ppersad@eng.uwi.tt

Rating system for schools

Countries are ranked, as are universities, hotels and schools. It is common sense to take the position that if a country or institution is to progress, then its present position with respect to some benchmark needs to be determined. This of course requires some rating system.

In this regard hotels are rated as three, four, five and infrequently higher stars. Universities are likewise ranked according to defined criteria, as are schools.

One must assume then that as we seek to transform the economy we recognise the need to rate and subsequently rank our schools in these categories: namely, primary and secondary levels.

Rating systems employ objective measures and thus by applying them to the various schools would automatically lead to a ranking of our schools. This is absolutely necessary if we are to ensure that all schools attain some minimum level of acceptable performance.

Furthermore, by using these objective measures the performance of schools can be monitored and programmes put in place to arrest decay and to initiate improvements. So what are the variables that could be used to rate schools?

Let us focus on the secondary system. Variables must include:

* Principal and vice principal attendance percentages.

* Teacher attendance percentages.

* Teacher classroom attendance percentages.

* Student attendance percentages.

* Number of fights a term.

* Number of incidents requiring police presence and/or action.

* Percentage of passes a subject.

* Percentage of full certificates.

* Number of sporting trophies won.

These constitute school statistics and thus they must be logged at the school level and verified before being used to calculate the school rating. By examining these ratings, insights into the problems affecting any school can not only be highlighted but quantified, thus leading to prescriptive measures being determined and implemented. Of course norms, which do not exist at present, must be calculated.

For the sake of elucidation, let us focus on one parameter—teacher absenteeism. If one were to subtract the number of school holidays, sick and other leave entitlements, one would quickly come to the conclusion that it really leaves a sour taste in the mouth of responsibility when one hears the stories of entire classroom blocks being without teachers. Can the words conscience and responsibility ever be associated with such actions?

What is the position of the union in this matter? Surely the teachers’ union must see itself as a partner in the education enterprise and thus feel a sense of responsibility to ensure that its members are performing, in an adequate manner, the job for which they are being paid.

As a matter of course, statistics like those described above should be published for every school and on a yearly basis. After all, be it a government school or a denominational one, public funds are being expended and hence it is the right, let it be repeated, the right of the public to be privy to the expenditure of public funds.

Naturally, the principal must be answerable. Endless anecdotal evidence points to the very strong correlation between effective principals and good school performance and ineffective ones and poor school performance respectively.

Indeed, if one were to examine the reasons why denominational schools do so much better than government-run schools, one would quickly see that the former almost invariably have better principals. In fact if, using any set of objective measures, denominational schools were compared with wholly government-run ones, a clear dichotomy would emerge.

It is thus puzzling in the face of such overwhelming evidence that the present policy is not to encourage the building of more denominational schools. Clearly, the proviso of accountability for the expenditure of public funds is a necessity here also.

What is also needed is the testing of students by an independent authority on specific areas to also be used in rating the schools. Thus at the primary school level, tests on arithmetic, reading, comprehension and awareness of social responsibilities should be given to rate the school on these basic educational and social skills.

These results again must be published on a yearly basis and be used to effect changes as required.

Good decision-making is predicated on quantitative methods—in other words on hard data. This must become the norm if we are to progress. By instituting data collection systems we would be in position to determine the unit cost per student at the levels of the education enterprise. We can determine the unit cost per subject and that per full certificate.

It is only by using objective measures can we truly determine whether we are utilising public funds in the most effective manner. This is the way forward to development.

* Prof Prakash Persad is chairman of Swaha Inc