M a r c e l l u s T a y l o r 2 0 1 7

Accountability in the Context of Bahamian

Education

This paper was commissioned by the Global Education Monitoring Report as background information

to assist in drafting the 2017/8 GEM Report, Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments.

It has not been edited by the team. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the

author(s) and should not be attributed to the Global Education Monitoring Report or to UNESCO. The

papers can be cited with the following reference: “Paper commissioned for the 2017/8 Global

Education Monitoring Report, Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments”. For further

information, please contact gemreport@unesco.org.

ED/GEMR/MRT/2017/C1/6

Country case study prepared for the 2017/8 Global Education Monitoring Report

Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments

2

1. Accountability Defined

Although accountability may be required and practised within many non-governmental entities within The Bahamas (such as the Church and the private sector), it appears that the Bahamian notion of accountability focuses on the public sector and the conduct of public officials. Accountability seems to be used more in the context of public officials, elected or appointed, being able to successfully justify their innocence vis-à-vis wrong doing than in the context of operating to promote good governance. This understanding of accountability was most likely shaped by the political realities of the 1980s and 1990s. During this period, international news agencies accused high level Bahamian government officials (including the Prime Minister) of widespread corruption, including direct engagement in the illegal drugs trade. The government-appointed Commission of Inquiry determined that, in too many instances, senior public officials were unable to account sufficiently for their actions. In response, the main opposition party at the time promised that if elected, they would restore the country’s good name by bringing accountability to government (Craton, 1986; Craton and Saunders, 1998; FNM, 1992).

2. Country Profile

As a former colony of Great Britain and having inherited the Westminster system of government, The Bahamas is considered a democratic country. Government in The Bahamas is highly centralisedi and at the country’s political centre is its Parliamentii which provides the forum for the political leadership of the country to account for their tenure. However, the democratic process is not meant to be unidirectional as citizens are expected to exercise their voice in the political process. The free and responsible expression by citizens in relation to the quality of governance has the ability to promote higher levels of accountability by public officials and strengthen the democracy. Since attaining universal adult suffrage in 1962, Bahamian citizens have been able to exercise greater voice in the political process. In the nine general elections held, beginning in 1972, voter participation on average has exceeded 90 percent (Parliamentary Department, n.d). Greater political voice has also been realised via informal means, particularly through increased access to and use of mass and social media. Having broken the state monopoly on radio and television transmission in the mid-1990s, government has facilitated the development of a robust private sector which currently consists of 31 licenseesiii. Many of these privately operated radio stations feature talk shows which allow listeners to telephone and offer opinions on a variety of subjects. With high levels of mobile phone and internet useiv, social media has provided yet another potent avenue for Bahamians to discuss a wide range of issues, including education. Recognizing this, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MOEST) maintains a strong social media presencev (Internet World Stats, 2016; Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 2016b; URCA, 2016). The provision of education is entrenched in the Bahamian society. Compulsory education laws were first passed by the Parliament in the 1870svi. For the approximately 70 percent who attend government maintained schools, tuition is free. The education system is structured in a 6+3+3 format with corresponding net enrolment rates of 95 percent, 75 percent and 99 percent. Although offered, education at the pre-primary and post-secondary/tertiary levels is not compulsory. Currently, about one in three children at ages 3 and 4 years is enrolled in government funded and independent schools while the University of The Bahamasvii (UB) and the

3

Bahamas Technical and Vocational Institute (BTVI), both public institutions, dominate the local post-secondary education sector (Craton and Saunders, 1998; Department of Statistics, 2012; Memefee and Bray, 2015; Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 2015). The Department of Education (DOE), the technical arm of MOEST, manages the public school system. About 170 government-maintained schools are organised into 13 districts accommodating roughly 50,000 students supported by 3,500 teachers. Each district is headed by a district superintendent who reports to the Director of Education. The curriculum at primary level provides a basic, general education but, at the secondary level, expands into more advanced academic and technical vocational offeringsviii. Having received the single largest share of government budget for decades, in recent years, the education allocation – in relative terms – has seen a decline from 17.9 percent in Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 to 12.1 percent in FY 2016 (Ministry of Education, 2008; Ministry of Finance, 2016). Given the centralised nature of the education system, the DOE determines how its resources (i.e. allocated funds, teachers, goods and services) are disseminated to schools. During the 1980s and 1990s, the efforts of the DOE shifted from ensuring education access to enhancing education quality (Ministry of Education, 2009). With the advent of the new millennium, many in the society – including employers, scholars and social commentators – began questioning publicly the effectiveness of the investments in and leadership of the education sector. For example, in 2005, the Coalition for Education Reform (a grouping of employers’ associations and labour unions) suggested that the Bahamian education system seemed unable to prepare Bahamian youth to enter the labour market. Having analysed national examination results, Massey (2009) concludes that too many students in The Bahamas are performing at the low end of the performance spectrum, while Collie-Patterson (2008) centred her research specifically on identifying the factors which contribute to the poor results in mathematics. Public pressure now requires leaders of the education system to justify not only the educational expenditure but also address the level of educational achievement, particularly the national examination results of students attending government-maintained schools. Other challenges facing the education system include the universalization of pre-primary education, ensuring equity across the archipelago, the expansion of Technical Vocational Education and Training (TVET) and improving the effectiveness of educational leadership at all levels.

3. Key Actors and Accountability

Introduction

The education sector comprises many stakeholders who impact or are impacted by its work. Key stakeholder groups within the education sector, in particular Policy-makers, the International Education Community, Teachers (including School Administrators) and Parents/Families contribute, positively or otherwise, to the level of accountability in education. Policy-makers

In the category of policy-makers, three groups of individuals contribute significantly to the formal policy-making process: politicians, executive administrators and senior technocrats. Each group advances its particular perspectives and interests. As a politician, the Minister’s interests centre on advancing the agenda of his political partyix. Executive administratorsx are bureaucrats primarily concerned with promoting the programme of the “government of the day” within the rules and regulations of the public service. Senior technocratsxi are

4

specialists and experts in a given field who serve in an advisory role to the politician and are responsible for the design and implementation of policy. The degree to which these three groups maintain their roles and work in concert determines the level of success to be experienced in the policy-making and implementation processes. Difficulties tend to arise when ministers, taking advantage of blurred lines of responsibility and their considerable authority and powerxii, insist on pursuing policies which may not be feasible or advisablexiii (Bray, 1991; Hutton and Lewis, 2014). Many politicians seemingly underestimate the difficulties of addressing challenges in the education sector, especially in a small, archipelago lacking the economies of scale. Simply borrowing policies from other contexts tends to be problematic (Howe and Davis, 2015; Inter-American Development Bank, 2004; Taylor, 2013). Given the highly centralised Parliamentary democracy of The Bahamas, there is little pressure exerted on the executive administrators or the senior technocrats if they do not execute their roles with good effect. It is the minister who is ultimately held responsible and is expected to account to the people for the work of his ministry. However, the level of accountability offered by politicians is questionable. Law requires ministers to submit to Parliament annual reports for each department within their portfolio. According to the Chief Clerk (M.P. Tynes, personal communication, December 2016), over the last several decades most government departments have not tabled annual reports as mandated. As it relates to the education sector, only three annual reports have been tabled since 2000xiv. Ministers might counter this by suggesting that they use their budget presentationsxv to account for the work of their ministries. However, given the very general nature of the national budget format,xvi including the fact that it does not link performance to the allocation of funds, budget presentations vary widely and provide little in the way of fiscal and budgetary analysis (Taylor et. al, 2007). This makes these budget presentations vulnerable to charges of being more concerned with public relationsxvii than with the objective accounting of how the fiscal allocations promoted the work of a particular public sector. It appears that there is a positive correlation between authority and accountability among the policy-makers in The Bahamas. However, there is also evidence to suggest that even when accountability is legally mandated, policy-makers do not necessarily comply. International Education Community

Increasingly, The Bahamas has engaged with international partnersxviii to enhance the education sector through funding, policy development and programme implementation initiatives (Bethel, 2010). In recent times, in terms of funding, the Government has received considerable assistance from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) supporting four major education programmes over the last twenty years (IDB, 2016). The most recent collaboration – Investing in Students and Programmes for the Innovative Reform of Education (INSPIRE) – involved the provision of a $12.9 million loan to assist with developing a national framework for TVET; supporting early childhood development; enhancing inclusive education; and undertaking sector strengthening activities. In addition, The Bahamas has sought to elevate its status in the global education policy discussion from the role of passive participant to active facilitator. During the period of Education for All (EFA) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the level of engagement in the global conversation was low. This was probably due to poor alignment of the EFA and MDGs targets with the country’s perceived needs. However, as the tenor of the global education dialogue shifted from improving education access to enhancing education quality, the issues being discussed resonated more with Bahamian education policy-makers. As a result, The Bahamas committed itself to assist with shaping the development and implementation of the global education agenda by hosting the 19th Conference of Commonwealth Education Ministers (19CCEM) in June 2015 and the Ninth Inter-American Meeting of Ministers of Education (9IAMME) held in February 2017.

5

The engagement with international partners on education has positively impacted accountability in the local education sector in at least two ways. First, the level of planning and preparation required when securing a loan or grant from an international partner far exceeds that needed to obtain internal funding from the central government. The enhanced planning, deliberate and focused work structure and predetermined evaluation protocols naturally facilitate higher levels of accountability to internal and external clients. Second, hosting a hemispheric or global meeting on education in a small country like The Bahamas will receive attention even from the ordinary citizen. In so doing, the consciousness of the local media, scholars and social commentators among others will be aroused and questions will be asked. Following the hosting of the 19CCEM, public opinion indicated that while it was significant for the country to host such an important meeting, it is equally important to know the steps policy-makers would next take to transfer ideas shared with concrete actions designed to improve education locally (The Vivian Group, 2015). Engagement with the International Education Community has and will continue to enable Bahamians to gain a greater appreciation for education and its complexity. In so doing, the range of stakeholders will be more empowered to assess the local situation and strengthen their ability to put positive pressure on policy-makers to improve the system. Teachers (including School Administrators)

The Education Act calls for the Director of Education to ensure that the public education system is managed effectively. Therefore, there is the expectation that when the DOE initiates a policy, all government-maintained schools will implement them as instructed. However, evidence suggests that there is variation in the level of compliance by some in the implementation of certain policies clearly articulated by the DOE. Two such examples of this variation in compliance relate to the curriculum implementation process and the execution of student discipline policies. Formal assessment, including national examinations, provides an important, objective means of determining the success of the curriculum implementation process. Within local education circles, there has long been concern that the instructional time allocated to certain subjectsxix is reduced significantlyxx. It seems that this is done in order to allocate more time to those subjects that will be assessed. In 2007, the Department of Education reiterated its position on this and circulated a document clearly delineating the time allocated for each subject (Department of Education, 2007). However, now that the MOEST is installing school management software (which includes a component to oversee curriculum implementation), the level of non-compliance is being exposed. The MOEST has now been able to demonstrate the inconsistent application of policies and regulations across the system,xxi particularly those which govern the time allocated for the teaching of each subject and teacher engagement. The second area of non-compliance is in the use of corporal punishment as a means to discipline children and youth, which internationally is longstanding and widespread. By the end of 2015, less than one-quarter of the world’s countries have banned completely the use of any form of corporal punishment on children. More than 70 countries still maintain legislation which permits the use of corporal punishment in schools (Global Initiative to End All Forms of Corporal Punishment, 2015). As a signatory to the UN Rights of the Child, the Ministry of Education introduced its Safe Schools Protocol at the turn of the millennium to regulate student discipline matters in government maintained schools. Inappropriate student behaviours are divided into four categories. Level I and II infractions are addressed by the classroom teacher while Level III and IV infractions are advanced to a school administrator. At no level is corporal punishment recommended as an appropriate strategy to address student indiscipline, and the policy expectation is that corporal punishment should not be used. However, in a 2008 survey of teachers, conducted jointly by the DOE and the College of The Bahamas (COB), it was noted that 88 percent of teachers indicated that they either use or would use corporal punishment to discipline their own children and 62 percent felt that the withdrawal of corporal punishment has diminished the

6

teacher’s authority over students. Further, despite the official policy, 1 in 4 teachers actually admitted to administering corporal punishment on their students (Johnson, 2016). Locally, and given the social and cultural norms of the country, 25% of teachers admitting to using corporal punishment would not be regarded as widespread non-compliance. So, while the policy expectation is full compliance; operationally, the current level of compliance is not considered problematic. In both instances, it is difficult to conceive that school and district level administrators (and even perhaps curriculum officers) are unaware of these instances of policy non-compliance by the teachers they supervise. More likely, there may be a “silent endorsement” by those charged to ensure that teachers are accountable for carrying out official policy, by implicitly accepting the teachers’ non-compliance. Supervisors might have concluded that defying, circumventing or adjusting official education policy when they seem inappropriate, ineffective, out-dated or culturally/socially irrelevant is justified. This type of behaviour, as displayed in the examples above by teachers and others, is what Lipsky (1980) termed “street level bureaucracy”. Questions which arise and have serious implications for the level of accountability regarding school based personnel are; “who is responsible for ensuring compliance”, “what is the extent of the practice of policy non-compliance”, “who determines the appropriateness of such non-compliance” and “what are the consequences of non-compliance”? Parents/Families

Within the Bahamian education sector, the level of accountability demanded of parents appears to vary based on where the child is educated. In the first instance, Sections 23 to 25 of the Education Act requires all parents to ensure that their children of compulsory school age participate in education on a full-time basis, which may be delivered in a school or otherwise. Section 26 prescribes penalties for parents failing to comply. The Act also provides for attendance officers whose job it is to identify, seek out and re-direct truants to school and charges may be brought against parents for not ensuring that their children attend school on a regular basis. Attendance officers are posted at government maintained schools in the urban centres of the country and it is their practice to monitor the attendance of students in those schools. The Act only requires children attending government maintained schools to follow the national curriculum. Children attending private schools follow a curriculum prescribed by the school. In these cases, it can be argued that those institutions have curricula which maintain certain minimum standards because they are registered by the government and continue to attract a satisfactory level of enrolment. However, those parents who have elected to home school their children, until very recently, were exempted from any government monitoring. It has only been since August 2016 that the MOEST commenced the registration of home schooled students and, at this point, no curriculum standards have been mandated. Although still relatively little is known about the practice of home schooling in The Bahamas, it is safe to say that many home schooled children are not following the national curriculum (Government of The Bahamas, 1996; Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 2016a). Whether intentional or not, it appears that those parents able to exercise choice when educating their children are wealthier and more educated than other parents. Based on household survey data, attendance at government-maintained schools is negatively correlated with family income. Three-quarters (75.4 percent) of students from families in the richest quintile attend private schools while 85.5 percent of students from families in the poorest 20th percentile attend government operated schools. Individual annual educational expenditure for those in the richest decile ($2,555) is almost 46 times greater than that for those in the poorest decile ($56) (Department of Statistics, 2013; Department of Statistics, 2004). Additionally, richer families in The Bahamas are much more likely to be headed by an individual with high educational attainment than are poorer families. Almost half (48.3 percent) of household heads in the richest quintile have at least some educational attainment at the college level while only 1.4 percent of household heads in the poorest quintile have some college education (Department of Statistics, 2013).

7

Additionally, the ability to exercise choice seems to shape the nature of the relationship between parents and the school. According to The Education Act, the main responsibility of parents sending their children to government maintained schools is to ensure that their compulsory school age children attend school regularly. Despite the recommendation of the National Task Force on Education (1994) to extend the responsibilities of parents by engaging them in more meaningful school management issues and increasing their financial responsibilities, the 1996 revision did not include any of these recommendations. In the private sector, tuition fees and other school related expenses are considerable and parents are automatically viewed as ‘clients’ to be serviced. However, in the state sector, the demands placed on schools to demonstrate accountability to parents are minimal. In the private sector, communication with parents seems to facilitate and encourage their involvement with higher levels of accountability for student performance by the school to the parent resulting as a by-product of this. The websites of several private schools revealed that digital accommodations are made for parents to remain in constant virtual contact with the school, which includes parents gaining ‘real time’ access to their child’s grades. Given their economic and educational profile, it is also likely that positive assumptions are made in relation to the value that these parents place on education and the level of support that they are prepared to provide. By comparison, despite the high levels of mobile phone and Internet use in The Bahamas, no such communications facility seems available for parents of students attending government-maintained schools. In most cases, it seems that the parents of students attending state schools must make the greater effort to establish and maintain communication with the school than parents who send their children to privately operated institutions. Assessing the way that parents are regarded by the education sector in The Bahamas can be summed up as follows: The only significant duty placed on parents is to ensure that their children of compulsory school age engage in full-time education. Then, depending on their means, parents are treated differently. Those having the ability to educate their children in a non-government controlled environment seem to have greater levels of choice and voice. This appears to reduce the level of accountability demanded by the state of parents whose children attend private school, particularly in relation to school attendance and adherence to the national curriculum. At the same time, perhaps because of the market dynamics, parents whose children are enrolled in independent schools are also able to demand (even if implicitly) higher levels of accountability from their children’s school. For parents sending their children to government maintained schools, the situation seems to be reversed. Small Case Study: Information for Enhanced Education Sector Accountability Since 2000, the Ministry of Education has been aware of and has articulated clearly the need to increase its level of public accountability. In its 2004 Strategic Plan, the Ministry committed to implementing ‘…systems of accountability and performance within the Ministry in order to achieve excellence in the management of its education system, the effective and efficient use of its resources, responsiveness to its clientele and adaptability in an increasingly complex society’(p. 10). More recently, in its Shared Vision for Education 2030, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology indicated that in order to achieve its stated goals and targets for the Bahamian education system, it seeks to ‘…strengthen mechanisms to ensure that all persons at all levels within the system are accountable for the performance of every student’ (p.8). One of the key mechanisms used to facilitate greater levels of accountability is the availability of relevant information. The World Bank highlights this fact in its accountability triangle framework. It illustrates how, in an ideal circumstance, key actors are involved in social systems that can create an effective system of accountability through the bi-directional flow of appropriate information. According to the model, the information shared between politicians/policy-makers and implementers/service providers should centre on the

8

policies and performance expectations on one hand and evidence of actual performance based on suitable performance measures on the other. At the local level, service providers (schools in this case) share information regarding the education services they have provided (for example, using student achievement data) and citizens (parents and their children) provide feedback on the service received (the level and quality of support provided to them by the teaching staff, for instance). The third side of the accountability triangle focuses on the feedback articulated by politicians/policy-makers on progress made towards achieving the stated goals and the citizens’ response (in its various forms) to that progress (World Bank, 2007). Figure 1: Accountability Triangle (World Bank 2007)

At least two important concepts underpinning the successful implementation of the Accountability Triangle Framework ought to be considered, especially as they relate to the Bahamian context. First, the model suggests that there is only a slightly hierarchical relationship between actors where power is not densely concentrated but fairly evenly distributed. Such relationships seem a necessary pre-condition to facilitate meaningful interchange. If realised, such exchange can reduce the information imbalances which typically exist between various actors. As highlighted earlier, in The Bahamas the state controlled dimensions of the education sector are quite centralised and relationships tend to be hierarchical both between (for instance teachers and parents in the public school system) and within (as with politicians and technocrats) groups of actors. The implications are that, as in local private schools, parents ought to be afforded increased responsibility and an amplified ‘voice’ while a clearer delineation ought to be made between the role of the politician and technocrat in the policy-making process.

9

Second, for actors to operate effectively in their roles, a range of information should be made available. In the Bahamian context, the information needed on the education sector must come from the MOEST. The Ministry should be able to provide a range of information related to expenditure on education, the teaching staff (including qualifications and experience), student background (such as the proportion of students receiving government assistance) and learning outcomes information disaggregated to the level of the district and school. Such information would enable stakeholders to assess whether or not resources are equitably distributed and assist in determining if the education system is providing value for the money spent. The question is: does the MOEST have the capacity and the will to produce the information required by the various actors? High volumes of information are generated across the Bahamian public sector and there is indication of growing public demand for this information. In the education sector, there is a demand for relevant information by those both internal and external to the Ministry of Education and there are multiple information sources (e.g. schools, ministry), information types (e.g. student enrolment, student achievement, staff profile), and storage methods (e.g. paper files and digital platforms) present within the organisation (Inter-American Development Bank, 2005; Taylor, 2003). In the past, it was nearly impossible for citizens to gain access to public records generally, including information on the education system. However, within the last several years, there has been a lot of public pressure placed on politicians (including political protests) to provide unfettered access to information via the introduction of a Freedom of Information Actxxii (Turnquest, 2014). For some time, there has been the concern that even if required by law to make information available, the MOEST is not in a position to provide the relevant information needed by the various stakeholders. Taylor (2003) highlighted several challenges regarding the Ministry of Education’s ability to furnish the information required. For example:

Much of the existing information is discounted either because it is in its unprocessed form or its value to the decision-making process is not obvious.

The information storage and retrieval systems were antiquated.

The Planning Unit, for several reasons including limited staffing, lacked the capacity to fulfil its role of information provider.

In response to these concerns, the IDB Loan Programmexxiii included a component which sought to improve the Ministry of Education’s capacity to generate relevant information to support decision-making (which could then be made available to both policy makers and stakeholders who contribute to the process). Initially, this component involved the following

building internal capacity of key staff to analyse data, conduct research and monitor and evaluate operations;

improving the Ministry’s Intranet system; and

establishing a central database. The original US$ 1.84 million allocated to this component of the IDB loan was cut by more than half to US$ 0.98 million due to programme restructuring. In addition, most of the work for this component was no longer treated as a project and was integrated into the “regular work” of the MOEST. By the programme’s completion in 2014, all of the allocated funds were exhausted, but the two key output indicators (namely, the design and implementation of a central database as well as strengthening the capacity of the MOEST’s technical staff in Monitoring and Evaluation) were not achieved. Lack of staffing in the Planning Unit of the MOEST was cited as a major contributor to the unsatisfactory rating of this component’s implementation. Thus, in many respects, the MOEST’s capacity to manage information and to use it to enhance decision-making appears to be no better now than it was in 2003 (Inter-American Development Bank, 2014; Mindbloom, 2014).

10

4. Policy Recommendations

Consideration should be given to the following in an effort to enhance accountability within the Bahamian education sector:

Strengthen the MOE’s capacity to provide relevant, accurate information on the education system through staff training and the effective integration of the appropriate technology.

Ensure the compliance with established laws (such as the various Acts which govern the education sector) in relation to reporting on the state of education.

Disseminate a variety of data on the education system to both internal and external agents with the ability to scientifically analyse and report on them. The primary purpose of this would be to create a better understanding, generally, by all stakeholders regarding the state of education in the country.

11

5. Bibliography

Bethel, K. M. 2010. Educational reform in The Bahamas. http://www.bahamasb2b.com/download/educational-reform-bahamas-keva-bethel.pdf. (Accessed 20th November, 2016). Bray, M. 1991. Making small practical: The organisation and management of ministries of education in small states. London, Commonwealth Secretariat. Coalition for Education Reform. 2005. Bahamian youth : The untapped resource. Unpublished Report. Collie-Patterson, J.M. 2008. The national average is D: Who is to blame? The College of The Bahamas Research Journal. 14: 28-37. Craton, M. 1986. A history of The Bahamas. Waterloo ON, San Salvador Press. Craton, M. and Saunders, G. 1998. Islanders in the stream: A history of the Bahamian people from the ending of slavery to the twenty-first century. Vol. 1. Athens GA, University of Georgia Press. Department of Education. 2009. Safe schools protocol (Revised). Manual for Bahamian public schools, Nassau. Department of Education. 2007. Operational guide to effective school openings. Internal Pamphlet of MOEST Bahamas, Nassau. Department of Statistics. 2013. 2013 Household expenditure survey report. Nassau, Department of Statistics. Department of Statistics. 2012. Commonwealth of The Bahamas: Report of the 2010 census of population & housing. Nassau, Department of Statistics. Department of Statistics. 2004. Bahamas living conditions survey 2001. Nassau, Department of Statistics. Free National Movement. 1992. Manifesto ’92: Deliverance…Now is the time!. Nassau, Free National Movement. Global Initiative to End All Forms of Corporal Punishment. 2015. Towards non-violent schools: prohibiting all corporal punishment Global report 2015. http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/assets/pdfs/reports-thematic/Schools%20Report%202015-EN.pdf (Accessed 19th February, 2017). Government of The Bahamas. 1996. Education Act (1996). http://laws.bahamas.gov.bs/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/1962/1962-0015/EducationAct_1.pdf (Accessed 20th November, 2016). Howe, G. and Davis, L. 2015. 19th Conference of Commonwealth Ministers of Education issues paper. London, Commonwealth Secretariat. Hutton, John and Lewis, Leigh. 2014. How to be a minister: A 21st Century guide. London, Biteback Publishing Ltd. Inter-American Development Bank. 2016. Inter-American Development Bank website for The Bahamas. http://www.iadb.org/en/countries/bahamas/bahamas-and-the-idb,1035.html (Accessed 28th November, 2016).

12

Inter-American Development Bank. 2014. Project completion report for Investing in Students and Programmes for the Innovative Reform of Education (INSPIRE) Commonwealth of The Bahamas. Final Report, Washington DC. Inter-American Development Bank. 2005. Education and Training for Competitiveness Program (ETC) Education Management and Information Systems. Country Report, Nassau. Inter-American Development Bank. 2004. IDB country strategy with The Commonwealth of The Bahamas (2003-2007). Country Report. Washington DC. Internet World Stats. 2016. Internet world stats http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats11.htm#caribbean (Accessed on 20th November, 2016). Johnson, Pandora, 2016. Violence in schools. Fielding, W., Ballance, V.C.F. and Strachan, I.G. (eds). Violence in The Bahamas. Nassau, Media Enterprises Ltd, pp. 113-133. Lipsky, M. 1980. Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, Russell Sage Foundation. Massey, Ralph J. 2009. The learning crisis: A Bahamian public policy essay. Nassau: The Nassau Institute. Memefee, T. and Bray, M. 2015. Education in the Commonwealth: Quality education for equitable development. London: Commonwealth Secretariat. Mindbloom. 2014. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology Commonwealth of The Bahamas: Final program/operational evaluation of project INSPIRE. Final Report. Mahone Bay, Nova Scotia, Canada. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. 2016a. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MoEST) endorses homeschooling in The Bahamas. Press Release. http://media.wix.com/ugd/29b6ce_e3ab6e8c48654eddaae78a72e1532ad7.pdf (Accessed on 4th December, 2016). Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. 2016b. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology Website. http://www.ministryofeducationbahamas.com/ (Accessed on 4th December, 2016). Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. 2015. Vision 2030: A shared vision for education in the Commonwealth of The Bahamas. Policy Document, Nassau. Ministry of Education. 2009. Bahamas Ministry of Education: 10 year education plan. MOE Strategic Plan, Nassau. Ministry of Education. 2008. The Bahamas national education statistical digest 2008. Education Statistics Report, Nassau. Ministry of Education. 2004. Draft strategic plan 2004: Bahamian education in the 21st Century. MOE Strategic Plan, Nassau. Ministry of Finance. 2016. Draft estimates of revenue and expenditure 2016/2017. National Budget Document, Nassau.

13

National Task Force on Education. 1994. Final report: Education a preparation for life. National Task Force Report, Nassau. Parliamentary Registration Department (The Bahamas). N.d. Summary of Parliamentary general elections 1729 -2012. Summary Report for Internal Use, Nassau. Taylor, M. 2013. The family and its effects on intergenerational educational attainment in The Bahamas. Ph.D. dissertation. State University of New York at Albany, Albany NY. Taylor, M. 2003. An examination of the availability and use of information in educational decision-making. The case of The Bahamas. Master’s Thesis. IIEP, Paris. Taylor, M.C., Fielding, W.J. and Darling, K. 2007. Budgetary analysis and procedures for education national case study: The Bahamas. Report prepared for IIEP, Paris. Turnquest, Ava. 2014. Civic groups rally for freedom of information. The Tribune. http://www.tribune242.com/news/2014/jun/12/civic-groups-rally-freedom-information/ (Accessed on 19th February, 2017). The Vivian Group. 2015. Evaluation report: 19th Conference of Commonwealth Education Ministers June 22nd – June 26th. Evaluation Report for MOEST, Nassau. Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority (URCA). 2016. URCA: 2015 Annual report & 2018 plan. http://www.urcabahamas.bs/publications-library.php?cmd=view&id=262 (Accessed on 18th November, 2016). World Bank. 2007. Towards high-quality education in Peru: Standards, accountability and capacity building. Washington DC, World Bank.

14

i The country maintains a limited form of local government which covers only the less populated Family Islands. Those

authorities have very limited powers and are unable to generate funds but rely exclusively on the Central Government

to provide them with an operating budget. New Providence, which accommodates 70 percent of the country’s

population, has no local government. ii The Bahamian Parliament is the third oldest Parliament in the Western Hemisphere having met continuously since

its first sitting in 1729. However, due to rigid, restrictive voting laws, the majority was not permitted to participate in

the political process for most of the Parliament’s existence. Universal suffrage was attained in 1959 following voting

reforms which, among other things, granted women the right to vote. iii The 31 licensees participate in the Free to Air Broadcasting (radio and television) market in The Bahamas.

Regulation of the sector was transferred to the Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority (URCA) in 2009 iv Mobile phone and internet use is estimated by URCA at 85.5 percent and 84.8 percent population penetration

respectively. Internet World Stats estimates that there are over 210,000 Facebook accounts registered to residents

of The Bahamas. v The MOEST’s social media platform includes its website, a YouTube channel, a Facebook page and Instagram and

Twitter accounts. vi The initial Act providing compulsory education for boys and girls only addressed the island of New Providence. It was

not until 1889 that the provisions of the Act were extended across the country. The school leaving age of twelve was

officially raised to fourteen in 1897 and further increased to age sixteen in 1996. vii Formerly the College of The Bahamas, the University of The Bahamas officially came into existence in November

2016. viii At the end of secondary school, students may opt to sit the Bahamas General Certificate of Secondary Education

(BGCSE) which offers 26 examinations in general and technical and vocational subjects. The National High School

Diploma was introduced in the 2014/2015 academic year. ix Since 1992, it has become the norm for political parties to produce documents containing what often appears to be

a “wish list” of programmes and policies which they promise to enact if and when elected. x The term “Executive Administrator” in this context refers to public officers at the level of Permanent Secretary, Under

Secretary and Deputy Permanent Secretary. They are permanent and pensionable officers, appointed by the

Governor-General and they lead the administrative processes within government ministries. It is expected that they

are apolitical in executing their public duties. xi Currently, the Director of Education and three Deputy Directors of Education comprise the senior technocrats of the

Department of Education. xii A review of the Education Act and other Acts which govern the education sector indicates that the law vests virtually

all power in the minister, which is in keeping with ministerial government. xiii One example of this is The Bahamas Government’s stated intention of legislating within the five year political term

the universalization of pre-primary education to children ages 3 and 4 years old. At that time, pre-primary enrolment

rates were estimated at 76 percent. Advice offered by the senior technocrats was that, given various factors, it would

be near impossible to achieve universal pre-primary enrolment within the given time frame. Today, data indicate that,

in fact, enrolment has plummeted to less than half the 2002 figure (Inter-American Development Bank, 2004;

Department of Statistics, 2012). xiv The three annual reports, covering the academic years 2004/5, 2005/6 and 2006/7 were tabled in the House of

Assembly on 14th April, 2010 by Hon. Desmond Bannister. xv Ministers prepare and deliver two budget presentations per year: the main budget debate and the budget mid-year

review. xvi The Ministry of Finance is making efforts to enhance the budgeting process and is seeking to move to a

performance-based programme budgeting format. The pilot, involving five ministries including MOEST, commenced in

FY 2015-2016 with the intent of adopting it across the public sector in FY 2016-2017. Progress in this regard has

been slower than planned. xvii For instance, in recent times, the Communications Section – primarily charged with leading public relations for the

Ministry of Education – plays a leading role in preparing the Minister of Education’s budget communications. xviii Some of the more important partners include: UNESCO, Commonwealth Secretariat, World Bank, Organization of

American States, Inter-American Development Bank, CARICOM Secretariat and Caribbean Development Bank. xix The subjects which are more prone to neglect are those which are either of lower prestige (such as technical

vocational subjects) or those which are not formally assessed (such as Health and Family Life Education or Physical

Education).

15

xx Having served as a teacher, school administrator, and now serving as a senior technocrat in the Department of

Education, I am aware that this suspicion continues to prevail. xxi In a meeting held during the first half of 2016, the Acting Director of Educational Planning expressed that the data

entry process for the electronic student management system, being implemented by the Department of Education,

was delayed in part because schools were not following the guidelines vis-à-vis the period allocation for various

subjects. xxii Such an Act was passed in April 2012. However, some public concern was voiced that the Act was too restrictive

and did not go far enough in “freeing up” public information. On taking office in mid-2012, the new government chose

not to enact the legislation and undertook the task of revising it, engaging key stakeholders and the general public

over the four and a half year period. It has been said that the revised Act will soon be presented to parliament

(Nassau Guardian, 2016; The Tribune, 2016). xxiii In 2004, the IDB agreed to support the Ministry of Education in a programme entitled ‘Education and Training for

Competitiveness’ (ETC). The programme was renamed ‘Support Programme for Transforming Education and Training’

(SPTET) and finally ‘Investing in Students and Programmes for the Innovative Reform of Education’ (INSPIRE).