The State’s education of your child

The Chamber carefully read the joint statement signed by Ms Angella Jack, Permanent Secretary in the Ministry and Mr Satnarine Maharaj, the Public Relations Officer of the Association.

While the statement of these parties appear to indicate that the discussions, so far, about ECCEs are going well, the Chamber cannot ignore the differences which appear in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) first drawn in 2005, the Proposals of the Joint Committee appointed by Cabinet to examine the relationship between the Government and these Boards 1998, and the Concordat, in 1960.

The Joint Statement says that the Ministry’s team has recognised the existence of the Concordat and reaffirms that its provisions are embodied in the MOU. While this may be the intention of the ADBE, Clause 1.1 on page 2 of the MOU clearly states that it cancels and replaces any verbal or written agreement, principal or accessory which may have been entered into at any time concerning these centres. In our view, what this really means is that the MOU is to replace the Concordat even if in the loosest interpretation, it is to relate only to the ECCEs. This is contrary to the 1998 proposals.

Clause 1 of the Concordat clearly provides that the control and management of all denominational primary and secondary schools will be assured to the denominations in whatever modification of the existing system that may be subsequently introduced.

While the MOU casually mentions that the joint board of management for the ECCEs is now to be called a joint committee of management, the real reasons for what appears to be an insignificant change, save and except in name is, that the denominational boards remain adamant that they continue to be responsible ultimately for the management of these centres as recognised by the proposals and enshrined in the Concordat. If the ministry persists in separate management of the centres then this should be by joint committees of management reporting to the Boards.

Although the MOU also now provides for the Chairpersons of these committees to be appointed by the denominational boards, and that the Schools Supervisor not be required to attend their meetings, their composition according to the MOU is skewed in favour of the ministry, in that the committees appoint the chairman at the first meeting, and not the Boards.

The committee in the MOU being three persons nominated by the denominational boards, three by the minister, a member of the Parent Teachers Association, a member of the staff of the ECCE Centre and its principal.

Thus, all of the latter save and except the three nominated by the boards would constitute a majority for the purpose of electing the chairpersons to do the bidding of the ministry, whether accidentally or deliberately, in contradiction of the 1998 Proposals and the Concordat.

It was with some measure of relief that we noted in the MOU that consideration was given to whether the authority to appoint members of the joint committee of management should reside in the Minister of Education or elsewhere.

The chamber is aware that the denominational boards have already considered this against the background of discussions leading to the MOU and the 1998 proposals of the Joint Committee of Cabinet, and are not prepared to vest this in the minister.

The MOU also recognises and allows the ministry to have its way by means of a committee for the purpose of reviewing the 1998 Proposals and the way forward, instead of arbitrarily seeking to make this a fait accompli by simply substituting the MOU. The ADBE must stand ready for this review and consideration of the legal implications in the MOU governing the contributions of management of ECCE centres and its impact on the Concordat.

On its own review of the MOU, the Chamber sees the following as very real concerns for these Boards:-

a. That its contents be entirely confidential and secret as between the parties thereto. This cannot be desirable in the modern context of transparency, accountability, freedom of information, openness and the practice of our democratic traditions, particularly in the area of education of our children. What needs to be so secret and confidential about the way all our children and not the Government’s, are educated and informed?

b. The use of the ECCE Centres solely for the purpose for operating them or matters related thereto for a minimum of 50 years. Contrary to the Concordat, this will prevent the denominational boards from using them for any of their other activities. The Chamber needs to know why;

c. The purpose of the Joint Board of Management is to assist the Ministry of Education in general in the provision of quality education, and, in particular, to assist the appropriate management of the ECCEs. Again, this flies in the face of the 1998 Proposals and the Concordat, which recognise the absolute authority of the denominational boards;

d. The decisions of the Board shall not conflict with the policies and guidelines of the Ministry of Education. Once more, this is in direct conflict with the 1998 Proposals and the Concordat.