THE EDITOR: Police inside schools to protect students and teachers inside the schools from students inside the schools? I share Anna Maria Mora’s consternation. Let’s budget. We’ll buy policemen (how many for each school?) — they won’t be teaching; only protecting. Will some ‘bad boy’ target some of them because they are too conscientious in the performance of their duties or because some people ‘just don’t like police’? Then, will that lead to harsh repressive measures and the spinning circle of violence? Even if there is order, will the ‘bad boys’ be really converted to a philosophy of peace and order. Will all this prevent us from having to spend more and more on new prisons and anti-crime devices? Will it give us a more civil society?

The Ministry of Education can be commended on the direction and implementation of its education programme. I also commend the work of TTUTA and the community efforts by the police, army and other groups. But we need to budget for the following: (a) introduction of a national programme of training in parenting; (b) an increase in the establishment for guidance officers by 400 percent or so; c) an adequate corps of psychologists, psychiatrists, etc for the system; (d) specialised training in teacher training for all teacher trainers; (e) emphasis on training in teaching in all teacher training (including remedial work, evaluation), (f) training for principals, supervisors and other management staff; (g) reducing the size of classes (this, combined with training for teachers and managers will revolutionise student development) — this should become easier as we are beginning to have more school places than students; (h) transferring teacher training to outside class time (vacation, pre-service, study leave); (i) structuring training modules to lead to certification, monetary compensation and consideration for promotion; (j) substitute teachers so students will not lose class time; (k) introduction of subjects/programmes to assist personal development even if this means less time for academic subjects (this helps to produce greater motivation and better people); (l) a shift in emphasis from teaching everything to students to their learning much more on their own. Sounds a lot? We can’t do without them as inadequacies in parenting and professional training are our fundamental weaknesses.

For years people have been complaining about inadequate parenting. I have been suggesting methods for at least ten years. I have not been alone. Some groups have been doing a bit here and there but, nationally, have we done enough? The Prime Minister’s proposal for a national corrective programme for dropouts is highly commendable but dropouts will keep dropping out if the earlier weaknesses are not removed. Of course, there are other things like employment for parents and school leavers, media awareness of how they impact on the society in general and youth in particular; but one short letter cannot take all that. Is this budget expensive? Yes but, as a percentage of the national budget, we spend on education far less than is advised. Buildings are important but some other things are even more so — and they may not come cheap.

VAN STEWART
Diego Martin

THE EDITOR: The catch phrase, “Vision 20/20” has been used by Mr Patrick Manning and his cohorts on so many occasions that it has become hackneyed. One wonders if they really understand the implications involved. It is not a destination to be reached but a journey to be walked on a daily basis. One such journey that must be walked is the provision of free school books for all. If we are serious about becoming a developed nation, we need to put systems in place to provide textbooks for all, as it is done in the USA (a developed nation). My thesis therefore is, we must move towards providing free books for all, in every subject area and not a paltry four books. Last year the Government provided a ($1000) Book Grant to all Form Ones. This grant gave parents an opportunity to source second hand books for their children. I personally went to Woodford Square, an annual market for second hand books, and purchased about 60 percent of my son’s books for Form One.

This year the Government has opted to replace the issuing of Book Grants to Form Ones and Twos with a book rental system. This system has failed even before it has started. The latest bulletin is, they are planning to issue only four books, one per subject, to each child in the lower forms, I and II. I have in my possession a Form Two booklist which has a whopping 25 books on it! If parents are only given four books for Form Ones and Twos, how are they going to fund the deficit 21 books? Some may say it is the duty of parents to provide textbooks for their children. However this is the 21st century. We are on the way to “Vision 20/20” where quality education is an important tenet. Quality here means conformance to the client’s requirement. Parents as clients of the education system want the $1000 Book Grant for all, from Form One to Form Four, and not an ad hoc system of four books per child. Mrs Manning revert to the system of last year. Everyone would be happy.

DESMOND JAMES
Fyzabad

THE EDITOR: I have noted, with some amazement, that a report presented to the Ministry of Education recommended the reinstatement of corporal punishment in schools. It would be disrespectful to assume that the learned members of the team did not embrace some rationale for their conclusion but I am reluctant to succumb to conjecture. Corporal punishment in schools, as I understand, allows teachers to use rulers, belts, leather strap or “switches” from the tree branches or shrubs to administer lashes to students’ palms, buttocks or calves. Apart from minimal exceptions, such chastisement is supposed to engender discipline and conformity and I feel sure that such an objective precipitated the team’s report. Unlike the pure sciences where one is able without fail to predict an outcome, behavioural scientists must rely on deduction. In order to try to understand why corporal punishment worked, we must recognise the following facts:

1. Respect was the cornerstone of behaviour. Because of the esteem children had for their parents or guardians who generally employed the axiom “don’t spare the rod and spoil the child,” the avoidance of being disciplined was paramount.
2. In practice, children were reared by the “village.” If one saw a neighbour’s child behaving badly, that person could take whatever measures were deemed prudent and when parents found out about such an occurrence, there wold be more “hell to pay.”
3. A policeman was respected. Whenever children were engaging in “no-no” behaviour, they would cease and desist when the constabulary was present.
4. When parents found out that their children were “spanked” in school, the supplementary phase was promptly implemented at home.

If we compare the above with present day circumstances, we find that, in large measure, children show no “respect.” Consequently, the chain breaks down. It would be simplistic to assume that failure to flog has led to the dilemma. We should be aware that some young adults are as obedient and respectful today as counterparts of their earlier generations but they are not the problem. When youngsters are invited to file charges against their parents for flogging or even harsh oral rebuke, who has the leverage? When the media indoctrinates the young with sex and violence under the guise of “entertainment” what happens to the moral compass? When parliamentarians demonstrate that attainment of high office is only a platform to show contempt for the constitutional procedures and authority of the august bodies of government, what should we expect from juveniles? What does the team really expect to accomplish if their recommendation is implemented? Examine some of their findings of school violence, delinquency and classroom disruption: “… skipping classes, damaging school property, stealing, cheating, begin rude to teachers and parents, using obscene language, getting into trouble with the police, using illegal drugs, smoking, drinking alcohol, threatening and bullying other students, carrying weapons in school, using force for extortion and fighting with or without weapons.” Pray tell, how do they expect to correct these ills? I fear that if they look to the physical, punishment will have to be meted out by those above the rank of “corporal.”

Naivete should not be a prerequisite to the pursuit of solutions to problems. In fairness to the panel, they have said “parallel emphasis should be placed on examining the role of alternatives to physical forms of discipline.” However, I perceive their pronouncement as an exculpatory caveat and not as a focal point highlighted with any degree of sincerity. It is no less gratifying to ponder the observation that teachers, parents and students are “in strong favor of some form of corporal punishment in schools.” Of course, teachers are frustrated by the fact that they are unable to control their classrooms because of disruptive students; responsible parents are at their wits’ end to combat recalcitrant behaviour despite their best efforts, and good students have no desire to support their nemeses. I make the assumption that the Ministry of Education and its six-member team will be guided by good judgement. If not, which teacher is going to be brave enough to attempt to flog students who might be “carrying weapons?” Will the Ministry ask the Judiciary to establish a separate court for all the lawsuits that will be filed by students, parents and, perforce, teachers who will be the most vulnerable? Will the budget be increased to take care of the penalties that will ensue? Most importantly, will such a course of action lead to abatement of the problem? In this case, it would be difficult to consider that “past is prologue.”

SELWYN P NIMBLETT
Brooklyn, NY

THE EDITOR: I feel obliged to comment on your thoughtful Editorial of last Saturday (July 12, 2003, page 10) which commented on my Senate motion to have the proceedings of Parliament broadcast live to citizens. Indeed, as you recalled, I did say that parliamentarians must not remain “prisoners of the privately-owned mass media.” You said that this implies an “indictment of a deliberate attempt … to suppress or contain” the speeches made in Parliament. No. I was not on the point of media bias or suppression of views. I was on the more troublesome professional point of the inherent limitations of media reporting. Tell me, can your newspaper really carry all that is said in Parliament? Can you really carry all that is said the very next day? Tell me again, is everything said in Parliament newsworthy? The answer to all three questions, in my view, is no. This is what I mean by “inherent limitations,” nothing spiteful, but merely part of news dynamics in a competitive marketplace. And this is one of the other points I made. Maybe, the word “prisoners” is a bit too overbearing, but it is the word that attracted your journalistic attention, not so? And this brings me to another point. The more dramatic, more titillating, even more abusive the expression in Parliament, the likelier it would get reported. This is all part of “good” news reporting but in my view again, the country ought to hear more than this — the good, bad and even the ugly.

I do not believe that the press can be blamed or be expected to carry all the information provided in Parliament. And this was my major point. Parliament ought to do its own job of being accountable to citizens, at least through the provision of information. (The quality of speeches is for now a separate matter). It is indeed quite grievous to read time and time again, how a particular senator has not spoken, or spoke but did not say that, or how this senator “always supporting Mr Chin Lee,” etc, etc, when a responsible examination of the proceedings will show something quite different. How does a senator reply to aggravated ignorance? To repetitious propaganda without getting in the mud himself? This is why the word “prisoner” might have crossed my mind during the debate on the motion. We can easily become prisoners of other people’s ignorance, mischief or self-serving politics. Anyhow, some good news. The public should know that both the Government and the Opposition in the Senate have indicated support for the motion. Your Editorial spoke well for the press. You said that “media houses must remain free to decide how they will treat various issues that come before Parliament.” And that is my point. I agree. You added: “We do not believe that Professor Deosaran would want to abridge that freedom in any way.” Not at all. In fact, that is another reason for my motion. So as I said during the debate: “The media has its job to do, and Parliament must also do its job.”

SENATOR PROFESSOR
RAMESH  DEOSARAN
Champs Fleurs