Mr. Thomas is obligated to follow the directions of the MOE

Dec 06, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
It is with some concern that I view the issue of headmaster Cleveland Thomas’ response to the Ministry of Education’s (MOE) request to implement the no-retention directive sent out by the ministry.
Mr. Thomas has an obligation to follow the directions of his supervisors if those directions were not illegal. His response is tantamount to him saying that he can and will do whatever he decides in the school. This is willful disobedience and gross subordination and must result in serious consequences, including dismissal should he decide not to follow the directions of the MOE.
Mr. Thomas has moved outside of the normal administrative structure to resolve an issue.  Instead, he has delved in the political arena. My questions to Mr. Thomas are: – Did you formally express your disagreement with the directive when it was sent out? Did you work through the conflict resolution procedure that is normal in any organisation – to the next level within the organisation? I have been around long enough to know that when one acts in the manner of Mr. Thomas, it is often a smoke screen for something else, that there are more fundamental or serious issues that one does not want to become known or address.
The MOE officials carried out a school inspection and Mr. Thomas was sent a letter of what needed to be rectified to make the school an effective learning organisation. To help the readers really understand the whole picture, Mr. Thomas should release the complete letter that he received. What were the other issues raised by the inspection team regarding Mr. Thomas’ administration and leadership of the school? What deficiencies were noted and needed to be rectified?
Other letter writers have indicated that Mr. Thomas is a great educator, that he has turned around the school to be an effective learning organisation. One of the measures of any school’s effectiveness is the level of students’ learning, including how student do at the national examinations.
It might be helpful if Mr. Thomas were to share with the general public and the parents of his students the school’s results from the CXC examinations in the key areas of English and Mathematics, since he has assumed leadership of the school. (How many students entered and how many received passes from 1–3).
Furthermore, Mr. Thomas should share with us how many students started at grade 7 and how many of that cohort successfully completed the grade 11 programme and passed English and Mathematics at the CXC examination.
The Minister of Education has indicated that over 80% of students who are retained in a grade drop out of school. The research in other countries has shown that it is harmful to retain students; that it is beneficial to have them move on with their peers. Certainly, one might argue that that research is foreign-based. (Unfortunately I have been unable to locate research on this issue in Guyana).
Does Mr. Thomas have information regarding research in this area within the Guyanese context that he is using to justify his stand?  If so, go through the normal process and make those known! I will like him to share that research with us. In addition, how many years would you retain a student in a class if he/she has not met the academic requirements for passing on to the other grade? One year? Four years? Six years? It is ridiculous to expect 15 or 16-year-old students sitting with 12- year-old students in grade 7.
Instead of playing the “blame game” Mr. Thomas needs to ask his teachers some serious questions about their teaching practices and examine his leadership practices if they are retaining students in a grade for two or three years or not meeting the learning needs of students.
He needs to ask and ascertain what have they done to meet the learning needs of their students so that students are provided opportunities to succeed and be challenged.  How early are they diagnosing students’ learning needs?
What are they doing about that information? Have they developed Critical Learning Pathways for all students and especially those experiencing difficulties so that they can meet curricular standards? How are teachers teaching to meet individual student’s needs?
What remedial programmes did Mr. Thomas and his staff implemented in their school to meet the needs of students experiencing difficulties and what are the results of these remedial programmes? (Other than those instituted by the MOE)
Mr. Thomas should be working with his staff and students to ensure that each student grows by at least one year. His position must be “Failure is not an option!” instead of “Failure is an option.”
When one starts with the position of “Failure is not an option!” then one takes responsibility for students’ learning instead of blaming others; one looks at ways that curricular outcome and standards can be met and how success can be guaranteed.
His current action in refusing to follow the direct of the MOE and not following normal administrative procedures and practices detracts from this important task and raises many questions in my mind regarding his professed concern about students and his leadership of the school.
I await Mr. Thomas’ response regarding the complete letter that he received from the MOE, the school’s results from the students writing the CXC since he assumed leadership in the school, the research basis to justify retention within the Guyanese context and the progress of grade 7 cohorts as they progress to grade 11.
Moh Odeen

---

---