Tinkering with education and the Concordat

During the recent course of events leading up to the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Ministry of Education and Mrs Sita Gajadarsingh-Nanga, represented by the Trinidad and Tobago Unified Teachers Association (TTUTA), to resolve the impasse between the Maha Sabha and Mrs. Gajadarsingh-Nanga in the discharge of her responsibilities as the Principal of the Tunapuna Hindu School, mention was made by Education Minister Tim Gopeesingh of an intention to review the Education Concordat of 1960.

The Concordat, another  Memorandum which was signed by then Minister John S. Donaldson on behalf of Cabinet, preserves the roles of the Denominational Boards of Management, the governing bodies and Principals of Assisted Secondary Schools in our education system, with the advent of the Education Act in 1966.

In brief, the Concordat assured to the respective denominations the continuing ownership, and respect for the direct control and management of their schools in whatever modification subsequently introduced by the Act. This included the type of books to be used therein, the teaching of the respective religions by teachers of the same religious conviction, the right to object to the appointment of teachers to these schools by the Teaching Service Commission on moral or religious grounds, and seek their removal on the said grounds. It also recognised the right of the Denominational Boards to administer, maintain, repair and furnish their schools with an allotment of 80% of their admissions to Government needs and 20% to the principals. Training and selection of teachers for denominational schools were primarily within the purview of the Ministry.

While the Education Act may have achieved one of its principal objectives, i.e., to make available free secondary education to all persons of school age, the Chamber is of the view that many of the challenges faced by parents, teachers and children today, partly flow from the Concordat’s arrangement.  .  The loss of life, physical assault, rapes, injuries and misbehaviour of pupils, teachers, and even, parents, continue because of the curtailment of the disciplinary powers of principals and the snail’s pace at which discipline is enforced by the Ministry of Education and the Teaching Service Commission.

The quality of education remains a concern for parents, who are faced with teacher absenteeism, obsolete plant and equipment, shortages of or absence of textbooks and the need for costly remedial or supplementary “private lessons”.  Just look at the dreadful results at CXC and CAPE of boys, in particular, when compared with girls, and about which the Minister expressed great dismay at the beginning of the last term.  No longer are our centres of education sacrosanct and deserving of respect, as some students have to be searched daily by police.  Security guards are part and parcel of the daily complement of staff, and criminal elements prey on both students and teachers.

A little over a decade ago, , the Ministry of Education through its Secondary Education Modernisation Programme Coordination Unit (SEMPCU) began appointing School Boards to partner with principals and be policy advisers in support of its initiative in school based management. The Boards were not to be involved in day to day management, the domain of principals, who would be responsible for management of academic work, staff, curriculum, leadership and development and maintenance of a close relationship with the Boards.

This relationship is not without its challenges, as there is overlap between the duties and powers of principals as set out in the 1966 Act and its amendment in 2000, establishing the Boards. While the 1966 Act imposes on the principal the responsibility for day-to-day management of the schools, many principals have been taking the position that it overrides the 2000 amendment, that the function of the Boards is merely to advise them and they are not obliged to accept such advice.  Perhaps, this may be the source of contention between the Maha Sabha and Mrs. Gajadarsingh-Nanga at the Tunapuna Hindu School.

In the Chamber’s view, this one small step by the Ministry to appoint these School Boards, is but one in the journey of a thousand miles towards the ideal where they will operate like the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of private sector companies have been doing successfully, since corporations acquire a separate existence at law from the parties which own and manage them.  It is desirable for School Boards to follow exactly this model, whereby the Ministry merely administers the policy of Government on education and transfers full authority to the Boards, to manage each school with funding as may be necessary in well defined circumstances, like where it wishes to provide free education to those who qualify, otherwise all who wish to attend school must pay to do so.  Using this model, each principal actually exercises the Board’s power to manage on a day-to-day basis and is answerable to it. They may hire and fire from principal to cleaner.  They fix the curricula in accordance with Government’s policy as enunciated by the Ministry, which measures their performance.

Despite the Chamber’s support of the concept of School Boards, we also recognise their handicaps. They have no direct access to funding, despite the strictest rules for transparency and accountability. Government does not simply hand over to them the allocation in the national Budget to the Ministry. The Boards are empowered to raise their own funds and control expenditure thereof, unlike public monies, which are constrained by ponderous and counter-productive tender procedures.  Over centralisation and moreso, management by the Ministry, continues.

The private sector and business community have a vested interest in the quality of education available to our youth.   Its success will ensure that there is an appropriately qualified pool of human resources upon which to draw, and will assist in achieving a GDP which is reflective of growth, prosperity, reduction of unemployment and poverty in the country.

It is indeed a tall order, even with the advent of these types of School Boards courtesy SEMPCU.  The Chamber trusts that the appointment of more of them will not be a statistical exercise only, but will serve to provide the Ministry with objective data in the pilot project from as wide geographic locations as possible, in order to shift the management and leadership style from one which is impotent and helpless, to one which provides our students with the tools, knowledge, aptitude and discipline to reduce it inefficiencies and so meet the needs of a modern society.

The proposed review of the Concordat may be part of the solution to the problems at the Tunapuna Hindu School.  In the Chamber’s opinion, any move by way of such review must certainly address the issues of empowering school boards to operate in a manner of optimum efficiency.  In so doing it must provide a pool of productive graduates to enter our workforce.