Recently in Education Category

There's nothing I find more entertaining than the classic political apology, when a politician apologises for saying what they actually believe for a change. Today we were treated to a truly comical version from PLP Senator Marc Bean who last week lambasted his party for a 12 year epic fail.

"My Government, from 1998 to today, has failed," he said. "I give my Government a triple F."

...

"It's like we bought a house built on sand and instead of fixing it we've changed the curtains and we've changed the tiles," he said last week.

It gets even better though. This wasn't just the the normal insincere apology of convenience. This wasn't just the forced apology, it was public groveling, humiliation, begging for forgiveness. And how do you do that in PLP land? Well, you have to do a complete and utter reversal and parrot the well worn old faithful PLP narrative of.....

It's all the UBP's fault!

How unoriginal. 12 years later, after over a decade in power with an Opposition in disarray, the PLP's failures are the fault of the UBP?

"Upon reflection I recognise that my words may have created discomfort among the hardworking men and women in this Government who since 1998 have striven to overcome the failed education system, the economic inequity and the institutional racism that we inherited from the former Government."

If only we had a local Daily Show. They wouldn't even need to ridicule, it's just so patently absurd in the first place.

And to think one of the PLP's nasty attack ads during the election was that one of the UBP's candidates was a puppet and was having words put into his mouth.

Who's the puppet now?

A reader writes on an alternative to the Santa Claus Parade.

I, too, was at the parade, less by choice, and was shocked at the performances of not one, but all the dance groups. The costumes and moves of what were often very young girls was disturbing, not to mention the music. Interestingly many of the girls were followed in the street by their mothers who, judging by their dress, often seemed to have the same agenda.

But the real show, which the media didn't pick up on, was taking place inside Wesley
Methodist Church, where a group of Cedarbridge singers and music students with the
Bermuda Philharmonic were performing Vivaldi's "Gloria". Even if it was Vivaldi, who
can stir the soul of all but the most musically insensitive, the performance was outstanding. The talent and obvious dedication of these students was incredible, and
they did their school and country proud.

At one point, the conductor stopped the performance and motioned for one of the
soloists to sit down while the church vibrated to the beat of the latest 20 megawatt
hit right outside the church door. But the students took it in stride, and resumed
where they left off with confidence.

Too often we write off our teenagers, and Cedarbridge gets a lot of flak for the
actions of a few, but here we have a great example of something truly good.
Bermudians need to hear of this stuff - perhaps more would try to aim for something
better than showing off to gangsta rap.

A phenomenal performance. Hopefully the press won't miss it next time.

Well done to all those involved, parents, teachers and students.

A reader writes on the closure of Whitney, perhaps the beginning of the end for the successful aided schools:

Today's announcement of the closure of the Whitney Institute is interesting. The failure to maintain the physical plant to acceptable health and safety standards seems to be at the core of the dispute and subsequent closure. What is interesting however is the shift in language between April and now. In announcements made just a couple of months ago the public was led to believe that as a Government-aided school, the Government was responsible for the upkeep to ensure a clean and safe environment and one that complies with health and safety codes. Fast forward to today and the not-so-subtle announcement by Minister Horton that Whitney's Trustees could not give an assurance that they could remain a viable school within the public school system for five years - hence, the closure. What was not addressed in today's press reports was where the responsibility lay for funding of property management and maintenance. The inference now was that it was the Trustees responsibility, albeit the specifics of the level of Government funding and how it is applied within the multi-million dollar school budget was not elaborated on.

There is no doubt that this closure now becomes a convenient announcement for Government. It is not inconsistent with Government's strategy of dismantling relics of the pre-1998 regime (the Minister's announcement would have been markedly different had Victor Scott School found itself in the same scenario). But, I cannot
help but enquire as to whether the school's Trustees were negligent in not ensuring that required property maintenance was done. I don't think we've seen the last of 'he said, he said' over this one.

Another week, another education debacle:

Whitney Institute Middle School will close this summer, its board of trustees told the Ministry of Education today, The Royal Gazette understands.

Potentially permanently.

Here's the kicker: the complaint is that the school needed renovating yet Government hasn't moved on it and it is now unsafe.

Contrast that with a very urgent renovation that did take place: the renovation of an Official Premier's Residence for $1.5M that remains unoccupied over a year later.

Education? We'll get to it. Vacant home for Premiers. Check.

PS The Gazette is likely to have an inside track on this story, the Editor is a Trustee of Whitney. He's got a fine line to tread on this one.

[UPDATE: The Gazette has informed me that the Whitney story was obtained after a Whitney staff member contacted the paper, and reporter Tim Smith pursued it.]

Here we go again.

In typical control freak fashion, Government is positioning itself to take the aided school model (aka the successful model) and turn it into the public school model (aka the unsuccessful one).

Yet again Government has it bass ackwards. They pick the path that gives them total control but flies in the face of proven results.

You expected something different?

It looks like the final count with be 22-14, which is a push.

The parties traded 2 seats, with the UBP taking 2 in St. George's and the PLP taking St. David's and Southampton.

From the Department of Incredibly Conspicuous Spelling Mistakes (and lazy blogger cheap-shots), comes the PLP's press conference transcript today entitled:

Educaiton/Finance Press Conference Comments

"Educaiton."

That just about sums up the problem.

[Update: It was corrected within an hour]

I am utterly convinced, certain, that whoever is doing the PR strategy for the PLP is a student of the approach used very effectively over the past 10-20 years by the US Republican Party, and particularly George Bush's political handler Karl Rove.

I know not everyone follows US politics as closely as I do, but it is indisputable that the PLP are emulating the exact methods that were used to give the Republicans a political resurgence in the mid-1990s but has produced such terrible results in Iraq and elsewhere.

I could go on for days about this, but there is an exact emulation of the Republican talking points to try and portray domestic opponents of the war (ie. most Democrats) as unpatriotic being tried in Bermuda.

In the US, if a Democratic politician is critical of the war in Iraq, or dares express even the slightest bit of dissent, they are accused of "not supporting the troops".

The slogan "Support the troops" has become a method to intimidate and discredit politicians and advocacy groups, while it's obvious to most rational people that if you believe a war is un-winnable that it isn't particularly supportive to keep soldiers fighting because a politician wants to save face.

What does this have to do with Bermuda? Well, strangely enough it's to do with education.

Rational, thinking people clearly understand that Government is misusing statistics to artificially inflate the graduation rate (and tourism arrivals) to 80% from 58% previously. This is a particularly egregious attempt to generate a positive headline in the wake of an education inquiry which said the public education system was 'on the brink of meltdown'.

Not surprisingly The Minister maintains that nothing funny is going on (while conceding they've changed how they treat non-graduating students), although it's obvious that the denominator in the graduation rate calculation has been reduced which jacks up the graduating percentage.

Many people, including myself, Denis Pitcher through his blog, Grant Gibbons and others have pointed out the undeniable changes in methodology.

So how does the PLP's increasingly ridiculous website try and play the criticism:

The UBP vs. Bermuda's Students

Of late, UBP critics have questioned how Bermuda's class of 2007 could have achieved such a high graduation rate. The UBP's lack of faith in our students and their capabilities is truly disturbing.

That was the opening, this is the finish (read the full spin here):

Those who seek to undermine the accomplishments of our students by calling into question the statistics their hard work helped generate should be ashamed of themselves.

What complete, mindless nonsense. Firstly, faith isn't going to fix education. Secondly, demanding higher standards and better results is not undermining anyone's accomplishments, it is how you support the students.

This style of stupid political spin is beyond acceptable. I can't believe this has to be said, but demanding an honest assessment of graduation rates year over year is supporting the students. Messing with the number is not.

Bermuda can't have an honest and productive policy discussion about ways to improve the education system (or anything else for that matter) when one side is trotting out such idiotic memes as this.

That has got to be one of the most shameless attempts to deflect responsibility and shut down honest policy debate that we've seen yet - although I'm sure it won't be the last.

It's a style of politicking that we don't need importing here. Just ask a growing number of Americans how well things have worked out when their politicians didn't challenge the administration over a war for fear of seeing their face in an ad with the words "Representative So- and-So doesn't support the troops" as Congressional elections approached.

We don't need to go down this road.

Unfortunately, the ascendancy of Dr. Brown to his party's leadership and Premier has heralded the importation and emulation of the worst aspects of the American political system without some of the best.

There's of course The Entourage (justified for an American President but not for the Premier of Bermuda - who is the equivalent of a small town mayor), a Press Secretary whose job is mostly to obstruct the press, rampant litigation (sue whenever possible) and ego props like a Council of Economic Advisors, the Premier's Gala Weekend (ie. Inauguration) and demands that people stand when Dr. Brown (not the head of state) enters the room etc..

Most significantly however, and this started before Dr. Brown but has - as promised - been taken to the next level, is the blatant manipulation and withholding of statistics to present a far different picture than actually exists.

Since the Department of Statistics was moved under the Cabinet Office, statistics have been misused to hoodwink the public.

Most notably is Tourism, where the Premier has benefited substantially from distorting air arrival numbers as an indicator of a rebirth of tourism and continues to bask in the glory of turning around tourism; a lie which was revealed in full a few weeks ago when the business traveler numbers were finally split out.

This constant misuse of statistics is why I don't believe a thing that this Government tells us - zero - which is one of the worst traits of the US system: politics has transcended policy. The Government seems to view facts as pliable if you put enough PR people on them, and PR is the most important office in the Government.

The current administration in the US, with it's massive appointed senior policy making staff, believes in 'creating it's own reality' as a Bush aide famously told Ron Suskind and mocked the "Reality-based community". The primary objective is to spend time and money to manage public perception, usually through lies, damned lies and statistics.

I say all that to preface my complete lack of belief in the latest graduation rates, released on Friday. Quite simply, it is not credible to present the rosy picture of public education after a well documented 53% graduation rate and in the wake of a devastatingly damning review of public education.

Either the Education review was a total waste of money, or Cabinet is at it again with statistics. Those of us in the reality based community will go with the latter.

There is no way that a 22% increase in the graduation rate year over year when not nearly enough time has passed for any serious reform to the public education system to have been implemented let alone had an impact is possible, yet the public is supposed to believe the latest numbers.

Sorry. I don't.

It's pretty clear that they've changed the baseline (most likely as they are now only reporting those who entered the graduating class it seems), lowered the graduation requirements or are grading a lot more lax.

But the fact is that they can really do whatever they want here, because the certificate they're using is a local creation that has little to no weight against other systems such as the GCSE in the UK.

This behaviour is so fundamentally counter-productive to actually improving public education - or any other issue for that matter. If the Minister and his colleagues can't be honest then they need to be replaced. Public education is far too important to be subject to constant political spin.

To be honest, I'd thought that the education review had actually heralded in a willingness to not dress things up anymore and be brutally honest about the state of things. But that's clearly not the case.

Evidently trying to make people feel better as an election approaches is more important than education.

This manipulation of stats and performance has become so pervasive that there is one American political creation that we could use: a Government Accountability Office.

That's one aspect of the US system that we could actually use here, as well as Public Access to Information and modern anti-corruption laws by the way.

Even the teachers don't buy the public school graduation rates recently released and not yet explained.

Today's Gazette article on the public school system's graduation rate doesn't shed any light whatsoever on the sudden increase in year over year percentage graduation rate.

And I say graduation rate for a reason. Because if you look at the actual number of graduating students year over year you see a 17% increase (173/148), rather than the 50% increase implied by the graduation rate, which seems at first look to be a less valid measure.

The Gazette does a decent job of laying out some of the unanswered questions to put the rate in perspective, as well as the Hopkins report's criticism of inconsistent reporting methods, but what jumps out to me as the area of major discrepancy is that there are 97 fewer students in the Cedarbridge graduating class this year than in 2006.

So, the obvious question becomes why is the 2007 graduating class 2/3rds the size of 2006? Where did those 97 students go?

If you assume the same class size in 2007 as in 2006 (309 students) against the reported 173 graduates in 2007 you end up with a 55% graduation rate, versus 47% last year, which seems believable.

I'm not trying to be negative here, but if the statistics aren't credible then we have no foundation for measuring performance. And I simply can't accept that in a year which was as disrupted as 2007 was due to the mold infestation you would see such improved performance.

If you keep it simple, and compare the actual number of graduates year over year you see a 17% improvement to a 55% graduation rate, which is a step in the right direction but still an unacceptable result.

This all reminds me of the manipulation of tourism numbers, which are trumpeting a higher occupany rate, but off of a much lower number of available beds.

Forget the Hopkins Report. We've discovered the solution to the public school systems poor performance: Introduce mold.

Someone talk me through this. In 2006 Cedarbridge had a 53% graduation rate. 2007, a year with major disruption caused by the mold infestation, school evacuation and teacher sick-outs, saw the graduation rate improve to 80%! A 50% improvement in a 12 month period?

I don't buy it. I'd like to buy it. But I can't. It makes no sense. Improvement would be more incremental than that.

What happened in the past 12 months to produce such a big change over a consistent pattern of declining rates?

Someone needs to put some explanation around these numbers. This doesn't seem credible on the surface.

Public Education meets Public transportation at the 2007 May 24th parade? (Hat tip to AH for the catch and picture).

I was listening to Parliament Friday night and caught the tail end of the Motion to Adjourn, where perennial thorn in the Government's side, Louise Jackson, boxed in Education Minister Randy Horton and his colleagues pretty well with this one:

He said: “At no time has this Government allowed students or teachers to enter that school unless there was an indication from the analysts that the air quality was such that it would not be harmful to those in the school.”

Mrs. Jackson interrupted the Minister to read a damning line from a report from Microbiology Specialists Incorporated: “These bacterial levels exceed any acceptable levels for potable or recreational waters and are considered sewage level.”

Not one to go quietly, Mr. Horton responded as follows:

Minister Horton leapt from his seat to explain.

He said: “I can tell this honourable House I have seen that report. We’ve also recognised the lack of credibility in that person who provided that report. Yes, the Department of Education hired that person but in the end have found out it may have been a mistake to hire that particular person.”

Which resolves nothing at all. Louise's point remains, and appears to have been confirmed:

Despite the Minister's retort that 'in the end' the Department of Education 'found it may have been a mistake to hire that particular person', the reality is that at the time they were handed the report they thought it to be credible....yet they still sent the students and teachers in.

But of course, like all things, it's the UBP's fault. I hope he makes that case better than he made the previous one.

Well that was fast. The UBP just blasted out this press release, responding to the Education Reform Broadcast.

‘A total condemnation’

Statement by United Bermuda Party Leader
Michael Dunkley, JP, MP on the Hopkins Report

There are clearly recommendations in the Hopkins report which warrant serious study and which we will comment upon in the days ahead.

But let us be clear about one thing: this report is a total condemnation of the PLP Government’s management of public education.

It is our view that the PLP Government does not have the credibility, the ministerial skills or the collective will to carry out meaningful and effective reform of our education system, particularly on the scale proposed in tonight’s address.

The report brings to a head the question of confidence about the Government’s competence that all Bermudians must weigh in the days ahead.

There can be no further excuses and no further dodging of responsibility on this vital issue. There must be accountability.

We are particularly critical of the way the Premier positioned himself in last night’s broadcast as somehow separate and above the situation, as though he has played no part in it, despite the fact that he has been a senior member of the very governments that presided over the decline in public education.

To call for the “re-professionalization” of the ministry and teachers, as Dr. Hopkins does, does not go far enough. The Brown Government must take responsibility. We therefore call for the resignation of Mr. Horton, in order to establish the principal of accountability going forward.

Unless that step is taken, we believe educators and bureaucrats will be less receptive to the proposed reforms.

The Hopkins report is clear: PLP Governments have presided over a catastrophic decline in the quality of public school education. The problem has worsened over the years. They have known about it, they have watched it and they have not done anything about it but to throw up their hands and call in overseas experts.

Their stewardship of public education has been a top-to-bottom disaster, and they should be held accountable for it. One TV special – which they could not even broadcast at the advertised time – should not let Government off the hook.

The Hopkins report validates many of the recommendations already put forward by the United Bermuda Party and, in particular, by our former Shadow Education Minister Neville Darrell. It contains some helpful answers to the current situation, but we believe Bermuda needs a new team to turn this around. The United Bermuda Party is ready. We will deliver.

May 3, 2007

I've posted the Public Education Review presentation which aired tonight on all TV and radio stations (some more seamlessly than others I understand) on YouTube so that people who missed it can watch.

I had to break it into 3 approximately 10 minute parts due to time limitations and YouTube, and unfortunately I didn't start recording until about 5 minutes in when Dr. Brown had finished with his introduction (not intentional I promise).

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

I'll comment more later, but I can't say I was surprised. The assessment was predictably abysmal, but the 10 recommendations sound like a decent start, although I'm not sure in a first impression that they go far enough.

But it covers much of what I (in a number of Gazette Op-Eds), and others, mostly in the UBP have been saying for some time (read the UBP's Education papers presented by Grant Gibbons recently, here and here, as well as many of the Budget and Throne Speech replies as well as op-eds by the former Shadow Education Minister Neville Darrell), usually to be met with howls of derision and ridicule by the Government.

Decentralise, eliminate or drastically reduce and restructure the Ministry, retrain and improve standards.

Not rocket science really but it is helpful to have an independent assessment with some benchmarks to measure against going forward.

Dr. Grant Gibbons (UBP) last week released an analysis of census data on Bermuda's education divide, which formed the basis of last Friday's Mid Ocean News article. It's much more succinct and hard hitting than those wishy washy feel good sermons written by bureaucrats and read verbatim in Parliament by the latest Minister.

Dr. Gibbons, and the UBP get it.

Economic opportunity is key to achieving racial parity in Bermuda, and education is key to economic opportunity. That’s why we’re increasingly concerned about the deterioration of public education on our island and the development of a clear educational divide amongst Bermudians.

Education should be a source of opportunity, not a mark of privilege. People who can’t afford to send their children to private schools deserve the same opportunities as those who can. But today, that birthright for Bermudian children in the public school system is in jeopardy.

Our schools may have been desegregated in the 1960s, but in 2007 they remain essentially segregated. Today’s de facto segregation isn’t based strictly on race, but on class. Two school systems were wrong in 1965, and they are wrong today.

There is an educational divide in Bermuda that’s very real and it’s confirmed by data from the 2000 Census.

Over the weekend, I caught the news replaying some of the Government's latest emergency press conference over the neverending Cedarbridge mould problem.

What caught my attention was the Health Minister, Mr. Perinchief, advising that a full time nurse would be stationed at the school (presumably with breathing apparatus on) for students or staff who experienced problems.

So...the obvious question is, doesn't this undermine the student/staff's dignity by providing them with a publicly funded medical facility? Wouldn't this make them not just sick, but indigent?

Shouldn't they take solace in the knowledge that while their lungs may be riddled with mould - courtesy of the Government - that they'll feel better about themselves if they use a private nurse off premises?

If Education is the 'big winner' in tomorrow's budget, as predicted in today's Royal Gazette, then there's only one question which needs asking:

Why are we throwing more money at a Ministry whose problems are not financial but structural, and is in the early stages of a comprehensive independent inquiry with a view (presumably) to an overhaul?

I can tell you one thing for sure that the inquiry will conclude: Lack of funds are not a contributing factor to the dismal performance.

Wait a few months and come back with a supplemental budget request after the inquiry is concluded.

Just for the record, and because I can't resist:

18 months ago, I called for an inquiry into public education, for which I received a verbal assault by then Minister of Education Terry Lister.

Yesterday, Education Minister Randy Horton did exactly that.

Better late than never I guess.

But here's another question: the latest results have been withheld for 5 months, and only now the Minister says he's going to go to Cabinet to get approval for an independent inquiry!

What were they doing all that time? Probably trying to figure out how to put the best spin on the numbers, finally realising that would be futile and just stating them for what they are. Grim indeed.

On July 26, 2005 I wrote a column on our failing education system which resulted in then Education Minister Terry Lister accusing me of being 'absurd and divisive', to which I wrote a follow-up column.

So, 18 months later, the Premier declares that 'education is in a serious situation':

“I have told the Minister of Education that I’m deeply and seriously concerned with some of the trends and performances that I have seen in education,” he told them, in response to a pupil who asked him what changes he wanted to make as leader of the country.

“If we keep doing what we are doing, we will keep getting what we have been getting. We have to do some serious change. Education is in a serious situation.”

I will not however, be holding my breath for former Education Minister Terry Lister, now warming the backbench, to accuse the Premier of being 'absurd and divisive' and refusing 'to take off his partisan blinkers and acknowledge anything positive that comes out of this Government'.

In response to my article today in the Royal Gazette, a reader points me to an excellent article which makes the Milton Friedman free market case for school choice:

In the last 10 years of his 94-year life, Friedman and his wife, Rose, dedicated themselves to school choice. They viewed school choice as a companion to economic freedom. Through the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation they enthusiastically promoted school choice as a means of liberating the poor from failing government schools. Failing schools produced failing students, they reasoned, depriving children of the tools they would need to attain economic independence. Friedman first proposed school vouchers in 1955, but it wasn't until 1996 that he and Rose started their foundation to take advantage of the growing interest in school choice.

Friedman did not fit the stereotype of an economic conservative. He was genuinely interested in helping the poor by giving them a choice of schools that would offer them the best opportunity to escape poverty's cycle. He noted a 1999 National Opinion Poll conducted for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in which 60 percent of minorities support vouchers and a whopping 87 percent of African-American parents ages 26 to 35 and 66.4 percent of blacks ages 18 to 25 favor them.

The main opponents of school choice are the teachers unions and white liberal politicians who receive their campaign contributions. They mostly send their children and grandchildren to private schools, while condemning minority children to poorly performing government schools. How's that for "compassion" and a commitment to helping the poor? The poor are helped to escape poverty when they get a good education. Failure to give them what has been called "the last civil right" practically ensures they will remain poor.

The Royal Gazette
Opinion (22 Nov. 2006)

‘When they want change the preacher says “shout it”.
Does shout bring about change? I doubt it.
All shout does is make you lose your voice.’

“Fishin’ 4 Religion” by Arrested Development

If raising the standard of Bermuda’s public education system were as simple as raising your voice, then Randy Horton, the latest Minister of Education, is the man for the job.

If there’s more to it than Mr. Boombastic waxing lyrical on the Parliamentary mic about taking the education system “by the scruff of the neck”, believing “that our young people can succeed” and having “passion” for education we’re out of luck.

Ring the bell, not just my ears Minister Horton. School’s out. Our public education system is broken. All the passion and belief in the world aren’t going to change that fact.

Now I know that I can’t make that statement without being accused of undermining our public school students, but it’s true. I believe in our children. I just don’t believe in the system. How can I?

All the belief in the world, all the shouting, won’t change the fact that we’re not equipping our public students with the skills they need to fully participate in our economy; a fifty-three percent graduation rate – of an inferior diploma – is a testament to that.

Sadly, Minister Horton’s speech reeked of the all too prevalent idea that we can fix education by building self-esteem and having faith. First the PLP brought us faith based tourism; now we have faith based education. Lord help us.

If there’s one thing our kids don’t suffer from it’s a lack of self-esteem. Too many of them have too much of it in fact; too much self-esteem and too little education.

The public education system has been overwhelmingly successful at instilling in our under-equipped students the belief that they possess the skills and tools to succeed in our economy – and the world. They don’t. And they never will if we refuse to face reality…and fast.

This mismatch between expectations and reality has been created and perpetuated by the Ministry of Education and some politicians to the point that it’s almost criminal.

For years we’ve been preaching the gospel of entitlement to our public school kids: the sky’s the limit; the best, highest paying jobs in our prosperous community are yours for the taking; racism and foreign workers are holding you back, not a lack of education.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The reality is that too many of our young people, through no fault of their own, enter the workforce without the skills to cope, let alone advance. Frustration sets in as they see others moving past them into positions they’ve been told they are entitled to as Bermudians.

Not surprisingly the result of this is resentment and the outright revolt that we’re witnessing in some segments of society today. This isn’t a disaster waiting to happen, but one happening before our eyes on a daily basis; so much so that many of us don’t seem to notice anymore.

But there’s hope. Ironically, buried in the Throne Speech and Minister Horton’s passion was a solution; albeit not under the Education heading.

The closing of the Indigent Care clinic at the hospital, a move designed to allow those who can’t afford it to see the doctor of their choice at taxpayer expense, is one of the major ideas of the Throne Speech.

What does this have to do with education?

Simple: equal access to equal healthcare despite your economic means.

Surely, if the Government believes that everyone, despite their means, is entitled to private healthcare, they should also believe that everyone, despite their means, is entitled to private top-notch education.

Same concept. Different Ministry.

If, as Minister Horton declared on Friday, we should run the education system as a business, why not do just that? Why shouldn’t every student in Bermuda have equal access to any school of their choice?

The simple fact of the matter is that we have two education systems, one for those who can afford (barely in many cases) $14,000 a year in private school tuition (plus the taxes they pay to fund the public system) and those who can’t.

This has resulted in de facto segregation which is perpetuating a divide that is primarily economic, but often viewed as racial in nature. We can end this by giving every parent in Bermuda a school voucher redeemable at the institution of their choice, whether public or private.

Or take it a step further. If the private schools do education better and cheaper – as they do – why not get the Government out of the education ‘business’ all together?

While there’s hope, I’m not optimistic. For years we’ve had Education Ministers content to tinker with the system, looking only five years ahead to the next election – or a few months as is the case today, with Dr. Brown preparing for a spring 2007 election.

When our interests and those of our policy makers aren’t aligned you get platitudes and passion, not the massive structural change – or complete privatization – of public education that is long overdue.

Even under the best case scenarios, turning around public education will take at least a generation to bear fruit. It can’t be managed in a political timeframe.

The PLP Government, or any Government, must stop pretending that public education can be rescued by playing on the fringes. It can’t.

Our educators and politicians must stop telling our children that they can be whatever they want to be, that we believe in them, that we have a passion for them, while churning them through a broken system.

Only when we truly commit to equal educational opportunities for all of our children, will we begin to address the manifestations of a failing public education system: a widening economic gap, increasing crime or an increasingly alienated youth for example.

Without education there can be no empowerment, merely empowerment zones.

One of the most-hyped ideas in the build-up to the 2006 Throne Speech was the abolition of "the hospital’s indigent care clinic – dubbed a poor folk’s clinic – [to] allow the poor to see the doctor of their choice at the taxpayer’s expense":

The Government will move to abolish the so-called “Indigent Care” clinic at the hospital. Bermudians lacking financial means will no longer have their dignity undermined as a prerequisite to accessing basic and necessary healthcare.

A couple of points on this:

Firstly, in theory I don't have a problem with this idea, although I'd be interested in a little background and some numbers to flesh out whether it is indeed a poor folk's clinic.

Secondly, Dr. Brown, emphasis on the Doctor, should declare his interest here. As a practicing physician, and the owner and operator of a medical practice in Bermuda, he stands to directly financially benefit from this.

Thirdly, why stop there. If we're concerned about providing the poor with the best healthcare, what about education? Close down the public schools and let every Bermudian attend the school of their choice.

It's the same philosophy, in fact it's a conservative smaller government philosophy.

So how's about it Dr. Brown?

I've been off the island and just catching up on a few things, but with the negligence that is emerging in the Government's handling of the mold problem at Cedarbridge, shouldn't they start setting up the old Berkeley site as a temporary solution?

I'm sure this isn't how President Brown, fresh off of his inauguration, hoped to begin his term.

There are so many questions here, none of them good:

Was Cabinet aware? Was he aware as Deputy Premier and a physician? Why did the PLP not heed the advice to clean up the school in the summer? Why did they let teachers and students continue to use an unsafe facility? Why was maintenance so poor? Why did the PLP not act after Shadow Education Minister Neville Darrell raised the issue with former Education Minister Terry Lister? How long before the UBP gets blamed?

Kudos to (former schoolmate) Laurion Burchall for his small but significant gesture of repaying the scholarship money he received over a decade ago.

"I'd like someone else from Bermuda to have the same opportunity to get the same education and have the doors open up – giving them the opportunity that I had. I feel it is the correct thing to do."

Education, education, education. That's where it begins and ends. Fix that and most other things will fall into place.

When will our politicians realize that?

Well, there's one surefire way that parents can ensure success for their children on the Terra Nova test (read today's above the fold lede in the Royal Gazette [not yet online]) -- buy them in advance.

A simple Google search for "Terra Nova, test" delivers a link (currently the second) which takes you to CTB/McGraw-HIll's website where anyone can purchase them.

Rumour has it that you have to be certified to receive the answers, but most (with emphasis on the most) parents should be able to figure out the answers -- at least for the primary level tests.

Not surprisingly the teachers are hitting back at PLP backbencher Renee Webb for her speech in Parliament decrying the state of education.

The response is both predictable and interesting; predictable in that the teachers have taken collective offense at Ms. Webb putting the focus on them, but interesting because I didn't read her comments as either a blanket condemnation of all teachers nor a free pass for the Ministry.

As today's RG editorial states, the teachers aren't the whole problem, but they are part of it. The crux of the problem is in my opinion structural and lies at the feet of the Minister, Cabinet, the Ministry of Education and some parents.

But at least we seem to be recognizing that there is a problem. That's the first step. Now it's time to make the big second one and accept that feelings will be hurt in fixing the problem and that there are lots of constituencies with vested interests in the status quo...some teachers included.

I don't find myself agreeing with Renee Webb on much, but her speech in Parliament yesterday is the second position (here's the first) she's taken recently which I wholeheartedly concur with.

Public education needs a wholescale revamp, not playing on the fringes as Minister after Minister seems content to do. We don't have the luxury of time. We're losing generations.

Education Minister gets a lump of coal in his stocking this Christmas.

Why? Well, because apparently he recently sent out a directive to at least one east end school, no prize if you can guess which one, that they are not allowed to go Christmas carolling outside of the east end - as they did to great reviews last year.

Well done. Thataway to fix the 47% failure rate.

Lost amidst all of the the political sparring over the final cost, quality and completion date of the new Berkeley school building is an important question:

Wouldn't moving buildings in the middle of the year be extremely disruptive for both the students and the staff?

Whether you believe Sen. Burch's assurance yesterday or not, I struggle to think moving schools in January is a good idea.

The problem Sen. Burch couldn't overcome with his announcement yesterday, is that because of the long and sordid history of lies and deception around this project - many of which remain unanswered - no-one believes anything Government says anymore.

Consequently, my read from yesterday's press conference - and I imagine it's not a unique one - is that the building won't be complete, but that they're going to put students in it anyway to satisfy a political deadline.

Surely a January occupancy will, apart from being disruptive, incur substantial overtime costs for teachers working over the Christmas holiday, not to mention the inevitable teething issues which will occur when the spring term begins in a brand new facility.

Wouldn't it be smarter to just wait until September and do the move the right way, over the summer holidays, without rushing now for political expediency?

Two good reads on education.

The first, is part 2 of 2 (click here for part 1), by the UBP's Shadow Education Minister Neville Darrell on the problems in and a way out of our public education mess.

The second is another find from Pondblog, which discusses some early signs of success for the KIPP Charter School initiative underway in some US states.

RG Opinion (10 Aug. 2005)

I’d always been under the impression that boycotting The Royal Gazette was a point of pride for PLP Cabinet Ministers. So it was indeed a surprise to see the Minister of Education himself responding to my column of July 26th entitled ‘The Abysmal State of Our Schools’, which called for a public inquiry into the continuing failure of public education in preparing our young people to participate in our prosperous economy.

Other than the unbecoming tone, Mr. Lister’s response was notable for its evasiveness on an issue of increasing concern island-wide: that with a 47% failure rate the public education system fails about as many students as it graduates, while Bermuda’s economy demands record numbers of highly educated workers.

It gets worse. Exacerbating this declining education rate is the Government-led expectations raising game around the right to a high-level high-paying job. The result? Surrounded by wealth, yet not equipped with the qualifications or skills to perform at the required level to share in it, too many of the inadequately educated turn to an alternative lifestyle.

It’s little surprise then that the ill-tempered Minister resorted to lashing out at those of us who have publicly expressed our concern, disappointment and justifiable outrage that a growing segment of Bermuda’s young people face economic marginalization by a failing education system.

I for one will not sit silently, or be silenced as the Minister attempts, while bureaucratic incompetence and a lack of political will produces declining standards and plumbs new depths of futility.

And I’m not alone. Approximately 40% of Bermuda’s children are already enrolled in private education, indicating that the community has rendered its verdict: there isn’t a crisis of confidence in public education, there’s simply no confidence in it. Mr. Lister seems blissfully unaware of this fact.

He rants that people like me who “make blanket statements that condemn a whole system” need to “step up to the plate” to offer assistance, suggesting that the Minister broke rank and subscribed to The Royal Gazette in March of 2005.

Why? Well, in February of this year I wrote consecutive columns on the problems in, and a potential solution for, public education. The first was published on Feb. 1st and the second on the 8th, entitled Education: The other "E" word and "Set Bermuda’s schools free" respectively.

It was then that I discussed the decline of public education and proposed replacing the bureaucracy with elected school boards to introduce competition and accountability and eliminate the counter-productive meddling of career bureaucrats and politicians.

Unfortunately the Minister wasn’t interested in responding to those columns. Of course he is entitled to disagree with my proposals, but he’s just plain wrong in suggesting that those worried about public education are insincere, partisan and unfair.

Mr. Lister in his letter went on the offensive, calling me ‘intellectually dishonest” for failing to acknowledge the variety of factors that impact on student success, something previously addressed in those February columns. But for the Minister’s benefit, and as he failed to name any factors himself, I’ll provide the relevant quote:

“And while there are many factors that have led to where we are today, the most significant must be a tolerance for low standards, poor discipline, an inadequate curriculum, social promotion and a bureaucracy that seems to answer to no-one.”

The Minister goes on to assert that those of us who condemn the 53% graduation rate as inadequate are insulting the teachers, students, parents, scholarship recipients and graduates of public schools, as if the rate itself isn’t insulting enough.

But again, and for his benefit, I’ll direct him to my column of Feb. 1st where I wrote:

“It’s also important not to condemn everything and everyone within the public school system. We can all point to success stories – incredibly dedicated and effective teachers, successful schools, or students who have succeeded in spite of the system – but somewhere, something is terribly broken. And when something is terribly broken the answer is not to play on the fringes as we’ve been content to do.”

Perhaps then, if the Minister cares to respond again, he’ll dispense with the all too familiar diversionary personal attacks and turn his attention to my challenge for a public inquiry into public education?

Petty insults and vilification aside, Mr. Lister’s 423 words were very educational; they provided indisputable empirical evidence of what is wrong with the administration of public education, leaving me doubly concerned about the prospects for a turnaround.

Firstly, the Minister (and his Ministry) refuses to acknowledge that the system is broken, easily the most significant impediment to change. He even chides me for my inability to “acknowledge anything positive that comes out of this Government”. Is he serious? What was he expecting, a victory parade through town – complete with honking convertibles – to celebrate the 53% graduation rate achieved on his watch?

The Minister’s response also adopted the tried and true tactic of blaming others, having us believe that those who demand a better public education system are the problem. He argues that the parents of the 40% who have walked away from public schooling have no right to comment on the quality of public education as they have no “intention to associate themselves with the Bermuda Public School [sic], no matter how good it may ever become.” Because of course, hard working-Bermudians relish forking out tens of thousands of our hard-earned dollars annually to educate our children outside of a system we also fund through hefty taxes.

But did he really say “no matter how good it may ever become”? Wow. Maybe the Minister, unintentionally, did admit that the system is broken. That brief statement exemplifies the defeatist attitude prevalent among the administrators of public education. Evidently the Minister has little confidence that it will ever improve.

How’s about some bold confidence and optimism – backed up with proposals for comprehensive reform and measures to gauge their impact – that the public school system can and will be the first choice for every parent in Bermuda, as it should? How’s about some specifics to convince that 40% to entrust our children’s futures to the habitually failing Ministry of Education?

A few ideas from the Minister himself would have been welcome. Sadly they were glaringly absent. In their place was a call for everyone else to “step up to the plate and to offer tangible assistance in terms of their time to assist those who are in need.”

Which is yet another of the monumental problems holding back the public schools; those in charge at the highest levels are clueless. Not knowing where to start, they’ve resorted to chastising the community for not coming up with the answer; the ones that the professional educators and politicians lack. If this isn’t a sign that it’s past time to close the doors on the Ministry, nothing is.

But isn’t it precisely the Minister’s job to offer solutions? And Mr. Lister is the Minister right; or is he just a bad-tempered cheerleader for a failing system? Surely he was appointed to improve things? Was the Minister of Education really berating Bermudians for not offering solutions, when he himself offered not one in his rebuttal to my column?

If Mr. Lister really wants those of us who fault the system to get involved, then I’m confident that he will lend his whole-hearted support to a public inquiry. If he’s really so confident that things are going well in the Ministry then there’s nothing to fear is there?

Hell, we’ve thrown every taxpayer resource and 6 months at the Bermuda Independence Commission, an initiative that two thirds of Bermudians actually want to fail. Surely public education – something we all want to succeed – deserves the same treatment, or better. Or does it not warrant the same sense of urgency and high-priority that Independence does in the Cabinet Office?

So will you step up to the plate and appoint a Bermuda Education Commission, Mr. Lister? Will you send them off to investigate jurisdictions which have successfully reversed their educational decline? Will Cabinet bring in foreign experts to tell us where we need to go? Will the Minister invite public input at town hall meetings, with these experts in attendance? Will Cabinet release the BEC’s report, in full, at its conclusion?

Well, Mr. Minister. Will you?

For a study in extremes, compare Terry Lister's recent rant in the Royal Gazette Letters to the Editor, with Friday's thoughful and specific Opinion (part 1 of 2) by the UBP's Shadow Education Minister Neville Darrell in the Bermuda Sun.

The contrast says it all.

Brilliant, and topical.

The Onion does it again with their article entitled Report: Our High Schools May Not Adequately Prepare Dropouts For Unemployment:

Despite massive cuts in recent decades, some remnants of math and science instruction continue to plague many school districts. These courses, Chao argued, waste valuable time and money.

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings defended the nation's public-school system.

"Educators do a lot to ensure that the most hopeless students slip through the cracks," Spellings said. "Arbitrary rules, irregularly enforced discipline, and pointless paperwork are just the first things that come to mind."

She added: "Easy grading encourages students to be sloppy and late handing in homework—a skill that makes future deadbeats very competitive in stonewalling landlords and bill collectors."

Hilarious. Minister of Education Terry Lister should take note.

My my my. What an intemperate little diatribe from the Minister of Education Terry Lister in today's Royal Gazette Letters to the Editor.

My favourite quote was:

"To be fair, such chronic intellectual dishonesty is probably due to his refusal to take off his partisan blinkers and acknowledge anything positive that comes out of this Government."

Wow. He's so deluded that he was expecting a compliment for the 53% graduation rate! A glass half full man I guess.

Theoretically, the Education Minister was responding to my RG column of July 26th entitled 'The Abysmal State of Our Schools'. In reality it wasn't a response; failing to respond to either my call for a public inquiry into public education or address (or even feign the slightest bit of concern) about the 53% graduation rate.

That's too bad.

Mr. Lister's letter could be summed up most appropriately as "How dare he!". How dare I, what right do I have, people should be outraged, that Dunleavy (as he refers to me) is critical of a system which produces a 47% failure rate.

Which suggests a terribly bleak future for public education.

I will be responding in my column next Tuesday, but there is so much there to discuss that I won't be able to do it in my 700 word allotment. I won't however be replying in kind; that is with unproductive attacks on the messenger at the expense of the issue at hand - improving public education.

I would encourage anyone who is concearned about the state of public education to send your thoughts in as a Letter to the Editor and get a dialogue going.

The Minister has been engaged, albeit he wants to make this about me personally while ignoring the catastrophe he's presiding over, but he's engaged nonetheless.

I intend to draw him back onto the topic: fixing the broken public school system. The more voices the better.

RG Opinion (08 Feb. 2005)

Set Bermuda's schools free

Last week I discussed the significant role that education, in particular public education, must play in any successful policy of economic empowerment – without education we cannot achieve empowerment. I proposed that competition and accountability within the public system are the two missing but vital elements.

We can all name the standout schools in the Bermuda public system – they’re the ones which have experienced the least political interference and bureaucratic meddling. St. George’s Prep., Warwick Academy (before going private) and Berkeley are the examples which spring to mind.

These schools are however, the exception and not the rule. And with the Ministry continuing to exert too much control over too many facets of the day-to-day running of education the future seems bleak.

Ideally we should be positioning the schools to compete with each other for students and allocate resources as trends of increased or reduced demand develop. The Ministry’s role would then be reduced to managing the budget; maintaining a consistent internationally recognized curriculum; administering a performance based compensation system; and rewarding the staff of the highest performing schools for achieving superior results.

If there was one event which highlighted the fundamental problem with the current approach to public education it was the St. George’s Prep. dispute. Due to its deserved reputation for providing a first class public education, the school received a higher number of applications for enrollment than spots allocated by the Ministry.

The Minister and his Ministry’s reaction was not to respond to this public vote of confidence by making additional spots and funding available, but to dig their heels in, ignore the wishes of the community and attempt to send the students to another school - because evidently bureaucrats, not parents, know best.

As well-intentioned as the folks at the Ministry might be, they must be the only ones who can’t see that this top-down approach to education is failing. The bureaucracy exerts far too much control over the administration of the individual schools, and as at St. George’s Prep., they don’t listen to the parents.

Just as power in our democracy is temporarily conferred from the people to the politicians, decision-making power in public education is conferred from parents to the Ministry. And in both cases, this power is to be used in accordance with our interests, not their own.

Unfortunately we’re not seeing that today. The St. George’s community spoke with one voice, and was ignored – although they eventually prevailed after a protracted legal and public relations campaign.

If we are to stop the bleeding in public education and provide a chance of success for future generations, the Ministry needs to get out of the way and let the parents choose, the teachers teach and the principals manage.

The Ministry as we know it should cease to exist. Its current role would be replaced with individually elected school boards consisting of parents, alumni and other members of the community. These boards would then be free to hire the principal of their choice, who would administer the school in accordance with the wishes of the board. The appointed leadership of each school would be able to recruit their own teaching staff, without the worry of having them arbitrarily reassigned.

At any point, if the school wasn’t performing adequately, the dissatisfaction would flow from the bottom up through a clear chain of accountability. If standards were not maintained, or teachers were not performing up to par, the parents would express their displeasure directly to the board members or principal. If the principal failed to address these, the board would step in and direct him or her to act, or ultimately they would be removed. If the board themselves failed to act they would be replaced, or the parents would simply enroll their child elsewhere.

It’s a simple formula and one that has worked well in the private system. These schools compete fiercely for students, and their students and our community is better for it. And while this certainly isn’t the whole answer, or the only answer, it would be a step in the right direction.

Ultimately, we only have two options at our disposal in reforming public education: we can either overhaul the current system or start cutting cheques to parents for use in paying the tuition at a school of their choice, whether public or private.

Only then can students of any means have equal access to a quality education. And only then does a policy of empowerment stand any chance of succeeding.

RG Opinion 01 Feb. 2005

Education: The other 'E' word

Empowerment, specifically economic empowerment, emerged in 2004 as the dominant political issue. There’s little doubt that this will continue into 2005, after the United Bermuda Party tabled the Economic Empowerment Act 2004 – a sample bill to be debated when Parliament resumes in February.

But while there has been plenty of talk about empowerment, there’s been far less about the other ‘E’ word, one that must be an integral component of any empowerment initiative.

The missing ‘E’ is education.

The importance and current state of public education hasn’t gone entirely without mention. A number of people have touched on the issue including most memorably Principal Melvyn Bassett’s speech to the Hamilton Rotary and Robert Stewart in an excellent Opinion in The Royal Gazette of Oct. 16, 2004.

Education’s role in the empowerment of our economic minority is undeniable, but the topic just doesn’t seem to consume the community – or spark a much-needed debate – as the mere invocation of the term ‘empowerment’ does.

Undoubtedly, education is the most critical component in advancing any long-term initiative, whether sponsored by the UBP or PLP, meaning that these issues must be addressed hand in hand. Empowerment can’t truly occur without a first class public education system, and education alone can’t overcome the legacy of racism, sexism, age discrimination and other institutionalized hurdles.

Ultimately, the goal of empowerment must be to reach a point when a formal policy is no longer necessary, but a superior education system will always be vital. Before we can even begin to discuss education however, there are some difficult truths that we must come to grips with.

Bermuda’s public education system is in disarray, and has been in a steady decline for as long as most people can remember. There’s plenty of blame to go around, but we are where we are, and we’re all in this together. So if we want to correct the situation we must focus our energies on learning from the past and present, and not become consumed with assigning blame.

And where are we? With somewhere over thirty-five percent of our children enrolled in the private system – and rising – the verdict seems to be in: the parents of one-third of our students have given up on public education. With tuitions around thirteen thousand dollars a year, this is not a decision parents will take lightly, in effect paying twice for education. And how many more of us would follow suit if the cost wasn’t so prohibitive? If that isn’t enough to indicate that we need to make a change then what is?

It’s also important not to condemn everything and everyone within the public school system. We can all point to success stories – incredibly dedicated and effective teachers, successful schools, or students who have succeeded in spite of the system – but somewhere, something is terribly broken. And when something is terribly broken the answer is not to play on the fringes as we’ve been content to do.

The facilities aren’t the problem. Successive governments of both parties continue to sink millions of dollars into brick and mortar improvements. Money isn’t the issue. The Ministry of Education is more than adequately funded, particularly when you consider that the per student cost is lower in the private schools than the public system.

And while there are many factors that have led to where we are today, the most significant must be a tolerance for low standards, poor discipline, an inadequate curriculum, social promotion and a bureaucracy that seems to answer to no-one.

If private schools produced the abysmal graduation levels that we are seeing out of the public system they’d be out of business in no time. Parents would pull up stakes and go elsewhere. In response, the school trustees would fire the principals, under-performing teachers would be removed, and the curriculum would be improved for example. But we’ve seen none of this in the public system, and the Department of Education’s budget and staffing continue to grow and grow.

The missing ingredients must be the simple principles of competition and accountability. Entrenching these basic concepts in such a broken system can only be achieved through a fundamental and comprehensive overhaul of public education in Bermuda. No more short-term tweaking for short-term political gain.

These principles, the driving forces behind Bermuda’s economic success, are by no means incompatible with the administration of education – that’s exactly the environment that the schools are preparing our students to participate in. So why does the system itself not reflect that reality?

Competition is healthy and is already in place within the schools. Our students are competitive with each other already, both academically and athletically, and will go on to compete for scholarships, university placements and eventually employment.

Why then, should we not have competition between public schools?

Next week: some proposals for comprehensive reform through competition and accountability.

Just so we're clear here.

Cory Booker was denied access to speak at Cedarbrdige on some BS technicality, yet PLP members were invited in and Jennifer Smith's book - of political speeches - is now a text at Spice Valley.

No answer to the Gazette's request to see the written requests for PLP speakers. I wonder why?

Any questions on the politicization and indoctrination of our public school students?

One of the evening news broadcast (I watch them both simultaneously so they tend to blend in my mind) last night ran a clip that Cedarbridge is having a book fair.

Sound good right? Sure.

A couple of the authors mentioned who will be in attendance were Walter Roban and Neville T. Darrell among others. So I have only one question:

As Walter Roban is a PLP Senator who published a book of Jennifer Smith's speeches, and Neville T. Darrell was a PLP candidate in 2003, has the Chief Education Officer received a request in writing for them, and any other political figures who are also authors, to enter the school premises in accordance with the policy laid out in yesterday's Royal Gazette:

"Any organisation that desires a political figure to come on the premises of a public school to address students must inform the Chief Education Officer in writing," Education spokesperson John Burchall said. "The Chief Education Officer will examine each request and make a determination based solely on its individual merit."

Just asking.

A quick follow up on the story in today's RG that Cory Booker was not allowed in to speak at Cedarbridge. (Limey in Bermuda has a great rundown on the public speech he delivered - linked in the first sentence. There was no point in me rewriting it here.)

The real story, not the garbage excuse Government Information Services was obliged to concoct today (don't blame them, that's their job), is that the whole thing at Cedarbridge was enthusiastically booked - only to be shut down. Kalmar Richards, the principal, was very positive about bringing Mr. Booker in to speak. Then, suddenly and without explanation, she canceled.

According to my source, a pretty good one at that, a message was delivered that the event can no longer go ahead and 'that's all we can say on that'. So it wasn't the principal who was the problem, a decision clearly came down from on high.

Big surprise there. Clearly the Minister/Cabinet got wind that a powerful message of unity, tolerance, respect for diversity and personal empowerment would get delivered, and figured that it had no place near those impressionable young minds. As for any concerns about the appropriateness of the message, Randy Horton, Minister of Labour Home Affairs etc, is familiar with Mr. Booker, so there was no worry that what was going to be delivered would be inappropriate - quite the contrary.

What this incident highlights is the PLP's ruthless exclusion of alternative opinions from the public school system. The public school teachers have been, probably slightly less so now, staunchly PLP. Public school students have been presented with an extremely pro-PLP line for many years now, preceeding the PLP's win in 1998, and it has only got worse since. The UBP never stood up to the Ministry of Education as it should have, to this day - by all accounts - the Ministry is unaccountable to anyone other than itself.

A little story to highlight this.

Every year in February I end up at Cedarbridge to watch some Bermuda Festival event in the Ruth Seaton James auditorium. February, is also Black History Month. There is always a prominent display on the bulletin boards commemorating Bermuda's black history - something I have absolutely no problem with and support.

But what I do have a problem with is that I've so far been unable to find any black UBP members, past or present, in these displays. Maybe they were somewhere else, but not on the displays in the main lobby. No John Swan, no E.T. Richards, no Stan Ratteray, no Pamela Gordon, not a black UBP member in sight. In fact, Black History Month was more like PLP/BIU history month. It was all Lois Browne Evans, Freddie Wade, Dr. Gordon, Dr. Barbara Ball (white union activist) even current PLP MPs but no-one from the other side.

Before I get angry emails accusing me of being a racist, I have no problem with honouring black PLP members, or BIU members or anyone else white or black during the month. But at the exclusion of UBP members it screams of hypocrisy and intentionally presents an inaccurate picture to our students.

So, it wasn't a surprise for me to hear that Mr. Booker (purely because of his UBP connection) had been prevented from presenting. Would the Ministry have acted in the same manner if the PLP had brought him in to speak? Of course not, they'd have fawned over him and PLP MPs would have been lined up in the schools looking to score some points.

The problem of course, was that the government couldn't allow the UBP to be associated with a speaker of such stature and with such impeccable credentials who would deliver a powerful message about diversity - one that would fly in the face of the story that is carefully crafted for our young public school students.

All of this speaks to the intentional exclusion of a broad range of political views in the public school system. That can only be bad for the community.

I'm sure that there are individual teachers who do a better job of being balanced in their own classes, but the deliberate political manipulation of our students by the Ministry and the PLP must stop.

The teachers and Government seem to have reached a least an initial agreement over the major issues in the pay dispute. That teachers are ending their industrial action is a good thing. What remains to be seen is whether this agreement is the end of the issue or the beginning of a new one.

The initial details of the agreement indicate a huge win and significant pay raise for the teachers. But what will be the ramifications of this?

I would imagine that there could be a knock-on effect in the pay scales of other non-teaching education workers (Occupational Therapists, Speech Language Therapists etc.) who require higher qualifications (Masters degrees, specialised certifications etc.) and training than the Government requires to teach (although many teachers have more than the minimum requirement of a Bachelors degree in education. I stand to be corrected if this is not the case).

While I don't claim to be an expert on the Government pay system and qualifications I imagine some non-teaching education workers will now be considering a couple of alternatives.

Either:

a) Moving over to teaching. They now get paid about the same as teachers but work a full 12 months, and might prefer a couple of months off in the summer.

b) They will probably be looking towards their own future negotiations. Other groups will now look to gain their own parity or salary recognition for their specialised area, and on and on it could go.

This is the problem with these types of agreements. While the Government's negotiating skills and tactics leave much to be desired their ultimate responsibility is to us the taxpayer and they do have to find the money to pay for all of this....and we all know where that will come from.

I'm not sure if this is an appropriate deal or not. That's not my focus in this comment. I'm mostly intrigued as to the likely knock on effect of what appears to be a pretty significant increase in teacher compensation, whether justified or not.

I've just received a call that hundreds of students (Berkeley and Cedarbridge) are now protesting outside Parliament against the standoff between the Teachers and the Education Minister.

Apparently they're weilding placards and signs with slogans demanding answers.

Yet another escalation in this dispute.

The Premier's recent rant about the UK disrespecting Bermudians (Chief Justice appointment) rings pretty hollow when you consider the appointment of an American as the PLP's second successive non-Bermudian president of the College after 29 consecutive years under Bermudian leadership.

This RG editorial sums up the hypocrisy very well and is worth another read after yesterday's announcement and this latest example of PLP words not measuring up to their actions.

Perhaps Mr. Green was the best candidate, but perhaps Mr. Ground was for the CJ position. The PLP can't have this both ways, firing up hatred of the UK when it suits them and parading around as the un-waivering defenders of Bermudianisation, while simultaneously installing non-Bermudian after non-Bermudian at our most important institutions (Hospital, Prisons, College etc.).

Listening to ZBM Radio news this morning Education Minister Lister trotted out the PLP's lame excuse every time - and it's become frequent - that a group of people voice outrage at being shut out of the process and PLP heavy handedness.

The excuse? "It's democracy in action and people should be grateful that the PLP have brought this to our community".

It's a cute attempt to dismiss protest as involvement when what is really at the heart of these actions is a dictatorial and insensitive Government, intent on shutting out the public, and their own MP's (think Mr. Foggo, Ms. Smith, Mr. Blakeney).

I'm glad the PLP see this as a good thing. They've certainly made labour unrest, marches on Parliament, petitions against the Government, police investigations into public finances a regular occurrence.

If that's democracy in action then the next step will be the most democratic action of all. It almost happened in June of last year, so they shouldn't get too comfortable in their oversized cars.

I thought it only reasonable to clarify what Nick Duffy meant when he was quoted in the Royal Gazette as saying: "It's a blatant misrepresentation of the information � to suggest that there are only four parents left".

Translation. Mr. Lister is lying. (Phillip Wells explains why here.)

I've now had it confirmed from someone (who shall remain nameless) that the Minister of Education did indeed, leave a voicemail, at St. George's Prep advising of his decision to deny the two streams request.

What class (pardon the pun)!

All this is true to the PLP's track record of inflexibility but rings a little hollow when you bear in mind the repeated buzz words bandied around by PLP Ministers and Senators like: "a government that listens", "partnership", "consultation", "openness", "Government of the people" blah, blah, blah:

Sen. Walter Roban recently said in the budget debate that this is �is a Government of partnership, we�ll listen, we�ll partner, we�ll take advice....�

Next they'll have a causeway to sell us! Anyone interested.

The evening news broadcasts all led with the story that Education Minister Terry Lister has denied the appeal by 27 parents at St. George's Prep to maintain an additional stream this year.

Apparently he left a voicemail this morning advising that their requests will not be honoured and that the Ministry's original decision will stand.

While I haven't been following this closely, others have, and will be able to provide a better summary of this than I can at this stage.

However I will concur with Nick Duffy, the representative of the 27 students and parents, who stated that the Ministry of Education and the PLP Government are deaf to the concerns of the constituents. The MoE is another example of a Ministry, like the Department of Tourism, that should be disbanded as they have evolved to serve only themselves.