A characteristic of many countries, particularly developing ones, is the wide gap in development and education standards and overcoming this has posed a challenge for both governments and organisations/agencies involved in developmental work.

Of course there are several factors which are responsible for this wide gap and these include the historical evolution of societies, culture, traditions, poor governmental policies and lack of resources.

Lack of a proper education system and facilities in rural communities only help to perpetuate poverty there, and it is exactly because of this situation that many countries are increasingly employing education as a key tool in the fight against poverty.

Education and training are two of the most powerful weapons in the fight against rural poverty and sustainable development. Unfortunately, these are also among the most neglected aspects of rural development interventions by national governments and by donors. It is widely acknowledged that farmers, with basic education, are more likely to adopt new technology, and become more productive. With basic education they are better equipped to make more informed decisions for their lives and for their communities and to be active participants in promoting economic, social and cultural dimension of development. It is equally accepted that excess rural labour has to find work outside the farm, whether in rural or urban settings, and that, without basic literacy and numeracy, individuals are unlikely to be hired for anything more than basic wage labour. Despite such evidence, illiteracy is much higher in rural than in urban areas. Moreover, although rural children and youth are the farmers of the future and most of them start farming at a very early age, their access to education in rural areas is still much lower than in urban areas and the quality of their education is poorer and often irrelevant to their lives. (Source: UNESCO)

According to UNESCO “the challenge of education to serve rural development is one of the main themes of the Education for All effort. The problems of poverty and deprivation in rural areas, and their spill-over into urban areas, cannot be solved by preventing urbanisation and keeping rural people confined to rural areas. Rather, many, if not all, of the EFA and Millennium Development Goals require special attention to the situation of rural populations. In spite of rapid urbanisation, three billion or 60 per cent of the people in developing countries, and half of the people of the world, still live in rural areas.”

It adds: “Three quarters of the world’s poor, those earning less than a dollar a day, live in rural areas. One in five children in the South still does not attend primary school and, while rural-urban statistics on education are scarce, many countries report that non-attendance in school, early dropout of students, adult illiteracy and gender inequality in education are disproportionately high in rural areas, as is poverty. Urban-rural disparities in educational investment and in the quality of teaching and learning are widespread and need to be redressed. Rural people and rural areas are not homogeneous, and so for education to be relevant, it needs to respond to the diversity of rural situations. Educational activities have to be linked to the specific needs of the rural community for skills and capacities to seize economic opportunities, improve livelihood and enhance the quality of life. A multi-sectoral educational approach involving all ages and formal, non-formal and informal education is necessary.”

Guyana is among those countries which historically have had an urban focused development pattern and so there existed for a long time a large gap between rural and urban education standards. And as such the overwhelming majority top academic performers and those who excelled at various examinations came from urban areas.

However, in recent years there has been a gradual change, with many top performers emerging from rural communities.

The results of this year’s National Grade Six examinations have shown that this encouraging trend is continuing with a large number of students from the top one percent coming from rural communities.

According to the preliminary analysis of the examination by the Education Ministry 185 students comprised the top one percent and of this amount 174 came from the rural regions while 11 came from Region 4 where the capital city is located.

This trend is also similar in the results of the CSEC results.

This no doubt is largely due to the increasing emphasis which this government has been placing on education in rural communities since its assumption to office in 1992.

Apart from the hundreds of schools and other educational facilities, which have either been built or repaired in the rural and hinterland regions, one of the notable aspects of the national education programme has been the emphasis on the training of teachers in these communities and this has been given a fillip through the implementation of the distance mode of education.

The revival of the Cyril Potter College of Education rural training centres has also contributed significantly to improving teacher training countryside.

Unfortunately, these training centres which were established by a former PPP government were closed down by the succeeding PNC government.

The current government has irrefutably demonstrated its unswerving commitment towards improved delivery of education in both rural and urban communities.

Evidence of this commitment lies in the government’s allocations in the national budget. Year after year we have seen the largest chunk of allocations being made to the social sector, amounting to some 20% of the national budget.

In addition in a few years we should be able to achieve the goal of universal secondary education with enrolment standing at 80% currently compared to a mere 35% in 1992.

If the current trend in the education system continues, and all indications are that it would, then Guyana would narrow the gap in education standards to a minimum in the near future which will augur well for its overall national development.