The Gleaner editorial published on August 21, titled “If CTEC is to work …”, raises important questions regarding the Caribbean Targeted Education Certificate (CTEC), CXC’s new modular certification framework. We welcome these questions because meaningful innovation in education should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
The region faces a longstanding challenge in educational outcomes, particularly in mathematics. For decades, thousands of students have left our education systems each year without a recognised certification in a subject that is foundational to further education, training, and employment. This reality requires us to ask difficult questions about whether traditional structures alone are meeting the needs of all learners.
CTEC is one part of CXC’s response to that challenge. However, to understand its purpose, it is important to address directly some of the concerns raised in the editorial.
NOT A LOWER-STANDARD QUALIFICATION
Perhaps the most significant concern expressed by the editorial is whether CTEC represents a dilution of standards or an attempt to improve examination statistics through easier assessments.
Let me state unequivocally: CTEC does not lower standards.
The CSEC Mathematics modules are derived from the same syllabus, assess the same prescribed learning outcomes, and are governed by the same quality-assurance principles that underpin our established qualifications. What differs is not the standard but the pathway through which candidates progress.
Instead of requiring learners to demonstrate mastery of all components of a subject in a single terminal examination, CTEC allows learners to demonstrate competence in focused modules over time. The knowledge, skills, and competencies being assessed remain aligned to the approved qualification.
Modularisation should not be confused with simplification.
Universities, professional bodies, and certification agencies across the world have long recognised modular and stackable approaches as legitimate ways of organising learning and assessment. What matters is whether standards are maintained. CXC remains fully committed to ensuring that they are.
MODULAR ASSESSMENT MATTERS
The editorial correctly acknowledges the danger of an “all-or-nothing” assessment experience, particularly in mathematics.
For many students, the challenge is not a lack of potential but the cumulative burden associated with a single high-stakes examination. A learner may have mastered substantial portions of the syllabus but leave the examination room without any formal recognition of that achievement, because performance on one occasion determines the entire outcome.
CTEC addresses this challenge by allowing learners to build achievement progressively.
Each completed module represents verified learning. Each achievement is documented. Each step contributes towards a larger qualification.
This approach does not reduce expectations. Rather, it creates opportunities for learners to engage with learning in a way that is focused, manageable, and measurable.
It allows success to become cumulative instead of binary.
WHAT CTEC CREDENTIALS MEAN
The editorial correctly highlights the importance of labour-market signalling and public understanding. A credential has value only when employers, tertiary institutions, and other stakeholders understand precisely what it represents. CXC agrees entirely that transparency is essential.
A candidate who successfully completes a single module has demonstrated competence in the learning outcomes assessed within that module. Such certification does not represent completion of the full subject qualification.
The complete qualification is earned only when the required modules have been successfully completed and the prescribed certification requirements satisfied.
Accordingly, CXC will continue to strengthen stakeholder guidance, transcript design, employer communications, and certification documentation to ensure there is no ambiguity regarding what each credential represents.
Our objective is simple: every learner’s achievement should be recognised accurately and transparently.
QUESTION OF EQUIVALENCE
The editorial also asks whether achievement accumulated across multiple modules reflects the same level of mastery as achievement demonstrated through a traditional terminal examination.
This is an important question and one that deserves careful examination.
Assessment validity is not determined by whether learning is assessed at one point in time or across multiple points in time. Rather, validity depends on whether the assessment framework effectively measures the required competencies and whether qualification standards are maintained.
The CTEC framework has been designed to ensure that candidates demonstrate achievement across the required learning domains before receiving the complete qualification.
Nevertheless, CXC recognises that public confidence depends not merely on assurance but on evidence.
For this reason, we are committed to ongoing evaluation of progression patterns, completion rates, performance trends, and qualification outcomes, as the programme develops.
KNOWLEDGE RETENTION
Another concern raised relates to what the editorial describes as the “pass and forget” phenomenon. This is a valid consideration, particularly in a cumulative discipline such as mathematics. CXC does not dismiss this concern.
As students progress, they are naturally reinforcing earlier knowledge. That helps guard against the “pass and forget” challenge. We’ve also set a time limit on how long students can take to accumulate modules towards the full qualification. The phenomenon is not unique to CTEC but is a challenge for every programme of study at all levels where candidates are not afforded the opportunity for reinforcement, practice, and application.
As the programme evolves, CXC will continue to monitor learner progression and use evidence to refine support mechanisms where necessary.
Innovation must be accompanied by evaluation, and we remain committed to that principle.
The editorial expresses concern that CTEC could unintentionally reinforce educational inequalities if it becomes associated primarily with under-resourced schools while more privileged institutions continue to focus exclusively on traditional examination pathways. This concern must be taken seriously.
CXC did not design CTEC as a qualification for a particular category of learner, school, country, or social group. It was designed to expand opportunities.
It is intended to serve diverse learners, including in-school candidates, out-of-school youth, adult learners, and individuals pursuing flexible learning pathways.
The success of CTEC will not be measured solely by participation rates or examination passes. It must also be measured by access, learner progression, qualification completion, stakeholder confidence, and social impact.
Our goal is not to create parallel systems of educational opportunity but to broaden access to meaningful certification while maintaining standards.
SHARED COMMITMENT
In one respect, the editorial and CXC are in complete agreement. CTEC alone will not solve the Caribbean’s education challenges.
Improving educational outcomes requires high-quality teaching, stronger foundational learning, enhanced support for educators, relevant curricula, effective assessment, and sustained investment in learners.
CTEC is one component of that broader transformation. It is neither a substitute for educational reform nor a shortcut to achievement.
It is an additional pathway through which learners can demonstrate competence, build credentials, and move progressively towards recognised qualifications.
MOVING FORWARD
CXC welcomes public debate about the future of Caribbean education. The questions raised by The Gleaner are not obstacles to the success of CTEC; they are precisely the questions that responsible educational institutions must ask as they seek to improve learner outcomes.
As we continue implementation, we remain committed to transparency, evidence-based decision-making, stakeholder engagement, and the maintenance of academic standards. Ultimately, the success of CTEC will not be determined by headlines, optimism, or criticism alone.
It will be determined by whether more Caribbean learners are able to demonstrate real competence, earn recognised credentials, access further opportunities, and achieve their full potential. That is the standard against which CXC judges itself and expects to be judged.
Wayne Wesley, PhD, is the registrar and chief executive officer of the Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC). Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com
