The Continuous Assessment Component (CAC) and the Secondary Entrance Assessment (SEA) have become a political "bobolee" in recent times. Various institutions such as TTUTA, the Primary School Association and individuals, some writing in the press, have called for the immediate removal of the CAC component and the SEA.
At a just-concluded National Conference on Education organised by the Ministry of Education there were many voices that called for a new assessment without giving any practical and viable alternative based on evidence-driven data. The buzz words echoed by these antagonists are undue stress, overburden curriculum, too much assessment and less teaching.
While these criticisms do have some justification, they are not sufficient reasons to get rid of the CAC and SEA totally. There is the danger as the proverbial saying–of throwing out the baby with the bath water. Let us briefly examine the educational context and the rationale for the introduction of the CAC and the SEA.
This Component (CAC) is really an extension of the Continuous Assessment Programme (CAP) which had its inception in 2000 after the removal of the Common Entrance Examination. It is important to note there was a national outcry against a one-shot exam as the Common Entrance Assessment which, inter alia, it was argued perpetuated social inequality with too much stress, anxiety and tension for both teachers, parents and students.
It is in this context a new form of assessment, as outlined in the Educational Policy Paper (1993-2003, was introduced (the SEA and the CAP (now CAC). This new assessment "upgraded testing and measurement with specified attainment benchmarks which guided teaching and learning on one hand and, on the other, promoted the necessary diagnostic, remedial preventative interventions critical to the development of an effective and efficient education system," (Education Policy Paper, 1993, p.2).
It is now history that the introduction of the CAP was delayed for various reasons and it is now re-introduced under a new name–the CAC–in 2016.
Sixteen years after the introduction of the SEA, we are hearing the same outcry as with the replaced Common Entrance–too much stress and anxiety, overburdened curriculum and too much assessment. Indeed, this outcry is more deep rooted than just the assessment (SEA or CAC) that many are clamouring against.
In the first instance, it is an issue of demand and supply. In this placement assessment, given the "mad" rush for the limited places in the so-called prestige secondary schools, there is stiff competition by the primary schools, and especially parents, for their children to get into these schools.
There is a further complaint by some principals and teachers that there are parents who demand, without justification, that their children receive full marks in some of the CAC assessment, so they can be favourably positioned in the SEA placement to get their first choice secondary school.
Indeed, the "extra lessons" syndrome also (and not the CAC or SEA) bear testimony to this competition to get into the "best" secondary school.
Let us briefly examine this placement process for secondary school allocation. The final written summative assessment comprises Mathematics and English and accounts for 70 per cent of the overall assessment, while the formative CAC accounts for 30 per cent.
The CAC subjects for standards four and five are: Agricultural Science, Visual and Creative Arts, Science, Physical Education and Citizenship and Character Education which together, account for 20 per cent and Creative Writing (ELA) for the remaining 10 per cent.
Indeed, the arguments mainly against the CAC, from the perspectives of principals, teachers, students and parents, are that there is too much content within a very limited time-frame, and there is more assessment than classroom teaching. Such a situation is causing undue stress and anxiety to everyone.
Notwithstanding these arguments, most of the people involved agree that, in principle, the CAC is educationally sound and is a good formative assessment that needs some revision.
This writer, for example, interviewed a random sample of 10 principals, 25 teachers and 15 parents from three educational districts and they all agreed that, in the absence of any viable alternative, a restructured CAC has tremendous benefits to our students to prepare them for secondary school. In addition, interviews with officials of two important stakeholder organisations, the National Parent Teacher Association (NPTA), and the Student Support Services reveal that a restructured CAC is a "blessing" for those students who are not strong in the Math and English and this assessment would level the playing field for these children. They argue that the SEA focuses too much on the academia and little attention is given to the different intelligences and the focus only on these two subjects ignores the saying that "all children can learn but at their own pace and their own time."
It is important to note that the CAC is in its pilot phase and now is the opportune time to reflect on its strengths and shortcomings so we can move forward and reduce some of the stress and anxiety associated with it. In the first instance, the Curriculum Division must convene immediate workshops with their officers and CAC monitors to assess some of the areas that need urgent attention especially the content overload and the limited time-frame.
The Division also needs to work out the mechanisms for alternating some of the CAC subjects every other year. Also, consideration should be given to start some of the assessment at an earlier stage (Std three). As early as infants students should be exposed informally to some of these formative assessments. In this way there would be a balance of assessment and teaching. Since the CAC needs some form of specialist training of teachers, some form of specialisation should be introduced in the primary schools so teachers would be prepared to assess some of the areas such as music, drama and physical education.
It is heartening to note that prospective teachers at UTT who are enrolled in the Bachelor of Education Programme (Primary) pursue an additional elective in the CAC subjects so they can be professionally prepared to assist in the CAC process upon graduation. The Curriculum Division must continue continuous training of teachers and principals to ensure that every one is on the same page when assessing the students.
Those who clamour for the immediate removal of the CAC and SEA as a "quick fix" solution must recognise that schools do not exist in a vacuum, they are an integral part of the larger education system. Thus, any change in one part will certainly impact on the other parts of our education system.
Furthermore, let us not forget that change always brings some degree of anxiety and uncertainty and there will always be resistance to change in some quarters. While ideally we need a non-examinable transition from the primary to the secondary school, in the short term we still need some form of assessment.
Let us, at this point in time, focus on the strengths of the SEA and CAC and work together to overcome their shortcomings in the interest of our Nation's children.
George Gowrie, Phd
The University of Trinidad and Tobago