| [Education For Tomorrow: No 84, 2005] International news Developments in Cuban secondary education The recent British TUC “Unions For Cuba” conference was told about an exciting new development in Cuban secondary education. Despite the news of the re-election of Bush in the USA, and his threatening words when he pledged to “rid the Cuban people of their tyrant”, the conference was a positive, forward looking and inspiring affair. The three delegates from the SNTECD, the Cuban Education, Science and Sports Union, Georgina Bonilla, Lina Cabrejas and Jose Llanes played an important part in the conference. Georgina and Lina were the guests of the NUT (National Union of Teachers) , while Jose had been invited by Merton Association. Georgina led one of the workshops focusing on education, and also addressed a meeting of the NUT National Executive that coincided with their stay in Britain. All three of them were able to take part in both formal and informal discussions with teachers and youth workers during a programme of meetings and visits to schools and projects which preceded and followed the conference. Visits were hosted by Merton NUT, Newham NUT, and by the Community and Youth Workers” Union in Birmingham Georgina spoke and answered questions about developments in the Cuban Secondary school system. Education is free and compulsory in Cuba for all young people between 5 and 14, with a transfer from primary to secondary at 11. Nearly all pupils then stay on in education for at least a further three years “pre-University” education. Secondary education therefore covers pupils in Years 7, 8 and 9. Despite class sizes that would be welcomed here — a maximum of 30 operated then — many secondary teachers felt disatisfied with progress in the secondary sector particularly that they were not able to educate “the whole child”, and to properly meet their educational needs. A joint Union and Education Ministry investigation found that pupil behaviour and attitudes to school were not as positive as it was in the primary sector. This was mainly because of the emotional and behavioural issues associated everywhere with young people of that age, and partly because of the specific social pressures created by “the special period” in Cuba i.e. the consequences of the blockade and its impact on youth and their families. Some Havana based secondary teachers compared primary school organisation with their own practice at secondary level. They questioned whether the traditional individual subject based delivery of the curriculum — similar to that in our secondary schools — allowed the development of the sort of positive teacher/pupil relationships that provided such strength in primary. They recognised that an individual subject teacher may be teaching 150-200 pupils in the course of a week, and that while the teacher’s subject knowledge and experience may be very high, individual pupil circumstances and needs were not high enough on their agenda. They proposed and began to operate a new system in which pupils were taught all subjects by a single teacher — with the exception of English and physical education. After an experimental trial in one school, it was decided to extend the pilot. It very quickly became apparent that there were many benefits. Pupil behaviour improved, as did school attendance. But it also became obvious that if the new system were to continue and be extended beyond the pilot, other major changes needed to be brought about. It was decided that there were four priorities for the success of the programme. Firstly, class size had to be further reduced. A target of a maximum of 15 pupils to a class was established. Secondly, teachers had to be provided with guaranteed time for their own professional development in order to be able to take charge of a range of subjects. Thirdly, teachers needed support with curriculum materials, library resources, subject specific TV and video presentations and computer hardware and software to allow individual pupil learning. Fourthly, a range of other workers would be needed to work alongside teachers in the schools to work with the pupils. So the already existing expansion of Initial Teacher Training was rapidly accelerated. Continuing Professional Development was increased for serving teachers. The employment of extra support staff was agreed. Nationally and locally produced curriculum materials were produced by collectives of teachers working on their specialisms to be used by their colleagues. A major project was launched to equip every school in the country with TV, video and computer equipment — and to ensure that even one or two pupil schools in the mountains were provided with solar energy to allow the use of such equipment. Following further evaluation it was found that not only did pupil motivation improve significantly but so did attainment. Teachers operating the new system found that they were able to integrate the study of particular areas of the curriculum and to teach “thematically”. Teachers became more confident as they discovered “how to teach children to learn” using the new resources available, rather than simply teaching a specific body of knowledge. Secondary teachers nationally discussed these developments, and now the new system is to be applied across Cuba, and is subject to further regular evaluation. Our Cuban colleagues were frequently asked: “Was this development one which came from above as an imposition, or was it genuinely from the bottom up, the result of a teacher led initiative?Ó Their reply was that no such initiative could be successful if it were the result of imposition, and that all education initiatives came about by teachers attempting to analyse and solve problems, and setting themselves the task of constantly improving the work of their schools. They were, to put it mildly, very surprised to hear that educational initiatives here tended to come from Government down. They expressed doubts about whether such a system could be made to work, and expressed the view that the job of Government was to incorporate the initiatives from workers — in this case teachers — into the “Programmes of the Revolution”, to discuss national priorities and to make human and material resources available to make them work where a priority was agreed. The Union and the Education Ministry are able to work in a genuine social partnership in Cuba because of the nature of their social system. There are no “private sector” or “market forces”. There are no political parties in their National Assembly, so no political programmes are worked out behind closed doors, or the result of pressures from powerful lobby groups to be imposed on society. Management Committees of all workplaces, including schools, have direct Union representation, and the agreement of the Union is required before any initiatives get underway. Cuban democracy is very much “bottom up”, and relies on the involvement of people in the discussion and decision making process in every neighbourhood and every workplace including schools, and the transmission of their views and decisions upward through local and provincial political structures to the National Assembly. All these developments took place against the backdrop of the continuing US blockade, and the threat of invasion. The NUT is to be invited to attend the annual Pedagogical Conference organised by the Cuban Education Union and the Education Ministry in 2005. Those attending have a great deal to learn from our Cuban colleagues. If this small developing nation, embargoed by the most powerful nation in the world for over 40 years, can continue to develop its education system through initiatives from its education workers and the provision of proper resources to make them work, why can’t we do the same in wealthy, “first-world” Britain? |