Ruthlyn James | Jamaica’s early childhood paradox

Long before early childhood education became global jargon, Jamaica understood that learning does not begin at primary school. Community-based basic schools laid the foundation for generations of Jamaican children, particularly those from low-income, inner-city and rural communities. But in 2026, an uncomfortable question must now be asked. Have we perfected access to basic schooling while neglecting basic support?

The Jamaican Basic School model was designed for a different era, when classrooms were smaller, developmental delays were less visible and teachers were expected to teach, not diagnose, regulate, de-escalate and therapeutically intervene. Today’s early childhood classrooms tell a very different story. Across Jamaica, educators are managing dysregulation, developmental delays, trauma responses and neurodevelopmental differences, often within the same classroom.

A child may be enrolled, counted in national statistics and seated in a classroom, yet still lack meaningful access to support. Attendance has quietly become the primary success metric, while readiness, regulation and developmental capacity are treated as secondary concerns. International clinical research consistently demonstrates that self-regulation, sensory integration and language development are prerequisites for learning, not by-products of it. Children who cannot regulate their nervous systems cannot access instruction meaningfully, regardless of curriculum quality. When regulation is absent, learning is delayed. When support is delayed, the consequences escalate, leading to behavioural exclusion, academic disengagement and long-term marginalisation.

Early childhood remains the most cost-effective intervention point available to any nation, delivering up to tenfold returns on investment through improved learning outcomes, reduced social costs and increased economic participation. Yet Jamaica’s early childhood system continues to be structurally under-supported, despite being rhetorically celebrated as foundational.

WITHOUT TOOLS

Basic School teachers have become first responders without the tools. They are performing front-line developmental triage: identifying red flags, managing meltdowns, mediating parental frustration, attempting inclusion without clinical backing and absorbing emotional labour far beyond their training. This is not a failure of commitment. It is a structural oversight.

A critical but often misunderstood issue lies in how early childhood qualifications are recognised and supported. HEART/NSTA Trust provides Early Childhood Development training, offering essential entry pathways into the sector, particularly for Early Childhood educators. These programmes play a valuable role. However, vocational certification does not currently carry the same professional recognition, salary protection or career mobility as qualifications issued through accredited teacher-training institutions.

This distinction matters. Level Three certification, while demanding and practically intensive, is not consistently reflected in subsidy frameworks and is often excluded from equivalency considerations tied to the national minimum wage. Recent data shared by two operating Early Childhood Institutions indicate that current ECC subsidy payments stand at approximately J$21,093.88 per month (gross) for Level Two practitioners and J$33,254.69 per month (gross) for Level Three practitioners, before statutory deductions. While many ECIs attempt to provide additional compensation, these top-ups are drawn largely from tuition. Some institutions are able to supplement consistently, but many struggle to make meaningful or timely additions due to fluctuating enrolment, fee caps and rising operational costs.

This is not an argument against traditional teacher education pathways. Rather, it is a call for coherence. If Early Childhood practitioners are expected to manage regulation, communication delays, trauma responses and developmental risk, then qualification pathways must align with classroom realities. Equitable opportunity must follow upskilling. Practitioners who invest time, finances and emotional labour into advancing their qualifications must see tangible returns through fair compensation, professional recognition and career progression.

Policy reform must also confront an uncomfortable truth about language and accountability. The continued classification of Basic Schools as “private” institutions by the Ministry of Education is misleading. The term implies commercial operations comparable to corporate entities. That is not the reality.

Basic Schools are micro-enterprises, many operating at the edge of survival, constrained by fee caps that prevent them from breaking even, yet expected to meet growing financial obligations, regulatory standards and increasingly complex developmental demands. They are not profit-driven businesses. They are community-anchored services subsidising the state’s early childhood mandate with personal sacrifice.

AFFECTS WOMEN

This misclassification disproportionately affects women. The Basic School sector is overwhelmingly women-founded and women-led. When policy language obscures economic fragility, it disadvantages women entrepreneurs performing essential national labour. Salary subsidy discussions cannot advance honestly while this mischaracterisation persists. Accountability requires funding Basic Schools according to their true function: publicly essential, socially protective and economically vulnerable.

The conversation must also expand to include the strategic integration and funding of practical nurses within Basic School environments. Many children entering Basic Schools present with needs that sit at the intersection of education and health, including seizure disorders, feeding challenges, toileting delays, medication monitoring, sensory processing difficulties and trauma-related dysregulation. Expecting teachers to manage these realities without clinical support places children at risk and educators under unsustainable pressure.

Practical nurses are uniquely positioned to bridge this gap. Their training equips them to support daily regulation routines, observe developmental and medical red flags, support behaviour regulation plans and liaise with health professionals and families.

Current subsidy arrangements prioritise enrolment over readiness, access over adequacy and attendance over developmental support. This creates a funding architecture that recognises the presence of children in classrooms, but not the intensity of support required to educate and stimulate them well.

If Jamaica is serious about inclusive education and national development, early childhood must be reframed not merely as schooling, but as an integrated support ecosystem. This must be reflected in how resources are allocated, how roles are defined and how responsibility is shared across education, health and social development sectors.

We must move beyond asking, “Is the child enrolled?” and begin asking, “Is the child supported?”

A seat in a classroom without support is quiet exclusion. For the Basic School teacher carrying this weight daily, this reform conversation must translate into action. They are developmental practitioners operating at the most critical point of national investment. Recognition must move to provision and support must move to resourcing.

Ruthlyn James is the founding director of Adonijah Group of Schools Therapy and Assessment Centre. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.