Dr Samad’s contribution brings tears of laughter to my eyes. I just couldn’t stop laughing. Some readers may certainly believe that Dr Samad’s article was no laughing matter. I disagree. Just read his article and ask questions and more you ask the funnier you will see it is!Let us look at his main points and his conclusion.The thrust of his argument is that CHS grads in North America feel that education at CHS was better than that in North America at present, that kids in North America had ‘more opportunities’ than they had in Guyana. (I certainly feel so, just look at the value of the resources allocated to their schools. Check out their budgets, if you can!)
He also said that when asked why CHS was better the responses would be in the form of “platitudes, truisms, cliche…”. There are more illustrations of these same points which in summary mean that CHS grads in North America are proud of being at that school. Dr Samad’s view is that those grads should not be proud of CHS because CHS had few resources and what it had was no good anyway. That in a nutshell is Dr Samad’s case.
Dr Samad’s implication is that when the resources of CHS of the 1960s and 1970s are compared to a North American high school’s resources, CHS comes out badly. Every one knows that! What’s new? In support of his case he is disparaging about the labs, the books, the school rules, the teachers, unacceptable student – teacher ratio etc. For Christ’s sake, we know Guyana was poor, the Corentyne was poor, our parents were poor, our school was poor. We all know that, again and again. How does he explain the love we have for the school, for our time there, for our contemporaries or for our achievements in North America and in Europe? You just have to wait for it!
Dr Samad goes on to make a bold claim and by implication suggests that where CHS and its teachers failed, the North American High schools are very successful at this. His claim is that, “The whole point of education at any level is to create of students people who are able to think for themselves, who are able to think critically, to analyse situations with some kind of depth and objectivity, to be life – long learners.”
Don’t you just love it! I love it! Since I cannot do any research on the streets of any Canadian Province at present or even when I was there in February 2008, I’ll do the next best things, i.e. talk about what I and other have actually seen and know in Canada and also to adduce some statistics about education in Canada.
Those of you living in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), do you remember visiting at least one large hospital in the GTA and do you recall how some Canadians get from hospital entrance to the ward or room of their destination? Do you remember the colour codes? You find out the colour on the floor of the ward you want and then you walk, head down, or you use the lift and pick up the colour trail, follow it until you get there! Does this sound to you that the users of this system are by and large people who think critically all the time, have been taught to analyse situations with some kind of depth and objectivity? Not a chance.
The GTA high schools did not fail all those users because I am sure that was not and is not the main outcomes for all those high schools. By this standard all the GTA high schools fail Dr Samad’s test. For shame!!
Ask yourself, if just the GTA high schools were succesful in achieving Dr Samad’s “whole point of education” why are so many advertisements on tv with actors wearing white coats to imply that they are qualified to tell viewers what to think? Why are movie actors and sports personalities appearaing in so many advertisements? Surely, all North American high schools achieved Dr Samad’s ‘whole point of education’?
It is obvious that Dr Samad’s claim and his implication is a load of rubbish! Just look at the evidence all around you. I urge you to go check on the web and have a look at the statistics and see for yourself what support, for example, Statistics Canada, provide to Dr Samad’s claim about the “whole point of education ” in North America. Below is a small sample from Statistics Canada:
(1) Ministry of Education comments on longer term dropout rate
TORONTO, Dec. 16 /CNW/ – The latest Statistics Canada report that tracks dropout rates among 20-24 year olds, up to six years after high school, reinforces how serious a problem the lack of basic high school attainment is, Education Minister Gerard Kennedy said today in response to the Statistics Canada report, Provincial Drop-out Rates – Trends and Consequences.
The report, released annually by Statistics Canada as part of its labour
market survey, is based on self reported high school graduation or
continuation of studies data and covers students in Ontario who were in high school before the reforms of the previous government that led to a jump in dropout rates.
The study suggests that approximately half of the 22 per cent of
Ontario’s high school students who dropped out within five years of starting high school, subsequently obtained their qualification or were in some form of school or training within six years. The high school dropout rate has since risen to 32 per cent in 2003-04 and then was brought down to 29 per cent in 2004-05. (Basically, 22% of high school students drop out from high school and 50% of that 22% go back and get some form of education. You are left to guess what happens to the other 50%! How many people do you know dropped out of CHS for non-financial reasons during your time there? How many CHS students during your time left CHS without even 1 subject GCE? RNDS. This is only to illustrate how ludicrous Dr Samad’s point was because you cannot fairly compare one school with all the schools in Canada much more in all of North America!)
(2) Home life linked to high school dropouts: Statistics Canada
Last Updated: Monday, April 5, 2004 | 7:45 PM ET
CBC News
A student’s possibility of dropping out of high school is strongly linked to his or her home life, according to a Statistics Canada survey released Monday.
The report indicated that the signs that a student might drop out show up as young as age 10 or 11.
Researchers found common causes for dropping out, including:
Low household incomes.
Lack of post-secondary education among parents.
Poor results in literacy.
The study is based on the Youth in Transition Survey done by Statistics Canada in 2002, and uses data from 15-year-old students who were questioned in 2000 and who dropped out by age 17.
The recent findings are supported by a 1994 study that noted that 10- and 11-year-old students with poor grades, a low-economic status and parents with low aspirations for the child dropped out by age 16 or 17.
“This evidence supports the notion that potential dropouts may be identified early,” the report says.
Only three per cent of the 345,000 students profiled had quit high school, but the authors said it would be premature to draw conclusions about Canada’s dropout rate, which was 12 per cent in 1999 and 18 per cent in 1991. (So, all these criteria applied to the vast majority of CHS students in the 1960s, and remember the CHS teachers were not trained or qualified! How many people you know dropped out of CHS for these reasons? RNDS)
(3) Population 15 years and over by highest degree, certificate or diploma, (2001 Census) [These stats are for all Provinces in Canada and only the part relating to high school graduation and no degree, certificate or diploma are shown as they are the relevant stats.RNDS]
Total 23,901,360
No degree, certificate or diploma: 7,935,075 (33% of total with no degree, certificate or diploma! Didn’t they hear about the whole point of education as stated in Dr Samad’s critique of CHS!RNDS)
High school graduation certificate: 5,499,885 (only 23% had high school certificate! That is less than a quarter of the population! Can anyone remember such large percentages of CHS grads leaving without at least 1 GCE? RNDS). Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population.
Last modified: 2004-09-01.
The whole point of giving these samples is to show that Dr Samad’s point does not even apply to Canada much more to the whole of North America. Please remember not to compare resources of one school, CHS, with that of all the high schools in North America. That is ludicrous.
What Dr Samad has done in his conclusion is to show that CHS, a small high school with very little resources in an extremely rural part of a poor British colony, had the following:
1. poor labs
2. outdated books
3. rules for students to follow at school
4. teachers with grade 12 or 13 (North American standard) education and were not trained.
5.teachers did not carry out any original experiment ( not specified by Dr Samad)
6. no library
7. no books
8. ‘unaceptable’ student – teacher ratio
9.results at the GCE sometimes as good as Berbice High School’ (a much better resourced school)
10. cricket field, a volley ball court
Now, if I ask you, would anyone be surprised at CHS being described as such? I suggest that if a typical Ontario high school was described in that way then lots of people in Ontario would be surprised but not about a school in Guyana!
So, what we have learnt from Dr Samad’s exercise is that a poorly resourced school in a very poor part of a very poor British colony had very small resources and those resources were of poor quality. Which would be your guess for a word to describe Dr Samad’s findings? Would cliche do? or would truism? Or would some other word do? What is certain is that Dr Samad’s argument has not taught you, me or even himself one iota more about CHS resources than we knew before we read his article.
What really gets me laughing is that Dr Samad, in order to put a modicum of reason in his argument states, “What made CHS special was that it had a large pool of student talent from which to draw.” I take that to mean that CHS had such a large group of clever students every year that the students were able to overcome the poor resources, poor teaching, no books, no library, poor labs etc etc! What a load of rubbish.
Did this guy attend the same CHS I went to or that you went to? What planet is he on!
One of the things that might go some way to explain the CHS success is the inspiration from our teachers. These include JC himself, Parkie (only silly boys learn from only their own experience), Julius, Salim (No one gets a hundred in my subject!) Khan, Mr Samnath (French is a language you feel and think about at the same time!), ‘Lucky (do you want me to go over this again?) Janak etc . They often quoted poems that inspired me and my friends such as this one:
“The heights of great men reached and kept,
Were not attained by sudden flight,
But they, while their companions slept,
Were toiling upwards in the night.” -
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
This is the kind of subverting ’software’ they used on us. They made us feel that whatever we wanted to achieve was possible if we did what was necessary. The idea was that we could do it! No one ever told me that before I went to CHS and I am sure that few of you were told that or even thought of it.
This approach teaches personal commitment to your outcomes, acceptance of personal responsibility, inspiration that heights of achievement were possible even though at the time there was no external evidence to support that assertion. So we modelled achievement even though we did not know that at the time! We gloried in the elegance Caesar’s Latin, we fought Caesar’s wars, we imagined the vast wheat fields of Canada and Australia. We cut out maps on the ground in our back yards. We imagined Henry Tudor and his battles with the Pope. We imagined what actors in England would do with the lines and meanings of As You Like It!
They released our imagination and they made us feel comfortable that we were good enough to get any profession wanted. They made us feel that we were as good as anyone, anywhere. In short, they made our minds free! That, Dr Samad, large budgets do not buy, but teachers who understood their students, who respected and cared about them achieve that sort of thing.
My expert academic tutors at the LSE had this same approach. By ‘expert academic’ I mean these were the guys who wrote the text books that university students used for their courses. My teachers at CHS were never ‘expert academics’ but they inspired me and many like me for I was not the only CHS grad to graduate from the LSE, arguably one of the foremost social science schools in the world. And, me, a boy from Rose Hall, Corentyne, was accpeted when the acceptance rate on average was 1 in 100! How do you explain my case and the thousands like mine, Dr Samad?
Is there anything more noble, more awe inspiring, more worthy than for one human being to plant in the mind of another the hope of a better life and belief in oneself? Dr Samad, sir, with all due respect you missed the whole point of CHS. It is not what we had but what we did with it. I am proud of CHS and proud that I attended that school! Even you, sir, I am proud of though you made me laugh perhaps when I shouldn’t!
Richard Nunes de Souza, BSc (Econs) Hons London School of Economics
CHS Student 1956 – 1961
CHS Head Prefect
CHS Teacher 1961 – 1962