Peter Espeut | Taking over church schools – Part 2

This newspaper’s commitment to the transformation of Jamaica’s education system is persistent and of long standing. The call in Wednesday’s editorial for the government to table and debate two recent reports produced by consultants, both of which propose wide-ranging changes to Jamaica’s education landscape, is a call for good governance.

The Jamaica Education Transformation Commission chaired by Harvard Professor the Hon Orlando Patterson OM produced in 2021 a report containing a deep analysis of the underperformance of Jamaica’s education system not uncritical of Jamaican governments over the years. Recent education initiatives (like the so-called Sixth Form Pathways Programme) are not part of the Patterson Report recommendations.

Just this year, the report of an unnamed consultant entitled “Final Report: Review of the Education Act, 1965 and Education Regulations, 1980” was circulated by the Ministry of Education for comment. Under “System Governance” the consultant recommends that the power of the minister be “enhanced” and that the government should take over the management of schools owned and operated by churches and trusts. Nowhere in the Patterson Report is any such recommendation made.

The Patterson Commission may be termed “independent” because they were mandated to analyse the problem and make recommendations. In Patterson’s own words, “The Prime Minister’s terms of reference to our Commission can be summed up in this single charge: recommend the guidelines to correct this chronic failure in the institution to which we have devoted so much of our national resources and energy” (page 1).

We know not the terms of reference of the unnamed consultant who has recommended more power for the minister and the takeover of church schools, but no doubt they were not on a frolic of their own.

ESTABLISH PARTNERSHIPS

When decades ago the government wished to expand the availability of education, they turned to the churches to establish partnerships: the church was given some autonomy to operate their schools embodying their ethos, and the government provided some funding. It was a mutually respectful relationship, and a mutually beneficial one.

All schools in Jamaica are managed by individual boards nominated by the owners and appointed by the minister of education; the owners operate their schools through the boards which they control: the board hires all the staff, and the principal reports to the board. The present legal framework establishes an effective balance between the power of the government and the church in managing church schools.

Church schools are of high quality because churches nominate board members with management ability, while government boards consist of persons nominated because of their political loyalty.

The Patterson Report points out that the qualification required to be a board chairman are “secondary/vocational education”, while “all other nominated members of the board are required to simply be literate and numerate” (page 110). Under this system, the government has been unable to ensure that the schools it operates deliver high quality, while the opposite is true of churches and trusts.

This problem is not going to be solved by giving the minister more power.

Judging by the recommendations of this 2023 consultant’s report it seems the Ministry of Education (MoE) has not accepted the findings of the Patterson Report; indeed, their intended direction is in substantial conflict with it.

Let me share more of what the ministry’s consultant has recommended.

The source of the problem (according to the consultant) is that school boards have too much autonomy.

“Boards can be said to operate in a space of ‘defined autonomy’, that is, autonomy within the regulatory framework established by the minister and monitored by MoE staff.”

ESSENTIAL PART

Yet this “defined autonomy” of school boards is an essential part of the balancing act negotiated by the churches at the time when grant-in-aid was introduced. The ministry consultant sees this “defined autonomy” as undesirable, since it diminishes the power of the minister, which is considerable, but not absolute.

“The minister’s direct control and supervision of public educational institutions is dispersed via the agency relationship with school boards”.

The ministry’s consultant proposes that this defect be remedied by reducing the “defined autonomy” of school boards, thereby concentrating more power in the hands of the minister, and diminishing much of the control churches and trusts have over the schools they own.

“Further to which, there is no central employing authority for school staff.”

Should the ministry directly employ the principals and teachers in schools, this would give the ministry power to move teachers and principals in and out of church schools, thereby diminishing the control churches have over the quality of management at the schools they own.

The ministry’s consultant does not propose to reduce the number of church representative on school boards; churches will still control the boards of their schools. What the consultant proposes is to reduce the power of the boards themselves. Presently, principals take their instructions from the school board which provides oversight, and guides policy implementation. The ministry’s consultant proposes: “The role of Education Officers (EOs) having direct interface with schools will focus on: providing oversight and ongoing support to teaching & learning; school improvement initiatives; coordination of QEC; guiding implementation of policy initiatives at the institutional level.”

The principal now reports to the EO, who provides “oversight”, and guides the implementation of policy. What is left for the board to do?

The minister will be able to intervene in a church school and take over the board functions:

“It is further proposed to introduce a regulation permitting the minister (or designee) to direct the chairperson to convene a meeting of the BoM to consider any matter affecting the institution in the public interest, … failing which, the minister (or designee) may cause such a meeting to be held. The quorum requirement will be dispensed with in respect of any meeting of the BoM convened at the direction of the minister (or designate).”

This proposal would allow the minister (or designate) and her sole nominee on the board, to hold a legal board meeting and to pass any resolution put forward by the minister without church participation or consent.

“Government must perforce maintain its valued partnership with the early pioneers in education as well as integrating within the education system those private education providers vital to guaranteeing freedom of educational choice. System reform is only possible when every segment of the education system comes together behind government leadership.”

The government’s aim is to control even private education providers who receive no government funding. Adventists, take note! What is this “government leadership” behind which we all must line up?

I don’t know that controlling church schools is going to improve the poor performance of government schools. The monarchy lives!

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com