Jamaica enters over 1,300 candidates for CXC’s CTEC pilot. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting mainly one perspective (here, the official CXC view) while giving little or no space to other relevant perspectives.

The article quotes only CXC officials (Dr Wayne Wesley and Alton McPherson) and presents the pilot as oversubscribed and learner‑centred, but does not include any reactions from students, teachers, school administrators, or independent education experts. For example, it reports: “Registrar and Chief Executive Officer at the CXC, Dr Wayne Wesley, said the pilot has been oversubscribed.” and then elaborates on the benefits and structure of CTEC solely from CXC’s perspective.

4 suggestions

Add comments from teachers or school principals about how the CTEC pilot will affect classroom teaching, workload, and assessment.

Include perspectives from students or parents on the new modular structure and whether they find it clear, beneficial, or confusing.

Seek an independent education expert or academic to briefly assess potential advantages and challenges of CTEC, including any concerns about implementation, equity, or recognition.

Clarify that the article is reporting on a CXC press conference and that the information reflects the organisation’s own description of the programme, not an independent evaluation.

Appeal to authority

Relying heavily on statements from authority figures as if their position alone establishes the full truth, without additional evidence or independent verification.

The article’s explanation of CTEC’s benefits and learner‑centred nature is based entirely on statements from CXC officials: “Within this construct, the learner is at the focus of what we are treating with…” and “He noted that achieving all the modules would result in the student receiving the relevant certification.” These are presented without any external corroboration or data on outcomes, since the programme is still a pilot.

3 suggestions

Explicitly frame these points as CXC’s claims or intentions, e.g. “Wesley said CXC intends the programme to be learner‑centred…” rather than implying they are established outcomes.

Note that the pilot is ongoing and that evidence on effectiveness (e.g., student performance, satisfaction, or completion rates) is not yet available.

If available, add references to any preliminary data, evaluations, or comparative research on similar modular programmes to support or contextualise the officials’ claims.

Oversimplification

Presenting a complex policy or educational change in a way that omits potential challenges, trade‑offs, or limitations.

The article describes the three tracks (advanced, typical, individualised) and the ability to re‑enter at later modules as straightforward benefits: “So you don’t have to start the entire CSEC syllabus all over again… You can re-engage the system at module two or module three and obtain your full certification.” It does not mention possible implementation issues such as resource constraints, teacher training, or how schools will manage students on different tracks.

3 suggestions

Add a brief note that implementation details (e.g., teacher training, school scheduling, and resource allocation) will influence how well the three‑track system works in practice.

Mention any known or anticipated challenges raised in stakeholder meetings, if such information is available (e.g., concerns about technology access for the new platforms).

Clarify that while the modular structure is designed to offer flexibility, its real‑world impact will depend on how schools and students adapt during and after the pilot.