The Ministry of Education’s Friday February 17 memorandum addressing the subject of “some schools conducting educational tours to locations/places that do not contribute to better student outcomes,” attracts attention if only because, whatever the Ministry’s concern in the matter at hand, the manner in which it expresses itself suggests that it has no interest whatsoever in disclosing the specifics on the incident that gave rise to the missive, in the first place. Part of the problem here is that its missive appears to be far more concerned with reprimanding those parties whom it perceives to be transgressors rather the providing a more universal enlightenment on the matter that targets wider legitimate audiences.
There are other concerns that we should have about the Ministry’s memorandum, notably the undisguised overtone of admonition and reprimand targeting Heads of Schools and teachers. Occurrences that merit constructive interaction in pursuit of satisfactory solutions should not be used as occasions for uncalled for and unhelpful reprimands. There are occasions – and this is one of those – on which Ministry’s missives come across as rude in both tone and content. In the extant instance on the issue of school visits its communication goes to the extreme of throwing in threats of sanctions. The least that can be said about this style of communication is that it does not augur well for relations between the Ministry and the nation’s educators.
One feels that the Ministry might get more out of these critical service providers if it were to employ a greater measure of conviviality in both the tone and content of its communication with them, rather than seemingly assuming that the Heads of Schools and Teachers, the glue that holds the system together, are no more than an extension of the larger ‘audience’ of students whom they teach.
Put differently, Heads of Schools and teachers are altogether deserving of a much higher level of regard, given the enormity of their contribution, than they are afforded by the Ministry.
To return to the Ministry’s missive it alludes to “visits and tours to places outside the accepted and usual tour destinations,” never mind the fact that two Heads of Schools and a few Teachers as well as a now retired Ministry official have all told us that that they have never either seen or been made aware of the “approved list of places to be visited,” to which the Ministry refers.
If indeed, as the Ministry puts it, “schools are conducting educational tours to locations/places that do not contribute to better student outcomes” then the insinuations are serious enough to warrant immediate intervention and diligent investigation in order to ensure that they cease forthwith. Again, it should be stated, however, that in pursuit of such interventions the Ministry must find options to the current ‘high horse’ approach that it appears to favour.
Try as we did, none of the various teachers, a handful of Head Teachers and a retired Ministry of Education official appeared to have the faintest knowledge of the existence of an “approved list of places to be visited,” deviation from which, the Ministry’s missive threatens, “will result in disciplinary action being recommended against the Head teacher and all teachers on the school tour.” To go a bit further, if, indeed, such a list indeed exists should it not be placed in the public domain for the benefit of a wider interest group, including parents and the media?
On the whole, the Ministry of Education needs to understand that finding solutions to what are some of the admittedly challenging situations that confront our education system, including what often appears to be a disconnect between the Ministry and the school system itself can only be helpfully addressed in an environment in which there is equal recognition of each other’s designated responsibilities. Both sides, (the Ministry and the teaching professionals) must have their respective says. The problem is that, over time, the Ministry of Education has become seized with a sense of its preeminence to the extent that it appears to have become oblivious to those communication strategies that are underpinned by the importance of free and open encounters in which equal mindfulness is afforded differing views. Rather than pursue the option of constructive engagement it has become fixated with simply, often crudely, laying down the law, in other words, talking down. The propensity is unmistakably reflected in its February 17 memorandum.
