1 SECOND SESSION OF THE TWELFTH PARLIAMENT (2021/2022) FIRST REPORT OF THE on an Inquiry into the Right to Equal Access to Education with specific focus on the Underperformance of Schools in the Port-of Spain and Environs District with respect to Performance in Terminal Examinations 2 Committee Mandate The Joint Select Committee on Human Rights, Equality and Diversity was established under House of Representatives Standing Order 106 and Senate Standing Order 96 and shall have the duty of considering, from time to time, and reporting whenever necessary, on all matters related to: (a) compatibility of Acts of Parliament with human rights, and any matters relating to human rights in Trinidad and Tobago (but excluding consideration of individual cases); (b) Government compliance with national and international human rights instruments to which Trinidad and Tobago is a party; (c) the promotion of measures designed to enhance the equalization of opportunities and improvement in the quality of life and status of all peoples including marginalized groups on the basis of gender, age (elderly, youth, children) disability and the creation of an inclusive and more equitable society through greater social justice and sustainable human development within Trinidad and Tobago.” Committee Membership Dr. Nyan Gadsby-Dolly, MP Chairman Mrs. Lisa Morris-Julien, MP Vice-Chairman Mr. Kazim Hosein Member Mr. Esmond Forde, MP Member Mr. Barry Padarath, MP Member Ms. Donna Cox Member Mrs. Hazel Thompson-Ahye Member Ms. Jearlean John Member Secretariat Support Ms. Khisha Peterkin Secretary Mr. Brian Lucio Assistant Secretary Ms. Aaneesa Baksh Graduate Research Assistant Publication An electronic copy of this report can be found on the Parliament website using the following link: http://www.ttparliament.org/committee_business.php?mid=19&id=332&pid=29 Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to: The Secretary Joint Select Committee on Human Rights, Equality and Diversity Office of the Parliament Parliamentary Complex Cabildo Building St. Vincent Street, Port of Spain Republic of Trinidad and Tobago Tel: (868) 624-7275 Ext 2288; 2627 Fax: (868) 625-4672 Email: jschumanrights@ttparliament.org Date Presented in HOR: 24/11/2021 Date Presented in Senate: 16/11/2021 http://www.ttparliament.org/committee_business.php?mid=19&id=332&pid=29 mailto:jschumanrights@ttparliament.org 3 Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 7 2. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 11 Defining Equal Education ......................................................................................................11 SDG Goal 4 and the Underachievement of Schools ...........................................................11 Ministry of Education (MOE) ................................................................................................11 The Underachievement of Schools in Port-of-Spain (POS) and Environs District ............. 13 Conduct of the Inquiry ...........................................................................................................15 3. EVIDENCE ......................................................................................................................... 17 Objective 1: To Determine the Root Causes For the Underachievement of Schools in the Port-of- Spain and Environs District. ...................................................................................17 POS and Environs District Statistics- SEA Examination ...................................................17 SEA Average for POS & Environs Education District ....................................................... 17 POS and Environs District Statistics- CSEC & CAPE Examinations ...............................18 CSEC Average for POS & Environs Education District ..................................................... 18 CAPE Average for POS & Environs Education District .................................................... 20 Underachievement of Schools in the POS and Environs District ....................................21 Contributory Factors for the Underachievement of Schools ................................................. 23 Special Schools ...................................................................................................................... 24 Objective 2: To examine methods to address the underachievement of schools in the Port-of-Spain and Environs District. ....................................................................................26 Mechanisms/ Strategies to Address the Underachievement of Schools In the Port-of- Spain and Environs District ...................................................................................................26 Monitoring and Evaluation of Schools in the Port-of-Spain and Environs District to Improve Performance ............................................................................................................ 30 Assessment Criteria for Monitoring Schools ........................................................................ 30 Support Services for Underperforming Students in Terminal Examinations ................33 4. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 34 4 Objective 1: To determine the root causes for the underachievement of schools in the Port-of- Spain and Environs District. ...................................................................................34 Underachievement of Schools in the Port of Spain and Environs District .....................34 Contributory Factors of Underachievement in Schools ....................................................34 Challenges to Address the Contributory Factors Influencing Achievement of Public Primary and Secondary Schools ........................................................................................... 34 Special Schools ...................................................................................................................... 35 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................37 Objective 2: To examine methods to address the underachievement of schools in the Port-of-Spain and Environs District. ....................................................................................39 Mechanisms/ Strategies to Address the Underachievement of Schools in the Port-of- Spain and Environs District ...................................................................................................39 Monitoring and Evaluation of Achievement of Schools in the Port-of-Spain and Environs District to Improve the Performance .................................................................................... 40 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................44 APPENDIX I ............................................................................................................................... 48 APPENDIX II ............................................................................................................................. 50 APPENDIX III............................................................................................................................ 58 APPENDIX IV.......................................................................................................................... 124 APPENDIX V ........................................................................................................................... 143 APPENDIX VI.......................................................................................................................... 156 5 ABBREVIATIONS AAPSS Association of Administrators of Public Special School AEBM Anglican Education Board of Management APASS Association of Principals of Assisted Secondary Schools API Academic Performance Index APPSSTT Association of Principals of Public Secondary Schools of Trinidad and Tobago CAPE Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examination CEBM Catholic Education Board of Management CSEC Caribbean Secondary Examination Certificate CVQs Caribbean Vocational Qualifications CXC Caribbean Examination Council DLT District Leadership Team ECCE Early Childhood Care and Education HFLE Health and Family Life Education ICT Information and Communication Technology ISP Inclusive Schools Project LMIP Laventille / Morvant Improvement Project MOE Ministry of Education MSDFS Ministry of Social Development and Family Services NAPSPA National Primary Schools Principals Association NCSE National Certificate of Secondary Education NSDSL National Schools Dietary Services Limited PTSC Public Transport Service Commission POS Port-of-Spain PSSATT Private Special Schools Association of Trinidad and Tobago 6 PPSPA Private Primary School Principals Association RC Roman Catholic SEA Secondary Entrance Examination SBA School Based Assessment SBM School Based Management SDG Sustainable Development Goal SSSD School Support Services Division STARS Student Transition and Remediation Support TTUTA Trinidad and Tobago Unified Teachers Association UNUDHR United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights VAPA Visual and Performing Arts TABLES Table 1: Performance of Schools by District based on National Test Report 2016 13 Table 2: Performance of Schools by Denomination 14 Table 3: Average Scores of Students in SEA by District 14 Table 4: Mean SEA Total Weighted score by district 2010-2020 17 Table 5: Percentage of Students passing 5 or more CSEC subjects including Math and English 2010-2020 19 Table 6: Percentage of Students passing 3 or more CAPE Unit I subjects 2010-2020 by district 20 Table 7: Contributory Factors of Underachievement of Schools 23 Table 8: MOE Activities to Implement the Strategic Goals of the Draft Education Policy Paper 2017-2022 26 FIGURES Figure 1: Average Scores of Students in SEA ........................................................................ 15 Figure 2: Support Services provided by the SSSD ................................................................ 33 7 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1. At its Second Meeting held on December 04, 2020, the Committee resolved to inquire into ‘The Right to Equal Access to Education with specific focus on the Underperformance of Schools in the Port-of Spain and Environs District with respect to Performance in Terminal Examinations.’ It was agreed that the following objectives would guide the inquiry:  Objective 1: To determine the root causes for the underachievement of schools in the Port-of- Spain and Environs District.  Objective 2: To examine methods to address the underachievement of schools in the Port-of-Spain and Environs District. 1.2. The Committee agreed to hold two (2) virtual public hearings with officials listed below. The public hearings focused on the public and private primary schools and Government and Government Assisted secondary schools within the Port-of Spain and Environs Educational District.:  Ministry of Education (MOE);  Trinidad and Tobago Unified Teachers Association (T&TUTA);  National Council of Parent Teachers Association (NCPTA);  National Primary Schools Principals Association (NAPSPA);  Private Primary School Principals Association (PPSPA);  Private Special Schools Association of Trinidad and Tobago (PSSATT);  Association of Administrators of Public Special Schools (AAPSS);  The Catholic Education Board of Management (CEBM);  The Anglican Education Board of Management (AEBM);  Association of Principals of Public Secondary Schools of Trinidad And Tobago (APPSSTT);  Association of Principals of Assisted Secondary Schools (APASS); and  The Holy Ghost Fathers. 8 1.3. The Committee submits its findings and recommendations with respect to the right to equal access to education with specific focus on the underperformance of schools in the Port-of Spain and Environs District with respect to performance in terminal examination in Chapter 4. 1.4. A summary of the Committee’s key findings and recommendations are: I. The Committee found that underachievement should be measured, not only by pupils' performance in relation to scores received in terminal examinations but should also take into account, pupils' performance in other areas in which they achieve success. The MOE should improve the Continuous Assessment Programme to allow for the identification of student achievement along non-traditional assessment means. The measures should cater for the multiple intelligences and special education needs of students. II. The Committee acknowledged the societal and economic factors highlighted by key stakeholders that contribute to the underachievement of schools within the POS and Environs District. a. The MOE should conduct an investigation into school underachievement and undertake a comprehensive analysis of the physical, material, human and financial resources invested into schools in Port-of-Spain and Environs. b. Given that schools in ‘at risk’ communities face different challenges and are associated with negative stereotypes, the MOE should consider training for administrative and teaching staff of these schools to detach the stereotypes and stigma they associate with the area. 9 c. The MOE together with the various school boards should develop a plan, for the schools under their purview, to promote mentorship, within communities to create linkages between the schools and the community. III. The Committee found that there were no Curriculum Officers for Special Education and Special Education School Supervisors in the MOE. The positions of School Supervisor and Curriculum Officer for Special Education should be established to ensure continuous review, improvement, monitoring and evaluation. IV. The Committee found that there was a lack of professionals and semi- professionals required to staff interdisciplinary teams and transdisciplinary teams in schools, Special Schools and Inclusive schools. The MOE should consider, the establishment of interdisciplinary teams to service primary and secondary schools at the district level and transdisciplinary teams at Special School and Inclusive School level, staffed with professionals tailored to service the unique needs of special education needs of the special school service. V. According to the Education Act, Chap.39:01, Section 2. “Intermediate school” refers to “a school recognised under the former Education Ordinance as providing primary or post-primary education for pupils up to the age of eighteen years”. The Committee found that the Special Schools educated persons between preschool age (early intervention) and above 18 years of age but are categorized as an intermediate school as it is the nearest category of schools provided in the Education Act, Chap.39:01, which is serving this age range. It is recommended that the MOE liaise with the Office of the Attorney General and Ministry of Legal Affairs to draft an amendment to the Education Act, Chap.39:01 which would reclassify all Public Special Schools to reflect the age range taught at these schools. 10 VI. The Committee found that School Supervisors should meet with Principals and Management Teams regularly to provide guidance on school administration in order to provide constructive feedback on the progress of the school. It is strongly recommended that the MOE conduct a competency assessment to determine the necessary training matrix required for continuous professional development for principals and middle managers, addressing; financial management, infrastructural and plant management, change management, curriculum delivery, school discipline and student support. VII. The Committee found that according to APASS, the framework of the MOE does not adequately monitor behaviour and attitudes required by the schools for its students, teachers and staff as some of the MOE monitoring instruments are outdated. a. The MOE should conduct a competency assessment to determine the necessary training matrix required for continuous professional development; and that the b. MOE convey standards for assessment and evaluation, and produce and disseminate, examination and evaluation data through online publications as a cost effective and efficient means of circulation. 11 2. INTRODUCTION Defining Equal Education 2.1. In order to ensure that all persons are given the fullest opportunity to develop themselves, they must be granted access to equal education. Equal Education is conceptualised around two principles; the role of education in improving lives and the provision of such regardless of an individual’s circumstances of birth (age, sex and socio- economic status)1. SDG Goal 4 and the Underachievement of Schools 2.2. Goal Four of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals recognises a need to reinforce an ‘inclusive and quality education for all’2. “Achieving inclusive and quality education for all reaffirms the belief that education is one of the most powerful and proven vehicles for sustainable development”.3 The targets and indicators of SDG Goal 4 should be met by 2030. Ministry of Education (MOE) 2.3. The Ministry of Education has been tasked with ‘promotion of the education of the people of Trinidad and Tobago and the establishment of institutions devoted to that purpose …which…, shall contribute towards the development of the human resources, physical, mental, moral and spiritual of the community4.’ 2.4. The Draft Education Policy Paper 2017-2022 identified as one of three strategic goals ‘quality education provided at all levels.’ This incorporates the following objectives: 1 Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. “Equality of Educational Opportunity.” May 31, 2017. Accessed: March 09, 2019:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-ed-opportunity/ 2 United Nations. “Quality Education-Why it Matters.” pg.1.Accessed March 13, 2019: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp- content/uploads/2018/09/Goal-4.pdf 3 United Nationas Development Programme “Sustainable Development Goals, Goal 4 Quality Education” Accessed: April 26, 2019 http://www.tt.undp.org/content/trinidad_tobago/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-4-quality-education.html 4 Education Act, Chap. 39:01. Accessed: April 10, 2019. https://rgd.legalaffairs.gov.tt/laws2/Alphabetical_List/lawspdfs/39.01.pdf https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-ed-opportunity/ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Goal-4.pdf https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Goal-4.pdf http://www.tt.undp.org/content/trinidad_tobago/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-4-quality-education.html https://rgd.legalaffairs.gov.tt/laws2/Alphabetical_List/lawspdfs/39.01.pdf 12  To advance continuous curriculum planning and ensure effective delivery;  To ensure continuous teacher training and professional development;  To ensure programmes are relevant and responsive to meet sustainable national development goals;  To ensure quality teaching for every student; and  To provide the educational support services necessary to optimise the teaching and learning process.5.’ 2.5. The document also highlights the link between the Sustainable Development Goals, the National Development Strategy, Vision 2030 and the role of the Ministry of Education6. Goal Seven (7) of the National Development Strategy envisions that Trinidad and Tobago would have a ‘modern, relevant education and training system’, with strategies especially directed to7:  Adopt best practices in education administration  Maintain and upgrade school infrastructure  Revise the school curriculum to emphasise core values, nationalism and work place readiness skills and;  Promote a fair system of education and training at all levels. 2.6. The Ministry has recognised that ‘the current curriculum is not practical/realistic enough to pique the interest of students’. In response to this, the Ministry has taken a policy stance to ‘ensure alignment of the curricula and teaching strategies across the three educational levels.’8 5 Ministry of Education. “Draft Education Policy Paper 2017-2022.” pg.12. Accessed: April 10, 2019: http://MoE.gov.tt/Portals/0/Documents/Notices/Draft%20Education%20Policy%20Paper%202017-2022%20final.pdf?ver=2018-10-04-114243-487 6 Ministry of Education. “Draft Education Policy Paper 2017-2022.”pgs. 20-23. Accessed: April 10, 2019: http://MoE.gov.tt/Portals/0/Documents/Notices/Draft%20Education%20Policy%20Paper%202017-2022%20final.pdf?ver=2018-10-04-114243-487 7 Ministry of Planning and Development. “National Development Strategy of Trinidad and Tobago 2016-2030.” Pgs. 105-106. Accessed: April 17, 2019: https://www.planning.gov.tt/sites/default/files/Vision%202030- %20The%20National%20Development%20Strategy%20of%20Trinidad%20and%20Tobago%202016-2030.pdf 8 Ministry of Education. “Draft Education Policy Paper 2017-2022.”pg.64. Accessed: April 10, 2019: http://MoE.gov.tt/Portals/0/Documents/Notices/Draft%20Education%20Policy%20Paper%202017-2022%20final.pdf?ver=2018-10-04-114243-487 http://moe.gov.tt/Portals/0/Documents/Notices/Draft%20Education%20Policy%20Paper%202017-2022%20final.pdf?ver=2018-10-04-114243-487 http://moe.gov.tt/Portals/0/Documents/Notices/Draft%20Education%20Policy%20Paper%202017-2022%20final.pdf?ver=2018-10-04-114243-487 https://www.planning.gov.tt/sites/default/files/Vision%202030-%20The%20National%20Development%20Strategy%20of%20Trinidad%20and%20Tobago%202016-2030.pdf https://www.planning.gov.tt/sites/default/files/Vision%202030-%20The%20National%20Development%20Strategy%20of%20Trinidad%20and%20Tobago%202016-2030.pdf http://moe.gov.tt/Portals/0/Documents/Notices/Draft%20Education%20Policy%20Paper%202017-2022%20final.pdf?ver=2018-10-04-114243-487 13 The Underachievement of Schools in Port-of-Spain (POS) and Environs District 2.7. In 2016 the Ministry of Education’s conducted a Report on the National Test Results of Primary Schools in Trinidad and Tobago.9 The report found that a large number of pupils in the primary school were experiencing academic difficulty. The majority of schools, 375 (70.8%) of primary schools were categorised as “Mostly Effective” in 2016 as they achieved an API score from 241 to 400. 78 (14.7%) schools were categorised as “Academic Watch” as they had an API score from 81 to 240. Table 1 shows that the Caroni Education District had the smallest percentage of schools (1%) in the “Academic Watch” category, whilst the Port of Spain and Environs Education District had the largest percentage (33%) or twenty-nine (29) schools. 2.8. Additionally, the report found that, beyond geography, the type of school, categorized by religion, was also a factor in schools being considered as under “Academic Watch”. Table 2 shows that the Roman Catholic and Anglican schools performed at a significantly lower level (evidenced by the frequency with which they were recorded as being on “Academic Watch”), than Hindu, Presbyterian and private schools. Table 1: Performance of Schools by District based on National Test Report 2016 District Excelling Academic Watch Caroni 13 1 North Eastern 3 5 Port of Spain 12 29 St. George East 15 17 St. Patrick 6 5 South Eastern 4 10 Victoria 19 5 Tobago 4 6 9 Division of Educational Research and Evaluation. “National Test Report 2016.” Ministry of Education; December 2016. pgs. 24-28. 14 Table 2: Performance of Schools by Denomination Type Excelling Academic Watch Government 9 24 Hindu 13 3 Presbyterian 13 1 Catholic 4 28 Anglican 2 10 Muslim 6 -- Private 30 4 Other - 6 2.9. Furthermore, based on results from the SEA, the Port-of-Spain and Environs District has consistently ranked within the last four performing districts for the period 2009- 2019 when compared to other Districts. Table 3 and Figure 1 highlight the performance of students in the SEA examinations for the period 2009- 2019 based on the average scores of the schools in the district. Table 3: Average Scores of Students in SEA by District Average Scores in SEA District 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Caroni 203.895 205.737 204.935 203.963 203.307 203.558 202.926 202.484 201.822 202.746 203.028 North Eastern 192.753 191.469 190.445 191.718 190.970 187.441 191.287 192.043 191.052 190.552 192.719 Port of Spain 196.127 197.904 196.802 197.403 197.000 195.241 196.050 196.156 198.072 198.007 197.623 St. George East 200.892 200.205 200.653 199.677 199.438 198.806 199.386 200.088 200.583 202.02 199.597 St. Patrick 198.509 197.717 198.834 198.108 198.729 199.301 200.481 199.648 200.117 196.832 199.910 South Eastern 197.538 196.738 196.472 198.607 197.030 197.817 195.123 199.007 196.666 195.957 194.216 Victoria 206.924 206.059 206.778 208.597 208.033 207.437 208.737 208.258 207.087 207.209 208.698 Tobago 192.930 189.651 192.498 191.324 191.825 192.914 193.120 196.512 192.915 191.615 194.416 15 Figure 1 Average Scores of Students in SEA 2.10. For the purposes of this report, underachievement of schools refers to the performance of schools that are below the national average in terminal examinations. Conduct of the Inquiry 2.11. The Committee conducted two (2) public hearings held on March 05, 2021 with primary school representatives and key stakeholders and on April 09, 2021 with secondary school representatives and key stakeholders. During this time, the Committee questioned the officials on matters based on the objectives of the inquiry. 2.12. Prior to the public hearing, the Committee sought responses from various stakeholders and the following written submissions were received:  Ministry of Education (MOE);  Trinidad and Tobago Unified Teachers Association (T&TUTA);  National Council of Parent Teachers Association (NCPTA);  National Primary Schools Principals Association (NAPSPA);  Private Primary School Principals Association;  Private Special Schools Association of Trinidad and Tobago; 175 180 185 190 195 200 205 210 215 Caroni North Eastern Port of Spain St. George East St. Patrick South Eastern Victoria Tobago Average Scores in SEA 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 16  Association of Administrators of Public Special Schools;  Catholic Education Board of Management;  Anglican Education Board of Management;  Association of Principals of Public Secondary Schools of Trinidad And Tobago;  Association of Principals of Assisted Secondary Schools; and  Holy Ghost Fathers. 2.13. The List of Officials that appeared before the Committee is attached as APPENDIX I. 2.14. The Minutes and Verbatim Notes are attached as APPENDIX II and APPENDIX III respectively. 2.15. The First Report was approved on October 19, 2021. 17 3. EVIDENCE Objective 1: To Determine the Root Causes For the Underachievement of Schools in the Port-of- Spain and Environs District. POS and Environs District Statistics- SEA Examination SEA Average for POS & Environs Education District 3.1. According to the MOE, there are 90 primary schools within the Port of Spain (POS) and Environs Educational District. 3.2. Data received from the MOE provided in Table 4 shows a comparison of the mean total weighted score for the POS and Environs district with the national mean score. The complete breakdown for POS and Environs Education District SEA National Average Comparison 2015 -2020 is provided in Appendix IV. Table 4: Mean SEA Total Weighted score by district 2010-2020 Year District Mean Total Weighted Score 2010 Port-of-Spain 197.79 2010 National 198.66 2011 Port-of-Spain 195.39 2011 National 197.17 2012 Port-of-Spain 195.73 2012 National 197.73 2013 Port-of-Spain 191.55 2013 National 195.17 2014 Port-of-Spain 201.16 2014 National 200.19 2015 Port-of-Spain 191.46 2015 National 196.08 2016 Port-of-Spain 191.54 2016 National 199.08 2017 Port-of-Spain 192.90 2017 National 196.20 18 2018 Port-of-Spain 188.30 2018 National 194.60 2019 Port-of-Spain 186.81 2019 National 195.00 2020 Port-of-Spain 189.93 2020 National 195.45 3.3. According to the data from Table 4, in the POS and Environs district, the average SEA score has been lower than the national average every year for the past ten years. 3.4. The Anglican Education Board of Management (AEBM) had eleven (11) Schools in the Port of Spain and Environs District. Data provided by the AEBM on the academic performance, in the Secondary Entrance Assessment (SEA) Examination from 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019 highlighted that, overall, the schools from the sample that have consistently underachieved are: Ascension; Escallier; Morvant; St. Agnes; St. Crispin’s and St. Margaret’s Boys. The other schools show varying results depending on the ability of the students in the year group. 3.5. According to the Catholic Education Board of Management (CEBM), there were 29 Roman Catholic (RC) schools in the POS and Environs School District. Of these, nine to eleven consistently perform at or above the national average. The remaining 18 to twenty 20 schools demonstrated varying degrees of underachievement, with the schools in the east POS area consistently being among the lowest. POS and Environs District Statistics- CSEC & CAPE Examinations CSEC Average for POS & Environs Education District 3.6. According to the MOE, there are 28 secondary schools within the POS and Environs Educational District. 19 3.7. Data received from the MOE provided in Table 5, illustrates the performance in CSEC, the percentage of students passing five (5) subjects, including Mathematics and English in the POS and Environs district compared to the national average. The complete breakdown for performance by schools in the POS and Environs District in CSEC examinations is provided in Appendix V. Table 5: Percentage of Students passing 5 or more CSEC subjects including Math and English 2010-2020 Year District No. writing (Govt) No. passing 5 or more with M&E (Govt) % passing 5 or more passed with M&E (Govt) No. Writing (Gov't Asst) No. passing 5 or more with M&E (Gov't Asst) % 5 or more passed with M&E (Gov't Asst) Port of Spain 1679 562 33.47% 1038 847 81.60% 2020 National 10092 3287 32.57% 5238 4155 79.32% Port of Spain 1524 470 30.84% 1063 837 78.74% 2019 National 9836 2633 26.77% 5380 4081 75.86% Port of Spain 1569 502 31.99% 1060 843 79.53% 2018 National 9648 2822 29.25% 5269 4019 76.28% Port of Spain 1605 465 28.97% 1030 809 78.54% 2017 National 9567 2533 26.48% 5126 3860 75.30% Port of Spain 1458 502 34.43% 1045 818 78.28% 2016 National 9064 2402 26.50% 5331 3874 72.67% Port of Spain 1536 466 30.34% 1012 840 83.00% 2015 National 8957 2357 26.31% 5090 3816 74.97% Port of Spain 1554 438 28.19% 1052 830 78.90% 2014 National 9167 2126 23.19% 5119 3738 73.02% Port of Spain 1475 338 22.92% 1019 731 71.74% 2013 National 9363 1817 19.41% 5060 3364 66.48% Port of 1483 345 23.26% 1062 760 71.56% 20 Spain 2012 National 9470 1665 17.58% 5053 3199 63.31% Port of Spain 1654 437 26.42% 1087 796 73.23% 2011 National 10394 2098 20.18% 5086 3459 68.01% Port of Spain 1677 484 28.86% 1088 799 73.44% 2010 National 11162 2465 22.08% 5060 3528 69.72% 3.8. According to the data obtained from the MOE in Table 5 above, the percentage of students passing five (5) or more subjects including Mathematics and English has been higher than the national average in both Government and Government Assisted schools for the past 10 years. CAPE Average for POS & Environs Education District 3.9. Data received from the MOE provided in Table 6 shows the academic performance in CAPE Examinations, the percentage of students passing three (3) or more Unit 1 subjects in the POS and Environs district. The complete breakdown for performance by schools in the POS and Environs District in CAPE examinations is provided in Appendix VI. Table 6: Percentage of Students passing 3 or more CAPE Unit I subjects 2010-2020 by district Year District Number Passing 3 Or More Subjects Number Attempted Percent Passing 3 Or More Subjects 2020 Port of Spain 887 1491 59.5% 2020 National 4636 7614 60.9% 2019 Port of Spain 856 1539 55.6% 2019 National 4355 7498 58.1% 2018 Port of Spain 937 1612 58.1% 2018 National 4526 7524 60.2% 2017 Port of Spain 973 1629 59.7% 2017 National 4684 7297 64.2% 2016 Port of Spain 1003 1605 62.5% 2016 National 4679 7090 66.0% 21 2015 Port of Spain 989 1542 64.1% 2015 National 4579 6895 66.4% 2014 Port of Spain 982 1521 64.6% 2014 National 4474 6908 64.8% 2013 Port of Spain 1062 1647 64.5% 2013 National 4538 7017 64.7% 2012 Port of Spain 1020 1626 62.7% 2012 National 4633 7213 64.2% 2011 Port of Spain 712 1462 48.7% 2011 National 3520 6951 50.6% 3.10. According to the data obtained from the MOE in Table 6 above, the percentage of students passing three (3) or more Unit 1 subjects in the POS and Environs district has been lower than the national average for the past 10 years. However, the Unit 2 grades were less consistent. From 2010 to 2016, the percentage of students passing three or more Unit 2 subjects was consistently higher than the national average. However, from 2017 to 2019, this percentage was lower in POS. 3.11. According to the Association of Principals of Public Secondary Schools of Trinidad and Tobago (APPSTT) a comparison of the percentage pass-rates of the government and the government assisted schools for CSEC examinations 2010-2020, seem to indicate that underachievement is occurring in the government schools. While in the Government Assisted schools, pass rates range from a low of 71.56% in 2012 to a high of 83% in 2015, the rates in government schools range from a low of 22.92% in 2013 to a high of 34.43% in 2016. Underachievement of Schools in the POS and Environs District 3.12. According to the MOE, at no time are schools defined as ‘underachieving’ but are instead categorized as schools of focus for targeted support and intervention. The MOE monitors performance trends of terminal examinations for placement from the Secondary Entrance Examination (SEA) and for certification with respect to Caribbean Examination 22 Council’s (CXC) Caribbean Secondary Examination Certificate (CSEC) and Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examination (CAPE). Schools that have performed below the national average in the terminal examinations, are referred to the MOE’s intervention strategies that were geared towards improved performance and provided support to the schools. 3.13. Trinidad and Tobago Unified Teachers Association (TTUTA)’s position, like the National Primary Schools Principals Association (NAPSPA), is that underachievement must be determined after considering all the contributory factors highlighted in Table 7 which demonstrate a correlation between student underachievement and underachievement of schools. 3.14. Additionally, the Association of Principals of Assisted Secondary Schools (APASS) submission highlighted that there were other standardized measurements of students’ competencies such as the Caribbean Vocational Qualifications (CVQs), which was not considered in the assessment of the number of subjects students have attained at the end of five (5) years of secondary education. 3.15. The data obtained by TTUTA revealed a consistent pattern among between 60 – 68% of the schools over the period 2015 – 2020. Furthermore, TTUTA noticed that public schools in which this ‘underachievement’ was occurring, were schools located in communities that had either been identified as socially ‘at-risk’, or communities that generally had populations with low-socio-economic conditions. 3.16. According to the Association of Administrators of Public Special Schools (AAPSS), based on the statistics, it appears that there were students who were under achieving at the Primary School Level on the national standardize high stakes test. However, this may not reflect the student’s potential as having a lower score on a written summative test is not an accurate measurement of what a student has learned. 23 Contributory Factors for the Underachievement of Schools 3.17. According to submissions from the majority of stakeholders consulted during the inquiry, the factors highlighted in Table 7 may contribute to the underachievement of schools within the POS and Environs District. Table 7: Contributory Factors of Underachievement of Schools Contributory Factors to the underachievement of schools in the POS and Environs Education District School Climate High levels of crime and violence that occur in some of the communities leads to experiences of trauma. Insufficient staff to facilitate psychosocial/psychoeducational Screening Insufficient intervention services to meet the needs of those screened. Teacher longevity in schools affected by high incidences of violence in and around schools. Limited funding and less resources provided to schools for challenging issues. Population size in schools may be too large for the school to be able to meet the learning/emotional/social challenges of students. Lack of specialised teachers to handle students with unique challenges. The lack of a prescribed cut-off score, as exists for some schools, to indicate the required marks for students’ entrance into schools. The nature of stratification in schools in our system of education. Student Interest Insufficient extra/co-curricular activities. The lack of varied pedagogies for the curriculum to engage different learning strategies. Student engagement Low level of interest and motivation of teachers. Absenteeism Student/Teacher Absenteeism/Unpunctuality which contributes to a reduction in teaching time. Inability of students and teachers to attend school due to gang uprisings, shootings or community uprisings on school days and in and around the school vicinity. The loss of class time due to addressing numerous discipline issues caused by students’ limited social and behavioural inputs. Socioeconomic status Low socioeconomic status. Illiteracy of the parents/guardians. 24 Mental and emotional health. Teenage pregnancy. Single parent homes. Domestic violence. Learning disabilities of the children. Insufficient positive male role models. Trust issues. Social/emotional issues affecting persons in the household. Lack of information on coping with learning disabilities/challenges. Level of parental involvement. Neighbourhood/ residential circumstances Communities that have been identified as socially ‘at-risk’ Communities with populations with a low-socio-economic status Community support for activities and initiatives of the school Special Schools 3.18. According to AAPSS, children with diagnosed special needs are not adequately supported. This is primarily due to the absence of the required structure, trained teachers and assistants, human and physical resources to ensure that children with special education needs and multiple intelligences of children have an equal and equitable opportunity to succeed at terminal examinations. 3.19. The AAPSS highlighted the following factors unique to special needs students which contributed to the underachievement of special needs students:  Children with disabilities may learn differently from their peers and have different developmental milestones which are not catered for in the mainstream classroom setting;  The limited access to learning materials which are specifically tailored for their unique learning capacities;  The lack of motivation of students to participate in the learning experience;  Parents may not be equipped to reinforce the lessons learnt by the child; 25  The absence of requisite infrastructure, physical, human and technological resources and facilities for students with special education needs in primary and special schools, which are expected to participate in terminal examinations;  The absence of an Interdisciplinary Team or Transdisciplinary Team10 to provide support to children with diagnosed and undiagnosed disabilities;  The Expanded Core curriculum11 for children with disabilities had not been fully incorporated by the MOE which affected the implementation and delivery of this curriculum for students with Special Education needs;  The absence of Curriculum Officers for Special Education;  The absence of Special Education School Supervisors to monitor the standards of special schools and all other schools with students with Special Education needs;  A vast shortage of certified, trained Special Education Teachers to work with children with diagnosed disabilities; and  The absence of professional and semi-professional staff for Special Schools, and All-inclusive schools. 10 Interdisciplinary Team or Transdisciplinary Team consists of professionals and semiprofessionals that work together to develop skills in students with disabilities or special education needs to access the core curriculum. Professionals on the team may include Clinical Psychologists, Social Workers, counselors, Speech Therapists, Occupational Therapists, Adapted Physical Education Instructor, Optometrist, Orientation and Mobility Specialist, Ophthalmologist, Physiotherapist, Assistive Technology Instructors, Braille transcribers, learning support assistants, school nurse, audiologist, teacher of hearing impaired, teacher of visually impaired. The composition of the team may vary based on the disability or unique special needs of the student however, parents, teachers, students, and special education teachers are critical components of the Team. 11 The Expanded Core Curriculum (ECC) provides a framework for instruction in a specialized set of vision-related skills for students who are blind or visually impaired. Paths to Literacy. Expanded Core Curriculum. September 09, 2021. https://www.pathstoliteracy.org/expanded-core-curriculum. https://www.pathstoliteracy.org/expanded-core-curriculum 26 Objective 2: To examine methods to address the underachievement of schools in the Port-of-Spain and Environs District. Mechanisms/ Strategies to Address the Underachievement of Schools In the Port-of-Spain and Environs District 3.20. The MOE’s Draft Education Policy Paper 2017-2022 highlights the strategic goals of the MOE for achieving the following in schools in Trinidad and Tobago:  Quality education;  Quality teaching;  Educational support services to optimise the teaching and learning process;  Education administration;  School curriculum; and  Promoting a fair system of education and training at all levels. 3.21. Table 8 below highlights the mechanism and strategies implemented by the MOE to address the underachievement of schools in the Port-of-Spain and Environs District in accordance with the strategic goals of the Draft Education Policy Paper 2017-2022. Table 8: MOE Activities to Implement the Strategic Goals of the Draft Education Policy Paper 2017-2022 Strategic Goal Strategies/ Activities Implemented By The MOE Quality education District Leadership Teams (DLT) regularly visit schools to conduct assessments for targeted intervention, determine the follow up training required and provide onsite workshops/ training. Several workshops were conducted for teachers in areas such as; curriculum delivery, literacy and numeracy, teaching of practical skills, School Based Assessment (SBA) monitoring, and SBA alignment to the Caribbean Vocational Qualification (CVQ). National consultations on education. Review and updating of Education Policy Paper Policy documents. Review and updating of the National Certificate of Secondary Education (NCSE) curriculum. Needs analysis for inductees and teachers currently in the system. 27 Regular assessment of university and college education diplomas and degrees. Consistent consultation with the education institutions on trends in the field. DLT and Education District Management review Quality Teaching Introduction of student-centred strategies for subject integration e.g. Visual and Performing Arts (VAPA) and Mathematics –alternative strategies that encompass a multiple intelligences approach infusing the visual and performing arts as methodology: pupils learn through dance, drama, music and visual arts; Emphasizing the development of numeracy skills using real-life problem- solving contexts e.g. mental mathematics skills; Representation of mathematical concepts in multiple ways – concrete, pictorial and symbolic; Presentation of mathematical content in real-world contexts to highlight the relevance of mathematics, e.g. planning events, shopping, sports, etc. Use of language concepts to learn mathematics:  Introduce, discuss and reinforce new vocabulary;  Explore pronunciation, meaning and context e.g. square shape, square number;  Encourage student-generated questions;  Reading for understanding (Polya’s model); and  Reading fluency enhances understanding. Workshops that targeted both principals and teachers focused on providing them with the tools to effectively implement systems that would encourage and sustain literacy achievement at their schools. Educational Support Services to Optimise the Teaching And Learning Process Teacher/Administrator Support Services:  Teacher training;  Leadership and Management training;  Development of curriculum resources;  Analysis of terminal examinations;  Technical support for the implementation of all examinations;  eConnect to and Learn the FiveStar Programme for ICT in education, with the provision of laptops to schools and training of teachers to utilise ICT in the delivery of the curriculum; and  Notes Master training for teachers. Social Support Services:  Provided to students with behavioural challenges, diverse learning needs as well as those who require psycho-social support;  Referrals are received from external agencies for specialised interventions geared toward minimising and/or eliminating academic and or psychosocial barriers to learning; and 28  Teachers and parents of students within the POS and Environs District also benefit from Teacher Education and Parenting-in- Education programmes. These components have both direct and indirect means of supporting our students to maximise the benefit derived from the teaching-learning process. Student Services:  School meals via the National Schools Dietary Services Limited (NSDSL);  Transport to students via the Public Transport Service Commission (PTSC) Maxi Taxi Concessionaire Service;  Textbook Loan Programme;  School Learning Management System for online curriculum delivery;  Provision of electronic devices to students; Parental Support:  Parenting in Education Workshops; and  Collaboration with various ministries e.g. Ministry of Social Development and Family Services (MSDFS) to provide psychosocial, economic support and information to parents. Education Administration  School Supervisors and the DLT monitor schools to ensure that school administrators follow the minimum standards identified for:  Infrastructure maintenance;  Curriculum delivery;  Teacher and student regularity and punctuality;  Student attitudes and behavior; and  The eight dimensions in the SBM framework. School curriculum  The MOE designed the Student Transition and Remediation Support (S.T.A.R.S.) project to provide support to students who attained a score of 30% or less in SEA. Students assigned for remediation either return to a selected primary school to re-sit the SEA examination or are placed in a Secondary School or an alternative educational institution;  Principals and teachers at the selected secondary schools received additional training, resources and monitoring as follows:  An adapted curriculum:  I. Module One (1) - students who scored 0-10%; and  II. Module Two (II) - students who scored 11 – 30% at SEA;  Diagnostic assessments for students in Mathematics and Reading for administering to students;  the following documents to assist in the implementation of the project:  Implementation of Individual Education Plans for students; and  Training of teachers in differentiated instruction and other strategies. Promoting a Fair System of Education and Training at All Levels The MOE ensures compliance with all educational legal requirements for the provision of guidelines for the implementation of the following:  Infant Yr. I intake registration;  Promotion of students at the primary school level;  SEA, NCSE and CXC Registration; 29  Non-nationals registration;  Equity and access to educational opportunities for students with disabilities through the Inclusive Schools Project (ISP) which seeks to increase the access to quality education for diverse learners at the ECCE, Primary and Secondary School Level.  Access to internal training of teachers and administrators;  Access to training provided by external educational institutions;  Training in the grievance procedure and progressive discipline for staff and administrators; and  Utilisation of the communications division to ensure that all schools and divisions have access to relevant information. 3.22. TTUTA highlighted that the MOE collaborated with schools in creating a school improvement plan to advance the achievement of schools in the POS and Environs District. The School Improvement Plan required each school to complete a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis and develop a plan for their school, to be approved by the MOE. 3.23. According to the MOE, the 29 schools that were under ‘Academic Watch’ in the 2016 Academic Performance Index Report, benefitted from targeted interventions under national programmes, such as:  Laventille/Morvant School Improvement Project (LMSIP 2017 - 2020);  Creating a Culture of Student Achievement (CSSA 2016 - 2017) Project;  Student Transition and Remediation Support (STARS, 2018 – 2020);  Clinical Supervision training for Heads of Department and the Hop-A-Long reading programmes, supported by Shell Trinidad and Tobago, targeting schools in the LMSIP; and  The Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Academic Programme which targeted five (5) secondary schools in the POS & Environs Education District. 30 Monitoring and Evaluation of Schools in the Port-of-Spain and Environs District to Improve Performance Standards of Operations for Schools 3.24. The MOE’s School Supervision Division utilized the Basic Procedure for School Order and Discipline and the School Based Management Manual to monitor school performance. Both documents provide criteria that were used as standards of operation in schools. 3.25. The Basic Procedure for School Order and Discipline provides standards for:  school entry and exit protocols;  teacher/student teaching and learning standards;  student and teacher supervision; and  engagement in co-/extra-curricular activities. 3.26. The School Based Management manual outlines minimum standards under eight (8) dimensions for achieving optimum student outcomes:  Key Stakeholder Engagement;  Physical Infrastructure, Resources and Environment;  Exams, Testing & Assessment;  Curriculum Instructional & Services Delivery;  Teachers and Teacher Development and Management;  Students;  Student Services; and  Leadership and Management. Assessment Criteria for Monitoring Schools 3.27. After using the scores from the National Test, the MOE was able to create the Academic Performance Index (API) Report which highlighted various schools within the POS and Environs District as underachieving when compared to schools in other 31 districts. However, since the discontinuation of the National Test in 2016, there has been no formal mechanism to calculate the API or to show the performance of schools within the districts. 3.28. Furthermore, while the Ministry has used SEA indicators such as the percentage of students scoring below 30%, and the mean SEA scores for schools to monitor performance at the primary level. Submissions from six (6) stakeholders have indicated that the usage of academic performance cannot be the only indicator of performance for a school or students, as more emphasis also needs to be placed on the use of formative assessments and individualized support provided for schools. 3.29. Additionally, the MOE indicated that at the secondary level, it was developing a value-added measure of school effectiveness. This approach involved merging students’ SEA scores with their CSEC scores to assess the level of progress or growth achieved within secondary schools. 3.30. The MOE engaged in periodic curriculum review at the primary level and the lower secondary level with respect to NCSE via interdivisional consultations. Consultations take into consideration feedback from school visits from DLTs to ensure that the curriculum keeps abreast with current regional and international standards. 3.31. Moreover, the MOE engaged in the following activities to ensure staff and administration were aware of and trained in the most current pedagogy:  Exposing teachers to strategies for remediation, problem solving, development of students’ mental mathematics skills;  Introducing teachers to novel strategies to engage with concepts;  Supporting teachers in improving their teaching practice through the use of Clinical Supervision; and  Exposing teachers to strategies for teaching of struggling readers: 32  Differentiated Instruction at both the primary and secondary levels;  Reading across Disciplines in Secondary schools: Immersion of reading strategies in all Subject areas; and  Use of VAPA as an instructional method to teach reading and writing. 3.32. Likewise, at the level of the district, the MOE had implemented the following strategies to conform with the MOE’s requirement for teacher training:  District administrative conferences held termly to address areas of concerns identified in school visits, new developments in education and to ensure conformity with SBM criteria/standards;  Schools Supervisors hold monthly meetings with principals of primary and secondary schools to discuss issues of effective leadership and management of schools, as well as areas of health and wellness of administrators and staff;  Staff meetings are conducted on a monthly basis to discuss the implementation of the school’s development plan;  Clinical Supervision of the curriculum delivery of teaching staff by the Principal, Vice-Principal, Head-of-Department or Senior Teacher by staff using a prescribed instrument; and  The SBM model which facilitates self-assessment, school development planning and improved student achievement, teacher performance and school effectiveness. 3.33. The CEBM commenced the implementation of a Quality Assurance programme which has yielded improvements in student achievement. As a result, criteria for high achieving schools have been developed through research and consultation with Principals. Using these criteria, schools under the CEBM were required to conduct a self- assessment and to develop plans for addressing gaps between accepted standards and current performance. 33 Support Services for Underperforming Students in Terminal Examinations 3.34. The Student Support Services Division (SSSD) of the MOE provided support at multiple levels for students who may be under-performing in terminal examinations. Some of the support or counselling services are provided in Figure 2 below. Figure 2: Support Services provided by the SSSD Academic Support •Students who require academic support can access services from the Units below: • Special Education Unit, •Developmental, Assessment and Intervention Unit (DAIU). Social Support •Psychosocial assessments •Individual counselling, •Parenting skills development •Therapeutic Group Work •Home visits •links to other ministries and agencies are also provided to further assist students and their families Guidance and Counselling Support •Universal Intervention /Group Guidance Sessions (Infant 1 to Form 6) •Issues of motivation toward learning •The importance of schooling •Career development to create and understanding the link between schooling and the world of work. 34 4. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Objective 1: To determine the root causes for the underachievement of schools in the Port-of- Spain and Environs District. Underachievement of Schools in the Port of Spain and Environs District 4.1. The Committee found that the majority of the submissions from the stakeholders, highlighted that underachievement, should be measured, not only by pupils' performance in relation to scores received in terminal examinations, but should also take into account, pupils' performance in other areas in which they achieve success as seen in Table 7. Contributory Factors of Underachievement in Schools 4.2. The Committee acknowledged the societal and economic factors highlighted by submissions from several stakeholders in Table 7 which may contribute to the underachievement of schools within the POS and Environs District. Challenges to Address the Contributory Factors Influencing Achievement of Public Primary and Secondary Schools 4.3. Based on stakeholder submissions, the Committee acknowledged that the challenges to address the contributory factors influencing achievement of public primary and secondary schools are apparent in the following areas:  Overwhelming socio/economic issues;  Parenting programmes made mandatory at several levels yet not well attended;  Truancy of students - reports made to the School Social Worker;  Lack of parental involvement due to other factors;  Lack of interest in education;  Time-off from employers especially for daily/hourly paid parents;  School Administration and parent relational issues: 35 o Consultation and other interventions are mainly scheduled between the traditional working hours of 8am to 4:15pm; o Inadequate parenting skills; o Heightened family trauma through death and loss, imprisonment, gang related activities and community violence; o Little or no educational qualifications and/or vocational skills; and o A heightened sense of apathy towards life;  Community Factors: o Low community investment; o Community members lack interest in educational development; o Community violence/gang activities negatively impact on residents’ habits and behaviours; and  Non-contact time for primary teachers to address tasks perceived as “extra work” (planning, item analysis, data analysis, referral forms). Special Schools 4.4. The Committee noted that the Expanded Core Curriculum was necessary for students with disabilities/ Special Education Needs to have the opportunity to access the MOE Core Curriculum. Consequently, improper and ineffective implementation of the Expanded Core Curriculum, can cause the students with disabilities that require special education, to be inadequately tooled with the requisite skills to perform at their true potential in the classroom and terminal examinations. 4.5. The Committee noted that children with disabilities may learn differently from their peers in the regular classroom, as such, it would be unfair to judge the achievement of these students, using the same criteria used for their peers who may not have such challenges. Additionally, inadequate provisions for the special education needs of students with disabilities, impairs the ability of these students to perform equally and 36 equitably with their peers in terminal examinations and defeats the merit/ efficacy of the examinations. 4.6. The Committee found that there were no Curriculum Officers for Special Education and Special Education School Supervisors in the MOE. As a result, the curriculum delivery and assessment examinations were not appropriately adapted for children with Special Education Needs and support was reduced for administrators of special schools, and schools that have students with Special Education needs. 4.7. The Committee noted a shortage of certified and trained Special Education Teachers to work with children with diagnosed disabilities. Additionally, the existing service delivered is incongruent with the standard and quality required for students with disabilities to optimally function or succeed in terminal examinations in the mainstream school system. 4.8. The Committee found that there was a lack of professionals and semi- professionals required to staff interdisciplinary teams and transdisciplinary teams in Special Schools, and Inclusive schools. The Committee further acknowledged that while some of the professionals and semi-professionals available were under SSSD, they function as a multidisciplinary team and their services are not provided in a coordinated manner, as required by Special Schools, Inclusive Schools and students with disabilities and special education needs attending mainstream schools. 4.9. According to the Education Act, Chap.39:01, Section 2. “Intermediate school” refers to “a school recognised under the former Education Ordinance as providing primary or post- primary education for pupils up to the age of eighteen years”. The Committee found that the Special Schools educated persons between preschool age (early intervention) and above 18 years of age but are categorized as an intermediate school as it is the nearest category of schools provided in the Education Act, Chap.39:01, which is serving this age range. 37 Recommendations 4.10. The Committee recommends that the MOE should improve the Continuous Assessment Programme to allow for the identification of student achievement along non-traditional assessment means. The measures should cater for the multiple intelligences and special education needs of students, to assist them in discovering their strengths, help them to realize their true potential, and engender intrinsic motivation within students and assist them in becoming more successful at the Primary School Level. 4.11. Given the workload of the SSSD, the Committee recommends that the MOE re- establish the Special Education Unit, independent of the Student Support Services Division, and reform the unit to create a Division of Special and Inclusive Education. This Division may be responsible for the supervision of all Special Schools, all Inclusive Schools, and delivery of the Expanded Core Curriculum for students with disabilities and with Special Education Needs, attending mainstream schools. 4.12. The Committee recommends that the MOE develop a three (3) year action plan to assist public special schools with the following:  the appropriate facilities based on established international specification and standards for children with disabilities or Special Education Needs;  the appropriate resources for teaching and learning for all categories of children with disabilities ; and  the appropriate established standards for operation of Special Schools and Inclusive Schools (private and public). 4.13. The Committee recommends that the MOE conduct an investigation into school underachievement and undertake a comprehensive analysis of the physical, material, human and financial resources invested into schools in Port-of-Spain and Environs. 4.14. The Committee recommends that the MOE liaise with the Office of the Attorney General and Ministry of Legal Affairs to draft an amendment to the Education Act, 38 Chap.39:01 which would reclassify all Public Special Schools to reflect the age range taught at these schools. 4.15. The Committee recommends that the MOE consider the establishment of interdisciplinary teams to service primary schools and secondary schools at the district level and transdisciplinary teams at the Special School and Inclusive School level staffed with the professionals and semi-professionals tailored to service the unique special education needs of the special school service. 4.16. The Committee recommends that the positions of School Supervisor and Curriculum Officer for Special Education be established to ensure continuous review, improvement, monitoring and evaluation of the pedagogies for special needs students and the delivery of the expanded core curriculum and the core curriculum for special schools. 4.17. The Committee recommends that the MOE collaborate with the Ministry of Sport and Community Development (MSCD), the Ministry of Social Development and Family Services (MSDFS) and other agencies to formulate incentivized, nationwide parenting courses and workshops to assist parents in improving their parenting skills to assist their children in attaining academic success and the ability to value lifelong learning. 4.18. The Committee acknowledged that schools must be provided with the resources to cater for students with psycho- social and learning challenges. As such, the Committee recommends that the MOE consider the following:  the provision of additional trained and competent professionals (such as, clinical psychologists; learning specialists, etc.) who can support the learning and behavioural needs of students; and  the placement of a Guidance Officer and School Social Worker in each school. 4.19. The Committee recommends that the MOE together with the various school boards develop a plan, for the schools under their purview, to promote mentorship, 39 apprenticeship or training for students, with businesses and tradesmen within communities to create linkages between the schools and the community to increase community ownership and identification with the school. 4.20. Given that schools in ‘at risk’ communities face different challenges from schools in “low-risk” areas and are associated with negative stereotypes, the MOE should consider training for administrative and teaching staff of these schools to detach the stereotypes and stigma they associate with the area. 4.21. The Committee recommends that the MOE consider reduced teacher/student ratio and smaller classes in schools with a higher population of students who are in need of individualized or remedial attention. 4.22. The Committee recommend that to improve parental involvement in schools the MOE consider implementing the following in schools:  Provide parents information on school curriculum offerings and performance;  Teaching parenting practices to stimulate children’s learning and support;  Training parents on how to enhance children’s learning at home;  Providing adult literacy classes; and  Providing after-school tutoring for low achieving students (homework centres). Objective 2: To examine methods to address the underachievement of schools in the Port-of-Spain and Environs District. Mechanisms/ Strategies to Address the Underachievement of Schools in the Port-of-Spain and Environs District 4.23. The Committee has recognized that the Ministry is aware of the contributory factors to the underachievement of some schools in the POS and Environs District and have tried to address same with certain initiatives. However, a comprehensive action plan should be implemented to include a wider cross section of the school population with a monitoring and evaluation team to provide effective follow-up. 40 4.24. The Committee noted that there is a need to include a comprehensive qualitative analysis of student data to provide a better contextual understanding of the problem of underachievement of schools. 4.25. The Committee was informed by TTUTA that discipline matrices for students are not always adhered to and there is a need for continuous professional development for teachers and principals to enhance teaching/learning strategies and classroom management. 4.26. The Committee found that according to APPSSTT, the areas of deficiency in the School Development Plan (SDP) are the provision of feedback on SDPs from School Supervisors and the execution of the plans. Feedback is supposed to be available before the plan is executed but in most cases after the initial feedback is offered, follow up is deficient. The lack of finances also impacts the ability to execute plans in an effective manner. 4.27. Additionally, in spite of the expressed vision of the MOE, that administrators and staff at schools would take responsibility for the transformation and improvement of their individual organizations, this goal is often stymied as, administrators and staff spend more time fulfilling requests for data from the MOE, than implementing other tasks that are integral to the school-based management process. Monitoring and Evaluation of Achievement of Schools in the Port-of-Spain and Environs District to Improve the Performance Assessment Criteria for Schools 4.28. The Committee noted that regarding the value-added measure for secondary schools, the MOE has successfully merged the SEA and CSEC data for the years 2015 to 2019, developed a value-added indicator and has run preliminary analyses. 41 4.29. Additionally, during the months of January and February 2020, the MOE shared this preliminary data with the Principals of the Government Secondary Schools in each of the seven (7) districts in Trinidad to pilot the indicator and gain feedback for its improvement. However, plans to share the data with Denominational Boards in March 2020 were halted due to the COVID restrictions. 4.30. The Committee was informed by the Private Primary School Principals Association (PPSPA) that the quality of education provided is the only area in the Private Primary Schools which are monitored by the MOE through the School Supervisor. 4.31. The Committee was informed by the AEBM that while there is monitoring of the leadership and management of persons of authority of the school; there is need for additional personnel to serve this function and timelier responses/action on matters, from the MOE. 4.32. According to the CEBM, the MOE monitors education quality provided by the schools, teachers, staff and student behaviour and attitudes, leadership and management of school personnel in authority largely through the Schools Supervision Division with support from the divisions with responsibility for management of human resources and teacher professional development. Additionally, the Curriculum Planning and Development Division bears the main responsibility for the curriculum that aims at the holistic development of each child. However, the Committee learnt that the terminal examination results over the last five (5) years indicated that while this framework may provide for observation and careful checking of these aspects of education in the schools, it does not achieve the goal of providing quality education to every child in every school. 4.33. The Committee noted the views of the NAPSPA on the monitoring of the MOE in the following areas:  Quality of Education- the MOE monitors quality but the results only tell of the students’ ability on that test, it is not adequate in assessing what was learnt. 42  The Limited Curriculum as it does not reflect the true nature of a student’s talents and abilities.  Leadership and management of properly trained staff in an adequately resourced school. The school leaders must also be aware of the community, culture and the economic background of the parents in their schools, which can alter the level of parental support provided to the school and its ability to provide resources to students. 4.34. The Committee found that according to APASS, the framework of the MOE does not adequately monitor behaviour; attitudes required by the schools for its students, teachers and staff as some of the MOE monitoring instruments are outdated. For example, the continued use of the Staff Confidential Report which does not capture the developmental needs of teachers. In most cases it is left up to individual schools and their administrators to determine how “quality control” is done. 4.35. Furthermore, in Government Assisted Secondary Schools, the Boards of Education have a degree of oversight and control as far as setting expectations and quality control in the recommendation of suitably qualified individuals to ensure that the school’s vision and mission are achieved. They also serve as a check and balance in ensuring that staff works to a high standard of expectation. 4.36. The Committee was informed by APASS that the secondary school curriculum, is heavily focused on the academics and the results of Technical/ Vocational subjects are not used to assess the achievement and or performance of schools as this is only determined by student academic performance. 4.37. The Committee found that School Supervisors should meet with Principals and Management Teams more often to provide guidance and to give feedback on the progress of the school. Additionally, there should be an induction and orientation programme for new administrators addressing financial management, infrastructural and plant 43 management, change management, curriculum delivery, school discipline and student support. Special Schools 4.38. The Committee learnt that PSSATT schools offer a curriculum that includes not only academic, but practical skills. The schools have created an environment that comprises accommodation, adaptation and differentiation, thereby giving each student and opportunity to excel in their strengths. 4.39. The Committee found that the complement of School Supervisors within the POS and Environs District is not adequate to provide the necessary capacity for monitoring, evaluation and implementation of interventions/school policies. 4.40. The Committee was informed by the AAPSSTT that School Supervisors II and School Supervisors I, are incapable of monitoring the quality of education provided by special schools. The School Supervisors I and II are not trained in special education and try to fit special schools into a primary school mold, as a result, it neglects the expanded core curriculum which is a necessity in implementing the core curriculum of the primary school for students with special needs. Additionally, the monitoring framework is inadequate for the Special Schools setting as most of the staff are not certified, qualified, and assessed Special Education Teachers. 4.41. The Committee noted that while the curriculum provides for academic development, the type of attention required for the personal development of persons with special education needs are not adequately achieved. The schools lack the resources required for full implementation. 4.42. The Committee noted that there is a need for clarification on the job description and what is required of the leadership and administrative function of a Principal in Special Education. This creates a challenge since the absence of the intricate 44 understanding of what is required tends to cause conflict and difficulty between the Principal and the leaders and administrators within special schools. Recommendations 4.43. The Committee recommends that the MOE conduct a competency assessment to determine the necessary training matrix required for continuous professional development in the following areas:  the provision of targeted support for students with literacy and numeracy challenges;  specialized training to cater to remedial students or students in need of individualized attention;  the use of trauma informed practices in teaching;  curriculum delivery using pedagogies that are student centered and makes use of ICT and other innovations in education; and  recognize students with learning and other challenges. 4.44. The Committee recommends that the MOE take the lead role with the relevant Ministries (MSDFS, MSCD) to develop creative methods to expand the funding of existing programmes and services (i.e. trauma intervention services, the Laventille/Morvant School Improvement Project, and other social and restorative justice programmes), that students require to disrupt the impact of poverty. 4.45. The Committee recommends that the MOE provide a status update on the implementation of the value-added measure of school effectiveness which assesses the level of progress or growth achieved by students within secondary schools. 4.46. The Committee recommends that all schools should have the same level of access to remedial assistance and student support services. The cost and length of time that it usually takes to have access to this type of intervention also needs to be taken into consideration. 45 4.47. The Committee recommends that the MOE conduct a competency assessment to determine the necessary training matrix required for continuous professional development for principals and middle managers, addressing; financial management, infrastructural and plant management, change management, curriculum delivery, school discipline and student support. Additionally, training should also be provided for Principals in special education schools on the requirements of the position and the differences in the role in comparison to the same post in a mainstream school. 4.48. The Committee recommends that the MOE convey standards for assessment and evaluation, and produce and disseminate, examination and evaluation data through online publications as a cost effective and efficient means of circulation. 4.49. The Committee recommends that the MOE provide a wider range of alternatives to academic subjects including more technical/vocational subjects at the secondary school level. 4.50. The Committee recommends that the MOE consider revising the monitoring frameworks to incorporate the unique situation of special needs schools. 4.51. The Committee recommends that the MOE compile data on identifying school improvement needs and based on the data, focus technical support for improvement on the schools that need it most and provide differentiated monitoring through inspection/supervision and pedagogical support. 4.52. The Committee recommends that the MOE and schools boards collaborate and communicate about policies to be implemented inclusive of the strategies to be used to maximise implementation success and determination of the schools’ capacity in terms of resources and training to enact policies. Additionally, in order to facilitate this communication and collaboration, the Committee further recommends that the MOE consider conducting regular strategic meetings (before each school term) with these stakeholders where ideas and information are shared, with a focus on improving and enriching student learning beyond student pass rates. 46 4.53. The Committee recommends that the MOE collaborate with the Catholic Education Board of Management to review the Board’s Quality Assurance Programme (see item 3.33) to consider its implementation in public and government assisted schools in Trinidad and Tobago. 47 Your Committee respectfully submits this Report for the consideration of Parliament. Sgd. Sgd. Dr. Nyan Gadsby Dolly, MP Chairman Sgd. Mr. Esmond Forde, MP Member Mr. Barry Padarath, MP Member Sgd. Ms. Donna Cox Member Mrs. Lisa Morris-Julien, MP Vice - Chairman Sgd. Mr. Kazim Hosein Member Ms. Jearlean John Member Sgd. Mrs. Hazel Thompson-Ahye Member October 22, 2021 48 | P a g e APPENDIX I Officials Attendance List 49 | P a g e NAME POSITION MINISTRY/ORGANISATION Public Hearing March 05, 2021 Mrs. Anna M. Singh Ms. Kamini Bhagaloo Mrs. Natalie Robinson- Arnold Mr. Sheldon Jodha Mrs. Simone Haynes-Noel Mrs. Vashti Ramdeen-Steele Director, Curriculum Development Deputy Director, Educational Research and Evaluation Coordinator, Social Worker Specialist School Supervisor III Schools Supervisor III Supervisor III Ministry of Education Mrs. Antonia Tekah-De Freitas Mrs. Lisa Ibrahim-Joseph President Education and Research Officer Trinidad and Tobago Unified Teachers Association (TTUTA) Mr. Clarence Mendoza Mr. Francis Sampson President (Ag.) Compliance Officer National Council of Parent Teacher Association (NCPTA) Ms. Sharon Mangroo Ms. Aurea Honoré Chief Executive Officer Vicariate Manager Catholic Education Board of Management Mrs. Cherryl Jackson Mrs. Ann Thornhill Secretary to the Board Asst. Secretary to the Board Anglican Education Board of Management Mrs. Alicia Marquez President Private Primary School Principal Association Mr. Derrick Mundy Mr. Gerard Frederick President Treasurer Association of Administrators of Public Special Schools (APPSS) Ms. Phillis Griffith Ms. Kahaya Sooklalsingh President Ordinary Member Private Special Schools Association of Trinidad & Tobago Ms. Carlene Hayes Dr. Charlene Ross-Quamina President Public Relations Officer National Primary Schools Principals’ Association (NAPSPA) Public Hearing April 09, 2021 Mrs. Lisa Henry-David Mrs. Anna M. Singh Ms. Naima Hosein Mrs. Natalie Robinson- Arnold Chief Education Officer (Ag.) Director, Curriculum Development Director, School Supervision Management Division Coordinator, Social Worker Specialist Ministry of Education Mrs. Antonia Tekah-De Freitas President Trinidad and Tobago Unified Teachers Association (TTUTA) Mr. David Simon Ms. Patricia Pitt 2nd Vice President Secretary Association of Principals of Public Secondary Schools of Trinidad and Tobago Mrs. Sonya Mahase-Persad Ms. Lucia Reyes President Vice President Association of Principals of Assisted Secondary Schools Father Ronald Mendes,C.S.Sp. Chairman of the Holy Ghost Fathers Board of Management Holy Ghost Fathers 50 | P a g e APPENDIX II Minutes 51 | P a g e Present Dr. Nyan Gadsby-Dolly, MP Chairman Mrs. Lisa Morris-Julian, MP Vice – Chairman Mrs. Hazel Thompson-Ahye Member (Elected Chairman for the day) Mr. Esmond Forde, MP Member Mr. Kazim Hosein Member Ms. Donna Cox Member Ms. Jearlean John Member Secretariat Ms. Khisha Peterkin Secretary Mr. Brian Lucio Assistant Secretary Ms. Aaneesa Baksh Graduate Research Assistant Absent Mr. Barry Padarath, MP Member The meeting was held virtually via Zoom Public Hearing: 1st Public Hearing on an inquiry into the rights to equal access to education with specific focus on the underachievement of schools in the Port- of-Spain and Environs District with respect to terminal examinations 9.1 The meeting resumed in public at 10:37 a.m. 9.2 The following persons joined the meeting: Ministry of Education 1. Mrs. Anna M. Singh Director, Curriculum Development 2. Ms. Kamini Bhagaloo Deputy Director, Educational Research and Evaluation 3. Mrs. Natalie Robinson-Arnold Coordinator, Social Worker Specialist 4. Mr. Sheldon Jodha School Supervisor III 5. Mrs. Simone Haynes-Noel Schools Supervisor III 6. Mrs. Vashti Ramdeen-Steele Supervisor III Trinidad and Tobago Unified Teachers Association (TTUTA) 1. Mrs. Antonia Tekah-De Freitas President 2. Mrs. Lisa Ibrahim-Joseph Education and Research Officer EXCERPT OF MINUTES OF THE FOURTH MEETING OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS, EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY, HELD ON FRIDAY MARCH 05, 2021 AT 9:46 A.M. 52 | P a g e National Council of Parent Teacher Association (NCPTA) 1. Mr. Clarence Mendoza President (Ag.) 2. Mr. Francis Sampson Compliance Officer Catholic Education Board of Management 1. Ms. Sharon Mangroo Chief Executive Officer 2. Ms. Aurea Honoré Vicariate Manager Anglican Education Board of Management 1. Mrs. Cherryl Jackson Secretary to the Board 2. Mrs. Ann Thornhill Asst. Secretary to the Board Private Primary School Principal Association 1. Mrs. Alicia Marquez President Association of Administrators of Public Special Schools (APPSS) 1. Mr. Derrick Mundy President 2. Mr. Gerard Frederick Treasurer Private Special Schools Association of Trinidad & Tobago 1. Ms. Phillis Griffith President 2. Ms. Kahaya Sooklalsingh Ordinary Member National Primary Schools Principals’ Association (NAPSPA) 1. Ms. Carlene Hayes President 2. Dr. Charlene Ross-Quamina Public Relations Officer Opening Statements 9.3 The following chief officials gave brief opening remarks: 1. Mrs. Anna M. Singh Director, Curriculum Development, MOE 2. Mrs. Antonia Tekah-De Freitas President, TTUTA 3. Mr. Clarence Mendoza President (Ag.), NCPTA 4. Ms. Sharon Mangroo Chief Executive Officer, Catholic Education Board of Management 5. Mrs. Cherryl Jackson Secretary to the Board, Anglican Education Board of Management 6. Mrs. Alicia Marquez President, Private Primary School Principal Association 7. Mr. Derrick Mundy President, T-APPSS 8. Ms. Phillis Griffith President, Private Special Schools Association of Trinidad & Tobago 9. Ms. Carlene Hayes President, NAPSPA Key Issues Discussed 53 | P a g e 9.4 The following are the key subject areas/issues discussed during the hearing: Monitoring of Schools i. The Ministry of Education (MOE) did not categorize schools as ‘underachieving’ but instead would analyze the data provided by schools to determine whether the student/s are in need of an intervention. ii. The School Based Management System is the framework used by the MOE to monitor schools. iii. Terminal examinations cannot be used to assess underachievement as it focuses only on academics and disregards the holistic development of the child. iv. The position of Head Teacher or Dean does not exist in primary schools, as such, the responsibility of patrolling the schools falls to committees within the schools. v. School supervisors are mandated to visit each school assigned to them once per month. However, depending on the intervention needs of the students and teachers, supervisors may visit more frequently. vi. The average ratio of school supervisor to school monitored are as follows: a) Secondary schools – 1:12 or 1:14 (depending on the District); and b) Primary schools – 1:15. vii. The need for additional school supervisors to monitor schools within the Port-of-Spain and Environs District. viii. The need for a continuous assessment test similar to the National Test to better assess the level of performance of students and schools. ix. Some schools reported increased interactions with the parents of students since the COVID-19 measures as the meetings are online and more convenient for parents. Causes of the Underachievement of Students/Schools i. The differences between private schools and public schools can be found in the following areas: a) Access to adequate funding and resources; b) Entry requirements; c) Assessment levels and capabilities of the teachers; d) Disparity in Parental support; and e) Access to ICTs during COVID-19. ii. The Catholic Education Board of Management (CEBM) highlighted two factors as the root causes for the underachievement within the Port-of-Spain (POS) and Environs District: a) Schools are located in ‘hot spot’ areas; and b) The level of poverty of students. iii. The safety needs of the students attending schools in ‘hot spot’ areas need to be addressed in order for the students and teachers to operate in an environment that fosters learning and development. iv. The needfor certain schools to be relocated from ‘hot spot’ areas. The Role of Teachers i. Students in schools in ‘hot spot’ areas at times, view the teachers and the school as a safe haven from their family life. 54 | P a g e ii. Restorative Justice is utilized by the MOE, however, additional training for teachers in this area is needed. iii. Training on societal and cultural behaviours is required for teachers who are assigned to schools located in ‘hot spot’ areas to remove any form of stereotypes that teachers may have against students and parents within the area. Psychosocial/Psychoeducational Screening i. The students who may be experiencing trauma can receive psychosocial or psychoeducational screening through referrals. ii. The average time period for the screening is two weeks depending on the number of requests received by the MOE. After screening, intervention occurs within a day or two. iii. Intervention services of the MOE include: a) counselling services; b) family intervention; c) psychoeducational assessments; d) home visits; e) social functioning assessments; f) advocacy; g) parenting in education programmes and workshops; and h) networking and external referrals to other agencies. iv. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the MOE conducted interventions and screening within the Port-of- Spain and Environs District virtually; home visits or face-to-face interventions are conducted on an as- needed basis. Special Needs Schools i. Specialist training needs are to be provided for special school educators in different disciplines to assist in teaching and rehabilitating students with diverse special needs. ii. Currently, the special school teachers do not have the skill set to implement the individualized teaching program of special needs students. iii. Professionals and semi-professional specialists in the following fields of special needs are required in schools: a) occupational therapists; b) physiotherapists; c) orientation and mobility specialists; and d) adaptive physical education specialists. Adjournment 10.1 The Chairman thanked Members and the listening public for their attendance and adjourned the meeting. 10.2 The adjournment was taken at 12:38 p.m. I certify that the Minutes are true and correct. Chairman Secretary April 06, 2021 55 | P a g e Present Dr. Nyan Gadsby-Dolly, MP Chairman Mrs. Lisa Morris-Julian, MP Vice – Chairman Mrs. Hazel Thompson-Ahye Member (Elected Chairman for the day) Mr. Esmond Forde, MP Member Mr. Kazim Hosein Member Ms. Donna Cox Member Mr. Barry Padarath, MP Member Ms. Jearlean John Member Secretariat Ms. Khisha Peterkin Secretary Mr. Brian Lucio Assistant Secretary Ms. Aaneesa Baksh Graduate Research Assistant Absent The meeting was held virtually via Zoom Public Hearing: The 2nd Public Hearing on an inquiry into the rights to Equal Access to Education with specific focus on the Underachievement of Schools in the Port- of-Spain and Environs District with respect to Terminal Examinations 9.1 The meeting resumed in public at 10:37 a.m. 9.2 The following persons joined the meeting: Ministry of Education Mrs. Lisa Henry-David Chief Education Officer (Ag.) Mrs. Anna M. Singh Director, Curriculum Development Ms. Naima Hosein Director, School Supervision Management Division Mrs. Natalie Robinson-Arnold Coordinator, Social Worker Specialist Trinidad and Tobago Unified Teachers Association (TTUTA) Mrs. Antonia Tekah-De Freitas President Association of Principals of Public Secondary Schools of Trinidad and Tobago Mr. David Simon 2nd Vice President Ms. Patricia Pitt Secretary EXCERPT OF MINUTES OF THE FIFTH MEETING OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS, EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY, HELD ON FRIDAY APRIL 09, 2021 AT 9:46 A.M. 56 | P a g e Association of Principals of Assisted Secondary Schools Mrs. Sonya Mahase-Persad President Ms. Lucia Reyes Vice President Holy Ghost Fathers Father Ronald Mendes,C.S.Sp. Chairman of the Holy Ghost Fathers Board of Management Opening Statements 9.3 The following chief officials gave brief opening remarks: 1. Mrs. Lisa Henry-David Chief Education Officer (Ag.), MOE 2. Mrs. Antonia Tekah-De Freitas President, TTUTA 3. Mr. David Simon 2nd Vice President, Association of Principals of Public Secondary Schools 4. Mrs. Sonya Mahase-Persad President, Association of Principals of Assisted Secondary Schools 5. Fr. Ronald Mendes, C.S.Sp Chairman of the Holy Ghost Fathers Board of Management Key Issues Discussed 9.4 The following are the key subject areas/issues discussed during the hearing: Definition of Achievement i. The need to broaden the definition of achievement to include more than academics. ii. The benchmarking of a student’s success should be done for both academic and non-academic subjects. iii. MoE advised that it is currently in discussions to address the benchmarking of achievement and the contribution of non-academic subjects to student excellence and achievement. iv. The tech-voc and Caribbean Vocational Qualification (CVQ) subjects need to be taken into consideration in the achievement of students. School Environment and Achievement i. It is encouraged that School Development Plans (SDPs) be developed in each school and tailored to treat specific issues in order to create the best environment for achievement. ii. The feasibility of relocating schools that are situated in ‘hotspot’ areas was discussed. As an example, the South East Port of Spain Secondary School which was temporarily relocated to the John Donaldson Technical Institute was raised. iii. The need to encourage members of the community to have a sense of identity with the schools in the area as this would help build school support. Achievement of Schools i. The need for a holistic approach to education whereby there is an appreciation for systemic and microscopic approaches when assessing the achievement of students and schools. ii. The need to adapt the curriculum for students who entered secondary schools with 30% in the Secondary Entrance Assessment. iii. The need for continuous assessment of students’ performance in schools from entry to graduation. iv. The underachievement of students may not be equated to the achievement of schools. Monitoring of Schools i. The need to implement changes in the management models of the schools. 57 | P a g e ii. The three types of models for the management of schools in the Port-of-Spain and Environs District include: a. the management model in Government Schools; b. the management model in Government Assisted Schools; and c. the Public/Private Management model. iii. The need for principals to have the opportunity and resources to be able to freely implement the developmental plans for the school. iv. The urgent need for specialized remedial teachers within the secondary school system at MOE. Staffing at the Ministry of Education i. The high turn-over of officials within the MOE who deal with the supervision of schools, does not promote institutional memory with regard to the regulations and the continuity of plans. ii. The MOE intends to improve systems for the handover of duties to new staff members and the shift toward the digitization of records within the MOE to allow for continuity. Adjournment 10.1 The Chairman thanked Members and the listening public for their attendance and adjourned the meeting. 10.2 The adjournment was taken at 12:25 p.m. I certify that the Minutes are true and correct. Chairman Secretary April 26, 2021 58 | P a g e APPENDIX III Verbatim Notes 59 | P a g e VERBATIM NOTES OF THE FOURTH VIRTUAL MEETING OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS, EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY HELD (IN PUBLIC) ON FRIDAY, MARCH 05, 2021, AT 10.35 A.M. PRESENT Dr. Nyan Gadsby-Dolly Chairman Mrs. Lisa Morris-Julien Vice-Chairman Mr. Kazim Hosein Member Mr. Esmond Forde Member Mrs. Hazel Thompson-Ahye Member Ms. Jearlean John Member Ms. Donna Cox Member Ms. Khisha Peterkin Secretary Ms. Aaneesa Baksh Graduate Research Assistant ABSENT Mr. Barry Padarath Member MINISTRY OF EDUCATION Mrs. Anna M. Singh Director, Curriculum Development Planning Development Ms. Kamini Bhagaloo Director (Ag.), Educational Research and Evaluation Mrs. Natalie Robinson-Arnold Coordinator, Social Worker Specialist Mr. Sheldon Jodha Schools Supervisor III Mrs. Simone Haynes-Noel Schools Supervisor III Mrs. Vashti Ramdeen-Steele Schools Supervisor III NATIONAL PRIMARY SCHOOLS PRINCIPALS’ASSOCIATION (NAPSPA) Ms. Carlene Hayes President Dr. Charlene Ross-Quamina Public Relations Officer NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS (NCPTA) Mr. Clarence Mendoza President (Ag.) Mr. Francis Samson Compliance Officer CATHOLIC EDUCATION BOARD OF MANAGEMENT 60 | P a g e Ms. Sharon Mangroo Chief Executive Officer Ms. Aurea Honoré Vicariate Manager ANGLICAN EDUCATION BOARD OF MANAGEMENT Mrs. Cherryl Jackson Secretary of the Board Mrs. Ann Thornhill Assistant Secretary of the Board PRIVATE PRIMARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATION Mrs. Alicia Marquez President ASSOCIATION OF ADMINISTRATORS OF PUBLIC SPECIAL SCHOOLS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Mr. Derrick Mundy President Mr. Gerard Frederick Treasurer PRIVATE SPECIAL SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Ms. Phillis Griffith President Ms. Kahaya Sooklalsingh Ordinary Member TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO UNIFIED TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION (TTUTA) Ms. Antonia Tekah-De Freitas President Ms. Lisa Ibrahim-Joseph Education Research Officer [MRS. HAZEL THOMPSON-AHYE in the Chair] Madam Chairman: Good morning everyone and welcome to this public enquiry. My name is Hazel Thompson-Ahye—Sen. Hazel Thompson-Ahye, and I am going to be Chair for this meeting. Why? Normally, the Chairman would be Minister Dr. Nyan Gadsby-Dolly and the Vice-Chairman, Mrs. Lisa Morris-Julien. But because of the portfolios that they hold it is quite likely that there may be a conflict of interest, so they have asked and been granted permission to recuse themselves from chairing this meeting. Now, this is a virtual meeting and there are certain specific guidelines which will apply. Make sure you mute your microphone when you are not speaking to help keep background noise to a minimum, please. Adjust your camera so that your face is clearly visible. I see everyone, so you have done that already. Ensure that 61 | P a g e notifications from your cell phone or any other electronic device in your vicinity are muted during the course of the meeting. We wish to welcome all of you here and also members of the listening and viewing audience and those of you who are not with us virtually, but are in fact attending the meeting through other means. We are inviting you to post or send your comments via the Parliament’s various social media platforms: Facebook page, ParlView, Parliament’s YouTube Channel and Twitter. Of course, the normal courtesies will apply. So, we begin by asking the representatives present and whose names I will call, whose portfolios I will outline, to introduce themselves. So we start with the Ministry of Education. [Introductions made] Madam Chairman: I am sorry. We did not have those names because we really asked that three persons from each entity be invited but we will see how that works. National Primary Schools Principals’ Association, please. Would you introduce yourself? [Introductions made] Madam Chairman: Thank you. Sounds very subdued, Mr. Mundy. A powerful presentation you threw at us there, interesting reading. Private Special Schools Association of Trinidad and Tobago. [Introductions made] Madam Chairman: Thank you. Well, as I said before, my name is Hazel Thompson-Ahye and I invite members of the Committee to now introduce themselves to you. [Introductions made] Madam Chairman: All accounted for? Thank you. The objectives of the enquiry that we are embarking upon this morning is to determine the root causes for the underachievement of schools in the Port of Spain and environs district, and to examine methods to address the underachievement of schools in the Port of Spain and environs district. Why Port of Spain and environs, you may ask? So let us deal with that elephant in the room. What is the genesis of this enquiry? A few years ago, I was at Mass, not at my regular church but the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Port of Spain, the 9.00 a.m. Mass and the Vicar General was the celebrant. In his sermon, he made some startling comments that caused me to open my handbag, pull out my pen and begin to make notes on my Catholic News. He said, that most of Catholic schools in the Port of Spain area were failing and few schools were doing well. He called the names of the schools. That was very disturbing to me, I became concerned. Not only had I passed Common Entrance from one of the failing schools and also taught in Port of Spain at one of the schools, but one 62 | P a g e that was excelling before I left teaching. About a year afterwards, coincidentally or by divine intervention, on a Glorious Saturday, I was invited to a meeting at Hyatt to discuss the issue by persons who were involved in the study that produced the report on the schools. Since then, I have been following the discussion in the press and among members of that Glorious Saturday committee, which is the day after Good Friday, Glorious Saturday. I proposed the topic for discussion and eventually it was accepted and here we are today. It is important that we discuss this topic as school is a protective factor and closely aligned with the failing schools is the crime situation in Port of Spain and environs. Now, only one of the many papers submitted mentioned Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. I have countless times told the story of the boy who excitedly asked his teacher one morning, “Yuh read de papers today, Miss? About the daring robbery, Miss? That is my brother, Miss.” The need for self-actualization by fair means or foul. When we look at the schools, the Academic Performance Index, we see the schools that are excelling and the schools under academic watch, and where we have the highest number of schools under academic watch, 30 schools, 30 schools. And the schools that are excelling are Victoria, St. George East, Caroni, and so on. And we look at who mans these schools? There are many questions and we hope that this morning this enquiry will produce some answers. The future of our youth, the future of our country—if you remember that mass movement that came into Port of Spain that resulted in the shooting of a young mother, we realize that this situation is crucial and we need to find some answers to turn back that tide—that downhill slide that is happening today in this country. So, we will begin with brief opening remarks from the various entities that are appearing before us this morning. And we have the head—all right. So, we will begin with the Ministry of Education. Mr. Sheldon Jodha, are you taking—or Anna Singh? Whoever is the designated person to take the lead for the Ministry of Education, will you please make your opening statement? I invite you now to do so. Mrs. Singh: Hon. Ministers and Senators, our host Mrs. Hazel Thompson-Ahye, and other colleagues in education, we are thankful for the opportunity to provide clarity, information, and to gain feedback in terms of addressing the issue at hand. In terms of providing some context, we would want to point out, in relation to the topic before us, terminal examinations are used primarily for certifying and placement of students. In terms of benchmarking and categorizing schools, we have used what we call “national assessments”, and the one you have mentioned, Madam, the “Academic Performance Index”. This assessment is a formative assessment and has been, up to 2016, at the primary level, conducted at Standards 1 and 3, and up to 2019 at the secondary level, conducted at Form 3. So these assessments that informed your data, with regard to the API, are not terminal assessments, but really national assessments. In terms of the approach of the Ministry of Education to assure students’ right to equal access to 63 | P a g e education, equity is certainly an important consideration. And based on our data and benchmarking practices, considering the variables that exist in different school context, we use the information to establish priorities in terms of resources and to also address needs. So, those are some of the factors that we feel bear upon the issue at hand. Thank you. Madam Chairman: Mrs. De Freitas? TTUTA, please? One minute, each person. Mrs. Tekah-De Freitas: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, TTUTA is of the view that in the first instance we have to determine whether we are going to investigate underachievement of students which is not the same as underachievement of schools. Like our colleague from the Ministry of Education, we believe that there are other factors that will impact on student performance, and therefore these must be considered in a holistic manner. We do not believe at this time, Madam Chair, that looking at underachievement in schools is something that, in an isolated context, would bring beneficial results. We believe that there has to be a more comprehensive approach to the investigation of underachievement and that will hold not only for Port of Spain schools, but for schools across the country. Thank you. Madam Chairman: Thank you. National Council of Parent Teacher Associations. Mr. Mendoza, is it? Mr. Mendoza: Pleasant good morning to all. I will just elaborate our concerns and some of the solutions in a nutshell. We ask that the right to education is legally guaranteed for all without any discrimination. The Government of Trinidad and Tobago has an obligation to all our nation’s children under the Geneva convention, the Rights of the Child, to create and develop a bond and even landscape with a balanced education system that does not discriminate on the ability of our slow learners and those who are not academically inclined. The National Council of Parent Teacher Associations, being a strong advocate for our nation’s children clearly see the 60-year-old Concordat which governs the denominational school, have kept the right of the child at its highest level. We advise that the Government of Trinidad and Tobago look closely at our government schools which have lost their way, their value of spirituality, and an increase of indiscipline among our students over the years. Again, we advise that a public consultation with the Government and all stakeholders be held in the shortest possible time to discuss the relevance of government schools being run by the denominational board—[Technical difficulty] or recrimination of the right as laid out in the Concordat. We are asking for a clear playing field that all our students be part of. At this point in time, that is all my contribution. I thank you. Madam Chairman: That was the National Primary School Principal Association. Catholic Education Board of Management? Ms. Mangroo: Good morning, once again. The Catholic Education Board of Management manages 29 schools in the Port of Spain area. And yes, some of these schools can be classified as underachieving. But I want to caution 64 | P a g e against defining a student, defining individual people simply by the marks that may make in an exam. Because our students and our schools, by extension, are far more than the marks that are made in the exam. And as other speakers have mentioned before, there are several factors that influence student achievement in a school, and I think we need to look at all of those factors. Thank you. Madam Chairman: National Primary Schools Principal Association. Ms. Hayes: Thank you, Chairman, hon. colleagues. There are 72 public primary schools in Port of Spain, inclusive of special schools, and a questionnaire consisting of eight questions was administered electronically to principals of Port of Spain; 45 responded. Responders stated that underachievement can be a label placed to perpetuate inequalities that exist, or low achievement, or low performance, which means that a student is getting low grades throughout as well as a student getting lower than a group can show a comparative aspect. Underachievement can also be seen as lower than expected. The only national comparative test is the SEA. If one is basing underachievement on the SEA results, one has to be certain that the SEA is a fair assessment. The responders found this assertion questionable since the students are given scores based on a single day’s performance in a three-paper test focused predominantly on two subjects, mathematics and language arts, with an additional component of the latter, creative writing. This is a contradiction to the curriculum, which for the entire primary school career is based on the holistic development of each child to their potential. However, it seems that all is dropped for a 100-metre dash SEA. What happens to catering for multiple intelligences we speak of including technological skills as is needed presently in this remote environment? Many of these principals stated that there would be no question of underachievement if the following were included with equal weighting: sports, drama, dance, music, character education and citizenship, visual and performance arts. Referring to all Port of Spain and environs schools as homogenous is in itself an inequity. The major results pertaining to the root causes of underachievement in Port of Spain and environment schools are included in the acronym “UNIQUE”, U-N-I-Q-U-E. And we use the first letter for the acronym U, unique. We need to take schools that are uniquely Port of Spain in character and not being able to consider some of those schools whose populations will have migratory students. So, based on this system of testing, we will say, yes, those Port of Spain schools are underachieving because they are unique. They have a unique—because they have a perceived—there is a perception of underachievement or underachievement culture, and they are labelled “at risk” and “hotspot” areas. This brings about a level of demotivation among students, teachers, and community. The “N” in “UNIQUE”, non-nurturing environment. Most of the parents work shifts, they have challenges adequately supervising their children. They are caught with the realities where they are immersed in 65 | P a g e a death and debt community. Death because of the high crime, the shootings and murders, and debt, they carry high financial burdens. The “I” in “UNIQUE”, inability to meet the needs. And our Chair mentioned about Maslow, and in order for basic needs to be met we have to look at the growth rates, education falling the latter. “Q”, the questionable attendance and we look at absenteeism of mind and body. “U”, underpaid and undertrained. If one is addressing concerns with the specialized community, one needs to have a specialized staff and a range of social services, specific to the needs of the students. And “E”, the economics. These school have limited support and resources, human, physical and financial. The system should be revisited in order to create fair and equitable opportunities. So, we are excited by the work of the Committee. We already began engaging with stakeholders and we remain committed to working with you to ensure that every child reaches their fullest potential. Thank you. Madam Chairman: Anglican Education Board of Management. Mrs. Jackson: Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning again to all. This whole question of underachievement in Port of Spain—in the schools of Port of Spain and environs, we have to determine exactly what is under achievement in education. It suggests that schools in the Port of Spain and environs areas are not enabling students to reach their highest potential. In this context, all students will not have the same potential for academic achievement. However, holistically there are other areas of learning and teaching, for example, visual and performance arts, creative arts, physical education and the like. Therefore, it poses a challenge to enable each student to reach the highest level for which they have that potential and therefore nurture them accordingly. 11.05 a.m. We know in the Port of Spain area that there are many other factors which can contribute to the underperforming of our students. Socio-economic status, lack of parental supervision and interest, low level of motivation, and low level of interest and motivation of teachers. So we are quite happy to be a part of this panel so that we can really get some strategies to improve the performance of our schools. The Anglican Education Board of Management has 11 schools. Some may be considered underperforming and if you can get all our 11 schools performing that will be a great achievement for us. Thank you. Madam Chairman: Thank you. Private Primary School Principal Association please. Private Primary School? [Technical difficulties] Yes, we are not hearing Primary School Principal. There seems to be a technical difficulty, so can we have the President of the Association of Administrators of Public Schools and we will come back to the Private Primary School Principals Association? Sorry about that. 66 | P a g e Mr. Mundy: Good Morning, again. The Association of Administrators of Public Special Schools has under achievement in a different way. What we are looking at is that, how do we measure underachievement? Our special schools, we have four public special schools in Port of Spain and not all of them really focus on academics. Not all the students I must say, because of the fact that there are varying levels, various disabilities that you will find that require a certain type of structure, certain type of staff, staffing, that are required to ensure our students perform and perform well. When we may be focusing on academics, for the SEA, et cetera, there are some of our students that will never be able to do as well academically, because we are talking about students with mental disabilities, physical disabilities, you have those who are deaf, sensory disabilities, et cetera. And what is happening, you have your core curriculum, which we basically focus on for SEA. One of the bigger shortfalls you will find is the expanded core curriculum, which is not catered for in the Ministry of Education. The structures that you had before prior to Student Support Services Division have been dismantled. Okay? You had a Special Ed Unit before and due to the fact that that Special Unit was dismantled, you no longer even have school supervision for special schools, because they were basically placed under the primary school despite the fact that our students vary from preschool age to adulthood. Okay? So I am wondering how on earth we can place students age 18, 19, 20, et cetera under a primary school system. We have looked at the various challenges that we face for the, for instance, for the Expanded Core Curriculum you would require semi-professionals in various fields. The Student Support Services Division would have provided what you call a multidisciplinary team that focuses on, diagnosing, determining the student's disabilities, et cetera, et cetera, and after doing your various assessments and evaluations, you would have found, okay, this person might be diagnosed with a particular disability, after you probably do your psycho- ed analysis. But what happens after that, the type of support and the type of teamwork that is needed to work with one student, I would like to emphasize that in Special Ed, we teach the child, not a class. The amount of people that will be needed to work with that particular child, for him or her to perform, that is not in place. The type of evaluation and follow up investigation in regard to these children because we deal with each child as a case study, okay, it is not there. So therefore, the structure that is in place will not work for our children with disabilities, basically getting much deeper later on but we have to start with at least the structure of our Ministry because the type of resources these students need, the kind of personnel— Madam Chairman: Yes, I read your passion, I have heard your passion and I want you to save some of it for the questioning. We only have one minute for this opening round and we want to get back to a couple people that we missed. So thank you very much. Mr. Mundy: You are welcome. Madam Chairman: And we would hear from you later, have no fear. Mrs. Marquez, Private Primary Schools Principals Association? Ms. Griffith, Private Special Schools Association. Yes, go ahead. 67 | P a g e Ms. Griffith: Thank you, Madam Chair. And good morning again to all stakeholders. So from the perspective of the Private Special Schools Association of Trinidad and Tobago, we are in alignment with what Mr. Mundy just spoke about in terms of special needs. We would also focus on teaching the child and not a class. So therefore, from our perspective, we are looking at the curriculum. We find that the curriculum is very rigid and most times it just focuses basically on completing an exam. When our students come to us, we focus on getting them to be the best child that they can be. We also enjoy what we do in terms of collaboration, so we collaborate sometimes with the Private Schools Association in terms of getting information, we share information in that way. So from our perspective, we are looking at a collaborative effort, not only with special needs schools, or private schools, but in general to get a better sense of what each child needs. Thank you. Madam Chairman: Thank you very much. We want to try again with the Private Primary School Principals Association. [Confers with Secretary] She is not present? All right. If you are able to come back to us, come on board later on we will hear from you. We will now commence our questioning and we invite members to ask questions on the various submissions that we received starting with the Ministry of Education, so we begin. Mr. Hosein: Madam Chairman, I have one for the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Education indicated that the School Supervision Division utilizes the basic procedures for school order and discipline and the School Based Management Manual to monitor school performance. So my question is, based on pages 1 and 2, question two part B, on the matter of basic procedures for school order and discipline and School Based Management Manual and the confirmation of the standard operating system, can the Ministry of Education advise when last this was communicated with the relevant practitioners at the school? Is there an orientation or reintroduction of this manual? Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman: Thank you, member Hosein. Ms. Singh: So, we will refer that question to Mr. Sheldon Jodha, School Supervisor III. Mr. Jodha: Thank you very much, Ms. Singh. Good morning to all members of the Committee, my name is Mr. Sheldon Jodha, representing the Director of School Supervision this morning and the issue of School Based Management, we have been on a roll out of School Based Management since approximately 2012. School Based Management started in 2007 but we had full roll out in 2012 to all schools and with the School Based Management System we looked at all areas of the government sector schools. The school management model that we used was a combination of models used like New Brunswick, the New York Department of Education, Philippines Education Department, Australia and Ofsted as was mentioned in the document, where we took different aspects of what standards would make for an effective school. And we developed a School Based Management system with standards that we would like to achieve. Coming out of our rollout of the School Based Management system, we realized that in 2018, that there were some basic measures, security measures, that we needed to place in all schools to ensure that all schools are effective places of learning, we wanted to create an environment that are conducive to learning. There might have been a little typographical error, I think in the submission, but in terms of the basic procedures and basic 68 | P a g e measures, we look at entry protocols, where principals that ensure that they are checks well, COVID now we will have different protocols as well, but the basic in 2018, entry protocol to check all students when they are coming in, we check for any contraband items just in case, we have protocols for assembly on how assembly should be conducted, that they should have a meaningful message to the students at the end of the assembly to send them off, and they should leave the assembly in an ordered manner to start the day orderly. We also had in this, strategic patrols to ensure that heads and deans at schools, they work together with the principal and vice principal to patrol the schools during the day to ensure that all children are in class and to monitor the attendance of teachers to classes. We also have classroom supervision, where we have a supervision roster developed and design. And we also want to monitor teachers and student attendance to classes, where we will look at teacher punctuality to class, even student attendance to class after bell rings for recess and lunchtime or transition between classes. So these measures have been implemented by the Ministry and school supervisors have been trained on it. And since 2012, and up to now we have been continually having training and on a monthly basis when we have fraternity meetings with principals, we share this message with them to remember School Based Management is the model the Ministry is working with. The last training, we had training in 2019, during the July/August holidays, where all areas of School Based Management were delivered to all principals and vice principals, primary and secondary schools. So, School Based Management is rolled out and principals are reminded daily, well not to say daily but monthly at meetings and in some cases, the daily schools where we need to monitor the need for the basic security measures to be implemented as well as School Based Management. Thank you, Sir. Mr. Hosein: Thank you very much for the reply and I guess the manual is working. Madam Chairman: Further questions, members? Mr. Ford: Madam Chair, Esmond Forde, Madam Chairman: Yes. Mr. Forde: Madam Chair, actually, I wanted to start with regard to the objective and with regard to what this inquiry entails. And I want to start by asking the CEO of the Catholic Board, in terms of— Madam Chairman: Excuse me, we are still with the Ministry of Education. Mr. Ford: So you want to stick with the Ministry of Education? Madam Chairman: Yes, please. Mr. Forde: Probably the question can be directed to the Ministry of Education. The word “underachievement”, at the Ministry of Education, do we have a clear meaning of “underachievement” that is utilized across the board in the education system at all schools? Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chairman: Ministry of Education. Ms. Singh: Okay, so on page two in our opening comments, we have indicated that we do not define schools as “underachieving” and more so, on the premise that such levels of achievement or underachievement can be 69 | P a g e assessed using terminal exams. Terminal exams, look at academic performance and I believe we have established that achievement of students and quality education goes beyond just that one criteria of academic performance, we actually would want to consider not just the social and personal development of the child, the talent development and this information is not captured in terminal assessments. So, what we do is we look at our data and benchmark students on that basis, sorry, benchmark schools on that basis, as I have indicated, so that we are able to prioritize where resources go, our targeted training, our staffing, our monitoring and support, because at the end of the day, what we believe quality education speaks to and achievement speaks to, is the holistic development of the child in terms of looking at where their needs are, and assisting or intervening to make sure that those needs are addressed across the board. Mr. Forde: Ms. Singh, right Ms. Anna Singh right? Yes, Ms. Singh, in terms of your statement and not defining underachievement per se, you are satisfied that all the necessary school boards and all the reporting schools to you, understand, in terms of when they are reporting that they consider the factors of the social needs, the talent the skills, in ensuring that you are not determining a child as underachieving only by their academic achievement. In your reporting factor, do you pick—do your principals identify all that information to you? Ms. Singh: When we look at national data sets, those are targeting specific areas that we are monitoring in terms of the providing intervention. At the school level, we are convinced that our principals are aware of the multi- level dimension of a student and their interventions and they have in a variety of ways reported to the Ministry. So, the report in terms of class testing may not pick up beyond the breadth of subjects and academic achievement in the core curricular areas. But certainly there are many areas in which they recognize and award achievement levels and you can only think of prize giving, you could think of the activities in terms of sports and other curricular areas, where students’ achievements are noted and reported in the context of at the school level and so we are satisfied that that understanding is there. We are not saying that we have achieved perfection and we certainly would want to have broadened our reporting systems in terms of our standardized documents, to ensure that students are better profiled. But at this point in time, the understandings are there and we have evidence of effort towards measuring, sorry, rewarding and recognizing the holistic child and their multiple areas of achievement. 11.25 a.m. Mr. Forde: Again, officer, I hear you clearly. I understand, in terms of the parameters that you are governed by. But for the average citizenry out there, you know, I think this thing has the concept that the students are clearly identified via the examination system. Right? So if we look at SEA, which is the case that we are predominantly dealing with, with the primary schools, that most students are identified educationally along the SEA system— along what school they would have passed for when they would have sat their exams—as we continue to go along. But I understand what you are saying, but I am thinking that out there, you know, I mean, in the public eye, you know, the system is that listen, SEA is what governed the whole thing and which determined whether 70 | P a g e “you would have achieved or whether you would have underachieved”. Mrs. Singh: In my opening remarks, I have indicated that the SEA—and the terminal exams are the SEA and the CSEC and CAPE examinations, and these are strictly, as we would say, academic in nature, and those are the ones that are reported on, but those are not the only aspects of school life that are reported. Madam Chairman: I think we understand that. I just want to refer back to your report where you stated that: The level of crime and violence that occurs in some of the communities in the Port of Spain environs education district leads to experiences of trauma. You said that: There was insufficient staff to implement psychosocial, psychoeducational screening services for these students who live in community with high levels of crime and violence. My questions to you are: What is the average waiting period before a primary school student is screened? If you can also tell us the number of primary school students awaiting screening services and if these services were offered to students during the COVID-19 pandemic and, if so, what method was used? And, if not, what were the reasons for this? Mrs. Singh: My colleague, Mrs. Natalie Robinson-Arnold, school social worker will take this question. Mrs. Robinson-Arnold: A pleasant good morning. Students are screened based on referral. Once a referral is received, we go through a multi-disciplinary team process and determine the type of screening that is required based on the initial problem that is there. The MDT is comprised of Guidance Officers, School Social Workers, our psychologists and special education, and they will determine the type of screening. It could be one or multiple of those providers. Once we receive it and it goes through the MDT, it could take approximately two weeks, based on the quantum of referrals and the time it takes to get to us. But once the MDT goes through the referral, intervention happens, at least, within a day or two. Madam Chairman: Number of students awaiting screening services? Mrs. Robinson-Arnold: Are you referring to psychoeducation, Ma’am? Madam Chairman: Psychosocial, psychoeducational screening services. Mrs. Robinson-Arnold: I do not have that data on me. Madam Chairman: All right. Fair enough. Mrs. Robinson-Arnold: But it can be provided. 71 | P a g e Madam Chairman: Now, tell me, during COVID-19 pandemic—well, up to now it is still going on—what methods were used? Mrs. Robinson-Arnold: Our referral form went virtual, so that our parents, teachers can refer to Student Support Services. Additionally, we have a hotline service where you can call in and request the services that would be needed. Madam Chairman: So there was no direct contact with anybody during this period? Mrs. Robinson-Arnold: Yes. Contact happened virtually as well as face-to-face, especially in our remote areas: deep north-eastern like Matelot and Toco where there was no connectivity for our students. It also occurred in south-eastern and— Madam Chairman: Port of Spain. Mrs. Robinson-Arnold:—St. Patrick districts mainly. Madam Chairman: Sorry. We are focusing on Port of Spain. What happed in the Port of Spain environs area? Mrs. Robinson-Arnold: I do apologize. Virtual. Madam Chairman: Okay. So what are the interventions after they are screened? What are the services that you offer? Mrs. Robinson-Arnold: We offer counselling services, family intervention, and psychoeducational assessments. Home visits are conducted—home visit assessments and social functioning assessments. We advocate, so there is advocacy. Parenting in education programmes and workshops, as well as networking and external referrals to other agencies for further specialized intervention. Madam Chairman: Since everything is virtual in Port of Spain, there were no home visits? Mrs. Robinson-Arnold: No, home visits were conducted and face-to-face for students that needed home visits for additional information and assessment. Madam Chairman: There were home visits, you are saying? Mrs. Robinson-Arnold: Yes. Madam Chairman: I see. You have any idea about the ratio—I know you do not have specific figures here with you—of intervention services for students in need of services? Give us a rough idea. Mrs. Robinson-Arnold: Repeat that question, please. Madam Chairman: The ratio of intervention services to students in need of services: What proportion of students 72 | P a g e who were in need received this? Mrs. Robinson-Arnold: I do not have any data, at present, in terms of student support, so I do not want to— Madam Chairman: To give a guesstimate? I see. What would you say are the differences between the private primary schools and the government and the church-board primary schools within the district that have been performing under the national average in SEA? Mrs. Singh: I am sorry. For clarification, you are asking us to compare a students’ academic performance in terms of whether they are derived from a private school or from a board school? Madam Chairman: No, no. We have that data. We know that. But what accounts for the differences? What would you say? I mean, you have had reports over some years and you would have asked the relevant questions. What would you say accounts for the differences between the performance in the private primary schools and the government and church-board primary schools within Port of Spain, those that have been performing under the national average? If you could give us some answers, we will be grateful. Mrs. Singh: In terms of those that are performing under the national average, we would—private schools are run on the basis of funds that are raised, either in terms of payments—fees, so to speak, whereas government schools are publicly funded. So the issue of resources would certainly be one that would be of significant concern. So government schools: staff, salaries, all resources, main resources—even at some point in time, textbooks and so on—all are funded by the Government, whereas in terms of private schools, they are reliant on whatever income they are able to generate and that would be one of the first issues. The second issue, I think, we would have to distinguish would be the intake: what informs intake for private schools as compared with government schools? And we know that in the case of government schools, there are no restrictions that limit. For private schools, their restrictions may limit in terms of those who choose to access their services, for whatever reason, as an alternative to government schools. I think, fundamentally, we would have to also look at the assessment levels and capabilities of the teachers. If you are to be in a government school or government-assisted, teachers have to have certain qualifications and they have to be assessed at certain levels. Private schools may have other arrangements and that would be a factor as well. Should I continue? Madam Chairman: I am puzzled, because my impression is that the teachers in private schools are not, generally, well paid as the government teachers, for one, and may not be as qualified as the government and other schools, but yet the results— Mrs. Singh: And I am agreeing. Madam Chairman:—are of a higher calibre. So I did not understand what you meant by the salary and so on. Because, I mean, friends and people I know teaching in the private schools, you know, the pay is not on par, very 73 | P a g e few—some of them, of course. But, generally, would you not say that government pays better? Mrs. Singh: I am agreeing with you. I am not disagreeing. But we spoke to the private schools that are under the national means, because we know there are private schools that are performing well beyond the national means. I was targeting—well, I was responding to that point you asked. Should I continue or are you satisfied? Madam Chairman: Continue. Mrs. Singh: We are looking also at parental engagement. We believe that parental support is a very important dynamic. And in terms of the private and the government schools, there may be disparity in terms of means; the means for the parent to either come to the school or the means for the private school to engage with parents. COVID has highlighted that, because whereas resources for services and access, in terms of Internet and devices, were provided and continue to be provided to government schools, private schools may have been hard pressed to source funds for same in terms of engaging with their students and their stakeholders. And another thing is, as we have indicated, the selection of teachers for private schools, as you have pointed out, there is a disparity with the salaries. And in terms of those teachers who do join the private schools, it is possible that having not been able to gain access to a government position, may have resorted to a private school opportunity and, as you have pointed out, possibly also because they are less qualified. All of this is not to say that private schools are not positioned to do a good job. It is just to say that there are constraints that they may have, as opposed to government schools. And, on the other hand, government schools may have, you know, better resources and access, but there are constraints beyond those that also we grapple with. Madam Chairman: I just want to ask one more question. It is a pity we could not have you for the entire day, so many questions for you. But you mentioned that the school supervisors go into the school once a month. Does that really happen? School Supervisors, how often do they go to the schools? Mrs. Singh: I am going to refer that question to the School Supervisor with us. Mr. Jodha: Good morning, again. In terms of what I mentioned earlier is that, once a month, we have fraternity meeting with all the principals, possibly we have sometimes meetings with deans and heads of department and vice-principals— Madam Chairman: But in terms of visits to schools—sorry to interrupt—when you talk to visits to schools, when do you actually go into the school? How often? Mr. Jodha: So, yes, I was referring to earlier that I had mentioned when you said once, but sometimes depending on the nature of situations at schools, School Supervisors visit sometimes once, twice for the week. We have cases 74 | P a g e of schools where, based on the situation, they are in schools frequently where we have issues to deal with. And at schools where—they are supposed to visit at least one school per month, based on the number of supervisors we have. Schools Supervisors have a range of like, in primary schools, we say they have 1:15 schools and secondary schools, we have a case of like 1:12, 1:14 in some districts. So within the month, they should visit a school at least once and in the cases of some schools where we have situations that need to be addressed, we visit more regularly. Madam Chairman: What is the longest you think a school would have been without seeing a supervisor? Mr. Jodha: Well, in the case of some of the high-performing schools, right—well, I would not want to say high- performing—some of the schools that are better managed by their principals, you might see a supervisor probably once every two months, in the case of some schools. But the School Supervisor will be in touch with their principals on a regular basis; be it by phone, be it virtually, they will always make contact with their principals. Sometimes on a daily basis, schools supervisors liaise with their principals. Madam Chairman: Thank you. Somebody wanted to comment. TTUTA? Ms. De Freitas? Ms. Tekah-De Freitas: Yes, Madam Chair, with your permission, I wanted to make a comment on what Mr. Hosein asked about initially, and then to treat with issues placed on the table by yourself and Mr. Forde. Can I proceed? Madam Chairman: Yes. Ms. Tekah-De Freitas: Okay. Thank you. So in terms of the issue of discipline and the manual that the DSS representative spoke to—that Mr. Jodha spoke to—yes, strategic patrols with deans and supervision of students at the secondary level, that is important. However, it must be noted, we do not have deans at the primary schools. So the issue of supervision is something that is spread across the board with the teachers there. Additionally, for quite some time in the secondary schools, we have not had vacancies of heads and deans filled. Madam Chairman: Excuse me, we will deal with secondary schools on the next occasion. So let us confine everything to primary. Ms. Tekah-De Freitas: Right. So the point is, we do not have those positions in primary schools and therefore, that issue of maintenance of order and so, falls to the schools’ allocating committees with particular responsibilities. Madam Chair, Minister Forde made the point about the public perception of students being identified by results, and he asked whether the schools understand that when they are reporting to the Ministry of Education, they have to report not only on academics, but on all facets. And while Ms. Singh sought to add to that, TTUTA would want to say that is one of the fundamental flaws we see with our system today. There is a society perspective that we are defined only by examinations—only by grades and results—and therefore, that 75 | P a g e public perception is one aspect of what would guide how we develop our reporting matrices. And until we change that, Madam Chair, then we must—and we start to look at children’s other talents and competencies, then we would not get out of this box. Additionally, the question was asked about how often supervisors go to schools, what about the waiting period for students to receive interventions after referrals. And TTUTA would have to commend its members here in terms of personnel and SS IIIs and supervisors, because the reality is they are short-staffed. Both agencies are short-staffed and overworked. When you look at situations in Port of Spain, speaking specifically now, two SS IIIs and three or four lower-ranking supervisors, would not be adequate. So when you look at TTUTA’s recommendations, Madam Chair, colleagues, you will see we have made recommendations for increasing the cohort of supervisors in Port of Spain and environs, specifically, and for dealing with the perception of being exams-oriented and therefore, trying to change that and working our curriculum accordingly. Thank you. Mr. Forde: Madam Chair, I would just like to thank Ms. De Freitas for that input. Thank you. Madam Chairman: Ms. Mangroo? Ms. Mangroo: Thank you, Madam Chair. The question you were asking about the difference between the government schools, the board schools and the private schools and the performance, when we talk underachievement, we have to face it, we are looking at under-achievement in terms of exam results and so on. While I started off by saying, we do not define our children by the exam results—but there is a basic standard to which all the children must achieve. We want them at least to be literate, and by “literate” I do not mean just being able to read and write. Now, when we look at what is holding the children back in this area, what are the challenges they are facing, we find that in the Catholic schools in the Port of Spain area that are considered underachieving, there are two things, two big factors: One, most of these schools, if not all, are in areas designated “hotspots” and two, the level of poverty. So to go back to your opening statement about Maslow, we are looking at safety needs that are not being met. And I think until we meet the safety needs of those children, it is very difficult to go beyond, not that they do not go beyond. Those are beautiful children, and I am so sorry that all of the public perception is about a set of underachieving people. Our schools in the Port of Spain areas achieve. Teachers go to school every day, teachers provide a measure of safety to those children. There are children who prefer to be in school than home. That is a great achievement. Right? So, you know, I think this whole issue takes a lot more than this one session that we are having, and I would like to see it being the start of a much greater conversation of what it is we expect of our schools. Sorry, not no go on too long, but the fact that we have teachers who go to school every day in some of our schools is such a great achievement, because they are afraid for their safety every day and yet they go. And 76 | P a g e Madam, I see teachers holding children, hugging children, you know, assuring children that they are there for them. And all of these things need to be looked at. I do want to make a plug for the Ministry of Education’s National Test which was discontinued since 2016, because it did provide a broader picture of the child, not the best, as yet, but better than the SEA standardized test. Thank you. Madam Chairman: Thank you very much for that intervention. Now, to any person—any group there, continuing education is extremely important. I have always held that view. I have always said that. Now, in terms of assistance to you, those of you who are interested, because not everybody is interested: Would you like to see a system where the Ministry of Education can provide for you to access training that would assist you to be a better teacher and pay for it? And not only that, but if it is happening—and sometimes these courses are happening outside of the vacation period—to allow you to attend these courses without losing part of your leave, do you think that would be of great benefit to you? Any takers? Mr. Frederick: Good morning, Chair and fellow colleagues in education. I want to say the Ministry of Education is providing— Madam Chairman: We are not hearing you. Could you raise your voice, please? Mr. Frederick: Right. The Ministry of Education is currently providing—consistently providing training. It is up to the teachers to access the training. But prior to this period of time—of SEA, they used to have training during the vacation time where teachers would sign up and the cost was covered by the Ministry of Education. We can look to return to that, especially for things like preparation for promotions, Special Ed training, also for teachers who are so inclined to join Special Ed units. But, yes, the current—especially with the online training, it is very successful right now for teachers. Madam Chairman: Thank you. Now, I do not think you will disagree with me that what we have, generally, is a punitive culture. A number of countries in the Caribbean have moved towards instituting restorative practices. A number of the Student Support Services staff accessed the training some years ago. But when the head of the institution in that department changed, that stopped. Is there any move towards instituting restorative practices? Jamaica has mandated that the Ministry of Education work with the Ministry of Justice on this. It is happening in countries of the Caribbean. Because the way we treat our children at home and at school, accounts to a large extent as to how these children become, you know, and how they treat other people. So do you see any possibility of any change in this culture that we have here? We have a no-zero tolerance for children being rude to teachers. We do not have a no-zero tolerance for students being mistreated by teachers. What is your view on that? Mrs. Robinson-Arnold: We do use restorative practices, restorative circles. They occur at some schools where we have officers that were trained. Just recently, we had some teachers that were trained in looking at the approaches to assist in classroom management. So there is need to intensify the use of restorative justice, yes, and 77 | P a g e more training. 11.55 a.m. Madam Chairman: There are two other persons—thank you for that—other persons who wish to speak, Mr. Mundy. Mr. Mundy: Yes. Regarding this type of training, now what we would have had, we would have had training for special educators in the various discipline whereby teachers would have gone to Jamaica, some would have gone to the UK and also the US to do specific training whether it is for behavioural, emotional challenges, children with visual impairment, for the deaf, behavioural, emotional. This type of training has stopped. You no longer have the specialist training that is required to rehabilitate or to assist children with special needs. Okay? You have to either get online, spend your own money and get that training on your own once it is available. This needs to resume because of the fact that you are now having quite a number of teachers in our special schools do not have the skill set to really work with the children that they have been charged with to assist or to—how to call it?—implement their individualized education programme. For instance, again, you have a lack of staff, the support staff that you need; for instance, your occupational therapist, your physiotherapist, orientation and mobility specialist, your adaptive physical education specialist. Quite a number of professionals and semi-professionals are lacking because of the fact that you do not have the type of training required and our teachers are just there trying to play—how you call it?—“a master of all”, which is impossible, in developing individualized education programmes and having it implemented. So there is quite a number of training courses out there that our teachers need to engage in and of course many of them may not be able to afford it because some of us have families to see about, and so on. And we will welcome that type of training, because I knew that manager you were talking about; I think about $500 million was allocated for training and all that you got was quite a lot of workshops. That is just to orient you, however the in-depth training that was required that was not done and it still has not been done. Thank you. Madam Chairman: There have been several complaints about parents not taking an interest and not coming to meetings and so on; now, you will agree with me, I am sure, that parental engagement in the life of the child—in the school life of the child is very important, yet over the years, and correct me if I am wrong, parent-teacher meetings have been put during the school time. When I used to teach I know we stayed back at school for parent-teacher meetings. Now it is said that the parents must take time off from work which is extremely difficult for some parents. Is there a movement to move back the PTA and let the teachers make that sacrifice once a month to stay back to attend these parent-teacher meetings in the best interest of the children? Teachers Association— Mendoza wishes to speak as well. Mr. Mendoza: Thank you, Chair. I will defer the question to my counterpart, Ms. Francis Samson, our 78 | P a g e Compliance Officer at this time. I will hold my question for later on. Thank you. Ms. Samson. Ms. Samson: Through the Chair, it is a twofold situation. You have some parents you cannot get to come to the school after hours because there is no one to look after the children in the afternoon and then there are some instances where you cannot get parents at all making it almost impossible to take place. While I would agree with the Chair that it is important to have the PTA meetings at the school, I think schools now have to juggle between a convenient time to have the meeting. Most of our meetings are held in the afternoon after school. If it is that a teacher however wishes to meet with a parent in some instances or meet with a class of parents, that can be done or is done during the school time. All right? I hope I have answered the question. Thank you. Madam Chairman: Ms. De Freitas wishes to say something on that? Ms. Tekah-De Freitas: Madam Chair, just to add to what Ms. Sampson said, our information is that many teachers who work in Port of Spain do not necessarily live in Port of Spain. So you have the issue as well of those teachers having to balance their responsibilities with what transpires at school. We have many instances of parent-teacher meetings having taken place after school hours, yes, but I think the bigger picture, as what Ms. Sampson alluded to, is that you have the class meeting, you have the individual meeting; that is a smaller group for a more specific purpose and therefore those tend to take place during the working hours and, as always, follow up afterwards. Madam Chairman: Any further comments? Members, any questions for any of the other entities? Ms. Mangroo: Madam Chair, can I make a comment? One of the by-products of this COVID arrangement is that some schools have reported increased frequency of meeting with parents because they can do this online, they could do it by telephone so the parent is not required to come to the schools. So as we move into what used to be normal this is something to bear in mind, but always that we are the servants of the parents and therefore that we need to find a way to meet with the parent rather than sit back and say, “The parents are not coming. The parents are not interested.” Very few parents are not really interested in their children’s schools. We know they are but they find difficulty in meeting the school requirements. Thank you. Dr. Ross-Quamina: I just would like to follow up with what Ms. Samson, our TTUTA President and Ms. Mangroo in that many times the school, the context of the school is important and the parents within that school as Ms. Samson alluded to, when we—for example, I am a principal in a school in Port of Spain, in east Port of Spain and when we started meetings we had meetings at five o‘clock, we had meetings at one o ‘clock and 10 o‘clock to see what the feel was and most of our parents came out at one o‘clock; that was the highest percentage and therefore that is the time we had meetings. We also recognized that having, as we mentioned, as NCPTA mentioned in our presentation, having bread and butter issues, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, we had to have—we always have something to eat. You must have some refreshment, parents are coming in and that was a major pull. Not that 79 | P a g e they were only coming for the food but because we always had guest speakers, persons relevant to their issues, practical and hands-on to get them interested and it increased over the years at the school. So there are a lot of factors to look into parents’ engagement, looking at where they are, not just coming to a meeting for coming to a meeting sake, but does it really address their needs and their concerns and have the environment set up for success, for them wanting to be there and want to be engaged and being ready. So that is very important in terms of that aspect of parent involvement. Madam Chairman: Thank you very much. Member Cox, you wanted to say something, to add? Unmute, please. Ms. Cox: Yes. Actually, I took down my hand because my hand was up from way back when we were speaking about—I understand. Mr. Forde: Literally. Ms. Cox: No, no, it does appear virtually. But actually I want to just go back because I recognize there was some talk about the schools. Let me see, I made a note about—we talk about underperformance and we talk about the parents, we talk about the students, we talk about some social issues, which I know is very important, but I also wanted to say that there was no talk too about teachers in the way that—what I recognize too there is indeed, there have been some problems with regard to teachers in schools and we need to identify that, because, for example, I have had persons who, you know, still—well, before this virtual, but they were all complaining sometimes that the teachers were not in the classroom, some of the primary schools in the area. Actually, I went to a primary school in east Port of Spain. I went to Eastern Girls Government School and I did very well there because also part of it was because of the teachers that I had and I think we—I do appreciate that teachers play a key role also in schools. All right? I went to a Catholic high school after that and I must say at the time I was very immature, I did not even understand the importance of learning and education but the teachers were the key ones who I would give all the kudos for ensuring that I did my work. So I would go back, when we are talking about high school, secondary, I will speak about some other things, but I would go back to primary and I would say that the teachers too have a key role to play and I want us to understand how key that role is because when you are in an environment particularly you are teaching, there must be a caring aspect. All right? Because I have had to deal with principals in certain schools where I have seen principals, meet with then as a former Member of Parliament, schools in east Port of Spain and I felt from talking to the principals I felt where they did not really care, you know, about situations. And we talk about, you know, sometimes we would talk about the Government, the Ministry, parents, students, but I think we also have to take into consideration the role that teachers play and their accountability with regard to underachievement. That also has to be brought into perspective. And that was my comment. Madam Chairman: Thank you very much. And I would like to endorse that, the role that teachers play. Speaking 80 | P a g e to a teacher last night and she said, what some of those children are going through in their homes, you know, the situation is so terrible that she wished she could take all the children home with her, you know. She wants to hug them, she wants to take them home, but, you know, teachers cannot do that. I have taken a few children home on weekends, they are all grown up, parents they are now, but there needs to be support, a lot of support for what children are going through in their homes. So we cannot be complaining about the parents if we do not provide the support for the parents. And if sometimes we do not take the hard decisions to remove children when there is no hope of any kind of good situation in the homes that they are living in unfortunately, and that is where the Children’s Authority comes in many times. Any other member would like to ask any—yes, Mr. Forde. Mr. Forde: Madam Chair, it is possible? Madam Chairman: By all means. Mr. Forde: Okay. Yes. I would like to ask again the Ministry of Education; the Ministry of Education highlighted that principals of Laventille/Morvant schools were trained in developing successful school culture and a climate based on the discipline manual developed by the Ministry of Education, and that is on their submission, page 15, number 6, Roman numeral (ii), bullet point one. And the question I would like to ask, were these principals of underperforming primary schools within other areas of the Port of Spain and environs district who receive the same training? I want to know if all of them received the same training. Secondly, when did the training take place? And thirdly, was there a change in school culture/climate of the primary school which received this said training? Please shed some light, please. Then I have one other question after that and that would be my last question for the day. Madam Chairman: Ministry of Education, I think those questions were meant for you. Mr. Jodha: Sorry for the little delay. In terms of the Laventille/Morvant school improvement project, that is a programme that falls under the purview of the CEO. So we know, we are familiar as school supervisors and school-based management that there was training for principals to create that culture in those schools to improve, of improvement but the school supervisors in Port of Spain as well, in late 2019, it also conducted similar training with their principal in the secondary schools and they also did those with primary schools that do not fall within that Morvant/Laventille area. So training was conducted with principals on that. And as we said earlier, all aspects of the training would also fall under the school-based management model, as we mentioned earlier, on improvement in all the schools. Thank you. Ms. Cox: I would like to come in there too with a question. Mr. Forde: Go ahead, I will give way. I will give way. 81 | P a g e Ms. Cox: Thank you. I just want to come in there because as you talk about training, this is something I observe, I think that persons who are teaching or the principals, it is something that we all can look at, but there must be specialized training for persons who are going into particular areas to be a principal or a teacher in certain schools. Why? Because it is clear that there is a lot of stereotyping that takes place. All right? Even in the wider society, from the time they hear you are from Laventille or they hear, “Well, I am going into that school” and that is a hotspot area as far as you know, there is a different attitude. There is a different posture when it comes to persons in the schools. I mean, I have spoken to some teachers who would tell you that—because a lot of my friends are teachers—well, you know, “I am going to that school”, and they are already going with a preconceived notion that, you know, they are going to meet bad parents, bad students. They expect to get attitude, and so on. So I do not know if that there may be a need for some kind of cultural training and understanding because not everyone is going to be a particular way but you know that—remember you hear things. Because I want to say that in the background of when I was the Member of Parliament for Laventille East/Morvant, I had colleagues who would ask me, “So how you does make out up there?” So in other words in their minds, their posture is, it is the Wild Wild West that, “Buh how you does sit? You does be seeing people?” And I am telling you, colleagues, Members of Parliament who were so shocked that, “You were there in the night seeing people”, and so therefore if my colleagues who you think would know better do not have that understanding that it is not all over and it is not everybody would be bad, then what happens now when the average person, like for example teachers who may be placed in certain schools. They may need to have some type of training and understanding that this, you know, that because you cannot help it but stereotyping takes place, and also an understanding of the culture of what to expect, and so on. And that is all I have to say again. Over to you. Mr. Forde: Yeah. Madam Chair, Ministry of Education making any comment there or should I come back in? Madam Chairman: Who I think had an urgent comment to make from Anglican School Board. Mrs. Jackson: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think in terms of teacher training, I think one thing the denominational boards have, the privilege they have is to do their own training apart from the Ministry of Education. In the Education Board our schools—[Technical difficulties]—and so therefore we have subcommittees of the different boards in the different regions we have throughout the country of Trinidad and Tobago. So we do our personal—well, we have training for our teachers; for example, we do subject training like creative writing, reading, comprehension and courses of this sort. We also do training for promotion. Those who are our prospective teachers who are seeking promotion, we also have training for that. As well as being a church body we have other—[Technical difficulties]—unions, they also do training with our parents, parenting skills because we have to face it, some parents have some difficulty in training or supporting their children, and we also do that. So we take advantage of the Ministry’s 82 | P a g e training as well as we do our own training for our parents as well as our teachers. Madam Chairman: But of the 11 schools you have, six of them are underperforming according to the index, what do you think needs to be done to bring them up to speed, do you think? Mrs. Jackson: Well, Madam Chair, actually, well, it depends on the group of children for that—as you see we base our performance on the SEA results. So it depends on the group of children that are writing the exam for that particular year. For example, Ascension Anglican, they have been on the rise because previously they did not get schools—well, as you would call them, so-called prestige school, and they have now started. So the principal has a lot to do with it because if you know what you want from your school, you would then encourage your teachers to do likewise and the performance—we have seen some improvement in the performance of that school. Escallier is another school, because of the leadership we are getting some improvement in those schools. So we are working with them and we have regional bodies, regional education bodies. We try to assist our principals, especially those who are in acting positions, we try to assist them in school improvement. Madam Chairman: You will agree with me that the principal sets the tone for the school— Member: Definitely. Definitely, Madam Chair. Madam Chairman:—and the change of principal can bring an amazing result. Is it very difficult therefore to bring about this change at times when you see something is just not working? The school has gone—I am thinking about a specific school. It a top school some years ago, went right down, they have changed the principal and it is coming right up again. How difficult it is when someone is not working to remove the principal? Mrs. Jackson: Well, we can go to Service Commission. We can make recommendation. We can also make recommendations to Service Commission. So that is why the denominational schools, when we have to—even though, yes, people may be successful at the Service Commission’s interview, we have the last say. We have the last say of who we recommend. That is—[Technical difficulties]—visits to the school and monitoring the performance of the school. That is definitely important. Madam Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Mendoza. Mr. Forde: Yes, Madam Chair—oh, okay. Madam Chairman: Mr. Mendoza. Mr. Mendoza: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to touch on most of the items that were laid out here today and I would start with the most recent one with Cherryl Jackson of the Anglican Board who clearly stated that Ascension Anglican School is on the rise, and I want the commend them. The NCPTA had visited that school and 83 | P a g e we have seen the change which was put in place by the principal. The questions were spoken about earlier about parental involvement and the time that our schools are having meetings with our parents. At Ascension Anglican School, what the principal would have put in place for the PTA there is clearly a model that we are working with throughout Trinidad and Tobago at this time. In our hotspot areas, in our areas, Port of Spain and environs where we are talking underachievement we must understand that parents of those children would have come up under the realm of underachieving also. In saying that, parents choose not to come to PTA meetings at times to be voted into a position or to even assist the school in a position. So what we have done at the Ascension Anglican School is to have a parent per class, have a private meeting with that class and the parents of that class. They will now bring the necessary information to one PTA meeting or body, share it with the president or the secretary of that body. So the parent in turn who is shy and who probably has been an underachiever in the past is now speaking out, can be part of, by way of the principal involvement in showing them the way. So principals in our schools are looked at as the model in bringing parents involved, working with them along with school supervision and the SSSD that comes through the school. So we are saying it is great to know that Ascension is named today, they are one of the schools that is on top of the agenda in working with the parent one-on-one in bringing the parent to the school and having the parent work with their child at home. This is the key here, is the parent learning while teaching, and we have lost that way a long time now. I just also want to say to Minister Cox again, thank you, National Family Services has been top on the agenda and I want to say it again because we at the NCPTA use the National Family Services to our advantage in training our parents, parental workshop. It is so for all over the years for the last 15 years since I have been involved, the National Family Services gave us this assistance with school services; social services workers are one in every 15 or 20 schools, we advised our parents to visit the National Family Services— Madam Chairman: I think we get the message. Thank you very much. I want to ask something though, are there any plans to remove the schools that are in particularly dangerous areas where you have the gun, the bullets flying, Bethlehem School and particularly South East Secondary that was moved temporarily and brought back? You know, if we are to be honest we would not want—certain children would not go to school there. Why children must be going in that area in South East School that is so dangerous to them? If we say we care about children, why did we put them in John D and then take them back? Is it right? Is it fair to them? What plans are there for removing those schools from there? Mr. Mendoza: I think the Minister of Education is better suited to answer that question. However, to the NCPTA we are advocating that our children be safe based on the rights of the child. We are advocating for that. But, Madam Chair, before I close I wanted to elaborate on Minister Forde’s questions on SBA through the Ministry of Education and our SSIII that is with us today, Mr. Sheldon Jodha. Now, we have heard of the SBA and I have 84 | P a g e probably visited 90 per cent of the schools in Trinidad and Tobago and I am saying today the SBA, the school- based management model that is out there, I am asking Mr. Jodha, let us know today, do all schools in Trinidad and Tobago follow the model, and if so is stakeholder involvement a key in our school-based management? Because we have an issue with that, we have a serious issue with your stakeholder involvement in our schools in Trinidad and Tobago with school-based management. Thank you. Madam Chairman: Mr. Mendoza, I know we have a lot of questions and really it is this short time but we are going to be losing some members because they do have Parliament this afternoon, so we really—it is such a pity that we do not have more time and— Ms. John: Madam Chair, can I just make one comment, please? Jearlean John. Madam Chairman: Yes. Ms. John: Right. I mean, based on—it seems as if you are about to wrap up—and I think based on what I am seeing today our leaders in education, those who have presented themselves, the support agencies as it were, I think what would have come out of this is that they are well aware of the issues. I find them to be capable and well trained so I think I am comfortable in that regard because at least we have some things going on that is right. That is—I am getting a feedback somewhere—that is major part of the battle. I want to commend MP, Minister Cox that is for her transparency in talking about the stereotyping, you know, because for us to get to the root of what is ailing us we really have to be truthful about the problem, but I do not feel discouraged because I think all of the stakeholders, including those on the Committee are committed, but what we have to look at now is that fierce urgency as Martin Luther King put it, the fierce urgency of now. You know, what are we going to do because what we know for sure is that everyone knows and the stakeholders who have presented themselves today are well aware and they are very, very capable. I think those are my comments this morning. Mr. Forde: Madam Chair— 12.25 p.m. Madam Chairman: That brings us to the closing statements, the closing remarks from— Mr. Forde: Madam Chair. Madam Chair, before you do go, I wanted to make two requests that the Ministry of Education could provide for us in writing, please. Or is it that the Committee will write them? Madam Chairman: Sorry? Mr. Forde: I wanted to make two requests to the Ministry of Education that they can submit in writing to our Committee. 85 | P a g e Madam Chairman: All right. What you can do is to submit it to the Committee and we will submit to the Chair and we will submit it to them— Mr. Forde: Okay. All right. Madam Chairman:—on your behalf. So let us go through with the various entities and have closing remarks from each and perhaps, you know, something that you are really burning and you want to say that we can get it in in a very, very short time. So we start with the Ministry of Education, closing remarks. Ms. Singh: On behalf of the team here, we really are quite pleased with the fact that the issue before us is well understood in terms of how we go about really evaluating our students, how we go about meeting their needs, and more so how we look towards mitigating for inequity. We are appreciative of the report of the Committee that would highlight our constraints so that we are able to access the staffing, the resources, the training that would certainly go a long way to improve our service delivery. And we look forward to receiving any further information that would allow us to present our position and provide clarification in going forward. We at the Ministry thank the Committee and want to reiterate that we are as committed as you are to making sure that the society is transformed one student at the time. Thank you. Madam Chairman: Thank you. National Primary School Principal Association, please. Short and sweet. Ms. Hayes: Thank you, Madam Chairman. So I just want to say, based on all we have heard today, I just want you to understand that we understand the need in the schools in Port of Spain and environs, and we just need to advocate that we want an investment in education, for all organizations to buy into the schools in Port of Spain, buy into investing in our education and making our children become very successful. They are the future citizens of Trinidad and Tobago and the workforce of the future as well. So we just hope that we could continue to engage our stakeholders and work towards dealing with these issues. I thank you. Madam Chairman: National Council of Parent Teachers Association, then you have Catholic Board following, immediately following them. Yes. Mr. Mendoza: Thank you, Madam Chair, I defer all closing remarks to my colleague, Mrs. Francis-Sampson at this time. Mrs. Francis-Sampson: Through the Chair, if I may. The National Council of Parent Teachers Association is very committed and willing and dedicated towards improving the lives of children and parents in Trinidad and Tobago and we look forward to participating in another such forum as this, and we thank you for inviting us at this time. Ms. Mangroo: Madam Chair— 86 | P a g e Madam Chairman: Catholic— Ms. Mangroo:—the Catholic Education Board of Management just wishes to stress that improving the achievement of children generally in our schools and by extension the overall school requires that all the stakeholders work together because it is not just the education system, we need to improve the lot of each child. We need to work on the home, we need to work on community. But one particular request that I have is that we consider some early childhood centres so that we are able to deal with the children especially in our east Port of Spain area so that they get that early start to being in an environment which makes them ready to learn. We continue at the Catholic Education Board of Management continues to be committed to working with the poorest because that is our particular mandate. Thank you. Madam Chairman: Anglican Education—thank you—Education Board of Management. Mrs. Jackson: Thank you, Chair. The Anglican Education Board of Management truly appreciates this invitation to this forum and looking at our schools especially in this, during this COVID time. We know that COVID-19 has revealed so many inequalities and inequities in our education system. So we can all now work together to improve our schools, and our greatest wish is that the curriculum be extended to provide opportunities for children’s involvement and recognition of performance at non-academic curriculum areas. As I remarked in my opening sentences, that every child is academically inclined. We have to provide the opportunities so that every child will be able to fit into this. I thank you. Madam Chairman: Private Primary School Principals Association? They never got back in. You see why we have to continue this session. Association of Administrators of Public Special Schools of Trinidad and Tobago. Mr. Mundy: Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to emphasize that I am hoping that the necessary structures, you know, are put in place to ensure that our children with disabilities get a fair chance and not be discriminated against based on the Convention on the—the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I am quite certain that many of you are not aware that I am blind, and I want to see my students, all our students with special needs be able to function or be given the opportunity to function on par with their peers, “normal children”. Right? They must be given that opportunity, and the structures that are required must be put in place to ensure that they get that opportunity to function, sit side by side with everyone else, side by side with their colleagues in school and get that equal opportunity. So the services that are required for them to perform, well I would have given you my submission, you would have seen quite a number of things there that we really do need to explain even further so that all our students, not some, not those that we consider that do not have a disability, all of them have an equal opportunity, an equal and equitable chance to succeed and function in the society. Thank you. Madam Chairman: Thank you. I am wondering if you left anything for the Private Special School Association of 87 | P a g e Trinidad and Tobago to say. Ms. Griffith: Thank you, Madam Chair, I was about to say that. On behalf of the Private Special Schools Association of Trinidad and Tobago we would like to say a heartfelt thanks for being invited to this forum. I would also like to take this opportunity to say that we are looking forward to collaborative efforts and to openly and publicly thank our hon. Minister of Education and the CEO of the Ministry of Education for not only hearing us but listening to us. Thank you. Madam Chairman: And last but not least Trinidad and Tobago Unified Teachers Association. Ms. Tekah-De Freitas: Thank you, Madam Chair. TTUTA is appreciative of the ability to submit written and oral material to the JSC. We look forward to the establishment of an inter-ministerial interagency task force that will interact with all stakeholders that will be guided by robust research and qualitative and quantitative data to arrive at meaningful solutions to the different areas in Port of Spain and environs to help our students in those schools. Thank you. Madam Chairman: Thank you all you and also the members of this Committee. Before I leave I would like to make sure of reminding you that all of you should go back and read very carefully the Convention on the Rights of the Child and become fully conversant with it. I would also like, especially those who are dealing with special needs children, to look at what the committee on the rights of the child, what they have said about Trinidad and Tobago’s report. How we deal with children with special needs. This is something that you could understand that is right up your alley, see what they have said. And I believe very much, as I said before in continuing education, I would like to refer you to two books, Hacking School Discipline: 9 Ways to Create a Culture of Empathy and Responsibility using Restorative Justice by Nathan Maynard and Brad Weinstein. I think I got it from Amazon. You can, you know, order it online. I want you also to read James Garbarino’s book. I tried to get him to come to Trinidad in 2000, maybe someday I will get him to come here. It is called Raising Children in a Socially Toxic Environment. Raising Children in a Socially Toxic Environment. It is an excellent book by James Garbarino, G-A-R-B-A-R-I-N-O and read also The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colourblindness by Michelle Alexander. So those of you who are interested in what is happening with children who go to school in the inner cities, you know, and how this problem has been analysed, read those books and read the United Nations documents. I was very surprised in doing a session with training of teachers and principals that they could not tell me the articles in the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child. They could only give about two. All right? So you ought to make yourself aware, be fully conversant. That is your bible when you are dealing with children. 88 | P a g e And I would like to thank all of you for your very important contributions here today. Both representatives of the various entities and the members. It has been an invaluable exercise but it is only the beginning of a conversation. Whatever matters are outstanding, pressing that you wish to refer to us, please feel free to do so. Send it on, you have the Parliament’s address. And also if there is anything you are not clear on, that any of the books you did not get the titles or anything that you require, feel free to contact the Secretariat, I will certainly respond to any concerns, any questions that you have. And I hope the school supervisor will continue visiting the schools and the principals. I went into a classroom to check on a child, I was doing a matter, and when I saw what was happening in the classroom, I could not even pass between the rows and the lighting was so poor, I had to ask the teacher, “Miss, how could you be teaching children with this kind of lighting? You are damaging their eyes. “Yes, we have to get new lights”. That is totally unacceptable in Port of Spain right near to my office. I walk to attend by my client’s business and I had to talk to the teacher and the principal—bad lighting. So some of the things are so very easy to fix and we do not think about fixing them. If we care about children, we will do what we can. It is not just lip service. These children, that is our future, and if we want to have a better world, if we give children all the rights that they are entitled to in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is not just for children we will be creating a better world, a better Trinidad and Tobago and ultimately a better world. So I thank you very much. So we need to give the parliamentarians some time to go up and have their lunch before they go to do the people’s business to make a better Trinidad and Tobago when they sit in the Parliament, and well, all of us, eh, that is what we try to do. And I commend all of you, again, for the work that you do for our nation’s children, for the next generation. Thank you. God bless you. We love you. We love the work that you do. Love our children. 12.38 p.m.: Meeting adjourned. 89 | P a g e VERBATIM NOTES OF THE FIFTH VIRTUAL MEETING OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS, EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY HELD (IN PUBLIC) ON FRIDAY, APRIL 09, 2021, AT 10.15 A.M. PRESENT Dr. Nyan Gadsby-Dolly Chairman Mr. Kazim Hosein Member Mr. Esmond Forde Member Mrs. Hazel Thompson-Ahye Member Ms. Jearlean John Member Mr. Barry Padarath Member Ms. Donna Cox Member Ms. Khisha Peterkin Secretary Mr. Brian Lucio Assistant Secretary Ms. Aaneesa Baksh Graduate Research Assistant ABSENT Mrs. Lisa Morris-Julien Vice-Chairman MINISTRY OF EDUCATION Mrs. Lisa Henry-David Chief Educational Officer (Ag.) Ms. Naima Hosein Director, School Supervision Management Division Ms. Ann M. Singh Director, Curriculum Planning Development Division Mrs. Natalie Robinson-Arnold Coordinator, School Social Work TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO UNIFIED TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION (TTUTA) Mrs. Antonia Tekah-De Freitas President Mrs. Lisa Ibrahim-Joseph Education & Research Officer ASSOCIATION OF PRINCIPALS OF PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Mr. David Simon 2nd Vice President Ms. Patricia Pitt Secretary ASSOCIATION OF PRINCIPALS OF ASSISTED SECONDARY SCHOOLS Mrs. Sonia Mahase-Persad President Ms. Lucia Reyes Vice President HOLY GHOST FATHERS Fr. Ronald Mendes, C.S.Sp. Chairman of the Holy Ghost Fathers Board of Management [MRS. HAZEL THOMPSON-AHYE in the Chair] 90 | P a g e Madam Chairman: Good morning everyone. I would like to welcome you all to the second virtual public hearing of the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights Equality and Diversity enquiry. And what we are looking at this morning is the underachievement of schools in Port of Spain and environs area. Enquiry into the right to equal access to education with specific focus on the underachievement of schools in the Port of Spain environs district with respect to performance in terminal examinations. And those of you who have been following our enquiries, you would realize that on the last occasion we dealt with the position in primary schools and today we will be looking at secondary schools. This is a virtual meeting and there are certain specific guidelines that would apply including: make sure you mute your microphone when you are not speaking to help keep background noise to a minimum; adjust your camera so that your face is clearly visible and ensure that notifications from your cell phone or any other electronic device in your vicinity are muted during the course of the meeting. We invite members of the listening and viewing audience to post or send your comments via the Parliament’s various social media platforms: Facebook page, ParlView, and the Parliament’s YouTube Channel and Twitter. Now, I would like to invite representative of your organizations to introduce themselves. So we will start with the Ministry of Education, please. [Introductions made] [Technical difficulties] Dr. Gadsby-Dolly: Mr. Forde? Mr. Forde: Secretariat? Dr. Gadsby-Dolly: Maybe we could ask Mr. Forde to just step in for Sen. Thompson-Ahye who may be having some connectivity issues. So, Mr. Forde, could you— Mr. Forde: Okay, no problem, Madam Minister. Dr. Gadsby-Dolly: I think the other— [MR. ESMOND FORDE in the Chair] Mr. Chairman: I will continue the introductions until the substantive Chairman gets back online. We now go to the Trinidad and Tobago Unified Teachers’ Association, TTUTA. [Introductions made] Mrs. Tekah-De Freitas: I would like to make an excuse for my colleague, Mrs. Lisa Ibrahim-Joseph, who is unwell and will not be participating. Thank you. Mr. Chairman: Thank you. We will now move on to the Association of Principals of Public Secondary Schools. 91 | P a g e [Introductions made] Mr. Chairman: All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Simon. We will now move on to the officials of the Association of Principals of Assisted Secondary Schools. [Introductions made] Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much, Mrs. Mahase-Persad. We will now move on to Holy Ghost Fathers. [Introductions made] Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much. My name is Esmond Forde. I am acting in the absence, presently, of Sen. Thompson-Ahye who is probably having some Internet connection. So we will continue to move on. I will now invite other members of this Committee in order to introduce themselves. Kindly proceed, members. [Introductions made] Mr. Chairman: MP Morris? Is MP Morris still with us? Okay. Well, thank you members, we will continue along. So again, as the substantive Chair mentioned, the enquiry objectives are: 1. To determine the root causes for the underachievement of schools in the Port of Spain and environs district. Madam Chair, you are back with us? 2. To examine methods to address the underachievement of schools in the Port of Spain and environs district. I will now invite each official from the various entities with us today for brief opening remarks, again not exceeding one minute. So I will start with Ministry of Education. Mrs. Henry-David: Good morning, again, and thank you, Mr. Chair. The Ministry of Education is heartened and happy to be here this morning as we explore this topic that is of great interest to us and we welcome the opportunity to have the feedback from all our stakeholders in education, so that in going forward, we can have a plan and a roll out so that we can have—ensure that all of our children are educated to the level that they can become productive citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much, Chief Education Officer, Acting. I will now move on to Trinidad and Tobago Unified Teachers’ Association. Brief opening comments. Mrs. Tekah-De Freitas: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As was said by the first speaker, TTUTA welcomes the opportunity to participate in this virtual hearing this morning and to share our perspectives from that of the education professional on the performance of students. We look forward to robust discussion and we hope after this hearing that the follow-up activities would allow us to engage further in the interest of our nation’s children. 92 | P a g e Thank you. Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much. I will now move on to Mr. David Simon, 2nd Vice President, Acting, Association of Principals of Public Secondary Schools of Trinidad and Tobago. Mr. Simon: A very good morning to everyone, again. The Association looks forward to be involved in productive discussions on the subject matter. We hope as well that as a result of our discussions, there will be recommendations that would be put in place that would allow for the improvement in all aspects of the education in Trinidad and Tobago, not only as it applies to education in terms of academic performance. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Simon. I will now move on to Mrs. Sonia Mahase-Persad, President, Association of Principals of Assisted Secondary Schools. Mrs. Mahase-Persad: Thank you very much, Chair. APASS welcomes the opportunity to be part of this process and we look forward to examining the educational philosophy that undergirds our system, not just at the secondary level but throughout, and to make some meaningful contribution to engage in some meaningful in- depth discussion so that we could make some purposeful changes and to make our system more authentic to the needs of our greatest resource, our young people. So we look forward to this session. Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much. I will now move on to Fr. Ronald Mendes, C.S.Sp., Chairman of the Holy Ghost Board of Management. Fr. Mendes: Thank you, Chair. I am very happy to be able to be here and to be part of this discussion. And it is my hope that the powers that be both in the Ministry and on this Committee will take action based on some of the things that will be said here because it seems as though very little action takes place. Thank you. Mrs. Thompson-Ahye: Mr. Forde? Member Forde? Mr. Chairman: Yes, Madam Chair, you are back with us? Mrs. Thompson-Ahye: I am suggesting that because of the instability of the Internet connection, because normally I would come to the office, I would ask you to carry on because I would not like the hearing to be delayed because of the in and out. But you know the reason that I am unable to leave to come to the office. Mr. Chairman: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Sen. Thompson-Ahye. And as we would have previously discussed, I shall proceed. Thank you. So members—I would like to remind all Committee members and officials to direct their questions and concerns through the Chair. I will also like to remind all members that they are to activate their microphone on their devices when they are acknowledged by the Chair and to also be reminded to turn it off when they have concluded their various contributions. 93 | P a g e We would now proceed with the hearing as agreed. So as has been identified, we are here this morning in an enquiry into the right to equal access of education with specific focus on the achievement of schools in the Port of Spain and environs district with respect to the performance in the terminal examinations. And firstly, I would like to direct a question to the Ministry of Education in the various submissions that would have been provided by the Ministry of Education. In the Ministry of Education, in its submission, highlighted that and I quote: The factors contributing to academic achievement, school climate, socio-economic status, student engagement and absenteeism, intervention services, insufficient co-curricular activities… And this is in your submission on pages 8 to 11, number 2(i). And the first question I would like to direct to the Ministry of Education. How has the school environment in the Port of Spain and environs district affected the performance of the students in secondary schools? Direct question. Could you proceed, Ministry of Education? Mrs. Henry-David: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So as we would also have submitted, the circumstances in each individual schools would vary and as such we would have—each individual school would have issues that they would treat with based on their school development plans and how they would treat with these issues to try and make the best of it and ensure that they create the best environment for the students that attend school there. So we would have some schools that where, for example, absenteeism of students and teachers would not be a problem at all, whereas in some schools it may be more so. You will have some schools where the socio-economic issues would affect students’ ability to attend, their ability to be engaged while they are in school and in this regard the Ministry, for example, would provide support services, such as school meals and transport and so on, to help to facilitate those students when they come onto the compound. And there will be other schools where the socio-economic factors may not be such of an issue and we have schools as well where the schools make provisions for their individual students and their circumstances to help to ensure that they can engage to teaching and learning when they come onto the compound. And as a matter of fact, in this virtual environment, there are also schools which are going above and beyond in trying to ensure that their students can be engaged online. Mr. Chairman: Okay. Thank you. [Interruption] Pardon? Someone has a feedback? Mrs. Thompson-Ahye: Yes. Are you hearing me? Mr. Chairman: Yes, go ahead. Go ahead, Senator. Mrs. Thompson-Ahye: One of the first things you highlighted as the contributing factor was the high levels of crime and violence. Now, one of the schools or perhaps the school that is most threatened is the South East 94 | P a g e Secondary School. Of course, you have Russell Latapy and so on, but let me focus on South East because their problems have longer standing. Was that school not moved into John D at some point? And if so, why did it return to that volatile environment where over the years students have in fact witnessed murders taking place? And I specifically speak about the first one where the body was lying there because I received a call from a family member who was traumatized by seeing that particular occurrence. So I just cannot understand. Perhaps you could explain to me why South East Secondary remains where it is today when an alternative was identified not too long ago? Mrs. Henry-David: Through the Chair— Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Henry-David, go ahead. Go ahead, Mrs. Henry-David. Mrs. Henry-David: Through you, Chair, the movement to John D was a temporary measure while the Ministry sought to treat with physical issues on the compound. The movement of a secondary school would, of course, require that the venue that a school is moved to—and South East caters to about 700-plus students or thereabout—you would have to ensure that you have all of the facilities, all of the labs and so on, and it was a temporary measure. And when the school was established at that point and the school was established to serve a community, we did not have the unfortunate occurrences, environmental, socio-economic, that we have at the current time. So what is needed, rather than removing an entire school out of the community which it serves, it is a concerted effort by all of the Ministries and Governments and social NGOs and so on, to come together to try to address the issues in that geographic area. I would repeat, it was a temporary move to facilitate physical infrastructural issues on the compound, to address those issues and this is why the school remains where it was originally established. Mr. Chairman: Yes. Okay, thank you for that comment. But Acting CEO, the process that you just identified, now in going back to the particular area where it is actually from, how would you rate the performance as a result of going back to its original destination? Mrs. Henry-David: Sorry, Mr. Chair, performance in terms of? Just for clarification. Mr. Chairman: Well, okay. Remember you said it was a temporary move where you all moved to the John D compound. Now you all are back in the what—Sea Lots, Laventille area, right? How would you rate the movement in going back? Have you seen improvement in the climate of the school? Have you seen improvement in the academic abilities of the students? How would you rate the moving back to the particular area? Mrs. Henry-David: All right. So in terms of the academic performance, the school had an average academic performance and continues—it was just, I think, around 30 per cent. And in terms of the trend, the performance 95 | P a g e of the school remains generally at the same level in terms of academics. Of course, with the COVID-19 all of our schools may have had some issues if we are looking at terminal examinations at this point. We still have teachers who are dedicated to ensuring that the students perform at the best level and we still continue to engage with stakeholders to try to do the best for our students at that school. The infrastructural issues, that would have been addressed before the children were relocated back to their original school and we continue to work with all of our stakeholders to ensure that our children benefit from the education that they are expose to. Mrs. Thompson-Ahye: If I may, Mr. Chairman? Do you think, Madam, that any child in Trinidad and Tobago deserves to be placed in that hotspot crime-ridden area where bullets could be flying at any time, where the environment is dirty for use of a better word. Just think about environments in upper Port of Spain in the area of the convent and so on. Do you think that that is what the children from that area deserve and that they should be sent back there with all of the attendant risk because you say it is to serve a particular area? Do you really think that they deserve that, Madam? Mr. Chairman: Care to comment. Mrs. Henry-David: Through you, Chair, it is not a question of whether the children, what the children deserve or what they do not do. It is a question of what the entire society of Trinidad and Tobago has to do to ensure that all of our children are equitably served and that all of our children are in an environment where they can thrive. Mrs. Tekah-De Freitas: Mr. Chair, through you. Mr. Chair? Mr. Chairman: Proceed, TTUTA. Mrs. Tekah-De Freitas: Yes. TTUTA would like to comment on the question asked by the—TTUTA would like to comment in terms of the question posed by the Senator on South East and then respond to the substantive question, please? Mr. Chairman: Yes, you can proceed, TTUTA. Mrs. Tekah-De Freitas: Okay, yes. Thank you. So I am glad that after the CEO made the point that the community of South East Port of Spain, when the school was established, that community was not the way it is now. It was of a totally different standard and nature. And the CEO is quite correct and TTUTA has made the point that the changing dynamics of persons in the neighbourhood has impacted on that particular school. We must also remember that South East Port of Spain is lodged in what is a heritage location, a heritage building. So notwithstanding the infrastructure that CEO identified as necessary to relocate the school, it still does not change the fact that we will need to allocate specific resources to the construction of a new school, not only for South East but in many areas of Trinidad and Tobago. Mr. Chair, South East was a high performing school and still is because we had scholarship winners from 96 | P a g e that school in the years past. But to the broader question, Sir, of how the school environment has impacted students’ performance, we have as—to use the Senators terminology, schools in upper Port of Spain where the schools have very good support networks and mechanisms and resources are provided by the Alumni and additional stakeholders, and then we have schools such as Diego Martin North, we have schools such as East Mucurapo and West Mucurapo, we have schools where the resource allocation is not as equal as it is in some areas. So whilst the teachers, as the CEO said, are very committed and dedicated and they are trying their best, the fact of the matter is the lack of adequate resources because of the limited funding that the schools, that the Ministry receives for schools, that would also impact on the school environment. Diego Martin North, we will all recall colleagues had a situation of violence and indiscipline in the school where external parties entered the compound and literally took charge of the school, ran over the school, and the students and the educators were held at bay for quite some time. It took a lot of doing. It took police intervention at one point. And therefore the point is, as Madam CEO said, it must be across ministerial, across agency approach if we are to enhance the environments of all our schools. Mr. Chair, TTUTA makes a point again, low achievement or underachievement of students is not the same as underachievement of schools. There are many factors and you have identified some out of the Ministry’s submission. So we need, Mr. Chair—TTUTA is humbly suggesting that we need to consider not simply a matter of relocating a school, but of using resources in a strategic way, such as has been done in the Laventille school project to enhance the entire community where our schools are allocated. So we will pause there, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the opportunity. Mr. Chairman: Okay. Thank you very much TTUTA. At this time I would like to bring in the other officials in this enquiry, the Association of Principals of Assisted Secondary Schools. And then we will hear also after from the Holy Ghost Fathers and then we will also ask Mrs. Mahase-Persad to make a comment on the discussion, please. Kindly proceed. Mrs. Mahase-Persad: Okay. Thank you, Chair. I just want to concur with TTUTA in terms of contextualizing the whole school within the community when we look at performance. And I just want to add as well we need to differentiate between underachievement as a term that is used in education and low achievement. Underachievement speaks to whether students are not achieving a potential that was mapped out and that they are not achieving that benchmark based on their context. And low achievement talks about—there are other factors, home, school, family, community, so many mitigating factors that will impact on their academic achievement. And I also want to put in a plug for a holistic look at how we measure success in our schools and as far as our students are concerned, and look at the value added to that student upon entry and at graduation five or 97 | P a g e seven years later. 10.45 a.m. I agree with TTUTA that a whole community focus is important in addressing both underachievement and low achievement of our students that we must incorporate members of the community to have a sense of identification—[Technical difficulties] We must understand the background of our students. There must be a personalized type of intervention so that the schools can be resourced with the infrastructure, the funding, the training of teachers, to deal with the particular cohort of students in that context, and that way our interventions could be much more meaningful and much more effective. I will pause here so that my other colleagues could respond. Mr. Simon: I want to, through the Chair, take the opportunity as well to suggest that the Association of Principals of Trinidad and Tobago, we also have a similar view. We recognize that we need discussion looking at the achievement or the underachievement of our students and our schools. There must be a holistic approach to education. A systemic view must be examined and then we must also take a microscopic type of approach to examine the individual institutions. I want to agree with my colleague and with TTUTA in terms of how we approach the issues that we have identified because it is very easy for us to stay and to compare down town with uptown if we want to look at it that way. But there are issues in individual schools that need to be examined and I think first we must take a look at our systemic issues understanding the curriculum that we have, is there adaptation in our curriculum for some of the schools? You have students going in with 30 per cent and less in some of our schools, and yet still we use the same markers to determine success in terms of examination performance and on graduation day. What was just said about the throughput is very important. What is the value added. As far as we know there is absolutely no index really to take into consideration achievements in the tech voc areas, achievements in sporting, cultural activities. Institutions such as the ones we have been highlighting this morning have been known to add value to Trinidad and Tobago in every aspect of its life and livelihood, and these things are not necessarily taken into consideration. So we need to take a very holistic and systemic look in addition to adding our microscopic examinations of individual institutions so that we will be able to better understand what those issues. And therefore, when we introduce our methods of solving it would be prescriptive and dealing with specific institutions rather than broad-based plasters that we tend to affix to keeping wombs in our education system. APPSS will pause here. Mr. Chairman: Fr. Mendes, you care to give some feedback? Fr. Mendes: Mr. Chair, I would just like to agree publicly with the two Principals Associations, particularly the last points that Mr. Simon made and also with what TTUTA has had so say on it, because in fact that is where we 98 | P a g e need to put our resources. Thank you. Mr. Chairman: Any member of the Committee would like to raise any question at this particular time? You have the opportunity now. Mrs. Thompson-Ahye: I have a question. I find it rather intriguing to read and hear TTUTA’s statement in their submission which it seems everybody has agreed with, the other entities. TUTTA says: TTUTA proffers the underachievement of students may not be equated with underachievement of schools. And I would like to find out how or in what circumstances can a school be deemed to be achieving when the students are underachieving? What do we look for? What do we see when we see a school or we determine that a school has achieved when the students have all failed, or there is no doubt that they are underachieving? What does that present? What does it look like, an achieving school with underachieving students? Mr. Chairman: Ministry of Education, Mrs. Henry-David, you care to comment please? Mrs. Henry-David: Through the Chair, I will ask my Director of Curriculum to answer. Ms. Singh. Ms. Singh: Good morning, Chair, good morning members of the Committee. Mr. Chairman: Okay. Good morning. Kindly proceed, thanks. Ms. Singh: In terms of evaluating school achievement and using student academic achievement as a comparative, what we want to point out is that—and this underscores what Mr. Simon has said—you are looking at the output and assessing output from one institution against other institutions in one factor, the academic aspect. We have to consider in many of these schools’ situations, students who come into the school have scores of 30 per cent and under, in some cases significant numbers of students, and whereas in terms of the output they may not have the same quantum of performance in terms of the academics, what we would see is the value added as the students move through the system in terms of they may not have all five subjects as the indicator would have provided, but they would have improved in terms of their academic performance and the school would have leveraged on other areas of co-curricular, the arts as we said in the TVET areas in terms of their values, personal development, in order to provide an opportunity for the students who may not at the 5th Form or at the next level of exit, may not yet be of comparable academic performance but may be better prepared for having gone through the system at the schools. So two points I would like to make, the idea that the school has added value in the sense that the output in terms of the student that they have worked with has actually improved when comparison with their input scores, one; two, that there are other factors that would have seen those students excel, develop and can be 99 | P a g e leveraged on in terms of their next stage of—by academic pursuit or career pursuit. Mrs. Tekah-De Freitas: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chairman: Yes, TTUTA. Mrs. Tekah-De Freitas: Yes, TTUTA would like to proffer a further response. In addition to what— Mr. Chairman: Proceed. Mrs. Tekah-De Freitas: Thank you. In addition to what Ms. Singh said, I would want to go back to the example of East Mucurapo Secondary because that is one where we have some sound evidence. It suggests in the first instance, Mr. Chair, and colleagues, that as was said by previous speakers, how we benchmark student success as a society needs to change. It appears we are only looking at performance in terminal examinations in terms of the academics and we are not really contemplating the arts as Ms. Singh said and TVET—East Mucurapo Secondary. The CXC publishes on an annual basis for all to see a merit list of students’ scores in each subject area for academic and non-academic areas. So academic, tech voc, VAPA, and so forth. When we look at the academic subjects a number of particular schools will have students on that merit list, both science, mathematics, biology, chemistry, business, and so forth, and they are scoring One’s and Two’s in those particular areas. In 2017, on that merit list CXC published the names of three students or four, forgive me, from East Mucurapo Secondary who scored and attained Grades III, IV and V in different sectors of agricultural science. Their names appeared on that regional merit list. Why? Because as far as the board, the examining body was concerned, those students over-performed. They excelled. We might not see a Grade III or a Grade IV as something significant, but given the particular components of those agricultural science examinations, Mr. Chair, those students excelled and CXC felt it necessary to reward them. We have similar recognition for students who have excelled in VAPA, as you yourself said, Mr. Chair, in terms of sport and so. So it means that if we are to look at student achievement, Mr. Chair, colleagues, our lens has to be adjusted. Achievement of individuals, especially based on 21st Century learning principles, is relevant to the learner. That was alluded to by the principals. And therefore, we need to stop using the broad-brush of a school achieving because the school has received X scholarships or Y number of passes, and start looking at the individual perspective and how we are developing our nation’s students. Mr. Chair, if we are talking about national development and development of our human resource capital, focusing on all aspects of student development and success, academic and otherwise, is critical at this point in time, and there we suggest as TTUTA, the vicissitudes of COVID have given us the opportunity, Mr. Chair, and colleagues, to make some much needed changes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman: Thank you. 100 | P a g e Mrs. Mahase-Persad: Chair, may I add to what TTUTA just said? Mr. Chairman: Yes, proceed. Proceed. Mrs. Mahase-Persad: I just want to agree with Mr. Simon and with the President of TTUTA regarding the shift that is needed in how we look and assess students’ outcome in terms of terminal examination. I think it is highly unfair that we look at five passes at CSEC including Math and English as just the only yardstick to measure the end product and whether students could transition to the next stage in their academic life. If we look at what the National Training Agency said regarding CVQs, they described it as representing achievement of a set of competencies which define core work practice of an occupational area consistent with the levels articulated within the regional qualifications framework. I am quoting this just to show the relevance of CVQ as an alternative path for many students who—and it is not recognized at the end after five years. We just measure the CSEC five passes including Math and English when we look at that yardstick to measure academic performance across the board. So that broad-brush approach really is short-sighted and the CVQ qualifications involve a lot of in depth work by the students, and at the end of the day they are better prepared to transition to the real world and to make a meaningful contribution. So this should be recognized, it should be reinforced and it should be resourced as well on the part of the Ministry. Mrs. Thompson-Ahye: If I may, having heard the comments, I maintain that the statement, the underachievement of students—are you hearing me? Mr. Chairman: Yes, we are. Go ahead, Senator. Mrs. Thompson-Ahye: Underachievement of students may not be equated with the underachievement of schools because all the examples that have been brought forward in support of that statement, they proved that the statement is incorrect, because to show the achievement of schools, you have shown the achievement of students. So you cannot say that the underachievement of students may not be equated with underachievement of schools because to prove your argument you show how students have been achieving in other areas, and that is in fact what you should say. It is that not only one criterion should be used but various criteria, but you must equate it, the schools, with the performance of the students. So I hope you understand now why I take issue with that statement. You must always go back to the students and what they have achieved to show how well the school has done. But what you want to say is that across the board it is not only academics, but you judge them according to various criteria. I hope we are clear now on why I made that statement. Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Henry-David, Ministry of Education, in terms of the discourse that we have heard from the various other officials, I would like to get a feedback from you based on the Ministry of Education in going forward. We would have heard that how do we benchmark students. We understand that it has been mentioned that it has to change. We need to include the arts, tech voc. We presently—it has been said that the specs we 101 | P a g e presently based it on, how many scholarships a school receives, how many subjects a student would have received, and it is also based on terminal examinations. In going forward, the Ministry of Education, are there any developmental programmes, any discussion, any feedback that is taking place at present in order to make any changes along those lines, taking into effect what the other officials would have mentioned this morning? Mrs. Henry-David: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Ministry is as we speak engaged in internal discussions with different divisions of the Ministry looking at how we should assess quality and what changes we should make to the curriculum, and how curriculum is conceptualized in order to ensure that we do just that, that we look certainly way and beyond the issue of academics, that we look at how the schools are progressing in a number of factors. So, for example, some of the issues that have come up in our discussions, we need to look at the climate of our schools, we need to look at how our schools engage with parents and engage with other stakeholders, we need to look at what are the extra and co-curricular activities that we have in our schools and how those contribute to the growth of the overall holistic growth of our students. We are coming up—we are in the process of developing a metric to see how we should measure, what our successful graduate should look like. In our last education policy paper we looked at eight factors and we are now moving beyond those factors to look beyond the academics; to look at the knowledge, skills and attitudes that we want our children to develop and to see how we can manipulate that curriculum to ensure that at the end of the day quite beyond the academic factors, our students leave our schools with the 21st Century skills that are needed, with the attitudes, for example, towards nationalism that—to encourage our students to be caring individuals who care about themselves, their peers, and their country at large. We are looking—those are the things that we are discussing currently within the Ministry, and as other stakeholders have said this morning, when we come up with these metrics at the general Ministry of Education level, we now need to look at how at the individual school level those things are translated on the ground to ensure that we have the success that we are looking for. So it is well and good to have plans at the central Ministry level, but where the rubber hits the road at the level of the individual schools where these things are translated, there is where we need to direct our focus to ensure that the changes that we at the Ministry see as necessary and that have been communicated to us through the consultative process that we had in the month of November last year—because all of these discussions are coming out of our meetings with our many stakeholders and the concerns that they have indicated to us, and we are moving towards coming up with the plans and coming up with the systems that will ensure that these plans are disaggregated at the individual school level. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman: And again— Mrs. Tekah-De Freitas: Chair? 102 | P a g e Mr. Chairman:—Mrs. Henry-David, all this what you would have mentioned we are taking into consideration the COVID-19 protocols as set out by the Ministry of Health in going forward with regard to schools. Mrs. Henry-David: Of course, Sir. Mrs. Tekah-De Freitas: Mr. Chair, TUTTA would like your indulgence to make one final point. Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Tekah-De Freitas. Mrs. Tekah-De Freitas: Yes, so one final point. Since we are talking about terminal examinations, Mr. Chair, I am glad the CEO has pointed out the plans. We must not forget that we are looking at terminal examinations, the outcomes, and therefore, we are concerned that as we look at our students who are doing the CXC exams for 2021, both at CSEC and CAPE, the way CXC has determined these exams to be run, we are very concerned as educators about the performance of these students. The fact that we now have the three papers, the fact that students have had limited interaction, Mr. Chair, and colleagues, the fact that there are resources that still need to be provided, the emotional and psychological impact of the COVID-19 situation. So whilst we are talking in a general sense, Mr. Chair, TTUTA would want us to consider that we had a cohort in 2020 which was negatively affected, we are yet to hear how those students have fared and what is happening with them in terms of their youth development index position. We are deeply concerned about the outcome of the 2021 examinations and how these students would fare given the current circumstances. Thank you very much, Sir. Mrs. Thompson-Ahye: Is there somebody else because I have another question? Ms. Pitt: Good day everyone. This is Ms. Pitt here. Through the Chair? Mr. Chairman: Yeah. You are Association of Principals of Public Secondary Schools. Ms. Pitt: Thank you, Sir. Mr. Chairman: Proceed. Ms. Pitt: Yes, thank you. I would just like to speak to what Mrs. Sonia Mahase-Persad was addressing in terms of the CVQ because I think that is an opportunity that Trinidad and Tobago has missed in terms of looking at achievement in a broader sense. The CVQ is recognized by CXC. It is literally moderated by CXC using our National Training Agency as part of that system, and yet at the end of the day after a child has gone through two years of doing, and creating, and a portfolio if you have even seen a CVQ portfolio is a massive undertaking. It is not something that a child can do in a day. They literally have to build their skill level up to the point where they can produce a quality product at the end of the day, and yet it is not recognized. No school that is doing CVQ, at the end of the day they say yes a child was able to get two passes at CSEC level and they were able to achieve three CVQs. And so that child has come out of school with their five subjects, it does not happen. 103 | P a g e So the child is left thinking and the society is left thinking that therefore that child has failed and that is not the case. So, just as all the other presenters have been saying, we need to broaden it. Achievement is more than just academic performance. Achievement takes so many different forms and we have to be able to acknowledge and appreciate when our children are able to do. Because that is what school is all about, you are finding out what you can do, not the things that you cannot do. The things that you cannot do, of course, we would want you to learn it, but that is not the objective of school. It should not be the objective of school, and therefore, I would like to endorse what has been said before and all the pointers that have been make concerning the benchmarking that has to take place. I am pleased that Ms. Henry-David has indicated that the Ministry is broadening its idea of what achievement is all about, but I am also still concerned because very often the Ministry comes up with some beautiful plans, wonderful plans, and yet when it comes down to the rear it has to take place, the granular level as you would say. This school, this particular school in this particular district, you do not see it coming into fruition because literally sometimes our administrators hands are tied. There are so many things that we need in order to get just the support. They have beautiful training programmes in the Ministry of Education, they give you the training, they give you that kind of support, and then after that they sometimes tie your hands. And so you can come up with a wonderful plan for your school, excellent plan for your school, you know where you want it to go because you are there on the ground, you know what is happening with your stakeholders, you know what is happening with your children and you are ready to move forward, and yet resources do not come to you, the kind of technical support that you may need does not come to you, and so you just end up still having the situation where the child is unable to really reach that full potential they are supposed to reach. So this morning I am very happy that we are part of this discussion, but just as my VP said, we are hoping that out of this comes a number of recommendations that will take us forward, and take us forward in a way that is going to help our children to continue to achieve; all of them and not just some; all of them. So thank you, Mr. Chair. Fr. Mendes: Mr. Chair, if I may, I would like to add one thing? First of all, I fully endorse what the President of the Association of Principals of Public Secondary Schools has just said, but I would like to also point out one other thing. The majority of the children who “underachieved”, those are children coming out of primary schools with 30 percentile or less, and if we are going to be honest with ourselves and with everyone, we have to recognize that those who score at that level are literally functionally illiterate. And the fact that they go into secondary schools and eventually come out with two or three passes at the CXC level along with whatever CVQs they may have obtained, that is a minor miracle that has taken place in those secondary schools, and the teachers who have brought them there from functional illiteracy to two or three CXC passes, that is a fantastic achievement and those are just looked at as, “Oh, they did not make five passes, they are no good”. That is quite the opposite and 104 | P a g e I think what needs to happen is that the Ministry needs to take a look at the SEA grade and compare it to the CXC grades when they come and see where that child has moved and reward the teachers that have brought them there. We have some fantastic teachers. We have others, yes we know, but we have some fantastic teachers in our system, and looking just at a level of past CXC or CSEC really, as the benchmark for a school, that is not good enough. I think that it is really showing disrespect to a lot of very hard work that is done in the classroom over the time. There are other problems which I would like to raise a lil later but there are other problems with teachers, but certainly there is a fantastic amount of achievement taking place throughout the system. Thank you. 11.15 a.m. Mr. Chairman: Thank you for that comment, Fr. Mendes. And as you are with us at this time, in your submission, Fr. Mendes, you identified, according to data provided by the Ministry of Education for schools within the Port of Spain and environs district for 2015 to 2020, of the three secondary schools managed by your organization, one of the schools, St. Anthony’s College, has been performing under the national average for CSEC, that is, more than 54 per cent of the students attempting five subjects for CSEC attained these subjects while the other two schools have been performing above the national average. Right. I want to get your opinion here. What are the causes of the disparity in the levels of achievement amongst the schools managed by the organization in Port of Spain and environs district? Care to comment, Father? Fr. Mendes: Yes, certainly, thank you. If the Ministry would go and take a look at the list of children who come in on the SEA and compare them with the list of children who eventually write the CSEC exam in that school, you would see that at least 50 per cent of the children writing the exam did not go into the school in Form 1, the reason being that many parents, for whatever reason, deemed that they do not see the school as worthy of their children and they do all that they can to get them transferred so that you find that a lot of them over the years have transferred mainly to QRC but also to Fatima and a few to St. Mary’s, a few to Trinity. And by the time they hit Forms 4 and 5, 50 per cent of the incoming cohort is made up of children who have been transferred in and when one takes a look at the CSEC grades of those children, those CSEC grades are between 30 and 40 per cent or percentile. There are a few who come in with a higher percentile in the 50s but mainly it is the lower ones. And the fact that those children, again, are able to get three and quite a few of them four, you are quoting having five, but many of them get three or four passes which, I dare say, they may not have been able to get that number of passes in another school that a lot of care has been taken in bringing them there. But we have noticed that it is the same three or four subjects that the children will achieve in and when we take a look at who teaches them, we see that it is consistent, the same teachers are the ones who are able to bring these children through to a level of getting even One’s and Two’s in the subjects, a lot of them Three’s, but One’s and Two’s in the subjects that they pass. 105 | P a g e And when you look at the teachers, TTUTA would not like this but when you look at the teachers in the subjects that they do not pass, those teachers when you look at their late coming, when you look at their attendance, they take the full 14 and 14, that is 28 days, a full month if you count weekends, 28 days which they are legally allowed. The principal can do and the board can do nothing about that. You try to put a little bit of moral suasion and “they steups” and move on. You hear comments in late October “Well I have so many days inside, when am I going to take them?” And that is sick days, you are going to decide beforehand how many sick days you are going to take? I think TTUTA needs to do something about that, talk about the morality of what their teachers are doing when they take these days when they do not really need them other than to take them to do whatever their own business is. There are 28 days that they take and you look at the students from those courses, you find that those students do not achieve a pass rate may be they could have had the teacher been there all along. So that is one thing. Two, the lack of teachers. I will give two examples. One is a teacher who for the past five years comes to the school once a month so that they meet the regulation. This has gone all the way to Teaching Service. Teaching Service has sent the person back to the school. They continued to not come to school but for one day so that their job remains in place. The Ministry is fully aware of this. There is, maybe, a six-inch high file that the Ministry has about this teacher. The Ministry would not replace the teacher, the school does not have the resources to pay another teacher. So that is one thing. So a lot of children either are left untaught in the subjects or we have to “kinda” double up which is unfair to the teacher that this is happening to, double up in another⸻and there are labs attached. Another teacher has two Regulation 90 things on them. They have been coming late, significantly late, since 2014 and not much is being done. The Ministry does not really seem to take on those things. “They pay lip service to it”, they will take the paperwork we send in, they will stamp the Ministry’s stamp on it and then nothing. The Ministry has to get together. Another thing is when we go to the Ministry. Over the years, you go to the Ministry, you talk to various officers, there is a serious problem there which I hope the Minister will take on. The number of clerks in the Ministry and other officers going up higher all the way even to directors that change so often. As soon as someone learns the job, they get transferred elsewhere. Many people without any education experience in the civil service are put into the Ministry of Education. So there is a big problem there. There is always people in the Ministry learning the job that they know nothing about it. There is no institutional memory. That impacts the schools and impacts the students tremendously. Thank you. Mr. Chairman: All right. Fr. Mendes, I know you have said a lot but from your standpoint, how can this situation be reconciled based on what you are saying there? Have you sent in recommendations, have you sent in a document to the Ministry in order to say this is how the problems can be solved? A quick comment please. 106 | P a g e Ms. Cox: Mr. Chair, I would like to come in please. Mr. Chairman: Okay, after Fr. Mendes, Sen. Cox. Fr. Mendes: Okay. We have had many meetings over the years. I used to be a principal. I was the principal actually at St. Anthony’s in the 1990s, I was principal at St. Mary’s for 14 years after that and I have been on the board and the number of meetings we have had over the years with the Ministry, unfortunately the Ministry people changed and then the knowledge or experience of the problems goes away and you have to start all over again. That is a serious problem within the Ministry of Education. Institutional memory is absent, absolutely absent. They do not even know the Regulations and they would start to do things that are, might I say even illegal at times because they are breaking the Regulations and the Regulations under the Act mean that those actions are either legal or illegal because they are Regulations under the Act and when they do things like that then⸻and nobody is calling it and no amount of complaining⸻so send in a what to the Ministry? When is the Ministry going to get serious?⸻my question. When is the Ministry going to get serious about implementing an institutional memory and keeping it abreast? Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Thank you, Fr. Mendes. Mrs. Tekah-De Freitas: Mr. Chair, TTUTA would like to comment after Minister Cox. Mr. Chairman: No, one second. One second. I will give you the opportunity but I will also give the opportunity to the Ministry of Education to comment but I would like to bring in Sen. Donna Cox at this time. Sen. Cox. Ms. Cox: Yes, I just want to applaud the contribution by Fr. Mendes. It is not often that you would hear persons being as honest and upfront about ills in their environment; and this is not just the Teaching Service I am talking about. But you know sometimes people would cover up or they will not be honest to say, well you know we have some problems also as teachers. So I wanted to say, you know, I applaud you for your honesty and openness. I want to say too that even with the teachers that you spoke about, we have of course fantastic teachers. I always say—a lot of friends are schoolmates and so on are teachers and some are principals at this point in time and I know that many of them are very committed and so on. But my concern has always been what is in place for those who are not as committed? What is in place for them? Because what happens when teachers do not teach, when they are supposed to teach and they do not and whether they are distracted doing something else, being at home, taking their sick leave or studying, who suffers in all of this?—the students. And clearly this takes place in particular schools. If you check, you would see that. You also have to look at the principals of those schools. Because I went to a Government-assisted school and I see the difference in how the principals and teachers are made to account compared to in the Government schools. All right. I see that the assisted schools 107 | P a g e take more time. They look at statistics and they watch to see⸻they must know from the statistics, you know that a teacher is not performing to the optimum capacity. And this is something⸻I think part of the problem is also lack of accountability. I have been on campus and know teachers who were there full time. So who were teaching the students? Full time and yet I am sure they are getting good performance appraisals. So then who suffers in all of this? And this is my concern. “Yuh understand?” Who suffers in all of this? Yes, I am originally from Port of Spain, right, and of course, I have always felt that your way out of or moving up is through education. So I understand the importance of education but then again, our children may be going to particular schools, yet there are teachers teaching in Government schools, even in Port of Spain and there is no “kinda” caring as to we have to ensure that these students learn this, this has to happen. It is not happening, yet when you speak, the blame is put all around, everybody else, instead of looking at ourselves and recognizing there are persons who are really not performing to the level that they are supposed to and as we affect them, we affect society on the whole. You made some points about education and I want to say that same thing again, lack of accountability in some of the Government offices. It is not so easy because of the fact that even—you may have to change legislation to be able to get persons to account in some Government Ministries. Because again, the staff may be slipshod in what they are doing and may not be as, you know, they may not work as they are supposed to but then they get good staff reports at the end, they get promoted, they move around and what happens. So even in the actual interaction of the school system with education and so on, your hands are pretty much tied. Some of the areas need changes in legislation so that persons would be more accountable. It is not so easy in a Ministry. Sometimes I see things happening, even in this Ministry, but it is not easy to make a move because sometimes you see things happening that should not but when you check, these people are being promoted and are getting good staff reports. What could a Minister or a PS even do sometimes? You talk to the supervisors who are supposed to ensure that people work and do what they are supposed to do but it does not always happen. So unless we put checks and balances and proper accountability in place, this is something that will continue. All right. I have made some points and I think I⸻yes, I have covered all the points. So thank you again for your honest, open and outright comments. Mr. Chairman: All right. Thank you. I just want to ensure that the Chief Educational Officer is making her notes, right, because you will get an opportunity to respond. At this time, I would like to hear from TTUTA first of all and then I would also like to hear from Mr. David Simon and also Mrs. Sonia Mahase-Persad on the same discussion. Right. How do we reconcile the whole scenario and also with regard to going forward, what recommendations that we can put? So I will start with TTUTA first. Proceed. 108 | P a g e Mrs. Tekah-De Freitas: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, this may surprise you but TTUTA will not⸻and Fr. Mendes may be surprised to hear it— TTUTA will not condone such behaviours, and as a matter of fact, over the last few months, in case you are not aware, the new executive of TTUTA has been saying to educators at all levels, you are being paid to do a particular job, you need to do your job. Yes, we have constraints and of course COVID-19 has exacerbated certain circumstances within which we operate but the situations or the examples that Fr. Mendes gave at St. Anthony’s, those are totally untenable. So TTUTA will fight, Mr. Chair, and colleagues, tooth and nail to defend the rights of teachers and their terms and conditions but we have also been saying to our members at all levels, do the job that you are being paid to do in the interest of our children and our education system. So we will not⸻I will put in the public domain, Mr. Chair, we will not support wrongdoing, we never have. We have called out persons who have been in breach of regulations, in breach of simple good ethics. As to the issue of accountability that Minister Cox raised, that is a major part of the problem because as was said, at the level of the school, there are certain records and certain recommendations that must be taken and of course that has to go forward within the Ministry. So Minister Cox is quite correct that the systemic issues within the different Ministries, including Education, and Fr. Mendes spoke about one of those issues in terms of the movement of persons, that is a fact. And now I will disagree with Fr. Mendes in the terms of having institutional memory to deal with matter X at a school. Mr. Chair, honourable committee members, we do not need institutional memory, we need proper record-keeping and transparency in our recording and therefore, whether we do it on paper or we do it digitally, the evidence and the records will be there properly documented and collated so that whoever comes after, if we shift clubs, will be able to follow. I want to make the point from TTUTA’s perspective, Mr. Chair, as I said, in addition to speaking to our members, we are interacting with the Ministry on a consistent basis. We have interacted with the Teaching Service Commission on some of these same matters in the recent past. So within the next few months, we are going to be charting a way forward to deal with these issues at both the level of the TSC and the Ministry and deal with our members accordingly and their output. Thank you. Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Okay. I would like to⸻ Mrs. Sonia Mahase-Persad, could I get your feedback and comments? Mrs. Mahase-Persad: Thank you, Chair. So I just want to add in terms of how we treat with our students coming in at that Form 1 level and if we are to look at school-based management and developmental planning that is targeted and realistic and grounded, it must be based on a very clinical analysis of data that when they enter, not just the percentage they would have attained at English, language arts, mathematics, creative writing component, but also in terms of the students psychosocial background, their home background, their needs. These needs 109 | P a g e assessments are very important. So I am a strong advocate for research, to be research-driven in decision-making, to have a plan that embraces the holistic aspect of a child. And also there is something to be said as Fr. Ron pointed out, you know, school, school effect, the expectations and the culture that is found in a school, things that are communicated through from the principal to the staff to the parents to the students. What are the expectations that we have for our students’ success? And I keep saying not just academically but that holistic development, mapping our school development plan in a very realistic way. Our school development plans must be dynamic. They must cater for the external environment, the specialized needs of our children and we must be able to go back every year and look at those plans, see what we need to tinker, what we need to change and be consistent in our use of information that we have gathered through these variety of means in mapping the way forward. I do agree that there must be a tone in the school, a culture which recognizes the needs of our students and that is communicated very clearly to all. It is very important at the recruitment stage. Principals need to be trained. We used to have an induction and orientation for new principals years ago and it was very successful and it is something that over the years, you know, sort of fell a bit by the wayside. I think it is very important because the role of the principal is essential if we are to maintain a certain expectation and school culture and visioning as we go forward. I just want to say that schools are very dynamic and it is not something that could be on auto pilot and we always have to look at the teachers, the staff, the needs of the students, the needs of the community and be adaptable throughout. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Simon. Mr. Simon: Thank you very much, Chairman. I would like to⸻of course, the Association of Principals would like to make a couple of submissions here. One, I really do appreciate what Minister Cox had to say because it is obvious that we do need to have a paradigm shift and that paradigm shift must not only take place in education, it has to take place in our overall society. In education, we are forced to operate with archaic regulations and laws. These Regulations must be changed, otherwise we are going to spend the next 150 years doing exactly what we are doing and there will not be fundamental change within the education system that is going to affect the lives of our children. So that many of the issues that Fr. Mendes would have raised in terms of particular teachers not doing what they are supposed to, sad to say, but in many instances, our hands are tied as principals in Trinidad and Tobago because of the Regulations that we are forced to operate with and under and that is not something, as Minister Cox pointed out, that is exclusive to education alone. It applies to all aspects of our lives in Trinidad and Tobago and that has to change. There must be a paradigm shift and education must be included where that is concerned. 110 | P a g e One of the things that we also would like to see would be changes in management models. We are talking about underachievement in the Port of Spain area and a microscopic view of what is taking place points us in the direction that there are different models, there are different management models applied to our schools and there is a particular model that is far more successful than the other. We need to look at our models in education because it is not something that we have to recreate. Throughout the world, there are different management models as they apply to education. I must say that insofar as the Ministry is concerned, the Ministry has made but one to train our principals. Principals nationally were engaged in just over a year and a half maybe ago, we were trained and that training came in very, very handy in terms of allowing us to manage our schools. The school-based management model that has been introduced allowing some degree of decentralization is an excellent idea, however, the Ministry does need, as my colleague Ms. Patricia Pitt would have to say, to allow principals the freedom and not necessarily use models like these and still have our hands tied in terms of some of the things that we are able to do. And one last point that I would like to offer on behalf of all principals is something that we need to take a very serious look at in terms of having people who are full-time in their responsibilities. We speak about having deans and HoDs but those deans and HoDs are expected to teach yet we identify numerous issues that are linked to behaviourial aspects of our children. How are deans able to effectively deal with issues such as these when they are not full-time? They are not able to give all of their efforts neither do they receive the resources to be able to make meaningful contributions, especially with the shortfall that we experience since Student Support is always overburden. We need to look at these things and ensure that these individuals will be able to really function once they are given the opportunity that is laid out magnificently by the school-based management plan. Thank you. Mr. Chairman: Okay, thank you very much, colleagues. Mrs. Henry-David, I think the ball is now in your court in order to give us some feedback on the various comments that were made, like for example, we heard of the CVQ, right. What is the direction of the Ministry of Education as we go forward? We would have heard Fr. Mendes talking about the illegality of the 28 days’ entitlement of sick leave in advance, the morality of TTUTA with regard to this situation. The lack of teachers, teachers not being replaced, teachers having to double up and as a result of that, children are being at disadvantage. Regulation 90, right, significant late coming by teacher. Clerks in the Ministry being changed on a regular basis. The institutional knowledge that we would have heard of. Also “illegal activities”. Just a little feedback on each one of those aspects and we also heard from Sen. Cox: teachers who do not teach, lack of accountability, full-time teachers at UWI. We can go on and on. I think we would have heard it so just give us some feedback from the Ministry’s perspective. Mrs. Thompson-Ahye: Mr. Chairman, before the Ministry responds, if I may, I would like⸻ 111 | P a g e Mr. Chairman: Senator, is it along the same particular line? Because I know we heard a lot and I think, you know, the Ministry of Education is probably waiting to give feedback. Is it on the same aspect or it is a new point? Mrs. Thompson-Ahye: Yes. I would like her to respond as to whether there are sufficient teachers for remedial education, you know, and if in fact there is anything being done to increase the number of staff in Student Support Services and if there are any plans to reward teachers or to encourage teachers to go into co-curricular and extracurricular activities because you do it from the goodness of your heart but because it is so important, if something can be done along those lines. Mr. Chairman: All right. Thank you, Senator. Proceed, Madam Acting CEO. Mrs. Henry-David: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay so it is quite a number of issues starting with what I would call human resource management issues. So as Sen. Cox would have indicated, it is the DNA of a Ministry to have staff movement and as TTUTA would have indicated, what we really need is to ensure that our records are properly kept and that in the handover to the new clerical officers, you know, we have all of the data in front of us so that we can go through all the processes. So I will start by saying that if in terms of disciplining of teachers and other officers, there is an identified process to be followed which starts with the getting of records at the level of the school. The school will send forward a complaint or so. If it is deemed that it is an infraction that has broken the Regulation, we will start the process for a Regulation 90 which involves an investigation into the incident or incidents as it were. 11.45 a.m. And at the end of that process at the Ministry of Education recommendations are made to the Teaching Service Commission. The Ministry of Education is not the entity that disciplines teachers. Fr. Mendes would have spoken about Regulation 90, what that means is, the Ministry has done its investigation and at the end of that process—I am not saying that the process is the best in the world and that it works—I am saying however, and TTUTA will bear me out, that persons have the right to due process, and in so doing in ensuring that we give our children the value that they deserve when they enter a school and expect to be educated, that we all need to ensure we do our parts. And the President of TTUTA would have indicated that we are in constant consultation with them and one of the recommendations they have made to us and which we are seeking to ensure that we go through with is that we continuously train our administrators at the level of the school so that when they enter that progressive discipline process we can ensure that we have dotted all of our Is and crossed our Ts, so that if we are sending something forward to the Teaching Service Commission we can be reasonably sure that we have done and carried out the process as it should have been, and that we present them with enough evidence that they can take the requisite action. 112 | P a g e With respect to the movement of staff and keeping of records, I will admit that we have some issues along those lines and we have—at present we are moving towards the digitization of those records that can be digitized because, as the speakers before me would have indicated, in the public service you operate under certain Regulations with respect to what records should be kept, and how they should be kept, and so on. And we are also looking at the systems and procedures to ensure that they are done in the best possible way. We have brought in persons on contract who are assisting us with these processes to ensure that we move to a better place in terms of how our records are kept and how persons are handed over to when they move. With respect to—Mr. Simon spoke about changing the Regulations which is not under our remit but when we are asked by various entities for our comments on those things we try to provide the answers that are required of us. And changes in management models, I was glad when Mr. Simon indicated that the Ministry has been trying to provide the training for our administrators so that at the level of the schools they can do what is necessary to ensure that systems are put in place. I take Ms. Pitts’ point in terms of the hands of administrators being somewhat tied, again by the same Regulations, and we will continue to work within the Ministry and with our stakeholders to see how we can move to a better place where that is concerned. In terms of whether deans can be full-time, that is really an issue for the Chief Personnel Officer. And with respect to the direction of CVQ and CVQ recognition, I will ask the Director of Curriculum to comment on that. And after that, through the Chair, I will ask our Social Work Specialist to respond to Mrs. Thompson-Ahye in terms of the numbers of persons in the Student Support Services Division. Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Henry-David, before you move on to your colleague, the management models that principal Simon spoke about? Yes, the management models that that Mr. Simon spoke about, is it you all have a documentation that you would have supplied with you all, or could you shed some light on it? When you said “management models”? Or if it is that Mr. Simon is better to answer that question? Mrs. Henry-David: Chair, Mr. Simon would have to answer that question but I think his point is that in the systems that existed 50 years ago are not necessarily what is best placed in the 20th Century to treat with issues that come forward, and COVID-19 for example has shown us that we need to be flexible in order to treat with issues that come to us, you know, on a daily basis. Mr. Chairman: And what I would like to say as the Acting Chair for this Committee, if that document could be provided to the Committee please? The various management models that may have or whether Mr. Simon could produce us the Committee with those different models. Mrs. Henry-David: Chair, I would put that ball in Mr. Simon’s court. Mr. Chairman: Okay, so you can now go to your other officials. Or Mr. Simon, you wanted to comment on it now? 113 | P a g e Mr. Simon: Yeah. Mr. Chairman: Okay, just briefly, just briefly, yeah, for the public. Mr. Simon: I would use the examples right here. I mean, the management models that I am speaking about are simply different models of managing schools. And I would use three different systems that we have here. For example, we have the government schools with one particular mode and system of management. There are the government-assisted schools. And then there is a very unique educational experience in Trinidad and Tobago which we see with the Bishops/Trinity East, because that is a public-private management model that has been put in place, which is somewhat different from the traditional government-assisted school and very different from the government schools. So within our own educational experience here there are three different models that we speak about. And in theory in education worldwide there are different management models are used in terms of how schools are run. And that is what I am speaking to, but right here in Trinidad and Tobago we do have three different models that are used. There are many commonalities. When you take a microscopic view there are a number of significant differences which can determine exactly how these institutions are allowed to function and operate in their daily operation. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman: And is it true to say, Mr. Simon, that again, among these three different models, the educational development of the students are varied from these three models? Mr. Simon: I think once you examine the data it is going to be clear that the statement you just made, Mr. Chair, is quite correct. The data is going to support that because even the topic that we are looking at in terms of the performance of schools in Port of Spain, while we can look at the national averages et cetera, and the general averages, when you take a microscopic view of the data in front of you, you are going to see huge differences between different models within the Port of Spain region. So yes, you are quite correct, Sir. Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Okay, so again, Mrs. Henry-David, your colleagues can now come in. Mrs. Henry-David: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Singh: Through the Chair, I am responding concerning the issue of CVQ. In a recent webinar held by the UWI, the principal pointed out that we have in our educational landscape what is called the formal, the informal and the non-formal educational experiences. What we are able to capture at this point in time and what we are using to report on schools would be the formal and largely using an academic performance indicator. With respect to CVQs, CVQ is a skills-based programme, and that is why Ms. Pitt will say to you that what students are assessed by is the development of a portfolio that shows the development of the skill and evidence towards that end. Within the CVQ system, you have what is called Regional Occupational Standards, 114 | P a g e ROSs, and to get a CVQ there are a number of ROSs that must be met. So a child may be doing a CVQ, may complete some and not all of the ROS and may not at the end of the two-year period be awarded a CVQ because there is only partial completion of the requirements. And until recently, I would say within the last month, CANTA has ratified with CXC in terms of the national qualification framework to establish equivalence with CSEC and CVQs, so that the potential of that would be that when with you are saying a child has five subjects, and you say two CSEC and three CVQs, you are talking about five passes and they are equivalent. The process is a little difficult to have arrived at this point. At the end of the day when you assign a qualification the system must ensure that this qualification is both valid and it is reliable, and when you are looking at assessing a programme where you are looking at skills-based assessment it is altogether quite different from an academic assessment where you have a written paper, multiple choice structure and so on. So that it has taken some time to reach this point but we believe that where we are now pivots us forward in terms of being able to broaden now the assessment of students and to actually be able to capture in a rigid and robust system what largely falls into informal and possibly non-formal education. The implication is that children would be able to now find a mechanism where their skills, whether they do it in the formal school context, whether they do it through Civilian Conservation Corps, or what other opportunity they have to be assessed and to have certification afforded to them. That has been instructive in terms of formalizing career pathways that take students in and out of the system in terms of the TVET careers. So we are now in a position to better track students in terms of even if they drop out and come back through another way to be able to move in from secondary into tertiary areas in the TVET areas, because we now have a system that is better prepared to establish parity in terms of TVET areas CVQs and CSEC. I hope that— Mr. Chairman: Thank you, thank you. From Ministry of Education, Sen. Thonpson-Ayhe’s comment and feedback on the remedial classes, remedial teaching? Who from the Ministry of Education will be seeing to that? Acting CEO? Mrs. Henry-David: Mr. Chairman, at the present time the Ministry does not have remedial teachers in the secondary system, all right. It is not necessarily something that we have had in-depth discussion on but it is coming out of this enquiry and the recommendations is something we can look into to see how we can approach that, whether we need to have remedial teachers, whether we need to include in our training of our current teachers that remedial aspect because if we are being frank we have a number of schools where a significant—as my colleague would have said—a significant number of the students entering in Form 1 do have some remedial issues. What we do have in place is the Stars Programme that seeks to adapt the curriculum for those children coming in where it is recognized they are at these lower levels. It is to seek to address some of the shortfalls that they may have which may be quite varied from student to student but in terms of specialized remedial teachers 115 | P a g e at this point in time, no. Mr. Chairman: And one other aspect that came up from Mr. Simon and I think it was highlighted by one or two other officials, deans and counsellors are not full-time. Again, we all went to school and we know the importance of the discipline. Again, from my days to now we know it has totally changed and you know, we know of, like we hear of counsellors within a particular zone you know, and they identify for three or five schools, and they spend a certain time at this school today, and they do not visit this school tomorrow and things like that. What is in the pipeline going forward with regard to ensure that we have counsellors and deans full-time, or attached to schools, you know, something to ensure that discipline is maintained? Mrs. Henry-David: Mr. Chair, I would have indicated that in terms of what deans, what their portfolio is, it is a matter for the CPO to adjudicate on with discussion, and in terms of how our guidance officers and so on would be distributed among the schools and especially schools where we have identified that there are major issues, I will ask our Social Work Specialist, Ms. Robinson-Arnold to comment. Through you, Mr. Chair, of course. Mrs. Tekah-De Freitas: Mr. Chair, with your permission TTUTA will comment after please. Mr. Chairman: Go ahead, Ministry of Education. Mrs. Robinson-Arnold: Pleasant good morning, Mr. Chair. At present there are 25 secondary schools in Port of Spain district—23, two are private secondary schools. There are currently 11 school social workers which serve those schools, and 27 guidance officers, two of which are assigned to our learning enhancement centres. Mr. Chairman: Okay, thank you. TTUTA what aspect would you like to comment on? Mrs. Tekah-De Freitas: Mr. Chair, the last three points raised by yourself and Sen. Thompson-Ahye please. Mr. Chairman: Okay, two minutes please. Mrs. Tekah-De Freitas: Right. In terms of the question put to the Ministry as to the deans and the counsellors being full-time, and yes, CEO indicated that they are, that is a discussion for the CPO, it is a discussion between the CPO and TTUTA. Mr. Chair, what it will require is a change in the job description of the heads of department and deans to make them full-time. And therefore, in the first instance the necessary compensation mechanisms to be awarded to them. Similarly, with all officers of Student Support Services we need to ensure that their job descriptions are finalized and we have the division properly staffed. Mr. Chair, in response to the issue of social workers and counsellors at secondary, TTUTA wishes to suggest it might be more prudent once we have improved manpower to enhance that capacity at the primary level and improve students’ performance and behavioural attitudes and situations there so they will transition 116 | P a g e to secondary with fewer problems. Finally, Mr. Chair, in terms of CANTA and the rationalization of the CVQ results with those of CSEC, we want to urge that a holistic approach be taken to that and that a public advocacy and public education campaign take place to ensure that the members of the public understand the equity that we are looking for. Thank you. Mr. Chairman: Okay. At this time any members of the Committee would like to intervene? Any comment, question, or feedback? Ms. Pitt: Through you, Mr. Chair, could I just add something to what Mrs. Tekah-De Freitas just said? This is Ms. Pitt here. Mr. Chairman: One second, one second, one second. Yes, members, anyone would like to comment at this time? Member of the Committee? Mrs. Thompson-Ahye: I would like to commend all of those who appeared before us you know, this morning. I think it was very instructive and I hope that going forward we will be able to see something put in place to reward teachers who perform exceptionally well at their jobs and also to weed out those teachers who are not contributing to the education of the children. I do not know if the assessment process of teachers is working well, because I would like to know if there is a way of seeing that there are schools that perform very well and they take full reward for the scholarships, but when you delve deeper and you talk to the children they are telling you it is the private school teacher who has brought me to where I am, but the schools are taking full responsibility and kudos when some of those teachers in those prestige schools as well are not performing well. So we need to be straightforward, we need to be honest. We need also to look to see exactly how we welcome children into our schools especially children who come from disadvantaged neighbourhoods, and I wish I had more time to speak to St. Anthony’s problems because I have sat in the court, the now Children Court that used to be Juvenile Court, and I see too many children who are on suspension from St. Anthony’s school and the probation officers and myself have spoken about it. So, something is going on there. We need to be sure that we welcome children from all classes into our schools and all of them are treated fairly, because remember, it is not where you came from but where you can go. So belief in the children, love for the children, is paramount, if you do not love children get out of the teaching profession please. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Sen. Thompson-Ahye. Mrs. Henry-David, any feedback or comment? Mrs. Henry-David: Mr. Chair, my general comment is, you know, Sen. Thompson-Ahye has me smiling and yes, it is important that persons who go in to the teaching profession look at it not as a “wuk” but as a profession where they, you know, influence the lives of children, they recognize how the way they interact with children 117 | P a g e can make or break their attitude towards education and towards school itself. And in the discussion this morning a number of issues have been brought forward and it would be instructive if just as the Committee has the benefit of the submissions of all of the stakeholders, that there would be some cross fertilization, and we would be able to get the information from each other so that we can factor the opinions and recommendations of our stakeholders in education into the way we move forward, because education is and always will remain everybody’s business. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman: Ms. Pitt, I can entertain you at this time. Ms. Pitt: Thank you, Sir. I just wanted to thank Ms. Singh for her contribution concerning the CVQ. I am happy to see that we are moving in that direction. And I am happy because if this is a qualification that is being recognized by Caricom Single Market Economy, then we should be able to give our children this opportunity to gain that qualification, number one, and then be able to have really good livelihoods as a consequence of that. Education to me it is all about life, it is all about having life skills, CVQs allow children to have an assessment that is authentic, and I think that is the direction that education needs to be moving in. So that all well and good, a paper and pencil test is all well and good, but at the end of the day can you do? And the CVQ simply says, “I can do” or ‘I can do up to this level and then I move on to the next.” So thank you very much, Ms. Singh, for sharing that with us. I really appreciate the fact that the effort is being made to have the qualification recognized as broadly as it possibly can. So thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman: Right. Thank you, thank you Ms. Pitt. At this time, I would like to place the last question for discussion, the Association of Principals of Assisted Secondary Schools in their submission indicated that and I quote: Interventions in schools with a high degree of at-risk students must include targeted training of teachers and adjustment in the class sizes to a realistic teacher/student ratio to facilitate individualized attention for students. And that is stated in the submission on page 4, paragraph 3. So again, to Mrs. Sonia Mahase-Persad, all right, following questions that you know, I would like you to generate for us some answers. What is the average teacher/student ratio in classes? Secondly, in schools with a high number of at-risk students, should this ratio be adjusted? I have two more questions, or you want to give me the two questions one time or you want to deal with those two at first? Mrs. Mahase-Persad: I could deal with those two, Chair. Mr. Chairman: Okay, proceed. Mrs. Mahase-Persad: So when we look at the at-risk students as was stated in our submission; we are looking at 118 | P a g e learners who have a higher probability of failing academically or dropping out of school. So, we are looking at that different of at-risk students and students who fall into that category need specialized attention. In the case of the students in Form 1, most of them in that category would have attained under 50 per cent and in some cases under 30 per cent at the SEA level which is very worrying, because then it points to very severe gaps that must be catered for if these students are to progress at the secondary level. And out of that comes the recommendation for smaller class sizes. Typically, we have 35 students to one teacher ratio in most of our schools. In some cases, even more. In some cases, it is 40 students to a teacher ratio in some classes. An ideal class size would be, for specialized work like this, 20 students to teacher, and even that may be a bit high given the needs of these students for more individualized attention. Fifteen students to teacher and the teacher being trained in specialized pedagogy to deal with these students’ needs that would be an ideal mechanism to actually provide the type of support that these students need, otherwise, you will have a transition from Form 1, to Form 2, to Form 3, and at the end of five years, value has not been added in a meaningful way to them through the education system. And in addition to that, you know, the provision of the diagnostic specialist. There are so many learning challenges not just the typical ones that we could recognize like dyslexia and ADHD. There are so many others right now that we do need the support of diagnostic specialists especially with these at-risk students, and reading specialists. Our CEO spoke about the fact that we do not have remedial teachers at the secondary level and there is a need for specialized and remedial teachers to assist those students coming in with under 30 per cent at the SEA and under 50 per cent as well. So, in addition to fill in as we talk about the heads and deans post, we also need these particular specialized type of teachers and, as I said, that smaller student to teacher ratio so that these at-risk students could be provided with that targeted support. Mr. Chairman: And my question, my follow-up question based on the comment that you gave us, in light of the ideal class scenario being 20 to one all right, versus what we have at present, 35 students to one teacher or even 40 students to one teacher. In going forward, right, I know the Ministry of Education may say that they are not in a position in order to bring down that figure where they can provide teachers in that instance, what recommendation can you put forward in light, in going forward, how we can be able to deal with this situation? 12.15 p.m. Mrs. Mahase-Persad: I think we need to understand school context. While in some cases a class with 35 students to a teacher, that could be a functional class in terms of the teacher being able to deliver the curriculum. We have to look, we have been talking about school context, and I keep talking about doing this personal profile of students when they enter the secondary schools, where we look at their scores at the SEA, we look at their needs, their academic needs, and see what we need to provide. So it is not a one-size-fits-all approach. 119 | P a g e Whereas in some schools you can have bigger classes, in schools where we have identified a significant number of students who are in need of specialized attention, there we could look at the possibility of having those smaller classes. Given the economic constraints that may be facing the Ministry of Education, the need for more teachers and how quickly that could be done, that is one way to look at it. I will say the hybridized approach that we were all forced to adopt under COVID has given us some really useful online resources that are very useful for students with special needs, and maybe a look can be taken to using those online resources and providing more one-on-one attention for those students who will need that support as well. And that is where curriculum and additional training will be needed to see how best the teachers can utilize that. But I do not think we could get away from the fact that there are definitely schools where we will need to have smaller class sizes. Mr. Chairman: Okay. Mrs. Mahase-Persad: While some could function with it as it is, there are many schools where those students would need that more individualized attention. Mr. Chairman: Could I get a feedback from Fr. Mendes, and then also from Mr. Simon, can I get some feedback here please? Fr. Mendes: I agree with what Mrs. Mahase-Persad has said. You do not—what she is saying is not saying that you double the number of teachers in a school, quite the opposite. That where it is needed, a teacher be provided, so that they—a teacher or two, depending on the size of the school and the number of students affected, so that the children can be properly catered to and catered for. Because otherwise, when a teacher is trying to deal with 35 or 40 children in a classroom, there is no way that they can give—more than maybe once every month if that— the individualized attention to children who need it. So I just want to underscore with what she has said, and I agree with it fully. Again, I recognize the Ministry has their own limits on the number of people that they can hire and so on. I would also like to state that when you are talking about the deans and heads, what had happened when the original set of deans and heads came into a school, one teacher was provided for every three deans or heads of department so that they could have some time, but a dean teaching five periods out of eight, or four out of seven, certainly does not have the kind of time. So again, the constraints are with the Ministry’s ability to be able to hire more teachers, totally understandable. They are limited by costs. But those things need to be looked at, at a level way above ours, at the level of the Parliament, of the Cabinet, to look at it and see what needs to be done if we are going to have a truly successful educational system. Thank you. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Fr. Mendes. Mr. Simon, brief comments. Mr. Simon: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I want to start by recognizing the contribution of the President of TTUTA. I think we need to have a very cohesive view of our education system. So some of the issues that we are raising, if we can have measures instituted, properly instituted from the primary schools, and that transition is going to be an easier one. The issue as well of supplying information from the primary school to the secondary school is something that needs to be improved upon and refined, so that we work almost as an extension of one 120 | P a g e another in that, as someone coming into a secondary school, the principal is well aware of what issues they are facing. Yes, I know there is the CUME card, but that CUME card system that we have is ineffective, it is not properly done, it is—because it needs to be modernized in the first place. And that is something that we need to pay attention to. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Simon, one second, what card you said? Mr. Simon: The cumulative record card. Education would have shortened it to CUME card. Mr. Chairman: Okay, okay, okay. Mr. Simon: My apologies, Sir. Mr. Chairman: Yes, we need to be conscious, yes. Mr. Simon: Yes. Mr. Chairman: Go ahead. Mr. Simon: Then moving on, we spoke about—this is something that I really want to underscore especially in light of the subject we are discussing today. It was very pleasing to see that we went beyond the Port of Spain region and looking at performance in schools and not underachievement. I had real problems and our association had real problems with the wording of the document, in terms of what we were looking at. We much prefer the examination of the performance of our schools, not only in Port of Spain but in Trinidad and Tobago, and it was very pleasing to see that our discussion already did not focus on Port of Spain really, we examined national issues, which is what we must do. And just as I end, on that Port of Spain issue, imagine that we would have been hearing, as we look at our system, no remedial teachers, shortages in guidance officers and social workers. Is there any surprise then that the microscopic view of schools in some of the areas that have been highlighted as hotspots, et cetera, and the performances, the academic performances of these schools are going to be lagging behind some of the other schools where you have so much more support. Not necessarily from the Ministry or from anybody else, but from the other stakeholder groups, the past pupils associations, all of these other stakeholder groups that step in to fill the gap. What we need to do is to be, as was said, be very honest about our situation and we must really recognize a need to deconstruct the system that is in front of us and build it from scratch. Really, COVID has shown us that we can do it, because COVID was just to be plunged into the unknown. And while we are still swimming against the tide, I think we are doing a very, very good job as a community and that is what I would like to say, Mr. Chair, on that. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, thank you, Mr. Simon. Back to you, Mrs. Mahase-Persad. Do teachers in these schools receive training to treat with the additional attention required by high risk students? That is one, and then the last question would be: What are the restorative practices for students in secondary schools which are underachieving? Again, I would like Mrs. Mahase-Persad to start off, and then we will also go to Fr. Mendes and also Mr. Simon. Two minutes, please. Mrs. Mahase-Persad: Chair, could you repeat the first question? 121 | P a g e Mr. Chairman: Oh, the first question: Do teachers in these schools receive training to treat with the additional attention required by at-risk students? The at-risk students you talk about. Do you all receive training with regard to that? Briefly. Mrs. Mahase-Persad: That type of specialized training, unfortunately, is lacking. I think, as a society, we probably need more personnel who access those types of training at the tertiary level and come back to their community to work within the school system. I get a sense that there is a shortage of that type of trained personnel who could now be part of the bigger education system. So no, that is a very specific type of training. While there might be some workshops to address certain remediation needs, it is not to the depth that we were speaking about in our submission because we do have severely at-risk students who would need trained teachers who could provide the targeted intervention that they require in order to progress. Mr. Chairman: Again, briefly, Fr. Mendes and Mr. Simon, and then I will bring in the Ministry of Education. Fr. Mendes: Okay, Mr. Chair, our schools, all three of our schools use the various days given by the Ministry as professional development days, to bring in psychologists and different people to speak to the staff and to try to do little workshops on trying to meet those needs. But you know, the ironic thing is that the people, the teachers who take their time off, their days—and it is not 28 sick, it is 14 sick and 14 casual—will quite often take a casual day on the day that there is that professional development. What can be done about it? Very little. So—but at any rate, the attempt is made through the board, and through the principals to have the professional development days where you bring in these kinds of people, psychologists and so on. We have even brought in SSS on different occasions to speak to the staff about this in the hope of trying to develop a way forward. Thank you. Mr. Chairman: Yes thanks, Mr. Simon. Mr. Simon: Chair, I would like to also agree with the two previous speakers. Definitely on a national level, I think we need to move so much more in terms of special needs, not only in education but really in all aspects of our society. So yes, there can be a lot more to be done in terms of training here, but I must give the Ministry of Education some credit here especially in light of what Fr. Mendes just spoke about, because the Ministry of Education has spent some time training us as leaders in our own schools. So as principals we have been trained in terms of how we can proceed, how we can, as leaders, transformational leaders, utilize our limited resources, be able to help in those professional development days that we, that we speak about. So, as leaders we have been provided with some degree of change mechanisms and systems that are allowing us to make minor differences within our schools and within the education system as a whole. However, I would like to concur with the view that definitely a lot more can be done on a national level, not only from the Ministry of Education, but in terms of us as a society, in terms of how we deal with special needs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Simon, just to—a little follow up. Of the three models you identified, right, the government schools, then we have the government assisted model and then we have the public/private management model which is like the Bishops Trinity East, right, that you spoke about. With regard to the at-risk students, they are 122 | P a g e more prevalent—in terms of those three models, where would you—the percentages of at-risk students, where would you think it is more highly prevalent? Mr. Simon: Let me first start by answering that question by saying, Mr. Chair, that every single school possesses at-risk students, right, definitely. So that, you are going to find that in every school. But if we are to be brutally honest, I think that is a rhetorical question. Because the answer to that question, obviously, of the models, the government secondary schools are the schools. When we started the discussion first and foremost, we spoke about the location of schools. You are going to find that many of the schools that you speak about are located in different areas, many of the government, I should not say many, but quite a few of the government schools are community based schools, that is, they are located within communities. And the issues that we speak about that will speak to students who are at-risk, will be emanating from those communities and many of those schools are government schools. The data that we would have supplied as well, Mr. Chair, would be a clear indication, as I said, I keep speaking about a microscopic view of the academic performance. And that microscopic view is going to point to differences in terms of the different models and the government school model. But let me reiterate that every single school has at-risk students and the challenge is to bring those at-risk students to a point where they are going to be meaningful contributors to our society. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman: Okay, thank you very much colleagues. Mrs. Henry-David, Ministry of Education, feedback on the discourse that we just had, with regard to at-risk, right, the teacher to student ratio. The high number of at- risk students and how/if the ratio can be adjusted, and what does the Ministry in going forward have to say about it? Mrs. Mahase-Persad: Excuse me, Chair, I think there was one question you asked me at the end there about interventions and I just wanted to quickly answer. There were two questions you posed. Mr. Chairman: Okay. Mrs. Mahase-Persad: So I just want to answer the second one very quickly— Mr. Chairman: Okay, okay go ahead. Mrs. Mahase-Persad—in terms of intervention. Taking off from what Mr. Simon spoke about, the Ministry that provides training for principals to probably recognize some of these at-risk students and the characteristics. But there is a broad spectrum of at-risk students that we have to look at. Student Support Services Division and school social workers do provide some support, but I think they definitely need more staffing in order to attend to the needs of the schools. Alumni associations, a lot of schools tap into the resources, the human resources available within their alumni association. It is always good to build that sense of identification between past students and their schools so that they would want to give back. Giving back is a very important characteristic, I think, that we need to cultivate in our students. When they graduate, they are still part of the school community, and if they have a skill set to offer, come and give it back. Also, the parent/teachers association, sometimes we tap into that and we pull parents who may have the resources, who may be able to assist with the at-risk students. It is also important to forge community links, and 123 | P a g e have that school/community link that there is a sense of identification so that corporate community, members of the wider community that the school is located in, would be able to come and provide some assistance and support for those at-risk students as well, thank you. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, thank you very much. Acting CEO, Ministry of Education, brief comments on what discourse we just had. Mrs. Henry-David: Thank you, Mr. Chair. With respect to the issue of smaller class sizes, as indicated by those that would have spoken before me, it presents the issue of additional teachers in some cases, as well as additional physical space in which to accommodate the students. So at this point in time with the number of students sitting the SEA exam annually increasing, what we would have to do is as Mrs. Mahase-Persad would have indicated, is to see how we can look at the online modalities and have different takes, and each individual school will have to look at their staff, their staffing and their spatial allocation to see how they can make changes within their individual context in order to treat with the issues presenting to them. We also move to the topic of teacher training to treat with special needs students that are identified. The Ministry as was indicated does provide some level of training. The Student Support Services also augments that, and as Mr. Simon would have pointed out, as leaders, the principals bring in—and Mrs. Mahase-Persad as well— they bring in persons from the outside to augment what is provided by the Ministry. And it—when we look at it, you know, at that level, we recognize that it is a concerted effort across all of the stakeholders to try to treat with what concerns all of us. And the Ministry will continue to provide support and to build on the training that is currently provided to see how best we can provide for our teachers to help them to treat with all the issues with which they are confronted. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman: Okay, thank you, members, right. I think we are at this junction now where we can bring the meeting to a close. Again, as the Chairman, Acting Chairman for this morning’s proceedings, I would like to really thank all officials that were present here today, including the Ministry of Education, officials from the Ministry of Education, the Trinidad and Tobago Unified Teachers Association, TTUTA, Association of Principals of the Public Secondary Schools of Trinidad and Tobago, officials from the Association of Principals of Assisted Secondary Schools and also officials, the Holy Ghost Fathers of Trinidad and Tobago. I would also like to thank all my committee members who participated remotely for this virtual meeting. I would also like to thank staff of the Office of the Parliament for all the procedural and logistical support. And of course, we would like to thank the viewing and listening audience this morning—or, this afternoon, for this joint select parliamentary meeting. As the Acting Chairman, I now bring this meeting to a close and I thank you. 12.35 p.m.: Meeting adjourned. 124 | P a g e APPENDIX IV Port of Spain & Environs District School Comparison to National Average for SEA 2015-2020 125 | P a g e PORT OF SPAIN & ENVIRONS SCHOOL COMPARISON TO NATIONAL AVERAGE FOR SEA 2020 School School Authority Average Weighte d Score No. Student s Writing SEA Comparison to National Average for 2020 LAVENTILLE BOYS' GOVERNMENT Government 156.3122 13 Under PALMERAS LEARNING CENTRE Private 160.7383 8 Under CASCADE SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF Government 163.3340 1 Under BOISSIERE VILLAGE RC Roman Catholic 166.1541 11 Under ESCALLIER AC Anglican 166.2831 17 Under ENAAME'S SCHOOL Private 166.5278 4 Under BETHLEHEM BOYS' RC Roman Catholic 168.5074 26 Under ROSE HILL RC Roman Catholic 169.3994 17 Under UPPER LAVENTILLE (OUR LADY OF LAVENTILLE) RC Roman Catholic 169.4720 9 Under ST PHILLIP'S GOVERNMENT Government 170.0723 9 Under SUCCESS RC Roman Catholic 172.4953 35 Under ASCENSION AC Anglican 172.9795 32 Under GLOSTER LODGE MORAVIAN Moravian 175.2191 45 Under BEETHAM ESTATE GOVERNMENT (EXCEL COMPOSITE) Government 175.2409 33 Under POINT CUMANA GOVERNMENT Government 176.6844 14 Under COCORITE GOVERNMENT Government 177.0438 18 Under MORVANT NEW GOVERNMENT Government 177.1509 43 Under PETIT VALLEY BOYS' RC Roman Catholic 177.3955 2 Under HOKETT BAPTIST Baptist (Fundamental) 177.5122 24 Under DIEGO MARTIN BOYS' RC Roman Catholic 177.9708 60 Under EASTERN GIRLS' GOVERNMENT Government 178.4888 47 Under BETHLEHEM GIRLS' RC Roman Catholic 179.8965 13 Under ST AGNES AC Anglican 180.0017 43 Under ST BARB'S GOVERNMENT Government 180.0689 14 Under DIEGO MARTIN GIRLS' RC Roman Catholic 181.1067 35 Under CHINAPOO GOVERNMENT Government 181.8660 40 Under BELMONT GOVERNMENT Government 182.2018 53 Under BELMONT BOYS' RC Roman Catholic 183.5908 42 Under DIEGO MARTIN GOVERNMENT Government 184.1489 41 Under LA SEIVA RC Roman Catholic 184.2349 19 Under ST THERESE PREPARATORY Private 184.9091 10 Under LA PUERTA GOVERNMENT Government 185.5388 61 Under ST DOMINIC'S RC Roman Catholic 186.2198 40 Under 126 | P a g e EASTERN BOYS' GOVERNMENT Government 186.5301 45 Under WOODBROOK PRESBYTERIAN Presbyterian 186.7864 14 Under ST CRISPINS AC Anglican 186.8715 17 Under NELSON STREET BOYS' RC Roman Catholic 187.0891 34 Under LOWER MORVANT GOVERNMENT Government 187.8127 38 Under FOUR ROADS GOVERNMENT Government 188.2302 20 Under MARAVAL RC Roman Catholic 189.7663 76 Under LAVENTILLE GIRLS' GOVERNMENT Government 189.9227 25 Under PARAMIN RC Roman Catholic 190.1557 24 Under ST MARGARET'S BOYS' AC Anglican 190.7231 48 Under ESHE'S LEARNING CENTRE Private 191.1953 18 Under PATNA/RIVER ESTATE GOVERNMENT Government 191.8102 32 Under PETIT VALLEY GIRLS' RC Roman Catholic 192.5049 15 Under MORVANT AC Anglican 192.7516 66 Under PORT OF SPAIN SDA Private 193.5644 13 Under NELSON STREET GIRLS' RC Roman Catholic 194.5270 43 Under MUCURAPO BOYS' RC Roman Catholic 196.0091 40 Under PORT OF SPAIN PRIVATE CANDIDATES Private 197.7249 66 Under ST ANN'S RC Roman Catholic 198.1580 23 Under NEW BEGINNINGS EDUCATIONAL CENTRE Private 199.0015 2 Under MADRESSA AL MUSLIMEEN NULL 199.7470 14 Under RICHMOND STREET BOYS' AC Anglican 199.9957 57 Under CARENAGE BOYS' GOVERNMENT Government 200.5919 20 Above ROSARY BOYS' RC Roman Catholic 201.1026 90 Above BELMONT GIRLS' RC Roman Catholic 201.5050 45 Above ST ROSES GIRLS' INTER RC Roman Catholic 201.9941 49 Above TRANQUILLITY GOVERNMENT Government 202.0271 63 Above MELVILLE MEMORIAL GIRLS' AC Anglican 202.3946 49 Above CARENAGE GIRLS' GOVERNMENT Government 203.0542 20 Above GAINES NORMAL AME African Methodist Episcopal 204.4429 20 Above MOULTON HALL METHODIST Methodist 205.3563 58 Above POINT CUMANA RC Roman Catholic 205.3896 23 Above CRYSTAL STREAM GOVERNMENT Government 206.1528 29 Above ST CATHERINE'S PRIVATE Private 206.4074 18 Above SACRED HEART BOYS' RC Roman Catholic 207.8090 51 Above BRIGGS PREPARATORY Private 207.9712 26 Above ST CATHERINE'S GIRLS' AC Anglican 209.0251 56 Above HOLY ROSARY PREPARATORY Private 210.1568 6 Above DIAMOND VALE GOVERNMENT Government 211.5039 75 Above NEWTOWN GIRLS' RC Roman Catholic 211.8028 80 Above 127 | P a g e NEWTOWN BOYS' RC Roman Catholic 213.8024 73 Above MUCURAPO GIRLS' RC Roman Catholic 214.1028 64 Above WESTPORT SDA Private 214.5294 14 Above ST THERESA GIRLS' RC Roman Catholic 215.7081 53 Above ST HILDA'S GIRLS' GOVERNMENT Government 216.3478 16 Above HOLY NAME PREPARATORY Private 216.7115 44 Above ST URSULA'S GIRLS' AC Anglican 218.4747 40 Above TRINITY JUNIOR SCHOOL Private 218.8851 46 Above BRYN MAWR Private 224.0115 12 Above HOLY FAITH PREPARATORY, ST BERNADETTE'S Private 225.9777 35 Above SACRED HEART GIRLS' RC Roman Catholic 226.7201 118 Above BLACKMAN'S PRIVATE Private 227.7063 31 Above MARIA GORETTI PREPARATORY Private 227.9701 22 Above HOLY FAITH PREPARATORY, ST. MONICA'S Private 229.3311 54 Above BISHOP ANSTEY JUNIOR Private 230.9672 48 Above ST ANDREW'S PRIVATE Private 235.8261 57 Above MARIA REGINA GRADE SCHOOL Private 236.7826 68 Above HOLISTIC PRIMARY Private 236.9183 9 Above DUNROSS PREPARATORY Private 237.4366 38 Above National Average 200.0585 19203 128 | P a g e PORT OF SPAIN & ENVIRONS SCHOOL COMPARISON TO NATIONAL AVERAGE FOR SEA 2019 School School Authority Average Weighted Score No. Students Writing SEA Comparison to National Average for 2019 UPPER LAVENTILLE (OUR LADY OF LAVENTILLE) RC Roman Catholic 151.2672 11 Under CASCADE SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF Government 155.2120 4 Under BETHLEHEM GIRLS' RC Roman Catholic 158.0895 11 Under PETIT VALLEY BOYS' RC Roman Catholic 160.1813 22 Under PALMERAS LEARNING CENTRE Private 161.2763 7 Under ENAAME'S SCHOOL Private 161.9307 3 Under BETHLEHEM BOYS' RC Roman Catholic 162.0762 19 Under ESCALLIER AC Anglican 163.1046 12 Under GLOSTER LODGE MORAVIAN Moravian 164.4375 49 Under HOKETT BAPTIST Baptist (Fundamental) 166.2574 24 Under PICCADILLY GOVERNMENT Government 168.0964 12 Under EASTERN BOYS' GOVERNMENT Government 168.9337 54 Under ST BARB'S GOVERNMENT Government 169.0727 18 Under FOUR ROADS GOVERNMENT Government 171.5281 17 Under POINT CUMANA GOVERNMENT Government 171.8480 14 Under ROSE HILL RC Roman Catholic 172.2282 19 Under MORVANT NEW GOVERNMENT Government 173.7930 25 Under COCORITE GOVERNMENT Government 174.6218 24 Under ST PHILLIP'S GOVERNMENT Government 174.7387 9 Under NEW BEGINNINGS EDUCATIONAL CENTRE Private 175.6523 3 Under ST CRISPINS AC Anglican 176.8702 32 Under ST THERESE PREPARATORY Private 176.8978 9 Under DIEGO MARTIN GIRLS' RC Roman Catholic 177.2138 47 Under ST AGNES AC Anglican 177.7276 61 Under NELSON STREET BOYS' RC Roman Catholic 178.3357 54 Under BELMONT BOYS' RC Roman Catholic 180.0647 35 Under ST DOMINIC'S RC Roman Catholic 180.7533 26 Under LA SEIVA RC Roman Catholic 181.3471 17 Under CHINAPOO GOVERNMENT Government 181.6093 21 Under EASTERN GIRLS' GOVERNMENT Government 181.8873 35 Under SUCCESS RC Roman Catholic 182.3044 34 Under PATNA/RIVER ESTATE GOVERNMENT Government 182.4218 33 Under BELMONT GOVERNMENT Government 182.6424 52 Under LAVENTILLE GIRLS' GOVERNMENT Government 182.7437 22 Under LAVENTILLE BOYS' GOVERNMENT Government 182.7453 10 Under 129 | P a g e DIEGO MARTIN BOYS' RC Roman Catholic 183.2326 82 Under DIEGO MARTIN GOVERNMENT Government 184.0664 33 Under MUCURAPO BOYS' RC Roman Catholic 185.6335 22 Under ESHE'S LEARNING CENTRE Private 185.7567 23 Under LOWER MORVANT GOVERNMENT Government 186.4141 36 Under ASCENSION AC Anglican 186.5938 38 Under CRYSTAL STREAM GOVERNMENT Government 186.5981 32 Under MARAVAL RC Roman Catholic 187.5080 55 Under PARAMIN RC Roman Catholic 189.6366 27 Under ST ANN'S RC Roman Catholic 190.2049 16 Under ST ROSES GIRLS' INTER RC Roman Catholic 191.8449 59 Under ST MARGARET'S BOYS' AC Anglican 191.9180 48 Under GAINES NORMAL AME African Methodist Episcopal 192.4169 20 Under BELMONT GIRLS' RC Roman Catholic 193.6643 43 Under PETIT VALLEY GIRLS' RC Roman Catholic 193.8472 17 Under WESTPORT SDA Private 194.1637 19 Under CARENAGE GIRLS' GOVERNMENT Government 195.2317 18 Under PORT OF SPAIN PRIVATE CANDIDATES Private 195.4504 61 Under BEETHAM ESTATE GOVERNMENT (EXCEL COMPOSITE) Government 195.9263 31 Under MORVANT AC Anglican 196.3944 80 Under BOISSIERE VILLAGE RC Roman Catholic 197.1645 35 Under ST HILDA'S GIRLS' GOVERNMENT Government 197.2803 20 Under DIAMOND VALE GOVERNMENT Government 197.4672 73 Under MELVILLE MEMORIAL GIRLS' AC Anglican 198.8823 51 Under POINT CUMANA RC Roman Catholic 200.6531 25 Above PORT OF SPAIN SDA Private 200.8954 18 Above NEWTOWN BOYS' RC Roman Catholic 202.2358 78 Above MADRESSA AL MUSLIMEEN Private 202.2642 11 Above CARENAGE BOYS' GOVERNMENT Government 202.3309 23 Above TRANQUILLITY GOVERNMENT Government 202.6867 59 Above MOULTON HALL METHODIST Methodist 203.0989 61 Above WOODBROOK PRESBYTERIAN Presbyterian 203.1183 6 Above NELSON STREET GIRLS' RC Roman Catholic 203.5939 53 Above TRINITY JUNIOR SCHOOL Private 203.8392 38 Above RICHMOND STREET BOYS' AC Anglican 204.2555 56 Above ROSARY BOYS' RC Roman Catholic 204.4903 101 Above ST CATHERINE'S PRIVATE Private 205.4578 17 Above ST THERESA GIRLS' RC Roman Catholic 206.2743 50 Above MUCURAPO GIRLS' RC Roman Catholic 207.4415 83 Above 130 | P a g e ST URSULA'S GIRLS' AC Anglican 208.1789 43 Above ST CATHERINE'S GIRLS' AC Anglican 208.9933 55 Above BRIGGS PREPARATORY Private 210.0058 20 Above LA PUERTA GOVERNMENT Government 210.3368 34 Above NEWTOWN GIRLS' RC Roman Catholic 210.8572 79 Above SACRED HEART BOYS' RC Roman Catholic 211.1004 54 Above HOLY ROSARY PREPARATORY Private 213.8733 8 Above HOLY NAME PREPARATORY Private 214.6054 44 Above BLACKMAN'S PRIVATE Private 222.1860 22 Above SACRED HEART GIRLS' RC Roman Catholic 224.4678 116 Above BISHOP ANSTEY JUNIOR Private 226.9367 51 Above BRYN MAWR Private 227.8220 12 Above MARIA GORETTI PREPARATORY Private 229.3557 23 Above HOLY FAITH PREPARATORY, ST BERNADETTE'S Private 229.4230 32 Above HOLY FAITH PREPARATORY, ST. MONICA'S Private 231.3603 61 Above DUNROSS PREPARATORY Private 234.4833 59 Above ST ANDREW'S PRIVATE Private 235.4496 44 Above MARIA REGINA GRADE SCHOOL Private 237.0367 71 Above HOLISTIC PRIMARY Private 242.5451 7 Above National Average 200.0211 18764 131 | P a g e PORT OF SPAIN & ENVIRONS SCHOOL COMPARISON TO NATIONAL AVERAGE FOR SEA 2018 School School Authority Average Weighted Score No. Students Writing SEA Comparison to National Average for 2018 UPPER LAVENTILLE (OUR LADY OF LAVENTILLE) RC Roman Catholic 149.6420 9 Under PRINCESS ELIZABETH SCHOOL Private 165.4283 3 Under FOUR ROADS GOVERNMENT Government 166.6937 25 Under ESCALLIER AC Anglican 167.0445 11 Under BETHLEHEM BOYS’ RC Roman Catholic 167.6081 19 Under PALMERAS LEARNING CENTRE Private 168.3612 16 Under BETHLEHEM GIRLS’ RC Roman Catholic 168.5996 14 Under ROSE HILL RC Roman Catholic 168.9458 16 Under LA SEIVA RC Roman Catholic 169.0438 18 Under SUCCESS RC Roman Catholic 169.6362 43 Under LOWER MORVANT GOVERNMENT Government 169.7118 32 Under ENAAME'S SCHOOL Private 171.4405 6 Under WHARTON PATRICK SCHOOL Private 171.4630 4 Under ST PHILLIP’S GOVERNMENT Government 171.4915 14 Under DIEGO MARTIN GIRLS’ RC Roman Catholic 171.6190 55 Under PETIT VALLEY BOYS’ RC Roman Catholic 172.4526 14 Under PICCADILLY GOVERNMENT Government 172.5448 5 Under COCORITE GOVERNMENT Government 173.1801 28 Under NEW BEGINNINGS EDUCATIONAL CENTRE Private 173.5014 5 Under NELSON STREET BOYS’ RC Roman Catholic 173.7843 67 Under DIEGO MARTIN BOYS’ RC Roman Catholic 174.5479 60 Under GLOSTER LODGE MORAVIAN Moravian 175.5467 36 Under ST DOMINIC’S RC Roman Catholic 175.9395 37 Under BOISSIERE VILLAGE RC Roman Catholic 178.1210 5 Under EASTERN GIRLS’ GOVERNMENT Government 178.3207 44 Under ST AGNES AC Anglican 178.3545 55 Under EASTERN BOYS’ GOVERNMENT Government 180.1270 39 Under MORVANT NEW GOVERNMENT Government 180.2396 40 Under BELMONT GOVERNMENT Government 180.2719 53 Under LAVENTILLE BOYS’ GOVERNMENT Government 180.4990 14 Under ASCENSION AC Anglican 181.5279 43 Under PETIT VALLEY GIRLS’ RC Roman Catholic 181.9574 20 Under BELMONT BOYS’ RC Roman Catholic 182.1536 39 Under ST CRISPINS AC Anglican 183.4685 20 Under 132 | P a g e CARENAGE BOYS’ GOVERNMENT Government 184.2783 27 Under ESHE’S LEARNING CENTRE Private 185.1088 34 Under MUCURAPO BOYS’ RC Roman Catholic 185.2083 30 Under HOKETT BAPTIST Baptist (Fundamental) 186.4847 15 Under CHINAPOO GOVERNMENT Government 186.5481 32 Under PATNA/RIVER ESTATE GOVERNMENT Government 186.8931 47 Under PARAMIN RC Roman Catholic 186.8937 25 Under POINT CUMANA GOVERNMENT Government 187.2214 11 Under LAVENTILLE GIRLS’ GOVERNMENT Government 189.7916 50 Under LA PUERTA GOVERNMENT Government 189.7918 37 Under WOODBROOK PRESBYTERIAN Presbyterian 190.1548 7 Under PORT OF SPAIN SDA Private 190.6433 16 Under MARAVAL RC Roman Catholic 191.8067 54 Under DIEGO MARTIN GOVERNMENT Government 192.3086 51 Under CARENAGE GIRLS' GOVERNMENT Government 192.5510 23 Under ST ANN’S RC Roman Catholic 193.6403 20 Under MELVILLE MEMORIAL GIRLS’ AC Anglican 194.2117 47 Under ST MARGARET’S BOYS’ AC Anglican 194.3232 48 Under PORT OF SPAIN PRIVATE CANDIDATES Private 194.3745 51 Under ST ROSES GIRLS’ INTER RC Roman Catholic 194.7981 74 Under NELSON STREET GIRLS’ RC Roman Catholic 195.8997 50 Under ST CATHERINE’S PRIVATE Private 196.8689 21 Under TRANQUILLITY GOVERNMENT Government 196.9509 74 Under ST BARB’S GOVERNMENT Government 197.3939 19 Under MOULTON HALL METHODIST Methodist 197.8828 60 Under BEETHAM ESTATE GOVERNMENT (EXCEL COMPOSITE) Government 197.9494 21 Under ST THERESE PREPARATORY Private 198.4610 5 Under POINT CUMANA RC Roman Catholic 198.6859 23 Under BELMONT GIRLS’ RC Roman Catholic 199.1627 53 Under RICHMOND STREET BOYS’ AC Anglican 199.8721 49 Under MORVANT AC Anglican 201.2512 83 Above ST HILDA’S GIRLS’ GOVERNMENT Government 203.5281 18 Above ST CATHERINE’S GIRLS’ AC Anglican 205.1904 53 Above ROSARY BOYS’ RC Roman Catholic 205.2930 99 Above WESTPORT SDA Private 205.9313 12 Above CRYSTAL STREAM GOVERNMENT Government 206.0166 24 Above BRIGGS PREPARATORY Private 206.9540 30 Above SACRED HEART BOYS' RC Roman Catholic 208.0877 53 Above HOLY ROSARY PREPARATORY Private 208.1224 5 Above MUCURAPO GIRLS’ RC Roman Catholic 209.1426 71 Above 133 | P a g e GAINES NORMAL AME African Methodist Episcopal 210.0085 19 Above BRYN MAWR Private 210.0183 18 Above NEWTOWN GIRLS’ RC Roman Catholic 210.7377 79 Above MADRESSA AL MUSLIMEEN Private 211.2044 10 Above ST THERESA GIRLS’ RC Roman Catholic 213.0952 56 Above DIAMOND VALE GOVERNMENT Government 214.4365 72 Above TRINITY JUNIOR SCHOOL Private 214.6036 40 Above NEWTOWN BOYS’ RC Roman Catholic 216.8887 62 Above ST URSULA’S GIRLS’ AC Anglican 219.8215 40 Above HOLY NAME PREPARATORY Private 224.6066 53 Above BISHOP ANSTEY JUNIOR Private 225.6860 44 Above SACRED HEART GIRLS’ RC Roman Catholic 227.1555 111 Above MARIA GORETTI PREPARATORY Private 230.0529 19 Above HOLY FAITH PREPARATORY, ST. MONICA'S Private 230.4555 52 Above HOLISTIC PRIMARY Private 230.4802 13 Above BLACKMAN’S PRIVATE Private 231.6508 16 Above ST ANDREW'S PRIVATE Private 231.8910 39 Above HOLY FAITH PREPARATORY, ST BERNADETTE'S Private 232.7696 28 Above MARIA REGINA GRADE SCHOOL Private 233.5299 72 Above DUNROSS PREPARATORY Private 235.1576 64 Above National Average 199.9959 19140 134 | P a g e PORT OF SPAIN & ENVIRONS SCHOOL COMPARISON TO NATIONAL AVERAGE FOR SEA 2017 School School Authority Average Weighted Score No. Students Writing SEA Comparison to National Average for 2017 UPPER LAVENTILLE RC (OUR LADY OF LAVENTILLE) Roman Catholic 144.8970 14 Under ST MICHAEL'S SCHOOL FOR BOYS Anglican 145.8525 4 Under CASCADE SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF Government 147.9550 4 Under ST PHILLIP’S GOVERNMENT Government 150.7803 10 Under BETHLEHEM BOYS’ RC Roman Catholic 158.7997 15 Under PETIT VALLEY BOYS’ RC Roman Catholic 162.7815 14 Under PICCADILLY GOVERNMENT Government 165.9077 13 Under BEETHAM ESTATE GOV’T PRIM (EXCEL COMPOSITE) Government 166.1810 26 Under CHINAPOO GOVERNMENT Government 168.3216 27 Under HOKETT BAPTIST Baptist (Fundamental) 168.8698 17 Under LA SEIVA RC Roman Catholic 170.1644 18 Under ROSE HILL RC Roman Catholic 170.8759 16 Under LAVENTILLE BOYS’ GOV’T Government 170.8912 14 Under ENAAME'S SCHOOL Private 172.3474 8 Under DIEGO MARTIN GOVERNMENT Government 173.5707 54 Under ST THERESE PREPARATORY Private 174.4116 5 Under EASTERN GIRLS’ GOVERNMENT Government 174.8593 39 Under MORVANT NORTH GOVERNMENT Government 175.7928 31 Under BELMONT GOVERNMENT Government 175.9697 51 Under ST ANN’S RC Roman Catholic 175.9794 18 Under ST CRISPINS AC Anglican 175.9978 18 Under ESCALLIER AC Anglican 176.3096 11 Under FOUR ROADS GOVERNMENT Government 176.8538 15 Under ST DOMINIC’S RC Roman Catholic 177.7367 42 Under DIEGO MARTIN GIRLS’ RC Roman Catholic 178.0246 49 Under ST AGNES AC Anglican 178.2330 66 Under PATNA/RIVER ESTATE GOVERNMENT Government 178.4879 40 Under WOODBROOK PRESBYTERIAN Presbyterian 179.5607 13 Under BELMONT BOYS’ RC Roman Catholic 179.8886 24 Under EASTERN BOYS’ GOV’T Government 180.0597 38 Under LAVENTILLE GIRLS’ GOVERNMENT Government 180.4195 11 Under MUCURAPO BOYS’ RC Roman Catholic 181.5243 28 Under PALMERAS LEARNING CENTRE Private 182.8710 13 Under 135 | P a g e GLOSTER LODGE MORAVIAN Moravian 183.4313 25 Under MARAVAL RC Roman Catholic 183.6270 41 Under ASCENSION AC Anglican 183.6875 24 Under BETHLEHEM GIRLS’ RC Roman Catholic 184.0857 10 Under WHARTON PATRICK SCHOOL Private 184.1687 6 Under ST MARGARET’S BOYS’ AC Anglican 187.1190 46 Under TRANQUILLITY GOVERNMENT Government 190.2879 68 Under ESHE’S LEARNING CENTRE Private 191.0574 22 Under PARAMIN RC Roman Catholic 191.0667 22 Under SUCCESS RC Roman Catholic 191.1198 40 Under ST BARB’S GOVERNMENT Government 191.2232 14 Under CARENAGE BOYS’ GOVERNMENT Government 191.4535 20 Under NELSON STREET BOYS’ RC Roman Catholic 191.8698 32 Under BELMONT GIRLS’ RC Roman Catholic 192.0730 62 Under DIEGO MARTIN BOYS’ RC Roman Catholic 192.9374 54 Under COCORITE GOVERNMENT Government 192.9704 20 Under BOISSIERE VILLAGE RC Roman Catholic 193.3821 39 Under POINT CUMANA GOVERNMENT Government 193.6085 10 Under POS PRIVATE CANDIDATES Private 193.7197 29 Under LOWER MORVANT GOV’T Government 194.2252 38 Under PETIT VALLEY GIRLS’ RC Roman Catholic 195.3414 17 Under PORT OF SPAIN SDA Private 196.4676 18 Under MORVANT AC Anglican 196.8185 75 Under LA PUERTA GOVERNMENT Government 196.8543 47 Under NELSON STREET GIRLS’ RC Roman Catholic 196.8849 50 Under ST CATHERINE’S PRIVATE Private 197.7325 17 Under CRYSTAL STREAM GOV’T Government 198.2805 24 Under RICHMOND STREET BOYS’ AC Anglican 198.3078 43 Under MELVILLE MEMORIAL GIRLS’ AC Anglican 198.4189 54 Under ST ROSES GIRLS’ INTER RC Roman Catholic 199.5764 53 Under CARENAGE GIRLS' GOV'T Government 199.8258 23 Under BRYN MAWR Private 200.8999 24 Above POINT CUMANA RC SCHOOL Roman Catholic 203.7562 20 Above ROSARY BOYS’ RC Roman Catholic 203.8075 101 Above SACRED HEART BOYS RC Roman Catholic 205.0365 62 Above WESTPORT SDA Private 205.9177 20 Above GAINES NORMAL AME African Methodist Episcopal 206.7304 18 Above ST CATHERINE’S GIRLS’ AC Anglican 206.7851 51 Above NEWTOWN BOYS’ RC Roman Catholic 206.8443 79 Above MUCURAPO GIRLS’ RC Roman Catholic 208.4474 71 Above 136 | P a g e MOULTON HALL METHODIST Methodist 208.4938 53 Above DIAMOND VALE GOV’T Government 208.6576 66 Above ST HILDA’S GIRLS’ GOVERNMENT Government 209.1516 20 Above NEWTOWN GIRLS’ RC Roman Catholic 210.0607 65 Above BRIGGS PREPARATORY Private 212.8276 25 Above TRINITY JUNIOR Private 214.9613 35 Above HOLY ROSARY PREPARATORY Private 215.1445 6 Above ST THERESA GIRLS’ RC Roman Catholic 215.8633 50 Above HOLY NAME PREPARATORY Private 217.0725 56 Above ST URSULA’S GIRLS’ AC Anglican 218.9866 47 Above BISHOP ANSTEY JUNIOR Private 222.1615 49 Above SACRED HEART GIRLS’ RC Roman Catholic 223.7316 114 Above BLACKMAN’S PRIVATE Private 225.5807 16 Above HOLY FAITH PREPARATORY, ST BERNADETTE'S Private 229.3400 34 Above MARIA GORETTI PREPARATORY Private 229.7210 22 Above HOLY FAITH PREPARATORY, ST. MONICA'S Private 229.9958 56 Above ST ANDREW'S PRIVATE Private 230.8125 40 Above HOLISTIC PRIMARY SCHOOL Private 231.8996 14 Above DUNROSS PREPARATORY Private 232.1922 49 Above MARIA REGINA GRADE Private 232.3508 65 Above National Average 200.0002 18180 137 | P a g e PORT OF SPAIN & ENVIRONS SCHOOL COMPARISON TO NATIONAL AVERAGE FOR SEA 2016 School Average Weighted Score No. Students Writing SEA Comparison to National Average for 2016 Enaame's School 162.1759 10 Under Success RC 162.4187 50 Under St Agnes AC 163.8648 34 Under Nelson Street Boys’ RC 165.0080 55 Under Upper Laventille RC (Our Lady of Laventille) 167.3724 14 Under Rose Hill RC 168.1123 15 Under St Ann’s RC 168.5205 13 Under La Seiva RC 168.8201 18 Under Piccadilly Government 168.8316 22 Under Bethlehem Girls’ RC 169.3259 10 Under Petit Valley Boys’ RC 169.3468 23 Under St Dominic’s RC 170.1232 42 Under Diego Martin Girls’ RC 170.7865 33 Under Hokett Baptist 171.0581 16 Under Chinapoo Government 171.6174 31 Under Diego Martin Boys’ RC 171.9921 82 Under St Phillip’s Government 172.9675 13 Under Cocorite Government 172.9816 16 Under POS Private Candidates 172.9926 15 Under Point Cumana Government 173.3932 14 Under Beetham Estate Gov’t Prim (Excel Composite) 173.7002 23 Under Carenage Boys’ Government 176.2602 21 Under Lower Morvant Gov’t 177.0717 30 Under Ascension AC 178.4228 22 Under Escallier AC 179.8546 7 Under Eshe’s Learning Centre 179.9495 11 Under Palmeras Learning Centre 180.0438 12 Under Eastern Boys’ Gov’t 181.5141 52 Under Port of Spain SDA 182.0920 24 Under Laventille Girls’ Government 183.4895 22 Under Morvant North Government 183.5626 22 Under Boissiere Village RC 183.5868 22 Under Mucurapo Boys’ RC 183.9422 30 Under Belmont Government 183.9426 50 Under 138 | P a g e Four Roads Government 184.3925 13 Under St Barb’s Government 184.4237 29 Under St Therese Preparatory 184.9302 10 Under Bethlehem Boys’ RC 185.9316 19 Under St Catherine’s Private 186.8952 17 Under Crystal Stream Gov’t 187.0994 30 Under Laventille Boys’ Gov’t 188.2153 8 Under Diego Martin Government 189.0501 46 Under Eastern Girls’ Government 189.6828 34 Under Patna/River Estate Government 190.2843 47 Under Paramin RC 190.8402 24 Under Carenage Girls' Gov't 191.1231 20 Under Belmont Girls’ RC 191.1869 50 Under Westport SDA 191.3096 13 Under Nelson Street Girls’ RC 191.5526 79 Under Richmond Street Boys’ AC 192.0061 49 Under St Hilda’s Girls’ Government 192.2607 18 Under St Margaret’s Boys’ AC 192.3789 36 Under Gloster Lodge Moravian 192.7840 32 Under Belmont Boys’ RC 193.0399 38 Under Woodbrook Presbyterian 195.3339 12 Under La Puerta Government 195.6283 36 Under Melville Memorial Girls’ AC 195.6673 59 Under St Crispins AC 196.3182 29 Under Madressa Al Muslimeen 196.4477 12 Under Morvant AC 196.9246 84 Under St Ursula’s Girls’ AC 199.0807 50 Under Moulton Hall Methodist 200.1508 57 Under Petit Valley Girls’ RC 202.1207 20 Above Tranquillity Government 202.3874 58 Above St Roses Girls’ Inter RC 202.5137 40 Above St Catherine’s Girls’ AC 202.7572 48 Above Sujos Private School 203.1585 8 Above Maraval RC 203.1940 44 Above Newtown Girls’ RC 203.3177 95 Above Sacred Heart Boys RC 203.7755 50 Above Diamond Vale Gov’t 203.9353 64 Above Point Cumana RC School 204.1980 21 Above Mucurapo Girls’ RC 205.0041 70 Above Gaines Normal AME 205.2577 15 Above Rosary Boys’ RC 207.2144 99 Above 139 | P a g e Briggs Preparatory 209.2736 23 Above Bryn Mawr 210.0830 23 Above St Theresa Girls’ RC 210.7480 62 Above Newtown Boys’ RC 211.3242 67 Above New Beginnings Educational Centre 214.7853 3 Above Trinity Junior 215.4945 31 Above Holy Rosary Preparatory 217.4955 8 Above Sacred Heart Girls’ RC 218.3663 114 Above Holy Name Preparatory 218.7378 50 Above Holistic Primary School 224.4533 18 Above St Andrew's Private 226.7567 47 Above Bishop Anstey Junior 227.3457 49 Above Holy Faith Preparatory St. Monica's 228.7144 61 Above Maria Regina Grade 229.2991 66 Above Blackman’s Private 229.4166 20 Above Dunross Preparatory 231.5230 51 Above Holy Faith Preparatory 233.0633 21 Above Maria Goretti Preparatory 233.2818 18 Above National Average 200.1819 18180 140 | P a g e PORT OF SPAIN & ENVIRONS SCHOOL COMPARISON TO NATIONAL AVERAGE FOR SEA 2015 School School Authority Average Weighted Score No. Students Writing SEA Comparison to National Average for 2015 Rotary Club of Maraval Learning Centre PRI 141.9835 10 Under Beetham Estate Gov’t Prim (Excel Composite) GOV 156.8339 21 Under Point Cumana Government GOV 158.4673 3 Under Bethlehem Boys’ RC RC 160.0235 24 Under POS Private Candidates PRICAN 161.1186 10 Under Enaame's School PRI 163.0756 9 Under Princess Elizabeth School PRI 164.2712 5 Under St Ann’s RC RC 165.7584 18 Under Laventille Boys’ Gov’t GOV 166.5158 11 Under Laventille Girls’ Government GOV 169.8026 25 Under St Phillip’s Government PRI 169.8427 21 Under Bethlehem Girls’ RC RC 170.2802 12 Under Morvant North Government GOV 170.4861 30 Under Palmeras Learning Centre PRI 170.9150 22 Under Crystal Stream Gov’t GOV 171.9191 26 Under Belmont Boys’ RC RC 172.1254 36 Under Four Roads Government GOV 174.1509 24 Under Carenage Boys’ Government GOV 174.4612 31 Under Ascension AC AC 174.5154 27 Under Escallier AC AC 175.5087 6 Under Diego Martin Girls’ RC RC 175.7252 50 Under Nelson Street Boys’ RC RC 175.7915 70 Under Mucurapo Boys’ RC RC 176.6790 30 Under Success RC RC 177.4756 40 Under Gloster Lodge Moravian MORA 177.6166 48 Under Rose Hill RC RC 178.3017 13 Under Upper Laventille RC (Our Lady of Laventille) RC 178.9526 7 Under Diego Martin Government GOV 179.1860 46 Under Piccadilly Government GOV 179.5623 16 Under Hokett Baptist BAPT 179.6897 23 Under Eastern Girls’ Government GOV 179.9591 47 Under St Catherine’s Private PRI 180.3868 14 Under Eshe’s Learning Centre PRI 180.7344 21 Under La Seiva RC RC 180.9385 14 Under Petit Valley Boys’ RC RC 181.5759 27 Under St Therese Preparatory PRI 181.6248 6 Under St Dominic’s RC RC 181.8083 44 Under Tranquillity Government GOV 182.0110 69 Under 141 | P a g e Carenage Girls' Gov't GOV 182.1021 26 Under St Agnes AC AC 182.2687 36 Under Patna/River Estate Government GOV 182.9036 27 Under Chinapoo Government GOV 183.3199 28 Under Paramin RC RC 183.3918 22 Under St Crispins AC AC 184.3176 18 Under New Beginnings Educational Centre PRI 184.5793 4 Under Lower Morvant Gov’t GOV 185.1791 53 Under Cocorite Government GOV 186.7289 20 Under Woodbrook Presbyterian PRES 187.6973 24 Under St Margaret’s Boys’ AC AC 187.8932 45 Under Diego Martin Boys’ RC RC 188.4184 51 Under Boissiere Village RC RC 189.8501 23 Under Maraval RC RC 190.1682 51 Under Port of Spain SDA PRI 190.2476 15 Under Belmont Government GOV 190.7278 59 Under Moulton Hall Methodist METH 192.9950 58 Under Eastern Boys’ Gov’t GOV 193.8999 36 Under Nelson Street Girls’ RC RC 194.3156 34 Under St Hilda’s Girls’ Government GOV 194.6723 17 Under Melville Memorial Girls’ AC AC 194.8639 40 Under Sujos Private School PRI 194.9420 8 Under La Puerta Government GOV 195.1077 42 Under Point Cumana RC School RC 196.4536 23 Under Belmont Girls’ RC RC 196.6951 72 Under Morvant AC AC 196.9944 93 Under St Roses Girls’ Inter RC RC 198.5538 48 Under Petit Valley Girls’ RC RC 200.3693 17 Above Diamond Vale Gov’t GOV 200.4110 70 Above Richmond Street Boys’ AC AC 200.4632 48 Above St Barb’s Government GOV 201.9045 24 Above Westport SDA PRI 202.0471 20 Above Rosary Boys’ RC RC 203.2818 102 Above Briggs Preparatory PRI 204.0340 22 Above Madressa Al Muslimeen PRI 204.8189 16 Above Gaines Normal AME AME 204.8838 15 Above Newtown Boys’ RC RC 205.6011 87 Above Bryn Mawr PRI 205.8062 20 Above St Theresa Girls’ RC RC 207.0284 57 Above St Catherine’s Girls’ AC AC 207.2843 47 Above Sacred Heart Boys RC RC 209.5165 51 Above Newtown Girls’ RC RC 209.7425 92 Above Mucurapo Girls’ RC RC 211.7664 68 Above Holy Rosary Preparatory PRI 213.0532 12 Above 142 | P a g e St Ursula’s Girls’ AC AC 213.2382 49 Above Blackman’s Private PRI 216.8140 19 Above Trinity Junior PRI 217.8250 33 Above Holistic Primary School PRI 218.8603 6 Above Holy Name Preparatory PRI 221.8612 54 Above Sacred Heart Girls’ RC RC 222.0647 100 Above Bishop Anstey Junior PRI 224.9972 43 Above Holy Faith Preparatory, St. Monica's PRI 228.4299 65 Above Holy Faith Preparatory PRI 229.6670 29 Above St Andrew's Private PRI 230.5489 65 Above Dunross Preparatory PRI 231.4351 51 Above Maria Regina Grade PRI 231.6068 73 Above Maria Goretti Preparatory PRI 232.1459 16 Above National Average 199.6288 18376 143 | P a g e APPENDIX V Port of Spain & Environs District School Comparison to National Average for CSEC 2015-2020 144 | P a g e PORT OF SPAIN & ENVIRONS SCHOOL COMPARISON TO NATIONAL AVERAGE FOR CSEC 2020 SCHOOL Number of Students Attempting 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Number of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Percentage of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Comparison to National Average for 2020 TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160211 15 0 0.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160201 9 0 0.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160203 1 0 0.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160210 4 0 0.00% Under MUCURAPO WEST SECONDARY SCHOOL 99 1 1.01% Under TRANQUILLITY SECONDARY SCHOOL 151 6 3.97% Under SUCCESS/LAVENTILLE SECONDARY SCHOOL 129 6 4.65% Under RUSSELL LATAPY SECONDARY SCHOOL 13 1 7.69% Under DIEGO MARTIN NORTH SECONDARY SCHOOL 99 10 10.10% Under MORVANT/LAVENTILLE SECONDARY SCHOOL 58 6 10.34% Under EAST MUCURAPO SECONDARY SCHOOL 100 14 14.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160204 20 3 15.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160202 4 1 25.00% Under SOUTH EAST PORT-OF-SPAIN SECONDARY SCHOOL 136 41 30.15% Under ST ANTHONY'S COLLEGE 116 50 43.10% Under BISHOP'S CENTENARY COLLEGE POS 89 41 46.07% Under BELMONT SECONDARY SCHOOL 61 31 50.82% Under CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE 53 30 56.60% Above ST JAMES SECONDARY SCHOOL 102 58 56.86% Above DIEGO MARTIN CENTRAL SECONDARY SCHOOL 109 68 62.39% Above BELMONT BOYS' SECONDARY SCHOOL 76 48 63.16% Above TRINITY COLLEGE MARAVAL 78 52 66.67% Above 145 | P a g e SCHOOL Number of Students Attempting 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Number of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Percentage of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Comparison to National Average for 2020 WOODBROOK SECONDARY SCHOOL 96 67 69.79% Above ST MARY'S COLLEGE 147 126 85.71% Above PROVIDENCE GIRLS' SECONDARY SCHOOL 101 92 91.09% Above BISHOP ANSTEY HIGH SCHOOL 116 109 93.97% Above ST FRANCOIS GIRLS' COLLEGE 125 118 94.40% Above QUEEN'S ROYAL COLLEGE 140 135 96.43% Above ST JOSEPH'S CONVENT - PORT OF SPAIN 123 121 98.37% Above FATIMA COLLEGE 143 141 98.60% Above HOLY NAME CONVENT PORT OF SPAIN 108 108 100.00% Above National Average 14508 7984 55.03% 146 | P a g e PORT OF SPAIN & ENVIRONS SCHOOL COMPARISON TO NATIONAL AVERAGE FOR CSEC 2019 SCHOOL Number of Students Attempting 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Number of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Percentage of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Comparison to National Average for 2019 MORVANT/LAVENTILLE SECONDARY SCHOOL 26 0 0.00% Under RUSSELL LATAPY SECONDARY SCHOOL 9 0 0.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160201 3 0 0.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160202 9 0 0.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160203 4 0 0.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160210 10 0 0.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160211 4 0 0.00% Under EAST MUCURAPO SECONDARY SCHOOL 65 1 1.54% Under MUCURAPO WEST SECONDARY SCHOOL 42 1 2.38% Under SUCCESS/LAVENTILLE SECONDARY SCHOOL 105 6 5.71% Under DIEGO MARTIN NORTH SECONDARY SCHOOL 62 6 9.68% Under TRANQUILLITY SECONDARY SCHOOL 112 19 16.96% Under BELMONT SECONDARY SCHOOL 54 11 20.37% Under SOUTH EAST PORT-OF-SPAIN SECONDARY SCHOOL 124 28 22.58% Under CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE 55 14 25.45% Under ST ANTHONY'S COLLEGE 106 28 26.42% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160204 18 5 27.78% Under BISHOP'S CENTENARY COLLEGE POS 78 22 28.21% Under ST JAMES SECONDARY SCHOOL 86 31 36.05% Under WOODBROOK SECONDARY SCHOOL 104 62 59.62% Above DIEGO MARTIN CENTRAL SECONDARY SCHOOL 97 58 59.79% Above TRINITY COLLEGE MARAVAL 104 66 63.46% Above BELMONT BOYS' SECONDARY SCHOOL 67 52 77.61% Above 147 | P a g e SCHOOL Number of Students Attempting 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Number of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Percentage of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Comparison to National Average for 2019 PROVIDENCE GIRLS' SECONDARY SCHOOL 104 89 85.58% Above ST FRANCOIS GIRLS' COLLEGE 138 120 86.96% Above ST MARY'S COLLEGE 165 147 89.09% Above FATIMA COLLEGE 138 124 89.86% Above QUEEN'S ROYAL COLLEGE 140 127 90.71% Above BISHOP ANSTEY HIGH SCHOOL 116 110 94.83% Above ST JOSEPH'S CONVENT - PORT OF SPAIN 125 120 96.00% Above HOLY NAME CONVENT PORT OF SPAIN 103 101 98.06% Above National Average 13342 7169 53.73% 148 | P a g e PORT OF SPAIN & ENVIRONS SCHOOL COMPARISON TO NATIONAL AVERAGE FOR CSEC 2018 SCHOOL Number of Students Attempted 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Number of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Percentage of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Comparison to National Average for 2018 TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160202 4 0 0.00% Under MUCURAPO WEST SECONDARY SCHOOL 59 2 3.39% Under MORVANT/LAVENTILLE SECONDARY SCHOOL 23 1 4.35% Under RUSSELL LATAPY SECONDARY SCHOOL 16 1 6.25% Under TRANQUILLITY SECONDARY SCHOOL 114 8 7.02% Under SUCCESS/LAVENTILLE SECONDARY SCHOOL 108 13 12.04% Under MUCURAPO EAST SECONDARY SCHOOL 85 11 12.94% Under DIEGO MARTIN NORTH SECONDARY SCHOOL 64 9 14.06% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160210 6 1 16.67% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160204 10 2 20.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160201 4 1 25.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160203 12 3 25.00% Under BELMONT SECONDARY SCHOOL 60 17 28.33% Under BISHOP'S CENTENARY COLLEGE POS 74 22 29.73% Under SOUTH EAST PORT-OF-SPAIN SECONDARY SCHOOL 112 37 33.04% Under CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE 59 20 33.90% Under ST ANTHONY'S COLLEGE 102 35 34.31% Under ST JAMES SECONDARY SCHOOL 88 32 36.36% Under BELMONT BOYS' SECONDARY SCHOOL 72 33 45.83% Under DIEGO MARTIN CENTRAL SECONDARY SCHOOL 99 63 63.64% Above TRINITY COLLEGE MARAVAL 80 56 70.00% Above WOODBROOK SECONDARY SCHOOL 105 74 70.48% Above 149 | P a g e SCHOOL Number of Students Attempted 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Number of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Percentage of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Comparison to National Average for 2018 ST FRANCOIS GIRLS' COLLEGE 122 112 91.80% Above ST MARY'S COLLEGE 167 154 92.22% Above QUEEN'S ROYAL COLLEGE 132 122 92.42% Above PROVIDENCE GIRLS' SECONDARY SCHOOL 98 91 92.86% Above FATIMA COLLEGE 146 138 94.52% Above BISHOP ANSTEY HIGH SCHOOL 116 112 96.55% Above HOLY NAME CONVENT PORT OF SPAIN 108 107 99.07% Above ST JOSEPH'S CONVENT - PORT OF SPAIN 117 117 100.00% Above National Average 13048 7383 56.58% 150 | P a g e PORT OF SPAIN & ENVIRONS SCHOOL COMPARISON TO NATIONAL AVERAGE FOR CSEC 2017 SCHOOL Number of Students Attempted 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Number of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Percentage of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Comparison to National Average for 2017 RUSSELL LATAPY SECONDARY SCHOOL 7 0 0.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160201 4 0 0.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160202 4 0 0.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160203 4 0 0.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160210 6 0 0.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160211 1 0 0.00% Under DIEGO MARTIN NORTH SECONDARY SCHOOL 74 1 1.35% Under MUCURAPO WEST SECONDARY SCHOOL 99 3 3.03% Under MORVANT/LAVENTILLE SECONDARY SCHOOL 27 1 3.70% Under MUCURAPO EAST SECONDARY SCHOOL 68 6 8.82% Under SUCCESS/LAVENTILLE SECONDARY SCHOOL 120 11 9.17% Under TRANQUILLITY SECONDARY SCHOOL 112 15 13.39% Under BELMONT SECONDARY SCHOOL 57 9 15.79% Under BISHOP'S CENTENARY COLLEGE POS 82 23 28.05% Under ST JAMES SECONDARY SCHOOL 99 36 36.36% Under ST ANTHONY'S COLLEGE 98 36 36.73% Under SOUTH EAST PORT-OF-SPAIN SECONDARY SCHOOL 103 40 38.83% Under BELMONT BOYS' SECONDARY SCHOOL 72 32 44.44% Under CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE 74 35 47.30% Under TRINITY COLLEGE MARAVAL 73 40 54.79% Above WOODBROOK SECONDARY SCHOOL 102 60 58.82% Above DIEGO MARTIN CENTRAL SECONDARY SCHOOL 107 63 58.88% Above 151 | P a g e SCHOOL Number of Students Attempted 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Number of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Percentage of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Comparison to National Average for 2017 FATIMA COLLEGE 131 113 86.26% Above QUEEN'S ROYAL COLLEGE 128 112 87.50% Above ST FRANCOIS GIRLS' COLLEGE 122 108 88.52% Above ST MARY'S COLLEGE 167 151 90.42% Above PROVIDENCE GIRLS' SECONDARY SCHOOL 107 98 91.59% Above BISHOP ANSTEY HIGH SCHOOL 116 114 98.28% Above HOLY NAME CONVENT PORT OF SPAIN 108 107 99.07% Above ST JOSEPH'S CONVENT - PORT OF SPAIN 119 118 99.16% Above National Average 13089 6833 52.20% 152 | P a g e PORT OF SPAIN & ENVIRONS SCHOOL COMPARISON TO NATIONAL AVERAGE FOR CSEC 2016 SCHOOL Number of Students Attempted 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Number of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Percentage of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Comparison to National Average for 2016 MORVANT/LAVENTILLE SECONDARY SCHOOL 20 0 0.00% Under RUSSELL LATAPY SECONDARY SCHOOL 10 0 0.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160202 5 0 0.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160210 6 0 0.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160211 3 0 0.00% Under MUCURAPO WEST SECONDARY SCHOOL 67 4 5.97% Under MUCURAPO EAST SECONDARY SCHOOL 36 3 8.33% Under BELMONT SECONDARY SCHOOL 55 9 16.36% Under SUCCESS/LAVENTILLE SECONDARY SCHOOL 133 22 16.54% Under DIEGO MARTIN NORTH SECONDARY SCHOOL 48 8 16.67% Under TRANQUILLITY SECONDARY SCHOOL 94 19 20.21% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160201 14 4 28.57% Under BISHOP'S CENTENARY COLLEGE POS 57 17 29.82% Under BELMONT BOYS' SECONDARY SCHOOL 65 26 40.00% Under SOUTH EAST PORT-OF-SPAIN SECONDARY SCHOOL 122 49 40.16% Under ST ANTHONY'S COLLEGE 110 45 40.91% Under ST JAMES SECONDARY SCHOOL 83 37 44.58% Under CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE 42 19 45.24% Under DIEGO MARTIN CENTRAL SECONDARY SCHOOL 101 54 53.47% Under WOODBROOK SECONDARY SCHOOL 101 64 63.37% Above TRINITY COLLEGE MARAVAL 72 46 63.89% Above FATIMA COLLEGE 136 116 85.29% Above 153 | P a g e SCHOOL Number of Students Attempted 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Number of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Percentage of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Comparison to National Average for 2016 QUEEN'S ROYAL COLLEGE 125 113 90.40% Above PROVIDENCE GIRLS' SECONDARY SCHOOL 93 85 91.40% Above ST FRANCOIS GIRLS' COLLEGE 129 120 93.02% Above HOLY NAME CONVENT PORT OF SPAIN 105 101 96.19% Above ST MARY'S COLLEGE 173 168 97.11% Above BISHOP ANSTEY HIGH SCHOOL 108 106 98.15% Above ST JOSEPH'S CONVENT - PORT OF SPAIN 125 125 100.00% Above TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160203 1 1 100.00% Above National Average 12439 6684 53.73% 154 | P a g e PORT OF SPAIN & ENVIRONS SCHOOL COMPARISON TO NATIONAL AVERAGE FOR CSEC 2015 SCHOOL Number of Students Attempted 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Number of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Percentage of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Comparison to National Average for 2015 MORVANT/LAVENTILLE SECONDARY SCHOOL 22 0 0.00% Under RUSSELL LATAPY SECONDARY SCHOOL 8 0 0.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160202 2 0 0.00% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160211 0 0 0.00% Under MUCURAPO WEST SECONDARY SCHOOL 57 1 1.75% Under DIEGO MARTIN FINISHING SCHOOL 15 1 6.67% Under SUCCESS/LAVENTILLE SECONDARY SCHOOL 127 16 12.60% Under TRANQUILLITY SECONDARY SCHOOL 126 16 12.70% Under DIEGO MARTIN NORTH SECONDARY SCHOOL 47 7 14.89% Under MUCURAPO EAST SECONDARY SCHOOL 45 8 17.78% Under BELMONT SECONDARY SCHOOL 28 6 21.43% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160203 6 2 33.33% Under ST JAMES SECONDARY SCHOOL 87 30 34.48% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160201 11 4 36.36% Under SOUTH EAST PORT-OF-SPAIN SECONDARY SCHOOL 121 47 38.84% Under TRINIDAD & TOBAGO PRIVATE 160210 5 2 40.00% Under BISHOP'S CENTENARY COLLEGE POS 60 27 45.00% Under BELMONT BOYS' SECONDARY SCHOOL 65 34 52.31% Under ST ANTHONY'S COLLEGE 96 55 57.29% Above CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE 44 26 59.09% Above WOODBROOK SECONDARY SCHOOL 85 53 62.35% Above DIEGO MARTIN CENTRAL SECONDARY SCHOOL 96 60 62.50% Above TRINITY COLLEGE MARAVAL 74 52 70.27% Above QUEEN'S ROYAL COLLEGE 126 112 88.89% Above 155 | P a g e SCHOOL Number of Students Attempted 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Number of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Percentage of Students Attaining 5 Subjects Including Mathematics and English Language Comparison to National Average for 2015 PROVIDENCE GIRLS' SECONDARY SCHOOL 100 89 89.00% Above ST FRANCOIS GIRLS' COLLEGE 119 110 92.44% Above ST MARY'S COLLEGE 170 161 94.71% Above FATIMA COLLEGE 138 131 94.93% Above BISHOP ANSTEY HIGH SCHOOL 105 101 96.19% Above HOLY NAME CONVENT PORT OF SPAIN 105 102 97.14% Above ST JOSEPH'S CONVENT - PORT OF SPAIN 115 115 100.00% Above National Average 12167 6574 54.03% 156 | P a g e APPENDIX VI Student Performance in Terminal Examinations in Primary and Secondary Schools for the period 2010- 2020 157 | P a g e Table 1: Mean SEA Raw Score by Education District 2010-2020 YEA R DISTRICT AUTHORITY MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE_ ARTS CREATIVE_ WRITING TOTAL 2010 CARONI DENOM 69.08 60.73 12.31 206.39 2010 NORTH EASTERN DENOM 59.71 53.07 11.08 196.00 2010 PORT-OF-SPAIN DENOM 59.95 55.87 11.24 197.54 2010 SOUTH EASTERN DENOM 62.65 54.67 11.09 198.42 2010 ST. GEORGE EAST DENOM 63.74 58.66 11.94 201.89 2010 ST. PATRICK DENOM 63.79 56.40 11.47 200.32 2010 TOBAGO DENOM 52.96 51.61 10.39 190.49 2010 VICTORIA DENOM 66.88 60.71 12.81 205.77 2010 OVERALL DENOM 62.35 56.47 11.54 199.60 2010 CARONI GOV 66.55 58.18 11.96 203.36 2010 NORTH EASTERN GOV 47.25 43.08 9.43 182.26 2010 PORT-OF-SPAIN GOV 47.06 45.25 9.30 182.88 2010 SOUTH EASTERN GOV 53.15 47.14 9.63 187.69 2010 ST. GEORGE EAST GOV 55.63 51.99 10.43 192.27 2010 ST. PATRICK GOV 56.20 50.12 10.30 191.66 2010 TOBAGO GOV 51.00 49.54 9.28 186.96 2010 VICTORIA GOV 63.02 57.18 11.88 200.76 2010 OVERALL GOV 54.98 50.31 10.28 190.98 2011 CARONI DENOM 73.93 61.38 11.03 146.33 2011 NORTH EASTERN DENOM 64.36 55.87 10.10 130.33 2011 PORT-OF-SPAIN DENOM 63.11 56.22 10.06 129.38 2011 SOUTH EASTERN DENOM 66.09 55.21 9.65 130.95 2011 ST. GEORGE EAST DENOM 68.60 59.14 11.29 139.03 2011 ST. PATRICK DENOM 71.31 59.48 10.30 141.08 2011 TOBAGO DENOM 60.43 53.99 9.44 123.87 2011 VICTORIA DENOM 72.49 63.21 11.57 147.27 2011 OVERALL DENOM 67.54 58.06 10.43 136.03 2011 CARONI GOV 69.31 59.24 10.81 139.37 2011 NORTH EASTERN GOV 50.39 45.22 7.92 103.53 2011 PORT-OF-SPAIN GOV 53.10 47.62 7.77 108.49 2011 SOUTH EASTERN GOV 63.11 51.73 9.96 124.80 2011 ST. GEORGE EAST GOV 59.80 52.88 9.54 122.22 2011 ST. PATRICK GOV 58.52 50.84 9.13 118.50 2011 TOBAGO GOV 62.28 51.83 8.99 123.10 2011 VICTORIA GOV 67.71 59.42 10.98 138.11 2011 OVERALL GOV 60.53 52.35 9.39 122.26 2012 CARONI DENOM 71.66 59.19 12.49 143.35 2012 NORTH EASTERN DENOM 67.25 54.54 11.52 133.31 2012 PORT-OF- SPAIN DENOM 64.97 55.12 11.41 131.50 158 | P a g e 2012 SOUTH EASTERN DENOM 69.20 55.83 12.50 137.53 2012 ST. GEORGE EAST DENOM 69.02 58.82 12.35 140.19 2012 ST. PATRICK DENOM 68.96 55.97 11.72 136.64 2012 TOBAGO DENOM 59.35 52.43 10.99 122.76 2012 VICTORIA DENOM 74.35 63.78 13.38 151.51 2012 OVERALL DENOM 68.09 56.96 12.05 137.10 2012 CARONI GOV 70.90 57.99 12.24 141.14 2012 NORTH EASTERN GOV 57.73 46.84 10.57 115.14 2012 PORT-OF- SPAIN GOV 57.96 48.40 10.29 116.66 2012 SOUTH EASTERN GOV 58.10 48.60 11.12 117.82 2012 ST. GEORGE EAST GOV 61.25 51.51 11.48 124.24 2012 ST. PATRICK GOV 61.15 49.66 10.77 121.57 2012 TOBAGO GOV 60.97 51.88 10.84 123.68 2012 VICTORIA GOV 70.54 59.15 12.55 142.24 2012 OVERALL GOV 62.33 51.75 11.23 125.31 2013 CARONI DENOM 63.41 60.53 12.69 136.64 2013 NORTH EASTERN DENOM 56.89 54.89 11.95 123.73 2013 PORT-OF-SPAIN DENOM 54.85 55.91 11.82 122.58 2013 SOUTH EASTERN DENOM 60.25 55.51 12.22 127.98 2013 ST. GEORGE EAST DENOM 61.32 59.50 12.60 133.41 2013 ST. PATRICK DENOM 60.65 57.69 12.51 130.85 2013 TOBAGO DENOM 54.63 54.54 11.24 120.41 2013 VICTORIA DENOM 66.59 63.98 13.52 144.09 2013 OVERALL DENOM 59.82 57.82 12.32 129.96 2013 CARONI GOV 61.93 60.10 12.52 134.55 2013 NORTH EASTERN GOV 44.31 46.81 10.71 101.84 2013 PORT-OF-SPAIN GOV 49.04 49.60 10.50 109.14 2013 SOUTH EASTERN GOV 55.97 54.16 11.37 121.49 2013 ST. GEORGE EAST GOV 51.16 52.28 11.37 114.81 159 | P a g e 2013 ST. PATRICK GOV 56.92 54.97 11.86 123.74 2013 TOBAGO GOV 53.90 52.36 10.84 117.10 2013 VICTORIA GOV 62.96 60.22 12.91 136.09 2013 OVERALL GOV 54.52 53.81 11.51 119.84 2013 CARONI DENOM 63.41 60.53 12.69 136.64 2013 NORTH EASTERN DENOM 56.89 54.89 11.95 123.73 2013 PORT-OF-SPAIN DENOM 54.85 55.91 11.82 122.58 2013 SOUTH EASTERN DENOM 60.25 55.51 12.22 127.98 2013 ST. GEORGE EAST DENOM 61.32 59.50 12.60 133.41 2013 ST. PATRICK DENOM 60.65 57.69 12.51 130.85 2013 TOBAGO DENOM 54.63 54.54 11.24 120.41 2013 VICTORIA DENOM 66.59 63.98 13.52 144.09 2013 OVERALL DENOM 59.82 57.82 12.32 129.96 2013 CARONI GOV 61.93 60.10 12.52 134.55 2013 NORTH EASTERN GOV 44.31 46.81 10.71 101.84 2013 PORT-OF-SPAIN GOV 49.04 49.60 10.50 109.14 2013 SOUTH EASTERN GOV 55.97 54.16 11.37 121.49 2013 ST. GEORGE EAST GOV 51.16 52.28 11.37 114.81 2013 ST. PATRICK GOV 56.92 54.97 11.86 123.74 2013 TOBAGO GOV 53.90 52.36 10.84 117.10 2013 VICTORIA GOV 62.96 60.22 12.91 136.09 2013 OVERALL GOV 54.52 53.81 11.51 119.84 2015 CARONI DENOM 62.38 63.42 14.92 140.72 2015 NORTH EASTERN DENOM 59.07 59.98 14.34 133.39 2015 PORT-OF-SPAIN DENOM 56.31 58.87 13.86 129.03 2015 SOUTH EASTERN DENOM 56.65 57.13 13.65 127.42 2015 ST. GEORGE EAST DENOM 61.21 62.56 14.30 138.07 2015 ST. PATRICK DENOM 61.88 61.41 15.34 138.64 2015 TOBAGO DENOM 54.93 56.90 13.64 125.47 160 | P a g e 2015 VICTORIA DENOM 67.65 67.77 16.09 151.51 2015 OVERALL DENOM 60.01 61.00 14.52 135.53 2015 CARONI GOV 63.55 64.28 14.85 142.68 2015 NORTH EASTERN GOV 43.56 45.49 12.86 101.91 2015 PORT-OF-SPAIN GOV 46.28 49.55 12.42 108.25 2015 SOUTH EASTERN GOV 59.00 58.38 13.38 130.76 2015 ST. GEORGE EAST GOV 54.34 56.70 13.80 124.84 2015 ST. PATRICK GOV 51.97 54.25 13.79 120.01 2015 TOBAGO GOV 52.78 56.99 14.05 123.82 2015 VICTORIA GOV 62.20 63.34 15.69 141.22 2015 OVERALL GOV 54.21 56.12 13.85 124.19 2016 CARONI DENOM 63.14 56.60 14.82 134.56 2016 NORTH EASTERN DENOM 57.03 51.03 14.52 122.58 2016 PORT-OF-SPAIN DENOM 55.53 51.60 13.61 120.74 2016 SOUTH EASTERN DENOM 61.16 54.12 14.37 129.65 2016 ST. GEORGE EAST DENOM 62.79 57.26 14.56 134.62 2016 ST. PATRICK DENOM 61.55 55.23 14.85 131.63 2016 TOBAGO DENOM 56.48 51.83 13.91 122.22 2016 VICTORIA DENOM 67.83 61.28 16.14 145.25 2016 OVERALL DENOM 60.69 54.87 14.60 130.15 2016 CARONI GOV 63.09 55.86 14.91 133.86 2016 NORTH EASTERN GOV 46.11 42.80 13.09 102.00 2016 PORT-OF-SPAIN GOV 48.96 46.41 12.66 108.03 2016 SOUTH EASTERN GOV 55.94 48.68 14.66 119.29 2016 ST. GEORGE EAST GOV 55.35 51.20 13.73 120.27 2016 ST. PATRICK GOV 54.44 49.83 14.20 118.48 2016 TOBAGO GOV 55.12 51.91 14.83 121.86 2016 VICTORIA GOV 61.78 56.94 15.60 134.32 2016 OVERALL GOV 55.10 50.45 14.21 119.76 161 | P a g e 2017 CARONI DENOM 60.74 65.44 11.34 137.53 2017 NORTH EASTERN DENOM 52.85 59.45 10.17 122.47 2017 PORT-OF-SPAIN DENOM 54.79 62.01 10.16 126.96 2017 SOUTH EASTERN DENOM 56.61 60.94 10.42 127.96 2017 ST. GEORGE EAST DENOM 59.78 65.59 11.09 136.46 2017 ST. PATRICK DENOM 61.24 65.45 11.01 137.70 2017 TOBAGO DENOM 53.05 60.90 9.86 123.81 2017 VICTORIA DENOM 65.06 69.74 12.07 146.87 2017 OVERALL DENOM 58.02 63.69 10.77 132.47 2017 CARONI GOV 55.45 62.39 11.01 128.85 2017 NORTH EASTERN GOV 44.84 51.82 9.17 105.83 2017 PORT-OF-SPAIN GOV 44.50 53.28 8.93 106.71 2017 SOUTH EASTERN GOV 55.21 58.58 9.94 123.72 2017 ST. GEORGE EAST GOV 51.05 57.94 9.91 118.90 2017 ST. PATRICK GOV 52.95 57.30 10.20 120.45 2017 TOBAGO GOV 47.66 55.70 8.96 112.32 2017 VICTORIA GOV 57.60 63.72 10.74 132.06 2017 OVERALL GOV 51.16 57.59 9.86 118.60 2018 CARONI DENOM 61.48 58.95 11.51 131.94 2018 NORTH EASTERN DENOM 53.83 54.24 10.13 118.19 2018 PORT-OF-SPAIN DENOM 54.12 55.05 10.43 119.59 2018 SOUTH EASTERN DENOM 57.65 54.74 10.92 123.31 2018 ST. GEORGE EAST DENOM 61.54 60.23 11.72 133.48 2018 ST. PATRICK DENOM 59.07 57.30 10.63 127.00 2018 TOBAGO DENOM 51.40 53.08 9.59 114.08 2018 VICTORIA DENOM 66.33 64.70 12.36 143.39 2018 OVERALL DENOM 58.18 57.29 10.91 126.37 2018 CARONI GOV 60.89 58.33 11.26 130.48 2018 NORTH EASTERN GOV 44.17 44.65 9.12 97.94 162 | P a g e 2018 PORT-OF-SPAIN GOV 48.45 49.46 9.85 107.76 2018 SOUTH EASTERN GOV 50.48 48.61 9.55 108.63 2018 ST. GEORGE EAST GOV 52.90 53.51 10.34 116.76 2018 ST. PATRICK GOV 52.18 49.59 9.57 111.33 2018 TOBAGO GOV 50.65 52.65 9.25 112.56 2018 VICTORIA GOV 56.20 55.60 10.17 121.97 2018 OVERALL GOV 51.99 51.55 9.89 113.43 2019 CARONI DENOM 55.92 55.64 10.31 121.87 2019 NORTH EASTERN DENOM 51.12 52.45 9.67 113.24 2019 PORT-OF-SPAIN DENOM 49.26 50.85 9.17 109.28 2019 SOUTH EASTERN DENOM 50.38 50.10 9.50 109.97 2019 ST. GEORGE EAST DENOM 54.80 55.38 10.08 120.27 2019 ST. PATRICK DENOM 55.72 54.30 10.56 120.57 2019 TOBAGO DENOM 48.55 50.96 9.52 109.04 2019 VICTORIA DENOM 61.28 60.40 11.12 132.81 2019 OVERALL DENOM 53.38 53.76 9.99 117.13 2019 CARONI GOV 54.05 54.22 10.45 118.72 2019 NORTH EASTERN GOV 43.70 42.82 8.15 94.67 2019 PORT-OF-SPAIN GOV 42.18 44.05 8.83 95.07 2019 SOUTH EASTERN GOV 47.07 45.71 8.61 101.38 2019 ST. GEORGE EAST GOV 45.80 47.54 9.23 102.58 2019 ST. PATRICK GOV 48.10 46.81 9.59 104.50 2019 TOBAGO GOV 47.21 48.72 9.58 105.50 2019 VICTORIA GOV 54.82 55.05 10.04 119.91 2019 OVERALL GOV 47.87 48.11 9.31 105.29 2020 CARONI DENOM 56.13 61.90 12.04 130.07 2020 NORTH EASTERN DENOM 48.17 57.68 10.91 116.76 2020 PORT-OF-SPAIN DENOM 50.36 60.04 10.94 121.33 2020 SOUTH EASTERN DENOM 51.36 58.03 10.92 120.31 163 | P a g e 2020 ST. GEORGE EAST DENOM 55.82 62.83 11.91 130.55 2020 ST. PATRICK DENOM 52.40 59.69 11.31 123.40 2020 TOBAGO DENOM 48.09 59.89 10.54 118.52 2020 VICTORIA DENOM 60.41 66.84 12.43 139.68 2020 OVERALL DENOM 52.84 60.86 11.37 125.08 2020 CARONI GOV 53.74 60.50 11.24 125.49 2020 NORTH EASTERN GOV 37.24 44.58 9.79 91.61 2020 PORT-OF-SPAIN GOV 43.79 52.98 10.21 106.98 2020 SOUTH EASTERN GOV 46.49 53.43 9.86 109.78 2020 ST. GEORGE EAST GOV 47.08 56.19 10.89 114.17 2020 ST. PATRICK GOV 45.31 53.13 10.15 108.59 2020 TOBAGO GOV 42.73 56.13 9.94 108.80 2020 VICTORIA GOV 50.78 60.49 11.16 122.43 2020 OVERALL GOV 45.89 54.68 10.41 110.98 164 | P a g e Table 2: Percentage of Students passing 5 or more CSEC subjects including Math and English 2010- 2020 YEAR DISTRICT No. Writing (Govt) No. passing 5 or more with M&E (Govt) % passing 5 or more passed with M&E (Govt) No. Writing (Gov't Asst) No. pasing 5 or more with M&E (Gov't Asst) % 5 or more passed with M&E (Gov't Asst) 2020 CARONI 1176 384 32.65% 841 687 81.69% NORTH EASTERN 1270 387 30.47% 225 124 55.11% PORT OF SPAIN 1679 562 33.47% 1038 847 81.60% SOUTH EASTERN 1128 391 34.66% 300 225 75.00% ST GEORGE EAST 2133 660 30.94% 948 862 90.93% ST PATRICK 991 303 30.58% 550 370 67.27% TOBAGO 626 185 29.55% 266 140 52.63% VICTORIA 1089 415 38.11% 1070 900 84.11% 2020 Grand Total 10092 3287 32.57% 5238 4155 79.32% 2019 CARONI 1188 388 32.66% 836 667 79.78% NORTH EASTERN 1250 307 24.56% 274 151 55.11% PORT OF SPAIN 1524 470 30.84% 1063 837 78.74% SOUTH EASTERN 1168 306 26.20% 306 208 67.97% ST GEORGE EAST 2005 445 22.19% 961 820 85.33% ST PATRICK 980 234 23.88% 618 327 52.91% TOBAGO 631 146 23.14% 265 174 65.66% VICTORIA 1090 337 30.92% 1057 897 84.86% 2019 Grand Total 9836 2633 26.77% 5380 4081 75.86% 2018 CARONI 1134 397 35.01% 839 639 76.16% NORTH EASTERN 1245 315 25.30% 234 129 55.13% PORT OF SPAIN 1569 502 31.99% 1060 843 79.53% SOUTH EASTERN 1102 304 27.59% 279 210 75.27% ST GEORGE EAST 1909 454 23.78% 962 836 86.90% ST PATRICK 983 268 27.26% 573 338 58.99% TOBAGO 645 147 22.79% 247 127 51.42% VICTORIA 1061 435 41.00% 1075 897 83.44% 2018 Grand Total 9648 2822 29.25% 5269 4019 76.28% 2017 CARONI 1138 357 31.37% 799 611 76.47% NORTH EASTERN 1215 260 21.40% 231 128 55.41% 165 | P a g e YEAR DISTRICT No. Writing (Govt) No. passing 5 or more with M&E (Govt) % passing 5 or more passed with M&E (Govt) No. Writing (Gov't Asst) No. pasing 5 or more with M&E (Gov't Asst) % 5 or more passed with M&E (Gov't Asst) PORT OF SPAIN 1605 465 28.97% 1030 809 78.54% SOUTH EASTERN 1097 267 24.34% 275 185 67.27% ST GEORGE EAST 1875 489 26.08% 914 821 89.82% ST PATRICK 1017 220 21.63% 585 348 59.49% TOBAGO 646 124 19.20% 238 122 51.26% VICTORIA 974 351 36.04% 1054 836 79.32% 2017 Grand Total 9567 2533 26.48% 5126 3860 75.30% 2016 CARONI 1034 336 32.50% 939 634 67.52% NORTH EASTERN 1125 228 20.27% 176 112 63.64% PORT OF SPAIN 1458 502 34.43% 1045 818 78.28% SOUTH EASTERN 1146 307 26.79% 303 220 72.61% ST GEORGE EAST 1842 422 22.91% 941 789 83.85% ST PATRICK 882 177 20.07% 578 336 58.13% TOBAGO 601 120 19.97% 247 113 45.75% VICTORIA 976 310 31.76% 1102 852 77.31% 2016 Grand Total 9064 2402 26.50% 5331 3874 72.67% 2015 CARONI 1021 365 35.75% 789 593 75.16% NORTH EASTERN 1068 268 25.09% 171 93 54.39% PORT OF SPAIN 1536 466 30.34% 1012 840 83.00% SOUTH EASTERN 1018 239 23.48% 277 201 72.56% ST GEORGE EAST 1884 455 24.15% 950 797 83.89% ST PATRICK 914 154 16.85% 526 332 63.12% TOBAGO 585 105 17.95% 242 114 47.11% VICTORIA 931 305 32.76% 1123 846 75.33% 2015 Grand Total 8957 2357 26.31% 5090 3816 74.97% 2014 CARONI 1048 264 25.19% 803 587 73.10% NORTH EASTERN 975 206 21.13% 187 96 51.34% PORT OF SPAIN 1554 438 28.19% 1052 830 78.90% SOUTH EASTERN 1061 268 25.26% 282 196 69.50% ST GEORGE EAST 1944 405 20.83% 941 813 86.40% ST PATRICK 943 157 16.65% 518 310 59.85% TOBAGO 653 122 18.68% 268 114 42.54% 166 | P a g e YEAR DISTRICT No. Writing (Govt) No. passing 5 or more with M&E (Govt) % passing 5 or more passed with M&E (Govt) No. Writing (Gov't Asst) No. pasing 5 or more with M&E (Gov't Asst) % 5 or more passed with M&E (Gov't Asst) VICTORIA 989 266 26.90% 1068 792 74.16% 2014 Grand Total 9167 2126 23.19% 5119 3738 73.02% 2013 CARONI 1144 278 24.30% 775 471 60.77% NORTH EASTERN 1096 177 16.15% 158 83 52.53% PORT OF SPAIN 1475 338 22.92% 1019 731 71.74% SOUTH EASTERN 1128 254 22.52% 304 180 59.21% ST GEORGE EAST 1945 333 17.12% 932 741 79.51% ST PATRICK 957 123 12.85% 533 293 54.97% TOBAGO 608 92 15.13% 312 99 31.73% VICTORIA 1010 222 21.98% 1027 766 74.59% 2013 Grand Total 9363 1817 19.41% 5060 3364 66.48% 2012 CARONI 1159 258 22.26% 745 401 53.83% NORTH EASTERN 1112 175 15.74% 191 89 46.60% PORT OF SPAIN 1483 345 23.26% 1062 760 71.56% SOUTH EASTERN 1143 190 16.62% 282 164 58.16% ST GEORGE EAST 1804 334 18.51% 920 722 78.48% ST PATRICK 962 101 10.50% 507 236 46.55% TOBAGO 685 63 9.20% 332 108 32.53% VICTORIA 1122 199 17.74% 1014 719 70.91% 2012 Grand Total 9470 1665 17.58% 5053 3199 63.31% 2011 CARONI 1238 286 23.10% 756 498 65.87% NORTH EASTERN 1226 208 16.97% 155 69 44.52% PORT OF SPAIN 1654 437 26.42% 1087 796 73.23% SOUTH EASTERN 1345 258 19.18% 288 179 62.15% ST GEORGE EAST 2028 369 18.20% 918 766 83.44% ST PATRICK 1023 175 17.11% 506 270 53.36% TOBAGO 708 88 12.43% 353 110 31.16% VICTORIA 1172 277 23.63% 1023 771 75.37% 2011 Grand Total 10394 2098 20.18% 5086 3459 68.01% 2010 CARONI 1324 306 23.11% 744 467 62.77% NORTH EASTERN 1346 220 16.34% 140 65 46.43% PORT OF SPAIN 1677 484 28.86% 1088 799 73.44% 167 | P a g e YEAR DISTRICT No. Writing (Govt) No. passing 5 or more with M&E (Govt) % passing 5 or more passed with M&E (Govt) No. Writing (Gov't Asst) No. pasing 5 or more with M&E (Gov't Asst) % 5 or more passed with M&E (Gov't Asst) SOUTH EASTERN 1440 357 24.79% 301 202 67.11% ST GEORGE EAST 2172 452 20.81% 898 762 84.86% ST PATRICK 1152 199 17.27% 479 287 59.92% TOBAGO 735 123 16.73% 374 137 36.63% VICTORIA 1316 324 24.62% 1036 809 78.09% 2010 Grand Total 11162 2465 22.08% 5060 3528 69.72% 168 | P a g e Table 3: Percentage of Students passing Three or more CAPE Unit I subjects 2010-2020 by Education District YEAR DISTRICT NUMBER PASSING 3 OR MORE SUBJECTS NUMBER ATTEMPTED PERCENT PASSING 3 OR MORE SUBJECTS 2020 CARONI 558 913 61.1% 2020 NORTH EASTERN 261 396 65.9% 2020 PORT OF SPAIN 887 1491 59.5% 2020 SOUTH EASTERN 313 511 61.3% 2020 ST GEORGE EAST 898 1487 60.4% 2020 ST PATRICK 408 698 58.5% 2020 TOBAGO 189 393 48.1% 2020 VICTORIA 1122 1725 65.0% 2020 Grand Total 4636 7614 60.9% 2019 CARONI 525 878 59.8% 2019 NORTH EASTERN 250 423 59.1% 2019 PORT OF SPAIN 856 1539 55.6% 2019 SOUTH EASTERN 279 480 58.1% 2019 ST GEORGE EAST 888 1447 61.4% 2019 ST PATRICK 377 737 51.2% 2019 TOBAGO 181 369 49.1% 2019 VICTORIA 999 1625 61.5% 2019 Grand Total 4355 7498 58.1% 2018 CARONI 531 852 62.3% 2018 NORTH EASTERN 254 383 66.3% 2018 PORT OF SPAIN 937 1612 58.1% 2018 SOUTH EASTERN 284 525 54.1% 2018 ST GEORGE EAST 894 1434 62.3% 2018 ST PATRICK 443 804 55.1% 2018 TOBAGO 169 340 49.7% 2018 VICTORIA 1014 1574 64.4% 2018 Grand Total 4526 7524 60.2% 2017 CARONI 563 820 68.7% 2017 NORTH EASTERN 235 348 67.5% 2017 PORT OF SPAIN 973 1629 59.7% 2017 SOUTH EASTERN 323 508 63.6% 2017 ST GEORGE EAST 958 1398 68.5% 2017 ST PATRICK 403 744 54.2% 2017 TOBAGO 167 308 54.2% 2017 VICTORIA 1062 1542 68.9% 2017 Grand Total 4684 7297 64.2% 2016 CARONI 594 846 70.2% 2016 NORTH EASTERN 223 328 68.0% 2016 PORT OF SPAIN 1003 1605 62.5% 169 | P a g e 2016 SOUTH EASTERN 286 463 61.8% 2016 ST GEORGE EAST 950 1335 71.2% 2016 ST PATRICK 413 691 59.8% 2016 TOBAGO 140 308 45.5% 2016 VICTORIA 1070 1514 70.7% 2016 Grand Total 4679 7090 66.0% 2015 CARONI 603 817 73.8% 2015 NORTH EASTERN 228 317 71.9% 2015 PORT OF SPAIN 989 1542 64.1% 2015 SOUTH EASTERN 328 511 64.2% 2015 ST GEORGE EAST 836 1231 67.9% 2015 ST PATRICK 391 715 54.7% 2015 TOBAGO 162 283 57.2% 2015 VICTORIA 1042 1479 70.5% 2015 Grand Total 4579 6895 66.4% 2014 CARONI 562 800 70.3% 2014 NORTH EASTERN 239 349 68.5% 2014 PORT OF SPAIN 982 1521 64.6% 2014 SOUTH EASTERN 304 518 58.7% 2014 ST GEORGE EAST 864 1262 68.5% 2014 ST PATRICK 398 687 57.9% 2014 TOBAGO 112 311 36.0% 2014 VICTORIA 1013 1460 69.4% 2014 Grand Total 4474 6908 64.8% 2013 CARONI 585 792 73.9% 2013 NORTH EASTERN 181 342 52.9% 2013 PORT OF SPAIN 1062 1647 64.5% 2013 SOUTH EASTERN 313 495 63.2% 2013 ST GEORGE EAST 832 1261 66.0% 2013 ST PATRICK 380 716 53.1% 2013 TOBAGO 164 326 50.3% 2013 VICTORIA 1021 1438 71.0% 2013 Grand Total 4538 7017 64.7% 2012 CARONI 547 762 71.8% 2012 NORTH EASTERN 242 359 67.4% 2012 PORT OF SPAIN 1020 1626 62.7% 2012 SOUTH EASTERN 334 556 60.1% 2012 ST GEORGE EAST 916 1295 70.7% 2012 ST PATRICK 427 735 58.1% 2012 TOBAGO 139 300 46.3% 2012 VICTORIA 1008 1580 63.8% 2012 Grand Total 4633 7213 64.2% 2011 CARONI 375 714 52.5% 2011 NORTH EASTERN 151 350 43.1% 2011 PORT OF SPAIN 712 1462 48.7% 170 | P a g e 2011 SOUTH EASTERN 307 583 52.7% 2011 ST GEORGE EAST 708 1280 55.3% 2011 ST PATRICK 346 745 46.4% 2011 TOBAGO 115 291 39.5% 2011 VICTORIA 806 1526 52.8% 2011 Grand Total 3520 6951 50.6% 171 | P a g e Table 4: Percent of Students passing 3 or more subjects, Cape Unit II (2011-2020) YEAR DISTRICT NUMBER PASSING 3 OR MORE SUBJECTS NUMBER ATTEMPTED PERCENT PASSING 3 OR MORE SUBJECTS 2020 CARONI 315 553 57.0% 2020 NORTH EASTERN 101 313 32.3% 2020 PORT OF SPAIN 481 861 55.9% 2020 SOUTH EASTERN 162 308 52.6% 2020 ST GEORGE EAST 596 886 67.3% 2020 ST PATRICK 218 419 52.0% 2020 TOBAGO 79 251 31.5% 2020 VICTORIA 592 980 60.4% 2020 Grand Total 2544 4571 55.7% 2019 CARONI 309 552 56.0% 2019 NORTH EASTERN 102 323 31.6% 2019 PORT OF SPAIN 532 979 54.3% 2019 SOUTH EASTERN 141 284 49.6% 2019 ST GEORGE EAST 567 793 71.5% 2019 ST PATRICK 244 460 53.0% 2019 TOBAGO 82 225 36.4% 2019 VICTORIA 602 943 63.8% 2019 Grand Total 2579 4559 56.6% 2018 CARONI 330 511 64.6% 2018 NORTH EASTERN 88 295 29.8% 2018 PORT OF SPAIN 535 949 56.4% 2018 SOUTH EASTERN 155 336 46.1% 2018 ST GEORGE EAST 604 827 73.0% 2018 ST PATRICK 218 498 43.8% 2018 TOBAGO 78 217 35.9% 2018 VICTORIA 589 878 67.1% 2018 Grand Total 2597 4511 57.6% 2017 CARONI 300 467 64.2% 2017 NORTH EASTERN 118 251 47.0% 2017 PORT OF SPAIN 531 1005 52.8% 2017 SOUTH EASTERN 138 288 47.9% 2017 ST GEORGE EAST 560 745 75.2% 2017 ST PATRICK 207 454 45.6% 2017 TOBAGO 66 174 37.9% 2017 VICTORIA 569 868 65.6% 2017 Grand Total 2489 4252 58.5% 2016 CARONI 325 502 64.7% 2016 NORTH EASTERN 81 219 37.0% 2016 PORT OF SPAIN 514 875 58.7% 2016 SOUTH EASTERN 140 261 53.6% 172 | P a g e 2016 ST GEORGE EAST 500 696 71.8% 2016 ST PATRICK 165 424 38.9% 2016 TOBAGO 57 189 30.2% 2016 VICTORIA 543 871 62.3% 2016 Grand Total 2325 4037 57.6% 2015 CARONI 289 444 65.1% 2015 NORTH EASTERN 105 227 46.3% 2015 PORT OF SPAIN 565 904 62.5% 2015 SOUTH EASTERN 158 287 55.1% 2015 ST GEORGE EAST 531 699 76.0% 2015 ST PATRICK 206 433 47.6% 2015 TOBAGO 44 132 33.3% 2015 VICTORIA 549 871 63.0% 2015 Grand Total 2447 3997 61.2% 2014 CARONI 316 489 64.6% 2014 NORTH EASTERN 77 251 30.7% 2014 PORT OF SPAIN 514 816 63.0% 2014 SOUTH EASTERN 136 268 50.7% 2014 ST GEORGE EAST 500 697 71.7% 2014 ST PATRICK 168 376 44.7% 2014 TOBAGO 75 206 36.4% 2014 VICTORIA 512 890 57.5% 2014 Grand Total 2298 3993 57.6% 2013 CARONI 287 451 63.6% 2013 NORTH EASTERN 101 268 37.7% 2013 PORT OF SPAIN 623 1013 61.5% 2013 SOUTH EASTERN 164 291 56.4% 2013 ST GEORGE EAST 529 697 75.9% 2013 ST PATRICK 204 476 42.9% 2013 TOBAGO 53 167 31.7% 2013 VICTORIA 520 935 55.6% 2013 Grand Total 2481 4298 57.7% 2012 CARONI 277 463 59.8% 2012 NORTH EASTERN 82 227 36.1% 2012 PORT OF SPAIN 512 877 58.4% 2012 SOUTH EASTERN 176 358 49.2% 2012 ST GEORGE EAST 503 735 68.4% 2012 ST PATRICK 172 449 38.3% 2012 TOBAGO 58 164 35.4% 2012 VICTORIA 603 1013 59.5% 2012 Grand Total 2383 4286 55.6% 2011 CARONI 273 413 66.1% 2011 NORTH EASTERN 109 249 43.8% 2011 PORT OF SPAIN 568 919 61.8% 2011 SOUTH EASTERN 178 327 54.4% 173 | P a g e 2011 ST GEORGE EAST 494 719 68.7% 2011 ST PATRICK 224 481 46.6% 2011 TOBAGO 89 167 53.3% 2011 VICTORIA 515 829 62.1% 2011 Grand Total 2450 4104 59.7% 174 | P a g e