Late Notification and Transfer Issues Acknowledged by Ministry of Education for 2024 Term | Accountability Concerns Arise
The Ministry of Education acknowledges mishandling the late notification of principal and teacher transfers for the 2024 term, emphasizing the need for accountability and improved communication.
The Ministry of Education has admitted that the issue of the late notification of the transfer of principals and teachers for the 2024 Michaelmas term was not effectively handled. In fact, it agreed that the communication on the transfers was “a disaster”. What concerned me was the idea that those who contributed to the disaster would be held accountable. Accountability is not particularly a Barbadian virtue – at least not for those who wield power and authority. This then raises the question of on whose heads the proverbial axe will fall. Will it be some junior low-grade clerk in the ministry or someone else’s?
On the occasion of a press conference on Wednesday, September 11, Permanent Secretary in the Education Ministry Wendy Odle noted: “We want persons to be able to prepare themselves emotionally and mentally if they are going into new environments…. Our intention is to ensure that persons know where they will be assigned for the new school year.
“We take this matter very seriously.”
Of course, this was not the first time this issue of late transfers has occurred. What Odle called “missteps” have happened before. Last academic year 2023-2024, several principals were unceremoniously transferred only hours before the new school year was due to begin. On this matter, let me congratulate my former student and now President of the Association of Public Primary School Principals, Mrs Olwin Gaskin-Walker for speaking out as forcefully as she did recently. The teaching profession will not attract and retain the cadre of good committed teachers required for education transformation if they are treated – to use Mrs Walker’s words – “like chattel”. Was the issue of transfers a misstep or was it a matter of bureaucratic inertia and fatigue in a ministry that is being asked to do too much with inadequate human resources? The imagined education transformation programme is a very complicated project and is proving to be a far more complex proposition than its imaginers ever thought.
Education Minister Kay McConney is quoted as saying: “Our public servants work for the government; even ministers, permanent secretaries and deputy permanent secretaries can be moved at any point… and there is no entitlement of anyone to stay in any one place.”
The comparison is questionable. A school is an institution containing over 700 or 800 children, maybe over 45 to 50 teachers, administrative staff, and a complement of casual non-administrative workers housed on one compound. More importantly, because the school is expected to take care of many cohorts of children over many years, it is expected to develop an ethos. Teachers should not be viewed as mere cogs in a machine. A good school requires some level of permanence. A lot depends on the principal who can determine the culture of the institution over time. When there is a rapid turnover of staff, schools suffer as a result. In the olden days, schools were known by the head teacher. Older persons in St George tell of going to Miss Aimey School as a child; then there was Clarkey School under Mr T.A. D. Clarke.
One question that emerges from the whole issue is what factors occasion the increasing number of transfers of school principals. Is it that many are underperforming in the headships? Are they not getting along with the staff at the schools.? What is the problem? Minister McConney referred to the previously mentioned idea of establishing a Teaching Service Commission “that would allow all the matters related to the education sector, including recruitment, discipline and promotion to be handled by its own commission rather than being a part of the general picture which slows down the process.” However, it has been three decades since the idea of a Teaching Service Commission was first mooted. The Barbados Secondary Teachers; Union (BSTU) has always supported the idea. Again, what exactly is the problem that over three decades later, no progress has been made on the establishment of such a commission?
At last Wednesday’s press conference, it was confirmed that 35 students who took the Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examination (CAPE) had been awarded scholarships and exhibitions. More precisely, there were some 15 scholarships and 20 exhibitions. The problem was that the names had not been released to the Press which usually carried full coverage of the winners and their performances. CAPE, the equivalent of the former Cambridge Advanced Level, is regarded as one of the key indicators of academic performance in Barbados, and for ages, the Barbados Scholarship was regarded as one of the pinnacles of scholastic success. The explanation was given that some scripts were under “review”. One does know how many candidate scripts were under “review” in 2024. Were there more than usual? There have been occasions when performances were being reviewed and the names of winners were still released. If the reviews were successful, their names were added at a later date.
What should be of greater concern is the fact that, as the Education Minister stated, “we had a situation where we had over 119 students who had ungraded papers”. I am reliably informed by someone more in the know than myself that the issue of papers not being graded could be the result of “a computer glitch”. In my time, ages ago, graded coursework or samples thereof were put in an envelope and sent to the ministry or the Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC). Now, they go by e-mail, a process which I am told is subject to glitches. The Ministry of Education has admitted that errors occurred at the registration point. The minister herself stated: “There was an error in regards to how the registration was done for certain students and there was a coding difference that caused a bit of a challenge.”
But apart from the glitches, if the student failed to complete the required course work or project, then one could understand why the candidate was not graded. The award of a grade is dependent on the student’s completion of the requirements of the course. If, however, the student completes and submits his or her coursework or project, it is incumbent on the teacher, the school and the ministry to somehow see that that piece of work is graded. For a teacher to refuse to mark a piece of work is a dereliction of duty. If teachers want to make the case that they are overburdened by coursework because CXC wants to run an elaborate syndicate on the cheap, then say so, and make the case either for remuneration of some kind or less coursework. But do not prejudice the future of children. The students should under no circumstance be made to suffer in a case where their futures could be at stake. Unions, teachers or otherwise should not defend the indefensible. I have always been and I remain a strong defender of teachers and teachers’ rights. The problem in Barbados is that despite protestations to the contrary, too few Barbadians are committed to anything beyond themselves and their interests and constituencies.
