Education Minister should acknowledge outstanding performances of SVN students

Dear Editor,

Education Minister, Dr Rupert Roopnaraine, in commenting on the results of the May-June 2015 CSEC exams, and in an apparent reference to the number of subjects written by the two students of SVN (Guyana Times, 8/17/2015), expressed his belief that students are able to cope with “that number of subjects” because the “intensity” of the curriculum has been diluted.

Coming to the first of the Minister’s concern, are our students really writing too many subjects? Before we can adequately answer this question, we would need to know what constitutes “many subjects.” Where does one draw the line between the ideal and excessive numbers? Are there any objective criteria to determine the appropriate number or will limiting the number of subjects simply be an arbitrary and capricious intervention?

Next, we will also need to know the percentage of students who appear for “too many” subjects and the schools they come from. There is one published list of the 47 students who obtained 11 grade ones and more. This amounts to a mere 0.37 per cent of the 12,606 who wrote the examinations, and out of this list of 47 (0.37 per cent), only seven students had 16 and more subjects to their credit.

Even if one looked at the other larger list of 172 (1.36 per cent) students with eight Grade Ones and more, it appears that only a miniscule number of students opt for “many” subjects at the CSEC exams. If we were to exclude this number, much does not remain to substantiate the Minister’s assertion.

On the diluting of the curriculum, here again the published information does not support such a claim. One simply can’t make a sensible pronouncement on the intensity, or otherwise, of the curriculum based on a mere 0.37 per cent of the results. The sample is too small on which to base such a sweeping generalisation. A consideration of the larger list of 172 students leaves us in the same predicament.

Furthermore, it is noted that while the list of the top 47 students is spread out among 11 schools, two schools alone account for 30 of them. Similarly, in the larger list of 172 students six schools alone, four of which are in the city, account for 109 students while 26 schools accounted for the remaining 63 students. Can this justifiably lead one to the “dumbing down” claim?

Can our overall pass rate of 62.72 per cent serve as an indicator of Dr Roopnaraine’s claim? Probably not. Overall pass rates also do not say much of a school’s performance. A school can have 100 per cent pass rate but all in Grade Threes and another with 90 per cent can have all its students fail English and Mathematics.

Returning to our actual performance, we know that only 35 schools (there are more than 100 secondary schools in Guyana) have recorded a pass rate of 60 per cent and more. What is the story of the other 75 schools or thereabouts? Additionally, of the 35 schools, the results are further skewed by the fact that 10 are in Georgetown, with seven of these having a total average pass rate of more than 90 per cent. In the presence of these stark anomalies, how can we meaningfully speak of curriculum dilution?

It is truly regrettable that Minister Roopnaraine, in his public statements, completely ignored the achievements of Victoria Najab and Vamanadev Hiralal, the two SVN students who topped our country. Instead of sharing in the joy of these two young brilliant scholars of whom all Guyana should be proud, he engaged in what has been perceived as a depreciation, if not a disparagement, of their accomplishment.

Yours faithfully,

Swami Aksharananda