay for the expertise. The benefits will be great.
Dr Jailall referred to using data for change. Yes. To condemn evidence to a locked closet, never to look at the hard figures, is very damaging and dangerous This is courting educational disaster. Many accusations of neglect can arise, and management by whim, and these can be both divisive and tyrannical.
Technology supports extensive use of data. The coffers of Guyana can afford to ‘tool up’ every teacher with lap tops and desktops, with internet connections, with consoles which facilitate conferencing and all kinds of marvellous gadgets which are crucial to the identification, sorting and use of data for decisions which are research based and do not proceed from tired brains in their preferred zones of comfort.
And watch the school budgets. What they spend on is where they are going! Change and expenditure are partners in effective delivery of education.
Let the conversations roll! Much more can be said.
So I say!
Gabriella Rodriguez
