THERE IS value to Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller's call last Saturday night for the private sector to partner with the Government in the development of early childhood education. Indeed, societies with solid early childhood development structures who have established good foundations for their primary, secondary and tertiary systems are likely to produce people who can operate best in an information, technology-driven, globally competitive economy.
It is good, therefore, that in the aftermath of the special task force's review of education, the administration is seeking to pay attention to early childhood development. This, the Government hopes, will, over the longer term, deliver trained caregivers in all basic schools, a common curriculum across the system as well as a reformed primary school system that has the wherewithal to accommodate all five-year-olds and capacity to offer proper early childhood development services.
But as Mrs. Simpson Miller would be well aware, the transformation envisaged by the task force, which is now the job of the Early Childhood Development Commission, demands a substantial investment.
For instance, the task force has recommended that the Government's spending on early childhood development be increased five-fold, from $6,000 per annum per child to at least $30,000 per child. Some officials, however, suggest that the projected spending per child will need to be even more if the Government is to meet the declared goals over the next 15 years.
The Prime Minister's suggestion for this partnership makes sense and should have resonance with the private sector. However, a vacuous call to arms is hardly enough.
If Prime Minister Simpson Miller is serious about engaging the private sector in a partnership on early childhood education she, and her government, must first articulate a clear strategy for its participation, which must be put out for serious discussion and debate.
For instance, Bruce Golding, the Leader of the Opposition, has suggested that an estimated required additional spending of $11 billion over the next six years could come from the sale to the National Insurance Fund of Government income-earning assets, as shares in profitable companies such as Petrojam and the Port Authority.
This would have the advantage, he argues, of providing cash, without increasing the national debt or harming the capacity actuarial efficacy of the state insurance scheme. It is a matter which we believe worthy of debate. But this is not the only possibility. More than a third of the country's education budget goes to the tertiary system and in the past Finance Minister Dr Omar Davies, has questioned whether the spending on education is not, in the circumstance, inappropriately skewed.
It seems to us that the question remains relevant as to whether the Government should continue to pay up to 80 per cent of the economic cost of tertiary education. Perhaps it is time to do proper means tests to determine the value of tertiary education subsidy to which an individual is entitled. While we believe that there is merit to Mrs Simpson Miller's call, it demands clear thought and serious debate.
THE OPINIONS ON THIS PAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE, DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE GLEANER.
