Talk:Education in Cuba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Caribbean Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Caribbean, and areas of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Cuba Portal Education in Cuba is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of Top priority within the scope of Wikiproject Cuba.
Cuba To-do: edit  WikiProject Cuba - To do list

Contents 1 Bogus criticism 2 Organigramme of the national education system of Cuba 2.1 I. REGULAR EDUCATION 2.2 II. Worker-Farmer Education 3 Removed text 4 Dispute over pre-revolution educational levels 5 Changes 6 New edits 7 Original research 8 Some comments about possible bias 9 Another Cuban... 10 About an article 11 False statement: "Students are required to work in agriculture three times a week"

[edit] Bogus criticism

The "criticism" section says:

"The US State department states that Cuba has been among the most literate countries in Latin America since well before the Castro revolution. The improvement in literacy after this is impressive, but not unique, among Latin American countries. Panama, Paraguay, Colombia, Brazil, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Haiti -- which all ranked just behind Cuba in this indicator during the 1950's – have equaled or bettered Cuba's improvement when measured in percentage terms"

This is bogus. According to UNICEF, UNESCO and the CIA, the literacy rate in Cuba is 100%, Dominican Republic is 82%, Haiti is 45%, Colombia is 91%, Paraguay 92%, Brazil 83%, El Salvador 80%, Ecuador 90%. I don't think 82% or 45% .. or even 90% .. can be said to be "just behind" 100%. Redflagflying 22:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The section "Dispute over -revolution educational levels" also points out this problem with statistical obfuscation. A country at 95% literacy can only improve a little, and Cuba hit it with the 99.5% or 100% or whatever statistic is used. That's less than 10% improvement. A country going from 40% literacy to 50% is seeing a "huge" 25% improvement. That statistic, however, is not only distorted number, it's completely wrong. Going from the high-90s to 100% is a lot harder than going from 40% to 50%. In a country with very high literacy rates, it's a challenge to find the illiterate people. The criticism about literacy should be removed completely for using this bogus measure. 66.245.193.28 19:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organigramme of the national education system of Cuba

Circa 1969-1970...

[edit] I. REGULAR EDUCATION

• Pre-school [PS](1C, 2C) goes onto [E]
• Elementary school [E](1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) goes onto [UBS] or [ETT]
  • Urban Basic Secondary [UBS](7, 8*, 9*, 10) from grade 8 can go to [TS], from grade 9 can go straight to [Faculty] (see note 1)
  • Elementary Teacher Training [ETT](1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
    • Technical School [TS](1, 2, 3) from here students can go onto Agri. and Indust. Institutes
      • Pre-university Institute [PI](11, 12, 13) from here to [Faculty]
      • Technological Institute [TI](1, 2, 3, 4) from here to [Faculty]
      • Language Institute [LI](1, 2, 3, 4) from here to [Faculty]
      • Technical Institute of Economy [TIE](1, 2, 3, 4) from here to [Faculty]
      • Advanced School of Education [ASE](1, 2, 3, 4) from here to [Faculty]
        • Faculty of Humanities
        • Faculty of Science
        • Faculty of Medical Science
        • Faculty of Agriculture
        • Faculty of Technology
        • Institute of Economy
        • institute of America

1. If a student goes from grade 9 to faculty it is only open to basic secondary teaching career.

[edit] II. Worker-Farmer Education

• Elementary Education (11, 12, 21, 22)
  • Third course
    • Preparatory Faculty (1, 2, 3, 4)
      • Faculty of Science
      • Faculty of Agriculture
      • Faculty of Technology
      • Faculty of Institute of Education

In Elementary Education, 11 denotes "First course, 1st level".

[edit] Removed text

Alongside Argentina, this was the highest of thirteen Latin American countries surveyed.[1] A 1998 study by UNESCO reported that Cuban students showed a high level of educational achievement. Cuban third and fourth graders scored 350 points, 100 points above the regional average in tests of basic language and mathematics skills. The report indicated that the test achievement of the lower half of students in Cuba was significantly higher than the test achievement of the upper half of students in other Central and South American countries in the study group.[2][3]

"Surveys" and "studies" imply that someone other than the government investigated how well the government was doing. I've heard that Cuba does not allow foreign researchers or reporters to poke around and see what's happening - unless they agree beforehand to give a glowing report. --Uncle Ed 21:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This is sourced and attributed, there is no reason to remove it. - FrancisTyers 21:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Good revert, but I'm going to change one word. The UNESCO report is almost certainly based on data supplied to the UN by Cuba. So it would be misleading to call it a study. --Uncle Ed 22:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute over pre-revolution educational levels

The utoronto reference above says:

At the time of the 1959 Revolution, Cuba had one of the lowest levels of literacy and basic education in the region. [[4]]

This contradicts the other reference I added to the article.

• Historically, Cuba has had some of the highest rates of education and literacy in Latin America. [5]

Let's emphasize that the two sources differ. --Uncle Ed 22:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. - FrancisTyers 22:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

According to Encarta Encylopedia ( http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569844_3/Cuba.html ), literacy rates in Cuba were "only 54 percent in 1952". Redflagflying 22:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Something ain't right here. Supposing the U.S Dept of State article referenced actually has the correct figures, this is a very misleading criticism of Cuba's educational system. Cuba had significantly higher literacy rates in pre-rev times than all the countries mentioned in this section. The fact that the "improvement when measured in percentage terms" is lower for Cuba is not a matter of educational quality, but a function of the literacy rate not being able to go any higher. Current estimates range from 96% - 99%. Criticizing these rates is a joke. I'm sure Canada and America's "improvement when measured in percentage terms" are much lower than neighbouring less-developed-at-the-time countries too. Not a fair criticism I say. The article referenced goes on to discuss food shortages, and things like that. Those should be brought up, but in their respective pages. Thoughts?

[edit] Changes

1. Quick word about Ed's comment "The UNESCO report is almost certainly based on data supplied to the UN by Cuba. So it would be misleading to call it a study" - the source actually states "The study was coordinated by the Unesco's Regional Office for Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (UNESCO-OREALC). It consisted of a comparative evaluation of achievement in mathematics and language in 13 Latin American countries"
2. "Education in Cuba is controlled completely by the Cuban Ministry for Education". I don't understand why that has been changed from "...is the responsibility of the Cuban Ministry for Education". As far as I know, the education of most nations is the responsibility of the various Ministries for Education. Plenty of which have as much "control" as Cuba.
3. What's with this "Supporters of this educational monopoly.." malarky. Who says these things? I think you're adding controversy into a subject where it isn't warranted. --Zleitzen 19:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In democratic countries (i.e., in a Liberal democracy), there is far less control over education. Also, "responsibility" implies accountability (to the general populace, in a real democracy). In Cuba, the one-party state is accountable to no one.

The controversy is definitely there. One side says Cuba is a tropical paradise, with free, top-quality healthcare and education. The other side says fiddlesticks. I didn't start this controversy, I'm merely describing it. --Uncle Ed 20:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I'm afraid I don't understand. Where is the controversy you think is definitely there and are describing? Also, having worked in education my whole life, I've never heard the expression "educational monopoly"? But good use of the word "fiddlesticks".--Zleitzen 22:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Google gives over 700 results: http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=%22educational+monopoly%22 for the term educational monopoly. How could not have heard of it? --Uncle Ed 16:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I'll give you a week or so to gather your information about the "controversy" - then we can take it from there. --Zleitzen 15:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The very first Google hit that came up for presents David Brennan's idea that:

• Every parent should have the right to choose to send his or her child to the school that the parent believes is best for the child.

This is what the Cuban educational monopoly prevents. To be neutral, perhaps the article should say,

• anti-Castro folks say Cuba has an educational monopoly which denies parents the right to choose to send his or her child to the school that the parent believes is best for the child.

How's that, Zleitzen?

Ah, that's why I've never heard the expression "educational monopoly" - it's an American thing. I'm British, thus I'm unfamiliar with such precedents. This emphasises one of the problems I have with editing on Cuban matters. Not only do I have to comprehend the various Cuban issues, I'm also presented with the practices and issues of an unrelated nation. Do you understand where I'm coming from here, Ed? The United States is not a benchmark norm - far from it in fact. The US is unique in many facets, notably in relation to issues such as State involvement and funding. I've tried to level it out here-and-there by providing links illustrating the close ties between Cuban health and education to countries such as the UK. I'll level with you Ed, my main concern on all Cuban related articles is to tone down the tendency to view Cuba through singular US standards. The US is an unusual nation that just happens to be the country which has dominated that island for 120 years or so, and is essentially still at war with the place. 95% of the world see Cuba, and Cuban practices very differently to the U.S. As far as I can tell an "educational monopoly" is an American issue, not a universal one and certainly not a Cuban one.

You need to find sources that explicitly relate to Cuba in this sense. Rather than broader criticisms from American commentators on the nature of US education. Btw, don’t get me started on educational funding and public/private initiatives. I’m a crashing bore!--Zleitzen 18:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Many countries have private schools for the élites. You're right though, this is not a big deal in the UK. We have religious schools and "public schools" (private schools), but these are generally for whacko religionists and for the aristos. Everyone else goes to state school. In fact, a big debate is the debate about "educational choice", many people think we shouldn't have it, some people think that we should have it. Generally, people with the means to send their children to a better state school want to have it, while the limp-wristed liberals who believe in equality don't. Anyway, I don't think lack of private schools is that big of a deal in global terms. - FrancisTyers 19:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Educational monopoly" site.uk gives 5 hits. [6] - FrancisTyers 19:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Pro educational monopoly: [7]
• Anti educational monopoly: [8]

- FrancisTyers 19:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, educational "choice" is generally about choice within the state system. Disregard those. - FrancisTyers 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Parental educational "Choice", which maybe is what Ed is referring to by his "monopoly" expression is a complex area that differs from nation to nation, it's the basis of the recent UK government White Paper that caused so much controversy two years ago. But it's true that in the UK the "choice" refers to issues within the state school system - also, the small private sector is still heavily regulated by the government regardless of it's status. I don't know if Ed is also referring to private/ public University education - which is another can of worms entirely. I just don't know enough about his frame of reference without it being pinned specifically to Cuba.--Zleitzen 22:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"the small private sector is still heavily regulated by the government regardless of it's status" — agree, the same goes for parents who homeschool. No education of children in the UK escapes government regulation, I would imagine it is the same in most of Europe. I think if we are going to mention this, schools and universities should be separated, as they are two different issues. I mean, you could equally say "Education in the United Kingdom is controlled completely by the DfeS" (or whoever it is), It doesn't really mean much though. - FrancisTyers · 23:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Have re-written the introduction, a week after the request for citations, as per my comments above. I just can't find anything on the controversy.--Zleitzen 22:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New edits

Ultramarine - you now seem to be taking your campaign to this page. Bad move. Do not remove sourced material (taken straight from scholarly texts - look them up) again, or we've got serious problems. Don't argue with me, argue with Hugh Thomas and other Cuban historians etc. I'm surrounded by Cuban history books so it isn't worth pushing that line here.--Zleitzen 06:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed nothing sourced, only corrected mistaks and made npov.Ultramarine 06:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This why I have difficulties communicating with you Ultramarine. You say you have "removed nothing sourced". When you clearly have removed sourced material.

Cuba's overall illiteracy rate was reduced from over 20 percent in 1958 to 3.9 percent, a rate far lower than that of any other Latin American country.

That was sourced was it not? --Zleitzen 06:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As I stated, this is simply factually incorrect since many other Latin American nations have comparable rates or even higher.Ultramarine 06:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

When? A year after the illiteracy drive as the report states?--Zleitzen 07:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"A year after the illiteracy drive" is not what the article stated.Ultramarine 07:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well we're talking about the illiteracy drive of 1961 in that History section of the article. I assumed that it was obvious we were talking about after the drive, apparently not.

What's this "before the Castro revolution" business doing in the run down about the 1940 constitution - which actually didn't make sense anyway within the flow of the paragraph due to the grammar. Cuban history is a lot more complicated than before/after Castro, despite what you may apparently believe.--Zleitzen 07:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And can you have the basic courtesy to source material properly as per the sourcing style on the page - rather than just dumping material at will with the basic [] sourcing format and expecting someone else to do it? --Zleitzen 07:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Deary me this just gets worse. Ultramarine, you have added a link to a report that doesn't open which I presume is talking about stats from 2000 to the history section talking about the 1961-2. --Zleitzen 07:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Can we not change the text taken directly from sources to suit some other meaning, add weasel words such as "critics say" when no critics had been involved, and add other words into sourced material that weren't there in the first place please? Finally years should not be wikilinked. -- Zleitzen (Talk) 20:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

RookZERO has blindly reverted and removed material to add weasel words, other changes include the repeated removal of the sourced quote "According to historian Hugh Thomas, "Cuban society had become stagnant, fewer children proportionately of school age went to school in the 1950s than the 1920s." These changes have not been discussed here. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 05:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it as is for now, so long as it remains stated that this is simply the opinion of Hugh Thomas. His opinion is not the majority one among historians and that should probably be noted, although I won't do it at the moment. (RookZERO 03:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for addressing this on the talk page. From personal experience of reading many, many accounts, I can assure you that it is the opinion of the majority of leading historians on Cuban history. Incidentally, Thomas, a right-winger, is probably the leading historian of Cuban history in both English and Spanish, and is the key text for any study of the period. I'd be interested to read a work by a serious historian that counters this point, that Batista's second tenure oversaw a nationwide stagnation that began during the corrupt presidency of Carlos Prio, and the gains of Batista's earlier terms were gradually whittled away.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some comments about possible bias

As a cuban and as a critic of the Cuban governmentt myself, I think this page way crosses the line on cuban bias. I'm not going to tag it myself since I don't have the time to help to fix it but I'll mention some of the lacks I see and errors to see what are your thoughts about it. Also I'll clear up from the beginning that I don't live in Cuba at the moment though spent most of my life there because in these arguments what everybody does first is to ask you whether you are in Cuba or not to conclude immediately that you are forced to write this thing or another, which is absurd by the way. In any case

1.- The article, being about the Cuban education, does not cite any official cuban references. Not any reference from inside Cuba for what matters. Several sections are simply included to express the opinion of the most severe critics of the government as is the cubaverdad site. Obviously, while not opposing their opinions to be included, I think a balanced view would require this sections to be filled with information about what the government says about such issues.

2.- The "Cumulative School File" section, according to my own experience which might of course be wrong, is filled with inaccuracies and false facts. The picture in cubaverdad corresponds to an "expediente" or file, that is how is called in Cuba. First of all, it is not true that the thing is along with you for life, which pis proven by the fact that I have my file at home. You can have this file once you finish secondary school. In second place you are allowed to look into that file many times while you are studying in primary and secondary school. The file is filled by your teachers and it says things like the subjects you like, what you want to become when you grow old and that stuff. I can't assure it didn't serve some obscure mission, however I doubt it. My file records the scores I had, it says clearly I wanted to be a paleontologist and little more. The file in the picture in cubaverdad has three lines, they say "he likes to do the programmed activities" "he likes that subject"(the page is referred to a particular subject) again "he does all activities" and signed by the teacher. So I don't see the point on that subsection on the article. It seems to me that the author read too much cubaverdad and it also seems to me quite a small point in the cuban education system to deserve a whole subsection. The claims of the UNHCR spokesman some are false ("includes ideological featurs of family members", and some are true but unrelated to the cuban education system, "Often individuals are expelled from educational institutions, dismissed from their jobs or subjected to some form of discrimination for expressing, in some way, views inconsistent with the official ideology." This last should be in a human rights section, apart from being at the moment very doubtful, that people get dismissed from their jobs. This is actually a very hard thing to do in the communist enterprise. And Cuba isn't what it was in the seventies or eighties with respect to censorship.

3.- In the "School Education" section. It says "Students are required to work in agriculture three times a week." This is inaccurate. First of all, the regimes are different in different provinces and it depends if you study in a big urban center or in a rural center. In the city, people do not go work in the agriculture until they are in secondary school. There you must go to the work fields for a month of the year. Surely you 'll understand that it would be very expensive to take all the students three times a week to work. There are alternatives to this since now urban farms are developing in the major cuban cities and students go to work there. When you get to high school there are at least three regimes. You can go to a urban high school, to a sciences high school (these are specialized ones), or the most common is to go to a rural high school. In these last ones you work a number of times during the week that vary from one to another. Three could be a good number. The other two options have other regimes.

4.- In the "International Students" section. It says "foreign students wishing to study in Cuba pay tuition fees of between US$4000-7000". This is largely inaccurate. It depends on the student however Cuba atracts students from many developing countries that attend the university there for free. I studied physics and in my class there were two guys from Haiti that weren't paying a dime. The way the paragraph is written, it seems as if all students, including those in the Latinoamerican School of Medicine payed between 4000 and 7000 dollars. In fact, the students in the Latinoamerican School are supposed to be selected from the poorest parts of Latin America to study in the school for free. They are required instead to return to their countries and spend a number of years working there after they finished studying in Cuba.

5.- In the "Criticism" section it says "If any student speaks about God, his parents will be called to the school, warned that they are "confusing" the child and threatened". This is simply false as for today. I went to school with children that believed in one god or another, have a cousin that studies chemistry at the university, - which means she passed through all the system -, and is a practicant. If you understand spanish you can read this article [9] where the cardinal of Havana city Jaime Ortega, yes there is a cardinal in Cuba, speaks about the present state of catholicism in Cuba.

6.- I find several links are referring to the same page in cubaverdad. Can you provide other links to support the claims?

7.- In the last paragraph in the "Criticism" section it says "It is reported that often people are unable to take the examinations because the letter from by his CDR was unfavorable. In one case a students wasn't allowed to take the examination as the letter stated that he "had friendly relations with elements who wished to leave the country". Again, this is very outdated as are the majority of the links. The link you provide in this particular case tells us about an article from 1988. It has been 20 years since. A somewhat important wall fell. You can speak about these facts of the cuban system but you shouldn't speak as if they were the present. In my experience, they are not. Say that 1 people among 20 in Havana wants to leave the country (so conservative it is unreal). This means that among 20 close acquaintances one of them wants to leave the country. In all the education period I was aware of these things, which would be in the second hald of the nineties and first five years of twentyfirst century, I never heard of one such case.

8.- Things that are not mentioned and in my opinion should. i) Crisis for the lack of teachers in the Special Period. ii) The supply of tv and video sets for every classroom in recent years in the attempt of designing an education system more based in the media iii) Recent emphasis in the importance of the education in informatics. This includes providing schools with modern computer equipment and the creation of the university of informatics or informatic sciences (Universidad de Ciencias Informáticas)

There are other things but are minor with respect to these. I would like to hear your opinions . Airsh 16:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent Arish. Like many others articles about Cuba, and cuban things, are plagued with misinformation, errors and low known facts to foreing people.

You must live in Cuba, been lived or been here for a while to know and properly write about some facts.

I'm 26. I live in Cuba. I'm from the "change course" generation, we live the changes in the education system (we were the experimental samples for new books, computers, teaching metods, topics, etc) or loose it by a year.

We may not have a MIT, Harvard, Cambridge or Hoxford, but teach for free in others countries, writing and reading to those forgoten who dont know even how to write their own name.

[edit] Another Cuban...

Excellent Arish. Like many others articles about Cuba, and cuban things, are plagued with misinformation, errors and low known facts to foreing people.

You must live in Cuba, been lived or been here for a while to know and properly write about some facts.

I'm 26. I live in Cuba. I'm from the "change course" generation, we live the changes in the education system (we were the experimental samples for new books, computers, teaching metods, topics, etc) or loose it by a year.

We may not have a MIT, Harvard, Cambridge or Hoxford, but teach for free in others countries, writing and reading to those forgoten who dont know even how to write their own name.

It's Oxford, dude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.222.140 (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About an article

Hello,
I've insered this article [10] in the italian version of the page, but i'm not sure if it was really published by UNRHC as it's written in the web site. Do you have some "official" confirmation about that? thanks for your help, --Hal8999 13:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False statement: "Students are required to work in agriculture three times a week"

"Students are required to work in agriculture three times a week". No matter when the reference is taken from, that's false. At least, it's false in general. Either:

• The source is plainly wrong.
• The information was incorrectly extracted, for example, needs its context. Students do work in agriculture, but not all, and schedules and other details vary greatly.
• This is official policy, but does not take place in practice.
• I'm wrong, and if so it will be a huge lack of awareness from me, of what's going on around.

Assuming that the source does state this; what's the correct way to challenge the statement in the article? Finding a more authoritative reference is an option, of course. What other options are there? Someone please check the reference, I'll do it myself, but my connection currently does not allow it. I'm willing to remove this!!

Cheers! Alfredo.