TO GUYANA’S credit, much work has been done on child rights and among the first things done by the President David Granger Government, was bringing a laser beam sort of attention to education.

He noted in his Independence address that the country underwent a transformative process when it gained Independence on May 26, 1966, asserting that the transformative experience opened opportunities for everyone but, particularly, for young people. “Independence was transformative. It brought forward-looking changes which improved the living and working conditions for all, including our youth. It laid the foundation for a better life for future generations,” the head of state said.

Indeed post-Independence Guyana stood out among her counterparts in the Caribbean and farther afield in early childhood education, which initially began at three years and nine months. More schools were built, allowing for greater accommodation of children; and at the post-primary level, the then common entrance school examination was used to place students in schools, based on their evaluated intellectual abilities and interests.

In recognition of secondary education, the programme was expanded and augmented beyond the known schools – inclusive of the so-called elite that carried only specific curriculum – to include the multilateral and community high schools. The multilateral secondary curriculum allowed for expression and pursuit of academia based on interest and ability, whereas the community high was geared toward the more technically-inclined, with an opportunity presented at the fourth form to sit an examination to enter into the secondary school.

The nationalisation of schools allowed all to benefit from a national education programme designed by the government, besides aiding in eliminating discrimination against a child attending a school based on religious ideology. Prior to the advent of public education, some schools were managed by one or another religious denomination, and there were instances when access to those schools was denied children based on their religion; those children, and sometimes their family members, had to ‘convert’ in order to gain admittance to certain schools.

Where newly-independent Guyana embraced religious freedom and pursued universal education as important to nation-building, it would have been engaging in double-standards to continue the practice of accepting a child into, or rejecting that child from, an educational institution based on religious considerations.

In the area of economics, some expenses were offset by the State through various measures. The State assumed responsibility for programmes such as free uniform, textbooks, meals, transportation, and tuition from nursery to university. Taking some financial responsibilities from the family and placing them on the State had two-fold benefits for a young post-colonial society which, at independence, was met with high unemployment and limited economic opportunities. In the sphere of the family, this eliminated economic stressors and served to ensure the child pursues an education. In regard to the State, it ensured creating an educated society equipped with skills and talents needed for development.

The tier-ship, or rather discrimination, in the legal system and ‘shame’ in the society that children were subjected to because they were not born in ‘wedlock’, were removed through repealing of the law that referred to such children as ‘bastards’, not entitled to inheritance from their fathers. This labelling would have been applicable to children whose parents did not have a registered marriage, which meant it included all across the ethnic divide.
Examination shows that this holistic multi-prong approach to education was aimed at leaving no child behind. With the child’s psycho-social and economic wellbeing taken care of, education became one of the nation’s greatest equalisers. More importantly, in the area of childhood development, there was this sense of equality and assurance that God-given talent would be allowed to bloom and grow irrespective of a child or family’s socio-economic status; and he or she can be whatever he or she wanted to be.
In that some of the economic and supplemental benefits stated above are no longer available, some being aborted during the period of economic downturn, it does not prevent examination of new ways to ensure children are not denied an education in keeping with their ability.

Fortunately government, recognising unemployment remains one of the issues the country continues to grapple with, has resuscitated the Guyana Youth Corps, which gives young people a chance to improve their ‘marketability.’ President Granger has said that the youth corps reflects government’s emphasis on consolidating its youth initiatives so as have a stronger focus on employment and job creation. There could be no denying that our youths have been supported and nurtured by the unstinted support of the Coalition, A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change(APNU+AFC) government, and that they have advanced in the national pantheon of socio-economic development. And nowhere else is there a better example of this determined fact than in the adopted National Youth Policy, which is about the vision for the nation’s youth.