Financing education in Jamaica: A perspective from the Church

Financing education has been and continues to be a debate in Jamaica. This is especially so at this time of year as parents and guardians once again to face the formidable task of undertaking expenses related to back to school. Indeed, whether it’s at the basic school/kindergarten level, preparatory, high school, college or university, the challenge of financing education in Jamaica is as great for the rich as for the poor. It is true that the financial challenges of education are qualitatively different for the ‘haves’ versus the ‘have nots’ in that the former can draw on investments/savings, insurance, and liquidating fixed assets. The latter sometimes have access to remittances, savings, especially through the informal cultural arrangement of the ‘pardner’ and or the liquidation of fixed or liquid assets. At the same time there are those in ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ who are in search of grants and scholarships and a few of these are available through the church as well as the private and public sector.

Yet, despite some available resources to fund education the challenge of meeting the needs of the majority poor continues to be an elusive one. Both during enslavement and following the emancipation of the enslaved churches in Jamaica focused on providing education for children of the plantocracy first and then for the majority blacks. This piecemeal approach to education of enslaved and later the freed Blacks started out as a means of reinforcing subservience to the plantation system and then it evolved into support for the emerging post-slavery British colonial enterprise. In both instances, funding was provided by the plantocracy through the local government and other private funders locally. External funding in the form of bequests and trusts with funds from the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel or the Church Missionary Society was predominantly based in the United Kingdom.

Not to be overlooked is the Negro Education Grant given by the British Government for the period 1834-1845 to establish schools of which one remaining example is The Mico University College. The grant was put in place immediately after the abolition of enslavement with funding for the education of the majority Black population. The goal of education through this funding source was to regulate the conditions of the majority Blacks so they could provide for their welfare and serve the interests of the plantocracy. In the end, the grant was a means to ensure that the majority Black population was prepared through basic education to provide free or very cheap labour for business owners, especially the owners of sugar plantations.

Fast forward to 2021 and what do we have. There is a 22 percent or $117 billion of the national budget for 2020-2021 that was dedicated to the education portfolio. This significant provision has been in place since 2016 when the cost-sharing arrangement was abandoned and schools were given increased subvention for their operations. At that time the argument was mooted that schools no longer needed to do fundraising for education and parents were not required to make a contribution towards their students’ education. Much debate has resulted from this argument especially after one prime minister referred to school principals as extortionists.

Now the position seems to have moved to a middle way with the view that parents still needed to make a contribution towards the education of their children. The softening of the rhetoric and the general plea from government and school administrators that parents, the private sector, NGOs and churches should endeavour to make a contribution to the education of the nations’ children is a positive step forward. This positive direction, especially since the onset of COVID-19, means funding must include schooling from home with the requisite electronic devices and data.

In the final analysis, the end towards which we educate children can no longer be just the provision of labourers for the job market. What is also is important is moral, ethical and skill development.  In other words, the days of the exclusive grammar schools are over and skill development must not simply be done as an extracurricular activity or for a subject at CSEC. In addition to these, students must also be certified as having attained a standard to moral and ethical behavior as well as the acquisition of skills that befit the 5th industrial revolution. The question is who pays for this type of education?

I recommend the funding of education as a partnership. Parents, teachers, the private sector, the churches (since they own and operate a number of schools), civil society and government must form an alliance to ensure the goal of education is far more comprehensive. With school boards already having the broad-based composition of stakeholders a more proactive approach is needed to address the present hidden curriculum where far too many children, especially boys are leaving school without a certificate that affirms their educational, moral and ethical development. This only serves to undermine the ability to contribute to national development.

This partnership of stakeholders must take seriously the funding of education. School development plans ought not to simply focus on the operations of the plant but focus on education as a means by which our children are prepared for duties and responsibilities in Jamaica and the world. Indeed, in doing so we must keep in mind the words of Marcus Mosiah Garvey: “If one is badly educated he must naturally fail in the proper assumption and practice of his duties and responsibilities.” If education is aimed at the transformation of individuals, communities and ultimately the nation then a strong partnership to fund education at all levels in Jamaica is overdue.

Garth Minott is Deputy President of the United Theological College of the West Indies.