The decision of the Barbados Union of Teachers to call a meeting of members yesterday morning to discuss two issues they find vexing has drawn criticism from a number of quarters. And rightly so.
I suspect that some Barbadians are particularly incensed, not because the union called the meeting, but because it did so on the first day of the new school term.
Truthfully, I have a problem with the timing of the meeting, and it would take a lot to convince me that the primary purpose was not to send a message to the Ministry of Education of what could follow with a withdrawal of labour. It’s industrial action without calling it by its real name.
But is the union to blame for the situation reaching the stage where they felt obligated to call out members?
As far as I am concerned, based on what little I know, I place the blame for the absence of teachers from the classroom yesterday morning squarely at the feet of officials at the ministry.
At the centre of the dispute are teachers’ concerns about occurrences at Parkinson Memorial Secondary School, where Jeff Broomes is principal, and Alma Parris Secondary, where the head is Valdez Francis.
I have known Broomes for many years and I have a lot of respect for him as an educator. He has great ideas and is not afraid to try them. No one will ever be able to convince me that the decisions he takes are not with the best interest of his students in mind – even when it is clear that his methods of implementation could do with a serious oiling.
I have known him long enough to say publicly that he is too often not the smoothest person with whom you would want to deal. In fact, he can be as uncompromising as a Nile crocodile at feeding time when he is intent on having his way, and as a result can get less buy-in from stakeholders than had he been a little warmer and more embracing in his approach.
So Jeff Broomes is no Dame Elsie Payne, Dame Patricia Simmons or “Tank” Williams in his “management style”, but are the issues being disputed matters that should be taken up by the teachers’ union? Aren’t these matters more the province of his employer, the Ministry of Education?
All over Barbados there are employees who don’t like the management style of their managers, and perhaps with good reason, but they fall outside the legitimate engagement of their unions.
Where a manager infringes the rights of a worker that’s one thing, but how do you elevate many of these issues being raised at Parkinson School to the level of infringement of rights and breaches of contract?
And that’s why I don’t blame the BUT or its leadership. I have always considered the current BUT president, Pedro Shepherd, to be sensible and mature, and if he is satisfied that his body has a cause to defend, it is his right to defend it.
But the Ministry of Education is the “employer” in this case. When in the normal course of things a subordinate has a problem with his manager/supervisor, before it reaches the point of being disruptive to the organisation, those at the executive management level step in and make a determination. They may come down on one side or the other, or on neither, but they act.
Our Ministry of Education, however, has a well-earned reputation for avoidance and procrastination – for letting simple things drag on and fester until there is a dangerous infection. By now those responsible should have stepped in and made definitive decisions on the matters raised by the union/teachers/principal. The term should never have opened with this matter unresolved.
Does a principal have a right to implement a policy of holding back underachievers under a special regime of teaching? And if teachers don’t agree, is it within their ambit to turn it into a dispute? The Ministry of Education must be able to say yes or no to these.
Do the rules allow a principal to fix a timetable on his own? The ministry must be able to say definitively yes or no.
Does a principal have the power to order the duties of a teacher on any given day in accordance with the syllabus, and under what circumstances can a teacher refuse to follow instructions? The ministry must be able to respond definitively.
What is the definition of a free period, and can the principal alter these or issue instruction on what a teacher can do during these periods? The Ministry of Education must be able to answer definitively.
Jeff Broomes, like any other principal, clearly can do more to embrace his teachers and subordinate administrators, even the deliberately difficult members of staff, as well as recognise that not everyone in his school who opposes a position he takes is his enemy.
The BUT can do more to ensure its actions are not interpreted as being unnecessarily confrontational, and perhaps needs to tell its members that every disagreement with a manager cannot be a cause for dispute, since some matters are entirely the province of the “boss”.
If you are the cook in the kitchen, you may not agree with the lunch menu, but you certainly don’t have a right to refuse to cook as a result. The not-so-smart restaurant manager not following the suggestions or advice of the cook may cause a loss of business, but that is a matter with which the employer must deal, not the cook or his union.
And the folks at the Elsie Payne Complex need to start behaving like they are in charge. If, with all the professional expertise, laws and regulations you can’t state that “X” or “Y” decision or course of action is right or wrong, lawful or unlawful, and stand by it, then maybe the changes should take place in Constitution Road and not in The Pine or Speightstown.
I mean, with whom does the buck stop in education? It certainly can’t be the teachers, their union or the principal.
But a word on Alma Parris Secondary before I close. At this stage I could care less about the origin or particulars that led to the dispute between the teachers and their principal. When matters are allowed to drag on for years without definitive action as they have at Alma Parris, the only ones who should face blame are those in charge.
Again, it’s the Ministry of Education that has been pussyfooting!
I know some people will suggest I am not comparing apples with apples, but I am convinced that had Alma Parris Secondary and Parkinson Memorial been private sector entities where owners faced even the slightest threat to their profits, not because of market/economic challenges, but due clearly to manageable human resource issues, these matters would have been resolved long ago.
But there is no profit and loss in education, no shareholders to satisfy, no board of directors to report to, no annual report to be compared with the previous year – only people who go home at the end of the day with the comfort that come hell or high water, their salaries will be deposited in the bank at the end of the month.
In the meanwhile, our most vulnerable children, those who need the most help, suffer.
