I agree with the position of the prime minister and the minister of education that no child should be denied access to a secondary school education because of the inability of the parents to pay auxiliary fees. Where the problem lies is in the fact that no increase has been made to school fees since 2002 and in some instances, 2003. Therefore, the increase of $2,000 is far from being sufficient in real terms. This means, however, that only a basic classroom education can be provided for our children. To provide a holistic education product, it would be necessary to make up for the Government's inability to pay the full cost of educating each child by asking the parents to make a contribution to the education of their child. Each school develops its curriculum depending on its philosophy and vision of education. The end result is that the costs may differ according to the programme being offered.
What 'agreeing' would mean
Agreeing with the minister's position to operate within the strictures of providing an education on less-than-sufficient funds allocated by the ministry and the auxiliary fees paid by only 60 per cent of parents, would mean that I agree that Ardenne High School would, therefore:
No longer provide an after-school programme which covers sports, with a total of 20 teams and coaches who have to be paid each month, even though such programmes are the feeders for national teams. We will do only what the money raised by the sports department's fund-raising can cover, i.e. $1.5 million out of $4.5 million.
No longer provide a vibrant and active co-curricular programme of 30 clubs and societies. All these need transportation, entry fees to competitions, costumes or uniforms, meals provided during training and competitions, payment of some coaches of the performing arts, among other requirements.
No longer employ three additional cleaners to clean a building which houses 16 forms; the Government does not provide funds to pay them.
No longer provide security for our students during the days and for the compound on weekends: it is not provided for in the Government's budget, only for the week nights.
No longer ensure that there is a cyclical maintenance schedule that is carried during the summer to make the facilities liveable; it cannot be done with the $50,000 the ministry provides for maintenance.
No longer provide celebration events for our students' performance during the year; it takes money to provide certificates and trophies.
No longer employ part-time teachers where there are not enough full-time teachers to cover all classes. This is usually paid from the additional funds.
No longer seek to obtain the electrical supply necessary to have the E-learning labs functioning since the Government has not provided the money to do so; we would convert those two labs into traditional classrooms.
Implications
Instead, we would have the parents who have money to pay each coach enter into an agreement with the coach to train their child in whatever activity he or she offers. We would not have teams which represent the school entering national competitions, since this would mean we would have to take the responsibility to pay the implied costs. We would have to manage with the less-than-clean environment, since the labour union would object to our giving the government-paid ancillary workers more work than they already have. We would have to have the gates of the school open in the days, since there would be no one to man them. Both students and the public would be free to come and go as they please. We would have $50,000 worth of maintenance done in the summer, since this is all that is allocated in the budget. We would go back to the days of not celebrating at grade level our students' academic performance, or at the end of the year their co-curricular achievements. We would have to eliminate the use of air-conditioning in the computer labs because this adds to the electricity costs of the school. In addition, when the Government's tuition grant runs out before the end of the school year and there is no money left to run the school, we would have to close the school, because it is the auxiliary fee that has now become the operational fee.
I agree with the Government's approach if there is the understanding that this is how we would operate. I disagree with the prime minister that we should be doing more fund-raising. Teachers are trained to teach, not fund-raise, although we have always been doing fund-raising. The Government has not given money to the school to build any structures on the Ardenne compound in the last 40 years. It has assisted with fixing the roofs of three classrooms and the hall. The school is currently in major fund-raising mode to build a much-needed science block at a cost of over $30 million. This work is under way. All our stakeholders have been involved in fund-raising for this project. Our major partner in this process is the NCB Foundation.
Big challenge
There is a big challenge at Ardenne, however: We have a town gully that has been channelled through the school. This gully is dangerous in the rainy season and needs to be covered. We have been asking various government entities to do this, but we get the same response - estimates are given, but no money is available. This gully threatens the land that is available to build in order to improve our infrastructure. Not only does it threaten the land, it also threatens the lives of students who have to cross over it to go to the industrial arts centre. Should this not be fixed by the Government?
The prime minister says we are to raise funds. We are fund-raising, we have fund-raised, and we will continue to fund-raise, because that is the only way we have been able to make the school progress. But, Mr Prime Minister, if we are to achieve academic excellence, fund-raising cannot be the focus of our teachers; we then would be accused of not just being extortionists, but also hustlers.
Esther Tyson is principal of Ardenne High School, St Andrew. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.
