Govt’s hijack of ECCECs

Servol founder Fr Gerry Pantin minced no words when last week he accused the Government of hijacking his organisation’s Early Childhood Care and Education Centres (ECCEC). He described the Education ministry as having a “devious plan” and asked, “Is it that the formal system of education is in such total disarray that the ministry wants to hijack a successful project to point to something positive in the present administration?” Fr Pantin has good reason to be angry. He has been attempting to meet Education Minister Hazel Manning for three months to discuss the delay in paying increased salaries for Servol teachers. Mrs Manning, apparently, could not find time to see the Servol head — perhaps she was too busy planning her next full-page ad about the Education Ministry’s achievements.

And when, after having him wait three hours, she did deign to see the man who might well be the most successful educator in the country — and the proof of this lies in actual achievement, not public relations or Prime Ministerial stamps of approval — she met him for a mere five minutes and said she was not aware of any problem in respect to the teachers’ salaries. It was shortly after this that Fr Pantin learned of the secret meeting between Ministry officials and Servol teachers, where the latter were in fact promised increased pay. In response, Permanent Secretary Angella Jack asserted that she “knew nothing” about any secret meeting. We take note, however, of the care with which Ms Jack chose her words — she did not say such a meeting didn’t take place, only that she didn’t know about it. Ms Jack should probably ask herself who should be considered the more reliable source — ministry officials or Fr Pantin.

Fr Pantin has admitted that the Education Ministry has final authority over the ECCECs, but that is not the issue. The issue is that, if something isn’t broken, it doesn’t need to be fixed. The ministry’s rationale, according to technical advisor Maurice Chin Aleong, is that it is setting up “formal governance which, in the medium-term, will be streamlined.” But if this is all that the ministry is up to, why all the surreptitious manoeuvres? And why was the National Council for Early Childhood Education not involved in this process? In this whole scenario, there are some hard facts that the ministry will not be able to deny. First, the Servol programmes work. Second, the ministry has proven itself demonstrably less efficient at overseeing such programmes. Third, Fr Pantin is one of the most respected educators in the country, as well as internationally.

These facts lead to some obvious conclusions. What the ministry should be trying to do is strengthen Servol’s stewardship of the ECCECs. And Fr Pantin should be treated with the respect he has well earned over the past 30-plus years of building Servol (and it must be noted that he built it up initially to serve the same constituency that has traditionally supported the PNM). Fr Pantin should on this basis be one of the Education Ministry’s main consultants. Yet his wisdom and experience have been largely bypassed in favour of, among others, the architect of the same Junior Secondary school system that is now widely perceived as a root cause of many of this country’s social problems — an architect brought back by the Manning administration after 30 years to fix the present system. Lest we forget, though, the main concern within this whole imbroglio must be the infants and toddlers whom these centres serve. We fervently hope that the ministry is not, in fact, playing with their futures for political gain. Fr Pantin certainly never has.