The Editor, Sir:

This letter seeks to point out how resistant 'stakeholders' in education can be to even the simplest of changes. With regard to Mrs. Anderson-Brown's letter (Saturday, March 15) and all who empathised with it:

First, I almost thought, having not read your original letter, that when you spoke of the workshops, you were going to ask why with such regular training, so many children from 'Government-recognised' basic schools are not ready for grade one. Following that you would suggest some changes in strategy that would improve the function of the valuable infrastructure of the workshops. Alas, this was not so.

Second, the matter of registration is quite simple. The Early Childhood Commission is a separate entity that has been open to registration for months now, at the very least, and chose to make itself available within each parish during a prescribed period of time. This was published daily before and during the process. Why is it so difficult, according to your letter, for education administrators to simply adhere to what the ECC proposed? I'm not understanding the gravity of your concern. Perhaps your focus should be redirected.

Regularisation

Third, an upgrade cannot take place where no changes are being made. If a certain basic level of upkeep and security are required for registration, then so be it. An occasional 'groundsman' from any of a number of sources when the need arises is not a concept lending itself to regularisation. How about coming up with ways for the school/community to raise the funds to pay the groundsman? Maybe a method of rotating the post? Basic schools look after our children for several hours a day. Is it really so awesome an idea that a groundskeeper should be permanently employed and possess certain basic licences as may be necessary due to the variety of functions he may serve?

We really must be careful not to turn ourselves off of very basic administerial functions and infrastructure that should be par for the course in a formalised early childhood education network. We may even wear down the chances of positive, realistic discussion that considers all sectors and aspects of society, should we be petty. Again I say, you referred to very basic administerial functions and infrastructure. To positive, realistic discourse, then.

I am, etc.,

OLIVIA JOHNSON

jamaicanview@yahoo.com