Dear Editor,
I have rarely agreed with the policies of the Ministry of Education. However, I am in full agreement with its latest policy mandating that schools have ‘Christmas Socials’ rather than ‘Christmas Parties’. What is outstanding about this directive is the seven guidelines which have been advocated by the ministry. What is not outstanding is the fact that this directive was given through the Regional Education Officers to the schools in their region rather than a circular sent by Central Ministry. This gives the impression that the Ministry of Education is ‘scared’ to offend its opponents.
Any stakeholder in education will accept these guidelines without reservation. Firstly, teachers are asked to dress modestly. To object to this is to suggest that teachers should be allowed to dress immodestly. Teachers cannot instill a rule for 14 weeks and then break that rule in one day. This goes against the norms of conditioning. Further, casual clothing has always been a limiting factor for students attending the very Christmas parties being championed by critics now. Some students, many students simply do not have the means to buy the clothes to attend. As a secondary school student, one cannot attend a Christmas party with what in not in style.
Having the event per class is the norm in most schools. There is nothing new about this. This is what has been happening for as long as there have been Christmas parties. Thirdly, the kind of music is recommended. I have observed in Region Three that a number of schools hire a music system taller than the ground flat of the school building. Imagine, these are primary schools. It should be noted that the cost of the music system is paid for by the students. As such, the third guideline is more economic rather than restrictive. These music systems hardly gyrate their audience with songs associated with Christmas. These gyrations have, over the years, resulted in the destruction of school furniture, teaching aids and other school property. Fights have ensued after these gyrations.
Gift exchange has been recommended but not made compulsory. Again, I am sure it is due to economic considerations rather than ‘taking the fun out of the party’. To attend a Christmas party or social, a student is required to make a contribution to the music system, food, decorations, in addition to purchasing clothes and a gift. Attending a Christmas party is an expensive venture which many students cannot afford. School uniform means one less thing to spend money on. Guidelines Five, Six and Seven are more security measures rather than limitations to having a ‘good time’. Why must the social go later than 3pm? Why should outsiders be allowed? In light of the numerous security violations schools have had during this year, it is a move in the right direction to not have non-students attend the social.
Stakeholders who object to this policy must be very careful in their objection. What really is the objection? The only thing objectionable is the name change. One cannot be a serious stakeholder in education and object to the seven guidelines being advocated by the Ministry of Education. Consequently, I find it strange that the General Secretary for the GTU, Coretta McDonald, has voiced criticism of these guidelines. Ms McDonald must be reminded that the GTU has a mandate to the teachers of this country. These guidelines make the teachers’ job easier. Hence, the objection seems to be for the sake of objecting.
Yours faithfully,
Mohammed S Hussain
