Seaga: There is a tendency in the country to ignore what happens in the traditional society. - File This is the conclusion of a two- part feature, the first of which appeared in yesterday's Sunday Gleaner.
In highlighting another shortfall in the education system, Mr. Seaga contends that there was no testing of students in primary schools.
THE ONLY test in their six years of primary education was the Common Entrance (now GSAT exam) at Grade 6, age 11 to enter the secondary system. That has now changed. Tests are now administered to Grade 1 and Grade 4.
With these improvements, the results produced by these students coming from primary schools were expected to improve significantly.
The fact of the matter, however, is that no such thing has happened. The same figure of 70 per cent that left primary schools to go into secondary schools to get a better education is the same 70 per cent numerically that at the end of that part of their education have failed to get even a single pass, leaving school without any certificate and ill-prepared for any career.
It can be concluded that the educational experience for these students has come to naught over the past 40 years. In this, we are all remiss. We all misinterpreted what ought to have been done. We all thought that the reforms that we made would have corrected the problem, but they have not, so we must look again.
The prime minister recently commissioned a task force for the transformation of education. That report does not hit the button on the head. Because what is wrong is the one thing that we haven't yet done. We have given great attention to the primary and secondary levels of the education system but the level that feeds into those, the early childhood education segment, has not been given commensurate treatment.
SUPER-STRUCTURE
SECONDARY SYSTEM
So we are building an elaborate primary system, a super-structure secondary system by putting even more money into these layers, with less money to deal effectively with the early childhood education system. In leaving this House, I plead, as I have repeatedly done for the past 10 years, that a new look be taken to ensure that the approach to education will take into consideration the need for a new look at the early childhood education system and to do what is necessary to strengthen it effectively.
Think of what immeasurable results would come if we were able indeed to reverse this ratio of 70 per cent failures to 30 per cent success. What would happen if we had 70 per cent success and 30 per cent failure? It could mean doubling the number of students who would be successful in gaining passes to go on to establish a sound career path; doubling the skilled manpower of the country; doubling the capability to produce professionals; doubling the number of students who can make use of gainful opportunities; doubling the capacity of young people to create a lifestyle which would make them upwardly mobile into a new segment of the social structure; and we would be creating a more dynamic and productive economy. This is education as an investment to produce all these benefits with an impact on the economy, on the lifestyle of individuals and families and the society at large.
Who are the students that receive a poor education? The 70 per cent is drawn from the poorer households of the "have-nots". Those who come from the more privileged households of the 'haves' do so with the certainty of getting a decent education that will fulfill their needs in life. So here again after more than 40 years, those who started with the deficiency of a weak education system, are still experiencing a poor education leaving poor children without a chance to better themselves through the existing system.
This is not to say that some poor students don't benefit; that is entirely untrue. I come across them often and I am sure that all of you do. But we are all to blame because we didn't read the situation right. We put the money at the top instead of at the bottom.
Had we invested more funds at the bottom and made sure that we had a first class basic school system as a foundation, we would have seen far better results today in primary and secondary education with far less remedial investment in those areas now being required. Looking elsewhere, developments in the economy have followed a different path.
The economy has had a period of rapid advance and rapid decline. It has had some recovery and it has had some stagnation. But the end result is that after 40 years when one looks at the national averages that are the indicators of what has taken place in the economy, we are only a little better off. When that happens, who is better off?
THE 'HAVES-NOTS'
Not those who come from the more under-privileged element of the society, the 'haves-nots'. It is those with resources, the 'haves' who are able to find ways and means of investment to modernise and secure the benefits of prosperity. It is those who are in the society that are without resources that find themselves in a position where they cannot benefit.
Looking at that segment of the society, the 'have-nots', we find that there are some who have done well legally and some who have done well illegally. But there is a large segment that has not done well at all, the farming community. Any study of poverty in this country will tell you that the greatest element of poverty is in the agricultural sector of the country. Until the lot of the farmer is improved significantly, the farmer is going to continue the unrewarding struggle of making a decent living for himself and his family.
I want to suggest a couple of ways in which substantial improvement can be introduced in agriculture. I was particularly interested in a plan that I came across in the National Irrigation Authority, in which by the investment of US$100m, all the acreage in Jamaica, over 1,000 acres, could be put under irrigation. Now every farmer knows that if you can get irrigation on your land then you have a much better chance of creating a prosperous farm.
There is another area in which farming can be substantially improved and productivity greatly increased. I refer to hydroponics, the growing of plants in a solution of chemicals without soil. I made mention of this before in a previous budget speech.
But I remind you that hydroponics produces yields that are 30 per cent to 70 per cent greater than the yields of open cultivation which is not set up to receive the direct inputs of water and fertilizer on a sustained basis. Because of the very substantial yields, price levels are significantly less than the traditionally grown products, to the extent that they are very competitive with the cheapest imports.
If we can indeed grow a range of products here by hydroponics which are cheaper than imports and are able to compete, then Jamaica would be poised to capture the entire hotel trade in respect of those particular products, here and in the rest of the Caribbean.
THE POOR STILL SUFFERING
Having compared the three areas of governance which really matter in any system of good government, the main conclusion is that in all these cases the poor are the ones who still continue to suffer. Their lot, subject as they are to injustice, poor education and little prospects of prosperity, has not changed from 40 years ago. The "haves" and the "have-nots" problem that existed some 40 years ago still exists today. And it's an embarrassment to all of us, that more than 40 years have passed and this problem is still with us, when in fact some of these problems can be solved if they are treated as priorities.
So I leave the thought with you that it is a necessity to look at these areas as priorities in order to remove the differentiation of Jamaicans into first class and second class citizens in two Jamaicas, the 'haves' and 'have-nots'. I want to add to what I have said. There is a tendency in the country to ignore what happens in the traditional society.
To ignore injustice if the outcry is from the inner city and rural poor; to ignore the plight of the uneducated, if the uneducated are from that underprivileged segment of the society; to ignore the inability to move upward and to earn more and have better career opportunities if those who are unable to do so are the 'have-nots' of the society. But let me say this.
It is that segment of the society that has put Jamaica on the map internationally. It is the young people from poor households, humble households that gave us success in the last and previous Olympics, establishing by their outstanding performances that Jamaica achieved a better ratio of success than any other country, taking into account the medals won and the size of the population.
Those young people come from humble households. They are part of the 'have-nots'; they are part of the society that is the traditional folk culture of the country. It is the young people from that segment of society too who have blazed the trail that made Jamaica an internationally recognised centre in the world of popular music. They are the ones who are leading the way to take us forward globally while our industry and agriculture flounder.
Think of a Jamaica in which twice as many people are educated to a level where they can really function properly within the society. Think of a Jamaica in which more young people have the opportunity for training in those areas for which they have the aptitude to excel. Think of a Jamaica in which there are more young people who can advance their creative talents and
promote Jamaica at home and abroad.
This is what is needed to overcome the negative image of Jamaica abroad. We won't wipe away the negatives, but to the extent that we have greater positives, the negatives will be diminished.
There is one more resource group to which I want to draw attention: how are these children raised; who raises them? Largely they come from homes where the mother is both mother and father. They come from homes in which the mothers incessantly struggle from birth to adulthood.
If she is a rural mother, she probably has to get up at four o'clock in the morning, get her load of agricultural produce to the bus or the taxi to pick up, drive with that vehicle to market many miles away, sleep on the market floor overnight, sell that load and come back home. If she is an inner-city mother, she probably has a job, paying little as it does, to provide the means of sending her children to school with the hope that one of them, if it's even just one of them will be a success and that successful one will pull up the rest of the family.
SINGLE WOMEN
Then there are the single women who have not yet reached the stage of motherhood, but who have left school without the capabilities of entering into tertiary education. Do they give up? No they don't! They work a while, then they study a while, then they gain a certificate, then they go on to earn. They go back to school and they improve themselves still further. After 10 years when you next meet them, they are qualified with a career or a good job.
All these women are one of the great resources of this country and I give glory to them because without them Jamaica would be much poorer and more dependent. Their lives have been our real foundation of an independent nation. These poor families and women are the 'have-nots', neglected and ignored by those who 'have'. Yet they and their children are the ones who have brought Jamaica international recognition, and given Jamaica great strength drawn from their own courage and determination.
GOING TO OCCUPY A CHAIR
As I now move on to a different location and a different programme of work. I have to make certain things clear because I have been asked about this by several people. Where am I going? What am I going to do? Some people want to join my class. I tell them that I am not teaching. "So, if you are not teaching what you are going to go do?" they ask. "I am going to occupy a chair," I reply. One constituent said to me, "chair, what kind of a chair. Yuh, have plenty chair down here." I said, "well this is a very special chair, a high ranking chair." "Oh, a don you gwine turn." Having regard to the fact that the erudite institution of Oxford uses the term "don" to identify its professors, I didn't disagree.
I look forward to this new challenge, at an age when most men are retiring. But to me retiring is too tiring. I cannot retire while I still am blessed with vim, vigour and vitality. I am only shifting gears into another form of movement at a different speed. And in doing so I will, of course, leave behind certain positions that I now hold. I shall be retiring from this Honourable House tomorrow, as Leader of the Opposition and as member of Parliament.
In demitting the post of Leader of the Opposition, I will be assuming a position at the university which is non-political and I hope that I can make my contribution in the non-political field to the extent that I have made it in the past in the political field. I regret most of all my retirement from my beloved West Kingston, but I will still continue to build and improve those areas of West Kingston life that are not involved in the political sphere.
As I leave, I bear in mind the remarks of a branch chairman, who years ago in the hills of Clarendon after praising me profusely, introduced me as the "extinguished leader." In my final observation, I must go back to the beginning. When I started my career after graduation from Harvard, I had an academic career in mind.
There was no facility for graduate studies at the university here at that time so I went to London University to pursue it there. I became bored. It was like someone who had discovered a minefield of gems and you are being told, forget about the minefield, go and learn how to be an explorer. The fact is I discovered the minefield already, the rich Jamaican folk society and its culture, which needed greater study and development. I wanted to develop programmes to help people to move out of the category of 'have-nots' into "haves" without abandoning their culture. To do so I became involved in politics with the intent that when the university established a graduate school, I would enroll. But you never do. When you get involved in politics, it absorbs you, it sucks you in. You can't move away, you can't give it up.
Too many people depend on you and I was not able to go back at that time to take the advanced degrees that I wanted to do. I don't have any intention of taking any advanced degree now. The offer that has been made to me at the university far supercedes that. I simply want now to go back to academia where I started 50 years ago and in so doing, I am demonstrating that a good leader always does whatever he asks his followers to do: so now I bid you all goodbye, as I light my candle, sing my sankey and go to find my way back home!
